Their ardent refusal to accept blood transfusions is one of the most striking beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The recent media coverage of the tragic death of a young Witness in Queensland and an ongoing legal suit against the medical profession in Victoria - as a result of a surviving Witness being given blood whilst unconscious - has, once again, brought the Jehovah’s Witnesses into the public light in Australia. Dr Jerry Bergman, a former Witness and now a practicing psychologist, states:
The blood transfusion issue is more than a mere idiosyncratic and unpopular belief; those who oppose the Witnesses stand claim that such abstinence may constitute murder. The media spotlights cases where young children are in danger of dying without the lifesaving transfusion, because of their parents refuse permission for it. It is unknown how many persons die each year as a direct result of not having a needed blood transfusion, but if even one person should die from such causes Christian pastors should be concerned to understand the belief behind this tragedy.1
The Watchtower Society teaches that every baptised Jehovah’s Witness must refuse blood transfusions in every and all circumstances - even if this results in certain death - and the Society insists that Witness parents have a spiritual obligation to also ensure that their children will never receive blood transfusions. As David Reed, a former Witness elder, notes, ‘there is an invisible wall preventing them from receiving blood transfusions, even when their lives of the lives of their children depend on it.’ This "wall" he explains, is ‘an organizational structure that will put them on trial if they accept a needed transfusion.’2 Witness parents are reminded in the Watchtower booklet, Blood, Medicine and the Law of God, that, ‘if they violate God’s law on blood and the child dies in the process, they have endangered that child’s opportunity for everlasting life.’3 In this sense, Watchtower leaders hold each and every Witness’ life in their hands. Raymond Franz, who formerly served for many years as one such leader, writes:
the seriousness of an organization’s responsibility in imposing its views on an individual’s personal conscience in such critical matters should never be underestimated. What has happened with the Watch Tower Society in the field of blood illustrates forcefully how legalism can lead an organization into a morass of inconsistencies, with the possibility of its members suffering whatever unfavorable consequences result.4
Every baptised Jehovah’s Witness is left with only one choice to make in the face of a needed blood transfusion for their hope of eternal life rests upon whether they accept or refuse to receive a transfusion. According to the Watchtower Society, whilst a blood transfusion ‘may result in the immediate and very temporary prolongation of life’ it does so ‘at the cost of eternal life for a dedicated Christian [ie: baptised Witness].’5 Consequently, obedient Witnesses have no choice other than to refuse a needed blood transfusion - whether for themselves or for their children - regardless of whether their refusal places their own (or their child’s) life in jeopardy.
How the Watchtower Society arrives at this perilous teaching will be discussed in the following article.
ENDNOTES
In the Watchtower booklet, How Can blood Save Your Life? (1990, p.5), the Watchtower Society poses the question, ‘Where does Christianity stand on the question of saving human life with blood?’ and, after claiming that Jesus knew ‘that taking in blood was wrong’ the Society answers, ‘Hence, there is good reason to believe that Jesus would uphold the law about blood even if he was under pressure to do otherwise.’ What though is this ‘law about blood’ to which the Society refers?
For the baptised Jehovah’s Witnesses, this ‘law about blood’ is summed up in three passages from Scripture: Genesis 9:4 ~ ‘Only flesh with its soul - its blood - you must not eat’; Leviticus 17:13-14 ~ ‘[You must] pour its blood out and cover it with dust’; and Acts 15:19-21 ~ ‘Abstain from . . . fornication and from what is strangled and from blood’. In the above booklet, The Watchtower Society insists:
While these verses are not stated in medical terms, Witnesses view them as ruling out transfusion of whole blood, packed RBCs, and plasma, as well as WBC and platelet administration . . . Witnesses believe that blood removed from the body should be disposed of, so they do not accept autotransfusion of predeposited blood. Techniques for intraoperative collection or hemodilution that involve blood storage are objectionable to them.*
However, are these valid conclusions? Do these texts support the Watchtower Society’s teaching on blood? Since the Watchtower Society insists that this ‘stand taken by Jehovah’s Witnesses is above all a religious one; it is a position based on what the Bible says’1 we shall undertake a close examination of these three Biblical texts - that supposedly outline that which the Society refers to as God’s ‘law about blood’ by paying close attention to their contexts. By so doing, it shall be seen that the Watchtower Society’s interpretation and application is, in fact, totally unfounded. With regard to this, it is interesting to note that a growing number of the Witnesses - both rank and file - are beginning to realise this! In fact, in an effort to bring about an end to this life-endangering teaching, a diverse group of Witnesses have organised themselves, from within the Society, calling themselves The Associated Jehovah’s Witnesses for Reform on Blood.** How then should we understand the three Biblical texts
The first text under discussion is Genesis 9:4 ‘Only flesh with its soul - its blood - you must not eat.’ David Reed, a former Witness elder notes that, ‘the organization teaches that a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood, because it resembles intravenous feeding [and] accordingly prohibits blood transfusions for its followers.’2 To demonstrate the validity of their reasoning, Watchtower leaders have used a comparison:
consider a man who is told by the doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?’3
However, is eating blood the same as a blood transfusion? According to James Sire, the Watchtower’s attempt to ban blood transfusions based on Genesis 9:4 is a clear example of a cultic distortion of Scripture. Sire writes:
A blood transfusion is not even equivalent to intravenous feeding because the blood so given does not function as food. The Jehovah’s Witnesses argument is based on a false analogy.4
According however, to the text itself, Jerry Bergman contends that:
In this passage, the words "blood" and "soul" are synonymous. The teaching is that animal bodies can be eaten, but only animal bodies without their soul or life still in them . . . The Hebrew of Genesis 9:4 tells us that God has now given man permission to eat animal flesh, but that most of the animal’s blood must be drained out in order to insure that the animal is dead before it is eaten.5
Clearly, Genesis 9:4 refers to the eating of flesh of a beast that still has life coursing through its body. Or, as Martin Luther explained it:
in this passage the Lord forbids the eating of a body that still has in it a functioning, active, and living soul, the way a hawk devours chicks and a wolf sheep that have not been killed first but are alive . . . This I believe to be the simple and true meaning, which also some Jewish teachers espouse, namely, that we must not eat pieces of raw flesh and limbs that are still quivering’6
Therefore, as far as the Watchtower Society’s argument that blood transfusion can be equated with feeding on blood, Bergman notes:
when blood is taken for a transfusion, it is taken from the donor’s veins and thus contains very little oxygen or nutrients . . . The average blood transfusion adds little food value to the recipient and this is not the purpose of transfusions.7
In fact, no reputable modern doctor or scientist would state that a blood transfusion is a feeding on blood, or the equivalent of eating blood. So, as Bergman concludes, ‘the Watchtower’s argument against "eating blood" for nutrition is incorrect.’8 Of course, the Witnesses will present other O.T. texts that prohibit the eating of blood. However, the same principle, as applies to Genesis 9:4 - eating blood is not the same as a blood transfusion - must be driven home.
The text in Leviticus 17:13-14 is cited by the Watchtower Society in support of their teaching against the storing of one’s own blood in preparation for surgery. As the Society states in its publication How Can Blood Save Your Life? (p.27) ‘Witnesses believe that blood removed from the body should be disposed of, so they do not accept autotransfusion of predeposited blood.’ In an earlier issue of The Watchtower magazine (March 1, 1989), the "Question from Readers" section discussed the method of withdrawing blood from a patient some time before an an operation and storing this for re-use during or following the operation. The Society stated categorically that, based on their understanding of Scripture Jehovah’s Witnesses ‘DO NOT accept this procedure.’*
The texts referred to in both Leviticus and Deuteronomy were a part of the Mosaic Law that was given to the nation of Israel. This Law is no longer binding on Christians - and even the Watchtower Society acknowledges this fact! In the booklet How Can Blood Save Your Life? they state emphatically ‘Christians need not keep the code given to Moses’ (p.5). Therefore if, in spite of this, the Watchtower Society insists that Leviticus 17:13-14 prohibits the medical storing of blood then, to be consistent, they must also apply the prohibition of Leviticus 3:17 - ‘It is a statute to time indefinite for your generations . . . You must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’ Of course they do not abstain from eating fat. Why? Because they understand that the Law (of which Leviticus is a part) has been fulfilled in Christ.
In the light of this, their own principle, stated in their own publication applies to themselves: ‘If some cling to [parts of the Law], saying that they are binding on Christians but that the rest are not, are they not actually rejecting what Jesus said . . .?’9 Certainly, they are. Yet, as Raymond Franz (a former member of the Watchtower’s Governing Body) notes:
In their own hearts, many Witnesses feel that [this] method of storing one’s own blood, is really not . . . unscriptural. Yet, they are not free to follow their own conscience. An individual’s life might lie in the balance, but the Watch Tower’s interpretative reasonings and technicalities must be observed, for they are part of the "great body of Theocratic law." To fail to obey would be to risk disfellowshipment. 10
Nevertheless, in the Witnesses’ minds, the text that stands above all these is that found in Acts 15:19-21 ‘Abstain from . . . fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.’ This, argues the Watchtower Society, is an undeniable prohibition against any use of blood - including transfusions. In their booklet, How Can Blood Save Your Life (p.5) they state, ‘The apostles were not presenting a mere ritual or dietary ordinance. The decree set out fundamental ethical norms, which early Christians complied with.’
Ron Rhodes explains:
The Watchtower Society says that the Jerusalem Council in New Testament times (Acts 15) reaffirmed the Old Testament teaching regarding abstaining from blood. Thus, the prohibition against eating blood (including intravenous feeding) is not just based on an Old Testament commandment. It is a New Testament teaching as well.11
At this point, one must be clear concerning the issue of dispute - our argument is not against the text but the interpretation given it by the Watchtower Society. Hence, we do not disagree that Acts 15:28-29 addresses the issue of eating blood. However, when one considers the context in which the text is found its meaning becomes clear. What is that context? In Acts 15:5, we see that the council sought to deal with the insistence by some that the Gentile believers ‘observe the law of Moses.’ In verse 10, the apostle Peter refers to their attempts to impose ‘upon the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our forefathers nor we (ie: Jews) were capable of bearing.’
Acts 15:20, 29 is not a ‘law on blood’ but rather, an appeal to the Gentile Christians to abstain from blood so as to avoid offending their fellow Jewish believers. As George Ladd notes, ‘The early church advised Gentile Christians in Asia Minor to abstain from these [things], not as a ground of salvation but as a modus vivendio with Jewish Christians who were deeply offended by [these].’12
In fact, Acts 15:11 negates the very thrust of the Watchtower Society’s interpretation for, whereas they insist that to receive blood into one’s body - by eating or by transfusion - actually jeopardises a person’s relationship with God (and hence their salvation), the apostle Peter declared, ‘we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus.’ Yet, stories abound of Witness elders interrogating terminally ill patients and then disfellowshipping them - kicking them out of God’s kingdom - because of accepting a blood transfusion. As David Reed states, ‘We could easily picture the Pharisees doing the same thing - but would Jesus act like that?’13
ENDNOTES
** The Associated Jehovah’s Witnesses for Reform on Blood, is a diverse group of Witnesses from many countries, including elders and other organization officials, Hospital Liaison Committee members, Child Advocates and members of the general public who have volunteered their time and energies in an effort to bring an end to a tragic and misguided policy that has claimed thousands of lives, many of them children.
Web: www.visiworld.com/starter/newlight/
Email: jwreformers@anon.nymserver.com
P.O. Box 190089 - Boise, ID 83719-0089 U.S.A.
- from: MacGregor Ministries, News & Views, Jan. 1999, p.25
Since there is no scriptural support for the Watchtower position, and a look at its history [shows] that it was not taught for many years (in fact alternate biblical interpretations were taught) why does the Society teach such a prohibition today? Probably there is no one reason. Below we have presented several viable hypotheses.
[1] The prohibition was an attempt to solidify the commitment of Witnesses under the new president, Nathan Knorr, by forcing members to take a stand on a controversial issue: When Knorr became president after the death of Judge Rutherford, there were some members who were (1) not totally committed to the Society’s beliefs, (2) wary of the new Knorr administration and reluctant to abandon the Rutherford administration, (3) committed to the belief structure of the Society but not to the Society itself:
Those members who were wavering either would plunge fully into "Jehovah’s Organization," or would be disfellowshipped if they hadn’t already left of their own accord. The reasoning could have been that it was better to have fewer members whose loyalty could be questioned. However, it must be noted that the Knorr administration took ten years to openly condemn the use of blood transfusions. True, a number of Witnesses have left the Society (and they are still leaving) because of the transfusion issue, but there seemed (and seems) to be no reason to connect these defections to a move to solidify Knorr’s administration.
[2] The teaching against blood transfusions was a result of the attitudes against medicine displayed by the editors of The Golden Age and Consolation. Both editors, Woodworth and Van Amberg, in line with many other people at the time, rejected the germ theory of disease and instead concluded that disease was a product of improper diet, incorrect emotions, or sin. A new idea that germs could cause disease was seen as blasphemous since Satan had finally duped people into thinking sin had nothing to do with sickness. Dr. Pasteur and his theories were repeatedly ridiculed in both the Golden Age and Consolation magazines (see for example, The Golden Age, vol.17, p.444, September 23, 1936, p.814). Vaccinations were a direct result of the germ theory and thus vaccinations were wrong, according to Van Amberg and Woodworth. Many people during the thirties opposed vaccinations. They concluded they were a repugnant idea since the injected material of a vaccine consisted of attenuated germs, and the idea of injecting “pus” into the body was distasteful.
Looking for a way to oppose vaccinations, Van Amberg found what he thought was the perfect scriptural reason. Since the materials for vaccinations often were from blood, the Old Testament prohibitions could be modified by the Society and used to prohibit vaccinations. The Golden Age of April 24, 1935, page 471 declared, ‘as vaccination is a direct injection of animal matter into the blood stream, vaccination is a direct violation of the law of Jehovah God.’ The Society used the same verses against vaccinations which they use today against blood transfusion.
In time, it has become evident that the opposition to both the germ theory and vaccinations was unfounded. In the early fifties the Society reversed its stand and ruled that it was up to the individual’s conscience whether he would or would not be vaccinated. However, since the rule against ‘taking blood’ was pushed for several years, and was said to be founded on Bible teachings, it could not suddenly be ignored and the prohibitions against eating blood ‘lifted.’ That vaccinations could be excepted from the rule against taking blood was made possible because vaccinations were not really ‘taking [whole] blood.’ Whole blood transfusions must still be condemned.
Once one teaches something as wrong for several years, it is hard to reverse it overnight, or even in the span of several years.
[3] The Watchtower position on blood transfusions was arrived at and adopted by well- meaning Society officials who had insufficient knowledge both of the Scriptures and of medicine. Perhaps a Watchtower official, in his search of the Scriptures, reasoned that if eating blood was wrong, and transfusions are intravenous feeding, blood transfusions would also be wrong. From this one could arrive at a sincere but naive, superficial, and wrong conclusion and still hold it firmly.
To some degree, the reasons for the Society’s position are irrelevant. There could have been several coincidental, otherwise unrelated factors which enabled Knorr to take a stand on this issue. We have seen that the evidence against the Watchtower’s position is overwhelming, but a position, once taken, is difficult to relinquish. It is especially difficult to drop when lives have been lost, families broken, and tears shed over such an uncompromising stand. If the Society were to back down on this issue, many of its members would bitterly oppose those whom they at one time considered, ‘God’s channel for today.’
Since the Society’s leaders firmly teach that Armageddon is ‘just around the corner,’ in spite of their prophetic [failures], they may be reasoning that the most prudent move is to leave the issue alone. Witnesses believe that in the ‘New System of Things,’ those who gave their lives in a faithful manner will be resurrected, including those who lost their lives because of refusing blood transfusions. - Jerry Bergman, PH. D. Jehovah’s Witnesses And Blood Transfusions
The following is a transcript of an interview with the Liberal Elder (LE) and Paul Gillies (PG), spokesman for the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, conducted by Roger Bolton (RB) on "Sunday" - BBC Radio 4, 14 June 1998
RB - Now almost all of us know about Jehovah’s Witnesses is that they knock on the door from time to time and that they refuse to accept blood transfusions, sometimes with fatal results. But a dissident body of Jehovah’s Witnesses have now begun a campaign via the internet to end the religious group’s opposition to transfusions altogether. These rebels insist on remaining anonymous because they believe that to speak openly would result in immediate excommunication. I talked to one of the anonymous dissidents earlier. He calls himself the Liberal Elder and asked us to disguise his voice.
LE - Let me start off by saying that Witness teachings on blood have been in a state of perpetual change. Most Witnesses and doctors are very unclear about the Watchtower's current blood policy since it has been revised so many times
RB - I mean, what is now allowed? I gather that transplants are allowed; some blood products are allowed; but blood transfusions are not. Is that the situation?
LE - The organ transplant issue came up in 1967, beginning of 67. That lasted for 13 years and then was finally dropped in 1980. Blood transfusions continue to be banned.
RB - The Jehovah’s Witnesses have traditionally quoted Acts 15:28-29 as the key, believing that Christians must abstain from eating blood and meat of animals from which the blood has not been correctly drained. How has that been used to argue that blood transfusions are not allowed?
LE - The essence of the argument is that a blood transfusion is in fact the equivalent of eating blood. So what they have done now is in effect created a new law for Jehovah’s Witnesses, saying that it is wrong to sustain life by means of blood. That’s the expression you consistently hear used in the Watchtower and by Witnesses. Unfortunately, that expression cannot be found anywhere in the Bible; so they have a policy that is basically an organisational policy, without Scriptural merit.
RB - Do you think people have died unnecessarily then as a result of this belief?
LE - There is no doubt. We would estimate about 3 a day so that the figures we are talking about are perhaps 1,000 Witnesses or more per year.
RB - How much support do you and your colleagues have in this?
LE - That’s a difficult question to answer since even discussing the subject has the potential to lead to expulsion from one’s congregation. It is probably fair to say that the number is in the tens of thousands and the figure grows every day.
RB - But if you were to come into the open now and if we were to call you by your name and so on, expulsion, you think, would be inevitable, would it?
LE - Absolutely.
RB - Why is the Watchtower, as you put it, so opposed to that form of debate? Is there no democracy within the church?
LE - There certainly is not. They believe that the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses is God’s channel for communicating with Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is that simple. Once you accept that someone speaks for God then to disagree with that person or, in this case, that group is to disagree with God.
RB - In the end, if you cannot get your way and the Watchtower Society won’t move, would you consider a breakaway movement, a breakaway church?
LE - Me, personally, no, that’s not my intent. They are certainly entitled to teach whatever they want; they have that right. Unfortunately for those who are, like myself, born into the organisation, who have all their family members, all their friends and, in some cases, even their business associates all Jehovah’s Witnesses, the options are not very good. So, really, all that we are really looking for is the opportunity to be able to make free choices, as they promised to the European Commission on Human Rights, without sanction or control.
RB - And act according to your conscience?
LE - That is correct.
RB - Well, with me now is Paul Gillies, a spokesperson for the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the United Kingdom. Paul, can we deal with the democracy question first? If you knew who our previous interviewee, the Liberal Elder was, would he be excommunicated for his views?
PG - Well, let me say this. His implication is that we have an automatic disfellowshipping procedure if somebody breaks Bible law. That is certainly misleading and not the case. It does not emphasise the care that we have for one another. Because initially when somebody is a prospective Witness they study these things in depth right at the beginning and they think about the Bible’s law on blood. They think about all the Bible’s laws and many Witnesses will take many months or years to study these things in advance of putting themselves forward as a baptised Witness.
RB - Is that a way of saying though that if he holds to the views now, these views, he would have to leave because they are wrong in your view?
PG - Well, what we are saying is that people are free to make their own choices medically and religiously. If they stop believing these things that they formerly heard then, of course, they are free to leave the organization. But we have no automatic sanction that we would institute; our first priority is to give people spiritual help and care.
RB - But if he thinks that blood transfusions are right and your policy is wrong, are you saying that he should remain in your church?
PG - Well, let me use an illustration. If somebody was a member of the Temperance Society and he decided to go out and drink a pint of beer, then they would give every evidence that they did not want to be a member of the Temperance Society.
RB - The question here I suppose is, is there any scope for democratic debate among Jehovah’s Witnesses I mean, could you argue, you know you’ve changed your mind on transplants, couldn’t you change your mind on blood transfusions? Shouldn’t there be an open debate among members?
PG - Well, we do encourage open discussion. In fact, we encourage every family head to discuss with his family all the various medical procedures and implications of blood with his family so that, if a medical situation arises he’s quite clear in his own mind what various choices he has and what he can do. In our meetings too we have open discussions. And you mentioned that what people know about Jehovah’s Witnesses is that they call from house to house. Now every single member of Jehovah’s Witnesses makes a public defence of their faith on a day to day basis and, because this is the only thing that people know about Jehovah’s Witnesses, our stand on blood, you find that Jehovah’s Witnesses are defending this issue every day.
RB - Yes, but if you are so open and so on, why does this man feel he has to be anonymous? Why are this group of people, significant numbers as far as one can gather from the Internet, scared of debating in public? I mean, are they deluded?
PG - That is a very good question. But is he who he claims to be, a Witness?
RB - Well, we believe him to be so; and it is certainly the case and there are significant numbers of Witnesses who are communicating on the Internet anonymously about their reservations about your policy. So I cannot understand this, on the one hand your calm rational approach saying, “Let’s discuss these things” and their fear.
PG - Well that is a good question. That is something you really have to put to him. But we believe that this is really just mischief-making by ex-Witnesses and ex-members of organisations who do not really represent the views of 6 million people from 232 countries who have thought about this issue and made decisions according to what they understand the Bible to teach.
RB - Finally and briefly, you have changed your mind on transplants. Is it possible you will ever change your minds on blood transfusions?
PG - Well, the difference is that the Bible does not comment on organ transplants. We have looked through the Bible and it does not say anything about it. It is specific with regard to blood.
When Doctor Barnard first performed the first heart transplant operation, major religions - there was an outcry by them about the procedures and the ethics of it. So, like everybody else, we thought about the ethics of organ transplants and now we’ve settled on a view that we feel is the right view, but it’s different from blood which has been consistent from the time of Genesis right the way through to the first century and to today.
RB - Paul Gillies thank you very much. No change on blood transfusions.
If you would like to keep up to date with the latest ‘Watchtower News’ from the Internet, you can check it out at http:\\www.freeminds.org