I have read this discussion in it’s entirety. Before I go on, I must say if you have any interest or concern for the Watchtowers Society’s stand on blood, please download and read this completely. It is the most comprehensive for/against discussion concerning Jehovah’s Witnesses blood policy that I have read to date, including the posted elder’s letters to the Society.
To what extent you find this conversation relevant depends on the degree that you or your family associate with Jehovah’s Witnesses. As for myself, I am an active Jehovah’s Witness, therefore I regard this material with utmost importance.
I give Ron Rhoades credit. I give him credit for two reasons: 1) He is the first person I’ve seen to tackle valid concerns about the blood policy head-on. 2) He gives the best argumentation that can be had pro the Watchtower’s doctrine on blood.
The following is a review of points I picked out during this once-read discussion (it will probably take me a second reading to fully understand some of the ideas that were being conveyed. There were some points where both writers, more Rhoades than Shilmer, completely lost me in what they were saying):
As Brother Shilmer brought out, there are two distinct questions regarding the Watchtowers current doctrine on blood. They are:
- Does the Apostolic Decree prohibit today’s medical uses of donor blood?
- Is there sound scriptural reasoning to make the distinctions we do between forms of blood parts like platelets and hemoglobin?
As Brother Rhoades brought out, question 1 must be answered first. For if the answer is no, then question 2 has no relevancy.
1).
Does the Apostolic Decree prohibit today’s medical uses of donor blood?
Brother Rhoades arguments for ‘yes’ revolve around the ideas that blood is equated with life and thus incontestably sacred, and that God retained blood of living creatures as His alone. He contests that the Mosaic Law is not an extension of the Noachian Law, but rather the Mosaic Law perpetuated the Noachian Law based on the same sacred principle: "life is in the blood." He maintains that the Noachian mandate was a total prohibition and that Noah and his descendants understood this to be true, though not explicitly stated.
Though making several valid points, in the end I find Brother Rhoades argument that the Noachian Law against blood was a total prohibition to be an assumption. I believe he argues successfully that blood is sacred. I have no doubts here. But as Brother Shilmer brought out, sanctity does not establish that we need God’s express permission for uses beyond specifically stated prohibitions. Brother Rhoades argues that it is not stated prohibitions that are the controlling factor, rather it’s principles. “Prohibitions are only specific applications of principle,” he says. I agree. However, the only ‘principle’ that applies in this case is the sanctity of blood. Thus, he has not addressed the idea that sanctity of blood does not establish that we need God’s express permission to use it beyond specifically stated prohibitions.
The fact that I feel Brother Rhoades is jumping to a conclusion-not-stated is evidenced by his own decision of what he would do had he been instructed by God to not eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Would he even sit under it? He states that he “would need some strong indication that God wanted [him] to sit in its shade before [he’d] even approach it (like Him placing a chair under it!).” However, the fact of the matter remains – Adam and Eve were instructed to not eat from the tree. They were not instructed to abstain from approaching it, admiring it, sitting under it. Eve could have continued to admire the tree and would not have violated God’s stated prohibition against this sacred thing. Now, granted, I see no problem with Brother Rhoades view that he would never sit under the tree, but I would object if he felt anyone else would have violated God’s mandate by sitting under the tree and thus would have died.
A confusing part of Brother Rhoades argumentation is whether he feels we are to not to eat blood or not to use blood. He uses the terms interchangeably in this discussion. If he feels we should not use blood, then of course eating would fall under it. However, Brother Rhoades himself indicates that using blood in and of itself is permissible. He asks the rhetorical questions:
Is it a violation of blood’s sanctity to examine an animal’s blood for disease before eating the flesh? Is the study of the wonderful properties of blood a “use” of blood which shows a lack of respect for the sanctity of blood?
“Examining” and “studying” are in fact using. He does clarify a little more be stating we should not use to the degree of “showing lack of respect for the sanctity of blood.” However, the question immediately comes to mind – Is saving a life with blood transfusion using blood in a way shows lack of respect for it’s sanctity? I don’t know how it shows anymore lack of respect than studying it’s wonderful properties!
If Brother Rhoades truly does mean we should not eat blood, then I’m sorry, eating is not the same as transfusing! Transfusing blood is not digesting blood. Brother Rhoades attempts to show that the eating and transfusing of blood are one in the same. He says, “Certainly blood in transfusions are acting like blood, and it is an inescapable fact that blood, “acting as blood,” serves an essential part in supplying the body nutrients and in building tissue.” He then provides references to show that ‘eating’ and the ‘functions of blood’ both provide nutrients to the body. Thus, by infusing blood, we are in fact eating. I don’t know, but to me this sounds like lawyer talk. It is a far far stretch to equate eating with the natural function of blood.
After reading Brother Rhoades complete apologia regarding question 1, I feel at the very most, he provides a possibly valid view of why one would abstain from blood transfusion. It takes a stretch for this view to work, and relies on interpretation not explicit in the Bible. Certainly, he has not proven this mandate should be followed with the strictness that the Watchtower Society ascribes to it.
Again, I will give Brother Rhoades credit – he stuck to his guns and made a valiant effort.
2). Is there sound scriptural reasoning to make the distinctions we do between forms of blood parts like platelets and hemoglobin?
Brother Rhoades attempts to answer this question with “testimony of [Jehovah’s] creative works.” However, on this question, he utterly fails and even shoots himself several times in the foot. He argues that one can conclude that from Jehovah’s use of fractions (fractions being any derivative of blood other than white cells, red cells, platelets, or plasma) God has given his express approval for us to use them. Brother Shilmer brought up the point that there is no “creative work” were hemoglobin is naturally transferred between circulatory systems – so why is hemoglobin permissible under the WTS doctrine. Brother Rhoades responding by saying “that evidence of the transference of a couple of fractions is enough to reasonably demonstrate that all fractions must be excluded from our doctrinal prohibition.” The problem with this is that white cells, red cells, platelets, and plasma are all fractions themselves! It doesn’t matter how much of a fraction they are, the fact is they are a fraction of a whole; the whole being blood. So by Brother Rhoades own reasoning, white cells, red cells, platelets, and plasma should be permissible since “evidence of the transference of a couple of fractions is enough to reasonably demonstrate that all fractions must be excluded from our doctrinal prohibition.”
Furthermore, transfer of white cells (leukocytes), a fraction not permitted by the WTS, is evidenced in Jehovah’s creative works! Newborn babies receive leukocytes from their mother’s milk! So, using Brother Rhoades reasoning, white cells should be acceptable!
The fact is the WTS does not distinguish white cells, red cells, platelets, and plasma from other fractions because of God’s express permission through creative works. They separate them because of what man has defined as “primary components.” There is simply no Biblical support for this. The Society would have been a lot better off banning use of blood or any fractions thereof. At least then it would be consistent. The fact that they don’t has faltered by own faith and belief in regards to question 1.
Indeed, if the June 15, 2000 Watchtower had never came out, I probably would have never questioned our stand on blood. The fact that it did, and blared inconsistency, stumbled me greatly concerning my conviction.
The answer to question 2 is an undeniable no. Assuming question 1 is yes, there are only two possible views of blood fractions that make sense: 1) all individual fractions of blood are permissible for transfusion because they do not constitute “blood” as mentioned in the Bible, 2) no individual fraction of blood is permissible for transfusion because they do constitute “blood” as mentioned in the Bible.
Prior to reading this discussion between Marvin Shilmer and Ron Rhoades, I had serious concern that my stand, as a Jehovah’s Witness, on blood was unscriptural. I honestly went into the discussion hoping that Brother Rhoades would shed some light to clear up my doubts. I honestly did. However, in the end, Brother Rhoades has confirmed to me what I had previously thought – the doctrine that prohibits blood transfusions is indefensible.
Risot
