The explanation of lev. 17:14-16, acts 15:20,28,29 i want detailed explanations. I tried to explain but he could not understood. You can give me your explanation through my whatsapp number +233543569543.
blood transfusion
by asante Frederick 2 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
Island Man
(Leviticus 17:11, 12) . . .For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for YOU to make atonement for YOUR souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul [in it]. 12 That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: “No soul of YOU must eat blood and no alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst should eat blood.”
(Leviticus 17:14-16) . . .For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: “YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.” 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.’”
According to the bible. God views blood as being the seat of life itself. Blood is viewed as being the spiritual symbol or emblem of life. The wages of sin is death. So how can a sinner escape paying for his sin with his own life? He pays with another life - the life of the sacrificial victim. Hence the practice of animal sacrifice under the law. And given that blood is the seat of life, the value of such lives offered in sacrifice were presented using the blood as the medium of exchange. So under the law blood served as a sort of currency for presenting the value of the life sacrificed.
Because blood was valued as representing life and used on the altar as the means of exchanging the life of the sacrifice in place of the life of the sinner, the value or sanctity of blood has to be preserved. If a person eats blood of a slaughtered animal, then he has shown lack of respect for the value of life. He has essentially nullified the sacrificial value of blood by treating blood as nothing more than common food. He has esteemed as being of ordinary value, the only means by which his sins can be atoned for. That being the case, there can be no sacrifice for sins in his case. So he is to be put to death.
However, following the law against eating blood was not meant to result in hardship or death of an innocent man who finds himself weak in the wilderness without food, and who happens upon a dead animal that had not been properly bled. Under such circumstances the starving man could eat the dead animal to stay alive. At the same time, even in this scenario respect for the sanctity of blood is shown by the man being considered unclean for this action, and having to wash his garments and bathe in water.
(Acts 15:20, 21) . . .but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 For from ancient times Moses has had in city after city those who preach him, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath.”
(Acts 15:28, 29) . . .For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!”
With the ingathering of gentiles into the congregation, the issue of law observance came to the fore. Some Jewish christians insisted that gentiles had to observe all the law to be saved. The decision was ultimately reached that observance of the law was not necessary. However, christians had to observe certain necessary guidelines which were also part of the law. These were guidelines that worshipers of God were required to follow even before the mosaic law was given. They were to avoid fornication, idolatry and eating blood.
It is of interest to note, however, what Acts 15:21 says. This verse seems to suggest that the reason for christians being asked to refrain from eating blood (after the law covenant banning blood has been done away with) is due to the noterity of this OT law within the Jewish community and hence the great likelihood of offending and stumbling Jews. It could be argued that this is the real reason why christians were told to abstain from blood rather than it still being a binding requirement of christians from God's standpoint. In other words, the prohibition on blood could be intended more as a prohibition on stumbling Jews than a prohibition on eating blood itself, given that the law was done away with.
1 Corinthians 8 and 1 Corinthians 10:23-33 lends credence to this view. How so. Notice that Acts 15:20, 29 also forbids things sacrificed to idols. However at 1 Corinthians 10:23-33 Paul indicates that a christian can, in good conscience, eat food that was previously offered to idols. A christian buying meat did not have to inquire if it was previously offered to idol so as to avoid polluting himself. Whether it was offered to an idol or not was irrelevant. The fact is he was eating it without any idolatrous intentions. What was important was how his actions would affect the conscience of others who knew the food was previously offered to idols. So what 1 Corinthians says on the subject of eating things sacrficed to idols (a practice also prohibited alongside the eating of blood at Acts 15:20, 29), lends credence to the view that the prohibition on things sacrificed to idols and blood has more to do with stumbling Jewish christiand familiar with these OT Laws rather than these practices being inherently unlawful for christians who are no longer under the law.
If this is the case, then the prohibition on blood transfusions would be very foolish for not even Jews consider blood transfusions as falling under the OT law against the eating of blood. Accepting life-saving blood transfusions are simply not a matter that many people today can be stumbled by. On the contrary, it is the refusal of such treatment with the result of death, that serves to stumple people away from christianity, causing them to view it as a fanatical cult.
But even if we assume that the prohibition on blood still stands and it is not merely a matter of not stumbling weaker consciences, the prohibition on blood still does not apply to blood transfusions. Why so? Remember that the prohibition on blood was specifically with regard to eating it. That eating blood shows lack of respect for its sanctity as representing life and a means for buying back the life of the sinner on the altar. The prohibition obviously does not mean that worshipers cannot make use of the blood flowing in their veins. In fact this latter use of blood is its primary, natural, God-ordained use. Logically, this use does not come under the prohibition. This use does not violate the sanctity of blood. Arguably, it is because of this very life-sustaining use in the veins that blood was designated as representing life. Therefore it would be the height of foolishness to suggest that the use of blood in the circulatory system violates its sanctity. How then can a blood transfusion be deemed as violating the sanctity of blood? How can it be when we're putting blood to use in the veins in harmony with its God-ordained purpose? What is more the life of the donor is not taken.
The use of blood in the veins is not eating blood. Blood that is eaten is digested and absorbed as food nutrients - it is treated as food. Transfused blood functions as it was created by God to function. It performs its God-ordained natural and dignified function of sustaining life. It is used in the body as an organ - not as food. To equate a blood transfusion with eating blood is tantamount to equating a liver transplant with eating liver. If your doctor advised you to stop eating liver, would you conclude from that that you're not to accept a liver transplant?
-
Marvin Shilmer
According to the bible. God views blood as being the seat of life itself. Blood is viewed as being the spiritual symbol or emblem of life
That's wholesale hogwash! ONLY under the Mosaic Law was blood treated as some sort of sacred substance. According to the Bibles I've read Christians are not under Mosaic Law.
Righteous Noah was NOT required to treat blood as a sacred substance:
Ancient Blood Transplantation, and Noahat http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2010/01/ancient-blood-transplantation-and-noah.html
Genesis and meat eating? at http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2012/12/genesis-and-meat-eating.html