Abstain From Blood?

Acts 15:29--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.

If we were to read this verse only, it would appear that abstaining from blood was definitely a command given to those in the congregation. But in order to gain a full understanding of this verse, we need to know the background story behind the verse. We also need to examine other areas including Jewish Laws, what Jesus said, and a comparison to other commands that were given. Let's begin with the story.

Acts chapter 15 begins with some men coming from Judea that entered into Antioch and began teaching this message, “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This started a debate that needed to be addressed. Verse 5 states one side of the argument, and by whom it was being raised, 'Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.” Peter then speaks up for the Gentiles and raises the other side of the argument. Verse 11 says, "No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

In other words, the Gentiles are not held by Jewish Law, so there is no need to make them abide by it. Paul and Barnabas, who were supporting the Gentiles, spoke up on their behalf as well. James gives the final decision on this matter. He states in verses 19-20, "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."

But he doesn't finish there. Verse 21 says, "For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

So let's review what just happened here. The Jews demanded that the Gentiles be circumcised, a debate began over this issue, and a compromise was reached. They were to adhere to the four things mentioned, which included abstaining from blood. So again, it appears that to abstain from blood is a command given to the Gentiles to follow. But what was the purpose for following these four commands?

Go back to verse 21. James makes it clear that the Jews held to the Law of Moses from the earliest of times. Of course they were going to be offended if someone came along and did not hold to these customs, yet still attempted to be saved. This compromise was made in order to keep the Jews from becoming offended, or stumbled. But just how binding were these four commands set upon the Gentiles?

1 Corinthians 10:25-33 "Everything that is sold in a meat market keep eating, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience; for "to Jehovah belong the earth and that which fills it." If anyone of the unbelievers invites YOU and YOU wish to go, proceed to eat everything that is set before YOU, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience. But if anyone should say to YOU: "This is something offered in sacrifice," do not eat on account of the one that disclosed it and on account of conscience. "Conscience," I say, not your own, but that of the other person. For why should it be that my freedom is judged by another person's conscience? If I am partaking with thanks, why am I to be spoken of abusively over that for which I give thanks? Therefore, whether YOU are eating or drinking or doing anything else, do all things for God's glory. Keep from becoming causes for stumbling to Jews as well as Greeks and to the congregation of God, even as I am pleasing all people in all things, not seeking my own advantage but that of the many, in order that they might get saved."

Why would Paul say it was ok to eat food sacrificed to idols if it was a written decree for Gentiles NOT to do so? To keep from stumbling the Jews. If it was ok to do these things as long as a Jew did not see you, it appears that these four commands were not binding after all, unless you were in the company of a Jew.

What does Jewish Laws say about blood? All four of these commands can be found in Lev. 17: 7 (sacrifices to idol), 10 (eating blood), 13 (bleeding an animal), and 18 (fornication). But there is another important issue to consider.

"According to pikuach nefesh a person must do everything in their power to save the life of another, even donate bodily organs. Ovaday Yosef, the former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel, ruled that one may donate an organ to a person in critical need, so long as it does not put the donor's life at risk. It is also permissible to travel on Shabbat to save a person's life. Maimonides declared that a Jew should take the individual, even if a gentile is present, in order to encourage "compassion, loving-kindness and peace in the world" (Mishneh Torah, 2:3). The laws of the Sabbath may be suspended to provide any necessary medical care to a critically ill individual or to an individual in the likelihood of danger to life." Pikuach Nefesh, Ariel Scheib (Apr 22 2007) (www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/pikuach_nefesh.html)

In the following situations, Jesus invoked the rabbinic principle of pikuach nefesh; that the obligation to save life supersedes Jewish law.

Matthew 12:11 "Who will be the man among YOU that has one sheep and, if this falls into a pit on the sabbath, will not get hold of it and lift it out? All considered, of how much more worth is a man than a sheep!"

Mark 3:4-5 "Next he said to them: "Is it lawful on the sabbath to do a good deed or to do a bad deed, to save or to kill a soul?" But they kept silent. And after looking around upon them with indignation, being thoroughly grieved at the insensibility of their hearts, he said to the man: "Stretch out your hand." And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored." - see also Luke 6:7-10

"Matthew 12:1-4, NW: "At that season Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath. His disciples got hungry and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. At seeing this the Pharisees said to him: 'Look! your disciples are doing what it is not lawful to do on the sabbath.' He said to them: 'Have you not read what David did when he and the men with him got hungry? How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, food it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests only?'" In these verses and in the ones following Jesus was calling attention to acts of mercy on the sabbath day, that it was perfectly legitimate to render a show of mercy to one who is in need even though it was the sabbath, and that there is, in effect, no violation of the sabbath by such course of action. He had no rebuke for David's course." - see also Mark 2:23-26" Watchtower 1952 Sep 15 p.575

Jesus also says, Matthew 12:7 "However, if YOU had understood what this means, 'I want mercy, and not sacrifice,' YOU would not have condemned the guiltless ones."

So if the obligation to save a life supercedes Jewish Laws, to which Jesus agreed, is it safe to say that a blood transfusion would be found acceptable to God?

Another thing to think about is what Jesus said in Matthew 12:31-32.  "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come."

Mark 3: 28-29 reads, ""Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin "

If the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, would it be right to allow a person to die by strict obedience to a Jewish Law, which could be broken in order to save a life, according to pikuach nefesh ??? 

In conclusion, I think it would be safe to say that the JWs view of blood is wrong. The correct understanding in Acts 15 was to not stumble the Jews. The compromise was based on the Laws of Moses. Paul stated that the Gentiles were not held to those four commands, unless in the company of one that would be stumbled. Jesus states that life is more important than Jewish Law when he invoked the rabbinic principle of pikuach nefesh. If all of this is not enough to convince you, let's consider one more thing.

1 Cor. 5:11, Paul does not list blood as a reason to quit associating with a brother. In Revelation 21:8 and 1 Corinthians 6 blood is not said to be a reason for not inheriting God's Kingdom. If this was to be a strict Law that was to be held to, why wasn't it mentioned anywhere else?