|
Jehovah's Witnesses and the Apostolic Decree
to "Abstain From Blood"
Table of Contents
Overview
1. Introduction
2. Discussion
a) Should Witnesses make suggestions for doctrinal changes?
b) The Apostolic Decree "Abstain from Blood"
c) The Noachian Law
d) The Mosaic Law
3. Conclusion - The Apostolic Decree does not prohibit blood transfusions
End Notes
Overview
Jehovah's Witnesses' understanding of doctrinal matters is guided by the
publications of The Watchtower Society. While individual Jehovah's Witnesses may
feel comfortable requesting clarification on doctrinal matters, relatively few
realize that the Society also considers well-thought-out suggestions for
doctrinal change, provided they are made in the manner prescribed in the
Society's literature. The "blood doctrine" is probably the clearest example of
this process in action. In 1951, in response to a number of questions from
Jehovah's Witnesses, the Society clarified the blood doctrine considerably. Its
basic conclusion was that the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15:29 "to abstain from
blood" prohibits blood transfusions. Since then changing medical practices and
technologies have prompted further suggestions and questions from individual
Jehovah's Witnesses and various adjustments to the "blood policy" have resulted.
Subsequent adjustments have tended toward recognizing that many decisions
related to the medical use of blood are a matter of individual conscience. It is
important to realize that this process of change has been driven largely by
developments in medical science rather than by any new insight into the
scriptures. Given the current state of flux of the blood doctrine it seems
appropriate to re-examine the basic scriptural, rather than medical, issues
involved in the medical use of blood. Consistent with the procedures for making
suggestions to the Society as outlined in The Watchtower, the goal of this
article is to suggest that the Society re-examine the scriptural basis of the
blood doctrine. We believe that the main conclusions of this study, summarized
below, provide a clear scriptural basis for such a reconsideration. It is
important to realize that each of the following conclusions, apart from the
final one (5), is fully supported by the Society's published literature.
1. The Apostolic Decree at Acts 15:20, 28, 29 "to abstain from blood" is based
on standards supplied to mankind through Noah after the flood. It is not an
imposing upon Christians of the Mosaic Law or of some portion of it. (United in
Worship of the Only True God, page 149.)
2. Specifically, the Apostolic Decree was a confirmation of the Noachian Law
regarding blood. (United in Worship of the Only True God, page 149.) In
Jehovah's view all mankind is obligated to adhere to the Noachian Law, whose
basic intent was to emphasize respect for life. (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol.
1, page 345, par. 6.)
3. The Mosaic Law obligated Israel (and those taking up worship with Israel) to
conform to special standards that were consistent with the Noachian Law, but
which went well beyond it. The Mosaic Law did not, and does not, apply to
mankind in general. It has been fulfilled (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1,
page 345, par. 6.)
4. At Deuteronomy 14:21 God allowed Israelites to sell unbled animals found
already dead to be used as food by "alien residents" and "foreigners." The
Noachian Law, but not the Mosaic Law, applied to these people since they were
part of mankind as a whole but not of Israel. The distinction here is between
animals that humans had killed for food, which were covered by the Noachian Law,
and those which had been found already dead, which we will see were not covered
by the Noachian Law. Had they been covered, using them for food would have been
prohibited. (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1, page 345, par. 6.)
5. The conclusion is that the Noachian Law, which was the basis for the
Apostolic Decree, applies only to blood obtained by a person's killing a
creature. While the Mosaic Law might provide grounds for prohibiting blood
transfusions, the Noachian Law does not provide any grounds for coming to that
conclusion, because donated blood is not obtained by killing humans or animals.
Clearly this last conclusion differs from the Society's current stance. However,
the following material will make the case that this conclusion is not only
consistent with scripture, but also with many of the Society's expressed views.
Further, its adoption would resolve remaining inconsistencies and sources of
confusion associated with the current status of the blood doctrine. Jehovah is a
God, not of disorder, but of peace (1 Cor. 3:33).
1. Introduction
The sacredness of life is a fundamental doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Witnesses are also familiar with the scriptural teaching to "abstain from
blood." Both ideas stem from God's command to Noah after the flood. (Acts 15:28,
29; Gen. 9:1-17) Therefore, Witnesses are concerned about the appropriateness of
accepting a blood transfusion. The Watchtower Society's stand on blood seems
simple: Jehovah's Witnesses must abstain from blood. Despite this seeming
simplicity, the Society's views on the medical use of blood have undergone
substantial change and, in actuality, Jehovah's Witnesses do not abstain from
all medical use of blood.
The early position that using whole blood or its components is wrong has evolved
into the current understanding stated in a recent "Questions From Readers"
article (The Watchtower, June 15, 2000. Compare with The Watchtower of February
15, 1963 page 124) that the use of most blood components is a matter of
individual conscience. Though the Society does not endorse any use of blood,
over the years it has dispensed with many of its previous prohibitions on the
medical use of certain blood parts in response to questions submitted by
individual Witnesses. Indeed, the June 15, 2000 Watchtower article is an example
of a further clarification of the Society's stance on blood that stemmed from a
submitted question. In this regard it is noteworthy that the early prohibition
on blood transfusions was apparently established at the behest of individual
Witnesses. For example, in the May 1, 1950 Watchtower the Society stated, "Our
published statements concerning this matter are something owing to those who
look to us for spiritual guidance, and are not issued to cause division among
Jehovah's people. Repeatedly we are confronted with requests for information on
blood transfusion, particularly for us to pronounce a sanction of this medical
practice." At that time the Society was not enforcing a prohibition on blood
either by excommunicating (disfellowshipping) or requiring the shunning of
members who conscientiously accepted blood transfusions. Later, in the January
15, 1961 Watchtower, the Society for the first time made accepting a blood
transfusion a disfellowshipping offense, meaning that as of then shunning could
be enforced against members accepting a transfusion. That change confirms that
the Society apparently continued listening to those who look to it for spiritual
guidance because they changed their stance by pronouncing enforcement of the
prohibition against accepting blood transfusion by Witnesses.
Despite the Society's history of listening and responding to suggestions, some
Witnesses may be concerned that making suggestions to the Society for doctrinal
change, instead of simply asking questions, is inappropriate. It is therefore
useful to examine whether it is appropriate for individual Witnesses to make
suggestions (which may be in the form of questions) to the Society for doctrinal
change. This is done in the first section of our discussion, Sec. 2(a).
The rest of this article is organized as follows: Section 2(b) demonstrates that
the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15: 20, 29 and 21: 25 was based entirely on the
Noachian Law and that it specifically excluded the idea that Christians were
subject to any provisions of the Mosaic Law. This is in agreement with the
Society's stated understanding of scripture. Section 2(c) discusses the Noachian
Law, which is shown to be binding on all humanity.
The relationship of the Noachian Law to the Mosaic Law is examined in Sec. 2(d),
where the scriptural argument is considered that with respect to blood the
Mosaic Law represented a higher and more special standard than did the Noachian
Law. This conclusion is based on the following observations: 1) the Mosaic Law
prohibited uses of blood beyond what was imposed on Noah; 2) God allowed the
Israelites to provide "alien residents" and "foreigners" with unbled meat for
food as long as the animal was not killed by humans but had been found dead.
Because "alien residents" and "foreigners" were bound by the Noachian Law, God's
provision of giving or selling them unbled animals to eat could not have
violated the Noachian Law. We therefore conclude that this part of the Noachian
Law applied only to blood obtained from animals killed for food. This is a key
point because according to the Society's understanding of the Bible, and in
particular Paul's writings, Christians are not bound by the Mosaic Law.
Therefore, Christians are not obliged to adhere to requirements of the Mosaic
Law-a law that contained standards higher than the Noachian Law-for that would
be a returning to the Mosaic Law. Note Paul's words in reference to the
separation that had previously existed between Jews and Gentiles at Ephesians
2:15 1
By means of his flesh he abolished the enmity, the Law of commandments
consisting in decrees, that he might create the two peoples in union with
himself into one new man and make peace; and that he might fully reconcile both
peoples in one body to God through the torture stake, because he had killed off
the enmity by means of himself
and also at Romans 7:6:
But now we have been discharged from the Law, because we have died to that by
which we were being held fast, that we might be slaves in a new sense by the
spirit, and not in the old sense by the written code.
The Mosaic Law imposed a set of standards on the nation of Israel alone, and
these included higher standards regarding blood than did the Noachian Law.
Therefore attempts to extract principles from the Mosaic Law can result in
requirements that are more restrictive than the Noachian Law itself. 2 This
might lay an unnecessary and "further burden" (Acts 15:28) on Christians
regarding blood. Comparing the Mosaic and Noachian Laws reveals that, while the
Mosaic Law might be sufficiently restrictive to prohibit blood transfusions, the
Noachian Law contains no hint of such a restriction. Thus the Apostolic Decree,
itself based exclusively on the Noachian Law, is insufficient to prohibit the
medical use of blood. The reason is that donated blood does not involve the
intentional killing of the donor to obtain the blood. As will be shown, the sole
purpose of the Noachian Law on blood was to instill a deep and profound respect
for life, with blood being used illustratively of life. It applied to blood only
in the context of life being deliberately taken, whether animal or human.
Section 3 summarizes the discussion.
2. Discussion
This section examines in detail the points raised in the Overview and
Introduction. For clarity, subsidiary points are presented as endnotes. The
first sub-section examines the question of whether or not it is acceptable for
individual Jehovah's Witnesses to present suggestions for change to the Society.
(a) Should individual Witnesses make suggestions for doctrinal change?
The intent here is not to review the history of the blood doctrine itself, but
to use it as an example to show that the Society is and has been open to
suggestions as well as questions from sincere Witnesses. The Society has
explicitly stated that this is the case. While this seems to have been
particularly true in regard to the blood doctrine, the Society imposes no
restrictions on the topics on which suggestions may be presented. Consider the
following discussion in The Watchtower that explicitly approves of sincere
individual Witnesses submitting their suggestions as well as their questions:
From The Watchtower, June 1, 1982, page 20:
At times, some bring to the attention of the "slave" class various doctrinal or
organizational matters that they feel ought to be revised. Certainly,
suggestions for improvement are proper, as are inquiries for clarification. An
example of this was when Paul, Barnabas and others were sent "to go up to the
apostles and older men in Jerusalem" regarding circumcision. When those elders
at Jerusalem decided the matter, under the direction of holy spirit, they then
sent brothers to various cities to "deliver to those there for observance the
decrees that had been decided upon by the apostles and older men who were in
Jerusalem." Loyal submission to those decrees brought Jehovah's blessing. Thus,
"the congregations continued to be made firm in the faith and to increase in
number from day to day."-Acts 15:1-16:5. [Emphasis added]
As noted, the blood doctrine has been the subject of numerous questions from
readers, many in response to rapid changes in medical science. Of necessity
these changes have caused individual Witnesses to seek clarification, so the
Society has re-examined the blood doctrine many times, mainly in an effort to
decide if new medical procedures are acceptable or not. It should be emphasized
that the article just cited permits Jehovah's Witnesses to make suggestions, not
just ask questions, on doctrinal matters, provided that this is done in an
appropriate and respectful manner, as the article goes on to explain:
The proper spirit after offering suggestions is to be content to leave the
matter to the prayerful consideration of the mature brothers directing the work
in Jehovah's organization. [Emphasis added.]
The point is that making suggestions is acceptable provided that the individual
making them does not attempt to create divisions by pushing his or her viewpoint
ahead of the Society's. Plainly this article shows that Jehovah's Witnesses may
submit divergent views to the Society for its consideration. Further evidence
that the Society is receptive to well-thought-out suggestions offered in a
respectful manner can be found indirectly in many of the "Questions From
Readers" articles, which, together, effectively serve to define the blood
doctrine. 3 Part of the most recent "Questions From Readers" article, which
further clarified the policy as to which blood parts may be acceptable to
Jehovah's Witnesses, is reproduced below:
From The Watchtower, June 15, 2000, pages 29-31:
Do Jehovah's Witnesses accept any medical products derived from blood?
[some discussion omitted]
Just as blood plasma can be a source of various fractions, the other primary
components (red cells, white cells, platelets) can be processed to isolate
smaller parts. For example, white blood cells may be a source of interferons and
interleukins, used to treat some viral infections and cancers. Platelets can be
processed to extract a wound healing factor. And other medicines are coming
along that involved (at least initially) extracts from blood components. Such
therapies are not transfusions of those primary components; they usually involve
parts or fractions thereof. Should Christians accept these fractions in medical
treatment? We cannot say. The Bible does not give details, so a Christian must
make his own conscientious decision before God.
Some would refuse anything derived from blood (even fractions intended to
provide temporary passive immunity). That is how they understand God's command
to 'abstain from blood.' They reason that his law to Israel required that blood
removed from a creature be 'poured out on the ground.' (Deut. 12: 22-24) Why is
that relevant? Well, to prepare gamma globulin, blood-based clotting factors,
and so on, requires that blood be collected and processed. Hence, some
Christians reject such products, just as they reject transfusions of whole blood
or of its four primary components. Their sincere, conscientious stand should be
respected.
Other Christians decide differently. They too refuse transfusions of whole
blood, red cells, white cells, platelets, or plasma. Yet, they might allow a
physician to treat them with a fraction extracted from the primary components.
Even here there may be differences. One Christian may accept a gamma globulin
injection, but he may or may not agree to an injection containing something
extracted from red or white cells. Overall, though, what might lead some
Christians to conclude that they could accept blood fractions? [Emphasis added]
It is clear that the Society had considered the already expressed opinions of
Jehovah's Witnesses in formulating this policy, because the Society demonstrates
its knowledge of such opinions. Similar wording is found in earlier "Questions
From Readers," again indicating the Society's willingness to consider
respectfully offered and sincere suggestions for change or requests for
clarification. 4
This sub-section has demonstrated that it is appropriate for individual
Jehovah's Witnesses to write to the Society with serious suggestions that have
been formulated after careful and prayerful consideration. This was shown in the
context of the blood doctrine. This doctrine is a particularly complex issue, as
evidenced by the changes and clarifications that have periodically been made in
Jehovah's Witnesses' understanding of what the term "abstain from blood" means
in practice. Unfortunately, the current status of the blood doctrine seems
somewhat arbitrary in that it allows the medical use of any blood component with
the exception of intact forms of four "primary" fractions-red blood cells, white
blood cells, platelets and whole plasma. However, the use of preparations made
from any and all of these constituents is now allowed as a matter of conscience.
Thus, in effect, any and all parts of blood may be used depending only on how
they are prepared. The article raised the question: "If any medicine to be
prescribed may be made from blood plasma, red or white cells, or platelets, ask:
... How much of this blood-derived medicine might be administered, and in what
way?" The question and answer together indicate that individuals must decide for
themselves whether they can conscientiously accept a therapy that involves use
of any particular blood component. This is a decision that seems to include
considering the amount of a primary fraction included in the therapy.
A result of the revised blood policy is that because all parts of blood, in one
form or another (e.g., hemoglobin preparations), can be used by Jehovah's
Witnesses there can be no argument made that they are protected from blood-borne
diseases. Given that God's word does not change and that "all scripture ... is
beneficial..." (2 Tim. 3:16) it is somewhat unusual that the current status of
our understanding of the Apostolic Decree to "abstain from blood" is determined
more by medical science than by the scriptures. The solution to this dilemma can
only be found by re-examining the scriptures themselves, as we do in the
following sub-sections.
(b) The Apostolic Decree "Abstain from Blood"
The actual text of the Apostolic Decree, as it is called, is found at Acts
15:29, with a preview given at Acts 15:20 and a subsequent reference at Acts
21:25. Acts 15:28, 29 reads:
For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to
YOU, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to
idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU
carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to
YOU!
The occasion for issuing the Apostolic Decree was to decide whether or not
Gentile Christians should be required to submit to circumcision as required by
the Mosaic Law. The resulting Decree requires that all Christians abstain from
four things: food offered to idols, blood, strangled meat and fornication. Some
confusion has surrounded this Decree because the Mosaic Law also forbade these
things. In particular, it might be thought that certain dietary laws of the Jews
were simply being transferred to Christians. However, the Society clearly makes
the point that the Apostolic Decree was based on standards that existed prior to
the Mosaic Law and which were applicable to all mankind:
From United in Worship of the Only True God, page 149:
When the issue involving application of the Mosaic Law to Gentile Christians was
presented to the governing body in Jerusalem in the first century, their
decision was in harmony with these facts. They recognized that Jehovah was not
requiring Gentile believers to perform works in obedience to the Mosaic Law
before holy spirit was poured out on them. The decision of that governing body
did list as "necessary things" certain prohibitions that were in harmony with
that Law, but these were based on the Bible record concerning events that
predated the Law. So there was not an imposing on Gentile Christians of a
responsibility to conform to the Mosaic Law or some portion of it but, rather,
there was a confirming of standards recognized prior to Moses. -Acts 15:28, 29;
compare Genesis 9:3, 4; 34:2-7; 35:2-5.
The Apostolic Council more generally had to decide if practices peculiar to the
Jews applied to Christians. Thus the Apostolic Decree commented on issues that
might have been confusing to Gentile but not Jewish Christians. The main
discussion centered on whether Gentile Christians must be circumcised. The
outcome was that they need not be circumcised, but that certain "necessary
things" were required of Gentile Christians. Presumably Gentile Christians
recognized that such things as lying and theft were wrong, based on what might
be called "natural law" and on Jesus' teachings. However, many may have been
unfamiliar with elements of the Noachian Law. Accordingly the Apostolic Decree
emphasized, among other things, essential elements of the Noachian Law regarding
blood. 5
That the Apostolic Decree was not based on the Mosaic Law is apparent from texts
such as the following:
Acts 15:7-11: Now when much disputing had taken place, Peter rose and said to
them: "Men, brothers, YOU well know that from early days God made the choice
among YOU that through my mouth people of the nations should hear the word of
the good news and believe; and God, who knows the heart, bore witness by giving
them the holy spirit, just as he did to us also. And he made no distinction at
all between us and them, but purified their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why
are YOU making a test of God by imposing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke
that neither our forefathers nor we were capable of bearing? On the contrary, we
trust to get saved through the undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus in the same
way as those people also."
Acts 15:13,14: After they quit speaking, James answered, saying: "Men, brothers,
hear me. Sym'e·on has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his
attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.
These passages show conclusively that the Apostolic Decree was not based on
provisions of the Mosaic Law. Among other things, they reveal that Jehovah had
already accepted as worshippers those who were not complying with the Mosaic
Law. As Peter recognized, "[God] made no distinction at all between us and
them." Jehovah had made no distinction between Jewish Christians, who to a large
degree abided by the basics of the Mosaic Law, and Gentile converts who did not.
Since God Himself continued to pour out holy spirit on such Gentile converts, it
became evident that abiding by provisions of the Mosaic Law was unnecessary for
Christians.
The Christian Greek Scriptures, especially the writings of Paul, e.g., those
cited earlier, also indicate that Christians are not bound by any part of the
Mosaic Law. The Society has made this point abundantly clear. How, though, do we
conclude that the Apostolic Decree is based on the Noachian Law?
In response to the recognition that Christians were not held to provisions of
the Mosaic Law, James first voiced what we call today the Apostolic Decree,
which included the provision to "abstain from blood." Accompanying that
statement are the following remarks by James as recorded at Acts 15:19-21:
Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to
God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from
fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. For from ancient times
Moses has had in city after city those who preach him, because he is read aloud
in the synagogues on every sabbath."
