A Brief Study of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:
Jehovah’s Witnesses

The following study is an examination of the history, organization, beliefs and practices of the religious sect known generally as Jehovah’s Witnesses. At the conclusion of this critical evaluation we will also consider the best ways and approaches to share the true gospel of Christ with members of this cult.

The first question that might be raised relates to the reasons for targeting this group for such a study or, in other words, “Why pick on them?” Here are a few reasons that come readily to mind:

1) Their aggressive proselytizing in which they focus on trying to persuade spiritually immature Christians to join their group (cf. excerpt from W.J. Schnell’s Thirty Years a Watchtower Slave quoted by Walter Martin in Kingdom of the Cults, p. 125). It is quite likely that most of us will come into contact with one or more JW’s doing this work and we should be prepared;

2) Also their claim of accurately presenting the truth of the Bible and to be Christian in their doctrine needs to be examined and evaluated especially in light of...

3) their astounding claim to be alone in purveying God’s truth so that only they can reveal the true message of God from the Bible. Although various Christian denominations and groups disagree on points of theology, rarely, if ever, do they claim to be the exclusive possessors of God’s truth. As Jehovah’s Witnesses do claim this (cf. excerpt from the Sept. 15, 1910 edition of The Watchtower quoted in Kingdom of the Cults, p. 46) and at the same time claim to be Christian, we need to determine the validity of their claims.

My sources for the following critique are chiefly: The Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin; Cult Watch by John Ankerberg and John Weldon; Handbook of Today’s Religions by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart; The Ten Most Important Things You Can Say to a Jehovah’s Witness by Ron Rhodes; How To Respond to Jehovah’s Witnesses by Herbert Kern; Jehovah’s Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse by David Reed (an ex JW himself); Pastor Charles Taze Russell by David Horowitz, along with several other booklets, articles, pamphlets and a few Watchtower Society publications which will be referred to as needed. I would encourage the interested reader to acquire one or more of these references for further study (Martin’s book is especially good for a scholarly doctrinal treatment while likewise Rhodes and Reed are helpful with regard to interaction with JW’s).

Historical Background

Charles Taze Russell was born on February 16, 1852 in Allegheny, Pennsylvania near Pittsburgh. He spent most of his childhood as a member of the local Congregationalist Church which has its roots in Puritanism. Possibly in part because of its severe teachings, at an early age, Russell rejected the doctrine of eternal torment in a lake of fire for unbelievers. Horowitz, who, by the way, is sympathetic to Russell, writes that “the pessimistic Calvinist faith...was too frightening for the deeply religious young man.” (Pastor Russell, p. 24)

In 1870 he was exposed to the teachings of William Miller who had founded what was called the Second Adventist movement around the turn of the century and also to the teachings John Thomas who founded a group called the Christadelphians in 1848. From the Millerites Russell was provided with an official religious denial of hell and an emphasis on sensational end time prophecies and events (Miller had incorrectly predicted that Christ would return in 1848). From the Christadelphians he learned that Jesus Christ is not God and that the Holy Spirit is only a power or force, not a Person. These teachings would influence him greatly as he formed his own Bible class in Pittsburgh. In 1876 this group elected him as “Pastor” (however he was never officially ordained by any recognized religious body). He began writing in earnest and in 1877 in a work entitled Three Worlds predicted that the current world system would soon end in a great battle (Armageddon) and the kingdom of God would begin. (He later reaffirmed this “propecy” in The Time is at Hand written in 1889 and fixed the date as the year 1914. This was often repeated in his other writings.) In 1879 he established The Herald of the Morning, a regular publication which developed into what we know today as The Watchtower. His group was organized as the International Bible Students Association. In 1881 he founded and in 1884 incorporated the Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society which became the publishing arm of his rapidly growing group. Through this entity he published a series of six books originally titled The Millennial Dawn but later renamed Studies in the Scriptures which remain important to JW theology. In 1908, the headquarters was moved to Brooklyn, New York where it remains today.

In the midst of all this, Russell’s life and character should be mentioned. (Most of the following material comes from Martin, Kingdom, pp. 39-46.) In 1897, his wife Maria left him. In 1903 she sought legal separation and was awarded such by the courts in 1906. In 1909 Russell was required to make a one-time alimony payment of $6036. In the course of this legal action it was revealed that all the money given to or raised by the Watch Tower Society was funneled through a holding company in which Russell controlled ninety-nine percent of the stock. The other one percent was shared by two of his followers. Thus he controlled all the wealth of this organization and was accountable to no one. After re-locating to Brooklyn, several of his antics came under the scrutiny of the local paper, The Brooklyn Daily Eagle. One incident involved Russell’s promotion and sell of “Miracle Wheat” seed for an exorbitant $1.00 a pound claiming it would grow five times as much wheat as normal seed. Followers were advised to purchase it with the proceeds going, of course, to the Watch Tower. The paper lampooned this venture and Russell brought suit for libel. In the course of the trial, government agents tested the seed and found it to be low in quality. Russell lost the suit. The paper also investigated some of Russell’s world tours during which he claimed to speak extensively to large crowds with great results. Although he did travel, The Eagle discovered that many of the alleged sermons did not in fact occur.

One other case bears mentioning. In 1912, a Baptist pastor named J.J. Ross from Hamilton, Ontario wrote, as Martin puts it, “a blistering pamphlet denouncing Russell’s theology and personal life” (Kingdom, p. 42) . Of course, Russell again brought a lawsuit claiming he had been defamed and libeled. (It’s interesting to note that though Russell attacked earthly governments and laws as tools of Satan, he often sought to avail himself of their protections when it seemed advantageous to do so.) Part of Ross’ article focused on Russell’s lack of education regarding Hebrew and Greek in which he claimed to be expert (cf. comments by Horowitz, Pastor Russell, p. 12). During the trial he was forced to admit that he had only attended public school for seven years, having dropped out at age 14. Under examination Russell contradicted and perjured himself and was finally forced to admit he did not know either Greek or Hebrew. He lost the case at every point.

The year 1914 was, of course, much anticipated by Russell and his followers and though there were some earthshaking events, his prophecies did not come to pass as he originally predicted (cf. Horowitz, Pastor Russell, p. 26). The first way they dealt with it was to reprint The Time is at Hand in 1915 and simply change the prophetic year from 1914 to 1915. Of course, as we know the war in Europe raged on until 1918 so that did not help. So he began teaching (as is taught today) that the kingom of God was fully set up in heaven, not on earth as he originally proclaimed. Russell continued in his capacity as leader of this movement until his death on October 31, 1916.

Judge Joseph Franklin Rutherford assumed the mantle of leadership after Russell’s death. He was lead counsel for the Watch Tower Society and acted as Russell’s lawyer in his many court cases. Although never elected or appointed as a permanent judge, he maintained the title because early in his career he was elected by his fellow lawyers as a temporary judge in the Eighth Judicial Circuit Court of Booneville, Missouri for a period of about four days. Rutherford also made some prophecies concerning the end of the current world system and the beginning of the kingdom of God. On September 1, 1922 he predicted 1925 as the year in which it would happen. He, too, was wrong. After these two colossal failures, the Watch Tower became more cautious about setting dates but no less enthusiastic about proclaiming how near the end was. From 1930-39 numerous printed declarations were made. From May, 1940 to April 15, 1943 the Society made at least 44 statements about the imminence of Armageddon. (cf. Cult Watch, pp. 81-82).

Under Rutherford the leadership of the Society became even more authoritarian. To oppose him became tantamount to opposing Jehovah Himself. However, his reign was not without its rough spots. In 1917 Rutherford caused some of Russell’s previously unpublished notes to be edited and printed as a seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures. This volume was controversial among the movement and caused a split. Most followed Rutherford while the smaller group became known as The Dawn Bible Students Association. In 1928 Rutherford publicly and officially rejected Russell’s underlying ideas regarding the 1914 prediction. Russell believed that the thousands of inches in the passageways of the Great Pyramid near Cairo, Egypt represented years which helped him come to his final calculations (Herbert Kern, How to Respond to Jehovah’s Witnesses, pp. 44-45). Once again the Society lost members. There were other incidents along the way. Rutherford died in 1942.

It should be noted that it was under Rutherford that the International Bible Students Association and the Watch Tower Society were merged to form the present religious corporation. The name Jehovah’s Witnesses was adopted in 1931. It is interesting that loyal followers of Russell who split away from Rutherford deny that Russell founded the Jehovah’s Witnesses (technically true) and do not like his name to be associated with them (Horowitz, Pastor Russell, pp. 70-71). At the same time, because of the undeniable moral and ethical failings of Russell himself, current day JW’s do not like to be associated with him either. It would seem to be a mutually beneficial arrangement except that whatever the technicalities are, the current day theology of the JW’s is mainly based on Russell’s teachings and writings. Martin documents the extent of references to Russell’s writings after his death by later JW leaders and teachers (Kingdom, pp. 49-51) and also does a side-by-side comparison
of Russell’s teachings and current JW beliefs (Kingdom, pp. 57-61). He says that Jehovah’s Witnesses have never stopped being “Russellites,” no matter how loudly they proclaim the opposite.

The third president of the Jehovah’s Witnesses was Nathan Homer Knorr. Under his leadership the Gilead Missionary Training School was established in South Lansing, New York. Also in 1961 the New World Translation of the Bible was completed. (The five members of the translation committee were Knorr, Frederick Franz, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas and Milton Henschel). Only Franz had any exposure to biblical languages having studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati and being self-taught in Hebrew. In a court case in Edinborough, Scotland on November 23, 1954, Franz testified that God supervised their translation efforts by means of “angels of various ranks who control” the translators.) The number of members grew from around 105,000 to 2.2 million. Much of the growth happened after 1966 when Franz again predicted that Armageddon and the establishment of God’s kingdom would occur in 1975. Many members even sold their homes and belongings in anticipation of the event. Once again it failed to happen and they lost many members. Knorr died in June, 1977.

In wrapping up the historical section we note that Knorr was succeeded by Frederick W. Franz. He had to deal with much independent thinking of members who then usually left the movement. Even his own nephew, Raymond, left and wrote an scathing expose of the JW’s entitled Crisis of Confidence. Franz was followed in 1992 by Milton G. Henschel. Despite having to deal with some of the same issues, they continue to grow (worldwide membership at approximately 2.5 million according to Cult Watch, p. 57, published in 1991, though the January 1, 1995 issue of The Watchtower claims 4.9 million) and pose a problem for traditional Christianity and for the many souls deluded by their doctrine.

Organizational Practices and Terminology

As we have seen by examining the history of this group, the organization of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is centered primarily around its leadership. Beginning with Russell, it was taught that one could not understand or receive God’s truth from the Bible without the accompanying aid of his instruction and teachings. This atttiude continued with Rutherford. The five presidents have had tremendous influence over the decisions and direction of the organization. Each one has left his own
distinctive mark as we have seen.

Things have changed a bit in modern times. Though the president is still appointed for life and usually has the final say on all matters, since the time of Rutherford there has existed a governing body of the Watchtower Society. This board is now considered the “divine interpreter” for the Jehovah’s Witnesses rather than just the president (cf. The Watchtower, Oct. 1, 1967 quoted by Kern, How to Respond to Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 43). It is interesting to note that though the Society claims that God Himself was and is the direct source of all these men’s interpretations and teachings of the Bible, they frequently disagree and contradict each other, especially as leadership has passed from one generation to the next. How can this be if God does not change (Mal. 3:6) and is not the author of confusion (I Cor. 14:33)?

Thus the control of this multi-million member organization is vested in the small group of men who run the show from Brooklyn, New York. They are chosen from among the elite 144,000 who are still alive these days. Here is something unique to this movement. Drawing from Revelation 7:4, JW’s believe that God has chosen and appointed 144,000 servants to be His visible representatives on earth. These are equated with the “faithful and wise servant” of Matthew 24:45. They have been “assigned to dispense timely spiritual food” (The Watchtower, March 15, 1990 quoted by Kern, p.42) to the others in the movement. These will merit a special reward (Matthew 24:46-47). As of 1994, only about 8,600 JW’s considered themselves as part of that number (Kern, p. 41). The rest have already died.

