[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

that "greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for another".
TRANSFUSIONS AND NOAHIC MORALITY
Noahic Morality concerns itself with the recognition of God's ownership of life and through that
recognition, respect for life. Respect for life does not mean life cannot be taken; indeed life had to be
taken for the purpose of atonement and it had to be taken before flesh may be eaten.
But the sacredness of human life stands apart in its application of the principle: "respect for life". The
laws pertaining to animal life do not extend to human life, for with human life there is no permission
to kill, there are no instructions concerning the manner of the handling or the disposal of human
blood, no applicability for the purpose of atonement, no permission to eat human flesh.
In a blood transfusion human life is being saved; in the Noahic injunction concerning animal life, it is
being taken. In a blood transfusion the donor's life is not being taken; there is no requirement for
death to occur. Since the donated blood does not indicate life has been taken, it does not symbolise
death, whereas in Scripture the presence of the fluid does indicate death has occurred. The symbolism
of 'blood' in Scripture finds no fulfillment in the blood of a blood transfusion. In a blood transfusion
the flesh of the donor is not being prepared for eating, but in the Noahic instruction the blood is
drained to make the flesh suitable for eating.
The sacredness of life did not mean life could not be taken, provided it was animal life. The
sacredness of human life stands as a principle on its own, not because of rules governing the animal
kingdom. The Ten Commandments, the constitution of the Jewish economy, gave the principle
"Thou shalt not kill"; blood transfusions are intended to support that preservation of human life.
MOSAIC MORALITY: LEVITICUS 17
Leviticus 17 draws together the Mosaic teaching and morality on blood. It reveals that, in the light of
their teachings, the Jews were governed by pragmatic regulations.
The blood was to "make atonement" when it was applied to the altar in the Sanctuary (Lev. 17:11).
The New Testament retains the Levitical principle.
"The law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and
without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." (Heb. 9:22, NIV)
Christians recognise the symbolism that points forward to the worth of the death and resurrection of
their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Because of its sacral role in the Mosaic system, blood had to be respected. Since blood was
encountered in everyday life, from slaughter for food to menstruation, rules were enforced that
©1987 Doug Mason 21 doug_mason1940@yahoo.com.au
3: A Moral Principle
emphasised its sacred role. The rules were designed to prevent everyday contact with blood dulling
the believer's sensitivities to its message given in the Sanctuary services.
Following the Introduction, Leviticus 17 is arranged as four paragraphs: these commence at verses 3,
8, 10, and 13. The format of each of these paragraphs is similar. After similar openings, each
paragraph presents the definition of the sin (verses 3-4, 8-9, 10, 13-14), prescribes the punishment
(verses 4, 9, 10, 14) and generally closes with an additional reason for obedience (verses 5-7, 11-12,
14).
The Levitical Chapter concentrates on mistakes laymen are apt to make, and teaches:
* Domestic animals must not be killed away from the Tabernacle (verses 3-7)
* No sacrifices outside the Tabernacle (verses 8-9)
* No blood to be eaten (verses 10-12),
* Rules about hunting game animals (verses 13-16).
LEVITICUS 17, Paragraph #l
Verses 3-7 ban the killing of the main domestic sacrificial animals except in the Tabernacle.
The punishment against this offence is given in verse 4 of Leviticus 17 as "cut off" (compare verses 9,
10 and 14). The expression "cut off" is generally understood to mean to be punished directly by God.
The offender has shed blood and consequently will be punished directly by God.
"This offence is as serious as murder." (Journal of Biblical Literature, vol.
90, 1971, page 154)
"It is unlikely that judicial execution (at the hand of man) is intended (by
'cut off'), because many of the crimes to which this penalty is attached are
secret sins which would be difficult to prosecute in the court (eg. Exodus
30:38; Lev. 7:20-21; Num. 15:30-31). Moreover, God sometimes threatens
to cut people off himself. Such a threat would be unnecessary if capital
punishment were mandatory (17:10) [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]