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