2026 Governing Body Update #2

[Friend of Peace]

42 minutes ago, Áine said:

if you can’t get to grips with it then go back and listen again looking up the research information 

So what scriptural precedent was shared in the video that shows that we must refuse the blood of other people in medical and surgical situations? Going back to the video simply doesn’t make you come to terms with it quicker. The research information doesn’t provide that answer to the question either.

[Friend of Peace]

I also realise that this change may have been made for some time in the past, but the brothers were kind enough to hold fire so that we could bear bigger changes like this. (John 16:12)
 

The reason I say this is because back in June 2025, congregations were told that the November 2006 Kingdom Ministry was to no longer be used when deciding on medical matters. We now realise why. That whole article was about procedures to do with one’s own blood! This may have been a nod to that now changed policy. 

[Jake]

This is a difficult change to absorb because I imagine (and I have personally experienced) that some have lost relatives and close friends to a medical procedure where autologous transfusion did mean the difference between life and death.

[Barbllm]

2 minutes ago, Jake said:

This is a difficult change to absorb because I imagine (and I have personally experienced) that some have lost relatives and close friends to a medical procedure where autologous transfusion did mean the difference between life and death.

Yes. I am pretty sure our opposers will pounce on that. 

 

[Friend of Peace]

6 minutes ago, Jake said:

This is a difficult change to absorb because I imagine (and I have personally experienced) that some have lost relatives and close friends to a medical procedure where autologous transfusion did mean the difference between life and death.

Jacob, I’m so sorry.
 

I know this probably has little consolation for you but Jesus said that he would judge whether what the slave provided is for the benefit of his sheep or not. They have the master to answer to for how they have guided the worldwide sheep in the past and present. (Luke 12:47, 48) 

[Abigail]

37 minutes ago, minister159 said:

The law at Leviticus 17:13 was not merely a dietary restriction, but a repetition of the moral law given to Noah at Gen. 9:4 which was incumbent upon all mankind and has never been repealed.

 

Did you just contradict yourself?

I don't think so. It still stands because of Acts 15.

[MullumMiss]

Interesting clarification and as we trust the Faithful and Discreet Slave as Jehovah’s channel we now make our own personal decision on the use of our own blood.  Funny I just finished my new medical directive which has stayed the same for a number of years.  Now I will have to prayerfully decide if there will be a change in there.  

[TJ86]

I wouldn't want to be controversial or cause disputes, as that's not my aim. However, I would like to understand a point regarding blood donation, a development of this new stance on blood. When I was a student, around 12 years old, I asked my Bible instructor why we didn't donate blood. He responded by citing Leviticus 17:13, explaining that blood should be poured out in respect to Jehovah. This was the principle we used to justify not donating blood. It couldn't be stored, only poured out.

 

However, I now realize that this application is not intended for Christians. Acts 15:28-29 speaks of abstaining from blood, meaning not ingesting blood in any form: eating, drinking, injecting, transfusing, etc. But the question is: could blood donation be considered a matter of conscience? If there is no longer a prohibition against storing blood, could we donate blood?

 

I remember that the Bible in Exodus 22:31 and other texts talks about the prohibition of eating unbled animals, but also shows that Jehovah is a flexible God. In Deuteronomy 14:21, it is allowed to donate or sell an unbled animal to a foreigner. This isn't exactly the same as blood donation, but it shows that there are situations where the rule has exceptions.

 

Therefore, the question is: if storing blood is no longer prohibited, could we consider it a matter of conscience?

[Jake]

Some may be thinking that you can just store your blood and use it in case of emergency but no. Autologous transfusion doesn't mean storing your blood for an infinite amount of time and using it in situations like that. It's not like an emergency savings account. Rather, it's a process that one consents to in preparation for an upcoming medical procedure. Whole blood can only be stored safely for 42 days before it no longer can be used for any sorts of transfusion. Blood components have different shelf lives but the medically safe timeline for whole blood is still 42 days. There's a whole bunch of research to do on it.

 

Anyways, the new update is not a catch-all idea that if one were to get into an accident involving blood loss, then they would be able to get an autologous transfusion; rather it's a deliberate, thoughtful decision before a medical procedure like surgery. We still have to live life as the gift God gave us.

 

[Friend of Peace]

4 minutes ago, TJ86 said:

But the question is: could blood donation be considered a matter of conscience? If there is no longer a prohibition against storing blood, could we donate blood?

These are also my questions too, brother. You’re not on your own. 

[Jan Brad]

Was casually scrolling on BBC just to be surprised at this: 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62j31539dwo

 

I'm quite happy about this change. The former stance puzzled me. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Jan Brad

[Áine]

6 minutes ago, Jake said:

Some may be thinking that you can just store your blood and use it in case of emergency but no. Autologous transfusion doesn't mean storing your blood for an infinite amount of time and using it in situations like that. It's not like an emergency savings account. Rather, it's a process that one consents to in preparation for an upcoming medical procedure. Whole blood can only be stored safely for 42 days before it no longer can be used for any sorts of transfusion. Blood components have different shelf lives but the medically safe timeline for whole blood is still 42 days. There's a whole bunch of research to do on it.

 

Anyways, the new update is not a catch-all idea that if one were to get into an accident involving blood loss, then they would be able to get an autologous transfusion; rather it's a deliberate, thoughtful decision before a medical procedure like surgery. We still have to live life as the gift God gave us.

 

Exactly what I stated above

[Dustparticle]

 

 All

 

I see some confusions regarding this update,  I’m assuming there might be a future article on this update. 

[johnnyjw01]

I read this yesterday, great timing:

 

https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&docid=2026442&srcid=share

[johnnyjw01]

17 minutes ago, TJ86 said:

I wouldn't want to be controversial or cause disputes, as that's not my aim. However, I would like to understand a point regarding blood donation, a development of this new stance on blood. When I was a student, around 12 years old, I asked my Bible instructor why we didn't donate blood. He responded by citing Leviticus 17:13, explaining that blood should be poured out in respect to Jehovah. This was the principle we used to justify not donating blood. It couldn't be stored, only poured out.

 

However, I now realize that this application is not intended for Christians. Acts 15:28-29 speaks of abstaining from blood, meaning not ingesting blood in any form: eating, drinking, injecting, transfusing, etc. But the question is: could blood donation be considered a matter of conscience? If there is no longer a prohibition against storing blood, could we donate blood?

 

I remember that the Bible in Exodus 22:31 and other texts talks about the prohibition of eating unbled animals, but also shows that Jehovah is a flexible God. In Deuteronomy 14:21, it is allowed to donate or sell an unbled animal to a foreigner. This isn't exactly the same as blood donation, but it shows that there are situations where the rule has exceptions.

 

Therefore, the question is: if storing blood is no longer prohibited, could we consider it a matter of conscience?

If you donate blood, you purposefully induce others to disobey God’s command…

[Alikay]

The pertinent inquiry is whether this modification renders the existing medical directive and other medical documents rendered obsolete. Will new medical directives be issued, or will each individual be expected to independently create their own? There’s so much more questions than answers in regards to what was told to us in just about five minutes. 

[TJ86]

16 minutes ago, johnnyjw01 said:

If you donate blood, you purposefully induce others to disobey God’s command…

 

The Bible Deuteronomy 14:21, it is allowed to donate or an unbled animal to a foreigner. This isn't exactly the same as blood donation, but it shows that the israelites induce others to disobey God's command...

 

I understand the point. I know it's not about blood donation, but by allowing the Israelites to donate an unbled animal to a foreign resident, God Himself was leading that resident to disobey a command of His. By bringing this analogy, I aimed to show that in the past, God permitted donations of things that were expressly prohibited among His people. However, since it wasn't for that other person, they were not under the Mosaic law, so it wouldn't make a difference.

 

For people in general, it doesn't make a difference; they don't follow Jehovah's laws. Do you understand the point in question?

Edited 1 hour ago by TJ86
Mistake

[Michał]

Just now, TJ86 said:

 

The Bible Deuteronomy 14:21, it is allowed to donate or an unbled animal to a foreigner. This isn't exactly the same as blood donation, but it shows that the israelites induce others to disobey God's command...

 

I understand the point. I know it's not about blood donation, but by allowing the Israelites to donate an unbled animal to a foreign resident, God Himself was leading that resident to disobey a command of His. By bringing this analogy, I aimed to show that in the past, God permitted donations of things that were expressly prohibited among His people. However, since it wasn't for that other person, they were not under the Mosaic law, so it wouldn't make a difference. The people of the world are not for Jehovah; it doesn't make a difference to them.

 

For people in general, it doesn't make a difference; they don't follow Jehovah's laws. Do you understand the point in question?

But we're not under Mosaic law, as was just stated in the update, so any reasoning based solely on those laws, must be… unproductive?

[jwhess]

19 minutes ago, johnnyjw01 said:

If you donate blood, you purposefully induce others to disobey God’s command…

Exactly, you become a participant or facilitator in someone else disobeying God's Law.  And you did it on purpose.

[Qapla]

This clarification is interesting, but we need to be careful not to read into it something that was not said. Would it be proper to feed someone poison, to load a gun they want to use to kill someone or themselves, or in any other way help them disobey the law? The obvious answer is, "No".

 

Likewise, donating blood for someone else to use would be like giving them poison or loading the gun. You are helping then disobey Jehovah. Just as we won't accept someone else's blood, we would not give our blood to anyone else. Since we are told in Acts to abstain from blood, giving ours to someone else would not fit in with the principle in Acts. It really is that simple.

 

As for Leviticus and the "pouring out the blood" - are we missing something? Leviticus 17:13 says, "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."

 

Are forgetting that part of the Law was that we had to cover the blood with dust/dirt? When people hunt, they may bleed the animal at the time they kill it - but few actually bury the blood ... they just let it spill onto the ground and leave it. Since we are no longer under the Law, if we kill an animal for food, while we would not eat or use the blood, we are not required to bury it ... as the Law specified.

 

 

[jwhess]

6 minutes ago, TJ86 said:

 

The Bible Deuteronomy 14:21, it is allowed to donate or an unbled animal to a foreigner. This isn't exactly the same as blood donation, but it shows that the israelites induce others to disobey God's command...

 

I understand the point. I know it's not about blood donation, but by allowing the Israelites to donate an unbled animal to a foreign resident, God Himself was leading that resident to disobey a command of His. By bringing this analogy, I aimed to show that in the past, God permitted donations of things that were expressly prohibited among His people. However, since it wasn't for that other person, they were not under the Mosaic law, so it wouldn't make a difference.

 

For people in general, it doesn't make a difference; they don't follow Jehovah's laws. Do you understand the point in question?

But the foreign person was not under God's Law.  Only the Jews were affected by this rule. You could analyze all the animals in the world eating blood, not part of God's Law either.  God allowed those actions and his people could react accordingly.

 

However, the command at Acts was like the command to Noah, it involved all humans.

[LeolaRootStew]

12 minutes ago, TJ86 said:

 

The Bible Deuteronomy 14:21, it is allowed to donate or an unbled animal to a foreigner. This isn't exactly the same as blood donation, but it shows that the israelites induce others to disobey God's command...

 

I understand the point. I know it's not about blood donation, but by allowing the Israelites to donate an unbled animal to a foreign resident, God Himself was leading that resident to disobey a command of His. By bringing this analogy, I aimed to show that in the past, God permitted donations of things that were expressly prohibited among His people. However, since it wasn't for that other person, they were not under the Mosaic law, so it wouldn't make a difference. The people of the world are not for Jehovah; it doesn't make a difference to them.

 

For people in general, it doesn't make a difference; they don't follow Jehovah's laws. Do you understand the point in question?

 

I gave a look at the scriptures in Deut and I came to a different conclusion. It seemed that they would be considered unclean for eating an animal that had been found dead, but they could sell it to foreigners. It doesn't seem to be touching on the issue of blood at all. The person who buys it could bleed the animal or not, but it was considered unclean because it was found dead, not because it currently had blood in it.

 

Maybe I'm missing something?

 

edit: and unclean did not equate to a sin, either. They were considered unclean after sex and sex was not a sin.

Edited 1 hour ago by LeolaRootStew

[johnnyjw01]

14 minutes ago, TJ86 said:

 

The Bible Deuteronomy 14:21, it is allowed to donate or an unbled animal to a foreigner. This isn't exactly the same as blood donation, but it shows that the israelites induce others to disobey God's command...

 

I understand the point. I know it's not about blood donation, but by allowing the Israelites to donate an unbled animal to a foreign resident, God Himself was leading that resident to disobey a command of His. By bringing this analogy, I aimed to show that in the past, God permitted donations of things that were expressly prohibited among His people. However, since it wasn't for that other person, they were not under the Mosaic law, so it wouldn't make a difference.

 

For people in general, it doesn't make a difference; they don't follow Jehovah's laws. Do you understand the point in question?

So… can we sell weapons? 🧐

[Dolce vita]

8 minutes ago, johnnyjw01 said:

I read this yesterday, great timing:

 

https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&docid=2026442&srcid=share

Yes, and the issue of blood had already come up when the disciples—who, despite believing that Jesus was indeed the Messiah—turned their backs on him. His closest disciples may have been very surprised as well, perhaps even shocked, but they did not desert him.

“Lord, to whom shall we go?”

 

Let's remember that the one who appointed the Faithful and Discreet Slave is Jesus.

The goal: to feed Jehovah’s little sheep.

When? In due time.

 

The brothers on the Governing Body have always worked very hard to fulfill their mission of caring for the sheep. Jesus’ own blood was shed; he died for and in place of each one of us. So if we are receiving these instructions only today, might we not think that it is Jesus who decided the timing? I’m not claiming anything; I’m just thinking that if the clarification is coming now, it’s because this is just the right time. Perhaps the future will reveal why... or perhaps not. 

 

Let’s put our trust in Jehovah, Jesus, and the FDS.

 

 

[minister159]

1 hour ago, Friend of Peace said:

So what scriptural precedent was shared in the video that shows that we must refuse the blood of other people in medical and surgical situations? Going back to the video simply doesn’t make you come to terms with it quicker. The research information doesn’t provide that answer to the question either.

I think I understand what you're saying or asking. Brother Losch said, "Furthermore, the Bible does not comment on the use of a person’s own blood in medical and surgical care." Apparently, this is the crux of the matter as far as the clarification is concerned.

 

This might seem like a rather tenuous argument and something of a paradox, since the Bible doesn't comment directly on the use of blood transfusions either, as they weren't something being done in the first century.

 

However, we've always viewed the command to "abstain from blood" to apply to the use of any and all blood whether animal, human or even our own, because it's not ours to do with as we please. It's sacred and belongs to Jehovah. The issue is, and always has been, the sanctity of life intrinsic in the blood of the creature.