We have thus considered the historical, secular and scientific aspects of the No Blood doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses. We continue with the final segments which address the biblical perspective. In this article we carefully examine the first of the three pivotal verses used to support the No Blood doctrine. Genesis 9:4 says:
“But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.” (NIV)
It is acknowledged that examining the biblical perspective necessarily involves entering the realm of lexicons, dictionaries, theologians and their commentaries, as well as using rationale to connect the dots. At times, we find common ground; at times, views are incompatible. In this article, I share a perspective that has theological support. However, I acknowledge one cannot be dogmatic on any point in which scripture itself is not clear and emphatic. What I share is a strong inclination, the most logical path I have discovered among available paths.
In preparing this article, I found it helpful to consider history from the third to sixth creative day, and then history from Adam’s creation to the flood. Very little was recorded by Moses in the first 9 chapters of Genesis dealing specifically with animals, sacrifices and animal meat (though the period from man’s creation spans more than 1600 years). We must connect the few dots available with solid lines of logic and rationale, looking to the ecosystem that surrounds us today as supporting the inspired record.
The World Before Adam
When I began compiling information for this article, I tried to imagine the earth at the time when Adam was created. Grass, plants, fruit trees and other trees were created on the third day, so they were fully established much as we see them today. The sea creatures and flying creatures were created on the fifth creative day, so their numbers and all their variety were teeming in the oceans and flocking in the trees. The animals moving upon the earth were created early in the sixth creative day according to their kinds (in varied climatic locations), so by the time that Adam came along, these had multiplied and were flourishing in variety all over the planet. Basically, the world when man was created was very similar to what we see when visiting a natural wildlife preservation somewhere on the planet today.
All living creation on land and sea (except humankind) were designed with a limited life span. The life cycle of being born or hatched, mating and giving birth or laying eggs, multiplying, then aging and dying, was all part of the cycle of the designed ecosystem. The community of living organisms all interacted with the nonliving environment (e.g. air, water, mineral soil, sun, atmosphere). It was truly a perfect world. Man marveled as he discovered the ecosystem we witness today:
“A blade of grass ‘eats’ sunlight through photosynthesis; an ant will then carry away and eat a kernel of grain from the grass; a spider will catch the ant and eat it; a praying mantis will eat the spider; a rat will eat the praying mantis; a snake will eat the rat;, a mongoose will eat the snake; and a hawk will then swoop down and eat the mongoose.” (The Scavengers’ Manifesto 2009 pp. 37-38)
Jehovah described his work as very good after each creative day. We can be certain that the ecosystem was part of his intelligent design. It was not a result of random chance, nor survival of the fittest. The planet was thus prepared to welcome its most important tenant, humankind. God gave man dominion over all the living creation. (Gen 1:26-28) When Adam came alive, he awoke to the most amazing wildlife retreat one could imagine. The global ecosystem was established and thriving.
Does not the above contradict Gen 1:30, where it states that living creatures ate vegetation for food? The record does state that God gave living creatures vegetation for food, not that all living creatures actually ate vegetation. Certainly, many do eat grass and vegetation. But as the above example so vividly illustrates. many do not directly eat vegetation. Yet, can we not say that vegetation is the origin of the food source for the whole of the animal kingdom, and humankind in general? When we eat steak or venison, are we eating vegetation? Not directly. But is not grass and vegetation the source of the meat?
Some choose to view Gen 1:30 as literal, and they suggest that things were different back in the Garden. To these I ask: When did things change? What secular evidence supports a change in the planet’s ecosystem at anytime during the last 6000 years—or ever? To harmonize this verse with the ecosystem God created requires us to view the verse in a general sense. Animals eating grass and vegetation become food for those that were created to prey upon them for food, and so forth. In this sense, it can be said that the whole animal kingdom is supported by vegetation. Regarding animals being carnivores and at the same vegetation being viewed as their food, note the following:
“The geological evidence of the existence of death in prehistoric times is, however, too powerful to be resisted; and the Biblical record itself enumerates among the pre-adamic animals the chayyah of the field, which clearly belonged to the carnivora. Perhaps the most that can be safely concluded from the language is ‘that it indicates merely the general fact that the support of the whole animal kingdom is based on vegetation’. (Dawson).” (Pulpit Commentary)
Imagine an animal dying of old age in the Garden. Imagine tens of thousands dying outside the Garden every day. What happened to their dead carcasses? Without scavengers to eat and decompose all the dead matter, the planet would soon become a cemetery of inedible dead animals and dead plants, the nutrients of which would be bound up and lost forever. There would be no cycle. Can we imagine any other arrangement than what we observe today in the wild?
So we proceed with the first dot connected: The ecosystem we witness today existed before and during the time of Adam.
When Did Man Begin Eating Meat?
The Genesis account says that in the Garden, man was given “every seed-bearing plant” and “every seed-bearing fruit” for food. (Gen 1:29) It is a proven fact that man can exist (very well I might add) on nuts, fruits and vegetation. In that man did not need meat to survive, I lean toward accepting the premise that man did not eat meat before the fall. In that he had been given dominion over the animals (naming those indigenous to the Garden), I envision a more pet-like relationship. I doubt Adam would have viewed such friendly critters as his evening meal. I imagine he became somewhat attached to some of these. Too, we remember his richly abundant vegetarian menu provided from the Garden.
