Blood Transfusions - WatchTower Cult

SHORT CHRISTIAN READINGS SELECTED FOR FORMER JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

ARE BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS A VIOLATION OF GOD'S LAW?

Author Unknown

(edited)

Which one of us has not read or heard of the Jehovah's Witnesses' refusal to take blood transfusions? They claim that "it's forbidden in the Bible." Watchtower Societypublications discussing the blood issue do indeed use scripture, but are these scriptures used correctly?

Jehovah's Witnesses use for their guide a booklet called, "Jehovah's Witnesses and the Question of Blood." They begin by quoting Genesis 9:4:

"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."

Read this scripture again -- carefully. Rather than prohibiting the eating of blood, this verse clearly forbids the eating of UNBLED MEAT! ("flesh with its life - its blood") Animals were to be slaughtered and their blood drained, insuring their death, and then the bled meat could be eaten, but on no account were God-fearing people to eat unbled meat. This scripture in no way deals with the eating of blood alone - the blood was to be poured out, and the flesh was to be eaten. Nothing more is implied.

What does eating animal flesh have to do with blood transfusions?

Jehovah's Witnesses are told that "eating blood" is the same as "transfusing blood" since transfused blood bypasses the stomach and goes directly into the bloodstream to nourish the body. The Watchtower Society quotes for support of its theory, Genesis 9: 5,6, which reads:

"And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

These verses are clearly discussing murder or manslaughter, for it involves the taking of life, and the person whose blood was shed died. This is hardly the case with blood transfusions. The person donating the blood does not die and the person receiving the blood very often has his life saved.

Animal blood was to be completely drained before the flesh was to be eaten. Humans, with or without their blood, were at no time to be eaten! Therefore, this scripture can in no way be applied to the eating or transfusing of blood, when read in context.

Another scripture that the Jehovah's Witnesses like to point out is Leviticus 17: 13,14:

"And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off."

Christians are NOT under the Mosaic Law! Nowhere in the book of Genesis (which covers human history prior to the Mosaic Law) is any command given to "pour the blood of animals upon the ground." Also, there is no such command to be found in the New Testament. Only in the Law of Moses can such a command be found. Yet Jehovah's Witnesses who claim they are not under Mosaic Law have to appeal exclusively to that Law in order to deny their members the right to store their own blood to save their lives.

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 the digested food into the bloodstream to nourish the body. This is the DIGESTIVE system.

In a transfusion, the blood that is transfused travels through the bloodstream until it arrives at the intestines where it picks up any digested food that has passed through the intestines and carries that food throughout the body. This is the CIRCULATORY system. Transfused blood is not food itself - but the carrier of the broken down food.

WHAT HAPPENED IF SOMEONE DID EAT BLOOD?

This is a good question since the Witnesses equate the eating of blood with the transfusing of blood. The account in I Samuel 14:32 records how the Israelites ate sheep, oxen and calves "with their blood." Saul offered up a sacrifice to God, there was no punishment inflicted, and God went on to bless them. How different from the Watchtower organization who disfellowships those taking blood and denies them eternal life.

WHAT IF A JEW ATE BLOOD?

What did happen if a Jew, under the Law of Moses, broke the Law by eating blood, i.e., an unbled animal? Leviticus 17:15 clearly states the penalty:

"And every soul that eateth that which died of itself, or that which was torn with beasts, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger, he shall both wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even: then shall he be clean."

Eating "flesh with its blood" brought about only the mildest of reprimands under the Law! How different from the harsh stand of Jehovah's Witnesses, who would sentence their members to eternal death for the same offense!

But what happened if a Jew was caught picking up sticks on the Sabbath? The answer is at Numbers 15:35:

"And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp."

Which sin was more serious: breaking the Sabbath - or eating blood?

WERE GENTILES UNDER THE LAW ON BLOOD?

Jehovah's Witnesses state in their publications that since the law forbidding the eating of blood was given to Noah, that the law is binding on all mankind and not just the Israelites. Does the Bible agree with this or was the law just for natural Jews? In Deuteronomy 14:21 we find that the Law on unbled flesh states:

"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. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk."

We see that the law on eating unbled flesh and pouring out the blood applied ONLY to the Jews since aliens and foreigners (Gentiles) were free to eat it. Since most Jehovah's Witnesses are Gentiles, their avoidance of eating blood becomes downright ridiculous!

Since the Gentiles were free to eat the blood in the unbled meat, wouldn't it follow that they would also be free to "eat blood" in the form of blood transfusions?

It is interesting that Orthodox Jews today, who are the undisputed experts on Jewish Law, freely receive blood transfusions and also donate blood to save the lives of others. If it were forbidden under God's Law, they would never do it. Bible scholars find the "interpretation" of the Law by the Jehovah's Witnesses to be an easily recognized distortion.

ABOUT THE NEW TESTAMENT REFERENCES TO BLOOD

There are two references to blood used by the Jehovah's Witnesses:

Acts 15:20: "But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."

and, Acts 15:29: "That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."

