Jehovah's Witnesses not only avoid the consumption of blood (such as blood sausage) but also blood transfusions—even in life-threatening situations. In specific cases, this can go so far as to rather let a person die who could be saved with a blood transfusion than to revive them with what they consider “sinful” and “spiritually impure” foreign blood (The Watchtower Society also rejects the use of one's own blood). Jehovah's Witnesses carry written "authorization" for doctors in case of emergency. Such religious convictions, referring to the right of self-determination, can push doctors and nurses into moral conflicts in specific cases. The question arises whether religious conviction or the life of the patient should take precedence, and whether treatment (or rather non-treatment) can be prescribed in such cases. The Vienna Institute of Medical Anthropology and Bioethics dealt with the problems of “Jehovah's Witness as a patient” and pointed out the difficulties of clear decision-making. Enrique H. Prat, the head of the institute, considers two possibilities:
"... from an ethical point of view, two types of behavior are acceptable in an emergency during surgery: once the behavior of the doctor who "secured himself” before the operation, meaning that the patient knows what he is relying on, and therefore consistently performs the surgery without blood transfusions until the unfortunate outcome. However, the behavior of a doctor who decides to give blood transfusions in an emergency, driven by the deep anthropological belief that the patient would otherwise approve the use of blood products before the unstoppable end" (Imago Hominis II/Nr 1, 1995, p. 66).
Setting aside these ethical considerations, a deeper and more practical question arises: How do Jehovah's Witnesses come to this conviction? Are the cited scriptures really to be understood this way?
Certainly, blood occupies an important place not only in the Old and New Testament scriptures but also in the books and rituals of many world religions. In ancient cultures, including Israel, blood was considered a particularly sacred element. Because both humans and animals can bleed, blood is seen as the very substance of life; the soul/life force (nefes) that makes animals living beings resides in blood (Gen 9:4; Lev 17:11; Deut 12:23). Religions and cults often associate blood with contradictory notions: it carries spirits or protects against demons, contaminates or purifies, harms or benefits. In Israel's pagan surroundings, the consumption of blood (both animal and human) was widespread and related to magical beliefs (i.e., wanting to acquire the life force of the particular animal or person). Such practices were detestable to God and His people. Therefore, Jews still adhere to strict slaughtering guidelines that ensure an animal is thoroughly bled. The early Christians, stemming from their Jewish parent religion, also shared this revulsion towards consuming blood. Because Jewish Christians naturally feared the blood found in meat not properly bled, as enjoyed by pagans, the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20,29; 21:25) regulated the concessions demanded by Gentile Christians against the rejection of improperly bled meat by Jewish Christians. Of the four requirements, three relate to the rejection of blood: "Abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from strangled animals, and from blood!"
Theodor Zahn points out, based on Acts 15, the concessions made for the coexistence of Jewish and Gentile Christians:
"It is not the Mosaic law that needs to be imposed on the Gentile Christian congregations but something entirely different, i.e., they should abstain from things that, in James' judgment, are partly dangerous and partly repulsive... This dual warning, expressed in general (haima) and specific (pniktou) terms against enjoying animal blood, was not directly related to Christian faith and Christian ethical teaching as proclaimed by Jesus. It was much more about the inherited revulsion of Jewish Christians, ingrained by the Mosaic law, against all kinds of enjoyment of blood, considering it a pagan immorality".
This historical religious background raises the question: Does the consumption of blood pudding, condemned today by Jehovah's Witnesses, truly correspond to "pagan immorality"? Specifically, does anyone eating such a product today expect a transfer of life force, as was the case with pagan ritual blood consumption (or as is the case in modern-day Satanic communities)? Or is there anyone who would expect something similar in a blood transfusion? It seems to me that today, very few would entertain such notions. If behaviors related to pagan magical associations with blood are no longer present, then what is the purpose of such prohibitions? Acts 15 is understandable only in the context of the early Christian church, comprised of Jewish and Gentile Christians who positioned themselves against the surrounding pagan-magical world. The abhorred bloody rituals were common at that time. However, this is no longer the case today (except for secret Satanic cults).
We must start by considering what the context of Acts 15 is. There, of course, a debate emerged between Jewish and Gentile Christians about how much the Old Testament Law obligates Christians of non-Jewish descent. Here, the apostles make the doctrinal decision not to burden ("not to trouble") the Gentiles, since the Mosaic law is such a burden - according to Peter's testimony - that even the Jews themselves were not able to bear. Thus, the apostolic council pinpointed the eternally valid dogmatic truth that salvation for every person on Earth is solely through the sacrfice of Jesus Christ. The Old Testament was merely a precursor that has now come to fruition.
On the other hand, they specify four things that Gentile Christians should abstain from. These are:
- Impurity caused by idols,
- Fornication,
- Strangled animals, and
- Blood.
These are the fundamental rules of living that enable Jewish and non-Jewish Christians to coexist within the congregations. But why specifically these four? Belonging to the chosen people was either something innate or it was possible through conversion (turning from pagan to Jew). The first step of this was that the converted proselyte was circumcised. From this point on, they were seen as an integral part of the chosen people, and could, for instance, take part in the Passover dinner.
But how could Jewish Christian siblings know that Christians who were previously pagans had truly separated from pagan rituals if they weren't circumcised? From the fact that they met the aforementioned four criteria by not participating in:
- Idol sacrifices (almost every false deity had its own),
- Ritualistic sexual unions (certain fertility rituals, religious prostitution),
- Also in the ritualistic consumption of strangled animals, and
- The ritualistic use of blood (Mithras cult).
If they refrained from these, they weren't partaking in the false worship practices of paganism. Thus, the Christian siblings who were Jews could confidently fellowship with them. From a pastoral viewpoint, Jews could still uphold (now not mandatorily) the ritualistic and disciplinary rules of the Old Testament (based on the 613 prescriptions in the Torah), while the incoming multitude (goyim) had an obligation "for the sake of peace" (!) to uphold the 7 Noachide laws, which not the pagan "converts" to Judaism were obliged to keep, but rather those who had become "proselytes" through the pre-existing "Noachide" pagan mission in Israel's messianic anticipation. Among these was, for example, the prohibition of consuming blood. These are the pastoral, disciplinary resolutions of the apostolic council. Therefore, the prohibition found in Acts 15:20,29 seems at first glance to be a reinforcement of the old law. But here, the apostles are referencing the law pertaining to foreigners in the land of Israel (Lev 17:8-9, 10-12, 15; 18:6-18). On one hand, the converted pagans (or Christians in general) were granted admission to the "land of Israel", but on the other, they didn't want to cause offense among the old "natives" (see 1 Cor 10:28-33).
If you read further after 15:20, it explains this:
"...for from ancient generations Moses has had those who proclaim him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath."
These were the proselytes who lived in the territory of Israel, and for the sake of peace, they had to adhere to those customs that particularly offended Jewish sensitivities. Therefore, based on the historical context, it is known that the primary reason for the prohibition here was the ritualistic use of blood, which was practiced during certain pagan cults.
The Watchtower Society's biblical explanation tends to make a secondary issue (adiaforon) a main one, potentially thrusting its followers into the most severe conscientious conflicts. However, the New Testament deals differently with such topics. For example, Rom 14 and 1Cor 8 leave the consumption of meat sacrificed to idols, which appears in Acts 15 alongside "blood" and "strangled", and itself contains blood, to individual conscience:
"One person believes they may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables... Whoever eats, does so for the Lord, giving thanks to God. And whoever abstains does so for the Lord and gives thanks to God... For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit." (Rom 14:2,6,17).
"...Not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food, they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled... Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do" (1Cor 8:7-8).
Jesus himself spoke against the magical notions of "contamination" due to certain foods (certainly including the consumption of blood) when he said:
"There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him... Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" With this, Jesus declared all foods clean, but added, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person" (Mark 7:15,18-23).
The first letter to Timothy specifically warns against those false teachings that inundate people with rules about food and convince them that their salvation depends on such things:
"Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer" (1 Timothy 4:1-5).
With all that I have said, I am in no way trying to promote the consumption of blood sausage or the like, but rather to put the issue in its place: it's a matter of individual conscience. If someone has a concern - for example, due to the aforementioned Old Testament passages or Acts 15 - they should abstain. However, those who do consume it should know that their salvation doesn't depend on it. This is especially true for blood transfusion. Anyone who allows themselves to receive foreign blood will not perish. They don't receive a foreign soul from others (in my opinion, this magical notion is ultimately behind the ban of the Watchtower Society). It has nothing to do with abominable pagan customs; it's about saving lives. Here clearly applies God's call already present in the Old Testament: "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice!" (Hosea 6:6), which Jesus also refers to and confirms (Matthew 9:13; 12:7).
God's prohibition on blood emphasized the sanctity of life. Consuming animal blood, therefore, signifies the belittling of the sanctity of life. In contrast, blood donation and transfusion testify that we can appreciate and distinguish the sanctity of life. Equating these two fundamentally different things is akin to contempt and wickedness.
