“If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him” (Deut. 18:22).²

Like Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Christianity died with the last of the apostles. They believe Christianity was not resurrected until their founder, Charles Taze Russell, began organizing the Watchtower Society in the 1870s. In their view the cross is a pagan symbol adopted by an apostate church and salvation is impossible apart from the Watchtower. While the Witnesses on your doorstep consider themselves to be the only authentic expression of Christianity, the Society they serve compromises, confuses, or contradicts essential Christian doctrine.

First, the Watchtower Society compromises the nature of God. They teach their devotees that the Trinity is a “freakish-looking, three headed God” invented by Satan and that Jesus is merely a god. In Watchtower theology Jesus was created by God as the archangel Michael, during his earthly sojourn became merely human, and after his crucifixion was re-created an immaterial spirit creature. JWs also deny the physical resurrection of Jesus. According to Russell, the body that hung on a torture stake either “dissolved into gasses” or is “preserved somewhere as the grand memorial of God’s love.”

Furthermore, although Christians believe all believers will spend eternity with Christ in “a new heaven and a new earth” (Rev. 21:1; 22:17), the Watchtower teaches that only 144,000 people will make it to heaven while the rest of the faithful will live apart from Christ on earth. Thus in Watchtower lore there is a “little flock” of 144,000 who get to go to heaven and a “great crowd” of others who are relegated to earth. The heavenly class are born again, receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and partake of communion; the earthly class do not. To substantiate the notion that heaven’s door was closed irrevocably in 1935, JWs point to “flashes of prophetic light” received by Joseph F. Rutherford at a JW convention in Washington D.C. Other false “flashes of prophetic light” include Watchtower predictions of end-time cataclysms that were to occur in 1914…1918…1925…1975.

Finally, under the threat of being “disfellowshipped,” Jehovah’s Witnesses are barred from celebrating Christmas, birthdays, or holidays such as Thanksgiving and Good Friday. Even more troubling are Watchtower regulations regarding vaccinations, organ transplants, and blood transfusions. In 1931, JWs were instructed to refuse vaccinations—by 1952, this regulation was rescinded. In 1967, organ transplants were ruled a forbidden form of cannibalism—by 1980, this edict was erased. In 1909, the Watchtower produced a prohibition against blood transfusions. No doubt, this too will one day become a relic of the past. In the meantime, tens of thousands have not only been ravished spiritually by the Watchtower Society but have paid the ultimate physical price as well.

While Watchtower adherents are often willing to do more for a lie than Christians are willing to do for the truth, these and a host of other doctrinal perversions keep JWs from rightly being considered Christian.

Is the New World Translation of the Bible Credible?

Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that the New World Translation (NWT) is the “work of competent scholars.” Conversely, they contend that other Bible translations are corrupted by religious traditions that are rooted in paganism. In reality, the NWT is the work of a Bible Translation Committee with no working knowledge of biblical languages. Their bias is so blatant that Dr. Bruce Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton, not only characterized the NWT as a “frightful mistranslation” but as “erroneous,” “pernicious,” and “reprehensible.”

First, the NWT mistranslates the Greek Scriptures in order to expunge the deity of Jesus Christ. Against all credible scholarship, Jesus is downgraded from God to “a” god in John 1 and demoted from the Creator of all things to a mere creature who created all other things in Colossians 1. According to the translation committee of the Watchtower Society, as noted above, Jesus was created by God as the archangel Michael, during his earthly sojourn was merely human, and after his crucifixion was recreated an immaterial spirit creature.

Furthermore, the Translation Committee has sought to conform the NWT to their religious traditions by replacing the cross of Christ with a torture stake. Matthew 10:38, for example, has been altered to read, “And whoever does not accept his torture stake and follow after me is not worthy of me.” In Watchtower lore, the cross is a pagan symbol adopted by an apostate Christianity when Satan took control of the early church. Jehovah’s Witnesses view wearing a cross as a blatant act of idolatry. Conversely, Christians wear crosses as a reminder of what was at once the most brutal and beautiful act in redemptive history.

Finally, the Watchtower Society claims that the Christian Scriptures have “been tampered with” in order to eliminate the name Jehovah from the text. In reality, it is the Translation Committee of the NWT that can rightly be accused of tampering. In well over two hundred cases the name Jehovah has been gratuitously inserted into the New Testament text. In passages such as Romans 10:13 this is done to obscure the unique deity of Christ. In other passages, it is done under the pretext that referring to God as Lord rather than Jehovah is patently pagan. Ironically, in The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, Watchtower translators themselves fall into this “pagan” practice by translating the Greek word kurios as “Lord” even in cases where it specifically refers to the Father.

For these and a host of other reasons, Greek scholars across the board denounce the NWT. Dr. Julius Mantey, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, called the NWT a “shocking mistranslation,” and Dr. William Barclay characterized the translators themselves as “intellectually dishonest.”

—Hank Hanegraaff

Hank Hanegraaff is president of the Christian Research Institute and host of the Bible Answer Man broadcast heard daily throughout the United States and Canada via radio, satellite radio XM-170, and the Internet. For a list of stations airing theBible Answer Man, or to listen online, log on to equip.org.

NOTES

1. Excerpted from Hank Hanegraaff, The Bible Answer Book (Nashville: J. Countryman, 2004).
2. All Scripture quotations are from the New International Version.

The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, which governs more than 98,000 congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide, recently reaffirmed its ban on blood transfusions, despite growing pressure from Witnesses, former Witnesses, and lawyers to allow the procedure. A Watch Tower letter, dated January 3, 2006, urged its 6.6 million members to seek alternatives to transfusions from the emerging field of “bloodless medicine.” The five-page letter was sent to congregations less than a month after Florida attorney Kerry Louderback-Wood opened up a new avenue of suing the Watch Tower in an article she wrote for Baylor University’s Journal of Church and State.

Blood Money. Louderback-Wood’s article, “Jehovah’s Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation,” argues that the Watch Tower can be held financially liable for the deaths of Witnesses who refused transfusions. The basis for the lawsuits is that the Watch Tower has bolstered its no-blood stance by misrepresenting historical, scientific, and medical facts in its main resource on its blood policies, a pamphlet titled How Can Blood Save Your Life? (available online at www.watchtower.org).

Past lawsuits failed because the Watch Tower’s ban is based on a religious belief—that the Bible prohibits eating blood. (The Watch Tower teaches that receiving a transfusion is the same as eating blood.) Louderback-Wood, a former Witness, argues that the appeal to religious freedom can be sidestepped if the organization is sued for twisting facts, including exaggerating the risks of transfusions while downplaying the risks of bloodless medicine.

Bloodless Medicine. Bloodless surgeries—performed without the use of transfusions— are featured glowingly in a video all Witnesses were required to watch during the week of January 30. Witnesses were then quizzed on the video and instructed to listen as the letter was read aloud at one of their five weekly meetings, the “Service Meeting.” The letter said that “Hospital Liaison Committees,” made up of appointed elders, could help them find bloodless programs.

Bloodless programs use procedures such as erythropoietin therapy, which produces red blood cells, and blood salvage, which recycles a patient’s lost blood. Such procedures are allowed by the Watch Tower because they don’t involve accepting blood from another person or the storage of a Witness’s own blood. (The Watch Tower forbids a Witness from storing his or her own blood for a later transfusion. The blood salvage procedure avoids this by immediately reinserting a patient’s lost blood back into his or her body.) The Web site NoBlood.org lists more than 100 bloodless programs, mostly in the United States.

The American medical community has welcomed the programs. For example, the Journal of Healthcare Management, published by the American College of Healthcare Executives, encouraged every hospital to consider adding a bloodless program. Some health insurance providers cover bloodless treatments for Witnesses, such as Aetna, which covers erythropoietin. In May 2005, a Witness teenager from Canada won a high-profile court battle to receive bloodless chemotherapy in the United States.

Bloodless medicine was started in the 1980s primarily to offer Witnesses an alternative treatment. Today it is requested by many non-Witnesses, according to Dr. Aryeh Shander, the executive medical director of a leading bloodless program—the New Jersey Institute for the Advancement of Bloodless Medicine and Surgery Program at Englewood Hospital. Shander told the Christian Research Journal that bloodless medicine will become the norm because blood is costly and can transmit diseases. “Most people would shy away from blood transfusions, if given the option,” he said.

Almost any surgery can be performed without blood transfusion: liver, heart, and even brain surgery. Bloodless surgeries also often have better outcomes than other surgeries, according to Dr. Nicolas Jabbour, a director of the bloodless program at the University of Southern California’s Keck School of Medicine and author of Transfusion-Free Medicine and Surgery.

Blood Sacrifice. Bloodless surgeries aren’t always successful, however, when a patient has massive blood loss, according to medical experts. “Sometimes, the patient will absolutely need blood to survive,” Jabbour told the Journal.

This was the case with Louderback-Wood’s mother, a severely anemic Witness who died in 2004 after refusing a transfusion. “She had a hero’s funeral. She died as a good Witness,” said Louderback-Wood, who spoke with the Journal.

Erythropoietin couldn’t help her mother because it takes weeks to work. Her mother’s death caused Louderback-Wood to investigate the medical “facts” in the Watch Tower pamphlet, such as the claim that erythropoietin works “very quickly.” “One [claim] after another came to be half truths,” she said.

Louderback-Wood also was surprised to learn that her mother could have accepted hemoglobin, a component of red blood cells. She said most Witnesses and doctors don’t know that the Watch Tower has changed its total ban on blood and, in the early 1980s, began allowing Witnesses to accept fractions of the main components of blood (red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and plasma). Though these policy shifts were published in Watchtower magazine, the main publication of the Watch Tower, Louderback-Wood said the statements made in the magazine—along with statements made in the Watch Tower pamphlet—have been too few, ambiguous and contradictory—leaving many Witnesses confused as to which, if any, fractions are allowed.

Because of this, Louderback-Wood argues that the Watch Tower has failed to adequately disclose it policy changes regarding life-saving treatments, providing further grounds for lawsuits. She believes the Watch Tower obscures its policies because it doesn’t want to appear to be vacillating. “It’s smoke and mirrors,” she said.

The recent letter further “muddies the waters,” she said, where it asks, “Can any doctor or hospital give complete assurance that blood or blood fractions will not be used in treatment of a minor?” This question implies that blood fractions aren’t allowed, she said.

The Watch Tower did not return a Journal call regarding the letter.

Blood Feud. A growing number of Witnesses oppose the ban. The Associated Jehovah’s Witnesses for Reform on Blood (AJWRB), founded in 1997, has thousands of members from more than 25 countries, who remain anonymous for fear of being “disfellowshiped” by the Watch Tower. They include elders, doctors, and members of Hospital Liaison Committees, according to the group’s founder, a former elder and current Witness who goes by the pseudonym “Lee Elder.” He told the Journal that his grandmother died prematurely from refusing a transfusion.

Elder said that the Watch Tower falsely claims that having a transfusion is the same as eating blood, a “fact” the Watch Tower supports with quotes from doctors who lived hundreds of years ago. “That’s just bad science,” he said.

Another falsehood, Elder said, is that transfusions are always bad medicine, with a high risk of transmitting viruses, such as HIV. To support this claim, the Watch Tower pamphlet—referring to a study from the 1960s—states, “Each year thousands die as a result of transfusions; multitudes more get very sick and face long-term consequences.” According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (February 26, 2003), however, the risk of serious infection from transfusions is so low in developed countries—due to blood screening tests—it’s almost immeasurable.

AJWRB members believe, with Louderback-Wood, that the Watch Tower has tried to hide changes to its blood policies, so they seek to publicize the changes on their Web site (www.ajwrb.org). In fact, it was at this site that Louderback-Wood learned that her mother could have received hemoglobin.

The pressure from the AJWRB may be having an effect. For example, Elder applauds the Watch Tower for recent clarifications of its blood policies, including a June 15, 2004, article in Watchtower magazine that explicitly lists which blood fractions are allowed. The Watch Tower also changed the latest “advance medical directive” that all Witnesses sign and file with their doctors, which explains their wish to refuse a transfusion in case of a medical emergency. The new directive provides a box that allows Witnesses to check if they will accept blood fractions.

Elder believes, however, that the Watch Tower hasn’t gone far enough. He maintains that its continued ban on whole blood and whole blood components is arbitrary since Witnesses can now accept all the fractions of blood components, which, when added up, equal whole blood. Obtaining these fractions ironically requires blood to be donated by other people and stored. Furthermore, isolating the fractions requires the use of much more blood than if Witnesses accepted whole blood in the first place, according to Elder.

He believes it’s possible that the Watch Tower’s motive for keeping the ban may not be theological, but financial. It may fear that if it changes its policy, then it could be sued for past Witness deaths.

He also said that bloodless medicine hasn’t eliminated the need for reform. That’s because access to these life-saving therapies isn’t available in less-developed nations, where the majority of Witnesses now live. “That’s a strange irony the Watch Tower will be hard pressed to justify,” Elder said.

— Holly Pivec

SYNOPSIS

Believers who attempt to present the message of Christ to Jehovah’s Witnesses face several daunting obstacles, particularly those involving the Watchtower’s New World Translation of the Bible. Jehovah’s Witnesses usually dispute several key passages and often are well trained in making presentations on these passages. Many believers feel inadequate to address questions that touch on the correct translation of the original Greek or Hebrew languages and so have no response. Others collect quotes from their favorite scholars about these passages, but the conversation usually ends in a stalemate because neither side can overwhelm the other with enough citations to settle the dispute.

There is another approach to discussing the New World Translation and its questionable rendering of certain passages, one that not only bypasses the typical objections and defenses, but also provides a clear witness to the truth. This approach involves demonstrating the consistent testimony that the biblical context gives to the truth that a disputed passage contains, thereby exposing the underlying bias and inconsistency of the New World Translation. Even believers who have no training in Greek and Hebrew can use this approach to clear some of the hurdles commonly encountered when trying to reach Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Believers today face a bewildering array of challenges as they seek, in obedience to Scripture (1Pet.3:15), to be ready always to give a reason for the hope that is within them. Attacks on the Christian faith increasingly are focusing on its very foundations: the authority of the Bible as God’s Word, the integrity of the manuscripts that preserved the Scriptures through the early centuries, and the extent of the canon of Scripture. The works produced by the Jesus Seminar, the volumes being produced by Bart Ehrman from the University of North Carolina, and The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown all launch attacks at these foundations. For the past half century Christian apologists have had to deal in-depth with issues of manuscript evidence and the translation of Scripture in response to the publication of the New World Translation (NWT) by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (i.e., Jehovah’s Witnesses).

The NWT presents one of the greatest challenges to believers who wish to communicate the gospel of Jesus Christ to Jehovah’s Witnesses, or, just as often, who wish to fortify fellow believers against the false views presented by Jehovah’s Witnesses. Numerous articles have been written concerning the general character of the NWT, both pro¹ and con.² Lists of disputed verses and a discussion of the overall bias of the NWT against historic Christian doctrine are readily available.³

It is one thing to attempt to deal with Watchtower doctrines from a biblical perspective, but few evangelicals feel confident addressing specific textual or translational issues that often are involved. That feeling of apprehension is increased in the countercult apologetic encounter. Add to this the prevalence of the Kingdom Interlinear, a New Testament that shows the original Greek text beside the NWT English text, and the predilection of individual Witnesses to make reference to the original Greek or Hebrew languages (though very, very rarely do they actually know either language), and one can see why the NWT is an efficient conversation stopper, a true barrier to the evangelization of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Challenging the mistranslations of particular texts in the NWT has its place, but such an approach often leads to a stalemate unless someone in the conversation can claim some kind of expertise in the subject. One person says, “I have read scholars who say your version of the Bible mistranslates this passage.” The other responds, “Do you read Greek?” “No,” answers the first person, to which the other person replies, “Well, neither do I, but I’ve read scholars who support our translation over yours.” This approach can become a source of frustration very quickly. I believe there is another approach that avoids its pitfalls.

One of the key exegetical (i.e., interpretational) truths to grasp, not only regarding the NWT, but with reference to all exegetical interaction with all kinds of false religions, is this: The truth of God’s Word is not limited by those artificial divisions we call verses. The truth, rather, is found in the entirety of God’s Word when it is handled properly, not merely in individual texts. That is not to say that we can ignore close examination of those texts, but the broader witness of multiple texts carries tremendous weight.

This addresses a common source of frustration for Christians: sometimes an individual verse or passage can be understood in more than one way. Zealous believers often will feel compelled to refute false teachers on every text they misuse when at times that is simply not possible. Sometimes a better approach to refuting a misinterpretation of a particular text is to establish the full teaching of the Word of God on that point rather than trying to prove that the individual text cannot be read in that way.

When it comes to the NWT, this approach can allow us to get past the my-scholars-versus-your-scholars roadblock while, at the same time, providing a witness to the truth. In some areas the NWT’s translation is simply wrong; in others it is inconsistent. By approaching the issue with a wider scope in mind, an error in the NWT can be demonstrated not merely by referring to external authorities, but by showing the inconsistencies between biblical passages that result when a particular translation is allowed to stand. Once the Jehovah’s Witness is confronted with this, the citation of external authorities may be met with less resistance.

JESUS THE GREAT “I AM”

When the NWT first appeared, its rendering of John8:58 raised an outcry from Christians, and for good reason. The New American Standard Bible (NASB) renders the text, “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.’” In contrast, the NWT has, “Jesus said to them: ‘Most truly I say to YOU,⁴ before Abraham came into existence, I have been.’” Jesus’ words here historically have been connected to the divine name in the Old Testament, where Yahweh⁵ is identified as the “I Am.” Critics of the NWT identified its translation of this passage as a less-than-subtle attempt to mask its indication of the deity of Christ, and the Watchtower Society responded with a rather muddled attempt at a grammatical defense of the translation. Nonscholars who witness the dispute are left feeling that there is no place for them in the discussion of the correct translation of the text and of whether the NWT is accurate.

I suggest that for the average lay apologist, a more effective and less confrontational approach to discussing the proper rendering of “I am” would be to demonstrate the inconsistency of the NWT’s translation from a broader context. This admittedly requires the apologist to know the topic in greater depth than would be necessary were he or she to merely list alleged mistranslations, but knowing the many ways the Scriptures testify to the deity of Jesus Christ beyond direct references to Him as God is vitally important in today’s environment of competing religions. (It also is a blessing to any believer’s own spiritual life.) One can mount a strong grammatical case against the NWT’s rendering, but it is far more effective to demonstrate its error in a way that the Witness will remember long after the encounter has ended.

John8:58 is one of a string of texts where John uses the Greek phrase ego eimi, the emphatic form of “I am,” or, “I myself am.” When we isolate John8:58 from the rest of John’s gospel, we greatly diminish the force of his argument, and in fact, give to our opponents their greatest weapon: they can always come up with some means around a single passage. In most instances, however, truth doesn’t come in single verses or passages alone. It is rather like an avalanche on a mountainside: theoretically, you can always dodge a single rock, but avalanches don’t send single rocks; they send thousands at a time, and you cannot dodge them all at once. In this instance, John did not simply give us one instance of ego eimi in a single isolated passage. A strained but slightly plausible explanation that avoids the truth in one text becomes more strained when you have to try to get around the truth in two texts, and then three texts, until what was once plausible becomes implausible and the truth is clear.

Jesus uses ego eimi in a number of ways in John. He uses it as simply self-identification in 4:26 and 6:20. It is used in such phrases as “I am the bread of life” (6:35) and “I am the light of the world” (8:12). In John chapters 8, 13, and 18, however, a series of uses appears that, when taken together (as surely they are meant to be seen by the author of the gospel), add yet another thread to the tapestry of witness John is giving to the person of Christ. Beginning in John8:24 we read, “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”⁶ This is part of the argumentation leading up to Jesus’ words in verse58, “Before Abraham was, I am.” However one understands Jesus’ identity, it is clear that unless one accepts Him for who He has revealed Himself to be, one will not have eternal life. When Jesus uses the same phrase in 8:58, immediately the Jews respond by picking up stones to stone Him.

In John13:19 Jesus says to His disciples, “‘From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am He.” How does providing a prophetic word prove who Jesus is? We will find an answer to this when we look to the Old Testament background of these passages, but let’s first look at another significant passage.

When Judas comes to betray the Lord in Gethsemane, we read, “They answered Him, ‘Jesus the Nazarene.’ He said to them, ‘I am He.’ And Judas also, who was betraying Him, was standing with them. So when He said to them, ‘I am He,’ they drew back and fell to the ground” (John18:5–6). This would be a very odd incident if, in fact, we did not connect it to what has gone before. Twice John notes that Jesus used the phrase ego eimi, emphasizing that when Jesus uttered this phrase, those seeking to arrest Him “drew back and fell to the ground.” Amazing efforts have been expended to avoid the plain meaning of this text, but to no avail. When Jesus speaks these words, something miraculous takes place.

Why would the Jews attempt to stone Jesus for saying, “Before Abraham was, I am”? Is the mere proclamation of preexistence sufficient grounds for stoning, or did the Jews see something more in Jesus’ claim? How would Jesus’ knowledge of the future help the disciples believe? What caused the officials and soldiers to fall to the ground when Jesus said ego eimi? Many believe that this alludes to the phrase “I am that I am” in God’s self-disclosure to Moses in Exodus3:14, which it surely does in part, but the strongest connection is in the books of the prophets, particularly Isaiah. In fact, we find the phrase ego eimi being used as a name of the one true God numerous times in Isaiah (e.g., 41:4;43:10,25;45:8,18,19,22;46:4,9;48:12,17) in the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures used in Jesus’ day) and, most significantly, in the very verse from which Jehovah’s Witnesses derive their name.

In the NWT this verse, Isaiah43:10, reads, “‘YOU are my witnesses,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me, and that YOU may understand that I am the same One. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none.’” Jesus uses the very same phrase of Himself in John13:19, which explains how His revelation of the future would aid the disciples to have true faith in Him; for only God can know the future. It likewise explains why the Jews reacted as they did when Jesus used this phrase in 8:58; for only God has always existed. It also explains why the soldiers who would have no knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures would fall back on the ground when Christ identified Himself as the very I Am; for only God’s own presence could cause this involuntary reaction. In each instance those who heard Jesus recognized that He was God, or that He was claiming to be so.

When we review the entire record of John’s use of this phrase, the NWT’s inconsistency is strikingly evident, as is the utter futility of its attempt to hide this truth. The NWT does not mistranslate ego eimi in these other instances. In John8:24 the NWT has “I am [he].” In John13:19 and 18:5–6 the same translation appears. By attempting to hide this truth in just one instance, the translation testifies to its own inconsistency and its true purpose. When we approach the disputed text by first examining verses in which the NWT accurately renders the phrase so as to view the text in a wider context, we can avoid much of the argumentation and defense that Witnesses offer and can present the truth clearly to them.

JESUS “OUR GREAT GOD AND SAVIOR”

Another excellent example of how one can actually use the errant or strained translations of the NWT to the advantage of the truth is found in the Bible’s description of Jesus as our “God and Savior” in Titus2:13 and 2Peter1:1. In both instances we have an example of a syntactical⁷ formula in the Greek language known as Granville Sharp’s Rule, and once again, as soon as grammar enters most conversations, those involved will be looking to move elsewhere very quickly. In addition, Witnesses who are better read can always find a translation here or a scholar there to provide support for the NWT rendering. As with the previous example, however, when we take a wider approach we not only can demonstrate the bias and error of the NWT, but we can give a memorable testimony to the truth as well.

Compare the NASB and the NWT on these passages:

Titus2:13: “…looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus” (NASB).

“…while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus” (NWT).

2 Peter1:1: “…by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (NASB).

“…by the righteousness of our God and [the] Savior Jesus Christ” (NWT).

The NWT clearly seeks to put as much distance as possible between the terms “God” and “Savior,” while the NASB equates the two, describing one person, Jesus Christ, as both “God and Savior.” The Watchtower Society, which denies the deity of Christ, obviously cannot describe Him as “God and Savior,” so a wide variety of arguments have been developed to substantiate their translation; again, however, context allows the believer to establish the truth without first obtaining a degree in Greek syntax.

The context of the passage in Titus2 indicates that only one person is in view: Christians are looking for the appearing, the coming, of Jesus Christ. The sentence continues into verse14 with only one person, Christ, in view. He “gave Himself” to “purify for Himself” a people. This language is reminiscent of the redemptive work of Jehovah with reference to Israel (e.g., Ps.130:7–8; Ezek.37:23; Exod.19:5), but here it is speaking of the work of Jesus Christ in particular. There is simply no reason to insert a gratuitous and unnatural reference to the Father into the middle of this passage unless your real reasons have nothing to do with the context or language but everything to do with your theology, as is the case with the NWT.

Being only part of the opening lines of an epistle (or “letter”), 2Peter1:1 does not have the kind of contextual support we find surrounding Titus2:13. The epistle of 2Peter as a whole, however, provides a powerful example of the inconsistency of the NWT and its blatant theological bias. Compare a transliteration of the Greek text of the last phrase in verse1 (“…our God and Savior, Jesus Christ”) with the text only 10 verses later:

tou theou hemon kai soteros Iesou Christou (v.1)

tou kuriou hemon kai soteros Iesou Christou (v.11)

These phrases are grammatically and syntactically identical, with only one variation: the Greek term theou (the genitive singular form of the word “God”) in verse1 over against the term kuriou (the genitive singular form of the word “Lord”) in verse11.

The NWT gives itself away by translating the phrase in verse11 correctly: “…our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” In fact, we likewise find identical grammatical constructions in 2Peter2:20 and3:18 that the NWT translates correctly. The only reason for the NWT’s rendering in 2Peter1:1 is clear: their theology demands it and precludes the correct rendering. By starting with 2Peter1:11, then examining 2:20 and 3:18, and moving back to 1:1, we can demonstrate the theological bias of the translation, hopefully laying the foundation for further discussion of the specifics of the passage.

CHRIST THE “CREATOR OF ALL THINGS”

To this point, we have demonstrated the translational errors and inconsistencies of the NWT by references to their surrounding contexts. Many of the questionable renderings presented by the NWT can be addressed in this way, including its famous translation, “the Word was a god” in John1:1. Some, however, require another level of knowledge concerning the context, requiring the apologist to be a student not only of the text of Scripture, but of the historical background as well. Specifically, when a translation turns an author’s argument on its head given the historical context in which he was writing, then it is presumably incorrect. An illustration of this can be found in the NWT’s most infamous attempt to hide a reference to the deity of Christ, in Colossians1:15–17:

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.

When the NWT first appeared, the word other was inserted without brackets, implying that it was in the original Greek text. An outcry once again was raised and translators added the brackets. The Watchtower Society defends its insertion of other based first on its errant understanding of firstborn as meaning “first created.”⁸ Then, in light of that meaning, they insist that creation should be taken in such a fashion as to be the larger set of which the firstborn is a part.⁹ Therefore, the firstborn could only create all other things, since the firstborn is itself a part of creation.

The orthodox translation of this passage can be defended quite successfully based on syntactical arguments, but few are prepared to argue at this level. Is this text then rendered unusable to us in evangelism because of the Watchtower Society’s complex defense of its erroneous translation? It is not—if we approach it from the background of the error against which Paul is writing.

One of the earliest heresies the Christian faith faced was Gnosticism, which basically held the view that spirit is good, while matter (i.e., the physical world) is evil. This was fundamentally inconsistent with the Christian view that God created matter. One expression of this movement was known as Docetism (from the Greek, dokein: “to seem”), which taught that since Jesus was good, He did not have an evil, fleshly body, but only appeared to have a physical body. The apostle John specifically argued against this teaching and identified it as the teaching of “anti-Christ” (2John1:7). In the same fashion, Paul, knowing that an early form of Gnosticism that joined elements of Judaism and Christianity was moving into Asia Minor and specifically into Colossae, warned the Colossian believers against it using the very terminology the Gnostics themselves used. In Colossians1, Paul speaks of the “fullness” (Gk. pleroma), a term used by the Gnostics to describe the group of beings emanating from the one true God, known as “aeons.” It seems these early Gnostics, on encountering the proclamation of the risen Lord Jesus, tried to fit Him into their scheme, making Him one of the aeons, a divine being, but a derivative of deity—less than God Himself.

Paul denies this kind of teaching by asserting that Christ is not just one of the aeons, but is instead the preeminent being, the one through whom all created things were made, and in whom the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form (Col.2:9). No Gnostic could possibly accept such teaching. If, however, you render the text as does the NWT, you are forcing Paul to abandon his primary argument and agree with his opponents, the Gnostics! By making Jesus a created being, something less than the true God, the NWT does indeed turn Paul’s argument on its head. His point, in fact, is that Christ’s creative activity exhausts all of creation: there is nothing outside of His creative power. By seeking to conform the biblical text to its own theology, the Watchtower Society ends up making the apostle agree with his opponents, clearly indicating the error of their translation.

APPLICATION IN GENERAL

In-depth textual, grammatical, and syntactical discussions have their proper place in the realm of Christian scholarship and apologetics (even outside the domain of evangelizing Jehovah’s Witnesses). In most apologetic encounters, however, a more effective means is found in demonstrating translational and theological errors through the presentation of a sound, compelling, and understandable explanation of the context of a passage or author. Purposeful mistranslations, or highly questionable renderings, will distort the meaning of the author, and hence can be detected and exposed by those who grasp the overall teaching of the writer. Many Jehovah’s Witnesses have a concentrated knowledge of issues that separate them from historic Christianity, but they lack an overall, contextually sound biblical understanding. When faced with a testimony based on contextual understanding, many are deeply troubled, for they rarely encounter believers who seriously study the Scriptures so as to be able to witness so effectively.

You may view the NWT as an almost insuperable barrier, or you can instead recognize it as a tool that every Jehovah’s Witness will offer to you willingly for your use. Few Jehovah’s Witnesses will take Christian literature, but I have never seen one leave his or her NWT behind! When a faithful Christian accurately and confidently demonstrates the truth of Christ’s deity to them from the pages of their own Scriptures, that testimony will go with them and will have a lasting impact on their thinking. That is the kind of witness that the Holy Spirit can use to open blind eyes to the glory of the Word made flesh, the Creator of all things: our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

notes

1. For a representation of the Watchtower defense, see Rolf Furuli, The Role of Theology in Bible Translation (Murrieta, CA: Elihu Books, 1999). Until the late 1990s the Watchtower discouraged apologetic defense of their work by individuals not under the direct control of its Governing Body, but it now realizes that with the advent of the Internet there is no way to keep the members of the Society insulated from the writings and information of “active opposers,” let alone control the activities of individual Witnesses who wish to defend the Society in the same forums.

2. For a representation of the evangelical response, see Robert H. Countess, The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1982).

3. I consistently noted when the translation of the NWT materially influenced the interpretation of specific passages relevant to the doctrine of the Trinity in James White, The Forgotten Trinity (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998).

4. The NWT is not without positive aspects. When translating plural pronouns it employs this all-caps form to help the reader differentiate between plural (e.g., YOU) and singular (e.g., you) pronouns that are spelled the same in English, a useful mechanism.

5. While some Jehovah’s Witnesses will fight tooth and nail for the Germanicized pronunciation “Jehovah,” the vast majority of scholarship recognizes that “Yahweh” is the best pronunciation, and most Witnesses will actually be surprised at any use of the divine name, whether Yahweh or Jehovah, on the part of a non-Witness.

6. Most printed English translations use italics or brackets to indicate that a word was not in the original language text, but was inserted by the translators for clarification. In this instance, the pronoun He was not part of the original Greek phrase ego eimi.

7. Syntax refers to the relationship of words to one another. In the study of context, examining syntax is the next step up from examining the grammatical form of words in isolation.

8. The Greek term prototokos has a rich background in the Old Testament, used of Israel as Yahweh’s “firstborn” (obviously not “first-created”) in Exodus4:22 and Jeremiah31:9. The firstborn is the one having preeminence.

9. That is, as a partitive genitive, indicating that the firstborn is a part of the wider group creation.

The title of an article in the 8 April 2000 Awake! asks, “Is It Proper to Worship Jesus?” In keeping with the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ denial of the deity of Christ, the expected answer is given: “Yes, reverent adoration should be expressed only to God. To render worship to anyone or anything else would be a form of idolatry, which is condemned in both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. — Exodus 20:4, 5; Galatians 5: 19, 20.”1 The article concludes, “Accordingly, true Christians do well to direct their worship only to Jehovah God, the Almighty” (emphasis added).2

The book Knowledge That Leads to Everlasting Life (1995) warns the reader:

Unless we are careful, we may do something unacceptable to God. For example, the apostle John fell at the feet of an angel “to worship him.” But the angel warned: “Be careful! Do not do that! All I am is a fellow slave of you and your brothers who have the work of witnessing to Jesus. Worship God.” (Revelation 19: 10) Do you therefore see the need to make sure that your worship is not contaminated by any kind of idolatry? — 1 Corinthians 10:14. (emphasis added)3

In response to a reader’s question about the disciples’ worship of Jesus in Matthew 28:9, the 1 November 1964 Watchtower states, “Trinitarians who believe that Jesus is God, or at least the second person of the triune God, do not like to have Jehovah’s witnesses say that it is unscriptural for worshipers of the living and true God to render worship to the Son of God, Jesus Christ” (emphasis added).4

How might one respond to these statements?

IT IS PROPER TO WORSHIP JESUS CHRIST

It would come as a surprise to most Jehovah’s Witnesses that the statements and claims cited above have not always characterized the movement and its publications. In fact, the Watch Tower Society leadership encouraged the worship of Jesus Christ for much of its history. In his article, “The Name of Jesus,” in the November 1879 Zion’s Watch Tower, Watch Tower founder C. T. Russell’s associate J. H. Paton wrote of Jesus, “His position is contrasted with that of men and angels, as he is Lord of both, having ‘all power in heaven and earth.’ Hence it is said, ‘Let all the angels of God worship Him’; [that must include Michael, the chief angel, hence Michael is not the Son of God]…” (brackets in original).5 Paton’s position on Michael would later be rejected by Pastor Russell, and the Witnesses still identify Jesus Christ as Michael the archangel.6

In “A Living Christ,” published in the March 1880 Zion’s Watch Tower, we read:

He still is Lord, and as such we worship Him….

To worship a false Christ would indeed be sin, but to worship Christ in any form cannot be wrong, for when He bringeth the first Begotten in to the world, He sayeth, “Let all the angels of God worship Him…. (Heb. 1:6, 10, 12.)” (emphases added).7

In the October 1880 Zion’s Watch Tower article, “Why Did Christ Come in the Flesh?” J. H. Paton wrote, “He was the object of unreproved worship even when a babe….Even the angels delighted to do Him honor….‘And let all the angels of God worship Him.’ Heb. 1:6. He never reproved any one for acts of worship offered to Himself….” (emphases added).8

Speaking on prayer to a group of his followers, Russell said the prayers of the mature Christian “are usually thank offerings and communion seasons — telling the Lord (the Father or the Son, either or both, for the Father, as well as the Son, loves us; — John 16:27 — and we have promise of communion with both; — John 14:23 — both are to be worshiped and loved equally, for ‘all men should honor the son even as they honor the Father;’ John 5:23….” (first emphasis added; second in original).9

In the 15 July 1898 Zion’s Watch Tower, under “Interesting Queries,” we read, “Question. The fact that our Lord received worship is claimed by some to be an evidence that while on earth he was God the Father disguised in a body of flesh and not really a man. Was he really worshiped, or is the translation faulty? Answer. Yes, we believe our Lord Jesus while on earth was really worshiped, and properly so.” While denying His deity, the answer continues, “It was proper for our Lord to receive worship in view of his having been the only begotten of the Father, and his agent in the creation of all things, including man” (emphasis added).10

In the article “Gifts to Our King” (addressing Matt. 2:1–12), the 1 January 1906 Zion’s Watch Tower explained:

In one respect many of Christendom could learn numerous important lessons from these wise Gentiles….They worshiped him in three senses of the word: (1) They fell before him, prostrated themselves, thus physically expressing their reverence. (2) They worshiped him in their hearts and with the tongue gave expression to their rejoicing and confidence. (3) They opened their treasure-box and presented to him three gifts appropriate to royalty: the myrrh representing submission, frankincense representing praise, gold representing obedience” (emphasis added).11

Watch Tower founder and president Charles T. Russell died on 31 October 1916, and on 6 January 1917, Joseph F. Rutherford succeeded him. What did the books of Russell’s prolific successor state concerning worship of Jesus Christ? Would it be denied and identified as a “form of idolatry”? These books cover two decades (1921–1940). (Emphasis has been added to quotes from the following Rutherford books.)

The Harp of God: Rutherford quoted Matthew 28:1–10. Verse 9 reads (without comment or correction): “And they came and held him by the feet, and worshiped him.”12

Deliverance: “Crucifixes were erected, and the worship of the people turned to these rather than to let them intelligently worship the Lord Jehovah and the Lord Jesus Christ.”13

Light, vol. 2: “His power and authority extend throughout the universe, and, he being Jehovah’s right arm, the great Jehovah commands: ‘Let all the angels of God worship him.’ — Heb. 1:6.”14 “All the restored human race will discern the blessedness of God, and will delight to worship him and the great King. Christ Jesus is the ‘King of Kings’ (Rev. 1:5).”15 “Because of his faithfulness God raised him up out of death and then announced that all the angels of heaven should worship him and that every knee to him shall bow and every tongue shall confess that he is Jehovah’s anointed one and the high officer of the Most High. — Phil. 2:11.”16

Vindication, vol. 3: During the Millennium, “the princes will lead the people in their worship of Jehovah and of Christ.”17

Preparation: In his commentary on Zechariah, Rutherford wrote that after Armageddon, Christ, as the great High Priest and King of Jehovah, will convert the world in truth and in fact. All who live must worship and serve Jehovah and Christ Jesus, and at his name every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess that he is the Christ, to the glory of God. (Phil. 2: 10,11)…The kingdom and the dominion and the greatness thereof under the whole heaven shall be given to Jehovah’s King-Priest, and all must worship and obey him.18 “ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH” who obey will joyfully come unto Jerusalem and worship Christ and Jehovah of hosts.”19

Jehovah: “The people are here warned of a wicked conspiracy formed by Satan … : To put America into the League of Nations, control the money and all other property, rule the people by the hand of their one-man dictator, destroy the freedom of speech and press, and stop the true worship of God and Christ.”20

Riches: “Those honest-hearted ones who have left Satan’s organization are now on the Lord’s side, and they want that fact to be known and they make it known, and they worship the only true God, Jehovah, and his King.”21 “Whether any creature gets life in heaven or on earth, he must acknowledge and worship Jehovah as the only true and almighty God, and Christ Jesus his King and Chief Executive Officer….”22

Salvation: “The people of all nations who obtain salvation must come to the house of the Lord to worship there; that is to say, they must believe on and worship Jehovah God and the Lord Jesus Christ, his chief instrument (Philippians 2:10, 11).”23

Religion: Religious leaders “oppose freedom of assembly and freedom of speech and freedom of worship and urge their fanatical and benighted dupes to indulge in violence against those who peaceably assemble for the true worship of God and Christ.”24

The 15 August 1941 Watchtower explained with reference to Jesus’ obedience unto death, “For this reason God has highly exalted him and given him a name above every name, and commands that all creatures in heaven and earth shall worship the Son as he worships the Father. — Phil. 2:5–11” (emphasis added).25

The Jehovah’s Witnesses did not question the doctrines in Rutherford writings because they believed that “those books do not contain the opinion of any man.”26 About six months after his death, it was claimed, “During the past twenty years he [God] has equipped them with his revealed Word in print, in the form of books, booklets, magazines, tracts and leaflets.…”27

At that point in time, the worship of Jesus Christ had been promoted in Watch Tower publications by founder C. T. Russell and immediate successor J. F. Rutherford for over 60 years. Would this teaching, rejected and characterized by more recent Jehovah’s Witness writers as “a form of idolatry” and as “unscriptural,” continue in the Society after their passing?

THE WATCH TOWER CHARTER AMENDED

Resolutions amending Articles 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10 of the original 1884 Watch Tower charter were adopted on 2 October 1944, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This action is a significant event in the history of the movement.28 Article II of the amended charter is pertinent to the subject of the worship of Jesus Christ. The original charter was printed in the 1 November 1917 Watch Tower (see figure 1).29

Article II as amended is reproduced in its entirety in the 1945 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It states among the “purposes of the…Society are…for public Christian worship of Almighty God and Christ Jesus; to arrange for and hold local and world-wide assemblies for such worship…” (emphasis added; see figure 2).30 The wording, “worship of Almighty God and Christ Jesus,” is exactly what had been stated in Watch Tower Society publications up to this time.

While denying the deity of Christ, the 15 October 1945 Watchtower, in agreement with the amended charter, explained:

Now, at Christ’s coming to reign as king in Jehovah’s capital organization Zion, to bring in a righteous new world, Jehovah makes him infinitely higher then the godly angels or messengers and accordingly commands them to worship him…. Since Jehovah God now reigns as king by means of his capital organization Zion, then whosoever would worship Him must also worship and bow down to Jehovah’s Chief One in that capital organization, namely Christ Jesus, his Co-regent on the throne of The Theocracy (emphases added).31

The 1 September 1948 Watchtower affirmed: “When he returned to the spirit realms from which he descended to earth, Jesus Christ was again seen in the midst of God’s holy messengers or angels in heaven. This paved the way for fulfilling the scripture: ‘And when he again bringeth in his firstborn into the world he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him’ (Heb. 1:6, Am. Stan. Vers.).”32

“Make Sure of All Things,” published in 1953, was the last Witness book that affirmed the worship of Christ as stated in the charter: “Christ to Be Worshiped as a Glorious Spirit.” This heading was retained in the 1957 revision of the book.33

THE WATCHTOWER REVERSES ITS POSITION

While there may have been an earlier hint, the new antiworship doctrine was first clearly stated in the 1 January 1954 Watchtower, where, in contradiction to what was just published in “Make Sure of All Things,” it concludes, “No distinct worship is to be rendered to Jesus Christ now glorified in heaven. Our worship is to go to Jehovah God.”34 Yet, the next year, the Society’s “application for an amended certificate of authority” to operate in Illinois (dated 7 February 1956) included “Exhibit A,” which reproduces almost all of Article II, including the statement of purpose: “for public Christian worship of Almighty God and Christ Jesus…”(emphasis added).35

How would this doctrinal contradiction in the amended charter, which speaks of the “worship of Almighty God and Christ Jesus,” be hidden in Watch Tower publications? It is quoted in the 1 April 1953 Watchtower with a number of lines omitted before this statement, and then the section is picked up again after the words “such worship” (see figure 3).36 The book Qualified to Be Ministers (1955) quotes a portion of article II and skips over the section in question after the ellipsis it quotes the words immediately following: “…to arrange for and hold local and world-wide assemblies for such worship” (see figure 4).37 The reader is left wondering what “such worship” means.

When Article II is reproduced in the 1969 Yearbook and the 15 December 1971 Watchtower, there are again obvious attempts to hide what the charter states. The Yearbook quotes the Article in its entirety, but substitutes ellipsis for “and Christ Jesus” (see figure 5).38 The Watchtower also quotes the entire Article but at this point says, “…for public Christian worship of Almighty God [through] Christ Jesus…” (emphasis added; see figure 6),39 which changes the meaning of the charter.

The official Watch Tower history book, Jehovah’s Witnesses — Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, discusses the amending of the charter in 1944, but none of the changes are quoted.40

PRAYER AND WORSHIP

What is the connection between prayer and worship? May prayers be addressed to Jesus Christ?

Current Denial

The Witnesses now explain, “Prayer is part of our worship and for this reason should be directed only to the Creator, Jehovah (Matt. 4:10).”41 “Though some claim that prayer may properly be addressed to others, such as to God’s Son, the evidence is emphatically to the contrary” (emphasis added).42

Past Affirmation

As with worship, prayer addressed to Jesus was not always denied, as these excerpts by, or concerning, Watch Tower founder C. T. Russell show (emphasis has been added†):

It is undoubtedly proper enough for us to address petitions to our Redeemer and Advocate, who loved us and gave himself for us….Although we are nowhere instructed to make petitions to him, it evidently could not be improper so to do; for such a course is nowhere prohibited, and the disciples worshiped him. — Matt. 28: 9, 17.43

[Pastor Russell] sought to show that it is a mistake to suppose that the Lord Jesus may not be addressed in prayer, as well as the heavenly Father…44

The general sentiment of Scripture seems to imply that there will be nothing wrong in our addressing a petition to our Lord Jesus direct if any so desire at any time….The body of Christ, should be permitted to address him, and thus we read in our lesson that the apostles worshiped the ascended Jesus — they recognized his greatness and dignity and honor as the Messiah….The Lord’s own words are appropriate here: he says, “That all men should honor the Son even as they honor the Father — John 5:23.”45

I have found myself in prayer addressing the Lord Jesus himself, for I find nothing in the Scriptures to contradict that, for they say to honor the Son as we honor the Father.46

The Meaning of John 5:23

Three New Testament scholars comment on the verse Russell cites. Robert L. Reymond writes, “With these words Jesus claimed the right to demand, equally with the Father, the honor (that is, the devotion and worship) of men!”47 Craig S. Keener explains, “God sometimes gave others honor as his representatives (Ps 2:11–12), but no one was ever to be honored to the same degree as God (Is 42:8; 48:11; cf. Ex 20:5). Jesus’ hearers could easily construe Jesus’ statement here as a claim to deity.”48 Finally, A. T. Robertson writes, “Jesus claims here the right to worship from men that the Father has. Dishonoring Jesus is dishonoring the Father who sent him (8:49; 12:26; 15:23; 1 John 2:23). See also Luke 10:16. There is small comfort here for those who praise Jesus as teacher and yet deny his claims to worship.”49

Prayer to Jesus

The earlier Watch Tower position regarding prayer to Jesus was based on clear Scriptural evidence. As translated in the Witnesses’ New World Translation (1984 ed.), John 14:13–14 reads, “Also, whatever it is that YOU ask in my name, I will do this, in order that the Father may be glorified in connection with the Son. If YOU ask [footnote: “ask me”] anything in my name, I will do it.” (see figure 7). The addition of “me” in verse 14 “has the support of the earliest MSS (including p66); all of the translations since the NEB (1961) followed this reading.”50 Steven T. Byington’s The Bible in Living English (1972), published by the Watch Tower Society, also reads, “If you ask me anything in my name I will do it.”

In these two verses, Jesus not only states that He would answer the prayers of His followers but also that these could be addressed to Him. They accepted and exercised His invitation (see Acts 1:21–24 [cf. 1:2, 21]; 7:59–60; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 12:8–9).

JESUS WORSHIPED ACCORDING

TO SCRIPTURE

Theological bias is very evident in the Witnesses’ New World Translation when the Greek word proskuneo is translated. As Ron Rhodes points out: “When used in reference to Jehovah, the New World Translation correctly translates the word as ‘worship’ (22 times). But when proskuneo is used of Christ, it is translated ‘obeisance,’ ‘reverence,’ and ‘homage.’ The fact is, Christ was worshiped as God (proskuneo) many times according to the Gospel accounts — and He always accepted such worship as appropriate.”51 The Watch Tower Society itself once taught this!

For many years, Hebrews 1:6 was quoted in Watch Tower publications: “And let all the angels of God worship him,” and proskuneo was translated as “worship” in the first edition of the New World Translation (1950) and subsequent editions (1953, 1960, 1961, 1970): “And let all God’s angels worship him.” In 1971, it was changed: “And let all God’s angels do obeisance to him.”

In Revelation 5:13–14, the entire creation joins in the chorus of worship and praise of both God and the Lamb: “‘To the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.’ And the four living creatures went on saying: ‘Amen!’ and the elders fell down and worshiped” (NWT).

THE TESTIMONY OF JAY HESS

After 23 years as a dedicated Jehovah’s Witness, this article’s coauthor, Jay Hess, was disfellowshiped. He had been an active Witness apologist: debating critics, researching, and publishing answers to “opposers” of the movement. Two subjects that interested him the most were the charge that the Witnesses were false prophets and the doctrine of the Trinity. Concerning the latter he explains:

I tried to address every Trinitarian argument. One that captured my interest was whether Jesus was to be worshiped…. Through many hours of research I came up with an explanation that said Jesus could be worshiped and yet he was not God. How good I felt to have an answer that, I thought, defended the Society’s position! Oddly enough, this is what eventually led to my being ejected from the Witnesses.52

During the week of 19 March 1990, in one of the Theocratic School meetings, it was “announced in all congregations that Jesus was not to be worshiped.”53

Soon after, the Society started to investigate me and my friend [with whom he had shared his view] about our claims that Jesus should be worshiped. A religious court (“special committee”) was set up and we were charged with “causing divisions” by telling JWs that we worshiped Jesus. We were both found guilty. The court punished my friend by announcing to the congregation that he was found guilty but would be allowed to stay in the organization. I appealed their decision…. I was found guilty again and disfellowshipped on February 3, 1992.54

Hess concludes, “Continuing my Bible research has led to my understanding of the errors of the Watchtower teachings. Although I lost my family and my former culture, Jesus has opened my eyes and allowed me to see the One I was seeking to worship (John 9).”55 In a letter, Hess expresses his present faith: “I have made Jesus my Lord and my God (John 20:28).”56

Ironically, Jay Hess was disfellowshiped for believing a doctrine that had been taught by Russell and Rutherford, affirmed in subsequent Watch Tower publications, and included in the Watch Tower charter. Moreover, if Christ is God, not to worship Him is scripturally wrong. Church historian Philip Schaff states the historic position of the church: “Finally Christ cannot be a proper object of worship, as he is represented in Scripture and has always been regarded in the Church, without being strictly divine. To worship a creature is idolatry.”57

Finally, since the worship of Christ Jesus was not rejected as unscriptural and as a form of idolatry until 1954, how can it be claimed that 1919 saw the “restoration of pure worship” in the movement?58 Furthermore, while still involved in such “idolatry,” why would Jehovah choose such an organization as his “sole visible channel, through whom alone spiritual instruction was to come”?59

Edmond C. Gruss has written several books and a number of articles on the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the cults, and the occult. To receive a short article by Jay Hess on how to tactfully challenge the next JW who comes to your door, send a SASE (#10 size) to: Witnessing, 21137 Placerita Cyn. Rd., Newhall, CA 91321.

Notes

1 Awake! 8 April 2000, 26

2 Ibid., 27.

3 k nowledge That Leads to Everlasting Life (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1995), 49.

4 “Questions from Readers,” The Watchtower, 1 November 1964, 671.

5 Watch Tower Reprints, November 1879, 48.

6 C. T. Russell, “The Arch-Angel,” Zion’s Watch Tower, June 1883, 490. “Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God’s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return.” (Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 2 [Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1988], 393.) For a rebuttal, see Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1993), chap. 7.

7 Watch Tower Reprints, March 1880, 82–83.

8 Watch Tower Reprints, October 1880, 144.

9 “Our Chicago Convention,” Watch Tower Reprints, 1 and 15 September 1893, 1580–81.

10 Watch Tower Reprints, 15 July 1898, 2337.

11 Watch Tower Reprints, 1 January 1906, 3703.

12 The Harp of God (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1921), 161; 1928 ed., 163.

13 Deliverance (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1926), 204; later eds., 215.

14 Light, vol. 2 (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1930), 166.

15 Ibid., 251.

16 Ibid., 321.

17 Vindication, vol. 3 (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1932), 295.

18 Preparation (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1933), 328–29.

19 Ibid., 331.

20 Jehovah (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1934), 24.

21 Riches (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1936), 325.

22 Ibid., 332–33.

23 Salvation (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1939), 151.

24 Religion (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1940), 302.

25 “The Way to Life,” The Watchtower, 15 August 1941, 252.

26 Riches, 353–54.

27 The Watchtower, 1 July 1942, 203.

28 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1974), 246–47.

29 “The History and Operations of Our Society,” Watch Tower Reprints, 1 November 1917, 6162.

30 1945 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1944), 32. For $6.00 (money order) a copy of the amended Charter is available from: Office of Recorder of Deeds, 101 County Office Building, 542 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2947. Allegheny County Pennsylvania Charter Book, vol. 70, 171–76 (recorded 27 February 1945).

31 “Jehovah Hath Become King!” The Watchtower, 15 October 1945, 313.

32 “A Healthful Means of Gain,” The Watchtower, 1 September 1948, 260.

33 “Make Sure of All Things” (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1953), 85.

34 “Questions from Readers,” The Watchtower, 1 January 1954, 31.

35 Allegheny County Pennsylvania Charter Book, vol. 75, 678–79 (recorded 28 February 1956). The Recorder of Deeds indicates that this was the last amendment to the charter (note postmarked 26 July 2000).

36 “Do Not Loiter at Your Business,” The Watchtower, 1 April 1953, 216.

37 Qualified to Be Ministers (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1955), 304.

38 1969 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1968), 50.

39 “A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation,” Watchtower, 15 December 1971, 760.

40 Jehovah’s Witnesses — Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1993), 229.

41 The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1968), 152.

42 “Prayer,” Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 2, 667.

43 “To Whom Should We Pray?” Watch Tower Reprints, 15 May 1892, 1410.

44 “Our Chicago Convention,” Watch Tower Reprints, 1 and 15 September 1893, 1580.

45 “If I Go Away I Will Come Again,” Watch Tower Reprints, 15 December 1906, 3911.

46 C. T. Russell, quoted in L. W. Jones, ed., What Pastor Russell Said (Chicago: Chicago Bible Students, 1917), 540–41.

47 Robert L. Reymond, Jesus, Divine Messiah (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1990), 89.

48 Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 277.

49 A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 5 (Nashville: Broadman, 1932), 86.

50 Philip Wesley Comfort, Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 123.

51 Rhodes, 168.

52 Jay Hess, “In and Out of the Watchtower,” Free Minds Journal, January–February 1995, 10.

53 Ibid.

54 Ibid., 11.

55 Ibid.

56 Bethel Ministries Newsletter, May–June 1992, 5.

57 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 5^th ed., vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 662.

58 “Keeping Up with the Truth,” The Watchtower, 1 March 1956, 147.

59 “Finding Freedom with Jehovah’s Visible Organization,” The Watchtower, 1 October 1967, 590.

A review of scientific literature shows that the rate of mental illness among Jehovah’s Witnesses is considerably above average. Statistical information varies partly because the extant research has been conducted on different populations at different time periods. Several major factors stand out as harmful to Witness mental health. Not only do persons with emotional problems tend to join the Witnesses, but also the Watchtower teachings and its subculture adversely affect the mental health of those involved.

The Watchtower has carefully cultivated a public image of a devout, God-fearing people, determined to ferret out God’s truth from the Scriptures and fully live their lives according to it.¹ Behind this optimistic vision lies a nightmare that has resulted in a rash of mental illness and social problems considerably higher than that found in virtually every other American religion. Over 10 million people are now either active Jehovah’s Witnesses or studying to become so. The nightmare that these millions of people enter could have been avoided if they were aware of the deception and entrapping quagmire of the Watch-tower.² The reasons for this Watchtower tragedy are complex and can be explored only briefly in this article.

THE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Especially since 1975 failed to usher in God’s kingdom on earth, as the Watchtower had predicted, numerous problems in Jehovah’s Witness congregations have received popular media and scholarly attention. Several academic studies have explored the problem of mental illness among the Witnesses.³ I will briefly review some of them by year, beginning with the oldest.

Rylander’s Study

In 1946, Gosta Rylander investigated a sample of conscientious objectors imprisoned in Sweden. Of the 135 randomly selected cases, 126 were Jehovah’s Witnesses. Of these 126, Rylander diagnosed 51 as neurotic, 42 as psychotic, 32 as mentally retarded, and 5 as brain-damaged (some cases were in two or more categories).⁴ Diagnosis was made solely on the basis of behavior that was clearly pathological, such as irrational paranoia or severe long-term depression. Rylander also concluded from the subjects’ medical records and his interviews that their pathological states were commonly evident before conversion, and that the Watchtower’s influence was often further detrimental to their mental health, sometimes severely so.

About four percent of the eligible Swedish population was judged psychologically “unfit” for military service, and the corresponding figure for Witnesses was 21 percent, or five times greater. This is close to the same ratio later found by John Spencer,⁵ whose diagnosis of “psychotic” or “neurotic” was made on the basis of mental hospital admission screening. Few of the cases in Rylander’s study were marginal Witnesses, and most were active in spreading the sect’s doctrine.

Rylander also concluded that individual Witnesses tended to be burdened with a variety of serious concerns and often joined the sect in an effort to solve their problems. Although the results of this study are not fully applicable to today’s situation, many of his conclusions are still relevant.⁶ A major difference is that the Witnesses are now more middle-class and less socially rejected. But many Witnesses, especially those living in developing nations, still experience the same problems that Rylander reported.

The First American Study

In 1949, in the first study on American Witness mental health, M. J. Pescor diagnosed as psychotic over seven percent of his total sample of 177 young males imprisoned due to obeying the Watchtower’s prohibition against complying with military regulations.⁷ The sample was obtained by interviewing all selective service violators admitted to the Medical Center for Federal Prison in Springfield, Missouri during the study. The level of Witness psychosis in his sample was about 17 times higher than that for the population as a whole. An astounding seven percent were diagnosed psychotic; four percent had other mental abnormalities; and fully one-quarter were rated socially maladjusted. Of Pescor’s sample, 16 percent were on hospital status and 44 percent of these were diagnosed psychotic.

Montague and Other Researchers

Licensed therapist Havor Montague monitored the admissions to state and private mental hospitals and local mental health clinics in Ohio from 1972 to 1976.⁸ From this study of 102 cases, he estimated, “The mental illness rate of JWs is approximately 10 to 16 times higher than the rate for the general, nonWitness population…about 10% of the publishers (full members) in the average congregation are in serious need of professional help… [although they are often] able to hide this fact quite well, especially from outsiders.”⁹ From his intensive interviews with Witness patients and others, Montague concluded that persons who had emotional problems were attracted to the Witnesses, but involvement also caused many of the emotional problems that they suffered. This is evident from the fact that many with problems reported they were far happier after they left.

Another study was completed in 1985 by Robert Potter as part of a Ph.D. thesis on religion and mental health.¹⁰ He concluded that there exists “a strong positive correlation between Witness membership and clinical schizophrenia.” The same year, Ursula Sack evaluated the effect of religion on the mental health of select clients for her Ph.D. dissertation.¹¹ The clients she utilized furnished an enormous amount of insight into the pathological processes of the Watchtower, which complemented the results reached in earlier studies.

In addition, a 1985 German study by Elmer Koppl¹² came to similar conclusions, as did a study by Norwegian psychologist, Kjell Totland.¹³ Using Oakland County, Michigan court records from 1965 to 1973, this writer found that not only is the mental illness rate above average, but the suicide and crime rates are also high, especially aggressive crimes against persons.¹⁴

WHY ARE MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS SO GREAT?

Many reasons exist for the mental health problems among Witnesses, but research has found the following to be the most important.

Changes in Policy

The Watchtower is in a perpetual state of doctrinal change, often flip-flopping as many as three or four times on a single issue. Nowhere has this been so tragic as in its medical teachings. During the 1930s and 1940s, the Watchtower taught that vaccinations not only were ineffective, but also were a “direct violation” of God’s law.¹⁵ Then in the early 1950s vaccinations were up to one’s conscience. Now, however, the Watchtower publishes articles extolling the virtues of vaccinations and the many lives they have saved.

Another medical issue is organ transplants. In late 1961 they were specifically ruled acceptable, but in 1967 they were banned.¹⁶ Even cornea and kidney transplants were pronounced wrong because they were considered to be cannibalism. Then in 1980 organ transplants were ruled a matter of conscience,¹⁷ except bone marrow transplants (because bone was a source of blood). In 1984, however, even bone marrow transplants were approved.

In 1909 the Watchtower specifically stated that the Jewish prohibition against eating blood was not considered law for Christians, but in 1961 it declared that taking a blood transfusion was grounds for disfellowshipping.¹⁸ The Watchtower now teaches that “if a court authorized transfusion seems likely…[a witness must] put forth strenuous efforts to avoid a violation of God’s law on blood [and if] authorities…consider him a law-breaker or make him liable to prosecution…the Christian could view it as suffering for the sake of righteousness.”¹⁹

The present Watchtower teaching is clear: Witnesses are to die rather than submit to a transfusion, and this includes allowing their children to die. Yet even in this area the Watchtower society has changed. At one time use of all blood products and blood fractions for any purpose was condemned. Now Witnesses may accept albumin, globulins, factor VIII, factor IX, and even circulating blood. Furthermore, the ban on blood fractions for hemophiliacs was lifted in 1978.²⁰ Blood serums are now approved because those for viral hepatitis rabies, tetanus, diphtheria, and others contain only “a tiny amount” of blood.²¹ Yet the Watchtower also teaches Witnesses are to be faithful “in little things,” and many view these exceptions as hypocritical.

According to Carson Walker, religion editor for the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, “Twenty-five years ago, Gary Busselman watched his wife, Delores, die of leukemia. As Jehovah’s Witnesses, the couple did not believe in blood transfusions or a bone-marrow transplant…. Today, Busselman thinks the refusal of those medical procedures was wrong and he wants to help others who might have experienced similar tragedies.”²² He added that “she died in 1971 and in 1980 they changed their rule and members since then can get transplants.” Guilt and anger commonly result from the belief that one’s spouse or child died because of following a doctrine that was later admitted by the church to be wrong.

The Watchtower Theocracy

Another major cause for disillusionment among Witnesses is that they are taught that their organization is a theocracy, specifically run by God. Those inside the Watchtower organization are the only true servants of God, and all of those outside are evil persons soon to be destroyed at Armageddon.

Yet many are aware of the numerous cases of Witnesses who have done horrible things. A recent example is that of two formerly devout young Witnesses, the Freeman brothers, who “used to get along with their parents…and [were nice boys]” but murdered their mother Brenda, 48, their father Dennis, 54, and their brother Eric, 11.²³ The boys, Brian, 17, and David, 16, both pleaded guilty to lesser charges and received life in prison. This horrendous crime received international attention and no doubt reminded many Witnesses of other infamous Witness murder cases.

Prophecy Failure

Many Witnesses harbor a deep-seated fear — fueled by a long history of doctrinal reversals and prophetic failure — that the Watchtower is a false religious organization. Since this idea has earth-shaking implications for followers of that organization, they refuse to explore their fears, preferring to ration-alize or suppress rather than acknowledge and deal with them.