As we examine these scriptures from Acts 15, we must consider the context or setting. All of the prohibitions mentioned together here are concerned with the temple practices of the heathens who, in their idolatrous worship services, offered prostitutes to the idols after fornication rites, used animal blood in their rituals, and strangled animals during their frenzied ceremonies. For a Christian to participate would, of course, be blasphemous and would constitute idolatry. Christians were to abstain from such things entirely.

Other Bible scholars hold the view that these prohibitions are restating the principles found in the Law - i.e., for the Christian to avoid idolatry, murder, unclean foods and fornication. Both of these views are correct. What is not correct is for Jehovah's Witnesses to take one phrase, "abstain from blood," and try to apply it to the modern practice of blood transfusions. It is a blatant misuse of scripture.

JW HISTORY OF BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS

The first denunciation of blood transfusions did not appear in Watchtower literature until the issue of the Watchtower 7-1-45 pp. 198-201 in which the practice was labeled as "pagan and God dishonoring." In the October 22, 1948 issue of the AWAKE! magazine it stated in no uncertain terms that "according to God's law, humans are not to take into their system the blood of others." It took the Society the next 13 years to decide that a person receiving a blood transfusion was worthy of disfellowshipping from the Organization and subsequent eternal death. (WT 1-15-61 pp. 63,64)

CURRENT TRENDS AND THE "AIDS" ARGUMENT?

The leadership of the Watchtower Society has ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses may take certain "components" of blood, such as:

-- Factor VIII and Factor IX (hemophiliac preparations)

-- Immune globulins

-- Albumin

-- Circulating blood

But the Witnesses must refuse other components, such as:

-- White blood cells

-- Plasma

-- Red blood cells

-- Platelets

-- Stored blood

This is important because doctors nowadays administer such compounds rather than whole blood. As it stands today a JW hemophiliac in danger of bleeding to death can take the blood components he needs. But a JW accident victim in danger of bleeding to death must refuse the different blood components needed to survive in his case! So contradictory Watchtower rules allow some to take blood fractions while others continue to die.

Their inconsistencies go even further. A JW cannot store his own blood to be used in a later surgery. However, he can lay on the operating table and have his blood leave his body, proceed through a heart-lung machine, and re-enter his body. No scriptures are cited to show the difference between the two. Blood leaves the body in both cases and returns later.

The Jehovah's Witnesses feel that they have been vindicated for their unpopular stand against taking blood transfusions because AIDS or hepatitis is transmitted by blood. This argument, like most of theirs, is flawed. Why? The AIDS virus is transmitted in ALL body fluids, not just blood. How many people have died as a result of AIDS-tainted blood, compared with JW deaths from refusing blood?

Also, Jehovah's Witnesses themselves, just like the rest of the population, can get AIDS from contaminated blood products that they are allowed to take. The Society acknowledges that the Witnesses taking such blood products face health risks involved in an injection made from others' blood.

HOSPITALS UNDER SURVEILLANCE

Ever since the Watchtower Society banned blood transfusions for its followers, JWS have assembled to keep watch at patients' bedsides and to remove children through hospital windows - all with the aim of blocking blood transfusions. Except for the occasional organized distribution of booklets to doctors, the Watchtower Society usually left parents, spouses, and JWS themselves to carry the burden of defending their stand before doctors and judges. However, that situation has changed.

The November 22, 1993 AWAKE! magazine reveals a major new offensive spearheaded from Watchtower headquarters in Brooklyn, NY. It says the Jehovah's Witnesses "are being assisted to obey Jehovah's perfect law on abstaining from blood ..." (p.24)

Committees of specially trained JW elders now enter directly into hospitals and courtrooms to intervene in the Witness patient's behalf. These "Hospital Liaison Committees" are armed with persuasive literature - medical, legal and sociological. Their basic tool is a 260-page loose-leaf handbook titled "Family Care and Medical Management for Jehovah's Witnesses", updated constantly with new information on blood substitutes, alternative treatments and patients' rights, plus evidence that JWS are good parents.

One aim, of course, is to stop judges from declaring JW children wards of the state for the purpose of giving them needed blood and to stop doctors from seeking such court orders. Adult JW compliance with the blood ban is also enforced by the watchful elders.

The same issue of the AWAKE! magazine gives the impression that transfusions are really unnecessary and that informed doctors can secure the healthy recovery of the patient through alternative treatments. The article presents recombinant erythropoietin (EPO) as a wonder drug eliminating the need for blood transfusions. However, in the Watchtower magazine of October 1, 1994 it is admitted that EPO contains a relatively small amount of blood plasma albumin! (p. 31)

This news comes as a shock, no doubt, to JWS who accepted injections of EPO through the advice of the 1993 AWAKE! magazine, believing that they were receiving a "bloodless treatment." They must now face the fact that organization has misled them.

CONCLUSION

Just as the Jehovah's Witnesses have erred in the past concerning organ transplants and vaccinations, causing hardships to their members, so they are in error now concerning transfusions. Their harsh stand cannot be upheld by the scriptures. The apostle Paul wrote in Romans 4:15:

"But where there is no law, neither is there violation."

Many feel that a change will come in time. Who then will bear the blood guilt for the many lives lost through the refusal of blood transfusions up to the time of change?