It is noteworthy that James associated the Apostolic Decree with Moses'
writings. Certainly the Mosaic Law is part of those writings, but we have
already seen that that portion of Moses' writings is not applicable to
Christians. Genesis through Deuteronomy are attributed to Moses (of course,
Moses was working under inspiration) and a good portion of these are separate
from the Mosaic Law. In particular, Genesis is not concerned at all with the
Mosaic Law. Significantly, the only portion of Moses' writings aside from the
Law that included prohibitions on the use of blood is found in Genesis chapter
9, in the Noachian Law. Because that portion of Moses' writings contains the
only occurrence of prohibitions involving blood apart from the Mosaic Law, and
because James indicated that Moses' writings were the source of the Apostolic
Decree, we must conclude that the Noachian Law is the basis for the Apostolic
Decree to "abstain from blood and things strangled."
The Society has long maintained that the Apostolic Decree to "abstain from blood
and things strangled." was based on the Noachian Law recorded at Genesis 9:3, 4.
Also the Society has maintained that the Apostolic Decree was not based on
provisions of the Mosaic Law.
The following section examines the Noachian Law in some detail with a view to
developing a clearer understanding of what the expression "abstain from blood"
means.
(c) The Noachian Law
Noah and his family were the sole survivors of an era in which life had been
held as common, or of little value, rather than sacred. (Compare Genesis 6:4, 5,
11, 13.) During the flood Noah and his family experienced firsthand the killing
of human and animal kind on an unprecedented scale, and that at God's hand.
Considering mankind's historical sentiments regarding life and the fact that
Noah's family had just witnessed such massive killing, it becomes easy to see
why God would specifically address the sacredness of life, which he communicated
to Noah as the patriarch of all who were alive and all who were to come. Not
wanting life again to become less than sacred, God instituted measures that by
their very design would remind mankind of life's sacredness. God has always held
life as sacred. Though the Bible record indicates that Jehovah had on prior
occasion alluded to that sacredness, with the Noachian Law He for the first time
enacted a law, including prohibitions, that effectively put man on notice of His
will and His view of life, i.e., it is sacred. With His law to Noah, Jehovah
decreed that mankind must hold life in that same high regard. His provision to
respect even the life of animals taken or killed for food by not eating their
blood emphasized Jehovah's views on the matter.
Though the Noachian Law was provided for mankind through Noah, there is no
indication in scripture that God has revoked its prohibitions regarding blood.
Therefore, we must conclude that Jehovah still expects those tenets to be
observed. In harmony with that the Society teaches that the Noachian Law was a
command to all humankind that has never been revoked:
From Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1, page 345:
To whom does the prohibition on the eating of blood apply?
Noah and his sons were allowed by Jehovah to add animal flesh to their diet
after the Flood, but they were strictly commanded not to eat blood. (Ge 9:1, 3,
4) God here set out a regulation that applied, not merely to Noah and his
immediate family, but to all mankind from that time on, because all those living
since the Flood are descendants of Noah's family.
This statement has far-reaching consequences. For example, any Divine Law Code
subsequently given to mankind or to parts of mankind (e.g., the Mosaic Law to
Israel) must be consistent with the Noachian Law. Of course, such laws might
contain restrictions going beyond those found in the Noachian Law, but unless
God repealed the Noachian Law they could not supercede or countermand Jehovah's
Law to Noah. Nowhere does the Bible indicate such a repeal of the Noachian Law.
Next we focus on the statement at Genesis 9:4:
Only flesh with its soul - its blood - YOU must not eat.
Clearly Genesis 9:4 is not meant to be an absolute prohibition on the eating of
blood itself, since all subsequent applications of it in the Bible do not
suggest that an animal had to be thoroughly drained of blood to be considered
properly bled. On the contrary, the animal simply had to be bled until the blood
stopped flowing, which meant that a substantial amount of blood was still left
in the carcass and subsequently eaten. Considering the context of the Noachian
Law (the sacredness of life), we can see why eating the remaining blood was not
an issue at all, because the act of reasonably bleeding the killed animal forced
Noah and mankind always to remember the sacredness of life.
Because the Noachian Law was not an absolute prohibition on eating blood, it is
important to understand what it did specifically prohibit. The text of Genesis
9:1-7 reads as follows:
And God went on to bless Noah and his sons and to say to them: "Be fruitful and
become many and fill the earth. And a fear of YOU and a terror of YOU will
continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature
of the heavens, upon everything that goes moving on the ground, and upon all the
fishes of the sea. Into YOUR hand they are now given. Every moving animal that
is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case of green vegetation, I do
give it all to YOU. Only flesh with its soul-its blood-YOU must not eat. And,
besides that, YOUR blood of YOUR souls shall I ask back. From the hand of every
living creature shall I ask it back; and from the hand of man, from the hand of
each one who is his brother, shall I ask back the soul of man. Anyone shedding
man's blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God's image he made man.
And as for YOU men, be fruitful and become many, make the earth swarm with YOU
and become many in it."
With those words God for the first time gave mankind permission to kill animals
and eat their flesh. The only stipulation was that the blood of such creatures
must not be eaten along with the flesh. That required that an animal's blood
should be reasonably drained prior to eating the flesh. However, the text is
only talking about animals killed at the hand of man for food. Regarding
animals, the text says, "into YOUR hand they are now given" and, "every animal
that is alive may serve as food for YOU" and, "only flesh with its soul-its
blood-YOU must not eat." Clearly those texts are speaking of animals being
killed for food. Therefore, prohibitions given to Noah had only to do with
eating the blood of animals killed for food. The prohibition applied to no more
than that, and it was applicable to all mankind. Is there any explicit textual
support for that conclusion?
