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

Blood and the Mosaic Law

The next major set of texts used by the Watchtower Society (WTS) in support of it's teaching on blood are those found in the Mosaic Law and recorded in the books of Leviticus, Deuteronomy and First Samuel.

Let's start by reviewing them along with the WTS's comments from the blood brochure.

(Leviticus 17:10-14) "'As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who eats any sort of blood, I shall certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the blood, and I shall indeed cut him off from among his people. 11 For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for YOU to make atonement for YOUR souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul [in it]. 12 That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: "No soul of YOU must eat blood and no alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst should eat blood." 13 "'As for any man of the sons of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust. 14 For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: "YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off."
It would be useful at this point to analyze how the WTS's current blood booklet treats these verses. Here is a direct quote:
"He again referred to blood when he gave the Law code to ancient Israel. While many people respect the wisdom and ethics in that code, few are aware of its serious laws on blood. For instance: If anyone of the house of Israel or of the strangers who reside among them partakes of any blood, I will set My face against the person who partakes of the blood, and I will cut him off from among his kin. For the life of the flesh is in the blood. (Leviticus 17:10, 11, Tanakh) God then explained what a hunter was to do with a dead animal: He shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth...You shall not partake of the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood. Anyone who partakes of it shall be cut off. (Leviticus 17:13, 14, Tanakh)...........While the law about blood had health aspects, much more was involved. Blood had a symbolic meaning. It stood for life provided by the Creator. By treating blood as special, the people showed dependence on him for life. Yes, the chief reason why they were not to take in blood was, not that it was unhealthy, but that it had special meaning to God." (How Can Blood Save Your Life? p. 3,4)
So in these portions of the Mosaic Law we find added details concerning blood. It must be poured upon the ground and anyone deliberately eating it is to be cut off.

Are these texts simply restating and enlarging on the so called "eternal covenant" found in Genesis chapter nine? As we have already learned, that covenant was not eternal, at least not in all respects. Additionally, these commands are clearly a part of the law of Moses. This is very important since Christians are not under the Mosaic law.

Consequently, the texts from the law of Moses do not in and of themselves have any bearing on whether or not it would be appropriate for a Christian to use blood. The Mosaic law was nailed to the stake along with Christ. It is null and void and of no force or effect whatsoever. To argue otherwise is to deny the simple truths clearly stated through out Paul's writings in the Greek scriptures or N.T.

(Ephesians 2:15) By means of his flesh he abolished the enmity, the Law of commandments consisting in decrees...

The WTS has frequently acknowledged this in its writings:

"If Jesus Jewish followers were no longer under the curse of the Law, were any Christians obligated to observe all the commandments given to Israel? To the Colossians, Paul wrote: [God] kindly forgave us all our trespasses and blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees and which was in opposition to us; and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to [Christ's] torture stake. (Colossians 2:13, 14) Doubtless, many early Christians needed to adjust their thinking and recognize that they had been discharged from the Law. (Romans 7:6)" W89 11/15, 5 (italics ours)

Despite this the WTS sees fit to quote these defunct laws to support its blood policy. As we read on in the brochure we come across a particularly blatant example of reading something into scripture that simply isn't there:

"The Law repeatedly stated the Creator's ban on taking in blood to sustain life. "You must not eat the blood; pour it out on the ground like water. Do not eat it, so that it may go well with you and your children after you, because you will be doing what is right." Deuteronomy 12:23-25, NIV; Deut. 15:23; Leviticus 7:26, 27; Ezekiel 33:25." (italics ours)
Does the Mosaic law actually state the Creator's ban in this way? Certainly not. Nowhere do we read of the "Creator's ban on taking in blood to sustain life." We do read that the Creator bans the "eating" of blood. This is a subtle yet important difference.

There are many things that we do to sustain life. We have to breathe oxygen into our lungs. We must have water and food. Sleep is essential and so forth.

It is clearly established that from a medical or scientific perspective, having a blood transfusion is not the same as eating blood. Therefore, it is necessary for the WTS to somehow link them. They accomplish this by arguing that when the Bible says do not "eat blood", what it really meant was do not sustain your life with blood. Clearly, this is not what the texts says.

Let us consider the next paragraph in the current brochure:

Contrary to how some today reason, God's law on blood was not to be ignored just because an emergency arose. During a wartime crisis, some Israelite soldiers killed animals and fell to eating along with the blood. In view of the emergency, was it permissible for them to sustain their lives with blood? No. Their commander pointed out that their course was still a grave wrong. (1 Samuel 14:31-35) Hence, precious as life is, our Life-Giver never said that his standards could be ignored in an emergency." (Italics ours)(How Can Blood Save Your Life? p. 3,4)
Now honestly, is it reasonable to refer to a group of hungry soldiers as an "emergency", or is this a flimsy attempt to associate the account with modern medical emergencies requiring blood transfusions. Who of us would equate a life or death medical crisis to a band of hungry warriors?

It is also worth pointing out once again the use of the expression "sustain" as a substitute for the word "eat." This is a purposeful manipulation of the Bible account. An attempt to make it say something that it doesn't.

On the other hand, what this Bible story does teach us is quite interesting. Note what happens to these hungry soldiers who in an "emergency" chose to "sustain their lives" by "eating along with the blood?"

(1 Sam. 14:34,35) "After that Saul said: "Scatter among the people, and YOU must say to them, 'Bring near to me, each one of YOU, his bull and, each one, his sheep, and YOU must do the slaughtering in this place and the eating, and YOU must not sin against Jehovah by eating along with the blood.'" Accordingly all the people brought near each one his bull that was in his hand that night and did the slaughtering there. 35 And Saul proceeded to build an altar to Jehovah. With it he started altar building to Jehovah."
Despite the fact that the mosaic law called for the death of someone who deliberately ate blood, the consequences of their gross sin was a verbal reprimand. Today, however, if a Jehovah's Witness finds them self in a medical emergency and accepts a blood transfusion, they will likely be sanctioned by the WTS and denied normal relations with their Jehovah's Witness friends and family members. Their actions will be viewed as a gross sin worthy of death and expulsion from their congregation.

Blood was at the very heart of the Mosaic law with it's system of animal sacrifices and had great significance in the life of an Israelite since the pouring out of it in sacrifice could temporarily atone for sin. Clearly then blood was sacred. By pouring it out upon the ground and covering it an Israelite hunter showed his respect for the life he had taken by divine permission. Additionally, an animal properly bled would in fact be dead and the hunter would be in compliance with the command found at Gen. 9:4 which as we have learned essentially meant it was wrong to eat a living animal. Finally, by not eating blood, the Israelite would show his appreciation for the significance of the blood used in the temple arrangement of animal sacrifice.

It would be worthwhile to read the seventeenth and eighteenth chapters of Leviticus so as to appreciate the context in which these prohibitions occur. A careful analysis reveals much. For instance you may be surprised to learn just how precious all life is to God. If an Israelite when slaughtering a domestic animal failed to bring it to the priest so that it's blood could be sprinkled upon the alter, he was blood guilty and worthy of death, just as if he had killed another human! (Lev. 17:3-6)

The requirements were much simpler when involving wild animals and hunting although the blood still had to be poured out. (Lev. 17:13) The more stringent requirements involving a domestic animal likely relate to it's use as a communion sacrifice involving the worshiper, the priest and Jehovah.

A logical question at this point would be: "What is the significance of the blood?" Is there something special in it, some mystical property?

This question can be answered by considering what the law has to say about animals that died of natural causes or perhaps were killed by a predator.

Leviticus 17:15-16 "As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; and he must be clean. 16 But if he will not wash them and will not bathe his flesh, he must then answer for his error."
Yes one can easily imagine a situation where an Israelite might find himself lost or stranded and without food. If he came across a dead animal he would realize, of course, that it had not been properly bled. The law allowed for him to eat this animal as provided above as long as he followed what is clearly a ritual of the law code. If God would be willing to permit an Israelite to eat blood  under these circumstances would he be willing to permit someone to have a blood transfusion to preserve life in a medical emergency? It is only reasonable to assume that  he would. You may find it of some interest to read about how the WTS tries to explain Leviticus 17:15 in the April 15, 1983 Questions From Readers.

Furthermore, we find an additional provisions in the law regarding alien residents and the use of blood:

(Deuteronomy 14:21) "YOU must not eat any body [already] dead. To the alien resident who is inside your gates you may give it, and he must eat it; or there may be a selling of it to a foreigner, because you are a holy people to Jehovah your God."
Note here that the reason given for not eating the dead body is that they are a "holy people." It is not the blood or it's sacredness that is at issue. This is clear because God does not care if non-Jews eat meat with blood in it.

If we reason on all of this it becomes evident that the blood itself was not holy. It did not possess magical properties. Blood running through the veins of a living creature represents life and if someone took a life they had to pour out the blood and give it back to God. In the case of a animal that died of itself, no human had taken a life, and this requirement could be waived. The only issue was ceremonial cleanness.

It bears mentioning that the prohibition against eating the blood of an animal would not have resulted in the death of a devout man or woman. Indeed, it is often argued that these observances were intended in part for the health of believers. But that prohibition translated to a medical procedure routinely results in the suffering and death of Jehovah's Witnesses. Such a consequence or furtive, is enough to show this further extension of the prohibition on eating blood isn't intended in the mosaic law. It is worth noting that no Jewish group applies these sanctions to the medical use of blood, not even the strictest Orthodox Jews who are so concerned about not displeasing God that they follow the following procedure with meat:

The meat is submerged in water for half an hour, is then salted and put in position for draining for an hour as the salt draws out the blood, and is thereafter thoroughly washed three times. Watchtower 07/01/1951 p. 414 - 416
As we conclude our review of this section of the Bible we have established the following: As we move on to our last major section on the Bible, it would be helpful for us to take note of the order in which the prohibitions occur in the book of Leviticus, as this will become essential to our understanding of the next section on Acts chapter fifteen.

1. Communion Sacrifices (food offerings) were to be made only to Jehovah God (Lev. 17:1-9)

2. The deliberate and intentional eating of blood was forbidden (Lev. 17:10-14)

3. Only in an emergency could an animal that had died of itself or been torn apart be consumed (Lev. 17: 15,16; see also Deut. 14: 21,28,29)

4. They could not engage in immoral sex acts or incestuous relationships (Lev. 18:1-27)

Next: Acts 15 and the Apostolic Decree