Home | About | Bible | Experiences | History | Letters | Links | Misc |Members News | Physicians | Reform | Science | Watchtower | WT Victims Memorial

Further Research Genesis 9 and the Eternal Covenant Blood and the Mosaic Law Acts 15 and the Apostolic Decree

Genesis 9 and the Eternal Covenant

(Genesis 9:3-7) Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to YOU. 4 Only flesh with its soul-its blood-YOU must not eat. 5 And, besides that, YOUR blood of YOUR souls shall I ask back. From the hand of every living creature shall I ask it back; and from the hand of man, from the hand of each one who is his brother, shall I ask back the soul of man. 6 Anyone shedding man's blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God's image he made man. 7 And as for YOU men, be fruitful and become many, make the earth swarm with YOU and become many in it."

In one early reference, the Creator declared: Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. . . . But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. He added: For your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting, and he then condemned murder. (Genesis 9:3-6, New International Version) He said that to Noah, a common ancestor highly esteemed by Jews, Muslims, and Christians. All humanity was thus notified that in the Creator's view, blood stands for life. This was more than a dietary regulation. Clearly a moral principle was involved. Human blood has great significance and should not be misused. The Creator later added details from which we can easily see the moral issues that he links to lifeblood. (How Can Blood Save Your Life?, 1990, p.3)

Basically, the covenant addresses three main issues:

1. Noah and his descendants may eat animal flesh, but not "flesh with its soul-its blood."

2. Murder is forbidden - "Anyone shedding man's blood, ... will his own blood be shed..."

3. Noah and his descendants are to produce offspring in abundance - "be fruitful and become many..."

The WTS has argued that this is a "eternal covenant" that is binding upon all of mankind. If this is true can we pick and choose which parts of it are applicable and ignore others?

Consider this: When was the last time Jehovah's Witnesses were encouraged to apply Genesis 9:7 and become fruitful and many, and why does the WTS permit the use of birth control which would seem to be in violation of the third element of this covenant? In discussing the subject of birth control and the scriptural injunction regarding child bearing found at Gen. 1:28 and restated at Gen. 9:7, note what the Awake of Sept. 22, 1989, pp.23,24 said:

"This command was clearly related to the special circumstances existing at that time."

The important point here is this: If the covenant with Noah was in fact an eternal one we would have to abide by all of it. In any event, since both Paul and Jesus encouraged the gift of singleness, it is plain to see that this portion of the so called "eternal covenant" is not eternal after all, rather it is null and void when we reach the Greek scriptures which don't even mention the covenant.

Legally speaking, when one provision of a covenant or contract is voided it does not automatically render the other provisions void, but it certainly calls them into question and frequently becomes a basis for making the agreement voidable by one of the parties.

At the very least we have established that the covenant with Noah was not eternal and this calls into question whether the other provisions of the covenant are in fact eternal or binding upon all of mankind.

Does the "Noachian" covenant deal in absolutes? The expression "shedding man's blood" refers to murder. So then was everyone who "shed man's blood" put to death? The Bible record reveals many exceptions. Israelite warriors were not violating the covenant when they killed an enemy and those who unintentionally killed someone were not automatically put to death. Exceptions were made.

From this we can conclude that Jehovah God was willing to make exceptions to these commands as "special circumstances" required. The covenant does not deal in "absolutes."

Is a strict, literal interpretation required or even suggested? What if someone literally cut themselves and started to shed blood. Would they be in violation of the covenant? They would after all have literally "shed man's blood." Such an interpretation is non-sensical but it does help to point out something that is often overlooked.  Blood is a symbol of life and and is being used as a metaphor. Thus to "shed man's blood" is simply a way to refer to the taking of life.

To understand it's use in any other way simply doesn't make sense. Hence literal blood is not being directly referred to in this context otherwise it would be perfectly all right to strangle someone or take their life in some way that did not result in the literal shedding of their blood. With these thoughts clearly in mind, let us examine Gen. 9:4. There we read:

"Only flesh with its soul-its blood-YOU must not eat."

"But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." (New International Version)

"But never eat animals unless their life-blood has been drained off" (The Living Bible)

"But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." (New King James)

What are these verses actually saying? The answer may surprise you. Remember, blood is being used as a metaphor for life. So it is likely that theses verses are in effect saying "don't eat animals that are still alive," and indeed an animal that has its lifeblood within it is likely to be alive.

This sounds peculiar to us but was a common practice in the ancient middle east to eat an animal while it was still alive and this is still practiced in Africa. If you take the time to research this, you will find that most commentators agree this is the correct understanding of the text. Consider the following:

"By its meager terms, human beings, plant eaters in the garden of Eden, were permitted to kill and eat animals, so long as they did not eat them alive (this is the meaning of the command at Genesis 9:4, "you must not eat flesh with its life-blood in it"). (italics ours) God - A Biography by Jack Miles, p.286 - First Vintage Books Edition, April 1996

"Jack Miles is director of the Humanities Center at the Claremont Graduate School, near Los Angeles, and contributing editor at The Atlantic Monthly. For ten years, ending in 1995, he served as literary editor, the member of the editorial board, at the Los Angeles Times. A former Jesuit, he pursued religious studies at the Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome, and the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. He holds a doctorate in Near Eastern languages from Harvard University. A 1989 Regents Lecturer at the University of California and a 1990 Guggenheim Fellow, he has served as president of the National Book Critics Circle, of which he is still a member. Miles freelances for a long list of national publications, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, Commonweal, Tikkun, and others. He lives with his wife and daughter in southern California."

