One of the most delicate issues in the doctrine of the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses is precisely the issue of blood transfusions, and it is, because it is a matter of life or death for thousands of witnesses. This is perhaps one of the characteristics that weighs the most when considering the organization a destructive sect.
Their doctrine regarding blood transfusions is explained by themselves in many of their publications, the one that I have considered clearest is in a small pamphlet that they have titled “The question of blood”:
“This is the firm position taken by Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are fully convinced that it is correct to comply with God’s law that requires abstaining from blood.. In this they are not following a personal whim or some baseless fanatical point of view. It is out of obedience to the highest authority in the universe, the Creator of life, that they refuse to introduce blood into their organism. by eating it or by transfusion. Therefore, The question of blood for Jehovah’s Witnesses involves the most fundamental principles on which they as Christians base their lives.. At stake is their relationship with their Creator and God.”[1]
In the same pamphlet they explain that their position is based on the interpretation of some biblical texts from the Old Testament that order abstaining from “blood.” They cite, for example, Genesis 9:3-4; Leviticus 17:10-16, Deuteronomy 7:26-27; 12,23-25; 1 Samuel 14:31-35 where they claim that God was there “providing a dietary regulation“, in addition to establishing a “important moral principle“for all the descendants of Noah, since the blood of the creature”represented his life or his soul“. Later they maintain that this prohibition is still valid for Christians because the Council of Jerusalem decreed “that they abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from things strangled and from blood”[2]
biblical analysis
First of all, it is important to clarify that it is true that “eating” blood was prohibited in the Old Testament, and that in the New Testament this prohibition was maintained at the Council of Jerusalem. This is where two things must be pointed out:
1. A blood transfusion is not the same as feeding on blood, they are two different things, and when this prohibition was established blood transfusions did not exist. Not even the Jews, who continue to keep the Torah intact, interpret it this way and see no problem in receiving blood transfusions. Needless to say, no other Christian denomination or sect shares its interpretation.
2. It is necessary to study the context to determine if the ban was only temporary or permanent. We find ourselves in a historical moment where many Jews were embracing the Christian faith, but they were very attached to the Moisaic law, hence they thought that even Christians should comply with their ancient laws, and they began to preach that circumcision was mandatory.[3].
In a certain sense it is very understandable, since circumcision was decreed as a “eternal alliance[4]. Whoever was not circumcised said “That man will be erased from among his people for having violated my alliance.”[5], and just like this there were many laws decreed such as “perpetual” for the people, including the prohibition of eating blood and other foods including pork, camel, hare along with many others[6]. Added to this was the fact that many prophets and saints of ancient times had been firm enough to give their lives before violating God’s law, like Daniel against Nebuchadnezzar.[7], or the martyrs themselves described in the book of Maccabees[8].
What would you have thought as a newly converted Jew if you saw Christians eating and drinking foods that the holy prophets considered abominable? Would they have thought that they were men of God or sinful frauds?
Jesus had already taught his apostles that “It is not what enters the mouth that makes a man impure; but what comes out of the mouth, that is what makes a man impure“[9], but tearing them away from all their old laws in a single “pull” could harm many in their faith.
Evidence of this is found in the fact that in one of the ordinances of the Council of Jerusalem it was also do not eat meat offered to idols, but Paul then explains the reason for the prohibition, which is not that the idol really means something, since it is a false god, but so as not to scandalize the brother, who upon seeing it would not understand why they were free to do so.
“Now then, Regarding eating what is sacrificed to idols, we know that the idol is nothing in the world and there is only one God. For even though they are called gods, either in heaven or on earth, so that there are many gods and lords, for us there is only one God, the Father, from whom all things come and for whom we are; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and through whom we are. But not everyone has this knowledge. For some, accustomed until now to the idol, eat the meat as if sacrificed to idols, and their conscience, which is weak, becomes defiled. It is certainly not food that will bring us closer to God. We are neither less because we do not eat, nor are we more because we eat. But be careful that your freedom does not serve as a stumbling block to the weak.. In fact, if someone sees you, who has knowledge, sitting at the table in a temple of idols, will he not believe that his conscience, which is weak, authorizes him to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? And because of your knowledge the weak is lost: the brother for whom Christ died! And by thus sinning against your brothers, hurting their conscience, which is weak, you sin against Christ.
