New article written on the blood ban. Any feedback is welcome. I know it's long, and will break into two parts.
Thanks.
Blood Transfusions do not Violate God's Law
Prior to July, 1945, the Watchtower Society of Jehovah's Witnesses taught that blood transfusions by its members was not prohibited. After 1945 blood transfusions were banned, and by 1961, any Jehovah's Witness who “accepted blood transfusion[s], and manifested an unrepentant attitude [was] disfellowshipped (excommunicated) ….” Jehovah's Witnesses – Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, [____], 183-184. This prohibition, and severe punishment which ensued, also applied to a parent who prohibited their child's blood transfusion even if necessary to save his or her life (jwfacts.com/watchtower/blood-transfusion.php).
This policy is still in effect although it has undergone radical transformation in scope. While “whole blood” transfusions are disallowed, today a Jehovah's Witness may transfuse,within certain prescribed guidelines, fractions, or components, of blood such as immune globulins, hemophiliac preparations and albumin. Typical of constantly changing Watchtower doctrine (in this case in the proper direction), one-hundred percent of blood fractions, or components, can be transfused by its members, but not all at once, not as “whole blood,” but in an extremely illogical piecemeal fashion - which violates the spirit of their own unscriptural precepts. The decision to accept a necessary transfusion of blood fractions (or permit a life-saving transfusion of fractions in the case of a child) is a matter for each individual's conscience.
The primary biblical verse used to defend the Watchtower Society's ban on intravenous blood transfusions is found at Acts 15:29 where the Council of Jerusalem decided that Gentile Christians (people of the nations) were to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage (fornication, Greek pornea) (New American Bible, NAB). Many, if not most, mainstream Christians view this “no-blood” and “no-meat” decree as a suggestion regarding dietary restrictions, not absolute law; it does not prohibit blood transfusions, and dealt with a limited, specific controversy that arose among mixed Jewish-Gentile Christian communities during the first century.
In time, the Acts 15 “Jewish” decree became a non-issue once the Jewish-Christian community in Jerusalem was scattered and/or destroyed by the Roman army in 70 A.D. Traditional mainstream Christians understand that the Acts 15 decree was derived from Mosaic law, and all such laws, not some of them but all of them, were nailed to the cross and done away with by virtue of Jesus Christ's atoning death. The Law “with its commandments and legal claims” was abolished (Ephesians 2:15). No man can redeem himself and attain eternal salvation by strict adherence to the Mosaic law. Accordingly, the blood decree was non-binding, the violation of which today does not prevent entrance into God's kingdom.
The central issue is whether the phrase “abstain from blood” prohibits blood transfusions, whether absolutely necessary to sustain life or not, particularly with respect to innocent children. This central issue, however, begs many questions; sub-issues which any first-year college student would be expected to raise. Does the Acts 15 decree unequivocally prohibit eating meat with blood under any circumstances? Was the ban on blood only applicable in situations where the life of an animal was taken? Must one abstain from all blood, including animal blood found in a rare T-bone steak? Does it prohibit sucking one's own cut finger? Must one abstain from human and animal blood? Is one permitted to remove and store one's own blood for future transfusion back into one's own body? Does it prohibit the introduction into your body coincidental blood associated with organ transplants? Does abstention refer to “eating” blood only? Is transfusing blood the same as eating blood? Is the Mosaic prohibition limited to only eating flesh with blood?
Was the prohibition under the Mosaic law merely symbolic out of reverence for the sanctity of a sacrificed animal's life? Was the pouring out of blood a symbolic ritual, or was it to be taken literally in every circumstance? If transfusions are prohibited, what is the proper punishment for breach of this rule? If the transfusion of whole blood violates God's law, which it does not, how can transfusion of select portions, or fractions, of that blood not violate God's alleged law prohibiting transfusions? What is the Watchtower Society's rationale for permitting transfusion of blood fractions? Which specific Bible verses does the Society rely on to justify its highly questionable stance on the aforementioned issues, or are these restrictive rules arbitrary and capricious self-contradicting man-made rules that defy logic and Scripture? Will a blood transfusion cost a Christian the prospect of eternal life?
