Forgive the formatting issues between Word and this site:
An
Overview of the Purpose and Strategy
The
purpose of this paper is to both, explain, and refute the beliefs of Jehovah’s
Witnesses. In doing so, I will begin with the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ perspective,
and then I will refute their assertions with Scripture, history, culture, and
logic. By using literature from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, critics of the
Jehovah’s Witnesses, scholarly resources, and the Bible, I plan to prove that
the Jehovah’s Witness religion is indeed false.
Jehovah’s
Witnesses’ Beginnings
A
man by the name N.H. Barbour was an Adventist preacher who preached about the
end of the world, dispensationalism, and other various theologies, and a young man
named Charles Taze Russell, listened with attentive ears in 1870. Russell had
been searching for spiritual truth for two years since the age of 16 when he “encountered
rationalism and experienced a profound loss of faith. He recovered by moving
first to Congregationalism and then to Adventist meetings before starting his
own Bible study groups.”[1]
Coupled with Russell’s desire to find truth, and the prevailing notion of the
day being that the world would end, when Russell met his future mentor, it is
very likely to see why Russell accepted the Adventist’s theology.
As
Russell grew in his beliefs, he “came into possession of a copy of the Second
Adventist magazine The Herald of the
Morning, published by N.H. Barbour of Rochester, New York,” and soon
travelled to Philadelphia to study under Barbour.[2] Although the duo had many profitable years
together, the two had a falling out over Christ’s payment for sins and “He [Russell] took with him a number of
Second Adventist followers who believed that “Pastor Russell took the place of
Mr. Barbour who became unfaithful and upon whom was fulfilled the prophecies of
Matthew 24:48–51 and Zechariah 11:15–17.”[3] This schism was what caused Russell to begin
his own study groups, as well as publishing his own work, Zion’s Watchtower,
in 1879 .
Now,
with Russell theologically sound—in regards to his own beliefs—he began to
publish his own literature and to focus on increasing his following. Russell
began to travel, preach, and plant his own churches in the northeast portion of
America. His preaching focused on proclaiming the coming apocalypse, the need
to join his sect, and the theological assertions found in Zion’s Watchtower’s
publications.
In
summary, Russell began the Jehovah’s Witnesses in
the 1870’s in Northeast America because of a split with his Adventist mentor,
Barbour. Upon the creation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Russell had a main
literature resource in Zion’s Watchtower that included theology,
up to date news on the sect, and encouragement to the local churches. Also,
Russell traveled, preached, and established multiple Jehovah’s Witnesses
churches.
As
the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ website says of the 1,870 years between Jesus’s time
and the creation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, “The time came for Jehovah to reveal the truth. He foretold that during ‘the time of the end, the true knowledge
would become abundant.’ (Daniel 12:4) In 1870 a small group of truth-seekers recognized that many
church doctrines were not Scriptural. Therefore, they began searching for an
understanding of the Bible’s original teachings, and Jehovah blessed them with
spiritual insight.”
In other words, the original and contemporary Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that
they are the “pure and undefiled religion” which stays closest to the original
message of the Scripture. They believe that through their sincere desires to study the Scripture, truth will be revealed to
them. Through these Bible Study
groups (similar to what Russell did) and the help of the Watchtower, Jehovah’s
Witnesses hope to discover and promote what they deem to be true.
A Critique of
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Beginnings
In the 1870’s, America was still
in the aftermath of the Civil War. This period of Reconstruction was a testing
of the rebellious South’s will to both rebuild and be under the Union’s control.
The 1870’s were a decade of time that began new economic policies, reunited
families, expanded governmental control in the South, and fostered rebellious
attitudes among many who felt they were forced into submission.
In fact, America had experienced
multiple changes in the one hundred years prior to the 1870’s. America had been
born as a nation, fought multiple wars, expanded westward, experienced the
Second Great Awakening, and become economically sufficient. Although all of
these events were crucial for the emergence of America, the Second Great
Awakening, lasting “
from 1787 to 1825, sweeping the land
from East to West,”[10]
had one of the most important impacts on the American psyche.
Of the socio-cultural changes
that the Second Great Awakening brought, none was as significant than the
movement giving women a newfound place in society.
In addition, the Second Great Awakening also provided freedom to many people,
enabling to proclaim their own messages; thus, opening the door for many
different theological views to be spread across North America. The spread of
multiple views of religion was validated in what the Second Great Awakening
used to validate its preachers (and their messages): experientialism.
Since experientialism was abundant, one can see that an emotional preacher with
bad theology was to be more widely accepted than a preacher who was
non-emotional with good theology.
All of these events, when
coupled with the Enlightenment’s focus on “rational and scientific” thought in
every matter, caused major upheaval in the religious realms of North America as
“religious teachings of the Enlightenment challenged traditional Christianity.”[14]
Thus, not only were the young nation’s economic, governmental, and cultural
identities at stake during this time period, but America’s religious identity
was far from as clear in comparison to other nations’ religious identity. As
other nations had a church and theologies with which they identified themselves,
America identified with the freedom of religion and an abundance of differing
theologies. As other nations and regions promoted certain doctrines, America
gave a safe haven for anyone to come and practice their own beliefs.
During 1830, John Darby came
to America after a schism with groups (with which he was apart of) and
preached a new theology called “’Dispensationalism’ after the division of history
into eras or dispensations,”[17]
which became a major tenant for the Congregationalist’s and Adventists.
This new theology influenced the creation of many new Christian denominations (Adventists
and Congregationalists were the longest lasting and most prominent of them) and
religions. Additionally, this theology—which pictured the end of the world
being near due to the timing of the dispensations—was quickly re-emphasized in
America by many ministers, in part to the social, cultural, economical, and
governmental actions occurring during this time period. As
one scholar commented about the millennial views of America, “From the
beginning, Americans have been susceptible to millenarian hopes. Puritans
believed that God had sent them on an ‘errand into the wilderness’ to set up
the ideal Christian church and commonwealth.”[19] This
view was found in the Postmillenial
view, which Shirley Jackson once commented on by saying,
“The course of history exhibits one long process of evolving
struggle by which humanity as a whole rises constantly higher in the scale of
civilization and attainment…the world is found to be constantly growing better…man
learns to surmise that evils still unconquered are to be eliminated by
strenuous effort and gradual reform rather than by the catastrophic
intervention of Deity.”
[20]
Surely as this idea was
prominent among the early colonials, but the view soon sufficed to a new view
of the millennium. Undoubtedly, this was impart to bloody wars, social unrest,
and the realization that America was going to be on the same course as other
nations in the world.
Thus, as the postmillennial view declined in popularity
to a refocusing on an older and more widely accepted premillennial view, as there
came a new perspective on eschatology that focused on the end of the world.
This focus on the end of the world that preoccupied America, coupled with the
neglect for proper hermeneutics in regard to the interpretation of Scripture, a
desire to find oneself fulfilled in prophecy, and the pressing social,
religious economical, and cultural issues of the day caused various denominations
and religions to be created—including the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
By showing the cultural,
societal, economical, and religious atmosphere of the day, one must conclude
that the origins of the Jehovah’s Witnesses were merely a product of
presuppositions of the times. In Blomberg’s
Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, the majority of his work
is dedicated to tracing the history of interpretive processes from the early
church to today, where by, he shows that
presuppositions which focus away from
the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to their own theologies often cause divergent denominations
in Christianity and the creation of divergent religions from Christianity..
During his examination of these processes, one thing becomes apparent:
contextual factors play a large role in directing the interpretation of
Scripture—especially prophetic material. Given his conclusions, one can clearly
see where many of the ideas for the Dispensational-Premillennial views of
Jehovah’s Witnesses derive. Because of the social, religious, economical, and
cultural unrest of the 1870’s in America, the stage was set for the Jehovah’s
Witnesses to be accounted for in the search for eschatological beliefs.
Additionally, a question comes
to mind when evaluating the beginnings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, “Why did God
wait 1870 years to reveal truth?” As mentioned earlier, Jehovah’s Witnesses
believe that they are the true worshippers of God “due to pagan ideas which made
their way into Christianity.”
Although the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe themselves to be the one true version
of Christianity, one must consider their leader’s (Russell) lack of theological
education, lack of knowledge of the original languages, and changing religious
structure which did not enable him to made broad interpretations of Scripture
that would trump a scholar’s past interpretations. In other words, if the
leader who started the Jehovah’s Witnesses was not fit to be in a scholarly
class of individuals, yet he made propositions in regards to the study of the theology
of the Bible, he claimed to have studied the original languages of the Bible,
and was extremely confused in his search for truth, these things give credit to
how unqualified he was to make bold theological claims that differentiated
himself and his followers from Christianity.
The Watchtower
Organization
After
Russell’s split from the Adventist church, he “
began publishing his
magazines, Zion’s Watchtower and Herald of Christ’s Presence.”[27]
It was not until “1896, the Society was renamed the Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society.”[28]
According to The Watchtower’s Publications, the purpose of The Watchtower is to
be God’s mouthpiece on earth. Additionally, “
The
Watchtower claims to be Jehovah’s prophet who speaks in His name under angelic
direction to warn us of the future, the biblical test of a prophet stipulated
by Moses and Jesus must be applied to this modern-day prophet.”[29] Because the Watchtower speaks for God, the
Watchtower promotes the idea, “…that through this [Watchtower] organization—and no other—that God allegedly teaches
the Bible to humankind today. According to the Watchtower Society, people are
unable to ascertain the true meaning of Scripture without its vast literature…Unless
a person is in touch with the Watchtower Society, it is claimed, he or she will
not progress spiritually even if that person reads the Bible regularly.”
