Defending the Indefensible
In the years between 1945-1961, there were many new discoveries and breakthroughs in medical science. In 1954, the first successful kidney transplant was performed. The potential benefits for society using therapies involving transfusions and organ transplants was profound. Yet sadly, the No Blood doctrine prevented Jehovah’s Witnesses from benefiting from such advances. Worse, compliance with the doctrine likely contributed to the untimely deaths of an unknown number of members, including infants and children.
Armageddon Kept On Delaying
Clayton Woodworth died in 1951, leaving the leadership of the Organization to continue this precarious teaching. Playing the usual trump card (Prov 4:18) and devising “new light” to replace this teaching was not an option. Any serious medical complications and deaths linked to the faithful’s adherence to what they took as a sound Scriptural interpretation would only increase from year to year. If the doctrine was dropped, the door could be opened for huge liability costs, threatening the Organizations coffers. Leadership was trapped and Armageddon (their get-out-of-jail-free card) was delaying. The only option was to continue to defend the indefensible. Regarding this, Professor Lederer continues on page 188 of in her book:
“In 1961, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society issued Blood, Medicine, and the Law of God outlining the Witness position on blood and transfusion. The author of this pamphlet returned to the original sources to buttress claims that blood represented nutrition, quoting among its sources a letter from the French physician Jean-Baptiste Denys that had appeared in George Crile’s Hemorrhage and Transfusion. (The booklet did not mention that Denys letter appeared in the 1660’s, nor did it indicate that Crile’s text had been published in 1909).” [Boldface added]
The above quote documents that in 1961 (16 years after the No Blood doctrine was enacted) leadership had to return to the original sources to bolster their archaic premise. Obviously, a modern medical study in a reputable journal would have served their interests far better, but there were none to be had; so they had to go back to obsolete and discredited findings, omitting the dates to maintain the semblance of credibility.
Had this particular teaching been purely an academic interpretation of scripture—just another anti-typical prophetic parallel—then the use of outdated references would have been of little consequence. But here we have a teaching that could (and did) involve life or death, all resting on outdated premise. Membership deserved to be updated with the current medical thinking. Yet, doing so would have brought great difficulty upon the leadership and the organization both legally and financially. Still, which is more precious to Jehovah, preserving material things or preserving human life? The slide down the slippery slope continued to a low point a few years later.
In 1967, the first heart transplant was successfully performed. Kidney transplants were now standard practice, but required a blood transfusion. With such advancements in transplant therapy, the question arose regarding whether organ transplants (or organ donation) were permissible for Christians. The following “Questions From Readers” provided leadership’s decision:
“Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking the lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one’s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people.” (Watchtower, November 15, 1967 p. 31) [Boldface added]
To remain consistent with the premise that a blood transfusion is “eating” blood, an organ transplant had to be viewed as “eating” the organ. Is this bizarre? This remained the official position of the Organization until 1980. How tragic to think of those brothers and sisters who died unnecessarily between 1967-1980, unable to accept an organ transplant. Moreover, how many were disfellowshipped because they were convinced that leadership had gone off the deep end comparing an organ transplant to cannibalism?
Is the premise even remotely within the realm of scientific possibilities?
A Clever Analogy
In 1968 the archaic premise was again promoted as truth. A clever new analogy (still used to this day) was introduced to convince the reader that the effect (in the body) of a transfusion was the same as ingesting blood through the mouth. The claim is made that to abstain from alcohol would mean to not ingest it nor have it intravenously injected. Therefore, to abstain from blood would include not having it intravenously injected in the veins. The argument was presented as follows:
”But is it not true that when a patient is unable to eat through his mouth, doctors often feed him by the same method in which a blood transfusion is administered? Examine the scriptures carefully and notice that they tell us to ‘keep free from blood’ and to ‘abstain from blood.’ (Acts 15:20, 29) What does this mean? If a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcohol, would that mean simply that you should not take it through your mouth but that you could transfuse it directly into your veins? Of course not! So, too, ‘abstaining from blood’ means not taking it into our bodies at all. (The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life, 1968 p. 167) [Boldface added]
The analogy seems logical, and many rank and file members to this day believe the analogy is sound. But is it? Note the comments of Dr. Osamu Muramoto regarding how scientifically flawed this argument is: (Journal of Medical Ethics 1998 p. 227)
“As any medical professional knows, this argument is false. Orally ingested alcohol is absorbed as alcohol and circulates as such in the blood, whereas orally eaten blood is digested and does not enter the circulation as blood. Blood introduced directly into the veins circulates and functions as blood, not as nutrition. Hence blood transfusion is a form of cellular organ transplantation. And as mentioned before, organ transplants are now permitted by the WTS. These inconsistencies are apparent to physicians and other rational people, but not to JWs because of the strict policy against viewing critical arguments.” [Boldface added]
Visualize a child in Africa with swollen abdomen due to a severe case of malnutrition. When treated for this condition, what is prescribed? A blood transfusion? Of course not, because the blood would offer no nutritional value. What is prescribed is a paranteral infusion of nutrients such as electrolytes, glucose, proteins, lipids, essential vitamins and trace minerals. In fact, to administer a transfusion to such a patient would be detrimental, not at all helpful.
Blood is high in sodium and iron. When ingested in the mouth blood is toxic. When used as blood transfused in the bloodstream, it travels to the heart, lungs, arteries, blood vessels and so forth, it is not toxic. It is essential for life. When ingested in the mouth, blood travels through the digestive tract to the liver where it is broken down. Blood no longer functions as blood. It has none of the life sustaining qualities of transfused blood. The high amount of iron (found in hemoglobin) is so toxic to the human body if ingested it can be fatal. If one were to attempt to survive on the nutrition the body would receive from drinking blood for food, one would first die of iron-poisoning.
The view that a blood transfusion is nutrition for the body is just as antiquated as other seventeenth-century views. Along this line, I’d like to share an article I found at Smithsonian.com (dated June 18, 2013). The article has a very interesting title: Why The Tomato Was Feared In Europe For More Than 200 Years. As wacky as the title appears, the story well illustrates how a centuries-old notion was proven to be a complete myth:
“Interestingly, in the late 1700s, a large percentage of Europeans feared the tomato. A nickname for the fruit was the “poison apple” because it was thought that aristocrats got sick and died after eating them, but the truth of the matter was that wealthy Europeans used pewter plates, which were high in lead content. Because tomatoes are high in acidity, when placed on this particular tableware, the fruit would leach lead from the plate, resulting in many deaths from lead poisoning. No one made this connection between plate and poison at the time; the tomato was picked as the culprit.”
The question that each Witness must ask is: Am I willing to make what could be a life-or-death medical decision for myself or my loved one based upon belief in a centuries-old premise that is scientifically impossible?
The Governing Body requires that we (under threat of involuntary disassociation) comply with the official No Blood doctrine. Though it can be easily argued that the doctrine has been shredded as Jehovah’s Witnesses can now accept virtually 99.9% of blood constituents. A fair question is, over the years how many lives were prematurely cut short before the constituents of blood (including hemoglobin) became a conscience matter?
Tort of Misrepresentation?
In her essay presented in the Journal of Church and State (Vol. 47, 2005), entitled Jehovah’s Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation, Kerry Louderback-Wood (an attorney who grew up as a Jehovah’s Witness and whose mother died after refusing blood) presents a compelling essay on the subject of misrepresentation. Her essay is available to download on the internet. I encourage all to include this as essential reading during their personal research. I will share just one quote from the essay regarding the WT pamphlet How Can Blood Save Your Life? (1990):
“This section discusses the pamphlet’s veracity through analyzing the Society’s multiple misquotes of individual secular writers including: (1) scientists and biblical historians; (2) the medical community’s assessment of blood-born disease risks; and (3) doctors’ assessments of quality alternatives to blood, including the magnitude of risks from foregoing a blood transfusion.” [Boldface added]
Assuming the allegation that leadership intentionally misquoted secular writers is confirmed in a court of law, this would prove very negative and costly for the organization. Removing certain words from their context can certainly leave membership with a false impression regarding what the writer intended. When members make medical decisions based upon misinformation and are harmed, there is liability.
In summary, we have a religious group with a religious doctrine that involves a life or death medical decision, founded upon an unscientific myth. If the premise is myth, the doctrine can not be scriptural. Members (and the lives of their loved ones) are at risk anytime they enter an ambulance, hospital or surgery center. All because the architects of the doctrine rejected modern medicine and chose to depend upon the opinion of physicians from centuries past.
Nevertheless, some might ask: Is not the success of bloodless surgery proof that the teaching is divinely backed by God? Ironically, our No Blood doctrine has a sliver lining for the medical profession. It is undeniable that great strides in bloodless surgery can be attributed to Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is likely viewed by some as a godsend for surgeons and their medical teams all over the world, providing a steady stream of patients.
Part 3 of this series examines how it is that medical professionals could view their Jehovah’s Witness patients as a godsend. It is not because they view the doctrine as biblical nor that adherence to the doctrine brings God’s blessing.
(Download this file: Jehovahs Witnesses – Blood & Vaccines, to view a visual chart prepared by a member in England. It documents the slippery slope JW leadership has been on in attempting to defend the No Blood doctrine over the years. It includes references to doctrinal interpretations regarding both transfusion and organ transplants.)
[…] Part 2 we continue with the history from 1945 to the present. We will note the subterfuge employed by the […]
Some people might read Kerry Louderback-Wood’s article and accept her opinion that Tertullian would eat blood in a life-or-death situation. Tertullian describes the kind of persecution that was also described in Matthew 10:32,33 in “De Fuga in Persecutione.” That is, Christians were persecuted merely for acknowledging being Christian. Section 5 of Fuga repeatedly shows that the choices under persecution were confession or denial. Tertullian says in Section 6. “ … we shall not be brought into Jewish councils, nor scourged in Jewish synagogues, but we shall certainly be cited before Roman magistrates and judgment-seats.” In section 9 of Fuga, he… Read more »
Kerry LouderbacK-Wood wrote on page 112 of her Tort of Misrepresentation article: “Clearly, Tertullian was not claiming that it was against God’s commandments to eat blood in an emergency situation. At a normal meal, early Christians (many were Jewish) did not usually eat unbled meat or blood. It does not follow from this, however, that they would refuse such food if faced with starvation.” But she was wrong, and what she SHOULD have said was: “Cleary, Tertullian WAS claiming that it was against God’s commandments to eat blood even in an emergency situation. Christians, whether Gentile or Jew, NEVER ate… Read more »
The author of Blood – Vital for Life wrote: “Scientist Joseph Priestley concluded: ‘The prohibition to eat blood, given to Noah, seems to be obligatory on all his posterity …’” He really should have written: “Priestly summarized the argument of many Christians by saying: ‘we cannot but conclude, that it was intended to be absolute and perpetual; for blood was not eaten by any Christians for many centuries …” Kerry Louderbach Wood complained on page 109: “The Society has grossly misrepresented Joseph Priestley’s writing.” Then she shows that she misunderstood both Priestly and the Watchtower writer, thinking the word “conclude”… Read more »
The opening sentence of this article strikes me hard. It reads, “In the years between 1945-1961, there were many new discoveries and breakthroughs in medical science.” The reason this sentence strikes me so hard is because so many tens-of-thousands (if not hundreds-of-thousands!) have needlessly suffered morbidity and mortality the result of following Watchtower blood doctrine, and during the very period mentioned in this opening sentence it was well known and established that transfusion of, for example, red cells offered no nutritional benefit to a patient in need of nutrition. It had been tried and found ineffective, and the inefficacy was… Read more »
I guess I need to ask why is that so many witnesses at threat of death from refusing blood would obey men? Why are witnesses so afraid of being disfelliwshipped. My father in 1959 a black man under segregation and a 3rd grade education stood up to them and took 8 pints of blood. He spoke out against this doctrine. Yes he was disfelliwshipped. He refused to let them reinstate him after one year. When he was dying even he refused to consent to reinstatement and said he would die df because. Nathan Knorr was wrong. What is wrong with… Read more »
Jacqueline, are Jehovah’s Witnesses the only people you know who follow religious leaders, kings and politicians, and all manner of reckless ideas, to their deaths?
What has happened to Jehovah’s Witnesses is common to men since the beginning of man. A sad but true reality.
Joshua
Jacqueline, I am happy to know that your father realized the teaching was flawed back then and in so doing continued living, hopefully to a ripe old age. What is wrong with these modern day witnesses, afraid to stand up? Realize Jacqueline that the vast majority, out of ignorance of the facts, do not see any need to stand up. They believe the teaching is from God and do not question it. And that is why we here at BP (and other internet sites) devote much of our time to help educate those who are beginning to have doubts. The… Read more »
The brothers can go on and say terms like we should not eat blood , we should not transfuse blood . The blood stands for life . We should not misuse it . I personally believe though that the whole premise is flawed every time we eat animal flesh . The red meats look like they contain blood to me where do we draw the line with this policy of no blood . Theres just something that we are missing here isnt there
I had morning coffee yesterday with my friend an ex elder who was put out of the organization some 15 years ago because of questioning the 1919 doctrine. We got on the subject of blood. He brought back to my attention something he had told me once before. It happened some 20 years ago. His daughter had given birth to a boy who was born with a defective heart valve. At the time, they were all living in a third world country (under the serving where the need is great promotion)The doctor gave the baby a 33% chance of survival… Read more »
I am in the kind of same situation with my husband, I asked him the same question just now and he pointed with his index finger upwards and says let Jehovah show me. He says I am changing and how do I know this website is from well meaning brothers and sisters and they are not misleading me. It’s the internet and you don’t know these people at all, well I sigh. This the hard bit of awakening isn’t it.
Isn’t it interesting that they always focus on motives and never on facts.
Meleti , why is that?
It is always easier to attack a person’s motive or character than to meet the problem head on and answer the question at stake. People do this when they are cornered and fear of being proved wrong starts to well up inside them, so they will lose control and lash out at you on a personal level. People get confused with facts, as it unsettles them and creates extreme cognitive dissonance. This cognitive dissonance then needs to be settled. Most people end up using confirmation bias to reaffirm their original view, studying the scriptures using a method called eisegesis. We… Read more »
A fine post, good for JW and exJW.
No one is completely free from bias.
Thank you,
Joshua
When we think about that reasoning willy . That its the internet and we dont know these people . Thats true , and we could be misled . But we also have to say how many of us actually know the governing body . And how do we know they are not misleading us as well . Even if we did know them can we say for sure what thier motives are do any of us know what goes on in anothers heart in private . Im convinced the best way to find out if we are being misled as… Read more »
Thank you Father Jack for your response and advice, I will read your reply to my husband. The motives from this website is written on the front page and I myself trust this for certain. It’s difficult when you as couple not awake at the same time.
Just go easy on him sister . The most important thing is loving one another . Remember proverbs 25 ; 11 about the apples of gold and the word spoken at the right time . Dont let the religion drive in a wedge between you . Christian blessing to you and your hubby .
Thank you!
Willy,
You might give your husband this scenario. Say he’s standing in the middle of the street and someone he doesn’t know calls out from the sidewalk to tell him a truck is bearing down on him. Would he a) question the man’s motives, b) ask the man where he comes from, c) ask by what authority the man makes this warning, or d) turn around and see if the man it telling the truth or not?
Thank you Meleti. My husband choose answer d) and I had to tell you, he understood the message.
Kind regards
Your sister in Christ
I wish I knew the answer to that question myself. Maybe someone can give us directions?
Yobec, I guess love and understanding is the key, and to pray and ask Jehovah to open our spouses hearts .
Have a wonderful day.
Yobec, glad you took the transfusion and living proof that it saved your life. Your wife is possessed with the spell of this gang of men.
Like you I don’t talk to witnesses anymore. It is no use if they aren’t awake on their own. I also will not read any books, mag or their bible. I didn’t read this article completely but comments only. You have to not submerge oneself as it makes you just throw your hands up in the air like you just don’t care.
Hi Jacqueline. I don’t think it is a case of being afraid as much as it is a case of having had their investigative faculties hijacked by a group of men who have been successful at convincing them that they are God’s spokesmen. If anything is said or any action is taken that goes against the G.B’s edict, it just cannot be so. For instance, if someone is not doing financially well and has been missing many meetings, the reasoning will be along the lines of “Well, what do you expect, Jehovah is not blessing them. Whereas if the opposite… Read more »
So wait a minute if Saul’s Men ate blood, I mean they killed the animals and ate the blood, I don’t remember Yahweh striking them down 1 Samuel 14:31-35, sure Saul built a altar for god after he killed more animals, but the people did not Die…OK so we can build a altar after we have a blood transfusion and it saves our lives…I think I get the picture. But going to all the fractions and fraction’s, I love when I made a comment about taking blood fractions a year ago or so, I was the only one that mentioned… Read more »
Why on earth have they laid the rules down for others to follow . ? The whole argument in the watchtower runs against the whole chapter of romans 14 . Just crazy they have made themselves liable because they have made peoples decisions for them .
Once there was this documentaire about trible in the Maasai . They showed a cow who was shot in the neck in a vain to get blood and they mixed it with milk also from the cow and there was this tribleboy about ten years old, and he had to drink it also, but he didn’t want to and he we disgusted by the idea, but the older man gave it and so he had to drink it, and I so felt sorry for this little tribleboy. The cow didn’t die, you could see this was a normal thing to… Read more »
Hi Willy, I once held a one-on-one conversation with Fred Rusk about this. At the time Rusky was over Watchtower’s writing correspondence department. Not sure if he’s still around or not. But he was a longtime fixture inside Watchtower. Anyway, the discussion was about whether the requirement of Noah to abstain from blood was applicable only when an animal’s life was taken. He raised the tradition of Maasai eating blood from an animal without killing the animal. My response was to say a literal reading of the text of Genesis 9:4 told Noah to abstain from eating an animal’s flesh… Read more »
Marvin,
Thank you for the additional information and the Biblical view ? That little boys look I will always remember, and I saw this on t.v. about 25 years ago.
Kind regards.
Hi Willy, I have a memory(s) I wish I could forget. It’s of a small child dying for lack of a blood transfusion. I’ll never forget the terror in the child’s eyes. I’ll never forget the utter horror suffered by the parents. I knew then what I know now. Something is rotten about Watchtower’s blood doctrine. This is only made worse by the organization’s leadership refusal to stand and answer for details critical to the doctrine’s underpinning. That said, I want you to know I appreciate and value the memory you’ve shared. Circumstances such as the one you’ve shared force… Read more »
A lot is terribly wrong and by correcting our view, and reading articles like these and to follow Jehovah and not these wrong doctrines or men, we can make a change one person at a time, I know my view has changed.
Here is the link to The Watchtower’s answer to Leviticus’s scripture permitting an Israelite to eat unbled meat. Their skating around the issue is truly remarkable
http://ajwrb.org/bible/questions-from-readers
I was just wondering. Could it be that the command in Lev and Deut not to eat blood had something to do with the blood that had to be put on the door posts in order for the angel to pass the house and their firstborn would not be killed? In other words, the blood meant life. Therefore, in order for the Jews to remember that and respect the value of blood which saved their lives at that time, the command was given not to eat blood. Just to eat the blood from killed animals would not be respectful. Later,… Read more »
Hello Menrov, I’m not sure I understand your premises or argument. Nevertheless, I’d argue that Jews worshippers of God under Mosaic Law were held to a different standard in respect to blood than worshippers of God aside from Mosaic Law. I say this for multiple reasons, but three conspicuous ones are 1) there is language about “any sort of blood” within Mosaic Law, 2) Jews were under obligation to use blood for something and that something was for sacred sacrifices for atonement of sin and 3) otherwise Jews were told to waste blood onto the ground. By comparison the Noachian… Read more »
Marvin, I agree with your thoughts. Just the other day I saw a program where the narrator was in a third world country and a dish was prepared using whole blood. It looked awful in its raw state, but after cooked sufficiently and diluted with other spices and vegetables, it was edible. There are many food products made with whole blood. My understanding is that the iron (heme) in RAW uncooked blood is toxic. The amount of raw blood one would have to consume to gain enough nutrition to sustain life would result in iron-poisoning that would be fatal. We’re… Read more »
Sopater, The understanding you articulate is arguably true, and you are not alone in holding that view. I think, though, there is an alternate understanding that is also arguably true. The latter understanding would include a notion that eating blood of a slaughtered animal was prohibited, though no other use of that blood would be prohibited. We could have a long discussion about these alternate views, but for me the point is that neither prohibits the modern medical use of donor blood for transfusion. Hence no matter which of the two understandings a person accepts neither would have them needlessly… Read more »
Marvin, I agree I’ve introduced an alternate view and that it there are certainly other valid alternatives. I think all should do research and decide for themselves. I will present my research and reasoning as one of the views available, then the reader can decide. I do want the reader to be aware this view exists and has merit. I’m not dogmatic, I can’t be. I will be sharing some additional references in in Part 5. Here’s one: Note the 7th precept given to Noah in the Jewish Targum. Note how it precisely matches Gen 9:4. 1.Idolatry is forbidden 2.Blasphemy… Read more »
Hello Sopater, Thank you for the articles, looking forward to the whole series. You know now, what you didn’t all those years and now you know better and you act accordingly, no you are certainly not haunted!
Love Willy
Thank you dear sister. I agree with Joshua as he said so eloquently in his earlier post. I too am 100% certain that Jehovah will treat with special honor all who’ve been victims of this tragic injustice. This includes those who “coached” their loved ones and friends to stand faithful as martyrs to the death in compliance with the doctrine. They are victims also. Including those who sacrificed their children to a teaching that is founded upon nothing more than an antiquated notion embraced by paranoid leadership during WW2…… who had an agenda to keep JW’s separate from the world?… Read more »
Hi Marvin, sorry if my post was not clear / confusing. Let me try to explain. First, I read your reply to Willy, I thought it made sense: not to eat blood from animals that are not dead yet. However, I am not yet sure if that command is the same type of command as stated in Lev. and Deut. The Jews were HIS special people and the Law was given to them and to all that joined them Yes, it is true that there were people who would do the things of the Law without even knowing they were… Read more »
Menrov, If I may join, the law given to Noah (Universal Law) dealt specifically with the humane treatment of an animal slaughtered for food. Jehovah officially approved “alive” animals for food (Gen 9:3) but in verse 4 added the caveat that the animal (whether hunted or trapped) must be dead before its flesh could be eaten. God had not forbid eating meat from animals before the flood. But barbarian men were violent and had little respect for the life of animals (even humans), and would tear a limb off an animal and eat the raw bloody flesh while the animal… Read more »
I want to clarify that the above is focusing on Chapter 17 which applies to the slaughter of “sacrificial” animals. The Israelite could not kill an animal from his herd that was used in sacrifice. He could of course kill animals not used in sacrifice (used only for food) in the same way as wild animal, namely, to bleed it and pour it’s blood out on the ground and bury it.
IN this case, it was apples and apples as the law given to Noah applied. In the above, I was focusing on the differences.
Sopater
Sopater, I would like to state a personal view with regard to Genesis 9:1-7. Noah and his sons were given instructions for the second start, the “present heavens and earth”. 2Pe 3:5-7 ‘For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly… Read more »
Joshua, Thank you for sharing. You have an interesting perspective. For me to make the connection between the Tree of Life in the garden and Genesis 9:4 requires a large leap of faith. In my younger days I was a very good long jumper and may have been able to make that leap, but I’m too old now 🙂 Could you share the reference work that supports your view? There is certainly diversity of thought among scholars regarding whether the command to Noah was to not eat ‘live” blood, or any blood at all. In the past I shared much… Read more »
Sopater, My point distilled is that LIFE belongs to God and He decides who will partake of life whether it be the Tree of Life in the Garden or Life by means of Christ’s blood. God regards the blood of slain animals as the animals life, this also belongs to God. In my opinion, if Genesis 9:1-7 is left to speak for itself it is associating the blood of an animal killed with life. Bible Commentaries make this point as well, but Bible Commentaries are written by men. They may provide alternate views but nothing more. It is the Bible… Read more »
Joshua, Iron is sharpening iron my brother. By the way, I failed to mention that another feature of the Noachian law was to prevent the inhumane killing of animals for sport. Jehovah allowed the killing or animals for food, but not to kill for sport. I agree with most everything you say. Life does belong God and in the end, he decides who will partake of it. I agree that Abel’s sacrifice came willingly, and foreshadowed the sacrificial arrangement in the Mosaic law. To add a little side note to the “fat portions”….. some view that this could refer to… Read more »
Hi Sopater, Lest I tire you with a long post, here is just a few more words: 🙂 With regard to there being no direct command to Noah regarding the pouring out of blood on the ground I have no answer except to say that perhaps for Noah it was a given. Even today, many hunters do not bother to collect the blood of their eviscerated kill, it is discarded. An animal found dead was not slaughtered for food. The one who found it dead did not take its life. It is for this reason, in my opinion, that he… Read more »
Joshua, After considering several commentaries, I am most at peace with the explanation found in Gil’s Exposition regarding Gen 9:4: “But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall you not eat. This is the only exception to the eating of flesh; it was not to be eaten with the blood in it, which is said to be its life; not that the blood is of itself the life, but because it is a means of life, and that being exhausted, the creature must die, and because the animal and vital spirits appear to us most vigorous… Read more »
Joshua, Another reference for Gen 9:4 Barnes Notes “The first restriction on the grant of animal food is thus expressed: ‘Flesh with its life, its blood, shall ye not eat.’ The animal must be slain before any part of it is used for food. And as it lives so long as the blood flows in its veins, the life-blood must be drawn before its flesh may be eaten. The design of this restriction is to prevent the horrid cruelty of mutilating or cooking an animal while yet alive and capable of suffering pain. The draining of the blood from the… Read more »
Brother Sopater, I have taken a little time away in order to let clarity enter the discussion. First, dear brother, I believe in letting the Bible speak for itself. I trust in Jehovah’s ability to give us what we need. Second, the words of men mean nothing. Just as we have learned that lesson in our religion we must continue to apply that hard earned lesson to the words of ALL men. Commentaries are written by men, no Bible commentator is inspired of God. We can peruse the words of men all we want but we must worship God according… Read more »
Joshua, I want to echo your words about commentaries. They are useful to an extent, but in the end when it comes to biblical conclusions it’s best to let biblical text speak for itself. On that note we have essentially two ways of letting the Bible speak for itself. 1) By accepting unambiguous biblical statements at face value and 2) forming logical arguments based on unambiguous biblical statements. We can also make certain assumptions based on biblical texts. We can, for instance, assume that God always acts according to His own sense of right and wrong unless we have an… Read more »
Hi Marvin Shilmer, The Bible is a collection of books inspired/guided by God in order that a progressive revelation of His purposes, laws and principles, may be revealed. What we know of sin we know not only from Genesis alone but from the whole. What we know of the seed of the woman is also not from Genesis alone but the whole. Almost everything in Genesis finds its end, its completion, its fullest prophetic understanding, in the whole. Genesis is the introduction, the cipher, if you will, to everything that follows. What Genesis relates with regard to blood; Abel’s blood… Read more »
Dearest Joshua, Take great care of what your understanding makes of Mosaic Law. Our Master, Jesus, paid a price to abolish that law, which consisted of many detailed decrees, including additional requirements in respect to blood. To ply tenets of this Mosaic Law as though Christians are somehow obligated to obey those tenets is to repudiate faith in Jesus. You wrote: “Brother, Moses taught the Egyptian Jewish slaves what to eat and not eat, what to wear, and even how to dispose of their excrement but neither he, nor the prophets, nor the kings, nor the Christ, said it was… Read more »
Marvin Shilmer,
I do not believe Christians should follow the Law of Moses.
I do not believe it is wrong to donate blood or receive a blood transfusion.
I am at a loss how it is that after such a long interchange on this thread you should believe that I do.
I am sorely disappointed.
Joshua
Dear Joshua,
It occurred to me that you somehow thought it wrong for a Christian to accept transfusion of donor blood because of blood you wrote, “Wisdom would say, let it alone.” I guess I misunderstood what you were attempting to say.
Thank you, brother.
Joshua
Joshua, I agree it is wonderful to openly discuss our views. Iron sharpens iron. I do believe there is merit in considering bible commentaries. The fact that there is diversity in opinion allows me to choose which opinion seems most logical, and contains the least amount of conjecture. Personally, a view that doesn’t have the support of any secular source would (for me) be highly speculative and lack substance. I was aware there are two schools of thought in the case of Gen 9:4. I believe those sources you quote would agree that the verse itself applies to the blood… Read more »
Brother Sopater,
No, I do not play tennis. Checkers maybe? A slower game. 🙂
Well, brother, I think we’re beating a dead horse (pun intended). 😉
Brotherly love and a warm handshake to you and yours,
Joshua
Well, at least it’s not an alive horse 🙂
Joshua, when deliberating what God asks of us humans it we should not forget to display respect for what He bothered to tell us. What I mean is this: God is intelligent and assuming there are things he wants his worshippers to either do or avoid then He is more than capable of communicating that to us without us having to leverage a principle that would, in effect, demand more than God explicitly stated. So, for example, Noah was told not to eat blood of slaughtered animals. If God wanted humans to abstain from other uses of blood he had… Read more »
Marvin Shilmer,
You’re right God did not stipulate any other restriction on blood other than eating it. But neither did He tell Noah he could do whatever he wanted with the blood except eat it.
Wisdom would say, let it alone.
Joshua
My best guess is that what God wanted of Noah and his descendants He took time to inform them. When it comes to the substance of blood nothing God said to Noah required Noah to treat it as though a special substance. This is particularly the case with the blood of animals dead of natural cause. Unlike blood of slaughtered animals, there was no prohibition whatsoever placed on Noah that he should not eat blood of animals found dead of natural cause. Later on God provided this very sort of unbled meat to descendants of Noah specifically for them to… Read more »
Here is the daily text for Saturday, January 23. Right on time I will certainly set my face against the one who is eating the blood, and I will cut him off from among his people.—Lev. 17:10. Jehovah commanded the Israelites not to eat “any sort of blood.” Abstaining from blood—animal or human—is a Christian requirement as well. (Acts 15:28, 29) We shudder at the very thought of having God ‘set his face against us’ and cut us off from his congregation. We love him and want to obey him. Even when confronted with a life-threatening situation, we are determined not to… Read more »
You make a good point, Anonymous: “Do you grasp the reason why God considers blood to be sacred?” In his article, Apollos uses his very point in his excellent and comprehensive article to show why refusing a blood transfusion in a life-threatening situation as prescribed by the Organization is based on one-sided reasoning. Consider two things: First, am I showing respect for the sacredness of the life that Jehovah gave me by refusing a treatment that could save it? Is the symbol (blood) more important than the reality (the life it represents)? Second, if you really feel God will cut… Read more »
How timely this is indeed! Yes, Jehovah would set his face against the native or proselyte (foreigner residing in Israel) who was guilty of EATING the blood of an animal that had just been slain to be used in sacrifice. The specific blood mentioned in Lev 17:10 is “fresh” blood, from a recently slain animal. If not “fresh”, the blood would have congealed and could not have been “spattered” upon the alter. It was the life in the blood, not the blood itself, that made atonement for sin. The animal had to be brought to sacrifice while it was alive.… Read more »
Sorry, I think you misunderstood. I merely quoted the Daily Text for everyone’s interest, so my apologies if you thought that was my reasoning and not the Watchtowers. My comment was at the end, and it was merely that when an organisation professes to “know” God, they also expect you to “know” him in the same way they do. And if you cannot agree that a God of love would expect you to die a painful death when there are methods available for staying alive, they say that you don’t “know” God. Sometimes people honour God with their lips yet… Read more »
What an excellent point. Thank you and sorry for the confusion.
