In connection with baptism, the society recognizes that this is merely a symbol of one’s dedication to do God’s will:
“It is thought by some that baptism is a ceremony that brings certain direct spiritual dispensations from God. A careful study of the instructions given by Jesus and his disciples on baptism proves otherwise. Being a symbol of something else, it obviously is not as important as what it symbolizes, namely dedication.” (The Watchtower June 1, 1962 pg. 329 par. 3)
“‘If any man of the house of Israel or any foreigner who is residing in your midst eats any sort of blood, I will certainly set my face against the one who is eating the blood, and I will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it. That is why I have said to the Israelites: “None of you should eat blood, and no foreigner who is residing in your midst should eat blood.” “‘If one of the Israelites or some foreigner who is residing in your midst is hunting and catches a wild animal or a bird that may be eaten, he must pour its blood out and cover it with dust. For the life of every sort of flesh is its blood, because the life is in it. Consequently, I said to the Israelites: “You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh because the life of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.” (Leviticus 17:10-14)
From this it is clear that, to God, blood was symbolic. It represented life. By not eating blood the Israelites could show Jehovah that they had respect for life and the giver of life.
Eating or drinking blood as part of one’s diet would not be showing respect for life. But does that also mean it would be showing disrespect for life if one were to undergo a medical procedure, the intent of which is to keep a person alive in an emergency situation by using his own blood or that of another person? Would not the attempt to prevent premature death be an evidence of a person’s respect for the sacredness of life? Witnesses are often criticized for not saluting the flag. However, many non-witness citizens that are passionate about saluting the flag of their country would not hesitate to cheat on their taxes. But does this not show a greater respect for the symbol than that which it symbolizes? Likewise, would not putting one’s life at risk by refusing a blood transfusion be placing a higher value on the symbol than on the very thing it symbolizes? When this question is brought up the Watchtower society has in the past referred to the account about David’s desire for a drink of water from Bethlehem found in the book of 2 Chronicles:
“David was then in the stronghold, and an outpost of the Phi·lisʹtines was in Bethʹle·hem. Then David expressed his longing: “If only I could have a drink of the water from the cistern by the gate of Bethʹle·hem!” At that the three mighty warriors forced their way into the camp of the Phi·lisʹtines and drew water from the cistern by the gate of Bethʹle·hem and brought it to David; but he refused to drink it and poured it out to Jehovah. He said: “It is unthinkable on my part, O Jehovah, that I should do this! Should I drink the blood of the men going at the risk of their lives?” So he refused to drink it. These are the things that his three mighty warriors did.” (2 Samuel 23:14-17)
David certainly showed high regard for the lives of his men. He refused to drink the water because they risked their lives to get it. If they had not risked their lives, Would David have had a problem drinking the water? It was only due to the fact that they risked their lives that the water had special significance. It was life, not water that was sacred. Also, there is nothing in the account that says David was dying of thirst and there was no water at all in the camp. He merely, for some reason, expressed a desire for water from this particular cistern in Bethlehem. If anything, one could say about this account it is that David chastised his men for unnecessarily putting their lives in danger in order to satisfy his personal whim. One would have to ask though, how David would have reacted had he been on his death bed, there being no water at all in their stronghold and Bethlehem was the only place to get it. Would he have refused his men’s courageous efforts to save the life of their king and perhaps many other soldiers? It is difficult to see the connection between this account and modern medical practice involving blood. Witnesses do not refuse blood transfusions because the donor risked his life to give it.
However, there is another account used to discourage the taking of a blood transfusion even in an emergency situation. The account is recorded in the book of 1 Samuel chapter 14 when Saul’s army was fighting the Philistines.
On that day they kept striking down the Phi·lisʹtines from Michʹmash to Aiʹja·lon, and the people became very tired. So the people began rushing greedily at the spoil, and they took sheep and cattle and calves and slaughtered them on the ground, and they ate the meat along with the blood. So it was reported to Saul: “Look! The people are sinning against Jehovah by eating meat with the blood.” At this he said: “You have acted faithlessly. Roll a large stone to me immediately.” Saul then said: “Spread out among the people and say to them, ‘Each of you must bring his bull and his sheep and slaughter them here and then eat them. Do not sin against Jehovah by eating meat with the blood.’” So each of them brought his bull with him that night and slaughtered it there. And Saul built an altar to Jehovah. This was the first altar he built to Jehovah. (1 Samuel 14:31-35)
However, if the men were indeed at the point of starvation, it would seem a concession was made for this, for the penalty for transgressing the law, that being death, was not carried out. (Lev. 17:10)
The Watchtower attempts to answer this problem in the following article:
Questions From Readers
“When Saul’s soldiers ate meat along with the blood, why were they not executed, since that was the punishment set out in God’s Law?
