 |
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||
www.Quotes-Watchtower.co.uk |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Jensen Letters Following is a remarkable dialogue between an active elder in the United States and the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses about the subject of blood transfusion. The letters show very clearly the difficulties Elders’ face in explaining the Watchtower’s current stance with regard blood and its derivative products, to rank and file Jehovah’s Witnesses and people of the medical profession. It appears obvious that there is no Biblical reasoning for the treatment of different blood factors and the current stand is a man made ruling. The question that should be on every Jehovah’s Witnesses lips is whether they would allow the decision of having or not having a life saving procedure be determined by 12 fallible fellow men in Brooklyn. Please also note the lack of response from the Watchtower Society for a number of brother Jensen’s letters. The letters are raising very legitimate and important life or death questions but the Watchtower, like in many other cases, fail to make the effort to respond accordingly. It would seem that the Watchtower Society did not really think out the recent changes to the absolute ban on blood and find their arguments very assailable. [The below has been copied from www.jwtruth.com] |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
First Letter February 16, 1998 From: R. Jensen To: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society Re: Blood and upholding righteous standards Dear Brothers I am an elder in the C-------- congregation in C-------- Alabama. What I write about in this letter has nothing to do with any past, present or foreseeable judicial activity in our congregation. The contents are concerning my own activity in the ministry with persons in the health care industry. The letter is quite long and I appreciate your perseverance in both reading and responding. In my secular employment I have need for somewhat close association with a few physicians and insurance claims examiners related especially to workers compensation issues. These individuals have heard expressions of my faith on opportune occasions, and beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses have been the subject of friendly and meaningful conversation. Our discussions regarding Jehovah's Witnesses have never been a point of contention between us, and indirect benefits have been reported by one physician regarding local publishers. On occasion some of these physicians or insurance claims examiners will call me with questions about Jehovah's Witnesses and the medical use of blood, usually they are quite simple questions. In the last few months questions have been presented for which I have no answer, it is these questions about which I write. Before getting to the meat of this issue I can tell you I have spoken with four (4) different elders and our current circuit overseer brother W---- Skogsberg, none could provide answers for the particular questions asked. Before writing this letter or speaking to those brothers, I studied and reconsidered many scriptures on this issue, and countless articles in our publications. It was suggested by some that I call our assigned hospital liaison committee, but I really don't want to bother them and that is not their intended assignment, to answer questions from the field ministry. I was encouraged by all to write the Society, so I am writing. On this subject the two type parties have different perspectives on this issue. Insurance claims examiners are interested in reducing the claims for their respective companies. Physicians are more interested in knowing how to deal with patients who happen to be Jehovah's Witnesses. All parties generally enjoy scriptural discussion. I have told both that our organization has a hospital liaison committee that would likely be glad to address their concerns in person. Each insist they are more comfortable with the informal setting of our personal one-on-one discussions (our meetings are rarely formal, usually it happens that a physician or claims examiner simply drops by my office for a visit or we may have a business lunch together). Of interest to the physicians is how our organization deals with persons who decide to accept blood components. They understand and respect elements of our judicial process, that of assisting those who have fallen into grave sin and protecting the spiritual interests of our brotherhood. They begin having the questions about which I write when we discuss how Jehovah's Witnesses deal with publishers differently due to particular blood components accepted. I have relayed to them what is stated in many publications (we spent considerable time in the w90 6/1 30-1). Specifically they question why we do not deal judicially with publishers accepting injections of blood components as long as they are from the fractions of protein, hormone, salts or enzyme components of blood, when we do deal judicially with publishers accepting any components of red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma (even if these have been accepted in their component form and not as whole blood). The most direct difference these physicians see between the two is in the relatively small measure of some blood components compared to other blood components and the amounts usually administered (they see all as being of blood), and that it appears our organizational tolerance (referring to actions left to conscience and not dealt with judicially) is somehow determined by individual conscience. They thus wonder why the entire matter is not left to personal conscience by our organization. Regarding conscience I reminded them that all among Jehovah's Witnesses are free to do whatever they wish as individuals, our brotherhood simply establishes with scripture what practices we permit among ourselves and who we thus recognize as fellow worshippers. It was made plain that while acceptance of some blood components is left to publisher's individual conscience, Jehovah's Witnesses do not endorse the use of any blood products. Further, I reminded them as physicians they are not spiritual shepherds and should concentrate on treating the whole person, respecting personal religious convictions of individual patients. They ask the following: Regarding judicial / non-judicial status: Is it the amount of blood or the particular components of blood one accepts that measures when we deal judicially with someone? Regarding our understanding of the prohibition in Acts 15:29: What is Jehovah's Witnesses' definition of blood? I understand there is some overlapping in the questions above. I have categorized the questions in an attempt to provide the different contexts in which they were asked. Also, regarding Acts 15:29, there was discussion about the passage of antibodies and proteins via the placenta. This did not seem to satisfy their questions from a scriptural position and there was reluctance to accept that only antibodies and/or proteins passed through the placenta. One asked: "How do you think water is delivered to an unborn child if not from the mothers blood, specifically from the plasma?" He added: "Even though their blood systems do not actually intermingle, the source of nourishment for the unborn is from the mothers blood." It seemed unlikely to them that God's Law stated to Noah had anything to do with the inner workings between fetus/placenta/mother. In the course of conversation I used the illustration of the alcoholic being advised by his physician to abstain from alcohol and how this prohibition would certainly include intravenous acceptance of alcohol. In response one physician asked: "If, as your doctor, I said "abstain from eating meat", should I object to your acceptance of an organ transplant which could serve to sustain your life?" Further he asked: "If I told you to abstain from alcohol, does that mean I should object to some medical use of alcohol to preserve your life?" I explained that my illustration was intended only to show that drinking or eating is similar to intravenous transfusion into the body, reminding him that intentional eating of blood is prohibited by God. Otherwise I had no response to his illustrated questions except by reminding him in this case it is not a physician requiring abstinence but our Creator, and since his standards call for abstent ion from blood, Christians should obey. He agreed, and then said "that's all well and good except for this, it seems Jehovah's Witnesses are selective on how to obey this command and how to uphold it in your congregations, either you should abstain from medical use of blood or not, it seems that "some blood" is allowed while "other blood" is not. We also discussed how Jehovah's Witnesses view misuse of blood in other ways, and how blood should be disposed of when no longer part of the individual or creature. Regarding general misuse of blood, I was asked if I had any idea how much blood had to be "misused" (by Jehovah's Witnesses' standards) to produce the blood components which our organization leaves to conscience, I had no idea (and still don't). He said it is a considerable amount, and that if I thought a single unit of blood being transfused was objectionable and considered misused I should go to a facility where blood is separated and processed and just look at the amount of blood being misused in order to gain the "accepted" fractions. Being ignorant of this particular process I did not have a response, but it seems reasonable that misuse of blood would be an important factor regardless of whether transfusion or injection into humans occurs, because we consider an y misuse of blood to be serious as described in the October 15th 1981 Watchtower and elsewhere. (w81 10/15 30) One comment made in this Watchtower is "such commercialization of blood would not be in accord with deep respect for the life-representing value of blood." Is not the handling and processing of blood for medical products (which are bought and sold for profits) considered a commercialization of blood? Wouldn't this commercialization then be just as reprehensible as accepting whole blood transfusions, especially if it is true that large volumes of blood must be processed for the intended purpose of commerce? Could a brother be acceptable spiritual association if he owned and operated an establishment which specialized in the handling of large volumes of blood in order to separate for sale and use certain blood fractions which are left to individual conscience as to their use? It seems that the voluntary acceptance of blood fractions clearly and directly contribut es to the wholesale misuse of blood because of the obtaining, storage and handling of the blood. (w75 page 216) These men have asked questions not simply because they work in the field of health care, they also seem to have interest in the Bible. They have not indicated to me any attempt to thwart our association, the subject of heath care happens to be their interest and naturally because of our position on blood they are inquisitive. Obviously numerous questions have arisen from worthwhile conversations with these individuals. I have attempted to simplify this letter, but much is being compressed into these few paragraphs. Please respond to each point as there is potential of advancing these discussions to higher ground, possibly starting a Bible study with at least one of these individuals upon clarification of the aforementioned. I too desire a better understanding of how we can determine Scripturally that elders should deal judicially with publishers because of a particular component of blood accepted, while not dealing with publishers accepting other components. Especially confusing is a statement made in the June 1st 1990 Watchtower on page 31, it says: "Others have felt that a serum (antitoxin), such as immune globulin, containing only a tiny fraction of a donor's blood plasma and used to bolster their defense against disease, is not the same as a life-sustaining blood transfusion. So their consciences may not forbid them to take immune globulin or similar fractions. They may conclude that for them the decision will rest primarily on whether they are willing to accept any health risks involved in an injection made from others' blood." (italics added) There are two things puzzling about this quote. First: With this information how can elders show individuals Scripturally why we tolerate acceptance of some blood components while dealing judicially with acceptance of other components? I have read countless articles on these issues and find no answer, nor could the elders I asked. Additionally there is another area I have questions about (briefly mentioned above). The w89 3/1 30 comments that Jehovah's Witnesses "DO NOT accept" certain autologous procedures. The reason for this is well stated: 'We have long appreciated that such stored blood certainly is no longer part of the person. It has been completely removed from him, so it should be disposed of in line with God's Law: "You should pour it out upon the ground as water."—Deuteronomy 12:24.' This bottom line reasoning can be found several times throughout the same article. With this bottom line scriptural law in mind it seems of importance that all blood fractions for medical use come from whole blood which has been intentionally: donated (or even sold), stored, processed, sold for commercial profit, and finally introduced into another person. How can it be Scripturally reasoned that all of this misuse of blood, e xplicitly to sell, buy or use blood fractions, can possibly be accepted by any Christian conscience? I can understand that even properly bled meat is going to have some blood remaining which is eaten together with the flesh, however, this eating of blood is not intentional, reasonable efforts have been made to 'pour out' the blood at the onset according to God's Law. My question arises because in the case of blood fractions administered medically there must first have occur several procedures which we "DO NOT accept", leading intentionally and directly to the product offered. Would not acceptance (and purchase) of the intentional end product be directly supportive of the process when there is no obligation on our part to accept such? Is the described process acceptable? (reference: w81 10/15 30, w90 6/1 30) Incidentally, regarding one insurance claims examiner (for workers compensation claims) who seemed initially concerned about the cost of nonblood medical management, I reminded him that many times workers compensation claims are astronomical, not because of the real needs of the individual but because of unscrupulous persons who are content to 'milk the system'. Some do this by feigning a work related injury when in fact the injury had occurred away form work, others by lazily manipulating some form of permanent total disability ('disability retirement' so-to-speak) on an otherwise resolvable though bonafide claim. After hearing how Jehovah's Witnesses teach good ethical and honest behavior in these areas he seemed convinced that these would not be issues with claimants who happened to be Jehovah's Witnesses and that in fact these claims likely would be easier to manage. Further I reminded the examiner that often claims can be resolved positively and more readily for all parties when the injured person knows and feels they are understood, appreciated and well looked after. He agreed and was glad to know more about Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs to that end. I look forward to reading your reply. I have understood and appreciated the Christian directive to abstain from blood for most of my life, and as an elder have several times assisted friends under stressful and even life threatening circumstances. Reading and studying further into this subject has only strengthened my resolve to abstain from blood, consequentially I look forward to your response. My personal questions are not intended as quibbling over the direction to allow mature Christians use of their own conscience in determining acceptance of certain blood products, I seek only understanding. You brothers are very busy up there, and we all surely appreciate your efforts. It is not my desire to burden you with additional work, I just can't nail down the scriptural answers to the questions above and need your assistance. I thank you in advance for your kind spiritual aid in this matter. Also I wish to thank all for the wonderful (though exhausting) Kingdom Ministry School we attended in November/December 97'. I enjoyed the positive nature of the program, all assignments were handled with excellence. Keep up the good work! Your brother in Jehovah's service, [Signed: R. Jensen]February 16, 1998 March 23, 1998 From: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society To: R. Jensen Dear Brother Jensen: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 16, 1998. You ask about the propriety of a Christian accepting blood fractions for medical purposes. You say you have been discussing this matter with various medical doctors and have found it difficult to answer some of their questions. We note you have considered what the Society has published on this subject, especially comments under "Questions From Readers" in the June 1, 1990, issue of The Watchtower. As indicated, the Society has left it to the individual Christian to decide whether he of she can accept blood fractions such as proteins found in the bloodstream, believing this to be in a gray area and this not the same as accepting a life-sustaining transfusion of whole blood or a major component for the same purpose. Some take the strict position that since a serum injection or another medical substance is made from something that formerly was in the bloodstream, even though a minor fraction, it would not be right to accept it in fighting against disease or to heal a wound. And if a Christian's conscience will not allow him to accept a serum, we would encourage him to respect the dictates of his conscience. However, as you know, when we say "fractions," it is not meant that a few drops or even a drop of whole blood is involved. Rather, whole blood is broken down into its various parts and certain proteins or other minute substances are taken from the breakdown product, called immunoglobulins (a very minor fraction) in which antibodies are known to reside, and these are isolated for use in fighting against disease. It might be argued that if blood was properly disposed of, it would not be possible to make serum injections, thus removing any reason for a question to come up on this matter. But as to disposing of blood (apart from its use in sacrifice), instructions in the Bible pertain to the slaughtering of animals for food. It is mentioned that the blood of the animal should be poured out on the ground as water and covered over. (Leviticus 17:13; Deuteronomy 12:15, 16, 24) Why was this done? Would it not be done in order to show that the one slaughtering the animal did not wish to eat the blood? It was, in effect, given back to Jehovah by pouring it out on the ground and covering it over. But if blood is taken from a body and, before it is disposed of, is broken down by a medical procedure and in the process a small fraction is extracted, not to eat or to nourish the body, but to immunize against a disease, could it be said that there is a clear violation of God's law not to eat blood? Jehovah is reasonable concerning his laws and their application. For instance, the Mosaic Law clearly stipulated that no Israelite was to "do any work" on the Sabbath. (Exodus 20:10) Yet, Jesus recognized that there was a difference between "workers who harvested [others'] fields" and "plucking and eating the heads of grain" in such fields. (James 5:4; Luke 6:1-5) Certainly, to harvest a whole field or a major portion of it would clearly violate the law of not working on the Sabbath. However, plucking and eating some of the heads of grain that made up a very minor fraction of the field was not prohibited by the Law. Such plucking was not to be considered "work" that was prohibited. So, too, the blood derivative is only a small fraction of blood, as mentioned above. Such can be distinguished from the major components of the blood, such as the red cells. For instance, if a person is told to discard a bushel of potatoes and not to eat them, would this command be violated if the potatoes were cooked and in the process the starch from the potatoes was isolated and used for medical purposes? First of all, could the ingesting of the isolated starch for medical reasons be said to be eating potatoes? Taking a transfusion of blood is clearly contrary to God's law. But what about accepting a small injection, not of whole blood or even a primary component of blood, but of a breakdown product, whether it be salt taken from blood, sugar taken from blood, iron, calcium, a hormone, or another fractionalized part? You also ask why one can be disfellowshipped for taking a blood transfusion but not for taking blood fractions. While both may affect the life of an individual, the expression "life-sustaining" in connection with blood transfusions is synonymous with the idea of taking in food for nourishment. In this regard both whole blood and major components of it carry nutrients, oxygen, and other nourishment to the body. It is this aspect of taking in blood, that is, to provide nourishment, that links blood transfusions with the Biblical prohibition. Note that "Questions From Readers" of the July 1, 1975, issue of The Watchtower stated: "The Bible specifically forbids the taking of blood to nourish the body.