From the Watchtower Dec.15,1949 pg 367&368 as follows:
"ON BLOOD TRANSFUSION"
October 8, 1949
Dear Sir :
Answering yours of September 21 on blood transfusion:
True, Jesus performed works of mercy on the sabbath
day and was considered guiltless because it was lawful to
do this kind of good on the Jewish sabbath. Also the priests
at the typical temple in Jerusalem worked on the sabbath
in order to carry out their priestly functions, and were considered
~ailtless. Also David and his men ate showbread
lawful for only priests that entered the tabernacle to eat,
because David and his men then needed food. But can such
things be Scripturally appealed to in order to justify a
Christian in resorting to blood transfusions for himself
or for some one of his friends or loved ones? Consider:
God’s covenant concerning the sanctity of creature blood
was established with mankind through Noah before the
sabbath law was established with the Jews through ]~Ioses.
(Genesis 9: 1.6) So when Jesus’ death abolished the l~Iesaic
covenant with its sabbath law the Noaehian covenant as to
blood still stayed in force, and years after Jesus’ death
Jesus’ apostles and disciples recognized that fact and hence
commandedu pon Christian believers to abstain from the
taking of creature blood into their systems. (Acts 15:19,
20, 28, 29; 21 : 25) So Jesus by his good works on the sabbath
did not set the precedent for his followers to violate the
Noachian covenant concerning blood or to make exceptions
toward it. The priests that worked at the temple on the
sabbath did not set any example for their non-priestly
brethren to violate the sabbath by secular work; and why
not? Because those priests were commanded by God to do
those works at the temple all days of the week, not excluding
the sabbath. So they were obeying God by doing what
they did on the sabbath, not outside but at the temple. In
so doing they did not violate the Noachian covenant as to
blood, however.
Also David and his men when eating the showbread did
not receive bread that deprived the Holy of the tabernacle
of the bread supply that should be there before God. It was
showbread that the priest had already removed from before
God in order to make way for fresh showbread, so that the
bread David ate was in effect now common. We read: "So
the priest gave him consecrated bread, for the only bread
there was Presence-bread which had been removed from
the presence of the Eternal, to let hot bread be placed
there the same day." (1 Samuel 21:6, MotTatt) So it was
bread which had already served its holy purpose. But in
accepting and eating it David was not violating or making
exception of the Noaehian covenant concerning the sanctity
of blood. That he would make no exception concerning the
sacred covenant concerning blood is shown by his remark
when some of his soldiers risked their lives to bring him,
not blood, but water from the well at Bethlehem to drink.
David poured out the water on the ground where the blood
was ordered to be poured. We read: "But he would not
drink it; he poured it out for the Eternal, crying: ’My God
forbid that I should do it! Am I to drink the blood of these
men who went at the risk of their lives? For they have
brought this water at the risk of their lives.’ So he would
not drink it." (1 Chronicles 11 : 18, 19, Moffatt) In harmony
with this he said, at Psalm 16 : 4. "Their drink offerings of
blood will I not offer."
Many religionists say blood transfusion does not come
under the Noachian covenant concerning blood, but is an
exception to this prohibition of taking blood into one’s
system because of the good that blood transfusion does.
But did God make an exception to the blood covenant
because there were cases when it appeared to do good? No.
Whenth e Israelites were pursuing the Philistines they grew
exhausted, but their physical exhaustion was not overlooked
as an excuse for them to take creature blood into their system.
We read: "From noon to nightfall, thgy struck down
the Philistines that day, till the troops were exhausted;
then the troops rushed on the spoil, seizing sheep, oxen,
and calves, and felling them to the earth; the troops ate
them, blood and all. But when Saul was told, ’the troops are
sinning against the Eternal by eating flesh with the blood
in it,’ he said to his informants, "Roll a large altar-stone
here.’ Saul added, ’Go through the troops and tell them that
every man is to bring me his ox or sheep and slay it here;
they are not to sin against the Eternal by eating flesh with
the blood in it.’" (1 Samuel 14: 31-34, Mo#att) And when
Saul’s men thus pursued and slew the Philistines, they were
not violating the Sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not
murder," but were acting at God’s command in executing
his foes and were thus serving as executioners for him. This
was not committing murder. And that it was not is proved
by the fact that they did not have to flee to the cities of
refuge for safety from the avenger of blood, to which cities
of refuge any Israelite had to flee if he committed a murder
unwittingly or unintentionally. (Num. 35: 9-34) So the
argument that a blood transfusion is excusable because it
will revive an exhausted human life is a worldly-wise
argument and is without Scriptural support.
We must therefore be careful in trying to justify the
use of blood transfusion, on the presumption that it saves
Hves and is therefore good in God’s sight. It is thought
to be only good, but few persons pause to think of how
many lives it has failed to save and also how much harm
it has done both to the blood donor and to the one receiving
the blood transfusion, whose recovery is attributed to such
medical practice. Just because the blood is transfused
directly into the donee’s blood stream instead of directly
into his stomach to find its way eventually into his blood
stream does not say it is not eating blood and is hence no
transgression of the Noachian covenant against taking
creature blood into the human organism. It /s eating
another’s blood in order to replenish a depleted blood stream
and to do so in a hurry. Hence it is a breaking of God’s
covenant concerning the sanctity of blood. The greatest
harm that it does is not physical, but is in creating contempt
for the covenant and commandmenot f the great Giver of
life, Jehovah God.
Sincerely yours for the honor of His name,
WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY
