Do the Scriptures Really Take a Stand on Blood Transfusions? [Opposers Dismythed]

Many have challenged our stand on Blood transfusions because such ones claim that the prohibition on blood refers only to eating blood. But is that true? Does the Christian prohibition on blood only extend to eating blood? Let us take a close look at all the scriptures relevant to this stand and not just the few that our opposers like to exclusively focus in on.

A Decision by the Apostles

Jehovah's Witnesses stand by the standard set by the first century Christians. This was the result of a decision based upon whether non-Jewish Christians from among the nations were under obligation to observe the law.

The first century centralized body of apostles and elders in Jerusalem, (Acts 15:2) by the influence of the holy spirit, (Acts 15:28) concluded that there were three things in the law that were still binding upon all Christians because they precede the Law of Moses. (Acts 15:29)

This was no doubt because they were restrictions on all of mankind that existed before the law and were informed by the law. These are listed below. As you read them, look up the Scriptures. Each one has 3 sets of scripture citations. The first scripture demonstrates that the listed restriction existed upon all mankind before the law, the second set shows an example in the law, and the third set shows that the apostles held all Christians to those standards throughout the first century.

  • “Abstain from things sacrificed to an idol.” (Genesis 4:3, 4; Exodus 20:4, 5; 1 John 5:21)
  • “Abstain … from blood,” (Genesis 9:4; Deuteronomy 12:16; Acts 21:25) and “from what is strangled.” (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:13; Acts 21:25)
  • “Abstain … from sexual immorality.” (Genesis 2:22-25; Deuteronomy 22:28-29; 1 Corinthians 6:18)

Back then, there were no blood transfusions, so a command to not put blood in one's veins would not have made any sense and might have given them ideas.

The Jews considered the Law on blood binding, as they did not even include it in poultices, as the Egyptians did, or as any other ingredient.

What It Means

Regarding how blood was to be handled, the Mosaic Law stated, "you should pour it out on the ground like water." (Deuteronomy 12:16; 15:23) Thus, instead of putting the blood to use, we perceive "abstain" to mean to pour it out, that is, consider it unfit for use, not having anything to do with it, just as we would abstain from (have nothing to do with) idolatry, sexual immorality or things strangled.

We do not view the restriction on blood as applying only to food. You will note that sexual immorality (Gk. “pornea”) is not food. It is an activity, and applies to all sexual relations not related to clean relations between a man and a woman. including heterosexual immorality, (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) adultery, (Leviticus 18:20) incest, (Leviticus 18:6-13, 17) bestiality, (Leviticus 18:23) anal sex (Deuteronomy 23:13-14; Proverbs 30:12; Romans 1:27) and homosexuality. (Leviticus 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9)

Likewise, what is sacrificed to idols (Genesis 4:3, 4; Exodus 35:15; 1 Corinthians 8:4-13) includes, not just food, but anything we view as sacrificed to an idol, such as utensils or temple gifts, (2 Kings 23:4) and by its very mention, it extends to idolatry itself. (Genesis 35:2; Exodus 20:4, 5; 1 John 5:21) Paul instructed Christians to "flee from idolatry", (1 Corinthians 10:14) and "flee from sexual immorality," (1 Corinthians 6:18) so we view the use of blood in similar terms.

Just as sexual immorality would include all laws regarding sex outside the marriage arrangement, and things sacrificed to idols includes idolatry, likewise abstaining from blood would include not only laws on eating blood, but also regarding menstruation, (Le 15:19-27) and blood handling. (Genesis 4:4; 9:4; Deuteronomy 12:16; Hebrews 10:29) If even choosing to have sex with a menstruating woman was enough to cause one to be “cut off from his people,” then clearly to “abstain … from blood” means to abstain from any use of blood, just as one abstains from any form of sexual immorality and idolatry, not just things eaten.

Note also that it adds “and from what is strangled.” This is the reference to eating blood, not the previous mention of blood, as the law spoke against eating meat that was killed without draining the blood. (Referred to as “strangled” because the animal is not eviscerated, but left undamaged by a knife.) So the restrictions on Christians extended to anything that caused contamination with blood. It is also interesting to note that it has been scientifically proven that actual strangulation produces capillary hemorrhaging in the animal, which cannot be bled from the carcass.

So anything written in the law regarding those things is also binding upon Christians, except for the punishments and sacrifices. (Ro 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:5-9) Therefore, the admonition to “abstain … from blood” is absolute and not restricted to food. According to the law, the blood was specifically to be poured out on the ground. (Deuteronomy 12:16) Does that sound like it leaves any room for other uses? So if Satan offers a blood transfusion as we exsanguinate, what would Jesus expect us to say? “Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘You should pour it out on the ground like water.’”