*************************** *****************************

Why Did These Kids Die?

By David Reed

(edited)

"Youths Who Put God First"

Photographs of more than two dozen handsome boys and beautiful smiling girls brighten the cover of the May 22, 1994 AWAKE! magazine, making it an issue easy to place with unsuspecting millions of householders who answer the knock at their doors of Jehovah's Witnesses. Only upon opening the May 22, 1994 AWAKE! magazine do readers discover that the appealing photos represent kids who died in obedience to the Watchtower Society's ban on blood transfusions.

Posed together in a group portrait in the foreground of Awake!'s cover are three extremely photogenic youngsters. Fifteen-year-old Adrian Yeatts died September 13, 1993, after the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, Canada, declared him a "mature minor" and rejected the Child Welfare Department's request for court-ordered transfusions.

Twelve-year-old Lenae Martinez died in California on September 22, 1993, after the Valley Children's Hospital ethics committee ruled her a "mature minor" and decided not to seek a court order.

Twelve-year-old Lisa Kosack died (no date given) in Canada after holding off transfusion therapy by threatening that she "would fight and kick the IV pole down and rip out the IV no matter how much it would hurt, and poke holes in the blood."

Individual photos of 23 other attractive youths fill the background on Awake!'s cover. These other youngsters are neither named nor discussed, but the implication is that they too all died refusing blood products.

The feature articles on "Youths Who Put God First" fill the first fifteen pages of the May 22 Awake! -- nearly half the issue. More than a third of this space is devoted to handsome, dimple- cheeked Adrian. The story relates cute anecdotes from his early childhood and reveals him to be a sensitive, intelligent, lovable boy anyone would be proud to have as a son. At age eleven he rescued three orphaned raccoon babies he found alongside the highway and escorted them to a safe home at an animal shelter. The kindness and respect he showed for a mentally challenged girl in his class at school -- the butt of other children's jokes -- endeared him to the girl's mother.

Adrian was fourteen when doctors found a fast-growing tumor in his stomach. A series of autopsies revealed a large lymphoma in his abdomen, plus evidence of leukemia in his bone marrow. Oncologist Dr. Lawrence Jardine at the Dr. Charles A. Janeway Child Health Centre in St. John's, Newfoundland, prescribed aggressive chemotherapy accompanied by blood transfusions. When it became clear that Adrian, at his parents' urging, refused the transfusions, child welfare workers went to court seeking protective custody.

Watchtower lawyers produced a strongly worded signed affidavit from the teenager: "The way that I feel is that if I'm given any blood that will be like raping me, molesting my body. I don't want my body if that happens. I can't live with that. I don't want any treatment if blood is going to be used, even a possibility of it. I'll resist use of blood."

On July 19, Justice Robert Wells of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland ruled the boy to be "a mature minor whose wish to receive medical treatment without blood or blood products is to be respected." With only weeks to live, the brave young man fulfilled a few wishes. He visited the Watchtower branch office at Georgetown, Ontario. He went to a Blue Jays baseball game and had his picture taken with part of the team. On September 12 a handful of Jehovah's Witnesses held a special service in the hospital's physiotherapy room and baptized Adrian in one of its steel tanks, thus officially inducting him into membership, and he died the next day.

Why did young Adrian take this course? The AWAKE! article mentions that he "felt that his Biblical hope of eternal life would be threatened" if he agreed to a transfusion. (page 5) Like other JW children he had been taught that death on a hospital bed was to be chosen over "an even graver risk, the risk of losing God's approval by agreeing to a misuse of blood." His parents no doubt followed the organization's instructions to "review these matters with their children" and to "hold practice sessions in which each youth faces questions that might be posed by a judge or a hospital official." (THE WATCHTOWER June 15, 1991, page 15) In other words, Adrian was thoroughly indoctrinated.

Virtually all JW youngsters receive this training to one extent or another, but not all end up in circumstances that require them to go through with it. How many actually do? The caption for Adrian's cover photo states that "thousands of youths died for putting God first" in "former times" and adds that "they are still doing it, only today the drama is played out in hospitals and courtrooms, with blood transfusions the issue." Nowhere, though, do the articles specify exactly which "former times" are referred to. (AWAKE! May 22, 1994, page 2) Nor are any statistics provided on whether the number of Jehovah's Witness youths dying "today with blood transfusions the issue" similarly runs into the thousands, or not.

Most hospitals and courts nowadays grant adult JWs the freedom to refuse blood products even when it means certain death for them. On the other hand, when the patients are babies or young children, physicians secure court orders almost automatically. A battle continues to rage, however, as the Watchtower Society attempts to persuade medical and legal authorities to view JW kids in the 12-through-17-year-old range as "mature minors" who should be allowed to die.

Courts are caught in a dilemma when faced with ailing youngsters determined to resist blood therapy with whatever strength they are able to muster. Some teenagers and pre-teens are simply repeating well-rehearsed arguments drilled into them at congregation meetings and at family study practice sessions. Others have become persuaded in their own minds that it would be wrong or immoral for them to accept blood products. All know that they face disgrace before their peers, loss of parental approval, and disciplinary action from the organization if they accept the forbidden blood products.