This question is answered in the affirmative in the next sub-section through
comparison of relevant aspects of the Mosaic and Noachian Laws.
(d) The Mosaic Law
The provisions of the Mosaic Law with regard to blood can be summed up simply:
Jews were not to eat blood in any form, whether directly or that left in animals
that died of themselves. However, the Law contained a special provision about
what to do with animals found dead, that is, animals that died by accident or
old age, were killed by another animal, or otherwise died of themselves as far
as the finder could tell. As we saw earlier in this article, that text is found
at Deuteronomy 14:21. It says:
YOU must not eat any body [already] dead. To the alien resident who is inside
your gates YOU may give it, and he must eat it; or there may be a selling of it
to a foreigner, because YOU are a holy people to Jehovah your God.
That provision of the Mosaic Law was spoken to those under that Law, but the
provision itself involved giving or selling an unbled carcass to "alien
residents" and "foreigners" to eat. Because this was a provision of Jehovah, and
because those alien residents and foreigners were under the Noachian Law in
God's eyes, this scripture provides textual support that the Noachian Law did
not prohibit the eating of unbled flesh that had not been killed for food. In
other words, the Noachian Law only prohibited eating the blood of animals killed
for food. Unless we conclude that Jehovah would abet the breaking of his own law
by those under it, we can arrive at no other conclusion than the one above.
Because the Bible says that God will not try anyone with evil things, such a
notion becomes impossible. (See James 1:13.)
Can a distinction be made between the blood of a creature killed for food and
one that died of itself? The Society teaches that such a distinction indeed
exists:
From Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1, page 345:
At Deuteronomy 14:21 allowance was made for selling to an alien resident or a
foreigner an animal that had died of itself or that had been torn by a beast.
Thus a distinction was made between the blood of such animals and that of
animals that a person slaughtered for food. (Compare Le 17:14-16.)
Some may minimize the provision in Deuteronomy 14:21, saying that what God
allowed among the ungodly is irrelevant. It is true that people of the nations
had all sorts of ideas about worship, including a wide range of practices that
violated God's will. Nevertheless, those practices are irrelevant to the
provision in Deuteronomy 14:21. We are considering what God requires of man, not
the erroneous views or actions of man. The text of Deuteronomy 14:21 addressed a
provision of God, not misconduct on the part of the ungodly. It is Jehovah's
view that is important, not that of men. God's view was that those termed "alien
resident" and "foreigner" at Deuteronomy 14:21 were accountable under the
Noachian Law. Given that Jehovah would not encourage anyone to break His laws we
must conclude that the Noachian Law does not prevent man from eating unbled
flesh from animals who died of themselves
As recorded at Genesis 9:3, 4 God prohibited man from eating blood from animals
he killed for food. Because animals found dead had not been killed by man for
food, the Noachian prohibition did not apply, even though such flesh contained
its full measure of blood. That indicates that Genesis 9:1-17 was not a case of
God instituting some special sacredness regarding blood, but rather God, by
decree, was instilling His view of the sacredness of life. Life was the sacred
issue addressed to Noah, not blood. Prohibitions regarding blood only served to
instill high regard for life, even animal life. If life were not taken, no
prohibition of the Noachian Law was applicable. Again, that conclusion is
illustrated in God's provision found at Deuteronomy 14:21.
Having established that the Apostolic Decree was based on the Noachian Law and
having clarified aspects of the Noachian Law germane to our subject, we are left
with another question: In principle, is it legitimate to use tenets of the
Mosaic Law to try to shed additional light on the meaning of the expression
"abstain from blood" as used in the Apostolic Decree? To answer that question we
first need to understand the basis for the blood laws contained in the Mosaic
Law.
As noted, because the Noachian Law was given to all humankind, subsequent
legitimate laws could not countermand it unless God repealed the Noachian Law,
which has not happened. On the contrary, if laws relating to the use of blood
were instituted, it would be expected that the Noachian Law would be fully
incorporated into that newer law. The Mosaic Law presents just such a case.
The Mosaic Law dealt with matters going well beyond the Noachian Law.
Nevertheless, the Noachian Law was incorporated into the Mosaic Law, which
contained prohibitions on murder and the use of blood. In addition to just
incorporating provisions of the Noachian law, the Mosaic Law contained
additional requirements regarding blood. For example, the Mosaic Law required
Israelites to pour drained blood onto the ground, without using it for anything
whatsoever. The Noachian Law had no such provision. Noah was only told what he
could not eat. He was free to use blood in other ways. Also, the Mosaic Law
prohibited those under it from eating any sort of blood, but as we have seen
those under only the Noachian Law could eat some unbled flesh as a provision
from Jehovah. Again we see where the requirements regarding blood were higher
for those under the Mosaic Law than for others. (See Leviticus 17:10)
The Society, too, teaches that those under the Mosaic Law were held to a higher
standard regarding blood than were others:
From Insight on the Scriptures, page 345:
At Deuteronomy 14:21 allowance was made for selling to an alien resident or a
foreigner an animal that had died of itself or that had been torn by a beast.
Thus a distinction was made between the blood of such animals and that of
animals that a person slaughtered for food. (Compare Le 17:14-16.) The
Israelites, as well as alien residents who took up true worship and came under
the Law covenant, were obligated to live up to the lofty requirements of that
Law. People of all nations were bound by the requirement at Genesis 9:3, 4, but
those under the Law were held by God to a higher standard in adhering to that
requirement than were foreigners and alien residents who had not become
worshipers of Jehovah. [Emphasis added]
The Mosaic Law could and did introduce higher standards with respect to how
blood was used than the requirements contained in the Noachian Law. Naturally
the question is, why a higher standard? Are not all of God's laws perfect? What
is different about the Mosaic Law that it required a higher standard than the
simpler prohibitions originally given through Noah? The answer is found within
the Mosaic Law itself. Notice in the following text that the reason for
prohibitions regarding blood is stated:
Leviticus 17:10-12:
As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as
an alien in YOUR midst who eats any sort of blood, I shall certainly set my face
against the soul that is eating the blood, and I shall indeed cut him off from
among his people. For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have
put it upon the altar for YOU to make atonement for YOUR souls, because it is
the blood that makes atonement by the soul [in it]. That is why I have said to
the sons of Israel: "No soul of YOU must eat blood and no alien resident who is
residing as an alien in YOUR midst should eat blood." [Emphasis added.]
Note that God indicated the reason for blood prohibitions unique to the Mosaic
Law. That reason was twofold, meaning that two things combined stood as the
reason for the prohibitions. The text above reminds Israel of the Noachian Law's
figurative use of blood, that it represents life. Also Israel was informed of a
sacred use of blood, the only use of blood provided for Israel under the Mosaic
Law: blood was to be used for sacred atonement sacrifices. Israel's standard was
higher because, in addition to the existing Noachian mandate, the Mosaic Law
stipulated that Israel must only use blood for the sacred purpose of atonement
sacrifices. When for the first time Jehovah combined a special, sacred use of
blood with the Noachian Law, the result was a higher standard for those who came
to be under the Mosaic Law. This did not imply that the Noachian Law had been
superceded, but simply that different and higher standards were required of
Israel. Mankind in general is required to conform to the Noachian Law, but not
to the higher standards of the Mosaic Law, as we saw in our examination of the
text of Deuteronomy 14:21.
We have seen that with respect to blood, the Mosaic Law held those under it to a
higher standard than the Noachian Law held the rest of mankind to. Thus, we are
now in a position to answer the question raised earlier as to the legitimacy of
using the Mosaic Law to amplify the meaning of the Apostolic Decree. We conclude
that it is not legitimate to use the provisions of the Mosaic Law regarding
blood as a principle for the rest of mankind. Admittedly God's standard was
higher for those under the Mosaic Law. If we then apply that higher standard to
the Apostolic Decree's call to "abstain from blood," we are saying that that
decree is based on the Mosaic Law rather than the Noachian Law. We would be
saying that the Apostolic Decree is based on standards God first gave to Moses
rather than standards existing prior to Moses. Such a conclusion is contrary to
what the scriptures indicate and to certain reasoning and basic conclusions
published by the Society.
The final section maintains that only one conclusion can be reached.
3. Conclusion: The Apostolic Decree does not prohibit blood transfusions
The Society has often used tenets extracted from the Mosaic Law to make the case
that the Apostolic Decree provides sufficient grounds to prohibit blood
transfusions. However, the above discussion clearly shows that the Apostolic
Decree contains no provisions from the Mosaic Law. It was demonstrated that the
Society holds that the Apostolic Decree "to abstain from blood" is based
exclusively on the Noachian Law and not on provisions or extensions of the
Mosaic Law. Because the Mosaic Law cannot countermand any aspects of the
Noachian Law, which was given to all mankind, it is clear that the uses of blood
provided by God at Deuteronomy14:21 must rigorously conform to the Noachian Law.
Does the decree to "abstain from blood" then prohibit Christians from donating
blood for the purpose of saving life via blood transfusion or from accepting
blood so donated? The answer has to be, "No."
The reason for this conclusion is simple. Killing people or animals is not the
way blood is obtained for medical use. Rather, such blood is donated
voluntarily. There is a fundamental difference between taking blood by killing,
and accepting blood from donation. That fundamental difference is magnified here
because in the case of donated blood life can be saved with no loss of life
whatsoever. The Noachian Law only prohibited humans from eating blood from flesh
that they had purposely killed to eat. The question of whether transfused blood
provides nourishment, i.e., is it "food?" becomes a non-issue because blood
transfused to save human life is not obtained by taking life, that is, by
killing.
Similarly, health considerations are irrelevant in deciding whether blood
transfusions are acceptable for Christians. According to the Society's current
policy, accepting derivatives prepared from blood or from its four "primary"
components 6 is a matter of conscience. Those who conscientiously do accept such
derivatives will, therefore, not be protected from any health risks associated
with the medical use of blood. As with all medical procedures, the risks from
accepting blood derivatives can include significant health problems and even
death. On the other hand, comparable risks may also be associated with rejecting
such medical treatments. The irrelevance of health issues from a scriptural
rather than a medical point of view is further emphasized by the fact that the
Noachian Law permitted mankind to eat flesh. Eating meat has always presented
notorious health hazards depending on the preparation or selection of the meat.
As the Society has often noted, decisions about diet and health care in areas
where the Bible does not specifically comment are best left to individual
conscience after a careful consideration of the information available. 6,7
Some have speculated about how early Christians might have responded to the idea
of accepting a transfusion of donated blood to save life. Since early Christians
had no way of literally transfusing blood as it is done today, we have no way of
answering that question with Bible texts. Nevertheless, worthy questions are;
"What is the nearest thing mentioned in scripture to accepting a modern day
medical transfusion of blood, and was it abhorred?" Back then Christians did
have a way of donating blood to save life, but not by transfusion: they could
voluntarily sacrifice their life so that someone else might live. That meant
literally pouring out their soul-their blood-in another person's behalf. Not
only were such donations made, they were accepted and even expected, even though
the extension of life was temporary. (John 15:13.) Indeed, the most outstanding
example of this principle was Jesus' own sacrifice, with the exception that
Jesus' sacrifice provided a means of gaining eternal life rather than a
temporary extension.
While the Society's conclusions to date do not match the ones we have reached,
as noted at the beginning of this article, the Society's published comments do
support the conclusions reached in this work. In fact our final conclusion is
reached precisely by following the Society's own basic teachings. Given the
current state of complexity of the Society's recommendations on blood,
considerable simplification could be achieved by aligning our view on the
sacredness of blood with the scriptures rather than having changes in medical
science continually force re-evaluations of this issue. As Christians our guide
in spiritual matters should be the scriptures rather than medical science.
The intent of this article is to provide a basis for the Society to perform a
thorough scriptural re-examination of the blood doctrine. As has been
emphasized, the Society is willing to consider suggestions from individual
Jehovah's Witnesses for change. This might best be achieved by writing to the
Society expressing one's opinions on the blood policy and the material contained
here, if the reader feels that it has validity. Should you write the Society
with a suggestion for change? That question can and should only be answered by
each person individually.
_________________
End Notes
1 All Scriptures cited are from the New World Translation
2 For example, should Christians draw the principle from the Law that some kinds
of meat are better than others based on its dietary regulations? Peter's vision
recorded at Acts 10:9-16, in which he was told "YOU stop calling defiled the
things God has cleansed," shows that attempts to bind Christians by parts of the
Mosaic Law have no scriptural support.
3 "Define" in the sense that the Society's stances on blood, and changes made,
have most often been expressed through "Questions From Readers" articles rather
than regular articles in The Watchtower.
4 See, for example, The Watchtower, June 1, 1990: Do Jehovah's Witnesses accept
injections of a blood fraction, such as immune globulin or albumin? Some do,
believing that the Scriptures do not clearly rule out accepting an injection of
a small fraction, or component taken from blood. [Emphasis added.]
5 The Society teaches explicitly that the prohibition on "things strangled" in
the Apostolic Decree goes back to the Noachian Law. Insight on the Scriptures,
Vol. 1, pp. 345-6 states: This decree rests, ultimately, on God's command not to
eat blood, as given to Noah and his sons and, therefore, to all mankind. In this
regard, the following is found in The Chronology of Antient Kingdoms Amended, by
Sir Isaac Newton (Dublin, 1728, p. 184): "This law [of abstaining from blood]
was ancienter than the days of Moses, being given to Noah and his sons, long
before the days of Abraham: and therefore when the Apostles and Elders in the
Council at Jerusalem declared that the Gentiles were not obliged to be
circumcised and keep the law of Moses, they excepted this law of abstaining from
blood, and things strangled, as being an earlier law of God, imposed not on the
sons of Abraham only, but on all nations, while they lived together in Shinar
under the dominion of Noah: and of the same kind is the law of abstaining from
meats offered to Idols or false Gods, and from fornication."-Italics his.
6 See The Watchtower, June 15, 2000, "Questions from Readers" pp. 29-31.
7 See, for example, The Watchtower, June 15, 1982, ' "Good Health" and Christian
Reasonableness,' pp. 25-29.
8 In keeping with the Society's standard of letting information and reasoning
stand on their own merit, the authors of this document choose to remain
anonymous. Attention is thus focused on the information, which is designed to
honor Jehovah, rather than any man. This is in line with what brother Russell
said a century ago: "It is the truth rather than its servant that should be
honored and proclaimed. There is too much disposition to credit truth to the
preacher, forgetful that all truth is of God, who uses one or another servant in
its proclamation as it may please him." (See The Watchtower, February 1, 1991,
page 12, par. 14; Awake!, October 22, 1989, page 20.)
|