Therefore, if a food causes scandal to my brother, I will never eat meat so as not to cause scandal to my brother.”[10]
Notice how Paul recognizes that the Christian has freedom even to eat what was sacrificed to idols (prohibited by the Council of Jerusalem) but he refrains from doing so to scandalize other Christians who are not yet ready to understand it. The same situation applies perfectly to blood, because if nothing that enters a man can contaminate him, there would be no reason to think that blood, simply because it symbolized life for the ancients, was any different.
In this way, a temporary ban that was issued so as not to scandalize Judaizing Christians, in the hands of a destructive sect, has become a way to harm thousands of people, convincing them that by refusing to receive transfusions they are obeying God.
History and importance of the doctrine for
the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses
It is precisely because “The question of blood for Jehovah’s Witnesses involves the most fundamental principles on which they as Christians base their lives.”, that the violation of that norm is considered a very serious failure of the law of God that merits expulsion:
“In view of the seriousness of introducing blood into the human system through transfusion, if it violates the Holy Scriptures in this regard, wouldthe dedicated and baptized recipient of the blood transfusion would be subject to expulsion from the Christian congregation?
The inspired Holy Scriptures answer yes. …
This is a violation of God’s commandments to Christians, the seriousness of which should not be minimized by lightly excusing it. as if it were an optional matter for the individual to decide according to his conscience”[11]
Notice how in this publication without a doubt They reject that it is a matter of conscience. According to them, the Scriptures themselves respond that an individual who violates such a norm is worthy of expulsion (curious, because regardless of whether they interpret that the prohibition of the Council of Jerusalem is still in force, there is no mention that those who violate the norm must be expelled).
Although the ban on transfusions was first enacted in 1945[12], in the book Proclaimers are indicated that “starting in 1961 expelled from the congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses to anyone who ignored this divine requirement, accepted blood transfusions, and displayed an unrepentant attitude”[13]
Finally in the magazine Wake up! from 1997 they write:
“Another question that several of the doctors present posed had to do with peer pressure. What would happen – they wondered – if a Witness faltered and accepted a blood transfusion? Would he be excommunicated from the community of Witnesses?
The answer would depend on the case, since disobedience to God’s law is certainly a serious matter, which must be examined by the elders of the congregation. … Surely, the witness will feel very bad and will be worried about his relationship with God. Since Christianity is founded on love, elders must, as in other judicial cases, balance firmness and mercy.”
Here, the position seems to soften, but in essence the doctrine has not changed in that if a Jehovah’s Witness has a transfusion, and claims that he considers it not a sin as a matter of conscience, he will undoubtedly be expelled, because he would be considered to have an unrepentant attitude.
In previous installments we have seen the doctrinal and practical consequences that expulsion has within the organization, since immediately after it the follower becomes considered a “apostate”, “integral part of the antichrist“, to whom you should not speak. In addition to this, if the person believes the doctrine of the organization, he will think that he has broken his relationship with God and will be together with everyone else.”disbelievers“destined for destruction in the now”nearby“Armageddon. The psychological impact is so tremendous that it is not difficult to understand why some would rather risk death than receive a transfusion.”
Contradictions
Another of the organization’s tremendous contradictions regarding blood transfusions is its incomprehensible criteria for claiming that it is a matter of consciousness to receive some compounds from the blood, while not others.
We have an example in the magazine Awake! of February 22, 1995, page. 20-22, in which they tell the story of a young woman named Mia who almost died for refusing blood transfusions. The young woman only allowed herself to be treated with immunoglobulins and in the end, after a slow recovery, she saved her life. She is presented in that magazine as an example of obedience to God.
This of course draws powerful attention, because immunoglobulins are part of the blood, however the magazine itself adds that “The decision to use immunoglobulins, which contain a minimum fraction of blood, must be made by each person based on their conscience, as shown in The Watchtower of June 1, 1990, pages 30 and 31”.
