Even if you do not have religious opinion on this matter, you might also be interested in visiting:
Date: January 14, 2004
(This page has been updated, for the previous version click here)
I would like to express my appreciation to all those who helped me improve my understanding of this subject, but most especially Al Kidd.
Please send corrections/statements to:
Joe Schaffer
PO
Box 496
Luling, TX 78648
doolbdercas@e-cepher.com
The advent of technical progress in the modern world creates new potential for human activity to reach far beyond the knowledge and understanding of professionals and theologists of former centuries, and as a result brings moral boundaries and limits into ever closer inspection and scrutiny. What was once a solid "black" line of moral clarity, now seemingly becomes a jagged or grey edge, with unclear confusion as to where the 'line' of acceptance is actually drawn.
Serious Bible students have not been secluded from these modern stresses. Along with new knowledge, questions arise in an attempt to understand the impact the new awareness has on their lives in order to understand God's desire in our behavior, a conclusion which will act as a moral compass during times of decision. Understanding God's requirements thus moves from the realm of the expressed will of God into the arena of implied will.
Roughly a century ago, with travel methods changing from horse-based power to automobiles, some had to develop new understandings of the scriptures regarding the boundaries of moral use for the new 'contraptions'. Since automobiles were never mentioned in the scriptures, the only understanding that could be arrived at would be an implied will of God, as opposed to a direct statement of will. Sometimes the implied will was silent (ie: Is traveling at or above 100km morally permissable?1). Sometimes the moral study resulted in the obvious (ie: Is running people over with the vehicle permitted? James 2:11). But at times, there would be a sort of "collision" of the implied will of God (ie: Does the damage caused by autombiles2 outweigh its use to provide for the family and assistance in the preaching work? Colossians 2:20-22; Revelation 11:18 vs. Proverbs 3:27; 1Timothy 5:8; 2Timothy 4:2) Such collisions of conception would require a further study, not necessarily into the scriptures3, but a persons consciencious decision toward God and his standards, as well as personal circumstances4.
For many, so it is, with the scriptural decree to "abstain from blood", technology has developed situations whereby some have had to make apparent life or death, health or injury, decisions based upon their personal conscientious choices within the context of the command 'to abstain from blood'. (Act15:20, 29) Since the mosaic law had been done away with for Christians, the standard for this edict reverted, in some senses5, back to the Noachin understanding recorded at Genesis 9:4. Noah and his offspring 'had it easy' by comparison when considering the often complex and difficult decisions that we face today. "To eat, or not to eat?" If it is blood, "no", if it plant or blood-drained animal, "yes". Antigens, hemoglobin, and such things were not specified nor addressed directly. But does this leave a Christian without hope of resolution among the details? No, not at all.
Many important decisions are weighed on a regular, and irregular, basis by millions of Christians; ranging from child care to business decisions that will affect the lives of persons they may never personally meet. These decisions are based, not on personal investigation into every possible source of information available to all of mankind, nor even every possible scriptural study that is potentially available, but quite simply on the basis of trust toward those who have proven their intentions of good will toward the Christian Congregation. When it comes to scriptural insights and understandings, many look to a group called by the scriptural identity mentioned in Matthew 24:45; 25:21, the "Faithful and Discreet Slave". (note also Revelation 22:6) Once a sufficient amount of convincing evidence has been established as to their intentions and the scriptural accuracy of their teaching, then a level of reliability can be assigned to the portions of Bible study material of which an individual does not have time to determine for him or her self.
While it appears that we may be living in the time of 'knowledge' (1Corinthians 13:8; 2Corinthians 10:5) in order to refute the many lies heaped against the God of the Bible and the best way of life (1John 4:1), it is not essential that a person acquire all knowledge in order to be counted as a faithful servant of God (1Timothy 6:20, 21). Only the essentials are required (Colossians 2:3), although Hebrews 5:12 strongly implies that genuine personal progress is to be made over time. (Ephesians 4:13) Just as the president of a large corporation must rely on the information passed to him from members of his staff, in a reversed process, Christian members of the Jehovah's Witnesses Congregation rely upon the dedicated staff taking the lead into Biblical research and study.
For many, reliance and assigning trust toward the faithful slave is sufficient to their consciencious choices, and even if they do not understand all of the dynamics involved, choose to rely upon those with whom Jehovah's spirit has obviously supported. This trust is implied by the words of Christ in Matthew 25:21 & 23, but the trust to teach an accurate and scriptural intended will, and to avoid abuse of such trust is directly expressed by 2Timothy 2:24 and Hebrews 13:17. Hence, as did the disciples during one moment of confusion (John 6:68), trusting the one who has been designated for the position of teaching is not an unscriptural position. For some though, a personal in-depth study is much prefered, even demanded, before important decisions can be rendered. This too is not unscriptural, in fact is encouraged, as Proverbs 2:11 encourages the safeguarding of thinking ability, Acts 17:11 calls the Beroeans "noble minded" for veryifying the facts scripturally, and 2Peter 1:2 encourages the increase of one's spiritual knowledge6. But still, even with this effort, some remain puzzled as to the reason why certain standards have been established regarding the stance on blood taken by Jehovah's Witnesses when blood components are involved. Some of the components are conscientious choices, others are forbidden. Where is the 'line' of God's implied will of prohibition from blood to be drawn?