-Gen 9:4; Lev. 17:1-14; Acts 15:28, 29." The motive or reason for taking a serum is significantly different. It is not to feed the body, as would be the case if there was an eating of whole blood (or a major component thereof) by mouth or by having it transfused intravenously. Rather, the antibodies that have been separated out are administered for the purpose of immunizing the body against a certain disease. While blood fractions in certain situations can be lifesaving, they do not operate to feed and nourish the body and in this way sustain life but, rather, utilize other mechanisms. We trust the above comments will be helpful to you in reasoning on this matter from the Scriptures. We take this occasion to send our warm love and Christian greetings. With you in Jehovah's service, [Signed: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc.]
Second Letter (4 months later): July 31, 1998 From: R. Jensen To: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society Re: Blood and upholding righteous standards Dear Brothers I appreciate your letter dated March 23, 1998 in response to questions regarding blood and upholding righteous standards. Having read your response months ago, and meditated on it for some time, I'm impelled to ask additional questions. I do this in the spirit of our brothers in ancient Beroea who were 'examining the scriptures daily.' (Acts 17:10,11) In your letter the following statement is made: "It might be argued that if blood was properly disposed of, it would not be possible to make serum injections" This argument is precisely at the heart of one of my questions. I had asked: How can it be Scripturally reasoned that all of this misuse of blood, explicitly to sell, buy or use blood fractions, can possibly be accepted by any Christian conscience? Would not acceptance (and purchase) of the intentional end product be directly supportive of the process when there is no obligation on our part to accept such? Is the described process acceptable? (Please see my letter dated 2/16/98 page 5) As informed persons we all know that injections derived from blood would be impossible to manufacture commercially if blood was disposed of properly, just as your quoted words suggest. Thus Christians know that use of any blood derivative is dependent on blood not being poured out as commanded by God. In your response I found no answer to my questions (stated above) relative to this issue. Again, can it possibly be scripturally reasoned away that our intentional buying of products having blood components as a critical element does not support the wholesale abuse of blood? Should we view processing of blood for commercial gain as acceptable, that is, since we support it by voluntarily purchasing some of its end products? I feel an answer should be possible and that it would likely have a direct bearing on Christian conduct. Further, you state: "But if blood is taken from a body and, before it is disposed of, is broken down by a medical procedure and in the process a small fraction is extracted, not to eat or to nourish the body, but to immunize against a disease, could it be said that there is a clear violation of God's law not to eat blood?" From infancy I've been taught that transfusion of material intravenously is similar to eating, at least as far as abstention goes. As one of Jehovah's Witnesses I've often used the illustration of a doctor telling his patient to abstain from alcohol whether this be ingestion by mouth or intravenous transfusion, either way the patient must abstain from alcohol. In harmony with this thought, I must conclude that ingestion of a blood fraction, intravenously or otherwise would be eating. What if the same medical blood derivative could be given orally? It's still being given for immunization, would this then be eating? It seems the crux of the above quoted reasoning is that blood derivatives are 'not eaten to nourish the body.' Does the administering of blood components like white cells nourish the body like a meal? Would they even be administered as a meal, or would they only be administered for medical purposes? Someone starving could be saved if provided with food for ingestion, whether this be provided intravenously or by mouth. Would someone starving survive by having a blood component like white cells transfused into their veins? It seems white cells are used only for medical purposes, not to provide nutrition like a meal, but to increase the bodies ability to fight certain conditions. Isn't this similar to why other acceptable components are used? I understand from your letter that major components of blood carry some type of nourishment, but is it the same as eating a meal? Again, would white cells provide nourishing susten ance if given intravenously similar to its going through the human digestive track? Also, I'm quite sure that the 5% of blood which we tolerate acceptance of could be eaten for nourishment just as red cells or white cells could. Why does it become acceptable if this same material is ingested intravenously? Isn't this similar to eating? After all, some of these components are prescribed and administered in substantial amounts, especially when they are infused regularly. Food we eat does more than provide energy and mass, it nourishes us. Websters New World Dictionary of the American Language defines nourish as "to feed or sustain with substances necessary to life and growth." Food we eat nourishes us for life in more than one way, it not only provides for growth, but our bodies also gain necessary elements enabling it to fight against disease and thus live. Nourishing food, just like taking medicine, helps us fight off disease. In fact a well balanced diet is probably more responsible for enabling our bodies to fight disease than medicine we may be prescribed. An example of this is a mothers milk, components therein provide immunization for the child against certain diseases. Are the immunization components of a mothers milk not considered nutrition, is it not food? Even among adults it is a good diet that helps maintain our body's immune system, in fact, natural immunity vanishes with poor diet. Persons may take injections containing blood components or vitamin supplements to bolster their immune system against disease. Certainly taking vitamin or mineral supplements is eating, even though the actual amounts ingested with each dose may be relatively minute. Immunization injections containing blood components likewise serve to bolster the immune system, why is this not also considered eating? By definition medical use of blood components is life sustaining nourishment whether they be strictly for immunization or not. Your letter contains two illustrations. Below I quote excerpts of what seem to be key phrases from the first illustration followed by comments and questions: "Jehovah is reasonable concerning his laws and their application... plucking and eating some of the heads of grain that made up a very minor fraction of the field was not prohibited by the law. Such plucking was not to be considered "work" that was prohibited." For Israelites eating was a normal daily practice. God didn't prohibit eating on the Sabbath. (Exodus 16:29) Plucking grains from a field for immediate and personal consumption was nothing more than eating a meal. The effort involved in plucking those heads of grain was no more labor intensive than getting dishes off the shelf and serving an already prepared meal to a family. Your comment though seems to reason that size or amount somehow enters into the picture with the command to abstain from blood. I don't see the instance above as a matter of amount, but rather a matter of activity. They weren't "working" as prohibited in God's Sabbath law, they were eating their meal, an activity not prohibited on the Sabbath. It is true that God allowed certain activities on the Sabbath, though these did require exertion. But things God explicitly prohibited were not tolerated, not even when infringed upon in some minor way. Could Eve had eaten just minor components from the forbidden tree and been acceptable to God? Would Achan have lived had he only intentionally taken minor components of spoil? In these cases God gave explicit prohibitions, and amount had nothing whatsoever to do with the prohibition. God has said "abstain from blood." Is there something in this command separating blood components? This prohibition is quite explicit, just as His commands to take no spoils from Jericho and not to eat from that one tree in the garden of Eden. If we view acceptance of blood for medical purposes as breaking God's command to abstain from blood, how can we justify acceptance