How do Protestants counteract the Witnesses stance on Blood Transfusions?

Question

As discussed in Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions for reasons in scripture. I have trouble with the idea. What about the sanctity of life with scriptures such as:

Deuteronomy 30:19 (ESV)

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live

How do Protestants (Church of England for example) counteract the Witnesses stance on Blood Transfusions?

Answer 1

The Jehovah’s Witness publication ‘What Does the Bible Really Teach?’ discusses the issue of blood transfusions in Chapter 13. Paragraph 11 reads:

We show respect for blood by not eating it... Jehovah’s view was clear: His servants could eat animal meat but not the blood. They were to pour the blood on the ground—in effect, returning the creature’s life to God.

They quote Leviticus 17:13-14 to support this. It’s a pity they don’t quote verse 15 as well then they would see the context:

“Anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening then he will be clean. But if he does not wash his clothes and bathe himself he will held responsible.”

Why is this verse even there? Because in times of distress, for example in war, it might become necessary to eat an animal that had not been slaughtered the kosher-way. Why? To save lives! Although it was against the law to eat un-clean animals at times it was necessary. Paragraphs 12 to 15 in Chapter 13 of the ‘Bible Teach’ book continues:

So we must ‘keep abstaining from blood.’ In God’s eyes, our doing that is as important as our avoiding idolatry and sexual immorality. Does the command to abstain from blood include blood transfusions? Yes. To illustrate: Suppose a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcoholic beverages. Would that simply mean that you should not drink alcohol but that you could have it injected into your veins? Of course not! Likewise, abstaining from blood means not taking it into our bodies at all. So the command to abstain from blood means that we would not allow anyone to transfuse blood into our veins.

14 What if a Christian is badly injured or is in need of major surgery? Suppose doctors say that he must have a blood transfusion or he will die. Of course, the Christian would not want to die. In an effort to preserve God’s precious gift of life, he would accept other kinds of treatment that do not involve the misuse of blood. Hence, he would seek such medical attention if that is available and would accept a variety of alternatives to blood.

15 Would a Christian break God’s law just to stay alive a little longer in this system of things? Jesus said: “Whoever wants to save his soul [or, life] will lose it; but whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 16:25) We do not want to die. But if we tried to save our present life by breaking God’s law, we would be in danger of losing everlasting life. We are wise, then, to put our trust in the rightness of God’s law, with full confidence that if we die from any cause, our Life-Giver will remember us in the resurrection and restore to us the precious gift of life.

They use Acts 15 to support their claim that true Christians should not have a blood transfusion – is that right? No. The issue in Acts 15 is that the Jews and Gentiles had been saved through the grace of Jesus. The Jews however where trying to get the Gentiles to uphold the Mosaic Law. When the Gentiles refused to, this caused a problem. James is trying sort it out by asking the Gentiles to abstain from these things so as to not upset their Jewish brothers. We see in other chapters in Acts and Romans that our salvation has nothing to with circumcision or food, or blood, but for the sake of the Jewish brothers of the time they were to abstain from these things in order not to stumble them. Of course this has nothing to do with blood transfusions in spite what the Watchtower teaches in the 'Bible Teach' book.

Paragraph 18 declares that true Christians are not under the Mosaic Law and it is only by means of faith in the merit of Jesus’ shed blood that we can gain salvation. Amen to that. So why do the preceding paragraphs in chapter 13 claim that true Christians gain everlasting life through upholding the laws of the Watchtower, which include refusing to have a blood transfusion?

Jesus said: “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life” (John 5:24). No need to obey man-made laws. No need to twist Scripture in an attempt to uphold man-made laws. Jesus said nothing about refusing to accept a blood transfusion. That is how this Protestant Christian counteracts the Jehovah’s Witness stance on blood transfusions.

Answer 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"These prohibitions had never come to the Gentiles, because they had never been under the Law Covenant; but so deeply rooted were the Jewish ideas on this subject that it was necessary to the peace of the church that the Gentiles should observe this matter also." (The Watch Tower 1909 April 15 pp. 116-117)

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

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

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

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

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

Answer 3

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

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

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

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

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

Answer 4

How do Protestants counteract the Witnesses stance on Blood Transfusions?

