1909 Watchtower Article on Acts 15:28,29

by pirata 8 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • pirata
    pirata

    I was suprised to find that the 1909 Watchtower had an understanding of the blood ruling that meshes more coherently with the circumstances (Galatians 1,2; Acts 21:20-32) surrounding that decision. It acknowledges that these were not binding laws, but rather were made with a preservation of peace between Hebrew and Gentile Christians. It draws the parallel between blood and meat sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 8). It also refers to the Hebrews as the "little flock". Unfortunately it does not realize the parallel with Leviticus 17,18 (which outlines the requirements for alien residents) as the basis for the content and order of the "necessary things".

    Here is the full text of the article:

    Watchtower, April 15, 1909, pg 116-117 (pg 4374 reprints)

    SETTLING DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES

    ACTS 15:1-35 - May 23

    GOLDEN TEXT :-“ We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.“-V. 11.

    The season of peace and prosperity, growth in knowledge and in numbers in the early church, was followed bv a season of contention and differences at Antioch. Paul and Barnabas returned from their missionary tour, and reported to the congregation which had sponsored their journey expenses. Together they, the church and their missionaries; rejoiced in their mutual service for the Gentiles. The cause indeed was quite prosperous everywhere. Then came from Jerusalem, the headquarters of the church certain brethren, Hebrews by birth, who, perceiving that the Gentile Christian ignored circumcision, raised a great commotion on that score, claiming that circumcision would not save without Christ, neither would Christ’s salvation be operative without circumcision. The minds of many were disturbed, and for a time a split in the church seemed probable. But better counsels prevailed and the beloved brethren, Paul and Barnabas, were sent to Jerusalem as a committee to confer with the apostles and elders there. Our lesson tells of this conference and its results.

    Incidentally we remark upon the wisdom shown by these early Christians - they had “the spirit of a sound mind.” They had indeed great confidence in Paul and Barnabas and realized that under their ministrations they had already received great blessings from the Lord. which fact rather contradicted the idea that they could not be esteemed proper subjects for divine favor without circumcision. They did wisely. therefore, to consider that the will of the Lord on the subject was positive and that his will would be indicated through the Apostles, of whom our Lord had said. “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth. shall be bound in heaven; and whatever-ye shall loose on earth; shall be loosed in heaven.” These Apostles, then, might properly be expected to know and to be able to advise, whether circumcision would be a bounden obligation upon the Gentiles as upon the Jews. or whether they would be loosed from that obligation which ha’d been placed upon Israelites - upon all of Abraham’s family.

    THE JERUSALEM CONFERENCE

    The kindly deference of the Apostles, one to the other at the conference, is quite marked in this account. It is also noticeable that they based their conclusions on the subject on what they found written in the Scriptures (the Old Testament) and their leadings of divine providence. Gradually for several years the truth had become more and more plain to them; how that the special favor of God to the Jews had given place to a general favor toward people of every nation, so that all men everywhere believing in the Lord, accepting his promises and consecrating their lives in harmony therewith; might henceforth have equal privileges and advantages with those of Hebrew birth. They knew of God's covenant relationship with that nation, and it took time for them to become convinced that the divine program had taken another step forward. Similarly in the end of this age there are many who realize that only a “little flock” has been called and has responded, sacrificed, under the present high calling. It is difficult for these to grasp the thought that a change of dispensation is at hand and that God intends to complete the work of this age for the “elect” and to inaugurate a new work for the new age, for the noun-elect, for the benefit of “all the families of the earth.”

    The conclusions of the conference are given us in few words, namely, that so far as God is concerned, he had recognized believers of Gentile birth by his holy Spirit in just the same way in which he had recognized believers of Hebrew birth, “and put no difference between us and them, purifying their “hearts by faith.” (Acts 15 :9) What more could be asked? And these Gentiles had received all this favor of God without having come under the bondage of the Law Covenant. Why, they wisely asked, should we put a yoke upon them, when God has made no such requirements? They realized that the Law Covenant was indeed a yoke. More than this, that it was so heavy a yoke that neither they nor their fathers had been able to bear it. Christ had relieved them of the yoke of the Law Covenant. Why should they put it upon brethren to whom the Lord had never given it?

    Going beyond this, even, they recognized that in some respects the Gentile, free from the Law, never having come under that yoke, held the superior position of the two: hence the statement. “We (Hebrew;) believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved. even as they (Gentiles).”

    THE CONCLUSION OF THE MATTER

    We have in Vs. 22-29 the decision of the Apostles on the question. They not only wrote it out, but sent it at the hand of two of their trusted brethren, Judah-Barnabas and Silas, with Paul and Barnabas, that they might have the matter in written and in oral testimony. The declaration was that the disquieting teachings had not been authorized by the Apostles at Jerusalem. Then they briefly summed up, not as law, but as “necessary things,” the followings:-

    (1) Abstain from sacrifices to idols;

    (2) And from blood;

    (3) And from things strangled;

    (4) And from harlotry.

    It was not intimated that abstinence from these things would make them Christians. for nothing but faith in Christ and consecration to him’ and endeavor to walk in his steps could constitute them Christians. By these recommended abstentions they declared. “It will be well with you”: you will find these recommendations profitable to you as followers of the Lord. As a matter of fact, the Apostle Paul has pointed out most forcefully that “Love is the fulfilling of the Law,” because love for God would control the life as respects holiness, and love for our neighbor as respects earthly justice. The things here recommended were necessary to a preservation of the fellowship of the “body” comosed of Jews and Gentiles of their different education and sentiments. Without discussing whether or not harm could come to tho meats sold in the markets, by reason of pagan ceremonies in connection with their killing, the advice was that these be abstained from, because Jews certainly would consider the eating of such meats as participations in the heathen idolatry -even though from the broad standpoint of fact the idol, being nothing but wood or metal or stone, could neither profit nor injure the food. Nevertheless, it was advisable that the Gentile Christians abstain from the use of their liberty in this direction, out of deference to the weaker brethren, Jews and Gentiles, who could not so deeply philosophize and whose consciences might be injured.

    A similar thought attaches to the prohibition of the use of blood. To the Jew it was forbidden, and under his covenant it was made a symbol of life - to partake it would reply responsibility for the life taken. Moreover. in the typical ceremonies of the Law the prohibited blood was used as’ a symbol representing the sin-offering; for by the blood atonement for sins was effected. To emphasize these typical lessons the Jew had been forbidden to use blood. And there may be other, sanitary, reasons connected with the matter, which are not yet known to us. These prohibitions had never come to the Gentiles, because they had never been under the Law Covenant; but so deeply rooted were the Jewish ideas on this subject that it was necessary to the peace of the church that the Gentiles should observe this matter also. The things strangled meant animals taken in traps, whose blood was not shed or drained out by bleeding to death, as the Jewish Law required of all meats that should be eaten. This restriction was necessary to the harmony between the two branches of spiritual Israel - that which came from Judaism and that which came from the Gentiles.

    If they did not wish to be contentious and cause divisions in the church, the Gentile brethren would surely be willing to restrain or sacrifice their liberty respecting these matters. The fourth restriction specified was “fornication,” the Greek signifying “harlotry.” It is difficult to understand why one moral precept should be thus separated from others and placed on the list with ceremonial requirements. We incline rather to ask, Why not have included profanity, murder, drunkenness, idolatry, adultery, false witness, murder, etc? Are we to understand that the Gentiles are free to commit all the crimes in the calendar not stipulated by this Conference, and merely counseled respecting meats offered to idols, or that have died by strangulation - and the use of blood and fornication? Surely not. Rather all the requirements of the Law are included ih the one law of the New Creation - Thou shalt love the Lord and thy neighbor.

    Love would cover idolatry, profanity, murder, theft, false witness, adultery, but the law of Love would not so thoroughly cover the items enumerated by the Council. These were necessary, proper, and we are to recognize the authority of the apostles to “bind things on earth,” and that they were so guided in their public utterances that they bound nothing unnecessarily, nothing contrary to the divine will. It is our opinion, therefore that these items thus superadded to the law of love should be observed by all spiritual Israelites as representing the divine will. As a matter of fact nearly all the butchering for our markets is in harmony with the Jewish regulations, although many Jews decline to recognize this and eat only such meats as have been inspected and approved by their rabbis.

    The wise course pursued brought its good results. Harmony prevailed, unity of spirit, fellowship amongst the members. The secret of this lay in the fact that the Lord was recognized as having the supervision of the church’s affairs, and as guiding her course and directing her way through the appointed channels, the Apostles. Similarly today, where honesty of heart prevails amongst the Lord’s people, schisms, divisions, should be unknown. The Lord’s guidance ind instruction should be sought - his Word through the Apostles. Moreover, the Lord has been pleased since the apostles fell asleep to use faithful brethren in the church as finger-boards to indicate the right path, in harmony with his Word through the apostles and prophets. The thing necessary is the pure heart and the honest conscience and the humble spirit.

    “We would be one in hatred of all wrong,

    One in our love of all things sweet and fair;

    One with the joy that breaketh into song,

    One with the grief that trembles into prayer,

    One in the power that makes Thy children free

    To follow truth and thus to follow Thee.”

  • darth frosty
    darth frosty

    It was not intimated that abstinence from these things would make them Christians. for nothing but faith in Christ and consecration to him’ and endeavor to walk in his steps could constitute them Christians. By these recommended abstentions they declared. “It will be well with you”: you will find these recommendations profitable to you as followers of the Lord. As a matter of fact, the Apostle Paul has pointed out most forcefully that “Love is the fulfilling of the Law,” because love for God would control the life as respects holiness, and love for our neighbor as respects earthly justice. ...Nevertheless, it was advisable that the Gentile Christians abstain from the use of their liberty in this direction, out of deference to the weaker brethren, Jews and Gentiles, who could not so deeply philosophize and whose consciences might be injured.

    I tell ya russel may have been a kook in his own way, but it was rutherford who really ruined the religion.

    Thanks for sharing.

  • InterestedOne
    InterestedOne

    Thank you pirata. The WT analysis in that article reminds me of other commentaries I have seen. Are Jewish people today offended by blood transfusions? If not, then why should gentiles today have any issue with them? Issue, that is, on religious grounds, apart from non-religious reasons such as risk of infection, etc.

  • belbab
    belbab

    It would be interesting to compare this article with the writings of when the WT under Knorr changed the understanding and put a prohibition on blood transfusions. I believe it was around 1950. I remember reading that there was a question from readers from a Witness woman in Chicago, (butcher shop of the world) questioning the use of blood. I don't have the know- how to search for past articles, perhaps someone could locate the articles where the change was made.

    belbab

  • Invetigator74
    Invetigator74

    From the Watchtower Dec.15,1949 pg 367&368 as follows:

    "ON BLOOD TRANSFUSION"
    October 8, 1949

    Dear Sir :
    Answering yours of September 21 on blood transfusion:
    True, Jesus performed works of mercy on the sabbath
    day and was considered guiltless because it was lawful to
    do this kind of good on the Jewish sabbath. Also the priests
    at the typical temple in Jerusalem worked on the sabbath
    in order to carry out their priestly functions, and were considered
    ~ailtless. Also David and his men ate showbread
    lawful for only priests that entered the tabernacle to eat,
    because David and his men then needed food. But can such
    things be Scripturally appealed to in order to justify a
    Christian in resorting to blood transfusions for himself
    or for some one of his friends or loved ones? Consider:
    God’s covenant concerning the sanctity of creature blood
    was established with mankind through Noah before the
    sabbath law was established with the Jews through ]~Ioses.
    (Genesis 9: 1.6) So when Jesus’ death abolished the l~Iesaic
    covenant with its sabbath law the Noaehian covenant as to
    blood still stayed in force, and years after Jesus’ death
    Jesus’ apostles and disciples recognized that fact and hence
    commandedu pon Christian believers to abstain from the
    taking of creature blood into their systems. (Acts 15:19,
    20, 28, 29; 21 : 25) So Jesus by his good works on the sabbath
    did not set the precedent for his followers to violate the
    Noachian covenant concerning blood or to make exceptions
    toward it. The priests that worked at the temple on the
    sabbath did not set any example for their non-priestly
    brethren to violate the sabbath by secular work; and why
    not? Because those priests were commanded by God to do
    those works at the temple all days of the week, not excluding
    the sabbath. So they were obeying God by doing what
    they did on the sabbath, not outside but at the temple. In
    so doing they did not violate the Noachian covenant as to
    blood, however.
    Also David and his men when eating the showbread did
    not receive bread that deprived the Holy of the tabernacle
    of the bread supply that should be there before God. It was
    showbread that the priest had already removed from before
    God in order to make way for fresh showbread, so that the
    bread David ate was in effect now common. We read: "So
    the priest gave him consecrated bread, for the only bread
    there was Presence-bread which had been removed from
    the presence of the Eternal, to let hot bread be placed
    there the same day." (1 Samuel 21:6, MotTatt) So it was
    bread which had already served its holy purpose. But in
    accepting and eating it David was not violating or making
    exception of the Noaehian covenant concerning the sanctity
    of blood. That he would make no exception concerning the
    sacred covenant concerning blood is shown by his remark
    when some of his soldiers risked their lives to bring him,
    not blood, but water from the well at Bethlehem to drink.
    David poured out the water on the ground where the blood
    was ordered to be poured. We read: "But he would not
    drink it; he poured it out for the Eternal, crying: ’My God
    forbid that I should do it! Am I to drink the blood of these
    men who went at the risk of their lives? For they have
    brought this water at the risk of their lives.’ So he would

    not drink it." (1 Chronicles 11 : 18, 19, Moffatt) In harmony
    with this he said, at Psalm 16 : 4. "Their drink offerings of
    blood will I not offer."
    Many religionists say blood transfusion does not come
    under the Noachian covenant concerning blood, but is an
    exception to this prohibition of taking blood into one’s
    system because of the good that blood transfusion does.
    But did God make an exception to the blood covenant
    because there were cases when it appeared to do good? No.
    Whenth e Israelites were pursuing the Philistines they grew
    exhausted, but their physical exhaustion was not overlooked
    as an excuse for them to take creature blood into their system.
    We read: "From noon to nightfall, thgy struck down
    the Philistines that day, till the troops were exhausted;
    then the troops rushed on the spoil, seizing sheep, oxen,
    and calves, and felling them to the earth; the troops ate
    them, blood and all. But when Saul was told, ’the troops are
    sinning against the Eternal by eating flesh with the blood
    in it,’ he said to his informants, "Roll a large altar-stone
    here.’ Saul added, ’Go through the troops and tell them that
    every man is to bring me his ox or sheep and slay it here;
    they are not to sin against the Eternal by eating flesh with
    the blood in it.’" (1 Samuel 14: 31-34, Mo#att) And when
    Saul’s men thus pursued and slew the Philistines, they were
    not violating the Sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not
    murder," but were acting at God’s command in executing
    his foes and were thus serving as executioners for him. This
    was not committing murder. And that it was not is proved
    by the fact that they did not have to flee to the cities of
    refuge for safety from the avenger of blood, to which cities
    of refuge any Israelite had to flee if he committed a murder
    unwittingly or unintentionally. (Num. 35: 9-34) So the
    argument that a blood transfusion is excusable because it
    will revive an exhausted human life is a worldly-wise
    argument and is without Scriptural support.
    We must therefore be careful in trying to justify the
    use of blood transfusion, on the presumption that it saves
    Hves and is therefore good in God’s sight. It is thought
    to be only good, but few persons pause to think of how
    many lives it has failed to save and also how much harm
    it has done both to the blood donor and to the one receiving
    the blood transfusion, whose recovery is attributed to such
    medical practice. Just because the blood is transfused
    directly into the donee’s blood stream instead of directly
    into his stomach to find its way eventually into his blood
    stream does not say it is not eating blood and is hence no
    transgression of the Noachian covenant against taking
    creature blood into the human organism. It /s eating
    another’s blood in order to replenish a depleted blood stream
    and to do so in a hurry. Hence it is a breaking of God’s
    covenant concerning the sanctity of blood. The greatest
    harm that it does is not physical, but is in creating contempt
    for the covenant and commandmenot f the great Giver of
    life, Jehovah God.
    Sincerely yours for the honor of His name,
    WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY

  • thetrueone
    thetrueone

    So the argument that a blood transfusion is excusable because it
    will revive an exhausted human life is a worldly-wise
    argument and is without Scriptural support.

    How about the law about the sanctity of life itself and the law about not making a human sacrifice to the lord .

    How about Jesus's commandment to love one another and his example he showed of healing the sick.

    One thing about any religious hierarchal cult is they pick and choose which scripture that suits them,

    The game of power is in their hands so why not play/create their own the game.

    This stupid corrupt apocalyptic end time cult has killed thousands, out their own self devised arrogance about themselves.

    FUCK YOU WTS.

  • BU2B
    BU2B

    bump

  • AndDontCallMeShirley
    AndDontCallMeShirley

    To the Jew it was forbidden, and under his covenant it was made a symbol of life - to partake it would reply responsibility for the life taken.

    .

    Question: are blood donors killed in order to get their blood? No? Then in regard to blood transfusions, since no life is taken, then there's nothing to give back/acknowledge to god, is there?

    This is why a Jew could eat an animal found already dead- since no life was taken there was nothing to 'give back' to god; additionally, an "already dead' body cannot be bled, so the Jew would be eating the meat and blood.

    One simple point can dismantle WT's idiotic blood doctrine.

    .

    Lev. 17:15-

    ” As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; and he must be clean".

  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    Thanks for the neat dismantle ADCMS.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit