"But flesh with the life of it, the blood of it, you shall not eat." -- Genesis 9:4
"Therefore I said to the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood." -- Leviticus 17:12
"For as to the life of all flesh, the blood of it is [all one] with the life of it: therefore I said to the children of Israel, You shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh; for the life of all flesh is the blood of it: whoever eats it shall be cut off." -- Leviticus 17:14
"Only be sure that you don't eat the blood: for the blood is the life; and you shall not eat the life with the flesh." -- Deuteronomy 12:23.
"You shall not eat of anything that dies of itself: you may give it to the sojourner who is within your gates, that he may eat it; or you may sell it to a foreigner: for you are a holy people to Yahweh your God." -- Deuteronomy 14:21
"Only you shall not eat the blood; you shall pour it out on the earth as water." -- Deuteronomy 15:23
"But that we write to them that they abstain from the pollution of idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood. " -- Acts 15:20
"That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality, from which if you keep yourselves, it will be well with you." -- Acts 15:29
According the our neighbors in the "Jehovah's Witnesses" organization, as well as a few other groups, the above scriptures forbid use of blood transfusions. Many of our neighbors in these groups have died, or have let their children die, in obedience to their leaders who have interpreted the above scriptures in this manner.
Of course, in reality blood transfusions are not mentioned in the Bible. Yet it is also true that just because the Bible does not mention a specific act as sin, this does not necessarily mean that it is not sin. Smoking, especially smoking around
others, would fall into this category. We reason that smoking is a sin due to the fact that
it is an unloving thing to our neighbor to smoke, which breaks the second
greatest commandment as spoken of by Jesus.-- Matthew 22:39.
Likewise with blood transfusions: we need to ascertain if the medical practice of blood transfusions do in fact violate the intent of the command that forbids eating blood. What
was the intent of the command? Blood is used to represent the life of the
animals that were being slain for food, which life belongs to Yahweh.
According to the Law Covenant, blood was to be poured out upon the earth --
that is, that which represents the soul [nephesh] taken was to be poured out
in honor of the life which had been taken, which life belongs to Yahweh.
(Genesis 4:10; Leviticus 17:14,15; Deuteronomy 12:15,16; Psalm 36:9; Ezekiel
18:4) It is this law of God that the apostles and elders at Jerusalem
referred to as recorded in Acts 15:20,29, when telling the Gentile
Christians to abstain from strangled animals and blood.
Do these commands in any way transfer to the modern practice of blood
transfusions? No; only if you are taking the blood to be transfused from the
body of a dead person could I see any application, for normally the life of
the donor of blood is not taken during the blood transfusion process. Since the life of the person giving blood usually is not demanded in blood transfusions, the application has no significance in this practice. Thus there is nothing in these scriptures that prohibit blood transfusion.
We have been asked if we thought that Jesus would have accepted a blood transfusion? As we have shown, abstaining from eating blood of dead animals is not related to the modern practice of blood transfusions. All life belongs to Yahweh. To show respect for life, the blood, representing the life taken, was to be poured out to Yahweh. Usually no life is taken in blood transfusions, so the principle does not apply.
Would Jesus have accepted a blood transfusion? Quite a hypothetical
question, since his life source was not tainted with the inherited fallen
nature of man. I don't know of any reason he would not have, except that it
may have conflicted with the blood lineage from David. My answer is
hypothetical, since divine providence never permitted such a situation to
arise. I can say, that any reason that Jesus would not have taken a blood
transfusion would have to do with his Messiahship and its royal lineage
rather than disobeying the law not to eat of blood. Assuming that he had
been of the fallen nature, and had not been the promised Messiah, I am sure
that he would have taken a blood transfusion if so needed without any
disobedience to Yahweh connected with it.
The objection is raised that there is an ever increasing body of evidence that blood transfusion therapy is highly dangerous. That the benefits are often outweighed by these risks is something the public is often not informed of by those who claim blood transfusions should be avoided. There are risks, that is true, but many have highly exaggerated the risk factors. Nevertheless, there are risks of equal magnitude involved in many kinds of medicinal and surgical procedures. On this basis of argument it would appear that we should not utilize modern medicine at all, lest we risk our life in doing so. In truth, however, for most cases the need far outweighs any risks involved.
Some have claimed that Charles Taze Russell is the one who came up with the idea that the Bible prohibited blood transfusions as well as organ transplants, even forcing this teaching on his followers. To make this clear, Russell never prohibited blood transfusions nor organ transplants; nor do Bible Students today. Russell never forced this teaching on his followers, for he did not believe this teaching. Indeed, he did not force any teaching on his associates, his
supposed followers, but constantly encouraged all to accept or reject
based on the scriptures and their own development and understanding. The Watchtower leaders adopted the "no blood transfusion" doctrine long after Russell died.
Some have claimed that in 1909 the Watchtower specifically stated that the Jewish prohibition against eating blood was not considered law for Christians.
Here is what the 1909 Watch Tower said, which does not exactly specifically state that the
Jewish probibition against eating blood was not considered law for
Christians:
|
A similar thought attaches to the prohibition of the
use of blood. To the Jew it was forbidden, and under
his covenant it was made a symbol of life--to partake of
it would imply responsibility for the life taken. Moreover,
in the typical ceremonies of the Law the prohibited
blood was used as a symbol representing the sin-offering;
for by the blood atonement for sins was effected. To
emphasize these typical lessons the Jew had been forbidden
to use blood. And there may be other, sanitary,
reasons connected with the matter, which are not yet
known to us. These prohibitions had never come to the
Gentiles, because they had never been under the Law
Covenant; but so deeply rooted were the Jewish ideas on
this subject that it was necessary to the peace of the
Church that the Gentiles should observe this matter also.