The most recent drastic prophecy change concerned the former Watchtower teaching that the countdown to Armageddon commenced in 1914, and World War I was a major sign that Christ would very soon establish his millennial kingdom on earth.²⁴ The organization also taught that the generation that saw 1914 would see Armageddon and the New World. Then a November 1995 Watchtower release, according to Newsweek’s Kenneth Woodward, announced that “all millennial bets are off…the sect’s leaders quietly acknowledged that Jesus was right in the first place, when he said that ‘no one knows the day or the hour.’”²⁵ The Watchtower has been wrong about almost every single prediction it has ever made, and this realization is especially traumatic when a person takes stock of what he or she has sacrificed to become a Jehovah’s Witness.

The Watchtower organization once discouraged marrying and having a family, teaching that Armageddon was too close to risk having children. In 1941 the Watchtower published a book entitled Children, showing how people can “please God” by acquiring “the right kind of knowledge.”²⁶ The book’s purpose was primarily to convince the reader that only the Watchtower is God’s organization, and it is only by following it that everlasting life can be obtained.²⁷ Woven within this message is the story of John and Eunice, who decide not to marry but instead to serve the Watchtower full-time. They conclude that they will someday have children, but not until after Armageddon. “Armageddon is surely near,” John said. “We can well defer our marriage until lasting peace comes to the earth. Now we must add nothing to our burdens, but be free and equipped to serve the Lord…Eunice, my decision is made.”²⁸

Eunice and John are now in their 70s, still waiting for Armageddon, which in 1941 was prophesied to occur very soon. Witnesses who chance upon these older publications can become deeply disturbed by the realization that the Watchtower had deceived and betrayed its earlier followers. Witnesses who lived during the time when these things were written have often been especially bitter because they sacrificed for what turned out to be a false hope.

Those who are not part of the Watchtower often do not understand the critical significance that failed prophecy and erroneous teachings have in the lives of Witnesses. Watchtower publications are not simply promoted as books written by humans to try and explain Scripture, but they are also viewed as quasi-inspired. Witnesses are taught that no one except the top Watchtower leaders can discern God’s will, not even through extensive Bible study. One can be saved only by being part of God’s organization, the Watchtower, which they teach is the ark of salvation. As the Flood came and wiped out all who were not in Noah’s ark, Armageddon will destroy forever all who are not in the Watchtower ark.

The key to salvation lies not in being saved in the Christian sense or even being good, but being in the Watchtower organization — although they also teach that even this does not guarantee salvation. Witnesses firmly believe — at least they must verbalize they firmly believe — that the Watchtower is God’s only organization and is directed by Him. For this reason, the many changed teachings (and hundreds of examples exist) are of no small importance. False prophecy poignantly tells Witnesses they have devoted their lives to a false religious organization. Dealing with this reality is enormously traumatic, can take years to adjust to, and can bring on psychological as well as somatic symptoms. Those who have been in the organization only a short while usually are not aware of the Watchtower’s history, but with time nagging doubts often become greater and greater, precipitating a crisis of conscience that forces many eventually to leave the Watchtower.

Moreover, leaving is no easy matter. When people become Witnesses, they are slowly indoctrinated into a belief structure that requires them to give up their friends — often even their family — and adopt a new family, that of the Watchtower. After they have been Witnesses for a few years, almost all of them have only Witness friends. For many, especially those who were born into the Watchtower, their entire family and many relatives are all Witnesses. Leaving often results in being disfellowshiped, which means that they will be forced to cut off all meaningful association with virtually every one of their friends, and often their family. Consequently, many find leaving extremely traumatic, even after they are fully convinced the Watchtower is wrong. For this reason many elect to stay, trudging along to Watchtower meetings and hearing and saying things that they themselves disagree with. Eventually, the inner conflict may become too great, and they have to leave, giving up family, friends, and their whole previous life.

Watchtower Prohibitions

The Watchtower prohibitions have reached into virtually every area of life and cover minutia to the extreme. They condemn all holidays and celebrations except one they call “the memorial,” and for generations have discouraged higher education and career advancement (although they have relaxed this rule recently). Missing one of their required five meetings per week (Watchtower activities can take between 20 and 30 hours per week, if one is conscientious), and spending time with non-Witnesses except to proselytize are also condemned. As a result, it is very difficult for a child raised a Witness to develop into a normal, socially aware, well-adjusted adult. They are taught that those of the world are evil, and even though worldly people may appear to be kind, this is one of Satan’s tactics to lure people out of God’s organization.

Prohibited from involving themselves in normal social relations and most school activities, Witnesses grow up as lonely children. Although deviance among them is common, it still brings guilt and ambivalence. In addition, their stand on many topics — especially refusing to salute the flag or celebrate holidays — often brings derision from their peers that typically hinders normal social development.²⁹ The Watchtower teaches Witnesses to have “nothing to do with” critics, and that they should “not be curious about what such people have to say.”³⁰ Yet they routinely put themselves into an antagonistic position when they go from door to door, and from this experience they often develop paranoia. In fact, paranoia schizophrenia is extremely high among them.

Few Guidelines for Life

A major reason why so many Witnesses have mental health problems is that the Watchtower has issued few effective guidelines to help them live their lives. Their main goal is to serve the Watchtower. Consequently, they feel compelled to attend five meetings each week and involve themselves in the often unrewarding door-to-door proselytizing work. Doors commonly slam in their face, and although many householders are polite but not interested, some are very rude. A Witness can spend years in the field service without detecting a person who has a genuine interest in the Watchtower message!

Discouraged from many normal means of self-fulfillment, Witnesses slavishly devote their time and energy to serving an organization that does not care about them as individuals. Given little practical and realistic advise as to how to deal with life problems, and discouraged from finding rewarding employment that is enjoyable and financially adequate, many feel they are trapped in a way of life in which virtually every alternative is undesirable. Many plod along for years, hoping that Armageddon will soon come to rescue them from their plight. In the meantime, their depression and hopelessness colors everything they do, even though they ostensibly may appear to be “happy serving Jehovah.”

The attractions that originally pull people to the Watchtower often do not last much beyond baptism. Their Witness friends, who once were supportive and tolerant of their lack of doctrinal conformity, soon insist that they rigidly teach and believe Watchtower policy. No longer is celebrating birthdays “up to the individual”; it now becomes a disfellowshiping offense. They are now considered mature and must rigidly follow every whim of the Watchtower. Once they are trapped, they are thus successfully pressured into doing things they had first resisted, sometimes strongly. The hope of a New World just around the corner retreats more and more into the future until many wonder if this often-delayed promise will ever come.

Discouragement is a common theme, both in the Watchtower literature and in discussions among Witnesses. They are constantly admonished to keep their chins up and focus on only serving the Watchtower, the assumption being that slavishly spending as much as 30 hours or more per week in Watchtower interests will solve one’s every problem. When it doesn’t, guilt often sets in, causing Witnesses to feel that they are evil and will not survive Armageddon. The depression and hopelessness have led to a disproportionate number of suicides and homicides among Witnesses.

THE WAY OUT

Some do find their way out. Many of these become agnostics or atheists, hating God and all attempts to understand and reach Him. Some are blessed to find true spiritual and psychological recovery, however. Through intensive Bible study they come to realize that the Watchtower is based on a false understanding of the Bible. These persons realize a faith does exist that is not based on the shifting sands of a manmade organization directed by individuals who are ill-informed about Scripture, historic Christianity, and modern biblical research. Such people look back at their experience in the Watchtower as one that can help others. Many of them become involved in the various countercult ministries and use their Watchtower expertise to help others find salvation in Him who is the only way, truth, and life.Dr. Jerry Bergman is a college professor at Northwest State College in Archbold, Ohio. He has published over 400 articles in both professional and lay journals in eight languages.

NOTES

¹See Joseph Zymunt, “Prophetic Failure and Chiliastic Identity: The Case of Jehovah’s Witnesses,” American Journal of Sociology 75 (1970): 926-48. ²Jerry Bergman, “Jehovah’s Witnesses Experience in the Nazi Concentration Camps,” Church and State, Winter 1996, 401-27. ³Lois Randle, “The Apocalypticism of the Jehovah’s Witnesses,” Free Inquiry, Winter 1984, 18-24. ⁴Gosta Rylander, “Jehovah’s Vittnan-En Psykologisk-Sociologisk Studie” (A Psychological and Sociological Study of Jehovah’s Witnesses), Nordisk Medicin (Scandinavian Medicine) 29 (1946): 526-33. ⁵John Spencer, “Mental Health among Jehovah’s Witnesses,” British Journal of Psychiatry 126 (1975): 556. ⁶See Christopher Edwards, Crazy for God (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1979); Chris Elkins, Heavenly Deception (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1980). ⁷M. J. Pescor, “A Study of Selective Service Law Violators,” The American Journal of Psychiatry 105 (1949): 641-52. ⁸Havor Montague, “The Pessimistic Sect’s Influence on the Mental Health of Its Members: The Case of Jehovah’s Witnesses,” Social Compass 24 (1977): 135-47. ⁹Ibid., 139. ¹⁰Robert Potter, A Social Psychological Study of Fundamentalist Christianity (Ph.D. diss., Sussex University, England, 1985). ¹¹Ursula Sack, Case Studies of Voluntary Defectors from Intensive Religious Groups (Ph.D. diss., University of California, 1985). ¹²Elmer Kopol, Die Zeugen Jehovas; Eine Psychologische Analyses (Ph.D. diss., University of Munchen, Germany, 1985). ¹³Kjell Totland, “The Mental Health of Jehovah’s Witnesses,” Journal of the Norwegian Psychological Association, in press. ¹⁴Jerry Bergman, The Evaluation of an Experimental Program Designed to Reduce Recidivism among Second Felony Offenders (Ph.D. diss., Wayne State University, 1976). ¹⁵“The Sacredness of Human Blood (Reasons Why Vaccination Is Unscriptural),” Golden Age, 4 February 1931, 293-300. ¹⁶“Questions from Readers,” The Watchtower, 15 November 1967, 702-4. ¹⁷Ibid., 15 March 1980, 31. ¹⁸Ibid., 15 January 1961, 63-64. ¹⁹Ibid., 15 June 1991, 31. ²⁰Ibid., 15 June 1978, 30. ²¹Ibid., 30-31. ²²Carson Walker, “Ex-Jehovah’s Witness Shares Loss,” Argus Leader (Sioux Falls, South Dakota), 23 January 1996, 1. ²³Thomas Nord, “Something Poisoned Freeman Brothers,” The Detroit News, 3 March 1995, 8. ²⁴Kenneth Woodward, “Apocalypse Later,” Newsweek, 18 December 1995, 59. ²⁵Ibid. ²⁶Children (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1941), 2. ²⁷Ibid., 347. ²⁸Ibid., 366. ²⁹Jerry Bergman, “Modern Religious Objections to the Mandatory Flag Salute and Pledge of Allegiance in the United States,” The Christian Quest 2, no. 1 (Summer 1989): 19-47. ³⁰The Watchtower, 15 March 1996, 17.

Lack of media attention notwithstanding, to the victims of undisclosed child abuse by members of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the scandal is no less heartbreaking and painful than that suffered by victims of the much more publicized Catholic priest child abuse scandal.

Now the problem among Jehovah’s Witnesses has been illumined by coverage from NBC’s Dateline, CNN’s Connie Chung, the New York Times, and many other media reports, civil suits, and press releases over the past two years. The official Watchtower policy, affirmed in press releases from the Society since the recent flurry of media reports arose, conforms to policy discussed in Society articles in Awake in 1993 and 1995 and in The Watchtower in 1997. According to the articles and the more recent releases from Watchtower director of public affairs J. R. Brown, the Society’s policy could be construed as allowing accused molesters continued access to their victims and to new victims while keeping parents in the dark about a fellow Witnesses’s child abuse proclivities.

When long-time Witness elder William Bowen contacted Watchtower headquarters in 1999 regarding a child abuse situation in his congregation, he was frustrated by their inaction and orders for him to protect the accused by ensuring that the charges were kept confidential. Fearful that the abuse would continue and the abuser would recruit new victims through his congregation activities, Bowen resigned as an elder in December 2000. Nearly 18 months later the Watchtower “disfellowshiped” him, treating him as an apostate and ordering all Witnesses to “shun” him. Bowen says their action will not daunt him, noting, “This is evidence for the world to see how the Jehovah’s Witnesses treat abuse survivors and those who try to protect them. They silence them with the threat of disfellowshiping.”

Disaffected members say that is exactly what has happened in many cases; over 5,000 cases of abuse among Jehovah’s Witnesses have been reported to a victim’s assistance Web site, www.silentlambs.org. Bowen claims the Watchtower itself maintains a confidential database of nearly 24,000 suspected child molesters among their membership. A New York Times article (August 2002) interviewed women from New York, Minnesota, and Tennessee who said that Witnesses in their own congregations had abused them and that they received no satisfactory help from local or national leaders. Mrs. Barbara Anderson, who had volunteered at Watchtower headquarters for 11 years, said, “Jehovah’s Witnesses like to say that we have one of the most crime-free organizations, but all problems are taken to the elders, and the elders keep them quiet.”

Scattered legal cases — some civil and some criminal, on at least three continents over the last decade — reveal the typical official Watchtower response, which is often ineffective and at times harsher on the victims who report the abuse than on the abusers.

Critics specifically state that the response within the local Kingdom Hall too often results in the accused being protected by the elders while the victims are pressured to recant or at least keep silent about their accusations. What ensues, say many disaffected Witnesses, is that child abusers remain in good standing in their local congregations with continued access to other children and no warning being given to congregation members or members of the public who might encounter the abuser when the abuser does door-to-door “field work.”

Watchtower articles and press releases uniformly decry child abuse, encourage those abused to seek help, and agree that unrepentant abusers should be noted and excluded from the congregation. Critics, nevertheless, complain that the policy demands a standard of proof not often available in child abuse situations. Victims subsequently feel pressured to withdraw their complaints, avoid reporting the abuse to civil authorities, and continue worshiping with their abusers. Abusers who continue to deny their crimes have a good chance of maintaining their good standing — even in positions as elders of congregations. Commenting on a case that had broken free from Kingdom Hall confidentiality into criminal court, West Midlands (Scotland) investigating police officer Steve Colley remarked, “I was surprised. They [the elders] actually said to me unless I could provide two Jehovah’s Witnesses who’d actually seen the offense, then as far as they were concerned the offense hadn’t taken place.”

The Watchtower exercises close and comprehensive control over its followers, teaching followers to conform their lives to the teaching of the organization. The leadership closely supervises followers’ daily lives, from the amount of time they devote to Bible study to whom they are allowed to befriend. Those who continue to flout the rules are removed from membership and shunned, even by their own intimate family members.

The break in silence by Jehovah’s Witness victims of abuse has brought to public light incidents spanning many decades and many countries. In almost all cases, the local elder board failed to act or acted privately with the individual accused, and neither the victims nor the congregation ever heard any abuse accusations until the victims went outside the organization to the press, social service agencies, or police or filed civil suits against their abusers, the affected Kingdom Hall, and the Watchtower.

The same pattern has appeared in public cases in many countries, including Canada, England, Scotland, Denmark, France, and Spain, and in many states, including Washington, Oregon, California, Minnesota, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Maine, and Florida.

A Canadian judge, ruling in a criminal case, declared, “The moral punishment imposed by a church is not punishment demanded by law.” Judge John Goldring continued, “I cannot criticize the church sufficiently enough….it’s well known in these courts that churches are criticized for failing to report criminal activity.” Goldring concluded, “The church may have spiritual responsibility but it does not exceed the authority of the state.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force and deny His deity. They further deny that the soul survives physical death and that hell is a place of conscious eternal punishment for the wicked. Moreover, the Witnesses imply that the early church believed as they do about these doctrines. Examination of early Christian literature, however, refutes these claims. It demonstrates that the early church believed in the full deity and personality of the Spirit. It also reveals that they believed in a soul that survives death and in a place of conscious eternal punishment for the wicked. There is no historical evidence from the earlieat years following the apostles for any group believing as the Witnesses do today. The absence of such evidence provides an opportunity for Christians to undermine the legitimacy and authority of the Watchtower Society, a necessary step for leading Jehovah’s Witnesses to Christ.

Part One of this series examined two important doctrinal premises of the Jehovah’s Witnesses: (1) the idea that a great apostasy occurred in the Christian church after the death of the apostles, and (2) the claim that the early Christians believed Jesus Christ was a created being. The literature of the early postapostolic period reveals no evidence that a great apostasy occurred and demonstrates convincingly that the early church, beginning with disciples of the apostles themselves, believed Jesus Christ possesses both the nature of God and the nature of a human being. On this basis alone one can refute the claim of the Watchtower Society to be a contemporary restoration of the true Christian faith.

The Watchtower Society also diverges markedly from the orthodox church on the nature of the Holy Spirit, the nature of the soul, and the existence of a place of conscious eternal punishment for the wicked. Yet, despite their differences with Christendom, the Witnesses are convinced that their teachings are harmonious with the teachings of the apostles and the early church. To resolve this issue, it is important to seek evidence for the beliefs of the early church from the testimony of history.

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE POST APOSTOLIC CHURCH

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that “holy spirit” is neither God nor personal, but rather is an impersonal force or energy sent forth from God.¹ The Witnesses assert that the orthodox teaching about the Holy Spirit — that He is personal and a member of the Trinity — was an apostate church innovation that became official church dogma from the fourth century. This challenge raises serious questions about this fundamental teaching of the Christian faith. What did the early church believe about the Holy Spirit? Did they consider the Spirit to be a person or an impersonal force? Did they consider the Spirit to be equal to God Himself?

An examination of early church literature reveals that little attention was paid to the specific issues of the nature and personality of the Holy Spirit. Thus it is difficult to be dogmatic about the beliefs of the early church on this subject. The literary motivation of the patristic authors generally falls into several categories, the most common being the defense of the faith against pagans, pastoral concerns, and the refutation of heresy. This last category — the defense of the faith against heresy — served as the strongest incentive for the development of formal Christian doctrine. In the centuries before the council of Nicaea (AD 325), the principal heretical challenges to the faith focused on the nature of Christ and His relationship to the Father. Except for the work of Origen in the latter part of the third century, no formal, systematic Christian theology was attempted during this period. Because there was little controversy about the nature and personality of the Spirit, a strong motivation to develop formal doctrinal positions on this issue was lacking.

Nevertheless, it is possible to discern from this literature the broad outlines of the early Christian understanding of the Spirit, and to compare and contrast this picture with the teachings of the Watchtower Society. The Spirit is mentioned frequently in early Christian literature, most commonly in contexts describing the baptismal formula or other contexts that do not clearly demonstrate a definitive understanding of the Spirit’s nature. But some common threads are evident. The principal themes pertaining to the Holy Spirit found throughout the patristic literature are described below.

The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit

The church fathers make frequent mention of that which they believed to be at the heart of the Christian life — the rebirth of a sinful person through the indwelling of God within the human heart by faith in Christ. Emphasis on this as the central experience of the Christian faith is seen outside the Scriptures as early as the first century, during which time many disciples of the apostles, and even some of the apostles themselves, were still alive.

The Epistle of Barnabas, written by an unknown author shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, makes frequent reference to the importance of this spiritual transformation: “Behold then we have been created anew, as He said…’Behold, says the Lord, I will remove from them…their stony hearts and will put into them hearts of flesh.’ For He Himself was to be manifested in the flesh and to dwell in us. For the abode of our heart…is a holy temple to the Lord.”² We also read, “By receiving the remission of our sins and hoping on the Name we became new, created afresh from the beginning. Therefore God dwells truly in our dwelling within us.…He Himself [is] dwelling in us.…For he that desires to be saved looks not to man, but to Him that dwells and speaks in him.”³

Ignatius, a revered martyr of the early church who clearly proclaimed the deity of Christ in his epistles, also testified to the indwelling of God the Father and Jesus Christ in the temple of the believer. While he did not specifically mention the Spirit in such a context, his testimony bore witness to the fundamental conviction of the early church — God is present in the heart that is newly created through faith: “I realize that you are not conceited; for you have Jesus Christ in yourselves.”⁴ “Let us, then, do everything as if He were dwelling in us. Thus we shall be His temples, and He will be within us as our God—as he actually is.”⁵

While both Barnabas and Ignatius emphasized the indwelling of God and Christ, other early authors stated that God dwells within the human heart through His Spirit. The Shepherd of Hermas, a second-century allegory esteemed by the early church, speaks often of the Spirit and His sanctifying work in the human heart: “Love truth, and let nothing but truth proceed out of thy mouth, that the Spirit which God made to dwell in this flesh, may be found true in the sight of all men; and so shall the Lord, Who dwelleth in thee, be glorified.”⁶ “For if thou art long-suffering, the Holy Spirit that abideth in thee shall be pure…[He] shall rejoice and be glad with the vessel in which he dwelleth.”⁷ “Take heed therefore, ye that serve God and have Him in your heart…”⁸

The early church proclaimed the same good news that Christians rejoice in today — that we may be reconciled with God through faith in Christ and transformed through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. And it is very clear from the language they used that they considered this indwelling Spirit to be personal and identified Him as God.

The Holy Spirit Is the Author of Scripture

Frequent references to Christ as the author of Scripture demonstrate the early church’s belief in His deity. Likewise, the patristic writers attributed the voice and authorship of Scripture also to the Holy Spirit. For example, Hippolytus (who according to the Watchtower believed that the Spirit was an impersonal power⁹) said this of the Spirit: “Neither does Scripture falsify anything, nor does the Holy Spirit deceive His servants, the prophets, through whom He is pleased to announce to men the will of God.”¹⁰ “For either they do not believe that the Sacred Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, in which case they are unbelievers, or, if they regard themselves as being wiser than the Holy Spirit, what else are they but demoniacs.[sic]“¹¹

Many such instances are seen in early church literature. Since the fathers believed the author of Scripture to be God, their testimony about the Spirit speaking through the written Word provides substantial evidence that they understood the Spirit to be personal, and they attributed to Him the nature, words, and will of God.

The Holy Spirit Is Described in Personal Terms

The Watchtower Society argues that the use of terms of personality to describe the Holy Spirit is not evidence that He is a personal being, but rather represents the literary technique of personification. Their reference book Insight on the Scriptures asserts that personification does not prove personality: “It is true that Jesus spoke of the holy spirit as a ‘helper’ and spoke of such helper as ‘teaching,’ ‘bearing witness,” ‘giving evidence,’ ‘guiding.’…it is not unusual in the Scriptures for something that is not actually a person to be personalized or personified. Wisdom is personified in the book of Proverbs.”¹²

This weak defense is contradicted not only by Scripture, but by the postapostolic literature. With the exception of the allegorical Shepherd of Hermas, the church fathers rarely employed the literary technique of personification, yet they repeatedly spoke of the Spirit in personal terms. They believed the Holy Spirit has an active and dynamic role in the church, not as an impersonal power, but as a personal being with an independent will and ministry. For example, Ignatius des-cribed the Spirit as Preacher.¹³ Likewise, Justin Martyr referred to Him as Teacher: “The Holy Prophetic Spirit taught us this when He informed us through Moses that God spoke….”¹⁴

The early fathers recognized that the Holy Spirit possesses all the attributes that we associate with personality. In the following passages note how the Spirit manifests emotion, functions as an intermediary between two personal beings (God and humans), exercises endurance, accuses sinners, and proclaims the truth of God without deception: “The doubtful mind saddens the Spirit….Put away therefore from thyself sadness, and afflict not the Holy Spirit that dwelleth in thee….”¹⁵ “The Jews…were rightly censured both by the Prophetic Spirit and by Christ himself, since they knew neither the Father nor the Son.”¹⁶ “The Holy Spirit [does not] deceive His servants, the prophets, through whom He is pleased to announce to men the will of God.”¹⁷

It is not plausible to claim that such references involve the literary personification of an impersonal power or force. To see such a consistent personification would be most unlikely given the wide spectrum of authors and literary styles evident in the writings of the fathers. There is no support in the writings of the early church for a doctrine of the Spirit as an impersonal force or energy of God. Whatever the origins of this Watchtower teaching, it did not come from the teachings of those who were disciples of the apostles.

The Spirit Is Functionally Equated with the Father and the Son

The patristic writers frequently spoke of God and Christ in equivalent ways, often interchanging “God” and “Christ” in the same sentence or paragraph. They treated the Spirit in a similar manner: “He that has the Spirit…giveth no answer to any man when enquired of, nor speaketh in solitude (for neither doth the Holy Spirit speak when a man wisheth Him to speak); but the man speaketh then when God wisheth him to speak.”¹⁸ “The Spirit and the Power from God cannot rightly be thought of as anything else than the Lord, who is also the First–born of God.”¹⁹

God, Christ, and the Spirit are spoken of in an equivalent manner throughout the patristic literature. While distinguishing different roles in their relationship with humankind and with the church, the apostolic fathers treated the Holy Spirit as the functional equivalent of the Father Himself. They believed that the Spirit was God dwelling within the heart of the believer, teaching and admonishing the church, manifesting the emotions and will of God. They did not believe He was simply an impersonal energy or force.

THE NATURE OF THE SOUL AND ETERNAL PUNISHMENT

Among the most fundamental questions of religion are those pertaining to human nature, the consequences of evil, and the destiny of human beings after death. There are substantial differences between the teachings of the Watchtower and those of orthodox Christianity on these issues, yet both claim to accurately interpret Scripture and represent apostolic teaching.

The Watchtower Society denies the existence of the soul as a separable entity from the body that survives death. Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that the term soul refers to the whole person, composed of a physical body and an impersonal “spirit” or life force. At death, a person ceases to exist except in the memory of God; the life force does not survive death but its energy returns to God.²⁰ While Witnesses nominally believe in a resurrection of the righteous, it is in reality a recreation, wherein God creates a new person from the pattern of that individual in His memory.²¹

The idea of hell as a place of conscious eternal punishment for the wicked has always been anathema to Jehovah’s Witnesses. They believe the biblical terms for hell (sheol in the Old Testament, hades and gehenna in the New Testament) refer only to the common grave of humankind. Using their ubiquitous yardstick of biblical interpretation — their own human reason — they assert that a God of love would never condemn humans to an eternity of fiery torment. The fate of the wicked is nonexistence, with no hope of resurrection to Jehovah’s paradise on earth.

The Witnesses believe that the doctrines of a soul that survives death and a hell where the wicked are punished eternally arose from Platonic influences within an apostate church, and they are not representative of the beliefs or teachings of the apostles or early Christians. Does early Christian literature substantiate their claim to have a true biblical and apostolic understanding of these doctrines?

Discussion of the soul occurs frequently in the postapostolic literature. There are different meanings for soul depending on the context in which it is used. The fathers sometimes used the term to refer to the entire person. Their understanding, however, was not confined to this use.

Martyrdom was common in the widespread persecution of the early church. The courage of the martyrs was based on their faith in Christ their Savior and their conviction that death would immediately usher them into His presence. Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John, was one of the early church’s great martyrs. At the time of his death, his prayer expressed a hope not only in resurrection, but also that he would stand in the presence of Christ after his sacrifice: “I bless Thee, because Thou hast deemed me worthy this day and hour, to take my part among the number of the martyrs in the cup of thy Christ, for ‘resurrection to eternal life’ of soul and body…may I be received in thy presence this day as a rich and acceptable sacrifice.”²²

Ignatius likewise manifested this hope at the time of his martyrdom: “I would rather that you fawn on the beasts so that they may be my tomb and no scrap of my body be left. Thus, when I have fallen asleep…shall I be a real disciple of Jesus Christ when the world sees my body no more.”²³

Similar references are common in the postapostolic literature. Typical of the early church’s teaching on the soul is a passage from Justin Martyr, a convert from pagan philosophy who also suffered martyrdom: “Look at the end of each of the former emperors, how they died the common death of all; and if this were merely a departure into unconsciousness, that would be a piece of luck for the wicked. But since consciousness continues for all who have lived, and eternal punishment awaits….All this should convince you that souls are still conscious after death….We look forward to receiving again our own bodies, though they be dead and buried in the earth.”²⁴

In contrast to passages such as those above, there is no literary or historical evidence for any early Christian group teaching soul sleep. The belief in a soul that survives death is ubiquitous in the writings of the early church. It is not credible to say that a theology of soul sleep and an impersonal life force reflects apostolic teaching when such concepts appear nowhere in the writings of apostolic disciples or others in the early church.

As with Justin Martyr above, the punishment of the wicked after death is also a common topic in the literature of the church before Nicaea. There is no indication that the early church believed the wicked were punished by annihilation. Rather, the conscious punishment of those who reject Christ and fail to repent permeates the evangelism of this period. The early church was not reticent about teaching the consequences of sin for the unrepentant.

A few passages speak of the destruction of the wicked. The Epistle of Barnabas, for example, says, “For it is a way of eternal death with punishment wherein are the things that destroy men’s souls.”²⁵ Such affirmations taken in isolation might seem to support the doctrine of soul sleep. Yet when the broader context is examined, the fathers did not believe that “eternal death” or “destruction” meant cessation of existence, but rather a state of eternal separation from God — the antithesis of the perfection achieved when a faithful Christian is joined eternally with God in heaven.

The early church believed the wicked would receive an eternity of torment and punishment. Clement, the third bishop of Rome, said, “It is better for a man to confess of his sins than to harden his heart in the way those rebels against God’s servant Moses hardened theirs. The verdict against them was made very plain. For ‘they went down to Hades alive.’”²⁶ Similarly, the author of 2 Clement, an early Christian homily, said, “But the righteous…when they shall behold them that have done amiss and denied Jesus by their words or by their deeds, how that they are punished with grievous torments in unquenchable fire, shall give glory to God.”²⁷

The author of The Martyrdom of Polycarp describes in detail the death of John’s disciple, and says this of the motivation behind Christian martyrdom: “And giving themselves over to the grace of Christ, they despised the tortures of this world, purchasing for themselves…life eternal. To them the fire of their inhuman tortures was cold, for they set before their eyes escape from the fire that is everlasting and never quenched.”²⁸

Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp — described by the Watchtower as one “who boldly spoke out in favor of the inspired written Word of God rather than the traditions of men”²⁹ — said this about the fate of the unrepentant: “The Church…received from the apostles…its faith…that [Christ] may make just judgment of them all; and that He may send the spiritual forces of wickedness…and the impious, unjust, lawless and blasphemous among men, into everlasting fire.”³⁰

It is clear from these and many other references that the early church, citing apostolic teaching as its source, believed that those who failed to repent were destined for conscious eternal torment in hell. They ridiculed the pagan notion that the wicked would be annihilated and cease to exist, asserting that this would be an unjust end for those who pursued wickedness and the pleasures of this world. Just as they believed that faithful Christians would be eternally in the presence of God, they were convinced that the wicked would suffer an eternity of torment apart from Him. The Watchtower teaching on the annihilation of the wicked quite simply has no historical precedent in the early church.

THE WATCHTOWER VS. THE HISTORICAL RECORD

One avenue for refuting Watchtower teachings is the careful and thorough exposition of biblical texts. Many biblical scholars have solidly refuted the unsound approach to biblical interpretation practiced by the Watchtower Society, yet the fruits of such efforts are often dismissed by the Witness at the door who is unwilling to accept any scholarship — regardless of how thorough or distinguished — that contradicts an organization believed to be God’s sole channel of communication. Faced with this obstacle, the Christian who wishes to lead the Witness to Christ and into the truth of the Christian faith may find his or her commentaries and books on biblical apologetics to be of no avail. The Watchtower has over one hundred years of polemical experience and millions of pages of literature defending their interpretation of Scripture. The Christian who confronts this arsenal directly is facing a most formidable stronghold.

The Watchtower fortress is not invulnerable, however. The Watchtower Society claims to have an unbroken lineage of faithful Christians since the apostles who have believed and taught as they do today. The Governing Body of the Watchtower Society, which represents the defacto voice of God for the individual Witness, derives its authority by claiming to be the “faithful and discrete servant” of Matthew 24:45. They assert that at the time of the invisible presence of Christ in 1914 he chose a group of Christians who alone were faithful to the true gospel. This group of “anointed” Witnesses is said to fulfill Jesus’ prophecy about the servant serving faithfully when his master returns. The Watchtower maintains that there has always been a “faithful and discrete servant class,” appointed by Jehovah God to proclaim His kingdom gospel, even during the 1,800 years between the death of the apostles and the establishment of the Watchtower Society.

These claims present an opportunity for Christians seeking to reach Jehovah’s Witnesses for Christ. The Witness likely will not be receptive to the true gospel or the true Christ until he or she first accepts that the Watchtower Society is not God’s sole channel for truth. By demonstrating through the vehicle of history that the early Christians — the same men cited in Watchtower literature as supporting Witness teachings — did not believe or teach as the Watchtower does today, the Christian may plant seeds of doubt about the truthfulness and reliability of the Watchtower Society.

Unlike topics such as the Trinity or the correct translation of John 1:1, the Witnesses have no prepared answers for such questions. Their literature provides no substantiation for claims of historical solidarity with the apostles, leaving the Witness with a dirth of prepackaged Watchtower answers. This provides a golden opportunity to compel Witnesses to think independently about such issues.

Readily available translations of the early fathers may also be accepted and studied by the Witness who would reject Christian apologetic literature as “spiritual pornography.”³¹ It therefore behooves Christians interested in reaching out to Jehovah’s Witnesses to familiarize themselves with the historical evidence for their own faith so they can contrast it with a latter-day counterfeit preaching another Jesus and another gospel.

Witnesses, who believe they are following the truth, need to be confronted lovingly with the historical fact that, while a few scattered groups over the centuries have held doctrines resembling a few of their teachings, there is no evidence for an unbroken lineage of anointed Jehovah’s Witnesses holding their interpretation of Scripture prior to Charles Russell. Certainly no evidence exists for such a group in the early church.

Those who know Jesus Christ and are born of His Spirit share the same faith with those who defended that faith nearly two thousand years ago. Jehovah’s Witnesses, despite their zealousness, are serving a religious fabrication masquerading as true Christianity. It is the duty of those who serve our Savior to introduce them to the Christ of truth, faith, and history.

NOTES

¹Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 2 (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, 1988), 1019. ²Barnabas, 6; in J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984). ³Ibid., 16. ⁴Ignatius, Magnatians, 12; in Cyril C. Richardson, Early Christian Fathers (New York: Macmillan, 1970). ⁵Ignatius, Ephesians, 15; in Richardson. ⁶Hermas, Mandate, 3, 1; in Lightfoot. ⁷Ibid, 5, 1; in Lightfoot. ⁸Hermas Similitudes, 1; in Lightfoot. ⁹Insight on the Scriptures, 1019. ¹⁰Hippolytus, Commentary on Daniel, 4.6; in W. A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 1 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1979). ¹¹Hippolytus, The Little Labyrinth; quoted in Eusebius Pamphilus, Ecclesiastical History, 5.28.15; in Jurgens. ¹²Insight on the Scriptures, 1019. ¹³Ignatius, Philippians, 7; in Lightfoot. ¹⁴Justin Martyr, First Apology, 44; in Jurgens. ¹⁵Hermas, Mandates, 10.2; in Lightfoot. ¹⁶Justin Martyr, 63; in Richardson. ¹⁷Hippolytus, Commentary on Daniel 4, 6; in Jurgens. ¹⁸Hermas, Mandates, 11.1; in Lightfoot. ¹⁹Justin Martyr, 33; in Richardson. ²⁰The cessation of a person’s existence at the time of death is referred to as soul sleep or soul death. ²¹You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, 1982), 78. Insight on the Scriptures, 1025. ²²Martyrdom of Polycarp, 14; in Richardson. ²³Ignatius, Romans, 4; in Richardson. ²⁴Justin Martyr, 18; in Richardson. ²⁵Barnabas, 20; in Lightfoot. ²⁶1 Clement, 51; in Richardson. ²⁷2 Clement, 17; in Lightfoot. ²⁸Martyrdom of Polycarp, 2; in Richardson. ²⁹Watchtower, 15 July 1990, 26. ³⁰Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.10.1; in Richardson. ³¹The Watchtower teaches that Jehovah’s Witnesses must avoid any religious literature from Christendom — especially any writings opposing the Society or written by former Witnesses (“apostates”) — and must treat Christian literature as pornography.

The Watchtower Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) claims to be the sole religious group faithful to the teachings of Christ and the apostles today. The Witnesses believe that the Christian church, which they refer to as “Christendom,” fell into a great apostasy after the death of the apostles and became corrupted with the doctrines and ideas of Greek paganism and philosophy. Among the doctrines corrupted was the nature of Christ, whom they maintain was the first creation of Jehovah God. The Witnesses further claim that there has always existed, since the time of the apostles, a group of faithful, anointed men who taught and believed as they do today. They often cite passages from the early church fathers to demonstrate that these men held the same beliefs as contemporary Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, examination of the writings of the early church fathers provides no evidence to substantiate the claim that a great apostasy occurred in the church following the death of the apostles. Moreover, the church fathers refute rather than support Watchtower teachings about Jesus Christ.

From the very establishment of the Christian church by Jesus Christ and His apostles, alternative formulations of the faith have been proposed by countless individuals and sects. Such groups have often adopted the language and concepts of New Testament Christianity, while amalgamating them with ideas and beliefs from secular society, philosophy, or non-Christian religions. This trend manifests itself today in the contemporary scene, much as it did many centuries ago. It is especially evident in groups such as the Mormon church and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, both of which claim to be the only true expression of Christianity in the present age.

In order to validate their claim to be the true bearers of the Christian faith, such sects usually assert that orthodox Christianity lost its way and became “apostate” in early church history. Thus, both the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret their doctrinal differences from historic Christian teachings as a restoration of the apostolic faith, long ago lost by the apostasy of “Christendom.” They often point to the relatively late development of the doctrine of the Trinity, and the affirmation of doctrine by church councils, as evidence that Christendom lost the true gospel by absorbing Greek paganism and philosophy.

The claim that the true Christian faith has been lost for 18 centuries does pose some rather severe difficulties, however. One significant problem has to do with establishing a historical link between the sect and apostolic Christianity. The Mormons attempt to bypass this issue by claiming new revelation — the angel Moroni revealed the restored Christian faith to Joseph Smith. Jehovah’s Witnesses, on the other hand, try to maintain a historical link with the apostolic church. They hold that since the death of the apostles, there has always existed a “faithful and discrete servant” class — a group of 144,000 anointed Christians (which began with the 12 apostles and reached 144,000 in 1935) who are Jehovah’s appointed channel for understanding and interpreting the Scriptures. This group is now embodied in the rapidly dwindling Governing Body of the Watchtower Society (those who became a part of this class during or prior to 1935 are dying of old age).

The Watchtower Society turns frequently to the Christian literature of the postapostolic period — those writers commonly known as the church fathers — to bolster their claim to be the true restoration of apostolic Christianity. This two–part series will review the evidence for their position by examining the early church literature pertaining to the central doctrines of the Christian faith.

THE CHURCH FATHERS

In the first few centuries after the death of the apostles, the literary efforts of certain esteemed leaders and teachers of the church served to communicate and defend the faith. These writings were held in high regard, often being circulated with copies of the Scriptures themselves. They became an integral part of the spiritual literature of the growing Christian communities, and were frequently utilized in worship. The authors, generally known as the apostolic or church fathers, provide us with valuable understanding of the history and development of Christian life, beliefs, and doctrine in the postapostolic age.

These writings were prompted by a number of circumstances. Some were written to explain and defend Christianity to pagan authorities (e.g., kings) in an attempt to deflect persecution. Others were intended to encourage, teach, and correct wayward churches. Many were written to defend the church against heresies from inside and outside the Christian community.

Some of the most valuable insights from these writings relate to the formation of orthodox Christian doctrine, particularly as it developed in response to heresy. Study of the history and development of orthodox Christian doctrine reveals that several very important doctrines, such as the Trinity and the nature of Christ, were refined over an extended period. These teachings were to some extent implicitly understood by the early church, and later were more explicitly defined. Since false teachers distorted these and other doctrines, church fathers directed much of their attention to refuting them with apostolic teaching based on Scripture. Hence, the writings of the church fathers provide an important resource for determining what Christians believed in the first few centuries after the apostles.

THE ALLEGED “APOSTASY” OF CHRISTENDOM

A recent Watchtower magazine expounds the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ view that orthodox Christianity (“Christendom”) underwent a great apostasy after the death of the apostles: “The death of the apostles removed a restraining influence, allowing a widespread apostasy to develop. (2 Thessalonians 2:7, 8) An organization grew up that unworthily professed to be God’s congregation. It falsely claimed to be the holy nation anointed with God’s spirit to rule with Jesus.”¹

The Witnesses believe that the influx of pagan converts brought in doctrines and concepts from Greek philosophy and religion which were then integrated into the Christian faith, resulting in such “false” teachings as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the immortality of the soul, and eternal punishment in hell. According to the Watchtower Society, Christendom lived in darkness for 18 centuries after this apostasy. Yet they believe there were always individuals who were faithful to divine truth — a truth more fully unveiled when their founder, Charles Russell, began to study the Bible in earnest in the 1870s. To support this view, Watchtower literature regularly cites passages from the church fathers to demonstrate that, even after the apostasy, there were some who believed as Jehovah’s Witnesses do today.

In light of this line of argumentation, it is worthwhile to examine the writings of the early church fathers. If indeed such writings reveal that early Christians believed as Jehovah’s Witnesses do today, then surely a reevaluation of orthodox Christian teachings is needed. If these writings fail to support Watchtower claims, however, then one must conclude that Jehovah’s Witnesses represent a new religious tradition of the late 19th century, with no historical connection to apostolic Christianity.

