Fri. May 7th, 2021


My father, a Jehovah’s Witness, told me the Bible does not promote any sort of blood infusion or organ transplant of another person. If you could offer any help it would be greatly appreciated.


I’d be happy to help. Gen. 9:4; Lev. 17:11-14; and Acts 15:19-21, 28 are the usual places Jehovah’s Witnesses point to for this. Below are the best proofs to reject the Jehovah’s Witnesses misinterpretation of these passages:

  1. Some biblical arguments: It is clear the context of these instructions were against eating/drinking blood, not blood transfusions. Blood transfusions did not exist in OT or NT times, so this cannot refer to blood transfusions or the commands would make no sense to Israel or the NT Christians. There were however, in both the OT and NT, many pagan practices involving eating and drinking blood along with the practice of strangling an animal to keep more of its blood in its meat. These pagan practices are what Scripture speaks against, not blood transfusions. Further, Lev. 17:13 shows how the Bible defines “eating blood.” It’s referring to eating animal blood. “…which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.” The Society outlaws transfusions based on a misread of these passages, but then allow followers to consume animal fat, which was also forbidden the Israelites. Even the Jewish people, who rigorously and consistently follow kosher eating laws, have never interpreted these passages to mean transfusions.
  2. A medical argument: One should also consider the fact that there are only four blood types in the world, even with all the billions of people in history. This is a strong scientific argument that God made us for modern medicine to be possible in terms of transfusions. While not conclusive, it is another strong point especially when coupled with the above.
  3. A scientific argument: There’s a vast difference physiologically in consuming blood orally and accepting a transfusion. Food is “eaten,” and digested to provide the body with necessary nutrients only found OUTSIDE the body. However, blood transfusions replenish the essential substance normally already INSIDE the body. Because of these vastly different physiological processes involved, their position can be easily seen incorrect.
  4. A historical argument: Finally the most persuasive proof might be, at least to JW’s themselves, the changes the Society has made regarding this issue over time. You will need to explicitly point to actual quotes demonstrating their previous stance regarding receiving “fractions of primary blood components” and what they practice now. This will show Jehovah’s Witnesses in their own words, not yours, that their teaching has changed. It also shows that the Society is being dishonest in claiming its teachings and practices have remained unchanged. Below is a link with sources demonstrating this. 

Leave a Reply