

## False Prophets of the Watchtower

### A Critical Examination

### of the Jehovah's Witnesses' Watchtower Doctrine

by Jon Anonym

Copyright 2006 – 2012 by Jon Anonym

All Rights Reserved

A Smashwords Edition

Chapter One – False Prophets of the Watchtower

Chapter Two – Does a Person Possess a Soul?

Chapter Three – Jerusalem was not Destroyed in 607 B.C., and Christ did not Return at His Second Coming in 1914

Chapter Four – Heaven is not Limited to an Elite 144,000 Jehovah's Witnesses who Rule Over a Great Crowd on Earth Forever

Chapter Five – In Defense of the Trinity Doctrine; Jesus Christ was not Just a Man, and not the Archangel Michael

Chapter One – False Prophets of the Watchtower [Table of Contents]

It is not for you to know the times of the seasons

_that the Father has established by his own authority_ _( Acts 1:7)_

## Are the Jehovah's Witnesses False Prophets?

What is a prophet? According to the Old Testament of the Bible a prophet is one "who is a spokesman for God." _Pictorial Bible Dictionary,_ at 685 ( _PBD_ ). God's words are placed in the prophet's mouth by God "through revelation, or as in the case of Moses, through immediate conversation with the theophany of God (Exodus 33:11). As it is written in Deuteronomy 18:18, God stated regarding the prophet, "[I] will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I should command him." (ibid.).

"Three words are employed in the Old Testament to designate the prophet, namely, _navi_ , _roeh_ , and _hozeh_. Each of the words designates one who is a spokesman for God." ( _PBD_ at ____ ). The Hebrew _nabiy_ ( _navi_ ) "means 'prophet,' whether a true or false prophet, (cf. Deuteronomy 13:1-5) ( _Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words_ ) ( _Vine's_ ). In the Old Testament, "if what the 'prophet' said proved to be wrong, he was to be killed," (Deuteronomy 18:20). _Vine's_ at 179.

The Hebrew _naba_ means to 'prophesy' by inspiration (in prediction or simple discourse). _Vine's_ , 5012 at 178. "False prophets, although not empowered by the divine spirit, are spoken of as prophesying also: "... I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied" (Jeremiah 23:21). The false prophet is roundly condemned because he speaks a non-authentic word... (Ezekiel 13:2-3). [In] the biblical context 'to prophesy' can refer to anything from the frenzied ecstacism of a false prophet to the cold somber proclamation of God's judgment by an Amos or an Isaiah. 'To prophesy' is much more than the prediction of future events. [The] first concern of the prophet is to speak God's word to the people of his own time, calling them to covenant faithfulness." _Vines_ , 5012 at 178.

In the New Testament the Greek for prophet, _propheteuo_ , means 'to be a prophet, to prophesy' and is used with the primary meaning of telling forth the divine counsels, e.g., Mt 7:22; 26:68; 1 Cor 11:4,5; 13:9; 14:1, 3-5, 24, 31, 39; Rev 11:3" And, it is used "of foretelling the future, e.g., Mt 15:7; Jn 11:51; 1 Pet 1:10; Jude 14." _Vine's_ 4395, at 178. (see also _prophetes_ , _Vine's_ , 4396).

In line with this broad definition of prophet, the writers of the New Testament were likewise prophets who spoke, or wrote, the word of God; inspired expressions designed to teach, reprove, and correct, enlighten, explain and instruct. God also used his New Testament prophets to predict the future.

Paul refers to believers within the congregation who prophesy, men and women, and admonishes those men who prophesy with their heads covered (1 Corinthians 11:4). He concedes at 1 Corinthians 13:9 that those who prophesied did so only partially, and emphasized its importance at 1 Corinthians 14:1 where he wrote that Christians should strive eagerly for the gift of prophesy.

Within this expansive concept of prophecy is the narrower gift of foretelling future events, not as mere hopeful predictions of expressed opinions, but predictions that were statements of future facts. Predicting future events that came to pass is a mark of the true prophet of God. The Old Testament is rife with examples of prophetic predictions such as Isaiah and Jeremiah's forewarning that Babylon would destroy Jerusalem and Judea, which occurred in the 6th century B.C.. Similarly in the New Testament, prophetic writers and speakers warned of future inevitable events. Chief among them was Jesus Christ, the greatest prophet of all who, among other things, spoke of the end times that are to occur, the pending Great Tribulation, coming persecutions upon God's chosen, and Armageddon as described in Matthew chapter 24. Of significance are the eschatological writings in the Book of Revelation to John where in highly symbolic fashion, the end of the age and the Almighty's judgment on mankind is chronicled in sobering detail.

The existence of God's prophets, who by definition must be inspired by God, did not cease with first-century Christians. True inspired prophets within the Christian church have spoken in the name of God for the last 2,000 years.

Joel predicted that in the latter days God would pour out his spirit on all mankind, or flesh, and true believers will utter true God-inspired prophesy, as reiterated by Peter at Pentecost.

17 It will come to pass in the last days, God says, that I will pour out a portion of my spirit upon all flesh,

Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your young men shall see visions, your old men shall see dreams.

18 Indeed, upon my servants and my handmaids I will pour out a portion of my spirit in those days, and they shall prophesy. (Acts 2:17, 18 _NAB_ )

This outpouring of the Holy Spirit enabling its recipients to prophesy was not a temporary infusion limited to those first-century Christians. Prophets are a divine institution, individually a part of Christ's body. Some members of Christ's body are apostles, others teachers, and others prophets, as Paul explained at 1 Corinthians 12:27-31. As such, the body of Christ today would be incomplete without the prophet, or spokesman, for God, and no religious organization that claims to be Christian today can be a legitimate representative of God unless it recognizes and possesses within itself as the body of Christ the divine institution of prophet. Stated another way, God's chosen people must function under the prophetic influence of prophet, and those who claim to speak for God must be inspired prophets; otherwise they cannot be God's (only) invisible organization on earth, as the Watchtower Society incorrectly claims to be.

Prophets, among other things, serve to exhort and strengthen the church (Acts 15:32); they teach (2 Peter 2:1), define God's will (Acts 13:1-3), and predict the future (Acts 21:10:11). They are "filled with power, with the spirit of the Lord, with authority, and with might" (Micah 3:8). As such they cannot lie in this role because God does not lie and they are incapable of gross error if they are truly God's spokesman or mouthpiece.

The Watchtower Society of the Jehovah's Witnesses claims to be God's one and only true prophet, and it is God's only and exclusive organization on earth. All other religions (Babylon the Great), it teaches, are false religions functioning under the power and influence of Satan. They write: "Whom has God actually used as his prophet?.... Jehovah's witnesses are deeply grateful today that the plain facts show that God has been pleased to use them.... It has been because Jehovah thrust out his hand of power and touched their lips and put his words in their mouths." (w59 y15 pp.40-41 pars. 13-14) Elsewhere they proclaim, "As Jehovah revealed his truths by means of the first-century Christian congregation so he does today by means of the present day Christian congregation. Through this agency he is having carried out prophesying on an intensified and unparalleled scale. All this activity is not an accident. Jehovah is the one behind it all." (w64 6/15 p. 365 par 22)

The Watchtower Society has a long track record of claiming it is God who put His words into their mouths, in 1906 writing in part, "... the truths I present, as God's mouthpiece...." _Zion Watch Tower_ , July 15, 1906, 230), and "Today, Jehovah provides instruction by means of the 'faithful steward,'" ( _Pay Attention to Yourself and to All the Flock_ , 13). They also claim that "No man can properly interpret prophecy, and the Lord sends his angels to transmit correct information to his people." ( _Watchtower,_ February 15, 1936, 32). The Watchtower Society teaches that it is "... commission[ed] to speak as a 'prophet' in His name... " ( _Watchtower,_ March 15, 1972, 189), and that they "are commission[ed] to serve as the mouthpiece and active agent of Jehovah.... commissioned to speak as a prophet in the name of Jehovah." _The Nations Shall Know that I Am Jehovah_ , 55, 62. And with respect to the Watchtower Society President Joseph Franklin Rutherford's failed prophecy that in 1925 the dead would be resurrected, the Watch Tower stated, "this chronology is not of man, but of God... the addition of more proofs removes it entirely from the realm of chance into proven certainty.... the chronology of present truth [is] not of human origin." _Watch Tower_ July 1, 1922, 217)

Accordingly, it is beyond question that the Watchtower Society teaches and proclaims that they are "prophets of God" by their own admission, that they are the exclusive spokesmen and mouthpiece for Almighty God, that God puts His words in their mouths, and that they believe that their doctrine and prophetic predictions were, and are, transmitted to them by God and to no one else. Because the Watchtower Society claims to be God's prophets, the words they convey must be inspired by God. They cannot now, after being exposed, deny Godly inspiration. It is logically and scripturally impossible for them to claim to be God's exclusive prophet, yet also claim that God's delivered words are not inspired by God.

The issue addressed in this article is whether the Watchtower Society writers and teachers are false prophets. The Bible warns us repeatedly that there will be false prophets and false teachers among us; those who claim to speak, teach and predict the future on behalf of God (Matthew 7:15, 22; 24:11, 24; 2 Peter 2:11). This question regarding false prophets can be broken down into two sub-categories. First, are the prophet's teachings on biblical doctrine true or false?

While doctrine per se cannot be proven right or wrong with one-hundred-percent certainty, that degree of proof is not necessary to prove a prophet is not endorsed by the Almighty. Lower standards of proof are routinely used in our U.S. judicial system to convict people of capital crimes, requiring only proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not one-hundred-percent certainty. In civil cases liability can be fixed based on a preponderance of the evidence, just over fifty percent.

The evidence presented here in this book, and elsewhere, establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the Watchtower Society are false prophets with respect to core Christian doctrine because their teachings are profoundly in error. This book examines in great detail the following false Watchtower teachings: a) that man does not have a soul (spirit) that continues to exist in an immaterial state following death; b) only 144,000 anointed Jehovah's Witnesses go to heaven; c) a Great Crowd of Jehovah's Witnesses will live forever on a paradise earth to be ruled over by Jesus Christ and an elite ruling class of 144,000 Jehovah's Witnesses from heaven; d) that man can be "educated" to a state of perfection; e) that Jesus Christ is only mediator between God and the 144,000, and that only the 144,000 are parties to the New Covenant described at Jeremiah 31:31-34; f) that man is acquitted of his sins at death, and that no man is punished for sins committed in this life but only for sins committed during the upcoming 1,000-year-reign; g) that the Trinity doctrine is false and the work of Satan; h) that Jesus Christ is the created archangel Michael, and that while on earth Jesus was only a man, and not the God-man as mainstream Christianity teaches; I) that ancient Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C., rather than 587 B.C., as mainstream Christianity and historical evidence has long established, and j) that the Second Coming of Christ and his presence, or _parousia_ , occurred in 1914, which it did not.

Having examined the evidence in great detail over many years, this writer is confident in proclaiming that the Watchtower Society is incorrect with respect to each of the above Watchtower false teachings, that to a reasonable person their theological doctrines have been proven false beyond a reasonable doubt, and accordingly, by definition those responsible at the Watchtower Society for developing and propounding doctrine are false prophets.

The second subcategory asks the question: Are the writers of Watchtower literature, and those in the higher echelons of that organization who approve these writings, false prophets because their many prophetic predictions failed to come true? The answer is yes, absolutely.

FALSE DATES, FALSE PROPHECIES

AND QUESTIONABLE MOTIVES

How does one detect a false prophet? The Bible provides one simple test for identifying those false prophets claiming to be God's spokesmen and predictors of the future at Deuteronomy 18:22: "[E]ven though a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if his oracle is not fulfilled or verified, it is an oracle which the Lord did not speak. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously, and you shall have no fear of him." In other words, if a so-called prophet makes a future prediction and it does not come true, that alleged spokesman for God is a false prophet. The Watchtower Society has a similar test, which they routinely ignore, writing, "Jehovah is the Grand identifier of his true messengers. He identifies them by making the messages he delivers through them come true. Jehovah is the Great Exposer of False Messengers" _Watchtower,_ March 1, 1997, 8.

During the course of examining Watchtower literature published during the last 130 years, the sheer number of predictions, or prophecies, which they have made with utmost conviction and dogmatic insistence is truly staggering, nearly as shocking as the abysmal failure rate. The Watchtower Society's founder, Charles Taze Russell, obsessed it seems with dates, times and seasons, failed to have even one prediction prove true, a disheartening track record which appears to have been lost on succeeding generations of the Jehovah's Witnesses through willful or genuine ignorance of their religion's embarrassing past failures. Of the countless failed Watchtower predictions, certain dates in particular are noteworthy, namely 1874, 1914, 1918, 1925 and 1975.

### 1874

The year 1874 was a pivotal cornerstone in Russell's theology that was taught during the late 19th century, and was not abandoned until the 1930s. Relying heavily on Adventist false prophecies, Russell also taught that 1874 marked the Second Advent, or the Second Coming of Christ, though invisible to the human eye. The Watchtower Society's founder, Russell, wrote that "[t]he second advent of our Lord in the end or harvest of the Gospel age, occurr[ed] in the fall of 1874 .... October 1874 [was] the date of our Lord's return.... [T]he time-prophecies thus point to and harmonize with 1874 as the date of our Lord's second presence, assuring us of the fact with mathematical precision...." The Time of the Harvest (1911 ed.), 125, 127, 129.

A careful study of times and seasons taught in Scripture convinced us that the Lord was due to be present in 1874, and other time teachings of the Word showed that in the spring of 1875 the restitution of all things was due to commence. Zion's Watch Tower, August 1883, 1.

Furthermore, Russell also taught that October 1874 marked the beginning of the battle of Armageddon, which would end in October of 1914: "The date of the close of that 'battle' is definitely marked in Scripture as October 1914. It is already in progress, its beginning dating from October 1874." Zion's Watch Tower, January 15, 1892, 23. Needless to say, none of this proved true.

Did Russell or the Watchtower Society bother to correct this false teaching within a reasonable period of time in subsequent years? No. The year 1874, the alleged Second Coming of Christ, served as core Watchtower doctrine up until the 1930s. They wrote: "The second coming of the Lord... began in 1874.... Prophecy cannot be understood until it has been fulfilled or is in the course of fulfillment." Creation 1927, 2,175,000 ed., 289. "The Scriptural proof is that the second presence of the Lord Jesus Christ began in 1874 A.D." Prophecy, 1929, 1,589,000 ed., 65. Not until 1932 did the Watchtower Society acknowledge this false prophecy, shifting the Second Coming from 1874 to 1914 when it conceded its manifest error: "The prophecy of the Bible, fully supported by the physical facts in fulfillment thereof, shows that the second coming of Christ dates from the fall of the year 1914." What is Truth? (1932), 48.

### 1914

Of all the dates, the times, and the seasons which the Watchtower Society holds dear, none is more important today than 1914 when, they teach incorrectly, Christ allegedly returned invisibly to earth at his second coming. However, before 1914 the Society taught many other things which have proven to be false. Before 1914 they taught that 1914 marked the end of all earthly government institutions, and the fall and utter destruction of all false religions; that year was to be the end of Armageddon, the end of the Gentile Times, and the beginning of Christ's millennial 1,000-year-reign over Jehovah's Witnesses in a paradise on earth. Little known to the Jehovah's Witnesses, pyramidology - measurements taken from Egypt's Pyramid of Giza - was used in part to calculate 1914, a pagan occultish practice condemned in the Bible. The Society wrote, in The Way to Paradise, at 171, that "The Bible and 'The Bible in Stone' [the Pyramid of Giza] give the date 1914: for the beginning of the great change."

With Armageddon having allegedly begun in 1874, Russell was adamant that it would end in 1914, writing with respect to that date, "We see no reason for changing the figures – nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble." Zion's Watch Tower, July 15, 1894, 226. "... The battle of the great day of God Almighty... [t]he date of the close of that 'battle' is definitely marked in Scripture as October 1914. Zion's Watchtower, January 15, 1892, 23.

The beginning of the earthly phase of the Kingdom in the end of A.D. 1914 will, we understand, consist wholly of the resurrected holy ones of olden time – from John the Baptizer back to Abel - "Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and all the holy prophets. Studies in the Scriptures, Series IV - The Day of Vengeance, 625.

And yet "Jerusalem must be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled; hence, trodden down until A.D. 1914, when the day of wrath will be passed, and the resurrection and return of the "whole house of Israel" due. Three Worlds and the Harvest of This World (1877) 166.

"That the deliverance of the saints [the 144,000] must take place some time before 1914 is manifest, since the deliverance of fleshly Israel, as we shall see, is appointed to take place at that time." Studies in the Scriptures, Series III – Thy Kingdom Come (1908 ed.).

1914 was to be the year that 40 years of "harvest" work was to be completed – the completion of the preaching work and the in-gathering of additional Watchtower believers, but as we know, the Watchtower preaching work continues: ".... [T]he close of 1874 marked the beginning, as the close of 1914 will mark the end of this 40 years of harvest ...." Studies in the Scriptures, Series III – Thy Kingdom Come, 149 – 150. Furthermore, all religions, other than the Watchtower Society, were regarded then, as now, as false and under the influence of Satan, and are referred to as Babylon the Great. And Babylon, it was prophesied, was to be completely destroyed – all religions, except their own, were to be utterly vanquished in 1914.

The seventh trumpet sounds from August 1840 until "the time of trouble," or day of wrath is ended. Hence, it doubtless ends with the Times of the Gentiles, and this forty years of conquest; and therefore, sounds until A.D. 1914, at the end of which, Babylon the great will have fallen, and the "dragon be bound: that is, the nations will be subdued, and "the prince of this world cast out." Three Worlds and The Harvest of This World (1877), 143.

A.D. 33, to A.D. 70 was 36 ½ years; and so from A.D. 1878 to the end of A.D. 1914 is 36 ½ years. And, with the end of A.D. 1914, what God calls Babylon, and what men call Christendom, will have passed away, as already shown in prophecy. Studies in Scriptures, Series III – Thy Kingdom Come, (1891) 153.

October, 1914, will witness the full end of Babylon, "as a great millstone cast into the sea, utterly destroyed as a system. Watch Tower, June 15, 1911, 190.

These prophecies proved false as well. To add insult to injury, before 1914 the Watchtower Society also prophesied that all of mankind's governments would be overturned in 1914, and God's kingdom on earth would "assume control." Studies in Scriptures, Series II – The Time is at Hand, (1889) 77, 78.

True, it is expecting great things to claim, as we do, that within the coming twenty-six years all present governments will be overthrown and dissolved. In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished at the end of A.D. 1914. Be not surprised, then, when in subsequent chapters we present proofs that the setting up of the Kingdom of God is already begun, that it is pointed out in prophecy as due to begin the exercise of power in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already commenced. The gathering of the armies is plainly visible from the standpoint of God's Word. Studies in the Scriptures, Series II – The Time is at Hand (1889) 99, 101.

The year 1914 was looked upon differently after it came and went because each and every prophecy proclaimed with respect to that date proved false. Subsequently, new dates and new predictions, and shockingly radical revisions were made by the Watchtower Society of their previous false prophecies once the extent of their egregious errors came to light. Today the Watchtower teaches that 1914 marked the beginning of the end, not the end of the end, as taught up to 1914. Obviously the change in predictions and the significance of associated events is profound. The Jehovah's Witnesses are taught today, and are required to believe, that the Second Coming of Christ, and his "invisible" presence on this earth, happened in 1914.

Changing the significance of 1914 and disavowing the false prophecies and occurrences associated with the years 1874 – 1914 inclusive, whether implicitly or explicitly, is an admission by the Watchtower Society that they are false prophets. The false nature of earlier predictions is compounded by later attempts to deny they made certain of those pre-1914 false prophecies and statements of "facts" in the first place. In other words, the Watchtower Society is guilty of trying to rewrite their own history; of denying what they taught, believed and prophesied, notwithstanding overwhelming documented evidence to the contrary.

To illustrate, as pointed out by Paul Grundy, author of jwfacts.com – most likely the finest overall website dedicated in great detail to the Jehovah's Witnesses religion, and to whom this writer is profoundly indebted – many of the Society's false prophetic predictions were contained within Studies in the Scriptures, which they continued to use after 1914. Subsequent editions of this series of writings were change to reflect an altogether different past; a retroactive alteration aimed at changing the "false" to the "truth."

As Paul Grundy writes, "The 1908 edition of Studies in the Scriptures, Series III – Thy Kingdom Come stated on p. 228 that the resurrection would occur before 1914. The 1915edition changed this to state that the resurrection was to occur soon after 1914." The 1908 edition provides, "That the deliverance of the saints must take place some time before 1914 is manifest...." While the 1915 edition provides, "That the deliverance of the saints must take place very soon after 1914 is manifest." This is no trivial change, but a fundamental misappropriation of the truth, a disturbing alteration of facts which served to conceal the reality of the false prophecies the Watchtower Society actually taught.

Even more bothersome for an organization which claims it alone was granted biblical truth is their subsequent handling of the crucial year 1914 with respect to Christ's return. Grundy writes, "In 1914, the Watchtower was teaching that Jesus' presence began in 1874 and his heavenly rulership began in 1878."

Our belief that the Kingdom began to be set up, or brought into power, in April, 1878, be it observed, rests on exactly the same foundation as our belief that the Lord became present in Oct. 1874, and that the harvest began at that time. Thy Kingdom Come, p. 205.

As chronicled in detail above, pre-1914 prophecies predicted that 1914 marked the end of Armageddon, the conclusion of the time of troubles, and that Christ's Second Coming and presence began in 1874; nothing could be clearer. However, in subsequent years the Watchtower Society has gone to great lengths covering up those false prophecies, in effect denying they ever taught them in the first place, writing: "The Watchtower has consistently presented evidence that Jesus' presence in heavenly kingdom power began in 1914. Events since that year testify to Jesus' presence. Jehovah's witnesses have consistently shown from the Scriptures that the year 1914 marked the beginning of this world's time of the end and that 'the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men' has drawn near." Watchtower, January 15, 1993, 5, 9.

But that is simply not true. As established above, the Watchtower Society on many occasions taught the opposite; that 1874, not 1914, was the beginning of Armageddon; and that 1874 marked the beginning of Christ's presence and His Second Coming, not 1914. The extent of the Watchtower's cover-up is astounding, as seen by the following excerpts:

True to such calculations, 1914 did mark the end of those times and the birth of God's kingdom in heaven with Christ Jesus as king. Just think of it! Jehovah granted his people that knowledge nearly four decades before those times expired. Yearbook, 1975, 37.

Of all men used by God to prophesy, Jesus is outstanding. Based on what he said, along with the words of Daniel and John, Jehovah's witnesses pointed to the year 1914, decades in advance, as marking the start of the "conclusion of the system of things." Awake! January 22, 1973, 8.

As for the time of Christ's second presence, Daniel's prophecy is again the one that gives the chronology for it. (Dan 4:16) It was figured out as pointing to A.D. 1914, and the Watchtower called notice to the significance of 1914 in the year 1879. Watchtower, November 1, 1952, 658.

[I]n 1914 C.E.... the Most High God Jehovah installed the Messiah Jesus on the heavenly throne in order to reign and go subduing among his enemies. (Psalm 110:1-6; Acts 2:34-36; Hebrews 10:12, 13)

[A] prophecy providentially caused sincere 19th-century Bible students to be in expectation. By linking the "seven times" of Daniel 4:25 with "the times of the Gentiles," they anticipated that Christ would receive Kingdom power in 1914. Watchtower, September 15, 1998, 15.

For over thirty years, before that date and for half a century since, Jehovah's witnesses have pointed to the year 1914 as the time for the end of the "appointed times of the nations" and the time in which Christ would begin his Kingdom rule. (Luke 21:24). Watchtower, February 15, 1966, 103.

Why, then, do the nations not realize and accept the approach of this climax of judgment? It is because they have not heeded the worldwide advertising of Christ's return and his second Presence. Since long before World War I Jehovah's witnesses pointed to 1914 as the time for this great event to occur. Watchtower, Jun 15, 1954, 370.

This was a new revelation of great importance to God's people who had been anxiously awaiting his second presence toward the end of the nineteenth century. Watchtower, July 15, 1965, 428.

But none of this is true when one compares these latter assertions with earlier pre-1914 prophecy. Their "understanding" of 1874 did not change until 1943 when that date, as being the year of the "Return of the Lord Jesus Christ" was done away with. God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years has Approached, 209. The Watchtower continued to falsely teach that Jesus' presence began in 1874 well into the 1920s, writing: "Bible prophecy shows that the Lord was due to appear for the second time in the year 1874. Fulfilled prophecy is otherwise designated the physical facts; and the facts are indisputable." Watch Tower, November 1, 1922, 333. They also wrote: "The Scriptural proof is that the second presence of the Lord Jesus Christ began in 1874 A.D." Prophecy, 1929, 65, 66.

### 1918

With the passage of 1914 and the all-to-apparent failure of so many prophetic predictions, disappointment among the faithful was grave, as one would expect. In response, the Watchtower Society simply shifted forward failed prophecies to 1918. This was the new date in which the 40-year harvest and preaching work would end:

The parallel, therefore, would establish definitely that the harvest would close forty years thereafter; to wit, in the spring of A.D. 1918. If this be true, and the evidence is very conclusive that it is true, then we have only a few months in which to labor before the great night settles down when no man can work. Watch Tower, September 1, 1916, 265.

That the harvest began in 1878, there is ample and convincing proof. The end of the harvest is due in the spring of 1918. Watch Tower, May 1, 1918, 132.

1918 became the year when 144,000 were to be resurrected to heaven, or glorified: "Our proposition is that the glorification of the Little Flock [will occur] in the spring of 1918 A.D. Studies in the Scriptures – The Finished Mystery at 64.

Mainstream Christianity, or Christendom, which the Jehovah's Witnesses refer to as Babylon the Great, was also to be destroyed in 1918. They write: "... [T]he spring of 1918 will bring upon Christendom a spasm of anguish greater than that experienced in the fall of 1914. ibid. 62. "... [I]n the parallel year of 1918, I infer we should look for the complete overthrow of nominal Spiritual Israel; i.e., The fall of Babylon." ibid. 129. "At that time there is every reason to believe the fallen angels will invade the minds of many of the Nominal church people, driving them to exceedingly unwise conduct and leading to their destruction at the hands of the enraged masses." ibid. 128. "Christendom shall be cut off in the brief but terribly eventful period beginning in 1918 A.D." ibid. 398-399.

Also, in the year 1918, when God destroys the churches wholesale and church members by millions, it shall be that any that escape shall come to the works of Pastor Russell to learn the meaning of the downfall of Christianity. Ibib. 485.

As with the false prophecies leading up to 1914, none of this proved true, though it no doubt served as a vital deterrent by scaring the disillusioned flock away from mainstream Christianity, or Christendom,and all other religions for that matter, keeping them within the fold.

### 1925

1918 was also significant because that year the Watchtower Society, through its new president Rutherford, made one of the greatest prophecies in Watchtower history, a prophesy which became the driving force between 1918 and 1925 in efforts to mend the damage to the organization caused by pre-1918 failures. It was predicted with utmost certainty that millions of humans on earth – non-Jehovah's Witnesses – would never die.

Originally it was official Watchtower doctrine that the Little Flock of 144,000 and the Great Crowd of other sheep would both go to heaven, and that millions would definitely never die because Jesus opened up salvation to all mankind. "[Bible Students] [u]nderstood that people then living – mankind in general – had the opportunity to survive right into the time of restitution and that they would then be educated in Jehovah's requirements for life. If obedient, they would gradually attain to human perfection. If rebellious, they would, in time, be destroyed forever." Proclaimers, 163.

Of course that piece of core doctrine has been discarded, among many others. Today, only the elite 144,000 allegedly go to heaven while the Great Crowd of Jehovah's Witnesses they rule over live on a paradise earth forever, all of which is non-biblical.

The "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" doctrine was emphatic, but quite incorrect in its prophetic prediction because millions then living did die, virtually everyone. Yet the fervor and single-minded conviction with which this prophecy was uttered leaves little doubt that many continued to believe the Watchtower despite its atrocious track record.

The original theory was propounded in February of 1918 at a public discourse, which became the basis for a 128-page book published in 1920 entitled, "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" (Millions). Contained therein is another startling false prophecy. It was taught that the earthly resurrection would begin in 1925, beginning with the resurrection of men like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob of the Old Testament, not to mention Noah, and prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah, and many other such figures of note.

The Bible and "The Bible in Stone" [the Pyramid of Giza] give the date of 1914 for the beginning of the great change. History proves that the ouster proceedings began promptly on time. Prophesy indicates that 1925 – 1926 will see the greater part of the ousting completed. (The Way to Paradise, 171.)

When you take up a more advanced study of the Bible, you will find that the year 1925 A.D. is particularly marked in prophecy. ___ at 220

Seventy jubilees of fifty years each would be a total of 3,500 years. That period of time beginning 1575 years before A.D. 1 of necessity would end in the fall of the year 1925, at which time the type ends and the great anti-type must begin. What, then, should we expect to take place? The chief thing to be restored is the human race to life and since other Scriptures definitely fix the fact that there will be a resurrection of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and other faithful ones of old, and that these will have the first favour, we may expect 1925 to witness the return of these faithful men of Israel from the condition of death, being resurrected and fully restored to perfect humanity and made the visible, legal representatives of the new order of things on earth. Millions, 88.

The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures because it is fixed by the law God gave to Israel. Watch Tower, September. 1, 1922, 262.

[T]his chronology is not of man, but of God... [T]he addition of more proofs removes it entirely from the realm of chance into that of proven certainty.... [T]he chronology of present truth [is]... not of human origin. Watch Tower, July 1, 1922, 217.

The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in Scripture, even more clearly than that of 1914. Watch Tower, 1924, 211.

Not true. The above prophecies are false, and no amount of obfuscation can overcome the plain truth that the Watchtower Society are false prophets of the highest caliber.

### 1975

Unable to refrain from predicting the beginning of Armageddon and the commencement of Christ's millennial reign, the Watchtower Society, as tradition would have it, pointed to 1975 as the year of that battle as far back as the 1960s. While not as brazenly explicit as they were in years past, it was crystal clear to all the Jehovah's Witnesses what the Society was prophesying; that Armageddon would commence in 1975. The formula for their calculations was rather simple. They assumed man (Adam) was created in 4026 B.C. Since God created all things in six figurative days and rested on the seventh, and attributing 1,000 years for each such day (1,000 x 6 = 6,000 years), counting forward 6,000 years from 4026 B.C. takes one to 1975 A.D. They then drew parallels with the end of the 6,000 years – since God rested on the seventh day – and concluded that that must be the date God will bring the "system of things" to an end at Armageddon and usher in Christ's "restful" millennial reign on earth. This false prophecy began to be circulated in 1966 when the Watchtower predicted the fulfillment of the end-time prophecies. The following excerpts, and all others in this article, are taken from jwfacts.com:

Does God's rest day parallel the time man has been on earth since his creation? Apparently so. In what year, then, would the first 6,000 years of man's existence and also the first 6,000 years of God's rest day come to an end? In 1975. It means that within a relatively few years we will witness the fulfillment of the remaining prophecies that have to do with the "time of the end." Awake! October 8, 1966, 19-20.

It did not take the brothers very long to find the chart beginning on page 31, showing that 6,000 years of man's existence end in 1975. Discussion of 1975 overshadowed about everything else. "The new book compels us to realize that Armageddon is, in fact, very close indeed," said a conventioneer. Surely it was one of the outstanding blessings to be carried home.... Time is short. Time is running out, no question about that. Watchtower, October 15, 1966, 629, 631.

During the 1967 Sheboygan, Wisconsin, District Convention, during the "Stay Alive to Seventy-Five" talk, it was proclaimed that Jehovah God "has held up before all of us a new goal. A new year. Something to reach out for and it just seems it has given all of us so much more energy and power in this final burst of speed to the finish line. And that's the year 1975. Well, we don't have to guess what the year 1975 means if we read the Watchtower. And don't wait 'till 1975. The door is going to be shut before then. As one brother put it, "Stay alive to seventy-five. Eighty-three months remain."

The message continued to be advanced up until 1975. During the November 1968 Pampa, Texas, assembly, the official Watchtower stance on 1975 was repeatedly driven home. Here, the 83-month countdown to 1975 was unmistakeable: "... not really a full 83 months remains, so let's be faithful and confident and... we will be alive beyond the war of Armageddon."

Other publications were no less explicit. They wrote: "Within a few years at most the final parts of the Bible prophecy relative to these "last days" will undergo fulfillment." Watchtower, May 1, 1968, 272. "What about this talk concerning the year 1975?.... Their interest has been kindled by the belief that 1975 will mark the end of the 6,000 years of human history since Adam's creation.... bible chronology reinforced with fulfilled Bible prophecy shows that six thousand years of man's existence will soon be up, yes, within this generation! (Matt. 24:34).... This is not the time to be toying with the words of Jesus that 'concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the father." (Matt. 24:36).... Even if one cannot see beyond 1975, is this any reason to be less active?" Why Are you Looking Forward to 1975? Watchtower, August 15, 1968, 494.

And now, as the year 1975 opens up, some thousands of the anointed remnant still alive on the earth, look ahead to realizing that joyful prospect. The increasing "great crowd" of their sheep-like companions look forward with them to entering the New order without interruption of life. Watchtower, December 15, 1974, 766.

The fact that fifty-four years of the period called the "last days" have already gone by is highly significant. It means that only a few years, at most, remain before the corrupt system of things dominating the earth is destroyed by God. Awake! October 8, 1968, 13.

If you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this present system of things. Why not? Because all the evidence in fulfillment of Bible prophecy indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years. Awake! May 22, 1969, 15.

In an uncharacteristic move, the Watchtower Society acknowledged the error of its ways in 1980, to a degree, admitting that "considerable expectation was aroused regarding the year 1975... [t]here were other statements published that implied that such realization of hopes by that year was more of a probability than a mere possibility." Watchtower, March 15, 1980, 17. But even this concession is lacking in candor because the false 1975 prophecy wasn't merely implied; it was expressly stated, and every Jehovah's Witness between 1966 and 1975 knew exactly what was being promoted.

Glossed over in the 1975 debacle was the disruptive effect it had on the rank-and-file. In reliance on the "impending end," careers were cut short, higher education was abandoned, marriages were postponed, children were never conceived or raised, and homes and other property were sold off. As to be expected, pioneering work skyrocketed leading up to 1975, and between 1966 and 1975 Watchtower publishers grew at an astonishing rate of 37 percent. Predicting the end would come in 1975 worked.

The dates 1874, 1914, 1918, 1925 and 1975 represent the proverbial tip of the prophetic iceberg because their literature is awash with countless other failed prophecies, events and blatantly erroneous statements of fact, all of which are well documented elsewhere.

1798 was the end of papal dominion, Three Worlds and the Harvest of this World, 1877, 158; the "Time of the End" was supposed to run for 115 years from 1799 to 1914 A.D. Studies in the Scriptures, Series III – Thy Kingdom Come, 23; the 6,000 years of creation were supposedly to have ended in 1873, Studies in the Scriptures, Series II - The Time is at Hand, 1915 ed. 363; the signs of the end times (war, earthquakes, etc.) were to have begun by 1880, Studies in the Scriptures IV – The Day of Vengeance, 604; the sealing of the so-called anointed 144,000 was to be complete in 1881, Studies in the Scriptures, Series VI – New Creation, 1915, ed. 95; and 1910 was the year of the rapture, Studies in the Scriptures, Series III – Thy Kingdom Come, 364.

When the end of the world failed to materialize in 1914, the date, an "established truth," was moved to 1915, Studies in the Scriptures, Series II – the Time is at Hand, 1915 ed. 99, 101, 242. They predicted the end of World War I to be October 1, 1917, but changed that prediction retroactively in a subsequent edition to "probably 1918," Studies in the Scriptures, Series VII – The Finished Mystery, 75,000 ed., 268 vis-a-vis 2,604,000 ed.; 1919 was the supposed year Christ inspected the earth's churches and found only the Watchtower Society cleansed and preaching the truth, and accordingly chose it as God's exclusive church organization on earth (notwithstanding the countless errors and false doctrine taught up until 1943); and another "end for all governments" and "end of Christendom" was to occur in the fall of 1920 (changed in subsequent printings), Studies in the Scriptures, Series VII – The Finished Mystery, 1918 ed., 179, 258, 313, 542.

The "calling" of the 144,000 who would go to heaven was to close in 1921, a date subsequently changed as well, Studies in the Scriptures, Series VII – The Finished Mystery, 64; and this time Christendom was to be destroyed in 1932. Watchtower, February 15, 1938, 55.

As Paul Grundy points out with respect to the "sealing" of the 144,000, that date has changed repeatedly, beginning in 1878, and then 1881, 1910, 1914, 1925, 1931 and finally 1935 (Watchtower, February 15, 1995, 19). By 2007 the Watchtower Society conceded that that date was also wrong and that they cannot "set a specific date for when the calling of Christians to the heavenly hope ends." Watchtower, May 1, 2007, 31.

The laundry list of false dates and doctrine continue into the 40s and 50s. While many of the Jehovah's Witnesses are skeptical of the evidence, a detailed analysis and accompanying scans of supporting literature can be found at www.jwfacts.com. The evidence speaks for itself.

Chapter Two – Does a Person Possess a Soul? [Table of Contents]

### Why the Jehovah's Witnesses are incorrect teaching that man does not have a soul, and that at death all that comprises man, including soul and spirit, is extinguished and annihilated, and that postmortem man is extinct until those resurrected by God are reassembled at a future date.

While traditional Christians teach that man has a soul - the non-material essence and ego of man which survives death and can go to heaven as an invisible spirit creature - the Jehovah's Witnesses believe, and teach, that no such soul exists; that upon death all of man, every vestige of the human being, including his soul, is annihilated and becomes extinct. They believe that Christendom's notion of a soul, particularly an immortal soul, is the work of the devil and a myth devised by Satan to mislead mankind. However, on examining the Jehovah's Witnesses' own theories in this regard, the Watchtower Society's double standard becomes self-evident because they also teach that their resurrected 144,000 Jehovah's Witnesses (who alone go to heaven) began to be resurrected to heaven as invisible spirit creatures in 1918, and today are being resurrected as invisible spirit creatures bound for heaven, writing, "He [Christ] went to prepare a heavenly place for his associate heirs, 'Christ's body,' for they too will be invisible spirit creatures" (Let God Be True, p.138).

In other words, in the traditional Christian world a redeemed man dies and his invisible soul (spirit) goes to an intermediate state where it waits. In the Watchtower World a man dies (one of the so-called 144,000) and his invisible spirit goes to a heavenly afterlife also. Regardless of the labels the Jehovah's Witnesses place on this process, such as calling theirs a "resurrection," the point is that the process is exactly the same: man dies, invisible spirit goes to the afterlife.

With the exception of a few irrelevant labels placed on the process by the Jehovah's Witnesses, there is absolutely no difference in the core concept of a soul (spirit) surviving the body, except the Jehovah's Witnesses claim that with respect to mainstream Christians it doesn't happen at all, and can't happen, and is a lie perpetuated by Satan, but with respect to their 144,000 Jehovah's Witnesses it is happening as we speak, and is sanctioned and performed by God Almighty. It is the extent of such blatant hypocrisy which prompted me to explore in detail the Jehovah's Witnesses' false teaching that man does not have a soul (spirit) that survives death.

Traditional mainstream Christianity teaches that man possesses a soul, which is defined as "the non-material ego of man," ( _Pictorial Bible Dictionary_ ( _PBD_ ) at 807), as distinguished from the body. It is the "immaterial principle of life and intelligence.... ( _Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church_ ( _Oxford_ at 150), and the "real spiritual substance created by God (Genesis 2:7) which united to the body, constitutes a man" ( _The Catholic Encyclopedia_ at 560). Because "[man] is of the "image of God" (Genesis 1:26,27), the soul is immortal (Matthew 10:28)" (ibid.). As God is spirit (John 4:24), man's essential inner attributes are likewise spiritual, in the image of God.

The soul is the primary force of the subjective composite of consciousness, memory, decision, freedom and the very principle of the human person's activity. It is of the very substance of the human being; thus it is what man makes of himself and what he can become. It is the principle of the human person's being.( _Catholic Encyclopedia_ , at 560)

Traditionalists believe the immortal soul is created by God and infused into the human body at conception. While God Almighty, being all powerful, can extinguish the soul at his pleasure, the soul cannot be extinguished or destroyed by secondary sources, that is, anything or anyone other than YHWH, Jehovah God.

According to traditional Christian thought and Scripture, at death the body returns to dust, but the human soul (spirit) migrates to reside in an intermediate state between death and resurrection ( _PBD_ at 381). Both the wicked unredeemed and saved believers dwell in the intermediate state where they wait for the resurrection; they are not extinguished as the Jehovah's Witnesses teach. "For the righteous the intermediate state is a time of rest and blessedness, holiness and happiness," although one of imperfection, or incompleteness until the soul is reunited with the resurrected body" ( _PBD_ at 381).

While the intermediate state is for believers a time of freedom from sin and pain, it is nevertheless also one of imperfection, or incompleteness. This is because the soul is without a body, which for man is an abnormal condition, and because Christ's rewards to His people for the labors of this life will not be given until his second coming. As John said at Revelation 14:13, "Blessed are the dead which die in the lord henceforth: yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors; and their works follow them." ( _PBD_ at 381)

For the ungenerate wicked, on the other hand, the "intermediate state involves conscious suffering and torment ( _PBD_ at 381).

The Jehovah's Witnesses also teach that "man is a combination of only two things, the 'dust of the ground' and 'the breath of life." The combination of these two things (or factors) produced a living soul or creature called man.... So we see that the claim of the religionists that man has an immortal soul and therefore differs from the beast is not scriptural" _Let God Be True_ (New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1952), p. 68. They go on to write, "There is nothing that humans have as a result of birth that gives them superiority over beasts when they die" ( _Reasoning from the Scriptures_ at 383).

While issues related to this false teaching will be explored in depth below, numerous learned theologians have easily dispensed with this novel idea – that man and beast are not different – based on the simple fact that man is created in God's image, a spiritual being of a much higher order, and the animals, or beasts, are not. Scripture is very clear that man has an immortal soul, whereas the beast does not.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are technically "materialists" and subscribe to the doctrine of materialism (not to be confused with greed and the accumulation of things). Materialists deny body/soul dualism and the very existence of a "soul." They believe all cognitive functions of thought, emotions, will and conscience, etc. are biological consequences of the material self, the body. When the body dies, that which traditionalists call the soul (spirit) simply vanishes and ceases to exist. "For the materialists, the soul, or the conscious life, is but a function of the organism, and necessarily perishes at death" (www.newadvent.org/cathen/07687a.htm).

Materialism is not unique to the Watchtower Society. It can be traced back to the Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-270 B.C.) who taught, among other things, that nothing exists except matter and space ( _PBD_ at 256). Epicurus believed that ... he could disprove the possibility of the soul's survival after death _Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy_ , <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/>. Furthermore, "[t]he Epicurean school offers us the most complete and reasoned negation of immortality among ancient philosophers" (newadvent.org/cathen/07687 at 3). Epicureanism was widespread and popular during the time of Christ, and it is logical to conclude that the Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine of materialism is rooted in this Greek philosophy.

Similarly, the ancient Sadducees, a religious party that existed during the time of Christ and which had members in the Jewish council called the Sanhedrin (which caused Christ to be put to death) denied "personal immortality, and retribution in a future life ( _PBD_ at 741), just like the Jehovah's Witnesses. "The doctrine of the Sadducees," wrote Josephus," is this, that souls die with the bodies," ( _Antiq_. Xviii. 1, 4); and again, "they also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades" ( _Jewish War_ , ii,i,14) ( _PBD_ at 741), just as the Jehovah's Witnesses teach.

In contemporary times the Jehovah's Witnesses are allied with secular atheists and other non-Christians on the margins who go to great lengths to deny the existence of the Christian immortal soul, or any soul for that matter, claiming that the Christian soul is nothing more than the product of an organism, secretions of the brain and such, basing their claims in part on "neurophysiology," ( _Restoring the Soul to Christianity_ , DR 502, J.P. Moreland, http://www.equip.org/articles/restoring-the-soul-to-christianity/).

Lastly, there has been a recent rash of materialist apologetics – evangelical preachers – who argue that Christian body/soul dualism is false, that a person is not a composite of body and soul, that the soul does not survive the death of the body, and the resurrected unsaved wicked are not punished eternally, or at all, but are simply extinguished, annihilated, being treated to a kinder, gentler, one-size-fits-all form of punishment. Of course it is no surprise that such modern-day preachers are attempting to overturn 2,000 years of Christian theology, for the Bible warns us that "in the last days, false teachers and false prophets will appear among us (2 Peter 2:1; Matthew 24:11).

Not only do the Jehovah's Witnesses deny the existence of a soul (spirit), but they also claim, against scriptural evidence to the contrary, that man's spirit given to man by God is only an "active life-force" sustained by breathing ( _Reasoning_ at 383). Spirit, to the Jehovah's Witnesses, is akin to an electrical current such as that from a battery which powers a radio, the human. Take away electricity and the radio dies and ceases to transmit. They write, "like electricity, the spirit has no feeling and cannot think" ( _Soul and Spirit: What do These Terms Really Mean?_ http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/appendix_07.htm). For Jehovah's Witnesses, the spirit is nothing more than "an invisible force (the spark of life) that animates all living creatures" ( _Spirit Identified_ at 12.) But this is not a Bible teaching.

Traditional Christians recognize in Scripture that the terms "soul" and "spirit" are used interchangeably where appropriate - the soul is the spirit, and the spirit is the soul - depending on context and other things. Furthermore, traditionalists understand correctly that the spirit is the repository of man's emotional and intellectual aspects, such as the rational and contemplating self, and a complex of attitudes and will power ( _PBD_ at 807). The Jehovah's Witnesses claim that all of these attributes become non-existent at death ( _Reasoning_ at 382-383, 100). Accordingly, even though the Bible states clearly that the spirit returns to God who gave it (Ecclesiastes 12:7), that at his death Jesus said, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit [Greek, _pneuma_ ] (Luke 23:46), and upon his death he "gave up his spirit" (Matthew 27:50, _NAB_ ), and the apostle John wrote that Jesus "handed over" his spirit (John 19:30), the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that what Jesus really meant was "that he knew that, when he died, his future life prospects rested entirely with God" ( _Reasoning_ at 383-384). They make this claim even though Jesus was the God-man - God the Son - who resurrected himself (John 2:19-22). Also noteworthy is the fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses fail to defend their theory by citing any relevant Scripture.

The Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine of materialism comes into play during two time periods. The first, which this paper addresses primarily, involves the intermediate stage of man's postmortem life, that period of time between death and resurrection, after the body dies and when the soul (spirit) dwells in an intermediate state. The second, with which this paper is not concerned, covers post-resurrection man and related topics such as the immortality of saints and sinners; whether the unredeemed are punished for sins committed in this body, and the duration and nature of that punishment, and similar issues. While these issues may be touched on where relevant here, these latter topics go beyond the scope of this writing.

BIBLICAL PROOF THAT AN IMMATERIAL DISEMBODIED SELF SURVIVES THE DEATH OF A MAN

There exists a significant amount of Scriptural evidence that upon death man continues in a disembodied state in an afterlife, also referred to as the nether world. The Jehovah's Witnesses mistakenly approach the issue at the outset with linguistic arguments, examining the definitions of Hebrew and Greek words foremost and initially, often out of context. For example, a primary tool used to deny the existence of a soul is the Hebrew term _nephesh_ , the word most often translated "soul" in the Old Testament. They rely heavily on Genesis 2:7: "And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul."