The body of literature of the postapostolic church is substantial, and a full review would be outside of the scope of a limited survey such as this. The most critical period is that prior to the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, because it is historically closest to the apostles. Part One of this series will examine writings from this period that relate to the question of whether the church underwent a great apostasy. It will also investigate what the church fathers say about one of the most critical doctrines of the Christian faith — the divine nature of Christ. Part Two will review other important doctrines of the faith, such as the nature of the Holy Spirit, the soul, and the fate of the wicked.

Did a Great Apostasy Occur?

Was the true faith taught by the apostles lost or corrupted within the first generation after the apostles? If so, then the true faith was not successfully transmitted anywhere in the evangelized world of the first and second centuries — including churches established by the apostles, with leadership appointed personally by them. A “great apostasy” would require an extraordinary event: the simultaneous loss of faith by an entire generation of Christians throughout the civilized world. Included in this apostasy would be disciples of the apostles themselves, as well as those who witnessed the thousands of martyrs who, just a short time previously, refused to deny Christ, either explicitly or by worshiping pagan gods.

A great apostasy, wherein the doctrines of Greek pagan philosophy replaced apostolic teaching, would most likely have begun in areas where the church was accepting a large number of converts with backgrounds in Greek religion and philosophy, such as Alexandria, Egypt. The prominent western churches established directly by the apostles, such as those in Rome and Antioch, would likely have fallen into heresy more slowly. But the historical facts do not support this (or any other) scenario of a “great apostasy.” Had a great apostasy begun immediately after the death of the apostles, as the Watchtower claims, a mixture of “true Christianity” (i.e., Watchtower–type teachings) and “pagan heresy” (i.e., orthodox Christian teachings) would be discernible in the literature of the early church, which was widespread in its geographical points of origin.

Is it possible that all the writings of the followers of the “true faith” were completely destroyed by the paganized church? Such a view is highly improbable. Many manuscripts have survived from Gnosticism (a widespread religious movement of this period which combined elements of Greek paganism and eastern mystery religions), despite several centuries of concerted attack and condemnation by the church. Yet not a single document exists pointing to a group who believed as the Jehovah’s Witnesses do today.

The absence of such early “Watchtower” literature causes one to doubt the existence of the so-called “faithful and discrete servant class.” After all, the stated purpose of these 144,000 anointed servants in Jehovah’s plan is to provide “meat in due season” — that is, literature that imparts “accurate knowledge” about the Bible. If these early Jehovah’s Witnesses were true to the kingdom gospel, handed down to them by the apostles, they would have written sufficiently to provide the faithful with an understanding of the Scriptures. Keep in mind that the Watchtower Society teaches that the Scriptures cannot be properly understood without such aids.² Yet where is the Watchtower literature of the first and second centuries — or for that matter, of any century prior to the 1870s? Its absence is most telling, and highly damaging to the claim of a general apostasy with just a few of the dedicated faithful surviving.

Perhaps the most compelling argument against a universal early apostasy may be found in the commissioning and empowering of the apostles themselves. If a universal apostasy occurred immediately after the death of the apostles, we would have to judge the apostles as incompetent or negligent evangelists who utterly failed to accomplish Jesus’ commission to make disciples. Such an apostasy would reflect poorly on Jehovah God as well, whose “holy spirit” was unable to preserve His followers for even a single generation.

There is, therefore, no reason to believe that a great apostasy occurred following the death of the apostles, with the resulting loss of the “true” Christian faith for over 1800 years. This conclusion seems undeniable in view of the Great Commission, the power of the Holy Spirit, the absence of literary evidence for an alternative group of believers with a gospel similar to that preached by Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the implausibility of the required simultaneous loss of faith by an entire generation of geographically dispersed Christians.

THE CHURCH FATHERS AND THE DEITY OF CHRIST

Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that Jesus Christ is YHWH (or Jehovah) in the flesh, maintaining that he is the first creation of Jehovah. The Witness book used for instruction of potential converts, You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, explains: “Did Jesus ever say that he was God? No, he never did. Rather, in the Bible he is called ‘God’s Son.’ And he said, ‘The Father is greater than I am.’ (John 10:34-36; 14:28)…Thus the Almighty God and Jesus are clearly two separate persons. Even after his death and resurrection and ascension to heaven, Jesus was still not equal to his Father.”³

The Witnesses further claim that Jesus was not raised bodily from the dead, but was raised as a spirit creature who assumed different material bodies after his resurrection when interacting with the disciples: “Since the apostle Thomas was able to put his hand into a hole in Jesus’ side, does that not show that Jesus was raised from the dead in the same body that was nailed to the stake? No, for Jesus simply materialized or took on a fleshly body, as angels had done in the past.”⁴

Watchtower teaching regarding the time and manner of Christ’s return also differs markedly from historical Christian teaching. Witnesses believe that Christ established an invisible “presence” on earth in the year 1914, seen only by those with “eyes of understanding” — that is, those who understand and follow the divine truths and Bible teaching put forth by the “faithful and discrete servant” of the Watchtower Society. We read in Paradise on Earth: “What was the manner of Jesus’ leaving?…The departing Jesus, therefore, became invisible to [the disciples]…Thus his return also would be invisible, in a spiritual body.”⁵

The Watchtower often insists that the church fathers believed as they do on such doctrines. For example, in their booklet Should You Believe in the Trinity?⁶ they cite several early Christian fathers, claiming that they did not believe Jesus was God, but rather was a created being. An examination of the patristic literature (i.e., writings of the church fathers) will reveal whether such claims are true.

The Fathers and Apostolic Authority

We begin with the recognition that the church fathers frequently pointed to apostolic teaching as the source of their faith. Many patristic writers stressed the importance placed by the early church on gathering and preserving every teaching and saying of Jesus and the apostles. They constantly maintained that their beliefs originated from these sources. Furthermore, such claims did not occur in a vacuum. The early Christian fathers wrote in an environment where many were already familiar with apostolic teaching; many had been taught by disciples of the apostles or even the apostles themselves. Hence, the introduction of nonapostolic doctrine would undoubtedly have raised much opposition from those who knew the truth firsthand.

The preeminence of apostolic authority and teaching is seen throughout the patristic literature. For example, Irenaeus, speaking of Clement of Rome, said, “He had seen the apostles and associated with them, and still had their preaching sounding in his ears and their tradition before his eyes — and not he alone, for there were many still left in his time who had been taught by the apostles.”⁷ Matthetes, speaking to Diognetus, said, “I am not speaking of things that are strange to me…for I have been a disciple of apostles, and now I am becoming a teacher of the Gentiles.”⁸ Irenaeus declared, “Now the Church, although scattered over the whole civilized world to the end of the earth, received from the apostles and their disciples its faith in one God, the Father Almighty…and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation, and in the Holy Spirit.”⁹ Origen affirmed, “The holy Apostles, in preaching the faith of Christ, treated with the utmost clarity certain matters which they believed to be of absolute necessity to all believers.”¹⁰

It is reasonable to assume, in view of the above, that, when it comes to the essentials of the Christian faith, the church fathers are a good source for discerning apostolic teaching and doctrine. Hence, one may look to them for insight as to what the first–century church believed about Jesus Christ. We will now consider the ante–Nicene church fathers’ treatment of Christ as the Author of Scripture, their explicit statements about His deity, their defense of His uncreated and eternal nature, and their beliefs about His return.

Christ as the Author of Scripture

Early Christians took from their Jewish heritage the conviction that the Old Testament Scriptures were inspired and authored by YHWH, through His Holy Spirit. Yet the apostolic fathers often attributed the authorship of Scripture to Christ. By so doing they demonstrated their conviction about Christ’s deity. In 1 Clement, for example, we read, “For this is how Christ addresses us through his Holy Spirit: ‘Come, my children, listen to Me, I will teach you the fear of the Lord.’”¹¹ In 2d Clement we read, “But how do we acknowledge Him?…By honoring Him [Christ] not only with our lips, but with all our mind and our heart. And He says in Isaiah as well, ‘This people honors me with their lips but their heart is far from me.’”¹² Likewise, Irenaeus said, “The Scriptures are certainly perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God [Christ] and by His Spirit.”¹³ Such attribution would be inconceivable if the patristic writers had not believed that Jesus is God.

The patristic writers also directly identified Christ with YHWH. This they did by interpreting many passages of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) that speak of YHWH as references to the preincarnate Christ. Justin Martyr, a converted philosopher of the early second century, exemplifies this approach: “Although the Jews were always of the opinion that it was the Father of all who had spoken to Moses, it was in fact the Son of God…who spoke to him…They who assert that the Son is the Father are proved to know neither the Father, nor that the Father of all has a Son, who is both the first-born Word of God and is God.”¹⁴ Moreover, Justin said, “What was said out of the bush to Moses, ‘I am He who is, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob and the God of your fathers,’ was an indication that they though dead still existed and were Christ’s own men.”¹⁵ Hence, the early Christian writers not only attributed the words of Scripture to Christ, but specifically identified Him with the YHWH of the Old Testament.

Explicit Statements about the Deity of Christ

As we saw with Justin Martyr above, the church fathers also explicitly declared the divine nature of Jesus Christ. Ignatius, a prominent martyr of the early second century, wrote seven letters to the churches of Asia Minor that are replete with statements affirming that Jesus is God: “The source of your unity and election is genuine suffering which you undergo by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God.”¹⁶ “There is one only physician — of flesh yet spiritual, born yet unbegotten, God incarnate, genuine life in the midst of death, sprung from Mary as well as God…Jesus Christ our Lord.”¹⁷ “For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived in the womb by Mary…of the Holy Ghost.”¹⁸

Such direct statements about Christ’s deity were not unique to Ignatius, but can be seen in other early church literature. Polycarp, a direct disciple of the apostle John, declared: “May He grant unto you a lot and a portion among His saints…who shall believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in His Father that raised Him from the dead.”¹⁹ Irenaeus likewise declared, “He is Himself in His own right God and Lord and Eternal King and Only begotten and Incarnate Word, proclaimed as such by all the Prophets and by the Apostles and by the Spirit Himself…The Scriptures would not have borne witness to these things concerning Him, if, like everyone else, He were mere man.”²⁰ Mellito of Sardis similarly affirmed, “The activities of Christ after His Baptism…gave indication and assurance to the world of the Deity hidden in His flesh. Being God and likewise perfect man, He gave positive indications of His two natures…He concealed the signs of His Deity, although He was the true God existing before the ages.”²¹ Hippolytus added, “Only His Word is from Himself, and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God.”²² And Tertullian affirmed, “God alone is without sin. The only man without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God.”²³

Examples such as these abound. There can be no doubt that the early church, well before the Council of Nicea and indeed beginning with disciples of the apostles themselves, believed that Jesus Christ possessed the very same nature and substance as God.

Jesus Not Created, Nor an Angel

The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ idea that Jesus was a created being and an angel was common to pagan and Gnostic religions, and the early Christian apologists made a point of explicitly refuting it. For example, in The Epistle of Barnabus we read, “God himself, who from heaven established the truth, and the holy, incomprehensible word among men…Nor, as one might suppose, did he do this by sending to men some subordinate — an angel, or principality…Rather he sent the Designer and Maker of the universe Himself…God sent him to men.”²⁴ Athenagorus likewise affirmed, “The Son of God is the Word of the Father…the Father and the Son being one.…The Son…is the First-begotten of the Father, not as having been produced — for from the beginning God had the Word in Himself…”²⁵ Irenaeus in like manner said, “[The Gnostics] transfer the generation of the uttered word of men to the eternal Word of God, attributing to Him a beginning of utterance and a coming into being in a manner like to that of their own word. In what manner, then, would the Word of God — indeed, the great God Himself, since He is the Word — differ from the word of man, were He to have the same order and process of generation?”²⁶ Tertullian similarly wrote, “‘But Christ,’ they say, ‘also bore the nature of an angel.’ For what reason? And why did He take human nature?…Christ bore human nature in order to be man’s salvation.…There was no such reason why Christ would take upon Himself angelic nature.”²⁷ And Origen declared, “Although He was God, He took flesh; and having been made man, He remained what He was, God.…For we do not hold…that some part of the substance of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from nonexistent substances, that is, from a substance outside Himself, so that there were a time when He did not exist.”²⁸

While Witnesses assert that pagan influences produced the doctrine of Christ’s deity so forcefully stated at the Council of Nicea, it was in fact the pagans, not the Christians, who claimed He was created. The origins of Watchtower Christology are found not in apostolic teaching, but rather in Gnostic speculation.

The Return of Christ

There is likewise no support in early Christian literature for the idea that Jesus would return in some invisible, spiritual manner. As with the idea that Jesus was a created angel, the notion of a “spiritual” postresurrection body of Christ was prominent in Gnosticism. The Gnostics viewed the flesh as inherently evil. The fathers, in contrast, expressed the hope that the church held from the time of the apostles, that Jesus would return in the flesh, in a glorious and triumphant manner. The Epistle of Barnabus, written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, expressed this common hope of all Christians: “Set your hope on Him who is about to be manifested to you in the flesh, even Jesus.…For they shall see Him in that day wearing the long scarlet robe about His flesh, and shall say, ‘Is this not He, Whom we once crucified and regarded as nothing and spat upon; verily this was He.’”²⁹

The patristic literature makes no mention of an invisible “presence” of Jesus — a central doctrine of Witness theology and chronology. This Watchtower teaching does not derive from the writings of the early church, and must be judged as originating far outside of apostolic Christianity.

The Fathers Denied That Christ Is a Created, Lesser God

Witnesses often attack the doctrine of the Trinity, asserting that the belief in three Persons in one God goes against reason. While Christianity holds that the Trinity accurately describes the self-revealed nature of God, the tension between the distinctness of the Persons and the unity of God has always presented a challenge to those who reason about the nature of God. The early Christian apologists frequently had to explain and defend the fact that Christ is divine by nature and yet personally distinct from the Father. Those who challenged them — both those coming from the polytheistic background of Greek philosophy and religion, and those whose amalgamation of philosophy and Christianity led them astray — often resorted to a formulation in which Christ was a created, lesser god. Hence, in many ways the early Christian writers faced a similar situation as those evangelizing Jehovah’s Witnesses today.

The early postapostolic church strongly held that Christ was of the very substance of God, and was not a lesser, created god. Athenagorus, a Christian philosopher of the second century, addressed this issue in a manner typical of many of the early fathers: “If, moreover, it is claimed that, just as hand, eye, and foot are constituent parts of a single body, so God’s unity is made up from two or more gods, this is equally false.…But God is uncreated, impassible, and indivisible. He does not, therefore, consist of parts.”³⁰ Moreover, “The Son…is the first offspring of the Father. I do not mean that he was created, for since God is eternal mind, he had his Word within himself from the beginning, being eternally wise…Who, then, would not be astonished to hear those called atheists who admit God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and who teach their unity in power and their distinction in rank?”³¹ As with other aspects of the Watchtower doctrine of Christ, there is no support in the literature of these early Christian authors for a Christ who was a lesser, created god, the first creation of Jehovah.

An Absence of Evidence

The Watchtower Society has selectively quoted the literature of the early church fathers in an attempt to demonstrate that, while the church fell into apostasy at an early date, nonetheless many early Christians believed as they do today. When the literature of this period is examined in depth, however, it becomes clear that there is virtually no evidence that a great global apostasy occurred immediately following the death of the apostles. Furthermore, there is no evidence that a group preaching the preeminence of Jehovah’s name went door–to–door distributing the writings of a small body of anointed men, while proclaiming the invisible presence of Christ and a coming earthy kingdom. The Witnesses’ claim to be the sole bearers of true apostolic Christianity does not stand.

The writings of the early fathers explicitly and repeatedly refute the Christ of the Watchtower, and confidently assert His deity and uncreated nature. The created angelic deity of the Watchtower bears much resemblance to the speculations of Gnosticism and Greek paganism, but has no resemblance to the incarnate Word of God preached by the apostles.

What of the other important teachings of the faith? In Part Two I will examine such doctrines as the Holy Spirit, the nature of the soul, the Resurrection, and the destiny of the righteous and wicked. As in the present article, Watchtower teachings will be compared and contrasted with those of the ante-Nicene church fathers to test their validity and historical accuracy.Robert U. Finnerty, M.D., is a practicing physician in Tacoma, WA and is the author of Jehovah’s Witnesses on Trial: The Testimony of the Early Church Fathers (P&R Publishing, 1993). He may be reached “on–line” via the internet at 73707.3645@compuserve.com.

NOTES

¹The Watchtower, 15 June 1992, 19. ²The Watchtower Society, while claiming to use the Bible alone, actually teaches that the Bible cannot be understood without the aid of the “meat in due season,” the literature provided by the Society — its interpretation of Scripture being the only valid one. See The Watchtower, 15 September 1910, 298; 15 August 1981, 28. ³You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, 1982), 39–40. ⁴Ibid., 144. ⁵Ibid., 145–46. ⁶Should You Believe in the Trinity? (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, 1989). ⁷Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.3, in Cyril C. Richardson, Early Christian Fathers (New York: Macmillan, 1970). ⁸Ibid., 11. ⁹Ibid., 1.10.1. ¹⁰Origen, Fundamental Doctrines, 1. Pref. 3–4; 1.2.1; 4.4.1, in W. A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 1 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1979). ¹¹Ibid., 22. ¹²Ibid., 3. ¹³Ibid., 2.28.2. ¹⁴Ibid., 63. ¹⁵Ibid. ¹⁶Ignatius, Ephesians, 1. In Richardson. ¹⁷Ibid., 7. ¹⁸Ibid., 18, in J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984). ¹⁹Ibid., 12. ²⁰Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.19, 1–2, in Jurgens, vol. 1. ²¹Melito, Guide, 13, in ibid. ²²Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, 10.33, in ibid. ²³Tertullian, The Soul, 41.3, in ibid. ²⁴The Epistle to Diognetus, 7, in Richardson. ²⁵Athenagoras, Intercession on Behalf of the Christians, 10, in Jurgens, vol. 1. ²⁶Ibid., 2.13.8. ²⁷Ibid., 14.1. ²⁸Origen, Fundamental Doctrines, 1, pref. 3–4; 1.2.1; 4.4.1, in ibid. ²⁹Epistle of Barnabas, 6.7, in Lightfoot and Harmer. ³⁰Ibid., 8, in Richardson. ³¹Ibid., 10, in Richardson.

Beth-Shan, named only once in Watch Tower publications, gives another significant insight into the history and teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Predictions made concerning the resurrection of the pre-Christian “princes” failed, and the teachings concerning them over the years are in obvious self-contradiction. Positions taken and doctrines promoted in the 1940s have either been rejected by the Witness leadership or have been proven wrong by history. Beth-Shan, supposedly held in trust awaiting the “princes” return, was sold. Contrary to the Watch Tower Society’s claim, the testimony of history proves that this organization is not God’s chosen channel of communication.

With the publication of Jehovah’s Witnesses — Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom (1993), many Jehovah’s Witnesses were introduced for the first time to Beth-Sarim (“House of Princes”) in San Diego. It was identified as the winter residence of Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society president Joseph F. Rutherford.¹ As some reviewers have concluded, the coverage on the mansion in this official Jehovah’s Witnesses’ history is less than candid.² Beth-Sarim, built in 1929 and sold in 1948, is pictured and mentioned a number of times in older Watch Tower publications. An adjacent Society property, known as Beth-Shan (“House of Security”), however, is mentioned by name only once — in the Consolation of May 27, 1942 — as a second location for Rutherford’s burial. The request for a permit for interment below Beth-Sarim was not approved (see figure 1).³ The article explains:

[The] new location for interment was in almost the center of the property known as Beth-Shan, which is roughly 75 acres of canyon and mesa land, adjoining Beth-Sarim but separated by a half-mile width of canyon. This property, also belonging to [the] WATCHTOWER, has one small and one large dwelling upon it and a few out-houses, and consists of some fruit trees and other cultivated patches in aggregate about seven acres, and about 65 acres of unreclaimed brush, either too steep, or rocky, or inaccessible for development.⁴

This request for interment on Beth-Shan was also denied.

Research reveals that Beth-Shan, in its own way, compares with Beth-Sarim in significance, but it has received little attention. Predictions concerning the return of the “princes,” sometimes connected with these residences, and related teachings, are important in evaluating the Watch Tower’s claim of being God’s chosen channel of biblical understanding. The subjects of Beth-Shan and the “princes” are the focus of this study.

MORE PROPERTY FOR THE “PRINCES”

By citing Watch Tower publications and the deed to the property, it can be shown that Beth-Sarim was built and held in trust as a residence for the soon-to-be-resurrected “ancient worthies” or “princes.”⁵ While not generally known, the Beth-Shan house and the property improvements had the same purpose. This is shown by the deed that transfers the property to the Society.

