Interpretation of Acts 15:28,29 (page 2)

Vanderhoven7

Hi Sarah,

I see you have had some trouble posting on this forum. Well you succeeded in posting so you know how it works now.

If you want to start a new subject, you must start the topic yourself and others will respond.

Vander

dozy

https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/blood-transfusions.php

ZindagiNaMilegiDobaara

The eating‎ and transfusing are two different bodily processes. Blood which is eaten is digested

and ‏destroyed. Blood which is transfused is not eaten, digested, or destroyed. Why? Because

eating blood involves the body’s digestive system, and transfusion involves the circulatory

system.

A similar Watchtower teaching regarding the rejection of vaccinations, was classified as Biblical

truth in the 1930’s. However, Jehovah’s Witnesses today are free to receive vaccinations and

even encouraged to do so Will the doctrine on blood be changed also? The saddest fact is that

because of its present teaching on blood transfusions, the Watchtower has led many to a

pre-mature grave.

The Watchtower uses three main Scripture references in support of their theory. The first verse

is Genesis 9:4. Here a command is given that refers to “the eating of blood”, certainly not

receiving transfusions. Noah is commanded not to eat flesh that still had the blood in it; in

other words, animals not properly drained of blood. Their second “proof text” is found at

Leviticus 17:10-16. Again, we find reference to the actual eating of the blood of animals. These

verses are no way connected with transfusions between humans.

The final reference examined is Acts 15:20. Here it says to “abstain from things contaminated by

idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.” We read in Acts 15:21,

“For Moses, from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in

the synagogues every Sabbath.” It now becomes clear that abstaining from these four items is

referred back to the law of Moses in Leviticus 17. Therefore, we can see, beyond dispute, that

the abstaining from blood does in no way refer to receiving blood transfusions as the Watchtower's

interpretation wishes it to.

God forbade his ancient people to drink the blood of lower animals. It Is human blood that is

used in blood transfusion.

Drinking the blood of lower animals necessitates their death. Blood transfusions do not require

the death of those who donate their blood.

In Leviticus 17:10,11 we read: “And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the

strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face

against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life

of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement

for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” The expression,

“any manner of blood,” cannot be construed to include human blood, for human blood was not

offered on altars by Israel.

Just thought to share some research.

Zing

Peace.

There is no 'mandate to "abstain from blood" ' in Acts 15:28,29. The apostles and older men were deciding a controversy. They just restated the laws of God that existed once the Mosaic Law was removed.

While some may think that 'abstain from blood' expands the prior law and makes the scope of the law greater; but the Apostles didn't have that authority to expand the law. Abstain is just a word that groups blood with the other two prohibitions. The law in Gen 9:4 remains the same. It is God's law, not the Apostle's law. The apostles can't alter God's law. Jesus never expanded God's laws. The pharisees are the ones that did that. What is written in Acts 21:25 goes beyond what the statute states in Gen 9:4.

I find it odd that it forbids blood, what is sacrificed to idols and sexual immorality. What about murder and theft. Those were actually in the 10 commandments along with adultery and idolatry. But blood was not.

KalebOutWest

Welcome Christianhonest.

From my days as a religion teacher (I am now retired) I can say you are correct. You would have received an A in my class.

Acts 15.28-29 is actually the proclamation of the earlier discussion in verses 19-21. There the council is discussing what seems to be the Noahide Laws.

We have to shed our Watchtower upbringing--completely throw it away--and think about what is happening here. This is a Jewish congregation of practicing Jews that followed the Torah, 100%, living in Jerusalem, practicing at the Temple itself, observing kashrut of all things (eating kosher--see Acts 10 for how Peter tells God in a vision he won't eat the non-kosher animals God offers him even though Peter is hungry).

The only difference between this congregation is that they believe the Jewish Messiah has come, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, that is all. They don't even yet believe he is divine or that Gentiles came in. Right now they are kind of not sure who this "Paul" guy even is.

They do Jewish--and in a big way, and if you read the rest of Acts and history, Jewish Christians will keep doing this until the Bar Kokhba revolt in the 130s CE...and then the Jerusalem church goes down with the rest of the Jews.

This is important because the Jews aren't concerned about telling the Gentiles not to drink blood. Think about it. It's the exact same thing that happens with Jews and Christians today, nothing is changing.

If you ask a Jew if they think a Gentile can get into the Afterlife (if there is one--Jews aren't decided or sure on that), they are decided on one thing: just follow the Noahide Laws.

Remember that they've decided not to impose the laws of kashrut (or kosher) upon the Gentiles, meaning they are not going to be discussing what not to eat, so obviously the laws are going to be light on the discussion on dietary restrictions.

In verse 20, James proposes the following, likely due to four elements found in Pagan (that is Roman, not heathen, which is non-Roman or Hellenistic, which is Greek) worship, so that Gentiles refrain from:

Things polluted by idols
Incest (the Greek word pornia means illegal or improper sexual activity)
Eating Inhumanely (Consuming living and strangled creatures showed disrespect for life)
Bloodshed (Justice; shedding blood and from failing to establish justice)

Leviticus 17-18 makes similar demands of non-citizens who choose to dwell in the land, so it seems that this is what they were using as a basis for their decision-making.

We also have to take into account that the Book of Acts was finalized in Koine Greek. The events took place in Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew. So the words you read in English are translations of translations.

That means "abstain from blood" is a Hebrewism and not a Hellenism or Greek expression. You have to remember to read it that way, as Christianhonest wisely points out.

This is a Jewish council of rabbis. James is a rabbi, not a "Christian priest" or "elder." While this came to be known as the Jerusalem Church and it disappeared in 135 CE during the Bar Kokhba revolt, it was really a Jewish establishment that thought of itself as a Jewish council with one exception, that they found the Jewish Messiah. They thus did everything else by the Jewish book, and we here made exceptions for Gentiles so they could worship in ways different from them.

So you have to read Acts not like a Jehovah's Witness. You have to read it like a Greek translation of a Jewish world.