of 5% of it's components based on amount or nutritional value? The second illustration stated in part: "For instance, if a person is told to discard a bushel of potatoes and not to eat them, would this command be violated if the potatoes were cooked and in the process the starch from the potatoes was isolated and used for medical purposes? First of all, could the ingestion of the isolated starch for medical reasons be said to be eating potatoes?" When a child, if my mother had said, "R-------, dump those potatoes out. Don't eat them.", and I turned around and cooked the starch out and ingested it, you can be sure I'd have been disciplined. Her instructions were clear, dump them out and don't even think about eating those potatoes, meaning anything I had been told to throw out. Yes, cooking the starch out and ingesting it would be eating something we had been told to discard. You asked: "Could the ingestion of the isolated starch for medical reasons be said to be eating potatoes?" In the illustration we've been told two things, 'dump the potatoes and don't eat them.' Can you imagine God making this command and one of us replying, 'Okay, as soon as I cook out the starch I want for ingestion, I'll dump what's left over'? We were told to dump those potatoes, not what's left after taking what we want. Cooking the starch out and disposing of the remnants would not be discarding the potatoes, it would be throwing out leftovers. In the illustration we were told to "discard... potatoes", can you have a potato without starch? If God had given this command you can be sure he was well aware of each component—not just starch—making up the potato. Plus, in the matter of blood, we're dealing with God's chosen and sacred symbol of life, something that belongs to him. If God commanded "Retu rn those sacred potatoes to me, they belong to me, do not eat them", and we subsequently cooked the starch out for personal consumption then returned what's left, wouldn't that be stealing? Your reasoning above would allow the dissection of potatoes into individual elements and ingestion of the same individually, none of which would be "eating potatoes", and so doing would be tampering with another's property. What if you gave a team use of your baseball for the duration of their game, requesting the ball be returned to you at the games end and that your ball not be played for additional games? Of course you know some incidental damage and loss will occur to this ball while being played, thus you don't expect to have the exact or entire ball returned, it will have some obvious use in that minor bits of leather will be missing and perhaps even the cover thread may be severed in a spot or two, both of which are normal losses incurred while playing ball. At games end, if one of the players intentionally separates the threads off your ball - a minor, yet significant, component - intending to use them to repair the teams old ball, would this be acceptable? Or, what if this same player, after the game ended, intentionally picked pieces of sound leather off with a pocket knife, hoping to use these bits of leather for his own purposes? The player could reason, 'Well we did give back your ball, just without this one small component, and you said not to play additional games with it, and we're not, we only have the threads from your ball, not the windings necessary for play.' Would you feel you'd been dealt with in an upright manner? When we pour out our blood, we do more than simply pour out blood, we in effect give it back to Jehovah to whom it belongs. Are we faithfully doing this if we intentionally remove the minor "threads" and use them? Jehovah has explicitly forbidden humans to eat blood since the days of Noah. Later God's law on blood included directions on its proper disposal. Since blood is sacred and eating it is forbidden, it seems reasonable to apply Bible examples where sacred objects belonging to Jehovah were prohibited from personal consumption. Such an example can be found in the account of Jericho's destruction. Upon attacking, Joshua said: ""Shout; for Jehovah has given YOU the city. And the city must become a thing devoted to destruction; it with everything that is in it belongs to Jehovah... As for YOU people, only keep away from the thing devoted to destruction, for fear YOU may get a desire and YOU do take some of the thing devoted to destruction and do constitute the camp of Israel a thing devoted to destruction and bring ostracism upon it. But all the silver and the gold and the articles of copper and iron are something holy to Jehovah. Into the treasure of Jehovah it should go." (Joshua 6:16-19) With his words Joshua made God's direction clear, everything in Jericho belonged to Jehovah, nothing was to be taken for personal consumption. Everything was to be destroyed by means of fire. After the burning, metal objects - gold, silver, copper and iron - were to be turned over to the treasury at God's tabernacle. We all know the fate of Achan. In modern terms, he had taken several thousand dollars worth of God's belongings resulting in his and his family's death. Additionally, the Israelite nation suffered the death of thirty six men along with humiliating defeat at Ai. (Joshua 7:4,5) Would it have been acceptable if Achan had intentionally only salvaged some minor fraction of the booty? If Achan had found an inexpensive bottle of oil prior to the destruction by fire, would it have been acceptable for him to take home for his own use because of its medicinal value? God's direction was clear, if an Israelite were to "take some of the thing devoted to destruction" it would "bring ostracism upon" Israel. What if the leadership of Israel had tolerated individuals separating out minor components of booty for their own use? Another similar example is of "the tree of the knowledge of good and bad." This tree represented something belonging to God, it was his property, it was sacred, and humans were forbidden to "eat" from it. If it had been possible to take something from this tree and 'break it down by a medical procedure thereby obtaining some fraction component able to fight disease', would it have been acceptable for ingestion? Could we possibly conclude that this would not be eating from the tree? Are we to understand that some components of blood belong to Jehovah and some do not, allowing Christian tolerance of intentional ingestion of some blood fractions? When it comes to blood - God's sacred symbol of life - are we to understand that Christians can distinguish and separate off the parts they want before giving the rest back to God? One summation in your letter is that the aspect of taking in blood which is scripturally objectionable is it's providing of nourishment. You are specific that whole blood and major components carry nourishment to the body. Does this mean that the tolerated 5% of components carry no nourishment? If persons ate these components outright would they gain no nourishment from them? Aren't the immunization effects themselves nourishment just as the immunizing components of a mothers milk are to her infant child? Is it the major components themselves or the nutrition they carry which makes them objectionable? We have used the transference of antibodies and proteins via the placenta as reason that some might conscientiously accept these components of blood. However, when it come to nourishment carried by the blood, doesn't a fetus receive every bit of it's nutrition - including water from the plasma - from the blood of t he mother? How do we explain this seeming contradiction in deduction? By now I'm sure you can see my reluctance to continue blood specific conversations with individuals in the healthcare field. I have found it difficult - if not impossible - to express scriptural reasons for our tolerance of some blood components and intolerance of other blood components. One physician has recently raised the subject but I quickly changed the topic for want of scriptural answer. In view of the Bible's explicit directive to abstain from blood, and our governing its use among ourselves, it would seem that either we should tolerate no intentional acceptance of blood regardless of the component, or that we view acceptance of blood for purely medical reasons differently from eating blood as a meal. Our current teaching seems impossible to explain scripturally, leaving arbitrary reasoning as our answer. Until now I have chosen not to share the information above with those to whom it was intended because I don't understand your response as it is. I would ask your re-examination of my initial letter together with this reply. I express my deepest appreciation for your earnest efforts. Thanks in advance. Recently we enjoyed our district convention program carrying the theme "God's Way of Life". It provided refreshment and instilled enthusiasm for living God's way. The book entitled Is There a Creator Who Cares About You? along with the brochure What happens to Us When We Die? I have found most strengthening. I wish to express my appreciation for such provisions. Keep up the good work! Your brother in Jehovah's service, [Signed: R. Jensen] Enclosure: Copy of my original letter dated 2/16/98
August 24, 1998 From: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society To: R. Jensen Dear Brother Jensen: Your letter of July 31, 1998, has been received, and we note your response to our recent correspondence to you in connection with the Biblical view of blood fractions. This is a matter that you have obviously given much thought to and we appreciate your concern in this regard. However, it seems that it would be appropriate at this time to let the matter rest. Of course, you are free to make your own personal decision in such matters, while at the same time allowing others to exercise their own freedom in making a personal choice. It is a pleasure to be associated with you and our brothers worldwide in the grand work Jehovah is having done in the earth today. Please accept an expression of our Christian love and best wishes. Your brothers, [Signed: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc.]
Third Letter (1 year and 3 months later): November 15, 1999 From: R. Jensen To: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society Re: Blood and upholding righteous standards Dear Brothers Back in 1998 I wrote you with questions regarding facets of our teaching and stance on use of blood. (See my letters dated 2/16/98 and 7/31/98) Those letters made clear my difficulty in teaching our present stance regarding medical use of blood. On this topic your last correspondence to me dated 8/24/98 said, "...it would be appropriate at this time to let the matter rest." I fully realized the gravity of what I had addressed to you and understood that you perhaps needed some time to consider what I had said. In that respect I agreed that letting the matter rest was a good idea and thus I was content to wait for a future consideration of the subject. In light of that, I confidently expected some forthcoming explanation to my questions in a Watchtower article or else personal correspondence. I do not expect that letting a matter rest means letting it die nor do I think that was your intention. For that reason I have patiently waited. At this time I again ask for your consideration of my questions in those letters. My reasons for being concerned about this topic are many and varied. As an elder I am expected to teach with conviction and to impart understanding. Such teaching is required from elders in several circumstances. Those circumstances can be in our public ministry, one on one with publishers, publicly from our Kingdom Hall platform, in judicial hearings, etc.... In each case elders have a responsibility to teach with conviction and to impart understanding. While all will not accept our convictions or understandings we should nonetheless have sound explanations for them. We should have, know and understand the reasons for our answers. In this case we should have scriptural reasons for answers from our existing scriptural stance. How can I teach with conviction and impart understanding without reasons for the answers? Besides responsibilities as an elder I am also a husband and father. As a teacher my foremost responsibility is to my family. When questions are considered serious and worthy of an answer how can I so answer when I cannot explain it myself? In the case of my questions on medical use of blood, what do I say when I must admit that I do not have reasons for my answers? What will my wife and child think? How can I build within them conviction for something that I cannot explain? Circumstances have already put me in the difficult position of avoiding situations where my questions asked are likely to arise. I do not want circumstances where someone could be hurt or stumbled because of my truthful admission that I see no explanation for certain of our stances on what is or is not tolerated. Since my last correspondence I have been asked twice to help with serious medical issues involving blood. In each case I had to defer publishers to another elder by asking that they be contacted for help instead of me. I explained that I was unable to assist them as needed at the time and that the other elder could. What I did not tell them was what made me unable to help. One of those circumstances was an emergency and it was crushing to feel unable to help directly. Circumstances such as that have caused me much distress. When my brothers needed me the most I feared being there out of concern for stumbling them w ith my inability to answer legitimate though likely questions for which I see no scriptural answers. The potential is there to cause stumbling, or discouragement at least, when they are already in a vulnerable position. Then there is the matter of my family. Our daughter is now 16 months old. My wife and I have taken time to discuss what we should do in the case of a medical emergency involving blood. I must tell you that those conversations I find very stressful because I do not want to stumble my wife by admitting that I have serious concerns about not being able to explain with scriptures our stance of tolerance toward some blood components versus intolerance of other blood components. Then there is the discussion with our family physicians, which is likewise problematic. Besides those circumstances there remains my initial problem causing me to write you in the first place, that of being able to address this topic in our public ministry. Particularly is this problematic when the recipient is a healthcare professional fully aware of aspects of blood, medical procedures involving it and solutions derived from or utilizing components of it. My conscience dictates that I not lay a stumbling block before my brothers, family or anyone else if I can help it. Again that puts me in a stressful position of limiting who I can turn to for answers to all that I have asked in my former correspondence to you. Who can I turn to for scriptural answers regarding an existing scriptural stance if not to you brothers? Once back in 1980 (or it could have been 1981) I was told that brother Albert Schroeder was in the same hotel in which I was lodging for the convention in Jacksonville, Florida. At the time I had what was then to me a serious question for which I needed an answer. I was encouraged to just go knock on his door and ask. I did so and was warmly welcomed in and provided with an answer from the Bible. Well, I am again knocking at the door in need of an answer. While patiently awaiting answers to my questions I have continued to pray and ponder over our stance of tolerance toward some blood components and intolerance toward other blood components as well as our overall teaching regarding medical infusion of blood. That prayerful pondering has led me to the idea that it is not proper to make or impose distinctions or applications if they are not so specified in the Bible. It is inconsistent that we tolerate some components of blood for medical purposes while being intolerant of the very donation making that possible. It is contradictory that we denounce it when blood is stored for later consumption and then turn around and use blood components requiring massive amounts of blood stored as denounced. Without scriptural distinctions it is inconsistent that we tolerate some components of blood when every component from blood is equally of blood. As far as I can see, making such scriptural distinctions is impossible. Considering the aforementioned and that medical science will continue inventing various techniques for manipulating blood and dividing and using components of blood, it seems that we should apply the same onus toward all components of blood, either that of tolerating individual conscientious choice or that of intolerance of accepting any blood components. I hope the tenor of my letter is understood. I am not seeking to cause you brothers any distress. Indeed we all experience distress in these days and need for endurance. I support my entire association of brothers and am willing to give my life rather than needlessly stumble one of them. The Watchtower of June the 1st, 1982 on page 20 states, "At times, some bring to the attention of the 'slave' class various doctrinal or organizational matters that they feel ought to be revised. Certainly, suggestions for improvement are proper, as are inquiries for clarification." It is in harmony with that statement that my letter should be understood. Your last correspondence to me on this topic advised it was appropriate at that time to let matters rest. Hopefully you will see observance of that advice in my patience. Likewise I hope that you will see my request as genuine and worthy of serious consideration for an answer at this time, whether that be in personal correspondence or some future Watchtower article. I have enclosed my earlier letters for that purpose and your convenience. If you need any clarifications regarding my questions or suggestions feel free to write or call and I will clarify all that I can. Please be assured of my love for you and accept my appreciation for all your hard work in behalf of our neighbors, our brothers, my family and myself. Your fellow servant, [Signed: R. Jensen] Enclosure: Copy of my letter dated 2/16/98