Other commentators agree that this is the correct and direct interpretation of these verses:

• "The original meaning of the prohibition. B. Jacob paraphrases: `You may eat all flesh, but not flesh with its life.' The commonly accepted explanation, that the sentence forbids the partaking of blood, is not correct, though one can certainly say that it follows; however it is not stated expressly."1
• "Rabbinic tradition understands this formula as a prohibition (to all mankind) not to cut steaks from a living animal. Absurd or far-fetched as this interpretation may appear to some moderns, such a practice would preserve the living flesh in a fresh state for later consumption; and has, furthermore, been reported as practiced in parts of Africa - the related (rabbinic) interpretation, (forbidding) drinking the blood tapped from the veins of living animals is the regular practice of Masai tribesmen . . . Some sects interpret the prohibition here as interdicting blood transfusions."2
• See also Martin Luther, who argues along the same lines in his commentary.3
• Even the WTS, when writing in support of its vaccination ban, acknowledged that the Noachian covenant did not technically prohibit eating blood.


"All reasonable minds must conclude that it was not the eating of the blood that God objected to, but it was the bringing the blood of the beast in contact with the blood of man" *The Golden Age*, February 4, 1931, page 294 (Golden Age No. 297).

Some may argue that blood is not used symbolically in verse four. What are the alternatives? To think that blood is used literally in verse four and as a metaphor in verse five does not seem plausible. Additionally, consider the dilemma that results if one insists on a literal interpretation. Something as simple as a blood test would have to be prohibited as "shedding man's blood." Even the eating of meat would have to be improper since a thorough bleeding of animals leaves about one-half of the blood in the meat thus making the entire covenant worthless! Why would God bother giving permission to eat meat if he required all blood to be removed and that is not possible?

A variation on all of this worth mentioning has to do with the difference between blood that is in a living creature and blood from a dead creature or human. "Anyone shedding man's blood, by man will his own blood be shed..." is the statement made in Gen. 9:6. A compelling argument can be made that blood that is poured out is a symbol not of life, but of death. We will not spend time developing this argument but want to acknowledge that it exists and is both plausible and compatible with our understanding of blood serving as a symbol of life when it is flowing through the body of a living creature.

Although the Mosaic law will later prohibit the actual eating of blood, technically no such prohibition occurs here. The later requirement involving the proper bleeding of animals would insure that they were in fact dead, hence one sees the underlying principle of the Mosaic law requiring proper bleeding of animals, that being compliance with the command at Gen. 9:4. Indeed, if an animal has been bled, it has to be dead.

What have we learned from Gen. 9:4-7?

1. That at least portions of the "eternal or Noachian covenant" are no longer binding upon all mankind, hence the WTS reference to the covenant as eternal is incorrect.

2. The provisions of the covenant were not absolute, exceptions were made.

3. Blood is used as a metaphor for life. Its use is symbolic not literal.

Additionally, the entire discussion of blood takes place in the context of killing, either animals or humans. This is an important point because blood transfusion does not involve killing. Quite to contrary, such blood is used for the purpose of preserving life.

This brings up another important point and that is which is greater, the symbol or the reality, blood or that which it represents - life? Consider this: Which is greater Jesus' shed blood or the red wine which symbolizes his blood? Clearly the blood of Jesus is greater since the Bible teaches that his shed blood was able to provide for the forgiveness of sin. Based upon this isn't it reasonable to conclude that God would put a higher value on human life than he puts on blood which is a symbol of life?

This illustration may be helpful to consider: If you were robbed and a thief demanded your wedding ring, would you refuse to give it if he threatened to kill your spouse? Would you reason: "This ring represents my marriage to my spouse and that's more important than my spouses life." Such reasoning is seriously flawed yet this is the exact reasoning used by the WTS to support its ban on certain types of blood transfusions.Yes blood is a symbol of life, but the life is certainly more valuable than the symbol.

In the final analysis is there anything in these verses that addresses the modern day medical practice of transfusing blood or blood fractions? No - it's simply not there. We find nothing in the content of the Noachian covenant which suggests it was meant to pertain to anything but the EATING OF LIVING ANIMALS and by implication, blood. The language is simple, straightforward, and unmistakably clear.

Footnotes:

1. Claus Westermann: Genesis 1-11. A Commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984, p. 464. His detailed discussion of this topic on pp. 464-5 is well worth an examination.

2. "On Slaughter and Sacrifice, Blood and Atonement," Hebrew Union College Annual, vol. XLVII, Cincinnati, p. 21; ellipse in original.

3. Jaroslav Pelikan (ed.): Luther's Works, Vol. 2, Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1960, p. 138.

Next: Blood and the Mosaic Law