Jehovah's Witnesses use for their guide a booklet called, "Jehovah's Witnesses
and the Question of Blood." They begin by quoting Genesis 9:4:
"But flesh with the life thereof,
which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."
Read this scripture verse again, carefully. Rather than prohibiting the eating of blood, this verse clearly forbids the eating of UNBLED MEAT! ("flesh with its life - its blood") Animals were to be slaughtered and their blood drained, insuring their death, and then the bled meat could be eaten, but on no account were God-fearing people to eat unbled meat. This scripture in no way deals with the eating of blood alone - the blood was to be poured out, and the flesh was to be eaten. Nothing more is implied.
What does eating animal flesh have to do with blood transfusions?
Jehovah's Witnesses are told that "eating blood" is the same as "transfusing blood" since
transfused blood bypasses the stomach and goes directly into the bloodstream to nourish the body. The Watchtower quotes for its
support of this theory, Genesis 9: 5,6, which reads:
"And surely your blood of your
lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of
every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood
be shed: for in the image of God made he man."
These verses are clearly discussing murder or manslaughter, for it involves the taking of life, and the person whose blood was shed died. This is hardly the case with blood transfusions. The person donating the blood does not die and the person receiving the blood very often has his life saved.
Animal blood was to be completely drained before the flesh was to be eaten. Humans, with or without their blood, were at no time to be eaten! Therefore, this scripture can in no way be applied to the eating or transfusing of blood, when read in context.
Another part of scripture that the Witness like to point out is Leviticus 17:
13,14:
"And whatsoever man there be
of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any
beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. For it is
the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye
shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it
shall be cut off."
Christians are NOT under the Mosaic Law! Nowhere in the book of Genesis (which covers human history prior to the Mosaic Law) is any command given to "pour the blood of animals upon the ground." Also, there is no such command to be found in the New Testament. Only in the Law of Moses can such a command be found. Yet Jehovah's Witnesses who claim they are not under Mosaic Law have to appeal exclusively to that Law in order to deny their members the right to store their own blood to save their lives.
One of the simplest facts of human biology proves that a transfusion does not constitute the eating of blood. When you eat anything it is taken into the stomach where it is digested and then is passed through the intestines into the blood vessels where the blood then carries the digested food into the bloodstream to nourish the body. This is the DIGESTIVE system.
In a transfusion, the blood that is transfused travels through the bloodstream until it arrives
at the intestines where it picks up any digested food that has passed through the intestines and carries that food throughout the body.
This is the CIRCULATORY system. Transfused blood is not food itself - but the carrier of
the broken down food.
Eating "flesh with its blood" brought about only the mildest of reprimands under the Law! How different from the harsh stand of Jehovah's Witnesses, who would sentence their members to eternal death for the same offense!
But what happened if a Jew was caught picking up sticks on the Sabbath? The answer is at
Numbers 15:35:
"And the LORD said unto Moses,
The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the
camp."
Which sin was more serious: breaking the Sabbath - or eating
blood?
We see that the law on eating unbled flesh and pouring out the blood applied ONLY to the Jews since aliens and foreigners (Gentiles) were free to eat it. Since most Jehovah's Witnesses are Gentiles, their avoidance of eating blood becomes downright ridiculous!
Since the Gentiles were free to eat the blood in the unbled meat, wouldn't it follow that they would also be free to "eat blood" in the form of blood transfusions?
It is interesting that Orthodox Jews today, who are the undisputed experts on Jewish Law,
freely receive blood transfusions and also donate blood to save the lives of others. If it were forbidden under God's Law, they would
never do it. Bible scholars find the "interpretation" of the Law by the Jehovah's Witnesses to be an easily recognized
distortion.
and Acts 15:29:
"That ye abstain from meats
offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep
yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."
As we examine these scriptures from Acts 15, we must consider the context or setting. All of the prohibitions mentioned together here are concerned with the temple practices of the heathens who, in their idolatrous worship services, offered prostitutes to the idols after fornication rites, used animal blood in their rituals, and strangled animals during their frenzied ceremonies. For a Christian to participate would, of course, be blasphemous and would constitute idolatry. Christians were to abstain from such things entirely.
Other Bible scholars hold the view that these prohibitions are restating the principles found
in the Law - i.e., for the Christian to avoid idolatry, murder, unclean foods and fornication. Both of these views are correct. What is
not correct is for Jehovah's Witnesses to take one phrase, "abstain from blood," and try to apply it to the modern practice of blood
transfusions. It is a blatant misuse of scripture.
But the Witnesses must refuse other components, such as:
This is important because doctors nowadays administer such compounds rather than whole blood.
As it stands today a JW hemophiliac in danger of bleeding to death can take the blood components he needs. But a JW accident victim in danger of bleeding to death must refuse the different blood components needed to survive in his case! So contradictory Watchtower rules allow some to take blood fractions while others continue to die.
Their inconsistencies go even further. A JW cannot store his own blood to be used in a later surgery. However, he can lay on the operating table and have his blood leave his body, proceed through a heart-lung machine, and re-enter his body. No scriptures are cited to show the difference between the two. Blood leaves the body in both cases and returns later.
The Jehovah's Witnesses feel that they have been vindicated for their unpopular stand against taking blood transfusions because AIDS or hepatitis is transmitted by blood. This argument, like most of theirs, is flawed. Why? The AIDS virus is transmitted in ALL body fluids, not just blood. How many people have died as a result of AIDS-tainted blood, compared with JW deaths from refusing blood?
Also, Jehovah's Witnesses themselves, just like the rest of the population, can get AIDS
from contaminated blood products that they are allowed to take. The Society acknowledges that the Witnesses taking such blood
products face health risks involved in an injection made from others' blood.
The November 22, 1993 AWAKE! magazine reveals a major new offensive spearheaded from Watchtower headquarters in Brooklyn, NY. It says the Jehovah's Witnesses "are being assisted to obey Jehovah's perfect law on abstaining from blood..." (p.24) Committees of specially trained JW elders now enter directly into hospitals and courtrooms to intervene in the Witness patient's behalf. These Hospital Liaison Committees are armed with persuasive literature - medical, legal and sociological. Their basic tool is a 260-page loose-leaf handbook titled Family Care and Medical Management for Jehovah's Witnesses, updated constantly with new information on blood substitutes, alternative treatments and patients' rights, plus evidence that JWS are good parents.
One aim, of course, is to stop judges from declaring JW children wards of the state for the purpose of giving them needed blood and to stop doctors from seeking such court orders. Adult JW compliance with the blood ban is also enforced by the watchful elders.
The same issue of the AWAKE! magazine gives the impression that transfusions are really unnecessary and that informed doctors can secure the healthy recovery of the patient through alternative treatments. The article presents recombinant erythropoietin (EPO) as a wonder drug eliminating the need for blood transfusions. However, in the Watchtower magazine of October 1, 1994 it is admitted that EPO contains a relatively small amount of blood plasma albumin! (p. 31)
This news comes as a shock, no doubt, to JWS who accepted injections of EPO through the
advice of the 1993 AWAKE! magazine, believing that they were receiving a "bloodless treatment." They must now face the fact that
organization has misled them.
Many feel that a change will come in time. Who then will bear the blood guilt for the many
lives lost through the refusal of blood transfusions up to the time of change?