February 21, 2000 From: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society To: R. Jensen Dear Brother Jensen: We acknowledge your letter of January 18, 2000, in which you sent us a copy of your letter of November 15, 1999. In addition to considering these two most recent letters from you, we have reviewed your two letters of February 16, 1998, and July 31, 1998, and our replies to you dated March 23, 1998, and July 24, 1998. Your concern is why the accepting of some fractions of blood for medical treatment has been left as a matter of conscience. Likely you will recall that at last week's study of The Watchtower, at the close of paragraph 18 on page 10 of the January 1, 2000, issue of The Watchtower, the point was made that "if a Christian does not fully understand a new explanation of a scripture, he does well humbly to echo the words of the prophet Micah: 'I will show a waiting attitude for the God of my salvation.'—Micah 7:7." We would like to encourage you similarly with respect to your questions on the matter of blood fractions. This is the wise and safe course. You state that you have difficulty "in teaching our present stance regarding medical use of blood." You recognize as an elder you are expected to teach with conviction and to impart understanding. You express concern that you felt unable in the past to assist in cases of your brothers where there was an issue involving blood. Properly, you are concerned about making decisions on this matter that will have Jehovah's blessing as to yourself and your family, and as to what you teach publicly. You also again bring into the picture your discussions on this subject with health-care professionals with whom you have contact and their reactions. Desiring to act conscientiously in all these respects is certainly commendable. However, care needs to be exercised, Brother Jensen, that you not seek to impose your deductions and conscience on others. For some decades now, "the faithful and discreet slave" has been giving the matter of blood usage in medical procedures careful and prayerful consideration in the light of the Scriptures. (Matthew 24:45-47) As blood began to be broken down into smaller and smaller component parts, arguments pro and con as to the use of these were considered. The consistent position of "the faithful and discreet slave" has been as expressed under "Questions From Readers" in the June 1, 1974, issue of The Watchtower: "While refraining from approving or condemning in such areas where we believe the decision must be left to individual conscience, we do, nevertheless, urge all to seek to maintain their conscience clear before God, never showing deliberate disrespect for his Word." And you will see this same balance reflected also in answers to a series of questions under "Questions From Readers" in the June 15,1978, and March 1, 1989, issues of The Watchtower. Thus, acceptance or nonacceptance of small fractions of blood is left for each one to decide conscientiously after weighing all factors having a bearing. In your case, if you find no basis for accepting any component from blood, no matter how small or for what purpose, in treating a medical condition, then that would be your decision before Jehovah. In deciding matters this way, you could go ahead with your service to Jehovah with a clear conscience. Others, after also carefully and prayerfully considering all factors having a bearing, have concluded that they could accept certain minor components. Should they not be allowed to accept the responsibility before Jehovah for their decision, just as you are allowed to do the same regarding your decision? Moreover, whatever one's decision is, this should not prevent him from helping others to understand what has been published by "the faithful and discreet slave" on the subject in the light of the Scriptures. Then those individuals can make their own informed decision. And this decision need not be, and should not be, because responsible brothers influenced them either way. As to this, we are aware that some elders, including some on Hospital Liaison Committees, have conscientiously decided that they personally do not wish to have certain minor blood components used in treating them, or none at all. But this position does not prevent them from being of help to their brothers and sisters, according to the need, when they need help understanding some aspect of what has been published on the use of minor blood fractions or some mechanical process that involves extracorporeal circulation of one's blood. Regarding those in the health-care field who do not always understand our position, we are sure you will agree that this is not unexpected. Even as to our rejection of whole blood or major components of blood, many feel we are being unreasonable. However, as to those who ask sincere questions, we might say that those brothers who make presentations before doctors and receive questions from health-care professionals often find it suffices to say that while individuals may not see the logic of a particular position or agree with our reasoning, we ask that they respect our religious position on this matter, which includes letting each one decide whether or not to accept a minor fraction of blood. This almost invariably absorbs any implicit demand that we explain what appear to be inconsistencies or why some of Jehovah's Witnesses feel they can conscientiously accept certain small fractions while others do not. We trust the additional comments above will be helpful. We take this occasion to send warm Christian love and best wishes. Your brothers, [Signed: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc.]
Fourth Letter (2 weeks later): March 1, 2000 From: R. Jensen To: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society Re: Blood and upholding righteous standards Dear Brothers I appreciate your February 21, 2000 reply in consideration of my letters dated February 16, 1998, July 31, 1998 and November 15, 1999 together with your previous replies dated March 23, 1998 and August 24, 1998. However, I fear that you brothers do not understand the full measure—indeed specific requests—of my concern. (Compare 2 John 12) For this reason and fearing that others carefully considering our stance on blood may realize similar difficulties I will make one more attempt to spell out more exactly those difficulties. Before doing so, as follows let me first ease your minds about concerns raised in your February 21, 2000 response. I am not seeking to impose anything on anyone, indeed I try hard to avoid such, nor am I inclined to do so. At this point I am not sure I could impose anything regarding medical use of blood components because I am unable to do so, which is part of my problem. For example, if a local friend chose to accept white corpuscles to bolster their immune system then as an elder I would be expected to impose our stance, which prohibits acceptance of white corpuscles. Since I cannot explain scripturally the distinctions of our stance I could not impose that stance—I would be forced to recuse myself as incompetent to hear the case. I am not seeking ways of convincing everyone that we are correct; such is unrealistic and contrary to Jesus' utterance that most are on the road to destruction. (Compare 2 Timothy 3:7) Regarding physicians or anyone else, I am not looking for ways of "absorb[ing] implicit demand[s]" but rather gaining needed conviction for teaching whether that be to physicians, my family, congregation publishers or anyone else. (See your letter dated February 21, 2000 page 2, par. 3) I am not seeking scriptural clarifications regarding a "new" teaching, but rather one that has existed for decades. Your letter of February 21, 2000 wisely admonishes that each of us should have or gain the waiting attitude of Micah. Regarding that attitude, as you noted The Watchtower of January 1, 2000 on page 10 makes the following comment: "If a Christian does not fully understand a new explanation of a scripture, he does well humbly to echo the words of the prophet Micah: 'I will show a waiting attitude for the God of my salvation.'" That comment is regarding how we should deal personally with "new" views, not how we explain views long held. My questions are not concerning something "new" but rather views held for decades. Is it unreasonable to request clarification of reasons/views offered regarding teachings decades old? Is it unreasonable that someone asked to teach asks for an understanding of the "reasons behind [the] answers" or "the Scriptural reasons for [the] explanations"? (See Organized To Accomplish Our Ministry page 44; Our Kingdom Ministry, February 2000 page 8) My concerns have existed for some time now, they are not new or short lived. I have asked you for scriptural clarifications. I have also waited, allowing time for your thorough consideration of my request. Regarding "new" views, we usually do give corresponding scriptural reasons for them. Whether we understand or not has more to do with our understanding of those scriptural reasons not just a "new" idea itself. In this case our stance is pretty clear—though I think dynamic details and their consequences are very much missed by many, including many of our brothers. What I have asked is for corresponding scriptural explanations regarding certain pertinent details of our stance. Now to clarifying issues of concern. Our stance on medical use of blood makes