Some doctors hesitate to force blood products on such youngsters for fear that the resulting emotional stress might offset the medical advantages. They do not want to see their patient deprived of needed blood products, but they also hesitate to force a treatment that would leave the youngster feeling violated, polluted, guilt-ridden, and lacking the will to live.

Why, though, are parents willing to sacrifice beloved children on the altar of organizational doctrine? Little meets the eye when outsiders puzzle over the unnatural actions of Witnesses in the hospital or the courtroom. Specially trained JW elders serving on "hospital liaison committees" quickly step in to make the organization's voice heard alongside the patient and his or her family. The elders appeal to the broader issues of patients' rights and personal conscience, but they make no mention of secret Watchtower judicial committees that enforce blood transfusion rulings on JW parents. Doctors and judges are largely unaware of the intense indoctrination Witnesses undergo daily.

In the New Testament account, when confronted with objections against his healing a man who was ill on the Sabbath, Jesus knew that his opponents took a much gentler view of religious restrictions when their own vital interests were at stake, so he asked the Pharisees, "Who of you, if his son or bull falls into a well, will not immediately pull him out on the sabbath day?" (Luke 14:5 JW New World Translation) The parallel question to JW parents would be, "Who of you, if his son is bleeding to death, will not immediately give him a transfusion?" Yet, Witness parents in case after case have shown themselves willing to sacrifice the lives of their offspring, as well as their own lives.

Onlookers are troubled when they see eighty people die in a burning cult compound at Waco, Texas, or nearly a thousand ingest a poisoned beverage under the direction of Rev. Jim Jones at Jonestown, Guyana, but we manage somehow to dismiss these incidents with the thought that the world has always had its share of kooks and lunatics. When a hundred or a thousand of them assemble together to perform their lunacy in unison, they grab world attention for a brief time but are soon forgotten. Jehovah's Witnesses, however, deserve closer scrutiny because although their people are just as committed as those who died at Waco and Jonestown, they are not huddled together in a small group in some far off cult compound. More than 12 million people attend JW meetings, and they are living in our neighborhoods, shopping in our stores, sending their kids to school with our kids, working alongside us at our jobs, quietly going about their business in our midst -- like a timebomb waiting to go off.

Vaccinations and organ transplants previously banned, now allowed.

During the 1930's and 1940's Watchtower publications denounced vaccination as a procedure that was not only worthless but actually harmful from a medical standpoint, and that was morally wrong from a religious or biblical standpoint. The latter, of course, was the deciding factor for Witnesses. The organization had made clear to them that "Vaccination is a direct violation of the everlasting covenant that God made with Noah after the flood." (GOLDEN AGE [former name of AWAKE! magazine], February 4, 1931, p. 293)

So JWs routinely refused vaccinations for themselves and their children. If the inoculation against smallpox was required for admission to public school, some would have a friendly doctor burn a mark on the child's arm with acid to make it look as if the youngster had been vaccinated. Others went so far as to have papers made out, falsely certifying that the child had been vaccinated. JW publications dropped the ban on vaccinations in the early 1950's, and today they recommend the procedure and credit it with curbing disease.

Jehovah's Witnesses received important new medical instructions in the November 15, 1967, issue of THE WATCHTOWER. An article in the "Questions from Readers" section on pages 702-704 presented a new ruling handed down from Brooklyn headquarters to the effect that "sustaining one's life by means of the body or part of the body of another human ... would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people" and condemned by God. The article explained that organ transplants were "simply a shortcut" to cannibalistically chewing and eating human flesh.

This pronouncement, in effect, banned organ transplant operations for Jehovah's Witnesses. No longer could a JW with failing kidneys accept a kidney transplant to keep him or her alive; nor could one losing vision receive a cornea transplant. Bone marrow, skin, or anything else taken from another person could no longer be received in a medical procedure. The transplant issue immediately took its place alongside the blood issue as a life-or-death matter for Witnesses hospitalized for illnesses or accidents.

However, the Watchtower Society's ban on organ transplants lasted only a bit under thirteen years. In 1980 it was quietly repealed. The March 15, 1980, WATCHTOWER said, on page 31, "there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue." Recent Watchtower Society publications applaud transplants as procedures that have "helped" people. (AWAKE! August 22, 1989, page 6)

A cult?

Certain studies in the field of psychology have revealed a significantly higher incidence of mental illness among Jehovah's Witnesses compared with the general population. JWs cry "persecution" and dispute such claims. Although featured prominently in the book titled THE FOUR MAJOR CULTS by Anthony A. Hoekema (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publ., 1963) and listed among cultic groups in COMBATTING CULT MIND CONTROL by Steven Hassan (Rochester, VT: Park Street Press, 1988) sect leaders deny that label. THE WATCHTOWER of February 15, 1994 acknowledges, "Occasionally, anticult organizations and the media have referred to Jehovah's Witnesses as a cult" (page 4) but then argues to the contrary.

Children in crisis.

In any case, the children of Jehovah's Witnesses carry burdens and face daily stresses not encountered by others. When classmates salute the flag, celebrate a birthday, exchange Valentine cards, or sign up for extracurricular activities after school, JW kids face conflict between personal inclination and their sect's rigid prohibitions. Some obey to the letter, while others live double lives, but all experience inner conflict trying to sort these things out.

