Hey guys! i got a letter about blood where the guy basically state jw has allways recognized the divine ban on blood. He says russell wrote a quote in the wt on 15 january 1892 where he supported that view. now, i assume he mean the nov. 15 1892 watchtower where russell write about blood. From http://www.ajwrb.org/history/index.shtml i get the following quotes:
"Russell was clear that he did not even consider the dietary law on blood as binding for Christians." and
"1892 - The Watchtower's first mention of the blood issue. Russell's view was that the injunction at Acts 15 was a temporary measure to promote unity during the transition from the Jewish age to the Church Age (Watchtower 1/15, pp. 349-352)."
Pretty clear and demolish the guys claim in the mail. Well, to make sure for myself, I found the edition of the watchtower to read the quote in context, and now im not actually sure the matter is as trivial as it seems from the quotes. Russell wrote (in context)
Vxnsxs 19, 20. “Wherefore,” said he, “my judgment is
that we should not trouble them which from among the Gentiles
are turned to God”-they are justified by faith in Christ, and
have already received the spirit of’ adoption, in uncircumcision,
thus showing that faith in Christ the Redeemer is the
only requisite to salvation, He further suggested writing to
them merely that they abstain from pollutions of idols, i. e.,
from meats offered to idols (verse 29), and from things
strangled and from blood-as by eating such things they
might become stumbling blocks to their Jewish brethren
(See 1 Cor. 8:4-13)-and from fornication. The eating of
blood was forbidden, not only by the Jewish Law, but also
before the Law was given. The same command was given
to Noah. See Deut. 12:23; Gen. 9:d.
V-E 21. The Apostle’s intimation is that Judaism and
the Law Covenant were very generally known throughout the
world at that time. and this harmonizes with our Lord’s
words-“ Yre compass sea and land to make one proselyte.”
Nevertheless these means had not done much to convert the
world to God; while the preaching of the gospel by Paul and
Barnabas had been signally blessed to the Gentiles-the chief
opponents being the Jews. These facts, taken in connection
with the words of the prophets which the Lord had just
brought to their attention, convinced James that a new dispensation
had dawned, of which not the Law Covenant but
the New Covenant was the basis.
VERSES 22-29. This advice of James found favor among
all the apostles and elders, and they decided to act upon
it. So Paul and Barnabas were returned to Antioch with
a letter of affectionate commendation, and accompanied hy
two of the brethren from Jerusalem-Judas and Silas-who
bore the same testimony to the church at Antioch.
The opening and closing wordd of this letter are noteworthy-
verses 23, 28, 29. The apostles are represented as
a class apart from others of the church, indicating the
distinctness of their office. The elder brethren or elders
signify those of largest experience and development. Note
also that those addressed-viz., Gentiles-are called brethren,
thus indicating Christian fellowship. The statement : “It
seems good to the holy Spirit and to us,” etc.. indicates that
they. judged the mind of the Spirit by the special providences
manifested in the cases of Peter, Paul and Barnabas, as
well as by the expressions of the prophets.
It will be noticed that nothing is said about keeping the
ten commandments, nor any part of the Jewish law. It was
eridently taken for aranted that having received the spirit
of Christ the new law of love would be a general regulation
for them. The things mentioned were merelv to guard
against stumbling themselves or becoming-stumhling blocks to
others.
bold and italic is added by me. Okay. So what obviously concern me is the bold part directly following the italic quote. Here Russell write that eating blood was not only forbidden by the jewish law - but also by previous parts of the bible. In the last section Russell do write that he feel that christians did not have to uphold the jewish law in general, just uphold it to the extend of not stumbling themselves or others. But how about pre-jewish laws? Jewish Law may not be in place, but i feel the text is open to the interpretation that pre-jewish law still is.
Now, i dont really think such a reading is really plausible. I think what russell wanted to say is the ajwbr interpretation. But if i am going to mention this in a mail i need to be more certain. So what i want to ask someone more versed in the bible (and english in general - a part of my problem may be that english is not my first language and quite frankly i find the text a bit convoluted) is basically this: Why did russell put in the part about
The eating of
blood was forbidden, not only by the Jewish Law, but also
before the Law was given. The same command was given
to Noah. See Deut. 12:23; Gen. 9:d.". ? Can one asumed that the pre-jewish law became a part of jewish law (at some point in history) and the quote is just about refreshing the readers memory and does not alter the quote, or is it something that provides wiglyroom for the sender to rat out and claim that russell actually believed one should not eat blood, not because it was forbidden by jewish law (which he clearly say is no longer in effect), but because it was forbidden by a more ancient law, which one can still assume (with a bit of wishfull thinking, anyway) is still in effect?