The Jehovah's Witnesses contend Adam was not given a soul, but merely came to be a living soul. Their error lies in elevating one instance of _nephesh_ over 750 other uses of the word, and other words and concepts and illustrations that speak of a soul which man possesses. They also attribute only three definitions to _nephesh_ (soul) when there are many others, and they consistently translate _nephesh_ as "soul" notwithstanding nuanced shades of meaning and context which mandate a different usage, and/or word to avoid confusion. (Ironically, Genesis 2:7, which the Jehovah's Witnesses rely heavily on to disprove the existence of the soul, is the same verse many traditionalists use to prove the opposite; that God breathed a soul (spirit) into Adam and thereby created a living being: "But it is a spirit in man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding" (Job 32:8).

But these issues pertaining to _nephesh_ (Hebrew, soul), and _ruach_ (Hebrew, spirit), _psuche_ (Greek, soul), and _pneuma_ (Greek, spirit) will be addressed later in this treatise. The questions one must ask initially are whether the Bible provides evidence of an afterlife for the human soul, whether beings, spiritual entities, subsist in an intermediate state after death, or, whether there is no such thing as a soul as Christians understand it, especially one that survives death, as the Jehovah's Witnesses mistakenly believe; and whether the decaying body returns to dust and all identifying characteristics of man are annihilated, made extinct and simply become non-existent.

As Scripture, including the Old Testament, makes abundantly clear there is a pre-resurrection afterlife, and the soul (spirit) as understood by Christendom continues on after death for the righteous and wicked in a disembodied, immaterial state. Any analysis pertaining to materialism and dualism must be undertaken in the context of this obvious fact.

A careful, open-minded study of the Bible makes it evident that man has a soul (and is a soul), a scriptural truth revealed progressively, like much of Scripture, especially in the New Testament Christian revelation which did much to clarify the dichotomous nature of man. Literal exposition, parables, allegory and metaphor all combine as a powerful testament to the existence of the human soul (spirit) before and after death, each adding weight to the sum total of the argument. As will be shown, contrary to the Jehovah's Witnesses and materialists of every stripe, over 2 billion Christians, backed by 2,000 years of theology and the Holy Bible have been correct all along.

"The idea of a distinction between the soul, the immaterial principle of life, and the body, is of great antiquity, though only gradually expressed with any precision. Hebrew thought made little of this distinction, and there is practically no specific teaching on the subject in the Bible beyond an underlying assumption of some form of afterlife" ( _Oxford_ at 1520). However, these assumptions of afterlife were based on sound scriptural evidence as will be shown, not invented out of whole cloth.

When analyzing the following verses, keep in mind Christ's words at John 11:26 where he said in part that "everyone who lives and believes in me will never die." Since men's physical, mortal bodies die, Jesus must be referring to the soul (spirit) which survives the death of the body; that is the only manner in which a believer will never die. Under the Jehovah's Witnesses' annihilation theory, those believers Jesus spoke to would have technically been dead for at least 2,000 years until the resurrection, which can't be true and would contradict Jesus' statement. The Jehovah's Witnesses have a tendency to say "that's not what that really means," and turn a reasonable understanding upside down, confusing what otherwise is rather straightforward. However, the prudent approach to reading Scripture is to read it as a normal, reasonable person would, looking for the most logical, common-sense meaning in context. This the Jehovah's Witnesses repeatedly fail to do.

Words other than _nephesh_ in the Old Testament are used when referring to departed souls, such as _rephaim_ , often translated in the English as 'shades' or 'healers.' _Rephaim_ are ghosts according to _Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of the Old and New Testament Words (Vine's_ ) and very much in existence according to the Old Testament as seen by Isaiah 14:9-10 ( _ESV_ ), which completely disproves the Jehovah's Witnesses' theory that only extinction follows man at death. In speaking of the king of Babylon, Isaiah wrote:

9 Sheol beneath is stirred up

to meet you when you come;

it rouses the shades to greet you,

all who were leaders of the earth;

it raises from their thrones

all who were kings of the nations.

10 All of them will answer

and say to you:

'You too have become as weak as we!

You have become like us!'

This passage in and of itself proves the Jehovah's Witnesses wrong. Here, the shades obviously exist and were not extinguished into nothingness. They even speak, and therefore think. The Watchtower leadership is fully aware of this insurmountable obstacle to their theology. To circumvent the problem they translate rephaim as "those impotent in death," but this does not help them in the slightest because it only describes one condition or attribute of the departed, that they are in a weakened condition, as seen by the answer the shades gave - that the king of Babylon would become weak like they had become. Nothing in these verses remotely suggests that these rephaim, or shades, don't exist; it's impossible, even if the shades are impotent with respect to their powers. Impotent does not mean annihilated, it does not mean nonexistent. Furthermore, Almighty God, YHWH, does not lie; his word is truth (Titus 1:2; John 17:17). If shades do not exist in the nether world of Sheol, he would never convey to his people that they did, and that they spoke and are conscious. God is telling us in no uncertain terms that an immaterial, conscious entity survives the death of the body.

That the departed dead spirits in Sheol are conscious and communicate and think is reiterated at Isaiah 29:4 (KJV) where God warned the inhabitants of Jerusalem of their impending destruction, writing through the prophet, "Prostrate you shall speak from the earth, and from the base dust your words shall come. Your voice shall be like a ghost's (Hebrew, owb) (Vine's at 178), from the earth, and your words like chirping from the dust." (NAB). According to Vine's, "Owb means 'spirit' (of the dead); necromancy, pit. This word usually represents the troubled spirit (or spirits) of the dead. This meaning appears unquestionably in Isaiah 29:4" (ibid.).

The psalmist at Psalm 88:11 "seeks to persuade God to act out of concern for divine honor: the shades (rephaim) give you no worship, so keep me alive to offer you praise" (NAB notes 8, 11-13). "Do you work wonders for the dead? Do the shades (rephaim) arise and praise you?" Had the shades (rephaim) not existed in Sheol this question could not have been asked. Far from non-existent, the departed dead, the wicked unredeemed shades, are impotent with respect to gratitude, praise and hope toward God, "For Sheol does not thank you, death does not praise you; those that go down to the pit do not hope for your faithfulness" (Isaiah 38:18, ESV).

For the wicked, their weakened condition is likened to "forgetfulness," where God works no wonders for the shades (rephaim) who are unwilling and unable to express their love for God. "Is your love proclaimed in the grave, your fidelity in the tomb? Are faithfulness in Abaddon? Are your wonders known in the darkness, or your righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?" (Psalm 88:10-12, ESV). The resurrection of the dead (as figuratively applied to the restoration of Israel in messianic times (NAB notes) envisions conscious and singing shades in the land of the departed (the netherworld) which gives birth to newly resurrected bodies, shades that are reunited with risen corpses: "But your dead shall shall live, their corpses shall rise; awake and sing, you who lie in the dust. For your dew is a dew of light, and the land of shades (rephaim) gives birth" (Isaiah 26;19, NAB).

Even Job, a blameless and upright man, acknowledged the existence of the departed dead, the shades, in Sheol, where, in his reply to Boldad's third speech he said, "The shades (rephaim) beneath writhe in terror, the waters and their inhabitants. Naked before him is the nether world (Sheol), and Abaddon has no covering." (Job 26:5,6, NAB). Not only do shades exist, but they exhibit emotions and tremble.

Similarly, the inspired writers of the Book of Proverbs were fully aware that the departed dead, the shades, reside in Sheol, the nether world; they were not annihilated, they did not become extinct at death. Speaking of the ways of the adulteress, Proverbs 2:18 provides: "For her path sinks down to death, and her footsteps lead to the shades (rephaim) (NAB). Referring to those who live a life of folly, Proverbs 9:18 warns, "Little he knows that the shades are there, that in the depths of the nether world (sheol) are her guests" (NAB). And Proverbs 21:16 is an unambiguous warning, "The man who strays from the way of good sense will abide in the assembly of the shades (rephaim).

One common misconception is that Sheol (Hebrew) is a place where only the wicked, unredeemed go, but that is not the case (PBD at 784). The grieving patriarch Jacob was inconsolable when told of his son Joseph's (fabricated) death, stating, "No, I will go down mourning to my son in the nether world (Sheol) (Genesis 37:35). Jacob, son of Isaac and father of twelve sons who in turn would father the twelve tribes of Israel, believed his eleventh son, Joseph, was dead and departed to Sheol, not extinct, and his grief was such that he wished to join him. And Job, while enduring excruciating torment, pleaded to God for shelter in the nether world of Sheol. He did not want to go there to be tormented further, but to escape the agony and torment he was suffering on earth, and then return: "Oh, that you would hide me in the nether world and keep me sheltered till your wrath is past," (Job 14:13). His agony was so great he wondered why he wasn't delivered a stillborn baby; then he would find rest in Sheol:" For then I would have lain down and been quiet; I would have slept; then I would have been at rest. (Job 3:13, ESV). One cannot be extinct and non-existent and yet enjoy restful sleep and later return to the world when God's wrath is over. It's not possible.

King David was fully aware that Sheol was a place to which souls depart, writing, "For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption," (Psalm 16:10, ESV). He repeatedly speaks of Sheol as a place, as a concrete figure of speech, as a destination from which souls are brought up, and prevented from going down into (see Psalms 139:8, 49:15, 86:13). God, through David, would never have uttered these words if no such place existed where souls go. Sheol is a reality, a destination for the departed dead made abundantly clear at Psalm 139:8: "If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, you are there." Annihilationism cannot be read into these verses.

Rachel cannot be non-existent as her voice is heard in Ramah: "Thus says the Lord, "A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more (Jeremiah 31:15, ESV). Ramah is "a village about five miles north of Jerusalem, where Rachel was buried (1 Samuel 10, 2). Rachel is said to mourn for her children since she was the ancestress of Ephraim, the chief of the northern tribes. Matthew 2:18 applies this verse to the slaughter of the innocent by Herod" (NAB notes, 31-15).

And the great prophet Ezekiel was instructed by Almighty God to lament the wicked of Egypt destined for the pit of the nether world. A place in Sheol "shall be made them for all their hordes" (Ezekiel 32:20, NAB). These Egyptian hordes cannot be non-existent because "from the midst of the nether world the mighty warriors shall speak to Egypt: "Whom do you excel in beauty? Come down, you and your allies, lie with the uncircumcised, with those slain by the sword" (vv. 20-21). Those that go down to the pit are not only conscious, but experience emotion, as they "bear their disgrace with those who go down to the pit" (Ezekiel 32:24, NAB).

It is not credible to believe those destined for Sheol are destined to non-existence because Psalm 49:14-20 tells us that they are akin to sheep herded into their new palace, indicative of the nether world of Sheol. Psalm 49:14:20 is a frank admonishment to the wealthy wicked, whose trust in riches rather than Almighty God, YHWH, is folly because their wealth cannot accompany any of them down to where their ancestors are:

14 This is the destiny of those who trust in folly,

the end of those so pleased with their wealth.

15 Like sheep they are herded into Sheol,

Where death will be their shepherd.

Straight to the grave they descend,

where their form will waste away.

Sheol will be their palace.

16 But God will redeem my life,

will take me from the power of Sheol.

17 Do not fear when others become rich,

when the wealth of their houses grows great.

18 When they die they will take nothing with them,

their wealth will not follow them down.

19 When living, they congratulate themselves and say:

"All praise you, you do so well."

20 But they will join the company of their forebears,

never again to see the light.

Verse 20, whereby those going down "will join the company of their forebears" is to be taken literally; it's not simply a figure of speech. Similarly, when Abraham died and was "taken to his kinsmen," (Genesis 25:8 and many other references in the Bible where those who die go to join their ancestors), he actually did join his ancestors as a disembodied immaterial spirit.

"Necromancy was a form of witchcraft and was considered as one of the "black" or diabolical arts. Etymologically, the term signifies conversing with the dead for purposes of consultation or divination. The Mosaic Law sternly forbade such a practice (Deuteronomy 18:10, 11) (PBD at 578).

10 Let there not be found among you anyone who immolates his son or daughter in the fire, nor a fortune-teller, soothsayer, charmer, diviner, or caster of spells, nor one who consults ghosts and spirits or seeks oracle from the dead. ( NAB; see also Leviticus 19:31, 20:6).

God does not say that such ghosts, spirits and the departed dead don't exist, so don't bother trying to conjure them up. But rather, he's saying that they do exist and he does not want man to bring them up or communicate with them. 1 Samuel 28:8-19 illustrates rather succinctly that the departed dead (the prophet Samuel) exist as conscious beings. King Saul sought out the witch of Endor so that she might conjure up the dead prophet. Saul was at war with the Philistines and God had abandoned him. Saul wanted Samuel to tell him what to do. Samuel appeared and gave Saul the bad news, that the Lord was going to deliver Israel and the army of Israel into the hand of the Philistines, and Saul and his sons would die the next day.

8 So Saul disguised himself and put on other garments and went, he and two men with him. And they came to the woman by night. And he said, "Divine for me by a spirit and bring up for me whomever I shall name to you." 9 The woman said to him, "Surely you know what Saul has done, how he has cut off the mediums and the necromancers from the land. Why then are you laying a trap for my life to bring about my death?" 10 But Saul swore to her by the Lord, "As the Lord lives, no punishment shall come upon you for this thing." 11 Then the woman said, "Whom shall I bring up for you?" He said, "Bring up Samuel for me." 12 When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice. And the woman said to Saul, "Why have you deceived me? You are Saul." 13 The king said to her, "Do not be afraid. What do you see?" And the woman said to Saul, "I see a god coming up out of the earth." 14 He said to her, "What is his appearance?" And she said, "An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped in a robe." And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and paid homage.

15 Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" Saul answered, "I am in great distress, for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams. Therefore I have summoned you to tell me what I shall do." 16 And Samuel said, "Why then do you ask me, since the Lord has turned from you and become your enemy? 17 The Lord has done to you as he spoke by me, for the Lord has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, David. 18 Because you did not obey the voice of the Lord and did not carry out his fierce wrath against Amalek, therefore the Lord has done this thing to you this day. 19 Moreover, the Lord will give Israel also with you into the hand of the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me. The Lord will give the army of Israel also into the hand of the Philistines." (1 Samuel 28:8-19, _ESV_ )

The Jehovah's Witnesses argue that the prophet Samuel could not have been conjured up because nothing survives death, and therefore the spirit of Samuel did not exist; his so-called appearing and speaking was just a trick of some sort and Saul merely let himself be deceived. The voice Saul allegedly heard, they claim, was that of an imposter" (Reasoning at 385).

Given the substantial body of evidence cited thus far, the Jehovah's Witnesses' claim is unfounded. We can be certain that Samuel in spirit appeared and was a true prophet of God and not a false prophet or deceiver because his prophecy was true and fulfilled. Israel was given into the hands of the Philistines, and Saul and his sons were indeed killed just as Samuel foretold.

31 Now the Philistines were fighting against Israel, and the men of Israel fled before the Philistines and fell slain on Mount Gilboa. 2 And the Philistines overtook Saul and his sons, and the Philistines struck down Jonathan and Abinadab and Malchi-shua, the sons of Saul. 3 The battle pressed hard against Saul, and the archers found him, and he was badly wounded by the archers. 4 Then Saul said to his armor-bearer, "Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and mistreat me." But his armor-bearer would not, for he feared greatly. Therefore Saul took his own sword and fell upon it. 5 And when his armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell upon his sword and died with him. 6 Thus Saul died, and his three sons, and his armor-bearer, and all his men, on the same day together. (1 Samuel 31:1-6, ESV)

The test for determining whether Samuel was a false prophet, or a true prophet who claims to speak for God, is found at Deuteronomy 18:21-22: "Even though a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if his oracle is not fulfilled or verified, it is an oracle which the Lord did not speak." "True prophets were accredited in that their prophecies were fulfilled (Deuteronomy 18:20ff) (PBD at 688). "False prophets, on the other hand, would find that their prophecies were not accredited or fulfilled (ibid). Accordingly, Samuel, who was reiterating the message God sent through him, was a true prophet because what he said came true. He was not a deceiver or an imposter. And God would never deceive his people who read these verses if Samuel did not exist. God does not lie.

"It should be noted that "[h]uman beings cannot communicate at will with the souls of the dead. God may, however, permit a departed soul to appear to the living and even disclose things unknown to them. Saul's own prohibition of necromancy and divination (v.3) was in keeping with consistent teaching of the Old Testament. If we are to credit the reality of the apparition to Saul, it was due, not to the summons of the witch, but to God's will; the woman merely furnished the occasion" (NAB notes 28:12).

Given the evidence thus far it is clear that any claim by the Jehovah's Witnesses that man's immaterial self does not survive death is simply not true. While the Old Testament offered a vague conception of the body/soul dichotomy, they knew quite well that departed, disembodied spirits continue on in the afterlife although their understanding lacked the forceful clarity found in the New Testament. Like so much of Scripture, revelation of the dichotomous nature of man, and our increased understanding of that, has been progressive, much like our understanding of the Holy Trinity, or what the Apostle Paul called the "mystery of Christ" (Ephesians 3:4,5). There's nothing wrong with progressive revelation. That's what God intended.

BODY SOUL DUALISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

The most emphatic scriptural proof of body-soul dualism is found at Matthew 10:28 where Jesus said, "[Do] not be afraid of those who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul ( _psuche_ ); rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna." Jesus here reaffirms the traditionalist doctrine that the created immortal soul joined to the body at conception is not destructible by secondary sources – anything other than YHWH, God Almighty. That is the focus of the first part of the sentence - do not fear secondary sources (man) who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul, which can only be destroyed by God in _gehenna_ , however "destruction" is defined.

The fact that Christ said the soul remains after the body dies is strong evidence disproving the Jehovah's Witnesses' and all materialists' theory that the soul dies with the body. It also proves that body and soul are not the same thing; the soul cannot only be the body/person as the Jehovah's Witnesses incorrectly teach. If the soul is the body/person, then nothing would remain after death, but Jesus taught the exact opposite; the soul remains.

The Jehovah's Witnesses also argue that the "soul" refers to the "life one enjoys." But the first part of Matthew 10:28 disproves this theory as well. If the Jehovah's Witnesses' limited concept of soul ( _psuche_ ) is the "life one enjoys," but the body is killed, there can't be any life remaining to be enjoyed because they claim, falsely, that all vestiges of man either return to dust or are completely annihilated. The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that body/person and soul are the same thing, but Jesus said the opposite: the soul (spirit) remains after the body is killed, and therefore the body/person and soul are not always the same thing.

Christian theologians have recognized the obvious for centuries. The Greek word for 'body' is _soma_ ( _Strong and Vine's_ , 4983). According to _Vine's_ , "the body is not the man, for he himself can exist apart from his body (2 Corinthians 12:2-3). (9) The body is an essential part of the man and therefore the redeemed are not perfected until the resurrection, Hebrews 11:40; no man in his final state will be without his body, John 5:28-29; Revelation 20:13. (10) The word is also used of physical nature, as distinct (10a) from _pneuma_ , the spiritual nature, e.g. 1 Thessalonians 5:23. (10c) _Soma_ , 'body' and _pneuma_ , 'spirit,' may separated" ( _Vine's_ at 245). Jesus proved at Matthew 10:28 that the Jehovah's Witnesses' theology is illogical. Anyone exercising a measure of common sense should be able to recognize this.

At Matthew 10:28 Jesus was instructing his disciples to have courage under pending persecution for their faith and proclamation of the Gospel; to fear no man. Fear should be reserved for Almighty God, Yahweh, who, being Almighty, has the power to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna, which man cannot.

The apostle Paul's explicit teachings on the issue of body-soul dualism, and that the immaterial self that is the soul (spirit) can subsist apart from the body and is not made extinct at death, is in full accord with Matthew 10:28. Illustrative is 2 Corinthians 12:1-4 where there can be no mistake that Paul believed a person's soul (spirit) can leave the body, and that the soul (spirit) is actually "in" the body. Speaking of his vision and revelations, where Paul (presumably) was caught up to the third heaven, Paul wrote: "I must go on boasting. Though whether in the body or out of the body I do not know...."

That the individual could leave the body could not, and would not, have been stated if that were not possible. Paul would have been illogical, and scripturally misleading, if that transmigrating "self" or "ego" did not exist, as the Jehovah's Witnesses erroneously claim. The same line of reasoning is stated at Philippians 1:21-24 where Paul's desire was to "depart and be with Christ." The only reasonable and normal interpretation recognizes that there is some thing that departs the body, or can exist outside of the body, and that a soul (spirit) actually exists notwithstanding what the Jehovah's Witnesses teach.

Paul also, in no uncertain terms, makes it abundantly clear at 2 Corinthians 5:1-10 that a man resides in a "tent" or "tabernacle," and while these verses deal predominantly with the resurrection, they also address the pre-resurrection intermediate state.

5 For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. 2 Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, 3 because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. 4 For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

6 Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7 For we live by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9 So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad. ( _NIV_ )

Paul's statements that "while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord," and that we would be "away from the body and at home with the Lord" ( _NAB_ "leave the body"), and at Philippians 1:21-24 that it was Paul's desire to "depart and be with Christ" leaves no room for a two-thousand-year, or more, gap between Paul's departure and his being with the Lord, which the Jehovah's Witnesses would have you believe would occur at the resurrection. No such gap can reasonably be read into these verses; absolutely nothing even remotely suggests such a hiatus. To the contrary, at Philippians 1:21 Paul said "to die is gain"; but two thousand years of nonexistence is not gain but a loss. Paul wrote only of two choices, a) when in the body one is away from the Lord, and b) when with the Lord one is away from the body. And the trip is immediate.

Jesus on the cross made this clear when he told the criminal at his side, "I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). Virtually every Christian denomination on earth and biblical scholars world wide have known this to mean that the criminal, who experienced a death-bed conversion, would depart his body and be in the company of Jesus' soul in the intermediate state that day, not two thousand years in the future.

The Jehovah's Witnesses, quite infamously, chose, in their New World Translation Bible ( _NWT_ ) to insert the comma after the word "today" so that it reads "I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise." This incredibly awkward construction is not normal, and should not be given credence in light of the aforementioned evidence that the transition between death and being with Christ is immediate – Jesus was not referring to the resurrection in the distant future. After all, he said earlier in his ministry that whoever "lives and believes me will never die" (John 11:26), which necessitates the criminal's continued existence, and which could only refer to his soul (spirit) continuing without extinction. Traditionalists have a reasonable and normal understanding of Jesus' words, but the Jehovah's Witnesses do not. But for the sake of argument, even if Jesus said, "I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise," nothing in this sentence prevents the criminal from joining Christ that very day. ("I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise," said Jesus. "When?" asked the criminal, to which Jesus replied, "Today, very soon, in a few hours.")

The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the story of the rich man (Dives) and Lazarus is a parable where the rich man represents the Pharisees, and Lazarus the common Jewish people who repented and became followers of Jesus. Their deaths were merely symbolic and represent a change in circumstances, a role reversal for the favored and despised ( _Reasoning_ at 175).

19 "There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side.[a] The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.' 25 But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.' 27 And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house— 28 for I have five brothers[b]—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' 29 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' 30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'" ( _ESV_ )

The Jehovah's Witnesses are correct in recognizing the symbolic role reversal between the rich man and Lazarus. The reversed conditions the two men find themselves in are a stark forewarning, and mirror the beatitudes at Luke 6:20, 21; 24, 25. "Blessed are you who are now hungry, for you will be satisfied. Woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are filled now, for you will be hungry." But the story addresses many other issues other than a role reversal, and is packed with useful insight, the most obvious being that the departed, conscious, dead like the rich man and Lazarus, and Abraham, reside in an intermediate state.

Actually, mainstream theology agrees, somewhat, that verses 30 and 31 pertain to the Christian message. The Roman Catholic Church and other denominations understand these verses to be "[a] foreshadowing... of the rejection of the call to repentance even after Jesus' resurrection" ( _NAB_ notes 16, 30-31). But that's not the sole lesson to be learned. One of the more salient points made is a stark warning to take care of the needy and desperate if it is within one's means, or you might suffer the same fate as the compassion-less rich man.

Even though most consider the story to be a parable, some interpret the rendering literally, and the Jehovah's Witnesses attack such literalists, assuming that all Christians regard it as historical fact, which they don't all believe to be so. Even if it were meant to be taken literally, which is possible, the Jehovah's Witnesses attempt to strike it down in its entirety simply because it contains metaphor within the story. In other words, they argue the story can't be real because those enjoying divine favor could not literally fit on Abraham's bosom, and a mere drop of water could never quench the rich man's thirst or survive the parched literal heat of the literal burning fire ( _Reasoning_ at 174-175). But these illustrations are metaphor or figures of speech peculiar to the times. Lying in Abraham's bosom is a term of endearment, representing a special relationship ("The Son, who is in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18). The drop of water on the tip of Lazarus' finger symbolizes the abject desperation and despair the tormented rich man is enduring – his anguish is such that he'll "take anything." And the burning flames represent the punishment awaiting those doomed to perdition. (While some Christian denominations continue to believe the fires of hell are literal flames of fire, conservatives generally do not.) The point is, even a literal translation of the story containing figures of speech and metaphor to enhance the meaning would pass muster.

We know dead Lazarus and the rich man are in the intermediate state because the rich man refers to his five living brothers still on earth, so it must take place prior to the resurrection. As a parable the story is no less truthful as were all of Christ's parables, and this one is meant to convey important scriptural truth. Jesus never lied or mislead his people, which is what he would have done with this story if all men's souls (spirits) are extinguished at death.

As stated, the story of postmortem Lazarus and the rich man illustrates that departed souls are conscious and can experience comfort, torment and anguish, and they are capable of communication. It tells us Abraham is alive, just as Jesus reiterated what God said in the present tense, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." He is not the God of the dead," Jesus said, "but of the living" (Matthew 22:32, _ESV_ ) ("to [God] all are alive") (Luke 20:38, _NAB_ ). Here God is speaking of two things, a) the resurrection, and b) the living soul (spirit) that animates the body, the soul being the true person.

While the general discussion of Matthew 22:32 pertained to the future resurrection, it also refers to those in the intermediate state; it is only the dead physical body that is resurrected, to be rejoined and animated by the soul. But it is the soul (spirit) which God regards as being presently "alive" because a "body without a spirit is dead." (James 2:26). Because God and Jesus spoke in the present tense of the departed as living, these specific words could not have referred to a future resurrection but dealt, specifically and by necessity, with souls in the intermediate state which play a vital role in the future resurrection; the eventual soul (spirit) and body reunion.

But the primary reason the Jehovah's Witnesses view the parable of the rich man and Lazarus as such a threat to their theology and dismiss it so casually is because it clearly states that man will have had sufficient warning in the present age ( _PBD_ at 480), and because the story teaches that man's destiny is settled at death. There is no "second chance" (ibid.). "Human beings die once, then after this the judgment (Hebrews 9:27). This Bible teaching is in direct contradiction to the Jehovah's Witnesses' salvation plan (one of several) which is premised on a "second chance" at salvation for virtually all of mankind, most of whom will supposedly be resurrected on earth where they will reside during the 1,000-year-reign.

In addition, what most non-Jehovah's Witnesses don't realize is that the Jehovah's Witnesses teach, incorrectly, that "man is acquitted of his sins at death" ( _Insight_ , 788; _Reasoning_ , 338), taking Romans 6:7 completely out of context, and accordingly no man would be punished for sins committed in this life, only those sins committed during the 1,000-year-reign, which is a very attractive recruitment tool, to say the least. To them, man's death in this life is sufficient punishment, and thus all unredeemed men are punished equally, regardless of the degree of their sins.

Needless to say, the Jehovah's Witnesses' bizarre theories in this matter are completely unbiblical, issues addressed in great detail in the accompanying online treatise entitled " **Why the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong teaching that only 144,000 go to heaven, and much more** **"**

which can be found here: <http://144000.110mb.com/144000/index.html#home>

For purposes of this paper, suffice it to say that it is not death that acquits (declared not guilty) redeemed, believing Christians of their sins, but the death and blood of Christ, which is a fundamental Christian doctrine that continues to elude the Jehovah's Witnesses. As Paul wrote at Romans 5:16 and elsewhere, it was the "gift" of his death for our sins that "brought acquittal," not man's death.

But to reiterate, there is no second chance, which is one of the messages of the rich man and Lazarus, and the Jehovah's Witnesses don't want to hear that. "Scripture represents the state of the lost after death as a fixed state," (Luke 16:19-31) ( _PBD_ at 381). "We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ so that each one may receive recompense according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil" (2 Corinthians 5:10). "Now is the day of salvation" (2 Corinthians 6:2). "The Lord knows how to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment (2 Peter 2:9). Obviously, there is no second chance or probationary period. The final judgment will be determined by what man does in this life, in this body, not some future state of existence (see also Matthew 7:22,23; 25:41-46).

In this regard the story of the rich man and Lazarus is toxic to the Watchtower Society and completely undermines their religion, which explains their motive for dismissing it, including the all-too-obvious underlying message that, like Lazarus and the rich man, the departed conscious dead migrate to an intermediate state; they are not annihilated, they do not become extinguished. The supernatural order for departed humans does in fact exist today.

The message that the departed are currently alive spiritually is driven home in the account of the transfiguration of Jesus, the appearance of the living Moses and Elijah, the sound of God's voice, and Peter, James and John bearing witness to the event. At Matthew 16:28, Jesus spoke with his disciples and said, "Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." In the next sentence Matthew writes:

1 And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light. 3 And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. 4 And Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah." 5 He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my beloved Son,[a] with whom I am well pleased; listen to him." 6 When the disciples heard this, they fell on their faces and were terrified. 7 But Jesus came and touched them, saying, "Rise, and have no fear." 8 And when they lifted up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only.

9 And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, "Tell no one the vision, until the Son of Man is raised from the dead." (Matthew 17:1-9, _RSV_ )

The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that even though Christ was actually there, "Moses and Elijah, who were dead, were not literally present. They were represented in vision" ( _Insight_ at 1121). But if Moses and Elijah were actually present at the transfiguration and are not dead, and if their appearance and the transfiguration event were not mere visions of the mind, their materialist, annihilation theory is proven wrong.

First, it is well known that while Moses died a physical death, Elijah did not. Elijah never died ( _PBD_ at 246). And as the previous discussion has made clear, man, including Moses, might die a physical death but live on in a disembodied state.

Secondly, the Greek word for this vision is _harfoma_ (3705), and "as a noun signifies that which is seen and denotes (1) 'a spectacle, sight'," Matthew 17:9; Acts 7:31 ("sight") ( _Vine's_ at 180). But this vision was seen with the eyes, not the mind. Peter verified, at 2 Peter 1:16-18, the historical accuracy of what they witnessed – with their own eyes, including the appearance of Moses and Elijah, where Peter wrote, "For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased," we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain." "[The transfiguration's] historical reality is attested to by the Apostle Peter," ( _PBD_ at 867). Moses and Elijah were actually present because Peter identified them by name, and therefore must have been eyewitnesses of their presence, and, Luke wrote that the disciples heard the conversation between Jesus, Elijah and Moses, and Peter and his companions actually "saw the two men standing with him" (Luke 9:30-32).

Third, any claim that the events of Christ's transfiguration were forward-projected visions of the resurrected likewise fails because according to the Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ returned (allegedly) invisibly (at the second coming) in 1914. By the time Moses and Elijah are resurrected and can stand in the presence of the Jehovah's Witnesses' version of Jesus, Christ would be invisible to Peter, James and John.

Fourth, the transfiguration event could not be a post-resurrection vision because Elijah and Moses spoke to Jesus about his departure, or exodus – his pending death by crucifixion, resurrection and ascension. "And behold, two men were conversing with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his exodus he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem" (Luke 9:30, 31). If the transfiguration was a forward-projected post-resurrection vision in the minds of Peter, James and John, it would have been pointless to discuss Jesus' "pending" exodus that would have happened 2,000 years or more earlier. And if Moses and Elijah did not exist at all, Jesus would have been delusional speaking to them. Such a scenario is neither logical nor possible.

Finally, because Jesus does not lie or deceive his people, even pursuant to a vision of the mind 2,000 years ago, that visible real-time appearance of Moses and Elijah is intended to reflect reality and truth. If they did not exist, God would not have caused them to appear; he would not have intentionally mislead his people into believing they exist when they don't. God does not lie.

The evidence that a disembodied soul (spirit) survives human death is substantial. The inspired writer of Hebrews made it unmistakeably clear that the spirits of the redeemed go to heaven "[In] the exalted description of the heavenly goal which lies before the church (Hebrews 12:22-24), the blessed dead are referred to as "the spirits of just men made perfect" ( _PBD_ at 808). They are not extinct.

22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly[a] of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

25 See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven. (Hebrews 12:22-25, _ESV_ )

Neither can these verses refer to a future post-resurrection reality because v. 25 clarifies that God here warns men from heaven, now. If verse 23 refers to post-resurrection man, God's warning to obedience meant for those alive on earth would be pointless.

The Jehovah's Witnesses contend that at death no spirit (soul) travels to heaven because they are immediately extinguished, and compare "departed spirits" like those handed back to God by Jesus and the martyr Stephen to the technical change of ownership of a piece of property. They write:

"Then the dust returns to the earth just as it happened to be and the spirit [or, life-force; Hebrew, _ruach_ ] itself returns to the true God who gave it." (Notice that the Hebrew word for spirit is _ruach_ ; but the word translated soul is nephesh. The text does not mean that at death the spirit travels all the way to the personal presence of God; rather, any prospects for the person to live again rests with God. In similar usage, we may say that, if required payments are not made by the buyer of a piece of property, the property "returns" to its owner." ( _Reasoning_ at 378)

With respect to the Jehovah's Witnesses' comparison to the transfer of property ownership, their analogy is flawed in the extreme. If the seller of a piece of personal property, for instance an automobile, does not receive payment and the buyer is in default, the seller takes back the car – it's not a mere formality of ownership – the dealership will repossess the vehicle and rightfully claim title; it won't destroy the car and make it disappear or burn all of the paperwork and wait until a future time to rebuild the exact same automobile. As with the dealer who sold a car to a buyer and takes it back on default, so God Almighty gives man a spirit (soul) and takes it back at death, which is precisely what Ecclesiastes 12:7 teaches, whether the disembodied are called souls, spirits or shades. It provides, "the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it."

Ecclesiastes 12:7 is powerful testimony that a man's spirit exists and that it does not vanish at death but travels to God. No other conclusion can be drawn given a normal, reasonable reading of this verse particularly when above-mentioned Hebrews 12:23 specifically states that the pre-resurrection spirits of "just men made perfect" are exactly where Ecclesiastes 12:7 said they would be - with "God the judge of all." To add weight to this biblical fact is Revelation 6:9-11 where John wrote of his heavenly, pre-resurrection vision, and "saw underneath the alter the souls of those who had been slaughtered because of the witness they bore to the word of God." These souls (spirits) did not simply vanish into thin air; they exist and are real.

NEPHESH, HEBREW (SOUL)

The Hebrew term _nephesh_ is generally translated "soul" in English. _Nephesh_ has a variety of meanings and appears over 750 times in the Old Testament. According to "a Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament," _nephesh_ primarily means 1) the life principle, 2) various figurative usages, and 3) a man's soul "that departs at death and returns with life at the resurrection." ( _Brown, Drive, and Briggs,_ A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1953, 1977), 220).

According to _Vine's_ , it can mean a breathing creature, animal or man. " _Nephesh_ means soul; self; life; person; heart" (at 189, 5315). "(1c) The best biblical definition is found at Psalm 103:1 where _nephesh_ is defined as "all that is within a person: 'Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me, bless his holy name." "The inner person is _nephesh_ ...." "Soul of man means that 'immaterial part, which moves into the afterlife [the body is buried and decomposes] and needs atonement to enter into God's presence upon death" (ibid.) "(5a) Soul parallels the whole individual "him," or "I" (ibid.).

The Jehovah's Witnesses on the other hand have developed their own limited definitions for _nephesh_. "Bible usage," they write, "shows the soul to be a person or an animal or the life that a person or an animal enjoys." It is not "the principle of life" ( _Reasoning_ at 375). They teach that no one "has" a soul (ibid.); God never gave man a soul, and a man's soul is not the same as his spirit ( _Reasoning_ at 378). They also believe that spirit (Hebrew, _ruach_ ) which animates a creature with the "breath of life" is a mere spark, like an electrical charge which dissipates after the engine has been started. Once the body of man dies, they teach, all traces of him, including spirit and soul, disappear and are annihilated ( _Reasoning_ at 382) . There is no spirit in man in the conventional Christian sense, they teach, particularly one which exhibits emotion or thought ( _Soul and Spirit_ , http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/appendix_07.htm).

But the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong on many levels. God doesn't simply deliver a spark of breath to activate the body, but he thereafter actively "forms the spirit of man within him (Zechariah 12:1). "[I]t is a spirit in man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding" (Job 32:8). Furthermore, God, who is a spirit person, also has, and/or is, a _nephesh_ (soul): "And [God's] soul ( _nephesh_ ) was grieved with the misery of Israel" (Judges 10:16; cf Isaiah 1:14 ( _Green's Literal Translation_ ). _Nephesh_ (soul) therefore is not limited to material entities, but it can be a spiritual entity, and as we all know, man was created in the image of God.

Traditional Christians have understood _nephesh_ (soul) to mean a person or an animal long before the Jehovah's Witnesses' religion first appeared in the mid-nineteenth century. They also agree that _nephesh_ (soul) quite often refers to a person or animals, dead or alive. Similarly, traditionalists know full well that _nephesh_ can mean "life," all of which ultimately depends on context. But in the Jehovah's Witnesses' elaborate efforts to defend these definitions that need no defending, they have completely missed the point. The primary issue is whether the _nephesh_ (soul) can also refer to the immaterial spiritual self, the ego, that conscious entity which survives death and is capable of emotion and thought, which it does, contrary to the Jehovah's Witnesses' false assertion that at death the soul (spirit) is extinguished.

Furthermore, the Jehovah's Witnesses also argue that soul and spirit are not the same, that they are completely separate, which is understandable because if soul and spirit are the same and occasionally synonymous, the Jehovah's Witnesses' theology collapses. Substance dualism, the dichotomy of body and soul (spirit) in Christian thought so evident in the New Testament, is also evident in the Old Testament, though not as pronounced. There, _Nephesh_ can refer to the immaterial, spiritual self. It does not simply mean a person, animal or the life one enjoys. At Psalm 49:15 we read where the departed wicked rich are herded alive into their new palace called Sheol, the nether world, and Sheol according to the numerous verses quoted earlier, while metaphorically called the "grave" sometimes, in reality is a place of conscious existence. This has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. And since all men are _nephesh_ (souls), the wicked rich are also _nephesh_ (souls) who go to Sheol, not in the flesh but as spiritual entities. Therefore the departed _nephesh_ (souls) are spiritual.

While the New Testament writers spoke of body-soul dualism (body and soul not being the same) the Old Testament, among its varied definitions of _nephesh_ , also includes this dichotomous dual nature, referring to it as the outer man and the inner man. "The inner person is _nephesh_ " ( _Vine's_ at 189). When the Old Testament refers to man as a whole it is nevertheless a unity of body and soul, the holistic oneness of a man composed of two parts (Moreland at 2). When the Bible refers to a _nephesh_ (soul) as speaking or thinking, it is referring not to the body, mere flesh, which without the spirit is dead (James 2:26), but to the rational spiritual aspect that is the man proper; that's who we really are.

And this _nephesh_ (soul) can be something which is within the person, made clear at Job 14:22 where "his soul ( _nephesh_ ) within him shall mourn." Other verses reaffirm that the soul ( _nephesh_ ) can be something which one has, which therefore was given to man from the Almighty: "[H]er _nephesh_ (soul) was vexed within her" (2 Kings 4:27); "My soul is cast down within me," (Psalm 42:6); "[M]y soul fainted within me" (Jonah 2:7).

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN NEPHESH (SOUL) AND RUACH (SPIRIT)

The Hebrew term _ruach_ can also mean "spirit," among numerous other definitions, and the fact that _ruach_ is also spoken of as being within a person is strong evidence that _nephesh_ (soul) and _ruach_ (spirit) in the proper context can be interchangeable terms because they can refer to the same thing. Daniel wrote of his _ruach's_ (spirit's) anguish within its sheath of flesh, the spirit likened to a sword that is inserted and removed from its sheath (Daniel 7:15, _NAB_ ). The Hebrew for sheath is _nidneh (_ 5085), and is defined figuratively as "the body (as the receptacle of the soul" ( _Vine's_ at 181).

Other Old Testament verses read "the spirit ( _ruach_ ) within me constraineth me" (Job 3:18); Renew in me a steadfast spirit ( _ruach_ ) (Psalm 51:12); "my spirit ( _ruach_ ) is feint within me" (Psalm 142:3(4). The prophet Isaiah knew full well that soul and spirit can refer to the same entity when he bound them together in parallel unity, writing at Isaiah 26:9:

My soul ( _nephesh_ ) yearns for you in the night,

yes, my spirit ( _ruach_ ) within me keeps vigil for you.

The Old Testament soul ( _nephesh_ ) and spirit ( _ruach_ ) exhibit additional traits which indicate they can, in the proper context, refer to each other; they can be synonymous. " _Nephesh_ also refers to the seat of emotion, volition, moral attitudes, and desire/longing for God (Micah 7:1; Proverbs 21:10; Isaiah. 26:9; Deuteronomy 6:5; 21:14)" The _nephesh_ (soul) has cognitive skills; it can bless (Genesis 27:4), love (1 Kings 2:4), desire (1 Kings 11:37); it can feel anguish (2 Kings 4:27). The list of characteristics of the _nephesh_ are considerable, but these things the _nephesh_ (soul) does cannot be attributed to mere unanimated flesh, a static body, but rather, that rational, animated aspect of the "person" which is the spiritual aspect, that which makes man human and who we are.

A man's Old Testament spirit ( _ruach_ ) also can display characteristics similar to the immaterial soul ( _nephesh_ ). _Brown, Driver and Briggs_ list nine meanings for _ruach_ (spirit) including "the principle of life in humans and animals," "disembodied spirits," "the seat of emotions," and "the seat of mind and will in humans" (Moreland at 3). _Vine's_ states that " _ruwach_ frequently represents the element of life in a man, his natural "spirit," (7307 at 259). "At Proverbs 16:2 the word appears to mean more than just the element of life; it seems to mean "soul": "All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the Lord weigheth the spirits.... Thus, Isaiah can put _nephesh_ (5315), "soul," and _ruwach_ in synonymous parallelism: "With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea with my spirit within me will I seek thee early." _Ruach_ is used to describe a man's mind-set, disposition, or temper (Psalm 32:2); it refers to a man's mind and thinking (Ezekiel. 13:3; cf Proverbs 29:11), disposition (Job 2:11), joy (Psalm 51:12), and the cause of volition, or will (Proverbs 16:32)

As illustrated above with literal and metaphorical examples, and supported by linguistic construction, God is rightfully called "God of the spirits of all mankind" (Numbers 16:22; cf 27:16), spirits which are invisible, conscious and independent beings that can exist apart from the body of a person. Many such examples in the Old Testament abound, and the obvious conclusion is that there are unmistakeable similarities between one definition of _nephesh_ (soul) which refers to the spiritual, immaterial self, and a man's _ruach_ (spirit); often they are synonymous.

It is scripturally illogical to conclude, as the Jehovah's Witnesses do, that a soul ( _nephesh_ ) is never synonymous with a man's spirit ( _ruach_ ), that the _nephesh_ (soul) is only a person, animal, or the life one enjoys, and that man does not possess a _nephesh_ (soul), or that a man's _ruach_ (spirit) is a mere electrical spark, or breath of life, that animates a body of flesh; or that a man's spirit is only the product of cerebral electrodes and body fluids; or that "the spirit has no feeling and cannot think," and that the spirit is nothing more than "the force that brings our body to life" (Watchtower at 13, from " _Soul and Spirit - What do these Terms Really Mean?_ "

The Jehovah's Witnesses' confusion may be attributed in part to rendering every 754 occurrences of _nephesh_ as "soul" rather than applying a nuanced interpretation as other Bibles do. (In all fairness to the Watchtower Society, the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation Bible isn't the only culprit.) Non-nuanced versions of _nephesh_ lend themselves to ambiguity and confusion given the many varied contexts within which the term is used.

For instance, always translating _nephesh_ as soul allows the Jehovah's Witnesses to suggest that traditionalists believe that _nephesh_ means a "spiritual soul" every time that term is used, when that is not the case. Illustrative is Joshua 11:11 which provides, "They went striking every soul ( _nephesh_ ) that was in it with the sword." The Jehovah's Witnesses go on to reason that "[t]he soul is here shown to be something that can be touched by the sword, so these souls could not have been spirits" ( _Reasoning_ at 376). Their argument, however, is not only silly and weak, it is nonexistent because no reasonable person, Christian or not, believes anyone was cutting up spirits with a sword, though such ambiguity allows the Jehovah's Witnesses to claim, against common sense and Scripture, that _nephesh_ can never be spiritual and that Christendom believes _nephesh_ always means "immortal soul," which it doesn't.

The same can be said for their "reasoned" argument that soul ( _nephesh_ ) and spirit ( _ruach_ ) can never refer to the same thing because the word _nephesh_ is not the same word as _ruach_ But such spurious logic is a non-statement and an insult to common sense and the average intelligence. Of course _nephesh_ and _ruach_ are different words; but the issue in part is whether they both can refer to the same thing, which they can, in the same way that a man can be both a father and a son, or have two names; one person, two labels.

The Jehovah's Witnesses' dilemma in interpreting _nephesh_ as "soul" in every instance is especially apparent at Genesis 2:7 where the Jehovah's Witnesses' _NWT_ Bible provides that Adam became a living soul ( _nephesh_ ), not that he was given a _nephesh_ (soul). The Watchtower Society has gained much traction from this argument because it is awkward (though accurate) to say Adam was a soul and he had a soul (spirit). Accordingly, other Bibles properly translate _nephesh_ (soul) as a "living being." Thus, Adam became a "living being."

The Lord God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being. (literally soul, or _nephesh_ ). (Genesis 2:7 _NAB_ , _ESV_ )

Many Christian theologians believe God injected a soul (spirit) into Adam when He blew into Adam's nostrils the breath of life; that is, the soul ( _nephesh_ ) at times also known as the spirit ( _ruach_ ). While that may be true, the manner and timing of God's creation and insertion of the soul (spirit) into a man is not that critical because we know that man in fact possesses an immaterial soul (spirit) which survives the death of the body, a scriptural truth revealed in particular detail in the New Testament.

PSUCHE GREEK (SOUL) and PNEUMA GREEK (SPIRIT)

The Greek term "psuche" (5590) is most often translated "soul" in English. It stems from the word "breath" and by implication spirit ( _Vine's_ at 275). _Psuche_ can refer to breath, the breath of life which animates the bodies of man and animal; life, "that in which there is life, a living being, a living soul" ( _Vine's_ at 275). It can also mean the soul, the seat of "feelings, desires, affections and aversions"... [and is] regarded as a moral being designed for everlasting life" (ibid). Significantly, for purposes of this discussion, _psuche_ (soul) can also refer to "an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death (distinguished from other parts of the body), (Matthew 10:28, Revelation 6:9)) ( _Vine's_ at 275). Thus it is similar to the Hebrew soul ( _nephesh_ ) and spirit ( _ruach_ ), and the Greek _pneuma_ , most often translated "spirit" in English.

Spirit ( _pneuma,_ 4151) in the New Testament, when it refers to the spirit of a man, is defined in _Vine's_ as a literal or figurative current of air, breath or breeze; figuratively as a spirit, the human rational soul, and by implication the vital principle of man; and it can refer to Christ's spirit, and the Holy Spirit ( _Vine's_ at 205).

Scholars have long recognized that in the New Testament, _psuche_ (soul) and _pneuma_ (spirit) are often used interchangeably; that while soul and spirit can never be separated and are independent entities, they can be distinguished based upon particular relationships and context.

Regarding a man's soul ( _psuche_ ) and a man's spirit ( _pneuma_ ) often as synonymous is well-attested in the New Testament. For instance, men are spoken of as"giving up the spirit ( _pneuma_ ) (Matthew 27:50; John 19;30; Luke 23:46; 24:37), in the same sense that man gives up the soul, as used at Acts 5:5, 10, and 12:23 where the term _akpsucho_ (1634 ) is invoked, meaning "To expire – give up the ghost, yield up the ghost... literally to breath out the soul (or life), to give up the ghost" ( _Vine's_ at 83).

Paul wrote of the perennial human struggle between the temptations of the flesh at war against the spirit: "For the flesh has desires against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; these are opposed to each other, so that you may not do what you want" (Galatians 5:16). Peter referred to the same battle when he wrote of man's "lusts which war against the soul" (1 Peter 2:11), thereby equating the soul with the spirit. Paul spoke of turning a sinner over to Satan in order to save his spirit ( _pneuma_ ) (1 Corinthians 5:5), but the object of salvation is, among other things, to save men's souls. And at Hebrews 12:23 and Revelation 6:9 we see both spirits and souls in heaven; they can't be separate entities under any scenario, but are the same entity under different names.

The Jehovah's Witnesses' belief that a man's spirit is nothing more than an "impersonal force" like electricity and "has no feeling and cannot think" is not supported by the New Testament. For example, Paul wrote of how God's Holy Spirit "bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God," and that through our spirit of adoption "we cry, 'Abba, Father!'" (Romans 8:15, 16). This requires the ability to think on the part of man's spirit. Paul admonishes his believers to be renewed in the spirit of their minds. He did not teach that the spirit was a mindless non-existent entity (Ephesians 4:23). John, in warning against false prophets, wrote that "every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God" (1 John 4:2), and such acknowledgment necessitates a spirit's existence and cognitive skills.

Many other examples can be found that prove that the Jehovah's Witnesses' claims are baseless and grossly unscriptural. Man is not merely a breathing piece of flesh animated by a jolt of electricity whose non-existent spirit is incapable of emotion or thought, before or after death.

Like the _nephesh_ (soul) and _ruach_ (spirit) of the Old Testament, the spirit/soul ( _pneuma_ / _psuche_ ) of the New Testament is, in the proper context, something which resides in a man, like Daniel's spirit inside it's sheath of flesh (Daniel 7:15), and Job's spirit that was "within him" (Job 32:8). At Ephesians 3:16 he wrote of the Holy Spirit strengthening the "inner self." James wrote of the spirit that is within us as lusting or has a tendency toward jealousy (James 4:5). Jesus Christ could not be "with" our spirit, as it says he can at 2 Timothy 4:22, unless a cognitive spirit within man exists.

RESPONSE TO THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES' ARGUMENTS

The Jehovah's Witnesses are under the mistaken belief that body/soul dualism and immortality is nothing more than a product of pagan Greek philosophy. They teach that early Christian philosophers simply adopted the Greek idea of the immortality of the soul, that the body/soul dichotomy is nothing more than a rehashed pagan philosophy. As mentioned at the beginning of this paper, the Bible and traditional Christianity teach that God creates a soul which is infused at conception, it is indestructible by secondary sources, and therefore is not inherently immortal. Christian dualism is not the same as Greek body/soul dualism, or the Jehovah's Witnesses' version of it.

The Jehovah's Witnesses go to great lengths to suggest that early "Christian philosophers" inspired or manufactured dualism as a result of Greek influence. But Jesus was not such a Greek or early Christian philosopher; neither were Paul or James or Peter or John. Their inspiration for revealing to man the body/soul relationship comes from Almighty God, for "all Scripture is inspired by God," (2 Timothy 3:16), not Origen or Aquinas, and most certainly not Plato or any number of contradicting and amorphous Greek philosophers. Christian philosophers might have shaped and illuminated for our understanding body/soul dualism, but the source material has always been the Bible, particularly the New Testament.

Greek theories on the nature of the soul were abundant and varied leading up to the Christian era. "Greco-Roman philosophy made no further progress in the doctrine of the soul in the age immediately preceding the Christian era. None of the existing theories had found general acceptance, and in the literature of the period an eclectic spirit nearly akin to skepticism nearly predominated ( newadvent.org/cath/14153a.htm). Foremost among these philosophers was Plato whose theories are often considered vague and irreconcilable. While the Jehovah's Witnesses are correct in stating that Plato believed "the soul is immortal" (Reasoning at 379), they left out his qualifying statement in Timeaus denying intrinsic, indestructible, absolute immortality of the soul, but admitting of an "immortality conditional on the good pleasure of God" (newadvent.org), which is precisely what soul creationists believe and which is self-evident in Scripture. The relevant passage in Timeaus where "God" speaks provides,

"Gods, children of gods, who are my works, and of whom I am the artificer and father, my creations are indissoluble, if so I will. All that is bound may be undone."

[God] put intelligence in soul, and soul in body, that he might be the creator of a work which was by nature fairest and best. Wherefore, using the language of probability, we may say that the world became a living creature truly endowed with soul and intelligence by the providence of God.

To this extent Plato was correct according to the Bible.

Since man's soul is immortal and only God has immortality (1 Timothy 6:16), man's soul must have been given to man by God. Man's immortality is therefore not absolute like God's, but nonetheless not subject to destruction by secondary sources.

The mere fact that Plato, and others, developed rudimentary concepts of dualism and the immortal soul before the Christian era does not mean the New Testament Christian writers, and Jesus, incorporated Greek philosophy into Scripture anymore than the writer(s) of Genesis derived his account of the great flood of Noah's time from the Gilgamesh Epic dated centuries before Genesis was written. In fact, Plato's belief that man's immortality exists as long as God wills it reinforces the obvious truth found in the New Testament.

To reiterate, mainstream Christianity does not teach "inherent immortality"; that man's immortal soul has always preexisted (eternity backwards), or that it cannot be destroyed or extinguished by any entity whatsoever. Rather, traditionalists subscribe to the soul-creationist theory, that YHWH, God Almighty, who alone is absolutely immortal, creates the soul of man which he infuses into humans at conception. The immortal soul cannot be destroyed by any secondary sources, those other than God, who would not be all-powerful if he could not vanquish his own creation.

The human soul is immortal because God wills it. This illustrates the Jehovah's Witnesses' utter confusion with respect to the Christian doctrine of immortality of the soul and the role Greek philosophy plays, or does not play, in Christian theology; a widely perpetuated misunderstanding which misleads many unfamiliar with the issues and core Christian doctrine.

The Jehovah's Witnesses rely heavily on Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 in their argument that a human does not have a "spirit that goes on living as an intelligent personality after it ceases to function in the body" ( _Reasoning_ at 383). But from what you've read thus far you know this to be false. Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 provides:

19 There is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the beast, and they have the same eventuality. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit ( _NAB_ the "same life breath"), so that there is no superiority of the man over the beast, for everything is vanity. 20 All are going to one place. They have all come to be from the dust, and they are all returning to the dust. 21 Who is there knowing the spirit of the sons of mankind, whether it is ascending upward; and the spirit of the beast, whether it is ascending downward to the earth.

The Jehovah's Witnesses contend that according to verse 19 humans and beasts "all have but one spirit," the same spirit ( _Reasoning_ at 383). "There is nothing," they write, "that humans have as a result of birth that gives them superiority over beasts when they die (ibid.).

Misconstruing these verses, and omitting others, the Jehovah's Witnesses fail to understand that the death referred to is that of the body, not the immaterial soul (spirit), because that place where both beasts and man eventually go to is the dust of the earth awaiting decomposition. Man's soul (spirit), as an immaterial being, does not return to dust and decompose. It is only in that physiological respect that man has no superiority over the beast when he dies; both eventually rot in the ground (rapture aside). The writer was not stating, nor can it be implied, that no such thing as a spirit exists which might survive death. The opposite is true because he candidly acknowledges the existence of man's surviving spirit in verse 21 where he writes, "Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward...? ( _RSV_ ). He wasn't denying the existence of man's spirit, but affirming it, though not knowing where man's spirit ultimately ends up.

The Jehovah's Witnesses, as they frequently do, have taken the phrase, "there is no superiority of the man over the beast" completely out of context. Man is in fact superior to the beast over which he has dominion. Man is superior because he is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), whereas the beast is not. The resemblance to God is not physical, but spiritual because God Almighty, YHWH, is a spirit (John 4:24) and has, and/or is, a soul ( _nephesh_ ).

Furthermore,the man Adam (and Eve), as originally constituted at creation, enjoyed inherent superiority over animals at birth because he could live forever unless he disobeyed God and ate of the forbidden fruit (Genesis 2:5). No other creatures had this option.

Additionally, redeemed, saved believers are assured at death of enjoying the immediate presence of God and Christ in heaven and are assured of inheriting the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world (Matthew 25:34); the righteousness, unlike the beast, are bound for "eternal life" (Mathew 25:46). That, among other things, is what elevates man over beast, profoundly.

Also, Psalm 49:21 ( _NAB_ ) makes it clear that the fate of man, compared to the beast, is contingent. It is not an absolute destiny in all respects. Referring to the wicked rich who put their trust in wealth rather than the Almighty, it provides, "for all their riches, if mortals do not have wisdom they perish like the beast," which modifies verse 19 of Ecclesiastes chapter 3. Conversely, the logical implication is that if mortals do have wisdom, they won't perish like the beast, an option not available to earthly creatures other than man. To clarify any ambiguity, Bibles such as the Revised Standard Version ascribe to spirit ( _ruach_ ) the proper nuance; distinguishing the activating "breath" which is the same for man and beast, but recognizing in verse 21 that the writer was speaking of the immaterial soul (spirit), providing, "They all (man and beast) have the same breath...." and, "Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward...?"

The Jehovah's Witnesses' theory that nothing exists of man after death is premised primarily on a handful of Old Testament verses, once again taken out of context while ignoring other relevant passages. For instance,

... there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol (nether world _NAB_ ) to which you are going (Ecclesiastes 9:10, _RSV_ )

His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts do perish (Psalm 146:4)

For the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward; but the memory of them is lost (Ecclesiastes 9:5, _RSV_ )

The Jehovah's Witnesses reason that if a dead person knows nothing and has no thoughts because thoughts perish at death, he cannot be conscious and must therefore be extinct, non-existent. A superficial reading might lead one to that conclusion, be we know that's not the case because the departed, such as the Old Testament _rephaim_ or "shades," as outlined in great detail above, are indeed conscious and can think, communicate and exhibit other cognitive skills. Contrary to the Jehovah's Witnesses' incorrect interpretation, these thoughts, knowledge, rewards, etc. refer to those human traits while on earth, "under the sun," not in the immediate afterlife, the intermediate state where conscious departed souls dwell. This is made abundantly clear in verse 6 following Ecclesiastes 9:5:

Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and they have no more forever any share in all that is done under the sun. (Psalm 9:6, _RSV_ ) (emphasis added).

Accordingly, other Bibles use the word "planning," such as, "their planning comes to nothing" (Psalm 146:4, _NAB_ ).

Furthermore, verse 6 completely undermines the Jehovah's Witnesses' multiple salvation plans. They believe that a ruling elite of 144,000 Jehovah's Witnesses will eventually reign from heaven over a vast multitude of converted Jehovah's Witnesses on earth. For the majority of mankind, the Jehovah's Witnesses' salvation mantra is, "You can live forever in paradise on earth." But Ecclesiastes 9:6 just quoted makes that impossible. If the dead "never again have part in anything that is done under the sun (on earth), they cannot live forever in paradise on earth. Mainstream Christianity averts this conundrum because they recognize that the Christian's supernatural reward is in heaven for all redeemed believers. It most certainly is not limited to 144,000 Jehovah's Witnesses.

Two other verses heavily relied on in their attempt to prove postmortem non-existence are Romans 6:23 and Ezekiel 18:4. Romans 6:23 provides in part: "For the wages of sin is death." Although they invoke this verse attempting to prove at death no departed souls exist, it is more fitting in the context of post-resurrection life as the remainder of the verse makes clear. Because all men sin and die, they cannot continue living in an immaterial disembodied state, they claim. But verse 23 does not specify the nature of such death, nor does it apply to all men, but rather to the unredeemed and unsaved made evident by the second half of the sentence which pinpoints the time frame: "but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Verse 23 parallels Matthew 25:46, "And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Though Christians might sin, their transgressions are forgiven (Jeremiah 31:31-34), and they are passed over in the final judgment: "Whoever hears my words and believes in the one who sent me has eternal life and will not come to condemnation, but has passed from death to life" (John 5:24). It is the unredeemed sinner who dies.

Ezekiel 18:4 appears to be the crown jewel in the Jehovah's Witnesses' annihilationist argument. The prophet Ezekiel wrote in part that "The soul ( _nephesh_ ) that is sinning – it itself will die" ("only the one who sins shall die," _NAB_ ). The Jehovah's Witnesses imply that traditionalists are wrong believing the soul ( _nephesh_ ) is an immaterial spiritual entity because it can die, which also would mean it cannot be immortal. But they are reading too much (or not enough) into this sentence and attribute an interpretation to mainstream Christians that isn't there. Standing back and placing verse 4 into context, it is apparent that chapter 18 deals with personal responsibility. Contrasted with the death of the sinner, a virtuous man shall "surely live" (Ezekiel 18:9). The people shall not be punished for their ancestors' sins, only their own ( _NAB_ , notes 18,2) [... his death shall be his own fault]. Verse 18 reads, a virtuous man "shall not die for the sins of his father." Here, Ezekiel was not making a sweeping statement that all men die, nor was he making a statement that a _nephesh_ (soul) cannot under any circumstances refer to the immortal soul simply because the soul ( _nephesh_ ) that sins dies. If that were true it would actually make the case for immortality because according to chapter 18 the soul that does not sin does not die if one were to take their argument to its logical conclusion.

We can safely assume, therefore, that death in 18:4 refers foremost to a physical death as punishment for particular sins because, after all, all men die a mortal death, but more importantly, Ezekiel lists the kinds of sins God had in mind which warrant death under the Mosaic Law to which he was referring.

The Hebrew word here for death is _muwth_ (4191) "which is used of physical death." ( _Vine's_ at 151). It can also refer to eventual, natural mortality, and a spiritual death. God told "man that he will surely die if he eats of the forbidden fruit. (Genesis 2:17). "When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, both spiritual and physical death came upon Adam and Eve and their descendants (cf. Rom 5:12). They experienced spiritual death immediately" ( _Vine's_ at 151).

God's declaration at Ezekiel 18:1-32 that each man is responsible for his own sins, and that person alone would deserve punishment – which is the core theme of chapter18 – was emphasized in verses 10-13 in the extreme with specific examples of crimes under the Mosaic Law deserving of death, with the exception of theft, robbery and variants thereof such as failure to return a pledge and usury. Crimes specifically deserving death were murder (Numbers 35:16), eating on the mountains (a form of idol worship (Exodus 22:20), defiling a wife (Leviticus 20:10), oppressing the poor and needy (thereby endangering their lives) (Exodus 21-29) such as harming orphans and widows (a term of art for all helpless, needy and destitute (Exodus 22:20-23), or any "abominable thing," - a wide-ranging concept that may include, but is not limited to, blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16; 1 Kings 21:10), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), and witchcraft (Exodus 22:18).

By no means is this an exhaustive list of those crimes for which each individual is held personally accountable pursuant to chapter 18. The fact that theft and robbery, etc., are not punishable by death is no reason to assume the soul ( _nephesh_ ) which sins and dies refers to the extinction of the immortal soul as the Jehovah's Witnesses would have you believe. To the contrary; if anything, it illustrates that lesser real-time crimes and sins are included in the doctrine of personal responsibility. Otherwise, a man would not be personally responsible for his own lesser sins, which is illogical and defies the spirit of God's law.

While death, or _muwth_ , refers to physical death, which reasonably presumes inclusion of lesser sins and crimes, here it also refers to a spiritual death, however that may be defined; a cutting off or separation from God. After all, Paul was very succinct when he wrote that neither adulterers, thieves or robbers, and many others, will inherit God's kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:10), thereby dying a death of unimaginable severity. Nothing can logically be inferred in Ezekiel 18:1-4 that God was stating that disembodied, immaterial souls don't exist or survive a person's death. He was not saying that souls aren't immortal because they die and are thus extinguished. To the contrary, the message throughout the Old and New Testament is crystal clear. A conscious, immaterial spiritual entity, a man's ego or self, alternatively called shades, souls or spirits, survives death and immediately is transferred to the intermediate state of the after life of the nether world awaiting reunion with one's resurrected body. They are not annihilated. They are not made extinct as the Jehovah's Witnesses teach.

Chapter Three – Jerusalem was not Destroyed in 607 B.C., and Christ did not Return at His Second Coming in 1914 [Table of Contents]

A. Introduction

The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E. Mainstream Christian theologians, archeologists and historians take the position that it was destroyed in 587 or 586 B.C.E., a view supported by the overwhelming weight of archeological and historical evidence, and an objective reading of the Bible. The Jehovah's Witnesses reject this archeological and historical evidence because it does not harmonize with their religious beliefs. Instead, they essentially confine their evidence to their interpretation of Scripture. Accordingly, this paper confines itself primarily to scriptural interpretation, and logic, and proves that Jerusalem was not, and could not have been, destroyed in 607 B.C.E., but was destroyed in either 587 or 586 B.C.E., a view which harmonizes with substantial and persuasive archeological and historical facts.

The year 607 B.C.E. plays a crucial role in the religious tenets of the Jehovah's Witnesses. In accordance with their interpretation of Scripture, 607 B.C.E. is fundamental, a watershed which serves as a foundation for their faith and philosophy. Based upon mathematical calculations derived primarily from the book of Daniel, the Jehovah's Witnesses count forward 2,520 years from the fall of 607 B.C.E. to arrive at the fall of A.D. 1914 - the onslaught of World War I and the year in which they believe the End Times commenced. 1914 is also believed to be the year Jesus Christ was enthroned in heaven as ruling king of the Kingdom of God, which is yet another false teaching. This author is primarily concerned with whether Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E.

The Jehovah's Witnesses insist they are God's only true prophet, writing: "So does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come? These questions can be answered in the affirmative. Who is this prophet?...This "prophet" was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian Witnesses...Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a 'prophet' of God. It is another thing to prove it," (Watchtower, Apr. 1, 1972, p. 197). (See Deut. 18:21.)

With respect to 1914, the Jehovah's Witnesses regard this year, and the method by which they arrive there, as prophecy. If, however, Jerusalem did not fall in 607 B.C.E. and if it fell in 587/6 B.C.E. their prophetic date is off by twenty years, and false, and would cause other critical dates in their belief structure to fail. The Jehovah's Witnesses regard this enthronement of Christ to be the long-awaited Second Coming of Christ, whereas mainstream Christians believe the Second Coming and His parousia (presence) are in the future as heralded at Matthew 24:30,31 and Mark 13:24-32. The fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Second Coming and parousia have already occurred is cause for serious reflection and concern.

B. Historical Overview

For those unfamiliar with the issues, a very brief historical overview is in order. We are basically dealing with events that span roughly 125 years, from 625 B.C.E. to 500 B.C.E. It includes the end, or fall, of the Assyrian Empire to Babylon in 609 B.C.E. followed by the rise and subsequent end, or fall, of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (Babylonian Empire) which lasted seventy years, followed by the rise and early years of the combined empires of the Persians and Medes which ended Babylon's reign in October 539 B.C.E.

We are especially concerned with the Jews of Jerusalem and Judah during this time who were caught between these rising and falling empires, particularly the seventy-year period defined here as the Babylonian Empire. These Jews would come to serve Babylon in various capacities, as did all the surrounding nations that fell under the dominion of the Babylonians, or Chaldeans.

There were numerous Babylonian kings during this era, beginning with Nabopolassar who presided over the final demise of Assyria in 609 B.C.E., followed by his son Nebuchadnezzar (or Nebuchadrezzar), the great warrior king who consolidated the empire through numerous military campaigns. It was Nebuchadnezzar who enslaved the Jews, forced them to become vassals, dispersed them to other nations, exiled them to Babylon and annihilated or devastated Jerusalem and Judah. The end of the Babylon Empire was presided over by Nabonidus who was then king, though his son Belshazzer was co-ruler of Babylon when the Persians and Medes conquered them in October 539 B.C.E.

Our attention is basically focused on three Jewish kings:

a) Jehoiakim: He ruled eleven years, and had been in power when Nebuchadnezzar ruled in his first year as king of Babylon. Jehoiakim became a vassal to Babylon in his eighth year, rebelled against Babylon, and depending upon which Bible one reads, and other factors, was exiled to Babylon with other Jews (2 Kings 24:1-4).

b) Jehoiachin (also called Jeconiah): His reign replaced Jehoiakim's but lasted only three months at which time he, and 10,000 others - all of Jerusalem - were exiled to Babylon roughly 800 miles away (2 Kings 24:8 - 17).

c) Zedekiah: He replaced Jehoiachin, ruled eleven years, became a vassal to Babylon early on, and steadfastly rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar who then utterly destroyed Jerusalem and Judah in Zedekiah's eleventh year; he either slaughtered, dispersed or exiled the remaining Jews to Babylon. The Jehovah's Witnesses believe this destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 607 B.C.E., while everyone else for the most part agrees it occurred in 587/6 B.C.E. See generally Jeremiah chapters 24 and 25.

After the Persians and Medes conquered Babylon in 539 B.C.E. the Jews were set free and roughly 50,000 of them returned home to Judah in the fall of 537 B.C.E.

C. Overview of the Controversy

The Jehovah's Witnesses' task of proving that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E. and not 587/6 B.C.E. is no easy feat in light of strong archeological, historical and scriptural evidence to the contrary. Notwithstanding this uphill battle, the Jehovah's Witnesses have gone to elaborate lengths to rationalize their position, regrettably causing a dizzying smoke-screen of complexity when the answers and issues, as will be detailed below, are relatively simple and straightforward as the Almighty intended them to be - in order to reach as many people as possible.

At the heart of the controversy is a seventy-year prophetic period of time. The Jehovah's Witnesses simply count backward seventy years from the fall of 537 B.C.E., the year Jews returned to Judah after being exiled to Babylon, to arrive at 607 B.C.E. Therefore, they reason, Jerusalem must have been destroyed in 607 B.C.E.

The problem is that they have completely misinterpreted and misapplied the prophecy at Jeremiah 25:11 and accompanying verses because they desperately need 607 B.C.E. in order to arrive at 1914. An abbreviated form of this seventy-year prophecy, unfortunately taken out of context, and reproduced in the article Setting the Record Straight - a fierce and very comprehensive defense of the Jehovah's Witnesses' pro-607 stance - provides:

The word that occurred to Jeremiah . . . concerning all the people of Judah and concerning all the inhabitants of Jerusalem . . . all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years. —Jeremiah 25:1a, 2, 11.

According to Setting the Record Straight this prophecy has two parts equal in length, both parts beginning and ending at exactly the same time:

A) The land of Judah, and Jerusalem, would be devastated and remain so without a single inhabitant exactly seventy years commencing with Jerusalem's destruction and not before, and this period of devastation ended seventy years later only when the exiled Jews physically returned to their homeland Judah from Babylon in 537 B.C.E. The opposing view is that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E. and the period of complete devastation lasted only 48 - 50 years.

B) All exiled Jews that fell within the scope of the prophecy were removed at Jerusalem's destruction, and not before, and remained as exiles serving Babylon a full seventy years until their actual return to Judah in 537 B.C.E. Again, the opposing view is that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E. and those exiles removed at that time to Babylon served only 48 - 50 years in captivity.

It should be pointed out that should either prong of this composite two-prong approach fail, the entire prophecy, or their version of it, fails.

As such, we are essentially dealing with two primary areas of interest related to a) when Judah's devastation began and ended, and the extent of that devastation, and b) when servitude to the king of Babylon began and ended, what servitude meant, and to whom it applied. Saving the Record Straight frames the Jehovah's Witnesses' position as follows:

While some critics argue that Jeremiah 25:11 only refers to seventy years of servitude, Daniel 9:2 confirms that the prophecy also entailed seventy years of devastation for the land of Judah. Second Chronicles 36:20, 21 further shows that it was the composite effect of exiling the remaining ones who "came to be servants to [Nebuchadnezzar]" and the resulting devastation and desolation of the land of Judah that began to fulfill the prophecy concerning the seventy years.

The Watchtower Society in its publication Let Your Kingdom Come and elsewhere confirms that the seventy-year period ended only upon the Jews' return to Judah, and not before. The 70 years expired when Cyrus the Great, in his first year, released the Jews and they returned to their homeland. (Chronicles 36:17 - 23)

The Bible prophecy does not allow for the application of the 70-year period to any time other than that between the desolation of Judah, accompanying Jerusalem's destruction, and the return of the Jewish exiles to their homeland as a result of Cyrus' decree," - Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, p. 463.

This paper begins with an analysis of the underlying issues presented by the phrase a) "and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years" (servitude), followed by a discussion of issues pertaining to the phrase b) "all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment" (devastation).

Please, weigh all of the evidence; place it on a scale and see where it tilts.

D. Servitude

"... and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years." Jeremiah 25:11

Quite frankly, it is unclear exactly what the Watchtower Society's interpretation of Jeremiah 25:11 is today since it appears to have undergone significant modification from earlier times. The Society's founder Charles Taze Russell who, in The Time Is At Hand (Studies in the Scriptures, Series 2, 1912 edition, p. 52), argued that the seventy years of serving the king of Babylon only referred to seventy years of desolation of the land and not seventy years of captivity, exile and servitude.

Usher dates the seventy years desolation eighteen years earlier than shown above—i.e., before the dethronement of Zedekiah, Judah's last king—because the king of Babylon took many of the people captive at that time. (2 Chron. 36:9, 10, 17, 21; 2 Kings 24:8-16.) He evidently makes the not uncommon mistake of regarding those seventy years as the period of captivity, whereas the Lord expressly declares them to be seventy years of desolation of the land, that the land should lie "desolate, without an inhabitant." Such was not the case prior to Zedekiah's dethronement. (2 Kings 24:14.) But the desolation which followed Zedekiah's overthrow was complete; for, though some of the poor of the land were left to be vine-dressers and husbandmen (2 Kings 25:12), shortly even these—"all people, both small and great"—fled to Egypt for fear of the Chaldees. (Verse 26.) There can be no doubt here; and therefore in reckoning the time to the desolation of the land, all periods up to the close of Zedekiah's reign should be counted in, as we have done.

Russell's strained rendering of Jeremiah 25:11 whereby the prophetic phrase "... and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years" does not apply to anyone actually serving the king of Babylon has evidently been cast aside, as it should have been, for many Jehovah's Witnesses 607-defenders reject such a narrow interpretation and recognize that the prophecy does entail servitude after all. That is where the bulk of the intellectual debate seems to be taking place, and where the authors of Setting the Record Straight have taken a strong, though misguided, stand.

In all fairness to the Jehovah's Witnesses, seventy-year theories abound. All such theories, except one, have the difficult, if not impossible, task of fitting the seventy years into a workable framework or slot. These flawed theories fail because they generally fall short of seventy years, or exceed it. In the case of the Jehovah's Witnesses, they both fall short and exceed seventy years and thus fail at both ends of the chronological spectrum with respect to devastation and servitude.

This paper takes the position that although it is helpful to understand when "these nations" (not only Judah) began to serve the king of Babylon it does so in order to establish the beginning of the Babylonian Empire as it relates to Jeremiah 25:11, which was 609 B.C.E., because the only acceptable and workable seventy-year theory is the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory. It is a very simple and straightforward concept. The seventy years began in 609 B.C.E. when the king of Babylon brought to an end the Assyrian Empire at the final battle of Haran; it ended seventy years later in 539 B.C.E. when Babylon fell to the Persians and Medes. During this seventy-year period the affected nations of the earth collectively served, and were dominated by, the Babylonian Empire.

With this in mind it is important to understand why this paper argues that the Jews began serving the king of Babylon long before Jerusalem's destruction - it is to prove that the Jehovah's Witnesses' theory fails because it exceeds seventy years under their interpretation, although the exact number of those excessive years of servitude is not important. It is not necessary to prove a full seventy years of Jewish servitude to Babylon either as vassals or captive exiles because that is not required to disprove the Jehovah's Witnesses' 607 theory. As a matter of fact, proving that Judah's Jews served Babylon a full seventy years is irrelevant under the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory, a concept difficult for many people to grasp.

Equally important is the year in which the seventy-year prophecy ended, namely 539 B.C.E., when Babylon fell to the Persians and Medes, and not upon the Jews' return to Judah. The scriptural basis for this conclusion is also solid - reasonable minds cannot draw any other conclusion. And because the seventy-year period of servitude ended in October of 539 B.C.E., and not as the Jehovah's Witnesses claim in 537 B.C.E. upon the exiles' return to Judah, their theory fails at this end of the chronological spectrum as well. It bears repeating - the date the nations' seventy years of servitude ended in 539 B.C.E. when Babylon fell is an extremely important point to remember because Jerusalem could not have been destroyed in 607 B.C.E. since that amounts to 68 - 69 years only, a fatal shortfall of one or two years.

E. The seventy-year prophecy at Jeremiah 25:11 did not apply to Jerusalem and Judah alone but to all nations which fell under the domination of the Babylonian Empire. These nations as a unit, comprising the Babylonian Empire collectively, served the king(s) of Babylon seventy years.

The meaning and scope of Jeremiah 25:11 can only be understood in the context of other highly relevant verses of chapter 25 and elsewhere. Regrettably, much of the Jehovah's Witnesses' confusion stems in large part from excising, or separating, Jeremiah 25:11 from other pertinent verses and presenting it in isolation. The Jehovah's Witnesses' truncated rendering of Jeremiah 25:11 is just one part of the prophecy and greatly mischaracterizes the sweeping scope of foretold events since the seventy years of servitude was unquestionably directed to all nations that eventually came under the domination of the Babylonian Empire, and not merely the Jews of Judah. For the sake of clarity and to better understand the reach of Jeremiah 25:11 additional integral verses 8 - 29 are reproduced in their entirety:

8 "Therefore this is what Jehovah of armies has said, '"For the reason that YOU did not obey my words, 9 here I am sending and I will take all the families of the north," is the utterance of Jehovah, "even [sending] to Neb·u·chad·rez´zar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these nations round about; and I will devote them to destruction and make them an object of astonishment and something to whistle at and places devastated to time indefinite. 10 And I will destroy out of them the sound of exultation and the sound of rejoicing, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the hand mill and the light of the lamp. 11 And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years."'

12 "'And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,' is the utterance of Jehovah, 'their error, even against the land of the Chal·de´ans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite. 13 And I will bring in upon that land all my words that I have spoken against it, even all that is written in this book that Jeremiah has prophesied against all the nations. 14 For even they themselves, many nations and great kings, have exploited them as servants; and I will repay them according to their activity and according to the work of their hands.'"

15 For this is what Jehovah the God of Israel said to me: "Take this cup of the wine of rage out of my hand, and you must make all the nations to whom I am sending you drink it. 16 And they must drink and shake back and forth and act like crazed men because of the sword that I am sending among them."

17 And I proceeded to take the cup out of the hand of Jehovah and to make all the nations drink to whom Jehovah had sent me: 18 namely, Jerusalem and the cities of Judah and her kings, her princes, to make them a devastated place, an object of astonishment, something to whistle at and a malediction, just as at this day; 19 Phar´aoh the king of Egypt and his servants and his princes and all his people; 20 and all the mixed company, and all the kings of the land of Uz, and all the kings of the land of the Phi·lis´tines and Ash´ke·lon and Ga´za and Ek´ron and the remnant of Ash´dod; 21 E´dom and Mo´ab and the sons of Am´mon; 22 and all the kings of Tyre and all the kings of Si´don and the kings of the island that is in the region of the sea; 23 and De´dan and Te´ma and Buz and all those with hair clipped at the temples; 24 and all the kings of the Arabs and all the kings of the mixed company who are residing in the wilderness; 25 and all the kings of Zim´ri and all the kings of E´lam and all the kings of the Medes; 26 and all the kings of the north who are near and far away, one after the other, and all the [other] kingdoms of the earth that are on the surface of the ground; and the king of She´shach himself will drink after them.

27 "And you must say to them, 'This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said: "Drink and get drunk and puke and fall so that YOU cannot get up because of the sword that I am sending among YOU."' 28 And it must occur that in case they refuse to take the cup out of your hand to drink, you must also say to them, 'This is what Jehovah of armies has said: "YOU will drink without fail. 29 For, look! it is upon the city upon which my name is called that I am starting off in bringing calamity, and should YOU yourselves in any way go free of punishment?"'

"' YOU will not go free of punishment, for there is a sword that I am calling against all the inhabitants of the earth,' is the utterance of Jehovah of armies.

Obviously, the Jehovah's Witnesses left much out, no doubt an inadvertent oversight. Nonetheless, the following observations are in order. First, Jeremiah's prophetic words in verse 13 were directed "against all the nations" and not just Judah.

" And I will bring in upon that land all my words that I have spoken against it, even all that is written in this book that Jeremiah has prophesied against all the nations."

Secondly, service to the king of Babylon was not limited to Judah because Jeremiah used the plural "these nations" at Jeremiah 25:11. Third, verse 9 dictates a broader reading because Jehovah was going to send Nebuchadnezzar "... against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these nations round about...," not only against Judah.

Fourth, to make it perfectly clear which nations Jeremiah directed the prophesies to they are listed in the same chapter at verses 15-26. Jeremiah was instructed to take the cup of the wine of rage out of the Lord's hand and make all the nations, who would succumb to the Babylonian Empire, drink it. These nations included Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, Egypt, the Medes, and roughly 20 other nations and/or kingdoms, and "all the [other] kingdoms of the earth that are on the surface of the ground;..." (Jeremiah 25:15,16). Even though Judah was one of these nations that would serve, or fall, under the dominion of the Babylonian Empire which spanned seventy years from 609 B.C.E. to 539 B.C.E., it was by no means the only nation to whom the seventy-year prophecy was directed.

Fifth, additional evidence that Jeremiah 25:11 did not apply only to Judah and Jerusalem is found at Jeremiah 27:6,7, also written during the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign. There, Jehovah stated in no uncertain terms with respect to nations surrounding and including Judah that he had "given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon" and that "all the nations must serve even him, and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes...."

1 In the beginning of the kingdom of Je·hoi´a·kim the son of Jo·si´ah, the king of Judah, this word occurred to Jeremiah from Jehovah, saying: 2 "This is what Jehovah has said to me, 'Make for yourself bands and yoke bars, and you must put them upon your neck. 3 And you must send them to the king of E´dom and to the king of Mo´ab and to the king of the sons of Am´mon and to the king of Tyre and to the king of Si´don by the hand of the messengers who are coming to Jerusalem to Zed·e·ki´ah the king of Judah. 4 And you must give them a command for their masters, saying:

"'"This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said; this is what YOU should say to YOUR masters, 5 'I myself have made the earth, mankind and the beasts that are upon the surface of the earth by my great power and by my stretched-out arm; and I have given it to whom it has proved right in my eyes. 6 And now I myself have given all these lands into the hand of Neb·u·chad·nez´zar the king of Babylon, my servant; and even the wild beasts of the field I have given him to serve him. 7 And all the nations must serve even him and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes, and many nations and great kings must exploit him as a servant.'

This statement of Jehovah's sweeping grant of authority to Nebuchadnezzar, whereby those lands and beasts of the field had been given to serve him and that all the nations must serve the king of Babylon, generally mirrors the prophecy at Jeremiah 25:11 and related verses.

Sixth, if Judah alone was to serve the king of Babylon seventy years it would nullify the prophecy with respect to almost every other nation because not all nations would have been able to serve Babylon seventy years. The king of Babylon in 609 B.C.E, Nabopolassar, brought Assyria to its end at the final battle at Haran. If the seventy years of servitude applied to only one nation, it could only apply to the conquered nation Assyria when Haran fell (and any other nations conquered by the Babylonians (Chaldeans) in that year). All other nations could logically only serve less than seventy years, including Judah. If Judah was the only nation to whom the prophecy applied, and it applied only to Judah and Jerusalem commencing with their destruction in the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, all other nations conquered by Nebuchadnezzar in the preceding 18 years would have served Babylon in excess of seventy years, and those conquered after Jerusalem and Judah fell would have served less than seventy years. Such an interpretation would nullify Jehovah's word which directed the prophecy to all the nations and which could only be satisfied if the seventy-year period of servitude was a composite, an epoch of time that applied collectively to all conquered or dominated nations as a whole. A parallel can be drawn with the military campaign of Hitler's Third Reich which spanned six years between 1939 and 1945, even though not all of the nations conquered by the Nazis fell under its domination the entire six year period. Czechoslovakia was under Hitler's domination longer than France.

Seventh, if Jerusalem and Judah as one nation among "these nations" served seventy years, history, even according to the Jehovah's Witnesses would be turned on its head because it would imply that Babylon conquered no other nations before destroying Jerusalem and Judah; that is, Jerusalem and Judah would have to be the first to succumb to the Babylonian expansion in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year as king. The implication would be that Nebuchadnezzar conquered no other nations during his first 18 years as king, but that simply is not the case.

Eighth, sometimes the phrase "king of Babylon" refers to the kings of Babylon as a whole or whoever the king might have been at any particular time without specifically identifying him by name. Such is the case with respect to the prophecy at Jeremiah 25:11 whereby Judah and the nations of the earth would serve the king of Babylon seventy years. Service to this king however was not limited to Nebuchadnezzar or even his son or grandson as stated at Jeremiah 27:7 but included Nebuchadnezzar's father Nabopolassar who finished off Assyria in 609 B.C.E., and other kings besides Nebuchadnezzar's blood relatives.

And all the nations must serve even him and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes, and many nations and great kings must exploit him as a servant (Jeremiah 27:7).

This is not an all-encompassing list of the kings of Babylon which the nations served seventy years. Even 607- defenders in Setting the Record Straight are of the same view:

In fulfillment of Jeremiah 27:7, the exiled Jews did in fact literally serve Nebuchadnezzar's son (Evilmerodach) and Nebuchadnezzar's grandson (co-regent Belshazzer, whose mother was reportedly Nebuchadnezzar's daughter, Nitocris). However, the captive Jews also served other kings of Babylon, including Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk and Nabonidus, none of whom bore any blood relation to Nebuchadnezzar. Thus, the words at Jeremiah 27:7, though indisputably true, were obviously not meant to be an all-encompassing list of rulers whom the Jews would serve during the seventy years.

As mentioned, to this more encompassing list should be added another king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar's father Nabopolassar whose final destruction of his nemesis Assyria at Haran in 609 B.C.E. gave rise to the Babylonian Empire and the commencement of the seventy years of servitude. Servitude began with Nebuchadnezzar's father Nabopolassar and ended with the death of Belshazzer in 539 B.C.E. In accord with the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory the nations of the earth collectively served the many kings of Babylon from 609 B.C.E. to 539 B.C.E. for a total of seventy years in fulfillment of the prophecy at Jeremiah 25:11.

Ninth, in chapter 25 of the book of Jeremiah, with respect to Judah and Jerusalem, Jeremiah foretold what lay in their future beginning in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar onward. The land of Judah would become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, which it was. However, determining the exact year the devastation began is not necessary because proving a full seventy years of devastation is irrelevant in as much as the seventy years pertained to servitude, not devastation. They are separate concepts.

As explained in detail below, there is no valid "seventy years of devastation" theory and therefore the fact that the Babylonian Empire commenced in 609 B.C.E. - three or four years before Jeremiah delivered the prophecy - is not material. As it pertained to devastation, yes, that was in Judah's future, but the seventy-year duration of that devastation is a non-issue.

As stated, the many nations which served Babylon a collective seventy years described in Jeremiah 25:11 began to serve in 609 B.C.E. when Assyria was overcome at the final battle of Haran. The fact that Jeremiah said that "these nations will serve the king of Babylon" does not mean the beginning of the full seventy years of servitude was still in the future, which some 607-defenders argue, would disprove the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory. Their confusion stems from an incorrect understanding of the word "will" which they insist only applies to future events, but that is not the case.

"Will" has multiple meanings. It is frequently employed to connote occurrences, conditions, events or actions which do not lie in the future. The dictionary offers numerous examples. People will do right. You will not have forgotten him. This will be right. People will talk. You will often see him sitting there. Boys will be boys.

Even though servitude of many nations to Babylon was a future event, some nations had already been serving since 609 B.C.E. and the "will" of Jeremiah 25:11 therefore could not be strictly limited to all the nations' future servitude. Assyria had already been serving when Jeremiah spoke the prophecy, and Nebuchadnezzar conquered countries from Hattu to Babylon before he dealt with Judah. Therefore, since nations which were among those listed at Jeremiah 25:17-26, who tasted the cup of Jehovah's rage, had already been serving when the prophecy was delivered, the "will" of Jeremiah 25:11 referred to past events, conditions or occurrences (servitude) as well as future servitude.

To illustrate further, a man has served five years in prison and believes, mistakenly, that he is scheduled to be released, but the prison warden says "No, you will have to serve ten years." The warden is not saying he would serve ten more years, but that he would serve five more years in addition to the previous five years. The prisoner will serve the full ten years.

The same reasoning applies to Jeremiah 25:11. "Will have to serve" does not foreclose prior servitude of Assyria and other conquered nations. The seventy years of collective servitude commenced in 609 B.C.E. This is the only proper rendering which harmonizes comfortably with the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory. "Will" does not always refer to future events, but can include past and current events.

Finally, even if the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory were to be proven wrong, that does not mean the Jehovah's Witnesses are right by default. Their theories must stand or fall on their own merits.

> **F. The servitude referred to at Jeremiah 25:11 whereby the nations which fell under the domination of the Babylonian Empire would serve the king of Babylon seventy years included a) vassalage, b) willing exile, and/or c) forced captivity and exile.**

Before determining whether Judah began serving the king of Babylon at any time prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, or only began to serve upon Jerusalem's destruction, it is first necessary to understand how Scripture defines the word "serve" or "servitude." Establishing the correct meaning of "servitude" goes a long way toward answering the underlying question of when Judah began its servitude. The Bible provides a straightforward answer which seems to have been lost on the 607-defenders whose failure to mention certain verses, specifically all of Jeremiah 27:11 which is directly on point, is disturbing to say the least. As mentioned above, Judah's years of vassalage or exile and captivity before Jerusalem's destruction does not have to satisfy a full seventy-year period under the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory. The commencement of Judah's vassalage or earlier exile however is relevant to show that the Jehovah's Witnesses' version of the seventy years of servitude and captivity exceeds seventy years and therefore fails.

The Jehovah's Witnesses' viewpoint set forth in _Setting the Record Straight_ is unequivocal. They contend that to "serve" is limited only to those Jews taken captive when Jerusalem was destroyed and Judah desolated and its inhabitants forced into Babylonian exile, and not before. It does not, they claim, apply to Judah and Jerusalem who served as tribute-paying vassals to the king of Babylon at any time, let alone before Jerusalem and Judah were destroyed. And, it does not apply to the very large number of Jews removed into exile at various intervals starting with, at a minimum, the recorded exile under Jehoiachin years prior to Jerusalem's destruction. But according to Scripture, nothing could be further from the truth. Though a long quote, relevant provisions taken from _Setting the Record Straight_ are set forth here:

> Thus, at Jeremiah 27:11, Jehovah could rightly extend favor toward any nation that would bring their necks "under the yoke of the king of Babylon and actually serve him."  
>   
>

> " And as for you men, do not listen to your prophets and to your practicers of divination and to your dreamers and to your practicers of magic and to your sorcerers, who are saying to you: "You men willnot serve the king of Babylon." . . . Even to Zedekiah the king of Judah I spoke according to all thesewords, saying: "Bring your necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serve him and his people and keep on living. Why should you yourself and your people die by the sword, by the famine and by the pestilence according to what Jehovah has spoken to the nation that does not serve the king of Babylon? And do not listen to the words of the prophets that are saying to you men, 'You will not servet he king of Babylon,' because falsehood is what they are prophesying to you."—Jeremiah 27:9, 10, 12- 14.

> So, how exactly was Zedekiah to bring his neck "under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serve him"? The answer is found at Jeremiah 38:17, 18:

> " Jeremiah now said to Zedekiah: "This is what Jehovah, the God of armies, the God of Israel, has said,' If you will without fail go out to the princes of the king of Babylon, your soul will also certainly keep living and this city itself will not be burned with fire, and you yourself and your household will certainly keep living. But if you will not go out to the princes of the king of Babylon, this city must also be given into the hand of the Chaldeans, and they will actually burn it with fire, and you yourselfwill not escape out of their hand.'"—Jeremiah 38:17, 18.

> Jeremiah 15:2 explains what this voluntary "going out" would require:

> And it must occur that should they say to you, 'Where shall we go out to?' you must also say to them,' This is what Jehovah has said: . . . whoever is for the captivity, to the captivity!"'—Jeremiah 15:2.

> As long as Jehoiakim, and later, Zedekiah, refused to "go out to the princes of the king of Babylon," the nation of Judah could not be said to be serving the king of Babylon. Furthermore, Jeremiah 1:1-3 tells us that the prophetic warnings continued right down to the "eleventh year of Zedekiah . . . until Jerusalem went into exile in the fifth month."

First, with respect to what it means to serve under the yoke of Babylon, the 607-defenders strictly limit the definition to forced captivity. Their misunderstanding stems from the fact that they omit all of Jeremiah 27:10 and 11 which specifically defines what that yoke of servitude is, yet, they include the surrounding verses. Jeremiah 27:11 makes it abundantly clear that the yoke of servitude includes vassalage.

> 9 "'"'And as for YOU men, do not listen to YOUR prophets and to YOUR practicers of divination and to YOUR dreamers and to YOUR practicers of magic and to YOUR sorcerers, who are saying to YOU: "YOU men will not serve the king of Babylon." 10 For falsehood is what they are prophesying to YOU, for the purpose of having YOU taken far away from off YOUR ground; and I shall have to disperse YOU, and YOU will have to perish.

> 11 "'" **'And as for the nation that will bring its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and actually serve him, I will also let it rest upon its ground,' is the utterance of Jehovah, 'and it will certainly cultivate it and dwell in it.**

Jehovah offered all nations the option of becoming vassals to the Babylonian Empire and thereby rest upon its ground and cultivate it and dwell in it. It was His preferred alternative to annihilation. The nations, including Judah, could exercise this option and become vassals - which coincidentaly also meant that some would become exiles taken peacefully (relatively speaking) to Babylon, or, they would be conquered by the sword and forcibly removed as captives or become dispersed. Either way, peacefully or by force, the nations, including Judah, would serve Babylon. A careful reading of relevant portions of Chapter 27 clarifies this:

> **  
> 1 In the beginning of the kingdom of Je·hoi´a·kim the son of Jo·si´ah, the king of Judah, this word occurred to Jeremiah from Jehovah, saying:**

> "'"This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said; this is what YOU should say to YOUR masters, 5 'I myself have made the earth, mankind and the beasts that are upon the surface of the earth by my great power and by my stretched-out arm; and I have given it to whom it has proved right in my eyes. 6 And now I myself have given all these lands into the hand of Neb·u·chad·nez´zar the king of Babylon, my servant; and even the wild beasts of the field I have given him to serve him. 7 And all the nations must serve even him and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes, and many nations and great kings must exploit him as a servant.'

> **8 "'"'And it must occur that the nation and the kingdom that will not serve him, even Neb·u·chad·nez´zar the king of Babylon; and the one that will not put its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, with the sword and with the famine and with the pestilence I shall turn my attention upon that nation,' is the utterance of Jehovah, 'until I shall have finished them off by his hand.'**

> 9 "'"'And as for YOU men, do not listen to YOUR prophets and to YOUR practicers of divination and to YOUR dreamers and to YOUR practicers of magic and to YOUR sorcerers, who are saying to YOU: "YOU men will not serve the king of Babylon." 10 For falsehood is what they are prophesying to YOU, for the purpose of having YOU taken far away from off YOUR ground; and I shall have to disperse YOU, and YOU will have to perish.

> **11 "'"'And as for the nation that will bring its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and actually serve him, I will also let it rest upon its ground,' is the utterance of Jehovah, 'and it will certainly cultivate it and dwell in it.'"'"**

> 12 **Even to Zed·e·ki´ah**

> 15 "'For I have not sent them,' is the utterance of Jehovah, 'but they are prophesying in my name falsely, to the end that I shall disperse YOU, and YOU will have to perish, YOU men and the prophets that are prophesying to YOU.'"

> 16 And to the priests and to all this people I spoke, saying: "This is what Jehovah has said, 'Do not listen to the words of YOUR prophets that are prophesying to YOU, saying: "Look! The utensils of the house of Jehovah are being brought back from Babylon soon now!" For falsehood is what they are prophesying to YOU. 17 Do not listen to them. Serve the king of Babylon and keep on living. Why should this city become a devastated place?

Secondly, because serving under the yoke of Babylon included vassalage, Judah began serving the king of Babylon in that capacity years before Jerusalem's fall, beginning at a minimum in the eighth year of Jehoiakim's reign.

> In his days Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came up, and so Jehoiakim became his servant for three years. (2 Kings 1:1).

After three years as a vassal Jehoiakim rebelled, and Nebuchadnezzar came up against him, removed to Babylon utensils from the house of Jehovah and according to a literal translation in the Interlinear Bible, "bound him in bronze fetters to take him away to Babylon." (2 Chronicles 36:5-7). The point is, because Judah's Jews began serving the king of Babylon as vassals at least by Jehoiakim's eighth year, the Jehovah's Witnesses' theory fails because it actually amounts to at least 80+ years of servitude even assuming their seventy-year period of servitude ended upon the Jews' return to Judah in 537 B.C.E., which it did not.

Third, the 607-defenders in _Setting the Record Straight_ also omitted Jeremiah 29:10 where it was made clear that destruction and captivity was not Jehovah's preferred method of punishing his people, but a consequence of not submitting as vassals; ie., they would suffer the sword, the famine, pestilence and captivity. Verse 10 also makes it clear that false prophets who pacified the populace by stating they would not serve Babylon did so for the purpose of having Judah destroyed and the people removed from off the ground. Jehovah's desire on the other hand was for Judah to serve as vassals; he did not "purpose," as did the false prophets, that his people perish by the plague, sword, famine and captivity.

Fourth, even Jeremiah and the false prophet Hananiah believed that the exiles numbering in excess of ten thousand and removed to Babylon during the reign of Jehoiachin served under the yoke of Babylon years before Jerusalem was destroyed. Jeremiah described the mass exodus as follows:

> " **And he took into exile all Jerusalem**

The 607-defenders in _Setting the Record Straight_ argue that none of these exiles, including craftsmen and artisans, peacefully removed from off their soil served the king of Babylon in accordance with the seventy-year prophecy of Jeremiah 25:11. Furthermore, they contend that the false prophets of Zedekiah's time, years later, did not believe that any Jews had begun to serve Babylon even though all of Jerusalem was exiled during the previous king Jehoiachin's reign. They argue that the yoke of servitude lay in the future. Scripture proves otherwise. The answer can be found in large part in chapter 28 of the book of Jeremiah, likewise omitted by the 607-defenders.

> 1 Then it came about in that year, in the beginning of the kingdom of Zed·e·ki´ah the king of Judah, in the fourth year, in the fifth month, that **Han·a·ni´ah the son of Az´zur, the prophet who was from Gib´e·on, said to me in the house of Jehovah before the eyes of the priests and of all the people: 2 "This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said, 'I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon. 3 Within two full years more I am bringing back to this place all the utensils of the house of Jehovah that Neb·u·chad·nez´zar the king of Babylon took from this place that he might bring them to Babylon.'" 4 "'And Jec·o·ni´ah the son of Je·hoi´a·kim, the king of Judah, and all the exiles of Judah who have come to Babylon I am bringing back to this place,' is the utterance of Jehovah, 'for I shall break the yoke of the king of Babylon.'"**

> 5 And Jeremiah the prophet proceeded to say to Han·a·ni´ah the prophet before the eyes of the priests and before the eyes of all the people who were standing in the house of Jehovah; 6 yes, Jeremiah the prophet proceeded to say: "Amen! Thus may Jehovah do! May Jehovah establish your words that you have prophesied by bringing back the utensils of the house of Jehovah and all the exiled people from Babylon to this place! 7 However, hear, please, this word that I am speaking in your ears and in the ears of all the people. 8 As regards the prophets that happened to be prior to me and prior to you from long ago, they also used to prophesy concerning many lands and concerning great kingdoms, of war and of calamity and of pestilence. 9 As regards the prophet that prophesies of peace, when the word of the prophet comes true the prophet whom Jehovah has sent in truth will become known."

> **10 At that Han·a·ni´ah the prophet took the yoke bar from off the neck of Jeremiah the prophet and broke it. 11 And Han·a·ni´ah went on to say before the eyes of all the people: "This is what Jehovah has said, 'Just like this I shall break the yoke of Neb·u·chad·nez´zar the king of Babylon within two full years more from off the neck of all the nations.'"**

> 12 Then the word of Jehovah occurred to Jeremiah, after Han·a·ni´ah the prophet had broken the yoke bar from off the neck of Jeremiah the prophet, saying: 13 "Go, and you must say to Han·a·ni´ah, 'This is what Jehovah has said: **"Yoke bars of wood you have broken, and instead of them you will have to make yoke bars of iron."**   
> **"A yoke of iron I will (have) put upon the neck of all these nations, to serve Neb·u·chad·nez´zar the king of Babylon; and they must serve him. And even the wild beasts of the field I will give him."'"**

> 15 And Jeremiah the prophet went on to say to Han·a·ni´ah the prophet: "Listen, please, O Han·a·ni´ah! Jehovah has not sent you, but **you yourself have caused this people to trust in a falsehood**

> 17 So Han·a·ni´ah the prophet died in that year, in the seventh month. (Parenthetical added).

The 607-defenders are entirely correct in stating that the yoke of servitude includes "captivity." Where they have gone astray in their understanding is limiting it to "forced" captivity applicable to only those removed at Jerusalem's destruction when chapter 28 makes it very clear that it applies to captives peacefully removed as well; they are the basket of "good figs" referenced in chapter 24.

Chapter 28 chronicles the acrimonious dual between Jeremiah and Hananiah over the current and future status of Jews already serving in exile under the Babylonian yoke in the fourth year of the kingdom of Zedekiah, in addition to all other nations who were serving and would continue to serve under the yoke of the Babylonian king. Hananiah falsely prophesied that Jehovah said that he would break the yoke of the king of Babylon and within two years bring back the utensils of the house of Jehovah which Nebuchadnezzar had carted off, and return the many thousands of exiles removed to Babylon. Hananiah went on to claim that Jehovah would within two full years more break the yoke from off the neck of all the nations. And to make his point, Hananiah took the symbolic wooden yoke off the neck of Jeremiah and broke it.

Please note that Jeremiah never disagreed that the exiles were serving under the yoke of Babylon and he wholeheartedly embraced the idea that the utensils should be returned. But he vehemently disagreed that the yoke of servitude on exiled Judah or all the other nations would be broken. Rather, the wooden yoke would become in reality a much more onerous yoke of iron which would saddle the Jews for years to come, which it did.

A significant point of departure exists in verse 14 of the Jehovah's Witnesses' Bible, the New World Translation, which attempts to push the yoke of servitude into the future by stating that Jehovah "will" put a yoke of iron on the neck of all these nations. A literal translation of that same verse in the Interlinear Bible uses the past tense: "I **have** put a yoke of iron on the neck of all these nations."

The difference is very important; "have" instead of "will" completely undermines the Jehovah's Witnesses' position that the yoke of servitude was a future event, but a simple unbiased reading of chapter 28 shows that Judah had already been serving under Babylon's yoke. Jeremiah said that instead of a wooden yoke there is an iron yoke, indicating an increase in the intensity and length of servitude which had been ongoing, and which in fact happened when Jerusalem and Judah were destroyed and the remaining nations also fell to Babylon. Jeremiah never stated, and it cannot be implied, that Judah had not been serving under the Babylonian yoke or that a yoke would rest on the neck of Judah for the first time beginning with Jerusalem's destruction even though all of Jerusalem had already been taken into exile under Jehoiachin.

Do not be distracted by the fact that Hananiah was a false prophet. His falsehood dealt specifically with whether or not the yoke of servitude would be broken off the exiles and the nations, not whether they were serving under the yoke in the first place. Jeremiah and Hananiah were in accord in this regard.

Hananiah, being a false prophet, had deceived the people and caused them to trust in falsehood and lies. By building a foundation of trust, he, and other false prophets, were able to sell the lie for the truth, the falsehood being what the people wanted to hear.

Fifth, the Jehovah's Witnesses' statement therefore in _Setting the Record Straight_ , that "Even in the minds of the false prophets of Zedekiah's day, it was clear that the inhabitants of Judah were not yet bound by servitude to Babylon," is manifestly false and a gross mischaracterization of the events surrounding the false prophetic statements and the context within which they were spoken.

The false prophetic warning to Zedekiah that "You will not serve the king of Babylon" at Jeremiah 27:9 and 14 was delivered in the beginning of the kingdom of Zedekiah in his fourth year (Jeremiah 27:1). The warning delivered to him **at that time** in verse 12 was limited to him:

> Even to Zedekiah the king of Judah I spoke according to all these words, saying: "Bring your necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serve him and his people and keep on living."

He was the last king to rule Judah before Jerusalem and Judah were destroyed. Zedekiah had steadfastly refused to continue as vassal to Babylon. Chapter 27 explains how Jeremiah was commissioned as early as the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign to warn other nations to submit to the yoke of Babylon. That warning, and offer to serve as vassal, was repeated to Zedekiah in the beginning of his reign as well. He preferred the lie, the counsel of the false prophets who said he would not serve. He stubbornly refused and rebelled. Eventually Jehovah's generous offer of serving as a vassal was taken off the table. Judah was dismantled and suffered the sword, pestilence, famine and the yoke of captivity. Judah ended up serving the hard way as symbolized by the basket of bad figs of Jeremiah chapters 24 and 29:17.

Nowhere in chapter 27 does it read or can it be implied that the false prophets believed that Judah had not already started to serve under Judah's previous kings. The above discussions prove the exact opposite, that servitude had been a long ongoing-affair. The false prophets' warning to Zedekiah in verse 12 was directed to him and was not a sweeping historical statement of the Jewish condition from the days of Jehoiakim onward. Jeremiah chapter 27 puts the false prophets' statements into proper context.

Sixth, Jeremiah's letter to those earlier exiles unequivocally corroborates the fact that the seventy years of servitude of Jeremiah 25:11 had already begun long before Jerusalem's destruction seven or eleven years later. In his letter at Jeremiah 29:4-18, written before Jerusalem was destroyed, Jehovah, through Jeremiah, informed the exiles they were in for a long stay, and they should settle in, build houses, plant gardens and raise families. Then, at the end of seventy years, when seventy years had been fulfilled - that is, when the seventy year prophecy of Jeremiah 25:11 ended at the fall of Babylon while the exiles were still in Babylon, Jehovah would turn his attention to the exiles and bring them back to Judah.

> 4 "This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said to all the exiled people, whom I have caused to go into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon, 5 'Build houses and inhabit [them], and plant gardens and eat their fruitage. 6 Take wives and become father to sons and to daughters; and take wives for YOUR own sons and give YOUR own daughters to husbands, that they may give birth to sons and to daughters; and become many there, and do not become few. 7 Also, seek the peace of the city to which I have caused YOU to go into exile, and pray in its behalf to Jehovah, for in its peace there will prove to be peace for YOU yourselves. 8 For this is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said: "Let not YOUR prophets who are in among YOU and YOUR practicers of divination deceive YOU, and do not YOU listen to their dreams that they are dreaming. 9 For 'it is in falsehood that they are prophesying to YOU in my name. I have not sent them,' is the utterance of Jehovah."'"

> **10 "For this is what Jehovah has said, 'In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.'**

> 11 "'For I myself well know the thoughts that I am thinking toward YOU,' is the utterance of Jehovah, 'thoughts of peace, and not of calamity, to give YOU a future and a hope. 12 And YOU will certainly call me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to YOU.'

> 13 "'And YOU will actually seek me and find [me], for YOU will search for me with all YOUR heart. 14 And I will let myself be found by YOU,' is the utterance of Jehovah. 'And I will gather YOUR body of captives and collect YOU together out of all the nations and out of all the places to which I have dispersed YOU,' is the utterance of Jehovah. 'And I will bring YOU back to the place from which I caused YOU to go into exile.'

> 15 "But YOU have said, 'Jehovah has raised up for us prophets in Babylon.'

> 16 "For this is what Jehovah has said to the king sitting on the throne of David and to all the people dwelling in this city, YOUR brothers that have not gone forth with YOU into exile, 17 'This is what Jehovah of armies has said: "Here I am sending against them the sword, the famine and the pestilence, and I will make them like the burst-open figs that cannot be eaten for badness."'

> 18 "'And I will pursue after them with the sword, with the famine and with the pestilence, and I will give them for a quaking to all the kingdoms of the earth, for a curse and for an object of astonishment and for a whistling at and for a reproach among all the nations to which I shall certainly disperse them, 19 due to the fact that they have not listened to my words,' is the utterance of Jehovah, 'that I have sent to them with my servants the prophets, getting up early and sending [them].'

It is simply not reasonable to believe that the seventy-year period mentioned in his letter had not yet begun. It was unmistakably already in progress. Otherwise, why bother mentioning it in the first place? Why insert it between the admonition to settle in and the promise of their return? The seventy years was directly connected to those earlier exiles and not later exiles who arrived in the wake of Jerusalem's destruction eleven, or seven, years in the future. Jeremiah's reminder that they were in for a long stay was not directed to those later exiles captured under Zedekiah's rule, but he directed the letter specifically to the Jehoiachin exiles who were also included in the group of captives that Jehovah caused to return. He did not state that when seventy years had been fulfilled "81 years from now, beginning eleven years in the future" he would turn his attention to the Jehoiachin exiles. He did not tell them the seventy years he was referring to applied only to a future generation of exiles, for if that was his intent he surely would have told them to wait the full 81 or 77 years, which is what their stay would have amounted to.

No credible inference to the contrary can be drawn. Under the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory, or any other theory for that matter which recognizes that Judah's exiles began serving Babylon years before the final destruction of Zedekiah's Jerusalem, the seventy-year period of servitude was already in progress.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are quick to point out Jeremiah 29:10 in support of their position:

> 10 "For this is what Jehovah has said, 'In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at **(for)**

A cursory reading of the phrase "In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon..." might suggest that the seventy years entailed the entire nation being exiled at Babylon seventy years which could only happen if the period began at Jerusalem's destruction. Under the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory, "at Babylon" is more properly rendered "for Babylon." The difference is significant. Either rendering is linguistically permissible, but only "for Babylon" is probable and proper, and is the translation employed by nearly every other Bible including a literal translation in the Interlinear Bible. The Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation (NWT) and the King James Bible (KJV) - routinely vilified by the Jehovah's Witnesses for its lack of credibility - use "at Babylon." In other words, the Hebrew word " _le_ " can be rendered "at" or "for."

This is a serious point of contention. The question is whether Jeremiah 29:10 may properly read "In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon?" As will be demonstrated in the following sections, "at Babylon" is not a proper translation and more importantly it cannot logically be used because it fails numerous tests. The question of what the correct interpretation is will be revisited later because employing the correct interpretation requires drawing a conclusion; it is a judgment call derived after a process of scriptural analysis and the application of common sense.

Before undertaking this inquiry one critical definition is in order pertaining to the word "fulfill" or "fulfillment." The Jehovah's Witnesses routinely imply that "fulfill" means "equal" when referring to the seventy-year period. This incorrect definition is essential to their seventy-year theory. Perhaps it is the notion of "fullness" that confuses them. To them, "fulfillment of seventy years" means "equal to seventy years" or any similar concept that equates fulfillment with these controversial seventy years.

But their understanding is wrong. Because it refers to a prophetic period of time, fulfillment means the "end" of seventy years of servitude, the conclusion of it, the accomplishment of it - the end of serving the Babylonian Empire in 539 B.C.E. The Random House Collegiate Dictionary explains:

> " **Fulfill**

Please keep this in mind during the course of reading this paper. Furthermore, the overwhelming, vast majority of Bibles translate Jeremiah 29:10 "for Babylon," not "at Babylon," including, but not limited to, the _NAB, NIV, NLT, ESV, NASB, ASV, BIBE, DBT, ERV, WEB_ and _Green's Literal Translation_ , not to mention recently updated versions of the Jehovah's Witnesses' _New World Translation_ published in Swedish and Danish. As Carl Olof Jonsson illustrates in his recent critique of the WBTS' defense of 607 B.C.E. in _When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed_ (2011), world-leading experts on the subject are in accord. Pursuant to Professor Ernst Jenni, the most respected authority on Hebrew prepositions, Jeremiah 29:10 must read "for Babylon," providing, "The rendering in all modern commentaries and translations is 'for Babel' (Babel as world power, not city or land); this is clear from the language as well as also from the context" ( _GTR4_ , pages 212, 213, 379).

Likewise, Dr. Seth Erlandsson writes, "The spatial sense [at Babylon] is impossible at Jer. 29:10" (paranthetical added). Professor Norman Gottwald emphasizes: "Certainly it must be stressed that the seventy years refer primarily to the time of Babylonian world dominion and not to the time of the exile, as is often carelessly supposed." (N. Gottwald, _All the Kingdoms of the Earth_ , New York, Evanston, London: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1964, pp. 265, 266). The author of the classic _Handbook of Biblical Chronology_ , Professor Jack Finegan, wrote in 1998 on page 255 of the second edition, that "The 'seventy years... for Babylon,' of which Jeremiah speaks are therefore seventy years of Babylonian rule, and the return of Judah from exile is contingent upon the end of that period. Since the final fall of the Assyrian empire was in 609 B.C. (§ 430), and the New Babylonian empire endured from then until Cyrus the Persian took Babylon in 539, the period of Babylonian domination was in fact seventy years (609 – 539 = 70)."

Mr. Jonsson, whose treatise can be found online at http://kristenfrihet.se/vtsvar/vtsvar1.pdf, also emphasizes the expertise of "Dr. Jack Lundbom, an internationally respected authority on the book of Jeremiah. His three-volume commentary on Jeremiah in the Anchor Bible series is the most extensive and detailed modern commentary on the book, covering 2262 pages in all (Vol. I, 1999, XXV+934 pages; Vol. II, 2004, XVI+649 pages; and Vol. III, 2004, XIV+638 pages). In his discussion of the 70 years in Jeremiah 25:10-12 and 29:10 Dr. Lundbom concludes that this period refers 'not to the length of Judah's exile or to Jerusalem's desolations, but to Babylon's tenure as a world power (Duhm).

He (Lundbom) further observes: Classical Historians – How Accurate? – The Canon of Ptolemy: " From the fall of Nineveh (612 B.C.) to Babylon's capture by Cyrus (539 B.C.) was 73 years; from the Battle of Carchemish (605 B.C.– Nebuchadrezzar's first year; cf. 25:1) to Babylon's capture by Cyrus (539 B.C.) was 66 years; and from the actual end of the Assyrian Empire (609/8 B.C.) to Babylon's capture by Cyrus and the return of the exiles (539 B.C.) was almost precisely 70 years.' (Vol. II, Doubleday, 2004, pp. 249, 250)."

One should therefore make no mistake about this crucial fact. Jeremiah 29:10 refers to the domination of all the nations by the Babylonian Empire for 70 years. It does not mean that Jerusalem's exiles would serve the Babylonian Empire, "at Babylon" for 70 years.

> **G. The nations' seventy years of servitude ended in 539 B.C.E. when Babylon fell to the Persians and Medes while the exiles were still in Babylon, thus bringing to a conclusion the servitude prophecy at Jeremiah 25:11, before the Jews returned home.**

So, in light of Jeremiah's detailed explanation in chapter 25 and elsewhere that the seventy years of servitude applied to the nations of the earth that came under the domination of Babylon, the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory, what did he intend to convey in his letter to the exiles at Jeremiah 29:10? Did he mean that after the nations collectively finished serving Babylon seventy years when the empire fell he would turn his attention to the exiles and return them home? Or did he mean, as the Jehovah's Witnesses argue, that after the exiles returned home to Judah after having served at Babylon seventy years, beginning with the destruction of Jerusalem, he would turn his attention to them and bring them home from Babylon? That doesn't make sense, but that is precisely what they are arguing, even though on its face it is obviously illogical. None-the-less, even assuming that their interpretation is correct it fails repeatedly under a simple test.

Under the test, if the seventy-year period ended in 539 B.C.E. when Babylon fell and the Persians and Medes began to reign while the exiles were still in Babylon, the Jehovah's Witnesses' Return theory fails in three significant ways: **a)** the seventy years obviously did not end upon their return in 537 B.C.E., **b)** their seventy-year period amounts to only 68 years from 607 B.C.E. to 539 B.C.E., and **c)** from the fall of Babylon in October 539 B.C.E. to the exiles' return to Judah in 537 B.C.E. there was no king of Babylon to serve. So when exactly did the prophecy at Jeremiah 25:11 end, whereby "these nations" would stop serving the king of Babylon seventy years? It ended in October, 539 B.C.E., not upon their return in 537 B.C.E.

First, nowhere in the Bible does it state that the return of the Jews marked the end of the seventy years. Second, Leviticus 26:32-35 whereby Moses prophesied the pending curse and punishment that befell the Jews states that Jehovah would scatter them among the nations and that the land would become a desolation, and Judah would pay off its Sabbaths all the days of its lying desolate **while the exiles were in the land of their enemies, Babylon, and not after they returned.**

> 32 And I, for my part, will lay the land desolate, and YOUR enemies who are dwelling in it will simply stare in amazement over it. 33 And YOU I shall scatter among the nations, and I will unsheathe a sword after YOU; and YOUR land must become a desolation, and YOUR cities will become a desolate ruin.

> 34 "' **At that time the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days of its lying desolated, while YOU are in the land of YOUR enemies**

So even though the exiles had not reoccupied the desolated lands and were still in Babylon, the seventy-year prophetic curse ended.

Third, Jeremiah 25:12 states that only after the seventy years had ended, or been fulfilled, Jehovah would call to account against the king of Babylon, which he did beginning with its fall to Cyrus in October 539 B.C.E., one date the Jehovah's Witnesses and everyone else seem to agree on. The seventy years ended when Babylon fell, not two years later when the exiles stepped foot back on the soil of Judah.

> 12 "'And it must occur that **when seventy years have been fulfilled**

Fourth, Jeremiah 29:10 likewise concludes the end of the seventy-year period of servitude while the Jews were in Babylon, not after they returned.

> **10 "For this is what Jehovah has said, 'In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.'**

> 11 "'For I myself well know the thoughts that I am thinking toward YOU,' is the utterance of Jehovah, 'thoughts of peace, and not of calamity, to give YOU a future and a hope. 12 And YOU will certainly call me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to YOU.'

> 13 "'And YOU will actually seek me and find [me], for YOU will search for me with all YOUR heart. 14 And I will let myself be found by YOU,' is the utterance of Jehovah. 'And I will gather YOUR body of captives and collect YOU together out of all the nations and out of all the places to which I have dispersed YOU,' is the utterance of Jehovah. 'And I will bring YOU back to the place from which I caused YOU to go into exile.'

After the seventy years ended Jehovah would turn his attention to his people and bring them back. The seventy years had to end first in 539 B.C.E., in Babylon, and only then would his people be gathered together and brought back.

Fifth, 2 Chronicles 36:20 states that the captives removed to Babylon would be servants to the king "until the royalty of Persia began to reign," which began October 539 B.C.E. and not until the exiles physically returned to Judah two years later.

> "Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons **until the royalty of Persia began to reign**

Both sides agree that Babylon fell to the Persians in October 539 B.C.E. That fall signaled the beginning of Persia's reign. The prophet Daniel foretold its sudden collapse when he interpreted the writing on the wall for Babylon's king Belshazzer,"This is the interpretation of the word: MENE, **God has numbered [the days of] your kingdom and finished it**." And he did in 539 B.C.E.

Sixth, the Jehovah's Witnesses at page 24 contradict themselves because they also claim that Ezra wrote that the seventy years ran until the first year of Cyrus which they submit was his first regnal year, which would actually be his second year of having power.

> ... the inspired Bible writer Ezra reported that the 70 years ran until "the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia," who issued a decree allowing the Jews to return to their homeland. (Ezra 1:1-4; 2 Chronicles 36:21-23)  
>   
>

This statement is false. The inspired Bible writer Ezra never said that, and furthermore, their position contradicts the Jehovah's Witnesses' own claim under its Return theory that the seventy years ran until the exiles returned to Judah in the fall of 537 B.C.E., long after the decree setting them free was issued, and after Cyrus began to reign. Not only is it a contradiction, but it is not correct. In the first place it contravenes 2 Chronicles 36:22 just quoted which pegs the end of the 70 years at the inception of the reign of Persian royalty, which began immediately when Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E., not one year later beginning with the second, or 'regnal' year of Cyrus' rule. Again, common sense is in order. _Setting the Record Straight_ at 24 claims "the first year of Cyrus" was his first regnal year which would be his second actual year of ruling Babylon. However that would create a one-year gap between Babylon's fall and the Persians' reign, and surely no one could suggest that when Cyrus made his triumphant entry 16 days after Babylon's fall in October 539 B.C.E. to his army that the reign of Persia had not yet begun or that the Babylonian Empire was still ruling and in control. Daniel said that the Babylonian kingdom was finished.

Read Ezra 1:1-4 and 2 Chronicles 36:21-23 carefully. Ezra did not state that the seventy years ran until the first regnal (or second actual) year of Cyrus the Persian's reign. Ezra did not say that in order for the seventy years to come to an end Cyrus had to issue his decree setting them free which was long after Persia began to rule. One of their contradictions ends in Babylon, the other in Judah, and it is strategically and scripturally not feasible to occur at the exact same time or in the same year.

So what basis do the Jehovah's Witnesses claim supports their belief that the seventy-year prophecy ended upon the exiles' return to Judah in 537 B.C.E. and not earlier when Babylon fell to Persia in 539 B.C.E.? Nothing, as it turns out, although they allude to their reasoning in _Setting the Record Straight_ at p. 25, 26:

> "And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, **that Jehovah's word from the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished**

> The highlighted portion of the above-quoted verse serves as unimpeachable evidence that "Jehovah's word from the mouth of Jeremiah" had not yet been accomplished, even by the "first year of Cyrus," proving conclusively that the conquest of Babylon by Persia was not the determining factor in fulfilling Jeremiah's prophecy.

All that this vague and convoluted assertion attempts to state is that the seventy-year period allegedly ended when the Jews returned in 537 B.C.E. and not when Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.; that the Jews' return had not happened by the time Babylon fell. Well, of course it hadn't, but more importantly, it wasn't a requirement because the seventy years ended in 539 B.C.E., not on their return. Because their return happened two years after Persia conquered Babylon, the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory fails, they claim, because Babylon was conquered two years before their return.

This false and distorted piece of logic begs the essential question: "When did the seventy years end?" Had they been forthcoming and actually quoted Jehovah's word from the mouth of Jeremiah rather than force the reader to hunt for its meaning it would have been self-evident, but more importantly, it would have proven them wrong which is perhaps why they did not wish to bring it to the readers' attention in the first place.

We can determine what Jehovah's word was by reference to Ezra 1:1-4 and 2 Chronicles 36:22 which they quote in support of their position. And even though neither one of these verses specify what the word of Jehovah was either, the context and subject matter of these Scriptures indicates that it referres to Jehovah's promise to return the Jews and Cyrus' decree setting them free.

> 1 And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, that **Jehovah's word from the mouth of Jeremiah**

> 2 "This is what Cyrus the king of Persia has said, 'All the kingdoms of the earth Jehovah the God of the heavens has given me, and he himself has commissioned me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. 3 Whoever there is among YOU of all his people, may his God prove to be with him. So let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of Jehovah the God of Israel—he is the [true] God—which was in Jerusalem. 4 As for anyone that is left from all the places where he is residing as an alien, let the men of his place assist him with silver and with gold and with goods and with domestic animals along with the voluntary offering for the house of the [true] God, which was in Jerusalem.'"(Ezra 1:1-4 see also 2 Chronicles 36:22,23).

Jehovah's word related to the return of the Jews and is found at Jeremiah 29:10. But only **after** the seventy years had ended would he turn his attention to returning the Jews.

> 10 "For this is what Jehovah has said, 'In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.'

This, in actuality, is unimpeachable evidence that the seventy years of servitude came to an end first in 539 B.C.E. and only later, in 537 B.C.E. would the Jews return. Accordingly, it is not necessary or even possible that the 'return' occur before Babylon fell and the seventy years ended. Even with their improper rendering that the seventy years would be accomplished at Babylon, the Jehovah's Witnesses' Return theory lacks merit. Jeremiah 29:10 supports the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory and disproves the Jehovah's Witnesses' Return theory.

> **H. The seventy years could not have ended when the exiles returned to Judah in 537 B.C.E. because there existed no king of Babylon to serve for two years between 537 B.C.E. and 539 B.C.E., after Persia began its reign in 539 B.C.E.**

If there was no longer a king of Babylon once the reign of Persia began, how could the exiles serve him for two more years until they returned to their homeland? It would not be possible. The Jehovah's Witnesses counter that Cyrus the king of Persia was the king of Babylon during those last two years between 539 B.C.E. and 537 B.C.E. so they were still captives serving a king of Babylon, Cyrus. They also claim that at first Cyrus did not alter the policy of the Babylonian Dynasty and therefore the nations continued to serve 'the king of Babylon' (thus dipping into the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory for convenience' sake), and that a contemporary clay inscription quotes Cyrus as referring to himself as king of Babylon. Their argument is reproduced here:

> Until their release in 537 B.C.E, **for the entire duration that the Jewish exiles were held captive in Babylon, it could rightly be said that they were serving the king of Babylon** **or about two years before the" seventy years" of desolation of the land of Judah ran out. He proclaimed himself "king of Babylon" and at first did not alter the policy of the Babylonian dynasty of King Nebuchadnezzar.** **Thus the nations subjugated by Nebuchadnezzar continued to serve "the king of Babylon" 70 years."**   
> **A contemporary inscription on a clay barrel confirms the accuracy of the Biblical account:**

Four questions present themselves: **a)** what year was Cyrus crowned king of Babylon, **b)** if he was crowned king of Babylon before the Jews returned to Judah why was he referred to as king of Persia during this time, and afterwards, **c)** if he was not crowned king of Babylon immediately in 539 B.C.E. when Babylon fell but at a later date, allowing for a gap in time, could the exiles legitimately be said to have served him during that gap which would shorten the seventy year time span, and **d)** even if Cyrus was crowned king of Babylon before the Jews returned, did he change the empire's policy and free the Jews so that they were not serving as captive slaves to Cyrus even before they began the long journey home?

First, while it is true that at Ezra 5:13 Cyrus was referred to as king of Babylon, it should be noted that it was not the Jews who referred to Cyrus as the king of Babylon, but the Jews' enemies who were attemping to thwart the rebuilding effort who paraphrased the Jewish response. Their enemies claimed the Jews referred to Cyrus as king of Babylon, which is heresay. The Jewish defense was restated in a letter from the Jews' enemies Tattenai, the governor beyond the river, to King Darius years after their return. The letter was written long after the exiles returned while the task of re-building was underway. It does not provide any evidence that Cyrus was king of Babylon from October 539 B.C.E. to 537 B.C.E. See generally chapter 5 of the book of Ezra.

Secondly, as a matter of fact Cyrus is referred to as king of Persia six times in verses preceding Ezra 5:13; four instances covering the time period before the exiles departed Babylon (Ezra 1:1, 2, 8), and twice in connection with the Jews' attempts at rebuilding the temple at Ezra 4:3,5. Before the Jews returned, and even after they returned, they considered Cyrus king of Persia.

Third, the Jehovah's Witnesses find support for their theory that the Jews served Cyrus the king of Babylon from 539 B.C.E. to 537 B.C.E. by reference to the above highlighted undated 'contemporary' cuneiform inscription on a clay barrel. As it turns out, this clay barrel is no ordinary clay barrel. It is considered to be the first charter of human rights and a very important historical artifact. In addition, it is the document, or charter, by which captives of the Babylonian Empire were freed, including the Jews. And that date, was the first day of spring 538 B.C.E., a mere 6 months or less after Babylon fell:

> "The charter of Cyrus the Great, a baked-clay Aryan language (Old Persian) cuneiform cylinder, was discovered in 1878 in excavation of the site of Babylon. In it, Cyrus the Great described his human treatment of the inhabitants of Babylonia after its conquest by the Iranians.

> The document has been hailed as the first charter of human rights, and in 1971 the United Nations was published translation of it in all the official U.N. languages. "May Ahura Mazda protect this land, this nation, from rancor, from foes, from falsehood, and from drought". Selected from the book "The Eternal Land".

> This is a confirmation that the **Charter of freedom of Humankind issued by Cyrus the Great on his coronation day**

> Comparing the Human Rights Manifesto of the French National Assembly and the Charter approved by the United Nations with the Charter of Freedom of Cyrus, the latter appears more valuable considering its age, explicitness, and rejection of the superstitions of the ancient world.

> **Cyrus the Great entered the city of Babylon in 539 BCE, and after the winter, on the first day of spring, he was officially crowned:** **I lifted their unbecoming yoke** Their dilapidated dwellings I restored. I put an end to their misfortunes.

> The description of the coronation of Cyrus is the most elaborate one in the world written by the Greek philosopher, politician, and historian Xenephon (Cyropaedia of Xenophon, The Life of Cyrus The Great).

> On the day of coronation, Cyrus read the Charter of Freedom out after he put on the crown with his hand in Marduk Temple.

> Uncertain and the full text of the Charter was unavailable until an inscription was found during the excavation works in the old city of Ur in Mesopotamia. After the translation of the words, it was found out that the document was the same Charter. It is now kept in the British Museum and it is no exaggeration to say that **it is one of the most precious historical records of the world.**

> In the Charter, after introducing himself and mentioning the names of his father, first, second, and third ancestors, Cyrus says that he is the monarch of Iran, Babylon, and the four continents:

> I am Kourosh (Cyrus), King of the world, great king, mighty king, **king of Babylon,**

> He continues:  
>   
>  **the holy cities beyond the Tigris whose sanctuaries had been in ruins over a long period, the gods whose abode is in the midst of them, I returned to their places and housed them in lasting abodes.**

> **I gathered together all their inhabitations and restored (to them) their dwellings** The gods of Sumer and Akkad whom Nabounids had, to the anger of the lord of the gods, brought into Babylon. I, at the bidding of Marduk, the great lord, made to dwell in peace in their habitations, delightful abodes.

> May all the gods whom I have placed within their sanctuaries address a daily prayer in my favour before Bel and Nabu, that my days may be long, and may they say to Marduk my lord, "May Kourosh (Cyrus) the King, who reveres thee, and Camboujiyah (Cambyases) his son ..."

> And:  
>   
>  **I will respect the traditions, customs and religions of the nations of my empire and never let any of my governors and subordinates look down on or insult them until I am alive.** **I will impose my monarchy on no nation. Each is free to accept it , and if any one of them rejects it , I never resolve on war to reign** Until I am the king of Iran, Babylon, and the nations of the four directions, I never let anyone oppress any others, and if it occurs , I will take his or her right back and penalize the oppressor.

> **And until I am the monarch, I will never let anyone take possession of movable and landed properties of the others by force or without compensation. Until I am alive,** **I prevent unpaid, forced labor. To day, I announce that everyone is free to choose a religion. People are free to live in all regions and take up a job provided that they never violate other's rights.**

> No one could be penalized for his or her relatives' faults. **I prevent slavery**

> I implore to (Ahura) Mazda to make me succeed in fulfilling my obligations to the nations of Iran (Persia), Babylon, and the ones of the four directions." (www.IranChamber.com).

So, even though the "contemporary" barrel may have been undated, within it one finds key dates and policy changes which completely undermine the the Jehovah's Witnesses' understanding. The most glaring oversight by Jehovah's Witnesses is the date Cyrus was crowned king of Babylon, the first day of spring 538 B.C.E., roughly six months or less after Babylon fell to the Persians. So, for those six months there was no "king of Babylon" for the Jews to serve and their servitude amounts to around 69 1/2 years, not seventy. And if he was crowned a year later, in the spring of 537 B.C.E., as the Jehovah's Witnesses imply, that amounts to a year and a half gap of the Jews not serving any king of Babylon.

Yet, even if Cyrus was crowned king of Babylon, from the first day of spring 538 B.C.E. he set the Jews and all the other Babylonian captives free. He imposed his monarchy (kingship) on no people unless they wished it, which the Jews did not. He outlawed unpaid forced labor (slavery), people were free to live in all regions, and displaced inhabitants were restored to their dwellings. The Jehovah's Witnesses' lack of basic understanding of this is incredulous. A little common sense, coupled with this "clay barrel" go a long way. Were the Jews still captive slaves after Cyrus set them free? No. Were they still captive slaves until they actually picked up their things and started walking home? Of course not. The Jews were not captive servants to any king of Babylon once Persia ruled. Again, the Jehovah's Witnesses come up short of seventy years.

Fourth, the Jehovah's Witnesses further argue, as stated above, that Cyrus proclaimed himself king of Babylon and at first did not alter the policy of the Babylonian dynasty or Nebuchadnezzar and therefore the Jews continued to serve the king of Babylon seventy years. The problem of course is that the authors of the Watchtower magazine failed to cite any authority for their self-serving statement that "at first [Cyrus] did not alter the policy...." That statement is false, they offer no proof, and as just shown, Cyrus' Charter of Freedom above disproves any such notion. Cyrus did, in fact, alter the policy and set the Jews free early in his reign, within six months of his numerous years of ruling Babylon. There could not be a more profound policy change affecting the captive Jews, and other captives, than this.

Fifth, citing no verifiable authority they attempt to avoid this dilemma by asserting that the official decree freeing the exiled captives occurred in late 538 B.C.E. or early 537 B.C.E. in a last-ditch effort to push the date of captivity as close to 537 B.C.E. as possible. However, as shown above, it has been solidly established by archeologists and historians the world over that Cyrus' decree was issued in 538 B.C.E.

Sixth, even assuming for the sake of argument that the roughly 50,000 exiles set free by Cyrus were not technically free until they began walking home after lengthy preparations, the Jehovah's Witnesses' Return theory still falls four months short of seventy years because that is how long it took them to complete the journey according to _The Watchtower_ of May 1, 1952, pp. 271-2:

> In either case this would have given sufficient time for the large party of 49,897 Jews to organize their expedition and to make their long **four-month journey from Babylon to Jerusalem**

_Setting the Record Straight_ at pp. 4-5 is in accord with this position and clarifies that the seventy years was exactly seventy years to the month.

> At 2 Kings 25:25, 26, the Bible reports that by the seventh month even those left behind, "all the people, from small to great," fled to Egypt, leaving the land completely desolate, " without an inhabitant." As this factor was necessary for fulfillment (Isaiah 6:11, 12; Jeremiah 4:23, 25; 4:27,  
>   
>   
>   
>  **From this date, Jehovah's Witnesses count back seventy years to 607 B.C.E. as the year for Jerusalem's destruction. Thus, the " devastations of Jerusalem, [namely], seventy years," spoken of by Daniel the prophet,** **were exactly seventy years in duration, running from the seventh month of 607 B.C.E. to the seventh month of 537 B.C.E.**

Accordingly, if the Jews' seventy-year period of captivity ran exactly seventy years from the seventh month of 607 B.C.E. to the seventh month of 537 B.C.E., but they were set free and were not captive during the four months it took them to travel home, their seventy-year Return theory fails because they were captive for only sixty-nine years and eight months. They could not have 'served' the king of Babylon, even if it was Cyrus, for the full seventy years.

Seventh, the entire argument that Cyrus the Persian, the anointed of Jehovah, who rescued the Jews and freed them was on equal footing with the previous Babylonian kings who slaughtered, captured and enslaved the Jews in the first place contradicts a literal reading of Jehovah's prophecy to all the nations which was very sweeping in scope. Which of these nations of Jeremiah 25:11 were to serve the king of Babylon seventy years? According to Jeremiah 25:26 they included "... all the kings of the Medes ... all the kings of the north who are near and far away, one after the other, and all the [other] kingdoms of the earth that are on the surface of the ground;...." This includes Persia and the Medes who conquered Babylon. As such the Jehovah's Witnesses' theory would result in an incompatible irony - during the last two years of the Jews' seventy-year Return theory the kings of Persia and the Medes would have had to serve itself.

Ultimately, the Jehovah's Witnesses' arguments supporting their Return theory - that the seventy years ended when the exiles returned to their homeland - are moot and irrelevant because as established above and in accordance with clear, unambiguous Scripture, the seventy years of servitude applied to all nations dominated by the Babylonian Empire, and that dominance, and the nations' corresponding servitude to the kings(s) of Babylon ended in October 539 B.C.E. when Babylon fell.

The seventy-year prophecy ended while the Jews were in Babylon and only later did they return home. There is no viable Return theory. And because there is no Return theory, because it is an unscriptural and impossible concept to implement due to its many failures and inconsistencies the Jehovah's Witnesses incorrectly render Jeremiah 29:10 'at Babylon,' rather than 'for Babylon'. But the latter is what Jehovah through the mouth of Jeremiah intended.

> 10 "For this is what Jehovah has said, 'In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years **for Babylon**

> **I. The phrase "and all this land must become a devasted place, an object of astonishment" at Jeremiah 25:11 does not mean a) the land Judah, and Jerusalem, would exist without a single inhabitant, b) for a period of exactly 70 years, c) beginning with Jerusalem's destruction.**

Jeremiah 25:11 in its entirety in the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation Bible reads "And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years." You can stare at that sentence all day long and it still will not say that Judah and Jerusalem would exist in that state without a single inhabitant or that its devastated condition would last exactly seventy years beginning with Jerusalem's destruction and not before. It just doesn't say that, yet the Jehovah's Witnesses have grafted these embellishments onto its meaning.

The two parts of Jeremiah 25:11, devastation and servitude, are distinct concepts even though they share common origins; both stem from Jehovah's punishment of Judah and all the nations by the hand, or sword, of Babylon. The devastation deals with the physical state or condition of a geographic region, one nation, Judah and its cities. Servitude, on the other hand, relates to the human condition of people of many nations, including Judah, and their subservient relationship to political authority, Babylon.

Through a process of arbitrarily mixing and matching verses, the Jehovah's Witnesses have attempted to change the "devastation" aspect of the prophecy to mean that beginning at the destruction of Jerusalem, and not before, Judah and its cities would become a) a devastated place, b) without a single inhabitant, c) for exactly seventy years. Scripture proves otherwise.

> **J. The devastated condition of Judah does not mean it existed in that state without a single inhabitant.**

The Hebrew word for 'devastated' or 'devastations' is _chorbah_. The Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament by Dr. James Strong (1890) defines ' _chorbah_ ' as: "a place laid waste, ruin, wasted, desolation." And while it is agreed that the degree of devastation, or _chorbah_ , was severe, the Jehovah's Witnesses, according to _Setting the Record Straight_ at p. 15, contend that Judah, and by extension Jerusalem, "would be devastated so as to be without an inhabitant," and that the concept of Judah's devastation, or _chorbah_ , of Jeremiah 25:11 did not apply to its condition at any time before its destruction.

In support they quote Jeremiah 6:7-8, 9:11, 4:23, 25, 4:27, 29b, 24:8, 10, Isaiah 6:11, 12 and Jeremiah 44:2,6., all of which correctly state that Jerusalem and/or Judah would exist without an inhabitant, or something similar. But nowhere in those verses does it say the uninhabited state would last seventy years. More importantly, they omit key verses which prove that Judah and Jerusalem were in fact inhabited during that time, and that _chorbah_ does not by definition mean a devastated place that cannot be inhabited, or that the era preceding Jerusalem's destruction was not in a devastated condition.

First, in quoting the original prophecy handed down by Moses the Watchtower Society omitted Leviticus 26:32 which refutes their argument.

> After describing the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21 states: "Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came  
>

The reference to the land paying off its sabbaths is a direct reference to Leviticus 26:32-35 which also should have been brought to the readers' attention.

> 32 And I, for my part, will lay the land desolate, **and YOUR enemies who are dwelling in it**

> 34 "'At that time the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days of its lying desolated, while YOU are in the land of YOUR enemies. At that time the land will keep sabbath, as it must repay its sabbaths. 35 All the days of its lying desolated it will keep sabbath, for the reason that it did not keep sabbath during YOUR sabbaths when YOU were dwelling upon it.

Verse 32 teaches us that people, in this case Judah's enemies, would dwell in the land during its devastated condition. In biblical times this often occurred as a natural consequence. Devastated places ( _chorbah_ ) can be inhabited, and were.

Secondly, Daniel himself considered Jerusalem to be inhabited even though it was in a devastated state, or _chorbah_. In the first year of Darius, right after Babylon fell to the Persians and Medes, Daniel understood the meaning of Jeremiah's original prophecy at Jeremiah 25:11 to mean that the Jewish nightmare had come to an end with Babylon's fall after seventy years of world domination. In accord with Jeremiah 29:12, he then engaged in prayer to Jehovah (while in Babylon and before the exiles returned to Judah) and it is in this prayer that Daniel refers to devastated Jerusalem as being inhabited.

> 7 To you, O Jehovah, there belongs the righteousness, but to us the shame of face as at this day, **to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem**

Third, in the book of the exiled prophet Ezekiel he reiterated Jehovah's word which stated that the devastated places were inhabited.

> 23 And the word of Jehovah began to occur to me, saying: 24 "Son of man, **the inhabitants of these devastated places**

Even if, as the Jehovah's Witnesses argue, these devastated areas did not become completely uninhabited until the remaining remnant of Judah fled to Egypt a while after Jerusalem's destruction, that's not the point. The point is, Jehovah himself referred to devastated Judah as being inhabited at that time.

