the truth about Jehovah’s Witness, part 5

As I wrap up this series about the Jehovah’s Witness faith, I would like to take the opportunity to address one of the most important points that I can about interacting with people in this faith-system. Much has been said about their bible (the New World Translation), their publications (The Watchtower), and many of their beliefs and religious practices. And often when people share their views on the Jehovah’s Witnesses, they often share ways to rebut their views, and try to convince “them” that “our” Christian views are right and theirs are wrong. Is that the Biblical way to handle it?

Because the beliefs and practices of the Jehovah’s Witnesses are so different from mainstream Christianity, we (the Christian community) often separate them from ourselves and tend to treat them like lepers. In some cases we even look at “them” as being worse than much of the “world”. This type of pushing away only results in a wedge or separation that causes us to close our eyes to the human-ness that is behind the delivery of this false doctrine. And arguing the points of doctrine and telling “them” that “they” are wrong only widens the gap, and diminishes the opportunity to show “them” who Jesus really is.

I believe that Jesus called us to a higher standard. We are called to love, not to separate, hate, or prove someone wrong. It is the job of the Holy Spirit to convict the hearts of people. So what is our role in this? To be Jesus with skin on to ALL people…   including the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

I was convicted quite strongly of this perspective recently when my Jehovah’s Witness friends stopped by my house again. I guess as a Bible College Instructor, I have been tagged as a person of interest by them, so now I get regular visits. While talking to them, I had a very strong urge in my flesh rise up to start arguing various points of doctrine that I have studied in order to prove them wrong. But then I felt the Holy Spirit impress something on me…

What purpose would it serve if I were to prove them wrong? I started seeing my visitors as people, and wondered what would happen if I were to make my point and let them walk away knowing that “I” was superior to their entire belief system. Was it about furthering the Kingdom of God, or just about being right? I think that if I am honest with myself (and most of if most of us are) it would be more about proving “my side” right, and that approach is wrong.

I regret that I didn’t think of this part until after my visitors left, but what would it have been like for them if I just invited them in, and without a word of doctrine whatsoever I just washed their feet (as Jesus did for His disciples)? What if I just humbly served them as Jesus would have me do for others that I would be trying to evangelize? I thought of all of the great and kind things that I would do for anyone else that is a target of an outreach event. If I were working with a Nursing Home Ministry, would I go there intent on debating points of doctrine? Or would I go to serve them, and be friends with them, and minister to whatever needs that they have? I can tell you that I wouldn’t beat them over the head with my doctrine. Therefore, I should not treat my Jehovah’s Witness visitors that way either.

What about prayer? The Bible also tells us that we do not battle against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities and the forces of darkness. We need to love the people, but we should also be interceding for the lost. We should be praying that God lifts the veil that is over their eyes, and helps them to see the true light. Are we spending enough time on our knees for our Jehovah’s Witness visitors? Not only should we be praying for them, but we should also be praying for the guidance of the Holy Spirit to show us what to do (and say) in order to minister to “them”. And…  you better listen to Him if He tells you to invite them over for dinner and try to become friends with them.

I think that you are probably getting my point by now, and I hope that you are realizing that the most important point of doctrine that we can hold onto as followers of Christ is the command to love other people. I share the other points in this series with you so that you know what some of the main issues and problems are, but I share this point with you so that you know what to do with that information. Just remember that you (and I) are not here to tear down and destroy. That is the job of the enemy. But just as Jesus said, “I have come to give life, and give life to the fullest.” How can you represent Jesus in this way the next time that you have an encounter with one of God’s children who is currently practicing in the Johovah’s Witness faith?

Amen.

 

Other posts in this series:

• Part 1 :: The Translation Problem (New World Translation)
• Part 2 :: Interpretation Flaws, Core Beliefs
• Part 3 :: Interpretation Flaws, Religious Practices
• Part 4 :: Interpretation Flaws, Diety of Jesus
• Part 5 :: Role of Christians with “Them”

 

the truth about Jehovah’s Witness, part 4

So far in this series, I have discussed the Jehovah’s Witness belief system focusing on problems in translation of their “bible”, flawed interpretation of core beliefs, and flawed interpretation of religious practices. Now I want to take a look at one of the essential doctrines of Christianity, and that is regarding the God-nature of Jesus Christ.

Before I get too deep into what I am going to present as evidence about who Jesus was, I want to give some props to another blogger who has done some pretty nice work in addressing the Jehovah’s Witness belief system. Hans (a.k.a. theistichedonist) has written some interesting stuff in his post Witnessing to the Witnesses. I believe that this is a reliable work and study into the beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and offers worthwhile perspective. Please check it out…

What I want to focus on specifically is the idea of who Jesus was. In his post Hans makes the argument that Jesus was the perfect Ransom and sacrifice for an imperfect world. I totally agree with this point of view. Jesus was the only perfect sacrifice. And because of the sin nature of man, the only way that Jesus could have been the perfect, sinless sacrifice is if He were God. It is impossible for a man who is only a man to even exist without sin. Romans 3:23 tells us that, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (ESV).

The Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that Jesus is the Messiah that was prophesied hundreds of years before His birth. They also believe the he is the Son of God, and that He lived in Heaven since the beginning. In fact they also believe that He is the “first-born of all creation” (Colossians 1:15), and this is one of the keys to what they believe. If Jesus (a heavenly being) was a created being, then He was part of God’s creation, and therefore not God. However, according to Christian doctrine, Jesus was not only the Son of God, but He is also God in the flesh.

The trinity is an essential Christian doctrine, and the Jehovah’s Witness believe that if Jesus were God, and God the Father were God (not to mention that the Holy Spirit is God too), then this represents a form of polytheism (worship of multiple gods). Since the idea of monotheism means that there is only one God, then it is not possible for there to be multiple gods. Therefore they claim that Jesus is the Messiah, and the “coming king”, but not God Himself.

While I don’t pretend to be as strong as I’d like to be on the theology of the Trinity, there are a couple of problems with this ideology that I see right away. First of all, the Gospel of John tells us that, “the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1, ESV). In this passage, the Apostle John was referring to Jesus when he used the term “Word” (logos). This is a very clear statement that not only was Jesus with God, but that He actually was God. This idea might be dismissed by the Jehovah’s Witnesses as not being possible, but one thing that I also do not pretend is that I am capable of understanding God in all of His fullness. However, John was driven by the Holy Spirit to make such a statement that Jesus was fully God.

In reference to the Trinity, James writes that, “God is one” (James 2:19, ESV). This was not the main point that he was trying to drive in this passage, but it is one of multiple references that refer to the unity of the God in all of His forms. Again, I do not pretend to understand the complete nature of God, but I must believe that it is possible for there to be various forms or aspects of God that come together to form one God. After all, in the beginning, God said, “let us make man in our image” (Genesis 1:26, ESV). If I believe that God created man with a body, soul, and spirit, then wouldn’t it be possible to think that God exists in those various forms? After all, after Jesus (God in the flesh) ascended into Heaven, he sent the Holy Spirit (God in the Spirit). I’m not trying to say that God the Father is the “soul” of God, because I don’t know if I have the Scriptural foundation to actually make that statement. What I am saying is that God has revealed Himself to us in various forms, and that it is possible for the various forms of God to all actually be fully the same, singular God.

I know that there is much more to this argument, and I am only skimming the surface. However, I did want to make sure that I addressed some of the issues that stick out in my mind about the differences in who Jesus was. This discussion can get quite complex, and confusing. One thing that I can say is that I also know that my human mind is limited, and that I cannot consider myself equal in knowledge and understanding to my Creator. I think that a human trying to understand the complexities and full nature of God is like an ant trying to figure out a human being and fully understanding our personalities and nature. That would be simply uncomprehendable. However, I do believe that there is more evidence in the Bible that supports the idea that Jesus is fully God, than there is that Jesus was merely a heavenly creation even if he is the Messiah.

If you have other thoughts or references that speak the nature of Jesus, then please feel free to share. But stay tuned to the final post in this series as I wrap up and discuss one of the final key elements regarding interacting with the Jehovah’s Witnesses…

 

 

Other posts in this series:

• Part 1 :: The Translation Problem (New World Translation)
• Part 2 :: Interpretation Flaws, Core Beliefs
• Part 3 :: Interpretation Flaws, Religious Practices
• Part 4 :: Interpretation Flaws, Diety of Jesus
• Part 5 :: Role of Christians with “Them”

the truth about Jehovah’s Witness, part 3

In this series, I have already pointed out some flawed interpretation that leads to some of the core beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witness faith. I have also discussed how the quality of translation of the “Scriptures” used also gives reason to doubt the fundamental doctrines of this belief system. This time I’d like to take another look at some flawed interpretation, but this time it will focus on some of the practices as opposed to the core beliefs.

The practice that I would like to look at is that of how the Jehovah’s Witness faith relates to the government. Jehovah’s Witness consider themselves as politically neutral. Because they view the Kingdom of God as the ultimate authority in their lives, and a legitmate form of government, they consider any allegieance to another earthly governement wrong. In fact saluting a flag, or singing the national anthem would be considered idolitry, an act that is forbidden by the law of the scripture. While they are expected to obey the laws of the land (including the payment of taxes), they refuse military service, and will not run for or hold any elected public office. This political neutrality also means that memebers do not even vote in public elections!

While refusing to involve themselves in the affairs of the government, serving in it in any way, and refusing to recognize it’s authority, the Jehovah’s Witness organization continues to use the system of government to establish and help enforce their rights. Much of this work is done through the court system. The Jehovah’s Witness organization has fought numerous Supreme Court cases in order to secure their rights. Jehovah’s Witness seem to demand the freedoms and benefits that government provides, while refusing to put in the effort that is required to maintain the governmental system that provides these things in the first place.

My first response to this is in regards to the apparent hypocrisy that this displays. And aside from my beliefs on government, I believe that this type of hypocrisy is anti-scriptural. A word study on the word hypocrite shows exactly how Jesus felt about this type of behavior. Jesus is also clear on His message about service as well. He modeled leadership by washing the feet of His disciples, making himself a servant. Jesus also taught that you reap what you sow. Or in other words, if you don’t put anything into it, then don’t expect anything out of it. So, I believe that one cannot pick-and-choose which parts of government they want, and reject the rest.

Beyond the hypocrisy issue, I believe that there are some fundamental interpretation flaws that also need to be addressed. One of the greatest New Testament references to government happens in Romans 13:1-4. In this writing, Paul urges the Romans to submit themselves to the governing authorities. He continues to point out that resiting the governement is equal to resiting God, because God is the one who has given them authority. On the surface, one could say that the Jehovah’s Witness is in compliance with this because they do obey the laws of the land. However, at a slightly deeper level, this passage indicates that even the earthly governement is an extension of God’s authority. Therefore the idea that the Jehovah’s Witness submit themselves to the rule of God’s government, and not the earthly government is flawed.

But then a good Jehovah’s Witness might even argue that everything has changed since the Kingdom of God was established here on earth back in 1914. In order to understand this, we need to look a little more at some of the historical context of Paul’s message to the Romans. First of all, Jesus declared that the Kingdom of God was at hand. When Jesus spoke of this, he referred to the reign of the Messiah over heaven and earth. So without getting deep into eschatology, the Kingdom of God has already been established, and was established even during the time that Paul wrote his letter to the Romans. This means that Christians at the time of this writing were under the rule of Christ, but were still being urged to submit to the authority that is passed down to earthly governments.

Another aspect of this submission to governement is that it was not a conditional command. The Christians in Rome at the time of Paul’s writing faced great persecution under the rule of the Roman Emperor Nero. Nero was the first to start state-organized persecution of the Christians, and often burned (set on fire) them at parties as entertainment. Even in the face of such horrible persecution, Paul still urged them to submit to this authority because it is only given by God. My point here is simply that there is NO condition given in scripture that it is okay to not recognize the rule (or authority) of even the worst secular government over us, as it is still an extension of God’s rule no matter how much one may disagree with it.

Furthermore, the interpretation of John 18:36 is really misused as a command to not participate with the military. The first problem in this interpretation is that it is based on a narrative of a conversation that Jesus had. Jesus was not literally teaching in this passage that people should not serve in the military, but He was declaring where His authority and power comes from. It was more of a statement about His spiritual nature, and not the statement of a doctrine to help guide us. This is a gross misinterpretation of this passage, and is a good example of the type of interpretation that leads to this and other flawed beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witness.

Regardless of what you believe a person’s role (especially a Christian’s) should be in government, it is clear that this core belief an practice of the Jehovah’s Witness organization is incorrect. Personally, as a Marine Corps veteran, and a Christian, I am proud to have served the country that gives me my rights. I further believe that there are few things that one can do to honor God more than taking an active role in the systems and structures that HE established, and commands us to submit ourselves to. One cannot pick and choose which parts of government that they like, just as one cannot pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to believe in…

 

Stay tuned for more in this series…

 

Other posts in this series:

• Part 1 :: The Translation Problem (New World Translation)
• Part 2 :: Interpretation Flaws, Core Beliefs
• Part 3 :: Interpretation Flaws, Religious Practices
• Part 4 :: Interpretation Flaws, Diety of Jesus
• Part 5 :: Role of Christians with “Them”

the truth about Jehovah’s Witness, part 2

In my first article about the shaky foundation of the Jehovah’s Witness belief system focused on the credibility, or lack thereof, of their Bible (the New World Translation). Basically we’ve identified how other modern translations used techniques and scholars in such a way that anyone using these versions of the Bible can have confidence that they are reading a reasonably accurate, and more importantly unbiased translation of the original text. Neither of these (accuracy or bias) can be verified in the case of the Jehovah’s Witness New World Translation. Now I plan to step away from translation techniques, and start looking at interpretation techniques.

The first issue that I want to look at is the idea that they hold to about when the Kingdom of God is (or was supposed to be) ushered in. While the actual date has moved around quite a bit, the year 1914 remains an important year for the Jehovah’s Witness faith. That is the year that Jesus supposedly took His place on the throne of the Kingdom of God. Now I am not an expert (yet) on this whole idea of what they believe that this means to them, but I do want to look at how they arrived at the date. Their publication titled, “What Does The Bible REALLY Teach?” has a great appendix that explains how this date was identified.

The first reference comes from the book of Daniel (see context), where it states that an angel said that a chopped down tree should remain that way for “seven times”. They claim that because one other Biblical author (Ezekiel) used trees in reference to rulership, then Daniel’s reference to a tree also meant that he was referring to rulership, especially when speaking of the rulership of the Kingdom of God.

One of the core rules of Bible interpretation states that, “you cannot use a verse from somewhere else in the Bible to help you interpret a verse.” Therefore, according to this rule, just because Ezekiel used the tree/rulership analogy, does not mean that every other reference in the Bible to a tree was meant to be interpreted as rulership. Even if you overlook this flaw in interpretation, the breaking of this rule does not stop here…

The next reference to finding the date that Jesus will return to take His rightful place on the throne is in Revelation (see context). The reference here is to help us determine how long a “time” is. Basically, the (very loose) interpretation of the text in Revelation states that three and a half times equals 1,260 days. Therefore, one only has to do the math to figure out that the “seven times” that Daniel speaks of, being twice Revelation’s “three and a half times”, means that Daniel is referring to a period of 2,520 days. Again, Daniel’s intent, message, and measures were quite different than those that John would have used. Not to mention that the two books were written to two very different audiences, literally hundred of years apart. Daniel’s message would have needed to be clear to his contemporary readers, so it would have been impossible for him to make a reference that needed another writing from hundreds of years in the future to be understood.

The third and final reference that is used to arrive at the date of 1914 is one from Numbers (see context) that speaks of a “year for each day”. Therefore the 2,520 days of Daniel is actually 2,520 years. Now I think that this reference is also an extreme stretch of a second meaning (typical of prophecy, but not of narrative where this reference is found), but we again are using the idea of translating every reference in the Bible based on one example that doesn’t even intend to communicate this as a standard of truth.

So, now we have the number of years, so all we have to do is calculate it out to figure out when Jesus is due to take the throne. Now we just need the starting date. According to the Jehovah’s Witness, the time starts in 607 B.C. when the Babylonians overtook the city of Jerusalem and officially ended the Davidic reign on the throne (the chopping down of the tree). 2,520 years from that time is the year 1914, and then is when the Davidic reign (through Jesus) is supposed to resume. Aside from the absolutely horrible interpretation of the scriptures, archeology has actually helped to confirm that the final fall of Jerusalem did not actually happen until 586 B.C.!

So, why is there so little “evidence” that what the Jehovah’s Witness people say happened regarding Jesus’ return exist? Well the short answer is that it looks like they were really stretching in their interpretation of the scriptures, but they also based their calculations on an incorrect date anyway. So when it comes to trusting what the Jehovah’s Witness say about the Bible shows that not only is their translation of the text in question, but also the interpretation of that text is extremely flawed.

Regarding the return of Jesus, my Bible has a little quote from Jesus that goes something like this…

And then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven….   But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, not the Son, but only the Father.

Mark 13:26-27,32 (ESV)

 

Stay tuned for more in this series!

 

Other posts in this series:

• Part 1 :: The Translation Problem (New World Translation)
• Part 2 :: Interpretation Flaws, Core Beliefs
• Part 3 :: Interpretation Flaws, Religious Practices
• Part 4 :: Interpretation Flaws, Diety of Jesus
• Part 5 :: Role of Christians with “Them”

Next Page »