The Beth-Shan property was purchased on February 3, 1939 by William P. Heath, Jr., who was a Watch Tower Board of Directors member, and Rutherford’s confidant and secretary.⁶ The deed dated May 20, 1940, by which this property was conveyed to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, reads in part,

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD IN TRUST FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES, to wit: Whereas the grantor herein W. P. Heath, Jr., was entrusted with the duty and obligation of improving the premises hereinbefore described, and a number of persons who are wholly devoted to the great THEOCRACY under Christ Jesus the King, furnished the money for the purpose of improving said premises, and WHEREAS the said W. P. Heath, Jr. acting in his own behalf and in behalf of other persons so interested in improving said premises, has erected a house and other improvements thereon to be used for the purpose hereinafter stated, and WHEREAS the grantor and the other parties interested, and who have contributed towards the improvement of said premises, thoroughly believe and expect the return of faithful men to earth who are hereafter named, and who according to the Scriptures (Psalm 45:16 and Isaiah 32:1) shall be made the visible rulers on earth, and desire to prepare said property for them. NOW THEREFORE this trust is created and the said trustee shall hold the title to said property in trust for the use and benefit of the following named persons, whose names appear in the Bible at the Book of Hebrews, chapter eleven, verses one to forty, to wit: Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sara, Joseph, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthae, David, Samuel, Until such time as the aforementioned persons return and identify themselves to the legal representatives of the said WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY and by the consent of said Society take possession and control of said premises, the President of the WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY shall have the right and be duty bound to direct the management and use of said premises hereby conveyed and to determine who shall be in possession and have the active management thereof. (emphases added)⁷

Heath and his wife resided in the house mentioned in the deed.

Preparing the Beth-Shan Property

During the construction of the Beth-Shan house and other improvements in 1939, 20-year-old Fred Eason, while searching for Young’s Cave (which was on the property),⁸ made his way into the area and discovered by accident what was taking place there. The Watch Tower project was being built on a remote mesa accessible only by a steep private driveway, which was gated and guarded. The approach to the driveway was by Mission Valley Road (renamed Montezuma), which was not paved at the time. Being rebuffed by several men on horseback, Eason went up to the top of the isolated mesa from another side (Fairmount Avenue) and observed some of the activity taking place that was obviously secretive and well-protected. In fact, a number of workmen were building the project. While he did not know it at the time, this would not be his last contact with the property.⁹

In April of 1945, Fred Eason met Bruster (“Bud”) Gillies, who had moved to San Diego in 1944 to work for Ryan Aircraft. Gillies was looking for land, and he and his wife, Betty, bought the Beth-Shan property and adjacent acreage, which totaled 250 or more acres.¹⁰ Eason visited the large Watch Tower house shortly after the Gillies purchase in 1945. Eason and Gillies then became good friends and business partners. He recalls, “During this period I became well acquainted with Bud’s fabulous home and its amenities. At this time nothing had been changed, everything was original.”¹¹

In 1962 Eason bought about 30 acres of the property, which included the Watch Tower house and other improvements. Originally he anticipated tearing down the house in his subdividing and major grading of the land, but decided that the house was worth saving (figure 2). It had top quality furnishings and a lot of fine cabinetry. “It was not a tract house by any stretch of the imagination.” It also had a basement that will be described later.¹²

“A Great Famine Is Certain…in the Very Near Future”

The Watchtower of November 15, 1941, communicated a warning of impending disaster: “A great famine is certain to afflict the many nations of the earth in the very near future. The United States is also in line for much suffering….The United States is faced with world disaster now impending and about to fall….” At this time it was believed that the war in Europe would lead to Armageddon.¹³ Would this explain some of the features of the Beth-Shan property? For example, the house had a basement, which is not unusual. But what was unusual was that the access to the 10 x 20 foot underground room was through a secret trapdoor and stairway. Unless someone was shown where it was, he or she would never know it was there. It was also lined with shelves for the storage of food and other necessities.

Beth-Shan also had several out buildings: a caretaker’s house, a horse barn and stable, a goat barn, and an equipment shed. There was a 4,000 gallon underground tank for diesel fuel, a diesel-powered electric generator, and a workshop. Water was provided by a well 425 feet deep, and it was connected to a 2,000 gallon pressure tank and a 10,000 gallon redwood storage tank. There were two fire hydrants and water was piped to the house and barns. “They had their own self-sufficiency. They could go for months without city utilities” (see figure 3). It is obvious that Beth-Shan was a little-known Witness “Refuge Farm.”¹⁴ But there was one feature, discussed below, that surprised Eason more than anything else.

“FALSE REPORTS”? “We Trust in the Lord for Protection.”

Under the heading “FALSE REPORTS,” the June 1, 1940 Watchtower (see figure 4) declared untrue a rumor that the Society was enlarging Beth-Sarim “as a place of security.”¹⁵ In fact, during Heath’s testimony before the County Superior Court, April 1-8, 1942, Judge Arthur L. Mundo asked William P. Heath, Jr., “Suppose the Japs were to level that property during an air raid, what would happen then?” Heath answered, “We submit, your honor, that…we trust in the Lord for protection.”¹⁶

This “false report” concerning Beth-Sarim conflicts with what was actually happening on the Beth-Shan part of the Watch Tower’s “100-acre estate.” And Heath’s response, “We trust the Lord for protection,” was disingenuous in light of what was constructed at Beth-Shan shortly after its purchase in February 1939. How so?

The Bomb Shelter

Betty Gillies and Fred Eason both speak of the bomb shelter, separate from the house, which the Witnesses had constructed on the Beth-Shan property. Fred Eason, who saw it shortly after the Watch Tower sale of the property in 1945, explains that about 250 feet from the house there was a “building that was called the ‘goat barn’ which was used to stable their goats. To enter the shelter one would go to the small bathroom area at the rear of the building, open the medicine cabinet, and pull a concealed lever inside. A section of the wall would swing open, revealing a stairway down into what can only be identified as a bomb shelter — a room about 30 feet x 15 feet, with a 10 foot high ceiling. The walls were lined with storage shelves. The cement ceiling of the room was 3 feet thick!”¹⁷ Eason goes on to relate how someone could go into the bathroom and never know the shelter was there. When a house was built on the property in 1967, it was placed on the lot so as to keep the shelter intact, and it still exists today.

THE “PRINCES”

Repeatedly, Watch Tower publications and representatives stressed that, according to the Scriptures, the “princes” were due to return shortly. As already stated, two large residences and their grounds were prepared and held in trust for their use upon their return. The Consolation of May 27, 1942, went so far as to claim: “It therefore appears that the return of the princes is a fundamental teaching of the Scriptures. It is as certain as the truth of God’s Word. Judge Rutherford gave much of his life in endeavoring to bring this vital matter to the people’s attention.”¹⁸ Predictions on the resurrection of the “ancient worthies” or “princes” were boldly and frequently made during the early 1940s, all but disappearing by the mid 1940s. As it turned out, this so-called “fundamental teaching of the Scriptures…certain as the truth of God’s Word” was “adjusted” in 1950, and the return of the “princes” was safely postponed until after Armageddon.¹⁹ Watch Tower teachings connected with the resurrection of these Old Testament believers demonstrate what happens when human opinion replaces sound interpretation of Scripture.

Contradictory Teachings on the Princes

Beyond the multiple erroneous speculations on the predicted return of the “princes,” a brief survey of contradictory pronouncements concerning them, which is typical of Watch Tower teachings on other subjects, is enlightening. These statements are all taken from Watch Tower publications. They can easily be reviewed in a question and answer format.

1. Will the “princes” be changed from human to spirit beings?

Yes: “The Scriptures show, they [the Ancient Worthies, ‘princes’] will be changed from human to spirit beings at the end of the Millennium.”²⁰

No: “Nor is there any Scriptural reason to conclude that Abraham and the other faithful men of old shall ever be changed from human to spirit creatures, as was once thought.”²¹

2. Will the “princes” be resurrected as perfect, tested men?

No: “They will not have perfection of character when they come forth from the grave….The final test…will be imposed at the end of the Millennium….”²²

Yes: “It is reasonable to expect that these faithful men will be brought forth from the tombs as perfect men, possessing perfect bodies and perfect minds. They were tried and tested before they died.”²³

3. Will the resurrection of the “princes” take place only after the church is glorified?

Yes: “Our opinion is that the ancient worthies will not be resurrected until every member of the Church is gone.”²⁴

No: “From the Scriptures it appears to be absolutely certain that some of the remnant [church] will be on the earth when those faithful men ap-pear….”²⁵

Yes: “Some of the anointed remnant have thought of surviving and living on to welcome back such resurrected faithful ones who died before Pentecost 33 C.E. Will the anointed be thus privileged? This would not be necessary.”²⁶

4. Did God’s favor return to Israel and did this indicate the soon return of the “princes”?

Yes: “Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David and the prophets will be brought forth and be made leaders of the people. We may expect their return soon, because the favor of God has begun to return to Israel.”²⁷

No: “By the publication of Volume 2 of the book Vindication that year [1932], Jehovah’s witnesses came to see that such a ‘back to Palestine’ movement was by the spirit of Jehovah’s archfoe, Satan, who has deceived the entire inhabited earth.”²⁸

5. Will the “princes” return to Jerusalem when resurrected?

Yes: “We should, therefore, expect shortly after 1925 to see the awakening of Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob….These will form a nucleus of the new kingdom on earth. One of the first things necessary will be to put Jerusalem in condition to be the capital of the world.”²⁹

No: “It is confidently expected that in God’s due time some of the faithful men mentioned in Hebrews 11…will find an abode in that house [Beth-Sarim in San Diego] while carrying on the work the Lord will give them to do.”³⁰

6. Will the “princes” be resurrected before Armageddon?

Yes: “Those faithful men of old may be expected any day now. The Scriptures give good reason to believe that it shall be shortly before Armageddon breaks.”³¹

No: “For years, Jehovah’s people thought that faithful men of old times, such as Abraham, Joseph, David, would be resurrected before the end of this wicked system of things.”³² “This view was adjusted in 1950…those earthly forefathers of Jesus Christ would be resurrected after Armageddon.”³³

7. Is Psalm 45:16 to be applied only to the pre-Christian “princes”?

Yes: “In Psalm 45:16 it is written: ‘Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth.’…This prophecy, therefore, shows that Christ the King will make those faithful men the princes or visible rulers in all the earth.”³⁴

No: “Those to be made princes according to this text [Psalm 45:16] were long understood to be the faithful witnesses of ancient times before Christ who were to become the children of Christ the King by being resurrected from the dead.”³⁵ “To our great delight, prospective princes are in our very midst.”³⁶

8. Are the “princes” of Isaiah 32:1 the same as mentioned in Isaiah 45:16?

Yes: “The new earth will consist of righteous men who in times of old proved their integrity toward God and who the Lord shall ‘make princes in all the earth,’ which princes shall rule in righteousness under the direction of the righteous Lord (Ps. 45:16; Isa. 32:1).”³⁷

No: “Because Isaiah 32:1 mentions princes and connects them with the King of the new world it was thought that these princes were the same as mentioned in Psalm 45:16. …However, from and after 1947 the columns of The Watchtower have not been quoting Isaiah 32:1 and applying it in that way.”³⁸

9. In addition to “ancient worthies,” are there also “modern worthies”?

No: “In its issue of January 15, 1920 (pages 21-28)…The Watchtower discussed the question of ‘modern worthies’ according to the information and facts then available and said No! to such a class.”³⁹

Yes: “Since they manifest a similarity of faith, there is nothing that Scripturally argues against his taking as many of these ‘other sheep’ as he requires and making them ‘princes in all the earth.’”⁴⁰

10. Will Beth-Sarim be held for the perpetual use of the Lord’s people and the “princes”?

Yes: “When David and Joseph or some of the other ancient worthies return they will have it.”⁴¹ “The title to that house is in the Society, and is held in trust for the perpetual use of God’s faithful ones.”⁴²

No: “The Society’s board of directors had voted unanimously to dispose of Beth-Sarim.”⁴³

WRONG AGAIN

Watch Tower publications and William P. Heath, Jr., who stated that he “was in charge of the estate,” not only were wrong on their teachings concerning the “princes,” but they were also wrong in many additional matters. Two examples should suffice.

1. Before the San Diego Planning Commission on February 28, 1942, Heath argued that the Beth-Shan “property cannot be sold because it is held in trust for the ancient witnesses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob et al….As a consequence, it is impossible that this property will ever be sold to anyone else….”⁴⁴ The deed conveying this property to its new owners, “B. Allison Gillies and Betty H. Gillies, husband and wife, as joint tenants” is dated March 29, 1945, and the grantors are William P. Heath, Jr., and his wife Bonnie.⁴⁵

2. “The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors contended that the [Beth-Shan] property could be conveyed and subdivided,” whereas the Witnesses argued that “under the law and the deed it cannot. It therefore became necessary to show that the deed contained a reasonable and legal trust.”⁴⁶ Heath, who participated in the creation of the trust, “testified as a witness and explained to the court that the trust was for real men and was altogether reasonable and certain of performance.”⁴⁷ Heath himself initiated the demise of the trust and made the certainty of its performance impossible, when it was sold. The property was subdivided, and the prediction that was made in 1942 by realtor G. A. Forbes that Beth-Shan was “beautiful residential land with view sites” that “will undoubtedly be developed into high-class homes”⁴⁸ was realized.

What can be said concerning the Watch Tower record? Joseph F. Rutherford summarized it well: “Jehovah never makes any mistakes. Where the student relies upon man, he is certain to be led into difficulties.”⁴⁹Edmond C. Gruss has written several books on the Jehovah’s Witnesses, cults, and the occult. Leonard Chretien is a director of Good News Defenders, and with his wife Marjorie the author of Witnesses of Jehovah (Harvest House, 1988).

Note: Because of space limitations many details and related issues could not be included in this study. A full book on the subject, Jehovah’s Witnesses — Their Monuments to False Prophecy (1997), is available from Witness Inc., P. O. Box 597, Clayton, CA 94517.

NOTES

¹Jehovah’s Witnesses — Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1993), 76.²David A. Reed, “Proclaimers” Answered Page by Page (Stoughton, MA.: David A. Reed, 1994), 11; Randall Watters, “Review of the New Watchtower book: Jehovah’s Witnesses Proclaiming [sic] God’s Kingdom,” Free Minds Journal, September/October 1993, 3.³6-8.⁴9.⁵R. J. Martin, “The Truth about the San Diego House,”Golden Age, 19 March 1930, 405-7; “San Diego Officials Line Up against New Earth’s Princes,” Consolation, 27 May 1942, 3.⁶Book 873, 282-84, San Diego County Recorder.⁷Book 1075, 42-43, San Diego County Recorder.⁸In 1916 W. R. Young began to dig a series of tunnels in the canyon located near the N.E. corner of Montezuma Road and Fairmount Avenue.⁹Two telephone interviews with Fred Eason on 3 December 1996 and letter dated 12 December 1996. ¹⁰Ibid.¹¹Ibid.¹²Ibid.¹³“Demon Rule Ending (Part 5),” Watchtower, 15 November 1941, 343. “Those That Forget God,” Watchtower, 1 July 1941, 202; “Europe’s Need of the Theocracy,” Consolation, 29 October 1941, 11; Revelation — Its Great Climax at Hand! (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1988), 246.¹⁴Eason’s interviews and letter. A “Refuge Farm” was a place of seclusion where Jehovah’s Witnesses would be protected from the soon-coming destruction of Armageddon. For full details see Duane Magnani, The End of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Clayton, CA: Witness, 1997).¹⁵Ibid., 162.¹⁶Consolation, 27 May 1942, 15.¹⁷Eason’s interviews and letter. Telephone interview with Betty Gillies on 9 December 1996.¹⁸Consolation, 27 May 1942, 14.¹⁹“Beginning the New World Society,”Watchtower, 1 November 1950, 414-17.²⁰“Questions and Answers,”Watch Tower, 15 January 1925, 23.²¹J. F. Rutherford, Jehovah (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1934), 37.²²Watch Tower, 15 January 1925, 23.²³J. F. Rutherford, Deliverance (3.58 million ed.; Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1926), 324.²⁴Watch Tower, 15 January 1925, 23.²⁵J. F. Rutherford, Salvation (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1939), 310.²⁶“Remaining Organized for Survival into the Millennium,” Watchtower, 1 September 1989, 20.²⁷J. F. Rutherford, Life (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1929), 191.²⁸“Modern History of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Part 10),” Watchtower, 15 May 1955, 296.²⁹W. E. Van Amburgh, The Way to Paradise (Brooklyn: International Bible Students Assoc., 1924), 224.³⁰1931 Year Book (Brooklyn: International Bible Students Assoc., 1930), 36.³¹The New World (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1942), 104.³²1975 Yearbook (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1974), 213.³³Jehovah’s Witnesses — Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, 76.³⁴J. F. Rutherford, What You Need (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1932), 8.³⁵“Princes Shall Rule in Justice,” Watchtower, 1 December 1951, 717.³⁶Watchtower, 1 September 1989, 22.³⁷“Righteous World,” Watchtower, 15 November 1938, 339.³⁸Watchtower, 1 December 1951, 717.³⁹“Beginning the New World Society,” Watchtower, 1 November 1950, 416.⁴⁰Ibid., 417.⁴¹Martin, 406.⁴²1931 Year Book (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1930), 36.⁴³“‘All Nations Expansion’ Assembly,”Watchtower, 15 December 1947, 382.⁴⁴San Diego Planning Commission Minutes, 28 February 1942, 240.⁴⁵Book 1853, 260-61, San Diego County Recorder.⁴⁶Consolation, 27 May 1942, 13.⁴⁷Ibid.⁴⁸Minutes, 242.⁴⁹J. F. Rutherford, Prophecy (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1929), 67-68.

With the publication of Jehovah’s Witnesses — Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom in 1993, many Witnesses learned of Beth-Sarim (“House of the Princes”) — the San Diego mansion formerly owned by the Watchtower Society — for the first time. The brief treatment included in the history is misleading. Important information on why the mansion was built, what provisions were set forth in the deeds concerning the princes, and details concerning former Watchtower president “Judge” Joseph Rutherford’s burial are not included. When Beth-Sarim was sold in 1948, stipulations in the deeds to the property were ignored. Beth-Sarim is accurately identified as a monument to a false prophet and to false prophecy.

Before the publication of their latest history, Jehovah’s Witnesses — Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom (1993), most Jehovah’s Witnesses probably had never heard of Beth-Sarim (Hebrew for “House of the Princes”) nor seen a photo of the San Diego mansion. The book contains a brief treatment explaining its use and the purpose of its construction, refers to the deed, mentions the belief in the pre-Armageddon resurrection of the princes (“adjusted in 1950″), and the decision in 1947 to dispose of the property. The picture of the residence in the book was probably taken in 1947 (see figure 1).¹

An earlier history, Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose (1959), makes no mention of Beth-Sarim, while a treatment in the 1975 Yearbook explains the poor health of Watchtower president “Judge” Joseph F. Rutherford (he was actually an attorney, not a judge) and says the house was “for Brother Rutherford’s use.”² Although there were occasional brief references to Beth-Sarim, until the Proclaimers book nothing significant had appeared in Watchtower publications since the 1940s.³ Research reveals that the Proclaimers book and the Yearbook mislead the reader by presenting incomplete information. Commenting on the Proclaimers coverage of Beth-Sarim, one reviewer concludes that the “book now provides more information, but still falls short of telling the whole truth.”⁴ Another observer says it presents a “thoroughly sanitized and misleading description of Beth-Sarim.”⁵

After so many years in which they ignored the subject, what made it necessary for the Watchtower to recognize Beth-Sarim in the Proclaimers book? Quite likely it was needed because many non-Witness books did mention Beth-Sarim in their coverage of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. But it was especially necessary because the film and video, Witnesses of Jehovah (1987), shown thousands of times in the United States and abroad, caused many viewers to ask Witnesses about it, and they in turn asked their leaders questions.⁶

What is the story on Beth-Sarim? Why was it built? Why would reviewers conclude that the Proclaimers material on Beth-Sarim is “misleading” and “falls short of telling the whole truth”? Why can it accurately be identified as a monument to false prophecy?

