Since blood transfusions are not taking blood through the mouth, this medical procedure does not go against the Bible injunction to abstain from blood. However, if a person were on the verge of death and the only food available was meat that had not been properly bled would his eating it be condemned by God?
I believe there is a Bible account that provides the answer:
“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. 1 Samuel 14:31-34
The April 15, 1994 Watchtower commented on this account. For a discussion of that article see the post “Which Is Greater the Symbol or What It Symbolizes”. A significant statement relative to our question is made regarding Saul’s men in that article:
“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.”
First it is important to note that in this account, even though Saul’s men were very tired and hungry, they were not at the point of death. Yet, even though God’s law on blood was transgressed by those men he did not require the penalty for that sin to be carried out, which would have been death. Why?
I believe the answer lies in our getting an understanding of not merely the letter of the law but the spirit behind it.
“‘“But the sons began to rebel against me. They did not walk in my statutes, and they did not observe and carry out my judicial decisions, which if a man follows them, he will have life by them. My sabbaths they profaned. So I promised to pour out my rage on them and to unleash my anger against them fully in the wilderness. Ezekiel 20:21
Rather than requiring strict obedience to the point of death, God’s law was given to improve the health and life of his people.
According to Rabbi Asher Lopatin one of the most basic principles in Jewish law is that human life comes first. Almost any religious commandment can be broken in order to save the life of a human being.
While the Torah goes to great lengths to tell us how important some of the commandments are, the start of the Torah foreshadows that saving human life will be more important: “And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him.” (Genesis 1:27) Clearly, the life of a human being is special and unique, and as would become clear later in the Torah, demands preservation beyond anything else.
This idea, known as pikuach nefesh, is derived from two main sources. One, preferred by the 12th century scholar Maimonides, is the verse in Leviticus 18:5: “You shall keep My laws and My rules, by the pursuit of which man shall live.” The talmudic sage Rabbi Akiva comments that the verse says “by the pursuit of which man shall live” — not “shall die.” Built into every mitzvah – with some exceptions – is the precedence of human life. Keep the Sabbath — but if you have to violate its laws to perform life-saving surgery or get someone to the hospital, do it.
This read of pikuach nefesh tells us clearly that commandments are not about restrictions on life — though they might restrict our actions to some extent — nor are they about pulling us back from life. Rather, the mitzvot are supposed to enable us to live in the image of God to the fullest extent possible, to be an integral part of life in this world. If a mitzvah even runs the risk of stopping us from living, it is pushed away by pikuach nefesh, the ultimate concern for life. This understanding pushes us to reflect on our own lives: Are we life affirming? Are we acting in a way that celebrates the God-infused life we have been given?
The second source, preferred by the 13th century sage Nahmanides, is also from Leviticus: “the stranger and the citizen shall live with you.” According to the Talmud, this verse tells us that we have a positive commandment to preserve life, even if it means violating other ritual or ethical commandments. As opposed to being a built-in exception to every commandment, this source tells us that saving lives is a positive commandment on its own.[1]
Whenever one considers what the Bible has to say on any given topic, it is imperative to understand not only what is written but the intent. As Christians we must go on perceiving what the will of Jehovah is. (Eph 5:17) In order to accomplish this, there can be no greater example than that of Jesus Christ for no one knows the mind of God better than him. (John 1:18; 1 Cor 2:16)
What about Jesus condemnation of strict adherence to the letter of the law without regard to its spirit?
The following appeared in a 2005 Questions From Readers article:
“According to Leviticus 24:5-9, the loaves of presentation that were replaced on each Sabbath were reserved for the priests to eat. The principle behind this use was that the loaves were holy and were to serve as food for the men engaged in God’s service—the priests. Giving them to a common laborer or eating them just for pleasure would definitely be wrong. However, the priest Ahimelech did nothing sinful when he shared the showbread with David and his men.
David appeared to be on a special assignment from King Saul. David and his men were hungry. Ahimelech determined that they were ceremonially clean. While their eating of the loaves of presentation was technically unlawful, it was in harmony with the basic designated use of the showbread. This consideration permitted Ahimelech to make an exception to the rule. Jesus Christ himself used this incident to illustrate the impropriety of the unduly rigid application of the Sabbath law demanded by the Pharisaic interpretation of it.—Matthew 12:1-8.” (The Watchtower March 15, 2005 pg. 30)
Yet in the very same article the writer attempts to undermine this clear principle by stating:
“The foregoing, however, does not mean that God’s law can be violated when circumstances become difficult. For example, a seemingly critical situation developed when Israelite warriors were fighting the Philistines. King Saul had said: “Cursed is the man that eats bread before the evening and until I have taken vengeance upon my enemies!” The Bible says: “On that day they kept striking down the Philistines.” The soldiers were battle-weary and hungry, ‘and the people began slaughtering animals on the earth and fell to eating along with the blood.’ (1 Samuel 14:24, 31-33) They sinned against Jehovah by violating his law on blood. Their actions were not in accord with the only God-designated use of blood, namely “to make atonement” for sins. (Leviticus 17:10-12; Genesis 9:3, 4) Mercifully, Jehovah accepted special sacrifices in behalf of those who had sinned.—1 Samuel 14:34, 35.”
However, as already has been pointed out, similar to David’s situation, Saul’s men were not put to death for violating God’s law in an emergency situation. Thus appeal is made to an account that shows Jehovah did not demand the death penalty but made concession and accepted sacrifices out of regard for the intentions of the men and their desperate circumstances. The very opposite of the conclusion drawn in the article
The article correctly points out that Jesus Christ himself used this incident to illustrate the impropriety of the unduly rigid application of the Sabbath law demanded by the Pharisaic interpretation of it. Instead of arguing in favor of adhering to the letter of the law, Jesus pointed to the spirit behind it.
“Now as he was passing through the grainfields on the Sabbath, his disciples started to pluck the heads of grain as they went. So the Pharisees said to him: “Look here! Why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” But he said to them: “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and the men with him were hungry? How, in the account about A·biʹa·thar the chief priest, he entered into the house of God and ate the loaves of presentation, which it is not lawful for anybody to eat except the priests, and he also gave some to the men who were with him?” Then he said to them: “The Sabbath came into existence for the sake of man, and not man for the sake of the Sabbath. So the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:23-28)
However, similar to the Pharisees, is not the Watchtower society showing itself to be unduly rigid in its application of God’s law on blood? Often in his ministry, he had to correct the religious leaders for their legalistic approach to God’s word. For example:
. . .After departing from that place, he went into their synagogue, and look! there was a man with a withered hand! So they asked him, “Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath?” so that they might accuse him. He said to them: “If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do a fine thing on the Sabbath.” Then he said to the man: “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and it was restored sound like the other hand. (Matthew 12:9-13)
On another occasion he went to eat a meal in the house of one of the leaders of the Pharisees on the Sabbath, and they were closely watching him. And look! a man who had dropsy was in front of him. So in response Jesus asked those versed in the Law and the Pharisees: “Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath or not?” But they kept silent. With that he took hold of the man, healed him, and sent him away. Then he said to them: “Who of you, if his son or bull falls into a well, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?” And they were not able to reply to this. (Luke 14:1-6)
(Luke 6:6-11) On another sabbath he entered the synagogue and began teaching. And a man was there whose right hand was withered. The scribes and the Pharisees were now watching Jesus closely to see whether he would cure on the Sabbath, in order to find some way to accuse him. He, however, knew their reasoning, so he said to the man with the withered hand: Get up and stand in the center. And he rose and stood there. Then Jesus said to them: I ask you men, Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save a life or to destroy it? After looking around at them all, he said to the man: Stretch out your hand. He did so, and his hand was restored. But they flew into a senseless rage, and they began to talk over with one another what they might do to Jesus.
The question on the minds of those watching was simply whether it was lawful to cure on the Sabbath (they thought that it wasn’t if a life was not endangered). However, Jesus showed that if one failed to help someone in need on the Sabbath, and that delay resulted in that persons harm, then the person who had failed to perform that needed work would be as guilty as if he had personally performed the harm or the destroyed the life himself. Therefore, by Jesus raising the question about harming or destroying on the Sabbath, Jesus showed not only that it was proper to heal on the Sabbath but that the law (which was summed up in “you must love your neighbor as yourself”) demanded that it be performed.
Do not withhold good from those to whom you should give it If it is within your power to help. Do not say to your neighbor, Go away; come back later! I will give it to you tomorrow [the day after the Sabbath?], if you can give it now. (Proverbs 3:27, 28)
You must not stand up against the life of your fellow man. I am Jehovah. (Leviticus 19:16)
Or possibly, You must not stand by when your fellow man’s life is endangered.
Transgressors of the Sabbath law were to be put to death. (Exodus 31:14; Nu 15:32-36) Yet Jesus showed that it was not God’s intent for the Sabbath law to be a burden, especially when life is threatened. “The Sabbath came into existence for the sake of man, and not man for the sake of the Sabbath.” Jehovah also stated this through the prophet Ezekiel:
“‘“But the sons began to rebel against me. They did not walk in my statutes, and they did not observe and carry out my judicial decisions, which if a man follows them, he will have life by them. My sabbaths they profaned. So I promised to pour out my rage on them and to unleash my anger against them fully in the wilderness. Ezekiel 20:21
I believe, as shown by the way Jehovah dealt with Saul’s men, the same could be said for God’s law regarding blood. (1 Sam. 14:31-34) Blood is a symbol for life, but life itself is greater than the symbol.
Does Pikuach Nephesh Apply to Christians?
As Christians, we are not bound by the Mosaic Law, so the rule of pikuach nefesh no longer applies. The decision of the apostles at Acts chapter 15 neither extended that law nor did it set up a new code of laws encompassing a modern medical practice from which Christians were to abstain. It was a recommendation for peaceful relations between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Their salvation was not jeopardized by not following Jewish kosher laws in private as long as it did not stumble their Jewish brothers. While under the Old Covenant, both Jehovah and Jesus gave pikuach nefesh their stamp of approval as a principle that reflected both God’s mercy and his compassion while not compromising his righteous standards. However, the principle applies only when balancing two valid Bible principles.
Unfortunately, if today one of Jehovah’s Witnesses were to receive a blood product that was condemned by the Watchtower society and did not repent for it, they would be considered to have rejected God and disassociated themselves from the organization. Such a person would then be treated the same as one disfellowshipped for willfully engaging in sin.
In Acts 15:20,29, the scripture most often used by the society in support of their policy, the Jerusalem council, which the society views as the governing body of the time, did not even state the penalty for those that failed to keep the recommendation. Hence, rather than presumptuously speak for God and render a condemnatory judgment, it would seem the wise course in such an area where weighty life and death decisions need to be made, the Christian should be made aware of what God’s word says and should be allowed to make his own conscientious decision answerable only to God. (Romans 14:10-12)
Does a doctor’s opinion that allowing a pregnancy to go full term would be harmful to the health of the mother justify an abortion? The book Reasoning From the Scriptures page 26 answers:
“Medical opinions are sometimes wrong. Would it be right to kill a fellow human because that one might harm his fellowman? If at the time of childbirth a choice must be made between the life of the mother and that of the child, it is up to the individuals concerned to make that choice. However, advances in medical procedures in many lands have made this situation very rare.”
So, according to the Watchtower society it would be up to the parents to decide whether to kill a child in order to save ones life but that same mother could not decide to take a blood transfusion in order to save her life!
What man or group of men, unless inspired, could dare to speak for God? For someone else, whether an individual or an organization, to enforce a decision, dictating to others what their conscience should or should not allow would be to go beyond what is written. (1 Cor. 4:6)
[1] Rabbi Asher Lopatin is the founder and spiritual leader of Kehillat Etz Chayim in Detroit and the founder of the Detroit National Center for Civil Discourse. He is the former president of the rabbinical school Yeshivat Chovevei Torah.