But when man fell and was put out of the Garden, Adam’s food menu changed dramatically. He no longer had access to the lush fruit which was like “meat” to him. (compare Gen 1:29 KJV) Nor did he have the variety of garden vegetation. He would now have to toil to produce “field” vegetation. (Gen 3:17-19) Immediately after the fall, Jehovah slayed an animal (presumably in the presence of Adam) for a useful purpose, namely; skins to be used as their garments. (Gen 3:21) In so doing, God demonstrated that animals could be slayed and used for utilitarian purposes (garments, tent coverings, etc). Does it seem logical that Adam would slay an animal, peel the skin off, then leave its dead carcass for scavengers to consume?
Imagine yourself as Adam. You just forfeited the most wonderful and tasty vegetarian menu ever imagined. All you now have for food is what you can eke out of the ground; ground which likes to grow thistles by the way. If you came upon an animal that had died, would you skin it and leave the carcass? When you hunted and killed an animal, would you use only its skin, leaving the dead carcass for scavengers to feed on? Or would you address that gnawing hunger pain in your stomach, perhaps-cooking the meat over fire or cutting the meat in thin slices and drying it out like jerky?
Man would have killed animals for another reason, namely, to maintain dominion over them. In and around villages where humans resided, the animal population had to be controlled. Imagine if man did not control the animal population during the 1,600 years leading to the flood? Imagine packs of wild preditorial beasts ravaging domesticated flocks and herds, even man? (compare Ex 23:29) Regarding domesticated animals, what would man do with those he used for work and for their milk when they were no longer useful for this purpose? Wait for them to die of old age?
We proceed with the second dot connected: After the fall, man ate animal meat.
When Did Man First Offer Meat In Sacrifice?
We know not if Adam raised herds and flocks and offered animals in sacrifice immediately after the fall. We do know that about 130 years after Adam was created, Abel slaughtered an animal and offered part of it in sacrifice (Gen 4:4) The account tells us he slaughtered his firstlings, the fattest of his flock. He butchered off the “fatty pieces” which were the choicest cuts. These choice cuts were offered to Jehovah. To help us connect the dots, three questions must be resolved:
- Why did Abel raise sheep? Why not be a farmer like his brother?
- Why did he choose the fattest from his flock to slaughter in sacrifice?
- How did he know to butcher away the “fatty parts?”
There is only one logical answer to the above. Abel was in the habit of eating animal meat. He raised flocks for their wool and since they were clean, they could be used as food and in sacrifice. We know not if this was the first sacrifice offered. No matter, Abel chose the fattest, most plump from his flocks, because they were the ones with “fatty parts.” He butchered away the “fatty parts” because he knew these were the choicest, the best tasting. How did Abel know these were the choicest? Only one familiar with eating meat would know. Otherwise, why not offer a younger lean lamb to Jehovah?
Jehovah found favor with the “fatty parts.” He saw that Abel was giving up something special—the choicest—to give to his God. Now that is what sacrifice is all about. Did Abel consume the rest of the meat of the lamb offered in sacrifice? In that he offered only the fatty parts (not the entire animal) logic suggests he ate the rest of the meat, instead of leaving it on the ground for scavengers.
We proceed with the third dot connected: Abel set a pattern that animals were to be slaughtered and used in sacrifice to Jehovah.
The Noachian Law — Something New?
Hunting and raising animals for food, their skins, and for use in sacrifice was part of everyday life during the centuries that passed from Abel to the flood. This was the world that Noah and his three sons were born into. We can logically deduce that during these centuries of time, man had learned to co-exist with animal life (both domesticated and wild) in relative harmony within the ecosystem. Then came the days just preceding the flood, with the influence of the demonic angels that materialized on earth, which upset the balance of things. Men became fierce, violent, even barbaric, capable of eating animal flesh (even human flesh) while the animal was still breathing. Animals may also have become more fierce in this environment. To get the sense of how Noah would have understood the command, we must visualize this scene in our minds.
Let’s now examine Genesis 9:2-4:
“The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But [only] you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.” (NIV)
In verse 2, Jehovah said that fear and dread will fall upon all the animals, and that all living creatures will be given into the hand of man. Wait, were not animals given into the hand of man since the fall? Yes. However, if our presumption that Adam was a vegetarian before the fall is accurate, the dominion that God gave man over living creatures did not include hunting and killing them for food. When we connect dots, after the fall man did hunt and kill animals for food. But hunting and killing was not officially sanctioned until this day. However, with the official permission came a proviso (as we shall see). As for the animals, especially those wild game animals typically hunted for food, they would perceive man’s agenda to hunt them, which would increase their fear and dread of him.
In verse 3, Jehovah says that everything that lives and moves about will be food (this is nothing new to Noah and his sons) BUT….ONLY….
In verse 4, man receives a proviso which is new. For over 1,600 years men have hunted, killed, sacrificed, and eaten animal meat. But nothing was ever stipulated regarding the manner in which the animal should be killed. Adam, Abel, Seth, and all that followed them had no directive to drain the blood of the animal before using it in sacrifice and/or eating it. While they may have chosen to do so, they might also have strangled the animal, given it a blow to the head, drowned it, or left it in trap to die on its own. All of which would cause the animal more suffering and leave blood in its flesh. So the new command prescribed the only method acceptable for man when taking an animal’s life. It was humane, as the animal was put out of its misery in the most expedient means possible. Typically when bled, an animal loses consciousness within one to two minutes.
