thank you and have a good day This must be a trick question, because transfusions are never mentioned in the bible. Why people Do/Don't pursue various medical treatments varies from person to person, faith to faith, country to country.
I am a Christian, one of Jehovah's Witnesses. We don't accept BTs, in part, because the Bible admonishes Christians to abstain from Blood (Acts 15:20).
In my area, the local hospitals have to have you sign permission slips if you want a BT, because it is such an unpopular choice, and in many cases there are many other alternatives.
I have gone through many procedures that didn't involve blood, and in the case someone in my family "needed blood" we found alternatives. My grandmother lived for 8? years on dialysis with doctors telling her, if she didn't get BT RIGHT THEN, she wouldn't last the week. She finally reached a point where she would confront them about their trying to scare her into going against her conscience. Meanwhile, even before she was a Witness she ALWAYS refused BTs because of the health risks.
There was one instance when a young woman experienced a tragic car accident. The doctors said that she had to have a blood transfusion, but she refused because of her spiritual conscience. However, late at night, the doctors forced a blood transfusion on her...She died that night.
Advanced science studies have proved that BTs can actually be harmful. Therefore, Jehovah's Witnesses have actually opened a way to safer alternatives and advanced technology. Lev 3:17 (and other texts) say not to 'eat' blood. JW's understand transfusions to fall under the same prohibition, for the blood goes into them. im not that witness but its not in the Bible. The only who witness the Father God is Christ. jehova is not the name of God
No, they just twist the Bible message. They take " abstaining from the blood" far further than not just eating the blood Wisdom....did you count that as a placement?
Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses and the Question of Blood
1 BLOOD is vital to life. Though this has been recognized from ancient times, modern research is providing a greater understanding of its life-sustaining functions.
2 The practice of transfusing human blood holds a prominent position in modern medical care. Those in the medical field and many others regard the transfer of blood from one human to another as an accepted therapeutic method.1 But there are people who do not accept blood transfusions. They are Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses.
3 Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses cherish and deeply respect life. This is one of the reasons why they do not smoke, use addictive drugs or seek abortions. They have learned from the Bible to view life as sacred, something to be protected and preserved both for themselves and for their children.
4 Why, then, do Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses object to blood transfusions? Is there some rational basis for this conviction that they hold to even in the face of death? And is their position on the matter totally incompatible with modern medical knowledge and principles?
5 This topic should be of interest to everyone in the medical profession, for at any time a doctor may be confronted with the blood transfusion issue. This is quite possible, as there are more than two million of Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses earth wide. Probably some of them are living in your community. The following is written to aid doctors to understand Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses as patients and to consider how their view can be reasonably accommodated. First we will examine the religious basis for their position. Then, beginning on page 17, we will consider the ethics involved and some recent findings and observations by qualified doctors that may be of practical value in resolving problems regarding the use of blood.
6 Even persons who are not in the medical field are invited to look into this important matter. The position that Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses take on blood actually involves rights and principles that can affect each one of us. And a knowledge of what they believe, and why, will aid a person to understand better this issue that has often been of concern to doctors, jurists, and students of the Bible. What, then, are the key factors in the issue?
The Religious Basis
7 Most doctors view the use of blood essentially as a matter of medical judgment, much as their daily decisions about using certain medicines or surgical procedures. Other persons may view the position of Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses as more of a moral or legal question. They may think in terms of the right to life, authority to make decisions about one鈥檚 own body, or the civil obligations of the government to protect the lives of its citizens. These aspects all bear on the matter. Yet the stand taken by Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses is above all a religious one; it is a position based on what the Bible says.
8 Many persons may wonder about the validity of the above statement. They are aware that numerous churches support the use of blood, establishing blood-bank programs and encouraging the donation of blood. Accordingly, the question logically arises:
What does the Bible say about humans taking blood into their bodies?
9 Even individuals who do not personally view the Bible to be the inspired word of God must acknowledge that it has much to say about blood. From the first book of the Bible through to the last, 鈥渂lood鈥?is mentioned more than four hundred times. Certain Bible verses are especially pertinent to the question of sustaining life with blood. Let us briefly examine them:
10 The Bible record shows that early in mankind鈥檚 history the Creator and Life-Giver expressed himself on the issue of blood. Right after the global flood, when God first granted humans the right to eat animal flesh, he commanded Noah and his family: 鈥淓very moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul鈥攊ts blood鈥攜ou must not eat.鈥濃€擥enesis 9:3, 4.
11 First of all, the Creator was providing a dietary regulation at a time when mankind was making a new start. (Compare Genesis 1:29.) God showed, however, that in killing animals for food more was involved than diet. That was because the blood of a creature represented its life or its soul. Thus, some Bible translations render Genesis 9:4 as: 鈥淥nly you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.鈥濃€擱evised Standard Version; Moffatt.
12 So this divine regulation was not merely a restriction on diet, such as a doctor鈥檚 advising a patient to avoid salt or fat. The Creator attached a highly important moral principle to blood. In pouring out all the blood that reasonably could be drained out, Noah and his descendants would manifest their regard for the fact that life was from and depended upon the Creator. But let us examine this matter further.
13 The above-quoted scripture applies to animal blood. Would the same principle apply to human blood? Yes, with even stronger force. For God went on to say to Noah: 鈥淏esides that, your blood of your souls shall I ask back. .聽.聽. Anyone shedding man鈥檚 blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God鈥檚 image he made man.鈥?(Genesis 9:5, 6) Now, if animal blood (representing animal life) was of sacred significance to God, obviously human blood had a sacred significance of even greater value. Persons complying with these divine directions would not be shedding the blood of (killing) humans, nor would they be eating either animal or human blood.
However, was this command to Noah only a limited or temporary restriction? Does it have a bearing on later generations, including ours?
14 Many Bible scholars recognize that God here set out a regulation that applied, not merely to Noah and his immediate family, but to all mankind from that time on鈥攁ctually all those living since the Flood are from Noah鈥檚 family. (Genesis 10:32) Theologian and Reformationist John Calvin, for example, acknowledged about the prohibition on blood that 鈥渢his law had been given to the whole world immediately after the flood.鈥? And Gerhard von Rad, professor at Heidelberg University, refers to Genesis 9:3,聽4, as 鈥渁n ordinance for all mankind,鈥?because all mankind has descended from Noah.3
15 Since the law on blood was linked with God鈥檚 pronouncement that emphasized a high regard for human life, we can appreciate the observations of Rabbi Benno Jacob:
鈥淭hus the two prohibitions belong together. They are the most elementary demands of humanity in the literal sense of the word. .聽.聽. The permission to eat meat, but without its blood, and the prohibition against shedding human blood indicate the place of man within the world of the living .聽.聽. In summary: the reason for the prohibition of blood is of a moral character. .聽.聽. Later Judaism regarded this passage as establishing fundamental ethics for every human being.鈥?(Italics added.)4
In fact, later Jews drew from the early part of Genesis seven 鈥渂asic laws鈥?for mankind, and this command to Noah and his sons about blood was one of them.5 Yes, despite the fact that most nations did not follow it, this was actually a law for all mankind.鈥擜cts 14:16; 17:30, 31.
16 Later in his law given to the nation of Israel, Jehovah God prohibited murder, bearing out that the mandate he had given to Noah was still in effect. (Exodus 20:13) Correspondingly, God also forbade consuming blood, saying:
鈥淎s for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in their 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.鈥濃€擫eviticus 17:10.
17 The Israelites were allowed to use animal blood only in one way. That was in offering it up as a sacrifice to God, acknowledging him as the Life-Giver to whom they were indebted. He told them: 鈥淭he 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 [or life] in it.鈥濃€擫eviticus 17:11.
18 How about the blood of animals killed for food, not for sacrifice? God told his worshipers that a hunter who caught a wild beast or fowl 鈥渕ust in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust. For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: 鈥榊ou 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.鈥欌€濃€擫eviticus 17:13, 14; Deuteronomy 12:23-25.