Really, if we are allowed to drink Christ’s blood only symbolically, how is it we should accept the literal blood of sinful men, whose diseases may be passed to us in the process? Had we not refused blood transfusions from 1944, how many of us would have died from the AIDS pandemic that contaminated the blood supply, or from the many strains of hepatitis, chagas disease and other diseases that still cannot be screened? How many of us would have died from other blood-related complications, all so they could prolong their lives a little longer in this system of things?

God's Word Has Not Changed

Besides sinful human blood being a carrier and cause of disease, why is the Bible’s stand on blood so important? Because it expresses God's view of blood and why he restricted its use only to sarifices, which prefigured Christ's sacrifice, saying:

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it." (Le 17:11)

Paul reconfirmed this when he explained that Christ’s blood is for cleansing away nearly all sins, saying:

“Yes, according to the Law nearly all things are cleansed with blood, and unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place.” (Hebrews 9:22)

Note that the blood must be “poured out” for the forgiveness to take place. In other words, it is not the sprinkling with blood that brings forgiveness. (Hebrews 10:22) Nor is it the blood of animals or of “ordinary” men that brings salvation, but the blood of the Christ that was poured out on the torture stake is what cleanses us from sin. (Hebrews 9:11-14; 10:1-4, 29)

Now if it is because of the atonement on account of the life given in Christ's blood that Jehovah restricts eating blood even to Christians, why would that logic not also apply to blood transfusions? The blood of animal sacrifices brought life for a period of time and we are prohibited from using it to sustain our flesh, and Christ's perfect human sacrifice, once for all time, provides us with life everlating.

Thus, to seek to preserve our lives with the blood of men or of animals would be a disrespect of the life-saving value of the blood of our savior, Jesus Christ. How much greater value his blood is than the blood we would try to prolong our lives with in this system of things!

Do Blood Transfusions "Save Lives"?

Blood transfusions have failed to actually prove "life-saving". Life-prolonging and "life-saving" are two different things. Blood transfusions are actually about blood volume expansion and carrying oxygen through the body. There are alternatives to this discussed in the organization's publications and videos, and at the point where those alternatives stop being effective, there is little chance blood transfusions will do more than prolong and may even add to suffering because of rejection factors and other undesireable side effects. In fact many people die because of the blood transfusions themselves.

What is the point to the trade off of the mortality of seriously ill people for the mortality of otherwise healthy people? And if the sickly person is reducing their health so that they only prolonging their suffering and the inevitable, then what kind of choice is that?

But What About Mark 3:4?

At Mark 3:4, Jesus referred to the Jewish Pikuach, a special ruling which says that it is okay to save a life on the Sabbath.

The question of blood is of greater concern than whether someone's life is saved on the Sabbath. The Maccabees even went to war on the Sabbath. But the Sabbath has nothing to do with giving us salvation. Salvation comes through the blood of a sinless man spilled as a lawbreaker. He gave up his life for us and we are under obligation to give up our lives for our brothers. (1Jo 3:16) Why not for Christ? Jesus himself said: "Whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."—Matthew 16:25

Paul wrote:

"For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left, but there is a certain fearful expectation of judgment and a burning indignation that is going to consume those in opposition. Anyone who has disregarded the Law of Moses dies without compassion on the testimony of two or three. How much greater punishment do you think a person will deserve who has trampled on the Son of God and who has regarded as of ordinary value the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and who has outraged the spirit of undeserved kindness with contempt? For we know the One who said: 'Vengeance is mine; I will repay.' And again: 'Jehovah will judge his people.' It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."—Hebrews 10:26-31

Now note the fundamental points in those verses. Practicing sin willfully, trampling on the Son of God by regarding his blood as ordinary, which is a greater sin than breaking the Law, and contemptuously outraging the spirit of undeserved kindness.

It is one thing to submit to sin in a moment of fear, which is why the GB has allowed for moments of weakness in their most recent update regarding blood transfusions, but to continue to make that decision over and over, as in the case of some with chronic conditions, is to treat the blood of Christ as having an ordinary or mundane value. It is disregarding the value of Christ's sacrifice. If one does not value the blood of Christ, then they do not value the gift it brings: everlasting life.

Allowing Room for Conscience

But now, we also permit ones to put their own conscience to use by allowing them to decide for themselves what they believe constitutes "blood" up to a certain point that does not include genetic material found only in blood, namely whole blood and major blood fractions. Some will not touch anything that comes from the human circulatory system in which blood resides. Others, however, will accept any non-genetic "minor blood fractions" because they can be found apart from blood. But those things having to do directly with red and white blood cells and platelets themselves are kept off-limits.

A Question Every True Christian Must Ask

The question is how sacred we view the blood he spilled on the torture stake. Is it something precious that provides everlasting life or just basic human blood that may or may not keep us breathing a little longer? Are we so attached to this life that we are willing to sacrifice our prospects for everlasting life? Is our limited view so important that it prevails in interpretations that could mean our prospects of everlasting life?

This is not simply a matter of following a rule. It is a matter of faithfulness to God and Christ. We put God before all other things, even our own lives. Performing one of the other sins, such as bowing to an idol, simply to keep living a little longer in this system would mean we hold our own lives as more important than God. (Acts 20:24) It would likewise ruin our prospects for everlasting life. But by remaining faithful to God, it shows what place God serves in our lives and demonstrates our faith in the resurrection hope. We put God first and everything else follows, rather than the other way around.

When Satan offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world in exchange for an act of worship, he was effectively saying "worship me and I will not kill you." But Jesus told him, "Go away, Satan! For it is written: 'It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.'" (Matthew 4:8-11) That same choice is put before us whenever one of our lives is on the line to compromise our loyalty to Jehovah.

By our pouring out blood, rather than accepting it as a means to temporarily prolong our sinful life, we show our faith in the permanent atoning sacrifice of Jesus and in the Scriptures and our hope of everlasting life. (Leviticus 17:11, 12; Heb 9:22; 10:29)

This is our stand and we will not compromise.

For a more medically relevant and scientific understanding of the issue, see the post: Positive Media for Bloodless Surgery and Non-Blood Management

Also, this video by the Australian National Blood Authority is very enlightening:
Patient Blood Management (PBM)

Our official stand is posted here:
Religious and Ethical Position on Medical Therapy and Related Matters

Comments

WitnessFTP said…

If the prohibition on blood is only dietary, I guess that makes the prohibition on eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and bad only dietary too right?

Picture this: Adam purees the fruit and transfuses it into his veins and Jehovah says "that's OK because I didn't explicitly outline every scenario about using that fruit to support your life...
By-the-way, since I didn't say you couldn't use the rest of the tree, I would have also allowed you to chop the tree down and use the wood for various purposes."


Before anyone tries to claim that the laws on vegetation (Ge 2:16,17) and blood (Ge 9:3,4) have no parallel, just swap the words concerning vegetation with animal flesh and tree of knowledge of good/bad with blood - you will end up with the parallel law. Both are at a beginning of a human society. Both are directed at the then patriarch of humankind. Both concern what can be eaten and what cannot. Both are linked with life and death. Both concern obedience and respect for life. Also note God himself drawing the parallel at Ge 9:3 ("just as I gave you").

We make inferences all of the time when communicating. Inferences are logical extensions of what is actually stated. Both the aforementioned laws were given to Adam and Noah respectively. There is no mention that they apply to anyone else. But the general understanding, or inference, is that these laws apply to their descendants too. Could an inference, or expanding meaning, be attributed to the term "eating blood"?

To make it plain that an expanded meaning of "eat" can be understood is the context.
1) At Genesis 9, Jehovah just finished destroying all human and animal life on earth by means of the Flood. Life was therefore a major theme in the subsequent conversation with Noah. Ge 9:3 explicitly tells us that blood is special – it is linked with life. Since food is vital for life, God was telling Noah not to prolong his life by "eating" blood. To obey this edict, Noah and his offspring would have to recognize Jehovah as the Source of Life and respect His authority regarding such matters. Obedience was also vital for life (Deut 8:3; Mt 4:4) - something which Adam failed to appreciate. So something more than just "eating" is involved here. Why do people want a blood transfusion? To prolong their life - the very same scenario that is discussed in Ge 9:3,4.

2) Could the term "eat" have been understood by Noah as meaning something other than oral ingestion? At Ge 3:14 God tells the Serpent that he would "eat dust" all the days of his life (we are back in Eden again). "Eat" here has a non-literal meaning. So Noah knew there were other meanings for the term "eat". Couldn't he (and by extension us) have applied an alternate meaning to "eat" to mean "take into your body"?

3) In Ge 9:5,6 God refers to shedding man's blood. The inference here is to take this to mean killing - not just killing by means of shedding blood but killing in general - otherwise I could kill someone by poison or strangulation and not break this law. So if this phrase means more than the literal term "shedding blood", why limit the phrase "eating blood" to mean just 'taking it through the mouth and chewing it'?*

*BTW, I can argue that drinking does NOT fall under the uber-literal meaning of "eating" because other scriptures differentiate between "eating and drinking"—See Mt 34:37-39 which references the days of Noah, the same time period of Ge 9. Once I interpret things this way, then I can drink blood without consequence. I don't think even opposers of the blood issue would argue that it is OK to drink blood.

By defining words as I see fit, I can do anything I want and, by my estimation, not break any of God's laws.
Dismythed said…
Thank you for your contribution, FTP. We both enjoyed it.
Opposers Dismythed said…
This is why opposers claim, by an open interpretation, that transfusing blood to save a life is “respecting life”. Well, then it could be argued based on that logic, that breaking ANY of God's laws to preserve your life is also “respecting life”. It’s ridiculous to argue that way. But it goes to show how they cannot scripturally refute God's command to not take blood into the body at all.
Unknown said…
Hey thanks for this article;

But am also interested if you have some good advice to help defend against those who challenge our view that transfusing any of the blood's four main components. Plasma, WBCs, RBCs, or platelets, still constitutes as whole blood (or Gk. "hima"). And therefore also a violation of God's laws on blood.

Our critics have long claimed this definition of the four individual main blood components as defacto whole blood is arbitrary and without scriptural support. And like or policy on lower partial blood product derivatives, should be left open to individual choice.

Do you have any good points to address this issue, as it has admittedly bothered me over a good number of years to come up with a more legitimate defense of it?

Thanks ...
Dismythed said…
That requires addressing many individual details of blood transfusions that I will address at a future time. But remember, we leave it up to individual conscience. If a person refuses anything farmed from blood, then we accept their choice. They do not have to accept lesser fragments.

The splitting hairs on transfused materials is simply about putting a line in the sand. For instance, if you distilled blood in a water distillation set, you could draw out fresh water and it would not have any blood material with it. So the question becomes what constitutes the blood material? I will answer that question in a future post. In the meantime, you might find something on one of Elijah Daniel's pages linked at the bottom of the page on the following link: http://godsviewofblood.blogspot.com
Opposers Dismythed said…
Apostates that claim taking fractions is the same as taking whole blood, are also claiming that if a ham sandwhich is made of bread, cheese, mayo, and ham, then eating just the cheese, or just the bread, or just the ham, is the exact same as eating a ham sandwich.
Dismythed said…
Well, eating the ham would be eating the ham sandwich. But the other parts, yes, are not needed to qualify.

We could think of it also this way: if I put a boat on the water, then is the water the boat? No. But if I take a mast from the boat, then I have taken part of the boat. Likewise, if I take the fuel from a motorboat's engine, has the motorboat ceased being a motorboat? Obviously not. Nor can the fuel be counted as the motorboat any more than it can be counted as the reservoir from which it originated nor the crude oil from which it was extracted, as the oil remained to be oil once the fuel was extracted.
Dismythed said…
To put it simply: in order to judge a matter, a line has to be drawn somewhere. The line they drew it at was simply the point at which blood becomes blood.
Dismythed said…
Anonymous:

You have made up a principle that is not in the Scriptures. The law is absolute that says: “You must not eat the blood OF ANY SORT OF FLESH because the life of every sort of flesh is its blood. ANYONE eating it will be CUT OFF.” (Leviticus 17;10-14) That is an unambiguous statement with a clear punishment. It does not mention anything about respecting the life returning to God.

The laws in Leviticus 11:39-40 and 17:15 show that Israelites could eat an animal found dead, but this could only mean this would be a domestic either killed by a wild animal, thus bled, or killed by an eviscerating accident, thus bled, or recently dead so that it could be bled. Other laws forbid these things, (Exodus 22:31; Deuteronomy 14:21) but Leviticus 17:15 shows that there are no punishments for doing so as long as they bathe before the morning, and so they are merely seen as “unclean” until the next morning, and are not allowed to eat the sacrifices while they are unclean. (Leviticus 7:21) However, a priest who ate such things could never again present sacrifices or he would be cut off. (Leviticus 22:1-8) But it is abundantly clear that such things were not to be eaten along with the blood.

Yes, the sacrifice must die in order for the atoning blood to have any value, which further highlights the ridiculousness of comparing transfused blood to Christ’s blood. (Heb 10:29) However, that does not in any way undermine the law that says that blood must be poured out regardless of whether it is used in sacrifice or not. (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; 7:26, 27; 4:25, 30, 34; 5:9; 17:10-14; 19:26; Numbers 19:5; Deuteronomy 12:16, 23, 27; 15:23; Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25) In fact, it is one of the most oft-repeated laws in the Bible. (Leviticus 8:15; 9:9; 1 Samuel 14:32-34; 2 Samuel 23:16, 17; 1 Chronicles 11:18, 19; Eze 24:7; 33:25) Add in all the mentions of the use of blood for atonement and cleansing (I will not enumerate them here,) and the value of blood becomes the most important subject outside the Shema.

But to answer your question clearly, David poured out the water his men brought to him from the cistern that he expressed craving for, calling it the blood of his men, because his men risked their lives, yet not one of them died doing so. (2 Samuel 23:16, 17; 1 Chronicles 11:18, 19) Also, an animal could easily lose its leg and survive, but that does not preclude pouring the blood out and cleansing it before eating the leg.

It is not because the animal is dead that the blood should be poured out. It is because "the life is in the blood." (Leviticus 17:14) Clearly then, the law is about the life of the creature, not the death. Why? The reason it actually gives is in verse 11, saying that it is on account of the atonement provided through the sacrifice, namely of Jesus Christ, not the life returning to God. It gives clear direction and makes the punishment clear. It applies to all flesh and all God's people in all circumstances. If the carcass could not be bled, it was a violation of this law.

Stop contacting us on this point. You are going in circles like a broken record on something that the Scriptures are unambiguous about. We are not your masters. If you wish to sidestep Jehovah's word, that is your prerogative. We will serve Jehovah in faithfulness. You are trying to justify your wayward thinking by looking for Pharisaic loopholes. That is not what Jehovah's people do. (Matthew 15:3-11; 23:23, 24)

The fact that you are reduced to looking for a microscopic loophole means that the article has successfully done its job. You have no excuse.
Dismythed said…
I found a statement by one of Christendom's ministers about our stand on blood transfusions and I thought I would put my reply here. He cited the account in 1 Samuel 14 as proof that eating blood to save one's life could be forgiven.

However, Saul not only created the situation, he presumptuously spared his men, calling for unprescribed sacrifices apart from the tabernacle without consulting Jehovah, and was going to kill his own son who did not sin by eating blood, nor did he even know about his father's edict. This was after Saul's kingship had already been rejected in the previous chapter for his presumptuously offering up unprescribed sacrifices away from the tabernacle. When Saul did finally consult Jehovah, Jehovah did not respond to him!

Besides this, his men did repent, demanding that he spare Jonathan, Saul's son, despite their having to break their vow to do so, because their vow was unjust, thus earning their own deaths a second time. But Saul once again spared them without them even asking for forgiveness.

In response to finding out about his father's declaration for the soldiers not to eat until the battle was won, Jonathan said, "My father has brought great trouble on the land," because he could seethe obvious result. This event merely highlighted that Saul was unrepentant for his offering unprescribed sacrifices away from the tabernacle. Saul eventualy died in battle by Jehovah's decree.

Saul did not speak for Jehovah in any way on that matter, but acted presumptuously, and Jehovah never again spoke to Saul after he rejected Saul the first time.
Dismythed said…
To be clear, this means no actual forgiveness by Jehovah ever took place. Though he might have indeed forgiven them, he did not pardon them from the consequences of the Mosaic Law. In fact, there are NO prescribed sacrifices in the Law for covering over the sin of eating blood along with the animal. If an Israelite ate blood, the consequence was death or never returning to the land. In fact, idol worship and eating blood are the ONLY laws in which Jehovah swore that he himself would cut individuals off from the land. (Leviticus 17:10; 20:3-6)
Opposers Dismythed said…
It’s very telling that people have to look for bible verses in which God is said to passively allow the eating of blood. Ok let’s roll with that for the sake of argument, that forgiving a sin is allowing said sin. Would that same Christian minister say it’s ok to have sex with a person of the same sex, murder a person, sexually abuse a child, just because the sin is forgivable? Logical consistency is important here, and so is biblical consistency. Yet that same person likely believes that all gays and murderers are automatically condemned to hell for their actions. This just shows that if your goal is to simply contradict us, you will contradict the Bible AND your own beliefs.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said…
This is a good Documentary from Englewood Health about Bloodless surgery and JW's

https://youtu.be/vzHhHcs08So