distinctions between components of blood. Naturally the question arises, If we tolerate intentional acceptance of one component of blood then why forbid intentional acceptance of other components of blood? Since we represent our stance as scriptural, in order to adequately defend distinctions made we must provide scriptural reasons for them, otherwise distinctions made become indefensible either way, the tolerance or the intolerance. Our literature and your previous replies indicate one possible scriptural distinction and one possible distinction as a matter of reasonableness. The one possible scriptural distinction is the element of nutrition, that is whether a blood component provides nutrition versus "utilize[ing] other mechanisms" thereby "immunizing the body from a certain disease." (See your letter dated March 23, 1998 page 2, par. 3) However, as previously expressed there are terrible flaws regarding the distinction of nutrition. Itemized below are three flaws in that distinction, two of which I enumerated earlier plus an additional one. 1. Components considered "a matter of conscience" are nutrition to the body, thus saying that nutrition is the distinction is indefensible. (See my letter dated July 31, 1998 page 2, par. 3,4) However, if a person were to take blood into his body for the treatment of disease, this would violate the law of God.—Ge 9:3, 4; Ac 15:28, 29; see BLOOD. Clearly that comment above has to do with affects of blood other than nutrition. Specifically that comment is contrary to the notion that utilizing components of blood for "immunizing the body from a certain disease" is okay, which confounds the "nutrition" distinction. The offered scriptural distinction as a matter of reasonableness has to do with whether we should consider parts of a substance the same as the whole. (See your letter dated March 23, 1998 page 2, par. 2) Such a distinction must be somehow defined (i.e., by uniqueness, size, amount, common recognition, etc.). Even then, since our stance is represented as scriptural, we must show scripturally that our distinction based upon reasonableness is proper (e.g., We could never say that reasonably certain minor aspects/components of porneia are tolerable because without exception the Bible says "abstain from fornication"—see 1 Thess. 4:3). However, as itemized below there are at least three terrible flaws regarding the idea of distinctions based upon reasonableness. 1. Components considered "a matter of conscience" are just as unique to blood as forbidden components thus no reasonable distinction can be made based upon uniqueness (i.e., white corpuscles are as unique to blood as clotting factors.). Also, classifying components of blood as "major" or "minor" components is meaningless unless "major" and "minor" is effectively defined. Additionally our stance on blood exhibits certain other contradictions/inconsistencies that appear indefensible. For example: 1. The contradiction of our utilizing donated and stored blood while simultaneously condemning the donation and storage of blood for medical use. In your February 21, 2000 reply you stated, "Your concern is why the accepting of some fractions of blood for medical treatment has been left as a matter of conscience." Actually, regarding fractions, more accurately my concern is "Why is accepting certain fractions considered 'a matter of conscience' while acceptance of other fractions is not considered 'a matter of conscience'"? I see no such distinction that can be made scripturally and my specific concerns—detailed above—are not addressed in your February 21, 2000 response. Like other brothers, I am able to tell our stance on medical use of blood and direct interested persons to where our publications address it. Afterward, as you say, each must decide for themselves, uncoerced, according to their conscience. But, what I am interested in is having scriptural answers to critical aspects of our position. Such answers allow that I can teach—and that with conviction—rather than just tell. Teaching with conviction requires knowing and understanding the reasons for answers or explanations, in this case scriptural reasons for a scriptural stance. My difficulty is with explaining and teaching our published "scriptural" stance with scriptures and sound reasoning, not informing persons what our stance is. (Compare The Watchtower of March 15, 1998 page 19, par. 4) I fear now that my concerns and questions raised about our present stance have no scriptural answers. If they existed I feel you brothers would have already shared them with me. This is very disheartening. Nevertheless, I will do my level best in serving Jehovah and trust that you brothers will continue pondering issues raised toward resolution. In the meantime if issues such as those expressed are raised to me I will show persons where our publications address them. If pressed for scriptural answers to issues about which I have questions myself then I must honestly reply that I do not know them. In some instances I may have to decline being used. In my November 15, 1999 letter I stated, "While patiently awaiting answers to my questions I have continued to pray and ponder over our stance of tolerance toward some blood components and intolerance toward other blood components as well as our overall teaching regarding medical infusion of blood." That pondering has included the idea that maybe my questions are irrelevant because perhaps our stance requires more than intended based upon scriptures, that perhaps "abstain from blood" does not address medical blood transfusion as we know it today, thus mooting my questions. So, regarding our overall teaching about medical infusion of blood versus the decree to "abstain from blood" and in harmony with admonitions in The Watchtower of June 1, 1982 page 20, par. 15, I submit a suggestion for an improved view of the decree to "abstain from blood". My suggestion is the result of long, hard, intense and sometimes distressful and prayerful consideration. I expect no response to it. I only submit it for your consideration. I assure you that my suggestion has only the loftiest of intentions to better understand, respect and obey our Father, Jehovah and His requirements. My motivation is genuine and not at all toward seeking ways of diluting God's express will. Seeking to dilute God's word is counterproductive toward pleasing our Maker and gaining His rich rewards. If you have any questions or wish to communicate regarding it you should feel free to do so but again, I have no need for a reply to it. I believe that my suggested view is already fundamentally realized in our publications yet without elaboration as they apply to the decree "abstain from blood" versus medical transfusion of blood as practiced today. I must admit that though I have always enjoyed reading and studying th e Bible along with vigorously researching our publications that I had to dig harder and deeper than ever to realize what turned out to be simple elements as presented in my suggested improved view. My suggestion is enclosed as a separate document. Though somewhat long it contains basic and simple elements strongly favoring the view presented. Finally, I know this is now my fourth letter to you brothers on the same subject of blood and upholding righteous standards. I am reminded of Abraham's questioning toward that one whom Jehovah was using. (Gen. 18:22-33) I hope you brothers will not chaff but rather that you will see a way to clarify my inquiries if possible. If need be I am more than willing to travel and meet you in person, face to face, so that with a full measure my questions, responses or suggestions can be understood and put to rest or to the test. (2 John 12) I want to express my appreciation to you brothers for responding at all to my letters regarding blood and upholding righteous standards. As I said earlier, considering the nature of my questions, I really had no one else to turn for dialogue. I realize that my letters have been somewhat long and tedious but that is the nature of corresponding by letter on such subjects as this, which I have tried to address objectively toward better understanding God's will. Again, I appreciate your time and responding. Please be assured of my love and respect for you and accept my appreciation for all your hard work in behalf of our neighbors, our brothers, my family and myself. Your fellow servant of Jehovah, [Signed: R. Jensen] Enclosure: Suggested View Of The Apostolic Decree "Abstain from blood" (6 pages) Suggested View Of The Apostolic Decree "Abstain from blood" Acts chapter 15 contains an apostolic decree that is binding upon Christians. Part of that decree requires that we abstain from blood and things strangled. (Acts 15:20, 29; see also 21:25) Faithfulness to Jehovah requires that we observe