Why Don't They do This for Everybody?

[bskeptic]

For JW's it would not matter whether blood transfusions saved lives or not, God's law was to "abstain" from blood. As far as we are concerned, taking blood into the body by any means transgresses God's law and is not within the definition of abstinence.

But you don't even seem to have good grounds for that interpretation. You would let people die, over a doubtful interpretation of scripture? That isn't scriptural idolatry?

[AnimatedDirt]

The Biblical prohibition on taking blood into the body was written into God's law to Israel. (Lev 17:10-12, 14)

I think you really need to take a step back and notice how you keep stepping back and forth from what is law for "Israel" and what is God's perpetual Law and intermixing the two to your own ( or the JW's own ) agenda.

[Lightfoot]

The Biblical prohibition on taking blood into the body was written into God's law to Israel. (Lev 17:10-12, 14)

I think you really need to take a step back and notice how you keep stepping back and forth from what is law for "Israel" and what is God's perpetual Law and intermixing the two to your own ( or the JW's own ) agenda.

Absolutely correct.

[Lightfoot]

I would add that when one recieves a blood transfusion, they are receiving blood, so that blood acts as blood. When one "eats or digests blood" that blood is no longer being used "as blood" and that is a huge difference

[AnimatedDirt]

I would add that when one recieves a blood transfusion, they are receiving blood, so that blood acts as blood. When one "eats or digests blood" that blood is no longer being used "as blood" and that is a huge difference

Agreed.

"Because the life of every creature is it's blood."

Yet Christ sheds His blood for us.

So how does the JW feel about getting a spiritual blood transfusion?

[Jem]

I think you really need to take a step back and notice how you keep stepping back and forth from what is law for "Israel" and what is God's perpetual Law and intermixing the two to your own ( or the JW's own ) agenda.

In case you didn't notice AD, the prohibition on blood was specifically restated to Christians....in fact two of the the "requirements" or "necessary things" outlined by the apostles, particularly for gentile Christians, pertained to the misuse of blood......

“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these few requirements:  You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well.” (Acts 15:28, 29; 21:25)

The requirements for Christians did not include circumcision or a Sabbath observance, but the law on consuming blood stood as unalterable from the time man was first given permission to eat flesh. (Gen 9:1-7)
It was put on equal standing with sexual immorality....both punishable by death.

Please look up the dictionary definition of "abstain".

"Because the life of every creature is it's blood."

Let's just pause for a moment and read that scripture in the light of Acts 15:28, 29.....

Isn't this the very reason why God regards blood as representing a creature's life? The sanctity of blood and of life itself, was the principle behind the law. Blood is not abhorrent...it is sacred. Consumption of it in any form is a breach of God's law.

Jesus said..."For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.  For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?" (Matt 16:25, 26)

Can we break God's law to save our life?...even when it has been proven by the medical profession itself that blood transfusion is not good medicine? Are you willing to take that risk?
It's your choice.

Yet Christ sheds His blood for us.

So how does the JW feel about getting a spiritual blood transfusion?

Accepting the sin atoning blood of Christ is a necessary thing for everlasting life. By representing the blood of Jesus in a perfectly acceptable form (red wine) anointed Christians who are taken into the new covenant can drink of it with complete acceptance of its symbolism as they do with unleavened bread representing Christ's body. They live a life like his and die a death like his, giving up their earthly life for rulership roles in heaven. (Rev 20:6)

[Lightfoot]

Jem,

One of those things directed by the Apostles, was not eating meat sacrificed to idols, Paul later clarifies that this is only applicable if it stumbles someone, but, the command is not enforced upon people who realize that idols don't actually exist, and if they are not stumbling others...

Paul
7 But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.


The punishment of death, was not for eating blood in Genesis, but, for murder


4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

6 “Whoever sheds human blood,
    by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
    has God made mankind.


Which means, that Jehovah's Witness should support Capital punishment,

Does the Watchtower follow God's Command here and support Capital Punishment?

In the Mosaic Law, the consumption of blood would have you cut off fromt the people.

None of this is relevant though, as the person donating blood is not being sacirficed and is not part of some pagan ritual to some god. The person donating is hoping that their blood might help someone else who is in need, and might die otherwise.

Its using BLOOD as BLOOD to SUSTAIN LIFE, and not for food that is digested by the killing of another life

[Jem]

One of those things directed by the Apostles, was not eating meat sacrificed to idols, Paul later clarifies that this is only applicable if it stumbles someone, but, the command is not enforced upon people who realize that idols don't actually exist, and if they are not stumbling others...
Paul
7 But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

The apostle Paul saw that consciences often varied widely among Christians in the first century. Back then, some Christians were troubled about certain foods that had been sacrificed to idols. (1 Corinthians 10:25) Paul’s conscience did not object to such foods that were subsequently sold at markets. To him, idols were nothing; idols could never own food that originated with Jehovah and belonged to Him anyway. Yet, Paul understood that others did not share his view of this matter. Some might have been deeply involved with idolatry before becoming Christians. To them, anything even formerly connected with idolatry was offensive. The solution?

Paul said: “We, though, who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those not strong, and not to be pleasing ourselves. For even the Christ did not please himself.” (Romans 15:1, 3)
Paul reasoned that we should put the needs of our brothers ahead of our own, just as Christ did. In a related discussion, Paul said that he would rather not eat meat at all than stumble a precious sheep for whom Christ had given his life. (Read 1 Corinthians 8:13; 10:23, 24, 31-33)

The punishment of death, was not for eating blood in Genesis, but, for murder

Ex 31:14...."‘Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off [H3772] from among his people."

Lev 17:10...."‘And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off [H3772] from among his people."

Being "cut off from among God's people" (H3772) meant death. So consuming blood was a capital offense.

4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.
6 “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.
Which means, that Jehovah's Witness should support Capital punishment,

Does the Watchtower follow God's Command here and support Capital Punishment?

Amusing how you make these deductions as if they must be true LF. Another example of your biased thinking with regard to our beliefs.

Neither capital punishment, nor any other law of the land has anything to do with us. It is a governmental issue. If I happen to live in a country that practices capital punishment, then woe betide me if I break the law. But if that law was in direct conflict with God's law, then I would become a law breaker and if convicted, I must suffer the penalty. (Acts 5:29) Wasn’t Jesus a victim of the same problem? Aren't we told to imitate our Master? Can you break God's law to save your life? (Matt 10:32-39)

In the Mosaic Law, the consumption of blood would have you cut off fromt the people.
None of this is relevant though, as the person donating blood is not being sacirficed and is not part of some pagan ritual to some god. The person donating is hoping that their blood might help someone else who is in need, and might die otherwise

Its using BLOOD as BLOOD to SUSTAIN LIFE, and not for food that is digested by the killing of another life

If that is your take, then whatever you decide is up to your own conscience. As I said, the OP was about the efficacy of blood transfusions as medical practice after decades of promoting them as “life-saving”. These days, many in the medical profession now consider them less than optimal treatment....actually impeding recovery in many instances.

In Australia, when you fill out hospital admission forms, there is a question that stands out from the rest...."Have you EVER had a blood transfusion?" Why do you suppose they ask this question?

As to the consumption of blood by any means we see the command to “ABSTAIN” to have no escape clauses.

1Thess 4:3...."For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain [G568] from sexual immorality"
   
1Thess 5:22...."abstain [G568] from every form of evil.

So just as we "abstain" from "sexual immorality" and "every form of evil"....we also "abstain" from blood in any form that enters the body.

You are free to do whatever you like.

[Biep]

(I am going to regret this - I am overstepping the bounds of my energy.  Jem, I still owe you a reply in our earlier "Name of Jesus" discussion, but haven't found the energy yet - please don't expect me to get into a discussion about this.)

In 1986 I was diagnosed with stage IV non-Hodgkin lymphoma - a cancer of the white blood cells that had spread everywhere except to cerebrospinal fluid and to my bone marrow.  Some 25 sessions of chemotherapy didn't manage to kill off the cancer cells, so eventually it was decided I was to have an autologous bone marrow transplant.
Bone marrow was harvested (by drilling 120 holes in my pelvis), and I was given a strong poison that would kill of all my blood cells (and a lot more - together with the chemotherapy this is also the reason for my chronic fatigue).  Then my bone marrow stem cells were released in my "blood", from where they swam back to the bones and slowly started rebuilding my bone marrow, and producing blood cells.
During this time of regeneration, I had no blood cells of my own, and survived on regular doses of donated red blood cells - necessary to transport oxygen from my lungs to my organs.

Obviously, my own blood, being ineradicably infected with cancer, would not have done, so if I live on this side of the grave, it is fully thanks to those who had the generosity to give their blood.  (As far as I myself was concerned, I would not have minded dying and being with Christ at all, but that is besides the matter here.)

At the time I had come to know God, but wasn't into the intricacies of Biblical life yet, and it never occurred to me that there might be a spiritual aspect to receiving blood.

In the OT, consuming blood was forbidden because the soul is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11).  The soul is not in the flesh, so flesh can be consumed, but it is in the blood.

In Acts 15:20, the apostles don't want the Gentiles to deal with "what has been polluted by idols" - such as the meat in pagan meat markets.  Yet, in 1 Corinthians 8:10 Paul acknowledges that with the right mindset one can even eat in the idol shrine itself! - or one could, if it weren't for those brothers who were less mature.  There is a fine, but very clear, line here between eating (even during an idol sacrificial rite) and partaking in that rite (1 Corinthians 10:19-21), and it is very understandable that for vacillating others the one might all too easily be taken for the other.