** Revelation 7:4-8 is clearly speaking of a remant of Israel which God is going to seal. It is obviously not referring to a special class within the JW’s. ** Matthew 24:45-47 is speaking of all who profess to be servants of the Lord. Those who are true will be rewarded. Those who are false will be punished. There is no basis for taking this passage to refer to JW’s as the only means of God working in the present world.

So, in essence, Jehovah’s Witnesses are divided into “haves” and “have nots” with regard to salvation. According to their theology, the 144,000 are the first class who will be given the privilege of being recreated (not resurrected and changed) as spirit beings just as Jesus was by God after His death. They will also be allowed to rule with Jesus in Heaven. The second class consists of all the other JW’s who do not attain to the 144,000. They have no hope of ruling or being recreated as spirit beings. Rather they will be recreated (again, not resurrected) with physical bodies to live on earth being ruled by Jesus and the 144,000. (A third class is all those outside JW’s who are nevertheless “good” enough to be given the opportunity to earn salvation [eternal life on earth]. They, too, will be recreated with physical bodies to live in the millenium. But they can only go beyond the millenium if they attain perfection during it.)

The bottom line is that the “haves” who are fortunate enough or connected enough to be placed on the governing body rule with almost absolute authority over the daily practices of the members. This is allowed because of the teachings that God’s truth and will can only be found through the teachings of the Watchtower Society (cf. Cult Watch, Question Six, p. 62).

The Society justifies this stance by twisting scriptures, especially II Peter 1:20-21 and Acts 8:30-31. They use the passage in II Peter to contend that no individual must ever try to interpret or figure out what the Bible is saying on his own. But the Greek word for interpretation is epilusis which means “unloosing.” The prophets did not loose these prophecies by themselves (privately). It is speaking of the origin of prophecy in that it comes from God Himself through the Holy Spirit rather than merely from men (cf. v. 21). It is not speaking at all about the proper and improper ways of interpreting the Bible but rather where the Bible came from.

The verses in Acts 8 are used to argue how the eunuch could not understand until God’s servant showed him the truth. Certainly we recognize that some portions of the Bible are more difficult than others to understand and sometimes we need help and instruction from others. This is why God gave the Holy Spirit to help guide us (I Cor. 2:10-12) and also gave teachers to the church (Eph. 4:11) for our edification.

But it is quite a stretch to say that this passage endorses the Watchtower as the only true agent of God for all men. A few points: 1) Philip was one man whom God used to guide the eunuch, he was not an organization; 2) He taught him directly from the Old Testament scriptures, not with literature designed by an organization; 3) After the baptism, the Holy Spirit caught Philip away from the eunuch who never had to join and submit to an organization.

** Question for your JW aquaintances: “If the Watchtower is the only true servant of God and the only means of really understanding God’s word and God’s will, and they did not come into existence until the late 1800’s, does this mean God had no representatives on earth for many centuries? Did God not care whether or not people understood His word for all that time? This question is intended to begin to create a seed of doubt in the mind of your acquaintance that the Watchtower is truly what it claims to be. (Ron Rhodes, The Ten Most Important Things You Can Say to a Jehovah’s Witness, p.14.)

The level of control of the Watchtower Society is astounding. They regulate many aspects of their adherents’ lives. For instance, they are not allowed to mingle with or have friends among Christian organizations who collectively are the evil servant in Matthew 24:48-51 (cf. Cult Watch, Question 8, p. 63). They are not to read the Bible apart from the literature of the Watchtower. They are not allowed to celebrate most holidays (even Christmas and Easter) because of supposed pagan origins or associations or current day evil practices related to them (like gluttony); nor birthdays because they draw too much attention to the individual and the only birthday celebrations recorded in the Bible are of Pharoah and Herod who were evil. They are not allowed to do anything civil or patriotic (like voting, displaying or saluting a flag and joining the military) because these things are part of the evil world system which are of Satan and used by him to trick people away from God. They are not allowed to accept blood transfusions because of the misinterpretations of Leviticus 17:10 and Acts 15:29. However they are required to spend many hours each month doing door to door evangelism (ten on the average) and at least five hours each week at meetings and training sessions. At these meetings they do not ask questions as this might arouse suspicion that they are thinking independently which is discouraged. (Kern, How to Respond to Jehovah’s Witnesses, pp. 7-8; Reed, Jehovah’s Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse, pp.122-25).

Such is the culture of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are used to accepting the word of the Watchtower as the absolute and final authority for their lives (cf. letter re: Clean Teeth in Awake!, June 22, 2004, p. 30). This rigorous conformity is enforced by the threat of disfellowshiping those who do not toe the line of obedience. In many cases this would mean complete separation from friends and family with the exception that if the disfellowshiped one is immediate family (spouse, son, daughter, etc.) you may conduct “necessary business” (David Reed, Jehovah’s Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse, pp. 13, 121). This is the most effective means of controlling the membership. By the way, this sort of thing is not unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Most religious cults are very concerned with power over the lives of their adherents and use some sort of manipulative coercion to keep them on board and in line.

** Many of the publications which speak of witnessing to JW’s suggest that the first thing which must be done is to undermine the reliability and authority of the Watchtower. This is done by planting seeds of doubt by showing them what the Bible really says when possible or asking questions as above (more on this later).

Here are some common Jehovah’s Witness terms and meanings:Annihilation-- the belief that unbelievers will not receive eternal punishment in hell or the lake of fire but will rather cease to exist entirely.

• Armageddon-- the last great war which will end Satan’s rule on earth and usher in the Kingdom of God.
• Awake!-- a Watchtower periodical designed to introduce Jehovah’s Witnesses to the public at large and arouse interest in their public meetings. An evangelistic tool. Goats-- all those outside the Jehovah’s Witnesses who will be judged by God as in Matthew 25:31-46.
• Great Crowd (or Sheep)-- the majority of Jehovah’s Witnesses who will not live in heaven but rather in a restored paradise on earth (would also presumably include those not Jehovah’s Witness but who lived “good lives.”
• Jehovah-- the only correct name for Almighty God.
• Kingdom Hall-- a local meeting place for Jehovah’s Witnesses used for the instruction of their members.
• Little Flock (or Anointed Class)-- another name for the 144,000 who are the elite group of Jehovah’s Witnesses who will live in heaven and reign with Jesus.
• Michael-- the archangel who was Jehovah’s first creation and later became the man Jesus Christ.
• New World Translation-- the official Watchtower translation of the Bible designed to support their own theology and characterized by mistranslations.
• Studies in the Scriptures-- a seven work volume (six written by Charles Russell, the seventh compiled from his writings and edited by Judge Joseph Rutherford) which expounds the basic teachings and theology of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
• The Watchtower-- a periodical designed for the instruction of the members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Theology and Teachings (with Rebuttal)

Although Jehovah’s Witnesses actively claim the name of being Christian (indeed the only ones at that) and desire to be recognized as such by the general public, an examination of their beliefs will reveal that they are not. Whatever they may say about the Christian religion being corrupted and false through the centuries, the fact is that Christianity has always been characterized by certain beliefs (i.e., the Bible as the sole authority for faith and practice, the Trinity, the virgin birth of Christ, the dual and complete humanity and deity of Christ, the bodily death, resurrection, ascension and return of Christ, etc.). When you leave these truths you become a believer in something else--it is not Christianity. Though they have a right to believe what they want, teach what they want and claim it is true, they cannot honestly claim to be Christian. Their teachings and the teachings of Christianity clash on multiple points and are not compatible in any sense. We will examine a few of the major collisions and may mention some others in passing. I will seek to present each JW viewpoint honestly by using their own literature when possible (or at least references to their literature in my sources), which is more than they do for us as we will see.

The Doctrine of the Trinity

Walter Martin states in his book The Kingdom of the Cults (p. 63) that “every major cult and non-Christian religion which seeks to override orthodox theology continually attacks the doctrine of the Trinity.” In this regard Jehovah’s Witnesses are no exception and in fact are among the most agressive in doing so. In short, they teach that only Jehovah is God (they are careful to never refer to Him directly as the Father but rather say that Jesus called Him “Father”); that Jesus is a separate and created being, not almighty God; and that the Holy Spirit is the impersonal, active force of God. These teachings are not original with Charles Russell. Martin notes that Arius of Alexandria taught that Jesus was the first creature and a second god, inferior to Jehovah God (p. 66). This belief and Arius himself were banished from the church in A.D. 326 after the council of Nicaea formulated and established the doctrine of the Trinity based on teachings of the Scriptures. Remember that Russell was influenced by a group called the Christadelphians around 1870 who echoed the Arian heresy. Jehovah’s Witnesses offer several points to make their argument against the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

First, they assert that the term trinity is found nowhere in the Bible nor is it clearly taught there (cf. Should You Believe in the Trinity?, 1989, pp. 6, 12). To them these are significant points. Based upon this they then claim that both the term and the teaching are man-made and were constructed hundreds of years after the time of Christ and the Apostles. Thus it is a corruption of the true Christian faith and patently false. However, they purposefully misrepresent the concept of the Trinity to make the denial of it more acceptable. For instance, in Studies in the Scriptures, Charles Russell refers to it as “this doctrine of three Gods in one God” and later as “three Gods in one person” (quoted by Ron Rhodes, The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Jehovah’s Witness, p. 65). Neither of these statements is accurate with regard to what Trinitarians believe.

Rebuttal: Rhodes submits in response to this that JW’s need to be reminded that, strictly speaking, neither does the word “Jehovah” appear in the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts of the Bible ( p. 64.) It is a word constructed by taking the first three vowels from the Hebrew word for ‘Lord’ (Adonai) and inserting them into the consonants YHWH resulting in Yahowah or Jehovah. The Jews did this to make a substitute for God’s name so as to not accidentally break the third commandment. So is the doctrine of Jehovah in the Bible false because that name does not actually appear? Of course not. Just so we must not ask if the constructed word which describes a doctrine is in the Bible but whether the doctrine or concept itself is there. As we continue we will see that though no writer of the Scriptures laid out the doctrine of the Trinity as such, it is indelibly, continuously and effortlessly portrayed throughout the Bible. So much so that, as previously noted, when heretics like Arius arose, the clear teachings of the Bible refuted them.

The Christian concept of the Trinity is that: 1) There is only one true God (Deut. 6:4; Isaiah 44:6; 46:9; I Corinthians 8:4; James 2:19). 2) There are three Persons who are this one God-- the Father (Malachi 2:10); Jesus the Son (John 20:28); and the Holy Spirit (John 16:13; Acts 5:3,4; 13:2). 3) There is a three-in-oneness in this Godhead (Matthew 28:19--cf. Rhodes, p. 68). Each of the three Persons, on different occasions in the Bible, is credited with divine attributes such as omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, perfect holiness and eternality (For a complete listing of these attributes and corresponding Bible references see Rhodes, p. 67; also see Herbert Kern, How to Respond to Jehovah’s Witnesses, pp. 31-32 for related material).

One note that may help us is that the Hebrew has more than one word for “one.” One term is “yachid” which means “the only one” in an absolute or solitary sense (i.e. Gen. 22:2). The other is “echod” which does not connote absolute unity but rather a composite unity (i.e. Genesis 2:24 “one flesh”; Numbers 13:23 “one cluster of grapes”). It is this second word which is used in Deuteronomy 6:4. Thus, the implication in that language is that our God is a composite or unity of persons. (Explain Walter Martin’s [pp. 69-70] argument from Genesis 18:16 22; John 1:18; 5:37; and Genesis 19:1, 24 in response to JW’s question “If Jesus was Jehovah incarnate then who was in heaven when he was on the cross?”).

The second major argument of the Jehovah’s Witnesses against the doctrine of the Trinity is that this belief is rooted in paganism and is the work of the devil. This falls in line with their rejection of all Christian denominations and organizations as being tools of the devil. Essentially the idea is that the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes (triads) goes back as far as Babylonia and Assyria. Later other cultures such as Egypt, Greece and Rome were also influenced by this and after the death of the apostles these heathen practices began to invade Christianity. The leaders in the fourth century A.D. began to make concessions to appease the masses and eventually codified a belief in the Trinity. This was part of an overall apostasy (falling away from the true faith) and lawlessness by the church at large. Other doctrines which also began to be accepted at this time by these false followers of Christ (according to them) were the belief in hell and the immortality of the soul (cf. Should You Believe in the Trinity?, 1989, pp. 7-12).

Rebuttal: Certainly we would agree that the worship of false gods was prevalent all around the early church. But the idea that there was a focus on triads of gods in all these places at the time Christianity emerged is not true. Rhodes points out that this idea of a triumvirate of gods was especially popular in Babylon and Assyria and further east about 2000 years before Christianity began. He comments that “from a historical and geographical perspective, the suggestion that Christianity borrowed the Trinitarian concept from pagans is quite unfeasible” (The 10 Most Important Things, p. 69).

It should also be noted that these triads were separate gods in the minds of the people who worshipped them. They were polytheists who believed in many different beings and gods who ruled the cosmos. The idea and worship of multiple gods was (and still is to some degree) common in the world. However, the doctrine of the Trinity maintains that there is only one God consisting of three Persons. It is unique in what it contends which implies that it was not made up by man at all. Rather it is simply the result of what has been communicated to us by God about Himself.

Finally, Rhodes mentions that there are other concepts among the heathen which could be said to be similar to what Christians believe. For instance, some pagan religions teach of a great flood, while others believe in a messiah-like figure (“Tammuz”) who was resurrected. Following Watchtower logic, do we also throw out the biblical teachings of Noah’s flood, Jesus the Messiah and His resurrection? Just because you can find something in paganism that remotely resembles a Christian doctrine doesn’t mean it was borrowed from the false religion.

Third, and perhaps most importantly to the JW’s, the doctrine of the Trinity must be false because it doesn’t make sense. As you talk with JW’s and read their literature, it will be seen that they place much emphasis on the reasonableness of things pertaining to God. Walter Martin says that “reason has always been ‘the great god’ before whom (they)...bow with unmatched reverence” (Kingdom, p. 63).

In supporting this attitude they often refer to Isaiah 1:18a “Come now and let us reason together.” From the partial verse they teach that “Jehovah God by His Word furnishes us with ample reasons and logical bases for all regarding which he expects us to exercise faith...We can make sure of what is right only by a process of reasoning on God’s Word” (The Watchtower, January 1, 1973, p. 24 quoted by Martin, Kingdom, p. 65). This approach is especially apparent concerning the doctrine of the Trinity which even we, as Christians who believe it, admit that we cannot comprehend it fully. Knowing this, they hit the issue hard with this argument of reason (cf. Should You Believe in the Trinity?, 1989, pp. 4-5, 30). Sadly, this method is effective with many for the simple fact that people like to feel as if they can understand things. Why muddle things up with an incomprehensible teaching like the Trinity?

In connection with this they also often quote I Corinthians 14:33 which says that “God is not the author of confusion.” Since the doctrine of the Trinity is confusing, it must not be from God but made up instead by man.

Rebuttal: There are several areas where this idea can be attacked. First, of course, we must consider what the scriptures say about this matter. With regard to Isaiah 1:18 it is readily apparent that when God was inviting His people to “reason together” it was about the matter of forgiveness and salvation. The context of the chapter is rebuke, warning, instruction and invitation to Israel. He was appealing to their common sense of wanting to avoid His wrath through obedience. Indeed, God does appeal to our reason and thinking faculties. He does make Himself known and understood--how else could we respond to Him or seek to obey? But He is not inviting us to investigate His nature and seek a full understanding of Him.

The thought of us mortal creatures understanding our God the infinite Creator is ludicrous. The Bible makes this abundantly clear in Isaiah 55:8,9; Romans 11:33; and I Corinthians 13:12. With regard to I Corinthians 14:33 the context is also completely foreign to how the JW’s want to apply it. Obviously Paul is writing about the disorder and confusion in the Corinthian church services due to the misuse of some spiritual gifts. He is not saying that any doctrine which challenges our understanding is inherently false and not of God.

Second we must consider whether the idea that God always gives us reasons for what He asks us to believe is true. The Bible is invaluable in many ways for explaining why things in the world are the way they are. But even the Bible does not give us reasons for everything. For instance, does God ever explain why He created Lucifer and allowed him to rebel and have the freedom to cause Adam and Eve to fall into sin? No. It is not reasonable to us that God should do this but we are told that He did. Should we throw it out because it doesn’t make sense? Or do we believe what the Bible says? Another example of this might be when a tragedy strikes us personally does God contact us to tell us why He allowed the evil thing to happen? No. He simply tells us in Romans 8:28 that “all things work together for good” and asks us to believe that it is in accordance with His divine plan. Do we refuse to believe when we can’t make sense of it? Or do we continue to walk with God and trust Him? There is much about God and what he does that we cannot understand and may never fully comprehend, just as a very small child does not fully understand all that his own father is and does. Yet he loves and trusts him anyway. Still another example might be the miracles of God. Must we require that God explain to us how He accomplishes His miracles before we accept them? The Jehovah’s Witnesses do not require that for they claim to believe in miracles. Why then do they reject what God claims for His own nature? To think we must understand something before we can accept it is in itself unreasonable. (Cf. Cult Watch, p. 66-67 re: scientist’s views of light energy.)

To conclude this section we would refer to a remark from John Ankerberg and John Weldon that with regard to confusion, not believing in the Trinity will cause many verses in the Bible to not make good sense (Cult Watch, p. 67). Among these are: Genesis 1:26; 11:7,9; Matthew 28:19; II Corinthians 1:21,22; 13:14; Ephesians 3:11-16; 4:4-6; I Thessalonians 1:1-5. It is clear that the doctrine of the Trinity is biblical, unambiguous and certainly believable if your God is great enough.

The Deity of Jesus Christ

The second major doctrinal disagreement between the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christianity is closely related to the first one we examined, namely that of the Trinity. Obviously, when you deny the Trinity you are also denying that at least one of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not Jehovah God. We have already seen that the JW’s reject the notion that either Jesus the Son or the Holy Spirit are co-equal to God the Father. Now we want to spend some time focusing on the specific issue of the deity of Jesus Christ. It has been said that “all cults break down on the Person of Jesus Christ.” As Christians, we are supposed to be followers and disciples of Christ. While we accept the complete truth of the whole Bible about all that it teaches, our only hope for salvation is in Jesus Himself. It is He who makes our salvation possible through what He did in His earthly life, death and resurrection. Because He became the sacrifice that would satisfy the Father’s wrath regarding sin we can have His righteousness applied to us by believing in Him (John 3:15-18; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10). It pleases the Father to justify those who place their trust in Jesus Christ--this is grace extended by God through the agency of faith.

Therefore it is of supreme importance that we have a correct belief. Now that does not mean that it is necessary to know all the theological answers about the nature of God and so on. A small child can be saved without knowing these things and so can an adult for that matter. But we must believe in Jesus for who He truly is and as He declared Himself (John 8:21-24). Without being human He could not stand in for us and take our place on the cross. And without being God Himself He could not pay the infinite price that would satisfy the infinite wrath of an infinite God. Without being both at once Jesus was not qualified to achieve our salvation (cf. Rhodes, The Ten Most Important Things You Can Say to a Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 51). Furthermore, Jesus taught these things about Himself and if we deny what He claims for Himself, how can we say that we believe in Him?

Yet that is exactly what JW’s do. They deny that Jesus is Jehovah God. They try to smooth it over by applying other good attributes and titles to Him but they will not accept that He is God incarnate. They put forth several arguments to defend and contend for this position. Let’s see what they have to say and examine it against the teachings of the Bible.

It may be helpful to first get an overall view of exactly what JW’s do believe about Jesus and then examine each part as needed. According to the Watchtower tract What Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe? (1987, p. 3) and their pamphlet Should You
Believe in the Trinity? (1989, p. 14) Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus was a created being. Specifically he was originally Michael the Archangel (Though I do not possess JW material that teaches this, three of my previously cited sources, Cult Watch, The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Jehovah’s Witness and How to Respond to Jehovah’s Witnesses all assert this and cite the following Watchtower publications for support: Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, p. 1152; You May Survive Armageddon into God’s New World, 1955, p. 112; Is This All the Life There Is?, 1974, p. 128.) who was the very first thing Jehovah created and whom God then used as His “junior partner” (Should You Believe...?, p. 14) to create all other things. Later at the appropriate time God “transferred the life-force” of Michael (who ceased to exist) to Mary’s womb who subsequently gave birth to Jesus. Thus this is not an incarnation of Jehovah God, but the creation of a “perfect” human being. JW’s accept, for the most part, the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life and death (though they claim that he really died on a stake and that the cross is a pagan religious symbol promoted by Satan--cf. pictures in The Watchtower, June 15, 2004, p.17 and Should You Believe...?, p. 18). However, they again diverge greatly from orthodox Christian belief about what happened after his death and about the results of his death. First, they say that Jesus the man died and therefore ceased to exist (remember that to them death means to stop being). Charles Russell wrote, “The man Jesus is dead, forever dead.” (The Atonement Between God and Man, p. 454 quoted by Cult Watch, p. 68.). Jehovah then raised him (which to them really means recreated him) as a spirit creature (no bodily resurrection). In You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth on p. 143 as quoted by Ron Rhodes (The 10 Most Important..., p. 42) it says “Having given up his flesh for the life of the world, Christ could never take it again and become a man once more.”

The clincher is that he became a new, improved and now immortal Michael the Archangel. That was his reward for his service on earth. The information now becomes a little contradictory. John Ankerberg and John Weldon in Cult Watch (pp. 68-69) say that JW’s believe that since Jesus (Michael) is now “a spirit creature (an angel), it is impossible that He could ever return to earth visibly and physically. Therefore, they teach that Michael returned invisibly in 1914.” (Remember the failed prophecy of Christ’s return we saw in the historical section.)

On the other hand, Ron Rhodes in The Ten Most Important Things (p. 42) quotes Aid to Bible Understanding (p. 1395) to point out that JW’s teach that Jesus (Michael) proved His “resurrection” to the disciples in that “He appeared...on different occasions in various fleshly bodies, just as angels appeared to men of ancient times. Like those angels, he had the power to construct and to disintegrate those fleshly bodies at will, for the purpose of proving visibly that he had been resurrected.” Which is it? Can he appear visibly or not? (This might be a tough question for them to answer if the conversation ever swung this way.)

But what’s the point of all this? JW’s believe that the death of Christ was not to pay for the sins of the whole race. Rather it was only to pay for the sin of the only other (temporarily) perfect human being who ever lived, namely, Adam. The death of the second paid for the sin of the first. Herbert Kern puts it this way: Christ’s death cleared the slate so that Jehovah’s Witnesses could earn the rest of the points needed to try to prove themselves worthy of everlasting life. (How to Respond to Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 11). In their estimation, for God Himself to have died as a sacrifice on the cross would have been way too much ransom for what justice actually required. Therefore Jesus was just a man, perhaps perfect, but still created, inferior and subordinate to Jehovah God.

Now that we have completed an overview of what the JW’s believe about Jesus Christ we need to consider how they justify these beliefs. To fundamental Christians the Bible is so clear on the divine nature of Jesus. How can this group contend that Jesus was not God? Even more disturbing, how are they able to convince people who have attended Christian churches (and thus should know better) that this is so? The short and simple answer is that they misinterpret, take out of context and twist the Scriptures in an attempt to make it fit their view. For those not grounded in the Word what they say can sound good and make sense.
Remember that in their arguments they appeal heavily to the use of human reason.
They emphasize that if a doctrine doesn’t make sense or we can’t understand it then we need to automatically reject it. Let’s take a look at the verses they most commonly use to try to deny the deity of Jesus Christ.

John 1:1

Jehovah’s Witnesses make much of this verse in their conversations with people who affirm that Jesus is God. They assert that the verse should read this way: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” Why? Here is a good example of how JW’s try to use pseudo-scholarship to impress and intimidate Christians who are not well informed about the grammar of the Greek language and how it is constructed. In Koine Greek there is no indefinite article (like our English “a” or “an”) but there is a definite article (“the”). So when a writer in Greek wants to designate something specifically, he would insert a definite article (though we may not always see that reflected in English). If a noun does not have a definite article it may be indefinite, or, in other words, a general reference rather than a specific one.

In the original language of John 1:1 the first reference to God has a definite article (“ton theon”). Therefore we know that it is a specific and definite reference to the one true God and thus it is capitalized and rendered “with God.” However the second reference does not have a definite article preceding it (“theos”). This is where JW’s start grasping at straws. Because there is no definite article they claim that it should not be considered a specific reference to the one true God but rather an indefinite article should be supplied and it should be translated “a god.” To the average person this sounds right, but it is not.

Greek scholars agree that certain constructions, which I will not detail here (for more information see Walter Martin’s Kingdom of the Cults, pp. 85-87; Josh McDowell and Don Stewarts’s Handbook of Today’s Religions, pp. 59-60; Ron Rhodes’ The Ten Most Important Things You Can Say to a Jehovah’s Witness, pp. 28-30) do not require that a noun without a definite article be translated with an indefinite article. In other words “theos” by itself can legitimately be translated as the one true “God” in the proper circumstances. In the case of John 1:1, this approach is required. Walter Martin says to do otherwise is “incorrect grammar and poor Greek” (Kingdom of the Cults, p. 85).

To further bolster their claim, JW’s may point to various other translations of the Bible which agree with their New World Translation (cf. Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 27). These are always obscure translations from liberal scholars who probably reject the doctrine of the Trinity also. Never will you find listed a well known and widely accepted translation. In fact Ron Rhodes quotes Julius Mantey, co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, as saying with regard to John 1:1 that “Ninety-nine percent of the scholars in the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the Bible are in disagreement with the Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

But here is the clincher. In the same chapter the JW’s ignore their own rule about the absence of the definite article completely. In vv. 6, 12, 13, 18 of John chapter one we see repeatedly forms of the word “theos” without the definite article and yet the New World Translation renders them (correctly) as God. The question is why do they only adhere to their rule in verse one? The clear answer is that they wish to deny the deity of Christ. (Martin gives several more instances in other Bible passages where JW’s translate “theos” without a definite article as “God.”)
Point to make with your JW acquaintance: In Isaiah 43:10-12 (where they get their name) we are told that there is no other God but one and apart from Him is no “savior.” Ask him if Jesus Christ is Jehovah God. He will say no. But if you ask him if Jesus is a god, based on their version of John 1:1, he will readily agree. If you ask him if Jesus is a savior, he should also agree to that. Return to what Isaiah 43:10 says and emphasize that there can only be one true God. He may try to get around that by saying that the Hebrew word “elohim” is used to refer to angels (Psalm 8:5), men who are judges (Psalm 8:1-6) and the New Testament refers to Satan as a god (II Cor. 4:4). He may also say that Jesus is a “mighty god” but not the Almighty God. Emphasize that we know the difference between angels, men, mighty ones and the one true God. You can refer to Isaiah 10:21 and Jeremiah 32:18 where the Lord is called the “Mighty God.” Point out that in I Corinthians 8:4-5 we are told that though there are many other “gods and lords,” they are false. Ask him again if Jesus is Jehovah God. He will not agree. Ask if Jesus is then a false god. He will not agree to that either. You must press him that if Jesus is not Jehovah then He must certainly be a false god or else the Jehovah’s Witnesses are polytheists. They have no answer to this dilemma except for the strained idea of different levels of godhood (“mighty” vs. “Almighty”) which is ludicrous. Either there is one God or there is not. The point of this is to cause him to consider the contradiction and inadequacy of not accepting Jesus as Jehovah God and yet trying to insert Him into their belief system as a mere man. (Credit to Robert L. Sumner, Biblical Evangelism in Action, p. 188; McDowell and Stewart, Handbook of Today’s Religions, p. 60; and Walter Martin, Kingdom of the Cults, pp. 84-85 for this line of reasoning and appropriate verses.)

John 20:17; I Corinthians 8:6

Jehovah’s Witnesses use these verses (along with others such as Matthew 3:16-17; Mark 15:34; and Luke 23:46) to try to make the point that God the Father is distinct from Jesus Christ. The overall idea is similar to that of the denial of the Trinity. They are saying since Jesus is making references to the Father as his God or praying to God or the Father is speaking about Jesus and so on, they must therefore be separate entities and thus cannot be the same Jehovah God. It is an argument based on man’s perception of reality and what seems reasonable about the nature of God.
Perhaps an analogy will help here. An amoeba is a single-celled animal and it is separate from everything else. If such a creature had the capacity to think and reason and came into contact with a human who is made of trillions of cells, do you think it might have a hard time comprehending how all these different cells can still be one person? Yet that is the truth. We are made of many cells yet we are one being--something beyond the capacity of an amoeba to grasp if it could reason thus.
Just so God is beyond our capacity to understand. How can One Being also be three separate Personalities? Yet that is the way God is revealed in the Bible.

With respect to John 20:17 we must remember that Jesus is speaking as a man to a woman and through her sending a message to other men. The thrust of the message is that He will soon be returning to Heaven to be reunited with God the Father. Why does He phrase His words this way? Jack Stallings (The Gospel of John, p. 280) asserts that Jesus’ references to “My Father” and “your Father” and “My God” and “your God” tells us two things. First, because of Christ’s work we as believers can now call God “Father.” We are adopted into the family and are joint heirs with Jesus (cf. Romans 8:15-17). He is still Almighty God whom we revere and worship but now we are in a new relationship with Him. But more to the point for this study, Jesus uses the “My” and “your” to make a difference between our relationship with the God the Father and His relationship with God the Father. His Sonship is on a different plane than ours. He is the unique, one and only Son of God, who is of the same nature as God and equal with God. Far from indicating that the Father and the Son cannot be the same God, this verse shows the difference between us as regular mortal men and Jesus Christ the man who is also God.

Another verse commonly used by JW’s to deny that Jesus is God is I Corinthians 8:6. Their logic is that it clearly says that there is “one God, the Father” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ.” Thus they claim that the Bible clearly shows that the only God is the Father not Jesus Christ. Jesus is “Lord” but He is not “God.” This can be disconcerting to an unprepared Christian. However, Hebert Kern (How to Respond to Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 27) and David Reed (Jehovah’s Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse, pp. 95-96) provide help. Basically JW’s will want to stop after making the point that Jesus is not God. But you must not let them. If by their logic this verse is true in one direction, it must also be true in reverse. In other words, if Jesus is not God because there is only one, namely the Father, then it is equally true that the Father is not Lord because there is only one, namely Jesus Christ. They will not want to admit this because they constantly refer to Jehovah as “Lord.” But they cannot have it both ways. The fact is that the Bible uses the terms “God” and “Lord” almost interchangeably. The Father is referred to as both “Lord” and “God” and so is the Son Jesus Christ. It is even so with reference to false gods in this same passage (v. 5). JW’s are trying to make a distinction here that simply does not exist especially when you examine the functions in the verse (“Of whom are all things” and “through whom are all things” both speak of the power of the one true God).

John 14:28

This verse (along with John 10:29) is a favorite for JW’s to use to “prove” that
Jesus is not Jehovah God. They especially emphasize the phrase “for my Father is greater than I” (in 10:29 “My Father...is greater than all.”) and take it to mean that since the Father is greater than Jesus then Jesus must be a lesser god (same reasoning applies to phrase from 10:29). This is hard to answer for many Christians who have been taught (correctly) that Jesus the Son is equal to God the Father. It does seem to say that Jesus is inferior to the Father. What’s the answer?
The answer is that the Father was superior to Jesus just as the Bible says but only in His position not in His nature. Philippians 2:5-8 tells us that Jesus humbled Himself and accepted the form and position of a man which was inferior to that of God the Father. In fact, Hebrews 2:9 tells us this human form was also inferior to the angels. The Father occupied the place of highest honor and majesty in Heaven while on earth Jesus the man was despised, rejected and eventually nailed to a cross. But this does not mean that the divine nature of Jesus was negated. Jesus was God incarnate (God in the flesh). A quick example to explain this might be that many of us can truthfully say that another person is “greater” than we are in any number of quantitative (measurable) ways--intelligence, skills, achievements and so on. But that does not mean that we are different in our essential natures. We are still both human beings and thus entitled to the same rights and privileges under the law. Just so it was true that God the Father had a greater position without being different in nature from Jesus the Son.

Walter Martin (Kingdom of the Cults, pp. 118-119) makes the point that if Jesus had meant to say that the Father was qualitatively greater then the Greek word “kreisson” would have been used which is translated in Hebrews 1:4 as “better” (rather than“meizon” translated “greater”). In the context Jesus is said to be “better than the angels.” This is speaking of the contrast between His essential nature and their essential nature. Jesus is different and better than they in His quality. He is Creator and they are creations.

I Corinthians 11:3

This verse is also greatly used by JW’s to argue that Jesus cannot be God because Jesus was subservient to the Father and how can God be under the authority of anyone? (Some other verses JW’s use like this are: Matthew 20:23; Luke 22:42; Mark 13:32; and John 5:19; 6:38; 7:16; 10:18.) This is a similar position to the passage we just examined and so the answer is also much the same. When
Jesus humbly took on the form of a man He also voluntarily submitted Himself to the authority of the Father and limited Himself with regard to His divine attributes. This was necessary for Him to fully assume the role of a man.
With regard to I Corinthians 11:3, in which they emphasize “the head of Christ is God”, it is easy to dismiss their logic. The verse also says that “the head of woman is man.” But again we know that men and women are essentially the same--male and female of the same race. There may be differences between us functionally but not in our natures, in other words, we are all people. Just so, the Son is willingly functionally subordinate to the Father without diminishing His deity. They are equal in being who they are--the one true God.

John 1:14,18; 3:16,18

Jehovah’s Witnesses like to use these verses (along with I John 4:9) to deny that Christ is Jehovah God by taking the words “only begotten” to mean “only generated.” In other words, Jesus the Son had his origin through an action of the Father. This means that Jesus is not eternal God Almighty but instead is “junior” to the Father because he is a creature--perhaps the first and greatest of them all--but still only a creature (cf. Should You Believe in the Trinity?, pp. 15-16).

The Greek word for “only begotten” is “monogenes.” Walter Martin says that “the most authoritative lexicons and grammar books, not to mention numerous scholarly works, all render “monogenes” as “only or unique ‘the only member of a kin or kind, hence generally only.’ ” (Kingdom of the Cults, p. 114-115.) Thus Christians take “only begotten” to refer to the uniqueness of Jesus as the one and only, one-of-a-kind Son of God. Jack Stallings writes that it “is a compound of the noun meaning ‘kind’ or ‘genus’ (Greek genos) rather than the verb ‘born’ (Greek gennao). It therefore literally means ‘of a single kind’ rather than ‘only
begotten.’ ” (Randall House Bible Commentary on John, p. 24.) Here we see the JW’s first mistake in saying that “monogenes” comes from “ginomai” which means “to generate.” Stallings quotes Raymond Brown who says “Although genos is distantly related to gennan, ‘to beget,’ there is little Greek justification for the translation of monogenes as ‘only begotten.’ ” The NIV recognizes these truths in their translation of “monogenes” with “one and only.” Jesus is God’s Son in a way that nobody else is God’s Son.

Jehovah’s Witnesses try to get around this by referring to Hebrews 11:17 where the same Greek word is translated “only begotten” but this time in relation to Abraham and Isaac. They assert that since Abraham was obviously Isaac’s father as we know and understand that relationship in human terms --Abraham preceded Isaac and Abraham procreated Isaac--that it must also apply to Jesus and His Father. Thus, they say, God the Father preceded the Son and by His actions created him. It
certainly sounds logical.

However, JW’s have an enormous problem in trying to make this point stick. They completely forget or ignore that Isaac was not Abraham’s only son. In Genesis 16 we see that years before Isaac, Abraham had another son by Hagar named Ishmael.
Later in Genesis 25, after Sarah’s death, he remarried and had six more children.
Since they accepted the definition for “monogenes” as “only born, only begotten, i.e. an only child” and also “of sole descent, i.e., without brothers or sisters,” this
clearly cannot be the meaning of “monogenes” in Hebrews 11:17. In other words
what might be considered the naturalistic application of the word is out. How then
can “monogenes” be applied to the relationship of Abraham and Isaac? Simply, it is applied the same way that it is used of Jesus in the verses we have seen already. Isaac was the son of promise. He is not the only son nor even the eldest son, but he was the special son through whom God would fulfill His promises to Abraham. In this sense, He was unique and precious to his father Abraham in a way that none of the other children would ever be. This was demonstrated in how Abraham sent away first Ishmael (ch. 21) and later all the other children and gave all that he had to Isaac as an inheritance (Gen. 25:5-6). So we see that this word is used very consistently in the Bible even when it speaking of natural human relationships.

One more thing which may help us understand this a little more clearly. It is not incorrect to say that Jesus as the Son of man was begotten by God (Luke 1:35). Clearly, he had to be born of a woman to be a real man. This was a process that happened at a point in time so it did have a beginning. What is incorrect is to say the Jesus Christ as Jehovah God, second Person of the Triune Godhead had a beginning--that the Person never existed before the birth of the man Jesus or that He was preceded by and created by the first Person of the Trinity. Before His incarnation He was the eternal Logos or Word of God (John 1:1). The terms Father and Son are functional terms which are to be understood as relating to their relationship in time and in the eternal future, not in eternity past. Walter Martin writes, “The Scripture nowhere calls Jesus Christ the eternal Son of God...(also) the term ‘Father’ incidentally never carries the descriptive adjective ‘eternal’ in Scripture.” (Kingdom of the Cults, p. 117.) In other words, the terms “Father” and “Son” designating two of the Persons of the Trinity become relevant only after the incarnation of Christ. This is important to realize because Jehovah’s Witnesses try to make the term “Son” denote the quality of being created and inherent inferiority. The idea of sonship here, on the other hand, denotes that He is “of the (same) order of” His Heavenly Father (cf. Ron Rhodes, The Ten Most Important Things You Can Say to a Jehovah’s Witness, p. 46.)
Admittedly, the incarnation (God in the flesh) is difficult to grasp. How can one Person be one hundred percent God and at the same time one hundred percent man? Yet we rely on the fact that this is how Jesus Christ is revealed to be by His word, the Bible. We must not deny this truth based on what makes sense according to human perspective combined with the misapplication of a common word. Sadly, that is exactly what the JW’s try to do.

Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14

We will consider this two verses together for as Walter Martin says in reference to Colossians 1:15, “The Watchtower teaches that since Christ is called the “firstborn of all creation,” therefore He must be the first one created, and they cross- reference this with Revelation 3:14 which states that the faithful and true witness (Christ) is “the beginning of the creation of God.” (Kingdom of the Cults, p. 123;
cf. Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 14.) Jehovah’s Witnesses use both verses in essentially the same way, that is, to try to “prove” that the Jehovah preceded Jesus in existence and created Him. This would mean that Jesus had a beginning at some point and is therefore not of the same nature as Jehovah. Again, because of the English words in the verses and how we commonly use them, the conclusions reached by the JW’s seem sound...until you look a little deeper.

Let us consider Colossians 1:15 first. Josh McDowell and Don Stewart write that, “The meaning of “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15 is perhaps impossible, or at least difficult to understand without an accurate understanding of its Old Testament implications.” (Handbook of Today’s Religions, p. 50.) In the Old Testament “firstborn” does sometimes simply refer to the first child or first creature born to its parents (i.e., Gen. 41:51-52; Ex. 13:11-12). But there is another obvious meaning of the word that we can see in other passages such as Jeremiah 31:9 and Psalm 89:20, 27. In those passages God is speaking of Ephraim and David. But the literal and simple meaning of “firstborn” cannot apply because: 1) We know that Ephraim was Joseph’s second son and David was Jesse’s youngest son; 2) In the context of Jeremiah 31, Ephraim is actually a reference to the nation of Israel so it’s hard to see how a literal rendering of firstborn can apply; 3) Since the speaker in both cases is God we know that this man, David, and this nation, Israel, were not literally His firstborn children. Then how can it apply? The word also sometimes means first in rank, position or privilege. This meaning came to be because of the favor given to a firstborn son who received the special blessing, a double share of the inheritance and authority to become head of the family (i.e., Jacob and Esau’s struggles over the family birthright and blessing in Genesis 25-27). So one who is favored and placed in the prominent position can be said to be the “firstborn” even if it is not literally true. David came to be preeminent as king and thus is referred to as “firstborn.” Though there were many nations which existed before Israel, this people became God’s chosen people and so are called His “firstborn.” So the question becomes: “How is Paul using the term “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15? Literally as being the first creature created? Or figuratively denoting His rank, position and authority?”

The answer must be and is found in the context (cf. Colossians 1:15-18). When
you see: 1) that Jesus created all things; 2) that He was before all things; 3) that He sustains all things; 4) that “firstborn from the dead” cannot be taken literally (it is paradoxical--the dead are not born) nor can it even be taken in a time reference (people were raised from the dead before Jesus--I Kings 17:17-22; II Kings 4:32-35; Matt. 9:18-25; Luke 7:11-15; John 11:43-44) so it must mean that Jesus is preeminent over it--all the others died again, Jesus conquered death; 5) that the last phrase of the passage spells out clearly what Paul is trying to show these Colossians (whose big problem and a main reason for this epistle, by the way, is that they have an inadequate view of Jesus), namely, that Christ is the preeminent One in all ways; then it becomes pretty clear how he is using “firstborn” here. He is pointing to the primary position of Jesus Christ above all things.

This passage as a whole is a problem for the JW’s. As Walter Martin says that since “...He is the Creator of all “things,” which to any rational person indicates that if He is Creator of all things, He Himself is not one of the “things” created!”
(Kingdom of the Cults, p. 123.) So how do they deal with it? By inserting the word
“other” between “all” and “things” four times in verses 16-17 in the New World Translation. This gives the impression that Jesus was just another of all the things that were created. Suffice it to say that there is absolutely no justification for this in the Greek text. In fact, there does not even exist a word for “other” in the Greek language so it cannot be in the text. JW’s claim that the context implies it just as in Luke 13:2,4. But there you know that “Galileans” are being compared with “Galileans” who are the of the same nature and likewise “sinners” with “men.”
In that case “other” is certainly implied. The only way this word is implied in Colossians is if you have a predetermined bias that Jesus is a created being or thing and so can be compared to these things. JW’s add to the text to bolster their own position instead of letting it speak for itself.

Finally, Ron Rhodes and others point out that if Paul wanted to convey what JW’s teach that Jesus was Himself created by the Father, then he would have used a different word (The Ten Most Important Things You Can Say to a Jehovah’s Witness, p. 48). The Greek word in the passage is “prototokos.” But another word “protoktisis” actually means “first created.” Why not just use the word that makes the point clear if you are trying to communicate that Jesus was the first being Jehovah created? The obvious answer is that Paul (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) used the correct word that communicated the accurate truth about Jesus, namely, that He is not a created being, instead He is the preeminent One above all things because He created all things.

Turning to Revelation 3:14, we see that JW’s try to use one of the words of this verse in much the same way as “firstborn.” We noted in their literature they give the impression that the Greek word “arche” is almost always translated and thus usually means “beginning.” (Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 14.) It can indeed mean “beginning” or “original.” If this is the best translation here, the phrase can be viewed two ways grammatically according to McDowell and Stewart. It can be seen passively, as the JW’s do, to mean that Christ was the first or original creature made by Jehovah. Or it can be seen actively to mean that Christ was the originator of God’s creation. In other words, He is not the first one created but instead He is the active source or author of creation. (Handbook of Today’s Religions, p. 47.)

But we should also understand that “arche” has other valid meanings as well. Both Herbert Kern (How to Respond to Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 28) and David Reed (Jehovah’s Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse, p. 104) note that “arche” can also mean “ruler” (Kern also lists “first in rank” and “first cause”--which fits well with the idea that Jesus is the original source of creation--while Reed mentions “magistrate” and “power”). The 1978 edition of the Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised by Harold Moulton has all these meanings and more. Kern and Reed also note that the NIV actually translates Revelation 3:14 so that it reads “the ruler of God’s creation.” We see “arche” used this way in Bible passages such as I Thessalonians 4:16 which has the compound word “archangel” which we take to mean that such an angel is a chief or head with authority over other angels. The word is also used that way in some of our English words like “archbishop” and “architect.” The point is that the JW implication that this word must always mean “beginning” is not true. Even if it were true, one does not have to read it as they do. In short, there is no basis in this verse for their claim that Jesus is the first created being.

Is Jesus really Michael the Archangel?

To wrap up this portion concerning how Jehovah’s Witnesses justify their claims about Jesus we need to address one more matter. They claim that originally he was Michael the Archangel and that after his death, God recreated him again as Michael. Though this is not popularly taught in their meetings it is their official position declared by many of their publications as noted earlier. It may well be that this particular issue will never arise in a conversation with a JW, but it nonetheless needs to be answered.

Orthodox, fundamental Christianity has never taught, believed or accepted that Jesus was at one time Michael or any other angel, for that matter. But more importantly the teachings of Bible contradict such a belief. Credit to both Herbert Kerns (How to Respond to Jehovah’s Witnesses, pp. 15-16) and Ron Rhodes (The Ten Most Important Things You Can Say to a Jehovah’s Witness, pp. 43-44) for the following points: 1) In Daniel 10:13 Michael is referred to by the messenger sent to Daniel as “one of the chief princes.” This infers that there are at least a few more like him. However we have already seen that by the use of the word “monogenes” to describe Jesus, the Scriptures proclaim Jesus to be unique. He is not “one of” anything! He is in a class by Himself.; 2) In Jude 9 we see that Michael would not take it upon himself to rebuke the devil because he apparently did not have the authority to do so. Jesus, on the other hand, did not hesitate at all to rebuke Satan (Matt. 4:10; 16:23). How then can they be the same?; 3) The writer of Hebrews makes it exceedingly clear that Jesus is superior to the angels in all ways. They are never called God’s Son in the special way that Jesus is (1:5). Angels are required to worship Jesus (1:6). No angel will ever be given dominion over the world to come (2:5) while Jesus is repeatedly referred to as the One who will reign forever in the Scriptures (Isaiah 9:6; Luke 1:31-33; Rev. 19:16); 4) Jehovah’s Witnesses try to use I Thessalonians 4:16 to claim that because “the Lord Himself” is coming “with the voice of an archangel” it means that Jesus is an archangel. Using that line of reasoning it must be equally true that since He is also coming “with the trumpet of God” it shows that He is God. Of course, they reject that. It may be best to see these three elements as separate things. Jesus Himself will shout--perhaps as a summons or command to the dead to come forth as with Lazarus in John 11:43 (Robert Picirilli, Randall House Bible Commentary on I Thessalonians, p. 71), an archangel (perhaps Michael but maybe another) will also use his voice to proclaim victory, and finally the trumpet of God will sound (I Cor. 15:52). Whether they happen all at the same time or in rapid succession is a matter of speculation. The point is that the verse does not prove that Jesus is an archangel.
Further Refutation of Jehovah’s Witness View of Jesus

Now that we have analyzed and rebutted the Jehovah’s Witness interpretation of the texts they use to deny the deity of Christ, let us take a more positive angle by examining what the Bible does say about Jesus’ identity. These passages clearly establish that Jesus is beyond a doubt Jehovah God and also that Jesus Himself claimed this to be true. That is important because JW’s maintain that Jesus never said He was God but rather His words were misconstrued by His followers (Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 16). Therefore, we will focus on passages from the Gospel of John since it was written for the reason that people might believe in Jesus as very God (John 21:30-31) and also in it Jesus makes statements for Himself. We will also discuss how JW’s try to deal with these passages.

John 5:18

This verse is quite plain. It contradicts what JW’s say, which is, that since Jesus is referred to as the Son and called God in heaven “My Father,” therefore He must be secondary in existence and in position to Jehovah. This verse clearly establishes that when Jesus called God “Father” He was actually claiming equality with God, or in other words, claiming that He Himself is Jehovah God.

What do JW’s say about this? They say that Jesus was not saying this about Himself but that John was recording what the Jews were saying about Jesus (cf. Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 24). Their assertion is that the Jews were either mistaken about what Jesus meant or were making false charges for an excuse to kill Him. This is obviously not true as Walter Martin notes, “...nor is it contextually or grammatically allowable that John is here recording what the Jews said about Jesus, as Jehovah’s Witnesses lamely argue” (Kingdom of the Cults, p. 96). It was John under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who makes the statement. He is simply revealing what the Jewish mind would make of Jesus’ claim of God as His Father. They took it the way He meant it--as a proclamation of His full Deity.

John 8:58

The context of this verse is a running debate between Jesus and the Jews about exactly who Jesus is claiming to be (v. 53). At the end the Jews scoff at Jesus who has claimed to exist prior to Abraham (v. 57) to which Jesus makes a withering reply and answers once for all the question of who he really is in v. 58. When Jesus says “I AM” it is in reference to the occasion where God is giving Moses an answer
to the the anticipated question that the Hebrews would ask Moses, which was, “Who sent you?” God told Moses what he should reply in Exodus 3:14 which was,
“Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ” Jesus now in response to the Jews is claiming to be the One who is called “I AM,” or in other words, to be the same Jehovah God who commissioned Moses, who called Abraham out of Ur, and who did all the other recorded feats of the Old Testament.

That this was what Jesus said and that this is what He meant can be readily seen from the reaction of the Jews. They immediately begin to pick up rocks in order to stone Him to death. Everyone around knew what Jesus meant when He referred to Himself as “I AM.” Those who did not believe it reacted logically (though not correctly) by attempting to stone Him for claiming to be God which in their view was blasphemy.

How do the JW’s respond to this passage? In two ways mainly. First, with regard to the attempted stoning, Walter Martin notes that they sometimes say that the Jews were upset that Jesus had earlier called them “children of the devil” in v. 44 (To which we might ask: ‘Then why didn’t they pick up stones in v. 48 instead of simply returning a perceived insult?’). In Should You Believe in the Trinity? they assert that “this time the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to ‘have seen Abraham’ although, as they said, he was not yet 50 years old” (p. 26). We need to understand that such a violent response was not a light thing for the Jews. Martin shares that there are only five legitimate reasons from the Law of Moses to stone a person. He states, “Those cases were: (1) Familiar spirits, Leviticus 20:27; (2) Cursing (blasphemy), Leviticus 24:10-23; (3) False prophets who lead to idolatry, Deuteronomy 13:5-10; (4) Stubborn son, Deuteronomy 21:18-21; and (5) Adultery and rape, Deuteronomy 22:21-24 and Leviticus 20:10. Now any honest Biblical student must admit that the only legal ground the Jews had for stoning Christ (and actually they had none at all) was the second violation--namely, blasphemy” (Kingdom of the Cults, pp. 87-88). He also notes that because these Jews were legalists they would not want to do anything which might later result in themselves being called to account for their actions. Furthermore in a separate confrontation in
10:33, the Jews explain exactly why they think they have a right to stone Him. It is the same as here--their wrong notion that Jesus’ claim to be God was blasphemy.

However, their primary answer is to change the wording of the verse. They state on
p. 26 of Should You Believe in the Trinity? that “The expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14.” They again list several marginal
translations of the Bible which render the verse in ways acceptable to them, finally
concluding with their own New World Translation which reads: “...before Abraham came into existence, I have been” (emphasis mine). Both Martin (Kingdom, p. 88) and McDowell and Stewart (Handbook of Today’s Religions, p. 61) note that JW’s try to justify this with a footnote in the NWT text claiming that the Greek words “ego eimi” should be “properly rendered in the ‘perfect indefinite tense.’ ” However, what that means is anybody’s guess because, as both the cited volumes attest, there is no such thing as the “perfect indefinite tense.” Martin says the term was “invented by the authors of the note” and McDowell/Stewart mention that they later changed it (out of embarrassment, no doubt) to read “the perfect tense” which, by the way, is still incorrect because “ego eimi” is in the present tense, indicative mood. The point of their changing the wording is an effort to acknowledge that Jesus did exist before Abraham (as Michael the created angel) without associating Him with the “I AM” of Exodus 3:14.

Their contention that “the expression in John 8:58 is quite different from...Exodus 3:14” is also wrong. The Septuagint (a translation of the Hebrew scriptures, what we call the Old Testament, into Greek and widely used in the time of Christ) uses these exact same Greek words “ego eimi” to translate the Hebrew word “ehyeh” which means “I am.” David Reed, who was once a dedicated Jehovah’s Witness himself, reveals that even the Watchtower admits this fact in their 1984 large-print New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures with References which has a footnote on Exodus 3:14 which says the Hebrew would be rendered in Greek as “ego eimi” (Jehovah’s Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse, p. 27). What Greek words do you suppose John under inspiration uses to express what Jesus actually spoke there in 8:58? Of course, the same ones--“ego eimi.” And once again Reed notes that their own 1985 Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures shows this fact. The only difference is that one passage is originally in Hebrew and the other in Greek. But that Jesus used words that communicated His claim to Deity is not in question. Martin says that concerning its use in the Old Testament “The phrase occurs only where Jehovah’s Lordship is reiterated” (Kingdom, p. 88). A.T. Robertson writes that “Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God” (Word Pictures in the New Testament, pp. 158-59, emphasis mine). This passage is therefore a powerful testimony to the fact that Jesus Christ is Jehovah God.

John 17:5

This verse is another which clearly testifies to what Jesus believed with regard to
His own identity. In the words of Jesus’ prayer we see that He claimed to exist
“before the world was” which testifies to His eternal existence (though this part of the verse, as we have seen, is not in itself a problem for JW’s as they would simply say this is a reference to His existence as Michael the first created angel and junior partner of Jehovah). But the other major part of the verse, which concerns “the glory which I had with you” that Jesus desires to be restored to Him in its fullness now that He had “finished the work” (v. 4), is a problem for them. Why? Because, as Walter Martin points out (Kingdom, p. 93), when you cross reference this verse with Isaiah 42:8 and 48:11 where Jehovah Himself is speaking and declares that He will not share His glory with nor give it to anyone else, it becomes unmistakeably clear that for Jesus to participate in this glory then He must be Jehovah. This is not speaking of an earthly glory or the glory that Jesus had by being recognized as the Messiah by His disciples. It is the glory which is inherent in the fact that He is in His nature Almighty God.

There are questions that might arise from JW’s, or anyone else for that matter, upon hearing this. Why would Jesus need to have this glory restored if He is God? The answer is that He voluntarily laid this glory aside when He came to earth and took on the form of a servant and came in the likeness of a man (Philippians 2:6). Now that His mission is over He will be glorified by the Father and will return to His station as King of kings and Lord of lords (Philippians 2:9-11). Or another question might be that if Jesus never ceased to be Jehovah God, where was His glory when He walked the earth? Though this is partially answered in the first response, we can elaborate by saying that Jesus certainly could have revealed His glory explicitly at any time. We see this is so in Mark 9:2-3 where Jesus is transfigured before Peter, James and John. But He chose to mostly conceal His glory and demonstrated it mainly through signs and miracles that only the power of God could accomplish. Why did He do that? For one thing His glorified state would have frightened people to death (Mark 9:5-6; Rev. 1:17). But perhaps more importantly, God wants people to respond to Him in faith, not having seen the full revelation. When we can see a thing for ourselves, it is no longer faith and that is what God desires in us and will eventually reward (II Cor. 5:7; Heb. 11:1-3, 6).

The only way JW’s argue against this verse, according to Martin (Kingdom, p. 94) is by claiming that in the phrase “which I had with you” the word “with” should be translated “through” instead. Thus they say, the glory is only from the Father and is reflected by Jesus the Son, as the moon reflects the ligh of the sun, for example.
However, this is another case of poor or deceptive scholarship. The Greek word in this verse for “with” is “para.” It does have flexibility as a preposition but it never means “through.” If John (or actually the Holy Spirit) wanted to communicate the
idea as presented by the JW’s, then why didn’t he simply use the Greek word “dia”
which is the obvious choice for “through.” The answer is, of course, that the idea that Jesus participated in the glory because He is Himself Jehovah is correct as it stands affirmed by this verse.
John 20:28

Walter Martin states that “No treatment of the Deity of Christ would be complete without mentioning the greatest single testimony recorded in the Scriptures” (Kingdom of the Cults, p. 95). I wholeheartedly agree with that assessment. In the context, Thomas, the lone skeptic among the disciples because he was not there when Jesus had appeared, at last comes face to face with Jesus. Overcome and speaking directly to Jesus, Thomas simply proclaims, “My Lord and my God.” A significant point is that the word “God” is preceeded by a definite article which means they cannot resort to translating it as “a god” as they try to do in John 1:1. A literal word for word rendering of the phrase would go: “The Lord of me and the God of me.” David Reed points out that their own 1985 Kingdom Interlinear Bible confirms that translation. So here is an undeniable example of a reference to “the God” or Jehovah being applied to Jesus Christ though they still try to slip that thought in if possible (cf. Should You Believe in the Trinity?, pp. 28-29).

Another point is that if it is true that Jesus never claimed to be God as JW’s allege, then here would be the perfect time to rebuke Thomas for his mistake. Herbert Kern points out that Peter (Acts 10:25-26), Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:11-18), and the angels (Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9) were always exceedingly careful and quick to reject the worship of others (How to Respond to Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 24). Surely if Jesus were not God and knew it, He would do the same. So what was His response to Thomas? In v. 29 we see it--a slight chiding of Thomas for taking so long, but acceptance and approval of his conclusion and a promise of blessing to those who would believe in the future that He is Lord and God without seeing firsthand.

How do JW’s respond to this? Reed mentions that “the less knowledgeable JW may try to brush it off by saying, ‘Thomas was just exclaiming his surprise. If we saw a friend return from the dead, we, too, might say, ‘Oh! My God!’ out of sheer surprise. Thomas didn’t mean anything by it” (Jehovah’s Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse, p. 84; also cf. Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 29). In other words, Thomas took the name of the Lord God in vain even though he was a Jew raised to obey the Ten Commandments. This is obviously ridiculous, but let’s assume that Thomas slipped and did that--are we then to imagine that Jesus would
not at least rebuke him for such blatant blasphemy? The other more sophisticated approach that both Reed and Should You Believe in the Trinity? mention is that JW’s may refer to 20:17 where Jesus refers to the Father as “My God” and also to 20:31 where Jesus is called “the Son of God” both of which are taken by them to mean that Jesus is inferior to the Father. We have already dealt with these verses or the ideas behind them. Suffice it to say that these verses point to Jesus’ unique relationship with the Father and identify Him as being of the same order or nature.

We will conclude this section on the Deity of Jesus Christ by saying that contrary to what Jehovah’s Witnesses say Jesus definitely made the claim for Himself to be Jehovah God and the New Testament testifies to the fact that it is so. There are, of course many more passages which corroborate these facts. For further study I would recommend Walter Martin’s treatment in Kingdom of the Cults, pp. 83-97. Also Herbert Kern does a good job laying out an extensive case in How to Respond to Jehovah’s Witnesses, pp. 15-26. As we mentioned at the very beginning of this section, having the right view of Jesus is vital to salvation. Not because I say so but because of Jesus’ words recorded in John 8:24. That phrase “I am He” comes from the same Greek words “ego eimi” that are translated “I AM” in 8:58. In other words Jesus is saying that they will die in their sins if they do not accept that He is Jehovah God who has come in the flesh. This is not optional theology. It is life and death. That is why we have spent so much time on this matter. It is critical to understand and accept Jesus for who He is--King of kings and Lord of lords, the one true Almighty God who gave Himself to redeem us from our sin. That is what the Bible teaches and that is what we must believe to have salvation.

The Personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit

Since we have addressed the issues of the Trinity and the Deity of Christ, we should also take a look at what Jehovah’s Witnesses teach about the Holy Spirit. In Should You Believe in the Trinity? (pp. 20-22), JW’s plainly make their case that the holy spirit (never capitalized by them) cannot be God or part of the Trinity because it isn’t even a person. This publication (and others my sources cite such as Reasoning from the Scriptures, Insights on the Scriptures and Let God Be True) teaches the Holy Spirit is actually God’s active force. This force is totally impersonal. It is the raw power that God supplies to individuals so they can accomplish what He wants done. JW’s compare it to electricity, radio waves and the like. Why do they teach this? Because their rejection of the doctrine of Trinity requires it. Their insistence that the Trinity cannot be true because it makes no sense means that they must find a way to also deny what the Bible teaches about the Holy Spirit.

How do they justify this teaching? By their usual method of either applying faulty logic to draw a reasonable sounding (but incorrect) conclusion or by twisting and ignoring passages of the Bible which teach otherwise. For instance, JW’s try to make an argument from the fact that people are “baptized” with the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:11), that the Holy Spirit will be “poured out” on people (Joel 2:28) and that people are “filled” with the Holy Spirit (Acts 4:31), therefore the Holy Spirit must be an impersonal force because how can a person be said to do those kinds of things. A person simply cannot be split up and divided among or gushed all over multitudes of people--it doesn’t make sense. And furthermore, since the Holy Spirit is often linked with impersonal things like the “fire” in Matthew 3:11 and in other places people are also “full” of “wisdom” (Acts 6:3), “faith” (Acts 11:24) and “joy” (Acts 13:52), it stands to reason that the Holy Spirit is likewise impersonal.

Rebuttal: To answer this first line of reasoning, it must be noted that JW’s conveniently fail to acknowledge that there are other passages which also use such language in connection with other persons. In Job 10:10, the longsuffering servant of God declared that he had been “pour(ed)...out like milk.” Also Paul in II Timothy 4:6 said that he was “being poured out as a drink offering.” Were Job and Paul therefore not real people with individual personalities? Also with respect to the implied question of “How can you be baptized with a person?” we might also ask, in light of Galatians 3:27, how a believer can be “baptized into Christ” and how can he “put on Christ?” Does this mean Jesus was not a person? And what about the passages in Ephesians (1:23; 3:19; 4:10) which speak of Christ and God filling pretty much everything, including believers? Are God and Christ not persons either? The answer to all these is that, of course, they (Job, Paul, Christ and God) do possess the attribute of personality. This argument by the JW’s is flawed for two reasons: 1) There is no law of linguistics that says that certain verbs determine the nature of the nouns they are used with. Human language communicates effectively with both literal and figurative usages. To seek to establish the Holy Spirit as merely a force because of these words is ridiculous; 2) The Holy Spirit is not limited to our concepts of what a person can or cannot do. Because the Holy Spirit is God He is present everywhere at once, therefore, He, unlike humans, does have the capacity to be personally present in the life of each and every believer. His abilities as a person are quite different and infinitely superior to our abilities.

Another “proof” of this belief Jehovah’s Witnesses like to use is the fact that the Holy Spirit apparently has no personal name. From the Bible we see that the Father
has a personal name, Jehovah, and the Son’s personal name is Jesus, but nowhere do we see that the holy spirit has a name--thus it must not be a person like the Father and the Son.

Rebuttal: The silliness of this argument is evident. There are many instances in the Bible where people are referred to but we are not given their personal names-- does this make them impersonal forces? The same is true of most of the unclean spirits Jesus cast out and many of the angels mentioned in the scriptures--are they also not individuals with personalities? The Jehovah’s Witnesses do not make these assumptions. Why not? Because they are not interested in denying the personhood of people, angels or demons--that doesn’t matter. However they do want to deny that the Holy Spirit is a Person because if He is their theology has a big problem. In reality the Holy Spirit does have a name. Since He is God, His personal name is Jehovah (as well as all the other names the Bible reveals for the one true God which we’ll consider later). Matthew 28:19 shows that there is one “name” that is shared by three Personalities--the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The final JW argument we will consider is the pseudo-scholarly one which asserts that because the Greek word for “spirit” (pneuma) is a neuter noun it therefore requires a neuter pronoun such as “it” or “itself” to properly reflect the grammar. They like to point to Romans 8:16 (KJV--“The Spirit itself beareth witness...”) to illustrate their point and contend that the holy spirit is an it (notice, however, that
what this “impersonal” Spirit is doing requires personality). On the other hand, they say, the word “Helper” (parakletos) which Jesus uses in John 14:16, 26; 16:7-8 has a masculine gender and so it is natural that Jesus would use masculine pronouns when describing what the Helper would do (cf. Should You Believe in the Trinity, p. 22). So they explain away references to the Spirit as a personal “He.”

Rebuttal: It is true that pneuma is neuter, not masculine and that parakletos is masculine but once again one cannot allow rules of grammar to determine the truth that is being communicated. For example, what about Acts 4:24 which tells us that “God is Spirit.” Does this mean God is an “it” because the word for “Spirit” (pneuma again) is neuter? But even more telling is the verse JW’s try to downplay or ignore. After the logical explanation that the only reason Jesus uses “He” to describe the work of the Spirit in John 16:7-8 is because “Helper” is masculine, we come to v. 13. In that verse Jesus uses the neuter noun pneuma to refer to the Holy Spirit but then continues using the masculine personal pronoun to describe what He will do (again, notice the activities of the Holy Spirit which would seem to be beyond a mere force or energy). One more note about this. Ron Rhodes (The Ten Most Important Things You Can Say to a Jehovah’s Witness, p. 59) points out that JW’s may dismiss the use of the masculine “He” as merely the personification of a thing just as wisdom, sin and death are in the Scriptures (cf. Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 21). He suggests countering with Acts 13:2 where the Holy Spirit speaks of Himself using personal pronouns like “me” and “I.”

Now that we have addressed most of their arguments, let’s consider what the Bible reveals about the Holy Spirit. Personal beings are usually thought to possess three attributes--intelligence (ability to think); emotion (ability to feel); and will (ability to choose). If the Holy Spirit is a Person then He should have all three. Does the Bible reveal these things about Him? I think it does. With regard to His having intelligence (or a mind) consider the following passages: I Corinthians 2:10-11 and Romans 8:27. With regard to His emotions examine: Romans 8:26 and Ephesians 4:30. With regard to His ability to choose look at: I Corinthians 12:11 and Acts 13:2. The Bible’s testimony is that the Holy Spirit has all the necessary attributes.

But how do we know He is God? Again we must look at what the Bible says about Him and what He does. In Genesis 1:2 we see that He was involved in the Creation. Psalm 139:7 tells us He is everywhere present. Compare Isaiah 6:9 in which God is speaking and Acts 28:25-26 in which the Speaker is more specifically identified as the Holy Spirit. See again Matthew 28:19 where the Holy Spirit is
associated with the Father and the Son as having that one name. Look at how Peter
declares in Acts 5:1-4 that Ananias had lied to the Holy Spirit and in so doing had lied to God Himself. (We must ask: Is it possible to lie to a force?) There are many more such passages describing the works of the Holy Spirit which can only be accomplished by God.

In conclusion we reject the idea that the Holy Spirit is only God’s active force and assert that He is the Third Person of the Trinity, wholly and equally Almighty God, fully involved in all aspects of God’s plans and purposes. It is He who regenerates us and indwells us and empowers us when we believe in Jesus Christ for salvation.

The Resurrection and Return of Jesus Christ

Though we have previously briefly referred to what Jehovah’s Witnesses say about the resurrection and the return of Christ, it is probably best that we dedicate a small section to these vital doctrines so as to be perfectly clear on what they believe and what the Bible teaches. We will consider them together because the way one sees the resurrection greatly influences what one believes about His return.

First, let’s be reminded of what the JW’s believe about Jesus’ resurrection. The gist of it is that his body was not raised but rather he was brought back to life as a spirit. Walter Martin shares the following quotations from Let God Be True: “...Jehovah God raised him from the dead, not as a human Son, but as a mighty immortal spirit Son...For forty days after that he materialized, as angels before him had done, to show himself alive to his disciples...” (p. 40); “...Jesus did not take his human body to heaven to be forever a man in heaven. Had he done so, that would have left him ever lower than the angels. ...God did not purpose for Jesus to be humiliated thus forever by being a fleshly man forever. No, but after he had sacrificed his perfect manhood, God raised him to deathless life as a glorious spirit creature.” (p. 41); “This firstborn from the dead was raised from the grave, not a human creature, but a spirit.” (p. 276). (Kingdom of the Cults, pp. 54-55.)

What did happen to Jesus’ body if it was not raised? Charles Russell asserts in Studies in the Scriptures (Vol. V, p. 454) that it either “dissolved into gases or...is preserved somewhere as the grand memorial of God’s love” (Kingdom of the Cults, p. 97). Herbert Kern observes that the September 1, 1953 edition of The Watchtower proclaims that it “was disposed of by Jehovah God, dissolved into its constituent elements or atoms” (How to Respond to Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 34).

But the more important question concerns why JW’s believe this to be true. What is their reasoning that makes this belief necessary? There seem to be two main points they make. The first has to do with the ransom Jesus paid. Since he was paying for sin by suffering in the flesh, this means that he could not resume possession of that fleshly body at a later time. The following quotation from You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth (p. 143) makes this clear: “...having given up his flesh for the life of the world, Christ could never take it again and become a man once more” (How to Respond to Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 34). But, as Kern points out, this is in direct contradiction to what Jesus said in John 10:17-18. Some might argue that when Jesus said “life” in those verses, he was not necessarily talking about his fleshly body. However, John 2:19-21 makes it very clear that Jesus was anticipating the physical resurrection of his body. In the book Things in Which It is Impossible for God to Lie, JW’s state that “The human body of flesh, which Jesus Christ laid down forever as a ransom sacrifice, was disposed of by God’s power but not by fire on the altar of the temple in Jerusalem. The flesh of a sacrifice is always disposed of and put out of existence, so not corrupting...” (David Reed, Jehovah’s Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse, p. 70). Here they make the connection between the Levitical offerings and Jesus’ sacrifice. While it is true that the procedure of the burnt offering and the sin offering required the complete destruction of the flesh through fire and that they did point ahead to the sacrifice that Jesus would one day make for our sin, it is a bit much to declare that His body, too, must also be completely destroyed. We must remember that in the case of the offering of animals, it would be possible that they could be killed as a sacrifice but continue to serve by providing flesh to eat (indeed some of the other sacrifices allow for that). But a characteristic of sacrifices like these is that they must be given wholly to God with no return to man, so the meat is consumed by fire. There was no need for Jesus’ body to be burned up or destroyed in some other manner as if it was going to be of profit to someone somehow. The picture of the burnt offerings is fulfilled as is--Jesus gave himself wholly and completely, holding nothing back, taking the full measure of God’s wrath on the cross. He gave his life.

The second reason they teach a spiritual rather than a bodily resurrection seems to hinge on their understanding (or rather misunderstanding) of I Corinthians 15:50 which says “...that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God” (Kern, How to Respond to Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 34). Since Jesus inherited the kingdom of God, then it must follow that he does not have a fleshly body. However, in the context Paul is not talking about Jesus’ body but rather he is talking about ours. Paul is saying that our present weak, sinful, corrupt bodies are not fit for heaven and eternity-- “...nor does corruption inherit incorruption.” The subsequent verses make it exceedingly clear that our own bodies will be raised and made into that which is fit for heaven. It does not say that our bodies will be left to dissolve but that they will be “changed” and that they will “put on incorruption, and... immortality.” Earlier in the chapter Paul said that Jesus “has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (v. 20). In other words, Jesus was first in this process of being resurrected and changed to have a glorified body unto life eternal.
The entire point of the passage is that there is a resurrection of the body.

Does the Watchtower have any other “proof verses” they use to confirm their contention that Jesus is now a spirit being with no corporeal body? Walter Martin
(Kingdom, p. 97) shares that they often refer to I Peter 3:18 which reads in part
“...being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit.” They interpret this to mean that his flesh was done away with (to them “death” means the cessation of existence) and that all that is left is his spirit. But the very words of the verse defeat them. It says that he was raised “by the Spirit” or, in other words, by the power of God; not that he was raised “as a spirit.” Obviously there is a big difference in those two little words. It doesn’t say what the Watchtower would try to make it say.

The other big argument JW’s make is that in some instances Jesus was either not recognized as himself (Mark 16:12; John 20:14-16) or that he did things which a person with a fleshly body can not do (Luke 24:31 John 20:26). They take these phenomena to mean that he has an existence which is not consistent with a fleshly body. In their book From Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained (p. 144) they say: “That same day Jesus appeared to many disciples...Usually they could not at first tell it was Jesus, for he appeared in different bodies. He appeared and disappeared just as angels had done, because he was resurrected as a spirit creature. Only because Thomas would not believe did Jesus appear in a body like that in which he had died.” However their arguments are not consistent with the Bible. With regard to Mary’s failure to recognize him near the tomb, this can be easily attributed to her distraught state of mind and the fact that she was not expecting to see him alive again. The passage in Mark 16 regarding the two disciples has a parallel in Luke 24:13-31 which gives much greater detail and clearly states twice that the reason they did not recognize Jesus was that he affected their eyes so that they could not (vv. 16, 31). That might also be the case with Mary though we are not clearly told so. Neither do his sudden vanishing and appearing comprise evidence that he does not have a real body. As we have already seen, his body, though corporeal (real), is a new glorified body (I Cor. 15:35-54) like that which we will receive. Verse 44 describes it as a body “raised in power” which implies that these new bodies will have many more capabilities than the ones we now possess. However, we do not even have to go there to refute their argument that the things Jesus did after his resurrection “prove” that he is a spirit. He also did those kinds of things before his death and resurrection. Matthew 14, Mark 6 and John 6 all record the well-known story of Jesus walking on the Sea of Galilee while Luke 4:28-30 also relates an interesting occurrence where Jesus apparently miraculously avoided a crowd of people who wanted to kill him. Are we to suppose that because such things as these cannot be done by a natural, fleshly body that Jesus did not have one at that point either? JW’s will not suggest that. Their “proof” has no power.

On the other hand, what do we see in scripture that leads us to believe that Jesus did have a real body which was, in fact, the one he always had which was raised and changed? The passages in Luke 24:36-43 and John 20:19-20, 24-29 are compelling. JW’s would have us believe that Jesus deceived the disciples to trick them into believing that he was really raised from the dead by appearing as a man when he was in fact a spirit. He clear denial of being a “spirit” in Luke 24:39 is in reality a
lie. But that’s what the Watchtower teaches and so that’s what the JW’s believe.

These teachings tie in with their view of Christ’s return. We saw in the review of their history that Charles Russell incorrectly predicted that the world system would end in 1914 and Jesus would return to set up his kingdom. When that did not happen the Watchtower eventually changed their teaching to say that the kingdom of God was set up fully in heaven and that Jesus returned to earth invisibly. Again Walter Martin quotes Let God Be True: “Christ Jesus returns, not again as a human, but as a glorious spirit person” (p. 196); “Some wrongfull expect a literal fulfillment of the symbolic statements of the Bible. Such hope to see the glorified Jesus seated on a white cloud where every human eye will see him. ...Since no earthly men have ever seen the Father...neither will they see the glorified Son” (p. 186); “It does not mean that he [Christ] is on the way or has promised to come, but that he has already arrived and is here” (p. 198). (Kingdom of the Cults, p. 55.) In From Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained they confirm: “So in 1914, unseen to human eyes, Christ’s second “coming” into the kingdom took place.” Since Jesus is an invisible spirit creature, as they affirm, it makes sense (to them) that he would return invisibly. What has he been doing all this time? Directing the Watchtower Society and ruling through them, of course! (David Reed, Jehovah’s Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse, p. 53.)

Do they try to use Scripture to support their view? Yes. Mostly by changing the word “coming” to “presence” in Matthew 24:3, 26-28. Also by some bad and fanciful interpretations of the apocalyptic portions of Scripture (cf. Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained, pp. 169-185). A specific verse they like to use is John 14:19. But that is obviously speaking of Jesus’ ascension where the world in general will not see him physically anymore. Later they will judged and cast out of his presence for all time. But believers will see him at his resurrection appearances and later in a spiritual sense through the indwelling of the Spirit (vv. 15-18). Verse 19 does not mean that nobody in the world will ever see him again. They also like to say that since Acts 1:9 says that he was received “out of their sight” into heaven and v. 11 says he “will so come in like manner” that he will return invisibly. This is obviously deceptive. Because, of course, they could see him until he went into the cloud. He will also come back through the clouds to where he can be seen again on the Mount of Olives. That this is true is evidenced from other passages which, of course, are ignored or twisted by the JW’s. God’s word clearly declares that the return of Jesus will be manifest to all. We see it in: Zechariah 12:10; 14:4; Matthew 24:29-30; and Revelation 1:7.
Why is all this important? Because again it relates to the concept of biblical truth in general and, more specifically, to the person of Christ--who he is and what he promises to do. It is vital that we accept him at his word. If we cannot believe him in these details, why believe in Jesus at all? And there is the exact problem with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They do not believe what God’s word says about Jesus nor any other subject unless it conforms to their own preconceived ideas about what makes sense and what is acceptable in their own minds. Anything else they deny and doing that is foolish and dangerous. God’s word is absolute and reveals the only One worthy of trusting our lives to--Jesus Christ, our Lord and God and our Savior.
Salvation

For all practical purposes this is the most important doctrine of all. The answer to the Phillipian jailer’s piercing, bottom-line question in Acts 16:30--“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”--must be correct or else all is lost and no amount of theological learning or debate will make any difference. What then do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe about how to be saved and experience eternal life?

First, we must note that a lot of what JW’s say sounds a lot like what Christians believe. Herbert Kern quotes Make Sure of All Things (pp. 438-39) as stating that: “Salvation possible only through faith in Jesus Christ. Salvation not earned so that it is due us; an expression of undeserved kindness” (How to Respond to Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 35). The trouble is they do not mean the same things we do by the terms they use. As we have seen previously, the first problem has to do with their conception of Jesus Christ. In their view, he was only a man, not God in the flesh. Therefore when he died his sacrifice only restored what we lost when Adam sinned. Adam’s fall affected us in that we lost perfection and the privileges it conferred. Since Adam was perfect when he sinned, so did Jesus have to be when he died but it only “exactly corresponded in value” (Things In Which It is Impossible for God to Lie, p. 232 as quoted by Hebert Kern, p. 35) or, in other words, Jesus’ sacrifice only paid for Adam’s sin. In accomplishing that he restored to us the chance to be saved. A tract published by the American Tract Society quotes two passages from Studies in the Scriptures: “Christ’s death only purchased for mankind the earthly life and earthly blessings lost when Adam sinned” (Vol. 5, p. 145); “Christ’s death only provides an opportunity for a person to attain eternal life through obeying God’s laws. There is no assurance of eternal life” (Vol. 1, pp. 150, 152). So when JW’s talk about the “free gift” that Christ provided they are referring to the fact that in his actions he gave us the chance to now earn eternal life through obedience by removing the sin we inherited from Adam.

** Note: One passage they use to show Jesus was only a perfect man is I Timothy 2:5,6. They claim that a mediator is, by definition, someone who is separate from those who need the mediation--in this case, God and mankind. Since God is one of the parties involved in the mediation, Jesus cannot be God. The fallacy of this logic is evident immediately because it must also then be true that Jesus cannot be a man for mankind is also part of this mediation. But since the verse says Jesus is a man and is called the mediator, why can’t He also be mediator as God? In fact it is precisely because He is both that He could qualify to be the mediator (Ron Rhodes, The Ten Most Important Things You Can Say to a Jehovah’s Witness, p. 81).
It is clear then that JW’s actually promote a system of good works to earn salvation.
Four specific areas are outlined in From Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained (pp. 242-249). To have eternal life one must: 1) Study the Bible (presumably with the aid of Watchtower publications); 2) Meet regularly and associate primarily with other Jehovah’s Witnesses; 3) Bring his life into conformity with the teachings of the Bible as interpreted by JW’s including being baptized into their organization; 4)
Be an active witness especially through door-to-door proselytizing and literature distribution. (Cf. Hebert Kerns comments on pp. 7-8 of How To Respond to Jehovah’s Witnesses.)

Without getting too much into JW’s eschatology, the hope of the JW is that he will be found faithful enough in doing good to be raised when paradise is finally restored to earth. We need to understand that to them “being resurrected” does not mean that their earthly bodies will be raised and reunited with their spirits as Christians believe. To a JW when they die, they cease to exist--“A person’s soul is an inseparable part of the body, so that when a person dies there is no continued existence of the soul” (Make Sure of All Things, pp. 349, 352 as quoted by American Tract Society). This condition necessitates that they be completely remade--“Since there is no continued existence of the soul after death, Jehovah’s Witnesses who die will eventually be recreated from Jehovah’s memory to inhabit His kingdom” (Ibid., p. 311 as quoted by the American Tract Society). For the majority of people then, death is the end for most will not be raised since they either did not do the things JW’s think necessary for salvation at all or simply were not faithful enough. For those that are “raised,” however, there is yet more to do. They must continue to serve during a thousand year period of time after which Satan will be released to tempt them. If they fail at any point, they will be annihilated. Those who pass these tests with unstinting obedience will finally be granted to live in the earthly paradise forever. This is why they cannot be sure that they will be granted eternal life--they can never know if they’ve done enough or if they will pass the tests to come.

** Note: The major verse that JW’s use to defend their view that salvation is gained through obedience and good works is Philippians 2:12 in which Paul writes for his readers to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” From this they assert that Paul is saying that people must do good works (obey God) in order to obtain salvation. Believing that God’s Word never contradicts itself and in light of Paul’s other writings such as Romans 3:20; 4:1-5; Galatians 2:16; and Ephesians 2:8,9 (among many others) it is impossible that Paul is teaching salvation by works in Philippians 2:12. What is he talking about then? Remember that Paul is speaking to a church and encouraging them in their conduct (1:27). In other words, to a group of people who have already been saved. He is concerned that their behavior not bring reproach upon Christ nor cause each other to stumble (2:1-4). He is telling them to work out their salvation, not work for their salvation. In other words, he is reminding them that their behavior should reflect their belief.
This passage is about the process of sanctification (becoming more like Christ) not the instantaneous event of justification (removal of guilt). When asked directly about what is required for salvation as in the previously cited Acts 16:30-31 Paul replies, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.”

The last item we will consider in this section has to do with the 144,000 (also called the Anointed Class or the “little flock”--Luke 12:32). JW’s teach that beginning with the twelve disciples, on to the other Christians of the first century A.D. and continuing until 1935, there were appointed a special class numbered at 144,000 (the number comes from Rev. 7:4). These are the only ones who can expect to actually go to heaven to be with Jesus. There they will have a spiritual existence and will reign with Christ over all the ones who will be in the restored paradise on earth (the “other sheep”--John 10:16 or “great multitude”--Rev. 7:9) who will have a physical existence. Only those of the Anointed Class are said to be “born again” and called “sons of God.” Essentially, the JW’s teach of a people of God who are in two classes, elite and common.

A quick look at Revelation 7:4 tells us that the 144,000 which