that decree by obeying it. Obedience to that decree is not optional for Christians. Questions arising in considering our stance on medical use of blood has led to reconsidering the basis for, import and application of the apostolic decree "to keep abstaining... from blood and from things strangled" and everything we have published concerning it. (Acts 15:29) Clearly that decree was instituted based upon the law God gave to Noah recorded at Genesis 9:1-16. Regarding the apostolic decree we teach that "there was not an imposing on Gentile Christians of a responsibility to conform to the Mosaic Law or some portion of it but, rather, there was a confirming of standards recognized prior to Moses." (See United In Worship of The Only True God, page 149) In short, we teach adherence to the apostolic decree as defined by what God said to Noah, not the Mosaic Law. Yet, we also utilize aspects of the Mosaic Law as applied to Israel to teach God's intentions regarding the prohibition decreed to Noah. In effect we teach that the law given to Noah as defined by application of the Mosaic Law to Israel defines the apostolic decree. Defining of the apostolic decree by prohibitions given to Noah is easily demonstrated scripturally. On the other hand, the extension of defining the apostolic decree by the Mosaic Law applied to Israel is more tedious and perhaps unwarranted. Before discussing whether the Mosaic Law applied to Israel should define aspects of God's prohibition regarding blood to Noah and by extension the apostolic decree, I want to first state the following premises: 1. The apostolic decree defined only by the law God gave to mankind through Noah is insufficient basis to conclude that God condemns medical blood transfusions as practiced today. If the first statement is true then it becomes critical to ascertain whether the Mosaic Law applied to Israel clarifies God's law to Noah. However, first we will take up whether the law to Noah necessarily prohibits medical blood transfusion as practiced today. As recorded at Genesis 9:3,4 God said to Noah, ""Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to YOU. Only flesh with its soul—its blood— YOU must not eat." Do those words provide a basis for absolutely prohibiting medical blood transfusion as practiced today? Prior to the flood Noah and his family witnessed extreme and growing degradation among their fellowman, including the wanton taking of human life—and probably animal life too. (Genesis 6:4,5; compare The Watchtower of January 1, 1986 page 11, par. 6) During the flood Noah and his family witnessed the most devastating event in mankind's existence up to that time. So, besides the wanton disregard for life manifest prior to the flood, during the flood Noah's family witnessed animal and human life being taken on an unprecedented scale. In fact the taking of human life nearly to extinction was the specific intention of the flood with catastrophic loss of animal life being consequential, yet it was not wanton. Afterward, considering what Noah's family had witnessed, God spoke to Noah regarding His valuation of life, the sacredness of life, making it clear, which is the context of Genesis 9:1-16. Though mankind had never been prohibited from taking animal life, according to Genesis 9:3,4 Noah/mankind was for the first time allowed to take animal life for food, he was permitted to kill and eat animal flesh. (Genesis 3:21) Also, through Noah, mankind was for the first time permitted to kill humankind, but only as recompense for committing murder. (Compare Romans 13:4) Though Noah was permitted to eat killed animal flesh he/mankind was prohibited from eating blood from such flesh. Out of regard for life, specifically Noah was prohibited from eating blood from life taken unilaterally though with God's permission. Out of respect for Jehovah's word Noah was to obey. Along with His decree to fill the earth and His unilateral rainbow covenant, Jehovah's decrees prohibiting eating the blood of slain animals and murder instilled a high regard for life. Germane to our subject is that Genesis 9:3,4 prohibits no more than eating blood obtained from the taking of life, from killing. That conclusion is certainly narrower than our present elaborated teaching. (See footnote 1) Is there scriptural confirmation of this narrower conclusion? Yes. A fundamental difference between the law given to Noah and the Law of Moses is that God's prohibition to Noah applies to all mankind whereas the Mosaic Law applied uniquely to the nation of Israel or proselytes to that nation. However, in the Law of Moses is found the curious text of Deuteronomy 14:21. Pertinent to our subject is Jehovah's decree to Israel, "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." With those words God stated that Israelites could appropriately provide unbled meat for purposes of eating to those whom the law of Noah applied. Since God has never revoked his law for mankind given to Noah we then must ask, Would Jehovah have suggested an act that would have facilitated, encouraged or aided in the breaking of His own law, His own expressed will? As Jehovah says, "I have not changed." (Malachi 3:6) Additionally, under inspiration the disciple James stated, "with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone." (James 1:13) God certainly has never facilitated, encouraged or aided in breaking His own law to mankind. Since 1) God would not facilitate, encourage or aid humans in breaking his own law and since 2) Deuteronomy 14:21 contains Jehovah's decreed permission to give already dead and thus unbled meat for purposes of eating to those outside the Mosaic Law yet under the law to Noah then that text stands as confirmation of the conclusion that Genesis 9:3,4 prohibits no more than eating blood obtained from the taking of life, from killing. (Compare Insight On The Scriptures Volume 1 page 345, par. 6; See footnote 2) Therefore Deuteronomy 14:21 demonstrates that God does not hold blood as more sacred than life itself. It demonstrates that it was not blood itself or necessarily the eating of blood that God was so interested in when addressing Noah. Rather, Jehovah was interested in instilling a high regard for life. Prohibiting mankind from eating the blood of animals slain by man for food and decreeing that murderers are subject to death acted as strong reminders of God's high valuation of life, the sanctity of life, which is the context of Jehovah's post-flood decree to Noah. After that catastrophic loss of life God wanted to remind mankind that life is precious. Jehovah did not want mankind's previous degradation or presumptions based upon His own action of the flood to minimize life's value thus He made His views plain by decree. Now we get to the question of whether the Mosaic Law applied to Israel clarifies God's law to Noah. We will see that between the two laws in question that a very relevant difference exists in the application and scope of the Law of Moses as well as God's reasons for a specifically more restrictive decree in respect to prohibitions on blood. That relevant difference effectively prevents using the Mosaic Law for clarifying prohibitions on use of blood decreed to Noah. One large obstacle to applying specifics of the Mosaic Law to Christians is texts such as Ephesians 2:15, Romans 7:6; 10:5, and 2 Corinthians 3:14, all of which indicate quite clearly that Christians are not bound by provisions of the Mosaic Law. Besides that considerable obstacle we have another in God's stated reason for "why" His specific prohibitions on use of blood were more restrictive within the Mosaic Law, which reason we can find at Leviticus 17:10-12. It reads: "'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. 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]. 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." (Italics added) God's reason for applying to "the sons of Israel" more restrictive prohibitions regarding use of blood consisted of two elements. (See footnote 3) Please note that Jehovah had a single reason "why", which was composed of two separate elements. Together those elements constituted the reason "why" Jehovah's specific prohibitions on use of blood were more restrictive within the Mosaic Law for "the sons of Israel". Regarding blood, Jehovah had incorporated into the Mosaic Law the law given to Noah, which law uses blood illustratively of life. Additionally Jehovah pointed out how for "the sons of Israel" he had made blood part of their atonement sacrifices. Considering that blood was already used illustratively of life and that, as of the Mosaic Law, blood was by decree uniquely important to the sacred atonement sacrifices outlined by God for Israel, Jehovah then set forth more restrictive laws governing use of blood for Israel t | |||||||||||||||||||||||