What Is Wrong with the Jehovah's Witnesses?
Fruit
With every group claiming to bring the message of God, the question must be: what's the fruit? Jesus said that a prophet would be known by his fruit, not by his ability to interpret Scripture. In the end, the ability of a group to interpret and expound Scripture can only be judged to the limit of your ability to interpret and expound Scripture. Unless you are an excellent judge of what is good Scriptural interpretation, you will not be able to judge whether the doctrine of the Jehovah's Witnesses or any other group is excellent. And if you believe that your interpretation of Scripture is excellent, are you not trusting in your intellect rather than in God?
It is for this reason (and for other reasons, I'm sure) that Jesus said to judge by fruit. What is the result of a group's teaching? if the fruit is good, the root is good. I know that it's scary for Americans to think that way. We're used to judging by the interpretation of Scripture. Because that's what we're used to, that's the standard we're comfortable with. That's purely psychological. The interpretation of Scripture is a terrible standard by which to judge, because you end up trusting yourself. It's Jesus himself who told you to judge by fruit, and that is what you ought to judge by. Jesus says it by way of command. "Either make the tree good and its fruit good," he says, "or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit" (Matt. 12:33, NASB).
By those standards the Jehovah's Witnesses are not much different than any typical Protestant denomination. In fact, as far as commitment to God, love for neighbors, and service to people, they do as well as—though not better than—the best evangelical churches.
There are other matters of fruit, however, that are pretty bad. Jehovah's Witness doctrine is set by the Watchtower in Brooklyn. No significant deviation from that doctrine is allowed to the members or elders in local congregations. And the Watchtower has a long history of giving false prophecies. They have predicted the return of Christ on numerous occasions, including most recently in 1975. Not only have the prophecies failed, but the Watchtower has not been honest about them, denying that they have prophesied things that have not come to pass. There is a book out that documents these false prophecies from their own writings. As soon as I have an internet connection and get back to this page, I'll give you a link to that book.
My experience has been that the Witnesses that have shown up at my door are no more honest than the Watchtower is. Just a month ago, I listened as two Witnesses visited with my next door neighbor right here in Rose Creek Village. My neighbor, a young man named Paul, had never talked with the Witnesses before. He was telling them about the love and fellowship here at RCV. This Witness, a lady, insisted that the JW's experience all the same fellowship and love that we do. I asked her what seemed an obvious question to me. "If both we and the JW's are experiencing the fellowship and love of Christ, would you be able to acknowledge that RCV is a true church of God and that we are true followers of Jehovah, even though we don't agree with a lot of Watchtower doctrine?"
It was amazing to watch the lady dodge the question. I rephrased it several times, and every time she could, she interpreted my question wrong on purpose. If she couldn't interpret my question wrong, she pretended not to understand it and asked me to repeat it. I wish I could say this was unusual for a Witness at my door, but such dishonesty is typical. When they know that their answer will look bad, they either flat out lie or dodge the question. I've talked to at least a dozen Witnesses, and I had an ongoing discussion with one Witness lady and her elder for weeks. The dishonesty I've just described is simply typical of their behavior.
I have a lot of appreciation for the commitment of many Witnesses. In some places they are persecuted, and they are often looked down upon in society. They bear this gladly. Even their children bear the ill will of fellow public school students because JW children are not allowed to say the pledge of allegiance or participate in holiday activities. They also avoid war and violence, which was the universal practice of the early churches1, and they cling to their unique doctrines even when society is against them.
Having said all that, it's also true that Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and most other religious groups have adherents that live their beliefs despite persecution. These good things do not prove them true, and the rest of the Jehovah's Witness fruit is not Biblical fruit. They do not live out the Scriptural description of church life any more than Protestants or Catholics do. They are not one heart and one mind, except by the decree of the Watchtower, and they do not display the shared life described in the book of Acts. They pursue the same goals that the world pursues: a good education, a secure retirement, a big house, a nice car, etc.
And in this case, the Scriptural interpretations of the Watchtower are bizarre enough to qualify as bad fruit as well.
Scripture Interpretations by the Jehovah's Witnesses
Most evangelical cult watch groups focus on certain doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses, such as their disbelief in the Trinity and salvation by faith plus works. I will not do that, because the evangelical view on those subjects is just as unscriptural and unhistorical.
For example, cult watch groups love to argue the Jehovah's Witness translation of John 1:1. The Jehovah's Witnesses have their own translation of the Bible called The New World Translation. John 1:1 in that translation reads:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
The cult watch groups talk about how bad a translation this is, and they point out that the word “a” is not there in the Greek. The fact is, the word “a” is never there in the Greek. There is no such word. Most of the time, if there is no “the,” then you can assume the “a.” In this case, if you talk to Greek scholars, you will find there are reasons that the “a” should not be inserted in John 1:1. However, if you talk to those same Greek scholars, you will find out that our Protestant translations are inaccurate, too. The verse should read, “...and the Word was divine,”2 which would make the JW's just as happy as their own translation.