Surprising that it is not a matter of conscience to receive a blood transfusion, but it is a matter of receiving immunoglobulins that, according to them, they have “a minimum fraction of blood”.
But the contradictions do not stop there, because if one goes to the Watchtower to which they refer, one will find that they make an arbitrary selection of components of God’s law if it allows, discarding others that it does not allow:
“¿Do Jehovah’s Witnesses accept injections of a blood fraction, such as immune globulin or albumin? some of them yes, since they believe that the Scriptures do not clearly rule out accepting an injection of a small fraction, or component, taken from the blood.[14]
“Someone may think that they can accept them in good conscience., but someone else concludes that they can’t do it. “Each one has to decide this question personally before God.”
However, they add right there that they do not accept not only whole blood, but any of what they call “its basic components” (red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets or plasma) that are used for a similar purpose.
In order not to bore you with quotes I will summarize that in The Watchtower of October 1, 1994, p. 31 start from the same reasoning to admit an injection containing a small amount of albumin. In The Watchtower June 15, 2004, p. 29-31 explain that they do not accept red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets and plasma because they are the basic components of blood. We could summarize his position with the following summary:
Forbidden:
….Red blood cells
….White blood cells
….Platelets
….Plasma
Question of conscience:
….Albumin
….Immunoglobulins
….Platelet concentrates.[15]
Both prohibited and non-prohibited components are fractions of blood. Who decides to what extent a fraction of blood is allowed and to what extent it is not? After all, if they interpret that the prohibition of the Council of Jerusalem is still in force, it is not even mentioned in what proportion if fractions of blood should be accepted (assuming without granting that transfusions can be equated with feeding on blood).
The normal concentration of albumin in human blood ranges between 3.5 and 5.0 grams per deciliter, and represents 54.31% of the plasma protein. The weight of albumin in the blood is much greater than that of white blood cells and platelets together (which are prohibited). However, they administer some based on a matter of conscience while not the others. It is simply alarming how the lives of thousands of people depend on the judgment of the Governing Body.
There has been no shortage of Jehovah’s Witnesses who have attempted to convey to the organization the arbitrary nature of this point of view, claiming that if the former is a matter of conscience, the latter should also be a matter. Result? They have been accused of apostasy and expelled[16].
More contradictions
But if all this is already contradictory, it is much more so to even refuse to reject transfusions of one’s own blood if this is “stored“, while they do accept it if it is passed through a hemodialysis device because there it can be considered as “an artificial organ” so they consider that the blood was not “taken away.”
“¿Do Jehovah’s Witnesses allow transfusions of their own blood, allowing their own blood to be stored and later returned to them?
Jehovah’s Witnesses DO NOT accept this procedure. We have long understood that such stored blood has certainly ceased to be part of the person. It has been completely removed from her, and therefore the blood must be disposed of according to the Law of God: “You must pour it on the ground like water.” (Deuteronomy 12:24)
In A slightly different process, the patient’s blood may be diverted to a hemodialysis machine (artificial kidney) or a cardiopulmonary pump (artificial heart-lung). That blood flows through a tube from the patient’s body to an artificial organ that pumps and filters (or oxygenates) it, and then returns to the circulatory system. Some Christians have allowed this if the equipment is not primed with stored blood. They have seen the external system of tubes as an extension of their own circulatory system for blood to pass through an artificial organ. It seemed to them that the blood that had flowed through this closed circuit had continued to be part of them. and it has not had to be ‘poured'”[17]
The same thing happens here, because for one case it is legal because to some it has “seemed” that the blood has continued to be part of them, but in the first case they do not allow it to seem to another that that blood still alive and stored (1 second, 1 hour, etc.) is also part of them.
Organization justifications
If one takes the time to investigate Watchtower publications, one finds a lot of information on the matter, where they insist profusely on the health risks involved in transfusions: probability of adverse effects, risks of contracting diseases, etc., while making extensive apologies in favor of alternative therapies.
