You are here:

Jehovah`s Witness/The issue of Blood - JW hypocrisy and misinterpretation Part 1

Advertisement


Question
Hello Brother Derrick, Rev. Murphy here.lol Hope all is well with you. It seems Rando is at it again, but this time about blood. The issue of blood is a very sensitive matter for both JW and Non-JW. However nowhere do I find a more gross misinterpretation and twisting of scripture than when it comes to this issue.

More interesting, is that the Governing Body(WTBS) has continually changed its stance on this issue. When i was a child. the stance was no blood at all period. Now this stance is:"Its left to ones own conscious".

The blood issue is very personal to me, so before I get into explanations, allow me to share something:

I was, as you know raised in a witness home. When my father had his quad bypass, he did it bloodless. Of course this was due to his faith and beliefs. Although I admired his stance for sticking to his beliefs, I still questioned my cousin who is an elder. I asked: "If something were to go wrong, could he accept blood"'. The answer was, " That is left up to ones own conscious". I smiled and said, 'thats not the way it was viewed when I was studying"..the reply..."I know" "its not preferred but it is a matter of conscious"..."there has been new light shed". Interestingly the hypocrisy showed its face. When the question was asked would he be looked at unfavorably or dis-fellowshipped if he accepted the blood, the answer was "probably..yes..scripture tells us to abstain from blood"

So if its a matter of conscious,meaning between him and Jehovah, why then would he be subjected to dis-fellowship? If the stance has changed, then why the same punishing result?

In 2007 my mother was rushed to the Hospital. My Mother was not a witness but a die hard baptist. Yes, A JW and Baptist married for over 40 years. She had a deadly blood infection and was slipping away into death. The doctors explained the only way to save her was through transfusion. The infection was so bad anti-biotics wouldnt do any good. my father invoked "HIS" JW beliefs and refused a transfusion for her. She passed away an hour later.

Heres the thing...she was not a witness, she made it clear she would never be one. She believed in transfusion and that was well known. She was Baptist not JW and those were not her beliefs. I understand he was her husband, she was also my mother..Who was he to make her subject to his beliefs? Surely there was no salvation to be gained by her from it. According to the JWs she was apostate and part of Christendom. She died because of what someone else had been brain washed into believing and his heart grieved until the day he died! I confronted him many times on the issue of what he did, he, nor my cousins, or my district overseer uncle or Bethelite cousin could answer the question.


So now what does the Bible really say about transfusion? NOTHING! Transfusion did not become a practice until thousands of years later. Is transfusion the same as digestion? NO! I repeat NO!

Lets deal with some basics:

1. Blood is not a nutrient it carries nutrients.

2. Blood is not digested by the body unless it goes through the digestive system. Nothing is digested unless it goes through the digestive system.

3. Transfused blood enters directly into the "circulatory system' for the purpose of providing nutrients and oxygen to the cells.

4. Things introduced into the body by IV are not consumed by directly received into the circulatory system by absorption into the blood.

Now for the Scriptures:

When dealing with scripture one must exegete, not eisegete.

exegesis: Critical explanation of interpretation of scripture based on what is being presented by scripture and context.

eisegesis: Reading into interpretation ones own ideas and bias.

It should be know, that the Bible does in fact command that we abstain from blood. But what was the Bible saying:

1. Abstain from blood as a source of food!
2. Abstain from blood from things sacrificed to false Gods.

During Biblical times, just as now, people used the blood of animals as a food source. You have heard of "duck blood soup" "blood sausage" etc.

It was also common among the cults of that day to drink the blood of sacrificed animals, and humans in some regions and offer it to the believers in a form of communion.

Today, we have blood soup(polish) black pudding,blood pancakes from Sweden. Hunters have long practiced drinking the blood or eating the organs of their first kill.

These things are what is commanded to abstain from.

Derrick you had a questioner that had a very valid point. I also brought up the same argument. If a Jehovah's Witness likes a rare steak, is it ok? By their own rationale and by Bible standard, no it is not. OBSTAIN FROM THE BLOOD AS A SOURCE OF FOOD! A rare steak is bloody. The steak is ingested as food along with the blood which is said to add flavor. This is intentionally taking in blood for taste and pleasure. No other way to look at it. Jehovah is not gonna take an excuse "Forgive me...but you know i like a bloody steak"

As far as scriptures, we will get more in depth in part 2 of this writing. But for now lets deal with the most often quoted scripture by JWS concerning blood:


Acts: 15:29
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

This same message is given at verse 20. But what was really being said? If you read the entire chapter, you will find that the apostles were instructing "New Gentile" converts. The were not placing on them all Jewish custom, but rather instructing them that the former practices of eating strangled meats, drinking blood, eating sacrificed animals etc. is not acceptable and forbidden. That the things they did in pagan worship and lifestyle were no longer to be practiced.

As I said, we will get into the others passages of scriptures on blood and tie them together in part 2 to see what the Bible really says on the issue.

I leave you with question:

In different cultures there are different foods and ways to eat them.

in America, we like a bloody rare, med rare steak. I has been said the "Jehovah is reasonable" meaning he will understand.

So then is it acceptable for a JW in Sweden to eat blood pancakes? or a JW in poland to eat Blood Soup? Or one to eat black pudding or blood sausage? I mean blood sausage for all intents and purpose is the same as a rare steak

God Bless and Keep you Brother Derrick
Rev. Darryl Murphy

I am really looking forward to your comments on this one.

Answer
Hello, Brother Murphy.  Its good to hear from you.  I trust you and your family are well.

First off, I want to thank you for sharing your personal experiences with the readers.  I had no idea that you had such a close and personal encounter with the blood issue.  I am truly sorry that you had to experience the loss of your mother, and because of a belief that was not even hers, but was imposed upon her.  I can't even begin to imagine how difficult that has been for you to deal with.  I hope you were able to restore your relationship with your father, in some way.  Although I can't personally imagine how difficult that would have been, under these circumstances.  This was a decision that your mother had every right to make for herself, and making her go through that for a belief that she did not hold to, is simply wrong in so many ways.

You wrote...."It seems Rando is at it again, but this time about blood."

Yes, Rando can never talk about one subject at a time.  In fact, we all saw him show his cowardice when you invited him to have a public discussion on the Trinity and Modalism.  I told you up front, that Rando is all mouth, and would not back up any statements he makes.  He never does.  In fact, I often confront him over his lies about me, and he rejects those questions as well, because I ask him for quotes that would validate what he is claiming.  He's a liar, and is led of demons.  

Actually, he is completely off the deep end, now.  He thinks nobody detects what he is doing, but he has made several mistakes here lately, that have given him away.  He has now taken to harassing even his fellow JW experts, yes, even one who is his "friend", and trying to lay the blame on me for it.  He gave himself away, big time, by making a few mistakes.  I'll let him figure out what they were.  He is in all-out attack mode against me, but he will not prevail.  He's a joke, and a coward.  He couldn't defend any of his beliefs, in a head-to-head discussion.  He is really showing himself now, with that post to Ms. T, claiming he used to work "bus route" with me....lol.  Dead give-away, there.    

This guy is the biggest liar I have ever witnessed, by far.  You challenged him, and he showed that he was nothing but hot air.....as everybody already knew, anyway.

But like you said, he is "at it again", on a completely different topic.  Rando can't discuss ANY topic intelligently.  And it looks like his questioner, "Little LOL", has come out of hiding again.  Read their posts, to see why I gave her that nickname.  I always love it when she shows up....never a dull moment.  I've learned that every time I challenge her to a discussion, she disappears for awhile, but then makes her way back after the heat is off.

In fact, I regret not being able to respond to your question yesterday, but I'm kind of glad that I got to read "Little LOL's" post this morning, before replying.  Her post merely reinforced the idea that, we are supposed to "ABSTAIN FROM ALL BLOOD", but its okay to eat just a little.  Simply amazing.  That's like saying that we're supposed to "abstain from all appearance of evil" (1 Thess. 5:22), but that its really okay to be involved with a "little" appearance of evil.

These people are amazing.  It would seem to me, that if a person is to abstain from ALL blood, and if meat has some blood, then we should abstain from meat.  But then, we all know the Bible allows the eating of meat.  So, I think maybe they have misunderstood the entire point of the Scripture to begin with.

For instance, this quote from "Little LOL"...."I was noticing just how DUMB this clown Derrick Holland and his illogical little friend Kevin NEVER LET GOD SPEAK TO THEM USING THE BIBLE."

You know, Brother Murphy, I don't believe I would be calling people "dumb", if I couldn't even write a complete sentence.  Have you ever read such a garbled mess, as that?  Can't even write a correct sentence, and calling people "dumb" at the same time.


Anyway, on to your post....

You mention about the WT change of policy.  You know, I have heard some about this, but am not really familiar with all it entails, or if there has been a real change.  I hope you can expound further on this.  From what I am reading in your comments, they have basically said its "up to the person's conscience", but that these are just words, in that the person's conscience HAD BETTER lead them to refuse a transfusion, or they can still be disfellowshipped.  Is that right?  If so, then has anything really changed in the policy, besides the wording?

I was also intrigued by him telling you that..."There has been new light shed" .  If the policy is essentially the same as before, with only the wording being changed, then what is the "new light", exactly?  

That's about like when organ transplants were condemned between 1967-1980.  JWs today try to say it was a "matter of conscience", but their own literature clearly said that organ transplants were "cannibalism".  So, was it a "matter of conscience" to be a "cannibal", during that time?

Brother Murphy, you wrote...."So now what does the Bible really say about transfusion? NOTHING! Transfusion did not become a practice until thousands of years later. Is transfusion the same as digestion? NO! I repeat NO!"

You know, THAT is the heart of this issue.  The Bible says NOTHING about it...period.  The practice of blood transfusions was unknown in Acts 15, and it certainly was not what they had in mind.  In fact, if you read the broader context of Acts 15, it is clear that this list of requirements was given, to promote fellowship between Jewish Christians, and new believers who were GENTILES, so as to not offend the Jewish brethren.

The list of prohibitions consisted of 4 things, some of which were inherently wrong (fornication, for example), and some which were NOT wrong, in and of themselves (eating meat offered to idols).  The entire point, was to promote harmony and fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers, and not to do something that would be a stumbling-block to another brother or sister.  

But the Witnesses seem to want to impose a modern-day practice, into a prohibition given before that practice even existed.  

You can point out that this was obviously referring to abstaining from blood in a DIETARY manner, and they say..."The Bible says to abstain from blood, and this applies to ALL areas!!!" , even though eating blood and transfusing blood, are not the same thing.  

But okay, let's humor them....If the command to "abstain from blood" applies to everything involving blood, rather than just dietary uses, then I wonder....

If I see someone lying on the side of the road after a car accident, and they are bleeding, and I try to help them and wind up getting blood all over myself, have I broken God's law to "abstain from blood"?  

If a child has a bloody nose, and I try to help him get cleaned up, have I "abstained from blood"?

Now, these may sound like ridiculous questions, and they are, because the obvious answer is....YES, I have abstained from blood, because the passage wasn't referring to helping someone who was bloody.  It was referring to EATING blood, in a specific setting.  To add any other interpretation than the one originally intended, is to impose my own ideas into the Scriptures, instead of drawing out the intended idea.

Like you said....Exegesis vs eisegesis.

And you know, it interesting....The Jews themselves, to whom the very command was originally given, do NOT have a problem with blood transfusions.  And I am referring to the very people who DEMAND that any meat they eat, pass the test of being "kosher".  In fact, let me give a little fact here, in how a meat is determined to be "kosher", and fit for consumption by a Jew....

"Kashering (Removing the blood) & removing the veins and skin (‘Porschen’ or ‘Nikkur’):

After the animal is slaughtered, the Kosher Supervisor and his team treiber the carcass by removing certain forbidden fats and veins. After the meat has been treibered, it is soaked in a bath in room temperature water for a half hour. To draw out the blood, the soaked meat is then placed on special salting tables where it is salted with coarse salt on both sides for one hour.

And these are the very same people who will give blood, or receive a blood transfusion, without hesitation.  

Brother Murphy, have you ever known a JW that refused to eat FAT, which was also part of the dietary prohibition in Leviticus 7:23-27?

I actually asked an Orthodox Jew about the notion that the laws against eating blood in Leviticus, apply to blood transfusions, as well.  He told me that the JWs are virtually ALONE in their misunderstanding of this law.

On another note, it seems the very first transfusion of human blood to another human occurred in 1818, and it became more common practice later on, when blood typing and matching had been discovered.  Now what is interesting about that, is that the WT did not prohibit blood transfusions until it had become COMMON practice for nearly 50 years!  Yeah, yeah, I know..."new light".  But that just doesn't cut it.  We are told that this is a matter of salvation, and that a person can actually "lose out on life" for receiving a transfusion, and that there will be some kind of great reward for "maintaining integrity" and refusing blood, for either yourself, or your child.  

I wonder why Jehovah waited so long, to reveal "new light" on such a vital topic, that affects one's very salvation??


You wrote...."1. Blood is not a nutrient it carries nutrients.

2. Blood is not digested by the body unless it goes through the digestive system. Nothing is digested unless it goes through the digestive system.

3. Transfused blood enters directly into the "circulatory system' for the purpose of providing nutrients and oxygen to the cells.

4. Things introduced into the body by IV are not consumed by directly received into the circulatory system by absorption into the blood."

You hit the nail on the head, here!  And this is where they miss it so badly.  They use that silly analogy of "If your doctor told you to abstain from alcohol, would you inject it into your veins"? .  Yet, blood transfused into the veins, does not even act as food, nor does it function in any way similar to food.  It is not digested, nor does it involve the digestive system.  It involves the circulatory system, so there is NO WAY one can argue that a person who has had a blood transfusion, has "eaten" blood.  

There will be some people answering to God, for causing the unnecessary deaths of innocent children, because of teachings like this.  People should not have to die, because of some man-made interpretation, forbidding a practice that was completely unknown in the day that the prohibition was given.  Especially an interpretation that came along some 50 years AFTER blood transfusions had become a common practice, all because of the arbitrary decisions of whoever happened to be making the rules at the time.


You said...."Derrick you had a questioner that had a very valid point. I also brought up the same argument. If a Jehovah's Witness likes a rare steak, is it ok? By their own rationale and by Bible standard, no it is not. OBSTAIN FROM THE BLOOD AS A SOURCE OF FOOD! A rare steak is bloody. The steak is ingested as food along with the blood which is said to add flavor. This is intentionally taking in blood for taste and pleasure. No other way to look at it. Jehovah is not gonna take an excuse "Forgive me...but you know i like a bloody steak"


Brother, if I may, I am also going to quote a comment from the "Little LOL" questioner of Rando's. She wrote the following nonsense....

LITTLE LOL:  "When a person slaughters an animal to eat for food, you simply drain it until there is NO EXTREME AMOUNT OF BLOOD in the animal to SELL IN A "MEAT MARKET" or a Butcher shop! Just hat is left in the certain amount left in the meat that is acceptable. This is COMMON SENSE, AND COMMON KNOWLEDGE! LOL!!! Jehovah God is NOT an extremist with his people, but a SENSIBLE GOD."

Its really hard to read this person's writings, and not laugh.  First, the terrible grammar and spelling, while calling others "dumb" and "fools".  

But let's be "reasonable", if we may.  This person claims on one hand, that we are to "abstain from blood" when it comes to saving a life, in a manner NOWHERE talked about in the Bible.  But then, they tell us that Jehovah is "sensible", and overlooks eating a little blood, in a good, under-cooked steak.  As long as the meat was drained in the first place, then hey, its no big deal to eat the blood that is left there...even though the command in Acts WAS to abstain from EATING blood.  

But then, they want us to believe that this same God Who is "sensible" and "reasonable" when it comes to ignoring His command to "abstain from eating blood", is highly angry if we take human blood (not mentioned in Acts 15), do NOT kill the donor or harm them in any way, and transfuse their donated blood into the body of someone else, and save their life (something NOT prohibited in Acts 15).

Yeah, that's real "sensible".  

Brother Murphy, do you ever find yourself just shaking your head in amazement, at the nonsense that some people are not ashamed to write?  I sure do.

But let me get this straight, and let's use LOGIC....Even if what "Little LOL" said above, is true, then it would still make sense that we should COOK the steak properly, and get as much of the blood cooked out, as possible.  Look, I do a lot of grilling out, so I know what I'm talking about.  When you cook a steak or hamburger on the grill, the juices that come out at the top, are first red (bloody).  But when the meat is FULLY COOKED, well-done, then the juices run CLEAR.  Now, it isn't rocket science to figure this one out.  The blood, when cooked long enough, cooks out.  When the meat is under-cooked, the blood remains.

So, even if that nonsense written by "Little LOL" were somehow true, then the JW who sincerely WANTS to obey God's command and believes that Jehovah wants them to abstain from all blood for any reason, should REFUSE to eat a rare steak, because simply allowing it to fully cook, would be removing most or all of the blood left, while eating it rare, means they ARE EATING BLOOD!  And doing it intentionally, at that.....

So, there is still no excuse for eating a rare steak, if indeed they want to take Acts 15 out of its original context.

You are correct....To eat a rare steak, is to intentionally take in blood for taste and pleasure, which is evidently "okay", but its NOT "okay" to transfuse blood, not for pleasure, but to save a human life.

Why, of course....That makes perfect sense.   

Brother Murphy, as always, you make some very excellent points.  Your posts are very well thought-out....Not like the ridiculous and immature rants of those who try to counter the common sense and Scriptural arguments we have raised, with their utter nonsense.  Like Rando, and his ilk.

But yes, I would like to see a JW answer your question...."So then is it acceptable for a JW in Sweden to eat blood pancakes? or a JW in poland to eat Blood Soup? Or one to eat black pudding or blood sausage? I mean blood sausage for all intents and purpose is the same as a rare steak."

I've always been intrigued by the fact also, that JWs are forbidden to receive whole blood or the 4 primary components of blood, but ARE allowed to receive various fractions, which are parts of, or derived from the whole blood or its components.  

The reasoning given, is about like saying its okay to eat ham, bread, cheese, mayonnaise, and pickles separately, but its a sin to take these items and make a sandwich.  

And people will sacrifice their very lives, for these man-made decisions.  

Brother Murphy, thank you for writing, and I am very anxious to see Part 2, of your writing.

God bless, and have a great evening.


Derrick  

Jehovah`s Witness

All Answers


Answers by Expert:


Ask Experts

Volunteer


Derrick Holland

Expertise

I was raised in the religion known as Jehovah`s Witnesses for 13 years. Since becoming a born-again Christian, I have researched extensively this religion, especially their doctrines and their history. I can answer questions about their doctrines from the perspective of Biblical Christianity. To be clear: Jehovahs Witnesses is the religion of my upbringing, though I myself was never baptized into the religion, nor have I ever been considered as a Jehovahs Witness.

Experience

29 years of Biblical research into the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, and how they differ from the teachings of the Watchtower.

Organizations
I would advise each questioner to this forum, to carefully READ the profiles of the various volunteers. There are several such as myself, who are not practicing JWs, but will provide you with an accurate and honest answer, regarding JW teaching. If we don't know the answer, we will try to research and get it for you. There are also some excellent practicing JWs here, who also endeavor to give you a factual and honest answer, based on their point of view. I believe by getting both points of view, the questioner can weigh the evidence for themselves, and make an informed decision. Unfortunately, there are also 3 here who claim to be JWs, but do NOT give honest, or well-researched answers. They will tell you only what they want you to believe, and they often hide facts about the history of their religion, as well as print untruths about other people's beliefs. This is done in an attempt to deceive the unsuspecting reader. It can be easily seen who these 3 are, simply by reading the public posts and "answers" which they write. Their posts will normally be filled with personal attacks, and if you question them about some teaching or aspect of the Watchtower that makes them uncomfortable, they will often reject your question, question your motives for asking it, tell you that you have been reading "apostate" sites, or turn the conversation into an attack on another expert. These ones are better avoided, as there is nothing to be gained by way of positive discussion, as they are not interested in intelligent conversation, or honest dialogue. If after reading the forum, you still have any questions as to who they are, just ask me, and I will be happy to tell you. And I can also provide documentation of their willful dishonesty. One thing is for certain...in a forum where people from both sides claim to be "Christians", there should never be any willful lying. Such ones only create a distraction in the forum, and provide nothing of any real value.

Education/Credentials
High School, some college. Studies of God's Word, the Bible, and how it compares to JW theology. I have found my own personal study and experiences to be far more valuable than any formal education or training. The Bible message is clear...Salvation is ONLY through and by the shed blood of Jesus Christ, and no religious organization has a thing to do with it. While attendance at a Bible-preaching, Bible-believing church is a must for spiritual growth and fellowship, no church can grant salvation to its members. Nor is joining a particular group a prerequisite for being saved.

©2016 About.com. All rights reserved.