Email Rolf J. Furuli:
Sir.
I have carefully read Dr. Muramoto's article and all the letters commenting on it. There are many
misunderstandings, and I realize there is a need to to show why Jehovah's Witnesses abstain from
blood.
ACTION VERSUS MATTER
In the New Testament (Acts 15:29) there are four things which are governed by the one verb �to
abstain from�, namely: 'things sacrificed to idols', 'blood', 'things strangled', and 'fornication'. The
first three are nominal phrases and the last is an action, so an important question is: Does the
prohibition focus on each thing per se, indicating that there is some kind of taboo connected with
each thing.? Or is the focus on particular actions, where the things are just 'tokens' by the help of
which the wrong actions are done?
To illustrate the point I will use 'things sacrificed to idols' and a situation from the first century which
was not uncommon, as an example. Emperor Nero has arrested a family of father, mother and child,
and they are led before a great crowd of people in the theatre. In the middle of the theatre is an altar
with a burning fire, and beside the fire is a censer with incense. The ultimatum to the father is: �Go to
the altar and put some incense on the fire, thus sacrificing to the genius of the emperor, and your
whole family will be released. If not, all of you will be killed.� Shall the father compromise his faith in
order to save the life of himself and his family, including his child? Many Christians refused to do just
that and were consequently killed.
Can we differentiate between action and matter in this situation? Yes! There was nothing particular
with fire or incense as such - the family could in their home light a fire to cook their meal and even put
some incense on that fire because they liked the fragrance, but in the situation in the theatre the act
of putting incence on the fire represented something special, namely, a sacrifice to a god different
from their own. It was what the action of putting incense on the altar represented which was the
issue, and not the substance matter (incence) by which the action was accomplished.
As a parallel, it is not the matter (fluid) blood that is important, but what the use of it represents. The
principle on which the law against blood rests, is found in Psalm 36:9 �For with you is the source of
life.� God has given life to animals and humans; he 'owns it' so to speak, and he has the right to
make laws as to how life shall be used. In God's eyes the red fluid in the veins of living creatures
represents the life - it is, or represents the soul.(1) Because blood represents life, God has given the
law that his servants shall not take it into their bodies under any circumstances, and when an animal
is slaughtered, the blood must be poured out on the ground. Thus the life of the animal is given back
to God who owns it (Leveticus 17:10-12).
While fire and incense can be used for several purposes but not as means for sacrificing to a foreign
god, there are no normal purposes for which blood can be used. To ascertain that the matter of
which blood consists is not the focus, we can use 'things strangled' as an example. To abstain from
this is logical because the animal has not been bled, so the blood is still in the meat. However, even
when an animal is bled, a part of the blood is still in the meat, so why can a Christian eat 'some
blood' (which is found in the meat of the bled animal) but not 'much blood' (which is found in the
strangled animal)? The answer is that it is not blood as a fluid that is the issue, but obedience
toward God. When an animal is bled, its life, represented by the blood - God's property - is given back
to God. This is not done when an animal is strangled. Another situation illustrating that the matter
blood is not what is important, is a baby who is sucking the milk of her mother. This milk contains
immunglobulins and components of blood but the mother does not violate the sacredness of life by
allowing her baby to suck her breast.
IS THE PROHIBITION AGAINST BLOOD QUALIFIED?
Realizing that there are two lawful ways by which a Christian can get foreign blood or blood
components into his or her body (through meat and mother's milk) it is natural to ask: Does the Bible
give a total prohibition against taking blood into the body, or is the focus on the purpose of taking
blood? The views of JW in relation to this are often misunderstood, so I will make a short historical
review.
As far back as the nineteenth century, the holiness of blood was stressed by JW. The Watchtower of
November 15, 1892, p. 352, said after quoting Acts 15:28,29: �The eating of blood was forbidden, not
only by Jewish law but also before the law was given. The same command was given to Noah. See
Deut. 12:33; Gen. 9:4�
Blood was rarely used for medical purposes in the nineteenth century. However, in the 1920's
vaccination was introduced on a large scale, and this was the start of a medical use of blood.
Vaccines were not taken orally, so the question was whether this use of blood was included in the
Bible's command to abstain from blood. The magazine The Golden Age (2) 1931 Number 297, p.
291, 293 said: �Men of science (?), enthrusted with the guardianship of the public health, have in
recent years assumed the absolute right to mingle the blood of deseased calves and diseased
horses with that of little children and others (..) Vaccination is a direct violation of the everlasting
covenant that God gave with Noah after the flood. In Genesis 9:1-17 we read (..)� While The Golden
Age had argued against vaccination from a quasi-medical point of view, the quotes above show that
vaccination was viewed as a violation of the Biblical prohibition against blood.
In the 1920's and 1930's different vaccines contained quite a lot of blood. According to an article
about the history of vaccination �the golden age of vaccine development began in 1949 with the
discovery of virus propagation in cell culture.�(3) Vaccines made from dead or weakened bacteria
are not problematic because they are not made from blood, but what about serum made from blood
for immunological purposes, how should a Christian view such substances? This new generation of
vaccines/sera was very different from what was administered twenty to thirty years earlier, so how
should Christians view this? The matter was discussed in The Watchtower 1952, p. 764, and the
conclusion was: �it does not appear to us [The Watchtower Society] to be in violation of the
everlasting covenant made with Noah, as set down in Genesis 9:4, nor contrary to God's related
commandment at Leviticus 17:10- 14.� The reason set forth why vaccination did not seem to be a
violation of the sacredness of blood, was that it cannot be �argued or proved that, by being
vaccinated, the inoculated person is either eating or drinking blood and consuming it as food or
receiving a blood transfusion.� (See also The Watchtower 1958, p. 575.)
The differentiation between blood used as a nutrient and blood used for other purposes could seem
to be a qualification of the prohibition against blood; it could seem that the purpose of using blood
was the important thing. It is true that eating and drinking blood is mentioned in the Old Testament in
connection with the law against blood, and those attending the meeting of elders where the Christian
prohibition against blood was written down (See Acts 15), would think of eating and drinking blood as
well. Thus, to point to the fact that blood as a nutrient is expressedly forbidden in the Bible, in
connection with blood transfusions, is logical, since transfusion is tantamount to eating blood, but
this is not all there is to the question. The words of Acts 15:29 is said to come from God, and neither
the words nor the context contain any qualification! The result of an analysis of the passage based on
a normal use of lexicon, grammar, and syntax, is that the prohibition against blood is absolute and
without exceptions. The focus,therefore, should not be on the purpose of using blood, but rather on
the question: �What is included in 'blood' (Greek: haima)?�. Everything which is 'blood' is forbidden.
In The Watchtower of 1964, pp. 680-682 we find a discussion indicating that the prohibition is
absolute. The heading is �Keep free from blood�. Beneath this heading we find the words:
�Christians are told to abstain from blood (Acts 15:20,28,29). Just how far-reaching is that? What do
the Scriptures require of a dedicated servant of God?� Three areas are shown to be included: 1) not
to use blood from slaughtered animals, but pouring it out on the ground , 2) not to take a blood
transfusion, and 3) not to use blood in different modern products such as adhesives, rubber
compounds, water purification etc.(4) This shows that in Acts chapter 15 more is included than just
using blood as a nutrient. However, in connection with vaccines and immunological sera the
question about using blood as a nutrient is important. On p. 682we find the following words:
�The [Watchtower] Society does not endorse any of the modern uses of blood, such as the uses of
blood in connection with inoculation. Inoculation is, however, a virtually unavoidable cicumstance in
some segments of society, and so we leave it up to the conscience of the individual to determine
whether to submit to inoculation with a serum containing blood fractions for the purpose of building
up antibodies to fight against disease. If a person did this, he may derive comfort under the
circumstances from the fact that he is not directly eating blood, which is expressedly forbidden in
God's Word.�
THE PERSONAL CONSCIENCE AND BLOOD FRACTIONS
The modern history of JW shows that the fundamental view of blood has been the same for more
than one hundred years. In the last years of the nineteenth century only full blood was available, and
we would not use that. New products containing blood or having been made from blood have
continously been introduced. What some interpret as inconsistency is simply that we as responsible
Christians have needed time to consider each new product. First when it is clear that the use of a
particular product does not violate the law of God, will the use of it be a matter of one's conscience.
The fact that there is nothing special with blood as a fluid, and that we get fractions of blood into our
bodies by eating meat, teach us that what is important is not to prevent any blood fraction to come
into our bodies, but rather to resepect the sanctity of blood. Since new products continuously appear,
it is not we who change our principles, but rather that the principles are applied in new situations.
After having studied this subject for years, we have reached the following conclusion which we
rwgard as consistent. What is expressedly forbidden in the Bible is using blood as a nutrient. On this
basis it is easy for me, and I estimate, for 99 % of my fellow believers, to reject oral and parentereal
feeding (transfusion) by blood (haima). All other uses of blood (haima), even if not being mentioned
in the Bible individually, are forbidden. Whether a Witness, when cosidering to use one or all of the
major blood components, will apply the law against being fed by blood or the law against the use of
blood, or both, is his or her privilege. However, I am quite sure that the mentioned 99 % of the
Witnesses view the major blood components as haima. My previous quote from The Encyclopedia
Britannica shows that our view of red and white cells, platelets and plasma as the 'major blood
components' hardly is idiosyncratic - this is a normal medical viewpoint.
Regarding the grey zone, i.e. whether to use the minor blood components or not, each one's
conscience must decide. By taking immunglobulins or factor VIII etc. we are not using blood as a
nutrient, but we are still using the components, which is forbidden as well. So we must return to the
question whether a component is blood or not. The function of the placental barrier and the fact that
immunglobulins are found in mother's milk , may be taken into account. That we get fractions of
blood by eating meat can also be something to consider. But the final decision must be based on
each Christian's conscience, and such decisions should not be criticized.
MEDICAL ETHICS AND JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
With all due respect to those who disagree, we should keep in mind that what is being discussed in
this forum is the faith and practice of JW regarding blood, and the ethical consequences of this for the
doctor. However, more than half of the letters have been attempts to argue with JW and to show that
they are inconsistent and that their view of blood really is bad. Some of these show a lack of
knowledge of elementary scientific methodology, particularly the time element is ignored. The word
'kidnap' meant 'to steal children' in the days of Charles Lindbergh and a time thereafter. Today it
means 'to steal any person regardless of age'. The words 'blood fraction' and 'vaccine' had one
meaning or reference in 1931, another in 1961 and still another in 2001. To quote portions of JW
literature with these words and compare them in order to show inconsistency without checking the
semantics of the words, is a manipulation of the sources.
JW are admonished to take the conscience and and feelings of doctors into consideration. We know
that it is not easy to 'operate with one hand tied on the back', as one doctor expressed it when he
could not have a unit of blood in store in case of emergency. However, we appreciate that doctors
realise that greater harm can be caused by refusing to treat JW than to treat them on their own
conditions. We want to understand doctors, and we hope that doctors will try understand us. We
therefore ask that doctors accept our signed statements, and truly believe us when we say that we do
not want blood, rather than listening to a third party who question our sincerity and determination.
(1) The Hebrew word nephesh is in many Bible translations translated both by 'soul' and by 'life'. (2)
The Golden Age was published by JW. (3) Plotkin, S. A, and Mortimer jr.,E. A. (1988) Vaccines, p. 5. (4)
See The Watchtower 1964, p. 127, where it is shown that the use of blood as feertilizer would violate the law that blood should not be used.