Youngsters with both parents in the sect live under constant pressure to meet demands ranging from reciting prepared material before church audiences to selling Watchtower literature from door to door. Those with one non-Witness parent in the home or in a non-custodial visitation relationship hear frequent reminders that this parent belongs to Satan the Devil and faces a violent death at the hands of God's executioners.

What Can YOU Do?*

Professional ethics and legal restrictions usually limit the influence that outsiders can have on the children of Jehovah's Witnesses--no matter how much one's heart goes out to such entrapped youngsters. But there are a few things you can do.

In some circumstances older teenagers trying to break free may be directed to helpful literature, counselling, or support groups.

Kindness, acceptance, and genuine loving attention can help even the very young to question the teaching that outsiders belong to the Devil and serve Satanic interests.

Learn more about Jehovah's Witnesses so as to be better equipped to deal knowledgeably with them.

*From the tract "Jehovah's Witness Children -- Kids Under Cultic Stress" by David A. Reed.

(NOTE: Much of this material has also been incorporated in the new book BLOOD ON THE ALTAR by David A. Reed, Prometheus Books, 1996.)

**************************** *****************************

New Watchtower Blood Transfusion Policy

By Jason Barker

(Note: This article was published in 2000, and as is true of all WatchTower Cult teachings, but especially those related to blood transfusions, are subject to change.)

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has long forbidden blood transfusions for Jehovah's Witnesses. The issue is so serious, in fact, that Witnesses believe a blood transfusion "may result in the immediate and very temporary prolongation of life, but at the cost of eternal life for a dedicated Christian."[1] Witness parents are expected not only to prevent their children from undergoing a blood transfusion,[2] but even to prevent family pets from receiving blood.[3] In order to prevent their being administered blood transfusions while unconscious, each Witness is required to carry a card that states:

I direct that no blood transfusions be administered to me, even though others deem such necessary to preserve my life or health. I will accept non-blood expanders. This is in accord with my rights as a patient and my beliefs as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I hereby release the doctors and hospital of any damages attributed to my refusal. This document is valid even if I am unconscious, and it is binding upon my heirs or legal representatives.[4]

The Watchtower Society forbids blood transfusions because the procedure allegedly constitutes eating blood, which is forbidden in the Bible in Genesis 9:4 and Acts 15:28-29. They contend that receiving blood intravenously constitutes eating, just as people can receive food intravenously.[5]

A large number of Jehovah's Witnesses, including many children, have died due to their loyalty to the Watchtower Society. The May 22, 1994, issue of Awake! featured the stories of five children who died after refusing blood transfusions. These stories, similar in tone and rhetoric to the child-martyr stories of the Victorian era, depict children who inspired respect and acceptance for the Society as they happily sacrificed their lives to uphold the Watchtower's regulations. Unfortunately, however, the reality of the situation is often far grimmer. In a particularly horrifying example of how seriously Jehovah's Witnesses take the Society's prohibition, Paul Blizard, a former elder, tells of his experience when his daughter needed a transfusion. After Blizard accepted a court order requiring that his daughter receive a transfusion, an elder said, "I hope your daughter gets hepatitus (sic) from that blood."[6] Blizard, his wife, and even their daughter were then shunned by their congregation for not smuggling the girl out from the hospital to avoid the transfusion.[7]

While many Jehovah's Witnesses have died due to refusing blood transfusions, recent developments in the Watchtower Society's policy on blood indicate that individuals who face a similar crisis today may not need to sacrifice their lives to prove their loyalty to the Society.

Recent Watchtower Controversies Concerning Blood Transfusions

1998

In 1998, in order to receive legal recognition from the government of Bulgaria, the Watchtower Society signed an agreement with the Bulgarian government in which they stated that "members should have free choice in the matter for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association."[8] A press release distributed in 1997 by the European Commission of Human Rights clearly explains the understanding of the Commission and the Bulgarians of the Society's stated position: "In respect of the refusal of blood transfusion, the applicant association [i.e., the Jehovah's Witnesses] submits that there are no religious sanctions for a Jehovah's Witness who chooses to accept blood transfusion and that, therefore, the fact that the religious doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses is against blood transfusion cannot amount to a threat to 'public health.'"[9]

The Watchtower Society's perspective on the agreement can be found in a press release it distributed on April 27, 1998. In announcing the agreement with Bulgaria, the only information about the agreement to allow transfusions is the statement: "The agreement also includes an acknowledgment that each individual has the freedom to choose the type of medical treatment he receives."[10] This vague statement, while not openly contradicting the agreement, also contains no indication of the historic compromise to which the Society agreed by ostensibly allowing blood transfusions.The 1997 press release by the Commission, explaining their position regarding the then-unsettled case, alerted many people to a perceived doctrinal change by the Society. To prevent the media or other Witnesses from drawing their own conclusions about doctrinal changes, the Society stated in its press release: "The terms of the agreement do not reflect a change in the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses."[11]

The position of the Watchtower Society was clear: despite their agreement to allow Witnesses to receive blood transfusions in Bulgaria, in reality the Society had no intention of honoring this agreement. The Society will continue to levy religious sanctions against Witnesses who receive blood transfusions, forcing the Witnesses to decide between possible death or "excommunication or disfellowshipping."[12]

2000

Widespread speculation on the Society's position vis-a-vis blood transfusions began in May with the publication of the June 15, 2000, issue of The Watchtower, in which the Society reiterated that Jehovah's Witnesses may receive blood fractions in their medical treatment, but still may not receive transfusions of whole blood.[13] Speculation increased with a rumor - spread on the Internet - that the Governing Body had met on May 24, 2000 and decided that Jehovah's Witnesses who accepted blood transfusions would no longer be subject to investigation by judicial committees.[14]

The most significant development that spurred such speculation was the June 14, 2000, article by Ruth Gledhill in the London Times, "U-Turn on Blood Transfusions by Witnesses."[15] Jehovah's Witnesses, according to Gledhill, are now allowed to accept blood transfusions. Gledhill quotes Paul Gillies, Watchtower spokesperson in the United Kingdom:

It is quite possible that someone who was under pressure on an operating table would take a blood transfusion because they did not want to die. The next day they might say they regretted this decision. We would then give them spiritual comfort and help. No action would be taken against them. We would just view it as a moment of weakness.[16]

Witnesses who receive a transfusion and are unrepentant, however, will be viewed as having disassociated themselves from the Society.[17] In response to Gledhill's article, the Watchtower Society issued the following press release:

An article published in the June 14, 2000, issue of a British newspaper has incorrectly publicized what it feels to be a major change in the religious doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding blood transfusions. In order to correct the misinformation, Jehovah's Witnesses are providing the following statement. The Bible commands Christians to "abstain...from blood." (Acts 15:20). Jehovah's Witnesses believe that it is not possible to abstain from blood and accept blood transfusions. They have consistently refused donor blood ever since transfusions began to be widely used in civilian medical practice in the 1940s, and this scriptural position has not changed. If one of Jehovah's Witnesses is transfused against his or her will, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that this constitutes a sin on the part of the individual. This position has not changed.

If one of Jehovah's Witnesses accepts a blood transfusion in a moment of weakness and then later regrets the action, this would be considered a serious matter. Spiritual assistance would be offered to help the person regain spiritual strength. This position has not changed.

If a baptized member of the faith willfully and without regret accepts blood transfusions, he indicates by his own actions that he no longer wishes to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The individual revokes his own membership by his own actions, rather than the congregation initiating this step. This represents a procedural change instituted in April 2000 in which the congregation no longer initiates the action to revoke membership in such cases. However, the end result is the same: the individual is no longer viewed as one of Jehovah's Witnesses because he no longer accepts and follows a core tenet of the faith. However, if such an individual later changes his mind, he may be accepted back as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. This position has not changed.

Jehovah's Witnesses seek quality medical care and accept medical alternatives to blood transfusions. Support is given to members to help them obtain medical treatment that respects their religious convictions.

Contact: James N. Pellechia, telephone: (718) 560-5600[18]

The Society, in its press release, specifically states that there has been no change in doctrine, and lists several practices that it also claims have not been changed. While it is true that the doctrine has not changed, several of the ways in which the doctrine is lived by Jehovah's Witnesses have changed dramatically.

Changes in Accepted Blood Fractions

While forbidding the transfusion of blood and "major" blood components, the Society has long allowed the consumption of such "minor" blood components as albumin and immunoglobulins; these components are permissible because blood is thus used in "small quantities."[19] These "minor" components were allowed because they are derived from plasma (a serum that is ninety percent water), which is separated from the cellular components of blood (red and white cells, and platelets) that were not allowed.[20] The Society has explicitly condemned receiving cellular blood components in medical treatment. Regarding the biblical prohibitions to abstain from blood, the Society writes, "Witnesses view them as ruling out transfusion of whole blood, packed RBCs [i.e., red blood cells], and plasma, as well as WBC [i.e., white blood cells] and platelet administration."[21] In a medical journal Watchtower physicians recently stated, "Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept whole blood, or major components of blood, namely, red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets and plasma. Also they do not accept hemoglobin, which is a major part of red blood cells."[22]

The article in the June 14, 2000, issue of The Watchtower reveals a significant change in the Society's policy toward receiving blood fractions derived from blood cells (it should be noted that the Society continues to forbid receiving whole blood, or complete blood cells[23]). Whereas past transfusion of fractions of blood components would have resulted in disfellowshipping, the Society now concludes, "When it comes to fractions of any of the primary components, each Christian, after careful and prayerful meditation, must conscientiously decide for himself."[24] In support of their new position, the Society notes that a fetus receives bilirubin - a fraction of red blood cells - from its mother through the placenta. Because the fetus receives this fraction from an external source, the Society concludes that it is therefore acceptable for adult Witnesses to also receive fractions from blood cells.[25]

Despite the Society's claim that their policy has not changed, comparing the article from the current Watchtower with previous statements proves that the Society is now allowing blood components that were previously forbidden. Furthermore, the potential impact of the change on Jehovah's Witnesses is quite significant. As the Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood state, "The new policy will open the door to JWs accepting many additional blood products and eventually blood substitutes that are hemoglobin based."[26]

Changes in Punishment for Receiving Transfusions

The Society claims that Jehovah's Witnesses who receive a blood transfusion, but afterwards are repentant for receiving the treatment, will not be subject to excommunication. They further claim that this is not a change in their policy.