THE BUILDING OF BETH-SARIM

In a 1930 issue of the Society’s publication Golden Age, Robert J. Martin, then manager of the Watchtower publishing facilities in Brooklyn, presented the Society’s account of acquiring the property and the building of Beth-Sarim, along with a copy of the deed.⁷ He explained that as a result of a severe case of pneumonia, Rutherford had only one good lung, a condition that made it very difficult for him to work in Brooklyn during the winter. Because of the mild climate in San Diego Rutherford had spent the previous four winters there under the care of Dr. Alta G. Eckols, who “repeatedly urged him to spend as much time as possible” there.⁸ In 1929, “in company with a few other brethren, we pressed this matter upon him, at that time the Lord having provided the means for the building of the house so that it would not be a burden on the Society. He finally consented that the house might be built only upon the condition that it should be exclusively for the use of the Lord’s work, henceforth and for ever…” (emphasis added).⁹

In October Martin went to San Diego to put the title for the two lots purchased by Dr. Albert E. Eckols into his name and to contract for the construction of the house. “A deed was made conveying the title to the house. This deed was written by Brother Rutherford himself.” Martin comments, “I am certain there is no other deed to any piece of property like it under the sun” ¹⁰

What made this deed unique? Martin explains that the “loyal ones…will rejoice when they know that this property will be for ever for the Lord’s people; that when Brother Rutherford is through with it somebody else in the Lord’s work will have it, and when David and Joseph or some of the other ancient worthies return they will have it” (emphases added).¹¹

The architect for Beth-Sarim was the renowned Richard S. Requa, who drew “the plans for some of the most beautiful residences in and near San Diego.”¹² The deeds for this unit of the exclusive San Diego neighborhood of Kensington Heights required a minimum building size of 1,500 square feet and a cost of $5,000 — “a goodly sum in pre-inflation days.”¹³ Beth-Sarim was over 5,100 square feet, and Robert Martin admits to a building cost approaching $25,000.¹⁴ Judge Rutherford told Watchtower Canadian branch overseer Walter Salter that he had been offered $75,000 for the residence, a figure also quoted in the San Diego Sun, published two months after the mansion was occupied.¹⁵ After Rutherford’s death a neighbor described the home as “one of the finest in Kensington Heights.”¹⁶

It should also be noted that Rutherford enjoyed the use of several other comfortable living quarters in New York, London, and Magdeburg, Germany (before the Nazis came to power). All are listed in an open letter written by Salter, who had been Rutherford’s friend and associate for 20 years. In that letter a disenchanted Salter exposed the hypocrisy of Rutherford’s luxurious lifestyle during the Great Depression.¹⁷ As Leonard and Marjorie Chretien observed, “While his workers plodded from door to door selling his prolific writings, the Judge lived the life of a major industrialist. He spent the winters at Beth-Sarim and traveled by steamship to Europe each summer.”¹⁸

Beth-Sarim Goes Public

Rutherford moved into the 4440 Braeburn Road residence on January 13, 1930. Two months later, the public was introduced to Beth-Sarim in a front-page article in the San Diego Sun titled, “San Diego Mansion — With All Modern Improvements — Awaits Earthly Return of Prophets.”¹⁹ It opened by reporting: “In one of the strangest deeds ever filed in the nation, Rutherford, president of the International Bible Students Association and of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, has put the huge tile-roofed home in fashionable Kensington Heights in perpetual trust for the ancient kings and prophets of Palestine” (emphasis added).²⁰ The article went on to observe that “Judge Rutherford is intensely proud of the house he has planned and built for David, king of Israel; Samson…Joseph…and others equally as famous in the Bible.”²¹

The following January, the San Diego Sun carried another article on Beth-Sarim, “David’s House Waits for Owner.” When the reporter asked Rutherford how he thought the returned princes would look, Rutherford responded: “‘As perfect men. I interpret that to mean…that David, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jepthae, Joseph and Samuel will be sent here to wrench the world from Satan’s grasp, clothed in modern garb as we are, and able, with little effort to speak our tongue.’ Rutherford pictured the arrival of the biblical delegation perhaps in frock coats, high hats, canes and spats.”²² Rutherford’s booklet, What You Need (1932), depicted the seven “Ancient Worthies,” identified as “Earth’s new rulers,” in more traditional biblical garb (see figure 2).²³

The mansion, the article continued, had “the most modern appliances that science has devised” and in a two-car garage “stands a new, yellow 16-cylinder [Cadillac] coupe which will be turned over to the rulers along with all the personal property on the place.”²⁴ The Judge did not explain how this coupe could meet the transportation needs of even the seven returned princes named in the deed. “To place the value of this automobile in perspective, a new Ford in 1931 cost approximately 600 dollars. A 16-cylinder Cadillac cost between 5400 and 9200 dollars, depending on style. Another V-16 convertible sedan was kept at Brooklyn headquarters, and both cars were used exclusively by Judge Rutherford.”²⁵ Auto historians tell more about the V-16: “Naturally, it was the very rich — and often as not, the famous — who made up the limited clientele of the V-16. Among the owners of the first-generation cars was Al Jolson…Robert Montgomery…Marlene Dietrich….”²⁶

Rutherford predicted that the return of David and his companions would be the greatest news story in history and claimed that the testimony of Beth-Sarim had gone all over the world. “The seven famous men will not have long to rest at their San Diego estate because they soon will lead the forces of the Lord to vanquish the minions of Satan at the battle of Armageddon, Rutherford believes.”²⁷

The Witnesses’ Columbus, Ohio, convention publication, The Messenger (25 July 1931), carried a significant treatment of Beth-Sarim, including several pictures of the house and grounds (see figures 3-5). The July 30 issue had a picture of a little girl, not quite two years old, captioned “Princess Bonnie.” The previous day she had been photographed talking with Judge Rutherford, and people wondered how she had obtained this privilege. Her parents were caretakers at Beth-Sarim, where they lived with Bonnie and her younger brother. It was explained:

Beth-Sarim being “the house of the princes,” and, as we confidently expect, to be occupied and used by some of the princes in the earth, it seemed quite appropriate that these children who are growing up there should be named in harmony with these scriptures. Hence the little girl is named Princess Bonnie Balko, and the little boy Prince Joseph Barak Balko….It is hoped that these two little ones may grow up at Beth-Sarim to be with the rulers of the earth and live forever to the glory of Jehovah’s name. They have been told, in so far as they can understand, that they may expect these noble men and, when they do appear, to meet them and put themselves completely under their direction (emphasis added).²⁸

A letter to “Brother Rutherford” in the August 1, 1931 Watch Tower indicates what was believed at the time: “It is thrilling to look forward to the return of the faithful prophets before the last members of the remnant [those of the 144,000 still on earth] pass beyond [changed from the Society’s view in 1925]. Surely the Lord guided you to having the house built in San Diego in preparation for their return” (emphases added).²⁹

WHY WAS BETH-SARIM BUILT?

Over the years Watchtower publications have said Beth-Sarim was built for Rutherford’s use (currently emphasized), as a testimony of faith in the “princes’” pre-Armageddon resurrection (currently rejected), and for the “princes’” use (currently forgotten). Were these the real or only reasons for its construction? There is evidence for a fourth and more important reason never mentioned in Society publications.

In 1920, Rutherford made a bold prophecy: “Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old” (emphasis added).³⁰ But even before 1925 had ended, the Jehovah’s Witness periodical Golden Age adjusted the prophecy, writing that “it is apparent that there are many peoples now on earth who may confidently hope to see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the other prophets back on earth within a few years” (emphasis added).³¹ The year after the 1925 failure Rutherford attended a convention in Basel, Switzerland, where he was asked, “Have the ancient worthies returned?” He answered that they had not and that “it would be foolish to make such an announcement.” Then, changing the wording, he said, “It was stated in the ‘Millions’ book that we might reasonably expect them to return shortly after 1925, but this was merely an expressed opinion; besides it is still shortly after 1925. There is no good reason why we should expect the ancient worthies to return until the church is complete and the work of the church on earth is done” (emphases added).³²

When the predictions for the return of the princes and other events in 1925 were not realized, many left the movement, and it has been observed that Rutherford was never the same. According to an inside source, Edward J. Ford, Jr., (who presently writes under a pseudonym because of his remaining ties to the Watchtower Society) Rutherford began to “drink to excess” and, when drunk, “the headquarters staff felt the wrath of his cursing tongue. Old timers say his drinking was covered up, to the degree possible, by associates [and future Society presidents] Frederick W. Franz and Nathan H. Knorr. It was they who showed a brilliance for manipulation and who dealt with Rutherford’s further decline into the realm of drunkenness and erratic behavior by encouraging him to build himself a house in California to spend his remaining years ‘writing in the sun.’”³³

Ford was a Witness for over four decades. He worked on staff in the Society’s Bethel headquarters in Brooklyn for a number of years. He recalls conversations with his Witness father and his own contacts with Watchtower Society leaders. A. H. Macmillan, who served in headquarters under three Watchtower presidents and was “known to Jehovah’s Witnesses all over the world,”³⁴ was a frequent weekend visitor in the Ford home. Although Macmillan was a loyal organization man and supportive of Rutherford, “he was critical of his drunkenness and irrational conduct.” Shortly after Rutherford’s death, Ford was present when Macmillan told his father that Beth-Sarim was built “for no purpose other than to get the drunken and declining Rutherford out of Brooklyn.”³⁵ This was also confirmed later to Ford by Society attorney Hayden Covington, who directed the legal department and was elected vice president after Rutherford’s death. Covington “quoted Franz as saying, ‘they built the judge a house out in California just to get him out of Bethel.’” Covington also told Ford that it was Franz who “concocted the cover story…saying that the house was for the ancient prophets due back ‘any day’ in the pre-Armageddon resurrection.”³⁶

Can Rutherford’s excessive drinking be confirmed from other sources besides those cited by Ford? Walter Salter writes of his purchases for Rutherford: ” I, at your orders, would purchase cases of whiskey at $60.00 a case, and cases of brandy and other liquors, to say nothing of untold cases of beer. A bottle or two of liquor would not do; it was for THE PRESIDENT and nothing was too good for THE PRESIDENT.”³⁷ James Penton also cites evidence for Rutherford’s alcoholism in his book, Apocalypse Delayed.³⁸

MORE PROPERTY FOR RUTHERFORD AND THE “PRINCES”

More San Diego property was purchased in 1938 and 1939 and deeded to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. One deed conveying some of this property states, in part,

To have and to hold in trust…for the following purposes….For the use and benefit of J. F. Rutherford…and thereafter for ever for Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Gideon, Barak, Joseph or any and all of them particu[lar]ly named and identified at the eleventh chapter of Hebrews in the Bible….

The reason for making this Deed in trust is as follows: The Grantors have full faith and confidence in Jehovah the Almighty God, and in the truthfulness of His Word….God, according to His promise, will at a very early date resurrect said men as perfect human creatures and that the Lord will make them the visible princes or rulers in the earth. This Deed is made as evidence of the faith of the said grantors in said Divine promise that these men will soon be back on earth and it is their purpose to prove their faith by deeding this land in trust as herein set forth. The property herein described…is donated and given as herein stated, to be made part of the property known as BETH-SARIM and the premises built on the lots above described and is made for the same purpose as that recited in the [Beth-Sarim] deed…. (emphases added).³⁹

RUTHERFORD’S DEATH AND BURIAL

When Rutherford died on January 8, 1942, the predicted princes had obviously not returned. The periodical Consolation reported that “before his death Judge Rutherford made the simple request that his remains be buried somewhere on the hundred-acre estate…held in trust for the New Earth’s Princes” (emphasis in original).⁴⁰ Requests for a permit for interment on the adjacent property below the mansion or on another Society-owned parcel (Beth-Shan) were denied by the San Diego County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. A petition for writ of mandate (mandamus) in the County Superior Court to force county officials to issue the permit was also unsuccessful.⁴¹

When Rutherford associate William P. Heath, Jr., spoke before the court he used the opportunity to promote the current beliefs of the Society: “Further proof that these princes will shortly take office upon earth as perfect men is found in the prophecy of Daniel….Proof is now submitted that we are now living at ‘the end of the days,’ and we may expect to see Daniel and the other mentioned princes any day now!” (emphasis in original).⁴²

In arguing for Rutherford’s burial on land below Beth-Sarim acquired by Beth-Sarim’s Rest, a cemetery corporation of which he was vice president, Heath said “that no monument, no structure, no mausoleum would be placed or erected, and that the only grave marker would be a stone beneath an oak tree surrounded by orange and lemon trees.”⁴³ That this clearly was not the original plan is evidenced by the unfinished concrete crypt measuring approximately 25 feet wide, 8 feet deep, and 12 feet in height built on another location on the hillside property (see figure 6). It can be easily seen from a half mile away (see figure 7). The unfinished structure is never once mentioned in Heath’s extensive arguments before the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors, and the judge in the Superior Court, nor in the coverage in the May 27, 1942 Consolation, but it is noted in the January 13, 1942 San Diego Union (see figure 8).⁴⁴

The front cover of the May/June 1996 Free Minds Journal provides a rearview of Beth-Sarim (indicating it was for sale) with a caption, “Is Joe [J.F.R.] buried in the back yard?” On the back page a brief review of Beth-Sarim concludes: “Fred Franz, fourth WT president, often indicated Rutherford was (illegally) buried in the back yard.” In a telephone conversation about the statement attributed to Franz, ex-Bethelite and Free Minds Journal editor Randall Watters said that he heard this from a number of persons who had worked in Watchtower headquarters.⁴⁵

This account is further verified by Mike, a Jehovah’s Witness, who along with a friend visited the Brooklyn headquarters early in 1987. Their visit took them to Franz’s office. He asked Franz about a story he had heard about a burial site on a piece of property that was not part of the original estate . Who was buried there? Without any hesitation — he remembers it as clearly as if it happened yesterday — Franz said, “Judge Rutherford was buried there.”⁴⁶

WHAT ABOUT THE “SOON” RETURN OF THE “PRINCES”?

Predictions concerning the return of the pre-Christian “Ancient Worthies” or princes were made long before 1917,⁴⁷ the year J. F. Rutherford became president of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. This false prophecy would be propagated worldwide through Rutherford’s discourses, his writings, and his promotion of Beth-Sarim, until his death (see figure 9). The idea that the princes would return “any day now,” “shortly,” or “very shortly” would continue to receive attention for a time in the unsuccessful efforts of William P. Heath, Jr., and other Society representatives to obtain a permit to bury Rutherford’s body on its property in San Diego, and through Watchtower publications (see figure 10).⁴⁸ While not stated publicly until 1950, the upcoming “adjustment” of the teaching on the princes imminent pre-Armageddon resurrection can be detected as early 1945.⁴⁹

BETH-SARIM SOLD!

The New World (1942) stated that the “faithful men of old may be expected back from the dead any day now. The Scriptures give good reason to believe that it shall be shortly before Armageddon breaks,” and that Beth-Sarim was “now held in trust for the occupancy of those princes on their return.” It was claimed that “the most recent facts show that the religionists of this doomed world are gnashing their teeth because of the testimony which the ‘House of the Princes’ bears to the new world.”⁵⁰ This is an interesting statement in light of Society President Knorr’s August 15, 1947 Assembly announcement concerning the property:

The audience…applauded when informed that the Society’s board of directors had voted unanimously to dispose of Beth-Sarim, either by outright sale or by rent, because it had fully served its purpose and was now only serving as a monument quite expensive to keep; our faith in the return of the men of old time whom the King Christ Jesus will make princes in ALL the earth (not merely in California) is based, not upon that house Beth-Sarim, but upon God’s Word of promise.⁵¹

It is significant that Knorr referred to Beth-Sarim as “now only serving as a monument.” It should be remembered that the Great Pyramid of Egypt, promoted by Watchtower founder Charles Taze Russell as designed by God, and Rutherford after him, was also later identified by the Society as a “monument” — “a monument of demonism.”⁵² It is quite remarkable that while the Great Pyramid “monument” was rejected in the strongest language at the end of 1928, less than a year later a new “monument” was built. And ultimately, with its sale in 1948,⁵³ its core teachings about the imminent return of the princes before Armageddon and their use of Beth-Sarim as their abode would be rejected.

From the record of history it must be concluded that Beth-Sarim bears a testimony — it is a monument to a false prophet and to false prophecy. Rutherford asked, “How are we to know whether one is a true or a false prophet?” His answer was, “If he is a true prophet, his message will come to pass exactly as prophesied. If he is a false prophet, his prophecy will fail to come to pass…. — Deut. 18:21, 22.”⁵⁴

Edmond C. Gruss has written several books on the Jehovah’s Witnesses, cults, and the occult. Leonard Chretien is a director of Good News Defenders, and with his wife Marjorie, the author of Witnesses of Jehovah (Harvest House, 1988).

Note: Because of space limitations many details and related issues could not be included in this study. A full book on the subject, Jehovah’s Witnesses—Their Monuments to False Prophecy (1997), is available from Witness Inc., P. O. Box 597, Clayton, CA 94517.

NOTES

¹Jehovah’s Witnesses — Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1993), 76.² 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1974), 194.³Let Your Name Be Sanctified (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1961), 336; The Watchtower, 1 November 1955, 655; 1 June 1985, 27; 1 March 1992, 27.⁴David A. Reed, “Proclaimers” Answered Page by Page (Stoughton, MA: David A. Reed, 1994), 11. ⁵Randall Watters, “Review of the New Watchtower Book: Jehovah’s Witnesses Proclaiming [sic] God’s Kingdom,” Free Minds Journal, September/October 1993, 3.⁶The Witnesses of Jehovah video is available postpaid for $22.00 from Good News Defenders, P.O. Box 8007, La Jolla, CA 92037.⁷Robert J. Martin, “The Truth about the San Diego House,” The Golden Age, 19 March 1930, 405-7.⁸Ibid., 405.⁹Ibid. ¹⁰Ibid. This deed is recorded in Book 1741, 69-71, San Diego County Recorder. ¹¹Ibid., 406.¹²Lew Scarr identified Requa as the architect in “Kensington — Cave, Grave, Stability,” San Diego Union, 21 December 1986, B-8. Samuel F. Black, San Diego County California, vol. 2 (Chicago: S. J. Clarke Publ., 1913), 216, is the source of the quote.¹³Thomas H. Baumann, Kensington-Talmadge 1910-1985 (San Diego: T. H. Baumann, 1984), 12-13.¹⁴A sale listing dated 26 April 1995 places the size at 5,156 square feet. Martin, 406.¹⁵Virgil A. Wyatt, “San Diego Mansion — With All Modern Improvements — Awaits Earthly Return of Prophets,” San Diego Sun, 15 March 1930, 1.¹⁶Minutes of the San Diego County Planning Commission, 24 January 1942, 230.¹⁷Walter Salter, “Open Letter to Hon. J. F. Rutherford,” 1 April 1937, 2.¹⁸Leonard and Marjorie Chretien, Witnesses of Jehovah (Eugene, Or.: Harvest House, 1988), 46.¹⁹“San Diego Mansion,” 15 March 1930, 1, 3. ²⁰Ibid., 1.²¹Ibid., 3.²²Virgil A. Wyatt, “David’s House Waits for Owner,” San Diego Sun, 9 January 1931, 15²³Joseph F. Rutherford, What You Need (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1932), 8. The Messenger, 25 July 1931, 8, presents another list of “princes.” ²⁴Wyatt, 15.²⁵Chretien, 45-46.²⁶Special Interest Autos, April 1986, 21.²⁷“David’s House,” 15.²⁸The Messenger, 30 July 1931, 2. ²⁹The Watch Tower, 1 August 1931, 239. ³⁰Joseph F. Rutherford, Millions Now Living Will Never Die (Brooklyn: International Bible Students Association, 1920), 89-90. ³¹“New Heavens and New Earth — What Are They?” The Golden Age, 12 August 1925, 731. ³²“European Conventions,” The Watch Tower, 1 July 1926, 196. ³³This material is based on the authors’ telephone interviews with Edward J. Ford, Jr., (pseud.) October-December 1996, and his as-yet-unpublished manuscript, The Four Presidents of the Watchtower Society.³⁴President N. H. Knorr, in the Introduction to A. H. Macmillan’s book, Faith on the March (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1957).³⁵Ford interviews and manuscript.³⁶Ibid.³⁷Salter, “Open Letter,” 1.³⁸M. James Penton, Apocalypse Delayed (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985). ³⁹Signed 15 February 1939, Book 1025, 29-30, San Diego County Recorder.⁴⁰“San Diego Officials Line Up against New Earth’s Princes,” Consolation, 7 May 1942, 3.⁴¹Case 106941.⁴²“San Diego Officials,” 13.⁴³Ibid., 7, quoting the San Diego Union, 25 January 1942.⁴⁴“Vault Permit Delays Burial of Rutherford,” San Diego Union, 13 January 1942, B-10.⁴⁵Telephone interview, 8 October 1996.⁴⁶Telephone interview, 2 October 1996. Mike, who did not wish to be further identified, became a Witness during the 1970s. He became disillusioned with the Witnesses about five years ago as a result of a careful study of the history of the movement.⁴⁷In 1904 Pastor Russell taught that the “princes” would be resurrected “about 1914, or shortly thereafter….” (“The Rank of the Ancient Worthies,” Watchtower Reprints, 15 October, 3445.) Earlier it was believed that in 1874 “the resurrection of David was also due….”(“Cast Not Away Therefore Your Confidence,” Watchtower Reprints, February 1881, 188.)⁴⁸The New World (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1942), 104, 130; The Truth Shall Make You Free (Brooklyn: Watch Tower, 1943), 358.⁴⁹Beth-Shan, held in trust for the princes’ use (Book 1075, 42-43), was sold on 29 March 1945 (Book 1853, 260-1, San Diego County Recorder). An article on Beth-Shan will appear in the next issue of Christian Research Journal.⁵⁰The New World, 104.⁵¹“‘All Nations’ Expansion’ Assembly,” The Watchtower, 15 December 1947, 382. ⁵²“‘Jehovah Is in His Holy Temple,’” The Watchtower, 15 November 1955, 697.⁵³Book 2858, 386-89, San Diego County Recorder.⁵⁴“True and False Prophets,” The Watch Tower, 15 May 1930, 154.