The blood of Jesus and blood transfusions
 |
| English: Mobile Blood Transfusion Service A collection at an office work place on Queensferry Road, Orchard Brae (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Doctors explained to him that with the transfusion he had a 70% chance of living to age of 19, but without it he would be dead within days. Dennis was raised as a Jehovah’s Witness. This religious group does not normally refuse medical treatment, but in the case of blood transfusions they typically teach that it is against Jehovah’s will to allow another person’s blood into your body. Since the blood is believed to contain the soul of the human, mixing blood would leave the person unclean and unacceptable to God.
Interestingly, Dennis’s parents were in favor of allowing the transfusion to save his life, but he was more afraid of disappointing Jehovah than he was of dying. The State of Washington took the boy to court to force him to consent. After hearing from the parents, guardian, social workers, and doctors, the presiding Judge Meyer made this statement:
“I don’t believe Dennis’ decision is the result of any coercion. He is mature and understands the consequences of his decision. I don’t think Dennis is trying to commit suicide. This isn’t something Dennis just came upon, and he believes with the transfusion he would be unclean and unworthy.”
The judge ruled that the fourteen year old had the right to refuse a transfusion. Young Dennis died later that day.
One has to admire this teenager’s courage and conviction. But one also has to mourn the tragedy of misunderstood Bible verses.
Genesis 9:4 ”But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.”
The JW’s hermeneutic goes awry when they take the Hebrew word “nephesh” (soul/spirit/life) too literally, and not as a synecdoche for life. They believe that to put someone’s blood in your veins is to commingle their spiritual impurities with your soul in a type of spiritual hepatitis.
The Jewish hermeneutic is more straight forward. Moses said not to do it, that’s good enough for them. No red-blooded Jew would trifle with this law. Consuming blood was the thin red line even Saul wouldn’t cross (cf. 1 Sam 14:32-34).
This rules out more than just vamprous cravings; steak tartar and sushi are also stricken from the menu. Even in the NT, at the Jerusalem council the Messianic Jews considered rare steak as repugnantly pagan as idolatry and fornication (Acts 15:20).
What the Jews missed was that the preciousness of blood was intended as a picture. It was a shadow of the reality which materialized in the blood of Christ. It is in the NT that the significance of blood begins to run clear.
The blood of Christ is mentioned over thirty times in the NT, which is three times as often as the cross and five times as often as the death of Christ mentioned in other ways. This makes blood the primary term for the atoning work of Christ.
Then in John 6:54-55 Jesus said, “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”
That’s a metaphor you can sink your teeth into. Many misunderstood, took it too literally (as the JWs would have and Catholics have) and walked away. Christians in the 1st Century were commonly accused of cannibalism. Hermeneutics is important.
A brief history of salvation sketched in blood:
Blood was required in Eden to cover Adam and Eve’s nakedness after their first sin.
Blood was spilled in Egypt to be painted on the doorposts of those who believed, so that the angel of death would pass over the Jews and save the life of their firstborn sons.
Blood flowed every time sins were forgiven, and codified minutely by Moses.
Blood was spilt every year on the Day of Atonement to remind the Jews of a coming Messiah who would be their scape goat and carry the blame on their behalf.
Then the Messiah came and shed His blood once for all for the forgiveness of sins on thecross.
Now we celebrate communion, which Jesus said represents his blood.
Matthew 26:27-28 “And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.’”
I’m not sure if you ever considered this before, but Jesus could not have died of pneumonia to save us. He could not have got a bad case of the Spanish flu and passed away from a fever. He had to die a very specific death. He had to die in a public, undeniable, violent, sacrificial, blood-spilling death.
The blood of Jesus refers to the atoning work of the life and death of Jesus. Not the actual, liquid, red stuff in his body. Otherwise, simply grazing His knee would have saved us, pricking his finger would have been enough to draw blood.
You might think “Well duh.” But when John MacArthur said that about thirty years ago, for some reason Evangelicalism had a hissy fit and he was accused of teaching heresy! But he then proceeded to do such a sterling job showing from Scripture that the use of blood in the Bible was a picture of Christ’s whole atoning work, that the charges were dismissed, and the recording of his defense went viral (as much as cassette tapes could). That teaching settled once for all what the phrase “blood of Jesus” actually means.
So, Christians can have blood transfusions and sushi. We reverence the blood of Christ by not taking communion in an unworthy manner (1 Cor 11:26-27).
And the worst way to profane the blood of Christ is to reject His atoning work (Heb 10:29). Reverence for the blood starts with belief in the One who shed His blood for our sins.