The things strangled meant animals taken in traps, whose
blood was not shed or drained out by bleeding to death,
as the Jewish Law required of all meats that should be
eaten. This restriction was necessary to the harmony between
the two branches of spiritual Israel--that which
came from Judaism and that which came from the
Gentiles.
If they did not wish to be contentious and cause divisions
in the Church, the Gentile brethren would surely
be willing to restrain or sacrifice their liberty respecting
these matters. The fourth restriction specified was "fornication,"
the Greek signifying "harlotry." It is difficult
to understand why one moral precept should be thus
separated from others and placed on the list with ceremonial
requirements. We incline rather to ask, Why not
have included profanity, drunkenness, idolatry, adultery,
false witness, murder, etc.? Are we to understand that
the Gentiles are free to commit all the crimes in the
calendar not stipulated by this Conference, and merely
counseled respecting meats offered to idols, or that have
died by strangulation -- and the use of blood and fornication?
Surely not. Rather all the requirements of the
Law are included in the one law of the New Creation--
Thou shalt love the Lord and thy neighbor.
Love would cover idolatry, profanity, murder, theft,
false witness, adultery, but the law of Love would not so
thoroughly cover the items enumerated by the Counsel.
These were necessary, proper, and we are to recognize
the authority of the Apostles to "bind things on earth,"
and that they were so guided in their public utterances
that they bound nothing unnecessarily, nothing contrary
to the Divine will. It is our opinion, therefore, that
these items thus superadded to the Law of Love should
be observed by all spiritual Israelites as representing
the Divine will. As a matter of fact nearly all the
butchering for our markets is in harmony with the
Jewish regulations, although many Jews decline to recognize
this and eat only such meats as have been inspected
and approved by their rabbis.
|
We also present what Mr. Russell said in the June 1, 1902, Watch Tower:
|
RECOMMENDATION RESPECTING OUTWARD CONDUCT.
God's dealings and instructions commended
themselves both to their hearts and to their reasons,
and covered four points. (1) Abstaining from meats
offered to idols, which might appear to be giving sanction
to idol worship. (2) Abstaining from the eating
of the blood of animals. (3) Abstaining from
eating things that had been strangled, in which the
blood would remain, which would imply the eating
of blood. (4) The avoidance of fornication.
In considering these rules we are to keep in memory
the circumstances and conditions of the times,
and the objects sought to be attained. (1) The idol
worship which prevailed at that time had connected
with it a great deal of sensuality, which would be contrary
to the spirit of Christ in every sense of the word.
(2) The object was to permit a ground of fellowship
and brotherhood between those whose previous experiences
and instructions had been lax, and those
whose previous instructions had been rigid. And
the things here required of the Gentiles were not
merely features of the Mosaic Law, for the forbidding
of the use of blood, and the explanation that it represented
the life, was given long previous to Moses'
day -- to Noah after the flood, when he and his posterity
were granted the privilege of eating meat, because
of the changed conditions and the impoverishment
of the race, and the need of more stimulating
food. The use of blood was still more common then
than now, being used not only in blood puddings, but
also as a drink mixed with wine, as some today use
beef extract blended with wine.
|
Of course, blood transfusions were not in general practice in Russell's day,
but in reading what he wrote on the subject of blood, I don't think he would
have objected to blood transfusions. The prohibition of eating blood was because the blood represented the life of the animal, which life belongs to God. To show respect to Yahweh for life that was taken away, one was not to eat the blood of animals slain for food, but rather to drain the blood. Of course, usually in blood transfusions no life is taken away, so the
principle does not apply.
However, I do not totally agree with Brother Russell's conclusions regarding the eating of blood or things sacrificed to idols. I believe that this prohibition regarding blood is necessary for the Christian, out of love and respect for our Creator. Thus it is still necessary to show respect for a life taken by not eating the blood representing the life taken, thus blood should be drained before eating meats. This, however, has nothing to do with blood transfusions since life is not taken away during a blood transfusion.
The claim has been presented that the commands not eat of blood were part of the Jewish dietary laws that are not applicable to the Christian. The command given to not eat blood was before the Jewish dietary laws were given. (Genesis 9:4) It was repeated in the Christian scriptures. (Acts 15:20,22) Acts 15:29 clearly refers to the earlier commands not to eat blood (Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 3:17, Deuteronomy 12:16) We should still have respect for Yahweh concerning any life that is taken by not eating the blood by making sure that our meats have been properly drained of blood, symbolically pouring it out to Yahweh, that is, to give respect to Yahweh for that life to Yahweh to whom that life belonged.
Nevertheless, under the law, the prohibition to eat blood was obligatory only upon the Israelites and any traveler who visited the land of Israel. Deuteronomy 14:21 shows that he did not expect the Gentiles to observe this law. This indicates a further symbolism of the peculiar holiness expected of God's people. The Israelites only were given the Law through Moses; it was not obligatory upon the Gentiles. It was not yet due time to expect the heathen in general to repent, nor was it the due time for them to receive the things pertaining to the blessing of all the families of the earth. Likewise, we as Christians should stand out as a peculiar people, holy to God; we should not expect the groaning creation still in bondage to sin at the present time to recognize or adhere to the same peculiarity as God's people are expected to adhere to.
RRD, October 16, 2002
|
Libros en español
|
Livres en Français (Canada)