The choices, although seemingly burdensome, can be resolved within the first portion of the decree given Noah just before Genesis 9:4, that which is found in verse 3 of the same chapter. Leaving intellectual ponderings aside as to whether such sources are "really" food or some other type of sustenance or assistance toward life, the implied will could be derived from whence we can find the sources naturally by means other than blood. In other words: If it is found only blood, "no". If it is found in any other natural source, "make a personal choice." Thus, the same medical technology that creates the question regarding the implied will of Jehovah in the Bible, is the same technology that helps to resolve a solution. It is with this in mind that I have decided to take a different view regarding the decree binding on all who are descendants of Noah and his family. On the left side of Table 1 I listed7 the breakdown of the absolute commanded will of abstinance from blood. On the right are potential sources found in other natural places than blood, and the scriptural expressed or implied will from the scriptures. In the center are where the "collision" of the two wills occurs. It is my hope that any who view this table can better appreciate and understand the scriptural reasons for the standards expressed by the faithful and discreet slave for the benefit of both folds of the flock, as it has helped me.
This method, though, is not really a 'new' way to look at it. Rather it merely emulates the method provided us all in Genesis 9:3, 4.
One other point that some have difficulty with: the use of any blood components at all. Granted, the components might be found elsewhere in nature, however, in this view blood is being captured for straining, and not being poured out until after the "authorized"8 components have been strained out. This is one possible view on the matter, and carries it's own validity. Some might even carry the implication a step further and determine that since blood is an organ, that such is an indication of God's implied will that all organ transplants might be forbidden. Others might carry the view from the side of the natural source. For instance, if the source is an animal, and the blood is drained out, then on a macro scale, the blood was captured until the meat was strained out of it. If reduced to the microscopic scale, the many components of the blood are also a part of the animal, and hence allowed to be captured and used along with the meat and other animal parts, as long as the blood-unique components are poured out on the ground and buried appropriately. Further, the decree to pour out the blood did not state that such must be immediate, maybe allowing for the future possibility of such straining within a reasonable time period. Such decisions are to be made in good conscience before God, and not one of us are masters over our brother. (2Corinthains 1:24)
It was not originally my intention to discuss
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End Notes:
Note 1: Safety issues and the never-ending debates over the 'encroaching uniformity of postmodernism' aside. This is intended to be just a simple illustration.
Note 2: As reported in Daily Inscight on 2 February, 2000 "The Long Reach of Asphalt" at http://www.apnet.com/inscight/02022000/graphb.htm, roads can affect the ecosystem as far as 1km on either side. This as well as other well reported impacts of air and ground water pollution caused by the overabundance of vehicles in concentrated areas. [ie: Steve Nadis and James J. Mackenzie, Car Trouble (Boston, 1993), page 27. Paul Degobert, Automobiles and Pollution (Warrendale, 1995), page 85.] Of course, this is a modern concern, but in the early days of the automobile most contentions were due to concerns about "getting run over", damages and loss to goods when the horse or team if frightened, and the impatience that seemed to be caused by the owners when they would drive the "devil wagons".[Scan any newspaper editorials covering the decade of the 1900's in North America and Europe for verification]
Note 3: Not to say that a deep study into the scriptures would fail to shed further light onto such a decision. Quite the contrary, such study would greatly help, along with prayer. (Joshua 1:8; 1Peter 4:7; 2Peter 1:5) Rather my statement here is toward having a good personal conscience toward God. (2Corinthians 4:2)
Note 4: Whether alternative fuels and automobile designs are possible on a mass scale are endlessly debatable. (Note however that a car has even been designed to run on compressed air! http://www.theaircar.com/) The scope here though, is that a typical consumer has only the means of choice within his or her financial limits, which excludes most from anything beside fossil fuel transportation. And while such new devices might take care of some environmental issues, it fails to address such difficulties as asphalt leaks into the soil, road kill, etc...
Note 5: I say 'in some sense' due to the fact that pre-pentecostal (Acts chapter 2) servants of Jehovah, which would include Noah and his direct offspring and no matter how faithful (Hebrews 11:7), were not yet under the provision of Christ's ransom sacrifice, among other now altered factors involving the sanctity of blood in the Christian era. (As in animal sacrifices, Christians are no longer required to perform this due to a more valuable sacrifice having been made once for all time; Genesis 8:20; Hebrews 10:12)
Note 6: Hence when such phrases such as "the anointed have a 'special' understanding of the scriptures" escapes the lips of some who are long-time students of the scriptures, it merely belies the personal neglect they have rendered toward an earnest study of the Bible, a shirking of their duty one might conclude. (Jeremiah 3:15)
Note 7: This table is not intended to be comprehensive in a scientific sense nor in a scriptural sense, but merely is intended to awaken a method for scriptural interpretative understanding.
Note 8: I say "authorized" here and in the table, not in the sense that the component from blood has a clear scriptural authorization for use on it, but in the sense that it is found in authorized products of natural origin and is not condemnable from the standpoint of one human toward another.
