Scriptural basis
The Bible passages used to support the blood doctrine, the organisation’s interpretation, and objections from named writers. Updated .
The passages, and what the Society says they mean
Genesis 9:3, 4
“Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat.”
Genesis 9:3, 4, New World Translation (Study Edition), jw.org The Society’s reading
“God here set out a regulation that applied, not merely to Noah and his immediate family, but to all mankind from that time on, because all those living since the Flood are descendants of Noah's family.”
“Blood”, Insight on the Scriptures, jw.org The objection — Brian J. Wright, Christian Research Institute
The command is given as a limit on eating animals, and it is animal blood it withholds. Taken at its word it says nothing about human blood and nothing about a medical procedure: “If we view the scriptural prohibitions literally, they refer to animal blood—not human blood—and therefore have nothing to do with human blood transfusions.” The same writer adds: “No scriptural passage commands refusing blood transfusions. No scriptural context implies refusing blood transfusions.”
Leviticus 17:10-14
“If any man of the house of Israel or any foreigner who is residing in your midst eats any sort of blood, I will certainly set my face against the one who is eating the blood, and I will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it. That is why I have said to the Israelites: ‘None of you should eat blood, and no foreigner who is residing in your midst should eat blood.’ If one of the Israelites or some foreigner who is residing in your midst is hunting and catches a wild animal or a bird that may be eaten, he must pour its blood out and cover it with dust. 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.’”
Leviticus 17:10-14, New World Translation (Study Edition), jw.org The Society’s reading
“God views blood as representing life. (Leviticus 17:14) So we avoid taking blood not only in obedience to God but also out of respect for him as the Giver of life.”
“Why Don't Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Blood Transfusions?”, jw.org The objection — Mandi Fry, Christian Medical Fellowship; the Deuteronomy 14:21 point as put by David Henke, Watchman Fellowship (Georgia)
The chapter sets the rule inside sacrifice and hunting — blood belongs on the altar or poured into the dust — and the blood in view is an animal's: “Leviticus 17:11-14 clearly refers to the blood of sacrificial animals”, and the passages “relate to the blood of animals and birds and bear no reference to human blood”. Elsewhere in the Torah, Deuteronomy 14:21 lets an Israelite give a carcass to a foreign resident or sell it to a foreigner — which, on this reading, marks the rule as a ceremonial obligation on Israel rather than a standing moral law binding everyone.
Deuteronomy 12:23-25
“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. You must not eat it. You should pour it out on the ground like water. 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.”
Deuteronomy 12:23-25, New World Translation (Study Edition), jw.org The Society’s reading
“Both the Old and New Testaments clearly command us to abstain from blood. (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:10; Deuteronomy 12:23; Acts 15:28, 29)”
“Why Don't Jehovah's Witnesses Accept Blood Transfusions?”, jw.org The objection — David Claus, AJWRB
What the passage forbids is eating, and what it requires is a way of slaughtering: pour the blood on the ground. Critics argue that the Hebrew verb concerns taking food into the body for nourishment, which is a different act from transferring intact cells into a circulation — the one is broken down as food, the other is not.
Acts 15:28, 29
“For the holy spirit and 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. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”
Acts 15:28, 29, New World Translation (Study Edition), jw.org The Society’s reading
“To use a comparison, consider a man who is told by the doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?”
“Blood”, Reasoning From the Scriptures, page 71 (Watchtower Online Library) The objection — Lee Elder, AJWRB
The decree is read as a settlement of a specific quarrel: whether Gentile converts had to keep the Law, and on what terms Jewish and Gentile Christians could sit at one table. Its four items track the rules Leviticus 17-18 lays on foreign residents, “not only the same as those outlined in Leviticus chapters seventeen and eighteen, they are even listed in the same order”, and the stated purpose is fellowship — “If Gentile Christians observed these aspects of the law, even those Jewish Christians with sensitive consciences would be able to fellowship with them, thus preserving the unity of the congregations.” James gives the reason in the next verse: Moses “is read aloud in the synagogues every sabbath” (Acts 15:21).
Acts 21:25
“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.”
Acts 21:25, New World Translation (Study Edition), jw.org The Society’s reading
“Christians are not under the Mosaic Law. However, we obey the apostolic command to “abstain from blood.””