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 鈥榩ouring it out鈥?on the altar or on the ground, the Israelite was, in effect, returning the creature鈥檚 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 鈥渃ut off,鈥?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.鈥擫eviticus 17:15, 16; compare Leviticus 5:3; 11:39.
Could God鈥檚 law on blood be set aside in times of emergency?
21 The Bible answers, No. There was no special dispensation for times of stress. We can see this from what occurred with some soldiers of Israel in the days of King Saul. Famished after a long battle, they slaughtered sheep and cattle and 鈥渇ell to eating along with the blood.鈥?They were hungry and were not deliberately eating blood, but in their haste to eat the meat they did not see to it that the animals were properly bled. Did the fact that this seemed to be an 鈥渆mergency鈥?excuse their course? On the contrary, their God-appointed king recognized their action as 鈥榮inning against Jehovah by eating along with the blood.鈥欌€?聽Samuel 14:31-35.
Does this proper aversion to blood apply to human blood also?
22 Yes. And that is altogether understandable for God鈥檚 law prohibited consuming 鈥渁ny sort of blood,鈥?鈥渢he blood of any sort of flesh.鈥?(Leviticus 17:10, 14) We can see how the Jewish nation regarded this law by considering an incident involving some of the Jews who had followed and listened to Jesus. On one occasion he spoke figuratively about 鈥榙rinking his blood,鈥?for he knew that in time his blood must be poured out in a sacrificial death and that it would result in life to those who, by faith, accepted his sacrifice. (John 6:53-58) Evidently not realizing that Jesus was speaking symbolically, some of his Jewish disciples were shocked over his words and left off following him. (John 6:60-66) Yes, the thought of taking in human blood was absolutely abhorrent to those Jewish worshipers of God.
What About Christians?
23 The Mosaic law pointed to the coming and sacrificial death of the Messiah. Hence, after Jesus died, true worshipers were no longer obliged to keep the Mosaic law. (Romans 10:4; 6:14; Colossians 2:13, 14) Dietary restrictions of the Law, such as those against eating fat or the flesh of certain animals, were no longer binding.鈥擫eviticus 7:25; 11:2-8.
So, does the divine prohibition against blood apply to Christians?
24 This matter came up for discussion in 49聽C.E., during a conference of the apostles and older men of Jerusalem who served as a central body of elders for all Christians. The conference was held in response to a question about circumcision. This apostolic council decided that non-Jews who accepted Christianity did not have to get circumcised. During the discussion Jesus鈥?half brother James brought to the council鈥檚 attention certain other essential things that he deemed important to include in their decision, namely, 鈥渢o abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.鈥?(Acts 15:19-21) He referred back to the writings of Moses, which reveal that even before the Law was given, God had disapproved of immoral sex relations, idolatry and the eating of blood, which would include eating the flesh of strangled animals containing blood.鈥擥enesis 9:3, 4; 19:1-25; 34:31; 35:2-4.
25 The decision of the council was sent by letter to the Christian congregations. It is now included in the Bible as part of the inspired Scriptures that are beneficial 鈥渇or teaching, .聽.聽. for setting things straight.鈥?(2聽Timothy 3:16, 17) The decision was:
26 鈥淭he 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 and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper.鈥濃€擜cts 15:28, 29.
27 Yes, even though Christians were not under the Mosaic law, it was 鈥渘ecessary鈥?that they abstain from blood. Was that just the apostles鈥?personal opinion? Not at all. As they stated, that decision was made in accord with God鈥檚 holy spirit.
28 Concerning that Christian decree, Professor Walther Zimmerli, of the University of G枚ttingen, Germany, commented:
鈥淭he first Judeo-Christian congregation in the decision reported on in Acts 15 made a distinction between the Law given to Israel through Moses and the command given [through] Noah to all the world.鈥濃€擹眉rcher Bibelkommentare.6
29 The command to 鈥榓bstain from blood鈥?was not a mere dietary restriction but was a serious moral requirement, as is seen by the fact that it was as serious to Christians as 鈥榓bstaining from idolatry or fornication.鈥?br>
The Early Christians and Blood
30 The Jerusalem council sent this clear-cut decision to the Christian congregations, with positive results. We read in Acts chapter 16 concerning Paul and his associates: 鈥淎s they traveled on through the cities they would deliver to those there for observance the decrees that had been decided upon by the apostles and older men who were in Jerusalem. Therefore, indeed, the congregations continued to be made firm in the faith and to increase in number from day to day.鈥濃€擜cts 16:4, 5.
Was the decision recorded in Acts 15:28, 29 merely a temporary requirement, not an obligation that continued to rest on Christians?
31 Some persons have held that the apostolic decree was not a permanent obligation for Christians. But the book of Acts clearly indicates otherwise. It shows that, about ten years after the Jerusalem council issued that decree, Christians continued to comply with the 鈥渄ecision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication.鈥?(Acts 21:25) This shows that they were aware that the requirement to abstain from blood was not limited to Gentile converts in one area nor applicable for just a brief period.
32 But what was the situation in later centuries when Christianity spread into distant places? Let us consider the evidence from the centuries following the publishing of the decree recorded in Acts 15:28, 29.
33 Eusebius, a third century writer who is considered the 鈥渇ather of Church history,鈥?relates what occurred in Lyons (now in France) in the year 177聽C.E. Religious enemies falsely accused Christians of eating infants. During the torture and execution of some Christians, a girl named Biblias responded to the false accusation, saying: 鈥淗ow can we eat infants鈥攚e, to whom it is not lawful to eat the blood of beasts.鈥?
34 Similar false charges moved the early Latin theologian Tertullian (c. 160-230聽C.E.) to point out that though Romans commonly drank blood, Christians certainly did not. He writes:
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. .聽.聽. At the trials of Christians you 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?
35 Also, referring to the decree of Acts 15:28, 29, he says: 鈥淭he interdict upon 鈥榖lood鈥?we shall understand to be [an interdict] much more upon human blood.鈥?
36 Minucius Felix, a Roman lawyer who lived until about 250聽C.E., makes the same point, writing: 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?0
37 The historical evidence is so abundant and clear that Bishop John Kaye (1783-1853) could state categorically: 鈥淭he Primitive Christians scrupulously complied with the decree pronounced by the Apostles at Jerusalem, in abstaining from things strangled and from blood.鈥?1
But are the 鈥榩rimitive Christians鈥?and Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses in modern times the only ones to have taken such a view based on the Bible?
38 Not at all. Commenting on Acts 15:29, Catholic Biblical scholar Giuseppe Ricciotti (1890-1964) refers to the incident at Lyons (described previously) as evidence that early 鈥楥hristians could not eat blood.鈥?Then he adds, 鈥渂ut even in succeeding centuries down to the Middle Ages, we encounter unexpected echoes of this early 鈥榓bomination鈥?[of blood], due unquestionably to the decree.鈥?2
39 For instance, the Quinisext Council held in 692聽C.E. at Constantinople stated: 鈥淭he divine Scripture commands us to abstain from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication. .聽.聽. If anyone henceforth venture to eat in any way the blood of an animal, if he be a clergyman, let him be deposed; if a layman, let him be cut off.鈥?3 Similarly, Otto of Bamberg (c. 1060-1139聽C.E.), a noted prelate and evangelist, explained to converts in Pomerania 鈥渢hat they should not eat any thing unclean, or which died of itself, or was strangled, or sacrificed to idols, or the blood of animals.鈥?4
40 Moving closer to our time, Martin Luther also recognized the implications of the decree of 49聽C.E. In protesting Catholic practices and beliefs he was inclined to group the apostolic council with later church councils whose decrees were not part of the Bible. Still, Luther wrote regarding Acts 15:28, 29:
鈥淣ow if we want to have a church that conforms to this council (as is right, since it is the first and foremost council, and was held by the apostles themselves), we must teach and insist that henceforth no prince, lord, burgher, or peasant eat geese, doe, stag, or pork cooked in blood .聽.聽. And burghers and peasants must abstain especially from red sausage and blood sausage.鈥?5
41 In the nineteenth century Andrew Fuller, viewed as 鈥減erhaps the most eminent and influential of Baptist theologians,鈥?wrote concerning the Genesis 9:3, 4 prohibition on blood:
鈥淭his, being forbidden to Noah, appears also to have been forbidden to all mankind; nor ought this prohibition to be treated as belonging to the ceremonies of the Jewish dispensation. It was not only enjoined before that dispensation existed, but was enforced upon the Gentile Christians by the decrees of the apostles, Acts XV. 20. .聽.聽. Blood is the life, and God seems to claim it as sacred to himself.鈥?6
42 Might a Christian claim that the exercise of what some call 鈥淐hristian liberty鈥?should allow him to ignore this prohibition on blood? In his book The History of the Christian Church, clergyman William Jones (1762-1846) replies:
鈥淣othing can be more express than the prohibition, Acts XV. 28, 29. Can those who plead their 鈥楥hristian liberty鈥?in regard to this matter point us to any part of the Word of God in which this prohibition is subsequently annulled? If not, may we be allowed to ask, 鈥楤y what authority, except his own, can any of the laws of God be repealed?鈥欌€濃€擯. 106.
43 The conclusion is plain: Under the guidance of the holy spirit the apostolic council decreed that Christians who want God鈥檚 approval must 鈥榓bstain from blood,鈥?as God has required since the days of Noah. (Acts 15:28, 29; Genesis 9:3, 4) This Scriptural view was accepted and followed by the early Christians, even when doing so would cost them their lives. And down through the centuries this requirement has been recognized as 鈥渘ecessary鈥?for Christians. Thus the determination of Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses to abstain from blood is based on God鈥檚 Word the Bible and is backed up by many precedents in the history of Christianity.
Blood as Medicine
44 Up to this point we have established that the Bible requires the following: A human is not to sustain his life with the blood of another creature. (Genesis 9:3, 4) When an animal鈥檚 life is taken, the blood representing that life is to be 鈥榩oured out,鈥?given back to the Life-Giver. (Leviticus 17:13, 14) And as decreed by the apostolic council, Christians are to 鈥榓bstain from blood,鈥?which applies to human blood as well as to animal blood.鈥擜cts 15:28, 29.
Do these Biblical statements, however, apply to the acceptance of transfused blood as a life-saving medical procedure?
45 Some persons contend that the Bible forbids the eating of blood as a food and that this is fundamentally different from accepting a blood transfusion, a medical procedure that was not known in Bible times. Is that position valid?
46 There is no denying that in Bible times God鈥檚 law had particular application to consuming blood as food. Intravenous administration of blood was not then practiced. But, even though the Bible did not directly discuss modern medical techniques involving blood, it did in fact anticipate and cover these in principle.
47 Note, for example, the command that Christians 鈥渒eep abstaining .聽.聽. from blood.鈥?(Acts 15:29) Nothing is there stated that would justify making a distinction between taking blood into the mouth and taking it into the blood vessels. And, really, is there in principle any basic difference?
48 Doctors know that a person can be fed through the mouth or intravenously. Likewise, certain medicines can be administered through various routes. Some antibiotics, for instance, can be taken orally in tablet form or injected into a person鈥檚 muscles or circulatory system (intravenously). What if you had taken a certain antibiotic tablet and, because of having a dangerous allergic reaction, were warned to abstain from that drug in the future? Would it be reasonable to consider that medical warning to mean that you could not take the drug in tablet form but could safely inject it into your bloodstream? Hardly! The main point would not be the route of administration, but that you should abstain from that antibiotic altogether. Similarly, the decree that Christians must 鈥榓bstain from blood鈥?clearly covers the taking of blood into the body, whether through the mouth or directly into the bloodstream. |
