May 30, 2001
From:
Watchtower Bible & Tract Society
25 Columbia Heights
Brooklyn, NY 11201
To:
R. Jensen
24 Running Deer Road
Phenix City, AL 36870
Dear Brother Jensen:
This letter follows a telephone conversation with you on May 17, 2001. We acknowledge receiving your letters dated April 6, 2001, January 3, 2001, and March 3, 2000. We also received your March 1, 2000, letter, which was a reply to our letter to you dated February 21, 2000.
When you first wrote and shared your observations with us, you did not ask for a reply. Nevertheless, what you wrote was not ignored. All of your letters have been carefully considered. You present your reasons for concluding, since the Mosaic Law had been canceled, that the decision of the first-century governing body “to keep abstaining … from blood, and from things strangled” would be limited only to a reaffirmation of what you feel are the meaning and scope of the commands given by God to Noah in Genesis chapter 9 regarding respect for blood and life. (Acts 15:27) You claim that Noah, had no reason to view blood as sacred as was required of the Israelites under the Law, even stating that he could have made any practical use of blood from slain animals other than eating it. You further claim that the prohibition against eating blood at Genesis 9:4 pertained only to shed blood from animals that had been killed for food, since only this blood is specifically mentioned. You feel that this is reflected at Deuteronomy 14:21 where Jehovah made provision for foreigners to buy and eat an animal that had died of itself, as if eating blood with the flesh of an animal that had not been killed by man was something already allowed by God for non-Jews. Your reasoning has led you to conclude that the medical use of blood from live donors would not be prohibited. But does such deductive reasoning harmonize with the intent of the Scriptures?
It is clear from what James said at Acts 15:21 that the first-century governing body considered all of what Moses wrote under the direction of God’s holy spirit, including what was written by him in the book of Genesis. However, neither the account in Acts chapter 15 nor any other part of the Bible record shows that these older men limited themselves only to what was written by Moses in the book of Genesis in arriving at the “necessary things” that required abstinence from fornication, idolatry, and blood, or that these brothers interpreted what was written at Genesis 9:3-6 in the restrictive way you describe in specifically directing that Christians should “keep abstaining …from blood and from things strangled.”
While the command not to eat the blood with the flesh of animals admittedly was given to Noah in relation to his killing animals for food, he would have no basis for assuming that he could eat blood otherwise. Why? Because of the underlying principle reflected in the command: “Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.” Here the animal’s life or “its soul” is directly equated with “its blood,” and that would be true whether the animal was living or had died, whether the blood was still coursing within its circulatory system and serving its vital role in keeping the creature alive or it had been poured out. And if the blood of an animal was considered sacred, belonging to Jehovah, how much more so that of a human, as reflected in Jehovah’s further command at Genesis 9:5, 6.—See the enclosed photocopy of page 204 from A Handbook on Genesis, a translators guide, by Reyburn and Fry, as well as the extensive discussion under “Questions From Readers” in the April 15, 1983, issue of The Watchtower.
This underlying principle—that blood represents soul, or life—would rule out eating blood under any and all circumstances because blood, like life, belongs to Jehovah and thus is sacred. Therefore, Noah would have no basis to conclude, for example, that blood might be eaten as long as he did not eat the flesh along with it. Or, for that matter, that he could eat the flesh of an animal that had died of itself because he did not kill it; or that he could eat blood taken from an animal still living, since it had not been slain. Otherwise, it could be assumed that a servant of Jehovah even now might eat an animal that had died of itself or do as some Masai people in Africa do today in opening an artery of a living cow to drain out some of its blood for food. And while the brief command to Noah did not specify that shed blood of slain animals should be poured on the ground and covered, as later stated in the Law, it would be reasonable to conclude that Noah would dispose of shed blood in some respectful way, not making any use of it but viewing it as sacred, belonging to Jehovah.
Moreover, we need not read into the provision in the Law for a Jew to sell to a foreigner an unbled animal that had died of itself any more than that Jehovah evidently did not see fit at the time to strictly enforce his requirements upon those who did not know him, even as the apostle Paul indicates at Acts 14:16 and 17:30, and as reflected at Psalms 147:20, Romans 2:14, 15, and I Corinthians 9:21. In a similar way, Jehovah did not hold the Jews under the Law to his original standard of marriage that permitted only one wife and allowed for no divorce. (Genesis 2:24) Jesus acknowledged that it was because of existing human factors that divorce was permitted (even on grounds other than fornication), but God made specific provisions in the Law to govern divorce as well as polygamy. (Matthew 19:3-9) Under Christian law, standards for marriage were elevated, and that was true also with other aspects of Christian conduct and worship.—Matthew 5:17-48; Romans 3:31.
While the first-century governing body would obviously take into consideration God’s commands to Noah in directing that Gentile Christians ‘abstain from blood,’ these older men had before them what the Hebrew Scriptures as a whole had to say in principle about the sacredness of life and blood. This was implicit in the first prophecy, as the unfolding of the “sacred secret” revealed. (Genesis 3:15; Ephesians 1:8-10; 1 Peter 1:19-21) Thereafter, Jehovah progressively laid the groundwork for understanding his grand purpose to send his dear son to pour out his life’s blood for sinful mankind. (Romans 5:9) By faith Abel perceived that animals, not bloodless vegetables, would be acceptable to Jehovah in sacrifice, as did Noah and Abraham. (Genesis 4:2-5; 8:20, 21; 15:9, 10; 22:9-13; Hebrews 11:4) It was Abel’s “blood” that cried out to Jehovah.—Genesis 4:10; Hebrews 12:24.
God’s view of the sacredness of life and blood continued to be reflected consistently in his Law to Israel while also making specific provision within the Law for blood to be used typically in atonement for sins. Anyone who ate “any sort of blood” was to be cut off. Why? Jehovah answers: “For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement.” In parallel with his words to Noah at Genesis 9:4, Jehovah further stated: “The soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it.” (Leviticus 17:10-14) Obviously, this shows that the whole living person or creature—the “soul”—is represented by its blood because the life or “soul” is considered to be in that blood, whether the creature is alive or dead. The Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh version translates this verse: “For the life of all flesh-its blood is its life.”—See the enclosed photocopies of pages 267 and 268, from A Handbook on Leviticus, by Peter-Contesse and Ellington.
Hence, it would not be correct to conclude that God’s view of blood would be any different if the soul from which a volume of blood came continued to live. To further illustrate this, consider God’s law prohibiting the eating of fat of animals. The fatty tail of a sheep could conceivably be cut off without causing the death of the animal. Would an Israelite be able to eat this fatty tail, since it was detached from the animal that was still alive? No, because the fat would continue to carry the symbolism Jehovah assigned to it under the Law. The Law stated: “All the fat belongs to Jehovah… You must not eat any fat or any blood at all.” (Leviticus 3:3-17) Would the symbolism of life that Jehovah had assigned to the blood be any the less real when its owner was not dead?—See Insight, Volume 1, under the subject “Fat.”
It is evident, then, that God’s basic view of life and blood has continued to be the same at all times and under all circumstances. Blood could be shed by man only under special circumstances and conditions. As Hebrew Christians, the first-century governing body knew that the canceling of the Law would not cancel how God viewed life and blood in principle. If the life of a creature is sacred, then that which represents the life of the creature, its blood, is also sacred, whether the creature is living or dead. This proper view of and handling of blood would be a reminder that “souls belong to Jehovah.” (Ezekiel 18:4) So, while their decree left no doubt that it was not “necessary” for Gentiles to get circumcised and be obligated to keep the Law that had been canceled, it still would be necessary “to keep abstaining from … blood,” since thereby Christians would keep showing respect for the sacredness of life.
Refraining from blood also would outstandingly reflect appreciation that God only approved the use of blood sacrificially in atonement for sins, since the typical sacrifices of animals under the Law pointed to the sacrifice of Christ in behalf of mankind. So, these older men certainly did not ignore “those things that are a shadow of the things to come” contained in the Law that had given true worshipers of Jehovah increased insight and understanding about Jehovah’s requirements and purposes until the arrival of “the reality [that] belongs to the Christ.” (Romans 15:4; Colossians 2:17; 2 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 9:11-14) The entire historical background on the sacredness of life and blood reflected in the Hebrew Scriptures and so far in the Christian experience, including what Jesus did outstandingly in shedding his blood in behalf of believing mankind, would certainly have been considered by these older men as holy spirit led them to list the “necessary things” for believing Gentile Christians, having in mind the progressive revelation of truth and the unfolding of God’s purposes.
Moreover, the principles set forth in the Law would still provide guidance to Christians. Quite frequently Jesus and the Christian Greek Scripture writers make reference to the Mosaic Law in providing Jehovah’s view on matters in principle. Note Paul’s references to the Law to support in principle the points being made at Ephesians 6:1-3, 1 Corinthians 9:8-10, 2 Corinthians 13:1, and 1 Timothy 5:19. Similarly, we properly can look to the Law to provide additional insight as to Jehovah’s thinking on matters pertaining to blood, for example on properly slaughtering animals for food and in disposing of blood that has been shed. It also deals with an animal that has died of itself or has been tom by another animal.—Exodus 22:3 1; Leviticus 7:26; 17:10-15; Deuteronomy 12:16,20-25; 14:21.
It is of interest that the governing body determined that Gentile Christians should “keep abstaining” from the things listed. Most unbelieving Gentiles would not be conscious of and certainly not doing what was required as to idolatry, blood, and fornication, including the keeping of the commands given to Noah regarding blood. But believing Gentiles in the first century would have begun to conform their lives to Jehovah’s requirements for salvation by means of Christ Jesus in being taught the principles of true worship. Clearly, such instruction would not have been limited to what was in the book of Genesis. They would certainly have gained a basic knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures, including the features of the Mosaic Law, especially since some Hebrew Christians claimed salvation was not possible unless these Gentile Christians got circumcised and kept the Law. Some Gentile converts may even have been conscientiously trying to keep the Law. Now, with the issuing of this decree, of the things these believers from the nations were already doing according to their then understanding, likely being influenced by the Law, what should they keep doing as “necessary things”? While the decree showed it was not necessary to get circumcised and keep the many features of the Law, the older men directed that they should “keep abstaining” from the things listed. The decree, therefore, did not invalidate the principles of the Law but rather showed respect for these enduring principles. Hence, when the governing body issued its unqualified decree “to keep abstaining … from blood,” it is evident that they meant all blood, human or animal, from whatever source or in whatever circumstance because it represented the life or “soul” of a creature. They did not limit application to keeping free from imputed bloodguilt because of failing to preach. There would be no basis for concluding that God would approve removing a portion of a creature’s blood (which he decreed symbolized the creature’s life) and using this to sustain the life of another, as long as the donor creature continued to live. Of course, they did see fit to add that Christians should abstain “from things strangled” to prevent any doubt about a common practice of the day, since eating such strangled animals was considered a delicacy by Gentiles. (See The Watchtower, June 15, 1990, page 13, paragraph 16.) Incidentally, this restriction, as was true with some other details on handling blood that became clearer under the Law, was not reflected specifically in the command to Noah.
For that period of the Christian congregation, the first-century governing body acted as Jehovah’s agency in providing guidance that was timely and appropriate, taking all applicable factors into consideration. Understandably, with the advance of medical technology, new questions would arise as to the application of Bible principles that pertained to the handling of blood. How would Jehovah provide additional guidance for his people according to the need? Just as he did when questions arose in the first century. (Acts 15:6) Obviously, he continues to use his divinely inspired Word to instruct his people and his holy spirit is still active, but he also uses to give guidance “the faithful and discreet slave” that Jesus said ‘on his arrival’ would be appointed “over all his belongings.” This slave class would supply to the spiritual household “food at the proper time.” (Matthew 24:45-47) Accordingly, Jehovah has used “the faithful and discreet slave” to provide guidance on situations that confront Christians today as to the medical use of blood and fractions thereof, just as he used the first-century governing body to clarify matters related to blood at that time.
For some decades now “the faithful and discreet slave” has been giving the matter of blood usage in medical procedures careful and prayerful consideration in the light of the Scriptures. Each time this matter has come up for review by the “slave” class, taking all pertinent factors into consideration, including those discussed in your letters, the basic conclusion has been the same, that accepting a transfusion of whole blood, or of its four recognized primary components—red cells, white cells, platelets, or whole plasma—would clearly be contrary to the Scriptures. As to accepting minor fractions of blood, “Questions From Readers” in the June 1, 1974, issue of The Watchtower, states: “While refraining from approving or condemning in such areas where we believe the decision must be left to individual conscience, we do, nevertheless, urge all to seek to maintain their conscience clear before God, never showing deliberate disrespect for his Word.” This consistent position is reflected also in answers to various questions on the subject under “Questions From Readers” in subsequent issues of The Watchtower, including what appeared most recently in the June 15, and October 15, 2000, issues.
You contend that using even a small extract of a blood component would be tantamount to using whole blood. Some Christians draw this conclusion conscientiously and we encourage them to decide matters in accord with the dictates of their consciences. Others reason differently, feeling beyond a certain point a blood fraction does not remain a significant part of one’s life blood. “The faithful and discreet slave” has not felt that it can be dogmatic on this point but has left that as something each Christian must decide for himself before God.—Galatians 6:5.
While we have not dealt with all the details discussed in your letters, we trust that these additional comments will be helpful. It is evident that matters pertaining to blood have caused you much concern. You have come to the point where you question seriously whether the position of Jehovah’s Witnesses is correct. You have presented your reasoning for consideration. When we have questions on matters that are not immediately resolved after doing research and seeking answers, the wise course is to wait humbly upon Jehovah. In our previous letter, we encouraged you to do that, as you continue to serve Jehovah conscientiously.
Proceeding in this way, in some respects, will put to the test your faith and trust in Jehovah and the way he is directing his organization today through “the faithful and discreet slave.” Faithful servants of Jehovah down through the centuries have been willing to wait upon Jehovah for direction when they had concerns or questions and were richly blessed as a result. In handling matters this way, we may find as time goes along that we need to lean more heavily upon Jehovah in seeking better to understand the direction he has already provided in his Word and through his organization. (Proverbs 2:1-9) Nevertheless, if further direction, clarification, or adjustment is needed, we can have confidence that Jehovah will provide such according to the need and in his due time and way. So, we need to show patience, not letting any cause for concern become such a preoccupation that it disturbs our spiritual balance and joy in Jehovah’s service.
We trust the above comments will be helpful to you. With our letter we would again like to send our warm Christian love and best wishes.
Your brothers in Jehovah’s service,
[Signed: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc.]
Enclosure
Page 204 from A Handbook on Genesis [See scans]
Pages 267 and 268 from A Handbook on Leviticus [See scans]
Go to Eighth Letter