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
Commenting on these verses the Watchtower society states:
Is it wrong to accept a blood transfusion? Remember, Jehovah requires that we abstain from blood. This means that we must not take into our bodies in any way at all other people’s blood or even our own blood that has been stored. (What Does God Require of Us? Pg. 25 par. 6)
“As to blood transfusions, he knows from his study of the Bible and the publications of the Watch Tower Society that this is an unscriptural practice. (Gen. 9:4; Acts 15:28, 29) Now it is up to him to carry his own load of responsibility in applying what the Scriptures have to say on this matter. One day he may go to the hospital for surgery. There he explains his position to the doctor. “All right,” the doctor says, “then we will use plasma.” Or the doctor may tell him, “What you need is red cells to carry oxygen. We have red cells that we can use. How about that?” The Christian may not be well versed in medical matters. Shall he call his congregation servant or the Society? That should not be necessary if he is prepared to carry his own load of responsibility. He need only ask the doctor: “From what was the plasma taken?” “How are the red cells obtained?” “Where did you get this substance?” If the answer is “Blood,” he knows what course to take, for it is not just whole blood but anything that is derived from blood and used to sustain life or strengthen one that comes under this principle.” (The Watchtower February 15, 1963 pg. 124)
In what context did the apostles and older men in Jerusalem use the expression to “abstain” from blood? The decision of the council resulted in a ruling of four specific things that Christians were to abstain from:
- From things polluted by idols[1]
- From fornication [2]
- From what is strangled[3]
- From blood
The council specifically dealt with the effort of Jewish Christians from the sect of the Pharisees demanding that Gentile Christians needing not only to be circumcised but also “observe the law of Moses.” (Acts 15:5)
Since the aim was to combat the growing attitude of legalism, it is unlikely that the council would seek to set out a new code of laws for Christians to adhere to. (Gal. 5:1) That was the issue the apostle Peter addressed, which he described as a burdensome “yoke.” (vss. 7-10)
The recommended abstentions, then, focused on those areas of Gentile practice that were most likely to create great offense for Jews and result in friction and disturbance.
Why were Gentile Christians to abstain from things polluted by idols?
This is not a command to abstain from idolatry, for Christians had already given up idolatry. Things polluted by idols is further defined in verse 29 as things sacrificed to idols. Foods offered to idols and later sold in a meat market were considered polluted by the Jews.
Was this a universal law that was to be adhered to in all cases? In Paul’s writings he explicitly states that James’ recommendation about refraining from meat sacrificed to idols, as well as from what is strangled, was not a law, and was something that he, as a Christian, could freely choose to ignore as long as it didn’t offend anyone:
Now concerning the eating of foods offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one. Nevertheless, there is not this knowledge in all persons; but some, being accustomed until now to the idol, eat food as something sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. But food will not commend us to God; if we do not eat, we do not fall short, and, if we eat, we have no credit to ourselves. But keep watching that this authority of YOURS does not somehow become a stumbling block to those who are weak. For if anyone should see you, the one having knowledge, reclining at a meal in an idol temple, will not the conscience of that one who is weak be built up to the point of eating foods offered to idols? Really, by your knowledge, the man that is weak is being ruined, [your] brother for whose sake Christ died. But when YOU people thus sin against YOUR brothers and wound their conscience that is weak, YOU are sinning against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat flesh at all, that I may not make my brother stumble. (1 Cor. 8:4-13)
Everything that is sold in a meat market keep eating, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience; for “to Jehovah belong the earth and that which fills it.” If anyone of the unbelievers invites YOU and YOU wish to go, proceed to eat everything that is set before YOU, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience. But if anyone should say to YOU: “This is something offered in sacrifice,” do not eat on account of the one that disclosed it and on account of conscience. “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other person. For why should it be that my freedom is judged by another person’s conscience? If I am partaking with thanks, why am I to be spoken of abusively over that for which I give thanks? Therefore, whether YOU are eating or drinking or doing anything else, do all things for God’s glory. Keep from becoming causes for stumbling to Jews as well as Greeks and to the congregation of God, even as I am pleasing all people in all things, not seeking my own advantage but that of the many, in order that they might get saved. (1 Cor. 10:25-33)
In Corinth, some Christians were even going to idol temples where such sacrificed meat was thereafter cooked and served right in the pagan temple. How, then, did the apostle deal with the matter? Did he threaten those eating this meat by warning them of judicial proceedings for not obeying the decision of the Jerusalem council? No. The council did not state what punishment should be meted out to those that did not follow the recommendation. To the contrary, rather than condemning their actions, he showed the harmful consequences. (1 Cor. 8:1-12)
This shows that Paul did not look upon the decision reached by the apostles and others in Jerusalem concerning food offered to idols as being “law.” Had it been, Paul would never have written that the eating of such was a matter of conscience as long as it did not cause others to stumble. Why then should the decision to abstain from blood be considered different?
In his commentary on the book of Acts, R.C. H. Lenski writes:
“The apostles are not a body which substitutes for Moses and decrees laws similar to those which Moses gave to Israel at God’s command. The resolution that James offers is not to be a papal bull. The four points to be sent out are in no sense “a moral catechism,” an abbreviation of the decalog or a selection from the decalog. Neither are they a substitute for the so-called Noachian commandments which are reduced from seven to four. Those seven were directed against idolatry, blasphemy, murder, incest, robbery, disobedience to government, eating bloody meat (Gen. 9:4), and were imposed on the proselytes of the gate. There was not the faintest idea of dealing with Gentile Christians as the Jews dealt with proselytes of the gate and of regarding them as second-rate and not as real Christians.” (R.C.H. Lenski “Commentary on the New Testament Acts pg. 614)
What did it mean to abstain from things strangled?
The footnote on this verse in the New World Translation states: “What is killed without draining its blood.”
Paul’s comments to the Corinthians quoted above apply here as well.
Although the subject under consideration was meat that had been offered in sacrifice, Paul encouraged them make no inquiry when buying meat or accepting an invitation to eat. Would unbled meat from strangled animals find its way into the market or be prepared by unbelievers? The answer is obvious.
Yet the society would encourage witnesses to disobey this admonition:
“There are many substances found in blood that are also found elsewhere. This is to be expected, since human and animal bodies are not the only creations produced from the earth. For example, while lecithin is found in blood, it is also derived from soybeans, which happen to be the common commercial source of most lecithin. If there is doubt about a product, it is up to the individual to investigate by inquiring of the manufacturer. He cannot expect a brother in the congregation to rule on the matter for him; the brother did not make the product and neither did the Society. The substance may have been derived from blood or it may not. He must bear his own load of responsibility.” (The Watchtower February 15, 1963 pg. 123-124)
“Of course, if there is no indication on the label of a package of animal food that the product contains blood, a Christian might conclude that it could be used. Still, his conscience might trouble him. In that case he should put his conscience to rest by making reasonable inquiry and acting in accord with the information he receives, for a Christian surely desires to have a good conscience before God.—1 Pet. 3:21. (The Watchtower February 15, 1964 pg. 127-128)
Why Abstain From Blood?
Christians were urged to ‘abstain from blood,’ this clearly was to be understood, not in some all-embracing sense, but in the specific sense of refraining from eating blood when doing so could stumble others, whether Jews or Christians. To take the matter beyond that, and to say that Gentiles should now assign a special significance to blood is to lift the matter out of its Scriptural and historical context and to impose upon it a meaning that is not actually there. The account says nothing about Gentiles needing to view the blood as sacred with any of the language attributed to it in the Hebrew scriptures, namely that it means life or that it should be poured out on the ground. Nothing is said about eating blood being equated with showing disrespect for Christ’s sacrifice.
The booklet “How Can Blood Save Your Life?”” states:
“The Bible’s theme revolves around the fact that Christ died as a perfect ransom sacrifice but did not remain dead. Following the pattern that God set on Atonement Day, Jesus was raised to heaven to “appear before the person of God for us.” He presented there the value of his sacrificial blood. (Hebrews 9:24) The Bible emphasizes that we must avoid any course that would amount to ‘trampling on the Son of God and esteeming his blood as of ordinary value.’ Only thus may we keep a good relationship and peace with God.—Hebrews 10:29; Colossians 1:20. (How Can Blood Save Your Life?” pg. 25)
But where in Hebrews chapter 10 does Paul say a Christian would be trampling upon the Son of God by eating animal blood? Also, if this were so important for Christians to know, why wasn’t it mentioned at the council of Jerusalem? And what of Jesus flesh? By that logic would not eating animal flesh be considered trampling upon the Son of God? Of course not. Blood was given sacred significance by God under the Mosaic Law and viewed as having sin atoning value. (Lev. 17:11) But that only served as a shadow of the reality. (Heb. 10:1-10) Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Law. For Christians it is Christ’s sacrifice that is important. In fact, Jesus showed that, in order to gain everlasting life, it was necessary to eat his flesh and drink his blood symbolically speaking.
“So Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. (John 6:53)
When some objected to this, viewing it as cannibalism, he showed that his words were not intended to be taken literally:
It is the spirit that is life-giving; the flesh is of no use at all. The sayings that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. (John 6:63)
In order to receive that life a person must “come to him” (John 6:35,37, 44,45) and “believe” (John 6:29,30,35,36,40,47).
This agrees with what Hebrews says. According to Paul it is not by what we eat but by denying Christ, by practicing sin willfully after knowing the truth that we esteem Christ’s blood as having ordinary value. (Heb. 10:26-29)
“So he said to them: “Are you also without understanding like them? Are you not aware that nothing from outside that enters into a man can defile him, since it enters, not into his heart, but into his stomach, and it passes out into the sewer?” Thus he declared all foods clean. (Mark 7:18, 19)
The NET Bible comments:
Telling them to abstain. These restrictions are not on matters of salvation, but are given as acts of sensitivity to their Jewish brethren, as v. Act_15:21 makes clear. Another example of such sensitivity is seen in 1 Cor 10:14-11:1.
As far back as May 15, 1897, the Watch Tower recognized this as the intent:
“The answer ignored every feature of that law, except four points; and the first three of these were mentioned no doubt as a basis of common fellowship between those who had been Jews and those who had been Gentiles, namely, (1) abstaining from meats that had been offered in sacrifice to idols; (2) abstaining from animal food that had not been killed after the manner of the Jews; (3) abstaining from the eating of blood. It would be almost impossible for those who had been reared as Jews to ignore these three points, and if the converts from the Gentiles did not observe them it would be a constant barrier to their social intercourse.” The Watchtower May 15, 1897, p. 153
This was also stated in the April 15, 1909 Watchtower:
“We have in vss. 22-29 the decision of the Apostles on the question. They not only wrote it out, but sent it at the hand of two of their trusted brethren, Judas-Barnabas and Silas, with Paul and Barnabas, that they might have the matter in written and in oral testimony. The declaration was that the disquieting teachings had not been authorized by the Apostles at Jerusalem. Then they briefly summed up, not as law, but as necessary things,” the followings:
(1) Abstain from sacrifices to idols;
(2) And from blood;
(3) And from things strangled;
(4) And from harlotry.
The things here recommended were necessary to a preservation of the fellowship of the “body” composed of Jews and Gentiles of their different education and sentiments… the advice was that these be abstained from, because Jews certainly would consider the eating of such meats as participations in the heathen idolatry…
Nevertheless, it was advisable that the Gentile Christians abstain from the use of their liberty in this direction, out of deference to the weaker brethren, Jews and Gentiles, who could not so deeply philosophize and whose consciences might be injured.
A similar thought attaches to the prohibition of the use of blood. To the Jew it was forbidden, and under his covenant it was made a symbol of life–to partake of it would imply responsibility for the life taken… These prohibitions had never come to the Gentiles, because they had never been under the Law Covenant; but so deeply rooted were the Jewish ideas on this subject that it was necessary to the peace of the Church that the Gentiles should observe this matter also.
…If they did not wish to be contentious and cause divisions in the Church, the Gentile brethren would surely be willing to restrain or sacrifice their liberty respecting these matters.
(The Watch Tower 1909 April 15, p. 117)
It was specific counsel for a specific circumstance prevailing at that period in history for the purpose of preserving the unity of the Christian congregation.
Paul even circumcised Timothy shortly after the decree was issued, not as a matter of faith, but to avoid prejudicing Jews to whom they were going to preach. (Ac 16:1-3; 1Co 9:20)
But if a Christian caused another to stumble today by eating blood the same principle would apply. It would be best to avoid doing so but only out of regard for the conscience of others, not because of law.
However, it seems by asserting that the law still applies because of what God said to Noah, the society has created its own class of neo-Judaizers.
However, a fact that played the largest part in the decision of the council was what had already been indicated by the holy spirit. Namely that God accepted the Gentiles while still in their uncircumcised state. Not only that but also prior to their conforming to Jewish dietary practice.
And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by giving them the holy spirit, just as he did to us also. And he made no distinction at all between us and them, but purified their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:8, 9)
Peter here is referring to Cornelius and his family. That even though uncircumcised, they received holy spirit. (Acts chapter 10; Acts 11:15-18) Was Cornelius already abstaining from eating unbled meat? Since Peter is given the vision of unclean things to eat, it is unlikely he was a proselyte.
Insight on the Scriptures states:
“If Cornelius had been a proselyte, Peter would not have said it was unlawful for him, a Jew, to associate with this “man of another race,” in view of what was written in the Law concerning an alien resident. (Le 19:33, 34; Ac 10:28) If he had been a proselyte, the six other Jews with Peter would not have been “amazed” at seeing the holy spirit poured out “upon people of the nations.” (Ac 10:45; 11:12) If he had been a proselyte, why did “supporters of circumcision” contend with Peter over this matter?—Ac 11:2. (Insight on the Scriptures vol. 1 pg. 513)
If God accepted the Gentiles while uncircumcised then he also accepted them while eating unbled meat. The contention of the Judaizers was that it was necessary for the Gentiles not only to get circumcised but also to observe the Law of Moses. (Acts 15:5,10)
After much discussion the conclusion reached was that it was not necessary for the Gentile Christians to get circumcised. Christ is the end of the Law. (Rom. 10:4; Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14, 20,21) Hence the decision of the Jerusalem council to abstain from things strangled and from blood could not have been a new law, for that would have contradicted the leadings of holy spirit. Rather it was a recommendation so as not to offend the Jews.
R.C.H. Lenski writes:
“Christ’s removal of the yoke of the law made circumcision and kosher eating, etc., no longer obligatory in any sense apart even from the matter of gaining salvation; yet neither were these Jewish practices and modes of living forbidden by Christ. They became adiaphora, matters of liberty and choice, that should not be forced upon others or become a cause of pride and marks of special holiness as compared with Gentile Christians. Peter could continue kosher eating, for instance, but not as though that elevated him above those who did not eat kosher and made him stand higher in God’s sight…
Peter’s experience was already sufficient, but that experience was multiplied in the case of Barnabas and of Paul. God had thus set his seal of approval on the work of receiving Gentiles into the church by faith alone without circumcision and other Levitical observances.”
( Commentary on the New Testament – Acts by R.C.H. Lenski pg 604,606)
But the Society’s position is even worse because of the lack of the second factor, the blood donor has not given up their life in order to provide the blood, which is a fundamental principle found in every one of the scriptural examples. The booklet “Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Question of Blood states:
“This pouring out of the blood was not simply a religious ritual; it actually was an extension of the divine law given to Noah. When killing an animal, a person should recognize that its life comes from and belongs to God. By not eating the blood, but ‘pouring it out’ on the altar or on the ground, the Israelite was, in effect, returning the creature’s life to God.” (Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Question of Blood pp. 8-9 par 19)
Insight on the Scriptures states:
“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.) The Israelites, as well as alien residents who took up true worship and came under the Law covenant, were obligated to live up to the lofty requirements of that Law. People of all nations were bound by the requirement at Genesis 9:3, 4, but those under the Law were held by God to a higher standard in adhering to that requirement than were foreigners and alien residents who had not become worshipers of Jehovah.
Under the Christian arrangement. The governing body of the first-century Christian congregation, under the direction of the holy spirit, ruled on the matter of blood. Their decree states: “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 and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (Ac 15:22, 28, 29) The prohibition included flesh with the blood in it (“things strangled”).
This decree rests, ultimately, on God’s command not to eat blood, as given to Noah and his sons and, therefore, to all mankind. In this regard, the following is found in The Chronology of Antient Kingdoms Amended, by Sir Isaac Newton (Dublin, 1728, p. 184): “This law [of abstaining from blood] was ancienter than the days of Moses, being given to Noah and his sons, long before the days of Abraham: and therefore when the Apostles and Elders in the Council at Jerusalem declared that the Gentiles were not obliged to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, they excepted this law of abstaining from blood, and things strangled, as being an earlier law of God, imposed not on the sons of Abraham only, but on all nations, while they lived together in Shinar under the dominion of Noah: and of the same kind is the law of abstaining from meats offered to Idols or false Gods, and from fornication.”—Italics his. (Insight on the Scriptures vol. 1 pg. 345 par. 6)
This quote from Sir Isaac Newton makes a strange point when it says the “law of abstaining from blood was ancienter than the days of Moses” but then goes on to say that “the Gentiles were not obliged to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses”. Was not circumcision given to Abraham prior to the law of Moses? And were not all Christians regarded as being Abraham’s seed? (Gal. 3:29)
If Gentile Christians were required to abstain from blood because this predated the Mosaic Law why were they not required to get circumcised? Furthermore, this would be a very compelling argument in favor of circumcision yet amazingly it is never brought up at the Jerusalem council. (Acts 15:1,5) We must also ask if God’s command to Noah was binding on all the nations, why was it permitted for Jews to sell unbled meat to a foreigner?
