Whom Does Satan Target?

//Whom Does Satan Target?

Sunday, December 6

The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.1 John 5:19.

As he did in Eden, Satan also today targets the inexperienced. Young people are a particular favorite for attack. Satan is not happy when a young person, or indeed anyone, volunteers to slave for Jehovah. God’s enemy wants all who dedicate their lives to Jehovah to fail in their devotion and loyalty. Satan promotes the idea that a career in his world will satisfy a person, but Christians should take into account the importance of satisfying their spiritual need. “Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need,” taught Jesus. Dedicated Christians live for God’s will, not Satan’s. Their delight is in the law of Jehovah, and they meditate on it day and night. However, many of today’s educational courses allow little time for a servant of Jehovah to meditate and to satisfy his spiritual need.

COMMENTARY

Satan does not just target the inexperienced. Nor are young people his favorite. They are simply more vulnerable to his wiles.

The Scriptures reveal that the Devil primarily tries to mislead the leaders of God’s people. Look for instance at the man David. There are only a couple of references to the Devil in the entire Hebrew text (not counting Job) and one of them is in the account where Satan successfully incited David to take a census of Israel, the results of which were disastrous.

redo-man-of-lawlessness-640x450The other mention of Satan is in prophecy, specifically in the 3rd chapter of Zechariah, which states: “And he proceeded to show me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Jehovah, and Satan standing at his right hand in order to resist him.”

And then there was Judas. He, of course, was one of Jesus’ own handpicked apostles. Yet, the Scriptures say that on the night when Jesus instituted the memorial of his death Satan entered into Judas. 

Paul revealed that certain prominent men in the Corinthian congregation, whom he dubbed “superfine apostles,” were actually agents of the Devil who were merely disguised as ministers of righteousness.

And ultimately Satan empowers a Judas-like faction called the man of lawlessness, who exerts a deluding influence over all Christians, promoting a faux parousia, until such time as the manifestation of Christ brings him to nothing. Jesus foretold that among his own appointed slaves some will ultimately be found to be evil.

The Watchtower implies that Satan cannot exert an influence over the leadership of the organization. But that notion is unsupported  by the Scriptures. 

 

image_pdfimage_print
2016-12-08T15:10:54+00:00 December 6th, 2015|Commentary|74 Comments
  • Bklyn Kevin

    Adam and eve were made perfect in every way yet Adam and eve were completely subdued by satan’s influence. Genesis 3:1-4.
    Now certainly if Satan could influence perfect people, how much more would Satan be able to influence the governing body of the watchtower who are born with sin thus being imperfect ?Romans 3:23.

    • Nigel

      I’m not sure that Adam & Eve were “perfect”. Sinless (until they sinned), yes, but not necessarily “perfect”. God pronounced everything “very good”, but that is not the same thing as perfect. If you were to look into the use of the term “perfect” in the New Testament (in the context of man), you’ll see that it involves more than simply being sinless…. see Eph 4:11-13, for example.

      • e.v.g

        The anointed will have to die being faithful to God, more than that they shall be tested during the great tribulation
        If anyone is meant for captivity, he will go into captivity. If anyone will kill with the sword, he must be killed with the sword. This is where it calls for endurance and faith on the part of the holy ones.
        They will be imperfect during their test, but at the end of their test they will go to heaven being perfect in all sense, they will be immortal.
        Being perfect has no relation with obedience, Adam and eve were perfect in flesh but they disobeyed.

        • e.v.g

          When God said that the creation was “very good”, He was implying that there was something wrong in His creation? is it not the devil that it is trying to misinterpret God’s Word?
          Look! He has no faith in his holy ones,And even the heavens are not pure in his eyes.
          Although Job was a righteous man the wicked one tested Job to the limit, it is the devil and men that it is doing bad according to their wishes and thoughts:
          This alone I have found: The true God made mankind upright, but they have sought out many schemes.”
          All the creation is not good is “very good”, unfortunately the devil is trying to overthrow God’s plan.
          I have come to know that everything the true God makes will endure forever. There is nothing to add to it and nothing to subtract from it. The true God has made it this way, so that people will fear him.

          • Nigel

            I’m not exactly sure what your point is, to be honest. Nowhere in the scriptures does it ever say Adam & Eve were perfect. And, no, I am NOT saying that God felt there was anything WRONG with His creation; He said it was “very good” NOT “perfect”. If it WAS “perfect”, why didn’t He say so? I believe it’s because perfection takes time: instruction/knowledge, testing, etc. Jesus talks about perfection as being a step beyond obedience (Matt 19) and, again, Eph 4 talks about perfection being related to maturity i.e. growing up into the fullness of the stature of Christ.

            • e.v.g

              Sorry Nigel, I am not trying to contradict your point in any way, it was just an opinion.

            • Nigel

              No problem whatsoever. 🙂

      • Bklyn Kevin

        Jesus is called the second Adam and surely he is perfect, so that would mean that Adam was made perfect as well. 1 Corinthians 15:45.
        So if Adam was made perfect why did Adam choose to rebel where Jesus did not ?.
        The plane simple truth is, unlike Jesus, Adam chose his own fleshly desires over Jehovah’s will were Jesus even in the face of death adhered to Jehovah’s will. Luke 22:42.
        Also did not Jesus say” we must not live on bread alone but on every word /utterance that comes from Jehovah’ mouth. Matthew :4 4.
        However Adam and eve under Satan’s influence chose not to adhere to every utterance of Jehovah’s mouth and suffered the consequences not because they were made imperfect but because they were free moral agents and chose to listen and adhere to the lying utterance of Satan the devil rather than doing GOD’s will and following his loving warnings which Jehovah put in place when Jehovah gave Adam and eve oral instructions. Genesis 22:15-17.
        So like Satan Adam and Eve were created faultless untill unrighteousness was found in them because their hearts became haughty due to their not listening to every utterance of Jehovah’s mouth, Ezekiel 28:15-17.
        Satan the devil would like nothing more than for people to believe that Jehovah created man imperfect.

        and they often use this argument of Adam and Eve to add weight to their argument , people who do use this argument are often looking for excuses to excuse their own rebellion like Adam did when he said “”The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree, so I ate.” Genesis 3:12.

        So isn’t Adam blaming GOD , notice what he said “The woman who you gave me, as if to put the blame on GOD rather than accept his own responsibility.

        Jehovah God took the man and settled him in the garden of E′den to cultivate it and to take care of it. Jehovah God also gave this command to the man: “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die.”Genesis 2:15-17.

        The way of the true God is perfect; The saying of Jehovah is refined. He is a shield to all those taking refuge in him. 2 Samuel 22:31

        • Nigel

          I believe you are missing my point. Perfection follows obedience. Adam was made perfectly (i.e. according to God’s design & plan) but he was not considered a perfect being (i.e. tried & tested in all respects) – otherwise God would have said so. Jesus was born sinless but He was not considered perfect until He had learned obedience through suffering:

          “Although he was a son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered.+ 9 And AFTER HE HAD BEEN MADE PERFECT,+ he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him,” Heb 5:8,9

          • Bklyn Kevin

            Yes I see your point now and yes you are right I did miss your point which is excellent and very noteworthy.
            Jesus had to learn obedience to complete the task where Adam failed concerning obedience.
            For sure it’s something to ponder over. thank you.

            • Nigel

              Be blessed Brother Kevin… 🙂

            • Bklyn Kevin

              I have learned a great deal from your comments and look forward to hearing more, who says you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. P.S. Thank you for your patience.

  • Ed

    Hello to all,and bro Rob in particular .I been reader of your commentaries for a while and I do enjoy the a lot.They are very insightful.At this commentary I decide to ask write and ask fist time.Because you mention Judas and his role.My question is.Could Judas avoid being a traitor ? His role was prophesied.So if he would ask as he did somebody else must be the traitor otherwise bible prophesy would not be fulfilled or ? Same apply to Peter ?When Jesus stated that he will deny him 3 time before the end of the day could Peter simply go against the words of Jesus by deliberately choosing opposite course and thus making Jesus word fail ?
    I know this is not in direct relation to this daily scripture and commentary but i have been looking to satisfying answer to this question for long time.Thanks for your reaction bros.peace

    • ewatchman

      God never overrides our free will. And he always hopes we will make the right choices. Take the example of Cain. God foresaw that he was harboring murderous intentions. So, God intervened to warn him. Cain refused to accept God’s counsel. And so he murdered his brother. It was not destined though. It was the choice Cain made.

      However, apparently in special circumstances Jehovah chooses to use his foreknowledge and is capable of knowing in advance the decisions individuals are going to make. In other words, Judas could have backed out at the last moment and not betrayed the Son of God, but God knew he wouldn’t. His fate was sealed when Jesus handed him the morsel and Satan entered into him.

      • Ed

        Appreciate your replay Rob.
        I do believe and known in free will also that we are free moral agents and not robots.So we are responsible for our choices and action.Neither I do believe in fate,having to said that I still see some special situation in case of Judas or like I mention or Peter.
        Simply because action of this individual were prophesied before.
        There is no prophesy uttered before about Cains action.
        If Judas wouldn’t betrayed Jesus and nobody else would than what? Wouldn’t Jesus be betrayed and killed by other means or persons ? I don’t think so.This would permanent feature of his mission prophesied by Gen 3:15 long time ago.
        Same apply to Peter, he would invalided Jesus words or foreknowledge.So I do see some inseparable correlation in these instances which I can’t fully comprehend were prophecies which originate with God intersect with a life of certain individuals in way that affects them and they can’t avoid otherwise future would take different path or Gods foreknowledge would fail.
        I’m not sure if I do clarify my point enough!

        • Bklyn Kevin

          Ultimately it was satan’s plan all along to kill Jesus even before mankind was created due to Satan’s insatiable appetite for power , take note of what Isaiah said about Satan.
          I will go up above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself resemble the Most High.’
          Isaiah 14:14.
          [Satan] Because of your abundant trade,You became filled with violence, and you began to sin. So I will cast you out as profane from the mountain of God and destroy you, Ezekiel 28:16-18.
          Now Jehovah being who who he is all knowing and all seeing surely discerned Satan’s intentions prior to genesis 315:. And what most people don’t realize is that Satan, Adam,, and Judas Iscariot all chose to be adversaries of GOD So Jehovah obliged their choice because they are free moral agents and use them in that capacity according to his well as to accomplish his purpose.
          So my word that goes out of my mouth will be. It will not return to me without results, But it will certainly accomplish whatever is my delight, And it will have sure success in what I send it to do.Isaiah 55:11.
          Now let’s suppose for argument’s sake that Judss Iscariot had a change of mind and chose not to betray Jesus , then Satan would have chosen another one of his agents to do his bidding seing that he had many to choose from.
          For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps disguising himself as an angel of light. It is therefore nothing extraordinary if his ministers also keep disguising themselves as ministers of righteousness. But their end will be according to their works.2 Corinthians 11:13-15.

          • Ed

            Thank you Kevin.
            I do agree with your well expressed point.
            As I wrote before I’m not fatalist.Also I don’t want to sound like someone who goes back and forth and no answer can satisfy my question.
            Rob in his replay use example of Cain.No issue with that he acted as free moral agent with no strings attached by any previous prophecy as far as we know.
            Judas as you wrote if he wouldn’t fulfill his role Satan would use somebody else as his agent.
            So than how about Peter than?
            Could he avoid his human failure and thus do not betrayed Jesus 3 times based on Jesus words?
            Jesus uttered these words about Peter just few hours before
            it happened an Peter in his eagerness and determination to stand and defend the Jesus anytime even if other would not could exercise extra great measure of awareness, cautiousness in order do not fail to this temptation and failure thus prove his loyalty.
            It was for sure unpleasant to his ears what Jesus foreknow and foretold about his so upcoming action.Despite all his determination he did fail and Jesus was right.
            Personalty I do not see space he wouldn’t do what Jesus said.Do you ?
            I don’t want to make a big deal about it. I just think that ones word is spoken by Jehovah or Jesus it can’t be taken back without impacting further events and individuals involved as you refer to Isa 55 :11.
            If fore-ordination is not the case than the word – utterance override the the further possibilities and choices ?
            peace,

            • Bklyn Kevin

              No doubt you have an excellent point concerning Peter and I most certainly will investigate your point and let you know what I come up with. However it is important to understand that denial and betrayal are two different things ,Judas Clearly betrayed Jesus Where’s Peter denied Jesus three times Which is not a betrayal but a weakness And in fact Jesus lovingly warned Peter and if Peter had adhered to the warning then Peter would have not stumbled But unfortunately the flesh is weak ,
              Let’s suppose for argument’s sake Peter did listen to Jesus’s loving warning and Peter did not stumble.
              Would that mean Jesus was wrong, No it would most certainly not ,It would only mean that Jesus had foresight and gave Peter direction just like when Jehovah gave Cain directions.

            • Ed

              I make a pardon Kevin when I used word betrayal of course I meant denial.No question about the difference in this two words! My mistake.
              I just did read Matt 26 :31-34 NWT. In v.34 Jesus used the word”…you WILL disown me 3 times” I did capitalize will just to emphasize that “will” means certainty not possibility in EN if I’m not wrong …so I do have that feeling that if Peter wouldn’t fail Jesus word “will” wouldn’t became will ….so Jesus would be wrong.What is unimaginable idea to me.
              In contrary Peter was so confident of his loyalty that he didn’t admit even the possibility if his failure.
              I do appreciate any other input and any effort from your part Kevin.
              peace

            • Bklyn Kevin

              will1verb
              modal verb: will
              1.
              expressing the future tense.”you will regret it when you are older”
              expressing a strong intention or assertion about the future.”come what may, I will succeed”
              2.
              expressing inevitable events.”accidents will happen”

              Let’s suppose for argument’s sake Peter did listen to Jesus’s loving warning and Peter did not stumble.
              Would that mean Jesus was wrong, No, It would only mean that Jesus had foresight / foreknowledge and gave Peter direction just like when Jehovah gave Cain directions because Cain was about to take some false steps.

              Then Jehovah said to Cain: “Why are you so angry and dejected? If you turn to doing good, will you not be restored to favor?* But if you do not turn to doing good, sin is crouching at the door, and its craving is to dominate you; but will you get the mastery over it?” Genesis 4:6-7.

              Jehovah used his foreknowledge and lovingly warned Cain and that’s exactly what Jesus did with Luke and whether they heeded the warning or not was entirely up to them, “their choice”.
              Now men being free moral agents regardless of what choices they make whether they are right or wrong will not hinder Jehovah’s overall purpose.

              For Jehovah of armies has decided,And who can thwart it? His hand is stretched out, And who can turn it back? Isaiah14:27.

            • Ed

              Thank you Kevin,
              I do kind understand what you try to tell me however I can’t fully identify or agree.
              I tend to think that case of Cain is something different.Because in Peter’s case there was no IF like in Cain’s or Adam’s case.
              Jesus didn’t said to Peter IF you will… or will not …than this or this will happen.Do you think Jesus will use that wording if there was a chance Peter would not ?
              I don’t want to sound like like empty philosopher,and I have no definitive answers to this I’m just searching for them.
              best wishes and peace Kevin

            • D34D 4L!3N

              excellent!

          • Basavaraj Of North Karnataka

            To Brother Bklyn Kevin

            Hey what an answer Ya!!! That’s fantastic! Are you anointed one? What is your role in the Congregation and where are u from? Yes even though Jehovah knows what is our intention prior to the events, Jehovah doesn’t stop because doing so will mean that Jehovah really did not gave us free will of choice and he controls that. So taking the advantage of free will of God, Satan and his allies tries to derail God’s plan to prove that they are too smart than God. Yet though destroyed and finally putting the man into the mud yet Jehovah through Jesus puts Satan into 1000 years of prison and shows him the resurrection of all mankind so that Satan will see that Jehovah can reverse anything even though anyone like Satan can destroy or play mischief in God’s plan by misusing the free will of God. There by it shows that who Jehovah is and that he has the ability to revive and reverse things though you completely destroy God;s plan so that it gives a greater meaning to the name of Jehovah and there by it proves no one can outsmart Jehovah by misusing the free will of choice given by Jehovah God. So that no one can say to Jehovah that it is a mistake to give the free will of choice. The free will of choice then (in the kingdom of Christ) will be real blessing from Jehovah because all will be using it for a righteous purpose. Am I correct?

            • Bklyn Kevin

              Satan No doubt has free will and a vast amount of power beyond our Comprehension And has abused his god given privileges but even with all his power And his wisdom he/Satan will never be able to out smart Jehovah’s Plans or purpose.

              Genesis 18:14 Genesis 18:14
              14 Is anything too extraordinary for Jehovah? I will return to you next year at this appointed time, and Sarah will have a son.”
              Psalm 135:6 Psalm 135:6
              6 Jehovah does everything he pleases to do In heaven and on earth, in the seas and all the depths.

              Isaiah 43:13 Isaiah 43:13
              13 Also, I am always the same One; And no one can snatch anything out of my hand. When I act, who can prevent it?”
              Jeremiah 32:17 Jeremiah 32:17
              17 “Alas, O Sovereign Lord Jehovah! Look! You made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm. Nothing is too wonderful for you,
              Mark 10:27 Mark 10:27
              27 Looking straight at them, Jesus said: “With men it is impossible but not so with God, for all things are possible with God.”
              Luke 18:27 Luke 18:27
              27 He said: “The things impossible with men are possible with God.”
              Isaiah 55:10, 11 Isaiah 55:10, 11
              10 For just as the rain and the snow pour down from heaven And do not return there until they saturate the earth, making it produce and sprout,Giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, 11 So my word that goes out of my mouth will be. It will not return to me without results, But it will certainly accomplish whatever is my delight, And it will have sure success in what I send it to do.

            • Basavaraj Of North Karnataka

              Thanks for that Bklyn Kevin

            • D34D 4L!3N

              Jehovah is so wonderful.

            • Bklyn Kevin

              How many things you have done,O Jehovah my God,Your wonderful works and your thoughts toward us. None can compare to you; If I were to try to tell and speak of them,They would be too numerous to recount, Psalms 40:5.

            • D34D 4L!3N

              great comment!

          • D34D 4L!3N

            i started to leave a comment but as usual it doesn’t get done for some reason or another. i wanted to comment saying Jehovah knew there was a chance or possibility Adam an Eve could rebel with the tree of knowledge. so it can make one wonder what issues may have occured before their creation even not recorded in scripture. we want to be careful we dont get too arrogant that we know better then Jehovah. also if we are lacking in understanding, its best to just ask him an be patient for understanding.

            • Bklyn Kevin

              Yes I do sound presumptuous when I used the word “ultimately”, but I can assure you I was not trying to be arrogant intentionally, it was just a bad choice of wording on my part. Thank you for the correction.

            • D34D 4L!3N

              oh i wasnt making any correction but if you found one then kool. i was just complimenting your comment. you touched on my thought i had the other day 🙂 humm; was saying like Basavaraj, “too smart than God” can be a trap like you pointed out Satan wanting to “resemble the Most High” and also if we dont understand something and get upset, we can talk to Jehovah about it even if it dont make sense to us, just be patient an not get too arrogant from our own understanding as if we know better

            • Bklyn Kevin

              Regardless of how the error came to light , there was a correction to be made concerning my dialog, like you said “Kool”.
              I’m always trying to read between the lines concerning the bible to try and understand if there was any previous events / situations that provoked the scripture that was written “as to get the big picture”.
              And I do get ahead of myself sometimes and make mistakes, after all we are not perfect and are bound to make them until Jehovah brings us back to perfection. until then I will always accept correction because after all Jehovah disciplines who he loves. Hebrews 12:6.

      • Judas could have backed out of betraying jesus before he took the 30 peaces of silver just like he decided to try and give the silver back after he betrayed jesus, showing his free will. only after he betrayed jesus did he really realize that he had betrayed Righteous blood but the deed was done. if it had not been judas it would have been some one else but the fact is Jehovah gave us all free will and yes in special circumstances Jehovah chooses to use his foreknowledge and is capable of knowing in advance the decisions individuals are going to make but there is still free will and the matter of having faith.

  • irene evans

    does the command to abstain from blood in the book of Acts refer to not eating or drinking blood, as it did under the Mosaic Law code,….but not to blood transfusions…..this has been suggested to me andd i would like some advice thanks

    • ewatchman

      Long before the Law of Moses God explained to Noah that all life belonged to him and his ownership of all living things particularly involves blood; obviously since blood is life.

      Basically, God has stated that our blood belongs to him. So, it was not merely that the Israelites couldn’t eat or drink blood, they could not do anything with it other than what was prescribed in the Law for official sacrifice. The blood of all animals slaughtered had to be poured on the ground, symbolizing their giving it back to God. Particularly is God’s ownership of our blood demonstrated by the fact that Christ poured out his own blood to purchase us for God.

      So, if God declares that he owns our blood, who are we to give it away by “donating” it or receiving someone else’s “donated” blood? Taking something that belongs to another is called stealing. And stealing from God is what got Adam and Eve in trouble in the first place. Of course, the Devil has really made it complicated with blood fractions and derivatives and complex procedures. But the basic premise is simple – God owns our blood.

      Interestingly, although medical transfusions obviously did not exist in the 1st century, the injunction against blood seems to have anticipated the practice. That is because the apostles did not merely say ‘do not eat blood.’ They said abstain from it. That would seem to encompass more than just not eating or drinking it.

      • Teleologist

        Robert, you point out that the Israelites not only could not eat or drink blood, they could not do anything with it other than what was prescribed in the Law for official sacrifice. The blood of all animals slaughtered had to be poured on the ground. That is correct. Under the Mosaic Law Israelites were required to TREAT blood as a sacred substance at all times because blood was a primary part of sacred atonement sacrifices unique to the Mosaic Law. Now if Christians were under the Mosaic law, what you present would be a good argument for not doing anything with blood.

        But as it is written the command to abstain from blood and from things strangled at Acts 15:28-29 mirrors the Noachian Decree. Since Christ removed the Mosaic Law by abolishing it and since the Noachian Decree which preceded the Mosaic law has never been removed by Christ or anyone else, then the Noachian Decree remains as the sole scriptural text for Christians to know what blood God requires us to abstain from and what sort of abstention He requires. This by the way is what the Watchtower Society teaches:

        Insight on the Scriptures, Vol.1,page 345, paragraph 8, says this about the Apostolic Decree found in the 15th chapter of Acts:

        “This decree rests, untimately, on God’s command not to eat blood, as given to Noah and his sons and, therefore, to all mankind”. See Genesis 9:1-6.

        NOTHING in the Noachian Decree required Noah to TREAT blood as a sacred substance. It was the Mosaic law and not the Noachian decree that required that blood be poured out on the ground. Noah was only told to abstain from EATING the blood of animals he killed for food. Otherwise Noah could have used blood in whatever ignoble way he wanted and not have offended the requirement God laid before him.

        Christians have no responsibility to conform to the Mosaic Law or some portion of it. Christians do have a responsibility to conform to the Noachian decree recorded at Genesis 9:1-6. Therefore, a Christian should abstain from the same blood and in the same manner as did righteous Noah. The blood Christians are to abstain from is the blood of animals killed for food and the manner of abstention is not eating this blood.

        Contemporary blood transfusion medicine does not use blood obtained by killing. On top of this, transplantation of blood is no more eating blood than transplanting a kidney is eating a kidney. Watchtower’s blood doctrine was concocted by the same persons inside the Watchtower organization who believed that human kidney transplantation was THE SAME AS eating a kidney! Think about that and let it soak in before responding.

        Robert King said: “So, if God declares that he owns our blood, who are we to give it away by “donating” it or receiving someone else’s “donated” blood? Taking something that belongs to another is called stealing”.

        Jesus said we can donate our life to save life. (John 15:13 ) If we can donate our life which includes ALL our blood and ALL our flesh, our entire existence to save others then on what basis would it be a sin to donate a pint of our blood to save life? The only way that could be true is if God views blood as more sacred than life itself which is absurd.

        • ewatchman

          The apostle’s decree to abstain from blood was not considered a fallback to the law God gave Noah. The apostles said “except these necessary things.” Idolatry and fornication were not mentioned in the Noachian covenant, yet they were considered the exception from the law of Moses, along with abstention from blood, that were necessary and healthful.

          Besides, it is a phony argument that transfused blood is “life-saving.” Far more people have died from taking “life-saving” blood than have died from abstaining.

          • Teleologist

            Robert you said:
            “The apostle’s decree to abstain from blood was not considered a fallback to the law God gave Noah.”

            It has been the Watchtower’s teaching for as long as I can remember and I became a JW long before you that the Apostolic Decree is based on the Noachian Decree. I can’t figure out if you support the Watchtower’s entire blood doctrine or you promote your own personal blood doctrine. But here is the Watchtower’s position on the
            Apostolic Decree:

            Insight on the Scriptures, Vol.1,page 345, paragraph 8, says this about the Apostolic Decree found in the 15th chapter of Acts:

            “This decree rests, untimately, on God’s command not to eat blood, as given to Noah and his sons and, therefore, to all mankind…This law [of abstaing from blood] was older than the days of Moses, being given to Noah and his sons, long before the days of Abraham and therefore when the Apostles and Elders in the Council at Jerusalem declared that the Gentiles were not obliged to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, they accepted this law of abstaining from blood, and things strangled, as being an earlier law of God, imposed not on the sons of Abraham only, but on all nations..”

            Robert, you said:
            “Besides, it is a phony argument that transfused blood is “life-saving.” Far more people have died from taking “life-saving” blood than have died from abstaining.”

            If the Watchtower Society wants to inform JW’s about the dangers associated with blood transfusions then fine but they should also point out that JW’s that take Watchtower “approved” blood fractions are vunerable to getting the same diseases that persons get from taking blood transfusions. In some cases the risk is much greater because the fractions are taken from pooled blood.

            Whole blood is seldom transfused anymore. It is parts of blood that are transfused. The problem is that the Watchtower Society has decided to determine for JW’s what parts of blood are a conscience matter and what parts of blood are a disfellowshipping offense. Taking parts of blood called fractions are a conscience matter while taking parts of blood such as red cells, white cells, plasma, and platelets are a disfellowshipping offense. The WTS has provided no information on how they make this determination. They have never claimed that red cells, white cells, plasma, and platelets are each individually blood. Watchtower literature just says that JW don’t take these parts of blood but never explain why.

            Robert, would you shun a JW that was disfellowshipped for taking a Watchtower forbidden part of blood while at the same time treating another JW as a brother that took a part of blood not forbidden by Watchtower policy? Both took a part of blood. Neither part is addressed in scripture.

        • Proverbs 13:16 Proverbs 13:16

          16 The shrewd person acts with knowledge,+But the fool exposes his own foolishness.

          Deuteronomy 12:23

          23 Just be firmly resolved not to eat the blood, because the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the flesh.

      • I could not agree more Robert the scriptures are very clear on the matter of taking blood or Blood fractions.

        Acts 15:29

        29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”

        Genesis 9:4 Genesis 9:4

        4 Only flesh with its life*—its blood+—you must not eat.+

        Leviticus 17:14 Leviticus 17:14

        14 For the life* of every sort of flesh is its blood, because the life* is in it. Consequently, I said to the Israelites: “You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh because the life* of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.”*+

        • Teleologist

          Why do you keep quoting scriptures from the Mosaic law about not eating blood when the Mosaic law is not binding on Christians? Also, no one is advocating the eating of blood. Having a blood transfusion is nothing like eating blood even though Watchtower literature says it is.

          • I’m sorry but jehovah’s word is very clear! I think ether you are confused on the issue or you are “Purposely” trying to twist this issue. lets go over this for a minute. the scripture clearly states to abstain from blood that much is clear and you are saying that taking in a blood transfusion is not the same thing as eating the blood but ether you are not getting it or you are confused on the issue. by eating or taking in blood by a transfusion you are still taking in blood or blood fractions. to me there is no grey area here how can you say taking a blood transfusion is not the same as eating blood? ether way a person takes in the blood by transfusion or eating it the blood is still going into there body is it not? the only difference I can see in taking in a transfusion is that the blood is directly pushed into a persons body and if a person is eating the blood there digesting it and that’s the only difference I can see but it just makes perfect sense that ether way you are taking in blood there for breaking gods law.

            Deuteronomy 12:23-25 Deuteronomy 12:23-25

            23 Just be firmly resolved not to eat the blood,+ because the blood is the life,*+ and you must not eat the life* with the flesh. 24 You must not eat it. You should pour it out on the ground like water.+ 25 You must not eat it, so that it may go well with you and your children after you, because you are doing what is right in Jehovah’s eyes.

            notice that this scripture says the blood is the life you must not eat the blood but you must pour it out on the ground does that sound like you should take a blood transfusion? no sir my friend I don’t think so and as I have already stated there is no grey area here.

            • Teleologist

              You don’t seem to understand the huge difference between eating something and taking something into your body so I will make it perfectly clear. When a person has an organ transplant they are taking human flesh into their body. Is this the same as eating human flesh? Of course not. Likewise, taking blood into your body via transfusion is not the same as eating blood as food is eaten.

              Once again, the scripture that says to pour blood on the ground was part of the Mosaic law which Christians are not under. On the other hand, God’s law to Noah that Christians are under says nothing about pouring blood on the ground.

              As I pointed out before transfused blood is not consumed by the body as food. That is why blood transfusions are never given to treat malnutrition. Give a starving person nothing but blood intravenously and they will starve to death.

              When an animal carcass is drained of blood there is still blood left in the meat. So when you eat meat you are eating blood. The only way to avoid eating any blood is to not eat meat so why didn’t God forbid eating meat? Because the whole point of draining blood from an animal killed for food wasn’t to prevent persons from eating any blood but was to teach persons to respect life. It is life that is sacred not blood in the law God gave to Noah.

            • I do see and understand your valid points my friend but no matter how the body gets blood into it the body is still getting blood no matter eating and digesting it or by way of blood transfusions blood fractions it still goes into the body does it not? yes of course it does. I can see you will just go around and around with this issue but the answer is right there in front of you scripture states abstain from blood there fore do not take in blood by way of eating it or transfusing it how can you not understand this? I and bkln kevin have given you some very clear insight on this matter and I’m very sure you understand. we have tried our best to give you accurate clear answers along with scripture to back up our answers so I suggest you stop chasing your tale in circles and get on track.

            • Teleologist

              You said: “scripture states abstain from blood there fore do not take in blood by way of eating it or transfusing it how can you not understand this?”

              It is simple. Unlike you, when I see the scripture that says “KEEP abstaining from blood” it is obvious to me that Christians at this time were already abstaining from blood and were being told to KEEP doing what they already were doing. This was not a new law. Nothing was being added. Therefore I ask what blood were Christians abstaining from and how were they abstaining from it. Here is how a JW would figured this out. JW’s believe that Acts 15:28-29 is based on God’s law given to Noah (Genesis 9:1-6). The blood Noah was told to abstain from was the blood of animals he killed for food and the manner of abstention was not eating this blood. This scripture in no way addresses donor blood. Donor blood is not obtained by killing and transfusing blood is not eating it. This is plain as day to me.

              I reject your argument that transfusing blood is the same as eating blood because both acts result in blood being taken into the body. That is like arguing that having a kidney transplant is the same as eating a kidney because either way a kidney is going into the body. Can’t you see how ridiculous this reasoning is?

              Perhaps you don’t know this but the Watchtower Society teaches that blood is an organ and a blood transfusion is an organ transplant. They do not view organ transplants as eating human organs which would be cannibalism. They therefore have no logical basis for teaching that transplanting blood is the same as eating blood.

              Here is a summation of my position on the blood issue:

              1. Christians remain under the Noachian Decree to abstain from blood. (Genesis 9:1-6)

              2. Christians must abstain from the SAME blood Noah had to abstain from, and

              3. Christians must abstain from that blood the SAME way Noah had to abstain from it.

              4. Noah was to abstain from EATING blood obtained by KILLING.

              5. Accordingly, Christians are to abstain from EATING blood obtained by KILLING.

              6. Contemporary medical transfusion of DONOR blood is NOT EATING blood, it is an organ transplant and this blood is NOT obtained by KILLING.

              7. Accordingly, medical transfusion of DONOR blood is not something Christians have to abstain from.

            • let me ask you one very simple question. if you are so insistent on this issue and you feel as if you have your answers why bother others with this question? I mean you think you have your answer and you are very insistent on your understanding in this matter so who drag this issue out and try and cram your understanding down another’s throat? is it to satisfy your own emotional need to rebel? really my friend you make no sense all you want to do is chase your tale in a circle and not listen to reason well then so be it my friend by all means do so I am not interested in your nonsensical reasoning. have a nice day.

            • Teleologist

              No one is forcing you to read my posts. You are just upset because you can’t refute the information I present. You didn’t address a single point I made in my last two posts. This just goes to show how weak your position is.

            • I speak the truth and his word. and jehovah’s position is never weak my friend.

            • let me ask you one very simple question. if you are so insistent on this issue and you feel as if you have your answers why bother others with this question? I mean you think you have your answer and you are very insistent on your understanding in this matter so why drag this issue out and try and cram your understanding down another’s throats? is it to satisfy your own emotional need to rebel? really my friend you make no sense all you want to do is chase your tale in a circle and not listen to reason well then so be it my friend by all means do so I am not interested in your nonsensical reasoning. have a nice day.

            • Aura Olivas

              What you’re saying is, also, very interesting, and it also makes sense. Ugh! I’ll never stop being confused:(

            • don’t let this issue confuse you scripture clearly states do not take blood. it does not matter if the blood is eaten and digested or by glood transfusion blood fractions because ether way the blood is still going into a persons body and scripture clearly states we must abstain from blood.

              we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. Act :15:28 .

              As for the believers from among the “nations”, we have sent them our decision in writing that they should keep away from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood, from what is strangled,*and from sexual immorality Act :21:25.

            • Bklyn Kevin

              I imagine eve might have felt the same way as you do but nonetheless we should not listen or adhere to Satan like persuasion because it seems to make sense, you must remember what Satan said to eve when he deceived her ”
              So it said to the woman: “Did God really say that you must not eat from every tree of the garden?”

              At this the woman said to the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden.But God has said about the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden: ‘You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die.’”

              At this the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die. For God knows that in the very day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and bad.

              [However] Consequently, the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something desirable to the eyes, yes, the tree was pleasing to look at. So she began taking of its fruit and eating it. Afterward, she also gave some to her husband when he was with her, and he began eating it.

              So eve saw it was good for food and disregarded what Jehovah had commanded when he said ” do not eat of it or you will positively die.

              Now the truth is the forbidden fruit was probably good for food and did not cause her death, however she did fail to live off of every “utterance” of Jehovah’s mouth.

              So in essence her disobedience is what killed not only eve but Adam as well with no hope for a resurrection all due to her not abstaining from what belonged to GOD.

              Now Jehovah clearly tells us to abstain from blood it is forbidding and blood belongs exclusively to him, it is his property! just like the tree in the middle of the garden.

              But he answered: “It is written: ‘Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every word that comes from Jehovah’s* mouth. Matthew 4:4 also read Genesis 3:.

            • Aura Olivas

              Thanks Leonard!

            • Teleologist

              Don’t be fooled by those that claim the Bible clearly states do not take blood. Sure there is a scripture that says to abstain from blood but what blood is it referring to and what manner of abstention is required?

              You need to understand that the decree to abstain from blood
              (Acts 15:29 ) is based on the law God gave to Noah at Genesis 9:1-6. Read this text and you will clearly see that the blood that Noah was to abstain from was the blood of animals he killed for food and the abstention required was not EATING this blood. Noah was not REQUIRED to abstain from DONOR blood. Until someone CAN SHOW a REQUIREMENT that Noah had to abstain from DONOR blood then it remains the case that:
              Noah was not required to abstain from DONOR blood and blood used in contemporary transfusion therapy is DONOR blood.

              Now some will argue that transfusing donor blood didn’t exist in Bible times. That’s true but if it did it would not have been in violation of God’s law to Noah. Noah was told to not EAT the blood of animals he killed for food. DONOR blood is not obtained from KILLING and transfusing DONOR blood is not the same as eating it.

              Christians are only required to abstain from the same blood and in the same manner as did righteous Noah.

            • Sam

              If my doctor told me to “abstain” from alcohol, i’m sure he wouldn’t be ok with me then having it injected into my blood stream instead.

            • Teleologist

              If your doctor told you to abstain from blood transfusions would you have the slightest notion that this advice would also mean you should not eat blood?

            • Aura Olivas

              True

            • Besorongola Rainisoa

              I agree 100% with you.
              Jehovah never released a law that does not give the same chance of being respected for everyone. it is so easy to find an alternative to the Blood Transfusion in some countries while it is almost impossible in some countries.

          • I think you should go over this article again because as far as I can read jehovah’s witnesses do not except blood transfusions no matter blood fractions or blood transfusions but rather blood Alternatives.

            now if you are just stating that taking in a blood transfusion is not the same as eating blood yes I agree but ether way a person would still be taking in blood and that is going against scripture and breaking Jehovah’s law my friend.

            https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jehovahs-witnesses-why-no-blood-transfusions/#?insight%5Bsearch_id%5D=2e042a0b-2744-4c3a-b768-835aa71070be&insight%5Bsearch_result_index%5D=2

            • Teleologist

              The scriptures say to not eat blood. There are no scriptures that say to
              not “take in blood”.

            • I see no reason to continue on debating this issue with you my friend i and others have tried to answer your questions to the best of our abilitys and i see no point in wasting any more time with you on this issue sir.

              Isaiah 48:4
              4 Because I knew how stubborn you are —That your neck is an iron sinew and your forehead is copper—

            • Teleologist

              Most of my comments have been ignored by you. All of them in my last post were ignored. So it is no surprise to me you don’t want to continue. That’s fine with me. I don’t like wasting time either.

          • look at Roberts comment –>

            ewatchman Mod irene evans • 13 days ago

            Long before the Law of Moses God explained to Noah that all life belonged to him and his ownership of all living things particularly involves blood; obviously since blood is life.

            does that make sense to you? it makes perfect sense to me what more is there to understand are you getting the sense of it?

          • Bklyn Kevin

            we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. Act :15:28 .

            As for the believers from among the “nations”, we have sent them our decision in writing that they should keep away from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood, from what is strangled,*and from sexual immorality Act :21:25.

            This information was clearly directed towards the gentile nations which were non Jewish therefore it must be applicable to Christianity regardless of its origins.

            The bottom line is.. Everything we eat gets broken down and is carried
            along by the circulatory system and supplies various nutrients to the body.
            If you take poison orally you can surely die if you take it intravenously you can surely die as well
            So whether you
            take blood orally or intravenously is basically the same
            thing

            • Teleologist

              I never said Acts 15: 28 isn’t applicable to Christianity. Of course it is.

              Yes, blood carries nutrients to the body but the blood itself is not consumed by the body as food. That is why blood transfusions are never given to treat malnutrition. Give a starving person nothing but blood intravenously and they will starve to death.

            • I think you surely know the answers to your own questions sir but every time you get the answers that I’m sure you are well aware of you just go from one extream to another. my advice to you sire is reason apon scripture use the reasoning power Jehovah gave you don’t let your self be stumbled pray and move forward pray that Jehovah give you understanding if indeed that is what you seek. have a nice day sire.

            • Bklyn Kevin

              I said it was basically the same thing, in other words whether you eat blood or receive it intravenously it still winds up in your circulatory system being picked apart for what ever nutritional value the body could use.
              However if you do further research you will find out that people can survive by the consumption of blood with vitamin supplements however they will probably overdosed on iron as well as other toxins before they starve to death.
              It appears you have a talent for twists words / things around as well as the question that you had ask or subjects that you inquire about,
              with all due respect that’s a form of trolling, perhaps you are not aware that you are trolling but nonetheless you are.

  • Kevin b

    One thing that I think we can all agree on, is that the branch can really make a mess of things. Like the blood issue. Flip flop after flip flop. If you have time google the “Jenson letters”on the blood issue. It’s an elder writing letters to the branch about the blood issue. No matter which side of the issue you are on, it’s quite interesting to see the the dialogue between the two. It is quite long but well worth the read.
    Trying to convince a JW that it’s ok to take blood is as hard if not harder than to convince them of the truth about 1914.
    When you cook a steak or a hamburger and put it on a plate you see the red juice coming out. You know it’s blood, but your told, you can’t get all the blood out that’s ok it’s the sanctity of the blood that’s important. So as long as the animals throat was slit and blood is poured out that’s all that matters. So is it the blood or the sanctity of blood that matters? Think about it, let it sink in, you are eating blood if you eat meat. 97% of White blood cells are stored in the organs and flesh of humans. I guess that’s the same in animals, not sure so don’t quote me on that. White blood cells are a no no for Jws. Are we really following the scriptures about blood if we eat meat, yet we a told that its ok to eat meat in the bible. Food for thought.
    Lot and Noah got drunk. Moses killed a man. Rahab was a prostitute. David had an affair and had a man killed. Yet, all these individuals were found favorable in Jehovahs eyes. Yet the things they did, most of us would never do.
    The bible says to marry only in the lord, yet people marry unbelievers all the time.
    I love seafood. Shrimp, crab, catfish and shellfish, yet notice what the bible says at
    Lev.11:9 “‘This is what you may eat of everything in the waters: Anything in the waters that has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers, it you may eat. 10 But anything in the seas and in the rivers that has no fins and scales, among all the swarming creatures and of every other living creature that is in the waters, it is a loathsome thing for you.
    I know we all love the comments on ewatchman from our sisters, and at the Kingdom Hall. But notice what 1 corinthians 14: 34 has to say. let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak. Rather, let them be in subjection, as the Law also says. 35 If they want to learn something, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the congregation.
    As you can see, we don’t always follow the scriptures to the letter.
    It is no longer a disfellowshipping offense if we have a blood transfusion. In 2000 they changed it to disassociation. Yet, if you are found repentant by three brothers you will be looked at as spiritually weak, but not shunned and disfellowshipped. So if you cry and beg and put on a good show there will be no consequences for it in the congregations eyes. This change in 2000 was very interesting as to why and how this was done. If you want to learn why this was changed, Google Jehovah’s witnesses blood issue in Bulgaria. This was an eye opener for me about the dishonesty of the branch.
    To be honest, I think this whole blood issue is one more way for Satan to mess with us, and make us lose faith in Jehovah and Jesus. Gods “earthly organization” is on its way out, with all of the man made rules and twisted interpretation of scripture by the governing body.
    The no blood policy started in 1945. I thought Jesus found the witness favorable and true in 1918 or sometime around then, when transfusions were ok for Jws. Oh yea, the light must of gotten brighter in 1945. I’ve heard that since the war was over 1945, to put the spotlight back on the witnesses this rule was adopted. Mission accomplished!!
    Whether you do or don’t take blood its your business. Nobody else’s. You are accountable to Jehovah for your own actions.

    • Kevin b

      This is directed to those discussing the blood issue, and organ transplants.

      Awake! 1968 June 8 p.21

      There are those, such as the Christian witnesses of Jehovah, who consider all transplants between humans as cannibalism…

      Here comes the flip flop.

      Watchtower 1980 March 15 p.31 Questions from Readers

      Questions from Readers

      • Should congregation action be taken if a baptized Christian accepts a human organ transplant, such as of a cornea or a kidney?

      Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

      Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of transplantation. It is well known that the use of human materials for human consumption varies all the way from minor items, such as hormones and corneas, to major organs, such as kidneys and hearts. While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision.(Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.

      Thus, blood is a tissue, not an organ. While organs are generally considered to have a single, specified function (or perhaps a group of closely-related functions), blood (the fluid inside the vessels, not the vessels themselves) has many different functions: deliver O 2 from lungs to cells.

      The Watchtower also fails to recognize that all acceptable blood fractions come from blood donated by humans, and it is blood that has been stored outside a human body, which in itself is on the Watchtower’s list of unacceptable practices.

      The governing body has gone above and beyond the scriptures on the blood issue. They have not drawn a line in the sand that they won’t cross. In fact it is a conscience matter to take fractions. It sounds like many here won’t even do that which is absolutely fine, that’s your right. The governing body is the one to blame not individual opinions.

      • Teleologist

        Hi Kevin, Watchtower literature said several decades ago that blood is an organ and a blood transfusion is an organ transplant. Once they said that organ transplants were a matter of conscience back in 1980 they should have made having a blood transfusion also a matter of conscience. I have been arguing this point for 10 years. I notice you said that blood is not an organ so I did a google search to see if the medical community has changed its mind about blood being an organ and there seems to be a controversy over whether blood is an organ or just a tissue. There are experts that go both ways. But either way a blood transfusion is still a transplant whether it is an organ transplant or a liquid tissue transplant. So the point still stands that having a blood transplant is no more the same as eating blood than having a kidney transplant is the same as eating a kidney. The Watchtower Society has to know this yet as late as 2014 they were still teaching that a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood!

        • Kevin b

          I did a quick google search on it and went with the first thing I saw. Where in watchtower literature does it say blood is an organ?

          • Teleologist

            Hi Kevin, here is the information you requested.
            Blood is an organ among many body parts that caused King David to exclaim: “O Jehovah, you have searched through me, and you know me. I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made”!—Psalm 139:1,14.
            1986 Watchtower, Sept 1, page 24, paragraph 9

            “Consequently, whether having religious objections to blood transfusions or not, many a person might decline blood simply because it is essentially an organ transplant that at best is only partially compatible with his own blood.” Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Question of Blood, 1977, p. 40. Paragraph 111.
            Since the Watchtower Society in 1980 made having an organ transplant a matter of conscience and they recognize a blood transfusion to be an organ transplant on what logical basis do they continue to forbid blood transfusions?

          • Teleologist

            Here is another quote:

            “Blood is an organ of the body, and a blood transfusion is nothing less that an organ transplant.”—Awake! August 22, 1999, p. 31

            • Kevin b

              Thanks for your speedy response. I don’t believe I have seen this before. This is quite a corner watchtower has painted itself in. The bible clearly states to abstain from blood. As mentioned earlier we know this was talking about animal blood, but does that mean human blood too? Watchtower will never change it in my opinion because of fear of lawsuits. As watchtower loves to say, “leave it in Jehovahs hands”. Thanks for your research.

Skip to toolbar