Blood as used in the Bible is a symbol; it is not sacred in,
and of, itself. The thing symbolized, life and redemption,
specifically the life and redeeming blood of Christ, are what
are sacred. Does the refusal of a transfusion by a Jehovah's
Witness, perhaps resulting in death, uphold the sacredness God
required for blood as a symbol? Or, does it do violence to the
sacred reality of the symbol, life and redemption?

Or, because blood is symbolic of life and redemption would not
the acceptance of a blood transfusion honor the sacred reality,
life and redemption? Would not the giving of blood in a
transfusion to save a physical life be parallel to Christ
giving his blood on Calvary for our eternal life?

Jehovah's Witnesses are perhaps better known by the general
public for their refusal to accept a blood transfusion than by
any other thing. Their reason for such a conviction is that to
them accepting a transfusion is the same thing as eating blood
and the Bible speaks against the eating of blood or unbled
meat. But, is that what the Bible says, and can it be extended
to the transfusing of blood?

When it is pointed out to a Witness that the Bible says nothing
against blood transfusions they will frequently respond by
saying, "Of course, such a procedure was unknown in Biblical
times. But, the Bible does say to 'abstain from blood' and how
can you 'abstain' while taking a transfusion?" Could the answer
be that we are also to "abstain from meat offered to idols"
(Acts 15:29) which Paul said was a matter of conscience and
regard for a weaker brother (1 Cor.8).

The reason why God placed a restriction on blood in the first
place was because as Leviticus 17:11 says, "...for it is the
blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." God was
sanctifying, setting apart for a holy purpose, the symbol of
life and man's redemption, so that man would have the highest
respect for it.

Many pagan religions profaned blood by the way they used it.
For instance it has been the view of many in occultic religions
in both ancient and modern times that if you would eat animal,
or even human, flesh while it was still living you would
receive in yourself the strength, or life force, of the thing
being eaten. This was the reason why God placed such a
restriction on Noah and Israel.

In the Old Testament sacrifices we see animal blood being shed
for the sins of the people. These sacrifices typified the
shedding of the blood of Jesus on Calvary. So the
sanctification of blood as a sacred symbol was ultimately
because of the sacredness of the blood of Jesus. However, the
purpose of the shedding of blood, whether in type in the Old
Testament, or in the reality of Christ in the New Testament,
was because the purpose of God was to give life. Hence, the
value of life itself is preeminent over its symbol, blood.

Isn't it interesting that the Church, which God purchased with
His own blood (Acts 20:28) is told to eat Christ's flesh and
drink His blood symbolically in the Lord's Supper (John
6:53-58).

There is a hierarchy of values in the Levitical law. For
instance it was forbidden to the Israelites to gather wood on
the Sabbath. When the first offender was brought before Moses
for judgment Moses was told by God to put the man to death.
Because this was the first offense, and it was a direct
challenge to what God had commanded, the severest penalty was
required.

However, in the New Testament Jesus asked the Pharisees, "Which
of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will
not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?" (Luke 14:5)
The difference in Jesus' example is that a life is being saved,
even if it is only the life of an animal. To administer a
blood transfusion to save a life is to endorse, or sustain, the
preeminent value, which is life itself.

Does self-sacrifice by refusal of a blood transfusion
strengthen the value God places on life, or weaken it? Is it a
sin to sustain life? It would be a sin to throw oneself in
front of a Mack truck. But, it would not be a sin if in doing
such a thing one was pushing another person out of danger. The
difference, life, the life of another, is being valued highly,
even though it cost a life to do so. With a blood transfusion
life is being sustained but without the death of anyone else.

Answering the Prooftexts

Though there are many Old Testament passages that discuss the
eating of blood the scriptures cited below are the key texts.
So, for the sake of space, comment will be reserved to these.

Genesis 9:4

This is the first prohibition against the eating of blood. God
gave Noah and his family permission to use animal flesh as food
but He restricted that permission by saying, "But the flesh
with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not
eat."

Because this was given to Noah and his family, which then
constituted the entire human race, and was prior to the Law,
the Watchtower says this restriction was a universal one
(JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AND THE QUESTION OF BLOOD,p.7).

Two other things should be pointed out here. First, there are
two kinds of 'flesh' discussed. The first is living animals,
or 'flesh with the life thereof,' (KEIL & DELITZSCH COMMENTARY
ON THE OLD TESTAMENT), and the second is unbled dead meat.
This restriction is given to show respect for the blood of
sacrifices.

Second, the claim by Jehovah's Witnesses that this prohibition
is universal on all mankind is not warranted because Noah and
his family were the only believers who were saved through the
Flood so the prohibition could still be limited to believers
only. And, Moses was inspired by God to say, "Ye shall not eat
of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the
stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou
mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto
the LORD thy God." (Deut.14:21)

Further, the Watchtower is inconsistent by saying Genesis 9:4
is universal but in the Watchtower of November 15, 1964, pages
682,683 they say it would be permissible for a Jehovah's
Witness doctor to administer blood to a non- Witness patient
because Deuteronomy 14:21 allows the Israelites to sell unbled
meat to the Gentiles.

Leviticus 17:10"

"And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the
strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of
blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth
blood, and will cut him off from among his people."

Since this text is part of the Law it cannot be said to be
applicable to all of mankind. It is speaking directly to the
offense of drinking blood. Because blood is at the heart of
the Old Testament sacrificial system, and typified the blood of
Christ, it carried a heavier penalty than eating unbled meat.
If you will read verse 15 you will see the very mild penalty
for eating unbled meat. The reason for the difference is that
when an animal is killed by an Israelite he is to show his
reverence for life and the atonement by pouring out the blood.

However, the Law, and the type, are fulfilled in Christ. As
Matthew Henry says in his COMMENTARY, "This reason is now
superseded, which intimates that the law itself was ceremonial,
and is now no longer in force..." (p.131).

The strictest orthodox Jews who still practice the Old
Testament dietary laws have never equated a blood transfusion
with eating blood. In fact among all the sects who claim to
follow Christ the Jehovah's Witnesses stand alone on this
issue. No one else sees any connection between eating blood
and transfusing it.

So today, it is "Not that which goeth into the mouth [that]
defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this
defileth a man." (Matt.15:11)

Acts 15:20,29

In the New Testament the text cited to show that this Old
Testament prohibition against ingesting blood was carried over
to the New Covenant is found in Acts 15:20,29. The decision of
the Church leaders in Jerusalem over a question of Christian
unity among Jews and Gentiles was that, "they abstain from
pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things
strangled, and from blood." Verse 29 goes on to say, "That ye
abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from
things strangled, and from fornication..."

In Leviticus 17 and 18 God commanded these same four
restrictions because as Adam Clarke says in his Commentary,
"The Israelites, from their long residence in Egypt, an
idolatrous country, had doubtless adopted many of their usages;
and many portions of the Pentateuch seem to have been written
merely to correct and bring them back to the purity of the
Divine worship." (Vol. 1, p.566).

Thus, in the New Testament church this same separation from the
pagan practices is required of the Gentile, ex-pagan,
believers. These four practices, of feasting at the pagan
temples on the meats offered to idols, of temple prostitution
(fornication), eating the bloody meat of things strangled which
was considered a delicacy, and from eating or drinking of blood
which was considered by some pagan religions the food of
demons, were the same four restrictions placed on Israel when
they departed from Egypt.

In a conversation with a Jehovah's Witness elder the writer
asked if this abstention from blood was to be an absolute. The
answer was, yes. He was then asked if the command to abstain
from fornication was an absolute command with no exceptions
which he correctly affirmed. He was then asked if the command
to abstain from meat offered to idols was an absolute command
for all Christians at all times. He said, no, because he knew
of Paul's teaching in I Corinthians 8 that says "an idol is
nothing," and a mature Christian can eat such meat if it does
not offend his conscience or a weaker brother.

So the point was made that in the context we have some things
that are absolutes (abstaining from fornication), and some that
are not (abstaining form meat offered to idols). So to say
that the command to abstain from blood, or things strangled, is
absolute and incumbent on all Christians at all times is
arbitrary.

In context the problem being solved by this ruling of the first
general council in Jerusalem was a problem of Christian unity
among legalistic Jews and undiscerning Gentiles at a specific
time and in a specific place.

Is s Transfusion Food?

One of the simplest facts of human biology proves that a
transfusion does not constitute the eating of blood. When you
eat anything, it is taken into the stomach where it is digested
and then is passed through the intestines into the blood
vessels where the blood then carries it to the body for
nourishment. This is the digestive system.

In a transfusion the blood that is transfused through the blood
stream until it arrives at the intestines where it picks up the
digested food passed through the intestines and carries the
food throughout the body. This is the circulatory system. The
transfused blood is not food itself but the carrier of food.
The food is broken down into its component parts whereas the
blood remains whole.

At a later time further examination will be made of such things
as the medical profession's view of transfusing blood, the
Watchtower's inconsistent record on such medical procedures,
and the pharisaical legalism to which it leads.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Copied with permission from the Watchman Expositor. *
* For a free subscription to this monthly newspaper *
* write the Watchman Fellowship office nearest you: *
* *
* W A T C H M A N F E L L O W S H I P, I N C. *
* P.O. Box 13251 P.O. Box 19416 P.O. Box 7681 *
* Arlington, TX 76094 Birmingham, AL 35219 Columbus, GA 31908 *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ÉÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ͵ CHRISTIAN BBS ABBA II ÆÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ»
º º
º Where Christians find Fellowship, Information and Resources, º
º and where non-Christians find honest, reasonable answers to º
º their questions about what (and why) Christians believe. º
º º
º ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Providing High-Quality, Christian Files ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ º
º º
º þ Up-To-Date Christian News þ Bible Studies & Discussions º
º þ Abba II's Christian Magazine þ Ministry Newsletters º
º þ Active Message Area þ On-Line Christian Directory º
º þ Specializing in Apologetics þ Christian Events Calendar º
º º
º ³ Immediate Access - No Ratios ³ º
ÈÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ͵ 619-487-7746 - up to 14,400 baud ÆÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍͼ
³ 619-487-6391 - up to 2,400 baud ³