In other words, the Watchtower has
made their publications superior to the New World Translation, making the
Watchtower in Brooklyn, New York, the ultimate authority for a Jehovah’s Witness.
The
Watchtower claims its authority from various verses like Matthew 24:45-51, Acts
8:30-31, and 2 Peter 1:20-21. From Matthew 24, The Watchtower claims to represent
the servant; from Acts 8, the Watchtower claims
to be the way that individuals understand the Scripture (since the Ethiopian
Eunuch could not understand the Scripture without someone telling him what it
meant); from 2 Peter 1:20-21, the Watchtower claims to be the way by which an
individual receives an interpretation of prophecy’s fulfillment (because of the
wording of the NWT, “no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private
interpretation.”).
Thus, according to the Watchtower, it acts as a servant, prophecy interpreter,
and expert in the scriptures. By acting in these three ways, the Watchtower
acts as the headquarters and the leader of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Critiquing The
Watchtower Organization
An
excellent place to begin the critique of The Watchtower, is by asking Rhodes’
question, “Since The Watchtower Society claims to be God’s collective faithful
slave that alone guides people in their understanding of Scripture, and since
this organization did not come into existence until the late-nineteenth
century, does this mean God had no true representatives on earth for many
centuries? Does this mean God did not care whether people understood the Bible
for all those centuries?”
The belief that the Watchtower is God’s mouthpiece and authority contradicts
Jesus’ words in John 14:16 when He tells of the coming Counselor, which is
“the
Greek παρακλετοσ. This word was used
of legal assistants who pleaded a cause or presented a case. This Counselor is
the promised Spirit who came into the world in a new and distinctive sense on
the day of Pentecost.”[33]
So, if the Holy Spirit came as the great Counselor to convict, lead, inspire,
and judge, the creation of the Watchtower in 1896 could not be the mouthpiece
of God.
By
exegeting the Scriptures mentioned in the above section (Matthew 24:45-51, Acts
8:30-31, and 2 Peter 1:20-21), one can clearly see that the Watchtower does not
“fulfill” any type of prophecy that may be gleaned from these verses. For
instance, Matthew 24:45-51, points to three things,
“(1)
God rewards and punishes people at the final judgment on the basis of their
stewardship of the tasks assigned to them. (2) Faithful stewardship requires
perseverance and consistency, for the end could come at any time. (3) Those who
postpone their responsibilities and do evil in the meantime may sadly discover
that it is too late for them to make amends for their errors.”
[34]
Acts 8:30-31 which mentions the
Ethiopian Eunuch, does not point to an individual needing a society to
interpret Scripture, but “
His response enunciates a basic
principle that runs throughout Luke-Acts concerning the interpretation of the
Old Testament prophetic texts—the need for a Christian interpreter…They in turn
sought to explain the Scripture in light of Christ to the Jews in Jerusalem.
How indeed would this Gentile pilgrim from a distant land understand the real
meaning of Isaiah’s servant psalms without a guide?[35]”
Thus, the need for the Phillip to interpret the Scriptures to the Eunuch was
not solely based on man’s inability to understand Scripture without an
interpreter, but this story shows the need
for teachers to teach the Holy Scriptures in light of Jesus Christ—not the
belief’s of an organization.
Last, 2 Peter 1:20-21 is
wrongly exegeted by Jehovah’s Witnesses. 2 Peter 1:20-21 says, “…knowing this first of all, that no
prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy
was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried
along by the Holy Spirit.” As Rhodes says, “This passage is not dealing with
how to interpret Scripture but rather
deals with how Scripture came to be
written.”
Sadly, the Watchtower has
exegeted Scripture incorrectly and has thus made itself the mouthpiece of man’s ideas. Through exegeting Scripture
incorrectly the Watchtower, since 1896, continues to lead people astray.
Although the Watchtower is the leadership of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Watchtower
is not an authority on God’s Word because of its desires to interpret the Bible
only in terms of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ theology and not the original message
of the Scriptures.
The New World
Translation
Although
the Jehovah’s Witnesses have strongly opposed and still oppose many of the
theologies of mainstream protestants, the Jehovah’s Witnesses used the same
Bible as protestants used until 1950 when the Jehovah’s Witnesses
created their own holy book.
In 1950, the Watchtower released this statement about the New World Translation,
“We offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures…as literal a translation as possible
… as nearly as possible, word for word, the exact statement of the original. We
realize that sometimes the use of a so small a thing as the definite or
indefinite article or the omission of such may alter the correct sense of the
original passage.”
[38]
Their goal for the NWT was finished through various releases of books and
sections of the both the New and Old Testament until they had a completed work.
Even though their goal was for a translation to be as “literal a translation as
possible,” there were multiple changes to the NWT from the original
manuscripts. Of the changes, three of the most prominent changes in comparison
to the Bible:
1.
“There are more than 230 insertions of Jehovah
2.
Other verses in the New World
Translation are rendered in such a manner that they no longer appear to teach
the deity of Christ or the personality of the Holy Spirit.
3.
Certain other verses that pertain
neither to the name Jehovah nor to the subject of deity are given unusual
renderings in the New World Translation to support various other Watchtower
doctrines.”
[39]
As Protestant translation committees
(who are publicly recognized for aiding in a translation [public recognition
gives accountability to the work of these scholars]) are made up of Hebrew and
Greek scholars who perform the various translations of the Christian Protestant
Bible, “The Watchtower Society has always resisted efforts to identify members
of the translation committee. The claim was that they preferred to remain
anonymous and humble, giving God the glory for this translation.”
According to the religion’s website, these committees seek to find the best
English translation, “
They endeavor to select
the ‘accurate words of truth’ that will capture the full meaning of the English
in their target language.”
Additionally,
the NWT is merely the book containing the Scripture that the Watchtower
Organization explains, interprets, and applies to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. As
Morey says about the Watchtower’s role in the Jehovah’s Witness’ study of the
NWT, “All religious issues are solved in Brooklyn, and nowhere else can
the truth be found…
The Bible as correctly interpreted by the Watchtower has authority, but a
Witness is trained not to trust himself or others to interpret the Bible.”[42]
Thus, the NWT is a book of references to the Watchtower, not the authority by
which the Watchtower operates.
Critiquing the
New World Translation
The
NWT is unique in regards to other Bible translations in that this translation
“is misleading, and heavily biased in favor of Watchtower Society Theology.”
Why is the NWT misleading, and heavily biased? Raymond Franz commented about
the translators of the NWT by naming and commenting on the individuals in the
committee that translated the NWT (and commenting on their lack of knowledge),
“
Other members of that committee were Nathan Knorr,
Albert Schroeder and George Gangas. Fred Franz, however, was the only one with
sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this
kind. He had studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati but
was only self-taught in Hebrew.” For
the translators of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ holy book to be incompetent in the
original languages, reveals the goal of the Watchtower: theological changes to
the Bible in order to promote the theological agenda of the Jehovah’s
Witnesses.
The first foundational change to
the New World Translation was the changing of every reference to God in the Old
Testament to the name “Jehovah,” and the insertion of the name “Jehovah” into
the New Testament’s references to the Father in 237 instances.
This change was fundamentally inaccurate and heretical as the “translators” made
changes and additions to the original manuscripts’ original wording in regards
to the names of God.
Secondly, the translators made
the NWT show Jesus as not being equal with the Father (see the above section on
Jesus).
In fact, every occurrence in the Greek New Testament where Jesus appears to
have God-like qualities, For instance, in Greek, Colossians 1:16-17 says, “
ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς
γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι·
τὰ πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται· καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ
πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν.”
[47] In the NWT, Colossians 1:16-17 reads, “By means of him all [other] things were created in the
heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no
matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All
[other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before
all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist.”
The additions of “other” (αλλος) does
not occur in the Greek manuscripts; but, this verse in the NWT translates,
“that Christ was created first by the
Father, and then Christ was used by the Father to creat all other things in the universe…There is no justification from the
Greek texts for inserting the word ‘other’ into Colossians 1:16-17 four
times…Colossians 1:16 teaches that Christ created ‘all things.’ This being so, Christ cannot be a created being…”
These additions and changes are among other theological changes to the original
manuscripts (which the Christian Bible derives) which are theologically based
and not textually based; thus, making the NWT a worthless translation.
Third, the change in
theological interpretation is a tremendous impact on the holy book of both
Christians and Jehovah’s Witnesses. For the above-mentioned reasons, changing
or adding words in the NWT which are different to the original manuscripts,
creates a gigantic exegetical problem. Not only does the text read incorrectly,
but the interpretation of the text is also wrong; thus, causing the individual
to act wrongly and believe wrongly about God.
Jehovah’s
Witnesses’ Prophecy
The
Jehovah’s Witnesses have had a long history of a preoccupation with foretelling
prophecy. As mentioned earlier, their beliefs focus on the “end of the world”
through Dispensationalistic eschatology; thus, making them susceptible to
studying foretelling prophecy. The Watchtower has made multiple predictions about
the timing of the end of the world, the destruction of the “false Christians,”
the returning of the members of Hebrews 11 to earth, the rule of the
Antichrist, and other various end-times prophecies.
Originating with Russell’s own prophecies, the Watchtower has continually
produced prophecies about the “end of time.” Additionally, by reading the
prophecies that are included in both Rhodes’s works and the Watchman
Fellowship’s works, one can see that the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ prophecies
preoccupy themselves with the punishment of the evil, pagan religions and the
deliverance of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Critiquing
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Prophecy
Although
the Jehovah’s Witnesses primarily study prophecy in regards to “things to
come,” foretelling is not the goal of the majority of prophecy in the
Scriptures. In fact, there is a stark difference between foretelling (in
regards to the future) and forthtelling (a message for the immediate time). As
one scholar comments, “
Foretelling…was not the primary role of
the prophet. The prophets were primarily “forth
tellers” rather than foretellers. Their first concern was their own
contemporaries, not some future generation. When predictions did occur, they inevitably
contained admonitions to move the people toward holiness. More nonpredictive
content is found in the prophetical books than predictive.”[53]
Originating
with Russell’s own prediction that “Christ’s presence and the harvest
began in 1874,”
the foretelling prophecies of the Jehovah’s Witnesses have always been wrong.
Of one of the most well-know false prophecies was the prophecy about
Beth-Sarim.
When the prophecy did not come to pass, the Watchtower had to change their
incorrect prophecy and as Dr. Walker of the Watchman Fellowship said in a
lecture, “The Jehovah’s Witnesses have to talk their way out of the problem.”
In fact, a 1929 addition of the Watchtower said, “
Beth-Sarim was built in
1929 as proof that the resurrection would soon take place.”[56] but
after the prophecy did not come true, the Watchtower changed their prophecy (in
a 1975 issue of Watchtower) and stop
production of the older magazines so that all the readers read and believed, “Beth-Sarim
was built for Brother Rutherford’s use.”
This change in prophecy shows the need of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to cover up
their false prophecies in order to retain its members.
By
making prophecy solely about the subject of foretelling and not forthtelling,
the Jehovah’s Witnesses have lost sight of preaching the Gospel for the
immediate people in trade for preaching things that have not happened—and
likely will not. Tragically, by making statements like their comment from a 1964
publication, “
Through God’s agency he is having
prophesying carried out. Jehovah is behind all of it,”[58] the
Jehovah’s Witnesses associate God with the false prophecies and not the
Watchtower. Thus, the Watchtower often appears to be the innocent when say that
various prophecies were incorrect, all the while making God the enemy. This causes
many people to either remain and Jehovah’s Witness and trust the Watchtower
more than God, or to leave the’s Witnesses and have a corrupted vision of God.
Jehovah, the Jehovah’s
Witnesses’ God
Jehovah’s
Witnesses claim that the name of the one true God is “Jehovah.” They believe
that Jehovah is the verbal version of the Old Testament’s “YHWH.” Because this
is the holiest of names used by Old Testament writers (specifically the author
of the Pentateuch) and is included in Exodus 3:15 as the name which would “last
forever,” Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that this is the non-corrupted name of
God; thus, meaning that Jehovah should be the only name by which mankind should
refer to God as.
Critiquing the
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ God, Jehovah
Where
did the name “Jehovah” originate? As Mark Powell says,
“The
word is formed by adding vowels to an English transliteration of the Hebrew
Tetragrammaton, or four consonants that stand for God’s name, which is not to
be pronounced aloud. Those consonants are usually rendered as YHW
H in
modern transliterations of Hebrew, but JHVH was used at the time of the
kjv. Likewise, in modern
biblical studies the Tetragrammaton is sometimes vocalized to produce the name
‘Yahweh,’ which is a modern equivalent to ‘Jehovah.’”
[59]
By seeing that this name
for God did not appear in its current form until English speakers created the name, it is evident that the
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ dogmatic emphasis on primarily using Jehovah as the name
for God is a fallacy. For Jehovah’s Witnesses to refer to God solely by the
name Jehovah, is not only a linguistic stretch, but it is also a theological
stretch. As one scholar states, “Among Semites the equation of the name and the
person was a common idea. So also the name of God was an interchangeable term
for God himself, a symbol of his activity in revelation. The linking of man’s
worship of God with the divine name of God was the medium of his operation.”[60]
By this, God had many different names which described His various attributes
and activity in the lives of His people, Israel. In the same way that a person
named Pete may be called a firefighter, friend, husband, father, etc., none of
these names changed Pete, they only
described his actions at a given time. Some of God’s various names ranged from Elohim (omniscience) to Adonai, meaning, “…an intimate and
personal relationship”.[61]
Thus, God had many names, with none overshadowing the other in order of
preference as the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ believe. These various names did not
theologically trump other names, but they rather complimented one another. As
one discusses the love of God, one cannot help but discuss the Salvation of
God. Additionally, one cannot speak of the Salvation of God without mentioning
the judgment of God.
Jehovah’s
Witnesses’ View of Jesus
“
In
Watchtower theology, Jesus Christ is a mere angel—the first one that God
created when he started created angels. Witnesses identify Christ as Michael
the archangel, although they call Jesus ‘the Son of God’—because ‘the first
spirit person God made was like a firstborn son to him.’”[62]
Jehovah’s Witnesses view Jesus as the first created, by which God created all
other things.
By viewing Jesus as the first created individual, Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot
give equal status to both Jesus and Jehovah. As something created is merely the
image of the creator and not the exact copy, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that
Jesus is the Archangel Michael (one of the gods, but not equal to Jehovah the
Almighty) from Daniel 10:13.
Critiquing
Jehovah’s Witnesses’ View of Jesus
First,
Jesus Christ is the Son of God; Jesus is not an angel. By beginning with the
idea that Jesus is an angel, this idea is quickly dispelled through Hebrews 1:5
(ESV), “For
to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten
you?’ Or again, ‘I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son’”? and
John 3:16 (ESV), “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that
whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” By seeing
these two verses, one can clearly see that Jesus is not an angel, but is the
Son of God.
Additionally, the
Jehovah’s Witnesses have not always believed that Jesus is the Archangel
Michael. From a Watchtower publication
in 1896, Russell wrote, “‘Let all the angels of God worship him’ [that must
include Michael, the chief angel, hence Michael is not the Son of God].”[65]
Not until 1984 did the Watchtower publicly release their belief that Jesus and
Michael are the same, “‘Michael the great prince’ is none other than Jesus
Christ himself.—Daniel 12:1.’”[66]
To see that nearly a hundred years passed from the original theology about Jesus
Christ being God to the current theological standing of Jesus amongst Jehovah’s
Witnesses, shows that the Watchtower has changed its theology in regards to the
original beliefs about Jesus. If a prophet (the Watchtower) is the mouthpiece
of God, (only saying what God tells them to say) then what does it say about
the Watchtower and God when the theology about the Savior of the world changes
in such a dynamic way? Arguably, the stark contradiction between the theologies
about Jesus from the original Jehovah’s Witnesses to contemporary Jehovah’s
Witnesses show the future of the Jehovah’s Witnesses—far away from Jesus and
extremely close to the desires of sinful mankind.
144,000
One
of the main theologies of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is their doctrine of the
144,000 from the book of Revelation. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the
144,000 represent 144,000 of the “anointed class” of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the
“Anointed Class” who “are born again, thereby becoming sons of God and heirs
with Christ.”
“
This
gathering of the 144,000 began at Pentecost in the first century and continued
through the year 1935—at which time the number was completed and the door was
closed.[68]
These Anointed, are the only ones who are able to go to heaven. In fact, “The
144,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses who make up the Anointed Class will rule with
Christ over the other sheep, who will be on earth.”
Exegeting the
144,000
Revelation
contains some of the most difficult passages to interpret. The 144,000 of
Revelation 7 is a widely discussed theology among Christians today. Because of
Revelation’s symbolic language, contextual, historical, and linguistic clues; an
interpreter must interpret in pictures in light of contextual, historical, and
linguistic clues.
By examining the verse context
of Revelation 7:4, one can see that these 144,000 were likely the faithful Jewish
converts who were protected from falling away from God despite persecution.
This protection does not mean that they were spared from persecution, but that
they were sealed to God
despite the
persecution. After all, the 144,000 are likely martyrs who died while remaining
faithful to the message of Jesus because of the earlier identification of
martyrs geographically and physical described must like the 144,000.
Additionally,
these 144,000 likely refer to the Jewish converts while the Multitude refers to
the Gentile converts. David E. Aune says, “Since the author is undoubtedly a
Jewih Christian, it is not particularly surprising that he would have
envisioned a special role in the eschaton for Christians of Jewish origin. Paul
struggled with the problem of the rejection of the Gospel by most Jews in
Romans 9-11…nevertheless held out the eschatological hope that Israel would
eventually be converted.”
As the author of Revelation was impacted by the persecution of Rome and the
fear of persecution in Asia Minor, “John is using pictorial language to offer
comfort and hope to Christian communities that are struggling to maintain their
commitment to God during difficult circumstances.”
Although scholars say that the tribes of Israel did not exist during the days
that Revelation was written, we know that “Josephus, writing at the end of the
first century A.D., reckoned with the existence of twelve tribes in his day.”
Likely, this picture of the twelve tribes pointed to the faithfulness of God to
redeem and keep secure those Jews who decided to follow Him and trust in Him
for salvation. Thus, the picture of the 144,000 is not a picture of a certain
set of Jehovah’s Witnesses centuries apart from the writing of Revelation, but
rather it is a symbolic picture of the Jewish converts who worship God despite
what the Roman Empire does to them.
How to
Evangelize a Jehovah’s Witness
A
Jehovah’s Witness views themselves as living in the end days and thus believes
that they will be persecuted for their beliefs. Because of this, evangelizing a
Jehovah’s Witness needs to be done in a loving conversational manner with
questions, propositions, and the avoidance of argumentation.
Someone once said, “Your actions are speaking so loud, I can’t hear what you
are saying,” and in dealing with Jehovah’s Witnesses, our actions of love
should back up our words of Truth so that the Gospel penetrates their hearts
without us firing darts of anger and frustration.
How
do you evangelize a Jehovah’s Witness? We evangelize Jehovah’s Witnesses by
allowing them to encounter truth, evaluate it, and act on it. In other words,
as Jehovah’s Witnesses feel persecuted when people disagree with them, for a
Christian to apologetically destroy what a Jehovah’s Witness believes will be
inherently unproductive. Jehovah’s Witnesses are in fact, engaged in a cult
like atmosphere where they may be “disfellowshiped” from the “family” for doing
things against the wishes of the Watchtower. The fact is that being
disfellowshiped from an individual’s family and friends is a heavy burden that
the individual needs to evaluate the worth of being disfellowshiped in light of
following and obeying the truth of the Gospel in contrast to the lies of the
Watchtower.
In
order to evangelize a Jehovah’s Witness, the best thing to do is to use original
Watchtower publications which contradict the current ones, ask the Jehovah’s
Witness about the contradictions, allow them to seek truth, and be ready to
provide truth if the Jehovah’s Witness comes asking for truth. An encounter
with a Jehovah’s Witness should be one where the Christian asks pressing
questions, makes few propositions (that are not key to the conversation), and
prays for the Holy Spirit to work in the life of the Jehovah’s Witness. This
would look like welcoming a Jehovah’s Witness into your home, letting them
share their material with you, and then asking questions about their material
all the while showing them old material that contradicts the new material. By
doing this in connection to the movement of the Holy Spirit, a Jehovah’s Witness
may leave their religion and become a child of God.
Bibliography
Aune, David E., Revelation
6-16, Word Biblical Commentary, Columbia: Thomas Nelson, 1998.
Berkhof, L. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI:
Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co., 1938.
Blomberg, Craig. Matthew. Vol. 22. The New
American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman
Publishers, 1992.
Blomberg,
Craig L. and Hubbard, Robert L. Jr., and Kleign, William W., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation 2nd
Edition, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2004).
Blum, Edwin A.
“John.” In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures,
edited by J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, 2:328. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books,
1985.
Boyer, Paul, When Time Shall be No More, (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1992).
Cross, F. L.,
and Elizabeth A. Livingstone. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church.
Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Dubois, Ellen
Carol, and Lynn Dumenil, Through Women's
Eyes: An American History with Documents: Combined Version 2nd
Edition, (Bedford: St. Martin’s, 2008).
Elwell, Walter
A., and Barry J. Beitzel. Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Book House, 1988.
Franz, Raymond, Crisis
of Conscience, (Atlanta, GA: Commentary Press, 2004).
Galli, Mark,
and Ted Olsen. “Introduction.” In 131 Christians Everyone Should Know,
99. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000.
Hamilton, Donald L. Homiletical Handbook.
Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992.
Hofstader, Richard, Wood
Gray, D. Steven eds., An
Outline of American History. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.,
1998.
Lightner,
Robert P. The God of the Bible and Other Gods: Is the Christian God Unique
Among World Religions? Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998.
Morey, Robert
A. How to Answer a Jehovah’s Witness. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany
Fellowship, 1980.
Reid, Daniel
G., Robert Dean Linder, Bruce L. Shelley, and Harry S. Stout. Dictionary of
Christianity in America. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990.
Polhill, John
B. Acts. Vol. 26. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman &
Holman Publishers, 1995.
Powell, Mark
Allan. “Jehovah.” Edited by Mark Allan Powell. The HarperCollins Bible
Dictionary (Revised and Updated). New York: HarperCollins, 2011.
Reddish, Mitchell G., Revelation,
(Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2001).
Reed, David A.
Jehovah’s Witness Literature: Critical Guide to Watchtower Publication.
Electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993.
Reed, David A.
Jehovah’s Witnesses: Answered Verse by Verse. Electronic ed. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986.
Reed, David
A., David A. Reed, Steve Huntoon, and John Cornell, eds. Index of Watchtower
Errors, 1879 to 1989. Electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990.
Rhodes, Ron, Conversations
with Jehovah’s Witnesses, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2014).
Rhodes, Ron, The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to
a Jehovah’s Witness, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2001).
Rusten, Sharon
with E. Michael. The Complete Book of When & Where in the Bible and
Throughout History. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2005.
Sunshine,
Glenn S. Why You Think the Way You Do: The Story of Western Worldviews from
Rome to Home. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009.
Whaley, John
and James Walker. Jehovah’s Witnesses and
the Dating Game. Watchman Fellowship, Date: N/A.
[1] Daniel G. Reid et al.,
Dictionary of Christianity in America
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990).
[2] David A. Reed,
Jehovah’s Witness Literature: Critical Guide
to Watchtower Publication, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1993), 14.
[10] Sharon Rusten and E.
Michael,
The Complete Book of When &
Where in the Bible and Throughout History (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House
Publishers, Inc., 2005), 322.
The wars, economy, and politics were extremely vital to the emergence of
America, but all these events prompted a geographical location that was free of
one foundational religious view; thus, America allowed for religious liberty
and the spread of various theologies. This religious liberty aided the creation
of many modern denominations and cults (including the Jehovah’s Witness), which
were allowed to promote their ideals in peace and equality.
[14] Daniel G. Reid et al.,
Dictionary of Christianity in America
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990).
[17] Mark Galli and Ted Olsen,
“Introduction,” in
131 Christians
Everyone Should Know (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers,
2000), 99.
[19] Daniel G. Reid et al.,
Dictionary of Christianity in America
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990).
[20] L. Berkhof,
Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI:
Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co., 1938), 717.
“How Was Bible Truth
Rediscovered?” Jehovah Witnesses’ Website.
[27] Robert P. Lightner,
The God of the Bible and Other Gods: Is the
Christian God Unique Among World Religions? (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel
Publications, 1998), 190.
[29] Robert A. Morey,
How to Answer a Jehovah’s Witness
(Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship, 1980), 40.
[33] Edwin A. Blum, “John,” in
The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An
Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2
(Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 328.
[34] Craig Blomberg,
Matthew, vol. 22, The New American
Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 369.
[35] John B. Polhill,
Acts, vol. 26, The New American
Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 224–225.
[38] David A. Reed et al., eds.,
Index of Watchtower Errors, 1879 to 1989,
electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990).
[39]Reed,
Jehovah’s Witness Literature: Critical Guide to Watchtower Publication,
101.
[42] Robert A. Morey,
How to Answer a Jehovah’s Witness
(Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship, 1980), 14.
Raymond Franz,
Crisis
of Conscience,
(Atlanta, GA: Commentary Press, 2004), 56. Franz was a high-leveled
Jehovah’s Witness prior to his departure from the Watchtower on
May 28, 1980. He
had spent 40 years as a Jehovah’s Witness and he was a member of the Governing
Body of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Since his departure from the Jehovah’s
Witnesses, he
[47] Michael W. Holmes,
The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition
(Lexham Press, 2010), Col 1:16–17.
John
Whaley and James Walker. Jehovah’s
Witnesses and the Dating Game. Watchman Fellowship. In this packet produced
by the Watchman Fellowship, the premise of their work is to use false
Watchtower prophecies to prove that the Watchtower is not trustworthy.
[53] Donald L. Hamilton,
Homiletical Handbook (Nashville, TN:
Broadman Press, 1992), 150. For prophets, their immediate concern is much like
a modern pastor who desires his people to turn from their evil ways and to
follow the Lord.
[56] Reed et al., eds.,
Index of Watchtower Errors, 1879 to 1989,
electronic ed.
[60] Walter A. Elwell and Barry
J. Beitzel,
Baker Encyclopedia of the
Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 1751. The Semites were
the people of the Fertile Cresent (Arabs, Arameans, Assyrians, Babylonians,
Canaanites, Hebrews, and Phoenicians).
[62] Reed,
Jehovah’s Witnesses: Answered Verse by Verse, 15.
[65] Reed et al., eds.,
Index of Watchtower Errors, 1879 to 1989,
electronic ed.
[66] Reed et al., eds.,
Index of Watchtower Errors, 1879 to 1989,
electronic ed.
[68] Reed,
Jehovah’s Witnesses: Answered Verse by Verse, 104.
