Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 22, 1999 at 12:33:38 {k/.KBikg62ePXjHnUl.IOgnjR4Br/g}:
Below is suggested language changing the position of Jehovah’s Witnesses regarding blood transfusions. Besides a suggested change that below also represents my own beliefs regarding the Bible and blood transfusions.
I contend that past applications by Jehovah’s Witnesses represent genuine concern for what the Bible says regarding blood. As a people Jehovah’s Witnesses have consistently demonstrated willingness to put their own lives behind their beliefs. I think that is partly representative of the real spirit of what it means to be a Christian. Not unlike other people, Christians are willing to die for their beliefs and will remain so. The difference is that Christians base such highly held beliefs upon God’s Word the Bible. In doing so Christians follow their master who was willing to give up his human life out of concern for God’s will and trusting in God. Jesus did this out of love of God and mankind. Like their master Jesus, Christians are concerned with present conditions of life and present life, but not at the expense of future life promised.
That to follow represents the views of countless Jehovah’s Witnesses who are yet willing to die rather than unduly disturb the conscience of a fellow worshiper. Besides each one knowing their own conscientious view, they also know from an examination of our literature that, like themselves, not all hold the view that blood transfusions are categorically wrong. Way back when blood transfusions were becoming popular our publications spoke even of anointed ones approving of them. (See The Watchtower of August 1st, 1958, page 478) Just because our publications later labeled such acceptance a biblically shunable offense did not make it so. All that did was express the genuine scriptural sentiments of perhaps most of our brothers at the time, if that. It did not make that interpretation of scripture absolutely correct nor did it automatically change the view of those whom, for scriptural reasons, felt/feel that accepting donated blood for saving life is fine. Those sincere convictions were born from what was then known scientifically about blood together with our then present understanding of scripture. Up to now those holding counter views have remained faithful to their dedication to God by loving their fellow worshippers to the point of willingness to sacrifice their lives to avoid hurting the faith of others. (1 Cor. 10:28,29) Eventually we hope to have some relief based upon what we feel the Bible really says on this issue. For those able to do something about this issue, we encourage that you read and contemplate what is presented here and on any follow-up comments. These are honest views, not just inflammatory anti-JW propaganda.
On the other hand, please do not think that thousands of Jehovah’s Witnesses will not read what is presented here, because they will. One way or another thousands will read this and want answers. Not only that, they will also seek answers to the enormous amount of existing information that counters most of what we have taught regarding the science of blood transfusions. The window of time to make change in our teachings is closing fast. Right now those who are most knowledgeable about counter views regarding blood are those in developed lands having access to the most modern means of communication. We must not fool ourselves into thinking that without change this spread of legitimate ideas will not cause severe discouragement amongst our entire association of brothers. Like any other subject, if our views are wrong and we do nothing about it then infectious discouragement will follow, in spades. If our views are correct then we have nothing to fear because we can answer that challenge of counter information. But we know that is not the case. We know that for years countless persons in our midst have sought answers to hard questions on this subject and we have supplied no such answers. Failure to answer those counter views has already caused enormous discouragement. We have just said, “Wait.” But wait for what? Improved scientific information is here now. The Bible is here now. Jehovah is here now. Legitimate, conscientious and scriptural views are here now. The only one wanting to wait is the Society. Please, let us not allow our historical convictions to hinder needed changes. Doing so would amount to no less than an unseemly show of pride, which will cause stumbling. (Proverbs 16:18)
Begin suggestion:
1. Blood is a dynamic substance, so dynamic that modern science constantly discovers marvelous ways in which it functions to maintain life. Additionally blood is dynamic for Christians in that God Jehovah singled it out as a powerful symbol; He chose blood to symbolize life itself. In that respect Christians should consider blood a sacred symbol of life. As Christians that is the position that Jehovah’s Witnesses have consistently taken regarding blood, that it is sacred. Historically we, as Jehovah’s Witnesses, have demonstrated our respect for the sanctity of blood even to the point of sacrificing our own lives. In so doing we have acted as devoted servants to our Creator and Life Giver by putting sacred things ahead of our own present life. Out of love of God we have been willing to surrender our souls based upon our genuine understanding of the Bible with hopes placed firmly on future life, the real life. (Gen. 9:4; Matt. 16:24,25; 1 Tim. 6:19)
2. Naturally, respecting the sanctity of blood, we seek better understanding of that sacred symbol of life. Jehovah is our source of life with His word being the source for understanding how to gain future life. (Ps. 36:9) As Christians we do not neglect continuing to study and increase our understanding from God’s word the Bible and what it says about blood. By relentlessly studying and applying God’s word we should expect to continue improving our understanding of holiness and things sacred, including blood. In that respect we now have reason to reexamine together how we view use of blood as Jehovah’s Witnesses, as Christians. (Eccl. 12:9,10; Col. 1:10)
3. Because of our understanding based upon the Bible historically we, as Jehovah’s Witnesses, have taken a strong stand against medical transfusion of blood. (1 Thess. 1:5) Nevertheless, we have never taken the position that our present understanding on any Bible subject is absolute as if there was nothing left to learn, improve upon or change according to an improved understanding. (Prov. 2:1-9)
5. Today because of increasing knowledge and understanding of blood it is the course of wisdom to also continue considering how we apply what we have learned. (Prov. 22:17) For various reasons many among Jehovah’s Witnesses have come to see a difference between God’s command to Noah not to eat blood for a meal versus other dynamic benefits of blood. With the growing and deepening understanding of blood, some Christians, earnestly and in good conscience, have concluded that accepting donated blood products for saving life in medical emergencies does not manifest disregard for God’s word, including the symbol of life. (Luke 10:16)
6. Considering God’s view of blood a person would be showing extreme disregard for the symbol of life if they chose to casually make a meal of blood. On the other hand, to use blood medically, to save life itself, is not a casual matter at all. In fact it’s a grave matter. During such times Christians are more prone to become even closer to their Lawmaker and Lifegiver, certainly not wanting to push Him aside by casually breaking His laws. (Mark 5:22-24; John 11:17-35) Such serious circumstances over the years have caused a correspondingly serious consideration of God’s law about blood together with learning about blood itself. Because we are a brotherhood of Christians, whether directly involved in a medical emergency where blood treatment is offered or not, these situations have caused all of us to carefully consider God’s law as to application and future hopes. (Eccl. 7:4) Considering our historically strong stand against using blood, what scriptural considerations have led some today to feel they can conscientiously accept such medical uses of blood?
7. As Christians we respect that we are instructed biblically to abstain from blood. (See Acts 15:28,29) We also understand that that instruction to abstain from blood is a reaffirmation of that said to Noah after he and his family providentially survived the flood. (Gen. 9:1-17) A close look at that said to Noah is thus indispensable to understanding the instruction that Christians abstain from blood.
9. In the past it was our understanding that we should not accept into our bodies any sort of blood at all because Noah was commanded not to eat blood and that prohibition was reaffirmed by the Apostolic Decree in the first century. Reinforcing that stand is the fact that God also considers blood symbolic of life, making it sacred. We sincerely concluded that accepting donated blood into our bodies to save life was that prohibited to Noah and all mankind. Nevertheless, a reconsidering of the context of that said to Noah gives us reason to rethink just how strenuous we should resist the idea of accepting donated blood.
10. In context Noah was not told to avoid using blood entirely. Easily Noah could have abided by that told him and still have used blood for purposes other than eating it for a meal. Also, and importantly, in context Noah was told not to eat blood from life he had unilaterally taken, though with permission from God. That is, the blood Noah was told he must not eat was blood from animals he had killed for food. That begs the question, Strictly speaking was Noah told he should not use blood donated from a living person for purposes of saving life? As much as that question might make some cringe, the answer is, No. A reconsideration of the context of that said to Noah then reveals that Noah was told of only one instance where he should not use blood, that of eating blood from life taken, taken by virtue of killing or seizing life as opposed to being donated by its holder.
11. In that respect many amongst Jehovah’s Witnesses have conscientiously concluded that they can accept medical uses of blood that formerly they were unwilling to accept. They conclude that accepting donated blood is not taking blood by killing or unilateral seizure but rather it is a gift or donation. In short, they feel there is a difference between accepting donated blood to save life versus unilaterally taking blood to save life.
12. In the past we have applied an absolute application toward what was said to Noah regarding blood. Due to continued evaluation of that text it appears that such an absolute application is not necessarily intended. After prohibiting the eating of blood from killed animals God expressed another law, one against murder. God said, “Anyone shedding man’s blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God’s image he made man.” If we apply an absolute meaning to that expression it means that anyone that kills should be likewise killed. It would mean that anyone taking life should be condemned. Clearly, though, that was not the meaning or the understanding of that said. Otherwise any human shedding the blood of a murderer should likewise be executed. Such an absolute application is inconsistent with the clear intention of approving the execution of murderers. Application of that law by later faithful men of God likewise shows that clear intention, that killing murderers was acceptable without condemnation. (Gen. 9:6; 14:1-16) Learning from that clear intent some have concluded that we should likewise not apply what was said to Noah about eating blood in absolute terms but rather that we should equally apply the context of the prohibition on eating blood. As already expressed, contextually Noah was told of only one instance where he should not use blood, that of eating blood from life taken, taken by virtue of killing or seizing life as opposed to being donated by its holder. So, reconsidering the context of that said to Noah has led some today to feel they can conscientiously accept donated blood products for saving life in medical emergencies.
13. Besides the contextual absence of a prohibition on accepting donated blood, are there other reasons to reconsider our historical position against accepting blood? Yes, there are other considerations.
15. Other Bible texts readily show that faithful God-fearing men approved of giving life for worthwhile causes, including that of saving life. David, for instance, while not being willing to accept his men’s voluntarily risking their lives over the well water from Bethlehem was more than willing to accept the same voluntary risk on other occasions where the risk/benefit was more in line. On various occasions David did accept (and even directed) the risk/donation of life for purposes of protecting life, defending Israel and standing up for sacred things. (1 Samuel 23:1-5; 25:16, 21; 26:1-16; 2 Samuel 21:15-17)
16. Considering these reevaluations there is perhaps new meaning to gain from Jesus’ directive that his followers be willing to donate their lives that others may live. Jesus said, “No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his soul in behalf of his friends.” (John 15:13; Compare Matt. 5:44-48) Those words of Jesus essentially encourage that we donate our life so that another may live. Jesus understood that without redemption man’s life was practically meaningless, nevertheless his expression encouraged that we should be willing to donate our life so that another can have the temporary benefit of life. Considering reevaluations of other Bible texts some have come to conscientiously believe that those words of Jesus support the notion that donating blood to save life is the same as donating life to save life, which he approved of. In either case the benefits are toward someone else gaining life. In this regard it is noteworthy that Jesus explained gaining the value from donation of his human life in terms of eating his blood. (See John 6:54)
17. Words and actions of God fearing men together with Jesus’ expression about the extent our love should go demonstrate that not only does the Bible condone donating life to afford another person temporary life, it supports and encourages it. In that blood is used metaphorically to indicate that act, giving blood is reasonably equated with giving our life, which is what Jesus encouraged that we be willing to do if needed. In the case of David and the well water of Bethlehem, there is a clear coupling of literal blood with life itself; the two are spoken of as equals.
18. Besides that already considered is the question of how the Apostolic Decree to abstain from blood should be applied in light of the Law of Moses. It is true that the Law of Moses prohibited eating the blood of any sort of flesh. (Lev. 17:14; See footnote 1) However, contextually it is evident that such blood was blood taken unilaterally versus blood donated voluntarily. Specifically the Law of Moses does not prohibit accepting donated blood for purposes of saving life. In fact the spirit of the Law of Moses encourages the same spirit that David displayed, that of accepting donating of life for something of equal or greater value, depending upon God for protection and/or future life. (Num. 14:1-11) Besides that, Christ abolished the Law of Moses consisting of decrees. For that reason Christians must be careful about applying too strict a correlation between the Law of Moses and Christian requirements. (Eph. 2:15)
20. Having learned from Christ we have come to obey God’s word as a matter of conscience out of love for Him. (Acts 24:16; Eph. 4:20,21; Heb. 13:18; 1 John 5:3) Historically Jehovah’s Witnesses have stood strongly toward obeying God’s Law, even at the cost of life. Today Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain that same position. Nevertheless because of growing and deepening understanding of blood as a substance and Bible texts addressing the subject, some of Jehovah’s Witnesses, in all good conscience, have concluded that accepting blood products for saving life in medical emergencies does not manifest disregard for God’s symbol of life. To the contrary, some are of the conviction that it reflects love to offer the temporary benefit of life by donating their own, whether by donating actual life or that which symbolizes life, blood.
21. Notwithstanding past views, and in light of increased understanding of certain Bible texts and the dynamic nature of blood, it seems appropriate at this time to recognize that each Christian should individually and conscientiously before God decide if and how they may chose to accept some form of medical therapy involving blood. Fellow Christians should respect the consciences of their brothers. In this we continue putting God and His will first in our lives by loving Him, our brothers and neighbors. (Matt. 22:36-40; Romans 14:12; Gal. 6:10)
__________
Footnote 1:
Interestingly, in the one instance where famished Israelites knowingly ate unbled meat God did not condemn them. (See 1 Samuel 14:24-45) While the text of 1 Samuel 14:33 has Saul expressing that his men sinned by their knowingly eating blood, there was no mention of remedial punishment meted out according to the Law of Moses. Significantly, later when God indicated sin on the part of someone in Saul’s entourage it was regarding an earlier incident on the same day where Jonathan had ignorantly violated a directive of the King, his father Saul. (See 1Samuel 14:36-43) Thus, while Saul attributed sin to that eating of blood God attributed no serious sin though He was called upon to do that very thing, indicate who had sinned. God’s lack of attributing serious sin to that eating of blood is significant because there was no remedial punishment as required by His law through Moses. If we conclude that the Law of Moses absolutely required putting to death those who knowingly ate such blood, it is highly unlikely that such action would go unreported. (Lev. 7:26,27; 17:10-16)
End of suggested/modified position on blood.
My prayer is that something presented above makes a difference for those who are still examining this issue. For those who have decided, your views are certainly respected. However, even in your case I hope that you contemplate that presented above and either debate what you think is wrong or else respect those of us who agree with it.
Friend