Note 9: A very good discussion on this can be found in the June 15, 2000 issue of The Watchtower (published by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.), on page 29. A modern alteranative to Hemoglobin is polymerized hemoglobin, a chemically filtered and replicated form of hemoglobin which does not exist in nature. As of this writing a source of natural hemoglobin is necessary for the production of polymerized Hb, and usually the source is human from human blood. There are some projects that would indicate that any form of mammalian hemoglobin would be useful for this process, hence over time and until further light is offered by Jehovah through the Faithful and Discreet Slave (Matthew 25:23; Revelation 22:6), medical use and limits of the source of this product would be left to an individuals scriptural conscience. Polymerized hemoglobin does not carry some of the same issues as naturalized hemoglobin (ie: those with sickle cell anemia, wherein the bursting red blood cells dump large amounts of natural hemoglobin into the blood stream, reducing nitrogen levels and causing great pain to the sufferer; vasoconstriction; liver & kidney dysfunction; and other bodily distresses). Others might want to take a more conservative approach, wanting to ensure that the risk of where Jehovah 'draws the line' is not worth their everlasting life, or in fact that since mammalian hemoglobin does not exist in nature at all but only in the blood stream, then that is an indication of Jehovah's implied will to avoid even replicated forbidden components. Thus one can get the sense that even such continued progress in medical science does not do away with the training of ones conscience, and it's our good conscience before Jehovah that we must account for. Such issues only test our resolve to keep a clean conscience, and can be viewed as another opportunity rely upon Jehovah in all our endeavors, which by result is showing us 'the good way'. (1Kings 8:36)
Note 10:
It is important to recoginize that I did not state that hemoglobin was *found* in bile. I merely stated (by the process established in the header section) that it is described as 'unsolulable' bile, then comma, then where found, etc... Details aside that iron is broken out (as mentioned within my chart, though not necessaryily at the level covering the process of hydrolizing hemoglobin into bilirubin) the fact is that in essence hemoglobin is 'water resistant' bile, with the 'water resistance' being necessarily removed for further processing. Hemoglobin fats, in short (as it is actually a complex process), when emulfsified by bile salts become, eventually and for the most part, (direct) bilirubin. Yes, indeed, there is much going on beyond the relatively simplicity of this chart. In fact this chart is a 'dead' process in that it is a particular snapshot not only in being narrow and not detailed beyond the contents of blood vessels and veins (details were not intended to the nth degree), but in fact the reality unfolding within our bodies on a daily basis is a live and ongoing process. For instance, the bilirubin is used to aid in the making of red blood cells in the bone marrow, so not all of it is dumped out as bile. But there are plenty of wastes from the hydrolized hemoglobin becoming bilirubin that are not recycled, and in fact are dumped (summed up as "Urea and other wastes" in the chart). The human body by Godly design processes these differences to our benefit, imperfect errors aside (as in gall-kidney/pigment stones, jaundice, etc...) Hence as I had stated in the verbage preceeding the chart with the statement, "Thus, the same medical technology that creates the question regarding the implied will of Jehovah in the Bible, is the same technology that helps to resolve the solution." I had hoped to give direction to those puzzled by this issue, and did not attempt to capture every possible variance with a single felled swoop. In fact the progression of medical science would make such an effort quite an impossible a task, especially for a single human with a family to support and the kingdom message to deliver. Even with this update, hemoglobin is a good example of how this method can be carried beyond the chart, and in fact is what aided in this updated page. It has been brought to my attention that there are other apparent sources in nature which have forms of hemoglobin. Specifically brought to my attention were insects such as one particular midge larvae (Axarus, aka 'bloodworms'), certain water fleas (Daphnia), and aquatic hemipterans (Buenoa & Anisops). These sources are a somewhat difficult valid argument that there is a natural food source for hemoglobin outside of the blood. Some humans experience allergic reactions to this form of hemoglobin, but then, some humans suffer allergies to other natural and normally safe products, such as rice or wheat. If a person cares to eat the midge larvae in order to perceive that Jehovah's will would allow for hemoglobin intake, that is entirely up to their own consciencious choice. Hemoglobin of this type has been long used in freeze-dried fish food. There is more to is choice than mere allergic reactions. The makeup of insect hemoglobin is different that that of mammals. The molecular weight of insect hemoglobin is approximately 16,000 whereas mammalian is measured at 66,000. (Plants, which will be discussed later have leghemoglobin molecular weight of 19,583 Da) A further difference is in the length of polypeptide chains of mammalian hemoglobin as compared to that of insects. Mammals have a peptide chain length of four. Whereas insects measure in the tens and hundreds. (Plant leghemoglobin peptide chain lengths measure in the hundreds) Thus insect hemoglobin, where found, and though given the same nomenclature (for practical reasons and description), is inherently different. Yet even though different, the fact is that hemoglobin even of this type is found "only in the insect blood" (haemolymph). Yet, in all of these details, it would be important to not lose sight of the fact that in these hemoglobin dependant species, the critical factor is that the hemoglobin molecule, no matter the differences from mammalian, carries oxygen to sustain life just as it does in mammals. Hence this could easily be construed as being well within the implied will of God on this particulate. It was also pointed out to me as well that some plants also have a form of hemoglobin. Okay. On to the plants then... Rhizobium, a bacteria residing on the roots of legumes, such as peas enables the plant to make hemoglobin genes. Naturally expressed legume hemoglobin (more properly referred to as: leghemoglobin) carries a different task than that of mammalian hemoglobin. That of ridding the plant cell of extra oxygen. In fact these leghemoglobin surround the rhizobium, and by performing their designed task of removing all extra oxygen molecules and releasing the O2 into the atmosphere the bacteroids are able to make use of the concentrated nitrogen, in turn benefitting the plant. If it were possible in a single moment to replace the contents of every red cell in a given human with leghemoglobin, rather than hemoglobin, the human would in essence suffocate and die. However, in the moments before his death he would have no problem with diabetes due to the extra nitrogen empowering design of leghemoglobin. The two, though similar in that they process the oxygen molecule, are not the same thing. The usefulness of these genetic and other engineering feats may be controversial, but it cannot be argued they are natural. Nor can it be argued that human hemoglobin engineered into a plant is 'natural'. They are quite simply perversions of nature.
For further on this, try doing an internet search on "pleiotropy". Warning: It could be scary. In this area too, however, one must excersize their concientious choice in the matter. Just because a plant has been genetically modified does not preclude it from the scripturally authorized food chain. Plants have been genetically modified for millenia, even in the days that Moses was scribed the Tanak and other writings. Anything from the scent and color of roses, to the color and perseverance of corn has been tinkered with, and in short the scriptures do not directly condemn genetic modification of food, whether by the process of selection, or in the laboratory. Hence this line of reasoning might lead some to conclude that even plant based hemoglobin makes allowance for the concientiuos use of hemoglobin. With the same 'word-names' tossed about between the different life forms on this planet by biologist for descriptive reasons (and not qualitative), it can lend to beffudled understanding when comparing non-mammalian hemoglobin (bugs and plants) to mammalian hemoglobin. If these sources are accepted by a persons conscience, then we have covered enough information. But if not, can there be found a scriptually authorized 'edible' source of hemoglobin, again by applying the same and simple standard of "the same medical technology that creates the question regarding the implied will of Jehovah in the Bible, is the same technology that helps to resolve the solution"? As expressed in Isaiah 25:6, bone marrow is edible. A properly drained carcass (Lev. 17:13) could provide a 'valid' marrow for consumption. Blood cells are 'born' in the bone marrow (nucleated erythrocytes ). Thus the question is "whether or not hemoglobin is 'edible'?" becauses immature blood cells would be contained in bone marrow. Jehovah is the one who determined that remaining products in the marrow (following proper bleeding of the carcass) was not clearly on the list of prohibitions. It is true, the blood stream is linked to the bone marrow.
But how? Let's look at the nucleated erythrocytes contained in the marrow to see what can be determined, so as to know the implied will of Jehovah. The only 'normal' times for nucleated erythrocytes (reticulocytes) to be in circulation would be during the fetus stages, trauma such as lead poisoning, and the first day of their release into the blood stream. Hence reticulocytes are not a part of the normal blood stream but for fractional quantities. And in turn, mature red blood cells are not a part of the contents of bone marrow at all. But since the reticulocytes are found primarily in the bone marrow, does this invalidate the prohibition on hemoglobin? No. But neither does it validate the prohibition in this case. Remember the basic difference between red cells and nucleated erythrocytes are at least two these things:
However, the concentrations of hemoglobin in the bone marrow of invertebrates (at approximately 19%), although low when measured against the blood, are at concentrations much higher than other components of marrow (ie: pluripotent stem cells, with an average of only one per 10,000 marrows cells) and are apparently acceptable within the concientious decision arena of a Christian's concience. There are likely more hemoglobin residual found in the drained meat of a properly bled animal than in the marrow, a fact which Jehovah would have been fully aware of when making his decree on blood. (Psalm 147:5) The intent should be to submit one's moral compass to God, not to seek legal loopholes in the scriptures. (Psalm 143:10; Heb. 10:9) It will always be the conclusion: that Jehovah knows what is best. (Eccl. 12:13) The real issue: The question in this modern time becomes ever more relevant, "Why would anyone feel the 'need' to find a reason to question Jehovah's stand on the matter?" There are so many safe (especially when compared with the absolute risks of transfusion, made worse by the scandalous behavior of some blood banks to meet profit quota) medical options available making it far easier to avoid the use of blood, that in fact the medical use of blood should now be regarded as the 'alternate choice' (if regarded at all), and not the 'primary'. (I am speaking purely medically here in this last point, exclusionary of scriptural clarifications on the issue) The only reasons that remain for disputing Jehovah's stance on blood is bias($), prejudice, and the intent to not be answerable for one's behavior. Note 11: Some argue that leukocytes, granulcytes, and other white blood cells are found "abundantly" in milk, thus it would imply an "authorized" used under God's will. However, under further scrutiny it would appear that leukocytes found in milk are considered by most microbiologists to be a result of pathogens invading an inflamed mammary or udder. In other words the mother is sick or injured, thus the intramammary infection would not be a healthy source of milk that would be considered as a normal food source. Currently studies are conflicting as to whether or not leukocytes that do occur in milk during periods of mastitis, especially during the colustrum period, are beneficial to the suckling. A 1993 study (Reidel-Caspari) indicated that calves fed colustrum without leukocytes were more resistant to E.coli bactermium than calves which were fed colustrum with leukocytes. This could possibly be due to the immature immune mechanisms of the calves which were fed the leukocyte laced colustrum had to battle both foreign invasions, offsetting the benefits they might have received from the pure colustrum. Indeed there are some studies that indicate, by protein counts and not microscope and slide counts, that leukocytes are found in late-lactation periods. And from this some presume that leukocytes are a normal content of milk. But such studies fail to investigate and demonstrate whether the measured proteins are the remnants of or were fully functional leukocytes, and whether or not the sources were suffering mastitis (non-pathology was presumed, not verified), and whether a mean average would differ from a modal (which would help to target which animals may have been unhealthy).
Leukocytes cell counts in milk are in fact used as an indicator of udder health status by both the milk industries and public food and health regulatory agencies. A cell count above regulatory standards is generally considered as an indication of mastitis and cannot be sold to the public because it is unsuitable for human consumption. Some dairy production facilities perform a method called 're-milking' in order to reduce the leukocyte count (and also to reduce the risk of further infection to the animal). Until it can be fully demonstrated that healthy sources produce leukocytes in milk, the argument that 'such are found in milk and is within the "authorized" will of God' is muted. Even those responsible for public regulatory standards refrain from redefining such standards in reflection of this kind of caution. Thus reasonableness must rule, and it would seem that since the source of leukocytes found in milk is a result of inflamed mammaries, and not healthy ones, the implied will of God would, of necessity, would have to lean toward prohibition. Further discussion: Here I will consider further the following subjects which, although not intended as the scope of this work, seem to be the basis of most of the ridicule and/or honest questions directed to me about this page:
There is a patented tobacco plant that has been "engineered" to produce human hemoglobin. That is not a natural occurance. However, if one feels strongly that this is evidence of Jehovah's implied will of allowing for hemoglobin consumption, then that too is their concientious choice to make. Is it best in salad? Or to carry this futher, mice are acceptable to eat as per Gen. 9:3,4, then what if that mouse was engineered with a human ear on it's back? or would one be willing to eat a glowing green mouse? Would one think, "MMmmmm... tastey morsel!"? (I ought to be careful here, with cannablism on the return in some industrial lands, albeit illegal)
"Genetic engineers can modify the DNA of any living thing by adding genes from anything else"
No, the human hemoglobin protein of the tobacco patent is not natural. That is why the plant was 'patentenable', because it was engineered. The biologists involved may claim the gene is being 'naturally expressed', however it appears that no tobacco plant before the engineering took place expressed the human hemoglobin gene.
-- Robin Ticciati, co-author of "Genetically Engineered Foods: Are They Safe? You Decide" quote found on: http://betternutrition.com/magazine/jun01/feature1.htm
Couple that low density of hemoglobin in reticulocytes with the reality that only about 19% of the nucleated cells found in the marrow are in the erythroid series, and you have a formula for very low consumption of hemoglobin from marrow. And most certainly, hemoglobin which has been exposed to oxygen and celluar wastes is not found in the marrow. (Medical use of hemoglobin is captured from the blood stream, rather than the relatively sterile marrow.)
"But honestly, in this day and age, no one will ever die from an insufficient blood supply." --John Flynn, CEO of South Florida Blood Banks Inc. during a March 2002 staff meeting
Is there a moral or physical equivalence between transfusion and ingestion?
In the book of Isaiah, chapter 22, most specifically verse 13 we can detect a fundamental carefree attitude toward nourishments required to sustain life and pleasure by those who do not plan to live a long time on the earth, under the protection and approval of the God of the universe, Jehovah. The Apostle Paul carried this concern about not being carefree further, into not just maintaining life and approval by God, but also with the prospect of the resurrection hope in 1Corinthians 15:32. If a person were not to consider God's Word as a moral compass, then whether or not there is a moral or physical equivalence between transfusions of blood and the eating of blood is immaterial to their choices in life, but will not be immaterial to the final outcome. (Galatians 6:7)
Such false assumptions for care-free or even less cautious choices will not be free from Godly judgment according to Isaiah 22:14, is also misleading, shameful, and displays a lack of knowledge about God according to 1Corinthians 15:33,34.
In this as with any other subject, no human is answerable to another human (James 4:12) [albeit that in an attempt at determining the judgments of God, toward good and toward bad, the freedom of association with upholders of God's will (2Timothy 4:19; Philemon 1:23), or not to associate with ridiculers and opposers (1Corinthians 5:13; 2John 1:10,11), and all according to God's will as expressed in the scriptures, is always available and in fact is a requirement of the faithful members of the Christian Congregation]. We are all, whether members of the Christian Congregation, or not, answerable to the Judge as assigned by God himself, Jesus Christ. (2Corinthians 5:10; James 4:12; Revelation 19:11)
As a result of understanding this fundamental facet of Bible doctrine, it becomes readily apparent that one cannot take lightly Jehovah's will regarding blood, whether direct or implied. And there should be available an explantion to non-adherents to the faith whether or not an ontological equivalency exists between transfusions and the ingestion of blood, whether moral and/or physical, in order that those with designs toward discovery of truth (Mark 4:22) can sense the reasonableness (Philippians 4:5) of God's decree toward all men, to abstain from blood because it is holy. (Genesis 9:4; Acts 15:20)
Acts 15:20 & 29 Is the term "apechomai ... kai ... haima" an 'independant and sweeping invocation against blood' in every circumstance?
The Greek word "apechomai" [abstain] sets the condition for understanding four subjects:
Is there a way to measure to what degree the conditions of abstinence are scripturally set against the blood? A logical step would be to determine the level of abstinance against the other subjects being predicated in the governing decree of Acts 15:20 & 29.
- pollutants (or meats vs. 29) of Idols
- things strangled
- fornication
- blood
Idols: when is meddling with idolatry acceptable, and to what degree? According to 1Corinthians 10:14 a Christian should avoid any action or practice that would be indicative of idolatrous brinkmanship. For a certainty the manufacture of idols, by any means, is forbidden (Exodus 34:17). Idol worship promotes vanity (Jeremiah 2:5) and to trust in them is to trust in that which is powerless in comparison with the Almighty (Jeremiah 14:22). Such activity perverses love (Jonah 2:8) and can bring one to the calloused depravity of eating and shedding blood (Ezekiel 33:25). Since Idols are made of animatedly empty earthen material (Isaiah 44:14-18) anything offered to them can be used in good conscience for the physical tool or material that it is, so long as it doesn't violate the conscience of another person (1Corinthians 8:8,9). But no where do the scriptures indicate that using or keeping idols is authorized, and in fact the idols themselves are fit only for destruction (Ezekiel 30:13), but only by a Christian if it is owned or under the control of that Christian (Romans 2:22). God's Word teaches that there is no room for idolatry and idols (Acts 17:16; 1Corinthians 5:11; 2Corinthians 6:16). Hence we are warned in 1John 5:21, "Little children, guard yourselves from Idols."
Things Strangled: The scriptures do not comment on this extensively, however the prohibition in Genesis 9:4 would not allow for the consumption of animal or fowl which was not properly bled. Hence a choked or strangled animal would be forbidden. A look into Jewish Talmud tells us that in the Jewish culture the torture of an animal was forbidden, and even expressed specific and clear instructions so as to promote as swift and painless death as possible using a sharp blade. Choking an animal to death would have been an extreme form of horrendous torture in the eyes of a God who cares even for the animals (Deuteronomy 25:4).
Fornication: This activity has never been tolerated by Jehovah (Numbers 14:33) and never will be (1Corinthians 6:18). In fact it should not even be a sought after subject by Christians (Ephesians 5:3), sinces those who do have no worthwhile future (Ephesians 5:5). Abstinence can help a person to stay holy, but not the inverse (1Thessalonians 4:3). Fornication is in fact a result of a form of idolatry (Colossians 3:5) and although aa physical act, is also a defilement of God's moral standards (Hebrews 13:4).
Blood: If the traceability of the three subjects other than blood is zero tolerance, then indeed if a person were to pronounce that there was some allowance for a deviation from God's standard on the decree against blood at Acts 15:20 & 29, then of necessity the requirement for an explanation and evidence as to why such a deviation would lay rest upon them. The Pharisees recognized that even money that was tied to improperly used blood had no place in theocratic worship (Matthew 27:6). Faithfulness in what might seem small is an indication of whether or not a persons agenda is personally gratifying, or supporting God's will (Luke 16:10; compare Matthew 4:8,9). A zero tolerance policy is the only method authorized a Christian when it comes to God's expressed will (Galatians 5:9).
The clear message, with no hidden meaning nor agenda, is recorded for all humans to make a personal resolve in Acts 15:20, 29. This points us back to the standard given in Genesis 9:4, where the prohibition of ingesting blood rests upon the form of the verb 'akal [eat] in the Qal imperfect, indicating an action yet to be completed. An objective study of the scriptures would inform a person that this avoidance of blood never will be complete, since those resting on Jehovah will not ingest blood by any means or design, no matter whether the method be ancient or modern. (Deuteronomy 12:23; Revelation 12:10,11)
Why force the scriptural prohibition against blood on children?
The avoidence of blood is a personal choice made by adults who 1) recognized that Jehovah God is the only one who has the right and the authority to establish moral standards (Isaiah 48:17; Matthew 4:4) and 2) make this choice on a religious and moral basis (John 4:23,24). Since children are innocent to this choice, is it improper (as the nature of the question implies) to adminster an adult parental choice upon a child too young to make their own choice?
Before answering this, it would only be appropriate to respectfully request an answer to the following question from such a person or people who would ask this: "Since we are both humans living on earth under heaven in equal fashion, what makes your moral code higher than mine?" No matter the credentials of a person, Jehovah as the God of the universe will always excel in qualifications and authority (Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 40:26).
This question also can only be asked by ignoring the conclusions of studies in Europe and Canada, which lead Dr. Jean-Louis Vincent, head of Intensive Care at Erasme University in Brussels, to conclude, "We currently believe that blood transfusions result in immunosuppressive effects, with increased risk of infections". While some may argue that the European study was subjective, Dr. Paul C. Hebert reported that the Canadian study indicated that less transfusing lead to improved survival among those most severly traumatized and with children. (Italics added). "Transfusing less didn't hurt people and may have saved lives". While it is argued at such results were preliminary and statistically considered hypothetical, it was certain enough that Canadian hospitals modified clinical blood practices.
Now, let's review the moral aspect of this prohibtion. In the previous discussion I discussed the four moral subjects mentioned in Acts 15:20 & 29. Once again these can help us to understand the application of this Godly command with children. Those four moral points were:
It becomes clear from that the prohibition against the misuse of blood would apply even more to children than adults on the basis as the moral and religious code that it is. A parent and a healthy society would want to apply the simplest and most complete moral protection on a child, and not default to a faulty code based on imperfect thinking. The argument to keep this moral protection from children is an 'appearance of wisdom' and is most certainly not from above (Colossians 2:23; James 3:17).
Ethically, how is a parent choosing not to permit their child to receive a blood transfusion different from a parent who decides not to give their child suffering from Tay-Sachs a feeding tube during their final year of life? Both would extend life, yet unlike the the Tay-Sachs disfuction, emergency medical alternatives are avabilable to the child in need of blood, usually in the form of volume expanders. And in no case can blood be guarateed to save life.
It is curious that some concern themselves with this aspect of child safety, yet in the same hospital at times abortions are carried out. More U.S. high school football players die annually from trauma as a result of the game than do youths of Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse blood transfusions. (Usually around 6 or 7 H.S. football related deaths, but in 1968 there was a peak of 36 high school football deaths, as compared to the less-than-one average youth per year that is construed by no-blood opponents as a death resulting from avoidance of blood).
Are there really quality alternatives to blood-based therapies?
In short, there really is no substitute for blood. It carries unique properties both biologically (coagulation, metabology, immunology, etc...) and morally (Leviticus 7:14).
Does this indicate that blood is the only theraputic method for survival in the case of severe blood loss? No, the medical alternatives are many, and more are being developed and approved as with any other medical subject. Emergency situations usually a short term volume expander, such as colloidal plasma expanders (ie: albumin, dextran, gelatin, and hydroxyethyl starch) or electrolyte solutions (Ringer's lactate). Longer terms of care would require some form of oxygen carrying capacity, where perfluorocarbons and polymerized hemoglobins are useful. The properties of these are different, and each has properties that are both desireable and undesirable.
Medically, on the positive side, the 'simple' volume expanders have a long storage time of up to two years, and offers viral inactivation, and there is no risk of blood type incompatibility or other metabiological dangers. The oxygen carrying fluids increase the theraputic use from hours to days, can also be stored up to two years, avoids the risk of type mis-match and metabiological infection, and approaches the viscosity of whole blood. Whole blood contains theraputic proteins, provides volume expansion, and (of course) has a viscosity equal to that of blood.
Medically, on the negative side, the volume expanders have a low viscosity and do not contain theraputic proteins. The oxygen transporters also do not have theraputic proteins. The whole blood has a short storage of about one month to six weeks and can change during storage, is very critical to blood type matching, provides no viral inactivation, in fact may induce previously undetected foreign ones.
It should be realized that the only cursory benefit that blood provides that cannot be attained from other medical methods can also be provided by filtering out the proteins that would be in the "authorized" category.
This page is intended to consider the moral and religious principals behind the choice to avoid blood, so it would be outside of the scope of this page to consider every possible therapy, both in use and being developed. But it should be sufficient to realize that medical trauma recoveries from knife wounds to appendicitis, and scheduled surgeries from infants to heart transplants, have been successful without violating God's standards on blood.
There is no substitute for blood, but there are enough medical alternatives available that if a case is survivable, with proper skill and training, it can be done without blood.
What about blood substitutes, a.k.a. artificial blood?
Artificial blood is called such not because it is a suitable replacement for an individuals whole blood, but because it provides the most basic function that an intact blood supply offers, that of oxygen carrying molecules. Polymerized hemoglobin is increasingly becoming a focus for restorative oxygen carrying capacities. Theoretically any form of mammalian hemoglobin would be useful for oxygen transport in the blood stream, and various trials in differing lands are pursuing this avenue. Previous trials using bovine polymerized hemoglobin have produced results that were less than the benefits that could be derived from normal 'simple' volume expanders. However tests of polymerized human hemoglobin have produced superior results, and offer promising hope for the oxygen carrying medical venue.
When normal human hemoglobin enters the blood stream without remaining encapsulated within the corpuscle, the surrounding tissues are robbed of nitrogen and a host of ailments and pains are experienced. The kidneys, lungs, and other organs can eventually suffer damaged. This was an initial concern with polymerized hemoglobin, and is at least a part of the reason for current randomized testing by North Field Laboratories. As of this writing no tests of polymyerized hemoglobin and the Canadian National Department of Defense of an oligimeric hemoglobin solution derived from outdated human blood have produced such results. Perhaps the heavier molecule resulting from the polymerization is sufficient to offset the problems. The North Field trial has reported in at least some cases that lower transfusion volumes of the polymerized hemoglobin have been required when compared to blood volumes used during the resuscitation of patients following surgery. These methods also have produced the desired result of allowing for more rapid administration in the case of emergencies since the blood type matching and other safety procedures were not required by these alternative oxygen carrying expanders.
Do the meat residues impart an "authorized" implied will for Serum, Red Cells, White Cells, and Platelets?
This sly form of a question makes no more sense than arguing that since grocery stores have loading docks in the rear, this would indicate that the store manager or owner would allow the customers to walk out through there instead of going past the cash registers and paying for the food.
A moral person would be concerned with the intent of the authority they wish to remain on good terms with, and not risk the relationship by pushing the edges of safety. It is Jehovah God who created all things, including the blood that courses through the veins of many living things. It is he alone who has both the wisdom (Romans 16:27) and the authority (Acts 26:18) to determine the proper use of blood. It can save lives, but not by the methods recognized by human standards (Romans 5:9). And the current decree for all humans, whether Christian or not, is to abstain from blood (Genesis 9:4; Acts 15:20,29).
However, for the sake of those who are sincere and have come across this sort of reasoning, I will discuss this briefly herein.
Test of motives: a danger, not to sincerity, but aptitude.The better a person understands the nuances of limits, the greater the opportunity for disobedience. For example, an emphatically honest driver of an automobile might understand that posted highway speed limits are a requirement of law, and would obey these limits whether or not others were in the area to observe his or her activity, and straying even +1 kilometer above the posted speed would grind against their conscience. These ones can be detected because they are usually found driving approximately about 5kph below the posted limits. Another person who may view morals in life as a general guideline of intent would attempt to hold their speed to the posted limit, but with varying road conditions and hills, it might be expected by them that at times their speed will mildly vary above the posted limits by about +3kph. Then there are those who relish the limits, who might realize that the local police seem to allow an overshoot of +8kph before writing speed citations. Finally this simplified mental experiment finds itself looking at the careless driver who exceeds the safe speed limits at any occasion he/she may feel they can escape the accountability, or they simply can afford the risk.
A persons intent drives their results. Out of these four examples, only one can be found clear of any strict violation. But it can be seen that the gradual degradation of moral integrity leads toward gross violations of the law. In this practice, I have used a relatively benign example of traffic speeds (assuming no accidents occured, which can also result in bloodguilt; Deutoronomy 22:8; Numbers 35:17). In comparison the issue regarding God's standard on blood is not trivial (1Samuel 2:30).
Obscurity of Law: Over time human laws often become obscure, or the purpose and intent for which it has been written becomes nullified or archaic by progressive new legislation, case law, alterations of the wording, or other unwitting maneuvers until the original intent is lost. Then at some point a devious or selfish person may take advantage of the obscurity, and then new laws are passed which would once again make a violation out of what once was to begin with.
Stability of law: Jehovah's laws are never re-written (Isaiah 43:13; Psalm 46:1-3; Proverbs 24:21). No act of legislation on earth has been adhered to for as long as God's laws have been. They are the precedents by which many other laws are founded (Romans 2:14,15). Jehovah is the government of the universe, all three branches (Isaiah 33:22) to whom we all must ultimately answer morally, physically, and legally.
Apparent collsion: What if we find that the intent of a person to follow God's law seems to collide with an apparent obscurity of that law? In this case, we find ourselves looking through microscopes to determine God's will on traces of blood products, when we can find at least an equal measurable amount of whole blood traces found in what is clearly authorized food, in this case meat.Clear boundaries: This is one situation where the laws provided by Jehovah clearly indicate how far elevated they are above human abilities to encode lasting laws. Notice the simple solution expressed by steps of thought:
The above was an excersize for some who might still be able to detect the leanings of their heart (Proverbs 3:5) and take action toward recovery (Hebrews 6:6; Revelation 2:21). But the reality of it is this: The blood found in the meat, while being unable to be drained from the meat is not the meat, and therefor does not constitute an authorization to undermine the expressed command of God at Genesis 9:4.
"It is unthinkable, on our part, to rebel of our own accord against Jehovah and to turn back today from following Jehovah..." --Joshua 22:29
What are the full moral implications of the scriptural choice to avoid blood?
The public perception of the risks involved in the choice to avoid blood based on the decree by the scriptures is over dramatized and often irrational due to the publicity that is given to specific cases involving some Jehovah's Witnesses. Most cases of Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood during medical care does not attain media status because the outcome is benign at worst, and not sensational enough to sell print or air time. This misperception of fearing what can harm us in comparison with what really does occurs with many different subject matters. For example, many fear air travel, yet they suffer a very much higher risk of death by traveling in an autmobile within two miles of their home. The death risk by being in an automobile on the road: 1 in 4,000. The death risk by air travel: 1 in 10,000,000. Life indeed is risky, and every person takes a risk in every aspect of their lives, whether they are aware of it or not.
A person must balance their choices between assessed risks and safety in order to accomplish what is called 'living'. Sometimes perception of risk drives these choices, while others are more careful to derive their choices from empirical data when it is available in order to avoid irrational choices. Hence some choose to travel by car when on vacation, while others assess that even in this day of terrorism they are statistically safer by traveling in the air. But no matter the choice, whether assessed by 'dread' or 'statistic', there is the risk of final death.
There does not exist a risk assessment for most of life's choices, as one might measure the weather. But a certain assessment can be made by looking to what most people die from by looking at what causes deaths. The following list indicates some (there are too many to list them all) behavioral choices that were repetitive enough warrant a classification for cause of death by the U.S. Center for Disease Control (ICD-10):
Does this mean there is no risk? No, the choice, like any other carries a small, very small, but existing risk. And like so many other choices in life that carry a higher risk, such as leaving one's home in the morning, it is an acceptable risk. Since Jehovah God understands this risk, and he being the final authority on all moral code promises that this will not affect a persons final prospect to live forever (Acts 17:31), no matter what momentary loss may occur, be it loss of health or life (John 5:11; Matthew 9:25).
This issue is a good example of irrational risk assessment while empirical assessements indicate the truth to be the oppposite. More people die due to complications from blood transfusions, with the highest risk in this being human error, than do those who do as a result of refusing one. And this is not accounting for other microbiological complications that do occur. To date no human has avoided death, which currently carries a risk assesment of 100%.
There are some people who expressly rely upon the collective medical community to make risk assesments for them, but this is not a reliable method for Christians for two reasons at least:
Copyright © 2002