Alright here is a little back story. For the past couple of months me and my Mom have been having biblical theological discussions. This is partly how I found this site. I wasn't up to date with some WTS stuff so I needed a little bit of help. And like magic(google) I found you guys. Anyways I wanted to share some of the emails to find out what you guys think? The first one is a bit of a copy and paste job (thanks guys!), but I think it serves it's purpose on the blood issue. So if anyone wants to set me straight by all means please do! I will post her reply when I receive it.
Today I decided to look into the issue of blood, and the history of the theology that is currently used with regard to transfusions. I knew where the WTS got it's first stance on the issue. You can read this if you like, it's basically the stance through history the WTS has made. If not just skip on down as it isn't too pertinent to the matter but for me personally it shows that they have no divine wisdom on this doctrine and they more then likely will make Blood Transfusions acceptable with out any punishment as they seem to be working towards...
For many decades followers of the Watchtower were taught that blood is acceptable both as food and in transfusions. As understood by most Christian groups, Russell explained that rules on blood did not apply to Gentiles, unless eating blood caused stumbling in early Christian Congregations.
"These prohibitions had never come to the Gentiles, because they had never been under the Law Covenant; but so deeply rooted were the Jewish ideas on this subject that it was necessary to the peace of the church that the Gentiles should observe this matter also." Watch Tower 1909 April 15 pp.116-117
It was during the time of Rutherford that eating blood became unacceptable. (Watchtower 1927 December 15 p.371) This coincided with Woodworth's leadership as editor of the Golden Age. During this period the Golden Age released a succession of preposterous decrees and statements, such as; "Medicine originated in demonology" Golden Age 1931 August 5 p.728 Vaccinations were forbidden as "a direct violation of the everlasting covenant …" Golden Age 1931 February 4 p.293
"The bobbed hair craze is sure to lead to baldness, sooner or later." Golden Age 1924 11/19 p.100
"If any overzealous doctor condemns your tonsils go and commit suicide with a case-knife. It's cheaper and less painful." Golden Age 1926 April 7 p.438 "There is no food that is right food for the morning meal. At breakfast is no time to break a fast. Keep up the daily fast until the noon hour." Golden Age 1925 September 9 pp.784-785
Aluminum pots are "a curse to humanity and their manufacture and use should be forbidden by law." Golden Age 1932 October 26 p.35 The editor responsible for such ideas can hardly be considered a trusted source of either medical or Biblical guidance.
It was not until 1951 that blood transfusions were clearly banned and in the Watchtower 1961 January 15 pp.63-64 to accept a transfusion became a disfellowshipping offence.
Since 1951 the stance on blood has been ever changing and inconsistent. At first blood in every form including fractions were specifically banned. Over time the position on different components changed many times.
Blood Serum 1954 - Unacceptable Awake! 1954 January 8 p.24 1958 - Acceptable Watchtower 1958 September 15 p.575 1963 - Unacceptable Watchtower 1963 February 15 p.124 1965 - Acceptable Watchtower 1964 November 15 pp.680-3 1974 - Conscience matter Watchtower 1974 June 1 p.352 Hemodilution 1972 - Unacceptable Awake! 1972 April 8 p.30 1982 - Objectionable Awake! 1982 June 22 p.25 1983 - Acceptable Awake! 1983 March 22 p.16 Vaccinations Prior to 1921 - Acceptable 1921- Unacceptable Golden Age 1921 October 12 p.17 1952 - Acceptable Watchtower 1952 December 15 p.764 Organ transplants Prior to 1967 - Acceptable Awake! 1949 December 22 1967 - Unacceptable Watchtower 1967 November 15 pp.702-704 1980 - Acceptable Watchtower 1980 March 15 p.31) Blood transfusions Prior to 1945 - Acceptable Golden Age 1925 July 29 p.683, Golden Age 1929 May 1 p.502, Consolation 1940 December 25 p.19 1945 - Unacceptable in every form, including hemoglobin, own stored blood and every form of fractionation Watchtower 1961 September 15 p.559 stated that "Whether whole or fractional, one's own or someone else's, transfused or injected, it is wrong." 1982 - Minor components acceptable Awake! 1982 June 22 p.25 1989 - Autologous, Acute Normovolemic Hemodilution (ANH - use of ones own blood). Storage of own blood unacceptable, acceptable if circulation not interrupted - Watchtower89 March 1 p.30 2000 - Major change to blood policy, with all of blood acceptable when converted to minor fractions - Watchtower 2000 June 15 pp.29-31 2004 - Hemoglobin specifically listed as acceptable - Watchtower 2004 June 15
OT Law
So what was the law then, and how did the Jews view it? There is Genesis 9:4 "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood" (ESV), this command was to bleed the animal before eating it to show respect for the life of the animal. It was also only commanded to Noah and his children. It was until Moses day that it was a requirement for all practicing Jews to follow. It also was not important enough to be put into the Ten Commandments. If fact Gentiles were not under this law and could be sold animals who didn't have their blood drained (Duet. 14-21), so they didn't even have to drain the blood from every animal killed unless they themselves were using it. They were also allowed to break this law so that meat would not go to waste, all they had to do was acknowledge the sanctity of the blood and stay unclean for a period(Lev 17: 14,15). So even in the OT times gentiles were excluded from this law and they made exceptions. Furthermore use of the word Blood in the Hebrew OT almost always comes linked with death. So here we can clearly see that this law could be broken under certain circumstances.
The next sub-question is, what of the sanctity of life? Well, there is the rabbinic principle of pikuach nefesh (Lev 19:16); that the obligation to save a life, supersedes Jewish law. Jesus himself even made use of a form of pikauch nefesh (Luke 6: 7-10). Clearly stating that saving a life or healing was much more important than any law. Even devout orthodox Jews who follow the old Law to a "T" still feel that life is more important than law, and a blood transfusion that is used to save a life is OK. So even by the OT law there is no reason to refuse a blood transfusion if your life is at stake.
What of breaking God's law? Isn't that wrong? Well not if your life is in danger. David broke God's law when fleeing from Saul. He went to the tent of meeting and took bread that was reserved only for the priests (1 Sam. 21: 1-6). Which is another example that shows life superseded God's law and that some laws could be broken given certain circumstances.
NT View of Blood
This is where things get a bit more tricky, but a good study of the bible along with historical fact gives us a clear understanding. First one must ask what James and the council meant in Acts 15 about abstaining from blood. Well look at the laws it is sandwiched between; dietary rules, "that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication". This was one of the biggest problems in the church at that time. That Gentiles were buying "market" meat that was strangled, not drained of blood and sometimes used for idol worship and then sold. Why were they even sending a decree? Obviously the Circumcision issue was a issue of following the old law. Many Jews were telling Gentiles that they were not worthy of being a Christian unless they had the mark of circumcision. Likewise these rules were made for Gentiles so that no more major theoretical doctrines would arise splitting the Christian congregation like Circumcision had. James himself said that the old law would not be completely forgotten and was trying to assure Jewish Christians at that time that there would not be a complete change over yet. So they were to follow these as to not stumble the Jews in there congregation. In verse 23 it also says that the letter was only sent to three congregations Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. These three were the closest to Jerusalem and like wise had the largest Jewish contingent. So it is up for debate if Gentile churches outside of this even heard of this "decree". In that time Blood was used in two fashions, with meat and with pagan worship. It was not used for medical reasons. So this decree only applied to these two things and were followed by the Jewish law on these. Which it itself gave exceptions on.
What was Paul's view on this matter? Well we need only to look at Romans 14. In it Paul is speaking of Jews who were strictly following the law and Gentiles who weren't following the law at all. It is well documented that Paul was most likely addressing the issue of "unclean" vs.. "clean" foods. In vs.. 2 Paul says one man feels he can eat everything, which would denote that some were eating both unclean (food with blood) and food worshiped to idols. Some were eating only vegetable. This though was a conscious matter and was to be left to the individual (Romans 14:10). Paul says in vs. 14 that no food is unclean. He also backs up Jesus rebuke of the Pharisees at Mark 7:19 that all foods were clean. Paul also backs this up in 1 Corinthians 10. In it he says that you can eat anything "sold in a market". Why would Paul say something like this? Well the Jews in Gentile nations were afraid of buying meat that was "unclean" or that had blood in it. But Paul here says that if you are eating it and praising God there is nothing wrong with it! Everything is clean! The only exception is if it might stumble your brother, then you shouldn't partake (1 Corinthians 10:25-33). Gentiles ate food with blood in it and foods that were not considered kosher, but here Paul was saying that the old law was done with and it was up to the individual. Paul also showed personal choice when he circumcised Timothy so he would not be a stumbling block (Acts 16:1), showing that the decree in fact even the main issue wasn't a set in stone issue. It was up the individual to follow but if it caused someone to stumble in either direction you do the loving thing and sacrifice what you feel may be right. Here we see that Paul falls right in line with Jesus logic.
Conclusion
So by using scholarly history and the bible we can see that in no way is accepting a blood transfusion un biblical. In fact it's quite the opposite, Jesus showed that the sanctity of life far out weighs any Jewish law or custom. These Jewish laws were "perfect" laws, yet they were not to be followed in life or death situations. The whole issue of blood in the NT was merely a dietary issue and even that was not to be followed according to Paul. It was only if it stumbled your brother, then you were to do as the brother felt when in the company of him. Therefore Blood Transfusions would be OK under the old law and the new law. Blood donation would also be a personal decision. In my opinion the WTS has known this all along, and has always supported an opinion that is thin at best. Anyways hope this clears up my Bible based opinion on this matter. I would very much like to hear your counter point.