Sunday, July 27, 2008

ARE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES A CULT OR CHRISTIAN?

THE JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES
Some consider the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the followers of Charles Taze Russell, to be an offshoot group of the Seventh-day Adventists. The similarities between the two systems can be seen in the conversion experience of “Pastor” Russell. Having been reared in the Reformed Faith He took their doctrine very seriously at first with special interest paid to the doctrine of Hell. From this fiery orthodoxy he was unable to answer certain questions. He then passed over into a frigid unbelief. His faith was then restored by encountering Seventh-Day Adventism, especially their interest in the Second Advent of Christ.
A few years later Russell wrote his first significant book. He had worked out his modifications of Adventist doctrine. This then became the Doctrine of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Following this he wrote volumes. It was reported that Russell’s written explanations of the Scriptures were far more extensive than St. Paul, St. John, Arius, Waldo, Wycliffe, and Luther. As he expounded on the Gospel, his addresses were know to last six to eight hours a day. As he traveled presenting the Jehovah’s Witness doctrine he would often cover 30,000 miles per year.
His personal life was just as hectic. 1897 he separated from his wife, but she chose not to divorce him until 1913. Her main grounds for the action was his adulterous affair with a Rose Ball. Russell denied these charges going to the point of not entering a room where a woman, unrelated to him, was present. However, he did proceed to defraud his ex-wife of her alimony. The whole scandalous affair nearly brought an end to the movement.
Succeeding Russel was Judge J. F. Rutherford. His election to succeed Russell was met with division. Several small sects within the movement separated themselves. Judge Rutherford’s response was to assure them that they would suffer destruction for their dissension. Rutherford was both very similar and dis-similar to his predecessor. Like Russell he was a very confident speaker and expositor. His doctrinal stances were also very close to those of Russell, and his output of written material even exceeded that of Russell. However, his public persona was seen as secretive and unavailable. He would seemingly appear for his speaking engagements, and following his presentation he would disappear. Much of his private life was kept secret; including some adulterous affairs of his own. His death was also somewhat secretive. He died in January 1942 from an undisclosed illness.
N. H. Knorr was next to lead the cult. His emphasis was on the education of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. He pushed an intensive private and small group study of the Scriptures. He also seemingly sought to separate himself from the legacy of both Russell and Rutherford to the point that many modern Witnesses fail to recognize these men as the patriarchs of their movement.[1]

The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Bible
The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and they do not see the writings of Russell, Rutherford, and others as infallible. They accept the Bible in its entirety, and they claim to be the only group to actually accurately follow its teachings. They have taken the role of being the infallible interpreters of the infallible word. This infallibility apparently extends to the translation of the Scriptures. They have produced their own version of the Bible, The New World Translation. Using this translation greatly impacts many of the cornerstone doctrines of Christianity. John 1:1 in the New World Translation reads. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Instead of the literal "the Word was God," we have "a god," which the sect interprets as "an angelic being.". Col. 1:15-17 says, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist."(NWT). Because the sect teaches that Christ was a created being rather than eternal God, the word "other" is inserted several times. The first edition of the translation did this without brackets separating it. These are only two of the mis-translations done in the New World Translation to “Proof text” their positions and doctrine.
Russell said of his own work, “I claim nothing of superiority or supernatural power.”.[2] However, the Witnesses have ranked him with the Apostle Paul as a great Biblical interpreter, and have identified him as one of the seven messengers named in Ezekiel 9:1-11. Judge Rutherford said of his own work, “These speeches do not contain my message, but do contain the expression of Jehovah’s purpose which he commands must now be told to the people.”[3] It seems obvious that he saw a higher source for his speeches than his own intellect.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Trinity
To put it simply, for the Jehovah’s Witnesses there is no such thing as the Trinity. For them there is one God and His name is Jehovah. Such names as “God” or “Lord” were introduced into the Greek translations of the Old Testament, and thereby into the New Testament, and represent the basis for the falsehood of the Trinity. They see no authority to support the Trinitarian doctrine, and give credit to Satan for its development. As seen in the earlier examples of the difference between the New World Translation and other English translations, Christ’s deity is denied. He is instead the highest of all creatures. Christ was not eternal or divine, and he had a brother whose name was Lucifer. Jesus is also considered to be Michael, the Captain of Jehovah’s hosts. As for the Holy Spirit, His deity and His personality are both denied. He is seen as the invisible force coming from God, but not God himself. This force is used by Jehovah to get His followers to obey.

Jehovah’s Witnesses and Salvation
Jesus, being no more than a perfect human, became a ransom which compensated exactly for what Adam’s sin cost humanity, that is the right to be perfect humans as well. If Jesus were truly God, the ransom he would have paid would have been far and above the mere equivalent Jehovah requires. Even in this atonement he is assisted by the 144,000 listed in Revelation. These 144,000 sacrificed their right to live in this world which would have been earned through their perfect obedience to the will of Jehovah. Even with Christ’s sacrifice the price paid only covered the procurement of a second chance for the believer to attain salvation though his or her good works.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Sacraments
Jehovah’s Witnesses practice baptism by immersion. It is viewed by them to be a symbol of their personal dedication to serve Jehovah. Before being baptized new Witnesses have usually been active for some time. Three interviews are conducted prior to the baptism. These interviews are conducted by the elders of the congregation, and during them they discuss a series of questions designed to determine a candidate’s understanding of the act and their true preparedness for the act.
The Witnesses do not participate in the Lord’s Supper as do others. It is called the lord’s evening Meal, and it occurs only one time per year. They do cite I Corinthians 11:25 and 26 as the basis for this action. The participants are viewed as the remaining remnant of Christians anointed by God. They are viewed in the same manner as the 144,000 referenced in Revelation 14:1. No human issues an invitation to participate in this communion. Instead each participant believes they have received a calling from God and an anointing of the Holy Spirit to participate. The Witnesses view this meal strictly as a memorial. They do not believe in either transubstantiation or consubstantiation. The bread is given as a representation of Christ’s body and the wine as a representation of His blood.

MY CONCLUSIONS
Based solely on their treatment of the Trinity, and their denial of Jesus' divinity, they are a cult period.


[1] The previous information on Russell, Rutherford, and Knorr is a synopsis of the information contained in: Gerstner, John H., The Teachings the Jehovah’s Witnesses, (Grand rapids, MI., Baker Book House, 1960) pp. 7-11
[2] Ibid, p. 17 - A quote from the Watch Tower , July 1906
[3] Ibid.

1 comment:

JohnOneOne said...

Many who take issue with Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" of 'theos' in John 1:1c (as, "a god") often miss the point that this is 'a singular anarthrous predicate noun *preceding the verb*' - that is, not just that use of the noun 'theos' in the third clause lacks the Greek definite article.

This would also explain why some of the examples many feel inclined to provide (John 1, verses 2, 6, 12, 13, 18 and 51), that is, as NWT violations of this supposed guideline (that these also do not have the Greek definite article, and yet they translate theos there as "God"), do not apply; and this is simply because, those other instances do not fit the same Grammatical, syntatical criteria as that found within John 1:1c.

For some specific examples of those which do, that is, those which represent the same, basic Greek, grammatical construction of John 1:1c, please examine the following verses within your own prefered translation of the Bible and see whether the translators had inserted either an "a" or "an" there:

Mark 6:49
Mark 11:32
John 4:19
John 6:70
John 8:44a
John 8:44b
John 9:17
John 10:1
John 10:13
John 10:33
John 12:6

At each of those verses, identity of the one discussed was not at issue; no, but rather, the class of the individual is. Therefore, as can be seen, at those verses, most all versions of the Bible can be found to have added either an "a" or "an" to the translated text. Following this same syntactatical pattern, at John 1:1c, Jesus ("the Word") can also be properly identified as "a god," and not as "God," the one he was just said to be "with" (1:1b).

Taking this one step further, regarding the suggestion that such a rendering would be in direct violation of the cultural, religious, strictly monotheistic view of the Jews of this period, apparently, because of theological bias, many, in fact, fail to consider just such facts. One need examine most any Bible commentary about Jesus' use of Psalm 82:6 within John 10:34 to see the cultural context of such legitimate uses 'theos' for others, that is, beside its application to Jesus.

With reference to such considerations, please see this insightful statement, made by a Trinitarian scholar:

"The Hebrew for ‘gods’ (‘elohîm) could refer to various exalted beings besides Yahweh [or, Jehovah], without implying any challenge to monotheism,…"

Taken from: Blomberg, Craig L. (b.?-d.?). "The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & Commentary." (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, c2002), “The feast of Dedication” ([John] 10:22-42), p. 163. BS2615.6.H55 B56 2002 / 2001051563.

Curiously, another Trinitarian had made the same observation; but this time, when discussing John 1:1, making direct allusion to John 10:34 -

"…the Logos was God…. It [the Greek word Logos, more commonly translated “Word”], signifies, among the Jews and other ancient people, when applied to God, every thing by which God reveals Himself to men, and makes known to them His will. In this passage [John 1:1] the principal proof [for “the Word” being identified as God] does not lie in the word [Greek, 'logos'], nor even in the word [Greek, 'theos'], which in a larger sense is often applied to kings and earthly rulers,…"

Taken from: Knapp, Georg[e] Christian (b.1753-d.1853), D.D., Professor of Theology in the University of Halle. "Lectures on Christian Theology." Translated by Woods, Leonard (b.?-d.?), Jun.D.D., President of Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine. Second American Edition, Reprinted from the last London Edition. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Thomas Wardle, 1845), pp. 136, 137. BT75 .K64 1845 / 35-22780.

Furthermore, there is this:

"If Moses could be [called in Hebrew 'elohim,' often translated as 'a god,' at Exodus 4:16 and 7:1], then, for the gospel writers, so could Jesus [in Greek as 'theos' = elohim], who was regarded by the New Testament [writers] as the very least a new Moses."

Taken from: Fletcher-Louis, Crispin (b.?-d.?). “4Q374: A Discourse on the Sinai Tradition: The Deification of Moses and Early Christology.” Article appearing within: Dead Sea Discoveries, A Journal of Current Research on the Scrolls and Related Literature. (Leiden, Netherlands; New York, New York: E. J. Brill, vol. 1, no. 1; April 1994–), vol. 3, no. 3 (1996), p. 252. BM487.A6 E6 / 96647062.

Quite interestingly, when discussing John 10:34 & 35, although most Bible commentaries accurately discuss/explain the Bible's legitimate uses of the Hebrew and Greek terms for "god" for others throughout a number of places within the Bible (that is, as utilized in a lesser role than in its typical uses for the Almighty, Jehovah), many fail to follow through, that is, in making the logical, Scriptural connection between this and its lesser use for Jesus at John 1:1c.

Perhaps it would interest some to know that, when translating John 1:1c, during the first few centuries after Christianity had begun, two of the earliest known Christian translations of the Greek ‘New Testament’ into a foreign language had utilized their own languages' indefinite article there as well (for, in the Greek language of Jesus’ day, there were no indefinite articles); and again, all in order to complete the proper sense of the phrase from the Koine Greek (of which, people were still using during this period), both of these translations rendered John 1:1c (when translated to English), “and the Word was a god.”

For this, please examine the contents of the following link:

http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/2006/09/john-11c-word-was-god.html

Obviously, there need be more evidence to substantiate such a position; but, otherwise, that is just one of the many points I hope to bring out within my forthcoming work entitled, “What About John 1:1?”

Agape, Alan.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://wwww.goodcompanionbooks.com