Forbidding blood transfusion is arguably the most controversial belief of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, being questioned not only by other religions but by secularists as well. The Witnesses would allow organ transplants, but would rather die than accept blood transfusion—in whole or with any of its four primary components (red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma)—even for critical medical emergencies they or their loves ones are in. Those who permit blood transfusion are disassociated and shunned by members of the organization. Note that transfusion of minor parts like albumin, immunoglobulins and hemophiliac preparations are not prohibited.
Interestingly, their position was quite different when they first adopted the name “Jehovah’s Witnesses” back in 1931. Then president and founder, Charles Taze Russel, as well as his successor, Joseph Franklin Rutherford, held that blood transfusions are acceptable and even commendable practice!
This started to change under their third president, Nathan Homer Knorr, who asserted that the Bible forbade eating or drinking of blood whether by transfusion or by the mouth. Ironically, the Watch Tower Society in Netherlands commented that refusing blood transfusion is an invention of people who are like the Pharisees who leave mercy and love aside.
In 1945, it was further made clear that blood transfusion, whether between different people or with stored own blood, was prohibited. However, no sanction was provided. In 1961, they made it clear this is a serious violation when they specified that anyone who will do so will be disfellowed and could potentially lose hope of eternal life.
In 1982, their Awake! magazine stated that minor blood components are allowed. It was further expanded to include hemodilution, that is, diluting a patient’s extracted blood with glucose and heparin solution prior to transfusion. In 2000, fractions of any of the primary components are allowed after carful and prayerful meditation of the patient.
It makes one think that if the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses are directed by God, He must be changing His mind frequently. Also, why did He have to wait so many decades for such a critical doctrine to be revealed as such? What does God really say to us in Scripture?
Covenant with Noah
Genesis 9:3-4 states, “
Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.” (New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses).
This is one of the core passages the Witnesses use to support their belief. However, this command is about respect for animal life during the ritual of slaughter, and does not state blood could not be eaten. In its strict Hebrew wording, it means an animal should not have flesh torn off it for food while the animal is still alive. It was understood back then that it should be bled when killed for food, or what’s called the command against eating strangled animals.
It is no surprise then that even the Watchtower originally recognised it as not applying to eating blood: "
All reasonable minds must conclude that it was not the eating of the blood that God objected to, but it was bringing the blood of the beast in contact with the blood of man." (Golden Age 1931 Feb 4 p.294)
Thus, Deuteronomy 14:21 allowed Israelites to sell unbled animals found dead to non-Israelites. As the animal was already dead, due respect for its life was sensibly given to it unlike if it is eaten while still alive. David’s action in 2 Samuel 23:13-16 exemplifies this when he refused to drink water given to him by men who didn’t show sanctity for their lives – i.e. it is not literal blood but respect for life that matters to God.
The Mosaic Law
Another core verse the Witnesses use is Leviticus 17:10-12 which states, “
As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst who eats any sort of blood, I shall certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the blood, and I shall indeed cut him off from among his people.”
Yet this too was related to the ritual of bleeding, not the blood itself. This is seen just a few verses after with Leviticus 17:15, “
As for any soul that eats a body already dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; and he must be clean.”
Note that eating unbled animal already found dead did not merit death penalty, but rather required people to bathe due to being unclean from handling a dead body. But even if that was not the case, remember that any divine command that comes after modifies divine commands that came earlier. This is because God’s commands
mature as His people mature. The command changes, but not its essence or rationale.
That said, it is worth noting that Jesus eradicated all dietary laws by declaring all food clean (Mark 7:18-19). Thus, it was no longer problematic for Him to ask His disciples to
drink His blood during the Last Supper, regardless if it was symbolic or not. Put simply, the command against drinking blood has passed away, for “
these are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Therefore, let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink” (Colossians 2:17-16).
Acts 15:20-21
This verse is perhaps the key verse the Witnesses use to support their belief on blood transfusion since it is in the New Testament. It asks Christians “
to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. For from ancient times Moses has had in city after city those who preach him, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
We need to take into consideration the historical and religious setting at this time to fully understand what this passage really means. To begin, the situation here was very specific–the Jewish Christians were having difficulty accepting Gentile Christians, particularly regarding circumcision. The Apostles and seniors of the Early Church convened and decided that observation of the Mosaic Law was unnecessary.
However, a “
discipline” was felt needed to ease acceptance of the Gentile Christians by the Jewish Christians. The Church Fathers were avoiding the Jewish Christians being scandalized by the Gentile Christians who are not bound by these practices, or more importantly, that they will not stumble in their faith by seeing their
new Gentile brothers and sisters not giving their beliefs any importance.
In other words, this was not a doctrine but a “practice” decided to ensure unity of the Church. In fact, St. Paul reminds the Christians at Rome and Corinth that they should stop judging food restrictions, and that they should be careful with their “etiquette” when around people who still abide by the old practices (see Romans 14:1-14 and 1 Corinthians).
It wouldn’t make sense for Jesus and the Apostles to preach that we need not abide by old Jewish practices and declare the dietary laws are lifted, if they would still hold people accountable with what they eat. So why have a
special list of “practices” in Acts 15:20-21? Because these are based on the laws given to Noah and of utmost importance to the Christian Jews. As both the Jewish and Gentile Christians grew more into the Apostle’s teaching, this became less of an issue.
It makes sense that in the New Testament, eating blood is never mentioned in any other context. It was never mentioned as a reason to shun a brother or sister by any of the Apostles, including John. If avoiding blood was a key requirement by God, it would’ve been mentioned excessively alongside sins such as fornication, murder and idolatry which are repeatedly condemned in the New Testament. But that is not the case since it is respect for life in its essence that is really important to God, and not that which merely symbolizes it.
The Last Supper and Pikuach Nefesh
Jesus commanded His Apostles to eat His flesh and drink His blood, and even asked them to do this in remembrance of Him. Non-Catholics will say that Jesus was just speaking symbolically, or some will say that it is okay since it is
His flesh and blood He was talking about and not an animal. But even if He was speaking symbolically, it would be a great contradiction for Him to ask us to act out symbolically what is intrinsically evil, right? And even if He is speaking of His flesh and blood, remember that the major rationale for the dietary law was respect for life. While it may sound good that Jesus is asking us to partake of His life, it still means we are “intentionally” killing Him, or basically disrespecting His life.
But perhaps Jesus following the principle of
pikuach nefesh is the greatest argument from Him. Jews would go at great lengths to soak meat in water, salt it and drain to draw out all blood as part of their kosher dietary laws based on the Old Testament, but none of them would forbid blood transfusions. This is because life-saving acts hold importance over them. This is what the rabbinic principle of
pikuach nefesh states. Consider what Jesus did when challenged by the Pharisees regarding not working on a Sabbath, a practice very strict during that time (see Matthew 12:11, Mark 3:4-5 or Luke 6:7-10). Dietary laws are not part of the Ten Commandments but the Sabbath is. Yet Jesus tells us that life is important, and God will be happier if we choose to save it. Why place more importance on the symbol than the reality it symbolizes?
Final Thoughts
If it is wrong for a Witness to donate blood, it is worth asking where the blood fractions come from? While it is okay to receive blood fractions according to them, you’d still need to “bleed” wholly to get it, right? Isn’t that forbidden according to their belief?
Moreover, why allow a fraction or only specific components, when some of these comprise even a bigger percentage of blood? For example, white blood cells (1 per cent of blood volume) and platelets (0.17 per cent) are forbidden, yet albumin (2.2 per cent of blood volume) is permitted.
If God forbids blood eating (and assuming it includes transfusion) out of respect for life, why would it be an issue if no one needs to die, and in fact would even save life?
Watchtower said on November 1, 1961 that, “
The important thing is that respect has been shown for the sanctity of blood, regard has been shown for the principle of the sacredness of life. What God's law requires is that the blood be drained from the animal when it is killed, not that the meat be soaked in some special preparation to draw out every trace of it."
If we’ll follow that logic, eating blood shouldn’t be a problem if it was bled properly, right? And if the important thing is to show God respect for life, doesn’t giving priority to the symbol over the life it actually symbolize disrespects God who gave life? How can we say we respect life when we easily throw it away merely for the blood that symbolizes it?
We should all respect people’s religious belief, but people shouldn’t needlessly die over a belief that is found on wrong foundations.