2026 Governing Body Update #2, 20 March 2026, as quoted in the September 2026 “Questions From Readers”, jw.org - How Do Jehovah's Witnesses Show Respect for Life? ("Questions From Readers")
- 2026 Governing Body Update #2
The objection — Jason Barker, Watchman Fellowship
The verse repeats the same four items to the same Jerusalem audience and adds nothing about medicine; it is evidence of what the decree said, not of how far it reaches. The objection is that the doctrine is not derived from these words but brought to them: “The Society's broad interpretation of the passages above is in reality a case of eisegesis: the Society is using its doctrine to interpret the Bible, rather than using the Bible to inform its doctrine.”
A text the Society’s case does not cite
Deuteronomy 14:21
“You must not eat any animal that was found dead. You may give it to the foreign resident who is inside your cities, and he may eat it, or it may be sold to a foreigner. For you are a holy people to Jehovah your God.”
Deuteronomy 14:21, New World Translation (Study Edition), jw.org An animal found dead has not been bled. Two chapters after the command at Deuteronomy 12:23-25, the same code permits an Israelite to pass that carcass to a foreign resident or sell it to a foreigner.
How the Society read the same passages before 1945
The quotations below are reproduced from secondary sources. They have not been checked against original copies for this site.
“He further suggested writing to them merely that they abstain from pollutions of idols, i.e., from meats offered to idols (verse 29), and from things strangled and from blood — as by eating such things they might become stumbling blocks to their Jewish brethren (See 1 Cor. 8:4-13) — and from fornication.”
Zion's Watch Tower, 15 November 1892, pages 350-351 — unverified: quoted via a secondary source that reproduces it The Society's own commentary on Acts 15 reads the blood clause as a rule about eating, adopted so that Gentile converts would not offend Jewish believers.
“These prohibitions had never come to the Gentiles, because they had never been under the Law Covenant; but so deeply rooted were the Jewish ideas on this subject that it was necessary to the peace of the church that the Gentiles should observe this matter also.”
The Watch Tower, 15 April 1909, pages 116-117 — unverified: quoted via a secondary source that reproduces it The decree is described as a concession made for the peace of the church, binding on Gentile Christians for that reason rather than as a standing law.
“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.”
The Golden Age, 4 February 1931, page 294 — unverified: quoted via a secondary source that reproduces it Fourteen years before the doctrine, a Watch Tower journal reads Genesis 9:4 as a rule about mixing, not about consumption — a reading the Society does not now hold.
How the published interpretation has changed
Excerpts from the publications cited below.
“Furthermore, the Bible does not comment on the use of a person's own blood in medical and surgical care.”
“Jehovah's Witnesses hold that accepting whole blood or any of those four primary components violates God's law.”
“Beyond that, when it comes to fractions of any of the primary components, each Christian, after careful and prayerful meditation, must conscientiously decide for himself.”
“…each Christian must make his own personal decision about the use of these four primary components in all medical and surgical care.”
What other Christian bodies concluded from the same texts
These Christian organisations dispute the doctrine. Their arguments differ, and each is attributed to its author.
- Christian Research Institute — Brian J. Wright
- The prohibitions, read literally, concern animal blood; no passage commands refusing a transfusion and no context implies it.
- Watchman Fellowship — Jason Barker
- The reading is eisegesis — doctrine brought to the text rather than drawn from it — and the passages address consuming animal blood, not a procedure unknown to the writers.
- Watchman Fellowship, Georgia — David Henke
- The blood prohibition is ceremonial rather than moral: Deuteronomy 14:21 lets an Israelite pass an unbled carcass to a Gentile, and Leviticus 17:15 resolves a breach by washing rather than by death.
- Christian Medical Fellowship (UK) — Mandi Fry
- Leviticus 17:11-14 concerns sacrificial animals; the passages bear no reference to human blood, and Acts 15 gave contextual guidance for Jewish-Gentile relations rather than a universal prohibition.
Commentary
This site’s assessment of the sources above.
These passages discuss blood in the context of food, sacrifice and religious observance. Applying them to transfusion requires an interpretation. The Society argues that abstaining from blood includes taking it into the veins; the critics quoted here dispute that extension.
The earlier publications and the 2026 revisions show that the organisation’s interpretation has changed. The current distinction between whole blood and components is a doctrinal judgment about how to apply the passages. It is not a distinction those passages themselves describe.