How do Protestants counteract the Witnesses stance on Blood Transfusions?

How do Protestants counteract the Witnesses stance on Blood Transfusions?

User 14 says, 18th August 2018, in the comment on Anne's answer:

Did you know that JWs do not believe they are following the Mosaic Law when refusing to consume blood? The are obeying the command given to Noah about blood and the Jerusalem council prohibition which reaffirmed that command.

Consequently, Acts 15:19-29 is where I shall focus my answer here.

“The answer [of the "Jerusalem Council"] 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 05/15/1897, p. 153 (Reprints p. 2158)

So wrote Charles T. Russell, founder of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

Christians are not under the law of Moses, we enjoy the Covenant of Grace, we are under the Law of Christ. The law of Moses condemns all who do not obey it perfectly (Deuteronomy 27:26, Galatians 3:10, Jeremiah 11:3). The Covenant of Grace accepts all who believe on Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, and repents after they have done wrong. There is no forgiveness upon repentance in the Covenant of Works, only condemnation (1 Corinthians 3:7-9). But there is no condemnation in the Covenant of Grace (Romans 8:1) because we who have believed in Jesus are dead to the law of works (Romans 7:4): we are no longer bound by rules about eating and drinking (Colossians 2:16-23) because these rules were merely ceremonial not moral. "Its not what goes into the mouth but what comes out of it that defiles" (Mark 7:18-23) and "in saying this Jesus declared all foods clean" (7v19, NIV). This does not mean that all foods are biologically clean, but rather that no food can any longer be condemned because it is ceremonially unclean. In truth the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Romans 14:17).

Acts 15:21 tells us there are Jews in every city who have been brought up to know the law of Moses, and some of these Jews have become Christians and have joined themselves with the Gentile believers; and the Gentile believers are urged to behave in such a way so they do not become a stumbling block to any of these Jews while in their company in the fellowship, or other Jews whom they need to seek to win for Christ.

To understand Acts 15:21 it is necessary to understand the whole passage: Gentiles and Jews are becoming believers and joining together in one body, the Church. The Jews have been brought up on the law of Moses and "are zealous for the law" (Acts 21:20). Gentiles cannot see why the law should remain in force seeing they are free in Christ. Their consciences are differently instructed. So as not to be a stumbling block to the Jewish believers (and those Jews interested in the Gospel) the Gentile believers are asked to do four things as in Acts 15:20 and 29.

The four things in the list appear to be very arbitrary: to abstain from eating things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and to abstain from fornication. Why prohibit fornication which is a subcommand of the moral command "Thou shalt not commit adultery" but not prohibit any other of the Ten Commandments?

Why does the list not include "Don't steal" and "Don't murder"? The answer is found in Leviticus chapters 17 and 18. These chapters deal with those small number of Mosaic regulations which are binding not just on the Israelites but are also binding on those "strangers" (Gentiles) who have decided to make their home in the Promised Land amongst the Israelites.

These Gentiles are not bound by any other ceremonial laws, such as circumcision, nor do they need to attend any of the Jewish festivals. They do not need to keep the whole ceremonial law.

As for the moral law, as summarised in the Ten Commandments, of course Gentiles must seek to keep it, and that is taken for granted by the Jerusalem Council in this recommendation. The moral law is not the issue here in Acts 15.

In the King James Version "stranger" or "strangers" is found in Leviticus 17 verses 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and in Lev 18 verse 26. This is the passage that the list of four recommendations in Acts 15:29 is referring back to, even in the same order:

1. They should not eat things offered to idols, Lev 17:1-9;
2. They should avoid eating blood, Lev 17:10-14;
3. They should avoid eating things strangled or dying in an "unapproved" way, Lev 17:15-16 (- it seems that, amongst the gentiles in NT times, strangulation was a popular way of killing animals that were going to be eaten);
4. They should not commit fornication, Lev 18:6-26.

It follows from this that the recommendation to abstain from "fornication" in Acts 15 is an appeal to abide by that definition of fornication found in Leviticus chapter 18, a definition that the Gentiles needed instruction in.

These recommendations are not recommendations to which Gentiles are to be bound to at all times or forever, (except the moral aspects of fornication - they are forever): they are only given "because Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read every Sabbath in the synagogues" (Acts 15:21), meaning the recommendations are given so as to keep the fellowships harmonious which have both Jews and Gentiles, and to help Gentiles to evangelise Jews in their daily lives. When Jews are not present Gentiles are not bound by these recommendations.

For instance, if you wanted to invite a Muslim couple who are neighbours round to have a meal, in the hope of sharing the Gospel with them, I think you would not cook up roast pork and tell them their rules against pork are silly and don't apply any more. They will be offended and you will have lost all opportunity for sharing the Gospel. But you can eat pork within the privacy of your own family and when you invite non-Muslims or non-Jews for a meal. You can eat things offered to idols, and blood, and things strangled, when Jews are not present: we are told this, for example see 1 Corinthians Chapter 8. Do not use your freedom in the Gospel from the Mosaic Ceremonial law to cause others to stumble.

Bible passages relevant to this passage, then, include Leviticus chapters 17 and 18; Romans 14:1-23; 1 Corinthians 8:1-13; 1 Corinth 9:19-23; 1 Corinth 10:23-11:1; Ephesians 2:11-22; Colossians 2:8-23; Mark 7:5-23.

Romans 14 is especially interesting because Romans is not written to correct abuses as are some of the other letters; Romans is a general declaration of the Gospel and then a declaration of the behaviour that God desires as a consequence of faith in Christ: and a whole chapter is dedicated to the issue of not causing offence to other believers in areas where your conscience is differently informed to theirs. "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity".

See also Acts 16:3 where Paul circumcises Timothy because his mother was Jewish. So he should have been circumcised already according to the law. The reason given for circumcising Timothy is not because the law still needed to be kept but "because of the Jews", i.e. for this same reason, so as not to cause unnecessary offence, and because the converted Jews still thought the law needed to be kept. Paul and Timothy are free, they don't have to keep the law; but they are also free in the sense that they can keep the law for the benefit of the consciences of others:

"For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, (I became) as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law... I have become all things to all men, so that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you." (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).

Post script:

There is another issue to consider: if killing animals by strangulation is unnecessarily cruel then this would mean there is a moral aspect to eating animals that have died by this method. I expect the least cruel method of killing is by slitting the throat, and draining the blood quickly. The JW view that the commands given to Noah after the flood have a bearing on the issue I now think is correct, at least partly. When God gave permission for humanity to eat animal flesh (Genesis 9:1-7) it was not a permit to be tyrannical or needlessly cruel. God did not allow for a limb of an animal to be ripped off and eaten while saving the rest of an animal alive.. that is cruel, just as it is cruel to kill in a cruel way. The blood must drained to be sure the animal is dead before eating.

Also it should be noticed that God is declaring in Genesis 9:1-7 that he is intensely pro-life, that he is intensely pro biological life, both animal and human. After such a terrible flood it would have been natural to suspect the opposite, but God makes clear he favours biological life.. be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.

Also required by God in Genesis 9:6 is capital punishment for those who take innocent human life.. the death sentence for any animal or human who kills an innocent human being.

In that the WBTS has forbidden the giving of a blood transfusion to save a human life they have made blood, the symbol of life, more important than that which the symbol represents, life itself, and in consequence I am told thousands of JWs, all of course created in the image of God, have needlessly died.

As said already, God is intensely pro-life. The worship of the true God cannot possibly include the allowing of innocent people to needlessly die.. this is more akin to the worship of Molech of Old Testament times:

Thou shalt not let any of thy seed to pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am JEHOVAH. (Leviticus 18:21).

They have built also the high places of Baal to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind" (Jeremiah 19:5).

I'm not criticising JW parents in the least. My criticism is of the organisation that believes it is better that someone dies than break one of its rules, and all done in the name of the God of the Bible.. it is undoubtedly to profane God's name and character.

God can very truly say of letting someone die rather than have a blood transfusion "I never commanded it, nor spoke it, nor did it ever enter into my mind". It is truly horrible to think such horrible things of God.

An article from Truth Magazine (I am just quoting the article, not advocating a website unknown to me) states in its conclusion two main points which I believe are the main arguments against refraining from saving life by transfusion.

(1) They cannot show that eating blood (even if sinful now) and blood transfusions are the same. Blood transfusions save lives; they do not destroy life. (2) The scriptures they use show (even under Moses' law) that the prohibition concerned animal blood, not human blood.

I think that these are the two main arguments commonly held by Protestants.

The prohibition made in the days of Noah related to the taking of animal life, then ingesting its blood. This was forbidden for good reason, relating to sacrifice and covenant. Meat was given to be eaten, not blood.

But for a living human to donate blood by means of intravenous application (not ingestion) to another living human, is generally viewed as a different matter.

Mainstream Christianity counteracts the Jehovah’s Witness stance of refusing whole blood transfusions by biblical exegesis and also by examining the continuing changes in JW policy. Biblical Exegesis: In Acts 15: vss 20 & 21, that little word, 'for', shows the importance of context if we are to understand what went before it. I am not aware of any JW literature explaining why the reason to abstain from the list of activities (including abstaining from blood, in food and blood-guilt) has to do with the law of Moses being preached in the localities where Christianity was spreading.

Acts chapter 15 was about the problem Christians in the first century encountered in trying to prevent the Christian Jews from being offended and stumbled at the influx of Gentile converts. The dispute first arose in Antioch where some Christian Jews said, 'It is necessary to circumcise them, and charge them to observe the law of Moses' (Acts 15:5). This error was what the apostles were dealing with.

The law of Moses, including laws against eating blood and fat, had been fulfilled in Christ. Peter put the Christian view: "No then, why are you making a test of God by imposing upon the neck of the disciples a yolk that neither our forefathers nor we were capable of bearing? On the contrary, we trust to get saved through the undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus in the same way as those people also" (vss 10-11). No amount of keeping the Mosaic law could save either Jew or Gentile (Rom. 7:6-7). Paul stated, "Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us" (Gal. 3:13). Paul continued, "Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor. You are all, in fact, sons of God through your faith in Christ Jesus" (vss 24-26).

In the first century this was a huge change of understanding which many Jewish Christians had difficulty coming to terms with. Some, like those men in Antioch, had the idea that Christians still had to be circumcised and keep the Law covenant. That's why James gave the decision detailed in vss 20-21. The reason those requirements were laid upon the Gentile Christians was that from early generations Moses had in every city those who preached him, for he was read every sabbath in the synagogues.

This decree was designed to pour oil on troubled waters, to enable Jew and Gentile to come together in Christian fellowship. It showed that circumcision was not the important thing any longer. Almost immediately after this decree, Paul found himself in company with Timothy, whose mother was Jewish but whose father was Greek. Paul circumcised him "because of the Jews that were in those places, for one and all knew that his father was a Greek" (Acts 16:1-3) The very next verse says, "Now as they travelled on through the cities they would deliver to those there for observance the decrees that had been decided upon by the apostles and older men who were in Jerusalem". The very decision which stated that Gentile Christians were under no obligation to be circumcised! But if anyone was liable to stumble due to a Christian not being circumcised, then it was better that he be circumcised. The important point was that the newly circumcised Christian was not now bound to observe every detail of the Mosaic law. His circumcision was purely a gesture for the benefit of Jews with a weak conscience.

Similarly, the decree to abstain from blood was necessary to prevent Christian Jews from stumbling and to win over Jews to Christ. If any Jew saw a Christian eating blood he would be so repulsed that he would never even begin to consider the Christian faith. That's the connection of 'for'!

Knowing a brief history of the development of this blood doctrine is essential to see why Protestants cannot go along with it, as this is where theory turns into practice. The first President, C.T. Russell, wrote on the matter of what the Bible says regarding blood:

"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." (The Watch Tower 1909 April 15 pp. 116-117)

The Jehovah's Witnesses forbade blood transfusions from the late 1950s. It was from the early 1960s, after they brought in sanctions against members, that thousands of them started dying every year. It had become a doctrine by then, the claim being made that they must prove their loyalty to Jehovah and risk death rather than go against the interpretation their leaders had placed upon a handful of Bible verses. Here is evidence of the pressure brought on the JWs as shown in this 1961 edict:

"...the receiver of a blood transfusion must be cut off from God's people by excommunication or disfellowshipping... if in the future he persists in accepting blood transfusions or in donating blood toward the carrying out of this medical practice upon others, he shows that he has really not repented, but is deliberately opposed to God's requirements. As a rebellious opposer and unfaithful example to fellow members of the Christian congregation he must be cut off therefrom by disfellowshipping."

But after the European Court of Human Rights intervened in March 1998, the Watchtower Society had to stop such sanctions, first against Bulgarian JWs, then for the rest. To appear to be seen not to be sanctioning members, they have stated in writing that no repentant JW is to be disfellowshipped for taking blood in the midst of a medical crisis. If they repent afterwards, they remain JWs. BUT if they do NOT repent, they are to be viewed as if they had disassociated themselves which, in practice, is the same as how they view those disfellowshipped - they are to be shunned. That is a sanction.

Clearly, the JW policy of refusing blood transfusions even at cost of one's life still holds good. The only change is that they cannot be seen to punish individual JWs who accept 'forbidden' blood treatments. They will give them the chance to repent, but if they remain glad that they are still alive thanks to blood treatment, they will be treated as if they had been disfellowshipped, and shunned. Protestants who know how JWs are affected by the blood doctrine realise that it's not enough to 'just' explain their biblical difference of interpretation on blood scriptures, because reasons for JWs going along with it include JW family and friends' reactions too. To counteract the JW stance on blood transfusions, it is just as necessary for Protestants to be sensitive to the emotional repercussions for JWs going against this doctrine.

Communique issued by the Secretary to the European Commission for Human Rights, Information Note No. 148 on the 276th Session, Strasbourg 2-13 March 1998, Application No. 28626/95 The Watchtower 15 January 1961 page 64