By David Claus
Talbot School of Theology, Biola University
bloodcovenantdc@gmail.com
Author Note: David Claus served as a Jehovah’s Witness elder for over a decade and comes from a five-generation JW family. He is currently an MA Theology candidate at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, pursuing doctoral research in pneumatology and canonical theology.
Editor’s Note
The following article, The Blood of the Covenant: A Canonical Evaluation of the Jehovah’s Witness Blood Transfusion Doctrine, presents a theological critique of the Watch Tower Society’s historical and current policies regarding blood.
Please note that the views and theological arguments expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of AJWRB. As a secular, educational association, AJWRB is dedicated to promoting the principles of free and informed consent for all patients, regardless of their religious views.
However, we recognize that for many Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Bible is viewed as the ultimate authority on the use of blood. For these individuals, serious theological evaluations—such as the author’s discussion of the Imago Dei , the distinction between metabolism and circulation , and the implications of the March 2026 policy shift —are deeply material to their personal medical decisions and the exercise of their conscience.
Abstract
On March 20, 2026, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses modified a 65-year prohibition on autologous blood storage, reclassifying it as a matter of personal conscience. This article evaluates the five primary scriptures used to support the broader blood transfusion prohibition: Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, 14, Deuteronomy 12:23, and Acts 15:28, 29. By tracing the
theological meaning of blood and its use in the Bible, I will examine whether or not these Bible verses provide the scriptural support the Governing Body invokes to defend its long-held view. I will also consider what Paul meant in Acts when he discussed the eating of blood by Christians, through a canonical and functional lens. By tracing the movement of blood theology from the First Blood of Genesis 3 to the Slain Lamb of Revelation 5, this study argues that the prohibition directly contradicts the biblical principles of life and atonement it claims to uphold. The March 2026 reversal by the Governing Body on blood storage and use, far from resolving doctrinal problems, exposed errors in hermeneutics and illogical reasoning, and an ongoing cavalier disregard for the lethal impact of its actions on the nine million adherents to its faith. In their own words, Jehovah’s Witness leaders confirmed their “no blood” prohibition was never divine law, yet they still left its most lethal applications entirely intact.
The Theology of First Blood and the Imago Dei
The biblical narrative of blood does not begin with a dietary restriction. It begins with God performing the first act of sacrifice to cover those He made in his image. Everything the canon says about blood afterward must be read in that light. In Genesis 3:21, God uses animal skin to physically clothe Adam and Eve, replacing the coverings they made for themselves out of fig leaves due to their shame. This was an act of loving divine initiative that obviously involved taking the first life of an animal in Eden. The act established the foundational logic of the entire biblical theology of blood before any law, covenant, or dietary prohibition existed. Something innocent dies so that the bearers of the Imago Dei may have their bodies and shame covered over, as they slowly begin to die due to their sin. This is substitutionary atonement at its most elemental, and it is God who performs it.
The prohibition in Genesis 9:4 against eating meat with its lifeblood still in it has to be read alongside the verses that immediately follow, which reveal a principle that governs the entire passage. Genesis 9:5-6 connects the blood prohibition directly to the prohibition of murder on the grounds that human beings are made in the image of God: “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.” The blood prohibition and the prohibition of murder share the same theological foundation: the sanctity of human life before God as His image bearers. This theological foundation carries an unavoidable implication that the Governing Body’s policy has never honestly reckoned with. A law designed to honor Imago Dei through the sacredness of blood cannot be applied in a way that demands the destruction of that image. To allow a human being to die when blood could preserve them is to use the symbol of life to end the life the symbol was designed to protect. The same text that grounds the blood prohibition in the sanctity of human life cannot allow the Governing Body’s inversion.
This Imago Dei framework does not merely introduce the argument — it runs through the entire canon and touches every subsequent point in the discussion of man’s sanctification. If the sacredness of blood derives from the sacredness of the life it represents, and if human life is sacred because it bears the image of God, then using blood to preserve human life is not a
violation of the blood prohibition. It is a fulfillment of the principle supporting it.
Functional Distinctions: Metabolism vs. Circulation
One of the most consequential hermeneutical errors in the Governing Body’s position is its failure to distinguish between the Hebrew word akal — to eat, to consume for nutrition — and the medical function of a blood transfusion. Every text on the organization’s list that they claim prohibits blood transfusions (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:10; Deuteronomy 12:23; Acts 15:28-29) uses dietary language to describe dietary behavior. Applying dietary prohibitions to surgical procedures is a categorical error that the Hebrew and Greek texts do not support.
Leviticus 17:10-14 makes this especially clear because it does not just prohibit eating blood; it immediately explains the theological reason in verse 11: “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.” The prohibition of eating blood is grounded in its atonement function, not in a general exclusion of blood from the human body. The distinction between dietary consumption and medical transfusion is not a modern rationalization that merits the criticism directed at it by the Governing Body. It is a key difference that the text’s own logic requires. Nutritional consumption involves the metabolic breakdown of a substance; the substance is chemically dismantled into waste and energy as the body processes it. A blood transfusion transfers intact red blood cells that enter the circulatory system and perform oxygen transport, which is the same biological, life-sustaining function Leviticus identifies as sacred. Transfused blood is not digested, assimilated, or destroyed. It continues to circulate in the body and sustains our vitality.
The Governing Body has historically argued that intravenous feeding constitutes a form of nourishment analogous to consuming blood and that the same principle applies to transfusions. This argument fails on biological and theological grounds. Intravenous nutrition delivers metabolic substrates — glucose, amino acids, lipids — that the body chemically converts to energy, which is precisely what dietary consumption does. A blood transfusion delivers intact red blood cells that the body does not metabolize but uses to transport oxygen. These are completely different biological processes. The Torah’s prohibition governs the consumption of food, and never the administration of a life-sustaining substance that is essentially a liquid organ transplant.
There is a further theological dimension here that the Jehovah’s Witness position has never addressed. Blood was set apart for the altar because it was designated as the atonement mechanism; it was sacred in function, and not merely in substance. If Christ fulfilled the altar’s function of atonement for sins once for all (Hebrews 10:10), the ceremonial setting-apart of blood as an exclusively sacrificial substance is no longer a theological barrier to its use. Once Jesus provided the ultimate sacrifice, the need for blood to be applied sacrificially in Jewish practice ceased. Just as Peter’s vision in Acts 10 signaled the end of food-based distinctions that had served their theological purpose under the Mosaic system, Jesus’ death signals the end of a system of worship requiring blood’s sacred designation. Jesus’ sacrifice was made once for all time. Therefore, instead of pouring it out through animal sacrifice, we are encouraged to take it in from Christ continually through the emblems (eucharist).
The Sacramental Participation (Koinonia)
In a Christian world, the New Testament fulfillment of blood theology now emphasizes reception of blood, not refusal of it. This is where the organization’s position falls flat, based on the canon. In John 6:53, Jesus commands his followers to drink his blood or have no life in them. This statement was shocking to the apostles, who were very accustomed to the sacred “pouring out” of blood on the ground in the Jewish tradition. Jesus tells them forcefully, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.” The command is explicit, repeated, and deliberately graphic, which is precisely why the disciples responded with: “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” (John 6:60). The Greek verb Jesus uses is trogo, meaning to chew or gnaw, describing a cannibalistic hunger and eating of human flesh and blood that is not abstract at all in its spiritual significance.
The Greek also gives us sacramental koinonia, a participation in the blood of Christ, which Paul develops throughout his letters. In Romans 6:3-4, he writes that believers have been baptized into Christ’s death and buried with him, putting them up close and personal with His sacrificed flesh. In 1 Corinthians 10:16, Jesus asks, “Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a
participation in the blood of Christ?” The answer is obviously yes, which means that by receiving the eucharist regularly, the church is constituting itself through the reception of Christ’s blood. If a believer is united to Christ’s flesh in death, immersed in his blood, and defined by participation in these, then the avoidance of blood based on the Law is over. A new day began for Christians in which Law prohibitions were abandoned because they were no longer necessary or appropriate. The church would, going forward after Jesus death and resurrection, preach a gospel of union and incorporation of the things condemned and protected under the Law, because Christ fulfilled the Law. Complete submersion in Christ, including his flesh and flood, is now the center of Christian identity.
Curiously, Jehovah’s Witness Memorial Celebration, observed annually, puts the organization’s complete theological disconnect with participation in Christ on full display. They invite everyone they know and try to evangelize to attend their commemoration of the Last Supper, where their interpretation of the event becomes extremely awkward. The cup, which they admit to symbolically contain Christ’s blood, is passed to each “Christian,” but no one takes a drink. They just smile as they touch the cup and pass it on to the next person. The reason for this is that they believe only a small “anointed class” is worthy to partake, and due to their failed eschatology that predicted Christ’s return so many times in the past that no one is counting anymore, no one in the Kingdom Hall ever drinks Christ’s figurative blood. Tragically, their church cannot receive Christ’s flesh or blood due to their complete misinterpretation of scripture, so everyone sits there wondering why the emblems are being passed in the first place. It is a truly confusing spectacle for visitors, explained away by their belief that essentially everyone still serving God on earth is of their “earthly class”, thereby leaving Christ completely absent from their “celebration,” in body and spirit. One must wonder why the Jehovah’s Witnesses celebrate the occasion at all. It’s like a big party where all the people supposed to be involved have left the rest of their brethren behind and taken celebration up to heaven with Jesus.
The organization that insists blood must never enter the body has presided over this annual event for over a century, passing Christ’s blood from hand to hand unreceived — not as an act of reverence for the sacredness of blood, but as a denial of the participation the New Testament commands. The connection between that annual ritual and the blood policy it mirrors is not
incidental. It is theological.
The 2026 Reversal and Logical Inconsistency
The March 20, 2026, policy shift allowing Jehovah’s Witnesses the small concession to store their blood for future use creates a logical problem that the organization has not acknowledged and cannot resolve within its own framework. If life is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11), the sacredness of the substance is inherent to its nature rather than its origin. A red blood cell drawn from one’s own arm and stored for surgical reinfusion is composed of the same sacred substance and performs the same biological function as a red blood cell donated by a stranger. The distinction the organization’s Governing Body has now drawn between autologous and allogeneic blood has no basis in any of the texts it cites. Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, Deuteronomy 12:23, and Acts 15:28-29 make no distinction between blood from personal or outside sources, and the reason for such a distinction by the Governing Body has yet to be meaningfully explained. The Jehovah’s Witness reversal has introduced a distinction that exists nowhere in the canon. And it completely contradicts the organization’s own stated principles of pouring blood onto the ground due to its sacrificial symbology.
More significantly, the Governing Body’s stated rationale for the reversal exposes the arbitrariness of the entire prohibition. By declaring that “the Bible does not comment on the use of a person’s own blood in medical and surgical care,” the organization has conceded that when the Bible is silent on a modern medical practice, the matter becomes one of personal conscience. This is the “silence argument” for freedom of interpretation. But such an approach should be applied with equal force to allogeneic blood transfusion, a practice that did not exist in the ancient world and is never addressed in any scriptural text. The Bible is no more silent on autologous storage than it is on allogeneic transfusion, which means the organization’s own logic demands the same conclusion for both. Maintaining the allogeneic prohibition while lifting the autologous prohibition is a distinction without a biblical or theological difference. Therefore, the March 2026 reversal, rather than resolving the theological problem, has made that incoherence worse and even less defensible.
Conclusion: The Watchman’s Accountability
The Watchman Principle of Ezekiel 3:18 places direct moral and spiritual accountability on those in positions of spiritual authority who possess knowledge that could save lives, and choose to withhold it: “When I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood.” Based on this everlasting scriptural principle, the Governing Body has much to answer for. An organization that claims to be the sole channel of divine truth to millions of people bears a correspondingly greater responsibility for the consequences of its doctrines. If it enforces them through disfellowshipping and shunning, that responsibility intensifies, and when the doctrine has been reclassified as a matter of personal conscience after eighty years of enforcement, causing the deaths of thousands of faithful adherents to this very day, the full weight of the watchman’s accountability comes into play.
With an estimated 60,000 to 150,000 lives lost since 1945 as a result of the blood prohibition — a figure derived from peer-reviewed mortality data in the American Journal of Medicine and Vox Sanguinis applied to official Watch Tower membership statistics — the moral weight of these interpretations is not theoretical. The Watch Tower Society has never released its own mortality data and has denied over and over again that its policy has cost lives.
From Genesis to Revelation, the canon presents a God who uses blood to cover, save, and redeem the lives he loves. The first blood in scripture is shed by God himself to preserve those made in his image. The last image of scripture is a Lamb bearing the marks of slaughter, standing at the center of the throne. The God who killed the first animal to cover Adam and Eve is the same God who in the person of his Son poured out His own blood to cover the sins of the world, and the blood that preserves life is not an offense to such a God. It is the expression of his deepest character. To use the symbol of life to permit the ending of life is a canonical inversion that the scriptures do not allow, and the March 2026 reversal has made it undeniable that the prohibition was never divine law to begin with. The people who died obeying it deserved to know the difference, and the families who grieve deserve a public apology and reparations.
Selected Bibliography
Claus, D. The Blood of the Covenant: A Canonical Theology. (Forthcoming).
American Journal of Medicine; Vox Sanguinis. Peer-reviewed mortality data regarding Jehovah’s
Witness blood refusal.
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology; British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.
Maternal mortality risks in Jehovah’s Witness populations.
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Watchtower, October 15, 1978, regarding the contextual
nature of dietary prohibitions in Acts 15.
Recent Comments