Critique of Jehovah's Witnesses' blood policy by Raymond Franz, a former member of Jehovah' Witnesses' Governing Body
Acts 15:29 - "keep abstaining from blood"
by aqwsed12345 81 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
EasyPrompt
Should Christians have asked conscience questions at a feast hosted by a pagan who was known to enjoy things strangled?
Why are they at a pagan feast? Seems kinda strange to me.
Do you mean "pagans" that converted to Christianity?
Paul's counsel shows: yes, ask if the meat is bled properly; no, don't worry if it's bought from a meat market.
Do you agree that it was alright for early Christians to eat meat even if it had previously been sacrificed to idols?
You know I agree with what the Bible teaches.🙂
If Acts 15:29 was a command, was that command rescinded...or was that simply wise instruction given to facilitate fellowship between Jew and Gentile believers, i.e., not stumbling a Jewish brother.
Yes, it was a command; no, that command was not rescinded; no, it had nothing to do with facilitating fellowship. The blood of the Christ made the way to knock down the wall between Jew and Gentile. Peter and other Jews were eating/fellowshipping with Gentiles before the clarification on circumcision came. Paul corrected Peter when for a little while he and Barnabas were withdrawing from eating with Gentiles. There was no need for a letter from Jerusalem to mandate fellowship.
Do you agree that Jews could eat unbled meat if they found one of their flock or herd had died in their field?
Just because they "could" do something doesn't mean they "should" do something.
Exodus 22:31
"You should prove yourselves holy people to me, and you must not eat the flesh of anything in the field that has been torn by a wild animal. You should throw it to the dogs."
Cleanness is important to Jehovah.
Leviticus 7:22-27
"Jehovah continued to speak to Moses, saying: “Tell the Israelites, ‘You must not eat any fat of a bull or a young ram or a goat. The fat of an animal found dead and the fat of an animal killed by another animal may be used for any other purpose, but you must never eat it. For whoever eats fat from an animal that he presents as an offering made by fire to Jehovah must be cut off from his people. “‘You must not eat any blood in any of your dwelling places, whether that of birds or that of animals. Anyone who eats any blood must be cut off from his people.’”
Jehovah said not to eat the blood, because that would be unclean.
Leviticus 17:10-16
"‘If any man of the house of Israel or any foreigner who is residing in your midst eats any sort of blood, I will certainly set my face against the one who is eating the blood, and I will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it. That is why I have said to the Israelites: “None of you should eat blood, and no foreigner who is residing in your midst should eat blood.” “‘If one of the Israelites or some foreigner who is residing in your midst is hunting and catches a wild animal or a bird that may be eaten, he must pour its blood out and cover it with dust. For the life of every sort of flesh is its blood, because the life is in it. Consequently, I said to the Israelites: “You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh because the life of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.” If anyone, whether a native or a foreigner, eats an animal found dead or one torn by a wild animal, he must then wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; then he will be clean. But if he does not wash them and does not bathe himself, he will answer for his error.’”
But Jehovah is merciful, and He knows people are sometimes stupid and stubborn, so He made provision - if they were careless and foolish and ate the blood, they could turn around and "answer for their error" by washing and bathing and recognizing their "unclean" state, and Jehovah would forgive them so they wouldn't have to be cut off. It was a way they could say "sorry" and have actions to match their words.
But they had to repent in order to receive that forgiveness. If they kept on eating blood with no regard for Jehovah's command, then they would be cut off.
It's the same today. Jehovah is patient, but He is also clear. "Abstain from blood." Some have not abstained from blood, but God is forgiving. When we make mistakes, we show our repentance by turning around, "washing" in the blood of the Lamb, and begging Jehovah's forgiveness in Jesus' name.
-
EasyPrompt
preservation of life
John 17:3
"This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."
Everlasting life is preserved by means of obeying the Christ, not by means of disregarding the Christ through taking in "medical" blood products.
Romans 6:23
"For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord."
Everlasting life is preserved through the gift of the Christ, not through blood "donated" or sold to pharmaceutical companies and marked up for profits in the medical industry.
John 14:6
"Jesus said to him: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.""
Jesus' blood is the only blood that can bring us to the Father and preserve our life forever.
ignorance
Ephesians 4:17-21
"So this is what I say and bear witness to in the Lord, that you should no longer go on walking just as the nations also walk, in the futility of their minds. They are in darkness mentally and alienated from the life that belongs to God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the insensitivity of their hearts. Having gone past all moral sense, they gave themselves over to brazen conduct to practice every sort of uncleanness with greediness. But you did not learn the Christ to be like this, if, indeed, you heard him and were taught by means of him, just as truth is in Jesus."
Taking in someone else's blood is greedy and unclean. The blood belongs to God, and He said to pour it out, back to the ground, dispose of it, once it comes out, not to sell it or stick it in someone else. It's gross. Jesus isn't gross. He's clean.
-
menrov
@easyprompt, you are funny with your conclusion and by reading something in my words that is not there. Christian believers trust the bible. I simply refer to their book. Does not mean I have the same belief.
I can read. If I read the bible, it does not mean I am a believer.
In that book, I cannot find a sentence from Jesus that says that eating blood is a sin. Paul was aware of the tension between Jews and Gentiles, also regarding their different views or customs regarding blood. His steer to both groups was to not use blood as they were used too. This is not a law, nor a reference to deadly sin. Same as marrying in the Lord, a statement from Paul. Does this mean that if you do not marry in the Lord you commit a deadly sin?
All above analysis based on the bible, not because I believe in it but simply as a reader.
-
PetrW
@menrov
I think you are capturing the essence of the recommendation of Acts 15:29.There are a great many works on the internet, from dissertations to commentaries, that discuss Acts 15:29.
If I were to express my opinion, Jesus affirms the statement that one is to love God and love his neighbor. That these are the greatest commandments of the Law. Everything else, of subordination, is just an elaboration of the Law and these two commandments.
My understanding of the Law is that it is a masterpiece of law, built on principles. Where it was(!) necessary to stick to the literal meaning, there it is clear. Where reasoning is needed, for example, a kind of analogy is used. I, for example, do not take the command of Ex 23:19 "not to cook young goat in its mother's milk" as a dietary command (see Ibn Ezra's very interesting Jewish commentary on the Torah), nor some culinary recommendation on how to cook the meat of a goat or not to spoil the milk by cooking it...
My understanding of the verse Ex 23:19a is this: God wanted the best(!) of the first fruits to belong to him. They were to bring it to God's house.
If an Israelite of that time heard this, he must have said to himself. OK, I'll bring the best of the first fruits of my field. And then what? Will it stay with me? Or he said to himself: I'm going to put it all in a fancy wagon and bring it to the house of God and let it be trumpeted before me for all to hear and see...
And then, when I have given it all away, I will milk the goat, and on the milk, I will cook young of the goat....
And this is exactly what God had written against, that man should not be greedy. Even though he is obligated to surrender the best of the firstfruits to God's house, he is not to be tempted to be greedy and "cough up" what none of mankind can see and evaluate.
I honestly don't know - quite specifically - even today what the apostles' recommendation in Acts 15:29 means. I would have to look into it in more detail and that means reading a great deal of literature (see above). But if I were to consider what Acts 15:29 might mean, I would still venture to say that the apostles summarized the content of the Law so that Jewish and Gentile Christians could coexist at different stages of their faith (see Paul and his refusal to eat meat if it was a hindrance to a brother weak in the faith).
The apostles did not create a second law. They, through the Holy Spirit and prior teaching from the risen Jesus Christ, understood the nuances of the Law perfectly. And they transformed literal interpretation into permanent, eternal meaning.
A final note: in Lev 21:1-4 there is a command for the priests (see Rev 5:10) that they must not defile/ritually pollute themselves with any soul of the people. Most modern translations, including the NWT, understand this to mean a corpse. I don't think so, specifically Lev 21:1-4 is not about corpses. The Hebrew text, or also the LXX, says only the soul (of the people), but then lists close relatives who - even if they themselves are unclean, the priest does not become unclean.
My reading of this is that no prescription of purity that would make the relatives in the family somehow unclean can prevent the priest from making excuses that might prevent him from contact (see Jesus and the sacred gift and refusal to help parents...).
I'm referring to situations where JWs-parents have prevented from giving blood to their children(!) in hospitals as part of saving or prolonging life.
No statement of Christ can lead to letting others be ritually "executed" if they are delivered into your power...
-
EasyPrompt
Hi, menrov🙂
I know you are not a "believer". I was being sarcastic. (I had read some of your older posts😉.)
"All Scripture is inspired of God..." (2 Timothy 3:16)
To truly understand the Bible, a person must read it along with holy spirit.
"...the fruitage of the spirit is...faith..." (Galatians 5:22)
Since you do not have faith that the Bible is true, you will not be able to comprehend accurately what it says. It doesn't matter how many times you read it, the meaning will be hidden from you until you ask God to help you understand.
"Keep on asking, and it will be given you..." (Matthew 7:7)
Jesus said such things are hidden from "wise and intellectual ones and revealed to children". That's what he was talking about. That's why all these fancy scholars here who know all these languages and flowery ways of speaking still completely miss that boat. It's not that they aren't intelligent, it's that they trust in their own intelligence more than God's.
"Abstain from blood."☺️🫶🌷(It's not complicated!)
-
-
aqwsed12345
From 1931, when the name "Jehovah's witnesses" was adopted, Watch Tower Society publications still maintained the view of Society founder Charles Taze Russell that the reference to abstaining from the eating of blood in the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15:19–29 was a "suggestion" to be given to Gentile converts.
"The Apostolic Council". Zion's Watch Tower. November 15, 1892. It will be noticed that nothing is said about keeping the ten commandments, nor any part of the Jewish law. It was evidently taken for granted that having received the spirit of Christ the new law of love would be a general regulation for them. The things mentioned were merely to guard against stumbling themselves or becoming stumbling blocks to others.
"Settling Doctrinal Differences". The Watchtower. April 15, 1909. pp. 116–117. 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 ... these items thus superadded to the Law of Love should be observed by all spiritual Israelites as representing the Divine will.
Watch Tower publications during the presidency of Joseph Franklin Rutherford commended the commercial and emergency uses of blood.
"Manufacturing and Mining". The Golden Age. October 15, 1919. p. 47. A serious difficulty which has been overcome in the use of plywood for airplanes construction was the making from blood of a glue that will stand any quantity of moisture without letting go…. In this plywood, stronger than steel, we have an illustration of how the Lord can take characters, weak in themselves, and surround them with such influence and so fortify them by his promises as to make them "mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds" of error and sin.
"Here and There Over the Planet". The Golden Age. December 17, 1924. p. 163. Fearing the death of the child, the woman deliberately cut her arms and breast with glass from the windshield to provide blood to keep the child alive during the cold nights. The child will recover, but the heroine is expected to die.
A 1925 issue of The Golden Age commended a man for donating blood 45 times without payment ("Flotsam and Jetsam". The Golden Age. July 29, 1925. p. 683.). In 1940, Consolation magazine reported on a woman who accidentally shot herself with a revolver in her heart and survived a major surgical procedure during which an attending physician donated a quart of his own blood for transfusion.
"Surgery". Consolation. December 25, 1940. p. 19. one of the attending physicians in the great emergency gave a quart of his own blood for transfusion, and today the woman lives and smiles gaily over what happened to her in the busiest 23 minutes of her life.
Behind all of this, the organization believes in the biblical prohibition of "abstaining from blood" (Acts 15:29). While this originally referred to the consumption of blood from sacrificed, fallen, and dead animals (Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 7:26-27, Deuteronomy 12:27), the WTS believes that with this command, God also forbids the medical use of human blood for lifesaving purposes. However, this is the case only today. The Watchtower's attitude has changed multiple times, both in terms of evaluating the method and defining the concept of "blood," and it will undoubtedly change in the future.
To begin with, "blood" consists of "formed" cells (red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets) and plasma (primarily a liquid containing proteins). If you keep this in mind, you can easily see the contradictions in the Watchtower's teachings.- 1940 act of heroism
- 1945 not right but not forbidden
- 1958 condemnable, but no disfellowshipping
- 1961 forbidden and disfellowshipping for it
- 1961 accepting any blood component is forbidden
- 1975 hemophiliacs cannot receive plasma factors
- 1978 hemophiliacs can receive certain plasma factors
- 1982 acceptable blood components: immunoglobulin, albumin, Factor VIII, and IX
- 1984 bone marrow transplant is permissible
In 1940, the publication titled "Comfort" presented a doctor as a hero who, in an emergency, gave a quarter of his own blood to an injured person. In 1945, the first Watchtower article criticizing the practice of blood transfusion was published but did not prohibit its acceptance. A 1958 Watchtower article explicitly condemned it, but acceptance was not punished. Only three years later, the WTS decided that those accepting blood transfusion would be excommunicated for violating the biblical command.
Under the new arrangement, even a Witness's puppy (or other pet) could not receive blood from the vet. Still, like wolves, dogs are predators, and God created them to immediately devour their prey without kosher bleeding...
Many professions had to detail what was and wasn't allowed. Certain types of manure contained animal blood from slaughterhouses; therefore, Witness farmers couldn't use it unless their boss wasn't a Witness. Witness doctors could give blood to their non-Witness patients, and Witness butchers could sell blood sausages to non-Witness customers. This double standard may have evoked resentment because, ten years later, in 1975, Witness doctors were forbidden to give blood to non-Witness patients. Witness butchers and restaurateurs were also not allowed to sell blood sausages to non-Witnesses – except if they were employees and had to obey.
In the early 60s, the WTS believed that if one should "abstain from blood," this meant abstaining from all blood components. Accordingly, for a long time, hemophiliac Witnesses were also forbidden to accept plasma factor preparations. However, in 1978, they decided that certain plasma proteins were permissible! Finally, in 1982, more blood components (immunoglobulin, albumin) were allowed.
The Watchtower in 1984 allowed bone marrow transplants, which is peculiar since red blood cells are formed in the bone marrow! They made no distinction between autologous (with one's marrow) and allogenic (from another person) procedures.
The WTS justified lifting the ban by citing Isaiah 25:6, where God prepares a feast of rich food for his people. Since then, the acceptance of bone marrow transplants has been left to the conscience of the Witnesses.
Imagine the position of a Witness living between two "new lights" and having to make a decision on this issue! From 1961 to 1978, every loyal Witness with hemophilia had to die earlier due to a lack of healthy blood plasma. Who is responsible for them? And if the WTS has made so many concessions over time, how much more will they backtrack in the future?
It is true that contaminated blood has caused many people to fall ill with AIDS and other viruses and bacteria. However, the risk of such infections has been minimized today due to checks. While the organization financially supports the development of "bloodless" surgical procedures with less risk, there are still plenty of cases where only blood transfusion can save a person's life.
Do you think the Watchtowre's reference to the prohibition of eating the blood of dead animals when discussing transfusions is justified? Will you consistently apply the biblical text referred to by their own interpretation? -
EasyPrompt
@SydBarrett, Yup.
Luke 22:46
"He said to them: “Why are you sleeping? Get up and keep praying, so that you do not enter into temptation.”"
-
EasyPrompt
Not all "vampires" wear a cape. Some wear a suit and tie.
"Abstain from blood."