“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)
As shown by Deuteronomy 14:21 it is not the blood that is sacred, rather it is what it represents, namely life. While the Jews were held to a higher ceremonial standard, alien residents were allowed to eat unbled meat as long as the animal was not killed by man.
Even natural Jews, if eating an animal that was not killed by man, were not to be put to death but would have to remain unclean until the evening:
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.
However, if no life had been sacrificed, what is there to return to God? Would first century Christians have avoided taking blood transfusions from a living donor in order to prevent death if the practice was available at the time? Since it is impossible to say, should we not leave the decision whether or not to do so for each individual Christian to decide? How do modern Orthodox Jews understand this prohibition?
“In an endeavor to remove all blood strict Jews go to great extremes. Code of Jewish Law, a compilation of Jewish laws and customs by a rabbi and published by a Hebrew publishing company in New York city, details the great pains to be taken with meat. The meat is submerged in water for half an hour, is then salted and put in position for draining for an hour as the salt draws out the blood, and is thereafter thoroughly washed three times.” (The Watchtower July 1, 1951 pg. 415)
Yet Jews today have no problem receiving a blood transfusion:
Is blood transfusion permissible in Jewish belief?
By Rochel Chein
There is nothing in Jewish law that would preclude a person from benefiting from a blood transfusion (or donating blood, for that matter).
Furthermore, according to Jewish belief, saving a life is one of the most important mitzvot (commandments), overriding nearly all of the others. (The exceptions are murder, certain sexual offenses, and idol-worship—we cannot transgress these even to save a life.) Therefore, if a blood transfusion is deemed medically necessary, then it is not only permissible but obligatory.
All the best,
Rochel Chein for Chabad.org
[1] The society attempts to make this appear more serious by referring to it as idolatry:
“Later, at a meeting in Jerusalem, the apostles and older men decreed that we must ‘abstain from blood.’ Doing so is as vital as abstaining from sexual immorality and idolatry.—Acts 15:28, 29.” (The Watchtower June 15, 2004 pg. 29) However, the issue was not idolatry but the eating of food that had been previously offered to idols.
[2] The prohibition of fornication, understood generally, is an ethical prohibition in all forms of the text (Western or otherwise), but the word may be used here in a more specialized sense, of marriage within degrees of blood relationship or affinity forbidden by the legislation of Lev_18:6-18. It is used in this sense in 1Co_5:1 and also possibly in the “excepting clauses” of Mat_5:32 and Mat_19:9.
Ordinary fornication, like ordinary idol-worship, was ruled out by the most elementary principles of Christian instruction.
Some MSS of the Latin Vulgate omit “and from fornication.” It is suggested by some that the highest common factor of the readings in Act_15:20 and Act_15:29 represents the original text: that the decree was exclusively a food law, prohibiting the eating of meat which had been sacrificed to pagan divinities and meat from which the blood had not been completely drained; and that this twofold prohibition was later expanded in the various ways to which our several textual authorities bear witness. See P. H. Menoud, “The Western Text and the Theology of Acts,” SNTS Bulletin 2 (1951), pp. 19-32, especially pp. 22-28; C. S. C. Williams, Alterations to the Text of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Oxford, 1951), pp. 72-75; for the view that it was a threefold prohibition, omitting the reference to fornication, see G. Zuntz, Opuscula Selecta, pp. 224-29.] The New International Commentary on the New Testament
Since the Jews regarded idolatry as spiritual fornication, it is also a possibility that James had this in mind, especially if he is alluding to what was stated under the Mosaic law. In the Septuagint, Leviticus 17:7 uses the word porneia in reference to idolatry.
[3] This is understood to mean not eating meat from an animal not properly bled. (The Watchtower December 1, 1967 pg. 717 par. 23, What Does the Bible Really Teach pg. 130 par. 12)