Cult watch groups point out that Jesus is called God throughout the New Testament, and they rightly point out that there are two Jehovah's in Genesis 19:243. The Jehovah's Witnesses do not have any good answers for these verses, though they are prepared with answers. There answers are often effective, because the cult watch groups have verses that they, too, cannot explain. For example, in John 17:3, Jesus refers to the Father as the only true God, and 1 Cor. 8:6 says that there is one God, the Father. Evangelical explanations for these verses are unsatisfying, and for good reason. They're wrong. No one in the early church believed the evangelical doctrine of the Trinity, and the Apostles' creed, despite being quoted weekly in evangelical churches and being held up as the standard of orthodoxy, expressly denies the evangelical version of the Trinity.4
So the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong on the Trinity, but not so wrong that they have to be corrected on it. Their view of the divinity of the Son was unknown in the church prior to the late 3rd century, but when it did show up, one of the most respected bishops in the early church, Hosius of Spain, said it wasn't worth arguing about.
In the same way, it is not faith that salvation is not by works that saves us. It is faith in Christ that saves us. The evangelical version of salvation by faith is bizarre and has so many verses against it that Martin Luther used to say that Rom. 3:28 and Jam. 2:24 could never be reconciled by anyone. There is a lot wrong with most modern versions of the gospel, whether from the evangelicals or from those the evangelicals call cults. The issue goes far beyond an argument about the role of works in salvation. Both church life (such as described in Acts 2:42-47) and the demands of Christ (such as Luke 14:24-33) are almost forgotten in modern gospels, including the Witness gospel.
So if the issue isn't faith and it isn't the Trinity, what is the problem with Witness Scripture interpretations?
Everything. There's hardly a page of the New Testament that you can't turn to and disagree with the Witnesses on. I remember casually mentioning to a Witness elder that Matthew 27:52-53 describes people rising from the dead. He flipped out on me. He assured me it couldn't be true. I suspect now it's because of their doctrine of soul sleep, that the dead are supposed to be unconscious until the judgment, but at the time I was shocked at his reaction. I showed him the passage, but he was unmoved, despite how clear it is. He came back a few days later with a four-page article from some Watchtower publication giving a bizarre interpretation of that passage that required taking the sentences out of order and changing a few words.
They also believe that Jesus did not rise bodily to heaven. They deny that he really ate with the apostles, as the Gospels say he did, after his resurrection. The denial of the bodily resurrection of Christ is a far worse problem than their view of the Trinity. While the evangelical version of the Trinity is expressly denied by the Apostles' Creed (and the Bible), Jesus' bodily resurrection is expressly taught in the creed. It's taught in the Scriptures, too. Jesus even had Thomas touch his hands and side to prove that he was really alive. By JW doctrine, Jesus was fooling Thomas and the other apostles. In fact, that is exactly Jehovah's Witness doctrine. While they don't call it deception, they say that Jesus only told the apostles it was his body because that's all they could understand. Explain it how you want, they make Jesus a deceiver in order to defend their ridiculous, unscriptural, and unhistorical doctrine.
The examples of these things go on and on. Somewhere in the past, the Watchtower decided that only 144,000 would go to heaven, based on Rev. 14:1. The problem is, that Jesus didn't come back in 1914, 1917, 1925, or 1930, as they predicted, so they stuck around. And, surprisingly, despite these false prophecies they continued to grow. They grew so much that they had many more than 144,000 members. It was time to revamp their theology again. Now, though only 144,000 can go to heaven, the rest of the Witnesses can live in paradise on earth forever.
Over and over and over, you will find the signs of a group of people, the Watchtower leaders in Brooklyn, making mistakes, but then covering those mistakes up by denial or by the development of new doctrines. For example, back in the 80's, when I was talking to that Witness elder I mentioned, the end of the world with the overthrow of earthly governments still had to happen within one generation of 1914. They had already redefined "within a generation of 1914" to mean "before the last person who was old enough to understand the events of 1914 dies." They were figuring that you had to be about eight to understand world events, so they had until the last person who was 8 or older in 1914 dies. It's now 2008, so that any 8 year old in 1914 is now 102. I suppose they've changed that doctrine by now, too, because they're running out of years.
These sort of things are not just bad Bible interpretation. These things are dishonesty and silly games, and for those who claim an authority that rivals that of the pope, it is bad fruit. If the fruit is bad, the tree is bad, too. I recommend you avoid the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Home
Apologetics: How to Answer Cults
Footnotes:
1 The writings of the early church for the first two centuries after the apostolic era are consistent in opposing participation in war. In AD 325, the council of Nicea prescribed a punishment of up to 13 years banishment from communion for those that joined the military “like a dog returning to its own vomit” (Council of Nicea, Canon 12). Return to text
2 Both my first-year Greek teacher and commentaries I have read explained that the wording of John 1:1 makes that last use of “God” an adjective. In other words, the verse is saying that the Word has the character and nature of God. My Greek teacher wanted to translate the verse as “ . . . the Word has the character and nature of God,” but to say “ . . . the Word was divine” seems simpler and clearer. “Divine” in English is the word God as an adjective. Return to text
3 If you want to have some fun with the Witnesses, point them to Zech. 2:8-11 in their own translation. The two Jehovah's in that passage is very clear, and they are not as prepared for that passage as they are for Gen. 19:24. Return to text
4 The Apostle's Creed says, “We believe in one God, the Father...and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God...” This terminology matches the Pre-Nicene belief of the church and the Scriptures (this is almost a direct quote of 1 Cor. 8:6), but disagrees with modern terminology. Evangelical and Catholic churches generally say something to the effect of “We believe in one God, eternally consisting of three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Return to text
