NEWS

WIRES

OTHER

The Role of Accurate Knowledge in Faith

In a recent letter posted by Mr. Vincent Tylor, there were many points made that will perhaps bring some to revise their view of Jehovah's Witnesses. In the name of balance, please accept this response as a means to supplement the discussion regarding who Jehovah's Witnesses really are, as well as a means to address some of the concerns that Mr. Tylor expressed.

The history of human relationships shows consistently that it is impossible to truly trust someone that you do not know. General, hazy knowledge of someone will not suffice for trust to secure itself. Also challenging to trust is maligned knowledge about a person. Therefore, *accurate* *knowledge * about someone is essential for trust in that person to exist; that is, if that person is actually trustworthy. In like manner, this would also apply to an organization, such as the Christian organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, and ultimately, by extension, to the ones that Jehovah's Witnesses represent, Jehovah God and Jesus Christ.-2 Peter 1:2.

While it is scripturally true that God is infallible, it is also scripturally true that God throughout human history has used fallible people to accomplish his purpose. As an example, one might think of King David, a man known for his godly devotion and faith. (Hebrews 11:32) Yet, as faithful of a man as David was, he made serious mistakes in his life that contributed to deadly consequences for others. (1 Chronicles 21:1-14; 2 Samuel 12:1-14) Despite his shortcomings, though, Jehovah used David in a position of oversight over His people. David was a humble man and wanted to do the right thing. Knowing he was imperfect, he asked for correction throughout his life by saying, "Examine me, O Jehovah, and put me to the test; Refine my kidneys and my heart."-Psalm 26:2.

Yes, we can see that God is willing to use imperfect ones who honest-heartedly want to serve him to direct his people. It was true in David's time, and it is true today. While not being earthly kings over Jehovah's Witnesses, the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses is a body of appointed men who take the lead in directing the spiritual education of the Witnesses and their public ministry, using the Bible as a textbook. These appointed ones are believed to be anointed with and directed by Holy Spirit, just as the governing body of anointed Christians were in the first century. (Acts 2:1-4; Acts 15:23-29) Like David, these men are imperfect. Yet, their desire is to serve God truthfully by progressively coming to a greater understanding of God's thoughts as recorded in the Scriptures, and then acting on that knowledge. This has meant adjustments in understanding over the years, just as the first century Christians had to make adjustments in their understanding, including when the arrival of the Messianic Kingdom would be. (Acts 1:6-8) In considering these things, are we to question and doubt men like David and the apostles of the first century, merely because they made mistakes and needed correction? Or, rather, will we base our trust, or lack of trust, on evidence showing as to whether individuals or organizations are genuinely and obediently striving to live in harmony with God's viewpoint? With these questions in mind, some of Mr. Tylors' concerns will now be addressed:

"The soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is blood that makes atonement by the soul [in it]. *That is why* I have said to the sons of Israel: 'No soul of you must eat blood.'" (Leviticus 17:11, 12) Yes, the reason for God's forbidding the eating of blood was because of blood's sacred value. Being so sacred, blood was to be treated with respect. Misusing the blood, as in the case of eating it, would be a disrespectful act in God's sight, and would incur his anger. The proper use of blood once it left the body was 'pouring it out.' (Leviticus 17:13) This included the blood of human beings, as Leviticus 17:14 emphasizes the sacredness of blood "of *every sort of flesh*," and therefore the pouring out and covering of blood spoken of in verse 13 would logically include human blood, which, as Mr. Tylor pointed out, is of "much more worth" than that of a sheep or any other animal.-Matthew 12:12.

One might argue, though, that since blood represents life, it is *life* that must be treated as sacred by saving that life, even if it means failing to 'pour out' the blood by accepting a blood transfusion. It should be noted, however, that there is nothing sacred about disobedience. Sometimes remaining obedient to God costs us our present life in this world system of things. To illustrate, please recall the scriptural account of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, the three companions of Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon set up an image of gold for all to fall down and worship. Anyone who refused would die by being thrown into a fiery furnace. What did the three do? Did they reason that since life is sacred they should spare that life at any cost, even at the cost of disobeying Jehovah by performing an act of idolatry? Not at all. The three declared to the king that their first concern was remaining obedient to Jehovah, even if it meant losing their life as a consequence. (Daniel 3:15-18) Should not that be our view towards remaining obedient to God's law on the sanctity of blood? Daniel and his three companions certainly had faith that Jehovah would reward the obedience of the righteous who've died by resurrecting them in the new system of things on the earth.-Daniel 12:13.