These questions can be answered only by examining the scriptural and historical context of the blood-abstention doctrine, the advances made in modern medicine, and the capricious inconsistencies in Watchtower blood prohibitions. Upon examining the evidence, a reasonable person of average intelligence must conclude that the Society's prohibition on blood transfusions violates Jehovah God's law which demands respect for the sanctity of human life. Denying blood transfusions violates the Almighty's commandment at Exodus 20:13, “Thou shall not kill.”
When these sub-issues are identified and analyzed it becomes apparent that the Society's reasoning is arbitrary, unscriptural, and superficial at best. Their false teachings, that abstaining from blood includes abstention from non-vital and vital blood transfusions which might save a life, is not taught in the Bible. It bears repeating; blood transfusions, while they may pose certain health risks like countless other medical procedures, do not violate God's law.
The Watchtower Society acknowledges that Mosaic law became non-binding and ineffectual as it pertains to Christians upon Christ's sacrificial death (Luke 16:16). Nevertheless, they teach that the prohibited conduct listed at Acts 15:29 carried forward the Mosaic law in principle with respect to abstaining from “meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from eats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage,” or as others define such sexual prohibitions, fornication in its broader application. They have retained select portions of the Mosaic law and believe that an unrepentant Jehovah's Witness who receives, or permits others to receive, a transfusion of blood, [may] be subject to “eternal damnation.” How Blood Can Save Your Life, p. 31. They write that “[i]t may result in the immediate and very temporary prolongation of life, but at the cost of eternal life for a dedicated Christian,” (n. 77, p. 16, Blood, Medicine, and the Law of God, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1961, p. 54).
Respect for the Sanctity of Life
The Watchtower Society's ban on blood transfusions necessary to save a life is a direct violation of God's laws evident in the Old and New Testament. Preeminent is Yahweh’s command “Thou shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13), reiterated in the New Testament at Romans 13:9. God's view of the sanctity of human life, that it must be nourished, protected and cherished, is unmistakable. Under the Old Covenant, one who takes a life must forfeit his own (Genesis 9:6; Numbers 35:31, 33). The salvation of human life, in the present and the afterlife, is a fundamental theme that runs throughout Scripture (Psalm 34:7, 17, 10). Men beg for life (Psalm 119:25), and God preserves it (Psalm 36:6; 66:9; Jonah 2:6). God's concern for life, particularly that of human beings, is exemplified in the account of the great flood and the salvation of Noah and his family, and a great many animal species (Genesis 7:1-3).
The importance of the sanctity of human life was continually emphasized in the New Testament, even more so than in the Old Testament. Jesus taught that saving human life was paramount even if it violated Mosaic law; even if life was saved on the sabbath. Jesus asked those who condemned him, “Is it lawful on the sabbath to do a good deed or to do a bad deed, to save or to kill a soul?” (Mark 3:4-5; see also Luke 6:7-10). Saving a life was more important than obeying the letter of the Law. Refusing a blood transfusion when it might have saved a life, even if it violated a principle of Mosaic law, would have been specifically condemned by Christ, whom believers are commanded to obey at the risk of losing eternal life, for as it says at John 3:36, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”
Jesus repeatedly drove this point home, that he wants “mercy, not sacrifice,” even if it violates Mosaic law (Matthew 12:7). God's high regard for the value and sanctity of actual human life, not merely symbolic life, is illustrated at Matthew 12:11: “Who will be the man among you that has one sheep and, if this falls into a pit on the sabbath, will not get a hold of it and lift it out? All considered, how much more worth is a man than a sheep?” Christ also illustrated the importance of saving life in King David's time, even if it violated the Law, when David and his hungry men “entered the house of God and … ate the loaves of presentation, food it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests only” (Matthew 12:1-4). The Mosaic law could, and should, be broken in order to save lives.
Of great significance is the Jewish interpretation of these same Mosaic blood restrictions which the Watchtower Society base their transfusion prohibition on – Jews allow blood transfusions regardless of these specific verses, most of which are compiled at Leviticus 17 and Deuteronomy 12:15-28. Furthermore, providing necessary life-sustaining medical treatment, like blood transfusions, even on the sabbath, is perfectly acceptable and humane under the Jewish principle “pikuach nefesh,” (jwfacts.com). Since the Watchtower Society bases its transfusion prohibition directly on Mosaic law, it is perplexing, and illogical, that they reject the Jewish interpretation and application of the Jews' own laws.
Denying oneself a blood transfusion which results in death is murder in God's eyes, plain and simple. Exerting pressure on someone to deny a third party (a child) a life-saving transfusion that results in death is likewise a culpable act. Denying yourself a necessary blood transfusion based on the Society's erroneous interpretation of Acts 15:29, and other Scripture, amounts to suicide, or self-murder. Why is it wrong and abhorrent to Almighty God? Because the Christian body is sacred, as the Apostle Paul wrote at 1 Corinthians 6:19, 20: “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been purchased at a price. Therefore glorify God in your body.” Psalm 63:4 elevates God's love over life, “for your love is better than life.” But only “here in the Old Testament is anything prized above life – in this case God's love,” (NAB, notes, 63,4).
Without qualification, Jesus made clear, it is not what enters a person's body that defiles a man, but what proceeds from him that defiles, and that includes the eating of blood (Matthew 15:11; see also Mark 7:15). Life is sacred. Christ highly valued the life of his disciples: “When you see the desolating abomination spoken of through Daniel standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains” (Matthew 24:15,16). “Give me life in accord with your word” (Psalm 119:25); “... in your justice give me life” (Psalm 119:40). God clearly believes the life of the true Christian to be precious, and the Acts 15 decree to “abstain from blood” must be interpreted in light of those verses which recognize the sanctity of life and the command to protect human life, not destroy it.
Murderers, on the other hand, including those who commit self-murder, and those who participate or encourage this deviant act (Proverbs 1:11; Romans 1:29-32) “shall not inherit God's kingdom” (Revelation 22;15; 1 Timothy 1:9; Galatians 5:21), but are likened to dogs, sorcerers, the unchaste, idol worshipers and “those who practice deceit.” The Watchtower Society has inverted God's law, turned it upside down. Murder, and self-murder, resulting from the Society's prohibition of blood transfusions, is a characteristic of the devil who “was a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44). Wicked humans are filled with murder (Romans 1:29).
The simple fact is that the Jehovah's Witnesses of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society are attempting to be justified, declared righteous and redeemed, thereby gaining entrance into the kingdom, by strict adherence to legalistic principles of the Mosaic law. Any serious student of that religion knows that their doctrines are to a great extent Old Testament-centric and based on works of many kind, regardless of the Society's denial. This includes denying oneself or others essential, and non-essential, blood transfusions which they mistakenly teach can prevent one's attaining eternal salvation.
But Paul taught the opposite at Galatians 5:4-5: “You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For through the Spirit by faith, we await the hope of righteousness.” Because the Watchtower Society and their Jehovah's Witnesses teach falsely that obtaining or allowing blood transfusions – a form of works that specifically violates God's law respecting the sanctity of life – they have fallen from grace and made Christ's sacrifice meaningless because they attempt to gain entrance to the kingdom by adhering to Mosaic law, which does not prohibit blood transfusions in the first place.
The Watchtower Society's heartless, sadistic and hypocritical practice of prohibiting blood transfusions for innocent children which results in their untimely and unnecessary deaths is a practice which can be attributed to Satan. Parallels can be drawn between Jehovah's Witness parents who sacrifice their children to their version of “Jehovah,” and Israelites of old who sacrificed their children to the pagan false god Molech in direct violation of God's warning not to at Leviticus 18:21: “You shall not offer any of your offspring to be immolated to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God.” But despite this warning they did. “They built high places to Baal in the Valley of Ben-hinnom, and immolated their sons and daughters to Molech, bringing sin upon Judah; this I never commanded them, nor did it even enter my mind that they should practice such abomination” (Jeremiah 32:35).