Recall that immediately before Jehovah spoke these words, Noah had just led the animals off the ark and built an alter. He then offered some of the clean animals as a burnt sacrifice. (Gen 8:20) It is important to note that nothing is mentioned regarding Noah slaughtering them, bleeding them, or even removing their skins (as was later prescribed in the law). They may have been offered whole while still alive. If this is so, imagine the agony and suffering the animals experienced while being burned alive. If so, Jehovah’s command addressed this as well.
The account at Genesis 8:20 confirms that Noah (and his ancestors) did not view blood as anything sacred. Noah now understood that when man takes the life of an animal, draining its blood to hasten death was the exclusive method approved by Jehovah. This applied to domesticated animals and hunted wild animals. This applied if the animal would be used in sacrifice or for food, or both. This would also include burnt sacrifices (such as Noah had just offered) so that they would not be in agony in the fire.
This of course paved the way for the blood of an animal (whose life was taken by man) to become a sacred substance used in conjunction with sacrifices. The blood would represent the life inside the flesh, so when drained out it confirmed the animal was dead (could feel no pain). But it wasn’t until the passover, centuries later, that blood came to be viewed as a sacred substance. That being said, there would have been no issue with Noah and his sons eating the blood in the flesh of animals that had died on their own, or were killed by another animal. As man would not be responsible for their death, and their flesh did not have life, the command did not apply (compare Deut 14:21). Furthermore, some theologians suggest that Noah and his sons could have used the blood (drained out of the slaughtered animal) as food, such as for blood sausage, blood pudding, et cetera. When we consider the purpose of the command (to hasten the death of the animal in a humane manner), once the blood is drained from its living flesh and the animal is deceased, has not the command then been fully complied with? To use the blood for any purpose (be it utilitarian or for food) after complying with the command would seem to be permissible, since it falls outside the scope of the command.
A Prohibition, or a Conditional Proviso?
In summary, Genesis 9:4 is one of the three textual legs of support for the No Blood doctrine. After close examination, we see that the command is not a general prohibition against eating blood, as the JW doctrine purports, for under Noachian law, man could eat the blood of an animal he was not responsible for killing. So, the command is a regulation or proviso imposed upon man only when he caused the death of a living creature. It mattered not if the animal was to be used in sacrifice, for food, or for both. The proviso applied only when man was responsible for taking its life, that is to say, when the living creature died.
Let’s now attempt to apply the Noachian law to receiving a blood transfusion. There is no animal involved. Nothing is hunted down, nothing is slayed. The donor is a human being not an animal, who is not harmed in any way. The recipient is not eating the blood, and the blood may well preserve the recipient’s life. So we ask: How is this remotely connected to Genesis 9:4?
Moreover, recall Jesus said that to lay down one’s life to save the life of his friend is the greatest act of love. (John 15:13) In the case of a donor, he is not required to lay down his life. The donor is not harmed in any way. Do we not honor Jehovah, the lover of life, by making such a sacrifice for the life of another? To repeat something shared in Part 3: With those who are Jewish (who are ultra-sensitive regarding the use of blood), should a transfusion be deemed medically necessary, it is not only viewed is as permissible, it is obligatory.
In the final segment we will examine the two remaining textual legs of support for the No Blood Doctrine, namely, Leviticus 17:14 and Acts 15:29.
[…] into scripture. We will consider Noachian law, the Mosaic law, and finally the Apostolic Decree. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Blood – Part 4I examine only a few key texts with references to avoid redundancy with the excellent and […]
Leviticus 3:17 17 “‘It is a “lasting statute” for your generations, in all your dwelling places: You must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’” Leviticus 17:13 13 “‘If one of the Israelites or some foreigner who is residing in your midst is hunting and catches a wild animal or a bird that may be eaten, he must pour its blood out and cover it with dust. Deuteronomy 12:23 23 Just be firmly resolved not to eat the blood, because the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the flesh. Acts 15:20 20… Read more »
Sopater.Hi.You quoted the “The Scavengers , Manifesto”. to give us an idea of the “Ecosystem” before the fall and said ” When Adam came alive, he awoke to the most amazing wildlife retreat one could imagine. The global ecosystem was established and thriving. If I came to life and saw for the first time, say a “pride of Lions ripping apart a live wildebeest and then having to listen to its agonising cries of pain whilst being eaten alive and fully conscious. My first thought would not be “this is good”.More like “Get me out of here!” For me, a… Read more »
Mark, As mentioned in the article, I lean toward belief in the premise that Adam was initially a vegetarian (before the fall). Not being aggressive to animals within the Garden, I visualize something much different than would be the case with the wild preditorial beasts of the field (outside the Garden). In my mind, Adam wouldn’t have witnessed the visual you describe? At least not until he trekked outside the Garden. Correct me if I’m mistaken, but I haven’t visualized Adam with dinosaurs in the Garden, or that they were even around at the time man came along. I don’t… Read more »
Hi Mark,
The consumption of animal flesh was not the original plan for man, this is true.