Jesus never did anything against the Mosaic Law. (Matthew 5:17, 18) Jesus' healing on the Sabbath was actually in contrast with the oppressive traditions invented by the Pharisees. (Mark 7:9; 3:1-5) It's important to note that the reason for the Sabbath was for the Israelites to rest from their *mundane* works and give attention to their God and *spiritual* works. On the Sabbath, the priestly duties went on as usual in the sanctuary. (Numbers 28:9, 10; 2 Chronicles 23:4) Thus, Jesus, as a high priest, was merely doing his job by healing on the Sabbath. (Hebrews 5:5, 6) Jesus kept obedience to the Law and its meaning; he remained obedient to Jehovah. In the case of the woman with the flow of blood, Jesus, as a merciful physician, recognized her situation for what it was and compassionately healed her. (Luke 4:23; Mark 5:25-34) And while Jesus kept the spirit of the Law, nowhere in doing so did he violate the Law.

First Corinthians 10:18-21, 25 give light as to what Paul meant regarding food sacrificed to idols at 1 Corinthians 8:4-8. In verse 25 of chapter 10 Paul encourages Christians to keep eating "everything that is sold in a meat market, making no inquiry on account of your conscience." He was here referring to surplus meat that was earlier used in idolatrous ceremonies but later was put out to be sold in the market. This food was fine to eat, "for 'to Jehovah belong the earth and that which fills it.'" (10:26) The only situation where a Christian would not eat this kind of meat would be when it stumbled another Christian. "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." (10:28, 29) However, verses 18-21 mention a situation where food sacrificed to idols should *not* be eaten under *any* condition, which is during the actual idol ceremony. "Are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers with the altar?... the things which the nations sacrifice they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers with the demons. You cannot be drinking the cup of Jehovah and the cup of demons; you cannot be partaking of the table of Jehovah and the table of demons." (See also Exodus 34:15) The command at Acts 15:29 to "keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols" is speaking of things used during an idol ceremony. To do otherwise would be to commit idolatry, which is spoken against in both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.-Exodus 20:4, 5; 1 Corinthians 10:14.

Certainly, we can see how invaluable the Scriptures are in helping us to see what God's thinking truly is! From this value we are warned about what Jehovah disapproves of, and so at Galatians 5:19-21 we are reminded of certain practices and attitudes that Jehovah hates, but are not given an exhaustive list, for after listing some Paul concludes in verse 21 by saying, "*and things like these*. As to these things I am forewarning you, the same way as I did forewarn you, that those who practice such things will not inherit God's kingdom." The "things like these" would certainly include the act of ignoring God's view on the sanctity of blood. To ignore God's view is to shut one's eyes to accurate knowledge, and puts one on the treacherous path eventually leading to missing out on the blessings of God's Kingdom rule.

Jehovah's Witnesses are very concerned about doing the right thing and respecting the sanctity of life. The governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses is firm when the Scriptures indicate clearly what a true Christian must do and must not do. However, where there is no clear indication, the decision is to not go beyond the things that are written and thus dignify the individual by respecting their right to make a conscience-based decision. (1 Corinthians 4:6) Such is the case involving blood fractions. Ultimately the question is when does blood cease to be blood? in breaking it down. The governing body evidently could stand firm behind the view that the four major components of blood are exactly what they are said to be, "major components," and so would be unacceptable for use in medical treatment. Beyond that, the individual is dignified by allowing them to make their own decisions. There are no fractions that are "permitted" or "forbidden" by the Society of Jehovah's Witnesses. As the November 2006 Kingdom Ministry (published by Jehovah's Witnesses) states regarding blood fractions, "Your decisions should be your own and should not be based on someone else's conscience. Likewise, no one should criticize another Christian's decisions. In these matters, 'each one will carry his own load' of responsibility.-Galatians 6:4, 5." Any changes in the governing body's view of blood fractions, vaccines, and organs have come from the desire to become more in harmony with God's view, just as King David and other faithful servants of God desired and do desire today.

There is much that has been said and will continue to be said about what true Christianity is and who is really practicing it. Yet, the touchstone of truth remains to be the Scriptures and the accurate understanding of them. Any conclusion that ignores or contradicts any part of the inspired Bible canon is a conclusion from man and not from God, and must be rejected as false. (Isaiah 55:8-11; Matthew 15:3, 8, 9) Likewise, any individual or organization that ignores, twists, or contradicts God's divine viewpoint by insistently acting in a way that is contrary must be seen as being misled. Yes, accurate knowledge is essential for genuine faith in God and a close relationship with him. The words of the wise man will remain true to the end: "By [his] mouth the one who is an apostate brings his fellowman to ruin, but by knowledge are the righteous rescued."-Proverbs 11:9.

ACL

P.S. To answer Mr. Tylors' question about the account of Saul's men not being executed after eating blood, please review the information below taken from the April 15, 1994 issue of the *Watchtower*.

**Questions* *From* *Readers*

*When* *Saul's* *soldiers* *ate* *meat* *along* *with* *the* *blood,* *why* *were* *they* *not* *executed,* *since* *that* *was* *the* *punishment* *set * *out* *in* *God's* *Law?*

These men did violate God's law on blood, but they may have been shown mercy because they had respect for blood, even though they should have been more diligent about showing such respect.

Consider the situation. The Israelites under King Saul and his son Jonathan were at war with the Philistines. At a point when "the men of Israel themselves were hard pressed" in battle, Saul rashly took an oath that his men should not eat until the enemy was defeated. (1 Samuel 14:24) Soon his oath created a problem.

His men were winning a hard-fought battle, but the strenuous effort was taking its toll. They were famished and exhausted. What did they do in that extreme situation? "The people began darting greedily at the spoil and taking sheep and cattle and calves and slaughtering them on the earth and the people fell to eating along with the blood."-1 Samuel 14:32.

That was in violation of God's law concerning blood, as some of Saul's people told him, saying: "Look! The people are sinning against Jehovah by eating along with the blood." (1 Samuel 14:33) Yes, the Law said that when animals were slaughtered, the blood had to be drained before the meat was eaten. God did not demand taking fanatical measures to drain the blood. By taking reasonable steps of drainage, his servants could manifest respect for the significance of blood. (Deuteronomy 12:15, 16, 21-25) Animal blood could be used in a sacrificial way on the altar, but it was not to be eaten. Deliberate violation was punishable by death, for God's people were told: "You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off."-Leviticus 17:10-14.

Were the soldiers of King Saul deliberately breaking the Law? Were they showing absolute disregard for the divine law on blood?-Compare Numbers 15:30.

We need not conclude so. The record says that they were 'slaughtering the animals *on* *the* *earth* and eating along with the blood.' So they may have been making some attempt to drain the blood. (Deuteronomy 15:23) Yet, in their exhausted, famished state, they did not hang up the slaughtered carcasses and allow adequate time for normal blood drainage. They slaughtered the sheep and cattle "on the earth," which could retard drainage. And they quickly cut meat from carcasses that might have been lying in blood. Hence, even if they had in mind obeying God's law, they did not follow through in proper ways nor to an adequate extent.

The result was that "the people fell to eating along with the blood," which was sinful. Saul recognized this and ordered that a large stone be rolled to him. He commanded the soldiers: "Bring near to me, each one of you, his bull and, each one, his sheep, and you must do the slaughtering in this place and the eating, and you must not sin against Jehovah by eating along with the blood." (1 Samuel 14:33, 34) The guilty soldiers obeyed, and "Saul proceeded to build an altar to Jehovah."-1 Samuel 14:35.

Slaughtering animals on the stone probably affected adequate blood drainage. Meat from the animals would be eaten away from where the slaughtering occurred. Saul may have used some of the drained blood on the altar in seeking God's mercy toward those who had sinned. Jehovah extended mercy, apparently because he knew what attempts the soldiers had made even though they were very tired and hungry. God may also have taken into account that Saul's rash oath had pressed his men into that desperate situation.

This account does show that an emergency situation is no excuse for disregarding divine law. It should also help us see the need for careful thought before taking an oath, for a rash vow can cause problems for us personally and for others.-Ecclesiastes 5:4-6.

Aaron Lundstrom