JW Blood Doctrine Dismembered

by AlanF 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Earnest

  shadow,

  I read your previous post in which you laid out the various discussions in the Watchtower on Leviticus 17 including the 83 WT QFR. I found the QFR helpful but completely agree that the language of Leviticus 17 does not suggest those eating a body already dead were ignorant of the situation. In fact, the wording is very similar to verse 10 which says "As for any man of the house of Israel...who eats any sort of blood...[shall be] cut off from among his people". Compare verse 15 "As for any soul that eats a body (already) dead...he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening..." There is no suggestion that those in verse 15 were any more ignorant than those in verse 10, only the penalty is far less severe.

  The more I read of the restrictions on eating a body already dead the clearer it seems that this is simply a dietary law and has nothing to do with the law on blood. For one thing, it speaks of eating a body already dead and something torn by a wild beast in the same breath (Leviticus 17:15; 22:8). Now an animal torn by a wild beast is not necessarily dead (otherwise why make the distinction) and the blood could still be drained out, but the prohibition to eat it still applied. Also, the explanation given for the prohibition on an animal found dead or torn by a wild beast is to do with purity and holiness whereas the prohibition on blood is because the soul of the flesh is the blood. As you point out, the penalty is very similar to other offences which also involve uncleanness.

  The QFR says regarding the alien residents that "Bible commentators have recognised that the distinction must have been the religious standing of the alien involved". That was Calvin's view as mentioned in my previous post. The QFR footnote cites Jewish scholars on this as well :

  As one example, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J. Hertz, observes: "According to Lev. XVII, 15, touching or eating the flesh of a nevelah is defiling both to the Israelite and the 'stranger [or alien resident].' In Lev[iticus] the 'stranger' meant the non-Israelite who had become a proselyte in the full sense of the word, a ger tzedek. Here [in Deuteronomy 14:21] the 'stranger that is within thy gates' refers to the time when Israel would be settled in their Land and would have in their midst not only proselytes, but also men who while they had abandoned idolatry did not completely take upon themselves the life and religious practices of the Israelite. The Rabbis called this class of resident aliens ger toshav: and [Deuteronomy 14:21] refers to that class, who were neither Israelites by birth or conversion, nor 'foreigners'." In contrast, this work explains that the 'stranger' (alien) of Leviticus 17:15 was "a full proselyte,...otherwise, he was not debarred from eating it."

  Earnest
• 

  shadow

  Earnest,

  Just wanted to thank you for your response. I think I was confused and connecting the point made about other scholars supporting their position to the idea of eating in ignorance. Have you ever come across anyone else linking this verse to something being done in ignorance?

  Is this a deliberate twisting of scripture by WTS to shore up transfusion policy or possibly just a point of view on the correct understanding of the Hebrew?
• 

  TD

  Hi Earnest,

  Thanks for your comments, they are insightful and thought provoking.

  There are only two types of aliens under Torah:

  1: Necharim (Heathens Foreigners)

  A Nechar could be a temporary visitor, such as a traveller, a temporary foreign worker or merchant. Whatever the case, he did not settle down and become part of bnei Yisrael, he did not claim citizenship, nor did he embrace the Torah

  2: Gerim (Guests, Sojourners)

  A Ger was a resident alien. He had voluntarily chosen to settle and make his home among the Jews, and embrace the Torah. Accordingly, Parasha Devarim requires that he enjoy the rights and privileges of a natural born ben Yisrael, receiving the exact same justice and judgement.

  While Deuteronomy 14:21 uses both of these terms. Leviticus 17:15-16 uses only the latter of the two.

  In comparing the scriptures, I think the distinction Calvin (and yourself) perhaps sought to draw is that between the ger sedeq (lit. stranger of righteousness -- full proselyte) and the ger toshav (lit. stranger of the gate ? limited proselyte)

  The ger sedeq was for all intents and purposes, a Jew in everything but birth. Today, he or she must abide by Rambam?s 613 Mitzvot the same as any practicing natural Jew.

  The ger toshav could eat tref (nonkosher) but nevertheless still had to abide by the seven universal Noachide laws. After he was circumcised, (he had twelve months according to the Babylonian Talmud) he could partake of the Passover sacrifice.

  On this basis, I don?t believe that Calvin was entirely wrong, but neither do I believe he was correct either. Like most Christians, it seems Calvin was interested in the Law, but not enough to recognize its different divisions and their respective purposes as the Jews do.

  As you may have gathered, I still completely disagree with the idea that the ?stranger of the gate? was exempt from law.

  Tom
• 

  shadow

  Very interesting posts on scriptures that I have been looking for more information on for quite some time.

  Earnest,

  It does seem to me also that eating an animal found dead was a matter of purity rather than intrinsically a sin in itself requiring only cleansing. This leads me to the opinion that blood in and of itself was not sacred material, rather it was given special treatment due to what it represented. In fact I believe the most common use of the word blood is actually to symbolize life. Acts 15 seems in harmony with this due to its prohibiting the use of blood as food and showing respect for God when slaughtering an animal (do not kill an animal by strangulation).

  You mentioned that you did not think the passage in Lev 17 had anything to do with the blood prohibition. Would you elaborate on this?

  Tom,

  Thank you for your clarifications. I have gone back and read through some of your older posts. Very interesting. How do you come to have this level of knowledge about Judaism? Do you know of any good reference works that may help others to a greater understanding of the Law shorter than 100 volumes? I have not had much success with Internet searches.
• 

  Earnest

  shadow,

  Is [understanding Leviticus 17:15 as providing for the inadvertent eating of a body already dead] a deliberate twisting of scripture by WTS to shore up transfusion policy or possibly just a point of view on the correct understanding of the Hebrew?

  I wouldn't describe this as a deliberate twisting of scripture despite rejecting the interpretation. The WTS, along with all other commentators, have to reconcile the distinction between those who eat blood and those who eat a body found dead (which possibly still contains blood). One interpretation, endorsed in the article Jehovah's Witnesses and the Apostolic Decree to "Abstain From Blood", is that the distinction is between animals killed for food and those which had been found already dead and that blood is only relevant when obtained by a person killing a creature. Another interpretation, held by the WTS, is that blood is relevant however an animal dies but there is allowance made for those who eat it inadvertently. A third interpretation which I have outlined is that blood is relevant however an animal dies but that an animal found dead should not be eaten even when there is no blood involved. The WTS interpretation that Leviticus 17:15 provides for inadvertently eating a body found dead is also held by a number of other commentators.

  John Wesley (Explanatory Notes) :

  That eateth - Through ignorance or inadvertency; for if it was done knowingly, it was more severely punished.

  Matthew Henry (Commentary on the Whole Bible) :

  If a man did, through ignorance or inconsideration, eat the flesh of any beast not duly slain, he must wash himself and his clothes, else he bore his iniquity, v. 15, 16.

  You commented in your most recent post that "It does seem to me also that eating an animal found dead was a matter of purity rather than intrinsically a sin in itself requiring only cleansing. This leads me to the opinion that blood in and of itself was not sacred material, rather it was given special treatment due to what it represented". What it boils down to is whether or not eating meat with blood was only a matter of purity if the animal had been found dead (but a capital offence if the animal was slaughtered), or whether Leviticus and Deuteronomy are making an additional provision even when blood is not involved. It is a matter of interpretation and most commentators take your view but I cannot reconcile that with the absolute prohibition on blood earlier in the same chapter.

  You mentioned that you did not think the passage in Lev 17 had anything to do with the blood prohibition. Would you elaborate on this?

  Certainly. Blood had already been expressly forbidden earlier in the chapter. Leviticus 17:10 says: "As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst who eats any sort of blood, I shall certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the blood, and I shall indeed cut him off from among his people." Verse 14 says: "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." Then in the next verse it says that anyone who eats a body already dead must wash his garments and bathe in water. This is so completely different to the emphatic language on blood that it seems to me to be an additional law - in addition you are not to eat an animal found dead, even if no blood is involved. This ties in with Leviticus 22:8 which mentions it in the context of holiness and cleanness, not of blood.

  Tom,

  Thanks for the additional info regarding the different types of alien resident in Israel. I believe that the distinction between the ger sedeq and the ger toshav is borne out in the Septuagint. Deuteronomy 14:21 says that "You must not eat any body (already) dead. To the alien resident [ger] who is inside your gates you may give it..." Leviticus 17:15 says "As for any soul that eats a body (already) dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident [ger]...". In the Septuagint it translates ger in Leviticus 17:15 as proselytos (a stranger, in the NT it is used of converts to Judaism), but in Deuteronomy 14:21 as paroikos (a sojourner).

  The ger toshav...still had to abide by the seven universal Noachide laws.

  On reflection I do accept that a certain standard of behaviour would be expected of those who were resident in Israel, whether or not they were proselytes, and it is reasonable to think that the Noachide laws were a basis for that standard. But if my conclusion is correct that the law regarding animals found dead (or torn by wild beasts) was in addition to the laws on blood, rather than qualifying those laws, then Deuteronomy 14:21 is irrelevant to the interpretation of "only flesh with its soul - its blood - you must not eat" (Genesis 9:4).

  Earnest
• 

  shadow

  I still cannot see why anyone would read into Lev 17 that it was an inadvertent act.

  Another scripture that casts considerable doubt on any such presumption is:

  Leviticus 11:39-40

  39 ??Now in case any beast that is YOURS for food should die, he who touches its dead body will be unclean until the evening. 40 And he who eats any of its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening; and he who carries off its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening.

  Here again it is mentioned along with at least one deliberate act, unless someone could claim it was accidentally carried off.

  As for Lev 17:15,16 would not an animal found dead typically not be properly bled? WTS acknowledges this here:

  bq 8-9 Jehovah's Witnesses and the Question of Blood

  19 This pouring out of the blood was not simply a religious ritual; it actually was an extension of the divine law given to Noah. When killing an animal, a person should recognize that its life comes from and belongs to God. By not eating the blood, but ?pouring it out? on the altar or on the ground, the Israelite was, in effect, returning the creature?s life to God.

  20 For an Israelite to show disregard for life as represented by the blood was viewed as a most serious wrong. The person deliberately disregarding this law about blood was to be ?cut off,? executed. (Leviticus 7:26, 27; Numbers 15:30, 31) A measure of guilt resulted even from eating the blood-containing flesh of an animal that died of itself or that was killed by a wild beast .?Leviticus , 16; compare Leviticus 5:3; .

  Some other discussions that I have read make the point that while consumption of blood was prohibited, it could be put to other uses. This does not seem possible for those under the Law because Lev instructed that it be poured out on the ground, however this is absent in the command given to Noah. Would anyone have more info on the Jewish point of view on this?

  A couple other scriptures that I find interesting:

  Leviticus 3:17

  17 ??It is a statute to time indefinite for YOUR generations, in all YOUR dwelling places: YOU must not eat any fat or any blood at all.??

  Seemingly an absolute prohibition, yet note this exception:

  Leviticus 7:24-25

  24 Now the fat of a body [already] dead and the fat of an animal torn to pieces may be used for anything else conceivable, but YOU must not eat it at all. 25 For anyone eating fat from the beast from which he presents it as an offering made by fire to Jehovah, the soul that eats must be cut off from his people.

  WTS comment:

  w81 10/15 pp. 30-31 Questions from Readers

  Do you see the point? Though they could eat neither blood nor fat, Jehovah said that they could put fat to uses other than in sacrifice. But God did not say that about blood.

  This is used to claim that it would be wrong for Christians to put blood to any other use, however the last paragraph of the same article says:

  ?Accordingly, a farmer today might have to get rid of an unbled carcass, such as a cow that he found dead so that it was no longer possible to drain the blood.?

  So it would seem to be very difficult to extract blood in any quantity post-mortem to put to some other use, making it seem fairly obvious why the Law would not specify the same allowance re: blood due to the physical impossibility of doing so.

  One use of unbled flesh that Jews found of an animal found dead was to eat it as long they followed the Lev 17 procedure.
• 

  AlanF

  I only have time for a brief comment here.

  It should be obvious that the Bible nowhere gives an absolute prohibition on the consumption of blood by anyone. Why? Because even when one bleeds an animal that he has killed for food, according to standard bleeding procedures, something like half of the blood remains in the animal. What's the difference between eating an animal containing half its blood and eating one containing all of its blood? Not much in terms of the amount of blood consumed. What is different -- and this is a very strong point in favor of my initial point about Deut. 14:21 -- is that when the animal has been bled, respect has been shown for the life of the animal. Since in Deut. 14:21 God gives explicit permission for "alien residents" to eat already-dead carcasses, and such carcasses contained as much as a full complement of blood, it's obvious that God saw no difference between eating such a carcass and one that had been properly bled but contained only half the complement of blood.

  AlanF