In contrast to this statement of stability, the penalty for receiving a blood transfusion, be it whole blood or fractions of primary components, was severe: "The receiver of a blood transfusion must be cut off from God's people by excommunication or disfellowshiping."[27] The circumstances under which the individual received a transfusion, or the repentance afterward, were irrelevant to the punishment incurred: "[Receiving a transfusion] is a violation of God's command to Christians, the seriousness of which should not be minimized by any passing over of it lightly as being an optional matter for the conscience of any individual to decide upon."[28]

Furthermore, the pressure of a life-or-death situation was also not a factor: "Contrary to how some today reason, God's law on blood was not to be ignored just because an emergency arose, our Life-Giver never said that his standards could be ignored in an emergency."[29] This policy is vividly illustrated in the previously mentioned example of Paul Blizard and his daughter. Rather than being forgiven for the transfusion, the Blizards were shunned by their congregation.[30]

The fact that Jehovah's Witnesses can now receive blood transfusions - within limits - without necessarily being disfellowshipped is encouraging for observers of the Watchtower Society. This encouragement must be tempered, however, by the ambiguity of the Society's new position. There are currently no standards for determining whether a Witness is truly repentant for receiving a transfusion; this determination is therefore left to the discretion of individual elders. While some elders may show great compassion toward victims of medical emergencies, other elders may continue to hold to the position that blood transfusions are inexcusable under any circumstances. In the latter case, the Witness will likely be considered by the elders to have disassociated himself. Futhermore, because appeals for judicial decisions can only be made to the same congregational judicial committee that voted for punishment,[31] there is little hope that a Witness could successfully appeal an involuntary "disassociation."

A further concern is the way in which the Society will attempt to "help the [recipient of a transfusion] regain spiritual strength." This vague statement can be interpreted in different ways. A compassionate elder could attempt to convince the Witness that, while receiving a transfusion did not meet the ideal for Watchtower behavior, it is nonetheless a forgivable "offense." Unfortunately, the ambiguity of this statement also opens the door to potential abuse. The Witness could be repeatedly told that he or she has committed an act of cannibalism; the Society has even said of transfusion recipients (quoting a seventeenth-century writer) that we should "abhor those who stain their gullet with human blood."[32] Such teaching could result in terrible psychological and spiritual trauma for the Witness.

There is a very likely punishment to help Witnesses "regain spiritual strength." A letter reportedly sent by the Society to all the local branches allegedly dictates that Witnesses who receive transfusions should not serve in any "'privileged capacity', such as an elder, ministerial servant or pioneer."[33] Such a restriction - if true - means that while Witnesses who receive transfusions will not be disfellowshipped, they will be treated as second-class members of their congregations. Furthermore, if the recipient (or his or her caregiver) is in such a privileged position, it is likely that the Witness will be forced to resign that position, leading to public disgrace.

Conclusion

Reports that the Watchtower Society now allows blood transfusions have been excessive. While repentant Witnesses will be forgiven for undergoing the procedure, the Society continues to teach that blood transfusions are a violation of God's prohibition against eating blood. There are nonetheless good reasons for rejoicing in the current changes in Watchtower policy. Jehovah's Witnesses now have an expanded array of medical treatments that are accepted by the Society, and they also have the possibility of being spared the abusive practice of disfellowshipping if they receive a transfusion.

Despite these positive changes, non-Jehovah's Witnesses still have valid reasons for concern. The Society's prohibition against transfusions remains in place, guaranteeing that very conservative Witnesses will continue to refuse all treatments involving blood fractions (the Society even says that such individuals' "sincere, conscientious stand should be respected"[34]). This attitude - which will almost certainly be perpetuated by some elders - will lead to continued deaths within the Watchtower Society.

In an attempt to show Jehovah's Witnesses that the position of the Society is both unreliable and inaccurate, Christians should attempt to do three things.

First, show Witnesses that the Society HAS in fact changed its teachings. By referring Witnesses to the quotes that show the Society's previous stand regarding receiving fractions of primary blood components, the Witness will be able to see - from the Society's own words - both that the teaching has changed, and that the Society is being dishonest in claiming that its teachings and practices remain unchanged.

Second, teach Witnesses that transfusions do not constitute eating. Contrary to the Society's position, receiving a blood transfusion is not the same as eating blood. Food is "eaten," either through oral consumption or intravenous infusion, and then digested in order to provide the body with necessary nutrients that can only be obtained externally from the body. Norman Geisler explains: "Eating is the literal taking in of food in the normal manner through the mouth and into the digestive system. The reason intravenous injections are referred to as 'feeding' is because the ultimate result is that, through intravenous injection, the body receives the nutrients that it normally would receive by eating."[35] Blood transfusions, on the other hand, are simply the replenishment of an essential substance that is normally resident in the body. James Sire states that "a transfusion replenishes the supply of essential, life-sustaining fluid that has otherwise drained away or become incapable of performing its vital tasks in the body. A blood transfusion is not even equivalent to intravenous feeding because the blood so given does not function as food."[36] Because the physiological process involved with consuming and digesting food differs dramatically from the circulation of blood, the Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine is easily seen to be incorrect.

Finally, teach Witnesses the Biblical perspective on transfusions. As stated above, the Bible explicitly condemns eating blood. The Noahide covenant forbids eating blood,[37] as do the Mosaic covenant and the ruling of the Jerusalem council.[38] These scriptures notably forbid the consumption of animal blood. Leviticus explicitly states that the blood of "beast or fowl" is to be poured out before the flesh can be eaten. Ironically, while the Society outlaws transfusions on the basis of Leviticus, they allow Witnesses to consume animal fat, which was similarly forbidden to the Israelites.[39] Blood transfusions were not practiced at the times of the biblical writings, and thus are not directly addressed by the Bible. For this reason orthodox Jews, who rigorously follow kosher laws, allow transfusions while forbidding oral blood consumption. Jews and Christians have, through objective analysis of biblical regulations and medical evidence, determined that eating and digesting animal blood in no way resembles the intravenous replacement of human circulatory fluid. The Society's broad interpretation of the passages above is in reality a case of eisegesis: the Society is using its doctrine to interpret the Bible, rather than using the Bible to inform its doctrine. Many people have endured untold suffering and death because the Watchtower Society does not "abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; that [they] may approve things that are excellent" (Philippians 1:9-10).

[1] Blood, Medicine, and the Law of God (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1961), p. 55. Emphasis added.

[2] Ibid., p. 54.

[3] "Questions From the Readers," Watchtower, February 15 (1964), p. 127.

[4] Card on file.

[5] Jehovah's Witnesses and the Question of Blood (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1977), p. 18.

[6] Leonard Chretien, Witnesses of Jehovah (Eugene, Or: Harvest House Publishers, 1988), p. 197.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Information Note No. 148, [Online]. URL http://194.250.50.201/eng/E276INFO.148.html.

[9] Press Communique, Issued by the Secretary to the European Commission of Human Rights, Application No. 28626/95, [Online]. URL http://www.dhcommhr.coe.fr/eng/28626CP.E.html. Emphasis added.

[10] Copy on file.

[11] Ibid.

[12] "Questions From Readers," Watchtower, January 15 (1961), p. 64.

[13] See "Questions From Readers," Watchtower, June 15 (2000), pp. 29-31.

[14] See Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood, "Breaking News," New Light on Blood, June 11 (2000) [Online]. URL http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/breaking.html.

[15] [Online]. URL http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/2000/06/14/timfgnusa01004.html.

[16] Ibid.

[17] In Watchtower terminology, a disassociated person voluntarily withdraws his or her membership as a Jehovah's Witness.

[18] Copy on file. Italics in original.

[19] "Questions From Readers," Watchtower, June 1 (1990), pp. 3031.

[20] Ibid., p. 30. The inconsistency in allowing these minor components, which to obtain require large quantities of whole blood to be separated, is examined in Jason Barker, "Bulgaria and Blood," The Watchman Expositor, 15.3 (1998), pp. 18-20.

[21] How Can Blood Save Your Life (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1990), p. 27.

[22] Richard Bailey and Tomonori Ariga, "The View of Jehovah's Witnesses on Blood Substitutes," Artif Cells Blood Substit Immobil Biotechnol, 26 (1998), pp. 571-76. Quoted in Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood, "Watchtower Blood Policy Changes Again," New Light on Blood [Online]. URL http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/change.shtml.

[23] "Questions From Readers," June 15 (2000), p. 29.

[24] Ibid., p. 31.

[25] Ibid. Interestingly, in a 1990 article about transfusions, the Society used the fetus as an example for allowing the reception of plasma fractions; they did not, however, mention bilirubin or the possibility of receiving fractions of red blood cells. See "Questions From Readers," June 1 (1990), p. 31.

[26] "Watchtower Blood Policy Changes Again," [Online].

[27] "Questions From Readers," Watchtower, January 15 (1961), p. 64.

[28] Ibid.

[29] How Can Blood Save Your Life? p. 4.

[30] Chretien, p. 197.

[31] Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1991), p. 124.

[32] Thomas Bartholin, quoted in How Can Blood Save Your Life? p. 6.

[33] "Breaking News," [Online].

[34] "Questions From Readers," June 15 (2000), p. 30.

[35] Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask (Grand Rapids, Mi: Baker, 1999), p. 434.

[36] James Sire,Scripture Twisting (Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 1980), p.86.

[37] Genesis 9:4. [38] Leviticus 17:11,14; Acts 15:28,29.

[39] Leviticus 3:17.

****************************** ********************************

Jehovah's Witnesses and the Apostolic Decree To "Abstain From Blood"Anonymous(edited)

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

EMPLOYMENT ISSUES UNIQUE TO JEHOVAH'S WITNESS EMPLOYEES

DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES