MY SUMMARY ON THE “BLOOD” ISSUE
Why start talking about blood starting from Acts 15:28,29? Acts 15 does not introduce this question, rather it confirms a pre-existing biblical command without adding anything new, the context is very clear. The original command appears in Genesis 9 and the correct understanding is obtained starting from this perspective: man is allowed to kill animals for food but Jehovah tells him that this concession costs the lives of those animals and he must respect it by not eating the their blood as a symbol of that life that died to nourish it. It is immediately clear that the issue is symbolic and not molecular , that is, it is not the blood tissue itself that is sacred but the killed life that that blood symbolizes. In fact, a part of the blood always remains trapped in the flesh of the animal and there is no problem in eating it, what matters is the gesture of bleeding it to show that you respect the sanctity of life and its source. Subsequently in the Mosaic Law this concept is reiterated and better codified. Throughout the Bible, however, there is no sense of sacredness for some blood that came out of a body, perhaps due to common wounds, but which did not cause the death of that body. It is therefore not the blood itself that is sacred but it is only so when it represents a life that has been extinguished, that has died . It must also be said that respecting this command would never have put anyone's life at risk because it would have been enough to respect a certain food preparation procedure (bleeding and slaughter) instead of following another (suffocation and slaughter). What was asked was nothing extraordinary and much less risky. If, despite this, someone had willfully disrespected this simple command and had still eaten unbleeded meat, he would have deserved death for such shamelessness and disregard for God's command. However, the Bible provides us with an episode in which, in a difficult situation, Saul's soldiers were so hungry that they ate meat without properly bleeding the animals (1 Sam.14:32). It is a fact that the behavior, although criticisable, was not considered a fragrant lack of respect for the divine command worthy of death. Jehovah did not “get angry” as he sometimes did over even seemingly minor violations. God doesn't even say anything about it and no punishment is issued. If anything, this indicates that in particular situations respect for the biblical command should not be taken to extreme consequences without taking the circumstances into account. And it is precisely on the extreme circumstances that the point that opened my ears on this topic, that is, the question of self-defense. Life is sacred, it's true, but so is mine. For the sanctity of life the Law prohibited murder with the VI of the 10 commandments, but did not consider a man guilty of blood who, at night, struck to death a thief who entered his house (Exodus 22:2). Such an extreme and emergency situation relieves even someone who was actually a murderer from blood guilt. Question: Is it possible that it could be considered a violation of the sanctity of life to accept a few bags of blood from donors who are still alive, for fear of losing their life, while it was not a violation to kill a thief at night for fear of losing one's life? Does something like this make sense? It doesn't make sense to me. Blood symbolizes life when it belongs to a life that was killed for food, otherwise it is a simple organic tissue that represents nothing, similar to any other tissue in the body. If anything, a transplanted heart represents life much more, because the organ comes from someone who has died and is used to save the life of someone who would otherwise die... In the Watchtower of 4/15/83, pp.30,31, we have attempted to resolve this dilemma but the answer seems so bizarre to me that it betrays its lack of solidity. The article climbs the glass while making arbitrary connections between other scriptures to try to support what it wants with syllogisms that are anything but convincing. Finally, when Acts 15:28,29 is applied, much emphasis is given to the verb “abstain”. This also betrays how the text is intended to say something more than what it says, that is, to simply confirm the ancient biblical command. In this way its application is extended to different and unforeseen circumstances by adding burdensome (and very expensive) commands as the Pharisees did, however in good faith. The same was done in establishing that red blood cells, plasma, white blood cells and platelets are "blood" but, for example, hemoglobin is not. On what biblical basis? Who gave the authority to establish things that could cost people their lives and impose them as “clear biblical teaching” when that is not the case at all? Is it not wiser to leave these decisions to the conscience of individuals instead of going “beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6)?
A somewhat strong example to illustrate: what is more important, your spouse or the wedding ring that symbolizes your marriage? The official position on blood indicates that, if one were forced to choose, one must choose the symbol, i.e. the ring, even at the cost of losing one's spouse who would even make a martyr's figure! Isn't this absurd? Unfortunately this doctrine is so characteristic of us Witnesses that I fear this is precisely why it is not abandoned or revised, as if we were now too publicly compromised. It seems grotesque to me.