Your brother,
Joshua
As humans we tend to look at the world around us and draw conclusions based on what we see with the naked eye. In the case of what-eats-what we tend to think of, in this case, creatures like humans, lions, tigers, apples, oranges, and the list goes on. But this is not nearly the universe of what-eats-what under God’s eye. When we consider the size of the known universe, humans and bacteria are near equals in size. Take a look at the scale available at the web link following this sentence and use the slide bar to see the relationship… Read more »
I imagine eve might have felt the same way as you do but nonetheless we should not listen or adhere to Satan like persuasion because it seems to make sense, you must remember what Satan said to eve when he deceived her ” So it said to the woman: “Did God really say that you must not eat from every tree of the garden?” At this the woman said to the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden.But God has said about the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the… Read more »
May I ask where Noah was instructed that the literal substance of blood should not be used for anything by humans as though using it were stealing from God? To the best of my knowledge Noah was to abstain from eating blood of animals slaughtered to eat. Other than abstaining from eating this blood, what was said to Noah suggesting he could not use this blood for something that is NOT eating? When I read the biblical account of Eden I don’t see anything remotely suggesting Adam or Eve would have sinned had they eaten goat milk. Do you see… Read more »
Long before the Law of Moses God explained to Noah that all life belonged to him and his ownership of all living things particularly involves blood; obviously since blood is life. Basically, God has stated that our blood belongs to him. So, it was not merely that the Israelites couldn’t eat or drink blood, they could not do anything with it other than what was prescribed in the Law for official sacrifice. The blood of all animals slaughtered had to be poured on the ground, symbolizing their giving it back to God. Particularly is God’s ownership of our blood demonstrated… Read more »
Only Jews were ever accountable to God to provisions unique the Mosaic Law, and Jesus death abolished that law. Noah predated Mosaic Law. When was Noah required to waste blood onto the ground by pouring it out? Where is this in the biblical text? Would you suggest Noah was required to abstain from using blood in ways God never required of Noah? If so, why? In terms of ownership, it seems to me God expressed his wishes to Noah about what he didn’t want Noah to do with blood. He didn’t want Noah to eat blood of animals he slaughtered… Read more »
Sam, Can you provide the reference in Genesis where “God explained to Noah that all life belonged to him and his ownership of all living things particularly involves blood’? Where in the inspired record did God tell Noah that he “owns our blood?” You can’t quote from the Mosaic law and the Israelites, you are moving eight centuries ahead after Noah. The article I’ve presented deals specifically with the period from Adam to Noah, not the Mosaic law, because it didn’t exist at the time. Furthermore, it is reasonable to conclude that Moses completed Genesis BEFORE beginning Exodus, so when… Read more »
Sam, one thing further, Let me share some statistics you may be unaware of. Do you know that hemoglobin/water percentage in whole blood is about 95%? Do you know that white cells and platelets are only about .03% (3/10ths of 1 percent) of whole blood? Yet these can be fractionated and 100% of the content is acceptable? Did you know that JW’s accept 100% of plasma (92% of which is water) when fractionated? (the remaining 8% of solids) What are JW’s abstaining from? Since fractions have been allowed, 100% of the constituents in a liter of whole blood are acceptable… Read more »
I will answer your question concerning the bible reference you inquired about if you answer my question and provide me with a bible reference.
” We’re in the bible does it say we can eat blood fraction?”
Sam, Forgive me, but I don’t understand your question. The means for receiving blood fractions is the same as receiving FFP (fresh frozen plasma) with RBC’s, namely, an intravenous injection. Remember Sam, the doctrine is founded on the following: “Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with its being forbidden.” (Watchtower 1958 p. 575) As we see, it is as food and as a nutrient that leadership is concerned. If the food/nutrient connection is not there,… Read more »
With all due respect honestly gentlemen my conscience would not allow me to drink or eat blood as well as receive a blood transfusion out of respect for Jehovah’s command to “abstain” from blood and that includes blood fractions because they are from blood. For me it would be a direct violation of not only my own conscience but also others who might become stumbled due to my decision. If I should ever need a blood transfusion in order to survive then I’m afraid I must die in “obedience” to Jehovah’s command, you see gentlemen weather I’m’ right or wrong… Read more »
Sam, I respect that you hold your view with conviction. But to respect a view as sound I have to see evidence that it’s sound. Where is the evidence that God requires Christians to abstain from blood other than eating it? To Noah God arguably issued a requirement that prohibited eating blood (particularly of animals killed for food). Do you suggest the Apostolic Decree to “abstain from blood” requires more of Christians than God required of righteous Noah? If so, what is the evidence of this? Saying “abstain from blood” does not tell anyone WHAT blood we should abstain from… Read more »
Genesis 6:21 is a biblical record of God giving Noah express permission to eat “every sort of food eaten”. Whole blood (and constituents of whole blood) is a sort of food eaten since creation. We know this because animals have always suffered death and carcasses of deceased animals have always been decomposed by scavengers eating and metabolizing the matter. In the post-flood world Noah was given more instruction about life around him. But Noah was told nothing whatsoever that would cause him to wonder if he could continue using carrion flesh of animals dead of natural cause as food. This… Read more »
One more thing, Sam, You wrote: — “Interestingly, although medical transfusions obviously did not exist in the 1st century, the injunction against blood seems to have anticipated the practice. That is because the apostles did not merely say ‘do not eat blood.’ They said “abstain” from it. That would seem to encompass more than just not eating or drinking it.” What you write is false. Watchtower leadership has suggested something similar by asserting that contemporary transfusion medicine was not practiced by the ancients. But the underlying premise that ancient text was presented to account for future developments of humane and… Read more »
Much ado is being made about the issue of ownership, namely, that God owns the blood and we should not steal from God. I think this is a silly argumentation. First, nowhere does the Bible say that blood (the liquid) is the ownership of God. If it did, then our discussion would be over. It would be very clear that to use blood even in a medical context would be wrong. The Bible shows that something can belong to God either in a general sense or in an explicit, specific sense. Let me illustrate. The Bible says that “To Jehovah… Read more »
Vassy, You’ve written an excellent post. I agree with everything you’ve said, though I may not fully agree on one fine point: You said: “And a careful analysis of this command reveals that it is not the OWNERSHIP of BLOOD (the liquid) but the SANCTITY of LIFE which mankind has to take into account and RESPECT when taking an animal life.” I agree the command says nothing about the ownership of blood. I agree that the command was to show respect when taking the life of an animal. This respect is shown by the manner (bleeding) of hastening the animals… Read more »
This is a point on which Apollos and I disagree. You can see his article on the matter here. I believe blood represents God’s ownership of life. Therefore, we only take the life of an animal because Jehovah has permitted us to do so. Not eating the blood is an acknowledgement which we make to God that we do not possess the power of life and death, he does. That being said, we should not confuse the symbol with the reality. The symbol isn’t the blood but the eating of the blood. By eating it willfully (not in ignorance) we… Read more »
Hello Meleti, Your view reminds me of the biblical presentation in Eden of what God required in respect to the tree of knowledge. A presented in the Genesis account God instructed Adam not to eat from it. When Eve is propositioned she expresses God has having said not to eat from or even touch the tree. The divine order of things has the woman subject to the man (as in husband and wife), and in this case Eve was subject to Adam as her husband. So their is a question of whether God issued 1) a prohibition on eating of… Read more »
Sopater, I said “And a careful analysis of this command reveals….”. Well, I was a little bit wrong here. What I had in mind was the entire context of Genesis 9 that reveals the sanctity of life. I think God instilled into Noah’s mind the fact that life is sacred and should not be treated as a trivial thing when telling him that the life (blood) of the animal should not be eaten and the life of man should not be taken without punishment. To me, this indicates that in God’s eyes life is sacred and must be treated as… Read more »
Of course, it follows that God’s ownership imparts sanctity on anything owned by him. It’s a fine distinction in the issue of blood as a symbol of that life. In fact, IMHO, whichever position one holds to does not change the outcome. Both lead to the same conclusion, which is that there is no way we can respect God’s ownership of life nor the sanctity of the life itself by withholding a potentially life saving treatment based solely on our interpretation of what it means to eat blood beyond the very obvious meaning of consuming it as we would the… Read more »
Vassy, I agree that life is represented in the life-blood of an animal or human, and that under Noachian law, specific attention is given to the circumstance involving man taking the life, be it animal or human. Even animals were held accountable for taking the life of a human and were to be slain. For a human to take the life of another human was murder, with the penalty of death. (Gen 9:5-6) These are very powerful precepts in the Noachian Law. As for verse 4, I continue to hold it specifically deals with the “alive” blood, the blood of… Read more »
Vassy, I wanted to add….. something that is crucial to understanding is to consider the situation which prompted the need for Genesis 9:2-7. “The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil, all the time.” (Gen 6:5) This violence of man against man and against animal was fresh in Noah’s mind (and Jehovah for that matter). In that this moment represented a new start for man, and, in that the original start anticipated man would be perfect, what is… Read more »
Sopater, To what you wrote I’d add that beyond the violence Noah observed among humankind prior to the flood Noah and his family also were firsthand witnesses to arguably the most massive taking of human and animal life ever experienced in biblical history. That’s a lot of life-taking, and God did the taking. Justifiable, but nevertheless a lot of life-taking. Humans being what they are, such an exposure could easily have led later humans (including Noah) to trivialize killing. With the Noachian Decree we find a mitigation (of sorts) of this kind of thinking because with animal and human killing… Read more »
Hi Vassy, Just to further the thought a bit, it should not go unnoticed that a provision within Mosaic Law made unbled animal carcasses found dead of natural cause available specifically as food to non-Jewish descendants of Noah either for purchase or as a gift. (Deut. 14:21) Among these non-Jewish descendants of Noah were worshippers of God. Think of men like Job, Elihu and Cornelius. Ancients like these worshipped the true God. The Mosaic Law provision outlined at Deut. 14:21 provided for worshippers like Job and Cornelius to purchase unbled flesh of animal carcasses found dead of natural cause specifically… Read more »
Once past the untold mortality and morbidity caused by Watchtower’s blood doctrine, one of the saddest part of this entire discussion on Watchtower’s blood doctrine is that so many genuine brothers and sisters known to me have went literally begging the organization’s leadership for answers to important details of this doctrinal position, and they’ve been turned away with something akin to ‘The Governing Body has looked at this and has decided as it has and that’s that.’ So many genuine thinking persons who want no more than to obey God have had their scriptural questions left unanswered. It has caused… Read more »
Yes, I did veer off point. This point: “When we connect dots, after the fall man did hunt and kill animals for food. But hunting and killing was not officially sanctioned until this day.” There’s no “dots” evidence that proves this is true. The Bible states Adams descendants were herbivores, then later (with Noah) they became carnivores/herbivores. Gen 9: 2 … all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 “Everything that lives and moves about will be food for… Read more »
QC, You must have missed when I said: “The Genesis account says that in the Garden, man was given “every seed-bearing plant” and “every seed-bearing fruit” for food. (Gen 1:29) It is a proven fact that man can exist (very well I might add) on nuts, fruits and vegetation. In that man did not need meat to survive, I lean toward accepting the premise that man did not eat meat before the fall.” I personally believe man was intended to be a vegetarian. but I hold it would be incredibly naïve to believe he continued as such for 1600+ years… Read more »
Sopater,
I believe Noah’s definitive account over your speculation. He was there. This 1600 + years period had highly intelligent humans that understood God, the Messianic Genesis 3:15 and the dilemma Adam brought upon them.
Their herbivore status was real. And, their carnivore status became real. It shows God anticipates sources for food would be needed due to man’s mismanagement of earth.
QC
QC, Interesting, I was hoping you would attempt to reply to the questions I posed. Do you not feel the answers are relevant to connecting the dots? You say that during the 1600+ years period there were highly intelligent humans that understood God. I agree with you. Please elaborate on what you believe these highly intelligent persons understood from God. For example, what do you think Adam understood when Jehovah slaughtered animals for man to use for clothing? That killing an animal was only permitted if for using its skins? What do you think Abel understood when he raised sheep… Read more »
QV, I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. It’s as speculative to assert that early worshippers of God did not eat meat. It’s just as speculative to think there were no carnivores among God’s created animals. 1. The written record presents a single prohibition issued to Adam, and it happens to be of a dietary nature. Adam was not to eat of the tree of knowledge. Unless we hold the tree of knowledge was meat then the sole prohibition presented to God’s earliest worshipper was not against eating meat. So, if we accept the record for what I says, at the… Read more »
Sopater said: [Let’s now examine Genesis 9:2-4: “Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.” Then you said, “When we connect dots, after the fall man did hunt and kill animals for food. But hunting and killing was not officially sanctioned until this day.”] This is an unbelievable leap into speculation. I’m sorry, Genesis 9:2-4 is clearly a food paradigm shift for Noah and by extension the human race. “Just as I gave you the green plants” for food, I now give you “Everything… Read more »
Let us not get into debates about health and nutrition.
Jehovah would not tell his faithful servants that they could eat food that was bad for them.
Meleti,
It’s well stated that God would not tell his worshippers to use something as food that was bad for them. Like any sort of food, how much, how often and how prepared is more crucial to healthy diet than whether a particular meal includes or does not include meat.
When it comes to meat, many of our ancient brethren would have died from starvation had it not been for eating it as food.
The act of connecting the dots is inherently speculative, but in this case the leap doesn’t seem unbelievable to me. That Abel tended sheep, sacrificed them and used their hides for clothing but never ate their flesh is possible, but not all that easy to believe either. That Adam didn’t starve to death upon being ousted from the garden without resorting to eating animal flesh is also possible, but does raise questions. On the other hand, as you observed, God’s instructions to Noah certainly do look like a “food paradigm shift”. But why would God instruct Noah to eat something… Read more »
Andere, You make a very good point when you said: “It is good to bear in mind that his issue has come up because someone’s speculative reasoning became a doctrine with life and death implications – a doctrine that was not left up to the individual conscience to evaluate and which was enforced under pain of excommunication.” The only reason we are discussing this at BP is that someone chose to endorse a centuries old premise (while rejecting modern science) and build a doctrine with life and death implications, with coerced compliance under threat of sanction. Do Jews mention Gen… Read more »
What a great article Sopater! Very cerebral, I would say. You painted a picture that I never really thought about. We get so trapped in seeing things one way, that it almost impossible to see things any other way. What I appreciated the most, is that the law directed to Noah, really had to do with God’s concern for animals. That is very touching. In addition, you brought out why the fear and dread would fall over the animal kingdom. That is a scripture that I have always found intriguing, but never found a satisfying answer in the Watchtower. This… Read more »
Vincent, Thank you brother. What you say is very true, we do get locked into looking at things one way. My “aha” moment was when I tried to visualize the planet when Adam took his first breath. I had never gone there before. The ecosystem had been functioning perfectly (as designed) for thousands of years. Like a wildlife retreat, it was just waiting for man to arrive. I’m an animal lover like you. It is touching to know how our Father feels about animals. Just a few verses that come to mind: “Do not cook a young goat in its… Read more »
“Not one sparrow forgotten by God” Luke 12:6
Thank you brother Sopater for the wonderful article above. A few neurons added today 🙂
Willy
Thank you Willy.
Hi Sopater, As you know, I do not agree with the Society’s blood transfusion ban. It lacks solid scriptural support. I believe: That the Bible should be allowed to say what it says. That we should not add nor subtract from text. That we must not place our well meaning suppositions on the same level as scripture. That what Jehovah allows us today to glean from scripture is only the surface reflection of what can be found there and therefore must be allowed to exist and understood as written. Otherwise, for every man there would be another string to pull,… Read more »
Joshua, Thank you. I appreciate that you feel we must allow what is written to exist and be understood in the “as is” condition. The problem is, in its “as is” condition, if we consult only the inspired record, it is not understandable. As I see it, there is no understanding it as written. There is so little found in those 1600 years from Adam to the flood. Moses wasn’t at all detailed, he just hit the high spots. So, do we settle with “I guess Jehovah didn’t want us to understand this?” For certain, Jehovah has given man the… Read more »
I strictly adhere to abstaining from blood altogether as well as its blood fractions, I don’t believe there is any gray area, the bible clearly says to abstain from blood it doesn’t say we could have bits and pieces of it!.
However what people decide to do is between them and Jehovah.
But People should be made aware of their options concerning this issue and the alternatives
Luke, We certainly have the option to interpret the decree at Acts 15:29 any way we choose. But is it sound? May I ask you, how do you harmonize your current understanding of Acts 15:29 with Paul, when he told Christians in Corinth they should not be concerned if meat they bought in a market (or were served in an unbeliever’s home) had been sacrificed to an idol, some of which may have been strangled? (1 Cor 10:25, 27) Think about this. Some animals that were sacrificed were strangled, which left 100% of the blood congealed in their flesh. Paul… Read more »
You could twist the scriptures around all you want but the bottom line is the bible clearly says to abstain from blood.
P.S. Don’t even bother replying back with a retort: be cause you will only be wasting your time.
Luke, The fact that you are unable to harmonize your view with Paul’s position should cause you concern. For our position to have any possibility of being aligned with God’s thoughts, it must harmonize with scripture. Have you read the history, secular facts and science provided in the previous articles in this series? I can’t imagine that you have, and that you still hold such an outdated position. Your position is actually contrary to modern JW’s. A correct understanding of Acts 15:29 is crucial, how sad if we (or our loved one) were to die unnecessarily, believing that a intravenous… Read more »
But turning his back, he said to Peter: “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, “because you think, not God’s thoughts, but those of men”. If the light that is in you is really darkness, how great that darkness is! .Then Jesus said to his disciples: “If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his torture stake* and keep following me. “For whoever wants to save his life* will lose it,” but whoever loses his life* for my sake will find it. Really, what good will it do a man… Read more »
Luke the scripture you are qouting there has its application in the fact that peter was encouraging jesus to avoid persecution and impalement at the hands of the jews and romans . What did jesus mean when picking up his torture stake . ? Or perhaps he meant STEAK . Get it .
Lol…..
Luke thanks for appreciating the irony ,even though this is such a serious subject , i do think that this whole subject about use of blood is a very difficult subject to talk to others about , even jesus found it so as recorded at john 6 when in a spiritual application he said you must drink my blood v 53 many were stumbled v61 . I think romans 14 makes interesting reading on these types of issues .while not mentioning blood directly it does provide an insight of how we should all respect the choices and conscience of others… Read more »
FJ, It really is a serious matter. I find this recent excerpt from an article in the NY Times (Jan 30, 2016) relevant. It shares the story of the latest victim of faulty air bags. “He most likely did not even know that his airbag had been manufactured by Takata, the Japanese supplier whose faulty airbags have been linked to 10 deaths and more than 100 injuries, said his widow, Ann Knight. ‘If he’d have known, he’d have gotten it fixed,’ said Ms. Knight, 50. ‘He took good care of that truck.’ She added, ‘Now something that was supposed to… Read more »
I agree sopater . I think that the priciples of romans 14 have been violated by the watchtower society, the reason being is that they have forced thier own conscience on others . They have put themselves on judgement by what they approve not just ith the blood issue but on all sorts of issues . I suppose its one thing to make an interpretation of scripture , its another thing to make rule , but the worst thing is then to try and enforce the rule that tries to force a person to violate thier own conscience . This… Read more »
Luke,
First you refuse to answer a valid Scriptural question, then you falsely imply that Sopater is twisting the Scriptures, then you exhibit a close-mindedness such as the Pharisees exemplified, and now you are comparing Sopater to Satan. These are all tactics we’ve seen before when people trying to support a false religious belief find themselves without any Scriptural footing. They must rely on insults and personal attacks.
Such tactics have no place here, nor among Christians of any caliber. I realize this is likely an emotional issue, but please season your words with some salt.
Now you are showing your true intent here – I was until this point reading your comments with an open mind and a certain empathy. You have not considered matters very deeply at all – Please don’t try to abuse those commenting here by shoving you viewpoints upon them and then abusing them with your retorts – FINIS !
We have an excellent example here of how to close down a discussion. Tell everyone how it is, bang your fist on the table, and then stick your fingers in your ears. Are you saying dogmatically that this is a salvation issue? Meaning, that if you accept a blood (organ) transplant, you have no chance of eternal life? That would explain your hardline stance. Remember, it is not necessarily the act, but the general attitude and heart condition that God sees. Think of David eating the showbread. Pretty serious stuff. Did being hungry justify doing it? What was David’s normal… Read more »
Hello Luke, If you don’t mind fleshing out your view a little bit I’d much appreciate it. This “bottom line” that the Bible “clearly says to abstain from blood” deserves that you share the clarity you assert. Supposedly the text to which you allude is Acts Chapter 15 where it says “abstain from blood”. Admittedly we see these words texted in precisely that order. But what is this supposed to mean? A living breathing human being cannot possibly literally abstain from blood because it flows in our veins! So what abstention is required of us? Are we to abstain from… Read more »
Marvin,
I am in complete harmony with your view.
Sopater
Hi Luke, I hope you don’t feel bullied by yet another response, but I do have a question for you – one that bugged me for a long time as I tried to unravel this issue in a coherent manner that was respectful of our Creator’s commands: How do you view the matter of blood tests? I ask this because, if we take a flat-out, black and white stance on the command to abstain from blood, it would certainly appear that we shouldn’t be giving away vials and vials of the stuff to people who don’t share our view on… Read more »
we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. Act :15:28 . As for the believers from among the “nations”, we have sent them our decision in writing that they should keep away from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood, from what is strangled,*and from sexual immorality Act :21:25. This information was clearly directed towards the gentile nations which were non Jewish therefore it must be applicable to Christianity regardless of its origins.… Read more »
Rose, I ask you the same questions I asked Luke: 1. When eating meat from animals sacrificed to idols (some of which had been strangled), were Christians disobeying the Apostolic Decree? (Acts 15:29) 2. Was Paul enabling Christians to disobey God’s law? 3. Was Paul an apostate? Rose, have you read Parts 1 and 2? If so, please re-read the scientific evidence that proves there is no comparison between drinking and digesting blood as food, and an intravenous injection. It’s apples vs. oranges. Remember, the concern is blood as food, and as a nutrient. It is a fact that red… Read more »
After seeing how you guys bullied Luke rather than try to help him to understand or me, I have nothing more to say and
I think you brothers and sisters are so angry at the watchtower that you are taking it out on everyone who disagrees with you.
It makes me really sad because I truly thought I was in a safe haven but I guess i was wrong.
I will continue to search for truth elsewhere.
Rose, I’m sorry if you feel we tried to bully you or Luke, that is never our intention. The simple fact is, the No Blood doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses collapses upon itself when placed under scrutiny. If it were truth, it would stand. If the doctrine was actually Jehovah’s thoughts, the premise of physicians 300 years ago would still be scientifically sound to this very day. Sadly, their thinking was not God’s thinking, it was merely a notion based upon ignorance. I hope that you will allow yourself to read (re-read) all four articles with an open mind, praying for… Read more »
Hello Rose,
It is not my aim to add to any burden, but I’m compelled to ask a couple questions based on what you write here.
1. What blood was Noah told to abstain from?
2. What abstention from that blood was he to abide by?
I think answering these two questions is vital if we want to follow the blood abstention placed upon all humankind (including “gentiles”). I think it also important that we not go beyond what is written by forming conclusions based on premises we don’t find in applicable biblical text.
Rose, You wrote something above suggesting IV administration of poison is essentially the same thing as oral administration of poison. When I first read this I was speechless wondering how we get led to thinking like this. Let me explain. Most here are familiar with isopropyl alcohol. We don’t usually think of this as a poison, but like most things (including water!) it can lead to poisoning. We can experience poisoning from isopropanol by eating too much of it, which is oral administration. We can also experience isopropanol poisoning by absorbing too much of it through the skin from topical… Read more »
Thanks Sopater.
I particularly appreciate the insight into Genesis 1:30 which shows the danger of always insisting a verse be read literally.
The reasoning regarding how meat might have been used pre-flood is also important to dispel much JW dogma.
This way of understanding Gen 1:30 also resolves the problem of the carnivore imagery used in God’s warning to Cain that sin was “crouching at your door” (Gen 4:7). It also frees us from having to insist that T-Rex was one of the fiercest vegetation-thrashers of the Jurassic. But getting back to Cain, other odd notions resulting from the insistence that all animals in the pre-fall days were herbivores include the idea that God’s conversation with Cain was revealed to Moses but then Moses decided to misquote God’s words for impact: *** w94 2/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***… Read more »
Excellent point Andere.
Oddly enough, the organization whose teaching at issue (Watchtower’s blood doctrine) depends on one hand of a pre-flood environment where worshippers of God did not eat meat does, on the other hand, admit in the pre-sin era there was carnivores aplenty! Assuming Adam spent considerable time observing creation (what else did he have to do but sleep?) then he’d have witnessed the use of meat as food by carnivores. Specifically I have in mind carrion meat of animals dead of “natural” cause. I don’t see why Adam would have thought it wrong to experiment with food eaten by creatures he… Read more »
There’s also the issue of predators like Cheetahs. Were they created to run at 70 mph to chase down carrion or vegetation? The fact is, predators are designed from their claws to the legs to their stomachs to their teeth to catch live prey. Adam, whose job list included observing the animals so as to name them, could hardly have failed to notice this. So, if animals could kill other animals for food, why couldn’t he? That question would have been especially relevant when he found himself outside the garden with limited edible vegetation available. So the two speculative views… Read more »
Andere, The continents and oceans as we see them today have existed since the third creative day. As soon as the continents were established, grass, trees and vegetation began growing. Psalms 104:5-9 says: “He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. You covered it with the watery depths as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your thunder they took to flight; they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them. You set a… Read more »
Of number 1: Assuming Adam was sufficiently knowledgeable to eek out an existence without resorting to eating meat, my question is why would he? Meat is essentially as edible as vegetation. Wondering why Adam would have abstained from eating meat of a goat is like wondering whether he’d have abstained from eating milk of a goat. What reason would he have had to abstain from either? Insofar as I know Adam was never threatened with losing life for eating meat, as though it was considered some immoral act. Of number 2: Since God placed animal tissue onto Adam and Eve’s… Read more »
Hahaha andere like it mate . Were cheetahs created to run at 70 mph to catch vegtables , possibly ! Perhaps the runner bean wouldnt have been that easy to catch or maybe the spring onion , ! FJ