Some time ago, a fellow Catholic submitted his dialogue with a Jehovah's Witness on the subject of the Watchtower's wacky views on blood transfusions. Our colleague requested our commentary on the dialogue. We are happy to oblige him below. John Pacheco's comments are in blue. Our colleagues's comments are in purple. Our JW opponent's comments are in red.
I realize that your probably very busy, but I would just like your insight as to how best to respond to these JW proofs for the blood issue. Thanks again for your time and effort in Apologetics.
I always have time for our JW friends. Let's hear what he has to say.
A JW posted the following to me:
The point that Jehovah made clear in Leviticus is that blood is sacred. Period. Acts clearly shows that such abstinence is universal. Your polluting scripture with speculation, a Catholic hallmark. The bible at Acts 15:29 states "...abstain from blood". It does not make any exceptions.
OK, wiseguy. If you want to be technical about it, then let's stick to what the bible literally teaches about this subject.
#1 - Leviticus 3:17 says nothing about blood transfusions. It says you may "eat neither fat nor blood". If you want to change the teaching to include blood transfusions, you must show us by what authority the Watchtower does this.
#2 - There is no discussion about human blood, but only animal or bird blood (Lev. 7:26) which was offered in sacrifice. Where is the victim and where is the sacrifice? In a hospital? Good grief. Again, if you want to stick to what the bible teaches, then do so. Go and try convincing an orthodox Jewish rabbi or scholar of your silly application of Genesis and Leviticus to blood transfusions. If you want to go further then what the bible teaches, show us the proof of your authority to do so.
#3 - The context of Leviticus (and the decree at the Council of Jerusalem which is predicated on Leviticus' teaching regarding blood) has sacrificial overtones where there is a death and offering. This can hardly be compared to a modern medical procedure.
The JW's must avoid other problematic passages that deal with God's prohibition of eating blood because these passages include a prohibition against eating fat. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe eating fat is wrong, and would see no problem at all with someone munching on fried pork rinds (i.e. deep-fried pieces of pig fat) or sitting down to dinner and enjoying a nice fatty cut of prime rib. But their vehement opposition to eating blood, when contrasted with their approval of eating fat, presents a serious problem for them. Why? Because Leviticus, the book they go to in order to substantiate their prohibition of eating (and receiving transfusions of) blood, contains, in the same passages, prohibitions against eating fat.
What are you talking about??? Your knowledge of the bible is clearly minimal, nominal at best. First of all, if you're going to make such ridiculous claims, back them up. There is no prohibition against eating fat in Leviticus or anywhere else in the bible. The only "fat" mentioned in the bible is with regards to the sin and guilt offerings. Talk about poor scholarship. What a joke. Now I'll address your "proofs".
"Poor scholarship"? "A joke"? OK. Let's find out who's got the last laugh, there, Mr. Scholar.
Consider these examples: "It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood" (Lev. 3:17).
This, again, is in relation to the offerings. This passage in Leviticus is directly focused to the priests and their eating of the sin and guilt offerings. You'll notice that during the process of the offering, the fat is soaked with... BLOOD! Get it yet?
Yes, I get it. Too bad you don't. If the prohibition is "in relation to offerings", as you say, then it applies to both fat and blood since the passage in question, Leviticus 3:17, applies to fat and blood equally and with the same import. The verse prohibits both in the context you are proposing:
Notice it does not say that fat is prohibited in relation to offerings only while blood is prohibited universally...which brings me to my next point. The verse in question does not, in point of fact, restrict prohibition to "offerings" but rather "in all your dwelling places" - intimating a universal scope outside of sacrificial holocausts. So, in effect, that means that both fat and blood are universally prohibited to the Jew.
In either case, therefore, the JW position falls flat on its face. If the Watchtower maintains that the context is offerings only, then the prohibition applies to both fat and blood since there is no warrant to establish different contexts between the two from the Scriptural text. But we know, despite our JW friend's restriction, that the Watchtower does not take this view. They take the universal prohibition of blood, but if they do that, they have no basis for allowing the consumption of fat since Leviticus clearly prohibits it.
Checkmate...chump.
"The LORD said to Moses, 'Say to the people of Israel, You shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat. The fat of an animal that dies of itself, and the fat of one that is torn by beasts, may be put to any other use, but on no account shall you eat it. For every person who eats of the fat of an animal of which an offering by fire is made to the Lord shall be cut off from his people. Moreover you shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwellings. Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people'" (Lev 7:22-27).
Uh... again, this is in relation to the eating of the offerings by the priests. The reason the fat is not eaten is because it is soaked with blood.
Uh...not really. Read the passage carefully. It does not restrict this prohibition to the priest but rather to "the people of Israel". Secondly, the fact that the fat is not eaten has very little to do with the blood. If it does, it is of only secondary or incidental significance. The reason why the fat is not eaten is that fat or 'heleb' in Hebrew is used to designate the choices part of the products of the land (Genesis 45:18, Numbers 18:12, Deuteronomy 32:14)(1), and represents a sweet odour of incense rising to God (Genesis 8:21). Moreover, the fat surrounding certain organs become the symbol of hardened hearts (Psalm 16:10, 118:70 - Douay Rheims Version)
These verses and others like them are difficult for Witnesses to explain, given that they lean heavily on the prohibitions against eating blood. It's totally consistent to insist that God's "perpetual statute" against eating blood must be observed, while his "perpetual statute" (that appears in the very same context) against eating fat can be safely ignored!
"Difficult to explain"? Ten seconds...tops. The perpetual statute that you cite, by the way, still involves the sin and guilt offerings eaten only by the priests.
Man, this sounds like a broken record. Do you know another tune? While the fat was consumed by God, the remains were eaten by the priest, the offeror, and his family and/or guests. How about this one: did you ever consider that the whole purpose of the sacrificial system of the Old Covenant was fulfilled in Christ Jesus, the Lamb of God who was sacrificed on Calvary? And that this same Lamb effectively reversed and nullified ALL ceremonial and disciplinary laws as requirements for salvation?
You say that "blood is the life of someone" and you can never take it because it is sacred. And I will say, with Jesus, the Lamb of God...
Do you want to live forever? Then drink His blood. If that is not a revocation of your view, I don't know what is.
Secondly, the statute about the fat in the offerings is also related to blood. And, thirdly, the statute against blood is repeated at Acts 15:20, 29 and does not involve the sin and guilt offerings (or fat). The statue against blood is found in Leviticus 17 (in particular verses 13-16) which addresses the nation as a whole, and their eating habits. The verses you cited were exclusive to the priests. Do you see how easy you are to refute and how poorly researched your responses are?
No, not really. In fact, it is your rather silly "scholarship" that is being exposed here. The peace offering referred to in Leviticus 3 is also detailed in Leviticus 7, which includes both priest and offeror. I will address the implications of Leviticus 17 below.
And remember, the Old Testament dietary laws simply don't apply to Christians today (cf. Col. 2:16-17, 22), and the ones given at the Council of Jerusalem passed into disuse as Jewish conversions to Christianity become uncommon toward the end of the first century and the Church became mainly Gentile. They weren't immutable doctrines, but disciplinary rules.
LOL! And yet, the statute involving blood was reissued! (Acts 15:20, 29)
Yes, it was. But what you fail to appreciate is that this statute is a DISCIPLINARY decree for those times. It can be (and was) reissued OR revoked as the circumstances permit. St. Paul makes it clear that food "does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do." (1 Cor 8:8). The context was ANIMAL blood. You can't pick and choose. If you want to stick to the letter of the statute then do so, but don't warp it to suit your ridiculous twentieth century medical hangups.
It is not a little ironic that the Watchtower bases its prohibition on transfusions primarily on Genesis 9, the very same passage of Scripture it once based its prohibition on vaccines!
Witnesses were taught that they should avoid smallpox vaccinations. (See M. James Penton, Apocalypse Delayed [Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985], p. 66.) In a 1931 Watchtower publication called The Golden Age, vaccinations were pronounced a direct violation of the covenant found in Genesis 9 between Jehovah and Noah. As a result of the vaccination ban, some Witness parents even went so far as to scar their children's arms with acid so they could claim to have had them vaccinated. The Society's eccentric posture on vaccinations was discreetly dropped in the 1950s during a sweeping public relations campaign to make the organization look less kooky. In 1965, the Society had so reformed its attitude on vaccinations that the August 22 issue of Awake! even went so far as to recognize that vaccinations prevented disease. The acknowledgment came rather late, however, for the many Witness victims who died of smallpox over the course of the twenty-year vaccination ban. The smallpox virus, which was fatal 40% of the time, was officially declared wiped out by the World Health Organization in October 1979-all thanks to the vaccination that the Watchtower so vehemently attacked.
It means [the animal must not be] "strangled," for an animal's blood is its soul. So since they were about to offer sacrifices in the form of animals, he is more or less teaching them in these words that as long as the blood has been set aside for me, the flesh is for you. (John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 27:13. See The Fathers of the Church, volume 82 [Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990], p. 172.)
Oh please. St. John Chrysostom is merely describing what the Jews believed during Old Testament times. He is not endorsing it as a binding discipline existing in the Christian Church. But then again, am I surprised that a drone of the Watchtower society would use such a selective citation? Not really.
Furthermore, a Christian is totally free to make a decision in regards to animal food as St. Paul clearly reveals (Cf.1 Cor 8:1-8). He affirms that it is a Christian's own conscience should determine whether or not to eat any food. He only counsels that if it should cause a brother to stumble or be offended, the charitable approach would be not to participate (Cf. Rom 14:21-23; 1 Cor 8:9-13) in order to avoid scandal. Eating blood, therefore, is not considered a sin, and it is never included in any of the lists of sins in the New Testament. Yet, fornication, which is mentioned in the same verse (Cf. Acts 15:20) as the prohibition against blood, is always listed (Cf. Matt. 15:19,20; 1 Cor. 6:9,10; Gal. 5:19-25; Eph. 5:3-7; Col. 3:5-9; 1 Tim. 1:8-11; Rev. 21:8).
John Pacheco
The Catholic Legate
March 25, 2003