These men did violate God’s law on blood, but they may have been shown mercy because they had respect for blood, even though they should have been more diligent about showing such respect.
Consider the situation. The Israelites under King Saul and his son Jonathan were at war with the Philistines. At a point when “the men of Israel themselves were hard pressed” in battle, Saul rashly took an oath that his men should not eat until the enemy was defeated. (1 Samuel 14:24) Soon his oath created a problem.
His men were winning a hard-fought battle, but the strenuous effort was taking its toll. They were famished and exhausted. What did they do in that extreme situation? “The people began darting greedily at the spoil and taking sheep and cattle and calves and slaughtering them on the earth, and the people fell to eating along with the blood.”—1 Samuel 14:32.
That was in violation of God’s law concerning blood, as some of Saul’s people told him, saying: “Look! The people are sinning against Jehovah by eating along with the blood.” (1 Samuel 14:33) Yes, the Law said that when animals were slaughtered, the blood had to be drained before the meat was eaten. God did not demand taking fanatical measures to drain the blood. By taking reasonable steps of drainage, his servants could manifest respect for the significance of blood. (Deuteronomy 12:15, 16, 21-25) Animal blood could be used in a sacrificial way on the altar, but it was not to be eaten. Deliberate violation was punishable by death, for God’s people were told: “You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.”—Leviticus 17:10-14.
Were the soldiers of King Saul deliberately breaking the Law? Were they showing absolute disregard for the divine law on blood?—Compare Numbers 15:30.
We need not conclude so. The record says that they were ‘slaughtering the animals on the earth and eating along with the blood.’ So they may have been making some attempt to drain the blood. (Deuteronomy 15:23) Yet, in their exhausted, famished state, they did not hang up the slaughtered carcasses and allow adequate time for normal blood drainage. They slaughtered the sheep and cattle “on the earth,” which could retard drainage. And they quickly cut meat from carcasses that might have been lying in blood. Hence, even if they had in mind obeying God’s law, they did not follow through in proper ways nor to an adequate extent.
The result was that “the people fell to eating along with the blood,” which was sinful. Saul recognized this and ordered that a large stone be rolled to him. He commanded the soldiers: “Bring near to me, each one of you, his bull and, each one, his sheep, and you must do the slaughtering in this place and the eating, and you must not sin against Jehovah by eating along with the blood.” (1 Samuel 14:33, 34) The guilty soldiers obeyed, and “Saul proceeded to build an altar to Jehovah.”—1 Samuel 14:35.
Slaughtering animals on the stone probably effected adequate blood drainage. Meat from the animals would be eaten away from where the slaughtering occurred. Saul may have used some of the drained blood on the altar in seeking God’s mercy toward those who had sinned. Jehovah extended mercy, apparently because he knew what attempts the soldiers had made even though they were very tired and hungry. God may also have taken into account that Saul’s rash oath had pressed his men into that desperate situation.
This account does show that an emergency situation is no excuse for disregarding divine law. It should also help us see the need for careful thought before taking an oath, for a rash vow can cause problems for us personally and for others.—Ecclesiastes 5:4-6.” (The Watchtower April 15, 1994 p. 31)
Hence, an assumption is made as to the men having made at least some attempt to drain the blood although not doing so properly or to an adequate extent, even though the Bible account makes no mention of such an attempt. This seems a fairly reasonable explanation as to why the death penalty was not required. It is also claimed that. “God may also have taken into account that Saul’s rash oath had pressed his men into that desperate situation.” It was Saul, who had already shown himself to be presumptuous, not God, that gave the instructions about slaughtering upon the stone. So, in men’s eyes the people were sinning. But apparently that was not the case in God’s eyes. It must be asked, however, if God would take into account the desperation of the men, through circumstances not of their own making, and on this basis extend mercy because he knew that in their heart they meant no disrespect for the sanctity of life, what about the situation of a modern day Christian in a hospital situation faced with the alternative of either taking a blood transfusion or dying as a result of refusal? Would God require strict obedience, demanding that a Christian give up his life out of regard for that which symbolizes it?
The very thought seems to run counter to the purpose of the law:
You must keep my statutes and my judicial decisions; anyone who does so will live by means of them. I am Jehovah. (Leviticus 18:5)
“‘“I then gave them my statutes and made my judicial decisions known to them, so that the man who follows them may have life by them. (Ezekiel 20:11)
For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments; and yet his commandments are not burdensome, (1 John 5:3)
The society has claimed it is a lie that numerous children die refusing blood transfusions.
“Jehovah’s Witnesses have been targets of false accusations – barefaced lies and twisted presentations of their beliefs… The accusation that numerous children of Jehovah’s Witnesses die each year as a result of refusing blood transfusions is totally unfounded.” Watchtower 1998 December 1 p.14
This despite 4 years earlier proudly admitting that thousands of Jehovah’s Witness children do die standing up for the Watchtower stance against blood.
On the front cover of this issue of Awake are the pictures of 26 children that have had to face the blood issue. On the inside cover of the magazine under the heading “Youths Who Put God First” it states:
“In former times thousands of youths died for putting God first. They are still doing it, only today the drama is played out in hospitals and courtrooms, with blood transfusions the issue.”
On page 4 it describes the case of Adrian Yeatts, the 14 year old boy in the center of the picture. When asked by his mother why he was taking his stand against receiving a blood transfusion he said:
“Mom, it’s not a good trade. To disobey God and extend my life for a few years now and then because of my disobedience to God lose out on a resurrection and living forever in his paradise earth-that’s just not smart!”
In March 1993 fast growing tumor was found in his stomach. He died on September 13th the day after being baptized in the hospital’s physical therapy room. The article about him concludes:
“By rejecting blood transfusions that could conceivably have extended his present life, Adrian Yeatts showed himself to be one of the many young people who put God first.”
Governing body member Anthony Morris praises another young person that lost his life due to refusing blood:
The experience of Joshua Walker appeared in Awake January 22, 1995 pages 11-15
Yet if God did not require such a sacrifice to be made in order to show respect for what blood symbolizes but instead an organizational interpretation and policy, in reality we would have to say Adrian and Joshua were putting first, not God but, the organization. Certainly, there was no accepted medical procedure involving the use of blood in Bible times. Blood was either used for ritualistic or dietary means. Since the Bible does not specifically comment on the use of blood for potentially life-saving medical procedures should a stance against such modern-day use be taken? Would not an organization that holds such a policy that costs the lives of its members be considered bloodguilty?
“Bloodguilt is guilt from causing someone’s death because we did something that put his life in danger or because we failed to do something that would have protected his life” (The Watchtower November 2017 pg. 20)
“The inspired writer of the book of Proverbs said: “Deliver those who are being taken away to death; and those staggering to the slaughter, O may you hold them back.” Striking words indeed! Failure to assume the responsibility of warning people of the choice that lies before them could result in our incurring bloodguilt. In fact, the same passage continues: “In case you should say: ‘Look! We did not know of this,’ will not he himself that is making an estimate of hearts discern it, and he himself that is observing your soul know and certainly pay back to earthling man according to his activity? Clearly, Jehovah’s servants cannot say that they ‘do not know of’ the danger that people are facing.—Prov. 24:11, 12.” (The Watchtower January 15, 2008 pg. 4 par. 1)
“In case you should say: Look”, represents a hypothetical lie in which a defendant justifies his action to a jury. By saying “we did not know”, he locates himself within a whole community that is claiming ignorance to escape their culpability. Also, it raises the obvious question that if he felt incapable of rescuing the victim by himself, why did he not call upon others to help him? Hence, to the injustice of not helping the victim, he adds the injustice of lying. The rest of verse 12 presents the consequence of both injustices. First, it presents God’s ability to read hearts that informs his judgment. “Will not he himself that is making an estimate of hearts discern it?” The question is rhetorical. Lies cannot hide truth from the one who evaluates motives.
The lesson is clear. The Sovereign Lord will act justly. If a person turns a blind eye to helping victims, the Protector of Life will turn a blind eye to him in his crisis. Count on it! Actually the Bible encourages Christians to be willing to surrender their life that another might gain life from that act.
Jesus said, “No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his soul in behalf of his friends.” (John 15:13)
Husbands continue loving your wives, just as the Christ also loved the congregation and gave himself up for it, (Eph. 5:25)
For hardly would anyone die for a righteous man; though perhaps for a good man someone may dare to die. (Ro. 5:7)
In fact, we could say it is part of the new commandment Jesus gave to his disciples that would be an identifying mark of true Christianity:
I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, you also love one another. 35 By this all will know that you are my disciples—if you have love among yourselves.” (John 13:34, 35)
Unless blood is considered more sacred than life would not Jesus’ expression allow that we donate blood also for the purpose of saving life, even if that life is just a temporary gain?
Is It a Disfellowshiping Offense?
According to the Watchtower, in 1958 the taking of a blood transfusion was not considered a disfellowshiping offense:
Questions From Readers
● One of Jehovah’s witnesses who claims to be of the anointed remnant recently went to the hospital and took a blood transfusion, voluntarily. Should she be allowed to partake of the emblems of bread and wine at Memorial time?—R. J., United States.
We, of course, regret with you that this sister who professes to be one of the anointed remnant took a blood transfusion voluntarily during her stay in the hospital. We believe that she did the wrong thing contrary to the will of God. However, congregations have never been instructed to disfellowship those who voluntarily take blood transfusions or approve them. We let the judgment of such violators of God’s law concerning the sacredness of blood remain with Jehovah, the Supreme Judge. The only thing that can be done in the cases of individuals like this is to view them as immature and therefore not capable of taking on certain responsibilities, hence refusing to make certain assignments of service to such ones.
Since an individual is not disfellowshiped because of having voluntarily taken a blood transfusion or having approved of a dear one’s accepting a blood transfusion, you have no right to bar this sister from the celebration of the Lord’s Evening Meal. As an anointed member of Christ’s body she is under orders and command by Christ Jesus to partake. Whether she is unfaithful as to what she professes to be by virtue of taking the emblems of the Lord’s Evening Meal is something for Jehovah God to determine himself. His judgment begins at the house of God. It is not for you or anyone serving the Memorial emblems to act as the judge, but to allow the emblems to go to anyone in the audience as these are passed along in the normal manner of letting each one have the opportunity to partake. (The Watchtower August 1, 1958 p. 478)
The article makes the statement that “congregations have never been instructed to disfellowship those who voluntarily take blood transfusions or approve them.”
Yet two and a half years later this was changed:
“In view of the seriousness of taking blood into the human system by a transfusion, would violation of the Holy Scriptures in this regard subject the dedicated, baptized receiver of blood transfusion to being disfellowshiped from the Christian congregation?
The inspired Holy Scriptures answer yes…
God’s law definitely says that the soul of man is in his blood. Hence the receiver of the blood transfusion is feeding upon a God-given soul as contained in the blood vehicle of a fellow man or of fellow men. This is a violation of God’s commands to Christians, the seriousness of which should not be minimized by any passing over of it lightly as being an optional matter for the conscience of any individual to decide upon. The decree of the apostles at Jerusalem declares: “If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper.” Hence a Christian who deliberately receives a blood transfusion and thus does not keep himself from blood will not prosper spiritually. According to the law of Moses, which set forth shadows of things to come, the receiver of a blood transfusion must be cut off from God’s people by excommunication or disfellowshiping.” (The Watchtower January 15, 1961 pg. 63 Question From Readers)
However, according to the manual for congregation elders, Shepherd the Flock of God, when it becomes known that a witness has taken a blood transfusion, a committee (not judicial) is formed to investigate:
This is a confidential book made available only to elders. To my knowledge, this change in policy has never appeared in any other Watchtower publications so that the average witness could be made aware of it. Why?
When discussing how a person disassociates himself the Watchtower describes two ways this could happen:
“This designation is applied basically in two situations:
“One who has been a true Christian might renounce the way of the truth, stating that he no longer considers himself to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses or wants to be known as one. When this rare event occurs, the person is renouncing his standing as a Christian, deliberately disassociating himself from the congregation. The apostle John wrote: “They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us.”—1 John 2:19.
Or, a person might renounce his place in the Christian congregation by his actions, such as by becoming part of an organization whose objective is contrary to the Bible, and, hence, is under judgment by Jehovah God. (Compare Revelation 19:17-21; Isaiah 2:4.) So if one who was a Christian chose to join those who are disapproved of God, it would be fitting for the congregation to acknowledge by a brief announcement that he had disassociated himself and is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Persons who make themselves “not of our sort” by deliberately rejecting the faith and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses should appropriately be viewed and treated as are those who have been disfellowshiped for wrongdoing. (The Watchtower September 15, 1981 pg. 23 pars. 14-16)
So, the person that collapses under pressure and takes a blood transfusion is considered to be spiritually weak and in need of assistance. If he is judged as being repentant, he will be shown mercy. If not, he is viewed as deliberately rejecting the faith and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses and having renounced his faith in God. But if the person still desired to remain in the religion this is simply not true. He only wanted to continue living and the interpretation of this single issue was the only point of disagreement. But for that decision, he is treated as a wrongdoer and shunned by all members of the congregation.
In commenting on why Saul’s men were not put to death for eating blood along with the meat, the Watchtower states this is because Saul appeased Jehovah by making sacrifices for the men on his newly built altar:
“Mercifully, Jehovah accepted special sacrifices in behalf of those who had sinned.—1 Samuel 14:34, 35. (The Watchtower March 15, 2005 pg. 30)
Yet nowhere in the account does it tell us the purpose for which Saul built the altar. Nor does is say that he made sacrifices on it and used some of the blood in order to appease Jehovah in behalf of his men. All the account says is that Saul built an altar. In fact, immediately after this, Jehovah refused to answer Saul when he inquired of God as to whether or not he should pursue the Philistines. (1 Sam. 14:37)
Regarding this account, Keil and Delitzsch commentary on the Old Testament states:
“This altar was probably not intended to serve as a place of sacrifice, but simply to be a memorial of the presence of God, or the revelation of
God which Saul had received in the marvellous victory. – ver. 36.”
Why focus on what Saul did? A man whose presumptuousness had already caused him to lose Jehovah’s favor. (1 Sam. 13:8-14) And whose rash oath put the men in such dire consequences in the first place. Instead we should focus on what Jehovah did. On other occasions, Jehovah immediately expressed his disapproval when someone sinned. Uzzah was immediately killed when he put his hand out to steady the ark of the covenant. (2 Sam. 6:7) God withheld his blessing on Israel until Achan who took from Jericho some of the thing devoted to destruction was put to death. (Joshua 7:1; 22:20) But neither of those actions were taken here.
In the case of Saul’s men, the account clearly shows that God did not consider the men as having sinned against him. Saul tried to determine why God did not answer his prayer. He put all the army on one side and he and Jonathan on the other and cast lots. The lot fell upon Saul and Jonathan, thus indicating that the army was not at fault. Since Saul could not accept that he could possibly be the blame for the problem he asked Jonathan what he did. As a result he was ready to kill his own son. (1 Sam 14:37-45) But who was really to blame for the situation? Jonathan did not even know of his father’s oath when he tasted the honey. (1 Sam. 14:27) So he was not being disobedient either to Saul or Jehovah. Additionally, it was because of Jehovah’s favor upon Jonathan that gained the Israelites the victory over the Philistines. So in reality it was Jonathan that Jehovah was listening to not Saul. In what way did God express disapproval for what Jonathan or Saul’s men did? The fact that neither did God require that Saul’s men be put to death nor indicate by lot that he withdrew his blessing, strongly indicates that he did not consider them as having sinned against his law on blood.
It is the responsibility of the Christian to go on perceiving what the will of Jehovah is. (Eph. 5:17) Not that of men. However, according to the society, if a person exercises his conscience in harmony with how he understands what the Bible says and does not perceive that it is the will of God for him to refuse taking a blood transfusion to save his life, thus having nothing for which to repent, he is viewed as an unrepentant sinner, having voluntarily disassociated himself from the organization. As the September 1981 Watchtower article shows, whether one is considered disassociated or disfellowshiped, the results are the same. From the time an announcement is made, all witnesses, whether family or friends, are required to shun the person so named. With such high stakes, I do not see how it is possible for any witness to refuse blood because of their Bible trained conscience.