No problem at all Meleti
It is good to consider what God expresses, in this case of blood. The text cited of Leviticus is of a law given to one set of worshippers of the only true God, Israel. Yet Jews were not the only people with worshippers of God. Job comes to mind. Cornelius also comes to mind. Job lived prior to and possibly as a contemporary of the Mosaic Law. Yet Job was not under that Law. Cornelius lived contemporary to the Mosaic Law and after Jesus’ death abolished it. Though the worship of both these men was recognized and accepted by God… Read more »
However, 5 verses further, namely,Lev: 17: 15, God spells out what would happen if even an Israelite was to eat the meat of an unbled animal while in transit. The penalty was not death but simply that he or she would be unclean until the next day and that would most likely be due to having touched a dead body. In this case, the eater of the unbled meat, would not have KILLED the animal themselves. So, it becomes evident then that the issue of sacredness is that of a life taken and not that of blood. For further reading… Read more »
Yobec, I fully concur. From this we see that blood without its life (congealed in the flesh of a dead unbled carcass) was viewed very differently by Jehovah. In that the “life” in the blood had expired (oxygen carried by hemoglobin) and in that no human bore responsibility for the animal’s death, the meat became was unclean due to the animal having died. It required an acknowledgement by the Israelite who ate it. If he didn’t acknowledge his error he would answer to Jehovah. He would not be cut off from his people for eating “expired” blood unless he failed… Read more »
Thanks for the article, Sopater.
Blood transfusion is an extremely hurtful topic. So many have lost loved ones, including children.
Much has been written on the wrongfulness of the Watchtower’s blood policy but little by way of comfort to family who suffered terrible losses.
Words of comfort should be offered to devastated families awake to what has occurred.
I hope such an effort may occur in the near future.
Joshua
Joshua, Thank you brother for mentioning this. I do speak about this in Part 3. My own father-in-law died prematurely (before his natural time) due to the no blood doctrine. His surgeon sadly told my wife and her siblings his death was avoidable had he been able to accept blood. Words can not express the sadness and compassion I feel for those who’ve experienced such loss. My heart is heavy, I have shed many tears. Before embarking the mission of sharing my personal research with others here on BP (in these articles), I worried of the effect it could have… Read more »
Brother, my heartfelt condolences to you and your family and to all who have lost loved ones to the false blood doctrine. Yes, it most certainly is like honoring a soldier killed in battle. Christians have been battling Satan inspired evil among their ranks since the first century. The blood doctrine is an evil, a Satan inspired teaching against God himself. Satan has influenced Watchtower leaders who in turn have instructed parents to sacrifice their own children to Jehovah God. Something abhorrent to Jehovah. We should make no mistake about it, this is exactly what has happened. Satan’s tactics remain… Read more »
In 2208, I was diagnosed with stage 4 blood cancer (lymphoma). On my first visit with the Oncologist, I was told that chemo… was my only hope. However, since my blood counts (platelets and hemoglobin) were so low, I would need several transfusions prior. I then stated my objection to this treatment due to not wanting to violate God’s law. I had already started my awakening by then and although not having been at the meetings for 5 years or so, I still believed that blood transfusions were wrong. I was told that without it, I would soon die as… Read more »
A life saved! Thanks for sharing this experience!
What a marvelous experience, and what astute reasoning!
Yobec, what a moving story, You are undeniable proof that transfusion intervention saves lives.
I am overjoyed that you are there (and will be there) for your grandchildren. Please give them both a hug from all of us here at BP.
Jehovah is very good.
Warmest regards,
Sopater
What a testimony! Thank you for sharing. the HS is truly a comforter and no doubt recall that to your mind so that you could make a sound decision!
Enjoy your life , mate
Thanks for this Sopater. I am in the process of reading the Kerry Louderback-Wood article and it is indeed most interesting.
Just one query – when I wrote my original article about blood on this site a few year back, I was unable to establish whether accepting organ transplants was ever a disfellowshipping offence or not. Did you find any specific information on that?
