Does The Bible Condemn Blood Transfusions?

[Found Goat]

After reading a rather interesting passage in Christopher Vasey's book, on the history (and overall eventual success) of blood transfusions (as can be perused in chapter 3 of his The Spiritual Mysteries of Blood), it brought to mind a certain tax-exempt real estate & publishing empire whose volunteer workers & financial contributors are notoriously known for their being adamantly opposed to receiving blood transfusions, and who make the claim the Bible is in full support of this stance, pointing as they often do to Acts chapter 15 and the account of the Jerusalem Council, as the supposed primary scriptural foundation for this arguably heterodox, denominational doctrine of theirs.

It is verse 20, in particular, of Acts 15, that is often referenced by these ones, wherein we find blood condemned alongside other major sins, such as idolatry and fornication.

Although Christians are said to be no longer under the Mosaic law, said verse apparently seems to indicate there are some exceptions to this, but does the prohibition on blood in this Bible text imply the receiving of life-sustaining, medicinal use of blood, as in modern-day transfusions, or does it strictly refer to the consuming of animal blood, a restriction as was part of Judaism's dietary law; as recorded in various Old Testament passages (Deuteronomy 12:23-25; Leviticus 17:10-14)?

Later in Acts 15, in verse 29, Jesus-followers are instructed once again to abstain from, among other things, blood. It would seem that if the ingesting of animal blood is forbidden the Christian, then how more so the intaking of human blood, intravenously; something which vehement opposers of the standard hospital practice place on par with cannibalism and vampirism!

Even so, the Bible says nothing remotely against donating blood, and so it is that some self-professing Christians may be against being a blood donee but not necessarily opposed to being a blood donor.

Incidentally, does anyone know what becomes of the blood given to labs when patients are tested during annual checkups? Is all this abundant biological fluid simply disposed of, or does some if not most of it, upon being properly screened and deemed to be safe, wind up in blood banks?

I ask, because if blood is so sacred to Yahweh, you would think even allowing a doctor or nurse to extract blood from one's veins, with the fleshly aim of potentially extending one's temporary life as a sinful human, would also be something detestable to the Life-Giver, who through the shed blood of the Atonement (Ephesians 1:7) offers true life eternal, instead of just a few extended years that blood given to a medical lab might offer a believer.

[BigJohn]

Your question is delicate and I find hard to answer.

Where I live in Arizona, USA, there are several stores that sell whole blood to certain ethnic groups/religions. Generally, the whole blood is not sold out in the open. You generally have to look for it. When I lived in Asia, predominately Buddhists country), I would notice blood mentioned on the menus at some upscale food courts.

What I have noticed, for most people, it seems they are repulsed at eating blood nor consuming an animal in which the blood was not properly drained.

As for me, that is about as far as I want to go on this subject for now.

As soon as these self righteous ‘Christian’s’ can prove that Jesus was against healing they deserve no attention. Are they willing to condemn Christ for his acts of healing ?

[sky]

Regardless of what the Bible says I've had multiple Blood Transfusions and give a silent thanks to whoever donated it, as my Blood group is extremely rare I would willingly give it to others if I could. I'm alive because of others, be it through the advance in Technology or the Donors, I'm grateful....

[Found Goat]

I'll never forget being a schoolboy and witnessing a JW classmate of mine become unnerved at the sight of a fellow student of ours sucking on his blood upon accidentally cutting his finger. I was told by the religionist in utter shock that said blood-sucker was 'doomed to destruction,' how this act of slurping up one's blood was equivalent to spitting in Christ's face.

As I reflect upon this childhood memory today, it makes me wonder if it is permissible for a JW -- and, for that matter, any other Bible-believer who reads Acts 15:20 in the same way (not too many others, I suspect) -- to use their own blood in a transfusion. The medical technology for this certainly exists, in which one's own blood is simply stored for future use or during an operation routed through an apparatus back into one's body. (Ah, loopholes.)

As for whether either of these two alternative treatments would have Yahweh's blessing, the scriptures are not entirely clear on this point.

As an aside, it's interesting to note that one of the plagues brought upon ancient Egypt, according to the Old Testament, had God turning water into blood. One wonders that if blood was so sacrosanct to Yahweh why he would have made it so accessible, ubiquitous, and unavoidable for those Egyptians. Then again, these Egyptians were not under the law code of the Hebrews and so probably thought nothing of (involuntarily) bathing in and consuming this miraculous substance provided them by the very blood prohibitor himself. But I digress.

Putting aside Acts 15 for a moment, there is quite possibly another reason why many a hospital 'Consent to Treatment' form requires the patient set to undergo surgery to sign whether they are for or against the surgeon's use of blood/blood products. I don't think this worded portion of these forms is meant simply for the sake of JWs, obedient to a fallible and subject-to-change Governing Body; a leadership who at this point might find it difficult to abandon their blood doctrine due to doubtless legal ramifications.

I suspect there are many non-Christians who also refuse blood transfusions, for fear of potentially contracting a blood-borne disease, be it syphilis, malaria, hepatitis, or out of fear of potentially acquiring the personality of the blood donor. On the other hand, fascinatingly, in some cases, recipients have been known to hit the proverbial jackpot. 'I Got Rich After Blood Transfusion from a Billionaire' read a sensational headline I once came across. Indeed, one hears of people acquiring altogether different interests and personality traits upon receiving an organ transplant and perhaps this has more to do with the transmitted blood involved than the organs per se.

Naturally, it goes without saying there are risks to practically everything we do and use in life. As just one example: Are we to stop driving automobiles because of the slight chance there is of getting into an accident? When a traffic accident does occur and someone is tragically killed, does this somehow prove God's displeasure in man using automobiles?

Still, the absurdity in such illustrated pseudo-reasoning does not prevent some people from pointing to cases involving adverse reactions to blood transfusions as if a sign from God proving correct their religious stance...and yet these very same ones think nothing of accepting a vaccine despite vaccines carrying potentially harmful risks themselves.

So it is then that for ones who read Acts 15 and who take a few sentences or words penned roughly two millennia ago to refer to a 21st-century common medical practice, it would seem a case of these readers believing blood transfusions to be wrong due to their being unholy than generally unhealthy, a biblical commandment (the 11th?) to be followed, unquestioningly, to the letter.

If, however, you consider the Bible to be providentially inspired and intended for everyone, and not just for a modern-day religious movement of some 8 million sectarians arguably under the thought control of a scripturally unsupported priest class, then the issue and this debate quite unequivocally becomes a matter of personal interpretation and individual conscience, with God being the ultimate judge of all for the decisions we choose to make in this life.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Found Goat

I'll never forget being a schoolboy and witnessing a JW classmate of mine become unnerved at the sight of a fellow student of ours sucking on his blood upon accidentally cutting his finger.

As a boy, my mother would put hamburger out to thaw. Bloody juices would puddle up around the hamburger. I would taste and eat the raw hamburger. To me it was delicious but I never soaked it in the bloody juices.

If I cut myself, it was a natural, subconscious reaction to put the sore part in my mouth even though it might be bleeding.

I have witnessed animal blood being used in Buddhist lands. It is used predominately like a spice/herb. In one country, and I suspect in some other countries, it is fermented into alcohol.

As far as the law goes read Colossians 2:20-23. Acts 15 is concerned with the earliest evangelism by Jewish converts. It was just a recommendation to the Gentiles how to get along with these earliest evangelists……the emphasis evolved as is demonstrated by the Apostle Paul in Colossians……

[BigJohn]

INTERESTING, especially Acts 15.

So, how is Acts 15:19 and 20 interpreted? Especially the last few thoughts?

Those verses reads:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."

Originally Posted by BigJohn

So, how is Acts 15:19 and 20 interpreted? Especially the last few thoughts?



“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."

BigJohn,

This was the conclusion of James…not a group conclusion. The intent of his followers. The rationale for this direction was presented by Peter in the preceding verses of 5 thru 11. Vs 5 the Pharisees wanted to require the Gentiles to obey the law of Moses. Peter recognized the futility of this…..knowing that 613 laws were supposedly observed by the Jews. The mission of the followers was to bring the Gentiles to Christ as opposed to becoming Jews. It was a caution and reminder to the followers to remind them of their purpose. They were suggesting to the Gentiles to not disrespect the ones bringing the Gospel…….a variation of “don’t shoot the messenger”. As I previously stated Paul was to later expound on the burden of the Law…….

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Acts 15:23

With them they sent the following letter:

The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

In verse 29 it concludes with the following admonition which reads:

You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Those words are almost identical to the judgment James stated in verses 19 and 20.
.

So it appears the body of Apostles and Elders were in agreement with what James said.
I conclude this was the 'final' opinion of the body of Apostles and Elders.