Been trying to find a scripture I think O/T that is used to counter react the WTS twisting of their adherence to abstaining from blood and all things strangled etc, the scripture speaks about if you obey a law of god that could threaten your life that you should rather save your own life rather than adhere to the law, anyone know where I'm coming from?
Help finding a scripture
by jookbeard 8 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Eyes Open
That's funny - don't remember having that one highlighted to me in all my time as a JW. Will be interested to see where it is if it exists.
-
Mrs Smith
I know that there is a jewish law that says that anything is allowed (even if their is a biblical law against it) if it will save your life. That is why the jews accept blood transfusions. Don't know about a scripture though.
-
MeneMene
Lots of good discussion & scriptures on these threads about blood -
-
BurnTheShips
It isn't in the OT.
It is in the Mishna.
And Jesus used the concept in his own ministry. He cured on the Sabbath.
Life is greater than legalism.
Burn
-
jookbeard
thanks for that
-
Sasha
Yes, thank you for that.
-
JCanon
I don't know if this is what you are remembering, but if an animal was found killed by a wild beast and thus not properly drained, you had permission to eat it. The only stipulation was that you were unclean for the evening. If you touched a dead body you'd become unclean, or if you had sex.
Lev 17: 15 As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; and he must be clean. 16 But if he will not wash them and will not bathe his flesh, he must then answer for his error.’”
So in the context of what you are getting at, there is no life-threatening necessity to eat blood-stained food that was otherwise not able to e drained properly. In other words, if you happened to have found a deer killed by a lion that was still relatively fresh with some whole parts and you wanted to eat it, even though it was improperly drained, you could go ahead and eat it. Only you'd has to wash and be unclean until the evening. That's all.
This reflects on the context of another scripture in the gospel where if you were at the home of an unbeliever and they served you something sold in a meat market, ostensibly possibly not kosherly drained, you were to eat up making no inquiry about your conscience:
1 Cor. 10: 25 Everything that is sold in a meat market keep eating, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience; 26 for “to Jehovah belong the earth and that which fills it.” 27 If anyone of the unbelievers invites YOU and YOU wish to go, proceed to eat everything that is set before YOU , making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience.
So in other words, it's no big deal whether something is drained properly or not. If you're buying food in a public place you don't need to check and see if it was drained properly. You should make "no inquiry" about that. If an unbeliever invites you to eat, enjoy! That's because actually eating blood is no big deal as far as the Bible is concerned, and it wasn't a big deal with respect to undrained meat that was already dead. The only difference is, now since the Law was out of the way, there was no ceremonial uncleanness issue involved.
To put into perspective and reconcile, therefore, the rule about "abstaining from blood," we must examine the reason behind restrictions on food. The key factor here is the weak conscience of others. Everything was to be eaten, zero restrictions, including something not properly drained. But... if someone else's conscience was involved, and they had a hang-up about it, then you didn't eat out of respect for them and their weak conscience, not because it was a sin.
Thus the context of that rule for the congregation was because so many Jews having lived under the law and always eaten kosher foods was that there consciences were still weak and they were not able to just drop their feelings about eating blood. So out of respect for them, Christians were told to "abstain from blood." But that was clearly only when you were around other Christians. As soon as you were in the house of an unbeliever, you could eat whatever you wanted and were not supposed to be concerned about where the meat came from or whether it was properly drained or not. Because it didn't matter. "Abstaining from blood" was thus simply a courtesy to the Jewish Christians who had weak consciences. But even so, this was not a great difference from the Levitical rule that if you did want to eat something not drained properly that was already dead, it was perfectly okay, except you'd be unclean until the evening, meaning you could not come to the temple, which was considered holy.
Therefore, you don't really need to argue about breaking any rule against blood in case it is a life-death situation, because there IS NO LAW AGAINST BLOOD. There was only a circumstantial congregational rule for Christians in Jewish communities back then to avoid it. It was a "concession" for the weak consciences of the Jews. But otherwise, the Bible clearly says if you're in the home of an unbeliever, meaning someone not likely to have these blood issues, then you were not to worry about "abstaining from blood" or have any concerns about any dietary issues because they were not at all a Christian's concern. Everything in the Law that was unclean was now acceptable to eat.
LIFE-THEATENING SITUATIONS: Even so per the above, there is a clear principle as well, that if something was life-threatening that violating the letter of Law was permitted, as Jesus demonstrated the hypocrisy of those who condemned him for healing on the sabbath when they would rescue a domestic animal that might have fallen into a ditch on the sabbath, etc.
Bottom line, the witnesses have missed the point again. They have gone way overboard in insisting blood transfusions violate a strict Biblical rule against intake of blood into the body when there isn't any such rule against eating blood except out of respect for the weak conscience of someone else, in this case, the Jews. But that situation is hardly the case now.
So the scripture to really combat the blood issue would be:
1) If you could eat blood in the house of an unbeliever or be instructed not to inquire about meat sold publicly, then clearly there is no blood issue, and the rule about "abstaining from blood" was simply conditional to the Jewish congregations. There is no Christian obligation to avoid blood or any other food.
2) Even under the Law, eating blood of an undrained animal was permitted under certain circumstances. So it wasn't that STRICT of a rule even under the Law. In fact, it wasn't even a sin. It just made you unclean for the evening.
APOSTASY OF WTS: Finally, the WTS rules against any "foods", including blood and tobacco is part of what makes them the antichrist and the evil slave.
1 Tim 4:1 However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, 2 by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron; 3 forbidding to marry, commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who have faith and accurately know the truth. 4 The reason for this is that every creation of God is fine, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is sanctified through God’s word and prayer over [it].
The WTS thus has this rule as the result of demonic influence. They were not supposed to condemn the use of tobacco or blood, making it a disfellowshipping offense. And they were not suposed to break up legal polygamous marriages. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that condemns polygamy, only a restriction of those who do have more than one wife from serving in the congregation. But not because those with wives were unworthy, but because a man with two wives already has a "congregation" of his own to deal with and his time was already clearly taken up. That rule was to prevent the congregational issues to come ahead of familial responsibilities. A man with two wives would not reasonably have the free time to serve in the congregation. In the meantime, God's law says that the marriage tie was not to be broken except on the grounds of fornication. Yet the WTS does indeed violate that rule, causing some brothers in Africa to divorce their legal wives in order to be in the congregation, thus causing the same degree of harm and shame for these families as preventing some brothers who desire to to have a blood transfusion. All the talk about AIDS and diseases caught via blood transfusions would have zero significance for an autologous blood transfusions (i.e. where someone ancipating an operation donated their own blood for use in the operation.)
So you see, the WTS fulfilles completely the title of the "man of LAWLESSNESS" 2 Thess 2:4 assigns them! Forbidding blood transfusions isn't only just an extra burden on the congregation, it actually violates the Bible's rules that Christians have ZERO DIETARY RESTRICTIONS. Nothing you take into your body defiles you! Only what comes out of the heart. So why are JWs avoiding tobacco and blood? It's one of Satan's influences over the WTS as prophesied, that they would become apostate and go astray.
I'm going outside right now and have a cigarette! (But I don't inhale!! )
JC
-
jookbeard
thanks JC that was just what i was looking for