For a number of years in JW history it was taught that having a blood transfusion was a matter of personal choice that an individual made between him/her and God. It was not to be anybody else’s business. Blood transfusions were frowned upon by the WTS leadership (WT July 1, 1945 pages 199-200). The WTS leaders were hoping that by not condoning the use of human blood in any way, and at the same time seemingly allowing freedom of choice for the brothers, the brothers would make the right decision.
Evidently (ha-ha) the WT leaders guessed wrong. Evidently too many JW’s were choosing to accept blood transfusions. The rank and file were clearly making the wrong choices or decisions in regards to blood. If the WT can’t influence or persuade one’s thinking, then it’s time to ramp up the consequences for these “stiff-necked people.” In other words we’ll say that it’s a personal choice, but you must choose our way, or else!
WT July 1, 1951 p. 416 Questions From Readers
● Then are we to conclude that Jehovah’s witnesses oppose the people’s use of transfusions?
That would be a wrong conclusion. Jehovah’s witnesses do not oppose the people’s use of transfusions, but allow each one the right to decide for himself what he can conscientiously do. The Israelites felt bound to abide by God’s law forbidding the eating of meat with the blood congealed in it, but still they had no objection whatever to those outside God’s organization doing it, and even supplied unbled carcasses to outsiders who regularly ate such things anyway. (Deut. 14:21) Each one decides for himself, and bears the responsibility for his course. Jehovah’s witnesses consecrate their lives to God and feel bound by his Word, and with these things in view they individually decide their personal course and bear their personal responsibility therefor before God.
WT August 1, 1958 p. 478 Questions From Readers
● One of Jehovah’s witnesses who claims to be of the anointed remnant recently went to the hospital and took a blood transfusion, voluntarily. Should she be allowed to partake of the emblems of bread and wine at Memorial time? R. J., United States.
We, of course, regret with you that this sister who professes to be one of the anointed remnant took a blood transfusion voluntarily during her stay in the hospital. We believe that she did the wrong thing contrary to the will of God. However, congregations have never been instructed to disfellowship those who voluntarily take blood transfusions or approve them.We let the judgment of such violators of God’s law concerning the sacredness of blood remain with Jehovah, the Supreme Judge.
Since an individual is not disfellowshiped because of having voluntarily taken a blood transfusion or having approved of a dear one’s accepting a blood transfusion, you have no right to bar this sister from the celebration of the Lord’s Evening Meal. As an anointed member of Christ’s body she is under orders and command by Christ Jesus to partake. Whether she is unfaithful as to what she professes to be by virtue of taking the emblems of the Lord’s Evening Meal is something for Jehovah God to determine himself.
*Let Us Now Help You Make The Right Choice!(From Now On You Can Be Disfellowshipped)*
WT January 15, 1961 pp. 63-64 Questions From Readers
● In view of the seriousness of taking blood into the human system by a transfusion, would violation of the Holy Scriptures in this regard subject the dedicated, baptized receiver of blood transfusion to being disfellowshipped from the Christian congregation?
The inspired Holy Scriptures answer yes. About the middle of the first “Christian” century the twelve apostles of Christ met with the other mature representatives of the congregation at Jerusalem to determine what should be the Scriptural requirement for the admission of non-Jews into the Christian congregation. The twelve apostles and other representative men of the Jerusalem congregation as met together on this occasion to decide this vital question were Jews or circumcised proselytes, and, as such, they had been up until Pentecost of A.D. 33 under the prohibition contained in the Mosaic law against eating or drinking the blood of animal creatures.
Those Jewish Christians had now come under the new covenant that had been validated by the pouring out in death of the blood of Jesus Christ, the Mediator between God and men. What, then, was their decision as to the requirements to lie imposed upon Gentile believers for admission into the Christian congregation? The decree setting forth their decision replies: “The apostles and the older brothers to those brothers in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the nations: Greetings! . . . For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favoured adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep yourselves free from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things killed without draining their blood and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (Acts 15:23-29)
Thus for all Christian believers the apostolic decree under the guidance of God’s holy spirit declared that among the things necessary for them was the keeping of themselves free from blood and from things killed without draining their blood. Years later that decision was still in force upon Christians according to Acts 21:25. That decision has never been revoked, because it is God-given and still applies to Christians today who are dedicated, baptized believers, faithfully following in the footsteps of Jesus Christ, who was born a Jew over 1900 years ago.
Hence a Christian who deliberately receives a blood transfusion and thus does not keep himself from blood will not prosper spiritually. According to the law of Moses, which set forth shadows of things to come, the receiver of a blood transfusion must be cut off from God’s people by excommunication or disfellowshipping.
Proclaimers Book Chapter 13 pp. 183-184 Why Blood Transfusions Are Refused
The respect for life shown by Jehovah’s Witnesses has also affected their attitude toward blood transfusions. When transfusions of blood became an issue confronting them, The Watchtower of July 1, 1945, explained at length the Christian view regarding the sanctity of blood. It showed that both animal blood and that of humans were included in the divine prohibition that was made binding on Noah and all his descendants. (Gen. 9:3-6) It pointed out that this requirement was emphasized again in the first century in the command that Christians ‘abstain from blood.’ (Acts 15:28, 29) Consistent with that understanding of matters, beginning in 1961 any who ignored the divine requirement, accepted blood transfusions, and manifested an unrepentant attitude were disfellowshipped from the congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses.