When they come knocking
Part 2
Intro
Jude 3-4 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
The WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY, its followers known as Jehovah’s Witnesses, claim to be the only true Christians on earth today. They also claim to have exclusive understanding of the Bible. According to the Watchtower, Jehovah’s Witnesses are the only ones who serve the true God, whom they say is Jehovah, and everyone else serves Satan. Because of these claims, we as Christians, have taken the Bible, which we believe is the Inspired Word of God, and used it to expose the false doctrines of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Ephesians 5:11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.
When they come knocking has been set up in an easy to understand format. Under each subject listed in the index, you will fine the heading, THE CURRENT TEACHING OF THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY, followed by a direct quote from The Watchtower Publications. Below that you will read WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES about the doctrine. Scriptures are listed with subheading leading to a through study on the subject.
I encourage you to look up each of the reference in the Bible in order to receive a complete understanding of what the Bible teaches on each doctrine. Then share this information, with love and compassion, with the Jehovah’s Witness. Our goal is for the Jehovah’s Witness to recognize the error of his way and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.
1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready to give an answer to every man that asked you a reason for the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ
Table of Contents
• Introduction
• Baptism
• Bible
• Blood Transfusions
• Born Again
• Church & Gospel
• Communion
• Cross
• Death
• Doctrine, False
• Date Setting
• Deity of Holy Spirit
• Deity of Jesus
• Disfellowshipping
• Flags
• False Prophets
• God's Name
• Good News • Grace
• Hell
• Holiday
• Heaven
• Heirs
• Kingdom
• Last Days
• Mistranslations
• Money
• Prayer
• Prejudice
• Resurrection
• Salvation (Assurance of)
• Second Coming
• Trinity
• War
• Works
• Worship
The Current Teaching of The Watchtower Society: Baptism
The Watchtower has established certain requirements for baptism which its followers are expected to carry out: (1) Each must gain accurate doctrinal knowledge through a systematic study of the Watchtower publications. (2) Each must pass an exam conducted by the Elders on over eighty questions concerning the Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses before permission is granted for baptism. (3) Each must, in effect, declare any other prior baptism invalid.
What the Bible Says about BAPTISM:
1. Baptism Takes Place AFTER Faith in Christ is Expressed:
Believers were baptized at the same time they came to faith. Act 2:41; 9:17, 18
Believing in Christ was the necessary condition for baptism Act 18:8
In some cases believers were baptized the very hour they put their faith in Christ Act 16:30-33
As an example, Paul put his faith in Christ and was baptized soon after Act 22:16
Peter tells his audience to repent and then be baptized Act 2:37, 41
2. Examples from the Bible of the Practice of Baptism:
Believing Jews were baptized Act 2:41
Believing Gentiles were baptized Act 10:44-48; 18:8
Examples of entire households practicing baptism as believers Act 16:15, 33; 1Cr 1:16
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: The Bible
The Watchtower Society claims that only the 144,000 individuals (a figure arrived at from the pages of the Book of Revelation) can actually understand the Bible. It is an organizational book -- a book given to an organization and not to individuals. It can be interpreted and explained only by God's own designated organization, the Watchtower Society. The organization's interpretations and explanations are found on the pages of the Watchtower publications.
What the Bible Says about...THE BIBLE/UNDERSTANDING THE SCRIPTURES:
1. The Bible Teaches That ANY Spirit-Filled Believer In Jesus Christ Can Have A Practical Understanding Of The Bible:
If he is spiritual 1Cr 2:4-16
If he has the Holy Spirit Jhn 14:25-26
If he lets the Holy Spirit guide him Jhn 16:13-15
If he does not depend on man's wisdom 1Cr 2:9-14
If he lets the Bible instruct him -- not the Watchtower Society 2Ti 3:16
If he searches the scriptures regularly, daily Act 17:11
If he seeks to get his approval from the Bible 2Ti 2:15
If Christ is his only Master Mat 23:8-12
3. The Bible Teaches That All True Believers Are Of Equal Value Before God; No One Has A Special Interpretive Right To The Bible:
Believers are one in Christ Jhn 17:20-23
Believers share a common teacher, the Holy Spirit Eph 4:4, 5
4. See appendix A for an exhausted reference on “The Scripture”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: Blood Transfusion
Transferring blood from the veins or arteries of one person to another is equivalent to feeding upon or "eating" the blood and is unscriptural, causing loss of eternal life. Thus, if a person receives a blood transfusion, he will not inherit a place in the kingdom of God.
What the Bible Says about BLOOD:
1. The BLOOD OF CHRIST Has A Special, High Place In Scripture:
It alone is sufficient for eternal life -- not ours Hbr 9:13, 14
With one sacrifice, it paid for all of mans' sins Hbr 9:24-28
It brought eternal life to every believer Jhn 6:53-56
2. Concerning The HUMAN CONSUMPTION Of Blood:
Nothing coming from the outside of a believer can make him defiled or impure; thus ending the possibility of eternal life Mar 7:15
Eating blood cannot defile a believer Mat 15:11
3. Concerning Any Eternal Penalty For The Consumption Of ANIMAL BLOOD:
Violation of health laws does not effect eternal life Act 15:20, 28, 30
Jesus' personal sacrifice made the observance of ceremonial law no longer necessary Lev 17:14; Gal 5:14
Eternal life is not based on ceremonial law observance Rom 6:14
Christ provided a means for any law breaker -- that's 100% of earth's population -- to be able to have assurance of eternal life Rom 10:4
Note: There are three important points the student of this subject must consider when seeking to understand the meaning of the Scriptures regarding the sanctity of blood...
First, the practice of the peoples in the days of the Apostles and before involved the drinking of blood as part of the worship of various deities, and, among some peoples, as a means of gaining supernatural power which they understood to be in the blood. It was this idolatrous purpose and practice which surely motivated God to forbid the drinking of blood in the first place.
Second, it is a scientific fact that blood cannot be completely removed from any living thing that is used for food. Virtually everyone that eats meat or its by-products has "eaten" a large amount of blood during their lifetime. This means that virtually every Watchtower Society member -- unless they are strict vegetarians -- has consumed a large quantity of animal blood during their lifetime.
Third, blood transfusions involve the use of blood for the same purpose as God intended it to be used: as a life-giving agent in the blood stream. No worship of alien deities or the gaining of supernatural power is involved. The recipient of a blood transfusion does not "eat" the blood, which would be using it for different purpose. A similar example of this principle should be noted: a skin graft, a kidney transplant, cornea transplant, or the like. A pint of blood given by a willing, healthy donor is a gift of life in much the same way as that of a cornea or a kidney. No violation of any laws of sanctity is involved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: Born Again
"Born again" means "going to heaven." This privilege is limited to Jesus and the 144,000 spiritual brothers and sisters chosen since Jesus' time. The remainder of the Jehovah's Witnesses do not become "born again," but are assigned the designation "the other sheep" and will remain on the Earth forever.
What the Bible Says about Being BORN AGAIN:
1. The New Birth Means Regeneration, With All Believers Being Equally Renewed:
All believers are united under one fold, not a heavenly class and earthly class Jhn 10:15, 16
2. The New Birth is Necessary Because of:
Man's inability to renew himself in his present state Jhn 3:3, 5
Man's human flesh alone cannot accommodate eternal life Jhn 3:6
Man is under a curse and will die Eph 2:1
2.The New Birth is Introduced to Man By:
The Holy Spirit Jhn 3:5, 8; Tts 3:5
The Word of God Jam 1:18; 1Pe 1:23
Man's obedience Rom 6:17, 18
3. The Steps To Receiving The New Birth:
We acknowledge that NO ONE is good enough to receive it Rom 3:10
We admit that sin brings death to any man Rom 6:23
We confess that we, too, have sinned Rom 3:23
We declare that Christ died for our sins Rom 5:8
We recognize Jesus as Lord and put our trust in Him Rom 10:9, 10
We accept the gift of eternal life 1Jo 5:11-13; Jhn 5:24
We seek to discover and live out God's plan for our life Jhn 10:10; 2Cr 5:17; 1Th 5:18
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society:
The true Church is made up of the 144,000 individuals purchased form the Earth by Jesus Christ. Those not belonging to the "the church" but who follow the principles set forth by the Watchtower Society are called the "great crowd." They follow the directions of 144,000 in preaching the Good News or Gospel of the Kingdom.
What the Bible Says about THE CHURCH:
1. There Is Only One True Church:
All Believers have been baptized into one body 1Cr 12:13-20
Believers are one in body though they are many in number and diversity Rom 12:4-8
Though it is difficult to understand (a mystery) all believers are of the same body and follow the same Gospel Eph 3:5-7
All believers are uniquely and especially joined together Eph 2:10-22
All believers are one family in Jesus Gal 3:26-29
All believers are spiritually one, just as Jesus and the Father are one Jhn 17:11-13
All believers were designed by God to be one body Col 3:15
2. There Is Only ONE Gospel Message:
There is only one simple Gospel message which saves men 1Cr 15:1-14
The one simple Gospel message is frequently distorted 2Cr 11:3, 4
Any message that alters the simple Bible Gospel is false Gal 1:8
3. The True "Witnesses" Are Witnesses Of Jesus:
They practice an earth wide witness of Jesus Act 1:8
Their message includes salvation in Jesus' name Act 4:12
Their message includes a confession of Jesus before man Luk 12:8, 9
Their faith includes an experience of Jesus in their midst Mat 18:20
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: Communion
Only those members of the 144,000 (mentioned in Revelation 6:4 and others) remaining on the earth at any given time can partake in the Communion Supper (the bread and the cup). Members of the "great crowd" or "earthly class" -- as the society designates those Witnesses not among the 144,000 -- are forbidden to take of the Communion Supper.
What the Bible Says about COMMUNION:
1. Communion is for ALL Christians:
All believers are to partake of it 1Cr 10:16, 17
Believers are to break bread regularly Act 2:41, 42
Believers are to partake of it until Jesus comes 1Cr 11:26
2. Those For Whom Jesus Died Share In Communion:
Note Jesus' Own Words: "And He took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them, saying, 'This is my body, which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me. "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, 'this is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you.'Luk 22:14-19
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: The Cross
The cross is a pagan symbol and was not the instrument of death used by the Romans to kill Jesus. Jesus died on a torture stake (or pole). The cross does not picture the death or the resurrection of Jesus. It is not the Christian symbol nor is it a symbol of hope.
What the Bible Says about THE CROSS
1. There Is No Question That Jesus Died On A Cross Rather Than On A Torture Stake:
A torture stake required one nail in the hands (nailed over the head), but the Bible says there were two nails used in the hands Jhn 20:25
The Bible says Jesus' hands were outstretched, not over His head during his death Jhn 21:18, 19
The Romans placed a sign above Jesus' head, not above his hands; if He had died on a stake, the normal reference would have been to the hands which would have been nailed over the head Mat 27:37
The thieves that died with Him were described as being on the right hand and the left, as opposed to "at the side of" or "at His left and right" Mar 15:25-27
2. It Is To Be Expected That There Would Be Confusion Concerning The Cross As An Emblem For Christ, For The Bible Indicates There Will Be Such Confusion:
The Cross is foolishness to unbelievers 1Cr 1:18, 23; 2:2
There will be enemies of the Cross Phl 3:18, 19
The cross, though demeaned by men, will bring glory Gal 6:14
Believer are to pick up their cross and follow Jesus Mat 16:24
NOTE: The Watchtower Society claims in the Kingdom Interlinear, pages 1155 and 1156, that Jesus died on a torture stake not a cross. To support their case, they cite a reference to Decruce Liber Primus by the 16th century author, Justus Lipsius. Included with this reference is a copy of an etching from page 19 of Decruce Liber Primus in which the torture stake is detailed with a victim suffering on it. But, at another point in the same work, Justus himself states explicitly that such a device was not used in the torture death of Jesus: on page 47, he pictures Jesus on a conventional 4 piece cross (vertical stake, foot board, cross bar, and sign). As evidence for his conclusion about the cross he cites various early church fathers who were aware of the Roman practices in Jerusalem during the era in which Christ died.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: Death
When a person dies, their body and soul return to the dust. The life force, spirit-breath, does not return to God, but God keeps the person in His memory and restores him if He should desire to do so.
What the Bible Says about DEATH:
1. Man's True Nature Is Described In The Bible:
He consists of a physical body, a soul, and a spirit 1Th 5:23; Hbr 4:12
2. What Happens To Man At Death Is Also Described:
The BODY returns to the dust from which it came Gen 3:19
The SOUL goes to heaven or hell Rev 6:9-11
The SPIRIT leaves body Jam 2:26; Ecc 12:7
The BODY and SOUL are separate and distinct Mat 10:28
The BODY and SPIRIT are separate and distinct Jam 2:26
3. The Nature & Characteristics Of Man's Spirit:
It is man's immortal nature 1Cr 2:11
It is the believer's immortal nature 1Cr 5:3, 5
It is an inward, genuine reality Rom 2:29
Man does experience a disembodied state Hbr 12:23; 1Pe 3:19
It is the seat of his consciousness Jdg 15:19
It is the center of his emotions 1Ki 21:5
It is subject to divine influence Deu 2:30; Isa 19:14
It leaves the body at death Ecc 12:7; Jam 2:26
The spirit of a person Luk 8:49-55
Spirit understands Job 32:8
Spirit in man, not breath Zec 12:1
Spirit belongs to God 1Cr 6:20
NOTE: It is a mistake to assume -- at the Society often does -- that the word SPIRIT and the word BREATH mean the same thing. To demonstrate this fact, note what happens when an attempt is made to substitute the word BREATH for SPIRIT in the following
verses:
• Act 23:8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.
• Act 23:9 And there arose a great cry: and the scribes [that were] of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.
• 1Cr 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
• 2Cr 7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
• Gal 6:18 Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with your spirit. Amen.
4. The Nature & Characteristics Of Man's Soul:
The soul of man was created by God and is significantly different from the soul of the animals. Not only is it unique in nature, it is also unique in the value the Lord places on it.
Lives in Hebrew Gen 2:7
Belong to God Eze 18:3, 4
Possess immortality Mat 10:28
Most vital asset Mat 16:26
5. The Soul Leaves the Body At The Time Of Death & Continues To Exist In A Very Real, Conscious Way:
Her soul departed Gen 35:18
His soul came into him again 1Ki 17:20-22
Absent from body, present with the Lord 2Cr 5:6-9
To die is gain Phl 1:21
The sinning soul dies, but the repentant one will live (vs.21); spiritual death is demonstrated Eze 18:4
Wages of sin is death — spiritual death Rom 6:23
The believer that sins will survive death Hbr 10:39; Mic 6:7; Mat 10:28
Slain souls cry out to God Rev 6:9, 10
6. Man's Soul Has Certain Responsibilities:
The soul is to seek and serve the Lord Deu 4:9; 10:12
It stores God's Word Deu 11:18
It is to keep God's Law, and personally obey Him Deu 26:16; 30:2, 6, 10
7. Man's Soul Has Enemies:
Ignorance, Hell Pro 8:36; 23:13
Fleshly lust, evil environment 1Pe 2:11; 2Pe 2:8
8. Souls Of Righteous Men Receive Benefits:
Kept by God Psa 121:7
Not allowed to famish Pro 10:3
Restored Psa 23:1, 3
Satisfied Pro 13:25
With God Forever Rev 20:4
9. Souls Of Wicked Men Receive Penalties:
They have the distressing desire to continue in evil Pro 21:10
They will be cut short and shall die Luk 12:19, 20; Eze 18:20
They will be punished Rom 2:9
10. The Nature Of Man's Body As Described In The Bible:
Body and soul separate Mat 10:28
Flesh upon, soul within Job 14:22
11. The Nature Of Man's Body As Created By God:
Made by God, in His image Gen 2:7; 9:6
Subject to death Rom 5:12
Instrument of evil Rom 1:24-32
12. The Nature Of Man's Body As A Result Of Salvation:
Temple of Holy Spirit 1Cr 6:19
Christ the center of Rom 6:8-11
Dead to sin and law Rom 8:10; 7:4
13. The Nature Of Man's Body As Promised In The Resurrection:
Redeemed, raised Rom 8:23
Changed, glorified Rom 8:29
14. Man's Death As Described In The Bible:
PHYSICAL SEPARATION OF SOUL FROM BODY:
Returns to dust Gen 3:19
The soul actually departs from the body Phl 1:23; 2Ti 4:6
Man dies and then he faces judgment Hbr 9:27
As Paul explains it, to be absent from the physical body is to be present with Lord 2Cr 5:6-8
SPIRITUAL DEATH:
It means separation of soul from God Eph 2:1
It means everlasting punishment Mat 25:46
It means a resurrection to damnation Jhn 5:29
ETERNAL DEATH (Banishment from God):
Second death 2Th 1:9; Rev 20:15; 21:8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: False Doctrine
The doctrines of the Trinity, Hell and immortality of the human soul are all doctrines of the Devil.
What the Bible Says about FALSE DOCTRINES:
Perverting the Gospel Gal 1:6, 7
Deception of Satan 2Cr 11:13-15
Deceive many Mat 24:5, 24
Attract many 2Pe 2:2
Covetous Tts 1:11
Love error 2Ti 4:3, 4
Avoid Rom 16:17, 18
Test 1Jo 4:1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: Date Setting
Jehovah's Witnesses announced the date of Christ's return as 1914. During that year Christ came into His heavenly kingdom and fulfilled the promises in the Bible of His return.
What the Bible Says about DATE SETTING:
No man knows the day or hour of Christ's return Mat 24:36, 42
Jesus taught through parables that no one knows the date Mat 25:1-13
*NOTE – It only takes one wrong date to be a false prophet…
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: The Deity of the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is God's active force. It is not a person, and has no voice or personality of its own, and is not part of any Trinity.
What the Bible Says about...THE DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT:
The Bible Reveals That The Holy Spirit Has The Attributes Of God The Father:
(a brief look)
Called God Act 5:3, 4
Joined with Father and Son Mat 28:19; 2Cr 13:14
Eternal Hbr 9:14
Omnipotent Luk 1:35
Omniscient 1Cr 2:10, 11
Omnipresent Psa 139:7-13
Creator Gen 1:2
Sovereign 1Cr 12:6, 11
Holy Ghost:
His personality is proved ( 1) from the fact that the attributes of personality, as intelligence and volition, are ascribed to him ( Jhn 14:17,26; 15:26; 1Cr 2:10,11; 12:11). He reproves, helps, glorifies, intercedes (Jhn 16:7-13; Rom 8:26). ( 2) He executes the offices peculiar only to a person. The very nature of these offices involves personal distinction (Luk 12:12; Act 5:32; 15:28; 16:6; 28:25; 1Cr 2:13; Hbr 2:4; 3:7; 2Pe 1:21).
His divinity is established ( 1) from the fact that the names of God are ascribed to him ( Exd 17:7; Psa 95:7; Hbr 3:7-11); and ( 2) that divine attributes are also ascribed to him, omnipresence ( Psa 139:7; Eph 2:17,18; 1Cr 12:13); omniscience ( 1Cr 2:10,11); omnipotence ( Luk 1:35; Rom 8:11); eternity ( Hbr 9:4). ( 3) Creation is ascribed to him ( Gen 1:2; Job 26:13; Psa 104:30), and the working of miracles ( Mat 12:28; 1Cr 12:9-11). ( 4) Worship is required and ascribed to him ( Isa 6:3; Act 28:25; Rom 9:1; Rev 1:4; Mat 28:19).
The Holy Spirit: as God
As Jehovah Exd 17:7; Hbr 3:7-9; Num 12:6; 2Pe 1:21
As Jehovah of hosts Isa 6:3,8-10; Act 28:25
As Jehovah, Most High Psa 78:17,21; Act 7:51
Being invoked as Jehovah Luk 2:26-29; Act 4:23-25; 1:16,20; 2Th 3:5
As eternal Hbr 9:14
As the Spirit of glory and of God 1Pe 4:14
As Creator Gen 1:26,27; Job 33:4
As equal to, and one with the Father Mat 28:19; 2Cr 13:14
As Sovereign Disposer of all things Dan 4:35; 1Cr 12:6,11
As raising Christ from the dead Act 2:24; 1Pe 3:18; Hbr 13:20; Rom 1:4
As the source of wisdom 1Cr 12:8; Isa 11:2; Jhn 16:13; 14:26
As dwelling in saints Jhn 14:17; 1Cr 14:25; 3:16; 6:19
As Comforter of the Church Act 9:31; 2Cr 1:3
As sanctifying the Church Eze 37:28; Rom 15:16
As the Witness Hbr 10:15; 1Jo 5:9
As convincing of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment Jhn 16:8-11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: Deity of Jesus Christ
In His Pre-existence, Jesus Christ was the angelic being described in the Bible as Michael the Archangel. He has only the power and nature of a created angelic being. The Society has drawn this conclusion and teaches this as a doctrine as a result of their understanding of certain Scripture references (Col 1:15-17 and Jhn 1:1. Also see Rev 3:14).
What the Bible Says about The DEITY OF JESUS:
In order to understand the Society's position on this issue and in order to be able to see the way in which they have deviated from and even deliberately changed the plain teaching of the Scriptures, we examine their translation of two key passages (as found in the 1984 edition of the Society's New World Translation):
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in heavens and upon the earth, the thing visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist.Colossians 1:15 NWT Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature:
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers:
all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossians 1:15-17 KJV
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the word was a god.John 1:1 NWT In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.John 1:1 KJV
1. The Society Alters Bible Words & Their Meanings To Conform To Their Particular Views About The Deity Of Jesus Christ:
a. Words That Are Misunderstood...
The Meaning Of: "Beginning"
The Society understands the word to mean "that which comes at the start of something," but the Bible also uses this word to mean "the origin, source, and first cause, or, that which stands in the prime position." See Rev 3:14
The Meaning Of: "Firstborn"
Priority, pre-eminence, prime position Col 1:15
Although Esau was the firstborn, he could legitimately sell that position (his birthright) to his brother Gen 24:31
Birthright transferred 1Ch 5:1
Firstborn Manasseh, second Ephraim -- yet the reverse order is spoken of in terms of birthright Gen 41:51-52
Ephraim is my "firstborn" Jer 31:9
David is firstborn, even though David was actually the youngest son in his family Psa 89:27
b. Words That Have Been Altered.
Inserted the word "other" Col 1:16, 17
Added "a" making Jesus a God Jhn 1:1
2. FACT: The Bible Reveals That There Is Only One God...
There is no God with me Deu 32:39
No God formed before me or after Isa 43:10, 11
No God Isa 44:6, 8
None else Isa 45:5, 6, 21
None like me /kjv/Isa/Isa046.html - 9Isa 46:9
3. FACT: The Bible Reveals That Jesus Is Called God...
The Word was God Jhn 1:1
Thomas said: "My Lord and My God" Jhn 20:28
God calls Jesus God Hbr 1:8
I AM-God's name in the Old Testament Exd 3:14
I AM-Before Abraham I AM Jhn 8:58
Not robbery to be equal to God Phl 2:6
4. FACT: The Bible Teaches That Jesus Is Deity...
It was prophesied Isa 9:6
Acknowledged by Thomas Jhn 20:18
Affirmed by the Apostles Rom 9:5; Hbr 1:8
Acclaimed by witnesses Jhn 1:14, 18
5. FACT: The Bible Teaches That Jesus Has The Attributes Of God The Father...
All powerful Mat 28:18
All knowing Col 2:3
Ever present Mat 18:20
Eternal Jhn 1:1, 2, 15
6. FACT: The Bible Teaches That Jesus Is Worshipped By...
The Old Testament saints Jos 5:13-15
The Demons Mar 5:6
A certain blind man Jhn 9:38
The Angels Hbr 1:6
The Disciples Luk 24:52
The Saints in glory Rev 7:9, 10
Eventually, by everyone Phl 2:10, Mat 9:18; 15:25; 28:29
7. FACT: The Bible Teaches That Jesus Is Not An Angel...
No angel is or can ever be called God's son Hbr 1:5, 6
World not in subjection to any angel Hbr 2:5
He did not take on the nature of angels Hbr 2:16
Glorified with God -- not the angels Jhn 17:5
All power given to Him, in heaven and earth Mat 28:18
He has a name that is above all names Phl 2:9, 10
God will not share His glory with any other Isa 42:8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: Disfellowshipping
Jehovah's Witnesses use I Corinthians 5:11-13, II John 9-11 and I Timothy 5:20 to forbid their followers to speak to anyone who has left their organization, on the grounds that they are apostate.
What the Bible Says about DISFELLOWSHIPPING:
1. The Bible Teaches an Apostate is...
One who has left the doctrine of Christ 2Jo 9-11
False anointed ones, teaching an invisible secret presence of Jesus Christ Mat 24:23-27
One coming on the basis of Jesus' name, saying I am the Christ Mat 24:5, 24
Ones teaching that the day of Jehovah and the presence of Christ were already here 2Th 2:1, 2
Teaching that the resurrection had already occurred 2Ti 2:16-18
2. The Bible Does NOT Teach Disfellowshipping For Sin Alone:
The issue in question when we examine what the Bible says about "disfellowshipping" is the PURPOSE of the activity. The clear purpose is to remove (from contact with the fellowship of believers) those individuals who are not only sinning but who are in some active way recruiting other to join with them in their sin. In other words, it is to put at a distance between true believers and those apostate who have begun to teach that sin -- whatever that sin may be -- is acceptable.
The form of that sin is usually related to disrespect for the humanity or the deity of Christ. It is probable that such people are not nor never were true believers. [See II John 7-11] In contract to the Society's position on the subject, the Bible teaches the "disfellowshipping" was never designed to deal with sinners. Sinners are to be dealt with in a way clearly outlined in the following passages...
Accept the one who is weak Rom 14:1-4
Restore a fallen one with gentleness Gal 6:1-5
Beware of those who deliver you up to councils Mat 10:17
Step by step believers are to confront the sinner with goal of rescuing him* Mat 18:15-20
The Bible says not to receive anyone into the home that has left the doctrine of Christ. (Leaving the Watchtower Society does not qualify someone for this type of discipline) 2Jo 9-11
• NOTE: An individual who has become hardened and unrepentant with regard to sin, and does not respond to personal or corporate discipline, is to be treated as an unbeliever -- not as an apostate. An unbeliever needs the Gospel and our prayers. An apostate is dangerous to himself and to believers and should be avoided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: The Flag
Saluting a flag is an act of idolatry; when we show respect to a flag, we are doing an act of worship to another God.
What the Bible Says about FLAGS:
God instructed the children of Israel to encamp under their standard (Hebrew: DEGAL, meaning flag) Num 2:2
We are to give honor and respect were it is due /kjv/Rom/Rom013.html - 1Rom 13:1-7
Standard (flag) went before the people Num 10:14, 18, 22
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: False Prophets
The Society claims to be God's Prophet for this present age. It has explicitly made the claim of being God's spokesman to the world in numerous articles and books, including the following: The Watchtower, March 15, 1972-p.189; April 1, 1972-p.197, 200; The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah, pp.58 & 70; Holy Spirit, p.148-Remnant, prophesying; p.30-Preaching & prophesying
What the Bible Says about FALSE PROPHETS
1. Deuteronomy 18:20-22 and Matthew 7:15-20 Provide God's Testing Procedure For A True Prophet:
A true prophet would speak in Jehovah's name and the things foretold would come to pass.
A careful examination of various Society publications reveals that they have made statements and predictions over the years that have not been true or have not come to pass [see EXPOSE: of Jehovah's Witnesses, by Erich & Jean Grieshaber for a list of these statements and predictions].
We find the Society is not able to pass the test of a true Prophet of God. False Prophets are condemned in the Scriptures and we are told to flee from them...
Condemned to die 1Ki 13
Punishment of prophet and seekers the same Eze 14:10
Cast into the Lake of Fire Rev 19:20; 20:20
Punish the man and his house Jer 23:16, 26
Prophets treacherous Zep 3:1-4
Shall say I am no prophet Zec 13:1-7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: Jehovah as the name of God
The Society believes that those who do not use God's name, which they understand to be JEHOVAH, cannot be identified as His people. (Acts 15:14)
The use of a special word as a way to identify with a particular God or religion is an ancient pagan practice dating back centuries. A word is itself has no more power than any of the "mantras" or mystical words of the eastern religions. The word "Jehovah" carries with it no unusual or mystical significance. Confirmation of this can be see in the fact that "Jehovah" as a designation for God the Father does not appear even once in the New Testament. The many appearances of this in the New World Translation of the New Testament (produced by the Society) has no historical or manuscript basis whatsoever. It is absolutely and completely an invention by the Society. Furthermore, the use of the word "Jehovah" is a genuine embarrassment to the Watchtower Society in that it represents a linguistic mistake: the word is a result of a mistransliteration of the word "Yahweh" (that is, "the eternally existing One") plus the word the ancient Hebrews used in its place, "Adonai" or Lord. The ancient Hebrew scribes were concerned that they might somehow misuse the name of God and thus even inadvertently violate the Third Commandment. As a precaution, they placed the four consonants for the name of God (YHWH) in the text of the Scripture as they copied it but included the vowels of word for "Lord" which they would speak in its place. This jumble of consonants of one word and the vowels of the other led to the appearance and use of the word "Jehovah." Consider also the many other names and titles for God found in the Scriptures. (See below and also consult Names of God, by N. J. Stone and The Names of Christ, by F. H. Derk for a list of these and a discussion concerning their frequency of use and their significance.) The Bible does NOT teach that we can be identified with God because of the use of any particular word or name. We are identified with God when we are reconciled to Him through the death of His Son. John 1:12, Revelation 3:20.
1. The Primary Names Of God Are:
English Form Hebrew Equivalent
God El, Elah, Elohim
Lord YHWH Yahweh
Lord Adon or Adonai
2. Compound Names Using El (God) Include:
Almighty God El Shaddai
Most High or Most High God El Elyon
Everlasting God El Clam
Mighty God El Gibbor
3. Compound Names Using YHWH (Yahweh) — LORD Include:
Lord God YHWH (Jehovah) Elohim
Lord God Adonai YHWH (Jehovah)
Lord of Host YHWH (Jehovah) Sabaoth
4. Some Of The Many Names of God:
God Gen 1:1
God Almighty Gen 2:4
Most High God Gen 14:18-22
Lord God Gen 15:2, 8
Almighty God Gen 17:1
Everlasting God Gen 21:33
God Almighty Gen 28:3
I AM Exd 3:14
Jehovah Exd 6:3
Jealous Exd 34:14
Eternal God Deu 33:27
Living God Jos 3:10
Mighty God Jer 32:18
Heavenly Father Mat 6:26
King Eternal 1Ti 1:17
Only Potentate 1Ti 6:15
Father of Lights Jam 1:17
NOTE: We point out a remarkable inconsistency. In the Old Testament, the Society chose to translate the word "Adonai" (Lord) as "Jehovah" in every case it refers to God. (See, for example, Isaiah 9:8) The New World Translation apparently chose not do this in New Testament for Kurios (Lord) because this would prove that Jesus is Yahweh after all.
Jesus' name is above every name Phl 2:9
Saul (Paul) chosen to bear Jesus' name Act 9:15
We receive grace and apostleship for His name Rom 1:5
NOTE: A case is frequently made that the actual name "Jehovah" is vital for blessing as the phrase "in the name of the Lord" (the Society inserts "Jehovah" for "Lord") appears many times. To do something in "the name of" someone is to use their authority or their standing or their reputation, not to simply recite the word used to designate their personage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: Good news
The Good News of the Kingdom (or the Gospel) is that Jesus has been ruling and reigning since 1914.
What the Bible Says about The GOOD NEWS:
1. The Bible Teaches That The Gospel Was Taught Even In The Days Of The Apostles:
Gospel is preached, received and people are saved 1Cr 15:1-4
The Gospel saves instantly Act 2:37-42; Rom 10:8-13
2. The Bible Describes The Gospel:
God Rom 1:1
Christ 2Cr 2:12
Peace Eph 6:15
3. The Bible Defines The Gospel:
Of supernatural origin Gal 1:10-12
God's power Rom 1:16
Mystery Eph 6:19
4. The Bible Says The Gospel Is The Source Of:
Men are begotten through Gospel 1Cr 4:15
Peace Eph 6:15
5. The Bible Says The Gospel Is Proclaimed by:
Old Testament Gal 3:8
Prophets Rom 1:2
Jesus and John Mar 1:14, 15
Chosen Men 1Pe 1:12
6. The Bible Says The Gospel Is Proclaimed to:
All people Mar 16:15, 16
At all times Rev 14:6
With boldness Eph 6:19
7. The Bible Says The One Who Believes In The Gospel...
Is sealed into the family of believers by the H.S. Eph 1:13
Will defend the Gospel and those that proclaim it Phl 1:7, 17, 27
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: Grace
The Watchtower Society teaches we are not saved by grace alone. To be saved one must be an active Jehovah's Witness following all of the rules and regulations of the Society.
What the Bible Says about GRACE:
1. Human Effort Is Not The Basis For Salvation:
The Bible teaches that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, through faith, not of works. Eph 2:8, 9
2. Key Passages Describing The Nature And Function Of Grace:
God's favor Gen 6:8
Grace, not works Rom 11:6
All abundant Rom 5:15-20
Work of God Jhn 6:28, 29
Faith counted as righteousness Rom 4:5
Grace, not Law Jhn 1:17; Rom 6:14
All sufficient 2Cr 12:9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: Hell
The Society teaches that Hell is the grave, that man experiences ANNIHILATION [he ceases to exist] there. It is not a place of everlasting punishment. The New World Translation translates the word SHEOL as grave, pit and hell.
What the Bible Says about HELL And Related Terms:
1. Sheol:
In the Old Testament it usually means place of the departed spirits Psa 16:10
2. Hades:
Usually means place of the departed spirits in NT Act 2:27
3. Tartarus:
The deepest abyss of Hades prepared for the Devil and his angels Mat 25:41-46
*Note Tartarus is considered to be as below Hell as earth is from Heaven
3. Grave [QUEBER In Hebrew]:
"he was buried in the grave of his father" 2Sa 17:23
NOTES: SHEOL and HADES occasionally can be translated "grave" but not always. QUEBER always means "grave" where the body goes. Sheol, Iiades, and Queber are not used interchangeably.
4. Hell As Described In The Bible:
Everlasting fire Mat 25:41
Eternal punishment Mat 25:46
Outer darkness Mat 8:12
Everlasting destruction 2Th 1:9
Lake of fire Rev 19:20
5. The Purpose For Hell:
For the devil and his angels Mat 25:41
For the wicked Rev 21:8
For the disobedient Rev 2:8, 9
For the fallen angels 2Pe 2:4
For the beast and the false prophets Rev 19:20
For the worshipers of the beast Rev 14:9
For the rejectors of the Gospel Mat 13:41-42
6. The Nature Of The Punishment Experienced By The Residents Of Hell:
Bodily Mat 5:29, 30
In the soul Mat 10:28
With degrees Mat 23:14
Unchangeable Luk 16:22-31
7. Surprises For The Inhabitants Of Hell:
They possess memory Luk 16:23, 25
They cry for release Luk 16:24
They cannot escape from God Psa 139:8
NOTE: As Bible students examine the passages on the subject "Hell" they soon discover that the Lord Jesus had more to say about this subject than anyone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: Holiday
The Society does not believe in celebrating any holidays (national or otherwise) and condemn those who do.
What the Bible Says about HOLIDAYS:
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink or in respect of a holiday, or of the Sabbath" Col 2:16-23
"One man esteems one day above another...Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" Rom 14:5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: Heaven
Heaven is limited to 144,000 spirit-begotten ones redeemed from the earth starting with the Apostles.
What the Bible Says about HEAVEN:
1. Heaven is reserved for:
Righteous Mat 25:34, 37
Changed, saved 1Cr 15:51; Jhn 3:5, 18, 21
Called, obedient 2Pe 1:10, 11; Rev 22:14
All members of one Body, not heavenly class and earthly class 1Cr 12:12-31
All in one Fold with one Shepherd Jhn 10:16
2. Believers In Heaven Are:
Citizens of Heaven Phl 3:20
Partakers of the Heavenly calling Hbr 3:1
3. Old Testament Believers Are There:
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in Heaven Mat 8:11
All the prophets with them Luk 13:28
Desire a better country, a heavenly one Hbr 11:8-16
4. Christ Dwells Among Them:
Four beasts and twenty-four elders Rev 5:8-10
One-hundred and forty-four thousand Rev 14:1-5
Great multitude Rev 7:9-17
5. The 144,000 Will Not Be Chosen Until The 6th Seal Is Broken:
The 6th seal is broken Rev 6:12
Day of wrath comes Rev 6:17
After the day of wrath Rev 7:1-3
144,000 are sealed Rev 7:4-8
The 7th seal is broken Rev 8:1
6. Heaven And Earth Will All Be One:
New Heavens and Earth Rev 21:1
The overcoming ones shall inherit all things including Heaven and Earth Rev 21:7; Eph 1:10
*Note Rev 4 makes it abundantly clear as to who the 144,000 are…
• Rev 7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: [and there were] sealed an hundred [and] forty [and] four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
• Rev 7:5 Of the tribe of Juda [were] sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben [were] sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad [were] sealed twelve thousand.
• Rev 7:6 Of the tribe of Aser [were] sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nepthalim [were] sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses [were] sealed twelve thousand.
• Rev 7:7 Of the tribe of Simeon [were] sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi [were] sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar [were] sealed twelve thousand.
• Rev 7:8 Of the tribe of Zabulon [were] sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph [were] sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin [were] sealed twelve thousand.
* If that still isn’t clear enough we also find out later that all of the 144,000 are virgin men.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: Heirs
The Watchtower Society teaches the Little Flock (known as the 144,000) are the only heirs of Christ, and only they will go to heaven. (Watchtower publication TRUTH THAT LEADS TO ETERNAL LIFE, P.78.
What the Bible Says about HEIRS:
If you belong to Christ you are heirs Gal 3:29
Heirs by faith Gal 4:28-31
Heirs of the Kingdom Jam 2:5
Heirs of eternal life Tts 3:7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: Kingdom
The Watchtower Society teaches the Kingdom of Christ was set up in 1914. THE TRUTH THAT LEADS TO ETERNAL LIFE - P.93.
What the Bible Says about THE KINGDOM:
Christ's Kingdom was established when He ascended to His throne after the resurrection Mat 16:18
The Kingdom of God is in our midst Luk 17:21
Jesus explains that it is a spiritual kingdom Jhn 18:36
Kingdom established on the day of Pentecost Act 2:29-47
Translated us into the Kingdom of His Son Col 1:13
The Kingdom will never be brought to ruin; it is unshakable -- even as the church, and it shall last until the end of time Dan 2:44
The Kingdom cannot be moved Hbr 12:28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: Last Days
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that we have been in the last days since Christ's invisible return in 1914.
What the Bible Says about THE LAST DAYS:
1. Among Christians Today There Are Three Principle Views Concerning The LAST DAYS:
Postmillennialism: This Group is convinced of the spread of the Christian church by the power of the Spirit until it brings the millennial condition upon the earth.
Amillennialism: This group believes that the prophecies made to Israel are fulfilled in the church. If these prophecies are so fulfilled, no millennium on earth is necessary.
Premillennial: The church is removed from the earth in the Rapture. The seven-year period which follows is divided into two three-and-one-half year periods, during the first of which Israel enters into a covenant with the antichrist, who breaks it at the end. The second half begins when Satan overpowers the antichrist and the "time of Jacob's trouble" is poured out on the world. During the seven years of tribulation the kingdom is preached (not the gospel of grace). An elect remnant of Israel, numbering 144,000, survives the tribulation to become the kingdom to which Christ returns after the seven years.
The Following Passages And Outline Explain The Chronology Of Future Events As Suggested By The PREMILLENNIAL View:
1. Initial Events:
Resurrection of the righteous and Rapture of the saints 1Cr 15:51-58; 1Th 4:13-38
Events in Heaven Rom 14:1-12; 2Cr 5:10; 1Cr 3:9-15; Rev 12:7-9; 19:7-9
2. Events on Earth:
The Great Tribulation /kjv/Rev/Rev06.html - 1Rev 6:1-19:21
Reign of antichrist Rev 13:1-18
Armageddon Rev 14:14-20
The Bible states that the battle of Armageddon will be fought in the last 3 ½ year period of the great tribulation Isa 35:1-6
The regathering of Israel Jer 23:3-8; 29:14; 32:37, 38; Eze 11:17; 20:34, 41, 42; 34:12, 13; 37:1-14
The revelation of Christ Rev 19:1-6
3. The Millennial Reign of Christ:
The judgment of nations Rev 20:4
Christ on the Throne Mat 25:31-32
Peace and righteousness on earth Psa 72:17-19; Isa 2:2-4; 11:1-12; 35:1, 2; Jer 23:5-8; Dan 2:44
The final revelation Rev 11:15; 20:5-10
4. The New Creation:
New Heaven and Earth, and new Jerusalem Rev 21:1-22:21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: Mistranslation
The Jehovah's Witness Bible is known as the New World Translation. The Society believes that this version is a most accurate translation of the Bible and is the one they use in their teaching and Bible reading, and they consistently quote it in their literature.
Many scholars refer to the New World Translation as a commentary on the Bible instead of a translation in light of the way the text has been altered to fit the various Society doctrines. These changes are particularly evident when the subjects of hell, the Trinity, or the immortality of the soul are discussed. The following is a representative list of passages altered in the Society's Bible:
Hbr 1:8
Luk 23:43
1Jo 5:20
1Cr 11:30
Phl 2:5
1Cr 14:14
Jhn 1:1
2Cr 5:1
Col 1:15-18
Gal 5:15
Tts 2:13
Gal 6:18
Act 2:17
Hbr 10:39
1Pe 3:18, 19
Hbr 12:9
Jude 1:19
Hbr 12:28
1Jo 4:1-6
Rev 5:10
Rev 8:9
Act 20:7
Mar 1:4
Col 2:12
Observations, Evaluations, And Criticisms of the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION By Noted Greek And New Testament Scholars:
[NOTE: These comments are particularly directed toward the NWT translation of John 1:1, but are indicative of the tone of their observations about the NWT translation in general.]
DR. J.R. MANTEY (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159, of the Society's Kingdom Interlinear Translation): "A shocking mistranslation". "Obsolete and incorrect". "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god."
DR. BRUCE M. METZGER of Princeton University (Professor New Testament Language and Literature): "A frightful mistranslation...", "erroneous...", "pernicious..." "reprehensible...". "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists."
DR. SAMUEL J. MIKOLASKI of Zurich, Switzerland: "This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'"
DR. PAUL L. KAUFFMAN of Portland, Oregon: "The Jehovah's Witnesses [translators] evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."
DR. CHARLES L. FEINBERG of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."
DR. JAMES L. BOYER of Winona Lake, Indiana: "I have never heard of, or read of any Greek scholar who would agree to the interpretation of this [John 1:1] verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses... I have never encountered one of them [Society member] who had any knowledge of the Greek language."
DR. WALTER MARTIN (who does not teach Greek but has studied the language): "The translation 'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary, and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language, many of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention."
DR. WILLIAN BARCLAY of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: 'the Word was a god.' a translation which is grammatically impossible. It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."
DR. F.F. BRUCE of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'and the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction... 'a god' would be totally indefensible."
(The late Dr. Barclay and Dr. Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Each have New Testament translations in print.)
DR. ERNEST C. COLWELL of the University of Chicago: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb... this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas: 'My Lord and my God.'--John 20:28."
DR. PHILIP B. HARNER of Heidelberg College: "The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form the John actually uses, the word THEOS is placed at the beginning for emphasis [thus ruling out the 'a god' translation]."
DR. J. JOHNSON of California State University, Long Beach: "No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 23:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct... I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian."
DR. EUGENE A. NIDA, head of Translation Department, American Bible Society: "With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek." (Responsible for the Good News Bible -- the committee worked under him.)
DR. B.F. WESTCOTT (whose Greek New Testament text -- not the English part -- is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in John 4:24. It is necessarily without the article... No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by [this] form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word... in the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God', and so included in the unity of the Godhead."
DR. J.J. GRIESBACH (whose Greek New Testament text -- not the English part -- is used in the Society's publication The Emphatic Diaglott): "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: Money
Jehovah's Witnesses boast that they do not take a collection during any of their meetings or gatherings.
The Witnesses do not have to take a collection: the entire operation of the Society is an efficiently run business-like organization that depends heavily on sales of literature and donated labor. All of the magazines, books, etc. published by the Society are sold to individual Jehovah's Witnesses. Whether these items are sold or given away is up to the individual Society member. (The Society gives away just 19 Watchtower each month.) Virtually everything printed is sold to the individual Jehovah's Witness. All land for the Kingdom Halls is donated and individual Witnesses donate construction time. The Witnesses pay everything they have for themselves. As for the printing costs: laborers at the printing factory in Brooklyn, New York receive $14.00 per month, plus room and board. As a consequence, printing costs are greatly reduced. They can thus afford to out-print much of the Christian world, and have free salesmen to deliver their material.
What the Bible Says about MONEY:
Giving by Abraham to Melchizedek Hbr 7:1, 2, 6, 9
Promised by Jacob Gen 28:22
Belongs to Lord Lev 27:30-33
Given to Levites Num 18:21-24
Given by Levites to Priest Num 18:26, 28
Taken to Temple Deu 12:5-19
Promises regarding not to rob God Mal 3:7-12
NOTE: Sales of merchandise has not been nor should ever be the principle means by which the church ministers to its people and its community. Tithing, [giving to the Lord a tenth of that which one receives in wages and income) which is one of the forms of worship revealed and demonstrated in the Bible, is the plan God is using to accomplish His objective, namely, reaching the world with the Gospel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: Prayer
The Society believes that prayer should be directed ONLY to Jehovah.
What the Bible Says about PRAYER:
1. Prayer should consist of...
Adoration Dan 4:34, 35
Confession 1Jo 1:9
Thanksgiving Phl 4:6
Supplication 1Ti 2:3
Intercession Jam 5:15
We pray to the Father in the name of the Lord Jesus through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Since God is one God manifested in three persons, it is perfectly acceptable to pray to Jesus or to the Holy Spirit. There is no jealousy between the three persons of the Trinity.
2. Examples Of Prayer Directed To Jesus Christ:
Stephen prayed "Lord Jesus..." Act 7:59
Paul prayed "Lord.." Act 9:6
3. Instructions & Examples Concerning Prayer:
Prayer is asking and receiving 1Jo 5:14, 15
Prayer is seeking and finding Col 3:1; Jer 29:12
Prayer is knocking and opening Mat 17:14-21
It is not a sin to pray 1Sa 12:23
We are commanded to pray Mat 26:41
Prayer is the only way to get things from God Jam 4:2
There is joy in prayer Jhn 16:24
Prayer will deliver you out of all your troubles Psa 34:6
Sinners can be saved when they pray Rom 10:13, 14
Pray in all places at all times; pray whenever it is appropriate or needful to pray 1Ti 2:8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: Prejudice
The Society prides itself that the Jehovah's Witnesses have no racial or ethnic prejudice.
While the claim to no prejudice is made, background articles published by the Watchtower Society itself are full of prejudice. Listed are just a few examples:
Watchtower Reprints, Page 5434 of April 1, 1914 -- Blacks and whites separated.
Watchtower Reprints, Pages 3043, 1902 -- "While race exhibits some qualities of superiority over any other."
Watchtower Reprints, Page 2706 of October 1, 1900 -- Tells of William H. Draper who prayed his blackness away and became white.
Watchtower Reprints, Page 3320 of February 15, 1904 -- God can change the Ethiopians skin in his own due time, so he can be brought to perfection.
As long as the Society claims to be God's spokesperson for this day, then anyone has the right to examine any statement made by the Society to discern if indeed the Society has acted as a true prophet of God. Clearly this inconsistency -- a boasting of no prejudice yet clear examples in their own publications -- disqualifies them from claiming the prophetic office. It should be noted that none of these statements have been retracted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: Resurrection
Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus. They believe he took on different bodies, and was a spirit. The Watchtower Society's publication, Truth That Leads to Eternal Life, p. 52, teaches that Jesus was not given human life again because that would mean he was taking back His ransom.
What the Bible Says about RESURRECTION OF JESUS:
1. Key Facts About The Body And The Resurrection Of Jesus
Ransom paid was Christ's blood, not His body Hbr 9:14, 20
Shed His blood Hbr 9:22
Purchased with His blood Act 20:28
Flesh and blood cannot enter God's Kingdom 1Cr 15:50
"It is I myself, a spirit hath not flesh and bones," then He ate Luk 24:36-43
Thomas touched Jesus' wounds and said, "My Lord and my God Jhn 20:27, 28
Jesus said He would raise His own body Jhn 2:19-21
2. According To The Scriptures, Jesus Was Raised PHYSICALLY From The Dead:
He will return as He left Act 1:9-11
Antichrist denies Jesus is coming in the flesh 2Jo 1:7
If Christ has not been raised our faith is in vain 1Cr 15:14, 17
Believe in your heart that Christ was raised from the dead Rom 10:9
God raised Jesus from the dead Act 2:24
Jesus raised His own body, SOMA — Greek word for tangible physical body Jhn 2:19-21; 10:18
The Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead Rom 8:11
3. The Physical Resurrection Of Jesus Christ Is Confirmed By:
The empty tomb Jhn 20:1-9
Angelic testimony Mat 28:5-7
His enemies Mat 28:11
4. Additional Confirmation Came After The Resurrection When Eyewitnesses Saw Him:
Mary Magdalene Mar 16:9
Other women Mat 28:9
Two disciples Luk 24:13-15
Simon Peter Luk 24:34
Ten Apostles Jhn 20:19, 24
Apostles at Sea of Galilee Jhn 21:1
Apostles in Galilee Mat 28:16, 17
600 Brethren 1Cr 15:6
Paul 1Cr 15:8
James 1Cr 15:7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: Assurance of Salvation
The Society member believes they CANNOT know if they have salvation during this life. However, they believe that after the 1,000 year reign of Christ, they will be told if they will receive eternal life. (See: the Watchtower Society publication, Life Everlasting, p.398)
What the Bible Says about ASSURANCE OF SALVATION:
1. The Bible & Assurance Of Salvation:
Sealed unto salvation Eph 1:13; 4:30; 2Cr 1:21, 22
2. The Bible Describes The Various Ways In Which The Believer's Security Is Confirmed:
We may know we have eternal life 1Jo 5:11-13
Sealed with the Holy Spirit Eph 1:13
Jesus will never leave us Hbr 13:5
We have passed from life to death Jhn 5:24
The believer is free Jhn 8:32-36
We have been set free from the law of sin & death Rom 8:2
We shall never face judgment again Jhn 5:24
There is no condemnation Rom 8:1
The old man of the flesh is put to death Rom 6:3-6
There is new life in Christ 2Cr 5:17; Gal 2:20
We have become identified in Christ Col 3:3; 1Cr 15:21, 22
Nothing can separate us from Christ Rom 8:35-39
He is able to save believers forever Hbr 7:25
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: Second Coming of Jesus
The Watchtower Society teaches that Jesus returned invisibly in 1874, then changed the date to His invisible return to earth in 1914. Only the spiritually alert, anointed ones could discern His coming.
What the Bible Says about THE SCOND COMING OF JESUS:
1. The Second Coming Will Be Obvious And Clear To All Mankind:
Christ's second will be literal; He will actually physically come back to the earth as He said Rev 1:7
Jesus forewarns us Mat 24:25
Every eye shall see Him Rev 1:7, 11
False prophets will say, "Here is the Christ Mat 24:23, 24
Shall see Him coming with power and glory Mat 24:30
Shall see the Son coming in the clouds of heaven Mat 26:64
Lord shall descend himself with a shout 1Th 4:16, 17
Unto them who look for Him shall He appear Hbr 9:28
We shall see Him as He is 1Jo 3:2
2. The Purpose Of His Second Coming:
To fulfill His word Jhn 14:3
Raise the dead 1Th 4:13-18
Destroy death 1Cr 15:20, 26
3. The Time Of His Second Coming:
Unknown to man Mat 24:27, 36
After Gospel proclaimed to all Mat 24:14
4. While Waiting For His Second Coming, Believers asked to:
Wait for Jesus 1Cr 1:7
Look for Jesus Tts 2:13
Be ready for Jesus Mat 24:42-51
Pray for the Second Coming Rev 22:20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: Trinity
Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the Trinity. They believe God is almighty, Jesus is a mighty God, and the Holy Spirit is God's active force.
What the Bible Says about THE TRINITY The Doctrine of the Trinity is implied in the Old Testament (Genesis 1:26, ect.) and revealed in the New Testament (Matthew 3:16, 17, ect.). The Trinity of God (sometimes and more properly designated "Triunity" of God) means his tri-personality exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in three distinct persons in one God. Each is distinct in their personal characteristics, being clearly distinguished from the other, but equal in power, glory and being [ie, nature].
1. There Is Only One God:
The Lord our God is one Lord Deu 6:4
There is no other god with Me, ie, as far as there being a god, I am the only one in the heaven Deu 32:39
No God was formed before me or after me Isa 43:10
There is no other God Isa 44:6
2. Yet Each Is Called GOD:
Father Eph 4:6; Jhn 6:27
Son Hbr 1:8; Tts 2:13; Jhn 1:1; 20:28, 29; 1Jo 5:20
Holy Spirit Act 5:3, 4
3. Yet Each Is Described As CREATOR:
Father Isa 44:24
Son Jhn 1:1-3
Holy Spirit Job 33:4; 26:13
4. Yet Each Is Described As ETERNAL:
Father Psa 93:2
Son Mic 5:2; Hbr 1:8
Holy Spirit Hbr 9:14
5. Yet Each Is Described As INSPIRED:
Father 2Ti 3:16
Son 1Pe 1:10-11
Holy Spirit 2Pe 1:21
6. Yet Each Is Described As OMNIPRESENT:
Father Jer 23:24
Son Mat 28:20
Holy Spirit Psa 139:7-10
7. Yet Each Is Described As OMISCIENT:
Father Jer 17:10
Son Jhn 2:24
Holy Spirit 1Cr 2:10-12
8. Yet Each Is Described As OMNIPOTENT:
Father Mat 19:26
Son Hbr 1:3
Holy Spirit Rom 15:19
9. Yet Each Is Described As HOLY:
Father Hab 1:12
Son Act 3:14
Holy Spirit Jhn 14:26
10. Yet Each Is Described As RESURRECTED:
Father 1Th 1:10
Son Jhn 2:19-21
Holy Spirit Rom 8:11
11. Yet Each Is Described As TRUTH:
Father 1Th 1:9
Son Jhn 14:6
Holy Spirit Jhn 14:17
12. Yet Each Is Described As SANCTIFYING the Believer:
Father Jhn 10:29
Son Hbr 2:11
Holy Spirit 1Cr 6:11
13. Yet Each Is Described As PRESERVING the Believer to Salvation:
Father Jhn 10:29
Son Jhn 10:28
Holy Spirit Eph 4:30
14. Yet Each Is Described As Being An INDWELLING PRESENCE:
Father Eph 4:6; 2Cr 6:16; Jhn 14:23
Son Col 1:27; Jhn 14:20, 23
Holy Spirit 1Cr 6:19; Jhn 14:17
14. Yet Each Is Described As LEADING Believers:
Father Deu 32:12
Son 1Cr 10:1-4
Holy Spirit Isa 63:11-14
15. Yet Each DRAWS People To Themselves:
Father Jhn 6:44
Son 1Cr 12:3
Holy Spirit Jhn 12:32
16. The Bible Presents Jesus As "Jehovah" [Yahweh] Of The Old Testament: A. In Reference To A Prepared Way
Yahweh Clear up the pathway of Yahweh Isa 40:3
Jesus Prepare ye the way of the Lord Mat 3:3
B. In Reference To Their Worship
Yahweh Every knee will bow (to Yahweh) Isa 45:23
Jesus At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow Phl 2:10
C. In Reference To Their Title
Yahweh I AM (ehyeh in Hebrew) is Yahweh Exd 3:14
Jesus I AM (ego-eimi in Greek) is Jesus Jhn 18:5, 8; 8:58
17. Who Is Coming? -- Who is "The First And The Last"?:
Jehovah is First and Last Isa 44:6
Jesus is coming and is Alpha and Omega Rev 22:12-16
Jehovah is coming and is Alpha and Omega (New World Translation) Rev 1:8
NOTE: It should be pointed out the Society is guilty of a serious act of reductionism in the way they represent the Trinity of God. Their logic goes something like this: they teach that the relationship between the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit should somehow be understood by man. Since the Trinity cannot be understood by man, then it cannot explain the relationship within the Godhead. Of course this is the point exactly: God's nature is past finding out; His ways are unsearchable; etc. The nature of God is beyond the full comprehension of man and that is why He is God! (See Romans 11:33-36)
There are a lot of examples in nature of “triunity” while these can be exemplary of the Trinity and the triune nature of the Godhead, the Trinity is a concept that God alone can and will make evident to the individual.
Some of these examples are:
1. Water – Steam (gas), Ice (solid), Water (liquid). All three are water and all three are in different forms.
2. Egg – The shell, The yoke, The white part. All three are separate but essential to the egg and part of the egg.
*Note: It is important to remember the basic problem concerning the trinity is a misunderstanding of the Who and What. God is one What (the what is His nature which is Divine) The Who is obviously the three persons of the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). An entity is either divine or it is not. If it is divine then it has always been and always will be divine. One cannot become divine, they either are or are not
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: War
Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in taking up arms in military service.
What the Bible Says about WAR:
God uses the sword Rom 13:4
John told the soldiers to be content with their wages Luk 3:12-14
Jesus did not tell the Centurion to leave the service. He said he had not seen greater faith Mat 8:5-10
War: The Israelites had to take possession of the Promised Land by conquest. They had to engage in a long and bloody war before the Canaanitish tribes were finally subdued. Except in the case of Jericho and Ai, the war did not become aggressive till after the death of Joshua. Till then the attack was always first made by the Canaanites. Now the measure of the iniquity of the Canaanites was full, and Israel was employed by God to sweep them away from off the face of the earth. In entering on this new stage of the war, the tribe of Judah, according to divine direction, took the lead.
In the days of Saul and David the people of Israel engaged in many wars with the nations around, and after the division of the kingdom into two they often warred with each other. They had to defend themselves also against the inroads of the Egyptians, the Assyrians, and the Babylonians. The whole history of Israel from first to last presents but few periods of peace.
The Christian life is represented as a warfare, and the Christian graces are also represented under the figure of pieces of armor (Eph 6:11-17; 1Th 5:8; 2Ti 2:3,4). The final blessedness of believers is attained as the fruit of victory (Rev 3:21).
WAR: Divine approval of 2Sa 22:35
Civil Jdg 12:1-6; 20; 2Sa 2:12-31; 3:1; 20; 1Ki 14:30; 16:21; Isa 19:2
Forbidden 2Ch 11:4
Averted Jos 22:11-34
Enemy harangued by the general of the opposing side 2Ki 18:19-36; 2Ch 13:4-12
Of extermination Num 31:7-17; Deu 2:33,34; 3:6; 20:13-18; Jos 6:21,24; 8:24,25; 10:2-40; 11:11-23; 1Sa 15:3-9; 27:8-11
God in Exd 14:13,14; Deu 1:30; 3:21,22; 7:17-24; 20:1,4; 31:6-8,23; 32:29,30; Jos 1:1,5-7,9; Jdg 1:2; 6:16; 7:9; 11:29; 1Sa 17:45-47; 19:5; 30:7,8; 2Sa 5:22-24; 22:18; 1Ki 20:28; Psa 18:34; 76:3; Jer 46:15; Amo 5:8,9; Zec 10:5
God uses, as a judgment Exd 23:24; Lev 26:17,31-39; Deu 28:25-68; 32:30; Jdg 2:14; 2Ki 15:37; 1Ch 5:22,26; 21:12; 2Ch 15:6; 12:1-12; 24:23,24; 33:11; 36; Job 19:29; Psa 44:9-16; 60:1-3; 105:25; Isa 5:1-8,25-30; 9:8-12; 13:3,4,9; 19:2; 34:2-6; 43:28; 45:7; Jer 12:7,12; 46:15-17,21; 47:6,7; 48:10; 49:5; 50:25; Eze 23:22-25; Amo 3:6; 4:11; Zep 1:7-18; Zec 8:10; 14:2
Repugnant to God 1Ch 22:8,9; Psa 68:30; 120:6,7; Rev 13:10
God sends panic in Exd 15:14-16
Threatens defeat in Deu 32:25; 1Sa 2:10; 2Ch 18:12-16; Isa 30:15-17; Eze 15:6-8; 21:9-17
Inflicts defeat in Jos 7:12,13; 2Ch 12:5-8; 24:23,24; Psa 76:3; 78:66; 79:10; Isa 5:25; Jer 46:15,16
Counsels of Jos 22:10-34; Jdg 7:10,11; 2Sa 16:20; 17:1-15; Psa 48:4-7; Pro 11:14; 20:18
Wisdom required in Pro 21:22; 24:6; Ecc 9:14-18; Luk 14:31,32
Tumult of Amo 2:2
Killed in, neglected Isa 14:19; 18:6
Evils of 2Sa 2:26; Psa 46:8; 79:1-3; 137:9; Isa 3:5,25,26; 5:29,30; 6:11,12; 9:5,19-21; 13:15,16; 15; 16:9,10; 18:6; 19:2-16; 32:13,14; 33:8,9; 34:7-15; Jer 4:19-31; 5:16,17; 6:24-26; 7:33,34; 8:16,17; 9:10-21; 10:20; 13:14; 14:18; 15:8,9; 19:7-9; 25:33; 46:3-12; 47:3; 48:28,33; 51:30-58; Lam 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; Eze 33:27; 39:17-19; Hsa 10:14; 13:16; Joe 2:2-10; Amo 1:13; 6:9,10; 8:3; Nah 2:10; 3:3,10; Zec 14:2; Luk 21:20-26; Rev 19:17,18
To cease Psa 46:9; Isa 2:4; Mic 4:3
Wars and rumors of Mat 24:6; Mar 13:7; Luk 21:9
Figurative
Warfare of saints
Is not after the flesh 2Cr 10:3 Is a good warfare 1Ti 1:18,19
Called the good fight of faith 1Ti 6:12
Is against
The Devil Gen 3:15; 2Cr 2:11; Eph 1:12; Jam 4:7; 1Pe 5:8; Rev 12:17
The flesh Rom 7:23; 1Cr 9:25-27; 2Cr 12:7; Gal 5:17; 1Pe 2:11
Enemies Psa 38:19; 56:2; 59:3 The world Jhn 16:33; 1Jo 5:4,5
Death 1Cr 15:26; in conjunction with Hbr 2:14,15
Often arises from the opposition of friends or relatives Mic 7:6; Mat 10:35,36
To be carried on
Under Christ, as our Captain Hbr 2:10 Under the Lord's banner Psa 60:4
With faith 1Ti 1:18,19 With a good conscience 1Ti 1:18,19
With steadfastness in the faith 1Cr 16:13; 1Pe 5:9; with Hbr 10:23
With earnestness Jud 1:3 With watchfulness 1Cr 16:13; 1Pe 5:8
With sobriety 1Th 5:6; 1Pe 5:8 With endurance of hardness 2Ti 2:3,10
With self-denial 1Cr 9:25-27 With confidence in God Psa 27:1-3
With prayer Psa 35:1-3; Eph 6:18 Without earthly entanglements 2Ti 2:4
Mere professors do not maintain Jer 9:3 Saints are all engaged in Phl 1:30
Must stand firm in Eph 6:13,14 Exhorted to diligence in 1Ti 6:12; Jud 1:3
Encouraged in Isa 41:11,12; 51:12; Mic 7:8; 1Jo 4:4
Helped by God in Psa 118:13; Isa 41:13,14 Protected by God in Psa 140:7
Comforted by God in 2Cr 7:5,6 Strengthened by God in Psa 20:2; 27:14; Isa 41:10
Strengthened by Christ in 2Cr 12:9; 2Ti 4:17
Delivered by Christ in 2Ti 4:18 Thank God for victory in Rom 7:25; 1Cr 15:57
Armor for
The belt of truth Eph 6:14 The breastplate of righteousness Eph 6:14
The preparation of the gospel Eph 6:15
The shield of faith Eph 6:16 The helmet of salvation Eph 6:17; 1Th 5:8
The sword of the Spirit Eph 6:17 Called "the armor of God," Eph 6:11
Called "the armor of righteousness," 2Cr 6:7 Called "the armor of light," Rom 13:12
Not carnal 2Cr 10:4 Mighty through God 2Cr 10:4,5
The whole, is required Eph 6:13 Must be put on Rom 13:12; Eph 6:11
To be on the right hand and left, an idiom meaning: "to attack and to defend." 2Cr 6:7
Victory in, is from God 1Cr 15:57; 2Cr 2:14
Through Christ Rom 7:25; 1Cr 15:57; 2Cr 12:9; Rev 12:11
By faith Hbr 11:33-37; 1Jo 5:4,5
Over the Devil Rom 16:20; 1Jo 2:14 Over the flesh Rom 7:24,25; Gal 5:24
Over the world 1Jo 5:4,5 Over all that exalts itself 2Cr 10:5
Over death and the grave Isa 25:8; 26:19; Hsa 13:14; 1Cr 15:54,55
Triumphant Rom 8:37; 2Cr 10:5
Those who overcome in, will eat of the hidden manna Rev 2:17
Eat from the Tree of Life Rev 2:7 Be clothed in white clothing Rev 3:5
Be pillars in the temple of God Rev 3:12 Sit with Christ on his throne Rev 3:21
Have a white stone, and in it a new name written Rev 2:17
Have power over the nations Rev 2:26
Have the name of God written upon them by Christ Rev 3:12
Have God as their God Rev 21:7
Have the Morning Star Rev 2:28 Inherit all things Rev 21:7
Be confessed by Christ in the presence of God the Father Rev 3:5
Be sons of God Rev 21:7 Not be hurt by the Second Death Rev 2:11
Not have their names blotted out of the Book of Life Rev 3:5
Symbolized by a red horse Rev 6:4
Antiquity of Gen 14:2 Originates in the lusts of men Jam 4:1 A time for Ecc 3:8
GOD
Frequently ordered Exd 17:16; Num 31:1,2; Deu 7:1,2; 1Sa 15:1-3
Taught His people the art of 2Sa 22:35 Strengthens His people for Lev 26:7,8
Gives the victory in Num 21:3; Deu 2:33; 3:3; 2Sa 23:10; Pro 21:31
Causes to cease Psa 46:9 Scatters those who delight in Psa 68:30
Large armies frequently engaged in 2Ch 13:3; 14:9 Weapons used in Jos 1:14; Jdg 18:11
PRECEDED BY
Consultation Luk 14:31; Pro 24:6 Great preparation Joe 3:9
Rumors Jer 4:19; Mat 24:6 Frequently long continued 2Sa 3:1
Frequently sore and bloody 1Sa 14:22; 1Ch 5:22; 2Ch 14:13; 28:6
OFTEN ATTENDED BY
Famine Isa 51:19; Jer 14:15; Lam 5:10 Pestilence Jer 27:13; 28:8
Cruelty Jer 18:21; Lam 5:11-14 Devastation Isa 1:7
Records often kept of Num 21:14 Often sent as a punishment for sin Jdg 5:8
THE JEWS
Were expert in 1Ch 12:33,35,36; Sgs 3:8
Frequently engaged in (See Joshua chapters 6 through 11) 1Ki 14:30; 15:7,16
ILLUSTRATIVE OF
Our contest with death Ecc 8:8
The contest of saints with the enemies of their salvation Rom 7:23; 2Cr 10:3; Eph 6:12; 1Ti 1:18
The contest between Antichrist and the Church Rev 11:7; 13:4,7
The malignity of the wicked Psa 55:21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: Works
The Society holds that faith without works is dead (James 2:26). In their publication Make Sure of All Things, p.438, they teach "Faith must be demonstrated by consistent works."
What the Bible Says about WORKS:
The work of God is belief in His Son Jhn 6:28, 29
But to him that worketh not, but believe on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness Rom 4:5
Save not by works Eph 2:8, 9
Inheritance -- Imperishable kept in Heaven 1Pe 1:4
Crucified with Christ, live by faith in Him Gal 2:20-21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Current Teaching Of The Watchtower Society: Worship
The Society does not believe in worshipping Jesus: since Jesus is not Jehovah and only Jehovah is worthy of our worship, then Jesus should not be worshipped.
What the Bible Says about WORSHIP:
Jesus accepted worship from Thomas Jhn 20:28
All angels told to worship Jesus Hbr 1:6
Wise men worshipped Him Mat 2:11
Leper worshipped Jesus Mat 8:2
Ruler bowed to Jesus Mat 9:18
Blind man worshipped Jesus Jhn 9:38
Woman worshipped Him Mat 15:25
Mary Magdalene worshipped Him Mat 28:9
Disciples worshipped Him Mat 28:17
NOTE: The Greek word PROSKUNEO is translated "worship" with reference to Jehovah twenty-two times in the New World Translation. The same word when used with reference to Jesus is translated as obeisance, reverence, and homage. This distorts the fact that actual worship was acknowledged and accepted by Jesus Christ.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
When they come knocking Part 1
When they come knocking
Part 1
This work will: help the sincere Jehovah's Witness recognize the truth about the Watchtower Society, aid the Born Again Christian in understanding the Jehovah’s Witness Watchtower Society, assist in further discussion of The Gospel of Jesus Christ… The Watchtower:
• Claims to be God's prophet for today
• Their prophecies have not been fulfilled again and again
• Their cover-ups to hide their false prophecies
• The responsibility of the sincere Jehovah's Witness before God
The Watchtower claims:
• The anointed remnants are the modern-day prophets, like Ezekiel, getting their information from the angels.
In the Old Testament, prophets instructed, warned, revealed, promised and rebuked. Because of the stand of the Watchtower Society we must test their prophecy the same way the Old Testament prophets were tested. So in what way, exactly, were they tested, the scriptures speak.
1. Deuteronomy 18:20-22 - v20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
v21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
v22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
2. Matthew 7:15-20 - v15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
v16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
v17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
v19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
v20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
In checking what the Watchtower Society prophesied, we find they meet the standards of a false prophet. False prophets are condemned in the Scriptures and we are told to flee from them.
• 1 Kings 13. . . . . . . . condemned to die
• Ezekiel 14:10 . . . . . . punishment of prophet and seekers the same
• Jer. 23:16, 26, 34. . . . Punish the man and his house
Ultimately… Rev. 19:20 ”And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet… These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.”
Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever.
All Photostats have been taken from the Watchtower publications unless noted. King James and New American Standard are the Bibles used.
Watchtower Publications Used
• New World Translation
• Aid to Bible Understanding
• Watchtower
• Make Sure of All Things
• Awake
• Kingdom Interlinear, etc.
A Word to Jehovah's Witnesses:
In The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life, The Watchtower Society teaches that it is appropriate for any Jehovah's Witness to examine their religious beliefs and the beliefs of others. After all Truth will reveal itself… therefore no one has reason to fear any new information about what one believes; if it is the true way, the truth will only confirm it—if it is not the true way, the truth will only confirm that it is a lie.
I ask any sincere Jehovah's Witness to examine the enclosed information taken from the pages of Watchtower Society literature. Some of the Society's admitted activities and beliefs may come as something of a surprise to you. Nevertheless, they are worth examining and searching out. Always remember Truth is what we seek.
Consider the following:
• The Society claims to be God's anointed prophet for today.
• The Society leadership states that its prophetic information comes directly from the angels.
• Yet, they have made many prophecies that were not fulfilled on their designated date.
• Instead of giving a new revelation or prophecy to explain God's actions (as we see in the Book of Jonah), they took careful and deliberate action to cover up their false prophecies.
• This did not take place once but many times over the years.
These are not unsubstantiated claims, but issues that have been raised time and time again by many inquiring and concerned Jehovah's Witnesses. As the Scriptures teach:
"Keep testing whether you are in the faith, keep proving what you yourselves are" (II Cor. 13:5 NWT), and "Do not believe every inspired expression," (in this case, Society literature) "but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world." (I John 4:1 NWT)
A Word to Non-Jehovah's Witnesses:
The Christian has a unique responsibility when dealing with those that claim to be Christians but instead follow the ways of darkness:
"...Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them..." (Ephesians 5:11)
The purpose: to help you, the reader, to understand the complex and devious character of one of the perpetrators of the fruits of darkness, the Jehovah's Witness religion. Once you are able to grasp the key weaknesses and errors in which they have become ensnared, you will be equipped to begin the task of helping that Jehovah's Witness neighbor, relative, friend or visitor to be released from their dark imprisonment.
Exposé is a French word which usually means "exposure of something discreditable" and it is in that sense that we use it here. On the next few pages you will be introduced to a
• 1. List of errors in the Jehovah's Witness belief system
• 2. An Exposé confirming their belief (with documentation) and,
• 3. Often, a brief explanation of the nature and/or danger of this belief
The Exposé should be read through, preferably, in one or two sittings. After becoming familiar with the contents, you will be able to introduce to the Jehovah's Witness the errors and inconsistencies of his religion. If a Jehovah's Witness questions the validity of the Exposé, you are invited to turn with them to the documentation pages for the appropriate quotation. In the documentation section many actual facsimiles of pages from Jehovah's Witness literature have been provided.
A word needs to be said at this point about technique. The purpose in using a tool like the Expose is to win people to Jesus Christ and not merely to win an argument. The firm presentation of the truth must always be seasoned with compassion prayerfully considered and presented. (1 Thessalonians 5:16,17,18)
It is my sincere hope that you will apply these passages and examine the Society claims discussed in this Exposé. We ask that you simply read the study outline and examine the documentation.
What follows is an outline of key claims and beliefs of the Watchtower Society. Under each topic heading appears certain questions and explanations that will lead to examining that issue. This will show a “bearing” or “guideline” in which to go by…in other words definitions must be shown then all suspect truth must be judged according to that definition. I.e. if a false prophet must be ignored even avoided and the Watchtower Society is found to be a false prophet then they must therefore be ignored and avoided.
1. Is the Watchtower Society a true prophet of God?
• 1A. How does the Society define "true prophet?"
- The three essentials given through Moses were:
1) ...Speak in Jehovah's name...
2) The things foretold would come to pass...
3) His prophesying must promote true worship being in harmony with God's Word and the prophets."
Aid to Bible Understanding, p. 1,348
• 1B. How does the Society test the true prophet's message?
"The best method of proof is to put a prophecy to the test of time and circumstance. The Bible invites such a test ... the Bible ... establishes the rules for testing a prophecy at Deuteronomy 18:20-22."
Watchtower, March 1, 1965
• 1C. Does the Society believe that a true prophet exists today?
Yes. In fact, the Society says, "It is of importance to every individual on earth to identify the group that Jehovah has commissioned as His servant' or messenger."
Watchtower, March 15, 1972
• 1D. Does the Society believe that a true modern prophet would have the same authority as the Old Testament prophets?
Yes. Society members are told that there existed such a group and then they were asked to look for it-"...any group on whom Jehovah would be willing to bestow the commission to speak as a 'prophet' in His name, as was done toward Ezekiel..."
Watchtower, March 15, 1972
• 1E. Does the Society claim to be the present day true prophet?
Yes. "Who is this prophet? ...not one man, but a body of men and women... known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian Witnesses."
Watchtower, April 1, 1972
• 1F. Where does the Society/Prophet claim to get its direction?
"Jehovah's Witnesses today make their declaration of the good news of the kingdom under angelic direction and support." In other words, angels tell the Society what to say and do.
Watchtower, April 1, 1972
• 1G. Does the Society desire and expect Christendom to treat the Society as a prophet of God?
Yes. The Society fully anticipates this: "...regardless of how Christendom views or regards this group of anointed witnesses of Jehovah, the time must come, and that shortly, when those making up Christendom will know that really a 'prophet' of Jehovah was among them."
The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah, p. 70
• 1H. What role does the Society claim for a prophet in these days? What should a prophet be doing?
The Society spells this out in three ways:
1. "The modern-day counterpart of Ezekiel"
2. "Do the will of Jehovah"
3. "Serve as the mouthpiece and active agent of Jehovah"
The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah, p. 58
• 1I. Does the Society claim that it has been prophesying for God today?
Yes. "The facts substantiate that the remnant of Christ's anointed disciples (the Society [see context]) have been doing that prophesying to all nations." They claim God's Spirit is "poured out" on them. They ask: "Why argue about it?"
Holy Spirit—The Force Behind the Coming New Order!, p.148
• 1J. Does the Society claim that prophesying and preaching are the same ministry?
No. The Society claims that their members have been "preaching and prophesying from house to house and city to city...", thus clearly distinguishing between the two ministries. Both preaching and prophesying are regular activities of the Society.
Holy Spirit—The Force Behind the Coming New Order!, p. 150
• 1K. Does the Society/Prophet claim any special knowledge concerning the Bible?
Yes. The Society published a six-volume work entitled Scripture Studies which it described as "the Bible in an arranged form." It amounted to a running commentary on the Bible. The Society claims that if someone were to "ignore" the Scripture Studies "and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years...within two years he goes into darkness." The Society further claims that if a student "had merely read Scripture Studies with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the light at the end of the two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures."
Watchtower, 1910, p.298
• 1L. Does the Society believe that it is the only organization that has God's Spirit or can understand the Bible?
Yes. It has made this clear when it said, "...Jehovah's organization alone, in all the earth, is directed by God's holy spirit or active force ... To it alone God's sacred Word, the Bible, is not a sealed book." Furthermore, it claims that "God by his holy spirit" has directly "revealed" things to its "early Bible students ... far in advance."
Watchtower. July 1, 1973
• 1M. Has the Society ever prophesied concerning the future and had that prophecy fail the test of "Time and circumstance" (see 1B. above)?
Yes. In fact there are many such "failed" prophecies (see False Prophecy Fact Sheet). Keep in mind, as you study these prophecies that the Society . . .
1) Claims to be God's one and only prophet today
2) Claims to have revelations from God
3) Claims to be the only group that understands the Bible
4) Claims to be the only Spirit-empowered organization on earth today.
False Prophecy Fact Sheet
2. Has the Society made false prophecies?
• 2A. Does the Society claim to be a true prophet of God, and does it ask that we examine its prophecy record?
Yes. The Society states this explicitly when it says: "So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help ... and to declare things to come? These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet? ...This 'prophet' was not one man, but was a body of men and women...known... as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian Witnesses..." It should be noted that even from its earliest beginnings the Society considered itself to be a true prophet of God. The Society does not expect others to just trust that it is a true prophet: "Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a 'prophet' of God. It is another thing to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record. What does it show?"
Watchtower, April 1, 1972
• 2B. Has the Society predicted that 1914 A.D. would mark the end of earthly rulership?
Yes. The Society made such a prediction in 1908: " ..the 'Battle of the Great Day of God Almighty' (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced" (i.e., it began before 1908).
The Time is at Hand, 1908 ed, p.101
• 2C. Has the Society declared that the earthly arrival of King Jesus took place in October, 1874?
Yes. "Our Lord, the appointed King, is now present since October, 1874, A.D."
Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. IV, p.621
• 2D. Has the Society declared that the Millennium—the 1,000-year reign of Christ—began in 1873?
Yes. "The Bible chronology herein presented shows that the six great thousand-year days beginning with Adam are ended, and that great Seventh Day, the thousand years of Christ's reign, began in 1873."
The Time is at Hand, 1916 ed., p.ii
• 2E. Has the Society predicted that the visible, physical return to earth of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would take place in 1925?
