"You may have heard that Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept blood transfusions.This Scriptural stand is often misunderstood.Their stand is based on the fundamental law that God gave to mankind.Just after the Flood of Noah's day.God imposed this one restriction.They were not to consume blood.(Genesis 9:3,4)It was never recinded. Over eight centuries later,God reaffirmed that law to the nation of Israel,explaining that the blood is sacred, representing the soul,or life itself.(Leviticus 17:14) Over 1,500 years later,the Christian apostles commanded all Chrirtians to "keep abstaining......from blood."-Acts 15:29. To Jehovah's Witnesses,it is clearly impossible to abstain from blood while taking it into the body in a transfusion.They therefore insist on alternative treatments."
Let's break this down.
Around the time of Noah and just after the flood, we find the Law of the Sons of Noah in Judaism or the Noahide Law.
Okay, got that?
It was guidance for what would become the Gentile Nations (Non Abraham decendants.) so that non-Jews could attain righteous standing before Jehovah instead of having to BECOME Jews.
Okay, got that?
Of the restrictions, it is very very important to zero in with your intellectual cross-hairs on exactly what was said, intended and meant.
BLOODSHED can mean pouring out blood for sacrifice, food or-------ready for this? IT CAN MEAN MURDER.
Jehovah had forbidden strangling animals for sacrifice or food because no blood was shed in offering (as the scripture above imples.)
However--this is important---THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN MURDER AND STRANGLING ANIMALS FOR FOOD.
Otherwise, why would it be stated TWICE?
Simply saying "bloodshed" would suffice for BOTH meanings.
The fact it is said twice should red flag for us that TWO DIFFERENT meanings are there.
In Acts, we have a repeat of the Noachian Law for Gentiles telling them no FURTHER restrictions are placed on non-Jews than was already there at the time of Noah.
See how important the context becomes?
Keeping free "from things strangled" means NOT EATING BLOOD.
Keeping free "from blood" means MURDER.
By blurring the distinction between eating blood and committing murder the Watchtower is lying and distorting the context and the meaning.
With the proper contextual background it is clear that there is a distinction with a difference contained in this admonition.
What is the PURPOSE of a blood transfusion?
1.To eat blood?
2.To kill a person (murder)?
3.To save the life of a human being?
The context of use and purpose nullifies the Watchtower interpretations entirely!
The Jehovah's Witnesses are masters of twisted context.
Adding a "further burden" is what the Watchtower does COMPLETELY CONTRARY to the intention of the statement in Acts!
|By : Isidore Singer Julius H. Greenstone |
The Seven Laws.
Laws Before Sinai.
The Seven Laws.
Laws which were supposed by the Rabbis to have been binding upon mankind at large even before the revelation at Sinai, and which are still binding upon non-Jews. The term Noachian indicates the universality of these ordinances, since the whole human race was supposed to be descended from the three sons of Noah, who alone survived the Flood. Although only those laws which are found in the earlier chapters of the Pentateuch, before the record of the revelation at Sinai, should, it would seem, be binding upon all mankind, yet the Rabbis discarded some and, by hermeneutic rules or in accordance with some tradition (see Judah ha-Levi, "Cuzari," iii. 73), introduced others which are not found there. Basing their views on the passage in Gen. ii. 16, they declared that the following six commandments were enjoined upon Adam: (1) not to worship idols; (2) not to blaspheme the name of God; (3) to establish courts of justice; (4) not to kill; (5) not to commit adultery; and (6) not to rob (Gen. R. xvi. 9, xxiv. 5; Cant. R. i. 16; comp. Seder 'Olam Rabbah, ed. Ratner, ch. v. and notes, Wilna, 1897; Maimonides, "Yad," Melakim, ix. 1). A seventh commandment was added after the Flood—not to eat flesh that had been cut from a living animal (Gen. ix. 4). Thus,the Talmud frequently speaks of "the seven laws of the sons of Noah," which were regarded as obligatory upon all mankind, in contradistinction to those that were binding upon Israelites only (Tosef., 'Ab. Zarah, ix. 4; Sanh. 56a et seq.).