Parents who believe that denying their child a vital blood transfusion pleases the Watchtower's “Jehovah” are deluded, much as ancient Israelites who pleased Molech by throwing their children into the fire. It is an abhorrent, perverted thought that never entered the Almighty's mind. But it is not only the parents whose hands are stained with their children's innocent deaths, but every individual who adheres to, promotes, enforces or encourages the ban, including members of a hospital liaison committee, the Governing Body, all who draft prohibition literature, every member of the governing hierarchical order from the “slave” down to the elder and ministerial servant, and every single member of the Jehovah's Witnesses religion who preach, whether door-to-door or otherwise, that God's law prohibits blood transfusions, are guilty of this unbiblical, heinous act. One who incites, or assists, another to commit murder, is as guilty as the one who commits the crime of murder and shall be punished as Jehovah sees fit.
The Watchtower Society of Jehovah's Witnesses relies to its pending detriment on one particular verse of Scripture which they believe permits them to escape their blood-sins unscathed. As they so often do, they pluck verse out of context. Romans 6:7 provides that “a dead person has been absolved (acquitted) from sin.” As such, the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they have nothing to fear once they die, that they won't be punished for this. They write:
Both those who formerly did good things and those who formerly practiced bad things will be “judged individually according to their deeds.“ What deeds? If we were to take the view that people were going to be condemned on the basis of deeds in their past life, that would be inconsistent with Romans 6:7: “He who has died has been acquitted from his sin.” It would also be unreasonable to resurrect people simply for them to be destroyed. So, at John 5:28, 29a, Jesus was pointing ahead to the resurrection; then, in the remainder of verse 29, he was expressing the outcome after they had been uplifted to human perfection and been put on judgment. (Reasoning, 337)
But surrounding verses 1-11 make it perfectly clear that Paul was referring to those who died with Christ to baptism, and are raised in spirit to live for God. True believers are passed over in the condemnation, while all others are judged for deeds committed “in this body,” in this life (2 Corinthians 5:6-10 ). This is verified at Romans 6:23: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Man's physical death does not acquit man of sins, including sins associated with the unlawful denial of blood transfusions; only the atoning death of Jesus Christ acquits men of their sins (Romans 5:16).
The practical consequence of the Watchtower's false teaching is that the Jehovah's Witnesses are under the mistaken belief that they will not have to stand before the judgment seat and be judged for their sins committed in this life. But nothing could be further from the truth. False Christians will suffer the penalty for their egregious transgressions, such as those related to the Watchtower's unbiblical and unjustifiable ban on blood transfusions using contorted Jonestown logic that has slaughtered so many needlessly. Whether premised on Noahide law, Mosaic law, or the Acts 15 decree, it was not the use of blood per se that was prohibited, but the misuse of blood. And today with advances in modern medicine, it is the failure to use blood where necessary to uphold God's law respecting the sanctity of life that is condemned in the Bible.
The Watchtower Society invokes Jesus' words at Matthew 16:25 in defense of their promotion of self-murder: “For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” But preceding verse 24 places Christ's words in proper context. “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross and follow me.” One must be alive to follow Christ. Jesus is not speaking of suicide, that one must kill oneself to please him, and the Watchtower's Jonestown reasoning, which is laying the foundation for mass suicide, has no place within the true Christian community of God's people. Interpreting 16:25 as a suicide pact contradicts the entire Bible which recognizes the sanctity of human life, and the command to preserve it when appropriate. Christ was referring to courage under persecution and self-denial, while alive, in this life. “[T]o deny someone is to disown him (see 10, 33; 26,34-35) and to deny oneself is to disown oneself as the center of one's existence” (NAB notes 16, 24). It is obvious that Jesus was not advocating self-murder because verse 24 refers to his potential disciples coming after Jesus and following him, in the present, which a disciple cannot do if dead as a result of self-murder through the refusal of a necessary blood transfusion.