In the case of the apostolic letter the "weak ones" were the Jews, who had been hearing the Mosaic Law all their lives (Acts 15:1, 5, 21).   Possibly the apostles were thinking of the Jews in general, for whom no stumbling block should be put - one of the first things Paul does is circumcising Timothy for the same reason, even though he preaches vehemently against circumcision elsewhere.
Another possibility is that the Jewish brethren were meant - those who had accepted Christ, but were still strongly attached to the Law (Acts 21:20).  To them too we see the mature Christians accommodate (Acts 21:21-24).

In either case, the ruling is clearly given out of consideration for immature minds.  Another rule however, sexual morality, is clearly a general and enduring one, one reinforced in all NT teaching (though it might have been included to cover some specific behaviour abhorrent to Jews yet acceptable under the Royal Law).  So how is the blood rule to be interpreted?

In the OT, there is a double line of argument:

• The killing that comes with eating meat is evil (Leviticus 17:4).  The souls of the killed cry out to God (Genesis 4:10; Revelation 6:10).
• God Himself promised His blood on the altar (Leviticus 17:11 - Acts 20:28) of which the animal blood was only a preshadowing (Hebrews 10:4).

Both lines come together of course in Christ's death - .

Neither line still holds: transfusion blood is not extracted against the will of the victim by killing him, but is taken from the giver without any serious harm to him.  It is a freely given gift of life, a worthy imitation in the small of what Jesus did in the large, and the soul of the giver won't cry out against the receiver.  And the atonement has been accomplished; no preshadowing is needed anymore (and Christ's blood speaks more powerfully than that of the souls crying out: Hebrews 12:24).
And indeed in the rest of the NT we don't see any injunction against eating blood (even though recipes with blood were exceedingly common in many parts of the ancient world).

We shouldn't eat blood if it hurts weaker brothers, that is obvious.  But if it comes to saving lives, erring on the side of the Law can go directly against the Law of love, as Jesus illustrated with the example of the priest (Luke 10:31) who refused to check whether this traveller was really dead (Leviticus 21:1, 11).  In such cases James 2:13 holds.

[Lightfoot]

Jem,

The apostle Paul saw that consciences often varied widely among Christians in the first century. Back then, some Christians were troubled about certain foods that had been sacrificed to idols. (1 Corinthians 10:25) Paul’s conscience did not object to such foods that were subsequently sold at markets.

So now your saying selling the sacrificed meat in a market makes it alright? So, does that mean, eating blood in the market makes it alright? What does the market have that a hospital doesn't have?

Yet, Paul understood that others did not share his view of this matter. Some might have been deeply involved with idolatry before becoming Christians. To them, anything even formerly connected with idolatry was offensive. The solution?

Paul said: “We, though, who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those not strong, and not to be pleasing ourselves. For even the Christ did not please himself.” (Romans 15:1, 3)
Paul reasoned that we should put the needs of our brothers ahead of our own, just as Christ did. In a related discussion, Paul said that he would rather not eat meat at all than stumble a precious sheep for whom Christ had given his life. (Read 1 Corinthians 8:13; 10:23, 24, 31-33)

That has nothing to do with the point I am raising and only proves what I am saying. It seems that if one's conscience wants to accept a blood transfusion, then they should be able to, and not fear any judgment of God. If Paul gave the OKAY on one of the commands that was given in Acts 15, then you are being inconsistent with the other command given.

Ex 31:14...."‘Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off [H3772] from among his people."

Lev 17:10...."‘And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off [H3772] from among his people."

Being "cut off from among God's people" (H3772) meant death. So consuming blood was a capital offense.

Be more careful in reading other people. I said the punishment in Genesis was for murder. The punishment in the book of Moses is for Israel and for the Gentiles that reside with them and are under their Law.
Unless you are now saying you are under Israel's punishment Laws, I am not even sure what it is your arguing for since it is completely inconsistent.

Amusing how you make these deductions as if they must be true LF. Another example of your biased thinking with regard to our beliefs.

Neither capital punishment, nor any other law of the land has anything to do with us. It is a governmental issue.

Nope, its a directive given by God. You don't have to punish the people as Jehovah's Witnesses, but, if you follow the text, then you must support the State that does. So answer the question, does the Watchtower support this form of punishment?

Your point on "Abstaining from evil" is without context. For example, a married couple, in the context of marriage are not committing sin. So as well, a blood transfusion that is saving a life, in that context where blood only acts as blood and is used as blood, is not sin.

Even you yourself admit that a Market makes Meat sacrificed to the gods okay! So the Market Context is okay for you.

[Jem]

@Biep I am sorry to hear that you have had to contend with such serious ill health in an ongoing way. And your decision to accept blood has nothing to do with me or the OP really. Procedures involving blood can be complicated and everyone must be guided by their own conscience. As I said, JW's follow this law scrupulously, others are free to make up their own minds on the matter.

I believe that God had specific laws on blood, apart from its consumption as food because blood is synonymous with life itself. The taking of a life was regarded as shedding blood. The sprinkling of blood sanctified the alter and the blood of sacrificed animals provided the temporary forgiveness of sin for God's people before the blood of Christ was offered once for all time.

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it. 12 That is why I have said to the Israelites: “None of you should eat blood, and no foreigner who is residing in your midst should eat blood." Lev 17:11, 12)

The law on the sanctity of blood was given to Noah after he came out of the ark, so it precedes the Mosaic law by centuries.

God told Noah...."Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. 4 Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat. 5 Besides that, I will demand an accounting for your lifeblood. I will demand an accounting from every living creature; and from each man I will demand an accounting for the life of his brother. 6 Anyone shedding man’s blood, by man will his own blood be shed" (Gen 9:3-6)

There is no doubt that God's people all down through history knew God's feelings on the sanctity of blood.

[jbejon]

I believe that God had specific laws on blood, apart from its consumption as food because blood is synonymous with life itself.  The taking of a life was regarded as shedding blood.  The sprinkling of blood sanctified the alter and the blood of sacrificed animals provided the temporary forgiveness of sin for God's people before the blood of Christ was offered once for all time.

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it. 12 That is why I have said to the Israelites: “None of you should eat blood, and no foreigner who is residing in your midst should eat blood." Lev 17:11, 12)

Out of interest, Jem, (not that this makes any difference to the relevant doctrinal points at stake), but what do you mean by “temporary forgiveness” here?  Do you mean, ‘Temporary in that they don’t provide ongoing forgiveness or only ‘last’ until an Israelite next sins’?  Or in terms of, ‘Until Christ came’?  (Or both?)  I’ve recently been reading through the Book of Leviticus, and it seems to me that the purpose of the sacrifices outlined there (and the ‘atonement’ they accomplish) is primarily ceremonial as opposed to moral.

James.

[Catholic_Lady]

Why is it against their beliefs to use blood?

[Jem]

I believe that God had specific laws on blood, apart from its consumption as food because blood is synonymous with life itself.  The taking of a life was regarded as shedding blood.  The sprinkling of blood sanctified the alter and the blood of sacrificed animals provided the temporary forgiveness of sin for God's people before the blood of Christ was offered once for all time.

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it. 12 That is why I have said to the Israelites: “None of you should eat blood, and no foreigner who is residing in your midst should eat blood." Lev 17:11, 12)

Out of interest, Jem, (not that this makes any difference to the relevant doctrinal points at stake), but what do you mean by “temporary forgiveness” here?  Do you mean, ‘Temporary in that they don’t provide ongoing forgiveness or only ‘last’ until an Israelite next sins’?  Or in terms of, ‘Until Christ came’?  (Or both?)  I’ve recently been reading through the Book of Leviticus, and it seems to me that the purpose of the sacrifices outlined there (and the ‘atonement’ they accomplish) is primarily ceremonial as opposed to moral.

According to God’s law, in order for a person who had sinned against God or against his fellowman to have his sins forgiven, he first had to rectify the wrong as the Law prescribed and then, in most cases, present a blood offering to Jehovah. (Lev 5:5–6:7) Hence, the principle stated by Paul: “Yes, nearly all things are cleansed with blood according to the Law, and unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place.” (Heb 9:22)

The blood of animal sacrifices could not take away sins and give the individual a perfectly clean conscience. (Heb 10:1-4; 9:9, 13, 14) By contrast, the foretold new covenant made possible true forgiveness, based on Jesus Christ’s ransom sacrifice. (Jer 31:33, 34; Matt 26:28; 1Cor 11:25; Eph 1:7) Even while on earth, Jesus, by healing a paralytic, demonstrated that he had authority to forgive sins. (Matt 9:2-7)

[Jem]

Why is it against their beliefs to use blood?

God prohibited the consumption of any sort of blood from the time Noah was first given permission to eat the flesh of animals. (Gen 9:3, 4) It was then included in the law given to Israel. (Lev 17:10-16) And it was restated to Christians in Acts 15:28, 29....."For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled (unbled meat) and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.’"

The sanctity of blood has been reinforced right throughout the Bible. It was against God's law to take blood and therefore Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to accept blood transfusions, which have now proven to be not as safe as they were once claimed to be.