Yes. "...Since other Scriptures definitely fix the fact there will be a resurrection of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and other faithful ones of old ... we may expect 1925 to witness the return of these faithful men of Israel from the condition of death, being resurrected and fully restored to perfect humanity and made the visible, legal representatives of the new order of things on earth."
Millions Now Living Will Never Die, p.89
• 2F. How certain, in the minds of the Society, was the 1925 resurrection date?
As certain as any date could be. This is evident by various statements including the following:
1) "The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures because it is fixed by the law God gave to Israel."
Watchtower, Sept 1, 1922, p.262
2) "Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures, marking the end of the typical jubilees."
Watchtower, April 1, 1923, p.106
• 2G. When 1925 arrived did the Society begin to back down on its prophecies about the significance of that year?
Yes. "The year 1925 is here. With great expectation Christians have looked forward to this year. Many have confidently expected that all members of the body of Christ will be changed to heavenly glory during the year. This may be accomplished. It may not be. In his own due time, God will accomplish his purposes concerning his own people. Christians should not be so deeply concerned about what may transpire during this year that they would fail to joyfully do what the Lord would have them to do."
Watchtower, Jan. 1, 1925, p.3
• 2H. As the year 1925 progressed, did the Society indicate even more doubt about 1925 being the resurrection year—the year the new order begins?
Yes. Rather than suggest that a mistake was made or that God changed His mind, the Society subtly began to back down even further: Typical of this erosion process is the following:
"It is to be expected that Satan will try to inject into the minds of the consecrated the thought that 1925 should see an end of the work, and that therefore it would be needless for them to do more."
Watchtower, 1925, p.262
• 2I. Was their disappointment among the Society members because of the failures concerning the predicted dates?
Yes. Most definitely and so much so that public admissions were printed: "There was a measure of disappointment on the part of Jehovah's faithful ones on earth concerning the years 1914, 1918 and 1925, which disappointment lasted for a time."
Vindication, Vol. I, p.338
• 2J. Did the Society attempt to deflect criticism by clinging to the dates even though the prophecies concerning them went unfulfilled?
Yes. Basically the Society clung to the position that the dates were valid in spite of the lack of fulfillment: "Later the faithful learned that those dates were definitely fixed in the Scriptures . . . "
Vindication, Vol. I, p. 338-339
• 2K. Did the Society indicate that as a result of disappointments it had decided to quit setting dates?
Yes. They seemed ready to give up the practice of fixing dates: "...they also learned to quit fixing dates for the future and predicting what would come to pass on a certain date, but to rely (and they do rely) upon the Word of God as to the events that must come to pass."
Vindication, Vol. I, p. 339
• 2L. Did the Society, nevertheless, continue to imply that certain times and years were scheduled for Armageddon?
Yes. This was done with great care but the implication was always clear: Armageddon was only "months away," that is, less than a year. A typical example of the subtlety of these suggestions is seen in the following report: "Receiving the sift, the marching children clasped it to them, not a toy or plaything for idle pleasure, but the Lord's provided instrument for most effective work in the remaining months before Armageddon."
Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1942, p.288
• 2M. Does the Society admit that such prior date setting activities amounted to false prophesying?
Yes. In its own literature it reveals its attitude toward such activities: "True, there have been those in times past who predicted an 'end to the world,' even announcing a specific date. Some have gathered groups of people with them and fled to the hills or withdrawn into their houses waiting for the end. Yet, nothing happened. The 'end' did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was missing?
"Missing was the full measure of evidence required in fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Missing from such people were God's truths and the evidence that he was guiding and using them."
Awake, Oct. 8, 1968, p.23
• 2N. Has the Society concluded its date-setting activities or has it prophesied other dates such as 1975?
It continues submitting new dates. A classic example is an entire article devoted to a prophecy concerning the year, 1975. This was calculated to be the year of the end of this present age. Its title: "Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975?"
Watchtower, Aug. 15, 1968, p.494
• 2O. Has the Society confirmed the 1975 date as accurate?
Yes. "According to this trustworthy Bible chronology six thousand years from man's creation will end in 1975, and the seventh period of a thousand years of human history will begin in the fall of 1975 C.E."
Life Everlasting—In Freedom of the Sons of God, p.28
• 2P. What did the Society members believe about the 1975 date? Would it be the end of the present system of things?
Yes. According to Erroll Burton, spokesman for the Paradise Valley Unit of the Jehovah's Witnesses in Arizona, the 1975 date would mean "'A change in the political system of things,' when 'all presently existing influences must be eliminated. After 6,000 years of the deterioration of mankind, there will be 1,000 years of refining mankind...' 'At the end of that period, man will be perfect, as Adam and Eve were before the fall.'"
The Society clearly has instructed its followers that 1975 represents "...the end of the world as we have known it," and it predicts that the "...thousand-year reign of Christ will begin."
The Arizona Republic (newspaper), Aug. 24, 1969
• 2Q. Did the Society members begin to get rid of their possessions and make special sacrifices in order to prepare for 1975? Did the Society condone this activity?
Yes. In various ways this information was reported and evaluated. The Society's attitude is revealed in the following: "Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world's end."
Kingdom Ministry, May 1974, p.3
3. Has the Society admitted to and covered up false prophecies?
• 3A. First, does the Society believe that a false prophet could. exist today, and, does it believe that such a prophet could be an organization rather than just an individual?
Yes. It has gone into some detail in describing the false prophet's activities and purpose: "Similarly, the 'false prophet' is not a person, but is a system or an organization. A 'prophet' claims to have inspired information for the direction of others. A 'false prophet' would mislead others, to turn them away from God and toward false worship."
Watchtower, June 15, 1974, p.381
• 3B. Does the Society believe that God will reveal false prophets? If so, how will he do this?
Yes. The Society expects God to uncover the true character of false prophets. He "will put all false prophets to shame either by not fulfilling the false prediction of such self assuming prophets or by having His own prophecies fulfilled in a way opposite to that predicted by the false prophets."
Paradise Restored to Mankind, pp. 353-354
• 3C. How does the Society anticipate false prophets to react to exposure?
"False prophets will try to hide their reason for feeling shame by denying who they really are. They will try to avoid . . . being pronounced spiritually dead by Jehovah's loyal worshipers."
Paradise Restored to Mankind, p. 354
• 3D. Has the Society admitted to making false prophecies?
Yes. They admitted to looking "forward to 1914 with joyful expectation. When that time came and passed there was much disappointment." In other words, their predicted date concerning the end of the age had come and gone without fulfillment (see II.B. above). They became the subject of criticism "because they had said so much about 1914, and what would come to pass, and their 'prophecies' had not been fulfilled."
Here we have an example of the Society stating categorically that it had delivered a prophecy that time and circumstance demonstrated to be false.
Light, (A Society publication), Book I, p.194
• 3E. Is the admission of making false prophecies an isolated item, or has a Society leader—under oath in court—ever admitted that the Society made such prophecies?
H.C. Covington, the then Vice President of the Society was on the witness stand in Scotland in 1954. When asked if the Society had "promulgated (i.e., set forth or taught publicly) a false prophecy," Covington said "I agree to that." He was then asked if this false prophecy "had to be accepted by Jehovah's Witnesses," to which he replied, "That is correct."
Walsh vs. Clyde, Scotland, Nov. 1954, pp. 340-343
• 3F. Has the Society tried to reverse itself (on its well-established claim to be a true prophet) since its 1975-prophecy failure?
Yes. The Society now teaches that "Jehovah's Witnesses as modern-day Christians are working hard to get this good news preached to every individual. They do not claim infallibility or perfection. Neither are they inspired prophets."
This is an amazing reversal! For almost 100 years the Society has claimed to be a "true prophet of God" and now they reveal that they are not inspired-leaving us to conclude that their many prophecies have not come from God.
Watchtower, May 15, 1976, p.297
4. Has the Society altered any of its chronological calculations over the years?
• [Note: We must realize that the society has placed a tremendous amount of emphasis on chronology during the century of its existence. Precise calculations of the dates of certain events—especially of those related to the beginnings of mankind—have been the basis for many of the Society's predictions. The creation date of Adam and the creation date of Eve have been the subject of particular attention because they relate—according to past Society literature—to the calculation of the beginning of the Millennium, or 1,000-year reign of Christ.]
• 4A. According to the Society, is the creation date of Eve important for calculating the date of the Millennium?
Yes. The exact date of Eve's creation was the beginning of God's "rest day" because (logically) Eve was God's last creation.
Watchtower, Oct. 1, 1975, p.519
• 4B. Does the Society know when Eve was created?
No. According to the Society, the biblical record "shows a time lapse between the creation of Adam and that of his wife, Eve." Why was there a time lapse? What, for example, was going on? "During that time, God had Adam name the animals? Whether that period amounted to weeks or months or years we do not know?" No date can be established—even approximately—for Eve's creation date?
Watchtower, Oct. 1, 1975, p.579
• 4C. Has the Society ever given a date for Eve's creation?
Yes. "According to reliable Bible chronology, Adam and Eve were created in 4026 B.C.E"
Awake, Oct. 8, 1968, p.14
• 4D. Has the Society been able to predict a date for Eve's creation in spite of the reports of Adam's activities before her creation? On what basis do they do this?
Yes. The Society reasoned that ". . .it is logical that He (God) would create Eve soon after Adam, perhaps just a few weeks or months later in the same year, 4026 B.C.E."
Watchtower, May 1, 1968, p.271
• 4E. Has the Society tried to explain the obvious contradiction between an unknown creation date and a 4026 B.C.E. creation date for Eve in its authoritative Bible study aid?
No. The study aid only confirms the impossible: it says that Society knows Eve's creation date! 1. At 130 years Eve gave birth to Seth.
Aid to Bible Understanding (1969), p.533 2. Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born?
Aid to Bible Understanding (1969), p.333
• [Note: Before the 1975 prediction date of Christ's return, the society authoritatively supports a specific creation date for Eve. Afterwards they conveniently back down on their calculation.]
5. Has the society distorted the record of any of its past activities?
• [Note: Beth-Sarim, which means "House of Princes" in the Hebrew language, was a handsome estate built in San Diego in 1930 by the Watchtower Society. Its history is variously represented by the Society.]
• 5A. What was the purpose of the construction of Beth-Sarim?
Beth-Sarim was, according to a recent Society yearbook, built as a home for one of the Society's presidents: "...a direct contribution was made for the purpose of constructing a house in San Diego for Brother Rutherford's use."
1975 Yearbook, p.194
• 5B. Did the Society, at an earlier date, give an entirely different purpose for constructing Beth-Sarim?
Yes. "...the purpose of acquiring that property and building the house was that there might be some tangible proof that there are those on earth today ... who believe that faithful men of old will soon be resurrected by the Lord, be back on earth, and take charge of the visible affairs of earth."
Salvation, p.311
• 5C. Did the Society actually believe that certain resurrected Old Testament saints would come back and live in Beth-Sarim?
Yes. "...Those faithful men of old may be expected back from the dead any day now...in this expectation the house was built... it is now held in trust for the occupancy of those princes on their return."
The New World, p.104
• 5D. Does the deed to the Beth-Sarim property reveal the Society's original purpose for the estate?
Yes. While it is true that Rutherford was to have "exclusive possession" of the house during his lifetime, it was also true that that possession was to be relinquished upon the soon anticipated arrival of "David," "Joseph," "Samuel," etc. to the earth "for the express purpose of being used by those who are servants of Jehovah God."
Page iii of the deed indicates other Society members could equally make use of the property "until the same be taken possession of by David or some of the other men herein named [from Hebrews chapter eleven] and this property and premises being dedicated to Jehovah and the use of his kingdom it shall be used as such forever."
It is interesting to note that the Society later sold the house.
Deed to Beth-Sarim, Dec. 24, 1929
6. Has the Society distorted or misquoted various reference sources in an attempt to support its position on the Trinity?
• 6A. Did the Society misquote and misrepresent well-known Greek scholars H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey?
Yes. The Society quotes Dana and Mantey out of context by asserting that their grammar (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament) supports the translation "the word was a god" at John 1:1.
Kingdom Interlinear, p. 1158
In a letter to the Society authored by Mantey himself we read: "...Because you have been quoting me out of context, I...request you not to quote the Manual Grammar... again, which you have been quoting for 24 years." He also asked them to "publicly and immediately apologize" for their misrepresentation.
Mantey Letter, p.3
Why was Mantey so disturbed? His conclusion (found both in his Grammar and his letter) is that John 1:1 should be translated either "the word was deity" or "the word was God," not "the word was a god." Mantey estimates the evidence "to be 99% against" the Society's translation.
Mantey Letter, p. 2
• [Note: A word about John 1:1 is appropriate here. In this passage an important principle of Greek grammar is evident which has been a source of confusion for English readers.
• Note first the order of the Greek words as seen in the Greek text (consult The Emphatic Diaglott or The Kingdom Interlinear, both Society publications):
• KAI THEOS ÊN HO LOGOS
• And God Was The Word
• In Greek there is no written indefinite article ("A" or "AN")—just the definite article ("the"). The indefinite article is often implied before a noun even though nothing is actually written down to tell the reader it is there. But this is not always the case. The word theos standing alone without the definite article might be translated "a god" if it were not for another principle of grammar. That principle is discussed in Mantey's letter to the Society.
Mantey Letter, p.1, 2
• And what does that principal mean? E. C. Colwell discovered that when a predicate noun (in this case theos) is in the nominative case (that is, in the same case as the subject of the sentence—the subject being logos) and is placed before the verb (instead of after the verb as is usually the case), it has no article—even when it is needed. In fact, Colwell also discovered that it is indefinite (i.e., with "a" or "an") only when the context demands it. (see Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. LII (1933) pp. 12-21 from which Mantey quotes.)
• Harner (see Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. XCII (1973)) went on to discover that in 53 passages in John's Gospel, the Apostle John used this type of word arrangement to "express the nature of [the] character of the subject." Thus Mantey is right when he suggests the translation "the word was deity" or "the word was God" which stresses nature.
• The translation "a god" inserts an indefinite article that is unwarranted by either grammar or context. The translation "a god" makes Jesus another God, makes John the Apostle a polytheist, and makes a mockery of Deuteronomy 32:39 which reads "there is no other god with me"—that would make Jesus a god against the Father!"]
• 6B. Did the Society quote the famous Bible translator Westcott out of context?
Yes. The Society gives the impression that Westcott supports the concept that John 1:1 should be translated "the Word was a god" (note the small "g").
Watchtower, Jan. 15, 1975, p.63
But as can be seen, Westcott holds to an entirely different view based on the grammar: The Word was God "...simply affirms the true deity of the Word." He held to the triunity of God, not the polytheism of "the word was a god."
The Gospel According to St. John, p.3
• [Note: A consultation with virtually any commentary on John 1:1 or any Koine Greek grammar on the use of the article in the New Testament will lead to the same conclusion reached by Westcott: The statement "simply affirms the true deity of the Word."]
• 6C. Did the Society misrepresent the New Catholic Encyclopedia on its position concerning the trinity?
Yes. The Society suggests that the New Catholic Encyclopedia denies the historic trinity: It teaches that...this doctrine was unknown to the Hebrew prophets and Christian apostles ... it also admits that the doctrine must be dated as from about three hundred and fifty years after the death of Jesus Christ."
The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life, p. 22
A simple reading of page 306 of the New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, will demonstrate that both conclusions by the Society were erroneous. Clearly, Paul and the Gospels taught the triunity of God and the Catholics hold to this belief.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, p. 306
• 6D. Does the Bible actually teach the doctrine of the trinity—a doctrine the Society strongly denies?
Yes. The trinity is the only explanation for the relationship given in Scripture between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The Trinity
7. Does the Society deny the Biblical teaching that Jesus Christ is worthy of worship?
• 7A. Does the Society teach that Jesus rejects worship?
Yes. "Do not erroneously conclude that Christians are to worship Christ; that is not what he taught."
Watchtower, July 15, 1959, p.421
• 7B. Does the Bible reveal the worship of Christ as an appropriate and acceptable activity?
Yes. No one is rebuked for worshipping Christ in Scripture.
The Bible
• 7C. Does the Society attempt to cover up the worship of Christ in Scripture in order to deny this teaching?
Yes. The word proskuneo is translated as worship (when used with reference to Jehovah) 22 times in the Society's New World Translation. The same word when used with reference to Christ is translated "obedience," "reverence," and "homage." The Bible clearly teaches the worship of Jesus, but the Society in an effort to obscure this fact has avoided the usual and normal translation of proskuneo.
• 7D. Has the Society ever contradicted its position by encouraging Jesus worship?
Yes. "Christ (is) to be worshipped as a glorious spirit, victorious over death on the torture stake."
Make Sure of All Things, p. 85
8. Is the name "Jehovah" actually the name of God?
• 8A. Does the Society believe that "Jehovah" is the name of God?
Yes. They have used it for more than 50 years and state categorically that it is "a translation of God's name, in Hebrew YHWH."
Make Sure of All Things, 1953, p.188
• 8B. God's name?
No. They hold that "there is no such name as Jehovah." The name of God as it appears in Scripture is without appropriate vowels so, "no Hebrew can pronounce it today."
Letter, Michael Esses
• 8C. Where did the mistranslation "Jehovah" come from?
"'Jehovah' is generally held to have been the invention of Pope Leo X's confessor, Peter Galatin."
The Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 88
"'Jehovah' is a mispronunciation... almost entirely disregarded by the Jews ... of the Hebrew 'YHWH' the... name of God... this pronunciation is grammatically impossible; it arose through pronouncing the vowels...of 'Adonay' (the Lord) ...with the consonants of ' YHWH. "
The Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 87
• 8D. Is there any basis for the Society using "Jehovah" as the name for God?
No. "The pronunciation Jehovah has no authority at all and appeared only in late medieval times; it is an attempt to vocalize the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) using the vowels written under it by the scribes, which vowels however were never intended to be combined with the four consonants of this word."
Grant and Rowley, Dictionary of the Bible, p. 334
• 8E. If "Jehovah" is incorrect and not the name of God, what is the correct name?
It is Yahweh. "That the pronunciation in ancient times was Yahweh is concluded from transcriptions in the early Christian fathers."
Grant and Rowley, Dictionary of the Bible, p. 334
9. Has the Society altered the Scriptures to suit its own particular needs?
• 9A. Where has the Society altered the text?
Take any Greek text or modern translation and compare it with the New World Translation (a Society publication) at:
John 1:1 (Note the added "a")
Colossians 1:15, 17 (Note the inserted "other")
Colossians 2:9 (Note the change from "deity" to "divine quality")
Titus 2:13 (Note the change from "God our Savior" to "God and our Savior")
Revelation 3:14 (Note how "of" is changed to "by")
These are just a few examples of the alterations.
The Bible
• 9B. To what can we attribute the mistranslation by the Society?
In court and under oath F. W. Franz, current president of the Society and one of the admitted translators of the New World Translation lied about his ability to translate Scripture. He admitted he could not translate "a Bible verse." Lack of integrity and preparation, along with a marked theological bias has led to a number of outrageous errors in translation.
Walsh vs. Clyde, Scotland, Nov., 1954
10. Does the Society err in its teaching about the cross of Christ?
• 10A. According to the Society, how did Jesus die?
The Society claims that Jesus was impaled on an upright, single-pieced "torture stake."
Kingdom Interlinear, pp. 1,155, 1,156
• 10B. How does the Society support its claim that Jesus died on a "torture stake" instead of a "cross"?
The Society quotes 16th century writer Justus Lipsius in his De Cruce Liber Primus.
Kingdom Interlinear, p. 1,155
• 10C. What does Justus Lipsius say is the method of Christ's death?
While it is true the Lipsius pictures the death of a man on a tree, he points out rather emphatically and in considerable detail that this was not the way Jesus died. In fact, he even includes a picture of Christ's death on the cross a few pages later. Reading from his text we find: "In the Lord's cross there were four pieces of wood, the upright beam, the cross-bar, a tree trunk (piece of wood) placed below, and the title (inscription) placed above." The Society has completely misrepresented Lipsius' drawing and findings.
De Cruce Liber Primus, p. 19, 46, 47
• 1OD. Does the Bible teach that Jesus died on a cross?
Yes, without any doubt. Consult the Bible at John 20:25; 21:18, 19, Matt. 27:37, Mark 15:27, etc.
The Bible
11. Has the Society ever altered its publications without notice to suit its changing prophecies?
• Yes. Quietly the Society shifts its position when an embarrassing prophecy is made and then remains unfulfilled. For example, a crucial change was made in the 1923 version of Studies in Scriptures in order to bring it into line with the Society's changing prophecies. The earlier version has:
"...the deliverance of the saints must take place some time before 1914 is manifest..."
• The 1923 version has:
"...must take place very soon after 1914 is manifest..."
Studies in Scriptures
12. Given the strange twists and contradictions of the Society over the years, is there any relationship between the Society and mental illness?
• Yes, unfortunately. Members of the Society, according to an Australian study are "three times more likely to be diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia and nearly four times more likely from paranoid schizophrenia than the rest of the population at risk."
• Why? Either the Society "tends to attract an excess of pre-psychotic individuals who may then break down, or else being a Jehovah's Witness is itself a stress which may precipitate a psychosis. Possibly both of these factors may operate together."
John Spencer, The Mental Health of Jehovah's Witnesses
13. If Jehovah's Witnesses are not the truth, then what is?
• The truth is found in the Bible and not in the Watchtower Society (as has already been demonstrated.) Two steps must be taken:
• First, Jesus Christ must be given rightful Lordship in our life.
For instructions, see page…
• Second, the Society member must break his ties with the Watchtower Society
• Third, get involved in a Biblically based, Bible teaching, Full Gospel, Christ centered Church.
*For purposes of clarification, the name, "Watchtower Society" has been shortened to "Society".
http://www.thegarlicstore.com/index.cgi/cooking.htm
Part 1
This work will: help the sincere Jehovah's Witness recognize the truth about the Watchtower Society, aid the Born Again Christian in understanding the Jehovah’s Witness Watchtower Society, assist in further discussion of The Gospel of Jesus Christ… The Watchtower:
• Claims to be God's prophet for today
• Their prophecies have not been fulfilled again and again
• Their cover-ups to hide their false prophecies
• The responsibility of the sincere Jehovah's Witness before God
The Watchtower claims:
• The anointed remnants are the modern-day prophets, like Ezekiel, getting their information from the angels.
In the Old Testament, prophets instructed, warned, revealed, promised and rebuked. Because of the stand of the Watchtower Society we must test their prophecy the same way the Old Testament prophets were tested. So in what way, exactly, were they tested, the scriptures speak.
1. Deuteronomy 18:20-22 - v20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
v21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
v22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
2. Matthew 7:15-20 - v15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
v16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
v17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
v19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
v20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
In checking what the Watchtower Society prophesied, we find they meet the standards of a false prophet. False prophets are condemned in the Scriptures and we are told to flee from them.
• 1 Kings 13. . . . . . . . condemned to die
• Ezekiel 14:10 . . . . . . punishment of prophet and seekers the same
• Jer. 23:16, 26, 34. . . . Punish the man and his house
Ultimately… Rev. 19:20 ”And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet… These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.”
Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever.
All Photostats have been taken from the Watchtower publications unless noted. King James and New American Standard are the Bibles used.
Watchtower Publications Used
• New World Translation
• Aid to Bible Understanding
• Watchtower
• Make Sure of All Things
• Awake
• Kingdom Interlinear, etc.
A Word to Jehovah's Witnesses:
In The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life, The Watchtower Society teaches that it is appropriate for any Jehovah's Witness to examine their religious beliefs and the beliefs of others. After all Truth will reveal itself… therefore no one has reason to fear any new information about what one believes; if it is the true way, the truth will only confirm it—if it is not the true way, the truth will only confirm that it is a lie.
I ask any sincere Jehovah's Witness to examine the enclosed information taken from the pages of Watchtower Society literature. Some of the Society's admitted activities and beliefs may come as something of a surprise to you. Nevertheless, they are worth examining and searching out. Always remember Truth is what we seek.
Consider the following:
• The Society claims to be God's anointed prophet for today.
• The Society leadership states that its prophetic information comes directly from the angels.
• Yet, they have made many prophecies that were not fulfilled on their designated date.
• Instead of giving a new revelation or prophecy to explain God's actions (as we see in the Book of Jonah), they took careful and deliberate action to cover up their false prophecies.
• This did not take place once but many times over the years.
These are not unsubstantiated claims, but issues that have been raised time and time again by many inquiring and concerned Jehovah's Witnesses. As the Scriptures teach:
"Keep testing whether you are in the faith, keep proving what you yourselves are" (II Cor. 13:5 NWT), and "Do not believe every inspired expression," (in this case, Society literature) "but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world." (I John 4:1 NWT)
A Word to Non-Jehovah's Witnesses:
The Christian has a unique responsibility when dealing with those that claim to be Christians but instead follow the ways of darkness:
"...Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them..." (Ephesians 5:11)
The purpose: to help you, the reader, to understand the complex and devious character of one of the perpetrators of the fruits of darkness, the Jehovah's Witness religion. Once you are able to grasp the key weaknesses and errors in which they have become ensnared, you will be equipped to begin the task of helping that Jehovah's Witness neighbor, relative, friend or visitor to be released from their dark imprisonment.
Exposé is a French word which usually means "exposure of something discreditable" and it is in that sense that we use it here. On the next few pages you will be introduced to a
• 1. List of errors in the Jehovah's Witness belief system
• 2. An Exposé confirming their belief (with documentation) and,
• 3. Often, a brief explanation of the nature and/or danger of this belief
The Exposé should be read through, preferably, in one or two sittings. After becoming familiar with the contents, you will be able to introduce to the Jehovah's Witness the errors and inconsistencies of his religion. If a Jehovah's Witness questions the validity of the Exposé, you are invited to turn with them to the documentation pages for the appropriate quotation. In the documentation section many actual facsimiles of pages from Jehovah's Witness literature have been provided.
A word needs to be said at this point about technique. The purpose in using a tool like the Expose is to win people to Jesus Christ and not merely to win an argument. The firm presentation of the truth must always be seasoned with compassion prayerfully considered and presented. (1 Thessalonians 5:16,17,18)
It is my sincere hope that you will apply these passages and examine the Society claims discussed in this Exposé. We ask that you simply read the study outline and examine the documentation.
What follows is an outline of key claims and beliefs of the Watchtower Society. Under each topic heading appears certain questions and explanations that will lead to examining that issue. This will show a “bearing” or “guideline” in which to go by…in other words definitions must be shown then all suspect truth must be judged according to that definition. I.e. if a false prophet must be ignored even avoided and the Watchtower Society is found to be a false prophet then they must therefore be ignored and avoided.
1. Is the Watchtower Society a true prophet of God?
• 1A. How does the Society define "true prophet?"
- The three essentials given through Moses were:
1) ...Speak in Jehovah's name...
2) The things foretold would come to pass...
3) His prophesying must promote true worship being in harmony with God's Word and the prophets."
Aid to Bible Understanding, p. 1,348
• 1B. How does the Society test the true prophet's message?
"The best method of proof is to put a prophecy to the test of time and circumstance. The Bible invites such a test ... the Bible ... establishes the rules for testing a prophecy at Deuteronomy 18:20-22."
Watchtower, March 1, 1965
• 1C. Does the Society believe that a true prophet exists today?
Yes. In fact, the Society says, "It is of importance to every individual on earth to identify the group that Jehovah has commissioned as His servant' or messenger."
Watchtower, March 15, 1972
• 1D. Does the Society believe that a true modern prophet would have the same authority as the Old Testament prophets?
Yes. Society members are told that there existed such a group and then they were asked to look for it-"...any group on whom Jehovah would be willing to bestow the commission to speak as a 'prophet' in His name, as was done toward Ezekiel..."
Watchtower, March 15, 1972
• 1E. Does the Society claim to be the present day true prophet?
Yes. "Who is this prophet? ...not one man, but a body of men and women... known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian Witnesses."
Watchtower, April 1, 1972
• 1F. Where does the Society/Prophet claim to get its direction?
"Jehovah's Witnesses today make their declaration of the good news of the kingdom under angelic direction and support." In other words, angels tell the Society what to say and do.
Watchtower, April 1, 1972
• 1G. Does the Society desire and expect Christendom to treat the Society as a prophet of God?
Yes. The Society fully anticipates this: "...regardless of how Christendom views or regards this group of anointed witnesses of Jehovah, the time must come, and that shortly, when those making up Christendom will know that really a 'prophet' of Jehovah was among them."
The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah, p. 70
• 1H. What role does the Society claim for a prophet in these days? What should a prophet be doing?
The Society spells this out in three ways:
1. "The modern-day counterpart of Ezekiel"
2. "Do the will of Jehovah"
3. "Serve as the mouthpiece and active agent of Jehovah"
The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah, p. 58
• 1I. Does the Society claim that it has been prophesying for God today?
Yes. "The facts substantiate that the remnant of Christ's anointed disciples (the Society [see context]) have been doing that prophesying to all nations." They claim God's Spirit is "poured out" on them. They ask: "Why argue about it?"
Holy Spirit—The Force Behind the Coming New Order!, p.148
• 1J. Does the Society claim that prophesying and preaching are the same ministry?
No. The Society claims that their members have been "preaching and prophesying from house to house and city to city...", thus clearly distinguishing between the two ministries. Both preaching and prophesying are regular activities of the Society.
Holy Spirit—The Force Behind the Coming New Order!, p. 150
• 1K. Does the Society/Prophet claim any special knowledge concerning the Bible?
Yes. The Society published a six-volume work entitled Scripture Studies which it described as "the Bible in an arranged form." It amounted to a running commentary on the Bible. The Society claims that if someone were to "ignore" the Scripture Studies "and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years...within two years he goes into darkness." The Society further claims that if a student "had merely read Scripture Studies with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the light at the end of the two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures."
Watchtower, 1910, p.298
• 1L. Does the Society believe that it is the only organization that has God's Spirit or can understand the Bible?
Yes. It has made this clear when it said, "...Jehovah's organization alone, in all the earth, is directed by God's holy spirit or active force ... To it alone God's sacred Word, the Bible, is not a sealed book." Furthermore, it claims that "God by his holy spirit" has directly "revealed" things to its "early Bible students ... far in advance."
Watchtower. July 1, 1973
• 1M. Has the Society ever prophesied concerning the future and had that prophecy fail the test of "Time and circumstance" (see 1B. above)?
Yes. In fact there are many such "failed" prophecies (see False Prophecy Fact Sheet). Keep in mind, as you study these prophecies that the Society . . .
1) Claims to be God's one and only prophet today
2) Claims to have revelations from God
3) Claims to be the only group that understands the Bible
4) Claims to be the only Spirit-empowered organization on earth today.
False Prophecy Fact Sheet
2. Has the Society made false prophecies?
• 2A. Does the Society claim to be a true prophet of God, and does it ask that we examine its prophecy record?
Yes. The Society states this explicitly when it says: "So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help ... and to declare things to come? These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet? ...This 'prophet' was not one man, but was a body of men and women...known... as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian Witnesses..." It should be noted that even from its earliest beginnings the Society considered itself to be a true prophet of God. The Society does not expect others to just trust that it is a true prophet: "Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a 'prophet' of God. It is another thing to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record. What does it show?"
Watchtower, April 1, 1972
• 2B. Has the Society predicted that 1914 A.D. would mark the end of earthly rulership?
Yes. The Society made such a prediction in 1908: " ..the 'Battle of the Great Day of God Almighty' (Rev. 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced" (i.e., it began before 1908).
The Time is at Hand, 1908 ed, p.101
• 2C. Has the Society declared that the earthly arrival of King Jesus took place in October, 1874?
Yes. "Our Lord, the appointed King, is now present since October, 1874, A.D."
Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. IV, p.621
• 2D. Has the Society declared that the Millennium—the 1,000-year reign of Christ—began in 1873?
Yes. "The Bible chronology herein presented shows that the six great thousand-year days beginning with Adam are ended, and that great Seventh Day, the thousand years of Christ's reign, began in 1873."
The Time is at Hand, 1916 ed., p.ii
• 2E. Has the Society predicted that the visible, physical return to earth of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would take place in 1925?
Yes. "...Since other Scriptures definitely fix the fact there will be a resurrection of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and other faithful ones of old ... we may expect 1925 to witness the return of these faithful men of Israel from the condition of death, being resurrected and fully restored to perfect humanity and made the visible, legal representatives of the new order of things on earth."
Millions Now Living Will Never Die, p.89
• 2F. How certain, in the minds of the Society, was the 1925 resurrection date?
As certain as any date could be. This is evident by various statements including the following:
1) "The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures because it is fixed by the law God gave to Israel."
Watchtower, Sept 1, 1922, p.262
2) "Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures, marking the end of the typical jubilees."
Watchtower, April 1, 1923, p.106
• 2G. When 1925 arrived did the Society begin to back down on its prophecies about the significance of that year?
Yes. "The year 1925 is here. With great expectation Christians have looked forward to this year. Many have confidently expected that all members of the body of Christ will be changed to heavenly glory during the year. This may be accomplished. It may not be. In his own due time, God will accomplish his purposes concerning his own people. Christians should not be so deeply concerned about what may transpire during this year that they would fail to joyfully do what the Lord would have them to do."
Watchtower, Jan. 1, 1925, p.3
• 2H. As the year 1925 progressed, did the Society indicate even more doubt about 1925 being the resurrection year—the year the new order begins?
Yes. Rather than suggest that a mistake was made or that God changed His mind, the Society subtly began to back down even further: Typical of this erosion process is the following:
"It is to be expected that Satan will try to inject into the minds of the consecrated the thought that 1925 should see an end of the work, and that therefore it would be needless for them to do more."
Watchtower, 1925, p.262
• 2I. Was their disappointment among the Society members because of the failures concerning the predicted dates?
Yes. Most definitely and so much so that public admissions were printed: "There was a measure of disappointment on the part of Jehovah's faithful ones on earth concerning the years 1914, 1918 and 1925, which disappointment lasted for a time."
Vindication, Vol. I, p.338
• 2J. Did the Society attempt to deflect criticism by clinging to the dates even though the prophecies concerning them went unfulfilled?
Yes. Basically the Society clung to the position that the dates were valid in spite of the lack of fulfillment: "Later the faithful learned that those dates were definitely fixed in the Scriptures . . . "
Vindication, Vol. I, p. 338-339
• 2K. Did the Society indicate that as a result of disappointments it had decided to quit setting dates?
Yes. They seemed ready to give up the practice of fixing dates: "...they also learned to quit fixing dates for the future and predicting what would come to pass on a certain date, but to rely (and they do rely) upon the Word of God as to the events that must come to pass."
Vindication, Vol. I, p. 339
• 2L. Did the Society, nevertheless, continue to imply that certain times and years were scheduled for Armageddon?
Yes. This was done with great care but the implication was always clear: Armageddon was only "months away," that is, less than a year. A typical example of the subtlety of these suggestions is seen in the following report: "Receiving the sift, the marching children clasped it to them, not a toy or plaything for idle pleasure, but the Lord's provided instrument for most effective work in the remaining months before Armageddon."
Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1942, p.288
• 2M. Does the Society admit that such prior date setting activities amounted to false prophesying?
Yes. In its own literature it reveals its attitude toward such activities: "True, there have been those in times past who predicted an 'end to the world,' even announcing a specific date. Some have gathered groups of people with them and fled to the hills or withdrawn into their houses waiting for the end. Yet, nothing happened. The 'end' did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was missing?
"Missing was the full measure of evidence required in fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Missing from such people were God's truths and the evidence that he was guiding and using them."
Awake, Oct. 8, 1968, p.23
• 2N. Has the Society concluded its date-setting activities or has it prophesied other dates such as 1975?
It continues submitting new dates. A classic example is an entire article devoted to a prophecy concerning the year, 1975. This was calculated to be the year of the end of this present age. Its title: "Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975?"
Watchtower, Aug. 15, 1968, p.494
• 2O. Has the Society confirmed the 1975 date as accurate?
Yes. "According to this trustworthy Bible chronology six thousand years from man's creation will end in 1975, and the seventh period of a thousand years of human history will begin in the fall of 1975 C.E."
Life Everlasting—In Freedom of the Sons of God, p.28
• 2P. What did the Society members believe about the 1975 date? Would it be the end of the present system of things?
Yes. According to Erroll Burton, spokesman for the Paradise Valley Unit of the Jehovah's Witnesses in Arizona, the 1975 date would mean "'A change in the political system of things,' when 'all presently existing influences must be eliminated. After 6,000 years of the deterioration of mankind, there will be 1,000 years of refining mankind...' 'At the end of that period, man will be perfect, as Adam and Eve were before the fall.'"
The Society clearly has instructed its followers that 1975 represents "...the end of the world as we have known it," and it predicts that the "...thousand-year reign of Christ will begin."
The Arizona Republic (newspaper), Aug. 24, 1969
• 2Q. Did the Society members begin to get rid of their possessions and make special sacrifices in order to prepare for 1975? Did the Society condone this activity?
Yes. In various ways this information was reported and evaluated. The Society's attitude is revealed in the following: "Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world's end."
Kingdom Ministry, May 1974, p.3
3. Has the Society admitted to and covered up false prophecies?
• 3A. First, does the Society believe that a false prophet could. exist today, and, does it believe that such a prophet could be an organization rather than just an individual?
Yes. It has gone into some detail in describing the false prophet's activities and purpose: "Similarly, the 'false prophet' is not a person, but is a system or an organization. A 'prophet' claims to have inspired information for the direction of others. A 'false prophet' would mislead others, to turn them away from God and toward false worship."
Watchtower, June 15, 1974, p.381
• 3B. Does the Society believe that God will reveal false prophets? If so, how will he do this?
Yes. The Society expects God to uncover the true character of false prophets. He "will put all false prophets to shame either by not fulfilling the false prediction of such self assuming prophets or by having His own prophecies fulfilled in a way opposite to that predicted by the false prophets."
Paradise Restored to Mankind, pp. 353-354
• 3C. How does the Society anticipate false prophets to react to exposure?
"False prophets will try to hide their reason for feeling shame by denying who they really are. They will try to avoid . . . being pronounced spiritually dead by Jehovah's loyal worshipers."
Paradise Restored to Mankind, p. 354
• 3D. Has the Society admitted to making false prophecies?
Yes. They admitted to looking "forward to 1914 with joyful expectation. When that time came and passed there was much disappointment." In other words, their predicted date concerning the end of the age had come and gone without fulfillment (see II.B. above). They became the subject of criticism "because they had said so much about 1914, and what would come to pass, and their 'prophecies' had not been fulfilled."
Here we have an example of the Society stating categorically that it had delivered a prophecy that time and circumstance demonstrated to be false.
Light, (A Society publication), Book I, p.194
• 3E. Is the admission of making false prophecies an isolated item, or has a Society leader—under oath in court—ever admitted that the Society made such prophecies?
H.C. Covington, the then Vice President of the Society was on the witness stand in Scotland in 1954. When asked if the Society had "promulgated (i.e., set forth or taught publicly) a false prophecy," Covington said "I agree to that." He was then asked if this false prophecy "had to be accepted by Jehovah's Witnesses," to which he replied, "That is correct."
Walsh vs. Clyde, Scotland, Nov. 1954, pp. 340-343
• 3F. Has the Society tried to reverse itself (on its well-established claim to be a true prophet) since its 1975-prophecy failure?
Yes. The Society now teaches that "Jehovah's Witnesses as modern-day Christians are working hard to get this good news preached to every individual. They do not claim infallibility or perfection. Neither are they inspired prophets."
This is an amazing reversal! For almost 100 years the Society has claimed to be a "true prophet of God" and now they reveal that they are not inspired-leaving us to conclude that their many prophecies have not come from God.
Watchtower, May 15, 1976, p.297
4. Has the Society altered any of its chronological calculations over the years?
• [Note: We must realize that the society has placed a tremendous amount of emphasis on chronology during the century of its existence. Precise calculations of the dates of certain events—especially of those related to the beginnings of mankind—have been the basis for many of the Society's predictions. The creation date of Adam and the creation date of Eve have been the subject of particular attention because they relate—according to past Society literature—to the calculation of the beginning of the Millennium, or 1,000-year reign of Christ.]
• 4A. According to the Society, is the creation date of Eve important for calculating the date of the Millennium?
Yes. The exact date of Eve's creation was the beginning of God's "rest day" because (logically) Eve was God's last creation.
Watchtower, Oct. 1, 1975, p.519
• 4B. Does the Society know when Eve was created?
No. According to the Society, the biblical record "shows a time lapse between the creation of Adam and that of his wife, Eve." Why was there a time lapse? What, for example, was going on? "During that time, God had Adam name the animals? Whether that period amounted to weeks or months or years we do not know?" No date can be established—even approximately—for Eve's creation date?
Watchtower, Oct. 1, 1975, p.579
• 4C. Has the Society ever given a date for Eve's creation?
Yes. "According to reliable Bible chronology, Adam and Eve were created in 4026 B.C.E"
Awake, Oct. 8, 1968, p.14
• 4D. Has the Society been able to predict a date for Eve's creation in spite of the reports of Adam's activities before her creation? On what basis do they do this?
Yes. The Society reasoned that ". . .it is logical that He (God) would create Eve soon after Adam, perhaps just a few weeks or months later in the same year, 4026 B.C.E."
Watchtower, May 1, 1968, p.271
• 4E. Has the Society tried to explain the obvious contradiction between an unknown creation date and a 4026 B.C.E. creation date for Eve in its authoritative Bible study aid?
No. The study aid only confirms the impossible: it says that Society knows Eve's creation date! 1. At 130 years Eve gave birth to Seth.
Aid to Bible Understanding (1969), p.533 2. Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born?
Aid to Bible Understanding (1969), p.333
• [Note: Before the 1975 prediction date of Christ's return, the society authoritatively supports a specific creation date for Eve. Afterwards they conveniently back down on their calculation.]
5. Has the society distorted the record of any of its past activities?
• [Note: Beth-Sarim, which means "House of Princes" in the Hebrew language, was a handsome estate built in San Diego in 1930 by the Watchtower Society. Its history is variously represented by the Society.]
• 5A. What was the purpose of the construction of Beth-Sarim?
Beth-Sarim was, according to a recent Society yearbook, built as a home for one of the Society's presidents: "...a direct contribution was made for the purpose of constructing a house in San Diego for Brother Rutherford's use."
1975 Yearbook, p.194
• 5B. Did the Society, at an earlier date, give an entirely different purpose for constructing Beth-Sarim?
Yes. "...the purpose of acquiring that property and building the house was that there might be some tangible proof that there are those on earth today ... who believe that faithful men of old will soon be resurrected by the Lord, be back on earth, and take charge of the visible affairs of earth."
Salvation, p.311
• 5C. Did the Society actually believe that certain resurrected Old Testament saints would come back and live in Beth-Sarim?
Yes. "...Those faithful men of old may be expected back from the dead any day now...in this expectation the house was built... it is now held in trust for the occupancy of those princes on their return."
The New World, p.104
• 5D. Does the deed to the Beth-Sarim property reveal the Society's original purpose for the estate?
Yes. While it is true that Rutherford was to have "exclusive possession" of the house during his lifetime, it was also true that that possession was to be relinquished upon the soon anticipated arrival of "David," "Joseph," "Samuel," etc. to the earth "for the express purpose of being used by those who are servants of Jehovah God."
Page iii of the deed indicates other Society members could equally make use of the property "until the same be taken possession of by David or some of the other men herein named [from Hebrews chapter eleven] and this property and premises being dedicated to Jehovah and the use of his kingdom it shall be used as such forever."
It is interesting to note that the Society later sold the house.
Deed to Beth-Sarim, Dec. 24, 1929
6. Has the Society distorted or misquoted various reference sources in an attempt to support its position on the Trinity?
• 6A. Did the Society misquote and misrepresent well-known Greek scholars H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey?
Yes. The Society quotes Dana and Mantey out of context by asserting that their grammar (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament) supports the translation "the word was a god" at John 1:1.
Kingdom Interlinear, p. 1158
In a letter to the Society authored by Mantey himself we read: "...Because you have been quoting me out of context, I...request you not to quote the Manual Grammar... again, which you have been quoting for 24 years." He also asked them to "publicly and immediately apologize" for their misrepresentation.
Mantey Letter, p.3
Why was Mantey so disturbed? His conclusion (found both in his Grammar and his letter) is that John 1:1 should be translated either "the word was deity" or "the word was God," not "the word was a god." Mantey estimates the evidence "to be 99% against" the Society's translation.
Mantey Letter, p. 2
• [Note: A word about John 1:1 is appropriate here. In this passage an important principle of Greek grammar is evident which has been a source of confusion for English readers.
• Note first the order of the Greek words as seen in the Greek text (consult The Emphatic Diaglott or The Kingdom Interlinear, both Society publications):
• KAI THEOS ÊN HO LOGOS
• And God Was The Word
• In Greek there is no written indefinite article ("A" or "AN")—just the definite article ("the"). The indefinite article is often implied before a noun even though nothing is actually written down to tell the reader it is there. But this is not always the case. The word theos standing alone without the definite article might be translated "a god" if it were not for another principle of grammar. That principle is discussed in Mantey's letter to the Society.
Mantey Letter, p.1, 2
• And what does that principal mean? E. C. Colwell discovered that when a predicate noun (in this case theos) is in the nominative case (that is, in the same case as the subject of the sentence—the subject being logos) and is placed before the verb (instead of after the verb as is usually the case), it has no article—even when it is needed. In fact, Colwell also discovered that it is indefinite (i.e., with "a" or "an") only when the context demands it. (see Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. LII (1933) pp. 12-21 from which Mantey quotes.)
• Harner (see Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. XCII (1973)) went on to discover that in 53 passages in John's Gospel, the Apostle John used this type of word arrangement to "express the nature of [the] character of the subject." Thus Mantey is right when he suggests the translation "the word was deity" or "the word was God" which stresses nature.
• The translation "a god" inserts an indefinite article that is unwarranted by either grammar or context. The translation "a god" makes Jesus another God, makes John the Apostle a polytheist, and makes a mockery of Deuteronomy 32:39 which reads "there is no other god with me"—that would make Jesus a god against the Father!"]
• 6B. Did the Society quote the famous Bible translator Westcott out of context?
Yes. The Society gives the impression that Westcott supports the concept that John 1:1 should be translated "the Word was a god" (note the small "g").
Watchtower, Jan. 15, 1975, p.63
But as can be seen, Westcott holds to an entirely different view based on the grammar: The Word was God "...simply affirms the true deity of the Word." He held to the triunity of God, not the polytheism of "the word was a god."
The Gospel According to St. John, p.3
• [Note: A consultation with virtually any commentary on John 1:1 or any Koine Greek grammar on the use of the article in the New Testament will lead to the same conclusion reached by Westcott: The statement "simply affirms the true deity of the Word."]
• 6C. Did the Society misrepresent the New Catholic Encyclopedia on its position concerning the trinity?
Yes. The Society suggests that the New Catholic Encyclopedia denies the historic trinity: It teaches that...this doctrine was unknown to the Hebrew prophets and Christian apostles ... it also admits that the doctrine must be dated as from about three hundred and fifty years after the death of Jesus Christ."
The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life, p. 22
A simple reading of page 306 of the New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, will demonstrate that both conclusions by the Society were erroneous. Clearly, Paul and the Gospels taught the triunity of God and the Catholics hold to this belief.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, p. 306
• 6D. Does the Bible actually teach the doctrine of the trinity—a doctrine the Society strongly denies?
Yes. The trinity is the only explanation for the relationship given in Scripture between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The Trinity
7. Does the Society deny the Biblical teaching that Jesus Christ is worthy of worship?
• 7A. Does the Society teach that Jesus rejects worship?
Yes. "Do not erroneously conclude that Christians are to worship Christ; that is not what he taught."
Watchtower, July 15, 1959, p.421
• 7B. Does the Bible reveal the worship of Christ as an appropriate and acceptable activity?
Yes. No one is rebuked for worshipping Christ in Scripture.
The Bible
• 7C. Does the Society attempt to cover up the worship of Christ in Scripture in order to deny this teaching?
Yes. The word proskuneo is translated as worship (when used with reference to Jehovah) 22 times in the Society's New World Translation. The same word when used with reference to Christ is translated "obedience," "reverence," and "homage." The Bible clearly teaches the worship of Jesus, but the Society in an effort to obscure this fact has avoided the usual and normal translation of proskuneo.
• 7D. Has the Society ever contradicted its position by encouraging Jesus worship?
Yes. "Christ (is) to be worshipped as a glorious spirit, victorious over death on the torture stake."
Make Sure of All Things, p. 85
8. Is the name "Jehovah" actually the name of God?
• 8A. Does the Society believe that "Jehovah" is the name of God?
Yes. They have used it for more than 50 years and state categorically that it is "a translation of God's name, in Hebrew YHWH."
Make Sure of All Things, 1953, p.188
• 8B. God's name?
No. They hold that "there is no such name as Jehovah." The name of God as it appears in Scripture is without appropriate vowels so, "no Hebrew can pronounce it today."
Letter, Michael Esses
• 8C. Where did the mistranslation "Jehovah" come from?
"'Jehovah' is generally held to have been the invention of Pope Leo X's confessor, Peter Galatin."
The Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 88
"'Jehovah' is a mispronunciation... almost entirely disregarded by the Jews ... of the Hebrew 'YHWH' the... name of God... this pronunciation is grammatically impossible; it arose through pronouncing the vowels...of 'Adonay' (the Lord) ...with the consonants of ' YHWH. "
The Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 87
• 8D. Is there any basis for the Society using "Jehovah" as the name for God?
No. "The pronunciation Jehovah has no authority at all and appeared only in late medieval times; it is an attempt to vocalize the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) using the vowels written under it by the scribes, which vowels however were never intended to be combined with the four consonants of this word."
Grant and Rowley, Dictionary of the Bible, p. 334
• 8E. If "Jehovah" is incorrect and not the name of God, what is the correct name?
It is Yahweh. "That the pronunciation in ancient times was Yahweh is concluded from transcriptions in the early Christian fathers."
Grant and Rowley, Dictionary of the Bible, p. 334
9. Has the Society altered the Scriptures to suit its own particular needs?
• 9A. Where has the Society altered the text?
Take any Greek text or modern translation and compare it with the New World Translation (a Society publication) at:
John 1:1 (Note the added "a")
Colossians 1:15, 17 (Note the inserted "other")
Colossians 2:9 (Note the change from "deity" to "divine quality")
Titus 2:13 (Note the change from "God our Savior" to "God and our Savior")
Revelation 3:14 (Note how "of" is changed to "by")
These are just a few examples of the alterations.
The Bible
• 9B. To what can we attribute the mistranslation by the Society?
In court and under oath F. W. Franz, current president of the Society and one of the admitted translators of the New World Translation lied about his ability to translate Scripture. He admitted he could not translate "a Bible verse." Lack of integrity and preparation, along with a marked theological bias has led to a number of outrageous errors in translation.
Walsh vs. Clyde, Scotland, Nov., 1954
10. Does the Society err in its teaching about the cross of Christ?
• 10A. According to the Society, how did Jesus die?
The Society claims that Jesus was impaled on an upright, single-pieced "torture stake."
Kingdom Interlinear, pp. 1,155, 1,156
• 10B. How does the Society support its claim that Jesus died on a "torture stake" instead of a "cross"?
The Society quotes 16th century writer Justus Lipsius in his De Cruce Liber Primus.
Kingdom Interlinear, p. 1,155
• 10C. What does Justus Lipsius say is the method of Christ's death?
While it is true the Lipsius pictures the death of a man on a tree, he points out rather emphatically and in considerable detail that this was not the way Jesus died. In fact, he even includes a picture of Christ's death on the cross a few pages later. Reading from his text we find: "In the Lord's cross there were four pieces of wood, the upright beam, the cross-bar, a tree trunk (piece of wood) placed below, and the title (inscription) placed above." The Society has completely misrepresented Lipsius' drawing and findings.
De Cruce Liber Primus, p. 19, 46, 47
• 1OD. Does the Bible teach that Jesus died on a cross?
Yes, without any doubt. Consult the Bible at John 20:25; 21:18, 19, Matt. 27:37, Mark 15:27, etc.
The Bible
11. Has the Society ever altered its publications without notice to suit its changing prophecies?
• Yes. Quietly the Society shifts its position when an embarrassing prophecy is made and then remains unfulfilled. For example, a crucial change was made in the 1923 version of Studies in Scriptures in order to bring it into line with the Society's changing prophecies. The earlier version has:
"...the deliverance of the saints must take place some time before 1914 is manifest..."
• The 1923 version has:
"...must take place very soon after 1914 is manifest..."
Studies in Scriptures
12. Given the strange twists and contradictions of the Society over the years, is there any relationship between the Society and mental illness?
• Yes, unfortunately. Members of the Society, according to an Australian study are "three times more likely to be diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia and nearly four times more likely from paranoid schizophrenia than the rest of the population at risk."
• Why? Either the Society "tends to attract an excess of pre-psychotic individuals who may then break down, or else being a Jehovah's Witness is itself a stress which may precipitate a psychosis. Possibly both of these factors may operate together."
John Spencer, The Mental Health of Jehovah's Witnesses
13. If Jehovah's Witnesses are not the truth, then what is?
• The truth is found in the Bible and not in the Watchtower Society (as has already been demonstrated.) Two steps must be taken:
• First, Jesus Christ must be given rightful Lordship in our life.
For instructions, see page…
• Second, the Society member must break his ties with the Watchtower Society
• Third, get involved in a Biblically based, Bible teaching, Full Gospel, Christ centered Church.
*For purposes of clarification, the name, "Watchtower Society" has been shortened to "Society".
http://www.thegarlicstore.com/index.cgi/cooking.htm
Charles Taze Russell
THE FOLLOWING WILL BE OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Crowell, Conn., July 26, 1917
Mr. A. I. Ritchie,
My dear Brother Ritchie:
I thank you for your favor of the 21st, received last Monday. meanwhile I have been waiting on the Lord to know what to say in reply. After reading the letter, the words of the Psalmist came to my mind, recurring many times since: "The meek will He guide in judgment; and the meek will He teach His way." Consequently I have taken time to make this reply:
On entering the meeting room at the Bethel a week ago last Tuesday morning I was very much surprised to find that Brother Rutherford had appointed a new Board, and so expressed myself to those present. Presently we heard the reading of a letter from a Philadelphia law firm, in which were set forth the facts mentioned in the resolution read before the Bethel Family, viz., that the board of Directors, as constituted, was not a legal one, therefore its members were not legally directors. Thereupon I expressed the thought that if these brethren were not legally members of the Board of Directors -- which position some of them had held for many years in the eyes of the friends in general -- then the fact remains that the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society has never had a legal Board. To this Brother Rutherford assented. I further stated that if it was true that the Society's business had been carried on for so many years in a manner not entirely in harmony with the requirements of the law, it surely could be continued in the same way for a few more months, until another annual meeting. This was not a motion, but merely a criticism or suggestion, upon which no action was taken.
When the Committee which had drawn up the resolution presented it to me. I told them frankly that, while I had nothing whatever against the Brethren chosen, I did object to the appointment of a new Board. After hearing the discussion by the different brethren, including Brother McGee's summing up the articles of the charter, I came to the conclusion that the statements concerning the legal standing of the members of three, who had been elected as the Society's officers by the shareholders, would have the same standing so far as membership in the Board of Directors is concerned. While the charter, as published in the little blue covered booklet we receive, makes no provision for the selection of the members of the Board of Directors and specifies that "the members of the Board of Directors shall hold their respective offices for life, unless removed by a two-thirds' vote of the shareholders."
You ask why I signed the resolution that was so detrimental to yourself and the other brethren. I felt that there was a measure of wrong on both sides. Some of you brethren had made statements at Philadelphia and other places which called for an explanation, and a letter of some kind was due the friends who asked for such an explanation. This resolution was drawn up by a committee, whose original intention was to have it published, to which I objected. While I admire Brother Rutherford's ability and his wisdom in settling many difficult questions for the Society, and while I fully believe that it is the Lord's will that he should be our President, yet I cannot approve of some things he did in connection with this matter.
One of my principal weaknesses, as far as I know myself, is that it is very hard for me to say "No," especially to brethren I love as much as I do all the members of the Board, including the brethren newly appointed; in fact, all who are truly the Lord's. When signing the resolution, I had strong hopes that reconciliation might be made between the two parties who differed, and that neither publication of the resolution nor any other publication from either side might be necessary. Before I signed, however a number of statements to which I objected were stricken out. After being thus modified, it was further agreed that copies of this resolution should be set only to Classes and brethren that had heard of the trouble and requested an explanation. I held out for some hours against a thing I did not believe in, but since the brethren had changed it, eliminating some objectionable paragraphs, and agreeing to send it only to inquiring friends, I finally signed, as a compromise.
When our Secretary showed me a copy of the resolution which had been sent to the Class, I could not help but think that it had been sent far and wide to all Classes; and I felt that I had not taken the proper course in signing even after it had been amended. Now that I have reason to believe a general circulation of this resolution has been made, I want to assure you that had I foreseen this I should never had signed the paper. I feel that this had done you four brethren a decided injury, because, in my opinion, none of you has any desire to do any harm to the Society or bring about a division, but that you simply differ with Brother Rutherford about the control of the Society; that it is your desire to stand by the charter and the principles of Brother Russell, which recognize the Board of Directors as having the power of control. I have not concluded to take a firmer stand for what I believe is the right, viz., that the appointment of the new members to take the place of the four who were not legally members according to the decision of the Philadelphia law firm was not the proper course, and will therefore stand by the old Board.
A copy of this letter goes to Brother Rutherford.
With much Christian love, as ever,
Your brother in Christ,
A. N. PIERSON
P. S. You have my permission to make such use of this letter as you may deem wise.
DAVIES, AUERBACH & CORNELL
MUTUAL LIFE BUILDING, 34 NASSAU STREET
JULIEN T. DAVIES
JOSEPH S. AUERBACH
EDWARD CORNELL
CHARLES E. HOTCHKISS
BRAINARD TOLLES
CHARLES H. TUTTLE
NICHOLAS F. LENSSEN
WARNER B. MATTESON
New York, July 23, 1917.
Gentlemen:
You have requested our opinion concerning your present title to office as Directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, and concerning the views as to the law expressed by Mr. Rutherford in his "Statements of Facts and Points," a copy of which you have received.
As to the proposition which is so much emphasized in Mr. Rutherford's "Statements" that even if his course of conduce in ousting, as he claims, you four gentleman, a majority of the Board, from your Directorships, was wrongful and in violation of law, the matter cannot be redressed in the New York courts, it is enough to point out that he, in his own statement says:
"In 1909 said Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society removed its activities from the State of Pennsylvania to the State of New York; and since that time it has transacted no business of consequence in the State of Pennsylvania, and never had a meeting of its Board of Directors in said State during that time."
If this be so, it goes without saying that the courts of the State of New York have ample jurisdiction to see to it that the affairs of the corporation, which, according to Mr. Rutherford's own admission, are being conducted almost entirely within the State of New York, are not taken out of the hands of a majority of its Board of Directors and turned over to other men whom the President chooses to appoint and regard as Directors. No lawyer familiar with the New York law would have any difficulty in finding legal methods of preventing the usurpers from exercising control over the affairs of the corporation in this State.
The second proposition in Mr. Rutherford's "Statements," to-wit, that the affairs of the corporation could not be brought before the courts in the State of New York, because it is no registered in this State, would involve, if true, very disastrous consequences for the corporation, in view of Mr. Rutherford's own admission that all of its affairs are being substantially transacted in this State. If, in truth, it be an outlaw here -- if, in truth, its affairs are not under the protection of the State of New York -- it is easy to see that the corollary of the proposition that it is not competent to be sued in the courts of this Sate, is that for the same reason it is not competent to sue, and that in consequence its affairs, its disregard of the constituted Board of Directors, whose presence in office had expressed the will of Pastor Russell and of the membership of the corporation for years.
As a matter of law, however, it is utter fallacious to say that because the statutes of this State provide no means for registering a foreign membership corporation, that therefore such corporation in transacting affairs here is not subject to the courts of this State. All corporations may lawfully carry out within this State the purposes of their charters and may exercise such powers incidental thereto as may be fairly necessary, unless otherwise forbidden by the laws of this State; and the requirements of the statutes of this State for registry apply only to foreign stock corporations. (Demarest vs. Flack, 128 N. Y. 205.) That the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is not a foreign stock corporation within the meaning of the statutes of this State is shown by the following definition in Section 3 of the General Corporation Law:
"A stock corporation is a corporation having a capital stock divided into shares, and which is authorized by law to distribute to the holders thereof dividends or shares of the surplus profits of the corporation. A corporation is not a stock corporation because of having issued certificates called certificates of stock, but which are in fact merely certificates of membership, and which is not authorized by law to distribute to its members any dividends or share of profits arising from the operations of the corporation."
Pastor Russell, therefore, was not so ill advised as to the law, that in conducting the affairs of the corporation in this State since 1909 (as Mr. Rutherford himself says) he committed the mistake of placing those affairs outside of the protection of courts of justice.
The third proposition made by Mr. Rutherford is that the provision in the charter of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, approved in 1884 and still incorporated in the said charter, that "the members of the Board of Directors shall hold their respective offices for life," is invalid, since the statute of the State of Pennsylvania, providing that Directors shall be chosen annually by the stockholders or members, is said to be applicable to this corporation. It is a little surprising that one who for years was connected with the management of this corporation should not have discovered this alleged illegality until after the death of Pastor Russell, and then for the first time should bring forward a claim which is well calculated to subvert the whole scheme of government as planned and desired by Pastor Russell, and should use that claim to justify the possession of power in himself alone to oust a majority of the Board of Directors and to fill their places, notwithstanding that a number of the persons whom he thus seeks to exclude held that office for years with the acquiescence and approval both of Pastor Russell and of the membership of the corporation. In this connection it is significant that the charter of the Society is endorsed, as required by Pennsylvania law, with a certificate of an Associate Judge of the Common Please that such judge had examined the charter and found the same "to be lawful and not injurious to the community," and that therefore the incorporators and their associates were entitled to have leave to be a corporation for the purposes and upon the terms therein stated.
Even if, however, an election or appointment "for life" could not lawfully be made, your right to office would not be in any way affected, since no successors to you have been chosen by the members of the corporation. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that as Mr. Rutherford claims, the Pennsylvania statutory provision that "Directors shall be chosen annually by the stockholders or members," has some application to this corporation, there would then come into play the very next clause in the statute, to wit, that such Directors or Trustees "shall hold their office until others are chosen and qualified in their stead." As the members of the corporation have never chosen anyone in your place, your terms of office would (if the statute cited by Mr. Rutherford were applicable) be extended beyond the expiration of one year until such time as successors chosen, not by Mr. Rutherford, but by the members of the corporation, should qualify. Even if the term for which you had been elected were longer than the law allowed, you would not thereby be disqualified from holding office during the lawful period.
Furthermore, this provision of statute that Directors do not lose office solely because of the failure of the members of the corporation to appoint their successors, but continue until such time as the successors have been appointed and qualify, is merely expressive of the common law rule on the subject, and hence would be applicable to your case, even though the statute which we have been discussing be not applicable to the corporation.
As to the claim that at least three Directors must be residents of the State of Pennsylvania, it would seem to be enough to reply that if this be so, the defect in title to office would apply to the entire Board of Directors and not merely to such individual members thereof as Mr. Rutherford (not himself a resident of Pennsylvania) might choose to consider affected by such disqualification. We are, however, unable to find any provision of Pennsylvania law enacted when this charter was adopted or which affects this charter which makes it mandatory that a certain number of Directors in a membership corporation (as is this one) shall be residents of the State of Pennsylvania.
As to the claim that Mr. Rutherford, as President, is "the executive officer and General Manager" of the corporation, and as such "has the legal right to manage the corporation," we cannot but feel that the conclusion which is sought to be reached from the development of this claim, to wit, that as "Manager" he may fill the Board of Directors with his own appointees, is founded on the use of the word "Manager" in a double sense. The term "Manager" of a corporation is the title of an office thoroughly well known to the law and in the business community; and it has never been thought before that this office was in any way connected with the appointed of Directors. It has to do solely with the executive management, and the Manager is the representative and executive officer of the Directors and not the overlord or source of power. The argument that the incumbent of the office of Manager has the "legal right to manage the corporation" is of course unsound, if the word "manage" is meant to imply the exercise of all the powers of the corporation, including the right to appoint Directors.
As to the filling of vacancies, it is enough to say that if Mr. Rutherford is right in his contention that certain portions of the charter are invalid because of the statute laws of Pennsylvania as to corporations, then he is wrong in his contention that as President or Manager of the Society he has the right to fill vacancies, because this statute expressly provides that "in case of the death, removal or resignation of the President or any of the Directors, Treasurer or other officer of any such company, the remaining Directors may supply the vacancy thus created, until the next election." Furthermore, even aside from this statute and taking the charter solely by itself, he has no right to fill your places, since "vacancies" have not occurred in your respective offices, and also because in the event of any such vacancy it would have been his duty, or the duty of any other president, to call the Board together in special meeting, and he could not deprive the Board of such power and obtain it for himself merely by failing to call a special meeting for such purpose.
But even if for any reason your original title to office might have legal defects, you, or at least three of you, have been in office so long and your title to office has been so long recognized by the entire membership of the corporation and by its late President, that you are no de facto Directors, even if not de jure Directors.
Finally, it is important to observe that if the provision of the Pennsylvania statute that directors shall be chosen annually, had the effect which Mr. Rutherford claims, to wit: as rendering vacant the office of every director at the end of one year, he himself would have no title to his office as director or as President, for the charter requires that the President "shall be chosen from among the members of the Board annually." Mr. Rutherford claims that because he was elected by the members of the corporation to be President, such election constituted impliedly an election of him as a director, although he was not expressly so elected. This claim has been overruled by our Court of Appeals in a similar case (People ex rel Nicholl vs. New York Infant Asylum, 122 N. Y. 190.) If he were not in fact a director, the mistake of the members of the corporation in supposing that he was already a director and therefore eligible to be President, would not render him eligible in law to be president or constitute him a lawfully elected director. For this and other reasons, we are of the opinion that he propositions of law advance by Mr. Rutherford, would, if sound and pushed to their logical conclusion, defeat his own title to office as director and president.
Very truly yours,
DAVIES, AUERBACH AND CORNELL
TO:
MESSRS.
A. I. RITCHIE,
J. D. WRIGHT
I. F. HOSKINS,
R. H. HIRSH.
Please address us P. O. Box No. 179, Brooklyn, N. Y.
Brooklyn. July 27. 1917.
DEAR BRETHREN: --
A situation of such seriousness has arisen in the management of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society that we, writing to you as a majority of the Board of Directors, have felt it necessary that you should be acquainted with the facts. The point, in brief, is that an effort is being made to change the scheme of government of the Society as Brother Russell himself devised it and desired it to be perpetuated; and, to that end, to declare illegal provisions in the Charter of the Society which Brother Russell himself placed there, and to use this claim of illegality to oust Directors who have held office for many years with the approval of Brother Russell and the Society.
J. D. Wright, who is one of those now writing you, became a Director in 1906; I. F. Hoskins became a Director in 1908; A. I. Ritchie became a Director in 1911, and R. H. Hirsh became a Director on March 29, 1917. We four are a majority of the seven Directors of the Board. A. I. Ritchie was Vice-President of the Society at the time Brother Russell died; and Brother Russell's Will appointed R. H. Hirsh and I. F: Hoskins, with three others, "as possibly amongst the most suitable from which to fill vacancies in the Editorial Committee" of The Watch Tower.
The Charter of the Society, which was procured from the State of Pennsylvania in 1884, and was written by Brother Russell himself with his own hand (as Brother Rutherford said in his funeral oration) provides that:
"The members of the Board of Directors shall hold their respective offices for life, unless removed by two-thirds vote of the shareholders, and vacancies in the Board occasioned by death, resignation, or removal, shall be filled by vote of a majority of the remaining members of the Board, who shall meet for that purpose within twenty days from the time when such vacancy or vacancies shall occur, and in the event of a failure to fill such vacancy or vacancies, in the manner aforesaid, within thirty days from the time when such vacancy or vacancies shall occur, then the said vacancy or vacancies shall be filled by the appointment of the President, and the person or persons so appointed shall hold his or their office or offices until the next annual election of officers of the corporation, when such vacancy or vacancies shall be filled by election, in the same manner as the President, Vice-President and Secretary or Treasurer are elected."
This Charter bears the endorsement, as required by the Laws of Pennsylvania, of an Associate Judge of the Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas, certifying that it is "lawful," and that the incorporators were entitled to form a corporation "for the purposes and upon the terms therein stated." The validity of this Charter was again confirmed in 1896 by the Pennsylvania Court, when it approved the petition of Brother Russell, asking that the name of the Society be changed from Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society to its present name. This Charter expressly provides:
"The corporation is to be managed by a Board of Directors consisting of seven members."
In a pamphlet entitled "A Conspiracy Exposed, and Harvest Siftings," April 25, 1894, Brother Russell said, concerning the members of the Board of Directors of the Tract Society:
"Having up to December 1, 1893, thirty-seven hundred and five (3,705) voting shares, out of a total of sixty-three hundred and eighty-three (6,383) voting shares, Sister Russell and myself, of course, elect the officers, and thus control the Society; and this was fully understood by the Directors from the first. Their usefulness it was understood, would come to the front in the event of our death."
And in his Will Brother Russell, further referring to the special reasons for his personal conduct of the affairs of the Society, said
"However, in view of the fact that in donating the journal, Zion's Watch Tower, the Old Theology Quarterly (now "The Bible Students' Monthly") and the copyrights of the "Millennial Dawn Scripture Studies" books and various other booklets, hymn-books, etc., to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, I did so with the explicit understanding that I should have full control of all the interests of these publications during my lifetime, and that after my decease they should be conducted according to "my wishes."
Obviously, these special reasons for Brother Russell's personal conduct of the affairs of the Society do not hold good in the case of any other person.
Since Brother Russell's death, Brother Rutherford has for the first time declared that this scheme of government by Directors who are to hold office for life, is illegal under the Laws of the State of. Pennsylvania, and that directors can lawfully hold office only for-one year. He has also for the first time declared that under the jaws of the State of Pennsylvania at least three of the Directors must be residents of the State of Pennsylvania. With these claims as a lever, he has undertaken to say that we who are now writing you are not lawfully directors of the Watch_ Tower Bible and Tract Society, and that he has authority to appoint other directors in our place; and he claims to have done so, naming four brethren, none of Whom was a Director of the Society during the life time of Brother Russell. He also undertakes to say that, in view of his assertion that the law of Pennsylvania requires three directors to be residents of that State, the penalties of non-compliance with such supposed requirements shall fall upon us, rather than upon him and the other Directors, although neither he nor Brother Pierson nor- Brother Van Amburgh is a resident of the State of Pennsylvania. On the other hand, the undersigned, Brother Hirsh, has his home in the State of Pennsylvania.
We are advised by our counsel, Messrs. Davies, Auerbach & Cornell, of 34 Nassau Street, New York City, that the claims of Brother Rutherford in these respects are entirely without warrant; that we are lawfully Directors of the Society; that those whom Brother Rutherford has undertaken to appoint in our places have no title to office; and that if the claims of Brother Rutherford were sound in law, he could have no legal title to office either, as a director or as president. We annex a copy of counsel's opinion.
What concerns us most, however, is not the legal or technical rights of the matter, but rather the sacred necessity of preserving the scheme of government laid down for the Society by Brother Russell himself and of preserving in the Society faithful loyalty to each and all of the provisions of the Charter and of his Will concerning this Society, quite irrespective of 'legal technicalities. That scheme of government was very simple and has well performed its purposes through the years. It has, without exception, met with approval from the membership of the Society; and no one has heretofore thought or attempted to upset it by raising legal questions.
It seems to us, therefore, to be a matter of the gravest concern that, after Brother Russell's death, one holding a high position in the Society should undertake to expunge from the Charter, on technical grounds, provisions which Brother Russell himself put there, and which the experience of years has justified; and should undertake, through his mere declaration that such provisions are invalid (contrary to the opinion of counsel), to draw to himself complete power in the selection of the members of the Board and to appoint new men of his own choice in the place of those who served for years with the approval and at the wish of Brother Russell.
The extent to which this course is subversive of the constitution of the Society, and the degree in which it is a lately conceived expedient apparently adopted for a special purpose, is shown by the fact that The Watch Tower in its issue of December 15, 1916, shortly after the death of Brother Russell, gave the following accurate and comprehensive account of the organization and purpose of the Society:
ORGANIZATION OF THE WORK
"It is recognized that everything must be done decently and in order; that there must be a regular organization to properly carry on any work. How, then, may the Harvest work be thus conducted since Brother Russell is no longer in our midst? Many of the friends throughout the country are asking this and other questions, and we take pleasure in answering:
"The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society was organized in. the year 1884 as a means of putting forth the Message of the Kingdom in an orderly and systematic manner. The Corporation is controlled and managed by its Board of Directors and officers. The Board of Directors is composed of seven members. The Charter of the Corporation provides that the Board of Directors shall be self-perpetuating; that is to say, when a vacancy occurs by death or resignation the surviving members are empowered to fill such vacancy. Brother Russell was a member of the Board of Directors. Two days after his death the Board met and elected Brother A. N. Pierson as a member of the Board to fill the vacancy caused by Brother Russell's change. The seven members of the Board as now constituted are A. I. Ritchie, W. E. Van Amburgh, H. C. Rockwell, J. D. Wright I. F. Hoskins, A. N. Pierson and J. F. Rutherford."
At the time when this article was written Brother Rutherford was one of the Editorial Committee and must have passed upon its composition.
We feel it our duty, therefore, to lay all the foregoing facts before you and to ask for your advice and guidance.
We would not willingly, in our own private interests, take even defensive measures; but we are bound to realize that we are in a very high sense fiduciaries who are charged with the duty of preserving, whole and unbroken, the traditions of the Society and the provisions by which Brother Russell desired it to be governed during his life and after his death. Under these circumstances it seems to us clear that the moral influence 'of all the brethren should immediately be brought to bear, in order that what we conceive to be these injuries to the fabric o f our beloved Society may be repaired from within; and that thereby means may be found to avert what otherwise will be the lamentable certainty of litigation in the courts.
If you desire a more detailed statement of the facts, we shall be prepared to furnish it upon request. Please address us at Post Office Box No. 179, Brooklyn, New York. Your Brethren in the Service of Our King,
J. D. WRIGHT,
A. I. RITCHIE,
I. F. HOSKINS,
R H. HIRSH.
Further Note: -- On Friday, July 27, Brother Rutherford, representing the Peoples Pulpit Association, ordered the above named brethren to leave the Bethel Home.
Crowell, Conn., July 26, 1917
Mr. A. I. Ritchie,
My dear Brother Ritchie:
I thank you for your favor of the 21st, received last Monday. meanwhile I have been waiting on the Lord to know what to say in reply. After reading the letter, the words of the Psalmist came to my mind, recurring many times since: "The meek will He guide in judgment; and the meek will He teach His way." Consequently I have taken time to make this reply:
On entering the meeting room at the Bethel a week ago last Tuesday morning I was very much surprised to find that Brother Rutherford had appointed a new Board, and so expressed myself to those present. Presently we heard the reading of a letter from a Philadelphia law firm, in which were set forth the facts mentioned in the resolution read before the Bethel Family, viz., that the board of Directors, as constituted, was not a legal one, therefore its members were not legally directors. Thereupon I expressed the thought that if these brethren were not legally members of the Board of Directors -- which position some of them had held for many years in the eyes of the friends in general -- then the fact remains that the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society has never had a legal Board. To this Brother Rutherford assented. I further stated that if it was true that the Society's business had been carried on for so many years in a manner not entirely in harmony with the requirements of the law, it surely could be continued in the same way for a few more months, until another annual meeting. This was not a motion, but merely a criticism or suggestion, upon which no action was taken.
When the Committee which had drawn up the resolution presented it to me. I told them frankly that, while I had nothing whatever against the Brethren chosen, I did object to the appointment of a new Board. After hearing the discussion by the different brethren, including Brother McGee's summing up the articles of the charter, I came to the conclusion that the statements concerning the legal standing of the members of three, who had been elected as the Society's officers by the shareholders, would have the same standing so far as membership in the Board of Directors is concerned. While the charter, as published in the little blue covered booklet we receive, makes no provision for the selection of the members of the Board of Directors and specifies that "the members of the Board of Directors shall hold their respective offices for life, unless removed by a two-thirds' vote of the shareholders."
You ask why I signed the resolution that was so detrimental to yourself and the other brethren. I felt that there was a measure of wrong on both sides. Some of you brethren had made statements at Philadelphia and other places which called for an explanation, and a letter of some kind was due the friends who asked for such an explanation. This resolution was drawn up by a committee, whose original intention was to have it published, to which I objected. While I admire Brother Rutherford's ability and his wisdom in settling many difficult questions for the Society, and while I fully believe that it is the Lord's will that he should be our President, yet I cannot approve of some things he did in connection with this matter.
One of my principal weaknesses, as far as I know myself, is that it is very hard for me to say "No," especially to brethren I love as much as I do all the members of the Board, including the brethren newly appointed; in fact, all who are truly the Lord's. When signing the resolution, I had strong hopes that reconciliation might be made between the two parties who differed, and that neither publication of the resolution nor any other publication from either side might be necessary. Before I signed, however a number of statements to which I objected were stricken out. After being thus modified, it was further agreed that copies of this resolution should be set only to Classes and brethren that had heard of the trouble and requested an explanation. I held out for some hours against a thing I did not believe in, but since the brethren had changed it, eliminating some objectionable paragraphs, and agreeing to send it only to inquiring friends, I finally signed, as a compromise.
When our Secretary showed me a copy of the resolution which had been sent to the Class, I could not help but think that it had been sent far and wide to all Classes; and I felt that I had not taken the proper course in signing even after it had been amended. Now that I have reason to believe a general circulation of this resolution has been made, I want to assure you that had I foreseen this I should never had signed the paper. I feel that this had done you four brethren a decided injury, because, in my opinion, none of you has any desire to do any harm to the Society or bring about a division, but that you simply differ with Brother Rutherford about the control of the Society; that it is your desire to stand by the charter and the principles of Brother Russell, which recognize the Board of Directors as having the power of control. I have not concluded to take a firmer stand for what I believe is the right, viz., that the appointment of the new members to take the place of the four who were not legally members according to the decision of the Philadelphia law firm was not the proper course, and will therefore stand by the old Board.
A copy of this letter goes to Brother Rutherford.
With much Christian love, as ever,
Your brother in Christ,
A. N. PIERSON
P. S. You have my permission to make such use of this letter as you may deem wise.
DAVIES, AUERBACH & CORNELL
MUTUAL LIFE BUILDING, 34 NASSAU STREET
JULIEN T. DAVIES
JOSEPH S. AUERBACH
EDWARD CORNELL
CHARLES E. HOTCHKISS
BRAINARD TOLLES
CHARLES H. TUTTLE
NICHOLAS F. LENSSEN
WARNER B. MATTESON
New York, July 23, 1917.
Gentlemen:
You have requested our opinion concerning your present title to office as Directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, and concerning the views as to the law expressed by Mr. Rutherford in his "Statements of Facts and Points," a copy of which you have received.
As to the proposition which is so much emphasized in Mr. Rutherford's "Statements" that even if his course of conduce in ousting, as he claims, you four gentleman, a majority of the Board, from your Directorships, was wrongful and in violation of law, the matter cannot be redressed in the New York courts, it is enough to point out that he, in his own statement says:
"In 1909 said Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society removed its activities from the State of Pennsylvania to the State of New York; and since that time it has transacted no business of consequence in the State of Pennsylvania, and never had a meeting of its Board of Directors in said State during that time."
If this be so, it goes without saying that the courts of the State of New York have ample jurisdiction to see to it that the affairs of the corporation, which, according to Mr. Rutherford's own admission, are being conducted almost entirely within the State of New York, are not taken out of the hands of a majority of its Board of Directors and turned over to other men whom the President chooses to appoint and regard as Directors. No lawyer familiar with the New York law would have any difficulty in finding legal methods of preventing the usurpers from exercising control over the affairs of the corporation in this State.
The second proposition in Mr. Rutherford's "Statements," to-wit, that the affairs of the corporation could not be brought before the courts in the State of New York, because it is no registered in this State, would involve, if true, very disastrous consequences for the corporation, in view of Mr. Rutherford's own admission that all of its affairs are being substantially transacted in this State. If, in truth, it be an outlaw here -- if, in truth, its affairs are not under the protection of the State of New York -- it is easy to see that the corollary of the proposition that it is not competent to be sued in the courts of this Sate, is that for the same reason it is not competent to sue, and that in consequence its affairs, its disregard of the constituted Board of Directors, whose presence in office had expressed the will of Pastor Russell and of the membership of the corporation for years.
As a matter of law, however, it is utter fallacious to say that because the statutes of this State provide no means for registering a foreign membership corporation, that therefore such corporation in transacting affairs here is not subject to the courts of this State. All corporations may lawfully carry out within this State the purposes of their charters and may exercise such powers incidental thereto as may be fairly necessary, unless otherwise forbidden by the laws of this State; and the requirements of the statutes of this State for registry apply only to foreign stock corporations. (Demarest vs. Flack, 128 N. Y. 205.) That the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is not a foreign stock corporation within the meaning of the statutes of this State is shown by the following definition in Section 3 of the General Corporation Law:
"A stock corporation is a corporation having a capital stock divided into shares, and which is authorized by law to distribute to the holders thereof dividends or shares of the surplus profits of the corporation. A corporation is not a stock corporation because of having issued certificates called certificates of stock, but which are in fact merely certificates of membership, and which is not authorized by law to distribute to its members any dividends or share of profits arising from the operations of the corporation."
Pastor Russell, therefore, was not so ill advised as to the law, that in conducting the affairs of the corporation in this State since 1909 (as Mr. Rutherford himself says) he committed the mistake of placing those affairs outside of the protection of courts of justice.
The third proposition made by Mr. Rutherford is that the provision in the charter of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, approved in 1884 and still incorporated in the said charter, that "the members of the Board of Directors shall hold their respective offices for life," is invalid, since the statute of the State of Pennsylvania, providing that Directors shall be chosen annually by the stockholders or members, is said to be applicable to this corporation. It is a little surprising that one who for years was connected with the management of this corporation should not have discovered this alleged illegality until after the death of Pastor Russell, and then for the first time should bring forward a claim which is well calculated to subvert the whole scheme of government as planned and desired by Pastor Russell, and should use that claim to justify the possession of power in himself alone to oust a majority of the Board of Directors and to fill their places, notwithstanding that a number of the persons whom he thus seeks to exclude held that office for years with the acquiescence and approval both of Pastor Russell and of the membership of the corporation. In this connection it is significant that the charter of the Society is endorsed, as required by Pennsylvania law, with a certificate of an Associate Judge of the Common Please that such judge had examined the charter and found the same "to be lawful and not injurious to the community," and that therefore the incorporators and their associates were entitled to have leave to be a corporation for the purposes and upon the terms therein stated.
Even if, however, an election or appointment "for life" could not lawfully be made, your right to office would not be in any way affected, since no successors to you have been chosen by the members of the corporation. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that as Mr. Rutherford claims, the Pennsylvania statutory provision that "Directors shall be chosen annually by the stockholders or members," has some application to this corporation, there would then come into play the very next clause in the statute, to wit, that such Directors or Trustees "shall hold their office until others are chosen and qualified in their stead." As the members of the corporation have never chosen anyone in your place, your terms of office would (if the statute cited by Mr. Rutherford were applicable) be extended beyond the expiration of one year until such time as successors chosen, not by Mr. Rutherford, but by the members of the corporation, should qualify. Even if the term for which you had been elected were longer than the law allowed, you would not thereby be disqualified from holding office during the lawful period.
Furthermore, this provision of statute that Directors do not lose office solely because of the failure of the members of the corporation to appoint their successors, but continue until such time as the successors have been appointed and qualify, is merely expressive of the common law rule on the subject, and hence would be applicable to your case, even though the statute which we have been discussing be not applicable to the corporation.
As to the claim that at least three Directors must be residents of the State of Pennsylvania, it would seem to be enough to reply that if this be so, the defect in title to office would apply to the entire Board of Directors and not merely to such individual members thereof as Mr. Rutherford (not himself a resident of Pennsylvania) might choose to consider affected by such disqualification. We are, however, unable to find any provision of Pennsylvania law enacted when this charter was adopted or which affects this charter which makes it mandatory that a certain number of Directors in a membership corporation (as is this one) shall be residents of the State of Pennsylvania.
As to the claim that Mr. Rutherford, as President, is "the executive officer and General Manager" of the corporation, and as such "has the legal right to manage the corporation," we cannot but feel that the conclusion which is sought to be reached from the development of this claim, to wit, that as "Manager" he may fill the Board of Directors with his own appointees, is founded on the use of the word "Manager" in a double sense. The term "Manager" of a corporation is the title of an office thoroughly well known to the law and in the business community; and it has never been thought before that this office was in any way connected with the appointed of Directors. It has to do solely with the executive management, and the Manager is the representative and executive officer of the Directors and not the overlord or source of power. The argument that the incumbent of the office of Manager has the "legal right to manage the corporation" is of course unsound, if the word "manage" is meant to imply the exercise of all the powers of the corporation, including the right to appoint Directors.
As to the filling of vacancies, it is enough to say that if Mr. Rutherford is right in his contention that certain portions of the charter are invalid because of the statute laws of Pennsylvania as to corporations, then he is wrong in his contention that as President or Manager of the Society he has the right to fill vacancies, because this statute expressly provides that "in case of the death, removal or resignation of the President or any of the Directors, Treasurer or other officer of any such company, the remaining Directors may supply the vacancy thus created, until the next election." Furthermore, even aside from this statute and taking the charter solely by itself, he has no right to fill your places, since "vacancies" have not occurred in your respective offices, and also because in the event of any such vacancy it would have been his duty, or the duty of any other president, to call the Board together in special meeting, and he could not deprive the Board of such power and obtain it for himself merely by failing to call a special meeting for such purpose.
But even if for any reason your original title to office might have legal defects, you, or at least three of you, have been in office so long and your title to office has been so long recognized by the entire membership of the corporation and by its late President, that you are no de facto Directors, even if not de jure Directors.
Finally, it is important to observe that if the provision of the Pennsylvania statute that directors shall be chosen annually, had the effect which Mr. Rutherford claims, to wit: as rendering vacant the office of every director at the end of one year, he himself would have no title to his office as director or as President, for the charter requires that the President "shall be chosen from among the members of the Board annually." Mr. Rutherford claims that because he was elected by the members of the corporation to be President, such election constituted impliedly an election of him as a director, although he was not expressly so elected. This claim has been overruled by our Court of Appeals in a similar case (People ex rel Nicholl vs. New York Infant Asylum, 122 N. Y. 190.) If he were not in fact a director, the mistake of the members of the corporation in supposing that he was already a director and therefore eligible to be President, would not render him eligible in law to be president or constitute him a lawfully elected director. For this and other reasons, we are of the opinion that he propositions of law advance by Mr. Rutherford, would, if sound and pushed to their logical conclusion, defeat his own title to office as director and president.
Very truly yours,
DAVIES, AUERBACH AND CORNELL
TO:
MESSRS.
A. I. RITCHIE,
J. D. WRIGHT
I. F. HOSKINS,
R. H. HIRSH.
Please address us P. O. Box No. 179, Brooklyn, N. Y.
Brooklyn. July 27. 1917.
DEAR BRETHREN: --
A situation of such seriousness has arisen in the management of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society that we, writing to you as a majority of the Board of Directors, have felt it necessary that you should be acquainted with the facts. The point, in brief, is that an effort is being made to change the scheme of government of the Society as Brother Russell himself devised it and desired it to be perpetuated; and, to that end, to declare illegal provisions in the Charter of the Society which Brother Russell himself placed there, and to use this claim of illegality to oust Directors who have held office for many years with the approval of Brother Russell and the Society.
J. D. Wright, who is one of those now writing you, became a Director in 1906; I. F. Hoskins became a Director in 1908; A. I. Ritchie became a Director in 1911, and R. H. Hirsh became a Director on March 29, 1917. We four are a majority of the seven Directors of the Board. A. I. Ritchie was Vice-President of the Society at the time Brother Russell died; and Brother Russell's Will appointed R. H. Hirsh and I. F: Hoskins, with three others, "as possibly amongst the most suitable from which to fill vacancies in the Editorial Committee" of The Watch Tower.
The Charter of the Society, which was procured from the State of Pennsylvania in 1884, and was written by Brother Russell himself with his own hand (as Brother Rutherford said in his funeral oration) provides that:
"The members of the Board of Directors shall hold their respective offices for life, unless removed by two-thirds vote of the shareholders, and vacancies in the Board occasioned by death, resignation, or removal, shall be filled by vote of a majority of the remaining members of the Board, who shall meet for that purpose within twenty days from the time when such vacancy or vacancies shall occur, and in the event of a failure to fill such vacancy or vacancies, in the manner aforesaid, within thirty days from the time when such vacancy or vacancies shall occur, then the said vacancy or vacancies shall be filled by the appointment of the President, and the person or persons so appointed shall hold his or their office or offices until the next annual election of officers of the corporation, when such vacancy or vacancies shall be filled by election, in the same manner as the President, Vice-President and Secretary or Treasurer are elected."
This Charter bears the endorsement, as required by the Laws of Pennsylvania, of an Associate Judge of the Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas, certifying that it is "lawful," and that the incorporators were entitled to form a corporation "for the purposes and upon the terms therein stated." The validity of this Charter was again confirmed in 1896 by the Pennsylvania Court, when it approved the petition of Brother Russell, asking that the name of the Society be changed from Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society to its present name. This Charter expressly provides:
"The corporation is to be managed by a Board of Directors consisting of seven members."
In a pamphlet entitled "A Conspiracy Exposed, and Harvest Siftings," April 25, 1894, Brother Russell said, concerning the members of the Board of Directors of the Tract Society:
"Having up to December 1, 1893, thirty-seven hundred and five (3,705) voting shares, out of a total of sixty-three hundred and eighty-three (6,383) voting shares, Sister Russell and myself, of course, elect the officers, and thus control the Society; and this was fully understood by the Directors from the first. Their usefulness it was understood, would come to the front in the event of our death."
And in his Will Brother Russell, further referring to the special reasons for his personal conduct of the affairs of the Society, said
"However, in view of the fact that in donating the journal, Zion's Watch Tower, the Old Theology Quarterly (now "The Bible Students' Monthly") and the copyrights of the "Millennial Dawn Scripture Studies" books and various other booklets, hymn-books, etc., to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, I did so with the explicit understanding that I should have full control of all the interests of these publications during my lifetime, and that after my decease they should be conducted according to "my wishes."
Obviously, these special reasons for Brother Russell's personal conduct of the affairs of the Society do not hold good in the case of any other person.
Since Brother Russell's death, Brother Rutherford has for the first time declared that this scheme of government by Directors who are to hold office for life, is illegal under the Laws of the State of. Pennsylvania, and that directors can lawfully hold office only for-one year. He has also for the first time declared that under the jaws of the State of Pennsylvania at least three of the Directors must be residents of the State of Pennsylvania. With these claims as a lever, he has undertaken to say that we who are now writing you are not lawfully directors of the Watch_ Tower Bible and Tract Society, and that he has authority to appoint other directors in our place; and he claims to have done so, naming four brethren, none of Whom was a Director of the Society during the life time of Brother Russell. He also undertakes to say that, in view of his assertion that the law of Pennsylvania requires three directors to be residents of that State, the penalties of non-compliance with such supposed requirements shall fall upon us, rather than upon him and the other Directors, although neither he nor Brother Pierson nor- Brother Van Amburgh is a resident of the State of Pennsylvania. On the other hand, the undersigned, Brother Hirsh, has his home in the State of Pennsylvania.
We are advised by our counsel, Messrs. Davies, Auerbach & Cornell, of 34 Nassau Street, New York City, that the claims of Brother Rutherford in these respects are entirely without warrant; that we are lawfully Directors of the Society; that those whom Brother Rutherford has undertaken to appoint in our places have no title to office; and that if the claims of Brother Rutherford were sound in law, he could have no legal title to office either, as a director or as president. We annex a copy of counsel's opinion.
What concerns us most, however, is not the legal or technical rights of the matter, but rather the sacred necessity of preserving the scheme of government laid down for the Society by Brother Russell himself and of preserving in the Society faithful loyalty to each and all of the provisions of the Charter and of his Will concerning this Society, quite irrespective of 'legal technicalities. That scheme of government was very simple and has well performed its purposes through the years. It has, without exception, met with approval from the membership of the Society; and no one has heretofore thought or attempted to upset it by raising legal questions.
It seems to us, therefore, to be a matter of the gravest concern that, after Brother Russell's death, one holding a high position in the Society should undertake to expunge from the Charter, on technical grounds, provisions which Brother Russell himself put there, and which the experience of years has justified; and should undertake, through his mere declaration that such provisions are invalid (contrary to the opinion of counsel), to draw to himself complete power in the selection of the members of the Board and to appoint new men of his own choice in the place of those who served for years with the approval and at the wish of Brother Russell.
The extent to which this course is subversive of the constitution of the Society, and the degree in which it is a lately conceived expedient apparently adopted for a special purpose, is shown by the fact that The Watch Tower in its issue of December 15, 1916, shortly after the death of Brother Russell, gave the following accurate and comprehensive account of the organization and purpose of the Society:
ORGANIZATION OF THE WORK
"It is recognized that everything must be done decently and in order; that there must be a regular organization to properly carry on any work. How, then, may the Harvest work be thus conducted since Brother Russell is no longer in our midst? Many of the friends throughout the country are asking this and other questions, and we take pleasure in answering:
"The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society was organized in. the year 1884 as a means of putting forth the Message of the Kingdom in an orderly and systematic manner. The Corporation is controlled and managed by its Board of Directors and officers. The Board of Directors is composed of seven members. The Charter of the Corporation provides that the Board of Directors shall be self-perpetuating; that is to say, when a vacancy occurs by death or resignation the surviving members are empowered to fill such vacancy. Brother Russell was a member of the Board of Directors. Two days after his death the Board met and elected Brother A. N. Pierson as a member of the Board to fill the vacancy caused by Brother Russell's change. The seven members of the Board as now constituted are A. I. Ritchie, W. E. Van Amburgh, H. C. Rockwell, J. D. Wright I. F. Hoskins, A. N. Pierson and J. F. Rutherford."
At the time when this article was written Brother Rutherford was one of the Editorial Committee and must have passed upon its composition.
We feel it our duty, therefore, to lay all the foregoing facts before you and to ask for your advice and guidance.
We would not willingly, in our own private interests, take even defensive measures; but we are bound to realize that we are in a very high sense fiduciaries who are charged with the duty of preserving, whole and unbroken, the traditions of the Society and the provisions by which Brother Russell desired it to be governed during his life and after his death. Under these circumstances it seems to us clear that the moral influence 'of all the brethren should immediately be brought to bear, in order that what we conceive to be these injuries to the fabric o f our beloved Society may be repaired from within; and that thereby means may be found to avert what otherwise will be the lamentable certainty of litigation in the courts.
If you desire a more detailed statement of the facts, we shall be prepared to furnish it upon request. Please address us at Post Office Box No. 179, Brooklyn, New York. Your Brethren in the Service of Our King,
J. D. WRIGHT,
A. I. RITCHIE,
I. F. HOSKINS,
R H. HIRSH.
Further Note: -- On Friday, July 27, Brother Rutherford, representing the Peoples Pulpit Association, ordered the above named brethren to leave the Bethel Home.
THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY’S NEW POLICY ON BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS
THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY’S NEW POLICY ON BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has long forbidden blood transfusions for Jehovah’s Witnesses. The issue is so serious, in fact, that Witnesses believe a blood transfusion “may result in the immediate and very temporary prolongation of life, but at the cost of eternal life for a dedicated Christian.” [1] Witness parents are expected not only to prevent their children from undergoing a blood transfusion, [2] but even to prevent family pets from receiving blood. [3] In order to prevent their being administered blood transfusions while unconscious, each Witness is required to carry a card that states:
I direct that no blood transfusions be administered to me, even though others deem such necessary to preserve my life or health. I will accept non-blood expanders. This is in accord with my rights as a patient and my beliefs as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I hereby release the doctors and hospital of any damages attributed to my refusal. This document is valid even if I am unconscious, and it is binding upon my heirs or legal representatives. [4]
The Watchtower Society forbids blood transfusions because the procedure allegedly constitutes eating blood, which is forbidden in the Bible in Genesis 9:4 and Acts 15:28–29. They contend that receiving blood intravenously constitutes eating, just as people can receive food intravenously. [5]
A large number of Jehovah’s Witnesses, including many children, have died due to their loyalty to the Watchtower Society. The May 22, 1994, issue of Awake! featured the stories of five children who died after refusing blood transfusions. These stories, similar in tone and rhetoric to the child-martyr stories of the Victorian era, depict children who inspired respect and acceptance for the Society as they happily sacrificed their lives to uphold the Watchtower’s regulations. Unfortunately, however, the reality of the situation is often far grimmer. In a particularly horrifying example of how seriously Jehovah’s Witnesses take the Society’s prohibition, Paul Blizard, a former elder, tells of his experience when his daughter needed a transfusion. After Blizard accepted a court order requiring that his daughter receive a transfusion, an elder said, “I hope your daughter gets hepatitus (sic) from that blood.” [6] Blizard, his wife, and even their daughter were then shunned by their congregation for not smuggling the girl out from the hospital to avoid the transfusion. [7]
While many Jehovah's Witnesses have died due to refusing blood transfusions, recent developments in the Watchtower Society’s policy on blood indicate that individuals who face a similar crisis today may not need to sacrifice their lives to prove their loyalty to the Society.
RECENT WATCHTOWER CONTROVERSIES CONCERNING BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS
1998
In 1998, in order to receive legal recognition from the government of Bulgaria, the Watchtower Society signed an agreement with the Bulgarian government in which they stated that “members should have free choice in the matter for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association.” [8] A press release distributed in 1997 by the European Commission of Human Rights clearly explains the understanding of the Commission and the Bulgarians of the Society’s stated position: “In respect of the refusal of blood transfusion, the applicant association [i.e., the Jehovah’s Witnesses] submits that there are no religious sanctions for a Jehovah’s Witness who chooses to accept blood transfusion and that, therefore, the fact that the religious doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses is against blood transfusion cannot amount to a threat to ‘public health.’ [9]
The Watchtower Society’s perspective on the agreement can be found in a press release it distributed on April 27, 1998. In announcing the agreement with Bulgaria, the only information about the agreement to allow transfusions is the statement: “The agreement also includes an acknowledgment that each individual has the freedom to choose the type of medical treatment he receives.” [10] This vague statement, while not openly contradicting the agreement, also contains no indication of the historic compromise to which the Society agreed by ostensibly allowing blood transfusions.The 1997 press release by the Commission, explaining their position regarding the then-unsettled case, alerted many people to a perceived doctrinal change by the Society. To prevent the media or other Witnesses from drawing their own conclusions about doctrinal changes, the Society stated in its press release: “The terms of the agreement do not reflect a change in the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses.” [11]
The position of the Watchtower Society was clear: despite their agreement to allow Witnesses to receive blood transfusions in Bulgaria, in reality the Society had no intention of honoring this agreement. The Society will continue to levy religious sanctions against Witnesses who receive blood transfusions, forcing the Witnesses to decide between possible death or “excommunication or disfellowshipping.” [12]
2000
Widespread speculation on the Society’s position vis-à-vis blood transfusions began in May with the publication of the June 15, 2000, issue of The Watchtower, in which the Society reiterated that Jehovah’s Witnesses may receive blood fractions in their medical treatment, but still may not receive transfusions of whole blood. [13]Speculation increased with a rumor — spread on the Internet — that the Governing Body had met on May 24, 2000 and decided that Jehovah’s Witnesses who accepted blood transfusions would no longer be subject to investigation by judicial committees. [14]
The most significant development that spurred such speculation was the June 14, 2000, article by Ruth Gledhill in the London Times, “U-Turn on Blood Transfusions by Witnesses.” [15] Jehovah’s Witnesses, according to Gledhill, are now allowed to accept blood transfusions. Gledhill quotes Paul Gillies, Watchtower spokesperson in the United Kingdom:
It is quite possible that someone who was under pressure on an operating table would take a blood transfusion because they did not want to die. The next day they might say they regretted this decision. We would then give them spiritual comfort and help. No action would be taken against them. We would just view it as a moment of weakness. [16]
Witnesses who receive a transfusion and are unrepentant, however, will be viewed as having disassociated themselves from the Society. [17] In response to Gledhill’s article, the Watchtower Society issued the following press release:
An article published in the June 14, 2000, issue of a British newspaper has incorrectly publicized what it feels to be a major change in the religious doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding blood transfusions. In order to correct the misinformation, Jehovah's Witnesses are providing the following statement. The Bible commands Christians to "abstain...from blood." (Acts 15:20). Jehovah's Witnesses believe that it is not possible to abstain from blood and accept blood transfusions. They have consistently refused donor blood ever since transfusions began to be widely used in civilian medical practice in the 1940s, and this scriptural position has not changed. If one of Jehovah's Witnesses is transfused against his or her will, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that this constitutes a sin on the part of the individual. This position has not changed.
If one of Jehovah's Witnesses accepts a blood transfusion in a moment of weakness and then later regrets the action, this would be considered a serious matter. Spiritual assistance would be offered to help the person regain spiritual strength. This position has not changed.
If a baptized member of the faith willfully and without regret accepts blood transfusions, he indicates by his own actions that he no longer wishes to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The individual revokes his own membership by his own actions, rather than the congregation initiating this step. This represents a procedural change instituted in April 2000 in which the congregation no longer initiates the action to revoke membership in such cases. However, the end result is the same: the individual is no longer viewed as one of Jehovah's Witnesses because he no longer accepts and follows a core tenet of the faith. However, if such an individual later changes his mind, he may be accepted back as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. This position has not changed.
Jehovah's Witnesses seek quality medical care and accept medical alternatives to blood transfusions. Support is given to members to help them obtain medical treatment that respects their religious convictions.
Contact: James N. Pellechia, telephone: (718) 560-5600 [18]
The Society, in its press release, specifically states that there has been no change in doctrine, and lists several practices that it also claims have not been changed. While it is true that the doctrine has not changed, several of the ways in which the doctrine is lived by Jehovah’s Witnesses have changed dramatically.
CHANGES IN ACCEPTED BLOOD FRACTIONS
While forbidding the transfusion of blood and “major” blood components, the Society has long allowed the consumption of such “minor” blood components as albumin and immunoglobulins; these components are permissible because blood is thus used in “small quantities.” [19] These “minor” components were allowed because they are derived from plasma (a serum that is ninety percent water), which is separated from the cellular components of blood (red and white cells, and platelets) that were not allowed. [20] The Society has explicitly condemned receiving cellular blood components in medical treatment. Regarding the biblical prohibitions to abstain from blood, the Society writes, “Witnesses view them as ruling out transfusion of whole blood, packed RBCs [i.e., red blood cells], and plasma, as well as WBC [i.e., white blood cells] and platelet administration.” [21] In a medical journal Watchtower physicians recently stated, “Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept whole blood, or major components of blood, namely, red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets and plasma. Also they do not accept hemoglobin, which is a major part of red blood cells.” [22]
The article in the June 14, 2000, issue of The Watchtower reveals a significant change in the Society’s policy toward receiving blood fractions derived from blood cells (it should be noted that the Society continues to forbid receiving whole blood, or complete blood cells [23]). Whereas past transfusion of fractions of blood components would have resulted in disfellowshipping, the Society now concludes, “When it comes to fractions of any of the primary components, each Christian, after careful and prayerful meditation, must conscientiously decide for himself.” [24] In support of their new position, the Society notes that a fetus receives bilirubin — a fraction of red blood cells — from its mother through the placenta. Because the fetus receives this fraction from an external source, the Society concludes that it is therefore acceptable for adult Witnesses to also receive fractions from blood cells. [25]
Despite the Society’s claim that their policy has not changed, comparing the article from the current Watchtower with previous statements proves that the Society is now allowing blood components that were previously forbidden. Furthermore, the potential impact of the change on Jehovah’s Witnesses is quite significant. As the Associated Jehovah’s Witnesses for Reform on Blood state, “The new policy will open the door to JWs accepting many additional blood products and eventually blood substitutes that are hemoglobin based.” [26]
CHANGES IN PUNISHMENT FOR RECEIVING TRANSFUSIONS
The Society claims that Jehovah’s Witnesses who receive a blood transfusion, but afterwards are repentant for receiving the treatment, will not be subject to excommunication. They further claim that this is not a change in their policy.
In contrast to this statement of stability, the penalty for receiving a blood transfusion, be it whole blood or fractions of primary components, was severe: “The receiver of a blood transfusion must be cut off from God's people by excommunication or disfellowshiping. [27] The circumstances under which the individual received a transfusion, or the repentance afterward, were irrelevant to the punishment incurred: “[Receiving a transfusion] is a violation of God’s command to Christians, the seriousness of which should not be minimized by any passing over of it lightly as being an optional matter for the conscience of any individual to decide upon.” [28]
Furthermore, the pressure of a life-or-death situation was also not a factor: “Contrary to how some today reason, God’s law on blood was not to be ignored just because an emergency arose…our Life-Giver never said that his standards could be ignored in an emergency.” [29] This policy is vividly illustrated in the previously mentioned example of Paul Blizard and his daughter. Rather than being forgiven for the transfusion, the Blizards were shunned by their congregation. [30]
The fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses can now receive blood transfusions — within limits — without necessarily being disfellowshipped is encouraging for observers of the Watchtower Society. This encouragement must be tempered, however, by the ambiguity of the Society’s new position. There are currently no standards for determining whether a Witness is truly repentant for receiving a transfusion; this determination is therefore left to the discretion of individual elders. While some elders may show great compassion toward victims of medical emergencies, other elders may continue to hold to the position that blood transfusions are inexcusable under any circumstances. In the latter case, the Witness will likely be considered by the elders to have disassociated himself. Futhermore, because appeals for judicial decisions can only be made to the same congregational judicial committee that voted for punishment, [31] there is little hope that a Witness could successfully appeal an involuntary “disassociation.”
A further concern is the way in which the Society will attempt to “help the [recipient of a transfusion] regain spiritual strength.” This vague statement can be interpreted in different ways. A compassionate elder could attempt to convince the Witness that, while receiving a transfusion did not meet the ideal for Watchtower behavior, it is nonetheless a forgivable “offense.” Unfortunately, the ambiguity of this statement also opens the door to potential abuse. The Witness could be repeatedly told that he or she has committed an act of cannibalism; the Society has even said of transfusion recipients (quoting a seventeenth-century writer) that we should “abhor those who stain their gullet with human blood.” [32] Such teaching could result in terrible psychological and spiritual trauma for the Witness.
There is a very likely punishment to help Witnesses “regain spiritual strength.” A letter reportedly sent by the Society to all the local branches allegedly dictates that Witnesses who receive transfusions should not serve in any “‘privileged capacity’, such as an elder, ministerial servant or pioneer.” [33] Such a restriction — if true — means that while Witnesses who receive transfusions will not be disfellowshipped, they will be treated as second-class members of their congregations. Furthermore, if the recipient (or his or her caregiver) is in such a privileged position, it is likely that the Witness will be forced to resign that position, leading to public disgrace.
CONCLUSION
Reports that the Watchtower Society now allows blood transfusions have been excessive. While repentant Witnesses will be forgiven for undergoing the procedure, the Society continues to teach that blood transfusions are a violation of God’s prohibition against eating blood. There are nonetheless good reasons for rejoicing in the current changes in Watchtower policy. Jehovah’s Witnesses now have an expanded array of medical treatments that are accepted by the Society, and they also have the possibility of being spared the abusive practice of disfellowshipping if they receive a transfusion.
Despite these positive changes, non-Jehovah’s Witnesses still have valid reasons for concern. The Society’s prohibition against transfusions remains in place, guaranteeing that very conservative Witnesses will continue to refuse all treatments involving blood fractions (the Society even says that such individuals’ “sincere, conscientious stand should be respected” [34]). This attitude — which will almost certainly be perpetuated by some elders — will lead to continued deaths within the Watchtower Society.
In an attempt to show Jehovah’s Witnesses that the position of the Society is both unreliable and inaccurate, Christians should attempt to do three things.
1. Show Witnesses that the Society HAS in fact changed its teachings.
By referring Witnesses to the quotes that show the Society’s previous stand regarding receiving fractions of primary blood components, the Witness will be able to see — from the Society’s own words — both that the teaching has changed, and that the Society is being dishonest in claiming that its teachings and practices remain unchanged.
2. Teach Witnesses that transfusions do not constitute eating.
Contrary to the Society’s position, receiving a blood transfusion is not the same as eating blood. Food is “eaten,” either through oral consumption or intravenous infusion, and then digested in order to provide the body with necessary nutrients that can only be obtained externally from the body. Norman Geisler explains: “Eating is the literal taking in of food in the normal manner through the mouth and into the digestive system. The reason intravenous injections are referred to as ‘feeding’ is because the ultimate result is that, through intravenous injection, the body receives the nutrients that it normally would receive by eating.” [35]
Blood transfusions, on the other hand, are simply the replenishment of an essential substance that is normally resident in the body. James Sire states that “a transfusion replenishes the supply of essential, life-sustaining fluid that has otherwise drained away or become incapable of performing its vital tasks in the body. A blood transfusion is not even equivalent to intravenous feeding because the blood so given does not function as food.” [36]
Because the physiological process involved with consuming and digesting food differs dramatically from the circulation of blood, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrine is easily seen to be incorrect.
3. Teach Witnesses the Biblical perspective on transfusions.
As stated above, the Bible explicitly condemns eating blood. The Noahide covenant forbids eating blood, [37] as do the Mosaic covenant and the ruling of the Jerusalem council. [38]
These scriptures notably forbid the consumption of animal blood. Leviticus explicitly states that the blood of “beast or fowl” is to be poured out before the flesh can be eaten. Ironically, while the Society outlaws transfusions on the basis of Leviticus, they allow Witnesses to consume animal fat, which was similarly forbidden to the Israelites. [39]
Blood transfusions were not practiced at the times of the biblical writings, and thus are not directly addressed by the Bible. For this reason orthodox Jews, who rigorously follow kosher laws, allow transfusions while forbidding oral blood consumption. Jews and Christians have, through objective analysis of biblical regulations and medical evidence, determined that eating and digesting animal blood in no way resembles the intravenous replacement of human circulatory fluid.
The Society’s broad interpretation of the passages above is in reality a case of eisegesis: the Society is using its doctrine to interpret the Bible, rather than using the Bible to inform its doctrine. Many people have endured untold suffering and death because the Watchtower Society does not “abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; that [they] may approve things that are excellent” (Philippians 1:9–10).
[1]Blood, Medicine, and the Law of God (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1961), p. 55. Emphasis added
[2]Ibid., p. 54.
[3] “Questions From the Readers,” Watchtower, February 15 (1964), p. 127.
[4] Card on file.
[5]Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Question of Blood (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1977), p. 18.
[6] Leonard Chretien, Witnesses of Jehovah (Eugene, Or: Harvest House Publishers, 1988), p. 197.
[7] Ibid.
[8]Information Note No. 148, [Online]. URL http://194.250.50.201/eng/E276INFO.148.html.
[9]Press Communiqué Issued by the Secretary to the European Commission of Human Rights, Application No. 28626/95, [Online]. URL http://www.dhcommhr.coe.fr/eng/28626CP.E.html. Emphasis added.
[10] Copy on file.
[11] Ibid.
[12] “Questions From Readers,” Watchtower, January 15 (1961), p. 64.
[13] See “Questions From Readers,” Watchtower, June 15 (2000), pp. 29–31.
[14] See Associated Jehovah’s Witnesses for Reform on Blood, “Breaking News,” New Light on Blood, June 11 (2000) [Online]. URL http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/breaking.html.
[15] [Online]. URL http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/2000/06/14/timfgnusa01004.html.
[16] Ibid.
[17] In Watchtower terminology, a disassociated person voluntarily withdraws his or her membership as a Jehovah’s Witness.
[18] Copy on file. Italics in original.
[19] “Questions From Readers,” Watchtower, June 1 (1990), pp. 30–31.
[20] Ibid., p. 30. The inconsistency in allowing these minor components, which to obtain require large quantities of whole blood to be separated, is examined in Jason Barker, “Bulgaria and Blood,” The Watchman Expositor, 15.3 (1998), pp. 18–20 [Online]. URL http://www.watchman.org/bloodbulgaria.htm.
[21]How Can Blood Save Your Life (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1990), p. 27.
[22] Richard Bailey and Tomonori Ariga, “The View of Jehovah’s Witnesses on Blood Substitutes,” Artif Cells Blood Substit Immobil Biotechnol, 26 (1998), pp. 571–76. Quoted in Associated Jehovah’s Witnesses for Reform on Blood, “Watchtower Blood Policy Changes Again,” New Light on Blood [Online]. URL http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/change.shtml.
[23] “Questions From Readers,” June 15 (2000), p. 29.
[24] Ibid., p. 31.
[25] Ibid. Interestingly, in a 1990 article about transfusions, the Society used the fetus as an example for allowing the reception of plasma fractions; they did not, however, mention bilirubin or the possibility of receiving fractions of red blood cells. See “Questions From Readers,” June 1 (1990), p. 31.
[26] “Watchtower Blood Policy Changes Again,” [Online].
[27] “Questions From Readers,” Watchtower, January 15 (1961), p. 64.
[28] Ibid.
[29]How Can Blood Save Your Life? P. 4.
[30] Chretien, p. 197.
[31]Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1991), p. 124.
[32] Thomas Bartholin, quoted in How Can Blood Save Your Life? p. 6.
[33] “Breaking News,” [Online].
[34] “Questions From Readers,” June 15 (2000), p. 30. [35] Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask (Grand Rapids, Mi: Baker, 1999), p. 434.
[36] James Sire,Scripture Twisting (Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 1980), p.86.
[37] Genesis 9:4.
[38] Leviticus 17:11–14; Acts 15:28–29.
[39] Leviticus 3:17.
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has long forbidden blood transfusions for Jehovah’s Witnesses. The issue is so serious, in fact, that Witnesses believe a blood transfusion “may result in the immediate and very temporary prolongation of life, but at the cost of eternal life for a dedicated Christian.” [1] Witness parents are expected not only to prevent their children from undergoing a blood transfusion, [2] but even to prevent family pets from receiving blood. [3] In order to prevent their being administered blood transfusions while unconscious, each Witness is required to carry a card that states:
I direct that no blood transfusions be administered to me, even though others deem such necessary to preserve my life or health. I will accept non-blood expanders. This is in accord with my rights as a patient and my beliefs as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I hereby release the doctors and hospital of any damages attributed to my refusal. This document is valid even if I am unconscious, and it is binding upon my heirs or legal representatives. [4]
The Watchtower Society forbids blood transfusions because the procedure allegedly constitutes eating blood, which is forbidden in the Bible in Genesis 9:4 and Acts 15:28–29. They contend that receiving blood intravenously constitutes eating, just as people can receive food intravenously. [5]
A large number of Jehovah’s Witnesses, including many children, have died due to their loyalty to the Watchtower Society. The May 22, 1994, issue of Awake! featured the stories of five children who died after refusing blood transfusions. These stories, similar in tone and rhetoric to the child-martyr stories of the Victorian era, depict children who inspired respect and acceptance for the Society as they happily sacrificed their lives to uphold the Watchtower’s regulations. Unfortunately, however, the reality of the situation is often far grimmer. In a particularly horrifying example of how seriously Jehovah’s Witnesses take the Society’s prohibition, Paul Blizard, a former elder, tells of his experience when his daughter needed a transfusion. After Blizard accepted a court order requiring that his daughter receive a transfusion, an elder said, “I hope your daughter gets hepatitus (sic) from that blood.” [6] Blizard, his wife, and even their daughter were then shunned by their congregation for not smuggling the girl out from the hospital to avoid the transfusion. [7]
While many Jehovah's Witnesses have died due to refusing blood transfusions, recent developments in the Watchtower Society’s policy on blood indicate that individuals who face a similar crisis today may not need to sacrifice their lives to prove their loyalty to the Society.
RECENT WATCHTOWER CONTROVERSIES CONCERNING BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS
1998
In 1998, in order to receive legal recognition from the government of Bulgaria, the Watchtower Society signed an agreement with the Bulgarian government in which they stated that “members should have free choice in the matter for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association.” [8] A press release distributed in 1997 by the European Commission of Human Rights clearly explains the understanding of the Commission and the Bulgarians of the Society’s stated position: “In respect of the refusal of blood transfusion, the applicant association [i.e., the Jehovah’s Witnesses] submits that there are no religious sanctions for a Jehovah’s Witness who chooses to accept blood transfusion and that, therefore, the fact that the religious doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses is against blood transfusion cannot amount to a threat to ‘public health.’ [9]
The Watchtower Society’s perspective on the agreement can be found in a press release it distributed on April 27, 1998. In announcing the agreement with Bulgaria, the only information about the agreement to allow transfusions is the statement: “The agreement also includes an acknowledgment that each individual has the freedom to choose the type of medical treatment he receives.” [10] This vague statement, while not openly contradicting the agreement, also contains no indication of the historic compromise to which the Society agreed by ostensibly allowing blood transfusions.The 1997 press release by the Commission, explaining their position regarding the then-unsettled case, alerted many people to a perceived doctrinal change by the Society. To prevent the media or other Witnesses from drawing their own conclusions about doctrinal changes, the Society stated in its press release: “The terms of the agreement do not reflect a change in the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses.” [11]
The position of the Watchtower Society was clear: despite their agreement to allow Witnesses to receive blood transfusions in Bulgaria, in reality the Society had no intention of honoring this agreement. The Society will continue to levy religious sanctions against Witnesses who receive blood transfusions, forcing the Witnesses to decide between possible death or “excommunication or disfellowshipping.” [12]
2000
Widespread speculation on the Society’s position vis-à-vis blood transfusions began in May with the publication of the June 15, 2000, issue of The Watchtower, in which the Society reiterated that Jehovah’s Witnesses may receive blood fractions in their medical treatment, but still may not receive transfusions of whole blood. [13]Speculation increased with a rumor — spread on the Internet — that the Governing Body had met on May 24, 2000 and decided that Jehovah’s Witnesses who accepted blood transfusions would no longer be subject to investigation by judicial committees. [14]
The most significant development that spurred such speculation was the June 14, 2000, article by Ruth Gledhill in the London Times, “U-Turn on Blood Transfusions by Witnesses.” [15] Jehovah’s Witnesses, according to Gledhill, are now allowed to accept blood transfusions. Gledhill quotes Paul Gillies, Watchtower spokesperson in the United Kingdom:
It is quite possible that someone who was under pressure on an operating table would take a blood transfusion because they did not want to die. The next day they might say they regretted this decision. We would then give them spiritual comfort and help. No action would be taken against them. We would just view it as a moment of weakness. [16]
Witnesses who receive a transfusion and are unrepentant, however, will be viewed as having disassociated themselves from the Society. [17] In response to Gledhill’s article, the Watchtower Society issued the following press release:
An article published in the June 14, 2000, issue of a British newspaper has incorrectly publicized what it feels to be a major change in the religious doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding blood transfusions. In order to correct the misinformation, Jehovah's Witnesses are providing the following statement. The Bible commands Christians to "abstain...from blood." (Acts 15:20). Jehovah's Witnesses believe that it is not possible to abstain from blood and accept blood transfusions. They have consistently refused donor blood ever since transfusions began to be widely used in civilian medical practice in the 1940s, and this scriptural position has not changed. If one of Jehovah's Witnesses is transfused against his or her will, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that this constitutes a sin on the part of the individual. This position has not changed.
If one of Jehovah's Witnesses accepts a blood transfusion in a moment of weakness and then later regrets the action, this would be considered a serious matter. Spiritual assistance would be offered to help the person regain spiritual strength. This position has not changed.
If a baptized member of the faith willfully and without regret accepts blood transfusions, he indicates by his own actions that he no longer wishes to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The individual revokes his own membership by his own actions, rather than the congregation initiating this step. This represents a procedural change instituted in April 2000 in which the congregation no longer initiates the action to revoke membership in such cases. However, the end result is the same: the individual is no longer viewed as one of Jehovah's Witnesses because he no longer accepts and follows a core tenet of the faith. However, if such an individual later changes his mind, he may be accepted back as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. This position has not changed.
Jehovah's Witnesses seek quality medical care and accept medical alternatives to blood transfusions. Support is given to members to help them obtain medical treatment that respects their religious convictions.
Contact: James N. Pellechia, telephone: (718) 560-5600 [18]
The Society, in its press release, specifically states that there has been no change in doctrine, and lists several practices that it also claims have not been changed. While it is true that the doctrine has not changed, several of the ways in which the doctrine is lived by Jehovah’s Witnesses have changed dramatically.
CHANGES IN ACCEPTED BLOOD FRACTIONS
While forbidding the transfusion of blood and “major” blood components, the Society has long allowed the consumption of such “minor” blood components as albumin and immunoglobulins; these components are permissible because blood is thus used in “small quantities.” [19] These “minor” components were allowed because they are derived from plasma (a serum that is ninety percent water), which is separated from the cellular components of blood (red and white cells, and platelets) that were not allowed. [20] The Society has explicitly condemned receiving cellular blood components in medical treatment. Regarding the biblical prohibitions to abstain from blood, the Society writes, “Witnesses view them as ruling out transfusion of whole blood, packed RBCs [i.e., red blood cells], and plasma, as well as WBC [i.e., white blood cells] and platelet administration.” [21] In a medical journal Watchtower physicians recently stated, “Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept whole blood, or major components of blood, namely, red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets and plasma. Also they do not accept hemoglobin, which is a major part of red blood cells.” [22]
The article in the June 14, 2000, issue of The Watchtower reveals a significant change in the Society’s policy toward receiving blood fractions derived from blood cells (it should be noted that the Society continues to forbid receiving whole blood, or complete blood cells [23]). Whereas past transfusion of fractions of blood components would have resulted in disfellowshipping, the Society now concludes, “When it comes to fractions of any of the primary components, each Christian, after careful and prayerful meditation, must conscientiously decide for himself.” [24] In support of their new position, the Society notes that a fetus receives bilirubin — a fraction of red blood cells — from its mother through the placenta. Because the fetus receives this fraction from an external source, the Society concludes that it is therefore acceptable for adult Witnesses to also receive fractions from blood cells. [25]
Despite the Society’s claim that their policy has not changed, comparing the article from the current Watchtower with previous statements proves that the Society is now allowing blood components that were previously forbidden. Furthermore, the potential impact of the change on Jehovah’s Witnesses is quite significant. As the Associated Jehovah’s Witnesses for Reform on Blood state, “The new policy will open the door to JWs accepting many additional blood products and eventually blood substitutes that are hemoglobin based.” [26]
CHANGES IN PUNISHMENT FOR RECEIVING TRANSFUSIONS
The Society claims that Jehovah’s Witnesses who receive a blood transfusion, but afterwards are repentant for receiving the treatment, will not be subject to excommunication. They further claim that this is not a change in their policy.
In contrast to this statement of stability, the penalty for receiving a blood transfusion, be it whole blood or fractions of primary components, was severe: “The receiver of a blood transfusion must be cut off from God's people by excommunication or disfellowshiping. [27] The circumstances under which the individual received a transfusion, or the repentance afterward, were irrelevant to the punishment incurred: “[Receiving a transfusion] is a violation of God’s command to Christians, the seriousness of which should not be minimized by any passing over of it lightly as being an optional matter for the conscience of any individual to decide upon.” [28]
Furthermore, the pressure of a life-or-death situation was also not a factor: “Contrary to how some today reason, God’s law on blood was not to be ignored just because an emergency arose…our Life-Giver never said that his standards could be ignored in an emergency.” [29] This policy is vividly illustrated in the previously mentioned example of Paul Blizard and his daughter. Rather than being forgiven for the transfusion, the Blizards were shunned by their congregation. [30]
The fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses can now receive blood transfusions — within limits — without necessarily being disfellowshipped is encouraging for observers of the Watchtower Society. This encouragement must be tempered, however, by the ambiguity of the Society’s new position. There are currently no standards for determining whether a Witness is truly repentant for receiving a transfusion; this determination is therefore left to the discretion of individual elders. While some elders may show great compassion toward victims of medical emergencies, other elders may continue to hold to the position that blood transfusions are inexcusable under any circumstances. In the latter case, the Witness will likely be considered by the elders to have disassociated himself. Futhermore, because appeals for judicial decisions can only be made to the same congregational judicial committee that voted for punishment, [31] there is little hope that a Witness could successfully appeal an involuntary “disassociation.”
A further concern is the way in which the Society will attempt to “help the [recipient of a transfusion] regain spiritual strength.” This vague statement can be interpreted in different ways. A compassionate elder could attempt to convince the Witness that, while receiving a transfusion did not meet the ideal for Watchtower behavior, it is nonetheless a forgivable “offense.” Unfortunately, the ambiguity of this statement also opens the door to potential abuse. The Witness could be repeatedly told that he or she has committed an act of cannibalism; the Society has even said of transfusion recipients (quoting a seventeenth-century writer) that we should “abhor those who stain their gullet with human blood.” [32] Such teaching could result in terrible psychological and spiritual trauma for the Witness.
There is a very likely punishment to help Witnesses “regain spiritual strength.” A letter reportedly sent by the Society to all the local branches allegedly dictates that Witnesses who receive transfusions should not serve in any “‘privileged capacity’, such as an elder, ministerial servant or pioneer.” [33] Such a restriction — if true — means that while Witnesses who receive transfusions will not be disfellowshipped, they will be treated as second-class members of their congregations. Furthermore, if the recipient (or his or her caregiver) is in such a privileged position, it is likely that the Witness will be forced to resign that position, leading to public disgrace.
CONCLUSION
Reports that the Watchtower Society now allows blood transfusions have been excessive. While repentant Witnesses will be forgiven for undergoing the procedure, the Society continues to teach that blood transfusions are a violation of God’s prohibition against eating blood. There are nonetheless good reasons for rejoicing in the current changes in Watchtower policy. Jehovah’s Witnesses now have an expanded array of medical treatments that are accepted by the Society, and they also have the possibility of being spared the abusive practice of disfellowshipping if they receive a transfusion.
Despite these positive changes, non-Jehovah’s Witnesses still have valid reasons for concern. The Society’s prohibition against transfusions remains in place, guaranteeing that very conservative Witnesses will continue to refuse all treatments involving blood fractions (the Society even says that such individuals’ “sincere, conscientious stand should be respected” [34]). This attitude — which will almost certainly be perpetuated by some elders — will lead to continued deaths within the Watchtower Society.
In an attempt to show Jehovah’s Witnesses that the position of the Society is both unreliable and inaccurate, Christians should attempt to do three things.
1. Show Witnesses that the Society HAS in fact changed its teachings.
By referring Witnesses to the quotes that show the Society’s previous stand regarding receiving fractions of primary blood components, the Witness will be able to see — from the Society’s own words — both that the teaching has changed, and that the Society is being dishonest in claiming that its teachings and practices remain unchanged.
2. Teach Witnesses that transfusions do not constitute eating.
Contrary to the Society’s position, receiving a blood transfusion is not the same as eating blood. Food is “eaten,” either through oral consumption or intravenous infusion, and then digested in order to provide the body with necessary nutrients that can only be obtained externally from the body. Norman Geisler explains: “Eating is the literal taking in of food in the normal manner through the mouth and into the digestive system. The reason intravenous injections are referred to as ‘feeding’ is because the ultimate result is that, through intravenous injection, the body receives the nutrients that it normally would receive by eating.” [35]
Blood transfusions, on the other hand, are simply the replenishment of an essential substance that is normally resident in the body. James Sire states that “a transfusion replenishes the supply of essential, life-sustaining fluid that has otherwise drained away or become incapable of performing its vital tasks in the body. A blood transfusion is not even equivalent to intravenous feeding because the blood so given does not function as food.” [36]
Because the physiological process involved with consuming and digesting food differs dramatically from the circulation of blood, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrine is easily seen to be incorrect.
3. Teach Witnesses the Biblical perspective on transfusions.
As stated above, the Bible explicitly condemns eating blood. The Noahide covenant forbids eating blood, [37] as do the Mosaic covenant and the ruling of the Jerusalem council. [38]
These scriptures notably forbid the consumption of animal blood. Leviticus explicitly states that the blood of “beast or fowl” is to be poured out before the flesh can be eaten. Ironically, while the Society outlaws transfusions on the basis of Leviticus, they allow Witnesses to consume animal fat, which was similarly forbidden to the Israelites. [39]
Blood transfusions were not practiced at the times of the biblical writings, and thus are not directly addressed by the Bible. For this reason orthodox Jews, who rigorously follow kosher laws, allow transfusions while forbidding oral blood consumption. Jews and Christians have, through objective analysis of biblical regulations and medical evidence, determined that eating and digesting animal blood in no way resembles the intravenous replacement of human circulatory fluid.
The Society’s broad interpretation of the passages above is in reality a case of eisegesis: the Society is using its doctrine to interpret the Bible, rather than using the Bible to inform its doctrine. Many people have endured untold suffering and death because the Watchtower Society does not “abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; that [they] may approve things that are excellent” (Philippians 1:9–10).
[1]Blood, Medicine, and the Law of God (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1961), p. 55. Emphasis added
[2]Ibid., p. 54.
[3] “Questions From the Readers,” Watchtower, February 15 (1964), p. 127.
[4] Card on file.
[5]Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Question of Blood (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1977), p. 18.
[6] Leonard Chretien, Witnesses of Jehovah (Eugene, Or: Harvest House Publishers, 1988), p. 197.
[7] Ibid.
[8]Information Note No. 148, [Online]. URL http://194.250.50.201/eng/E276INFO.148.html.
[9]Press Communiqué Issued by the Secretary to the European Commission of Human Rights, Application No. 28626/95, [Online]. URL http://www.dhcommhr.coe.fr/eng/28626CP.E.html. Emphasis added.
[10] Copy on file.
[11] Ibid.
[12] “Questions From Readers,” Watchtower, January 15 (1961), p. 64.
[13] See “Questions From Readers,” Watchtower, June 15 (2000), pp. 29–31.
[14] See Associated Jehovah’s Witnesses for Reform on Blood, “Breaking News,” New Light on Blood, June 11 (2000) [Online]. URL http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/breaking.html.
[15] [Online]. URL http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/2000/06/14/timfgnusa01004.html.
[16] Ibid.
[17] In Watchtower terminology, a disassociated person voluntarily withdraws his or her membership as a Jehovah’s Witness.
[18] Copy on file. Italics in original.
[19] “Questions From Readers,” Watchtower, June 1 (1990), pp. 30–31.
[20] Ibid., p. 30. The inconsistency in allowing these minor components, which to obtain require large quantities of whole blood to be separated, is examined in Jason Barker, “Bulgaria and Blood,” The Watchman Expositor, 15.3 (1998), pp. 18–20 [Online]. URL http://www.watchman.org/bloodbulgaria.htm.
[21]How Can Blood Save Your Life (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1990), p. 27.
[22] Richard Bailey and Tomonori Ariga, “The View of Jehovah’s Witnesses on Blood Substitutes,” Artif Cells Blood Substit Immobil Biotechnol, 26 (1998), pp. 571–76. Quoted in Associated Jehovah’s Witnesses for Reform on Blood, “Watchtower Blood Policy Changes Again,” New Light on Blood [Online]. URL http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/change.shtml.
[23] “Questions From Readers,” June 15 (2000), p. 29.
[24] Ibid., p. 31.
[25] Ibid. Interestingly, in a 1990 article about transfusions, the Society used the fetus as an example for allowing the reception of plasma fractions; they did not, however, mention bilirubin or the possibility of receiving fractions of red blood cells. See “Questions From Readers,” June 1 (1990), p. 31.
[26] “Watchtower Blood Policy Changes Again,” [Online].
[27] “Questions From Readers,” Watchtower, January 15 (1961), p. 64.
[28] Ibid.
[29]How Can Blood Save Your Life? P. 4.
[30] Chretien, p. 197.
[31]Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1991), p. 124.
[32] Thomas Bartholin, quoted in How Can Blood Save Your Life? p. 6.
[33] “Breaking News,” [Online].
[34] “Questions From Readers,” June 15 (2000), p. 30. [35] Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask (Grand Rapids, Mi: Baker, 1999), p. 434.
[36] James Sire,Scripture Twisting (Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 1980), p.86.
[37] Genesis 9:4.
[38] Leviticus 17:11–14; Acts 15:28–29.
[39] Leviticus 3:17.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)