BLOOD -- WTS Questions and Sound Answers 9

by Marvin Shilmer 13 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  BLOOD -- WTS Questions and Sound Answers 9

  Is the substance blood sacred?

  Over and over again we see the WTS teach that blood is sacred.(1) The WTS teaches that the sanctity of blood represents a fundamental ethical norm, or principle, that governs how Christians should treat blood. Are these contentions true?

  Prior to Noah there is no indication in Scripture that God imputed sanctity to blood. According to the Bible, God issued to Noah prohibitive decree regarding blood. (See Genesis Chapter 9) This decree required no more and no less than Noah abstaining from eating the blood of animals he killed for food. If anyone would assert that God required more of Noah then the burden of proof is on them to show the assertion is valid. According to what the Bible actually says, Noah could have used blood as axle grease and not have jeopardized his righteous standing before God as though he had acted disobediently. Furthermore, at no time did God require Noah to use blood for anything whatsoever, specifically there is no mention that God required Noah to use blood in sacrificial ways. Another relevant point is that, in God's eyes, the decree issued to Noah about blood has never been rescinded.

  Under the Mosaic God required Jews to treat the substance of blood as sacred. Jews were forbidden from intentionally using blood for anything other than sacred atonement sacrifices. In addition, God required Jews to use blood for those sacred atonement sacrifices. Undeniably God expected Jews to treat blood as sacred. The sacrifice of Jesus' life ended the Mosaic Law, which only ever had an application to Jews in the form of regulatory requirements.

  Christians are told to abstain from blood. This statement does not indicate what blood Christians must abstain from. Neither does it indicate what abstention is enjoined to Christians. (E.g., looking at, smelling, touching, handling, eating, etc.) By itself the statement is meaningless because there is no way Christians can completely abstain from blood and live, and we must assume God wants Christians to live. So we must look elsewhere in the Bible to determine the meaning of the Christian decree to abstain from blood.

  We know Christians are not under the Mosaic Law. As the WTS says, by arguing that the Mosaic Law is still in force (in whole or some portion of it) constitutes a repudiation of faith in Jesus Christ.(2) This leaves the decree issue to Noah.

  The decree issued to Noah answers the question of what blood God required righteous persons to abstain from. The same decree also answers the question of what abstention God required of humans. The blood humans should abstain from is the same blood Noah had to abstain from -- the blood of animals killed for food. By extension one could probably justify a conclusion that Noah was prohibited from eating any blood taken by killing. The abstention God required was to abstain from eating this blood.

  The conscientious Christian need only ask one question to know whether following the requirements set forth to Noah regarding blood is what God requires for Christians. That is, "Does God required more of Christians when it comes to abstention from blood than he required of righteous Noah?" If Noah is righteous before God, and righteousness is sought after by Christians, then God expressing that Noah was a righteous man settles the question. At no point did God outline to Noah decrees that Noah had to treat the substance blood as sacred. Noah was completely free to use blood however and for whatever he wanted without disobeying God, with the sole exception of eating blood taken by killing.

  A sure way of knowing if God expected (or required!) Noah's descendents (other than Jews during the period governed by the Mosaic Law) to treat the substance of blood sacred by not eating the blood of slaughtered animals is to ask whether God permitted Noah's descendants to eat the blood of unslaughtered animals. The answer to this question is, Yes. Jehovah specifically provided unbled carcasses of animals that had not been killed for food expressly for eating, blood and all. (Deut. 14:21) If God feels this way then I see no reason to argue against Him, as though He were acting contrary to one of His own fundamental ethical norms.

  Is the substance blood sacred? No. What is sacred is obeying the Creator and Lifegiver, Jehovah.

  Marvin Shilmer
  ______________
  Reference:

  1. "However, it is an important matter to loyal Christians holding fast to the divine principle that blood is sacred to Jehovah." (Anonymous, The Faithful Creator, The Watchtower, Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, Inc. 1962 5/15: 302) See also Insight on the Scriptures Volume I, page 1082, and Blood-Vital for Life, page 5.

  2. "In the light of this, what is implied by arguing that the Mosaic Law is still in force? In effect, this constitutes a repudiation of faith in Jesus Christ. Why is that so? Because such a view rejects the fact that Jesus fulfilled the Law, thus paving the way for God to terminate it. To persons who professed to be Christians but who were swayed by arguments in favor of keeping the Law, or some portion of it, the apostle Paul forcefully wrote: ?You are parted from Christ, whoever you are that try to be declared righteous by means of law; you have fallen away from his undeserved kindness.? (Anonymous, What the Mosaic Law Means to You, United in Worship of the Only True God, Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, Inc. 1983: 148)
• 

  Farkel

  bttt.
  
  This deserves some comment and discussion. Are there any other people on this board besides clueless, self-absorbed, braindead airhead losers?
  
  Farkel
• 

  Joyzabel

  "clueless, self-absorbed, braindead airhead losers" here.

  But I agree Farkel, this is excellent material. It hits one of the most emotional issues of the WT.
• 

  MegaDude

  Farkle,

  Since you didn't bother to comment, or follow your own advice, you end up in the braindead, loser category. LOL.
• 

  Farkel

  : Since you didn't bother to comment, or follow your own advice, you end up in the braindead, loser category.
  
  Good point, megadude! I'll try to get myself out of that spot right now! (You should do the same!)
  
  Marvin Shilmer has devoted a great deal of time to the subject of blood over the years and has written much about it. His comments in this thread are partially a summary of other pieces he's written and takes a (to me, anyway) new tack on the subject of whether blood is sacred (as the WTS claims) or not.
  
  This paragraph is quite powerful:
  
  : The conscientious Christian need only ask one question to know whether following the requirements set forth to Noah regarding blood is what God requires for Christians. That is, "Does God required more of Christians when it comes to abstention from blood than he required of righteous Noah?" If Noah is righteous before God, and righteousness is sought after by Christians, then God expressing that Noah was a righteous man settles the question. At no point did God outline to Noah decrees that Noah had to treat the substance blood as sacred. Noah was completely free to use blood however and for whatever he wanted without disobeying God, with the sole exception of eating blood taken by killing.
  
  Since the Noachian law is still in effect, the Mosaic law is no longer in force and the Apostolic Decree against blood is so vague, why should Christians be held to a tougher standard on the use of blood than Noah?
  
  Farkel
• 

  shadow

  Marvin has devoted much time and effort on this policy. Hopefully publicizing the flaws and contradictions in this policy will have some positive effect at some point.

  The account in Acts 15 continued to permit the consumption of blood in unbled meat as stated in Deut 14:21.

  (Acts 15:19-20) Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

  (Deuteronomy 14:21) "YOU must not eat any body [already] dead. To the alien resident who is inside your gates you may give it, and he must eat it; or there may be a selling of it to a foreigner, because you are a holy people to Jehovah your God.. . .

  This can be discerned by the fact that they made a distinction between blood and things strangled. Naturally an animal slaughtered by strangulation would still contain the blood. An animal found dead would also still contain the blood. One act was prohibited while the other was not. Given the fact that many of those present were former Pharisees, this omission was certainly not accidental. This reinforces understanding this as applying to consumption of blood as food and giving due respect to the Creator when slaughtering an animal. If the decree meant to abstain from eating all blood found anywhere, it seems redundant to specify both blood and things strangled and very sloppy to omit things found dead.

  Interestingly, the WT goes beyond requirements of both the Law and Acts 15 by stating that it is sinful to eat road-kill.

  ***

  w83 4/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***

  Consequently, true worshipers today will not eat unbled meat, whether from an animal that some man killed or from a creature that died in another way.

  This same article reasons that the relatively easy requirement stipulated (washing self and garments Lev 17:15) for someone eating an animal found dead (which would contain blood) was due to eating it in ignorance. T

  (Leviticus 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.

  ***

  w83 4/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***

  So, no worshiper of God could eat blood, whether from (or in the flesh of) an animal that had died of itself or from one that was killed by man. Why, then, does Leviticus 17:15 say that eating unbled flesh from such an animal that died of itself or was killed by a beast merely produced uncleanness?

  We can find a clue at Leviticus 5:2, which says: "When a soul touches some unclean thing, whether the dead body of an unclean wild beast . . ., although it has been hidden from him, still he is unclean and has become guilty." Yes, God acknowledged that an Israelite might err inadvertently. Hence, Leviticus 17:15 can be understood as providing for such an error. For example, if an Israelite ate meat served him and then learned that it was unbled, he was guilty of sin. But because it was inadvertent he could take steps to become clean. This, however, is noteworthy: If he would not take those steps, "he must then answer for his error."?Leviticus 17:16.

  footnote

  We find an instructive parallel in another part of the Law involving blood: A man who unwittingly had sexual relations with his wife as she began to menstruate was unclean, but he could take steps to be forgiven. However, the Israelite who deliberately disregarded his wife?s menstrual blood was cut off.?Leviticus 15:19-24; 20:18.

  This article does not mention an even more instructive passage found at Lev 11:39,40.

  (Leviticus 11:39-40) "?Now in case any beast that is YOURS for food should die, he who touches its dead body will be unclean until the evening. And he who eats any of its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening; and he who carries off its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening.

  No doubt this was left out, because few could swallow the argument that this was also eaten in ignorance. A more reasonable view of this scripture is presented at times such as this

  *** w84 2/15 p. 29 Leviticus?A Call to Holy Worship of Jehovah ***

  Holy Worship Demands Cleanness

  Lev 11:40?How can this regulation be harmonized with Deuteronomy 14:21, which says: "You must not eat any body already dead"?

  Actually, there is no disharmony between these texts. Deuteronomy 14:21 forbade the eating of an animal that died of itself or was found dead. But Leviticus 11:40 specified what was required if an Israelite violated this prohibition. Similarly, the Law prohibited such acts as stealing, but some people did steal. Penalties that were imposed upon wrongdoers gave force to the Law?s prohibitions.

  This leaves the WT in the position of going beyond the Law and even the Pharisees in attempting to shore up the blood policy and to blatantly ignore scriptures that are inconvenient.
• 

  Sirona

  Marvin

  A sure way of knowing if God expected (or required!) Noah's descendents (other than Jews during the period governed by the Mosaic Law) to treat the substance of blood sacred by not eating the blood of slaughtered animals is to ask whether God permitted Noah's descendants to eat the blood of unslaughtered animals. The answer to this question is, Yes. Jehovah specifically provided unbled carcasses of animals that had not been killed for food expressly for eating, blood and all. (Deut. 14:21) If God feels this way then I see no reason to argue against Him, as though He were acting contrary to one of His own fundamental ethical norms.

  Wow. Thanks for that! I had no idea.

  Sirona
• 

  amac

  Christians are told to abstain from blood. This statement does not indicate what blood Christians must abstain from. Neither does it indicate what abstention is enjoined to Christians. (E.g., looking at, smelling, touching, handling, eating, etc.) By itself the statement is meaningless because there is no way Christians can completely abstain from blood and live, and we must assume God wants Christians to live. So we must look elsewhere in the Bible to determine the meaning of the Christian decree to abstain from blood.

  Wouldn't it make more sense to put more context to this scripture by examining how blood was used at the time of the writing of this scripture? Thus allowing us to understand what was inferred by abstaining from blood?

  I believe JW's claim that at the time not only were people eating blood (unbled meat) but I remember reading some claim about it also being used medicinally by some cultures at the time.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Hello, Amac

  I appreciate you observations.

  You write:

  "Wouldn't it make more sense to put more context to this scripture by examining how blood was used at the time of the writing of this scripture? Thus allowing us to understand what was inferred by abstaining from blood?"

  During the 1st Century AD uses of blood were practically the same as at the time of Noah and Moses. For the largest part, Jews used blood only for atonement sacrifices as outlined under the Mosaic Law. For the largest part, non-Jews used blood most as a food item by not taking the time to bleed animals slaughtered for food. In this case the blood was eaten right along with the unbled animal's flesh. To lesser degrees non-Jews used blood for religious/superstitious/ritualistic uses, including for sacrificial purposes. There were also instances of eating/drinking the blood of person's killed for whatever reason, including instances of capital punishment and arena killing.

  However, the main thrust of what I wrote is for those who want a pure scriptural discussion of the topic. Though we should not overlook the period context of a writing, we should likewise be careful not to induce extra-biblical context as though it decides what the Bible means. A pure scriptural argument draws conclusions from propositions found within the biblical text.

  You write:

  "I believe JW's claim that at the time not only were people eating blood (unbled meat) but I remember reading some claim about it also being used medicinally by some cultures at the time."

  What you refer to was superstitious uses of blood that persons thought conveyed benefit. Again, though, these were all cases of eating/drinking blood of persons/animals that were killed. This in no way compares to modern medical uses of blood because modern use is of donated blood rather than blood obtained from taking life.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  toreador

  I should probably know this but I will ask anyway. Was blood used sacrifically on altars before the time of the mosaic law covenant or was only the animal, drained of its blood, used in sacrifice?

  Tor