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

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

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

“The answer [of the "Jerusalem Council"] ignored every feature of that law, except four points; and the first three of these were mentioned no doubt as a basis of common fellowship between those who had been Jews and those who had been Gentiles, namely, (1) abstaining from meats that had been offered in sacrifice to idols; (2) abstaining from animal food that had not been killed after the manner of the Jews; (3) abstaining from the eating of blood. It would be almost impossible for those who had been reared as Jews to ignore these three points, and if the converts from the Gentiles did not observe them it would be a constant barrier to their social intercourse.” The Watchtower 05/15/1897, p. 153 (Reprints p. 2158)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post script:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answer 5

It is also written, "You shall not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor." Jews, including Christ, have understood this to mean it is lawful to break almost any commandment in order to save a life. So yes, it is murderous that Jehovah's Witnesses say it is better to let a person die than to transfuse blood from a willing donor, whose life is not thereby endangered. Christ condemned as hypocrisy the Pharisees' accusation that He profaned the Sabbath by healing the disabled, even though their disabilities were not life-threatening. How much more then, does He condemn those who call it evil to save those in danger of death!

Answer 6

You can't really counter their argument. The context, in my personal opinion, is reasonably clear. James et al are referring to consuming meat with the blood. They didn't have blood transfusions back in the first century. In light of Jewish culture and the prohibition against eating meat with the blood, and lacking any realistic alternative explanation for this continued prohibition given to new gentile Christians, it's obvious what the intent is when James tells them to "abstain from blood." Especially when the statement is coming from someone who was known for his adherence to the Jewish law.

But JWs choose to interpret the statement how they choose to interpret it. In most cases, you aren't going to change their minds. I've tried. They aren't interested in discussing the logic of the teaching. They just defend it. Whatever you argue, they'll have a counter. They are taught how to counter your arguments. They expect your arguments. From the moment you utter the first word of your argument, they already have their rebuttals lined up and ready to go. They're prepared to defend their doctrine. You're not going to sway them, except in the rare isolated case.

However, I do think it's worth saying that it's hardly a salvific issue. No one is going to hell because they don't believe in partaking of a blood transfusion. When talking to Jehovah's Witnesses, always keep in mind that what you're actually dealing with are Christians with strange doctrines. I know that this is hard for many to accept. The general consensus in mainstream Christianity is that they are a cult. But relative to the actual formula for salvation as given in the New Testament, they do believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God, that he was crucified, died, and was buried, and that he rose again on the third day. They acknowledge him as lord (meaning master, if not God), and profess him as such. This is all the New Testament conspicuously requires for salvation. Arguments can be made for the necessity to believe Jesus was God in the flesh, but this is not blatantly stated. It has to be interpreted and inferred. Confess that he is Lord, which they do, and believe that God raised him from the dead, which they do, and you will be saved.

It is therefore my opinion that they are Christians, even if I disagree with some of their doctrines.

Far too often, people want to get into arguments with them. But salvation is not determined by whether Jesus was crucified on a t shaped cross or a post. No one is going to hell because they don't celebrate Christmas, birthdays, or the Fourth of July. The Gospels don't require anyone to accept a blood transfusion. Don't worry about trying to correct their doctrine. It's a losing battle.

At the same time, recognize that the same can be said of Baptists, Pentecostals, and just about every other denomination out there. They all have truths, and they all have incorrect doctrines. None of them are perfect. And which are right and which are wrong, for most people, tends to be a subjective matter. If you're a believer in spiritual gifts, then the Pentecostals are right, and the Baptists are wrong. If you're in favor of still keeping the law of Moses, then the Church of Christ is right, and the Pentecostals are wrong. If you believe that we're all worthless sinners in Christ, then the Presbyterian church is for you. If you think we can live up to the standard the Apostles set for us, then maybe you'd be better off with the Wesleyans.

I would suggest trying to see the positives they have to offer rather than trying to find ways to pick apart what they believe. None of us is perfect. If you're going to argue with them, argue over something that matters, like whether Jesus is God in the flesh. That at least has some doctrinal relevance.

For clarity, my answer to your question is that it's a fool's errand. The only true argument is context, culture, and history. They are applying a first century statement (or a fourth millennium BCE statement) to a twenty-first century practice that has only existed for about a hundred years. The context, in no uncertain terms, refers to the consumption of blood, as specified in the law. So, if you choose to argue, those are the arguments. But, again, they have their beliefs, and you're not likely to change them. Many JWs have literally died rather than accept a blood transfusion.