How can we biblically show that blood transfusion is not a sin? At times, anti-Witnesses have argued that the Bible authorizes a worshipper of Jehovah to ignore God鈥檚 laws regarding blood when it seems that life may be at risk. Such arguments tend to focus on 1 Samuel 14:32-35 and Matthew 12:4. Consider each Bible passage, in turn.
Does 1 Samuel 14:32-35 indicate that the bible's command to abstain from blood could be ignored when life seems at risk?
No, that bible account is actually powerful testimony of the precise opposite. For one thing, the soldiers involved in this account were not literally at risk of starvation, for they had been without food for perhaps one day and had had the bodily resources to fight a battle just minutes or hours earlier. However unwise it was for King Saul to forbid the soldiers from eating until the battle was concluded, nothing in the account implies that eating within minutes or hours (or days for that matter) would be life-saving.
.. ..(1 Samuel 14:32-34) And the people began darting greedily at the spoil and taking sheep and cattle and calves and slaughtering them on the earth, and the people fell to eating along with the blood. 33 So they told Saul, saying: 鈥淟ook! The people are sinning against Jehovah by eating along with the blood.鈥?At this he said: 鈥淵ou have dealt treacherously. First of all, roll a great stone to me.鈥?34 After that Saul said: 鈥淪catter among the people, and you must say to them, 鈥楤ring near to me, each one of you, his bull and, each one, his sheep, and you must do the slaughtering in this place and the eating, and you must not sin against Jehovah by eating along with the blood.鈥欌€?Accordingly all the people brought near each one his bull that was in his hand that night and did the slaughtering there.
With regard to that livestock, what was different about "slaughtering in this place [the great stone]" (verse 34), rather than "slaughtering them on the earth" (verse 32)?
It seems that the Israelite soldiers actually were making some attempt to properly slaughter the livestock, but they did so "greedily" and hastily so that the blood puddled "on the earth" and some splashed onto the meat. The purpose of "the great stone" was to elevate the animal so that its blood could drain off that elevated surface onto the earth below. Thus, it is ironic that this passage is sometimes used in an attempt to minimize the seriousness of blood, while the account in actuality showed how important that respect really was and is.
Does Matthew 12:4 imply that God's laws are subject to human whims? No, that verse mentions an account which teaches almost exactly the opposite. Jesus himself noted...
.. ..(Matthew 12:4) [David] entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests only
Did the Mosaic Law go into any detail implying that eating the loaves of presentation would be a "serious sin". No; in fact, the only Scripture which really discusses the command at all is Leviticus chapter 24. (By contrast, failure to abstain from blood was a capital crime under both the Mosaic Law and the earlier Noachan Covenant mentioned at Genesis 9:4,5).
.. ..(Leviticus 24:7-9) it must serve as the bread for a remembrancer, an offering made by fire to Jehovah. 8 On one sabbath day after another he should set it in order before Jehovah constantly [for one week]. And [after that week] it must become Aaron鈥檚 and his sons鈥? and they must eat it in a holy place, because it is something most holy for him from Jehovah鈥檚 offerings
Did David and his men decide for themselves that they could ignore this command? No. The Jewish priest analyzed the matter and came to a theological determination, as he was authorized to do. Even during this seeming emergency involving the anointed David on his obviously godly mission, the authorized priest did not "ignore" God's law, but made certain that David and his men met the absolute minimum requirement for emergency priestly duties.
.. ..(1 Samuel 21:4-6) But the priest answered David and said: 鈥淭here is no ordinary bread under my hand, but there is holy bread; provided that the young men have at least kept themselves from womankind.鈥?So David answered the priest and said to him: 鈥淏ut womankind has been kept away from us...鈥?At that the priest gave him what was holy
More than a thousand years before the birth of Moses and the creation of the Mosaic Law, God told humans to abstain from blood. Years after the founding of the Christian congregation, the holy spirit specifically instructed the apostles that the Mosaic Law was no longer in force EXCEPT for its command to abstain from blood. It seems rather obvious that this is a matter which Almighty God takes seriously.
.. ..(Acts 15:20,28,29) Write them [the various Christian congregations] to abstain from things polluted by idols [the meat of which is likely to contain blood] and from fornication and from what is strangled [the meat of which is likely to contain blood] and from blood. ...For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols [the meat of which is likely to contain blood] and from blood and from things strangled [the meat of which is likely to contain blood] and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. in the old testament they were vegetarian but after the flood god said you can eat the animal but not its lifesource which is the blood.let the blood drain into the soil.if they ate the blood it would be eating the lifesource.i personaly could not let my child die through religion even though i believe in god.they say god is supposed to be more important than anyone in your life which i would guess is what keeps alot of people away from church.god or my children.umm.children.who would choose god.actually i had this conversation with a jehovas witness and they said that their are other options other than tranfusions but transfusions are the cheapest options so that is why hospitals use this method and dont offer others.if anyone has a clue what the other options are let me no.they didnt tell me that. You can argue all you like, won't change the fact that it is condemned in Scripture.
Acts 15:28, 29: 鈥淭he holy spirit and we ourselves [the governing body of the Christian congregation] have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [or, killed without draining their blood] and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!鈥?(There the eating of blood is equated with idolatry and fornication, things that we should not want to engage in.)
For those who say 'This is animal blood." Sorry.
Tertullian (c. 160-230 C.E.): 鈥淟et your unnatural ways blush before the Christians. We do not even have the blood of animals at our meals, for these consist of ordinary food. . . . At the trials of Christians you [pagan Romans] offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that the very thing with which you try to make them deviate from the right way is unlawful for them. How is it that, when you are confident that they will shudder at the blood of an animal, you believe they will pant eagerly after human blood?鈥濃€擳ertullian, Apologetical Works, and Minucius Felix, Octavius (New York, 1950), translated by Emily Daly, p. 33.
Minucius Felix (third century C.E.): 鈥淪o much do we shrink from human blood, that we do not use the blood even of eatable animals in our food.鈥濃€擳he Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1956), edited by A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, Vol. IV, p. 192.
Yes, and early Christians understood it that way. Acts 15:29 says to 鈥渒eep abstaining from . . . blood.鈥?It does not say merely to abstain from animal blood. (Compare Leviticus 17:10, which prohibited eating 鈥渁ny sort of blood.鈥? Tertullian (who wrote in defense of the beliefs of early Christians) stated: 鈥淭he interdict upon 鈥榖lood鈥?we shall understand to be (an interdict) much more upon human blood.鈥濃€擳he Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 86.
In a hospital, when a patient cannot eat through his mouth, he is fed intravenously. Now, would a person who never put blood into his mouth but who accepted blood by transfusion really be obeying the command to 鈥渒eep abstaining from . . . blood鈥? (Acts 15:29) To use a comparison, consider a man who is told by the doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?
Full stop. It's spelled with an h! Jehovah.
There's no disputing it (to me). A transfusion is basically the same as "eating blood". Leviticus 17:10 prohibits that. It says in the bible that your blood is sacred. Acts 15:29 says "Keep abstaining from ... blood." In a hospital when a patient can't eat through his mouth, they feed him intravenously. So if you are told to obstain from it, and not to eat it, why would you put it in your veins? Consider this example: A man is told by a doctor that he needs to abstain from drinking. Would he be obeying the doctor if he quit drinking but put it directly in his veins? The command that Jehovah gave Noah concerning blood is binding upon all of Noah's descendants, in other words all of mankind. However, the Law of Moses was only binding upon the Jews. The Law of Moses also contained specific laws concerning blood and concerning the Sabbath.
However, the death of Christ brought an end to the Law covenant. Many of the apostle Paul's letters deal with the issue of whether Christians should keep the Law and the Sabbath. Paul showed that Christians were not required to observe the Sabbath.
But, in the 15th chapter of Acts the older men of the congregation held a counsel to discuss the issue, and they ruled that certain features of the Law were still binding; namely, avoiding fornication, idolatry, and abstaining from blood. My Avatar tells my profession. To take something in thru a vein (IV) or Artery (port) is the same as feeding or eating. This is done when large quantities of fluid, medicine or blood have to be given. They either cannot eat, swallow or the substance needs to be put in quickly. People can be fed Thru IV's, it is called parenteral feeding. So giving something thru a vein or artery is feeding. If someone refuses a transfusion we have blood expanders that keep the veins and arteries open so they do not collapse. Red Blood Cells are made in the body and it takes 72 hrs to get them into the blood stream. There is also medication that can be given sub que to increase the production of these cells. Many people and Drs. prefer bloodless surgery and staying away from transfusions as the patient heals quicker and less side effects. I have taken care of a few who contracted Hep B,C and HIV/AIDS from transfusions. It is sad to see them try to cope with the illnesses and the families heart break of the possibility of losing their loved one. People who are not Jehovah's Witnesses are refusing transfusions. When admitted to a hospital or nursing home we tag the chart on the front with pertinent info IE no blood, JW. In the case of a non Witness we tag NO BLOOD. Forms have to be signed and witnessed. From what I know of scripture it is quite clear that blood is to be abstained from in all forms, and I believe JW'S do a good job of obeying their God. The Journal of the American Medical Association estimated that 10,000 people, IN THIS COUNTRY ALONE, died IN ONE YEAR, just from the three MAIN complications of blood transfusions: hemolytic reactions, hepatitis B, and mistakes in cross matching.
The prohibition against blood was given to Noah, forefather of the entire human race, and fat was not included in this prohibition. (Genesis 9:3,4)
Acts 15 doesn't mention fat, either. Leviticus is simply used to confirm and explain the others. Since it is part of the Mosaic Law, we are no longer under Leviticus anyway. (Galatians chapters 1-5)
*********************Later *********************
Sammy, sorry, we thought everybody knew or had access to that information, I guess just because WE do. The usual main need is for any plasma volume expander, to keep you "inflated", to keep your blood vessels from collapsing and closing off until your body can make more blood for itself. A lot of your blood is "extra", that is, reserve for when you work hard. I think it was the Navy that discovered simple salt solution works fine (saline) because in the Pacific in World War II there simply wasn't enough blood to go around. Then, there is dextran, Haemaccel (I think I spelled it right), Ringer's Lactate and many others. There is also hyperbaric oxygen (oxygen under pressure), erythropoetin, heodilution, using a cauterizing scalpel, just plain being more careful to clamp all bleeding vessels, just plain building up the blood with iron before surgery and a host of common-sense alternatives. Doctors familiar with bloodless surgery are familiar with most of them. I'll look up something and post it here. Thank you very much for bringing it up.
**************************************
blessdmxup: Please find a Bible and read Hebrews 10:1-14. What Jesus did with his blood is what Leviticus said should be done with it and is the reason WHY we must respect it and not eat it--he offered it in sacrifice TO GOD, not to us for some imaginary "transfusion."
Best regards,
Mike I don't see how you can.
Everyone can decide to live according to my faith, or to Not live according to my faith.
I am a Christian, one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Blood is mentioned more than 400 times in God鈥檚 Word, the Bible. Among the earliest is Jehovah鈥檚 decree: 鈥淓verything that lives and moves will be food for you. .聽.聽. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.鈥?He added: 鈥淔or your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting.鈥?(Genesis 9:3-5, New International Version) Jehovah said that to Noah, progenitor of the human family. Hence, all humanity was put on notice that the Creator views blood as standing for life. Everyone who claims to recognize God as Life-Giver ought thus to recognize that He takes a firm position about using lifeblood.
God again mentioned blood when giving Israel its Law code. Leviticus 17:10,聽11, according to the Jewish Tanakh version, reads: 鈥淚f anyone of the house of Israel or of the strangers who reside among them partakes of any blood, I will set My face against the person who partakes of the blood, and I will cut him off from among his kin. For the life of the flesh is in the blood.鈥?That law could have health benefits, but much more was involved. By treating blood as special, the Israelites were to show their dependence on God for life. (Deuteronomy 30:19,聽20) Yes, the central reason why they were to avoid taking in blood was, not that it could be unhealthy, but that blood had special meaning to God.
Where does Christianity stand on saving human life with blood? Jesus knew what his Father said about using blood. Jesus 鈥渄id no wrong, [and] no treachery was found on his lips.鈥?That means he kept the Law perfectly, including the law about blood. (1聽Peter 2:22, Knox) He thus set a pattern for his followers, including a pattern of respect for life and blood.
History shows us what happened later when a council of the Christian governing body decided whether Christians had to keep all of Israel鈥檚 laws. Under divine guidance, they said that Christians are not obliged to keep the Mosaic code but that it is 鈥渘ecessary鈥?to 鈥渒eep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [unbled meat] and from fornication.鈥?(Acts 15:22-29) They thus made it clear that avoiding blood is as morally important as avoiding idolatry and gross immorality.
The early Christians upheld that divine prohibition. Commenting thereon, British scholar Joseph Benson said: 鈥淭his prohibition of eating blood, given to Noah and all his posterity, and repeated to the Israelites .聽.聽. has never been revoked, but, on the contrary, has been confirmed under the New Testament, Acts聽xv.; and thereby made of perpetual obligation.鈥?Yet, would what the Bible says about blood rule out modern medical uses, such as transfusions, which clearly were not used in Noah鈥檚 day or in the apostles鈥?time?
Of course, back then blood was not being transfused, for experiments with transfusions began only near the 16th century. Yet, in the 17th century, a professor of anatomy at the University of Copenhagen objected: 鈥楾hose who drag in the use of human blood for internal remedies of diseases appear to misuse it and to sin gravely. Cannibals are condemned. Why do we not abhor those who stain their gullet with human blood? Similar is the receiving of alien blood from a cut vein, either through the mouth or by instruments of transfusion. The authors of this operation are held in terror by the divine law.鈥?br>
Yes, even in centuries past, people saw that God鈥檚 law ruled out both the taking of blood into the veins and the taking of it through the mouth. Realizing this may help people today to understand the position that Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses take, one that accords with God鈥檚 stand. While highly valuing life and appreciating medical care, true Christians respect life as a gift from the Creator, so they do not try to sustain life by taking in blood.鈥?聽Samuel 25:29.
However, that does not mean that JWs do not value their life or the life of their child. There are now ways and means to do this without the taking in of blood. Blood salvage machines are b eing donated to hospitals all over the UK by congregations of JWs so that patients do not have to take blood transfusions. These machines are also avialable for use by non JWs. many doctors today are doing away with blood transfusions. more people have died taking of the transfusions then not. I know someone who had a triple bypass last year without blood and is doing fine. I rather listen to Jehovah God who knows best then to any doctor who is always making alot of mistakes. You can't. Jehovah's Witnesses love life as much as everyone else, but the example that the Lord Jesus Christ set for us was one of obedience to God, even to the point of death.
Jesus did not put his life above his obedience to God.
Besides, there are recognized medical alternatives to blood transfusions.
Taking a blood transfusion is not equal to saving a life. People have died from blood transfusions, and people have lived without them.
Many of Jehovah's Witnesses have refused blood transfusions, and have been helped by medical alternatives to transfusions. And they have lived to tell it. deny God and his word that should do it To save a life is a sin? OK, just remember that if ever you are in need. The fact that Christ shares his blood with everyone, so as good Christians you should do the same?
I personally find it horrifying that a JW would rather have a child die than accept a blood transfusion by the way, even though this is a semi-jokey answer. "Taking blood into the body through mouth or veins violates God鈥檚 laws." The Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses are perhaps best known to other Americans as people who won鈥檛 allow themselves or their children to have blood transfusions. In fact, they will go so far as to allow a loved one to die rather than accept a transfusion, as they believe transfusions are a gross violation of God鈥檚 law. They support this notion with these verses: "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood" (Gen. 9:4). "You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood" (Lev. 17:14). "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity" (Acts 15:28, 29).
There are several problems with interpreting these verses to mean that transfusions are forbidden, not the least of which is the fact that the context is referring to animal blood, not human blood. Moreover, there is a great difference between eating blood and receiving a life-giving blood transfusion. Eating blood was wrong because it profaned the life of the animal. But for a person to willingly share his blood intravenously in order to share life with someone does not profane anything. Indeed, even ultra-Orthodox Jews, who strictly observe the Old Testament kosher laws, recognize that blood transfusions are not prohibited by the command not to eat blood.
The Witnesses must avoid other problematic passages that deal with God鈥檚 prohibition of eating blood because these passages include a prohibition against eating fat. Witnesses do not believe eating fat is wrong, and would see no problem at all with someone munching on fried pork rinds (i.e., deep-fried pieces of pig fat) or sitting down to dinner and enjoying a nice fatty cut of prime rib. But their vehement opposition to eating blood, when contrasted with their approval of eating fat, presents a serious problem for them. Why? Because Leviticus, the book they go to in order to substantiate their prohibition of eating (and receiving transfusions of) blood, contains, in the same passages, prohibitions against eating fat.
Consider these examples: "It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood" (Lev. 3:17). "The Lord said to Moses, 鈥楽ay to the people of Israel, You shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat. The fat of an animal that dies of itself, and the fat of one that is torn by beasts, may be put to any other use, but on no account shall you eat it. For every person who eats of the fat of an animal of which an offering by fire is made to the Lord shall be cut off from his people. Moreover you shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwellings. Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people鈥?quot; (Lev 7:22鈥?7).
These verses and others like them are difficult for Witnesses to explain, given that they lean heavily on the prohibitions against eating blood. It鈥檚 totally inconsistent to maintain that God鈥檚 "perpetual statute" against eating blood must be observed, while his "perpetual statute" (that appears in the very same context) against eating fat can be safely ignored. On this subject, as on many others, the Witnesses are highly selective and must ignore much of the Bible in order to make their beliefs seem "biblical."
Also, the Old Testament dietary laws simply don鈥檛 apply to Christians today (cf. Col. 2:16鈥?7, 22), and the ones given at the Council of Jerusalem passed into disuse as Jewish conversions to Christianity became uncommon toward the end of the first century and the Church became mainly Gentile. They weren鈥檛 immutable doctrines, but disciplinary rules. it cant be refutiated. it is true, it is a sin. so are organ transplants. "the dead shall walk the earth" Why? if some people are retarded enough to be afraid of blood transfusions, let natural selection do its job. The book of liviticus is talking about not taking in "ANIMAL BLOOD"....
besides, who gave humanity the greatest BLOOD TRANSFUSION of all time??? Jesus that's who!! if it wasnt for his blood, we'd all be hopelessly on our way to the lake of fire..
(wait... they dont believe that either huh?!!) how convenient.... then can l ask is the the parents that left their 8 year old daughter die because they refused a simple blood transfusion after a auto accident are they guilty of the sin of murder? the child would have lived, all her injury's were treated and survivable but she lost a lot of blood and needed to replace what she lost. this is what caused her death lose of blood. the parents were Jehovah witnesses. they were never charged. but they charged the driver with her death. get that. i would not have lived during surgery if it was not for several blood transfusions, i feel i did not commit no sins, and thank god for those who donated the blood for me to live and iam a born again christian and so was my surgeon and he saw no problem giving me the transfusions during the 14 hour surgery |