Thank you. Very good query, and no, I haven’t found specific information in print that it was a disfellowshipping offense. Given the 1967 quote in the article, the distinct connection is made between not eating blood and not eating human flesh. It would seem that the penalty would have been the same for both. In 1980, it was stated (3/15 Questions From Readers) that accepting an organ transplant was a conscience matter. From this I deduced that prior to this date, it was not a considered a conscience matter. My simple reasoning is this: Had it been a conscience matter… Read more »
In 1966 the Watchtower made it pretty plain. It stated that accepting transfusion of blood is ‘just as despicable as cannibalism’. (Watchtower, July 1, 1966 p. 401) In 1968 Watchtower stated categorically that all transplants between humans are cannibalism. (Awake, June 8, 1968 p. 21) Of course, later on Watchtower changed its doctrine so that transplantation of human flesh was not to be necessarily held as cannibalistic. But until that doctrinal shift… Under Watchtower doctrine cannibalism is an abhorrent sin lumped with other sins such as theft and murder (and blood transfusion). Though I know of no instances in Watchtower… Read more »
Sadly, based on current Watchtower reasoning if Denys had been correct in his assessment of the cardiovascular system then Jehovah’s Witnesses would have reason to accept transfusion of blood as a God-ordained use of blood. Why? In his presentation Denys reasoned that transfusion of blood is taught by nature itself because, according to Denys, a fetus 1) cannot be fed by the mouth and 2) its stomach is not yet fit for digestion so 3) the fetus is instead continuously transfused with maternal blood through the umbilical cord. Denys idea was that the umbilical cord served to transfuse blood from… Read more »
Marvin,
Excellent my brother, as always your expressions are respectful and you bring enlightening facts that we all need to know so that we can be diligent in making our own conscientious decision on this matter.
Thank you,
Sopater
Irene, Thank you for your comment and welcome. You have the honor of being first poster. First let me reply to your statement “even if all the above is true”………. I invite you to research all references I’ve provided, and if you feel I’ve unfairly represented any of the authors in their view, please advise and I will be happy to make any necessary corrections. I completely agree with your position that all life belongs to Jehovah, and that the life of a person (or any living creature) is in the blood. To be specific, given that oxygen is the… Read more »
Thank you for such a great article. It has indeed helped to clarify the matter of whether to accept blood transfusions or not. You said in your first article that if your article can help one person then you will be happy of your time spent compiling these 4 series of articles. Well it surely has helped me. I also know for a fact that Jehovah has guided me to this as I have been praying for his guidance in this matter of the blood issue. Thank you once again. May Jehovah help as many see the logic and the… Read more »
Thank you Rose for sharing how it has benefited you.
It touches my heart.
Your brother in Christ,
Sopater
even if all the above is true, God makes it plain that all life belongs to him, and that the life of a person is in the blood, by taking into your system in whatever way you are taking the life of another person , you are stealing from the giver and owner of life Jehovah God
Hello MO Patterson i always suspected it was you hiding under the name of MO Paterson on Facebook. It’s not nice to block people just because they don’t agree with you on the blood issue. Anyway it’s very nice to see you around. God bless.
Hi Rose,
Your comment gives me just enough info to make me really curious. Mind letting us know who/what you’re referring to?
That is one way of looking at it Irene. However, if you consider all the Scriptural evidence laid out in this article, Jehovah’s Witnesses and the “No Blood” Doctrine, you will see that by refusing a life-saving procedure, you may actually be disrespecting God’s view on life. If he gave you life, should you not respect the gift and care for it to the best of your ability? Yes, you should not eat blood. Just as you should not eat human flesh which would be cannibalism. We should all recognize that Jehovah wants us to abstain from cannibalism. But an… Read more »
Well put, Meleti!, And when the Organization encouraged all JWs to carefully examine how Scriptural principles applied to accepting “minor” blood fractions, many reasoning Christians began to see the flaws in the Organization’s prohibition of life-saving blood transfusions. Many long time elders faded into inactivity as JWs or have disassociated as a result of their examinations which the Organization had encouraged. It was the only time that JWs were encouraged to investigate matters for themselves and it backfired in a big way!
Hi Irene, in the end, everything one does is a personal choice. If you are convinced about your views (even if these views are shared by others) on the use of blood and want to act accordingly, that is a personal choice and that is all fine. Everyone is entitled to their own views. The point here is that the WT has imposed their views as a correct scriptural doctrine on all its members, with a punishment policy in place if a member did not support that view in their personal lives. The articles (the previous one, this one and… Read more »
Hello Irene, God does make it plain that all life belongs to him. Yet God has also given human express permission to use the life we have individually in certain ways. For instance, we are taught by the Master Jesus that it is a fine thing to donate our life by sacrificing it in order to prevent premature death of a fellow human being. (John 15:13) If we have permission to donate our life to save the life of another, and if the blood flowing in our veins should be held equivalent with our life, then we have God’s permission… Read more »
Marvin Shilmer, I always enjoy your reasonable comments. Thank you.
I have to definitely second this comment . Your comments brother are always balanced in my view.
Hi Irene
I tried to examine the implications of what you’re saying in a follow up article to my original one on blood. The follow up is here: http://meletivivlon.com/2013/10/22/blood-sanctity-of-life-or-ownership-of-life/
Other good points have been made here as well, but that was my take on it.
Apollos
Irene, I sincerely commend your effort to carefully follow the scriptures. You are right, the life is in the blood this is why Jesus’ blood is so precious. His blood cleanses us from sin. (Matthew 26:27, 28) “Drink out of it, all of you, for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins.” (Acts 20:28) “Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his… Read more »
The stealing of a life would only apply if you killed them so as to take their blood
Respectfully … You would do well to just give this matter much deeper thought and couple that with a lot of research. Also your remark ..”even if all the above is true” …..ie “all of the above is lies” – is a little bit rough to say the least – I along with probably all the other folk commenting here are very sincere in our spiritual pursuits. We want to please Jehovah and follow His Christ according the to dictates of the Bible and not exclusively according to the traditions of men. You are not taking the life of ANOTHER… Read more »