Obviously, it is obvious that they make so much effort to demonstrate that there is risk in blood transfusions, or in the benefits of different medical alternatives, because if it is certainly divine law that blood transfusions are intrinsically sinful, there would be nothing to talk about: they are a sin and that’s it. It would not be necessary to say “It is a sin and it is risky” either “It is a sin and there are options”, because it would simply be irrelevant.
However, for the organization it is not, because the issue of transfusions is a heavy burden that it carries on its shoulders. It greatly affects them in the eyes of public opinion, and is even a constant cause of “apostasy.”
Nobody disputes that receiving a transfusion has its risks (adverse effects, being infected with AIDS, hepatitis, etc.) and although these decrease with the advancement of science, they will always be there. The point is that even though they are risky, if someone is given a choice between an 80% chance of dying from anaphylactic shock and a 0.0002% chance of being infected with AIDS, they will choose the transfusion.
It is of no use then that Jehovah’s Witnesses try to defend themselves in many cases, claiming that it is likely that many of those people would have died anyway, because many others did not. It is also useless to cite cases where people who received transfusions died or suffered adverse effects, since these are a minority and it is understood that transfusion is required in those situations where the benefit of a possible transfusion far exceeds the risks. A complete analysis of these arguments carried out by a specialist can be consulted on the Internet.[18].
Meanwhile, people will continue to die, as the organization itself recognizes and even gives other Jehovah’s Witnesses as an example. The next magazine cover Wake up! of May 22, 1994, became widely known, because for the first time they recognized that thousands of people, including children, were dying because of their way of interpreting the Bible at this point. In it they wrote:
“Young people who put God first
In the past, thousands of young people died for putting God first. In our days history repeats itself, only now its settings are hospitals and courts, and as a trigger, the issue of blood transfusions.”
Will the organization’s position regarding blood change? It’s hard to say. Many times they have rectified points of view when they had no alternative (such as the times when the end of the world never came), other times when they could not find a way to justify their madness. Vaccinations were banned from 1921 as demonic practices until 1952[19], for twenty-one years, and organ transplants since 1967[20] until 1980[21], for twenty-one years, because they were according to them “canivalism“Many people went to prison because it was cause for expulsion to present substitute military service, today they are allowed. Tomorrow perhaps I will change my mind on this as well.
How many will die in the meantime?
Are you willing to stop having a family member die based on the biblical interpretation of an organization that has been shown to change doctrine so many times in the past?
Do you believe that God wants to prevent saving a person’s life, just because at some point in history blood symbolized life?
Think about it, the life of a loved one, or your own, may depend on this.
Part 1 – Part 2 – Part 3 – Part 4 – Part 5 – Part 6 – Conclusions
Grades
- small brochure The question of blood, year 1977 ↩
- Acts 15:19-21 New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (abbreviated NWT) ↩
- Read complete chapter 15 of the Acts of the Apostles ↩
- Genesis 17:13 ↩
- Genesis 17:14 ↩
- Leviticus 11 ↩
- Daniel 1:8 ↩
- 2 Maccabees 6 ↩
- Matthew 15:11 ↩
- 1 Corinthians 8:4-13 ↩
- The Watchtower, July 1, 1961, p. 414-415 ↩
- The Watchtower July 1, 1945 ↩
- Proclaimers, year 1993, page. 187 ↩
- The Watchtower, June 1, 1990, p. 30-31 ↩
- Luis Miguel Torres Morena, Fernando Neira Reina, Anesthesia and Resuscitation Treaty 1,800 solutions, Arán Ediciones, Spain 2007, p. 29 ↩
- Illustrative at this point is testimony of Rado Viugel, “Expelled for reasons of conscience” ↩
- The Watchtower, March 1, 1989, p. 30-31 ↩
- You can consult in this regard, Javier Garrido, Jehovah’s Witnesses and transfusions ↩
- The Golden Age, October 12, 1921, p. 17 ↩
- The Watchtower, November 15, 1967 ↩
- The Watchtower, September 15, 1980, p. 31 ↩
