“For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (Acts 15:28, 29)
One area where such loyalty has been shown by Jehovah’s Witnesses for their organization’s directives is in the highly controversial issue of whether or not to accept a blood transfusion. It is accurate to say that God’s word forbids the consuming of blood. This mandate was given to Noah and subsequently to all his descendants after the flood. (Gen. 9:3,4)
The prohibition was also laid down and expanded upon for Jews under the Mosaic law. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that also, after the ending of that law, this applies for those in the Christian arrangement. Since the mandate given to Noah it predated the law and according to the Watchtower society applies to all mankind, even the Gentiles. (Lev. 17:10; Acts 15:28,29)
However, Deuteronomy 14:21 would initially seem to contradict this as applying to all Gentiles after Noah:
“You must not eat any animal that was found dead. You may give it to the foreign resident who is inside your cities, and he may eat it, or it may be sold to a foreigner. For you are a holy people to Jehovah your God. “You must not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk. (Deuteronomy 14:21)[1]
If the command to Noah was understood by the Jews as applying to all Gentiles how then could they be allowed to sell them unbled meat? Upon careful examination it becomes apparent that, although Gentiles, as well as Jews, were considered under the command given to Noah when killing an animal for food, nothing was said about eating an animal that had died of itself or had been killed by a wild animal.[2] Thus it becomes clear that God did not contradict himself. Even for the Jews, eating such an animal was permitted but would make them ceremonially unclean.
“If anyone, whether a native or a foreigner, eats an animal found dead or one torn by a wild animal, he must then wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; then he will be clean.” (Leviticus 17:15)
The Watchtower society commented on this scripture in a 1983 Question From Readers article. An excellent review of that article can be found on the AJWRB website.
Why then, does Deuteronomy forbid the eating of such meat while Leviticus appears to permit it?
The NICNT comments:
“There is no conflict of principle between the provisions of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Deuteronomy fails to mention the consequences of eating this sort of meat, but the fact that it instructs the full-born Israelites to avoid eating it suggests it concurred with Leviticus that such meat does cause uncleanness. Whereas Leviticus allows both Israelite and sojourner to become unclean and insists on washing afterward, Deuteronomy simplifies the rule by forbidding such meat entirely to Israelites, but allowing sojourners to eat it at will. This seems to be a case of upholding a principle while varying its detailed application.” (The New International Commentary on the New Testament)
Thus a concession was made for those unable to properly drain the animal of its blood. For the Gentile, eating it was permitted. Jews, even though prohibited from eating it, the death penalty was not to be imposed if they did because this was not done out of deliberate disrespect for the giver of life, Jehovah. (See also The Watchtower July 1, 2005 pg. 27)
Any reading of the divine mandate to Noah will make plain that God there speaks of blood entirely in connection with the killing of animals and subsequently with the killing of humans.
The shed blood of slain animals and of slain humans stands for the life that was taken.[3] The same is true with regard to the Mosaic law texts regularly cited requiring that blood be “poured out.” In all cases, this clearly refers to the blood of animals that have been slain. The blood represented life taken.[4]
Blood transfusions, however, are not the result of the killing of either animals or humans, the blood coming from a living donor who continues to live. Rather than representing someone’s life taken, such blood is freely given by the donor as a gift for the very opposite purpose, namely the preservation of life. This does not mean that there is nothing wrong with taking a blood transfusion and that everyone should be encouraged to take one. Every medical treatment option involves risks that need to be weighed against the potential benefits. It only means that there is no real connection or true parallel between God’s command to Noah regarding slaying and then eating the blood of the animal slain, and the modern medical use of blood in a transfusion.
It is important to note that in each occasion where blood is mentioned in scripture, two factors are apparent:
1) The life of the animal had been taken.
2) What is prohibited is not transfusing but eating blood[5]
[1] When the Bible refers to a person of non-Israelite origin in relation to the Israelite commonwealth, the designation “alien resident” sometimes applies to one of these who had become a proselyte or a full worshiper of Jehovah. At times it refers to a settler in the land of Palestine who was content to live among the Israelites, obeying the fundamental laws of the land but not fully accepting the worship of Jehovah. The context determines to which class the term applies…The alien resident who could be given the body of an animal that had died of itself was evidently one who had not become a full-fledged worshiper of Jehovah – Deut. 14:21. (Insight vol-1 p. 72 Alien Resident)
[2] At Deuteronomy 14:21 allowance was made for selling to an alien resident or a foreigner an animal that had died of itself or that had been torn by a beast. Thus a distinction was made between the blood of such animals and that of animals that a person slaughtered for food. (Compare Le 17:14-16.) (Insight on the Scriptures vol. 1 pg. 345 par. 6)
There are other significant differences between God’s command to Noah and the Mosaic law. Noah was not required to offer blood in sacrifice or cleanse himself, his garments or utensils as Israelite priests were.
[3] Compare Genesis 4:10, 11; 37:26; 42:22; Exodus 12:5-7 (compare this with 1 Peter 1:18, 19); Exodus
24:5-8; Matthew 23:35; 26:28; 27:24, 25
[4] Leviticus 17:13, 14; Deuteronomy 12:15, 16, 24, 25.
[5] (See The Watchtower September 15, 1958 pg.575)