Fourth, in his twenty-third year Nebuchadnezzar took 745 Jews into exile - that is, five years after Jerusalem's destruction. The Jehovah's Witnesses argue they may have come from one of the surrounding nations and could not have come from Judah, as it was uninhabited. However, it is more reasonable to conclude they came from Judah and very likely were of those Jews who fled to Egypt after Jerusalem was destroyed, and then fled back to Judah after Nebuchadnezzar razed Egypt and devoted most of the original contingent of Jews to the sword, pestilence and famine.

Briefly, after Jerusalem and Judah were destroyed, Nebuchadnezzar appointed Gedaliah as governor over the remaining inhabitants of the land who were warned by Jehovah not to flee to Egypt but remain in Judah. (Thus, Judah was inhabited after its destruction.) In time Ishmael killed Gedaliah and took Jewish captives from Mizpah to the sons of Ammon. They were subsequently rescued, returned to Judah, and despite warnings of dire consequences if they did, fled to Egypt under the mistaken belief that they would be safe from the Babylonian army (see Jeremiah chapters 40-44). Included in the fleeing remnant were other dispersed Jews who had returned to Judah, picked summer fruit, and then ran off to Egypt as well.

> And there will come to be no escapee or survivor for the remnant of Judah who are entering in to reside there as aliens, in the land of Egypt, even to return to the land of Judah to which they are lifting up their soul[ful desire] to return in order to dwell; **for they will not return except some escaped ones.**  
>   
>  **they will return from the land of Egypt to the land of Judah few in number**

Since these escaped ones were being hunted down and chased by the sword it is highly unlikely they waited to return seventy years later at the advanced age of 80 or 90 after Cyrus issued his famous decree allowing the Jews to return home. So, even though devastated, a ruin, a waste etc., Judah was inhabited after its destruction. There is no sound scriptural reason for implying that the devastated place of Jeremiah 25:11 was without inhabitant.

Sixth, given the foregoing scriptural certainty, the phrase "a desolate waste, without inhabitant" or similar variant, was never meant to be taken literally. Yet even if it were meant to be taken literally the uninhabited condition could only have been for an initial period of time because Judah was re-inhabited after all. This phrase is therefore hyperbole, an intended exaggeration in order to make a point, such as "I waited for you an eternity." The Bible is filled with Jehovah's exaggerated statements in order to make a point of emphasis which is what "without inhabitant" is.

This hyperbolic statement does not mean, however, that it did not refer to Judah's condition after Jerusalem's destruction. It did. Stated another way, the phrase or notion that Judah would become a "devastated place, without inhabitant" or similar variant most surely in most instances refers to Judah after Jerusalem's total annihilation. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether the Jehovah's Witnesses have a legitimate basis for inserting "without inhabitant" for "seventy years" into the "devastation" part or aspect of Jeremiah 25:11. They must do so in order to stretch Jerusalem's destruction back to 607 B.C.E., and discount any countervailing argument that the devastation began before Jerusalem's final destruction. If Jerusalem was in a devastated condition years before its ultimate demise, the Jehovah's Witnesses' theory fails.

Accordingly, in order to prevail, the Jehovah's Witnesses must a) legitimately inject "without an inhabitant" into the phrase "and all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment" at Jeremiah 25:11, and b) they must establish that the devastated uninhabited condition lasted seventy years exactly, beginning with Jerusalem's destruction, and not before. Neither task is scripturally feasible. To reiterate the question, was the foretold devastation of Jeremiah 25:11 limited to the most extreme condition that ensued following Jerusalem's destruction or did it include the less extreme but significant devastation that Nebuchadnezzar wreaked on Judah during the preceding years he razed the country?

> **K. The devastation of Judah and Jerusalem at Jeremiah 25:11 referred to its devastated condition after Jerusalem's destruction and during the many years before that city fell.**

The answer to the preceding question is found at Daniel 9:2, 7:

> 1 In the first year of Da·ri´us the son of A·has·u·e´rus of the seed of the Medes, who had been made king over the kingdom of the Chal·de´ans; 2 in the first year of his reigning **I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years.** **to seek [him] with prayer and with entreaties, with fasting and sackcloth and ashes**

> "Ah Jehovah the [true] God, the great One and the fear-inspiring One, keeping the covenant and the loving-kindness to those loving him and to those keeping his commandments, 5 we have sinned and done wrong and acted wickedly and rebelled; and there has been a turning aside from your commandments and from your judicial decisions. 6 And we have not listened to your servants the prophets, who have spoken in your name to our kings, our princes and our forefathers and to all the people of the land. 7 To you, O Jehovah, there belongs the righteousness, but to us the shame of face as at this day, **to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem**

The Jehovah's Witnesses rely heavily on verse 2 but verse 7 demonstrates their reliance on verse 2 is misplaced. As mentioned previously, shortly after Babylon fell to the Persians and Medes, in Darius' first year, before the exiles returned home to end the alleged seventy-years Return theory and reinhabited Judah, Daniel came to understand the meaning and extent of Jeremiah's original prophecy at Jeremiah 25:11. Daniel discerned that the fulfillment, or end, of the seventy years of Babylonian world domination was over which marked the end of their nightmare and the beginning of the process of returning home.

With respect to 'devastated' places, the devastations ( _chorbah_ ) of Jerusalem at Daniel 9:2 is a direct reference to the 'devastated places' of the land of Judah in Jeremiah 25:11 of which Jerusalem was the principal city. The end of the devastation by the fall of Babylon was the object of Daniel's discernment. Therefore, in accord with Daniel 29:12, 13, when Daniel in prayer referred to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, it was the same Jerusalem which had suffered devastation in verse 2, which in turn was the same Jerusalem which was one of the cities of Judah in Jeremiah 25:11 which had become a devastated place, an object of astonishment. And if Jerusalem was inhabited, Judah was inhabited.

Daniel understood that the devastated condition of the land of Jeremiah 25:11 reached from long before Jerusalem's destruction until afterward. True, it included that later period when Judah existed "without inhabitant," but it also included the time before Jerusalem's destruction when Judah's populace suffered under the might of Nebuchadnezzar. The exact date of the beginning of the devastation is not important or necessary to prove the Jehovah's Witnesses wrong. It is sufficient to show that it began at some time before Jerusalem's destruction. The Jehovah's Witnesses have improperly attempted to add to Jehovah's word at Jeremiah 25:11 by injecting the term "without inhabitant." They believe it is essential because they need seventy years to reach from 587 B.C.E. to 607 B.C.E. A strict literal rendering of "Judah without an inhabitant" when coupled (wrongly) with the seventy years mentioned in Jeremiah 25:11 and Daniel 9:2 is necessary for them to stretch the utter and complete devastation of Jerusalem back to 607 B.C.E. But since the Judah of Jeremiah 25:11 was inhabited, their theory has no scriptural support, and the period of devastation greatly exceeds their seventy-year time frame.

>   
>    
>

> **L. The Bible shows that Judah was "a devastated place, an object of astonishment" during the years leading up to Jerusalem's destruction.**

Judah suffered the wrath of Nebuchadnezzar beginning in the early years of his reign. When Judah's king Jehoiakim rebelled from being a vassal Jehovah sent against Judah marauder bands of Chaldeans, Syrians, Moabites and the sons of Ammon in order to "destroy it" (2 Kings 24:2). Nebuchadnezzar came against Judah's king Jehoiakim, laid siege to Jerusalem, and "bound him in bronze fetters to take him away to Babylon (according to the literal Interlinear Bible, 2 Chronicles 36:36). Also taken to Babylon were exiles which included the prophet Daniel and some of the utensils of the house of Jehovah - highly valued religious artifacts ( Daniel 1:1). Even the Watchtower Society's founder Russell believed exiles were taken captive in Nebuchadnezzar's first year. Charles Taze Russell, in _The Time Is At Hand_ (Studies in the Scriptures, Series 2, 1912 edition), p. 52 wrote:

> Usher dates the seventy years desolation **eighteen years earlier than shown above** **because the king of Babylon took many of the people captive at that time**

The degree of devastation only intensified under Jehoiachin. Under his reign "all of Jerusalem was taken into exile to Babylon." This included all of the princes, the king's mother, his wives and court officials, and all the valiant mighty men - ten thousand people - and every craftsman and builder of bulwarks. No one was left behind except the lowly class of the people of the land ( 2 Kings 24:12-15). Nebuchadnezzar also removed all of the treasures of the house of Jehovah and the treasures of the king's house and cut to pieces all of the gold utensils that Solomon had made in the temple of Jehovah (2 Kings 24:12-15).

It even got worse before Jerusalem fell. Before Jerusalem was destroyed Nebuchadnezzar's army conquered all of Judah's many cities except two:

> And Jeremiah the prophet proceeded to speak to Zedekiah the king of Judah all these words in Jerusalem, when the military forces of the king of Babylon were fighting against Jerusalem and **against all the cities of Judah that were left remaining, against Lachish and against Azekah; for they, the fortified cities, were the ones that remained over among the cities of Judah**

An objective reading of the Jewish condition should hopefully lead one to conclude that the land of Judah, and its principal city Jerusalem, had become "a devastated place, an object of astonishment" even before the final and complete destruction of Jerusalem, and even though it was inhabited. Jehovah's destruction obviously could not have started with Jerusalem.

> **M. The fulfillment of the "devastations of Jerusalem [namely,] seventy years" at Daniel 9:2 refers to the end of Babylon's seventy years of world domination and the technical end of Jerusalem's devasted condition. It does not mean that Jerusalem - and by extension Judah - was devastated (without inhabitant) exactly seventy years.**

First, one of the Jehovah's Witnesses' critical errors is their failure to interpret Daniel 9:2 in light of the original prophecy of Jeremiah 25:11 and other verses which explain in detail that the seventy years of servitude referred to many nations falling under the domination of the Babylonian Empire. The key date, and the focus of Daniel's discernment, was the completion, or end, of that domination which marked the beginning of the process by which the exiles would return to their homeland.

As explained at the beginning of this paper, part of the problem is that the Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the word "fulfill" to somehow mean "equal" in order to equate Jerusalem's devastation with seventy years. To fulfill seventy years of devastation means, to them, that the devastation lasted seventy years, but that is incorrect. "Fulfill" when referring to prophetic years means the end of those years, the accomplishment of a prophecy. Daniel discerned that the end of Jewish servitude (and that of the nations) had begun.

With this in mind it would be helpful to revisit Daniel 9:2.

> ... 2 in the first year of his reigning I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, ...

The word of Jehovah that occurred to Jeremiah is a direct reference to Jeremiah 25:11 and accompanying verses, which detail seventy years of many nations' servitude to Babylon. Jehovah's word with respect to the seventy years and the context within which it was presented: **a)** directed the prophecy to all nations, not only Judah, **b)** reflected Jehovah's sweeping grant of authority to the king of Babylon, that all the nations and beasts would serve him, **c)** listed all the nations that would come to serve the king of Babylon one way or the other, **d)** stated that "these nations" would serve the king of Babylon seventy years, **e)** the seventy years would end with Babylon's fall and the beginning of Persia's reign, and **f)** Jehovah would **then** turn his attention to his exiled people and return them home.

Continuing with Daniel 9:2:

>... for fulfilling ( **ending**

Jeremiah understood, or discerned, that the seventy years of Jeremiah 25:11 marked the end, accomplishment or fulfillment of that seventy-year period of servitude. But he could not have believed Jerusalem was uninhabited seventy years because according to Jehovah's Witnesses, the end of seventy years was still in the future when they returned home. Daniel was fully aware of Scripture which marked the end of the seventy years while the exiles were still in Babylon, when the empire fell and the Persians began to reign.

In light of all that we have learned so far, and in light of the original prophecy, it is simply not credible or possible that Daniel meant that Jerusalem lay devastated without an inhabitant for seventy years following Jerusalem's destruction. It could not have.

Secondly, there is a contradiction in the Jehovah's Witnesses' seventy-year uninhabited devastation theory. On the one hand they claim that the seventy years of devastation began with Jerusalem's destruction: "We believe that the most direct reading of Jeremiah 25:11 and other texts is that the 70 years would date from when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and left the land of Judah desolate. Jeremiah 52:12-15, 24-27; 36:28-31." Kingdom Come at p.10.

On the other hand, the Jehovah's Witnesses in _Setting the Record Straight_ at pp. 4-5 claim that the seventy years began later, exactly in the 7th month of 607 B.C.E. when the last of the remnant fled to Egypt. As outlined above, much transpired between Jerusalem's fall including the official appointment of Gedaliah as governor, his assassination, the capture and removal of Jews by Ishmael to the sons of Ammon, their rescue and return to Judah, and along with other dispersed Jews who returned to Judah and picked summer fruit, their eventual flight to Egypt.

Third, Daniel could not have understood the seventy years to be years of devastation of Judah without inhabitant if it began upon the destruction of Jerusalem because Judah was still inhabited by those remaining over whom Gedaliah was appointed governor. And, counting forward exactly seventy years to the month, the exiles would not have yet returned to Judah to re-inhabit it thereby falling short again of seventy years.

Fourth, neither could Daniel have understood the seventy years to be years of devastation without inhabitant if it began when the last of the Jewish remnant fled to Egypt because counting forward exactly seventy years from the month puts the end of the alleged captivity and servitude upon the Jews' return, and as it hopefully should be very clear by now, the seventy years ended while the Jews were in Babylon when Persia began its reign which amounts to 68 - 69 years, not seventy.

Fifth, Daniel was fully aware of Leviticus 26:32 - 35 which Ezra quoted in part at 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21 where Moses wrote that the desolation would end while the exiles were still in Babylon, in the land of their enemies, not when they returned. He would not have understood the seventy years to have ended two years in the future when they returned. Once again, the time frame falls short of seventy years.

Sixth, in addition to the same reasons stated above, Ezra, the author of 2 Chronicles 36 could not have meant that "All the days of laying desolated it kept the Sabbath, to fulfill seventy years" referred to seventy uninhabited years of devastation beginning with Jerusalem's destruction. Nowhere does Ezra claim that the land would be, or was, uninhabited. Desolated, yes, but not uninhabited. The reference to keeping the land Sabbath is metaphor - the land was unproductive and rested, not uninhabited. In fact, "Sabbath" connotes a human condition or presence, defined as "the day of rest and religious observance of the Jews...." Paying off its sabbaths is akin to paying off a loan, which was fulfilled or accomplished or ended or finished while the exiles were still in the land of their enemies, Babylon. The fulfillment of seventy years at 2 Chronicles 26 referred to the conclusion of the desolation and sabbatical-like condition which began with Babylon's fall and Persia's rise to power. Ezra was not saying the land was desolated without inhabitant for seventy years ending in 537 B.C.E.

One might then ask how the Jews could re-inhabit Judah while still physically in Babylon? The answer is that **a)** Daniel stated that Jerusalem was already inhabited, and therefore Judah was inhabited, when the seventy year prophecy ended after Babylon's fall, and **b)** the prophecy did not require a physical return. An apt parallel can be drawn with Cyrus' decree setting the Jews free; they were declared free and were therefore free even before they left on their journey home. Similarly, the land was no longer paying off its sabbaths even though the Jews had not returned to their soil. The debt, or condition, was paid off while they were in Babylon; **c)** physical occupation by the returnees would not end the devastated condition. The land was as devasted the day after their return as it was the day before their return.

It bears repeating, because the "sabbaths" were paid off **while the exiles were still in Babylon** Ezra could not have meant that the reference to seventy years meant that Judah lie desolate without inhabitant exactly seventy years ending upon the exiles' physical return in 537 B.C.E. It's impossible. Remember, Ezra also had access to Jeremiah's prophecy. He knew the fulfillment and timing of seventy years was tied directly to the fall of the Babylonian Empire and the rise of Persian royalty.

Lastly, lest one forget, there is a mountain of archeological and historical evidence that proves that Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 B.C.E. but that it was destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E., and that it remained in that severely devastated condition 48-50 years, not seventy years. And, that the exiles removed at Jerusalem's destruction were not in Babylon seventy years, but 48-50 years. Of course, one is free to ignore such evidence and pretend it does not exist, but it is preferable to harmonize one's interpretation of the Bible with archeology and history which is possible if Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E., but not if it was destroyed in 607 B.C.E.

Even though the Jehovah's Witnesses have attempted to merge the two parts of Jeremiah 25:11, to borrow the seventy years of servitude to improperly extend the length of devastation, in the final analysis all of this talk about seventy years of an uninhabited devastated place is moot; it is a non-existent element of Jeremiah's prophecy. The concept of seventy years of an utterly uninhabited devastated place, an object of astonishment, is a false doctrine used to gain twenty years in order to reach 607 B.C.E. It is an illogical, unscriptural and gross misinterpretation because the seventy years pertained to the nations' servitude to the king(s) of Babylon, not Judah's devastation. And that is precisely what Jehovah's prophets understood.

The Jehovah's Witnesses' understanding that Jeremiah 25:11 is a composite of "devastation" and "servitude" - that it is actually one prophecy, one indivisible unit - is flawed in yet another way because if it really is a composite it cuts both ways. This would mean that all of "these nations" which served the Babylonian Empire were also "uninhabited" places and objects of astonishment for seventy years, which contravenes history, Scripture and is patently false. The fact that the word "and" separates these two concepts does not equate them or join them together. The phrase "Frank **and** Henry" does not mean that "Frank **is** Henry."

539 B.C.E. marked the end of the seventy-year servitude prophecy with the finishing off of Babylon and the rise of Persia and the Medes. Counting back seventy years takes one to 609 B.C.E. and the last Assyrian battle at Haran that saw the demise of Assyria at the hands of the then king of Babylon. This is the only correct and workable chronological slot or window the seventy years of Jeremiah 25:11 fits into.

The Jehovah's Witnesses' understanding with respect to the destruction of Jerusalem, though well-intentioned at its inception, is flawed in the extreme, and no amount of convoluted double-talk and intellectual acrobatics will change that. Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 B.C.E. That is false. It is not truth.

" Make sure of all things; ...." 1 Thessolonians 5:21.

**N. Further Reading and Acknowledgements**

I have known some wonderful Jehovah's Witnesses in my time. They are without a doubt some of the kindest, nicest, decent and morally upstanding citizens you will ever find. But that is not what this paper is about. Good intentions, when one should know better, when other people's lives and well-being are at stake, are not enough. We'll just leave it at that.  
_  
Setting the Record Straight_ is by far the Jehovah's Witnesses' strongest argument in support of their 607 theories. Much time and effort has been devoted to its writing by some very motivated and highly educated individuals. It is unclear what connection those authors have with the Watchtower Society, but it would not be surprising if there is a connection. They have covered most of the bases in detail. There is very little else anyone can offer in their defense. It would not be surprising, in light of the above, if the Society should now distance itself from _Setting the Record Straight,_ but if they do, and since they reject all archeological and historical evidence proving their 607 theories wrong, it is difficult to imagine where else they would turn to defend their theories. Blind faith is not enough. By all means, read _Setting the Record Straight_. Read everything. Please, get an accurate translation of the Bible, and compare it to their New World Translation - you will be amazed at the liberties they have taken. Don't be afraid of them. Fear the Almighty, instead. If I'm wrong, my viewpoints hopefully will in time drift away in the wind and truth will rise. But if I'm right ....

Just remember that YHWH wants you to be sure of all things, test all things, be like Paul and use your intellectual capacities - your brain - and logic. Beware of, and look out for, false prophets. And always pray for understanding. The article _Setting the Record Straight_ can be found here:

http://onlytruegod.org/jwstrs/intro.htm

We could never have done this without the very able research and writing of Shaun, last name unknown. Although I don't agree with all of his conclusions, he did a great job. Thank you, Shaun. Well done. I highly recommend his web site where he, among other things, offers a great overview of the archeological and historical (secular) evidence which proves that Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 B.C.E. He also is an advocate of the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory. It's a real eye-opener, shocking, actually. His research can be found on the web here:

http://www.jwfiles.com/607v587/1st_letter_to_governing_body.htm

Chapter Four – Heaven is not Limited to an Elite 144,000 Jehovah's Witnesses who Rule Over a Great Crowd on Earth Forever [Table of Contents]

**Introduction**

This lengthy paper is written primarily for the benefit of those Jehovah's Witnesses who feel trapped by the Society's legalistic arguments and want out. Many are fearful of even glancing at these pages believing that something bad will happen to them, but what they really should be afraid of is not paying heed and the risk of committing an unforgivable sin. When the Pharisees attributed the source of Jesus' power to heal and drive out demons to Satan rather than the Holy Spirit they blasphemed the Holy Spirit and committed what some argue is the only unforgivable sin (Matt. 12:22-32).

It is no great secret that the Jehovah's Witnesses attribute the Catholic and Protestant churches' authority to heal, exorcize and minister to the power of Satan. But if the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong, which they are, they are blaspheming the Holy Spirit; this includes all Jehovah's Witnesses who advocate these beliefs through the dissemination of Watchtower Bible and Tract Society literature related to these issues. Rather than dissuading continuous inquiry into the nature and scope of truth, the Bible encourages it for as the apostle Paul cautioned, "be sure of all things," (1 Thessalonians 5:21; "Test everything ... NAB).

The Jehovah's Witnesses are hindered in their ability to see their way through the morass of Society literature by four things related to the method employed in analyzing Scripture. First, rather than weighing all of the evidence there is a strong tendency to be satisfied with any answer, argument or supporting fact no matter how weak. But anyone can come up with an answer or opposing argument; lawyers do it all the time. What really matters is whether it is the correct answer, the most valid argument. One must weigh all the evidence, not just some of it.

Secondly, the Society's theories are laced with hair-splitting and often inconsequential distinctions. Just because the walls in the bedroom are painted green, it doesn't automatically follow that the thief buried the treasure in the backyard. Related to this is a third tool used to shore up their doctrine, namely, they too often read things too narrowly which makes it easier for them to deflect criticism. And lastly, one is left with the unmistakable impression that they don't want their own people to really know what the Society is teaching because core doctrine is constantly changing and is scattered all over the place resulting in a literary shell game. Great lengths have been taken to muddy the intellectual waters. This creates confusion and contradictions which compells the reader to rely on the Society's "understanding." Consequently, what might appear to be the work of some lofty, divine will is in all probability the work of some very crafty lawyers, among others.

> **I. Summary of the Jehovah's Witnesses' teachings as they relate to the contents of this paper.**

**A) The revolving door of ever-changing doctrine**

Every now and then the Jehovah's Witnesses make significant changes to their doctrine that reach to the very core of their belief system. As such, it can be a real challenge to pinpoint exactly what they believe from one year to the next. The changes they make are to be expected given the weakenesses in their dogma and the need to accommodate mountains of theological criticism. Invariably these changes bump up against other tenets of Society doctrine resulting in an ever-growing tangled mass of contradictions. Due to the nature of these shifting sands one should take their asserted beliefs with a grain of salt.

**B) The New Testament was written primarily for the 144,000 who alone go to heaven to ultimately rule over all remaining JWs and the resurrected on earth**

The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that only 144,000 people go to heaven ( _Reasoning from the Scriptures_ ( _Reasoning_ ) [New York, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985], 166). These are the bride of Christ, God's children, the elect, and often referred to as the "anointed" of Christ ( _Insight on the Scriptures_ ( _Insight_ ), 2 vols. [New York, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1988], 786). The New Testament Greek Scriptures (New Testament) were written primarily for these brothers of Christ. They are specially chosen because they live especially good lives while on earth ( _Insight_ , 786-788). Once resurrected to heaven, a process which began in 1918 and will soon be concluded (the first resurrection) ( _Revelation \- Its Grand Climax at Hand_ ( _Revelation Climax_ ), [New York, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 19__] 103, 277) they will become a kingdom of priests and kings who will rule with Christ for one thousand years over humans on earth (Insight, 170, 524, 525).

**C) The Great Crowd on earth will engage in perfecting resurrected flesh-and-blood humans to a sinless condition**

This reign will involve their judging resurrected humans during the thousand year reign, and after the thousand year reign when resurrected mankind will undergo a final decisive test before being destroyed forever, or having their names written permanently in God's book, or scroll, of life ( _Insight_ , 251, 788). Whereas the 144,000 are resurrected to heaven as spirit creatures, all other billions of humans worthy of the resurrection during the thousand year reign will be resurrected as corrupt flesh and blood humans with the possibility of immortality on earth (Reasoning, 333-336; Insight, 251). During the thousand year reign the Great Crowd will engage in "perfecting" resurrected humans to a sinless condition enjoyed by Adam and Eve before the fall ( _Reasoning_ , 337, 338).

**D) The Great Crowd must pass a final test to gain eternal life**

The Great Crowd (or large multitude) is a term found at Revelation 7:9. The Great Crowd are those Jehovah's Witnesses who survive the Great Tribulation. They do not die, do not need to be resurrected and are declared righteous through faith ( _Insight_ , 788) although it appears as though they also must pass a final, decisive test to gain eternal life ( _Insight_., 251). Most Jehovah's Witnesses today consider themselves to be members of the Great Crowd and according to their interpretation of Revelation 7:9-17 they will always be earthly, not heavenly, subjects of the kingdom of heaven (or kingdom of God). As to those Jehovah's Witnesses who are not of the 144,000 and do not survive the Great Tribulation, it is believed they will be resurrected in God's due time (Insight, 788).

**E) The New Covenant applies only to God, Christ and the 144,000; it shall expire shortly. Only the 144,000 have their sins forgiven from Calvary to the 1,000 year reign**

The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that when Jesus Christ died and rose to heaven to sit on God's throne he began to reign only as king over his congregation of 144,000 followers who at the time were still earthly subjects of this spiritual kingdom ( _Insight_ , 524). This rule began with Christ's blood sacrifice which was initiated pursuant to the much-anticipated New Covenant which replaced the old Mosaic Law covenant (Law covenant). This New Covenant, to which only God, Christ and the 144,000 are parties, will expire shortly after the last of the 144,000 are resurrected to heaven ( _Insight_ , 524). The only people who have their sins forgiven through Christ's blood sacrifice from the time of Adam until the beginning of the thousand year reign are the 144,000 ( _Insight_ , 736).

**F) Pre-incarnate Christ was just a created angel, not eternal, and while on earth nothing more than a man, a human. Jesus returned to earth in 1914 (the parousia)**

The real kingdom of God, a much larger, expansive and lengthier kingdom, began in 1914 (the 1914 kingdom) when Christ supposedly sat on the throne to begin his rule over mankind ( _Insight_ , 169). Jesus, being a mere angel ( _Reasoning_ , 218) created hundreds of millions of years ago, only receives a subsidiary share of this kingdom of God ( _Insight_ , 169). 1914 A.D. is arguably the most important date in the Jehovah's Witnesses' belief system because it is the year that Jesus returned, or arrived ( _Great Man_ , ch. 133, 2; _Reasoning_ , 344), to earth. This was the invisible Second Coming of Christ, or " _parousia_." It also heralded the beginning of the first of three judgment days.

**G) The Jehovah's Witnesses were taught they're separating the sheep from the goats in their door-to-door ministry  
**  
We are currently in the first judgment day period. Under the guidance of the remaining earthly anointed 144,000, the Great Crowd of Jehovah's Witnesses were taught that they were separating the earth's sheep and goats through their door-to-door ministry ( _The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived_ ) ( _Great Man_ ) [New York, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1991] chapter 111, 12-15). This fundamental doctrine, however, changed in 1995. The separation of sheep and goats has been postponed, for now, until a time after the Great Tribulation begins ( _The Watchtower_ , Oct. 15, 1995, pg. 23). The sheep join God's one and only earthly organization, thus becoming members of the Great Crowd (if they survive the Great Tribulation) and earn the opportunity to live life everlasting; all the goats, those who do not heed their invitation, will be destroyed forever during the Great Tribulation and Armageddon with no prospect of resurrection (Ibid.).

**H. Only the Great Crowd survives Armageddon. The Great Crowd will restore the earth to a paradise and educate resurrected sinners to a state of perfection subject to even more laws and regulations; those to be re-educated include the patriarchs, Moses, etc.**

The only humans who survive the Great Tribulation and Armageddon, where all the enemies of God are destroyed, are members of the Great Crowd of Jehovah's Witnesses (Ibid.); no one else. Then begins the thousand year reign of Christ and the 144,000 over the earth's Great Crowd and the righteous and unrighteous - at least those who merit the resurrection during the thousand years ( _Reasoning_ , 339-340). This general resurrection during the millennium is the second resurrection according to the Jehovah's Witnesses. One of the tasks of the Great Crowd during this peaceful thousand year reign is to restore post-apocalyptic earth to a paradise-like condition. The Great Crowd also assists in educating the 20 billion resurrected dead to the will of God, to get to know Jesus, and to live in accordance with new laws and regulations revealed through the Law Scrolls of God opened at Revelation 20:12 ( _Insight_ , 788). The purpose of educating the resurrected is to lift them to a state of perfection on par with Adam and Eve's sinless state of perfection they enjoyed before rebelling against Jehovah God (Ibid.).

**I) The Great Crowd and resurrected humans are not judged for any sins committed in this life, but only for sins committed during the 1,000 year reign, and after**

The second judgment day period occurs during the thousand year reign. "Perfected" humans, now only corruptible rather than corrupt when resurrected, are tested and judged based not on their deeds and works in their previous lives (the one we experience today) but on their deeds during the thousand year reign (Ibid.). They believe this because all men are allegedly acquitted of sin in this life and pay for their sins with the wages of death ( _Insight_ , 788; _Reasoning_ , 338). Therefore, the only deeds or sins for which they can be put on judgment for are those committed during the thousand year reign, and their conduct during the final test after the thousand years.

**J. Salvation can be gained only by passing a final test**

The final test of their fidelity begins after the thousand year reign, the third judgment day, when those remaining perfected humans are confronted with the unleashing of Satan from the abyss and all which that entails. If they pass the test successfully they will have their names permanently written in the scroll, or book, of life. If they fail they are cast into the Lake of Fire, which is the Second Death, that is, eternal destruction ( _Insight_ , 251).

Thereafter, the services of Christ, the angel, are no longer required. He is no longer needed as a helper in terms of a propitiatory sacrifice, nor as a legal intermediary between God and man. Accordingly, he is dispensed with in this regard ( _Insight_ , 170).

The Jehovah's Witnesses believe with all sincerity that they "have the truth" and "are in the truth." However given the very significant repudiation of past doctrines that have formed the essential core of their beliefs for over one hundred years it is doubtful they can make that claim. If their "truth" is not the "truth" by their own admission, then their theories were false.

>   
>    
>

> **II. Assuming that the 144,000 are in heaven, the number 144,000 representing the sealed servants of God mentioned in chapters 7 and 14 in the book of Revelation cannot be taken literally. Like many other signs in Revelation it is merely symbolic.**

That the messages in the book of Revelation were conveyed primarily in signs or symbols and not meant to be interpreted literally is evident in the opening chapter: "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented [it] in signs through him to his slave John.... (Rev. 1:1,2 [New World Translation (NWT]). As any Bible reader can attest, Revelation is filled with symbolic imagery, such as a "red dragon with seven heads and ten horns," (Rev. 12:3), and numeric symbolism: "the number of the beast... is six-hundred and sixty-six" (Rev. 13:18).

Given the prevalence of this symbolism one must be careful interpreting numbers or images literally, such as the 144,000 sealed servants of God in chapters 7 and 14. Though the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that only 144,000 go to heaven, a deeper analysis of Scripture shows that this number cannot be a literal representation and that the book's author purposed a symbolic or figurative meaning.

Much criticism has been leveled against the Jehovah's Witnesses in this regard because the underlying components of the 144,000, that is, the nature and identity of the individuals who make up the 144,000 are clearly symbolic. It makes little sense to premise a literal number on symbolic numbers and individuals. If you build a house made of wood one would expect that you end up with a wooden house, not a plastic one. In chapter 7 John writes of hearing the number of the sealed 144,000 and then seeing the Great Crowd.

> 1 After this I saw four angels standing upon the four corners of the earth, holding tight the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow upon the earth or upon the sea or upon any tree. 2 And I saw another angel ascending from the sunrising, having a seal of [the] living God; and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was granted to harm the earth and the sea, 3 saying: "Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, until after we have sealed the slaves of our God in their foreheads."

> 4 And I **heard**

> 5 Out of the tribe of Judah twelve thousand sealed;  
>   
>

> 6 out of the tribe of Ash´er twelve thousand;  
>   
>

> 7 out of the tribe of Sim´e·on twelve thousand;  
>   
>

> 8 out of the tribe of Zeb´u·lun twelve thousand;  
>   
>

> 9 After these things **I saw**

> 11 And all the angels were standing around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell upon their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 12 saying: "Amen! The blessing and the glory and the wisdom and the thanksgiving and the honor and the power and the strength [be] to our God forever and ever. Amen."

> 13 And in response one of the elders said to me: "These who are dressed in the white robes, who are they and where did they come from?" 14 So right away I said to him: "My lord, you are the one that knows." And he said to me: "These are the ones that come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15 That is why they are before the throne of God; and they are rendering him sacred service day and night in his temple; and the One seated on the throne will spread his tent over them. 16 They will hunger no more nor thirst anymore, neither will the sun beat down upon them nor any scorching heat, 17 because the Lamb, who is in the midst of the throne, will shepherd them, and will guide them to fountains of waters of life. And God will wipe out every tear from their eyes." (Revelation 7:1-17 NWT)

In Revelation 14:1-5 the 144,000 are seen on Mount Zion, but the Great Crowd is not in sight.

>   
>

The underlying symbolic components are numerous. First, Rev. 7:4-8 states that the 144,000 came from every tribe of the Israelites and then lists the names of what appear to be the original twelve tribes, but are not. As the Jehovah's Witnesses point out, "there never was a tribe of Joseph, the tribes of Ephraim and Dan are not included in the list here, and the Levites were set aside for service in connection with the temple but were not reckoned as one of the twelve tribes. See Numbers 1:4-16" ( _Reasoning_ 166, 167). As such, the Jehovah's Witnesses view the twelve tribes of the 144,000 symbolically.

Secondly, the sealed 144,000 listed are Jews, yet the Jehovah's Witnesses regard this as symbolic as well for they believe they are comprised of both Jews and gentiles ( _Reasoning_ , 166, 167).

Third, whereas the listed 144,000 are made up of twelve distinct groups of twelve thousand members each, the Jehovah's Witnesses also regard these numbers as symbolic. They have never classified or categorized those who go to heaven in twelve groups of 12,000 yet are quick to calculate them literally to arrive at 144,000 (12 x 12,000 = 144,000).

Fourth, the "seal on the foreheads of the servants" (Rev. 7:3), and the Lamb and His Father's names which are written on the foreheads of the 144,000 (Rev. 14:1) represent figuratively, for the Jehovah's Witnesses, God's final approval. In their words, "God's holy spirit serves as a seal that gives those sealed a token in advance of their inheritance, a heavenly one" ( _Insight_ , 253, 254). It is symbolic.

Fifth, Revelation 7:4 literally states that the 144,000 elect are virgin men: "These are the ones that did not defile themselves with women; in fact they are virgins." But as anyone familiar with the Jehovah's Witnesses knows, the 144,000 are comprised of men and women, married and single; they regard these provisions symbolically as well.

Sixth, additional evidence that the 144,000 number is not to be taken literally is found at Galatians 3:26-29 and Romans 9:6-8 where the apostle Paul makes clear that those who are rewarded with heaven due so in part as a consequence of God's promise to the patriarch Abraham, and that the 144,000 heirs to the heavenly promise by virtue of faith are countless, without number, as numerous as the stars in the sky.

> 26 YOU are all, in fact, sons of God through YOUR faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of YOU who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for YOU are all one [person] in union with Christ Jesus. 29 Moreover, if YOU belong to Christ, YOU are really Abraham's seed, heirs with reference to a promise. (Galatians 3:26-29 NWT).

Abraham's seed - descendant heirs according to the promise - are also identified at Romans 9:6-8 where Paul makes clear that the heirs to the heavenly promise are not limited to fleshly Israel.

> 6 However, it is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all who [spring] from Israel are really "Israel." 7 Neither because they are Abraham's seed are they all children, but: "What will be called 'your seed' will be through Isaac." 8 That is, the children in the flesh are not really the children of God, but the children by the promise are counted as the seed. (Rom. 9:6-8 NWT).

Paul is referring to Genesis 15:5 where God promised Abraham that he would make his descendants like the stars of the sky, a promise that would eventually extend beyond fleshly Israel and encompass Christians.

> 5 He now brought him outside and said: "Look up, please, to the heavens and count the stars, if you are possibly able to count them." And he went on to say to him: "So your seed will become." (Gen. 15:5 NWT).

This Abrahamic promise was reaffirmed and recounted by Abraham's grandson Jacob while praying to God for deliverance from his brother Esau.

> "Unquestionably I shall deal well with you and will constitute your seed like the grains of sand of the sea which cannot be numbered for multitude." (Gen. 32:12 NWT).

Given these verses it is difficult to imagine how the heirs to the heavenly promise number a mere 144,000. They do not. They will be countless, vast; large in actual numbers yet small in proportion to the billions who have ever inhabited earth. Never-the-less, the Jehovah's Witnesses counter that those countless heaven-bound individuals are countless because they could not be counted at that time.

> "God revealed the purpose and accomplishments of the Abrahamic covenant, saying that through Abraham the seed of promise would come; this seed would possess the gate of his enemies; Abraham's seed through Isaac would number many, uncountable to man at that time." ( _Insight_

Well, I suppose they are correct in the sense that the heirs to the promise could not be counted so many thousands of years ago because they had not yet been born, and therefore there was nobody to count, but that's not what the Almighty meant. Regardless of the ultimate count it seems evident that the heirs to the promise will eventually dwarf a mere 144,000. Even the Israelites who numbered in the millions were referred to as being as numerous as the stars (Deut. 1:10).

Seventh, that the 144,000 is not an exact number is made manifest by Jesus' statement that the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will also be in heaven:

> 11 But I tell YOU that many from eastern parts and western parts will come and recline at the table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of the heavens;... (Matt. 8:11 NWT).

Central to the Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs is the doctrine that the "Kingdom is in heaven, not earth" (NWT at 1653) and that neither the patriarchs, ancient prophets or anyone before the time of Christ goes to heaven. Yet somehow, in an effort to dislodge the patriarchs from heaven and disavow the words of Christ they theorize that this banquet in the kingdom of heaven is actually on earth.

The inspired writer of Hebrews also stated that the patriarchs and other men of old sought a heavenly reward, not earthly, and that this heavenly destination was achieved on the basis of their faith.

> In faith died all these, not having received the promises, but from afar having seen them, and having been persuaded, and having saluted [them], and having confessed that strangers and sojourners they are upon the earth, 14 for those saying such things make manifest that they seek a country; 15and if, indeed, they had been mindful of that from which they came forth, they might have had an opportunity to return, 16 **but now they long for a better, that is,** **an heavenly** [Heb. 11:13-16 Young's Literal Translation; also NIV (a better country—a heavenly onea better country, that is, a heavenly oneheavenly homelanda better country, that is, an heavenlya better country, that is, a heavenly onea better country, that is, a heavenly

None-the-less, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach, incorrectly, that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will not go, and never wanted to go, to heaven. This is understandable because to concede otherwise would completely erode their 144,000 theory.

> Who are the "righteous" that are to be resurrected? These will include faithful servants of God who lived before Jesus Christ came to earth. Many of these persons are mentioned by name in Hebrews chapter 11. They did not hope to go to heaven, but hoped to live again on earth (Live Forever, 1989, Resurrection - for Whom? And Where? 172, 20).  
>   
>

> And there is no question about the spiritual strength of those men and women of faith listed in Hebrews chapter 11. None of those were "born again." All of them looked forward to "a better resurrection [to life under God's kingdom] right here on this earth. - Hebrews 11:35. (W82 2/1c 29 "Born Again" - Man's Part and God's Part).

It is difficult to believe that millions of Jehovah's Witnesses, perhaps unwittingly, believe this without blinking an eye and completely ignore the clear words of Scripture; but they do. Never-the-less, because at a minimum Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will go to heaven, the 144,000 is symbolic and numbers at least 144,003. The final number cannot be ascertained, but is countless in the sense that it will be in the millions.

Eighth, the Jehovah's Witnesses' congregation of 144,000 who were and are on earth included Jesus as one of their spiritual brothers. He is the high priest and like any high priest or pastor, deacon or bishop, is a fellow member of that community. The Jehovah's Witnesses recognize as much:

> The inspired application of David's words recorded at Psalm 22:22 to Jesus Christ at Hebrews 2:12 shows that the term "congregation" can be applied to include the head thereof, Jesus Christ. Partly quoting David, the writer to the Hebrews stated: "For both he who is sanctifying and those who are being sanctified all stem from one, and for this cause he [Jesus Christ] is not ashamed to call them 'brothers,' as he says: I will declare your name to my brothers; in the middle of the congregation I will praise you with song" (Heb. 2:11, 12). ( _Insight_

But if only 144,000 go to heaven, then the spiritually anointed while on earth would number only 143,999, and in heaven they would number 144,001 due to the inclusion and then exclusion of Christ in that congregation, who as the Lamb in heaven at Revelation 14:1 is seen as standing apart from his brothers. The 144,000 cannot be taken literally. Their congregation cannot be one body on earth and another in heaven.

Christians have recognized the symbolic nature of the 144,000 for decades. It is "... the square of twelve a thousand fold, a symbol of the completeness of God's People" (N. Turner, _Peake's Commentary on the Bible_ [London: Nelson and Sons, Ltd., 1964], 1050) ( _Peake's Commentary_ ).

Ninth, the Jehovah's Witnesses make essentially five arguments in support of distinguishing the 144,000 from the Great Crowd, an issue which goes beyond the scope of this paper because we are concerned here not so much with whether the 144,000 and the Great Crowd are the same or not, but whether the Great Crowd is standing on earth pursuant to an earthly salvation plan, or in heaven before God's throne. The Jehovah's Witnesses' argument that the 144,000 and Great Crowd are not the same can be found at pp. 996-997 of their _Insight into the Holy Scriptures_ for those interested. They go to great length to keep these two groups separate and go so far as to greatly mischaracterize Scripture in this regard.

> Rev. 7:9, 10: "After these things [after the apostle John saw the full number of "sealed" ones who had been "bought from the earth" to be with Christ on heavenly Mount Zion; see Revelation 7:3, 4; 14:1-3] I saw, and, look! A great crowd,..." ( _Reasoning_

This is false because at no time does John ever see the 144,000 and Great Crowd together at the same time or on the same page. In Revelation chapter 7 he only hears the number of the sealed 144,000 in an earthly vision as four angels stand at the four corners of the earth, and then sees the Great Crowd. In chapter 14 where John sees the 144,000 on Mount Zion he does not see the Great Crowd. These two sightings are separated by six chapters and numerous apocalyptic events, and for many other reasons, a strong argument can be made that the 144,000 and the Great Crowd are the same.

But the main issue here is not whether the 144,000 and Great Crowd in heaven are distinct groups or the same entity, but whether the Great Crowd which "stood before the throne in heaven" is actually standing on earth in an "approved condition." As will be expanded upon below, the Great Crowd standing on earth rather than in heaven is core to the Jehovah's Witnesses' salvation doctrine; without it they have no claim to legitimacy, no religion. For 99.99999% of the world's population - as a member of the surviving Great Crowd or the 20 billion resurrected - salvation is an earthly, fleshly aspiration, according to the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Tenth, in admonishing the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus said:

> ...you hypocrites. You lock the kingdom of heaven before human beings. You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to those trying to enter. (Matthew 23:13 NAB)

**A) Because the earth shall be destroyed, the resurrected, and the Great Crowd, cannot be ruled over by the 144,000 from heaven**

Eleventh, the Greek word basileuo "to reign," does not only mean to "rule over a people." It is often used as metaphor, such as to "reign in life" (Rom. 5:17) where 'shall reign in life' indicates the activity of life in fellowship with Christ in His sovereign power, reaching its fullness hereafter; 1 Cor. 4:8..." (Vine's, 52). One can also reign over sin (Rom. 6:12). Grace can also reign (Rom. 5:21). With this in mind it does not automatically or logically follow that there must be someone over whom the 144,000 reign on earth in the same way that contemporary governments rule over a people in today's world.

As a matter of fact, even though the Jehovah's Witnesses claim that the Bible does not tell us what the 144,000 will do after the thousand year reign is over, Revelation 22:3,4 informs us that God's servants will worship him and "shall reign forever and ever." But reign over who? They claim that at that time no one will stand between God and man, most certainly not Jesus ( _Insight_ , 170); the kingdom will have been handed over, death will be no more and man will be forever perfect.

But if that is true the word "reign" cannot mean to rule over humans on earth, especially on an earth destined for fire and complete destruction which is made clear by 2 Peter 3:10,11: "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a mighty roar and the elements will be dissolved by fire and the earth and everything in it will be found out. ... everything is to be dissolved this way," (NAB; "Total destruction is assumed (11)," notes 3,10). "...the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat" (2 Peter 3:12). "But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men" (2 Peter 3:7). Peter's warning reemphasized Zephaniah's warning, where the ancient prophet transmitted the Almighty's words, "I will utterly consume all things from off the face of the ground, saith Jehovah. I will consume man and beast; I will consume the birds of the heavens, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumbling blocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the face of the ground, saith Jehovah" (Zephaniah 1:2,3)

Complete destruction of man on earth is intended. " Their blood will be poured out like dust and their entrails like dung. 18 Neither their silver nor their gold will be able to save them on the day of the LORD's wrath." In the fire of his jealousy the whole earth will be consumed, for he will make a sudden end **of all** who live on the earth (Zephaniah 1:17, 18). The Jehovah's Witnesses theory that they alone, their great crowd, will survive Armageddon and be ruled from heaven by the 144,000 is simply not in accord with Scripture.

Granted, the Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe the earth will be destroyed and base this teaching in large part on Psalm 37:29 where the psalmist wrote, "The just will possess the land (earth) and live in it forever." However, the earth "wears out like a garment (Isa. 51:6), so the word "forever" is hyperbole, and nothing here indicates that there won't be a hiatus, or break, in the earth's habitation. Psalm 37:29 does not say man will inherit the earth continuously without interruption, and Revelation 21:10,27 suggests that reconstituted, glorified man, without the warts, will come back down out of heaven sometime in the future: "He took me in spirit to a great high mountain and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God." "Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life."

Actually, the earth has experienced significant disruptions evidenced by the annihilation of the dinosaurs and great flood of Noah's day. Remember, we are dealing with geologic time, and cycling through another ice age that would wipe off the post-apocalyptic mess left in the wake of Armageddon is entirely within reason; it is more reasonable than handing the Great Crowd brooms and haz-mat suits and ordering them to restore the earth into a paradise.

More to the point is Peter's comparison of the earth's pending fiery destruction to the great flood which is a real, not metaphorical, example of earth's fate as detailed at 2 Peter 3:5-13: "They deliberately ignore the fact that the heavens existed of old and earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God; through these the world that then existed was destroyed, deluged with water. The present heavens and earth have been reserved by the same word of fire kept for the day of judgment and of destruction of the godless." Jesus likewise made it known that ultimate destruction will be modeled after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, where Luke 17:29 makes it abundantly clear God destroyed them all. That man's governments are changed in the process goes without saying. Remember, "...he was seated on the throne and said, "Behold, I am making **all things new**. (Rev. 21:5).

To "reign," then, must mean to reign in life or over sin, and old-world government models such as king David's rule over God's people do not necessarily apply to a new world, a new earth and a new creation. As a point of interest, this is the meaning ascribed to the concept of "reign" by the Catholic church.

> Like other numerical values in this book, the thousand years are not to be taken literally; they symbolize the long period of time between the chaining up of Satan (a symbol for Christ's resurrection victory over death and the forces of evil) and the end of the world. During this time God's people share in the glorious reign of God that is present to them by virtue of their baptismal victory over death and sin; cf Rom 6, 1-8; Jn 5, 24-25; 16, 33; 1 Jn 3,14; Eph 2,1. (NAB, note Rev. 20:1-6)

Finally, if the Great Crowd is in heaven and not on earth as the Jehovah's Witnesses claim, the 144,000 cannot rule over them as earthly subjects.

# **III. The Great Crowd of Revelation 7:9 standing before God's throne in heaven and before the Lamb is not standing on earth merely in an 'approved condition' but is in heaven contrary to the Jehovah's Witnesses' teachings.**

First, Revelation 7:9 provides: "After these things I saw, and, look, a great crowd which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb...." As with the Great Crowd, Revelation 14:1 also has the 144,000 standing in heaven with the Lamb, Jesus Christ. "And I saw, and, look! The Lamb standing upon Mount Zion, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand."

The Greek verb _histemi_ \- to stand or standing - is used for both groups of individuals, but whereas the 144,000 are regarded as physically (as spiritual creatures) standing in the direct presence of the Lamb in heaven, the Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Great Crowd on the other hand are actually on earth and stand only metaphorically before God; they are standing in an approved condition, or position, in the sight of God only. The Jehovah's Witnesses are aware of their conundrum.

> This poses the question: if the "great crowd" are persons who gain salvation and remain on earth, how could they be said to be 'standing before God's throne and before the Lamb'? (Re 7:9) The position of 'standing' is sometimes used in the Bible to indicate the holding of a favored or approved position in the eyes of one in whose presence the individual or group stands. (Ps 1:5; 5:5; Pr 22:29, AT; Lu 1:19). In fact, in the previous chapter of Revelation, "the kings of the earth and the top-ranking ones and the military commanders and the rich and the strong ones and every slave and every free person" are depicted as seeking to hide themselves "from the face of the One seated on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb, because the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?" Re 6:15-17; compare Lu 21:36). It thus appears that the "great crowd" is formed of those persons who have been preserved during that time of wrath and who have been able to "stand" as approved by God and the Lamb. (Insight, 997).

However, it is noteworthy that the definition of _histemi_ (standing or to stand) does not contain the notion of a 'favored or approved position' or condition according to the entry for _histemi_ or a derivative _paristemi_ , in _Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words_ ( _Vine's Greek Dictionary_ ). And as to its application at Revelation 6:15-17, which they cite, those depicted as hiding themselves are about to be destroyed, so they can hardly be said to be standing or seeking to stand in an "approved condition" before God. Other translations render the word "withstand." (NAB).

Secondly, the Great Crowd cannot be standing in an approved condition on earth because Revelation 9:1-6 details the account of the Fifth Trumpet where locusts, given the power of scorpions, are instructed to torment and harm all those on earth who do not have the "seal of God on their foreheads."

> 1 And the fifth angel blew his trumpet. And I saw a star that had fallen from heaven to the earth, and the key of the pit of the abyss was given him. 2 And he opened the pit of the abyss, and smoke ascended out of the pit as the smoke of a great furnace, and the sun was darkened, also the air, by the smoke of the pit. 3 And out of the smoke locusts came forth upon the earth; and authority was given them, the same authority as the scorpions of the earth have. 4 And they were told to harmonly those men who do not have the seal of God on their foreheadsthese should be tormented five months

According to the Jehovah's Witnesses only the 144,000 have the seal of God on their foreheads, not the Great Crowd or anyone else.

> 2 And I saw another angel ascending from the sunrising, having a seal of [the] living God; and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was granted to harm the earth and the sea, 3 saying: "Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, until after we have sealed the slaves of our God in their foreheads." 4 And I heard the number of those who were sealed, a hundred and forty-four thousand, sealed out of every tribe of the sons of Israel:.... (Rev. 7:2-4 NWT)

Because the torment on the Great Crowd and others is to be so great that they will seek death it is difficult to imagine that the Great Crowd is standing on earth in an approved condition before God.

Third, one of the twenty-four elders in heaven upon seeing the Great Crowd comments "where did they come from?" (Rev. 7:13), which suggests they arrived from someplace else, namely earth.

Fourth, the Jehovah's Witnesses deny the Great Crowd's presence in heaven because "Revelation does not say of them, as it does of the 144,000 that they are bought from the earth" to be with Christ on heavenly Mount Zion. Rev 14:1-3." ( _Reasoning_ , 167) But the Jehovah's Witnesses are reading Scripture too narrowly and assume that the Great Crowd and 144,000 are separate. If, as mentioned above, a strong argument can be made that the 144,000 and the Great Crowd are the same - a qualitative identification of that large multitude - then the Great Crowd has indeed been bought from the earth because they are the 144,000 and represent all Christian people, which is the view taken by the Roman Catholic Church (Revelation 14:4, notes NAB).

Furthermore, it is not the 144,000 alone who were ransomed or bought by Jesus' blood. The Jehovah's Witnesses distinguish the Great Crowd from the 144,000 by the fact that the Great Crowd were of all nations, tribes, peoples and tongues. But according to Revelation 5:9 this includes the 144,000 who also are of all nations, tribes, peoples and tongues. (Reasoning, 168).

> 9 And they sing a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll and open its seals, because you were slaughtered and with your blood you bought persons for God out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, 10 and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth." (Rev. 5:9 NWT).

Lastly, Revelation 7:15 makes it abundantly clear that the Great Crowd, their robes also washed by the blood of Christ, is in heaven because that is where God's temple and his throne are; the Great Crowd is seen in His temple where they worship Him day and night.

> 15 That is why they are before the thronein his temple

The psalmist at Psalm 11:4 tells us where God's temple is and where his throne is, and by virtue of Revelation 7:15 we know where the Great Crowd stands worshiping the Almighty, namely, in heaven.

> "Jehovah is in his temple  
> in the heavens is his throne

> **  
> IV. The return of Jesus Christ to earth, his Second Coming, did not occur in 1914; nor did Jesus begin to rule God's kingdom in 1914; He began his rule in the first century A.D. and received more than a subsidiary share of the kingdom of God. Furthermore, the first judgment day did not begin in 1914 and the Jehovah's Witnesses have never separated the sheep (the Great Crowd) from the goats on behalf of God Almighty.**

**A) The Jehovah's Witnesses limit the "eternal New Covenant" of Jeremiah 31:31-34 to Christ and the 144,000; this New Covenant kingdom lasts approximately 2,000 years. This is not a Bible teaching.**

The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that there are two kingdoms over which Christ rules. The first kingdom is called the "kingdom of the son of his love" (the New Covenant kingdom) and is a spiritual kingdom with Christ as head over the 144,000 only. This kingdom was brought into existence through the shed blood of Christ under the New Covenant God spoke of through Jeremiah at Jeremiah 31:31-34 and inaugurated at Pentecost. Only the 144,000, Christ and God are parties to the New Covenant with Christ acting as mediator for a short while.

The New Covenant, and presumably that kingdom, expires when "... all of the 'Israel of God' (the 144,000) are resurrected to immortality in the heavens" (Insight, 524; parenthesis added). This means that the eternal New Covenant, in furtherance of and pursuant to which Jesus gave his life, lasts approximately two thousand years because the resurrection of the 144,000 began in 1918 and will conclude shortly ( _Climax Book_ , 103, 277). The following is their description of the New Covenant kingdom.

> **"The Kingdom of the Son of His Love."**

> Christ was now sitting at his Father's right hand and was the Head over this congregation. (Eph 5:23; Heb 1:3; Php 2:9-11) The Scriptures show that from Pentecost 33 C.E. onward, a spiritual kingdom was set up over his disciples. When writing to the first-century Christians at Colossae, the apostle Paul referred to Jesus Christ as already having a kingdom: "[God] delivered us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of his love." Col 1:13; compare Ac 17:6, 7.

> Christ's kingdom from Pentecost of 33 C.E. onward has been a spiritual one ruling over spiritual Israel, Christians who have been begotten by God's spirit to become the spiritual children of God. (Joh 3:3, 5, 6) When such spirit-begotten Christians receive their heavenly reward, they will no longer be earthly subjects of the spiritual kingdom of Christ, but they will be kings with Christ in heaven. - Re 5:9, 10. ( _Insight_

> These spirit-begotten, anointed brothers of Christ become under-priests of the High Priest, "a royal priesthood." (1 Pe 2:9; Re 5:9, 10; 20:6) These do a priestly work, a "public service" (Php 2:17), and are called "ministers of a new covenant." (2 Cor 3:6) These called ones must follow Christ's steps closely, faithfully, until laying down their lives in death; Jehovah will then make them a kingdom of priests, making them sharers in divine nature and will reward them with immortality and incorruption as joint heirs in the heavens with Christ. (1 Pe 2:21; Ro 6:3, 4; 1 Cor 15:53; 1 Pet 1:4; 2 Pet 1:4) The purpose of the covenant is to take out a people for Jehovah's name as a part of Abraham's "seed." (Ac 15:14) They become the "bride" of Christ, and are the body of persons whom Christ takes into a covenant for the Kingdom to rule with Him. (Joh 3:29; 2 Cor 11:2; Re 21:9; Lu 22:29; Re 1:4-6; 5:9, 10; 20:6) The purpose of the new covenant requires that it continue in operation until all of the "Israel of God" are resurrected to immortality in the heavens. ( _Insight_

**B) The Jehovah's Witnesses teach, incorrectly, that the real kingdom of God, the 1914 kingdom, began in 1914, but Jesus received only a "subsidiary share" of this kingdom. However, these two kingdoms are not separate kingdoms, and such distinctions are mere fabrications**

The second kingdom, the real kingdom of God, is the "kingdom of our lord and of his Christ" (the 1914 kingdom). It began in 1914 at "the end of the "appointed times of the nations" and is over all mankind on earth" ( _Insight_ , 169; _Reasoning_ , 95-97). The 1914 kingdom lasts forever. The 1914 kingdom, or "God's kingdom" over which Jesus began to rule, is of "greater proportions and bigger dimensions..." than the New Covenant kingdom, but Jesus received only a "subsidiary share" in the 1914 kingdom of God.

> **"Kingdom of Our Lord and of His Christ."**

> It is "our Lord," the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, who asserts his authority over "the kingdom of the world," setting up a new expression of his sovereignty toward our earth. He gives to his son, Jesus Christ, a subsidiary share

This return of Christ in 1914 is the Jehovah's Witnesses' version of the Second Coming of Christ, or advent of his presence (Greek _parousia_ ), and ushers in the first of three judgment days mentioned at Matthew 25:31-46 where Jehovah's Witnesses until 1995 were taught that they were, through their door-to-door ministry, separating the earth's sheep and goats for judgment and destruction.

Upon closer examination of Scripture, however, it is evident that Christ did not return in 1914 to establish and preside over God's kingdom; Christ began his rule of God's kingdom, over the entire universe for that matter, in the first century A.D. The 1914 kingdom cannot be separated from the New Covenant kingdom established by Christ's blood in the first century. And any valid authority or relationship, or attributes of the 1914 kingdom were granted or realized in the first century and derived from and are grounded in the New Covenant and the real kingdom of God related thereto. Consequently, the Jehovah's Witnesses were gravely mistaken in believing that they were separating the sheep from the goats on behalf of God because the judgment day of Mathew 25:31-46 lies in the future.

**1) The 1914 kingdom is premised on a faulty date because Jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 B.C.**

First, incontrovertible archeological, historical and scriptural evidence proves that Jesus Christ could not have returned in 1914. The Jehovah's Witnesses derive the year 1914 by counting forward 2,520 years from the date Babylon allegedly destroyed Jerusalem in 607 B.C. Jerusalem, however, was not destroyed in 607 B.C. but in 587/586 B.C. and the Jehovah's Witnesses are unable to provide a single shred of evidence to the contrary. The issues are numerous and beyond the scope of this paper, but serious students are encouraged to read the accompanying online article "Why the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong believing that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E." at http://144000.110mb.com/607/index.html

**2) The Jehovah's Witnesses' 1914 date is biblically unsupportable**

Second, Revelation 11:15 (ESV), which the Jehovah's Witnesses base the establishment of their 1914 kingdom on, is chronologically unsustainable. It provides in part "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever," but the events in this verse happen after the beginning of the Great Tribulation, not ninety years before. It is heralded by the seventh trumpet, after the six seals are opened, the 144,000 are sealed, the six trumpets are blown and second woe has passed, all of which still lies in the future. Then the seventh angel blows his trumpet. Furthermore, Revelation 11:15-18 occurs after the two witnesses at 11:1-12 are commissioned and taken up to heaven which the Jehovah's Witnesses claim happened in the 1930s, after 1914.

**3) The Second Coming of Christ is a future event**

Third, the true Second Coming of Christ ( _parousia_ ) takes place after the Great Tribulation, not years before as the Jehovah's Witnesses contend.

> 21 for then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world's beginning until now, no, nor will occur again. (Matt. 24:21)

> Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. (Matt. 24:29)

This reference to Christ's return "immediately" (Greek _eutheos_ meaning directly, i.e., at once or soon, straightaway, forthwith [ _Vine's_ ]), follows the pending Great Tribulation, not the tribulation Jerusalem experienced when it was destroyed by Rome in 70 A.D because the pending Great Tribulation shall be the worst that will ever be. Since the slaughter of the 20th century world wars makes Jerusalem's destruction pale in comparison, Christ's Second Coming still awaits mankind.

**4) Christ had all authority when he ascended; he did not receive a subsidiary share 1,900 years later**

Fourth, Christ did not wait 1,900 years to receive a mere "subsidiary share" of God's kingdom. He received it all when he rose from the dead and ascended to the throne in heaven to sit at God's right hand.

> 18 And Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: "All authority

> 10 And so YOU are possessed of a fullness by means of him, who is the head of all government and authority. (Col. 2:10 NWT)

The Jehovah's Witnesses' version of the temporary New Covenant kingdom and their 1914 subsidiary kingdom which are not separate kingdoms at all, pursuant to Ephesians 1:20, 22.

> ... which he worked in Christ, raising him from the dead and seating him at his right hand in the heavens, far above every principality, authority, power and dominion, and every name that is named not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things beneath his feet, ... (NAB)

This Scripture renders their temporary New Covenant invalid because it clearly states that Christ's kingdom authority and power applies to the next age and covers more than the 144,000. And, Christ's share in the 1914 kingdom is total, not partial, and that rule began in the first century after he ascended and was seated at God's right hand, not 1914.

**5) Christ began to rule God's kingdom in the first century, not 1914**

Fifth, Colossians 2:10 clearly indicates that Jesus did not wait until 1914 to become head of every principality and power, but assumed that role in the first century, and therefore the Jehovah's Witnesses' reliance on Revelation 12:7-12 is misplaced because these verses make no reference to when Christ began to rule, or that it began in 1914.

> 7 And war broke out in heaven: Mi´cha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled 8 but it did not prevail, neither was a place found for them any longer in heaven. 9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him. 10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven say:

> Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! 11 And they conquered him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their witnessing, and they did not love their souls even in the face of death. 12 On this account be glad, YOU heavens and YOU who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to YOU, having great anger, knowing he has a short period of time. (Rev. 12:7-12 NWT).

Associating these verses with the hurling of Satan out of heaven allegedly in 1914 ( _Reasoning_ , 96-97) only begs the question of when Christ began to rule and when Satan was dislodged. Daniel indicates that Christ began to rule God's kingdom in the first century when he rose to heaven, on the clouds.

> 13 "I kept on beholding in the visions of the night, and, see there! with ("on" NAB) the clouds of the heavens someone like a son of man happened to be coming; and to the Ancient of Days he gained access, and they brought him up close even before that One. 14 And to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin. (Dan. 7:13, 14 NWT)

Christ began to rule God's kingdom when he ascended to heaven after his crucifixion in the first century. He did not wait to rule until 1914 right before he supposedly descended to earth invisibly. This is made all the more evident by John when he referred to the resurrected Jesus as the then "Ruler of the kings of the earth," that is, during the first century (Rev. 1:5 NWT). Accordingly, the Jehovah's Witnesses' claim that "... in 1914 Christ began ruling as King," is incorrect ( _Great Man_ , ch. 132, 3).

Without any scriptural support the Jehovah's Witnesses also assume Satan was not hurled out of heaven until 1914 and attempt to attach the establishment of God's kingdom to this event as well.

> The establishment of God's kingdom is here associated with the hurling of Satan out of heaven. This had not occurred at the time of rebellion in Eden, as is shown in Job chapters 1, 2. Revelation was recorded in 96 C.E., and Revelation 1:1 shows that it deals with events then future. ( _Reasoning_

However, it appears they have failed to identify the proper issues. We are dealing with the New Testament, not the Old Testament, and any references to the book of Job are irrelevant. And even though Revelation might have been recorded in 96 A.D., their claim that Revelation deals only with then-future events is very mistaken. Chapter 12 is obviously a flashback in time referring to Christ's birth, death, resurrection and ascension to heaven. And, that he took the throne of God's kingdom in verses 10 and 11 in the first century and not the 20th century is clear by the description of the persecution of the woman who gave birth to Christ, and the woman's offspring - the Church of Christian believers.

> 3 And another sign was seen in heaven, and, look! a great fiery-colored dragon, with seven heads and ten horns and upon its heads seven diadems; 4 and its tail drags a third of the stars of heaven, and it hurled them down to the earth. And the dragon kept standing before the woman who was about to give birth, that, when she did give birth, it might devour her child.

> 5 And she gave birth to a son, a male, who is to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod. And her child was caught away to God and to his throne

> 7 And war broke out in heaven: Mi´cha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled 8 but it did not prevail, neither was a place found for them any longer in heaven. 9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him. 10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven say:

> "Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! 11 And they conquered him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their witnessing, and they did not love their souls even in the face of death. 12 On this account be glad, YOU heavens and YOU who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea, because the Devil has come down to YOU, having great anger, knowing he has a short period of time."

> 13 Now when the dragon saw that it was hurled down to the earth, it persecuted the woman that gave birth to the male child

> 15 And the serpent disgorged water like a river from its mouth after the woman, to cause her to be drowned by the riverAnd the dragon grew wrathful at the woman, and went off to wage war with the remaining ones of her seed

Satan and the Roman empire did not wait until 1914 to wage war against Christians but did so, viciously, beginning in the first century. Accordingly, not only did salvation, power, God's kingdom and Christ's authority come before Christian persecution began, but the hurling of Satan to earth associated with the so-called 1914 kingdom happened at Christ's ascension or thereabouts before the onslaught of Christian persecution, not 1,900 years later.

**6) The book of Revelation does not only "deal with events then future" which is a mere ploy to shift the Lord's Day to 1914**

Sixth, the Jehovah's Witnesses have gone to great lengths to push God's kingdom and the kingdom's priesthood, and the events of Revelation 11:15, 12:10, and others, into the 20th and 21st centuries. As stated, they believe, "Revelation was recorded in 96 B.C.E. and Rev 1:1 shows it deals with events then future" ( _Reasoning_ , 233), but this is simply not true. Revelation by no means speaks exclusively of future events but includes past and then-current events. And, as just mentioned, Revelation 12:4, 5 recounts the birth of Christ and his ascension to God and His throne, all of which occurred more than 50 years prior to the book's writing.

Illustrative of another attempt to "post-date" the book of Revelation were the instructions to John at Revelation 1:19. John was instructed: "write what things you saw, and what things are, and what things are about to occur after these things" (Rev. 1:19, _Green's Literal Translation_ ). These are not exclusively future events.

Furthermore, the Jehovah's Witnesses' Bible states of John: "By inspiration I came to be in the Lord's day..." (Rev. 1:10). Elsewhere they claim that the "Lord's day" was 1914: then came to pass "the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ," and "that 'by inspiration' he was transported forward in time to the 'Lord's day'" in 1914 ( _Great Man_ , ch. 132, 2,3).

But the Bible does not say that. A literal reading provides, "I came to be in the Spirit on the Lord's day..." ( _Green's Literal_ ). He was not transported to the Lord's day. The Lord's day was Sunday (NAB n. 1, 10. See also N. Turner, _Peake's Commentary_ , 1046), the day he was caught up in the Spirit and began to see visions.

**7) Christ's** _parousia_ **, or Second Coming, occurs after the Great Tribulation has begun, not before, not in 1914. Neither was the New Covenant priesthood established in 1918, but during the first century**

This is brought out by the concurrent and following chapters of Revelation. John's immediate vision was of Christ who instructed him as to what he should write down (Rev. 1:5-29) beginning with letters to the seven churches in the first century (Rev. chapters 2-4). Afterward he envisions the Great Tribulation and only much later events surrounding Christ's Second Coming or parousia, which could not, therefore, have occurred in 1914. Jesus said as much at Matthew 24:29,30, that his _parousia_ , or Second Coming, would happen after the Great Tribulation, not before.

This is a very significant point. It is understandable why the Jehovah's Witnesses insist that the events of Revelation take place after 96 A.D.; if not, it would undermine their attempt to push the New Covenant priesthood 1,900 years forward, claiming that the priesthood was not established until their first resurrection of the 144,000 began in 1918. But it didn't. The New Covenant priesthood was established in the first century (But you are a "chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own ..." 1 Peter 2:9).

Pushing every event or claim in Revelation into the future is so important to the Jehovah's Witnesses' "1914 kingdom" and "New Covenant priesthood" theories that they apparently interpreted Scripture in their New World Translation to cast other then-past and current events forward in time. To illustrate, a literal translation by Green of Revelation 1:5,6 provides that Jesus "...made us into a kingdom, priests for his God and Father...." This means that the first century Christians were already part of God's kingdom which included a priesthood, the real New Covenant kingdom. All Christian believers were, and are, priests of this priesthood. And it is this kingdom into which they were transferred at Colossians 1:13: "...he transferred us to the kingdom of the son of his love."

As mentioned earlier, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that this latter New Covenant kingdom at verse 1:13 is a completely separate, temporary kingdom for only the 144,000, but Revelation 1:5, 6 associates, or ties, both kingdoms together and regards them as the same, in effect pulling the so-called 1914 kingdom and its associated kingdom of priests back to the first century where it belongs, thereby correctly including it in the New Covenant kingdom because they are the same. What the Jehovah's Witnesses have actually done is incorrectly move God's kingdom up to 1914, move the Second Coming back to 1914, and combined them. This is not true Christian doctrine.

To counter what the Bible really says, the Jehovah's Witnesses changed the words "made us," past tense, to mean a future event: "made us to be a kingdom, priests..." (Rev. 1:6 NWT). They did the same in Revelation 5:10, changing "you made us kings and priests..." ( _Green's Literal_ ) to read "... and you made them to be a kingdom of priests to our God." Peter disagrees with their interpretation at 1 Peter 2:9: "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own..." (NAB). He did not recognize two kingdom priesthoods separated by 1,900 years. They were not to become a royal priesthood many centuries later.

By reading these verses relating to the kingdom priesthood together it is evident that the Jehovah's Witnesses' New Covenant kingdom priesthood and events associated with the so-called "1914 kingdom of God" actually began in the first century; they are not separate kingdoms, which is exactly what God Almighty purposed when he entered into a covenant relationship with King David.

# **  
****A) The Covenants: The Jehovah's Witnesses' other Achilles' Heel and the key to bringing God's alleged 1914 kingdom and the 20th century New Covenant arrangement back to the first century where they belong.**

Understanding the Davidic covenant, especially as it relates to the priesthood, is key to bringing the 1914 kingdom and the Jehovah's Witnesses' priesthood back to the first century, extending the New Covenant into the everlasting future where it belongs, and including all Christian believers, not just the 144,000, under the New Covenant arrangment with all its attendant benefits, such as eternal life, forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with YHWH God. But to understand the broad scope of the Davidic covenant it is essential to see how it is inseparably intertwined with the Abrahamic covenant and the New Covenant.

"The term 'covenant' in general refers to a solemn agreement between two or more parties" ( _Oxford Dictionary_ [U.S.A. Oxford University Press, 1998], 288). "The Christian tradition of dividing the Bible into two "testaments" ("old" and "new") indicates that Christianity has seen "covenant" as the organizing principle providing meaning and coherence to the whole of Scripture.... To study the biblical notion of "covenant" is thus to study what is arguably the central or core concept of the entire Bible" (Ibid., 292).

The organizing principles of related covenant relationships which provide the structure and avenue for God's salvation plan for fallen mankind stretch from Genesis to Revelation in a grand, sweeping, interlocking arch. As early as Genesis 3:15 the idea that redemption would come through the seed, Christ Jesus, was revealed. Later, the covenant promise to Abraham ensured the creation of God's people, the nation of Israel in the flesh; but the promise did not stop there as it encompassed the succeeding generations of spiritual Israel, Christianity, heirs to the promise (Gal. 3:26-29).

The covenant of blood circumcision was a sign of, and sealed, the Abrahamic covenant. The covenant of circumcision remained operative until Christ's death when it (physical circumcision) and the Mosaic Law covenant (Law covenant) became obsolete and were replaced by the New Covenant. The Law covenant was an extension of, and addition to, the Abrahamic covenant, and was instituted in succeeding manifestations between YHWH and natural born Israel. Statutes, decrees and ordinances - a religious code - the Law covenant provided an orderly arrangement for God's people, the Jews. It made sin and transgression manifest (Gal. 3:19) and was supposed to lead the Jews to Christ the messiah (Gal. 3:24). It also served to guarantee the physical line of descent from Abraham through the tribe of Judah and from King David to the promised seed, Jesus.

God's promise to David - the Davidic covenant - established a line of descent for David's throne, or rulership, which culminated with Christ's ascension to this heavenly throne in the first century to rule as king of the universe and beyond, and high priest. Jesus became both king and priest forever on the order of king/priest Melchizedek of Abraham's day (Heb. chapters 5-8). The Davidic covenant lasts into perpetuity, forever, and contrary to what the Jehovah's Witnesses teach, includes a priesthood comprised of Christ and his house of all Christian believers who are a kingdom of priests, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's people (1 Pet. 2:9).

The taking out of God's people in furtherance of the Davidic covenant is accomplished through the New Covenant created and memorialized by Christ's blood sacrifice. However, God's people under the New Covenant are not limited to the 144,000 but embrace all Christian believers. Through grace, faith, and the forgiveness of their sins by virtue of Christ's sacrifice, fallen man is reconciled to the creator. Christ's death and resurrection provide the gift of eternal life for God's people. Christ is forever mediator between God and His people and without his continued intercession between humans and God, access to God in heaven is not possible and continued redemption unattainable, as explained in further detail below.

As repeatedly stated throughout the Bible, and contrary to the Jehovah's Witnesses' teachings, the New Covenant, by necessity and design, is everlasting, not temporary or of a fixed determinate length.

> **  
> B) The Davidic Covenant**

For reasons that will be explored in detail later, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach, incorrectly, that God's covenant with David was for a throne only; that it included no priesthood.

> Covenant with King David. The covenant with David was made at some time during David's reign in Jerusalem (1070 - 1038 B.C.E.), the parties being Jehovah and David as representative of his family. (2Sa 7:11-16) The terms of this covenant were that a son from David's line would possess the throne forever, and that this son would build a house for Jehovah's name. God's purpose in this covenant was to provide a kingly dynasty for the Jews; to give Jesus, as David's heir, the legal right to the throne of David, "Jehovah's throne" (1 Ch 29:23; Lu 1:32); and to provide identification for Jesus as the Messiah. (Eze 21:25-27; Mt 1:6-16; Lu 3:23- 31) This covenant included no priesthood; _Insight_

This convoluted paragraph begs for clarity and is self-contradicting because the kingship and priesthood cannot be strictly separate under the Law yet serve in conjunction with each other. Furthermore, the fact that priesthood and kingship might have been separate under the Law misses the point entirely because the focus should be on the kingship of Christ under the Davidic and New covenants, not the expired Mosaic Law, and in that role Christ's kingship most definitely includes a priesthood And, kings of David's time routinely performed priestly functions. The Davidic covenant provides:

> 12 When your days come to the full, and you must lie down with your forefathers, then I shall certainly raise up your seed after you, which will come out of your inward parts; and I shall indeed firmly establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one that will build a house for my name, and I shall certainly establish the throne of his kingdom firmly to time indefinite. 14 I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son. When he does wrong, I will also reprove him with the rod of men and with the strokes of the sons of Adam. 15 As for my loving-kindness, it will not depart from him the way I removed it from Saul, whom I removed on account of you. 16 And your house and your kingdom will certainly be steadfast to time indefinite before you; your very throne will become one firmly established to time indefinite. (2 Sam. 7:12-16 NWT)

The Davidic covenant was not limited to only a throne but included a kingdom as well. (Davidic covenant was for an everlasting kingdom (2 Chron. 13:5; also Insight, 164). The throne of David (throne of Israel) cannot be severed from the kingdom. In the Old Testament, kingdom, or mamlakah, is defined in part as "expressions of the royal "rule" of all things associated with the king: 8(c)(1) the throne..." ( _Vine's Dictionary_ , 161). The covenant was also for a house, which is God's spiritual house, over which Christ presides, the church or congregation of Christian believers.

> "...Christ was faithful as a son placed over his house. We are his house if [only] we hold fast to our confidence and pride in our hope." (Heb. 3:6)

The promised house is a holy priesthood. Peter testified "... let yourselves be built up into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 2:5). "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood" (1 Pet. 2:9). Paul explained that Christ is great priest over this house.

> 19 Therefore, brothers, since we have boldness for the way of entry into the holy place by the blood of Jesus, 20 which he inaugurated for us as a new and living way through the curtain, that is, his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest

Without Jesus as high priest there is no priesthood; his role in this capacity sustains the church or congregation: "Through him the whole structure is held together and grows into a temple sacred in the Lord" (Eph. 2:21, 22). Jeremiah drew an unmistakable connection between the everlasting Davidic covenant and the New Covenant with God's people, his house. He emphasized the inclusion of a continuous line of priests that reached far into the future beyond the Levitical priesthood.

> Never shall David lack a successor on the throne of the house of Israel nor shall priests ever be lacking

This does not refer to the Levitical priesthood under the Mosaic Law which ended in the first century but refers to the Christian priesthood because these priests will never be lacking, and in accordance with Jeremiah 33:22 will be countless.

> Like the host of heaven which cannot be numbered, and the sands of the sea which cannot be counted, I will multiply the descendants of my servant David and the Levites who minister to me. (Jer. 33:22)

Finally, the prophet Isaiah made the most succinct connection between the New Covenant and the benefits assured to David under the Davidic covenant. They are inseparable.

> Come to me heedfully,  
>   
>   
>   
>

**a) The invention of new covenants and abrogation of existing covenants: In order to place the inception of God's kingdom in 1914, the Jehovah's Witnesses have wrongfully stripped the Davidic covenant of a priesthood, severed the Davidic covenant from the New Covenant, and limit the New Covenant to a temporary 2,000-year period**

In light of this strong scriptural evidence several questions emerge:

(1) If the Davidic covenant obviously included a priesthood why do the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that it does not and that the covenant only included David's throne?

(2) Why do the Jehovah's Witnesses sever the Davidic covenant from the New Covenant even though the New Covenant effectuates, and is the fulfillment of, the Davidic covenant?

(3) Why do the Jehovah's Witnesses terminate the New Covenant after two thousand years but concede the Davidic covenant lasts forever even though the former reflects the fulfillment of, and amplifies, the latter Davidic covenant and both covenants are repeatedly said to be everlasting, and they are the same where they overlap?

**i) A first century priesthood undermines the Jehovah's Witnesses' "1914 kingdom" theory and the "first resurrection of the 144,000" theory**

ANSWER: First, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the Davidic covenant includes no priesthood because the only priesthood the Jehovah's Witnesses recognize is the 144,000 with Christ as their high priest, for a while. As explained earlier, they believe they do not become a kingdom of priests until they are resurrected beginning in 1918, the so-called first resurrection ( _Climax Book_ , 103, 277).

Only then do they become a kingdom of heavenly priests who rule over man on earth during the thousand year reign ( _Insight_ , 524, 525). They are resurrected in 1918 because this resurrection must follow on the heels of the 1914 return, or Second Coming, of Christ ( _parousia_ ) in conformity with Matthew 24:29-31. These two events, Christ's return and the gathering of the elect, are chronologically inseparable.

The problem is, if the 144,000 become a kingdom of priests when Christ ascended David's throne it drags the 1914 kingdom of God back to the first century as well, where events related thereto rightfully belong. Consequently, the Second Coming could not have happened in 1914, and since it did not happen in the first century, the return of Christ still awaits us and 1914 is false prophecy, among other things.

In other words, the Davidic covenant that includes the Christian kingdom priesthood - his house of Christian believers established in the first century - fatally undermines their 1914 kingdom theory and the first resurrection of the 144,000 theory.

**ii) An everlasting New Covenant would destroy the Jehovah's Witnesses' salvation plan during the millennial reign.**

ANSWER: Second, the Jehovah's Witnesses sever the forever-lasting Davidic covenant from their temporary New Covenant because a long-lasting New Covenant would destroy their salvation plan during and after the thousand year reign, as explained in detail below. Whereas the Davidic/New Covenant is everlasting, their version of the New Covenant lasts a mere two thousand years.

> The purpose of the new covenant requires that it continue in operation until all of the "Israel of God' are resurrected to immortality in the heavens. ( _Insight_

The benefits of the Davidic covenant include a priesthood and Christ's rule as king in God's kingdom over the universe and all believers, but the Jehovah's Witnesses' New Covenant is only for a kingdom of 144,000 with Christ as associate king over them. These two concepts are diametrically opposed to each other when they should harmonize.

**iii) An everlasting New Covenant would prevent the Jehovah's Witnesses from education man to a state of perfection and repeatedly judging him**

ANSWER: Third, the Jehovah's Witnesses concede that the Davidic covenant lasts forever ( _Insight_ , 524), but since the New Covenant is inseperable from the Davidic covenant it must also be everlasting. This is problematic for the Jehovah's Witnesses because if the New Covenant is everlasting, which it is, the Jehovah's Witnesses would not be able to educate resurrected man to perfection; this is their plan for salvation.

Consequently, the "Law Scrolls" of God - the Jehovah's Witnesses' new rules and regulations revealed during the millennium - would not be new expressions of God's law but would be, in the Christian view rather, a record of man's deeds done in this life, and not those committed during the thousand years as they wrongly teach. The Bible teaches us that these so-called millennial Law scrolls are actually a record of man's deeds in this life which form the basis for their names being included in the book of life (Rev. 20:12). But without the millennial Law scrolls, the Jehovah's Witnesses cannot subject man to judgment again and again, which is precisely the Jehovah's Witnesses' intent.

Man will not, and cannot, be "educated" to perfection (justified or declared righteous, without sin: _Vine's_ ) through adherence to any set of externally imposed laws. He is only justified, or "perfected" through the grace of God and Christ, Christ's death sacrifice, and faith. This is the essence of God's power of transformation, the explicit alternative to the Mosaic Law, and the means by which God takes out a people as his own and forgives their sins. The New Covenant is the quintessential arrangment between the Almighty and all Christian believers, not merely a select 144,000.

> 33 "For this is the covenant that I shall conclude with the house of Israel after those days," is the utterance of Jehovah. "I will put my law within them, and in their heart I shall write it. And I will become their God, and they themselves will become my people."

> 34 "And they will no more teach each one his companion and each one his brother, saying, 'KNOW Jehovah!'"For I shall forgive their error, and their sin I shall remember no more."

It is the Great Crowd of Jehovah's Witnesses' stated purpose to teach the resurrected during the thousand years how to know God and Jesus based on written decrees, but this is at direct odds with the New Covenant where the Almighty is changing hearts from the inside out through the power of the Holy Spirit, not through the imposition of more externally imposed Mosaic-like laws and decrees. Through the sacrificed blood of his son, Jesus, God forgives sin and redeems man by virtue of grace through their faith in Christ and his sacrifice. He does not teach man to be sinless or perfect, nor does he forgive sins in the Christian era based on their successfully passing tests in another life. Forgiveness through Christ's sacrifice under the everlasting New Covenant supplants the Jehovah's Witnesses' "educational" route and renders it useless with respect to their stated purpose.

**iv) The Jehovah's Witnesses are unable to eliminate Jesus after the 1,000 year reign if the New Covenant, for which he is the mediator forever, is everlasting**

Furthermore, an everlasting New Covenant means that Jesus the sacrificed Lamb will forever mediate the New Covenant, whereas the Jehovah's Witnesses dispense with Christ the angel as legal intermediary, his services no longer needed after the final human has been put on judgment again ( _Insight_ , 170). With an everlasting New Covenant, they are unable to eliminate Jesus as the legal intermediary and helper, explained in further detail below. With all of this inconvenient excess baggage it is understandable why the Jehovah's Witnesses need to remove the New Covenant so quickly. However, in doing so they have created a host of additional problems for their theology.

**b) The Jehovah's Witnesses' approach deprives the high priest Jesus of his priesthood, a problem they attempt to solve by inventing a separate "Melchizedek covenant." However, the so-called Melchizedek covenant** **is** **the New Covenant and therefore must last forever and include a priesthood of all Christian believers**

If the Davidic covenant lacks a priesthood and the New Covenant terminates near the beginning of the thousand year reign there is no vehicle, you might say, or covenant, to provide a priesthood for the high priest Jesus. Recognizing this shortcoming the Jehovah's Witnesses have apparently crafted another covenant called the "Covenant to be a Priest like Melchizedek" (the Melchizedek covenant) which is no covenant at all. They explain their novel approach this way:

> **Covenant to Be a Priest Like Melchizedek** _Insight_

Because this so-called Melchizedek covenant provides that Jesus would serve as king and high priest it avoids the Davidic covenant's problem of not having a priesthood , and of a temporary New Covenant, and it gives them the millennial "education-to-perfection program," the Law scrolls and judgment days, because the alleged Melchizedek covenant comes without restraints.

The problem, of course, is that the Melchizedek covenant is not a separate covenant at all. The verses they quote in support merely extol Christ's role under the Davidic and New covenants. The inspired writer of Hebrews made this perfectly clear in chapters 5-8. God declared Jesus to be a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek pursuant to his oath to David; he was not entering into yet another separate covenant relationship for yet another kingdom with Jesus as king and high priest. The context of the entire discourse in Hebrews chapters 5-8 revolves around Christ as king and priest forever on the order of Melchizedek under the New Covenant. Although too long to quote them all here, these four chapters should be read. As high priest he became the surety, or guarantee, or pledge of the New Covenant in furtherance of the oath to David. The New Covenant takes out a people, or Christian house, for the heir to David's throne, Christ, who rules as king and high priest.

> 17 for in witness it is said: "You are a priest forever according to the manner of Mel·chiz´e·dek.

> 18 Certainly, then, there occurs a setting aside of the preceding commandment on account of its weakness and ineffectiveness. 19 For the Law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in besides of a better hope did, through which we are drawing near to God. 20 Also, to the extent that it was not without a sworn oath, 21 (for there are indeed men that have become priests without a sworn oath, but there is one with an oath sworn by the One who said respecting him: "Jehovah has sworn (and he will feel no regret), 'You are a priest forever,

> 1 Now as to the things being discussed this is the main point: We have such a high priest as this, and he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a public servant of the holy place and of the true tent, which Jehovah put up, and not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; wherefore it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4 If, now, he were upon earth, he would not be a priest, there being [men] who offer the gifts according to the Law, 5 but which [men] are rendering sacred service in a typical representation and a shadow of the heavenly things; just as Moses, when about to make the tent in completion, was given the divine command: For says he: "See that you make all things after [their] pattern that was shown to you in the mountain." 6 But now [Jesus] has obtained a more excellent public service, so that he is also the mediator of a correspondingly better covenant, which has been legally established upon better promises.

> 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, no place would have been sought for a second; 8 for he does find fault with the people when he says: "'Look! There are days coming,' says Jehovah, 'and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant

> 10 "'For this is the covenant that I shall covenant with the house of Israel after those days,' says Jehovah. 'I will put my laws in their mind, and in their hearts I shall write them. And I will become their God, and they themselves will become my people.

> 11 "'And they will by no means teach each one his fellow citizen and each one his brother, saying: "Know Jehovah!" For they will all know me, from [the] least one to [the] greatest one of them

> 13 In his saying "a new [covenant]" he has made the former one obsolete. Now that which is made obsolete and growing old is near to vanishing away. (Hebrews 8:1-3 NWT)

Psalm 110 places Jesus as king and priest squarely on David's throne under the Davidic covenant, not a separate throne under the so-called Melchizedek covenant which would be redundant. The only throne which Jesus ascends as a Melchizedek-type king and priest is the Davidic throne pursuant to the Davidic covenant and under the New Covenant, which therefore must be everlasting and not temporary because Jesus rules forever.

We know this refers to Christ's priestly function under the New Covenant because Jesus was not priest while on earth as he was not of the tribe of Levi and became priest only at his death and ascension (Heb. 8:4). Like other prophetic statements, Isaiah 110:4 was projecting forward in time to that day. The only covenant inaugurated and invoked by his blood sacrifice is the New Covenant of his blood (Matt. 26:28). Jesus Christ, as high priest on the order of Melchizedek, could only ascribe to that role by and through the New Covenant. The so-called Melchizedek covenant is not a covenant separate from the New Covenant.

> The Lord says to you, my lord:  
>  **Take your throne**  
>   
>  **The scepter of your sovereign might** The Lord will extend from Zion.  
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>  **Like Melchizedek you are a priest forever**

> 29 "Men, brothers, it is allowable to speak with freeness of speech to YOU concerning the family head David

That the Davidic covenant included the priesthood of Jesus Christ as high priest under and in furtherance of the New Covenant is shown at Hebrews 10:11-17. Paul had just concluded a lengthy discourse explaining that Jesus presented himself as the ultimate sacrifice in his role as high priest. And as high priest (and king) Jesus took his seat on David's throne and through his death made the consecrated perfect through forgiveness of sins under the New Covenant.

> 11 Also, every priest takes his station from day to day to render public service and to offer the same sacrifices often, as these are at no time able to take sins away completely. 12 But this [man] offered one sacrifice for sins perpetually and sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from then on awaiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet. 14 For it is by one [sacrificial] offering that he has made those who are being sanctified perfect perpetually. 15 Moreover, the holy spirit also bears witness to us, for after it has said: 16 "'This is the covenant that I shall covenant toward them after those days,' says Jehovah. 'I will put my laws in their hearts, and in their minds I shall write them,'" 17 [it says afterwards:] "And I shall by no means call their sins and their lawless deeds to mind anymore." 18 Now where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. (Heb. 10:11-18 NWT)

**c) All of the Jehovah's Witnesses' benefits under their temporary New Covenant terminate when their new covenant expires, shortly**

Because the Jehovah's Witnesses' New Covenant ends very soon they also lack a covenant vehicle to carry the 144,000 beyond their resurrection and through the thousand year reign. They cannot simply apply the benefits of the terminated New Covenant to the next life without its continued existence any more than one can obtain forgiveness of sin today under the obsolete and ineffectual Mosaic Law covenant, but that is precisely what they are attempting to do:

>...others [earthly subjects of God's kingdom] are to benefit from his ransom sacrifice and gain everlasting life through the removal of their sins and accompanying imperfection. Rev 14:4; 1 John 2:1,2. ( _Insight_

**d) The Jehovah's Witnesses' "covenant with Christ's followers" is a fabrication; it is not a valid separate covenant for yet another kingdom, but an administrative appointment with respect to the kingdom**

Without a replacement covenant they lack a basis, or authority, for ruling during the thousand years. You could say they lack enabling legislation. Their answer to this dilemma is Jesus' so-called 'covenant with Christ's followers,' but this so-called "covenant with Christ's followers" is not a covenant for yet another kingdom, but rather an appointment of authority to run, or continue to administer, the fledgling church, Christ's kingdom of priests pursuant to the Davidic and New Covenant.

> **Jesus' Covenant With His Followers.** _Insight_

As a covenant it is ineffectual and intrinsically unable to bring about the forgiveness of sin and human perfection, redeem man or grant everlasting life. Neither was it intended as a means of rule over earthly subjects. The kingdom which the Jehovah's Witnesses claim is the object of their covenant is set out at Luke 22:28-30 and Matthew 19:27-30.

> 28 "However, YOU are the ones that have stuck with me in my trials; 29 and I make a covenant ("confer" NAB; "assign" ESV; "appoint" Green's Literal) with YOU, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, 30 that YOU may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. (Luke 22:28-30 NWT).

> 27 Then Peter said to him in reply: "Look! We have left all things and followed you; what actually will there be for us?" 28 Jesus said to them: "Truly I say to YOU, In the re-creation, when the Son of man sits down upon his glorious throne, YOU who have followed me will also yourselves sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone that has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive many times more (a "hundredfold" Green's Literal) and will inherit everlasting life. (Matt. 19:27-30 NWT).

The Jehovah's Witnesses populate this covenant with the "bride" taken out during under the temporary New Covenant.

> The purpose of the covenant is to take out a people for Jehovah's name as a part of Abraham's "seed." (Ac 15:14) They become the "bride" of Christ, and are the body of persons whom Christ takes into a covenant for the Kingdom to rule with Him. (Joh 3:29; 2 Cor 11:2; Re 21:9; Luke 22:29; Re 1:4-6; 5:9, 10; 20:6) The purpose of the new covenant requires that it continue in operation until all of the "Israel of God" are resurrected to immortality in the heavens. ( _Insight_

First, Jesus' use of the Greek word _diathemai_ means foremost to put apart, dispose (by assignment, compact or bequest [ _Vine's_ ]). And even though it can mean 'covenant,' in this particular context, with respect to this specific verse, Luke 22:29 means to arrange, dispose or appoint.

> _Diathemi_ _diathemi_ _diathemi_ _Vine's_

Other commentators are in accord, that the kingdom was to be his disciples' thereafter. He was not creating another kingdom for the 144,000 to rule over earthly subjects in the next life. "As (the kingdom's) administrators they are to share in it; hence they are to join with Jesus in the eschatological feast when he has come into His kingdom..." (G.W.H. Lampe, _Peake's Commentary_ , 840). Jesus was departing and left the apostles in charge.

The granting of the right to sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel was specific to the apostles, not a general grant of power for the 144,000 to rule over earthly subjects under Revelation 20:4-6 during the thousand year reign.

Furthermore, the specific nature of the grant to the apostles to "judge" is clarified at Matthew 19:27-30. Everyone (not just the 144,000) who give up many things will receive a hundred times more and will inherit eternal life; but not everyone sits on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. That extra privilege of judging is reserved to the apostles, not the 144,000.

Secondly, a seemingly odd inauguration of this "covenant with Christ's followers" has the Jehovah's Witnesses borrowing and sharing the same Holy Spirit poured out at Pentecost that inaugurated the New Covenant, over the same group of people, ( _Insight_ , 524) even though the New Covenant is, according to them, severely limited in duration and scope, and this covenant was never ratified with Christ's blood.

That aside, the scriptural support for extending the specific grant of authority to the apostles to include the future 144,000 is weak, if that. They teach that, "Those who would stick with him through trials dying his kind of death (Phil 3;10; Col 1:24) would reign with him sharing his kingdom rule" ( _Insight_ , 525). But that is also in error because a) many of the 144,000 have not died horrible, painful, tortuous deaths like Christ's, b) Phil 3:10 refers to Paul's "sharing of his sufferings in order to "attain the ressurection of the dead." It says nothing about suffering in order to reign or judge over man during the thousand years, and Christ's appointment was not because of their suffering, but because they stuck with him through his trials, and c) in Col 1:24 all Paul is rejoicing in is his own suffering, with no mention of how that places him on a throne during the millennial reign.

Third, those who reign at Revelation 20:4-6, the souls of those beheaded, are not the same as those on thrones entrusted with judgment, as the Jehovah's Witnesses propose; so they can't be "judging" the resurrected under these provisions as the claim.

> Then I saw thrones; those who sat on them were entrusted with judgment. I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the world of God and who had not worshipped the beast or its image nor had accepted its mark on their foreheads or lands. They came to life and they reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were over. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over these; they will be priests of God and Christ, and they will reign with him [for] the thousand years. (Rev. 20:4-6 NAB) (also: I saw, ESV; And I saw the souls, NASB; I also saw the souls, CEV)

A literal translation does not read "Yes, I saw the soul..." at Revelation 20:4 as the Jehovah's Witnesses have interpreted it in order to associate these two groups of people as being the same, and place the 144,000 on judgment seats.

Furthermore, the 144,000 would have to share the reign with the Great Crowd who, like those who reign, have "not worshiped the beast or its image nor accepted its mark on their foreheads or hands." This places the Great Crowd up in heaven, not on earth.

Fourth, since the Jehovah's Witnesses believe the twelve tribes of Israel at Revelation 7:1-8 are the anointed 144,000 and they are to judge the twelve tribes of Israel pursuant to Luke 22:28-30 and Matthew 19:28, they end up judging themselves.

Fifth, Christ's so-called "covenant with his followers," as a redemptive covenant, is void and ineffective because it was never ratified with blood: "For where a covenant is, the death of him covenanting must be offered" (Heb. 9:16 _Green's Literal_ ; see also Heb. 9:15-21). "... Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness," (Heb 9:22 NAB), and if there is no forgiveness of sin there can be no reconciliation, no "perfection.

Only Christ's blood can form the basis of reconciliation (Eph. 2:13-16), redemption (Rom. 3:24-25), justification and salvation (Rom. 5:9), sanctification (Heb. 10:29), and life itself (John 6:53-56). Without Christ's shed blood ratifying the so-called "covenant with Christ's followers," none of this is attainable. But it is under the New Covenant.

>   
>    
>

> **C) Summary of the Covenants and the Jehovah's Witnesses' Insurmountable Obstacles**

The Jehovah's Witnesses' numerous shortcomings with respect to these covenants critically undermines their theology. The so-called "covenant of Christ with his 144,000 followers" is ineffective and void, and cannot serve as a legitimate basis for their rule over man during the thousand year reign. Nor can "perfection," forgiveness of sin and redemption for mankind come through this administrative appointment over Christ's kingdom of priests, the church. The so-called "covenant to be a king like Melchizedek" is not a separate covenant at all, but part-and-parcel of the Davidic covenant and New Covenant - it exemplifies Christ's role as king and priest when he ascended to David's throne in the first century, not 1914, where he rules over all things, including his kingdom and house of priests, the priesthood - all believing Christians under the everlasting New Covenant. These two so-called covenants were invented in order to place Jesus and the 144,000 in the thousand year reign without resorting to the Davidic and New Covenants and to justify or allow the Jehovah's Witnesses' works-based salvation plan.

Consequently, because the Jehovah's Witnesses' version of the Davidic covenant is for a throne only and includes no priesthood, and their Melchizedek covenant, which was supposed to make up for this shortcoming, is no separate covenant at all, they lack a priesthood for Christ to carry God's salvation plan forward under their scenario.

The only lawful means of accomplishing the Bible's stated purpose is via the Davidic covenant which, correctly interpreted, recognizes Christ's priesthood, and via the New Covenant which the Jehovah's Witnesses unfortunately cut short after two thousand years. As such it is impossible for Christ to rule as priest under their temporary version of the New Covenant through the millennial reign or to apply the benefits of forgiveness of sin, reconciliation and redemption (perfection) and life everlasting to any person during the thousand year reign or afterward.

The 144,000 have a similar problem. Because Christ's so-called "covenant with his followers" was only an administrative delegation of authority for the existing church and not a separate blood covenant, and because the apostles and not all 144,000 are to sit on thrones judging "Israel," or anyone else for that matter, and because no blood ratified this covenant, the 144,000 lack authority - they lack a legislative vehicle - for their priesthood to rule during the thousand year reign, or the means of "applying" the benefits of Christ's death to mankind. And, they can't use their New Covenant because it does not run through the thousand year reign.

The Jehovah's Witnesses' problems are compounded by the fact that the New Covenant in reality is not temporary and of limited duration, as they claim, but everlasting, eternal. And since it runs through the thousand year reign and covers all Christian believers, not only the 144,000, they are prohibited logistically and legally, by the clear language of the New Covenant from "perfecting," man, education him to this so-called state of perfection, placing him on judgment again, and testing him and putting him to death again based on deeds or acts they commit during the thousand year reign. Theirs is a salvation plan apart from God and his Christ, unattainable, scripturally flawed and lacking in divine approval. These latter issues will be explored in detail in the next section.

# **V. It is impossible for the Great Crowd and resurrected humans on earth to be "perfected" or justified by an educational program, strict adherence to external laws or decrees, and the passing of tests. Such works-based salvation by the Jehovah's Witnesses can never reconcile man to God and renders the blood sacrifice of Jesus worthless. All saved people must be parties to the New Covenant. Without Christ's blood sacrifice under the New Covenant there can be no redemptive forgiveness of sin, or benefit of the gift of life everlasting by grace for anyone in the Christian era.**

**  
A) The** **Jehovah's Witnesses** **' education-based salvation plan recapped**

One of the more interesting aspects of the Jehovah's Witnesses' belief system revolves around the thousand year reign and available avenues for man's reconciliation with God. To recap, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the second, or general, resurrection, occurs during the thousand year reign when the righteous like Abraham and Moses, and most of the earth's unrighteous are resurrected. When the Great Crowd is not busy restoring a radioactive apocalyptic earth to paradise, the Jehovah's Witnesses who survive the Great Tribulation embark on an educational program to elevate the unrighteous to a state of Adam-like "perfection." Because the New Covenant will have expired by then, and does not apply to the resurrected, the benefits of Christ's ransom blood sacrifice under the New Covenant cannot be used to lift these people up to perfection. If that were the case, many would already be "perfect" and there would be no need to enlighten them to that state. These enlightened individuals undergo judgment, the second judgment day period, during the thousand year reign ( _Insight_ , 788).

> The opening of scrolls [of Rev 20:12, 13] evidently points to a time of educationeducationAhead of them will be the prospect of eternal life in human perfection _Reasoning_

> By the end of the thousand years, people on earth will have reached human perfection _Insight_

> In what sense do they not "come to life" until the end of the thousand years? This does not mean their resurrection. This 'coming to life' involves much more than merely existing as humans. It means attaining to human perfection _Reasoning_

> Not to prophesy, but merely for the purpose of illustration ... Since a yearly increase of three percent, compounded, doubles the number about every 24 years, the entire 20 billion (20,000,000,000) could be resurrected before 300 years of Christ's Thousand Year Reign had elapsed, giving ample time for training and judging the resurrected ones _Insight_  
>   
>  after they had been uplifted to human perfection and been put on judgment _Reasoning_

The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that after the thousand year reign all those educated through their training program are put through a final test and a third judgment day period; this includes the likes of Abraham, Moses and Isaiah. If they pass this test of faith they have their names permanently written in the book of life and are rewarded with everlasting life on earth. And in a world where death will be no more, that means immortality.

Accordingly, the heaven-bound 144,000 receive eternal life through faith, whereas mankind, all those in line for an earthy reward, must obediently perform deeds that are in harmony with the new books, or so-called scrolls of instruction mentioned at Revelation 20:11-15. They are judged based on deeds performed during and after the thousand year reign, not those of today or this life. They state:

> **Time of the earthly resurrection** They are "judged out of those things written in the scrolls" that will be opened then. This could not mean a record of their past lives nor a set of rules that judges them on the basis of their past lives. For since "the wages sin pays is death," these by their death have received the wages of their sin in the pastThough their past sins are not accounted to them, they need the ransom to lift them up to perfectionthe scrolls" evidently set forth the will and law of God for them during that Judgment Day
> 
>  _Insight_

> In the judgment scene at Revelation 20:11-15, during Christ's Millennial Reign "the scroll of life" is shown as opened to receive additional names; scrolls of instruction are also opened. Those who come back in the 'resurrection of the unrighteous' will thus have the opportunity of having their names written on "the scroll of life," provided they obediently perform deeds that are in harmony with the scrolls of instruction

> How does a person get his name permanently retained in the "book of life"? For those who are in line to receive heavenly lifefaithFor those who are in line to receive life on earth, it is by proving loyal to Jehovah through a final, decisive test _Insight_

**B) No man can be justified or perfected by an educational progam.**

The Jehovah's Witnesses' salvation doctrine is flawed for numerous reasons. First, even assuming for a moment that God's plan has always been to revert man back to the naked, innocent condition enjoyed by Adam and Eve on earth before they ate of the tree of the knowledge of the good and bad, or that they were "perfect" to the same extent that Christ was, the idea that perfection can ever be taught or people justified through an educational program flies contrary to the Bible's predominant message and negates the reason why God sent his Christ down to be crucified. The Law, any law, is ineffective to redeem or perfect man.

In this context as it relates to reconciliation with the Almighty the word "perfect" refers to a condition free of sin, a permanent condition which could only be achieved through the blood of Christ. Paul went to great length explaining this. No law or decree, especially the Mosaic Law, brings anything to perfection.

> 18 Certainly, then, there occurs a setting aside of the preceding commandment on account of its weakness and ineffectiveness. 19 For the Law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in besides of a better hope did, through which we are drawing near to God. (Heb. 7:18,19 NWT)

> 11 If, then, perfection were really through the Levitical priesthood, (for with it as a feature the people were given the Law,) what further need would there be for another priest to arise according to the manner of Mel·chiz´e·dek and not said to be according to the manner of Aaron? (Heb. 7:11 NWT)

Paul specifically referred to law or decrees besides the Mosaic Law, any laws; in fact it would be silly to merely replace the Mosaic Law with another set of written laws (i.e., the Jehovah's Witnesses' Law scrolls of the millennium). Jesus Christ nailed all externally imposed laws and decrees to the cross; they are ineffective as a means of achieving redemption and perfection.

> 21 Is the Law, therefore, against the promises of God? May that never happen! For if a law had been given that was able to give life, righteousness would actually have been by means of law. 22 But the Scripture delivered up all things together to the custody of sin, that the promise resulting from faith toward Jesus Christ might be given to those exercising faith. (Gal. 3:21,22 NWT)

>   
> and blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decreesHe has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake

Perfection means, among other things, removal of sin through the blood sacrifice of Christ.

> 12 But this [man] offered one sacrifice for sins perpetually and sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from then on awaiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet. 14 For it is by one [sacrificial] offering that he has made those who are being sanctified perfect perpetually. (Heb. 10:12-14 NWT)

> 14. By a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified: While the Levitical sacrifices, after hundreds of years, were no nearer the attainment of their aim than they had been at the beginning, the sacrifice of Christ has purified his people from sin (cf, 2:11) and assured them of permanent maintenance in a right relation with God. This complete removal and forgiveness of sin, we are reminded, was promised in Jeremiah's prophecy of the new covenant, already quoted in 8:8-12. (F.F. Bruce, _Peake's Commentaries_

Therefore, those who would be perfected (justified) under the Jehovah's Witnesses' salvation plan pursuant to the so-called Law scrolls of Revelation 20:12 will have fallen from grace, as Paul clearly said.

> 4 YOU are parted from Christ, whoever YOU are that try to be declared righteous by means of law; YOU have fallen away from his undeserved kindness. (Gal. 5:4 NWT)

To put it another way, you cannot teach perfection; you can read the entire Bible but its mastery will not justify you; only God's grace and Christ's death through the blood of the New Covenant will accomplish this. Enlightenment comes through internalized spirituality, by the Holy Spirit, a change of heart, not strict legalistic adherence to externally imposed Law scrolls. Jesus quoted the prophets at John 6:45 who said, "They shall all be taught by God," and "Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me," meaning they will be taught to come and know Jesus in this age, to learn about the only means of salvation, faith in Christ and justification or perfection pursuant to his death, and the wonderful grace of the Almighty. Only God's gift brings acquittal.

> 16 Also, it is not with the free gift as it was with the way things worked through the one [man] that sinned. For the judgment resulted from one trespass in condemnation, but the gift resulted from many trespasses in a declaration of righteousness ("acquittal" NAB). (Rom. 5:16)

**C) Only the sins of the 144,000 are forgiven under the Jehovah's Witnesses' new covenant, which is clearly not a Bible teaching**

Secondly, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that only God and the 144,000 are parties to the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34, and therefore no one else besides the 144,000 can achieve perfection because under their New Covenant only the sins of the 144,000 are forgiven.

> 34 "And they will no more teach each one his companion and each one his brother, saying, 'KNOW Jehovah!' for they will all of them know me, from the least one of them even to the greatest one of them," is the utterance of Jehovah. "For I shall forgive their error, and their sin I shall remember no more

This is another important point to remember, and difficult for the average Christian to comprehend, but the only people whose sins are forgiven pursuant to Jesus' sacrifice in this life - from Adam to the beginning of the thousand year reign - are the 144,000. Furtheremore, the benefit of the forgiveness of sin by Christ's sacrifice is only available to earthly subjects of Christ's thousand year kingdom in the next life. Sins of this life are not forgiven because the Jehovah's Witnesses teach, incorrectly, that the wages of sin for men is death - death is punishment for man's sins. They state:

> This could not mean the record of their past lives nor a set of rules that judges them on the basis of their past lives. For since the "wages sin pays is death," these by their death have received the wages of their sin in the past  
>   
>  **his family** **offspring** **such other recipients of the ransom benefits must be earthly subjects of Christ's kingdom and as children of an "eternal Father" they attain everlasting life** _Insight_

It is understandable why the Jehovah's Witnesses don't want mankind's sins forgiven in this life because it would deprive them of the ability to "educate them to perfection" during the thousand year reign. Otherwise, those who merit the resurrection would not have been resurrected as sin-laden mortals in need of perfection through the removal of sin through their sin-removal program. Or stated another way, the Jehovah's Witnesses need sinners to re-educate during the millenial reign. This would ostensibly include those Jehovah's Witnesses who are not of the 144,000 who would have been part of the Great Crowd had they lived long enough.

But even if the Jehovah's Witnesses' theory denying Christ's sacrifice for mankind in this life were true, they can't simply apply the benefits from one lifetime derived from one person to other people in a completely different life. Yet this transfer of forgiveness of sin by osmosis is precisely what they teach: The descendants, or "family," receive salvation by virtue of their descent. But Scripture teaches otherwise and emphasizes the importance of individual responsibility. Each individual is saved based on their righteousness, beliefs and conduct. YHWH God made this clear in the book of Ezekiel.

> ... when a land sins against me by breaking faith, I stretch out my hand against it and break its staff of bread, I let famine loose upon it and cut off from it both man and beast; and even if these three men were in it, Noah, Daniel and Job, they could save only themselves by their virtue ... I swear they could save neither sons nor daughters; they alone would be saved

**D) Only true believers who are parties to the New Covenant can receive forgiveness of sins and other attendant benefits**

Aside from the obvious, that Christ's death brought forgiveness of sins for all true believers committed in this life, those who obtain this benefit, God's people, must be parties to the New Covenant.

Any man not a party to the New Covenant cannot obtain its benefits anymore than a Baal-worshipping Assyrian could obtain benefits under the Mosaic Law not being a circumcised member of the nation of Israel. And no one can have their robes washed in the blood of the Lamb Jesus, have their sins permanently forgiven in the Christian era and be perfected or justified (declared righteous) during the thousand year reign under an expired New Covenant anymore than a Christian today can have his or her sins forgiven under the obsolete Mosaic law.

Make no mistake about this one fact: it is absolutely impossible, logically or scripturally, for the Jehovah's Witnesses to educate the resurrected to perfection (justification, a declaration of righteousness and reconciliation with God; a state of sinlessness) under any set of laws, especially the so-called Law scrolls of Revelation 20:12. The gift of reconciliation, redemption, sanctification, justification and forgiveness of sins through the exercise of faith and God's gift of grace is only possible by and through the New Covenant of Christ's blood.

**E) The Jehovah's Witnesses' teaching that resurrected man, including billions of non-believers, will not be judged for sins committed in this life is not biblical**

Third, as difficult as it might be to wrap one's mind around, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that resurrected mankind, roughly 20 billion, are judged based on their deeds or conduct during the thousand year reign, not this life today. For all practical purposes they are starting all over again. They reason that because man is supposedly acquitted of sin at death and that he paid for his sins with the wages of death he cannot be put on judgment for evil deeds committed in this life, only the next life during the thousand year reign. He will be judged based on his obedience to future millennial Law scrolls, divine instruction or laws and regulations (the Watchtower magazine, etc.?) which are intended to educate or enlighten him to perfection.

> Both those who formerly did good things and those who formerly practiced bad things will be "judged individually according to their deeds." What deeds? **If we were to take the view that people were going to be condemned on the basis of deeds in their past life, that would be inconsistent with Romans 6:7: "He who has died has been acquitted from his sin.** _Reasoning_

> **Time of the earthly resurrection** _Insight_

Since these discussions of Romans 6:7 and Romans 6:23 were placed side-by-side the contradiction should have been self-evident. The manner in which the Jehovah's Witnesses interpret these verses renders them mutually exclusive. If one is acquitted of sin he is declared not guilty and avoids punishment. As such he would not then be punished with death, the wages of sin. Furthermore, it is curious why they apply Romans 6:7 ("for he who has died has been acquitted from [his] sin") to the resurrected unrighteous when the surrounding paragraphs are directed to only the so-called 144,000 who alone are supposedly baptized into Christ's death (Rom. 6:1-11) under their doctrine. It makes absolutely no sense.

That aside, the Greek word _dikaioo_ means 'acquittal' (NWT) or 'absolved' (NAB) 'justified' ( _Green's Literal_ ), or primarily 'deemed to be right' ( _Vine's_ , 69). But if you look closely at its use in Romans 6:7 you will notice that the Jehovah's Witnesses have plucked it out of context as they frequently do and fail to understand the unambiguous meaning of Paul's discourse. He was referring to a spiritual death to sin for the Christian believer, not the physical, mortal death of all men.

> 1 Consequently, what shall we say? Shall we continue in sin, that undeserved kindness may abound? 2 Never may that happen! Seeing that we died with reference to sin, how shall we keep on living any longer in it? 3 Or do YOU not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we were buried with him through our baptism into his death, in order that, just as Christ was raised up from the dead through the glory of the Father, we also should likewise walk in a newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall certainly also be [united with him in the likeness] of his resurrection; 6 because we know that our old personality was impaled with [him], that our sinful body might be made inactive, that we should no longer go on being slaves to sin. 7 For he who has died has been acquitted from [his] sin.

> 8 Moreover, if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. 9 For we know that Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is master over him no more. 10 For [the death] that he died, he died with reference to sin once for all time; but [the life] that he lives, he lives with reference to God. 11 Likewise also YOU: reckon yourselves to be dead indeed with reference to sin but living with reference to God by Christ Jesus.

> 12 Therefore do not let sin continue to rule as king in YOUR mortal bodies that YOU should obey their desires. 13 Neither go on presenting YOUR members to sin as weapons of unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, also YOUR members to God as weapons of righteousness. 14 For sin must not be master over YOU, seeing that YOU are not under law but under undeserved kindness. (Rom. 6:1-14 NWT)

Paul is defending "the gospel against the charge that it promotes moral laxity" (NAB note 6, 1-11). He refers to having 'died to sin,' and that those baptized were baptized into Christ's death and buried with him. The symbolic death leads to life with Christ. And true believers must think of themselves as being dead to sin. Nothing in those verses can be interpreted to imply a physical death, or that all evil people are acquitted of their sins at death because Paul made it very clear that "...it is reserved for men to die once for all time and after this a judgment" (Heb. 9:27 NWT). The Jehovah's Witnesses' misinterpretation would actually encourage moral laxity.

Furthermore, Christ died only once for sin and will never again return to die for forgiveness of sins so the resurrected sinful billions could never obtain the benefit of his sacrifice which he made under the so-called expired New Covenant (Romans 6:10). Christ died once (Heb. 9:27,28).

And Hebrews 6:23 cannot mean that all men are punished with death for their sins. This too is taken out of context because Jesus said "... whoever hears my word and believes in the one who sent me has eternal life and will not come to condemnation but has passed from death to life" (John 5:24). The wages of sin, death, is not everyone's punishment or reward.

> 21 What, then, was the fruit that YOU used to have at that time? Things of which YOU are now ashamed. For the end of those things is death. 22 However, now, because YOU were set free from sin but became slaves to God, YOU are having YOUR fruit in the way of holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23 For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord

The Christian path leads to eternal life even though one dies physically, with one limited exception at 1 Corinthians 15:51,52. For others there is spiritual death followed by physical death and judgment; nothing here even remotely suggests that they will not be judged on Judgment Day for deeds committed in this life.

**F) All men are judged for their conduct in this life; true believers are passed over in the condemnation**

Fourth, Paul stated that man is judged on the basis of deeds committed while in the present physical body, not the resurrected body of the next age.

> We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight ... we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. **For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil**

Since we are all judged for our conduct in this life, whether good or evil, Paul was speaking not only to the 144,000 as the Jehovah's Witnesses routinely claim, but to all men. The implications of this are enormous because first century Christians were therefore comprised not only of the 144,000 and the New Testament was not directed in most instances to only the 144,000. Of course, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that since Paul's words here refer only to the anointed 144,000, it still allows for resurrected man to be judged for deeds committed in the next physical body. But if that is the case, not only are some of the 144,000 committing evil deeds today, the 144,000 anointed are judged like the rest of us. And since some of the 144,000 are evil-doers because they don't live up to their own high ethical standards they can't be part of the 144,000. Therefore it is impossible to use that number 144,000 as a benchmark for counting down to the end times, for identifying who of the anointed remain on earth. No one knows who they are until they have been sifted through the judgment process.

The Jehovah's Witnesses counter this by modifying verse 10 to conform to their doctrine by claiming the anointed are "awarded," not judged, implying that they all will receive something good, but such an interpretation flies contrary to the "evil" conduct of some of their members which shall be punished, not awarded. Furthermore, a literal interpretation does not say they will be "awarded."

**G) The Jehovah's Witnesses' millennial scrolls are actually recordings of man's deeds in this life, not additional rules and regulations**

Fifth, in light of the above it is not possible for the scrolls of Revelation 20:12 to be additional "divine instructions" that will educate man to "perfection" which would be a blatant contradiction of God's New Covenant at Jeremiah 31:31-34. They are, to the contrary, a record of this life's deeds, and based on these deeds man might have his name entered in God's scroll, or book, of life. We know this because the Bible says so.

> I saw the dead, the great and lowly, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. Then another scroll was opened, the book of life. The dead were judged according to their deeds, by what was written in the scrolls. (Rev. 20:12 NAB) ("... according to what they had done as recorded in the books" NIV; same NLT; "judged by what those books said they had done" CEV; "according to what they had done as recorded in the books" TAIV)

> "... books were opened:... These contained deeds, not names... another book... which is the book of life: this is a register and contains names, not deeds." (N. Turner, _Peake's Commentaries_

To regard the scrolls as containing laws to abide by is to resurrect the Mosaic Law or similar decrees which are ineffective and useless for purposes of lasting justification, that is, perfection. They were nailed to the cross and God purposed to write his laws in Christians' hearts (Jeremiah 31:32-34). Therefore the scrolls must be a record of deeds.

Lastly, the Jehovah's Witnesses' so-called Law scrolls of Revelation 20:12 could not be used to educate, or be complied with, by anyone during the thousand year reign because they aren't even opened until after the thousand years.

> **VI. The first resurrection did not begin in 1918 with the resurrection of the 144,000 to heaven, and salvation is not granted based on deeds performed in accordance with new rules and regulations during the 1,000 year reign.**

The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the first resurrection, for the 144,000 only, began in 1918 and will conclude shortly ( _Revelation Climax_ , 103, 277), a theory at drastic odds with Revelation 20:4-6.

> 4 And I saw thrones, and there were those who sat down on them, and power of judging was given them. Yes, I saw the souls of those executed with the ax for the witness they bore to Jesus and for speaking about God, and those who had worshiped neither the wild beast nor its image and who had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand. And they came to life and ruled as kings with the Christ for a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Happy and holy is anyone having part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no authority, but they will be priests of God and of the Christ, and will rule as kings with him for the thousand years.( Rev. 20:4-6 NWT)

Admittedly confusing, these verses have been debated by religious scholars for centuries with respect to which "coming to life" event is the first resurrection. It is obviously not 1918 before the Great Tribulation, before the entire book of Revelation for that matter. Rather, the first resurrection will be associated with a) the first "coming to life" event, b) the second "coming to life" event, c) both events, d) during the thousand year reign, or e) after the thousand year reign. It leaves no room for a 1918 first resurrection.

The Jehovah's Witnesses reject these 'coming to life' events as being the first resurrection, especially the second event where the rest of the dead do not come to life until the thousand years are over.

> As clearly stated, it is not "the rest of the dead" who share in the first resurrection. That resurrection is for those who rule with Christ for the thousand yearsneed to be relieved of the death-dealing effects of such sinThis does not mean their resurrectionIt means attaining to human perfection, free from all effects of Adamic sinIn their case it means life free from all effects of sinFor the rest of the dead," then it must mean the fullness of life in human perfection _Reasoning_

For them, the first 'coming to life' event only refers to the spiritual condition of those sharing in the 1918 first resurrection of the 144,000, but on closer inspection their interpretation is neither scriptural nor possible. Earlier it was established that the 1914 kingdom date was unsustainable and events associated with that date belonged in the first century, that the Second Coming of Christ did not happen in 1914 but lies ahead, and consequently the first resurrection of 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17, and 1 Corinthians 15:22, 23 which follows closely and is tightly bound to the return or Second Coming, must also lie in the future, not 1918.

Never-the-less, the Jehovah's Witnesses make an effort to place the beginning of the first resurrection of the 144,000 in 1918, and even go so far as to base their theory of an "earlier" resurrection in Philippians 3:11 on the fact that the Greek word _exanastasis_ can mean getting out of bed in the morning; thus it is an early resurrection, a very weak argument, at best. They claim:

> First resurrection. Revelation 20:5, 6 refers to the resurrection of those who will reign with Christ as "the first resurrection." The apostle Paul speaks of this first resurrection also as "the earlier resurrection from the dead1865 _Insight_

But this is not true. A literal translation makes no reference to an earlier resurrection but simply reads "... if somehow I may attain to the resurrection from the dead" (Phil. 3:11) (Same NAB and KJV.) The Jehovah's Witnesses' reliance on an 1865 commentary by Charles Ellicott does not advance their cause. Even though he sees two resurrections, he ties the first to the Second Coming and places no date on either event, let alone 1918.

If Ellicott is not a Jehovah's Witness it is doubtful that he believes the Second Coming happened in 1914 and the first resurrection began in 1918. And if that is the case he would place the first resurrection of believers during the thousand year reign and the second of non-believers after the thousand year reign which is at direct odds with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Furthermore, since Ellicott's second resurrection only includes non-believers and disbelievers, that will include by necessity resurrected members of the Great Crowd who do not survive the Great Tribulation, and Abraham, Moses and Isaiah etc. N. Turner on the other hand comments "Elsewhere the NT does not envisage two resurrections, which are an invention of this (another) author ( _Peake's Commentaries_ , 1057).

And just because Rotherham inserted the word 'earlier' into Philippians 3:11 in his amplified Bible, that is not enough to overcome the overwhelming weight of scriptural authority to the contrary. Philippians 3:11 does not say there is an earlier resurrection. The Jehovah's Witnesses are merely using one other person's error as precedent. One is reminded of Jesus' warning at Matthew 15:14: "If a blind person leads a blind person, both will fall into the pit."

The Jehovah's Witnesses also attempt to shoehorn the general resurrection into the thousand year reign, which would enable the generally resurrected to be judged then during the so-called second judgment day period, teaching that the one sitting on the white throne judges during the thousand year reign and not after. But this is also a false interpretation.

> Also, there are many "unrighteous" persons buried in Sheol (Hades), mankind's common grave, or in the "sea," watery graves. The judgment of these along with "the righteous" resurrected on earth is described in Revelation 20:12, 13; "And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. But another scroll was opened; it is the scroll of life. And the dead were judged out of those things written in the scrolls according to their deeds. And the sea gave up those dead in it, and death and Hades gave up those dead in it, and death and Hades gave up those dead in them, and they were judged individually according to their deeds.

> Time of the earthly resurrection. We note that this judgment is placed in the Bible in the account of events occurring during Christ's Thousand Year Reign with his associate kings and priests. These, the apostle Paul said, "will judge the world." (1Co 6:2) "The great and the small," persons from all walks of life, will be there to be judged impartially. ( _Insight_

However, Revelation 20:11 only refers to one throne, the white one, not multiple thrones, that is, the thrones of 20:5, 6 which the 144,000 allegedly occupy. This act of judgment from the white throne follows the thousand year reign; it is not during that reign, but after Satan's release from prison, after the camp of the holy ones and the beloved city are surrounded, after the evil ones are consumed by fire, and after the Devil is thrown into the pool of fire and sulfur.

> 7 Now as soon as the thousand years have been ended, Satan will be let loose out of his prison, 8 and he will go out to mislead those nations in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Ma´gog, to gather them together for the war. The number of these is as the sand of the sea. 9 And they advanced over the breadth of the earth and encircled the camp of the holy ones and the beloved city. But fire came down out of heaven and devoured them. 10 And the Devil who was misleading them was hurled into the lake of fire and sulphur, where both the wild beast and the false prophet [already were]; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

> 11 And I saw ("Next I saw" NAB; "Then I saw" RSV, TNIV, NIV, NASB, AB, WENT

The Jehovah's Witnesses' theory creates a problem for themselves because moving the white throne judgment back into the thousand year reign means their 'perfected' man cannot be judged as they claim at the final test after the thousand year reign, a test by the way which is not mentioned at all in Revelation 20:9, but only assumed.

> 9 And they advanced over the breadth of the earth and encircled the camp of the holy ones and the beloved city. But fire came down out of heaven and devoured them. (Rev. 20:9)

All it says is that the camp and city of the holy ones become surrounded by Satan's quislings Gog and Magog and their ilk who are then surreptitiously destroyed with no mention that the holy ones are subjected to yet another test. Remember, according to the Jehovah's Witnesses this test is administered to Abraham, Moses and Isaiah, etc. who have been enlightened and lifted up to human perfection by the Great Crowd, and learn of Jesus, which is unlikely to say the least. (Moses? Of Matthew 17:3?). Although the Jehovah's Witnesses have been known to deny it, this really is "works-based" salvation.

> In the judgment scene at Revelation 20:11-15, during Christ's Millennial Reign "the scroll of life" is shown as opened to receive additional names; scrolls of instruction are also opened. Those who come back in the 'resurrection of the unrighteous' will thus have the opportunity of having their names written on "the scroll of life," provided they obediently perform deedsBy their loyal obedience to the divine instructions

> How does a person get his name permanently retained in the "book of life"? For those who are in line to receive heavenly life, it is by conquering this world through faith, proving themselves faithful even to death." Re 2:10; 3:5 For those who are in line to receive life on earth, it is by proving loyal to Jehovah through a final, decisive test at the end of Christ's Millennial Reign. (Re 20:7, 8) Those who maintain integrity through that final test will have their names retained permanently by God in the "book of life." ( _Insight_

The Jehovah's Witnesses are cautioned to read Ephesians 2:8,9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works so no one may boast." Furthermore, a final test is not necessary by the Jehovah's Witnesses' own admission since they also state that the issue pertaining to man's obedience has been already settled, that the issue of God's sovereignty "has been judicially settled by the court of heaven,"( _Insight_ , 170). But if that is the case there would be no reason to keep putting 'perfected' man on judgment.

In the end, the so-called 1918 first resurrection of the 144,000 must be moved forward near the inception or into the thousand year reign because it can't stay where it is and has no other place to go since the first resurrection can't take place after the thousand year reign because they flatly reject that option ( _Reasoning_ , 338). Consequently, the Jehovah's Witnesses are stuck in a conundrum or two, another vexing set of problems:

(1) The resurrected 144,000 are merged with the resurrected members of the Great Crowd and the unrighteous during the thousand year reign, all of whom are therefore part of the first resurrection. But since those of the first resurrection, which would actually be the general resurrection, do not die again in the Second Death (Rev. 20:6), educating them to perfection and putting them on judgment would be pointless.

(2) If returning the 144,000's first resurrection to the thousand year reign shifts, or bumps, the generally resurrected to after the thousand year reign, there is no one to educate to perfection and put on judgment during the millennial period.

> **VII. The patriarchs and prophets of old and the Great Crowd go to heaven because a) their names are written in the Lamb's scroll, b) resurrected flesh and blood humans cannot be immortal, and because death will be vanquished forever they must experience immortality in heaven as spirit humans with their glorified flesh and blood bodies transformed, not as earthly flesh, and c) physiologically and morally corrupt mortals who enter into the kingdom are not raised corrupt, but rather incorrupt, incorruptible and immortal, the only condition which allows them to inherit the kingdom of heaven which is in heaven.**

First, the Jehovah's Witnesses commit another significant error teaching that only the 144,000 are entered in the "Lamb's scroll of life" and they alone enter the holy city of Jerusalem in heaven.

> " The Lamb's scroll." "The scroll of life of the Lamb" is a separate scroll; apparently containing only the names of those with whom the lamb, Jesus Christ, shares his Kingdom rule _Insight_

They overlook the fact that the Lamb's scroll contains the names of all those from the foundation of the world who have not worshipped the beast.

> All the inhabitants of the earth will worship it (the beast), all whose names were not written from the foundation of the world in the book of life, which belongs to the Lamb who was slain. (Rev. 13:8 NAB).

The patriarchs and prophets of old, the so-called 144,000 and the Great Crowd who have not worshipped the beast must be included in the Lamb's scroll (because if not they all worship the beast) and it is these people who go to heaven and enter the city of New Jerusalem at Revelation 21:10, 27.

> 10 So he carried me away in [the power of the] spirit to a great and lofty mountain, and he showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God... 27 But anything not sacred and anyone that carries on a disgusting thing and a lie will in no way enter into it; only those written in the Lamb's scroll of life [will]. (Rev. 21:10,27)

The Lamb, Jesus Christ, was not slain or crucified from the foundation of the world but two thousand years ago. Therefore, this verse refers to those slain, or persecuted, literally or figuratively, from the foundation of the world, whose names are entered into the Lamb's scroll; much longer than 2,000 years.

Paul knew that Jesus was not slain or suffered from the "foundation of the world"; he stated the opposite when he compared and distinguished the temporal repeated sacrifices of high priests under the Law with Christ the high priest's offer of himself one time, not since the foundation of the world, but two thousand years ago at his death.

> Otherwise he would have to suffer often from the foundation of the world. But now he has manifested himself once for all time at the conclusion of the system of things to put sin away through the sacrifice of himself. (Heb. 9:24-26 NWT)

As such, heaven is open to more than 144,000 people. That number is not to be taken literally. This conforms to what Jesus said, that many will recline at the banquet with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 8:11), which the Jehovah's Witnesses concede is "in heaven, not earth," (New World Translation, 1653). Paul drove this point home, stating that the ancients of faith are reaching out for a better place, a heavenly land where God "prepared a city for them" (Heb. 11:16). This city is the holy city, New Jerusalem, in heaven.

Secondly, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that "perfected" resurrected man will be like the allegedly "perfect" Adam, but Adam by their account was corruptible, and became corrupt. He was not immortal or incorruptible but could, and did, die.

> By the end of the thousand years, people on earth will have reached human perfection, being in the condition that Adam and Ever were in before they sinned. (Insight, 249)  
>   
>  _Insight_

However, the Jehovah's Witnesses' resurrected man who passes the final test will have his or her name permanently written in God's book of life ( _Insight_ , 251). It is permanent because death is no more, swallowed up forever and ever (Rev. 20:14; 1 Cor. 15:26,54). And a life without death is deathlessness, immortality. As such, the so-called "perfected" resurrected man would be nothing like the so-called "perfect" Adam because Adam could die but the Jehovah's Witnesses' perfected and tested man cannot.

Whether they realize it or not, the Jehovah's Witnesses resurrect mankind as physiologically and morally corrupt, yet immortal flesh and blood human beings, which is an oxymoron: one can be "corrupt" or "incorrupt/incorruptible and immortal," but not both. Corruption (Greek _phthora_ ) is defined as decay, i.e., ruin, either physically or ethically, with a moral significance ( _Vine's_ , 263). Corruptible (Greek _phthartos_ ) used of man, being mortal, as liable to decay ( _Vine's_ , 263).

Immortality (Greek _euthanasia_ ) means deathlessness and the swallowing up of mortality (1 Cor. 15:53, 54). Hence, one cannot be corrupt or corruptible flesh subject to death yet not subject to death at the same time since immortality swallows up mortality and corruption.

More to the point is the impossibility of such resurrected immortals living a flesh and blood existence on earth. The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that immortality is reserved for the 144,000 glorified spirit bodies in the kingdom of heaven which is in heaven (NWT, 1653; _Insight_ , 786, 1189, 1190). But if that's true, the Jehovah's Witnesses' Great Crowd of sheep who inherit the kingdom of heaven ( _Great Man_ , ch. 111, 11, 12) must do so as glorified spirit bodies in heaven because flesh and blood (corrupt yet "perfectible" fleshly humans) cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. Jesus said, "It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail" (John 6:23). Accordingly, the Great Crowd of Revelation 7:9 must be standing in heaven, not on earth ( _Reasoning_ , 336, and 1 Cor. 15:50).

In other words, only immortals inherit the kingdom of heaven, so the Great Crowd which inherits this kingdom, the sheep of Matthew 25:31-46, must do so as immortals in heaven. They are not simply confined to being "earthly subjects" of the future inherited kingdom. Inheritance (Greek _kleronomeo_ ) means to be an heir, obtain by inheritance, receive by lot, to possess, "to receive as one's own, to obtain" ( _Vine's_ ,139). It is used as a birth right, or gift, but nowhere in its definition does it state or can it be implied that those who inherit are mere subjects of that kingdom. In fact, the definition specifically rejects the idea of earthly, corrupt human inheritance of the kingdom of God/heaven.

> (7) the kingdom of God, which the morally corrupt cannot "inherit," 1 Cor 6:9,10, the "inheritance of which is likewise impossible to the present physical constitution of man, 1 Cor 15:50; (8) incorruption, impossible of "inheritance" by corruption, 1 Cor 15:50. ( _Vine's_

Whereas "perfect" Adam might have been only corruptible, their resurrected man would be corrupt as he will not have been, and cannot be, educated to perfection. The surviving Great Crowd would likewise be corrupt because they are supposedly not parties to the New Covenant and have no access to the tree(s) of life during the thousand year reign.

Third, as stated, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that those resurrected during the thousand year reign, the general resurrection, are raised corrupt, sinful. They must be. Otherwise there would be no need to raise them to human perfection. They teach that corrupt man is raised corrupt; this natural man (all of mankind for all practical purposes) is raised a natural flesh and blood man. Thus, they argue there are two types of resurrected bodies: The heaven-bound 144,000 are raised immortal and incorruptible, and their 20 billion earthly subjects are raised mortal and corrupt with the possibility of eventual immortality. But this is not what the Bible teaches.

The Christianity espoused by Paul at 1 Corinthians chapter 15 sees only one type of resurrected body, from the natural to the spiritual, mortal to immortal, corrupt to incorruptible; the regeneration or transformation sequence from one type of body to another. C.S.C. Williams sums up the Christian perspective nicely.

>... the gist of the argument is that the actual physical particles of the earthly body are not raised up but that a spiritual body or expression of the man's whole self, continuous with his earthly body but different from it, will be provided him on the heavenly plane. ( _Peake's Commentary_

A careful reading of 1 Corinthains 15:36-54 shows that Paul spoke of one type of resurrection body, not two. We go from one to the other. Nowhere does he state that natural, corrupt man will be raised in the future as a natural and corrupt man, but rather, "the dead will be raised incorruptible"; from the natural to the spiritual. The Jehovah's Witnesses are improperly reading their theory into these verses without reference to what Paul was saying. Paul's reference to natural and spiritual bodies in verse 44 and the then-existence of earthly and heavenly bodies at verse 48 cannot be interpreted out of context to refer to the future fleshly condition of 20 billion humans on earth. He was merely pointing out that there are two types of bodies, the natural earthly and the spiritual in heaven, that's all, just like the fact that the moon and fish have different types of bodies, for he then goes on at great length to explain how the resurrected are changed from one to the other.

> 36 You unreasonable person! What you sow is not made alive unless first it dies; 37 and as for what you sow, you sow, not the body that will develop, but a bare grain, it may be, of wheat or any one of the rest; 38 but God gives it a body just as it has pleased him, and to each of the seeds its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of mankind, and there is another flesh of cattle, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. 40 And there are heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort. 41 The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another; in fact, star differs from star in glory.

> 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised up in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised up in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised up in power. 44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one. 45 It is even so written: "The first man Adam became a living soul." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 Nevertheless, the first is, not that which is spiritual, but that which is physical, afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is out of the earth and made of dust; the second man is out of heaven. 48 As the one made of dust [is], so those made of dust [are] also; and as the heavenly one [is], so those who are heavenly [are] also. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the one made of dust, we shall bear also the image of the heavenly one.

> 50 However, this I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God's kingdom, neither does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Look! I tell YOU a sacred secret: We shall not all fall asleep [in death], but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this which is corruptible must put on incorruption, and this which is mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when [this which is corruptible puts on incorruption and] this which is mortal puts on immortality, then the saying will take place that is written: "Death is swallowed up forever." (1 Cor. 15:36-54 NWT).

Under their theory, during the thousand year reign the Jehovah's Witnesses' resurrected man (and the Great Crowd) will always remain corrupt because, as pointed out earlier, they cannot be educated to incorruptible "perfection" and they can't be declared righteous or justified and reconciled to God under the only viable covenant, the New Covenant, through forgiveness of sins because (they claim) they are not, or cannot be, parties to it, and, it will have expired by then. And, because Jesus only gave his life once for forgiveness of sins and will never return for that purpose, the earthly Great Crowd and resurrected billions will forever be corrupt flesh, natural and earthly, and can therefore never inherit the future kingdom of God. Their theory is simply not feasible because death is swallowed up forever and that can only result in a state of immortality, a spiritual reality, in heaven. Paul said it best:

> 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this which is corruptible must put on incorruption, and this which is mortal must put on immortality. (1 Cor. 15:52-53 NWT)

At Hebrews 11:39, 40, Paul emphasized the heavenly calling of the ancients reminding us that their perfection would not take place apart from the believers of the Christian era.

> And having obtained witness through the faith, these all did not obtain the promise. God having foreseen something better concerning us, that they should not be perfected apart from us _Green's Literal_

In a bizarre twist of logic the Jehovah's Witnesses interpret these verses to mean that the perfecting of the ancients happens after the heavenly perfection of the 144,000, and that the "perfection" of Abraham, Moses and Isaiah, etc., is completed on earth, not heaven like the 144,000. But that can't be. They state:

> Then the Bible calls faithful men of old such as Abraham righteous. (Ge 15:6; Jas 2:21) Many of these men are listed at Hebrews chapter 11, and of them the writer says: "And yet all these, although they had witness borne to them through their faith, did not get the fulfillment of the promise as God foresaw something better for us [spirit-begotten, anointed Christians like Paul], in order that they might not be made perfect apart from us," (Heb 11:39, 40) so, the perfecting of them will take place after that of the ones having part in "the first resurrection. _Insight_  
>   
>  The pre- Christian persons who had faith, then, must have a hope for perfect life somewhere other than in heaven. _Reasoning_

Again, they miss the point and the focus of what is being said about the ancients not being perfected apart from Christians, even if it's only the heaven-bound 144,000. If men of old and the so-called 144,000 are perfected in different times and different places they are perfected apart from each other, obviously. If the 144,000 are perfected by faith but all others by education and testing and the performance of deeds as the Jehovah's Witnesses teach, then they are perfected apart from each other, the opposite of what God intends. But since they are not to be perfected apart from each other and the so-called resurrected 144,000 gain ultimate perfection, like Christ did in heaven (Heb. 5:9, 7:28), the ancients must be perfected in heaven also, not earth.

Because the two groups are not to be perfected apart from each other, the 144,000 do not receive a better reward than the men of ancient times. Prior to both groups' ultimate heavenly perfection, Christians realized the saving grace of Christ that the ancients could only dream of, and in that sense God foresaw something better concerning Christians, not that they receive a better and higher reward than Abraham or Moses.

The Jehovah's Witnesses counter otherwise, arguing that the ancients or anyone before Christ receives a lesser reward and don't go to heaven based on a cursory glance at Matthew 11:11,12 which says:

> When John heard in prison of the works of the Messiah, he sent his disciples to him with this question, "Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?"... Amen, I say to you, among those born of women there has been none greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." (Mt 11:1-3, 11, 12 NAB)

They teach that the ancients don't go to heaven, "Because John will not be in the heavens" either, based on the above verses," (Reasoning, 78,79). But again they read these verses out of context. John was alive when this question was posed to Jesus who answered in the present tense, saying "... a lesser one in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he is." At that time, before the time when John would receive his resurrected glorified body, he was, as corrupt flesh, lesser than one in the kingdom of heaven. These verses say nothing about his future condition and any extrapolation to the contrary is unwarranted.

The Jehovah's Witnesses also refer to Christ's resurrecting of Lazarus as a demonstration of "what resurrection will mean for mankind in general" ( _Insight_ , 785; _Reasoning_ , 336-337), implying they will be corrupt flesh on earth. But if that is the case the 144,000 would not go to heaven at all. Lazarus, as a first century Christian, was one of the anointed 144,000 and their resurrection, according to the Jehovah's Witnesses, is invisible to the human eye ( _Insight_ , 787). So it couldn't be an example of the generally resurrected corrupt body, and if it was it disproves their "invisible 1918 first resurrection of the 144,000" theory ( _Reasoning_ , 336-337). And if Lazarus was not one of the anointed it proves wrong their theory that all first century Christians were of the anointed class of 144,000, which only leaves open the possibility that Lazarus, resurrected Lazarus, quit following Christ, but that seems unlikely.

Jesus didn't say that he resurrected Lazarus to show what resurrection meant for mankind in general. He did it for love, because he had pity. He resurrected his friend "...so that the Son of God may be glorified through it," (John 11:4) and "so that (they) may believe" (John 11:15).

> **VIII. Jesus Christ, as helper with respect to propitiation and legal intermediary, is not discarded at the end of the thousand year reign; as the propitiation, the sacrificed Lamb and mediator of the New Covenant he is present forever to intercede on man's behalf, without which man cannot have access to God, be reconciled to the Almighty or have his name written permanently in the Book of Life.**

Not only do the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus Christ is a mere angel ( _Reasoning_ , 218) but they discard him and his services as an intermediary and helper with respect to his role as propitiation, his sacrificial death.

> Since sin and death are to be completely removed from earth's inhabitants, this also brings to an end the need for Jesus' serving as "a helper with the Father" in the sense of providing propitiation for the sins of imperfect humans. (1Jo 2:1, 2) That brings mankind back to the original status enjoyed when the perfect man Adam was in Eden. **Adam, while perfect, needed no one to stand between him and God to make propitiation. So, too, at the termination of Jesus' Thousand Year Reign rule, earth's inhabitants will be both in position and under responsibility to answer for their course of action before Jehovah God as the Supreme Judge, without recourse to anyone as legal intermediary, or helper.** _Insight_

This is false teaching, and assumes man is meant to revert back to a state of innocents and nakedness, a condition before Adam, before he partook of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, when he was susceptible to death. Mankind has grown beyond that, and the gift envisioned is a new creation, where death is no more, where man cannot die and thus will be in a condition unlike what Adam and Eve enjoyed.

More importantly, the sacrificial Lamb, Jesus, is the expiation for our sins (1 John 2:1), and without his continuous eternal presence as the propitiation there can be no continued reconciliation with God. Unlike the high priest under the Mosaic Law who yearly and repeatedly offered animal blood sacrifice for temporary remission of sins on behalf of the people, Jesus, as high priest forever on the order of Melchizedek intercedes as high priest with the propitiation of his body forever. That this sacrificial Lamb will not be discarded is visually evident by his eternal presence on the throne. After the holy city Jerusalem comes down out of heaven in the concluding chapters of Revelation, John sees the propitiatory sacrificed Lamb on God's throne, twice.

> 1 And he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 down the middle of its broad way. And on this side of the river and on that side [there were] trees of life producing twelve crops of fruit, yielding their fruits each month. And the leaves of the trees [were] for the curing of the nations. 3 And no more will there be any curse. But the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in [the city], and his slaves will render him sacred service;... (Rev. 22:1-3)

The Lamb serves eternally as the propitiatory once-sacrificed Lamb and as intercessor, legal intermediary, between God and resurrected, glorified man. If Christ were thrown out, all men would lose access to YHWH God.

> 21 (for there are indeed men that have become priests without a sworn oath, but there is one with an oath sworn by the One who said respecting him: "Jehovah has sworn (and he will feel no regret), 'You are a priest forevercontinuing alive forever has his priesthood without any successorsbecause he is always alive to plead

Jesus as high priest represents redeemed man before God under the New Covenant which embraces all Christian believers, not just the 144,000. He is intercessor, he mediates, he is the legal mediator of the everlasting eternal New Covenant, without which there can be no forgiveness of sins, no reconciliation.

> 6 But now [Jesus] has obtained a more excellent public service, so that he is also the mediator of a correspondingly better covenant  
>   
> the ones who have been called might receive the promise of the everlasting inheritance

Jesus served, and serves, in several capacities. He is the expiation or propitiation for our sins. He was more than an "offering for" propitiation; he offered himself. He was the propitiation (Rom. 3:25; 1John 2:2, 4:10). Jesus also is the New Covenant (Isaiah 42:6) of which he is mediator, or legal intermediary, and intercessor on man's behalf forever. Jesus is high priest forever on the order of Melchizedek under the New Covenant and Davidic covenant over the Christian house of God (Heb. 10:19-21). As forever-lasting high priest he is the propitiation as high priest, and accordingly, the propitiation, the Lamb's capacity, lasts forever.

Jesus took his seat forever as high priest under the New Covenant and will rule forever over the house of God (Heb. 10:19-21). Jesus, as high priest forever on the order of Melchizedek mediates the New Covenant which must last forever (Heb. 7:21-8:12). Jesus is mediator of the New Covenant in heavenly Jerusalem, the holy city (Heb. 12:22-24; Rev. 21:9-22:5). Accordingly, Jesus Christ the high priest over God's people of the New Covenant and legal intermediary of the New Covenant, as the propitiation itself and being the only blood-ratified and valid covenant and the surety of that covenant, performs all of these functions as high priest forever. To deny Christ's continuous role in this regard is to deny Christ.

> **IX. Conclusion: All Christian believers must be parties to the New Covenant which is everlasting, not temporary; otherwise, there is no hope for salvation in this life or the next.**

One of the most profound mistakes the Jehovah's Witnesses make is limiting the New Covenant in time and scope; it lasts approximately two thousand years ( _Insight_ , 524) and applies only to the 144,000. The Jehovah's Witnesses are the rare exception when they refer to the New Covenant as being an "indefinitely lasting" covenant. "Indefinite" is a term they tend to overuse and misapply because a two thousand year covenant which ends very soon with the resurrection of the last of the 144,000 to immortality is far from being "indefinite" but is most definitely definite and not what Old and New Testament writers had in mind when referring to the New Covenant.

The Hebrew word used repeatedly with reference to the New Covenant is _olam_ , meaning i.e., the vanishing point; time out of mind (past or future) i.e. (practically) eternity; always, ever, everlasting, perpetual, evermore ( _Vine's_ , 205). " _Olam_ means "eternity; remotest time; perpetuity," (Ibid.). With the prepositions _ad_ or _le_ it can sometimes mean into the indefinite future, a grammatical construct lacking with respect to the New Covenant. So it is for good reason that the overwhelming, pervasive weight of scriptural authority recognizes the eternal, everlasting and endless nature of the New Covenant which God said will never be broken.

The book of Jeremiah specifically identifies an eternal, everlasting covenant: "And I will cut an everlasting covenant with them, to do good to them" (Jer. 32:40, _Green's Literal_ ; "eternal," NAB, KJV). "... I will raise up to you an everlasting covenant." (Ezek. 16:60, _Green's Literal_ ). "And my servant, David, shall be a ruler to them forever. And I will cut a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them (Ezek. 37:25,26, _Green's Literal_ ). "I will renew with you the everlasting covenant, the benefits assured to David" (Isa. 55:3, NAB). Even Paul referred to "... the blood of the eternal covenant,..." (Heb. 13:20, NAB, ESV). And as explained in detail above, an everlasting or eternal New Covenant, or one that even lasts through the thousand year reign, is fatal to the Jehovah's Witnesses' salvation program.

It also strains reason to believe that God Almighty sacrificed his son for only 144,000 people, and that only their sins are forgiven under the New Covenant, and only their hearts are changed by the power of the Holy Spirit and only these 144,000 are born again, or from above. That is the thrust of the Jehovah's Witnesses' arguments, but this too is simply not true. Again, the New Covenant:

> 31 "Look! There are days coming," is the utterance of Jehovah, "and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant; 32 not one like the covenant that I concluded with their forefathers in the day of my taking hold of their hand to bring them forth out of the land of Egypt, 'which covenant of mine they themselves broke, although I myself had husbandly ownership of them,' is the utterance of Jehovah." 33 "For this is the covenant that I shall conclude with the **house of Israel** **them** **their heart** **their** **their sin**

Common sense alone will tell you that God's people are not limited to the tiniest fraction of all those whom he gathers to himself; that the priestly "rulers" of a people (144,000) are not the "people." The Levitical priesthood was never regarded as the "people" or the "nation" of Israel, but were members of the "people," members of the "nation," although the inverse does allow for the entire nation of Israel to be referred to as "priests" (Ex. 19:6), just as all Christian believers are a "priesthood" (1 Pet 2:9). It bears repeating: if you are not a party to the New Covenant, salvation and reconciliation with God is beyond reach under the Jehovah's Witnesses' invalid salvation and reconciliation plan.

It is a common refrain, but all too often the Jehovah's Witnesses point to passages in the New Testament and say "that doesn't apply to me, it only applies to the 144,000 anointed," but this view is utterly illogical. Don't think for one minute that the New Testament was written primarily for the benefit of a mere 144,000. Just look at the expansive, all-embracing language and you will see that the message of the gospels was directed to millions, not a few thousand; and it was repeated many, many times. For example:

> "For God so loved the world that he gave His only-begotten Son, that **everyone** **everyone** **whoever** **everyone** **Everyone** **everyone** **everyone** _Green's Literal Translation_

Remember, the heirs to the Abrahamic promise, all believing Christians, are to be countless; this is the spiritual "house of Israel" which the Jehovah's Witnesses wrongly teach number only 144,000 and who alone go to heaven. God, speaking through Ezekiel, identified the future sheep separated from the goats of Matthew 25:31-46 as being the "house of Israel, his people.

> As for you, my sheep, says the Lord God, I will judge between one sheep and another, between rams and goats.... I will make a covenant of peace with them ... Thus they shall know that I, the Lord, am their God, and they are my people, the house of Israel

These same sheep, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach, are the Great Crowd who supposedly inherit the kingdom of God as earthly subjects. But if that is true, it actually places the Great Crowd in the house of Israel along with the so-called 144,000 up in heaven, once again. And according to these verses the Great Crowd of sheep are also parties to the "covenant of peace," which is the New Covenant, and which accordingly positions them up in heaven.

Hopefully, in the final analysis, two facts have been made clear in the course of this paper. The Great Crowd of Revelation 7:9, whether identical as the 144,000 or as a separate group of people, is not standing on earth in an "approved condition" before God, but in heaven, before God's throne, their robes washed white in the blood of the New Covenant Jesus Christ, forever. And the 144,000 is a number that was never meant to be taken literally.

> Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above .... no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water **and spirit** **everyone**

Jesus is Lord!  
Ezekiel 13:18-21

Chapter Five – In Defense of the Trinity Doctrine; Jesus Christ was not Just a Man, and not the Archangel Michael [Table of Contents]

> **1) Summary**

"The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is that there is one God, who exists in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These three persons share the one divine nature. They are equal, co-eternal and omnipotent. They are distinct from one another: The Father has no source, the Son is born of the substance of the Father, the Spirit proceeds from the Father (or from the Father and the Son). Though distinct, the three persons cannot be divided from one another in being or in operation ( _Oxford Dictionary of the Bible_ New York, Oxford University Press, Inc., 2005] 1207) ( _Oxford_ ). With minor changes, the reformed Protestant churches have essentially adapted the Catholic teachings on the Trinity Doctrine [ (see section 12).

Central to the doctrine that God is three Persons in one nature is the premise that "Jesus is God," a term which causes great confusion among the Jehovah's Witnesses who unfortunately do not understand what is meant by this Trinitarian phrase or what the Trinity doctrine teaches. One of their more bizarre errors lies in believing that Christ is a created angel who became man and after the resurrection reverted back to being an angel.

The Jehovah's Witnesses have published countless pages of criticism of Christian Trinitarianism, teaching that it is the work of Satan and utterly illogical. This relentless attack, however, is based upon certain misconceptions and falsehoods allowing them to capitalize on many unsuspecting individuals' ignorance of accurate Trinity dogma.Three of the Jehovah's Witnesses' false teachings are particularly misleading and form the core vehicle for the dissemination of gross distortions.

First, they do not understand that a "Person" is not a material human being like you or I. Persons of the Trinity are spirit. Secondly, they do not understand that God is "three" in one sense, and "one" in a completey different sense. And third, the Jehovah's Witnesses are unwilling or unable to acknowledge or grasp the concept of the hypostatic union, the union that is the God-man Jesus, who is fully God the Son and fully man, a divine Person who assumed a human nature. Intertwined with this concept is the often ignored principle that the created humanity of Jesus is not God: **"** **The humanity of Christ is a creature, it is not God** **"** ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_ , 922). Accordingly, Jesus, the man in the God-man equation, could pray to His Father and acknowledge His Father's superiority without committing any doctrinal contradictions. The Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, teach that the incarnate Jesus was nothing more or less than a man.

This treatise begins by shining a light on the worst of the Jehovah's Witnesses' misunderstandings, and goes on to explain in greater detail what the Trinity doctrine actually teaches. From there, many of the Jehovah's Witnesses' arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity are disposed of in light of more accurate teaching, after which a further examination is made of scriptural support for the Trinity in the Bible.

A major section is then devoted to select Bible verses that prove that Jesus was, and is, God, followed by a brief summary of early Trinitarian theology which provides us with a better understanding of the doctrine's foundation. The concluding section is devoted to the issue of Jesus Christ being a created angel.

The Jehovah's Witnesses, whose religion is essentially 4th century Arian Subordinationism (see section 41) have said many things about the doctrine of the Trinity that are simply not true. Out of a sense of common decency and respect, those who propound and believe in the doctrine and people who seek to understand it better are entitled at a minimum to a fair hearing on the issues, which is the primary goal of this work.

But before you begin, it is very important to understand two simple concepts which lie at the heart of many of the Jehovah's Witnesses' errors; the difference between immanent Trinity and economic Trinity, and how they have commingled them, resulting in untold confusion even though it contravenes even their own teachings.

> **2) Immanent Trinity versus economic Trinity; God in Himself and God for us.**

At the outset it is crucial to understand two key concepts. You must distinguish between immanent Trinity (theological Trinity) and economic trinity, and understand how they relate to each other. This is not difficult. While official Watchtower theology claims the "Word" was in the beginning a created angel, as explained in detail below, many Jehovah's Witnesses fail to separate them and erroneously combine the two concepts. This error lies in part at the root of the Jehovah's Witnesses' harsh attacks on the Trinity and allows them to get away with distorting Trinitarian teaching. It is the means by which they are able to convince many people, who otherwise would know better, that the Trinity is utterly illogical and false when it is true and reasonable, even if certain aspects are grounded upon a measure of faith.

Immanent (theological) Trinitarianism, refers to the essence of God the Almighty, his hypostatic three-fold nature and his absolute and perfect being, before creation. It deals with the "infinite, blessed communion of the divine Persons among themselves, without reference to creation," (B. Brobrinskoy, _The Mystery of the Trinity_ [New York, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1999], 2, 3) ( _Mystery_ ). It is the triune God as he is in himself (J. Moltmann, _The Trinity and the Kingdom of God_ [Munich, Germany, SCM Press, Ltd., 1981], 151) ( _Trinity and the Kingdom_ ).

This should not be confused with economic Trinitarianism (God for us), the concerted activity of the three Persons in creation as they "maintain and restore the created world to a state of well-being and communion with God" (ibid., 2). "Economic" refers to "divine management of earthly affairs" ( _The Encyclopedia of Religion_ [New York, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987], 54) ( _Encyclopedia of Religion_ ). "It is oriented to the concrete history of creation and redemption: God initiates a covenant with Israel, God speaks through the prophets, God takes on flesh in Christ, God dwells within as Spirit" (ibid., 54). It is also called revelatory Trinity because the triune God reveals himself through his dispensation of salvation ( _Trinity and the Kingdom_ , 151).

Accordingly, much Trinitarian theological discussions about the "One God in three Persons" deals with immanent Trinity, not economic Trinity. The economic aspect of the Trinity includes the created humanity of Jesus, who was not God ( _The New Catholic Encyclopedia_ [Washington D.C., The Catholic University of America, 1967], 943) ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_ ) and not part of the immanent Trinity. But that is precisely where the Jehovah's Witnesses mistakenly inject him resulting in a great deal of unnecessary confusion.

They argue, to take one illustration, that Jesus could not be God yet be with God; and he could not be the Father whom he prayed to ( _Should You Believe in the Trinity?_ [New York, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1989; <http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/index.htm>], Chapter 7) ( _Should You Believe_ ). But this is a classic example of many Jehovah's Witnesses mixing apples and oranges. The man of the God-man Jesus, the created humanity who was not God ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_ , 943), could rightfully pray to God the Father and did regard himself as inferior; this He performed in the context of economic Trinity.

The idea that the preexistent Word (God the Son) was with God stems from John 1:1:

> In the beginning was the Word,  
>   
>

Even though John 1:1 speaks in the context of pre-creation immanent Trinity, many of the Jehovah's Witnesses routinely swap-out God the Son, the preexistent Word, with the created humanity of Jesus and teach that Jesus was in the beginning with God, even though the Watchtower Society itself claims the Word was not the created Jesus, but the angel Michael. Both of these views are not accurate Bible teachings and do not properly reflect the doctrine of the Trinity. John 1:1 does not claim to say that the created humanity of Jesus was God, or was with God in the beginning. And it most certainly does not stand for the proposition that the Word, or Logos, was a created angel.

If you keep this distinction in mind you will be in a much better position to navigate many of the Jehovah's Witnesses' maze of misleading tactics and come to a better understanding of what the Trinity doctrine actually means.

> _hypostases_ **of the triune God are not to be confused with material human beings, persons like you or I.**

The Jehovah's Witnesses erroneously think of "Person" as an individual self-conscious human person ( _Encyclopedia of Religion_ , 57), and we humans don't engage in the kind of conduct the three Persons of the Trinity do, such as inner dialogue where people combined within a human person speak to each other. Or, they argue that the Holy Spirit cannot be a person because it appeared as a dove or flames of fire, never in the form of a human. And, it seems irrational to them that one such person can inhabit another person, so the Holy Person cannot be a person ( _Should You Believe_ , Chapter 6). They write:

> On one occasion the holy spirit appeared as a dove. On another occasion it appeared as tongues of fire - never as a person _Should You Believe_

> [R]egarding Samson, Judges 14:6 relates: "The spirit of Yahweh seized on him and though he had no weapon in his hand he tore the lion in pieces." (JB) Did a divine person actually enter or seize Samson, manipulating his body to do what he did? No _Should You Believe_

> A comparison of Bible texts that refer to the holy spirit shows that it is spoken of as 'filling' people; they can be 'baptized' with it; and they can be "anointed" with it... None of these expressions would be appropriate if the holy spirit were a person _Reasoning from the Scriptures_ _Reasoning_

First, the Jehovah's Witnesses fail to recognize that we are dealing with spirit, not flesh (the Holy Spirit is, after all, spirit), and the Bible is replete with examples of spirit persons entering individuals such as the spirit person Satan who entered Judas (Luke 22:3), and spirit demons who routinely inhabit people (Matthew 8:29-31). Furthermore, Jehovah is a spirit person and is the Holy Spirit who dwells in the Christian believer (2 Corinthians 3:17, 18 NWT), as does Christ (Romans 8:9-11; see also John 4:24). The Jehovah's Witnesses' objections in this regard are groundless.

And simply because the Holy Spirit took the form of a dove or tongues of fire and not a human person does not mean He is not a spirit person. After all, the Almighty is a spirit person though invisible (Colossians 1:15). Angels are spirit persons who took human form, but their mere appearance as humans does not mean they are angels, or that angels who never took human form are not spirit (Genesis 18).

Second, "Person" should be regarded as a contemporary misnomer, an imperfect expression because it connotes a separate rational and moral individual. It is a word erroneously derived from the Latin _persona_ and misapplied in the English modern era, as the Jehovah's Witnesses have done.

> **Persona:** _hypostasis_ The natural translation into 'person' in English is misleading _Persona_ 'mask' and then a 'role.'her external presentation, and does not convey the idea of self-consciousness or the internal psychological content suggested by the English word 'person' with its close link to the word 'personality.' _Oxford_

Third, as mentioned above, the hypostatic "Person" refers to a form in which the divine essence exists, not a created human, but three personal self-distinctions ( _The New Bible Dictionary_ [Grand Rapids, Michigan, W. M. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962], 1300) ( _New Bible Dictionary_ ).

> In most formularies the doctrine is stated by saying that God is one in His essential being, but that in this being there are three Persons, yet so as not to form separate and distinct individualsBut in the being of God there are not three individuals, but only three personal self-distinctions within the one divine essence _New Bible Dictionary_

Fourth, while each Person is self-conscious, He never acts independently.

> [P]ersonality in man implies independence of will, actions, and feelings, leading to behavior peculiar to the person. This cannot be thought of in connection with the Trinity; each Person is self-conscious and self-directing, yet never acting independently or in opposition

Fifth, The Jehovah's Witnesses argue," Thousands of times throughout the Bible, God is spoken of as one person. When he speaks, it is as one undivided individual.... Why would all the God-inspired Bible writers speak of God as one person if he were actually three persons?... What purpose would that serve except to mislead people?" ( _Should You Believe_ , Chapter 6).

This line of argument illustrates their confusion. The triune God is not split into three. He is one undivided individual as just mentioned. His diversity manifests itself in operations and characteristics:

> When we say that God is a unity we mean that though God is in Himself a threefold centre of life, His life is not split into threethat diversity manifests itself in Persons, in characteristics, and in operations _New Bible Dictionary_

> We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity," ( _Catholic Catechism_ _Catholic Catechism_

Sixth, there is subordination of relation and order among the three Persons, but not in nature:

> Moreover, the subsistence and operations of the three Persons are marked by a certain order involving a certain subordination in relation, though not in nature

> While this does not suggest priority in time or in dignity, since all three Persons are divine and eternal, it does suggest an order of precedence in operation and revelation _New Bible Dictionary_

Seventh, the three Persons are permanent features of God's three distinct manners of His activity:

> Trinitarian theology is par excellence the theology of relationship. Its fundamental principle is that God, who is self-communication and self-giving love for us, is from all eternity love perfectly given and received. The traditional formula "God is three persons in one nature" compactly expresses that there are permanent features of God's eternal beingthree distinct manners of God's tripersonal activity in the world _Encyclopedia of Religion_

Eighth, each Person has the divine nature, but each has it differently:

> Whatever is other, distinct, plural, personal, and proper in the Godhead is exclusively a matter of relationship. Father, Son and Spirit do not differ as God, but in the way each is God with respect to the others. Each has and is the divine nature, but each has it differentlyGod, then, is one in substance, three in Person _Catholic Encyclopedia_

Ninth, the doctrine also holds that the divine Persons exist in their relationships to one another:

> The three divine Persons exist in their particular, unique natures as Father, Son and Spirit in their relationships to one another, and are determined through these relationships. It is in these relationships that they are Persons. Being a person in this respect means existing-in-relationship. ( _Trinity and the Kingdom_

> [T]he three divine Persons possess the same individual, indivisible and one divine nature, but they possess it in varying ways. The Father possesses it of himself; the Son and the Spirit have it from the Father (ibid., 172). The Trinitarian Persons _subsist_ _exist_

"A divine Person is a non-interchangeable existence of the divine nature." By the word 'existence' - existential - [he] meant: existence, in the light of another" (ibid., 173).

> **4) Questions of "otherness": How can God be one, yet three? How can the Word be God yet be with that God?**

Ancient, medieval and modern theologians grappled with the problem of unity and otherness. How can God be one and also three? How can the Word be God, yet also be with God? Or, as the Jehovah's Witnesses put it, "As the Son of God, he could not be God himself" ( _Should You Believe_ , Chapter 6). Or, "God could not be his own son" (ibid., Chapter 7).

Once again, the prologue to John's gospel sums up the issue as it exemplifies this apparent contradiction:

> In the beginning was the Word,  
>   
>   
>

First, John 1:1 pertains to divine Persons of the immanent Trinity, not the created humanity of Jesus, who was not God. Furthermore, the ancients were aware of conceptual difficulties with respect to God being one yet three, but they also understood that if John 1:1 is to be taken at face value, then God must be "one" in one sense, and "three" in a different sense ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_ , 296). With time it became apparent that the conceptual obstacles were not insurmountable once it became clear that the answer lies not in comparisons to the material, vegetable or sensory worlds, but in the intellectual and psychological.

For instance, "Justin pictures the preexistent Word as the Father's rational consciousness (1 Apol. 46; 2 Apol. 13), as emerging, therefore, from the interiority of the Godhead while never-the-less remaining inseparable from the Godhead" ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_ , 296).

Tertullian (d. 230 A.D.) displayed a good sense of the manner in which God is one, and the way in which he is at the same time three:

> God is indeed three: in grade or orderappearance or aspectand in manifestationin power, God is perfectly one  
>   
> human reflection, as internal discourse is in some sense another, a second in addition to oneself, though yet within oneself.

Irenaeus (d. 200 A.D.) saw the Son and Spirit's roles as the two hands of the Father; and by the third century the three Persons were understood to be "distinct yet not divided, different yet not separate, and each with a particular yet complementary role to play in salvation" ( _Oxford_ , 1208).

Additionally, Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274 A.D.) elevated the psychological analogy to another level, drawing parallels with man's understanding of self and the interior conceptualization of the intellect:

> Men can and do think of their own minds; and when the human intellect reflects upon itself, understands itself, there comes forth within the intellect, in consequence of the act of understanding, the concept or interior conceptualization of the intellect itself so understood.

> This, moreover, is the only type of generation or coming forth that is possible in the immaterial and infinite Godhead. As God understands Himself, there issues forth from God Understanding (the Father) God Understood (the Son).

> In terms of this psychological analogy, then, the three Persons are both immanent to the undivided Godhead and yet distinct as Persons - as God understood in God Understanding, and as God Beloved (the Spirit, ch. 19) in God Loving (the Father and the Son as single source). ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_

There are other ways to look at this. For example, you have a spirit within you; it is with you yet it is you. Or, in terms of one person being with another person, an individual with multiple personalities is one individual composed of multiple individuals in his mind, each of which is that person yet with him and each other. Or, Scripture states that husband and wife are one flesh, not two (Genesis 2:24), yet we accept this illogical unity on a spiritual, abstract level as perfectly acceptable.

Accordingly, the idea that the Word was God and was with God and that each of the three Persons of the Trinity dwell in each other is entirely within the realm of logical abstract possibilities. As a matter of fact it is perfectly reasonable. Bear in mind, we are dealing with spirit, and the immanent preincarnate Word at John 1:1, not the created humanity of Jesus.

Finally, the Word's relation to the Godhead, in the sense of being "with" God does not mean "mere company, but the most intimate communion" ( _Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words Compilated and Expanded upon in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible_ [Nashville, Tennessee, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001], 152) ( _Strong and Vine's_ ). This intimacy of the Word with God is a product of their mutual indwelling, among other things, the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father (John 17:21 NAB). Furthermore, the Word ( _Logos_ ) is the personal manifestation, "not of a part of the divine nature, but of the whole deity" ( _Strong and Vine's_ , 152).

> **5) The Hypostatic Union: Jesus is fully God and fully man. This God-man is both divine and human, a divine Person who assumed a human nature.**

The dual nature of Christ, that he was, and is, God and man, illustrates the Jehovah's Witnesses' confusion with respect to Christ's temptation by the devil. The Jehovah's Witnesses incorrectly teach that Trinitarians believe that Jesus was not human and did not have his own human will, stating:

> The temptation of Jesus would make sense only if he was, not God, but a separate individual who had his own free willhuman _Should You Believe_

This is completely false and misleading. First, by virtue of the hypostatic union, Jesus is a divine person with a human nature, God and man, and the man, Jesus, did have his own free will:

> Just as there are two complete and perfect natures in Christ, one divine, the other human, there are two wills in Christ, one divine, the other human _Catholic Encyclopedia_

Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus was not only true God, but true man. "[I]n his body Christ thus expresses humanly the divine ways of the Trinity."

> The Son of God... worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he was truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin. ( _Catechism of the Catholic Church_ _Catholic Catechism_

> Though not infinite, and therefore not omnipotent, because His humanity is finite _Catholic Encyclopedia_

It is important that you understand this.

Secondly, and more important, the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that "The humanity of Christ is a creature, it is not God" (ibid., 922). Christ's full and complete humanity was a necessity, but a humanity that was without sin.

Third, "In Jesus humanity does not exist in itself, but it is the Son who exists as man through his human nature. Jesus gives back his whole divine self to the Father on the cross in and through his humanity ( _Fundamentals of Christology_ , 320).

With this in mind, the weaknesses in the Jehovah's Witnesses' arguments become clear. They falsely teach, implicitly and explicitly, that Trinitarians believe that the humanity of Christ the creature is God the Almighty, the Godhead. But nothing could be further from the truth. When they claim that Trinitarians believe that "Jesus is God" they don't disclose despite centuries of evidence, that "Jesus" in this Trinitarian context refers to the divine Person who assumed a human nature, not the created humanity of Jesus that is not God.

This particular distortion, and scant reference or explanation of the hypostatic union of Christ the God-man, has enabled the Jehovah's Witnesses to compose pages of unwarranted attacks on the Trinity by taking advantage of the readers' lack of understanding with regard to what the Trinity doctrine really means.

Fourth, Trinitarians are fully aware that the created humanity of Jesus was inferior to God, that He was not equal to God in every way. The created humanity of Jesus knew that the Father was his superior.

> **Existence and Nature of Human Will** since they are manifested to a superior _Catholic Encyclopedia_

Thus, when the created humanity of Jesus prayed to his Father, he was not praying to himself as the Jehovah's Witnesses mistakenly claim. He was praying to the infinitely superior God, His Father.

> The Holy Spirit is not considered inferior to the Father and the Son in the way in which the Son, because of the human nature which he has assumed, testifies that he is inferior to the Father and the Holy Spirit _Catholic Encyclopedia_

When you think of it, Christ's dual nature is not so far fetched; after all, a human is a material being endowed with a spirit, a union of the material and spiritual, yet considered one.

Fifth, with the above in mind, and considering the many proofs that follow, John 1:14 was not meant to be read literally. It states, "And the Word became flesh," but this does not mean that the Word made a complete transformation from a spirit angel to only flesh, which is a type of heretical modalism condemned by the church in the first centuries. Rather, the divine Person of Christ assumed a human nature. Jesus was a divine Person with a human nature. That is the only acceptable interpretation of John 1:14 because the divinity of Christ - that he was and is God - in an undeniable Biblical truth, and without His divinity redemption is not possible. It was necessary for Jesus to be a God-man for the sake of mankind's salvation. Therefore He could not be "mere flesh" under any circumstances.

Besides, since "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8 NWT) He cannot have been a preexistent angel who changed completely into mere flesh, and then reverted back to heaven as an angel. There is no such radical change in the Trinitarian Christian world where the Word was God the Son, remained God the Son during His sojourn, and continued as God the Son after His resurrection and ascension.

Sixth, the practical implications of the union is that "Jesus sometimes spoke as man, sometimes as God; sometimes as Godman" (M. O'Carroll, _Trinitas: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinit_ y [Wilmington, Delaware, Michael Glazier, Inc., 1987], 186) ( _Trinitas_ ).

> **6) Further articulation of the Hypostatic Union - the nature of the God-man Jesus.**

The divinity of Jesus and his two-fold nature raised numerous questions such as "How a divine Jesus could maintain his full humanity?" Over the years a series of church councils strove to articulate the God-man nature, usually in response to successions of false teachings.

In brief, church councils decreed "that Christ had a true human soul" ( _Encyclopedia of Religion_ , 20), in Christ existed "two natures in one person [ _prosopon_ ] or acting subject [ _hypostasis_ ] (ibid.). "This personal unity left the divine and human natures quite in tact and in no way confused or intermingled them with each other" (ibid.). Both natures were unaltered and undiminished ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_ , 932). Christ not only had two wills "but also two intellects," one divine, the other human (ibid _.,_ 924).

"If the pivotal assertion of the New Testament, "The Word was made flesh" (Jn 1.14), means anything, it signifies that two, the divine and the human, became somehow uniquely one in Jesus of Nazareth; that in Him was achieved a union, elsewhere unparalleled of God with man" (ibid., 918).

> The Church believes that Jesus Christ is true God, Son of God made man, the Second person of the Trinity, who took unto Himself a human nature and so exists not only in the divine but also in a human nature: one divine Person in two natures. The man who in His earthly life was known as Jesus of Nazareth was not a human person made one, as Nestorius said, in a unique way of moral unity, with the Person of the Son of God. He was God, Son of the Father, made man for men's salvation. (ibid., 932)

"His human nature, perfect and complete, was not a human person distinct from the Divine person of the Word... it was the human nature of a Divine Person. This point of our faith enwraps the humanity of Christ in full mystery.... His human life included true human knowledge and a human will distinct from the divine will" (ibid., 936).

> Our faith in Christ, the God-man, supposes that his humanity is not a human person (the mystery). For if it were, and if there were a duality of persons in Christ, then the Divine Person would not really be man but only united with a man; Christ would not be what our faith says he is." (ibid., 937)

"Christ is one Person, that of the Logos, in two complete and integral natures" (Council of Chalcedon in 451) (ibid., 921), but "U]nion of the human nature with the divine self in no way diminishes the human nature" (Constantinople III in 681) (ibid.,). "[T]he human nature of Christ had its foundation in the divine self, the Second person of the Blessed Trinity," (794 AD, A synod at Frankfurt) (ibid.).

Not only did Christ have two natures, but he had two consciousnesses as well, although some contemporary theologians dispute this and believe Christ had only one conscience.

> Christ is a Divine Person simultaneously existing in two natures, divine and human. Because each of the natures is complete in itself, each has its own proper will and intellect. And further, because consciousness is the inescapable concomitant of intellectual activity, it must be conceded that each of Christ's natures possessed its own proper consciousness, its own proper awareness of self. Christ, therefore, had not one, but two, consciousnesses. ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_

> **7) Preliminary response to the Jehovah's Witnesses' questions and objections**

Equipped with a better grasp of what the Trinity doctrine does, and does not, stand for it should be much easier to respond to the many questions posed by the Jehovah's Witnesses in their publications " _Should You Believe in the Trinity_ " and " _Reasoning from the Scriptures_ ," and " _Insight on the Scriptures_."

> **8) The equality of Christ and God - Is God superior because God is the head of Christ and sent Him on His mission?" - (1 Corinthians 11:3)**

The Jehovah's Witnesses argue that Jesus could not have been God's equal because Christ had a God above him and therefore God is superior in every way and Christ inferior, stating:

> Not only is Almighty God, Jehovah, a personality separate from Jesus but he is at all times his superior. Jesus is always presented as separate and lesser, a humble servant of God. That is why the Bible plainly says that "the head of the Christ is God" in the same way that "the head of every man is the Christ _Should You Believe_

> "Is not the sender superior to the one sent?" (ibid., Chapter 7)

First, as noted earlier, Trinitarians actually do believe that the created humanity of Jesus, who was not God, was a humble servant of God and inferior (see section 5).

Secondly, the Jehovah's Witnesses neglected to quote all of the relevant portions of verse 3, leaving out the reference to husband and wife which helps put these verses into proper context: "...the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God." The Greek word for 'head' is _kephale_ and in this passage it is used "metaphorically, of the authority or direction of God in relation to Christ, of Christ in relation to believing men, of the husband in relation to the wife, 1 Cor 11:3" ( _Strong and Vine's_ , 138). It is not intended to mean that one is inherently superior by nature to another as the Jehovah's Witnesses would have you believe.

Paul is referring to authority possessed and exercised and an ordering of their relationship, but as the Jehovah's Witnesses interpret verse 3, a husband would be inherently superior as a person to his wife the inferior being, but we know that not to be true. In that culture, and in some contemporary matrimonial roles, the wife voluntarily assumes a particular subservient role. But just because a husband sends his wife down to the corner market for some milk, or the husband has the final decision with respect to, say, financial matters, that does not make his wife inferior to him as a person any more than the President of the United States is superior, as a human being, to any citizen of the United States of America. Your employer is not a superior individual, either, but only exercises authority over you.

The divine person of Christ, even if sent by God the Father, and even if He voluntarily subjected Himself, did not in so doing become less equal to God with respect to His essential being, nature and essence. When the Word assumed a human nature he did not cease being God, but willingly assumed a different relationship; a different grade, order or manifestation as Tertullian theorized. His incarnation and obedience did not diminish the divine essence of His being or make Him less consubstantial. The divine Person of Jesus was still fully God, who chose a veiled glory.

> Christ possessed equality with God prior to His incarnation, and then for a time veiled that glory, being always God in all of the co-equal attributes, but in the incarnation never using His Godly powers to better Himself. He was fully God, fully man, God taking on the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3), not a man adding Godliness. ( _Strong and Vine's_

> **9) Could Jesus be God Almighty if he prayed to the Father and referred to God as His Father? If he was God's submissive servant? If He entrusted His spirit to God at death?**

The Jehovah's Witnesses argue that Jesus could not have been God because He worshipped God, called this God "Father," prayed to God, and "since Jesus had a God, his Father, he could not at the same time be that God ( _Should You Believe_ , Chapter 7).

Once again, the Jehovah's Witnesses fail to understand the nature of the God-man Jesus; that He is fully God and fully man; and, that the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that "the humanity of Christ is a creature, it is not God" ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_ , 943). If Jesus the created human, the "man" in the God-man equation of the hypostatic union of Trinitarianism, were claiming to be that God Almighty the Father, the Jehovah's Witnesses' objections might be relevant, but that's not accurate dogma.

Therefore, it was entirely proper (and did not diminish Christ's divine nature) that the created humanity of Christ the man prayed to God the Father, was subordinate to the Father ( _Should You Believe_ , Chapter 7), worshipped God, called Him Father (ibid.), could be regarded as God's submissive servant (ibid.), was seen as distinct from God (ibid.), was not as "good" as God (ibid.), and could function as a separate entity or witness about himself in addition to God (ibid.).

Jesus could also have a will separate from God (ibid.), received God's anointing to declare the good news (ibid.), taught what belonged to God (ibid.), and could rightfully claim that "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). It was this suffering man Jesus who could call out to His God from the cross (ibid.), and to whom he could entrust his spirit at death because the humanity of Christ is a creature, not God (ibid.). And because Jesus the man recognized his limitations he knew it was not for Him to grant seats at his right and left hand in His kingdom ( _Should You Believe_ , Chapter 7).

Furthermore, since God Almighty is an invisible spirit person (Colossians 1:15), that is the God Jesus was referring to when he said at John 1:18 "No one has ever seen God." He was not referring to himself in his created human capacity, naturally, since He was visible to the human eye. And with respect to what that man saw, he saw God fully and completely due to Christ's beatific intuitive human knowledge as more fully explained in section 13(A) below.

Finally, because Jesus of the Bible is a miraculous product of the hypostatic union, it was the divine Person of Christ (the "God" in the God-man equation) that the prophet Habakkuk was including by definition in his reference to God when he stated "O my God, my Holy One, you do not die" (Habakkuk 1:12 NWT; "we shall not die" RSV).

The above are all "reasons" why the Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus is not God, but their arguments are baseless and do not disprove the Trinitarian concept that "Jesus is God."

As a matter of fact, the view which the Jehovah's Witnesses ascribe to Trinitarians - the exaggerated view of Noetus which identified "Christ with the Father," was rejected by the church many centuries ago along with similar heretical distortions ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_ , 296).

> In its extreme form it may suggest that the whole of God was, for example, present in Jesus - that heaven was empty when Jesus walked on earth. In relation to the cross, it may imply that, because there is no distinction between Father and Son, the whole of God suffers equally as Jesus dies, and indeed God dies entirely on the cross.... ( _Oxford_

This and similar notions are precisely some of the "pitfalls" the "doctrine of the Trinity sets out to avoid..." ( _Oxford_ , 1211). Any implications or explicit assertions by the Jehovah's Witnesses to the contrary are untrue - they are false accusations.

> **10) When God exalted the risen Jesus to His right hand it did not thereby make Jesus superior to God - (Philippians 2:9)**

Another line of argument advanced by the Jehovah's Witnesses denies Christ's divine preincarnate status by incorrectly interpreting Philippians 2:9 to mean that under the doctrine of the Trinity the exalted Christ would have returned to a position in heaven superior to God. They write:

> Speaking of the resurrection of Jesus, Peter and those with him told the Jewish Sanhedrin: "God exalted this one [Jesus]... to his right hand." (Acts 5:31) Paul said: "God exalted him to a superior position." (Philippians 2:9) If Jesus had been God, how could Jesus have been exalted, that is raised to a higher position than he had previously enjoyed? He would already have been an exalted part of the Trinity. If, before his exaltation, Jesus had been equal to God, exalting him any further would have made him superior to God. ( _Should You Believe_

This reflects a glaring misconception of what the Trinity doctrine teaches and the nature of the hypostatic union. It was not God the Son who was exalted with respect to His essential being, nature and power that defines him as God; conversely, it was not the divine nature of God the Son of the God-man equation that bled on the cross and died because God does not die; otherwise, and for many other reasons beyond this topic, He could not, for instance, have raised himself as he claimed he did. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that God cannot die. Philippians 2:7-11 puts verse 9 into better context, stating that the preexistent Word:

> [E]mptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:7-11 RSV)

First, it is self-evident here that the risen Christ is exalted above all creation and every name in the universe, but not God Himself, as He is God the Son. This is indicated in these same verses where the Christian confessional states "Jesus is Lord" which means, among other things, that Jesus is God. (See section 35 for a detailed explanation of this meaning of "Lord").

Secondly, Philippians 2:9 does not say as the JWs claim that God the Son was "raised to a position higher than he had previously enjoyed." God the Son, the Word, when He emptied Himself to take the form of a slave never ceased being fully God. It was his Glory that was veiled for a time being; he temporarily resigned his "status."

> Christ possessed equality with God prior to His incarnation, and then for a time veiled that glory, being always God in all of the co-equal attributes, but in the incarnation never using His Godly powers to better Himself. He was fully God, fully man, God taking on the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3), not a man adding Godliness. ( _Strong and Vine's_

> [I]n the process of the Incarnation, he empties himself of his divine "status"... ( _Fundamentals of Christology_

The Word never ceased being God the Son when He emptied Himself. It was merely his status or role or relationship that changed. Accordingly, being fully God the Son, the God in the God-man equation was never elevated back or exalted to a position superior to God because He never ceased being God. Hence, he was not exalted to a position superior to God.

Third, the created humanity of Jesus could not have been "raised to a position higher than he had previously enjoyed" as the Jehovah's Witnesses claim because He was not God and there could not have been a position He previously enjoyed in heaven to be raised back to.

Fourth, the focus is on the humanity of Christ, although this humanity can never be viewed in isolation because, "In Jesus humanity does not exist in itself, but it is the Son who exists as man through his human nature. Jesus gives back his whole divine self to the Father on the cross in and through his humanity _(Fundamentals of Christology_ , 320). He consummates his human experience in all these dimensions only in dying and rising to a new, definitive form of human existence (ibid., 317).

Fifth, the exaltation also refers to the resurrected heavenly Jesus that died on the cross, who does not cease to be human (ibid., 318), a glorified human yet still God the Son to whom every knee shall bow. And any exaltation that God the Son might have enjoyed was with respect to His grade, order, appearance, aspect or manifestation (Tertullian). It would be a change in order of precedence in operation, a change in the relationship, but it would not alter in any way the essential being, nature and power of God; that which defines the triune God as one.

> **11) Christian Trinitarians are monotheistic and do not worship three Gods as the Jehovah's Witnesses claim.**

The Jehovah's Witnesses continue to imply that Trinitarian Christians worship three Gods, not one; that they are tritheistic, not monotheistic. The Jehovah's Witnesses draw parallels between the Trinity doctrine and triadic pagan worship which they claim is the ultimate source of the Christian Trinity, influenced by Babylonian gods who were worshipped in threes, the Egyptian three-fold gods of Osiris, Isis and Horus, Italian triune godheads, the Trinitarian Hindu group of Brahama, Sira and Visnu, and on and on ( _Should You Believe_ , Chapter 5).

But this is false and unfair. The Christian faith is completely monotheistic, and worship is directed to the only one true God Almighty who happens to have a threefold nature: "We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity," (Catholic Catechism, 75). "[T]he Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal." Athanasian Creed; DS 75; ND16)" (ibid., 79).

Tritheism, the worship of three Gods at the expense of the unity of God is yet another pitfall which the Trinity doctrine specifically seeks to avoid ( _Oxford_ , 1211). And simply because the Jehovah's Witnesses are unable to grasp the meaning of " _hypostases_ " or "Persons" does not entitle them to ascribe to Christians beliefs they do not hold.

> **12) Not all Trinitarian theology was assimilated into the doctrine of the Trinity; much was left out. The reformed Protestant churches have assimilated the Catholic church's doctrine of the Trinity with very minor alterations.**

To further erode the Trinity doctrine, the Jehovah's Witnesses argue that even early church Fathers, the 2d, 3rd and 4th century theologians, did not teach the Trinity or the true divinity of Christ; that they did not regard Father, Son and Holy Spirit as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as three in one ( _Should You Believe_ , Chapter 2). The problem is that the Jehovah's Witnesses are focused on the chaff, not the wheat, emphasizing what was never assimilated by the church into the Trinity doctrine rather than what was officially sanctioned over the centuries.

Because much of what the early thinkers thought and wrote was not accepted or ratified, those views carry little weight in rejecting the Trinity. They are useful, however, in terms of historical reflection and academic observation of evolving thought processes:

> As elemental Trinitarianism of the NT period has to be distinguished carefully from the gradually emerging Trinitarian dogma, so must Trinitarian dogma (doctrine in the strictest sense) be distinguished carefully from Trinitarian theology. The dogma in its preparatory stages had been merely theology: efforts on the part of individuals and schools to interpret and understand revealed mystery. Then, as certain of these efforts became assimilated through authoritative decision into the teaching of the Church, some of what had heretofore been theology was from now on also dogma of faith. But note some; for much else - in Tertullian and Origen, Athanasius and the Cappadocians, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas - would never receive such ratification, never attain such clear-cut status as Christian doctrine. ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_

Therefore, even if Justin Martyr said the prehuman Jesus was inferior to God, a created angel and is other than God ( _Should You Believe_ , Chapter 4), or Irenaeus believed the prehuman Jesus was inferior to and had an existence separate from God who was not his equal, or Clement of Alexandria called Jesus a creature not equal to God, or Tertullian taught that the Father is greater than the son (ibid.), or Hippolytus said that God had nothing of equal age with him - even if those ancients believed all of this, those opinions do not constitute the Trinity doctrine but only deep musings of early theologians. Accordingly, their relevance lies more with showing what the official doctrine does not stand for, not what the Trinity doctrine teaches.

Just to clarify one thing, though the Jehovah's Witnesses claim that Justin Martyr believed, wrongly as it turned out, that the Word "is no less than something numerically other in relation to the Father..." ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_ , 296), the Jehovah's Witnesses failed to mention that in those very same passages he also stated that neither Word nor Spirit, the former more explicitly, are to be separated from the Father, from the being of the Godhead, since both Word and Spirit are God (ibid.).

Lastly, "Although a few distinct doctrinal changes were eventually made, the _Trinitarian_ concept emerged relatively unchanged. "The Reformers," states the _New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge_ , "stood upon the ground of the Church catholic" in this matter. This meant, for many of the new-born Protestant groups, not only continued adherence to (and propagation of) the form of Trinitarianism advanced by the Athanasian Creed, but also - in many cases - actual approval and acceptance of the Catholic-spawned Creed itself" ( _Concepts_ , 14; in accord see the _New Bible Dictionary_ , 1299-1300).

> **13) Christ's Knowledge: How much did Jesus know? If he was God, why was some of His knowledge limited?**

The Jehovah's Witnesses contend that Jesus could not be God because of his limited knowledge for Jesus "learned obedience" ( _Should You Believe_ , Chapter 7), did not know the precise day and hour of the Last Day (ibid.), and was given a revelation by God (ibid.). Much of the Jehovah's Witnesses' confusion here likewise stems from their inability to comprehend the hypostatic union of the God-man Jesus (i.e., it was the created human Jesus, who was not God, who learned obedience). Nor do they understand the nature of Jesus' three-fold human knowledge.

Theologians are in general agreement that Jesus had a) the beatific, or intuitive, vision of God; b) infused knowledge, and c) acquired knowledge ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_ , 930).

> **A) Vision/Intuitive or Beatific Knowledge**

With respect to His vision knowledge it is taught that "Christ in His humanity, i.e., in His human intellect, from the very first instant of the incarnation, had the immediate vision of God, (ibid., 930). "[T]he two, hypostatic union and vision, of necessity go together."

Christ's self-awareness as a Divine Person in His human nature includes the beatific, or immediate, vision of God.

Christ's vision of God, it is common teaching, was not comprehensive with regard to its primary object, the divine essence; it was limited because it was human. Nor does it extend, as to its secondary objects, to all that the divine knowledge comprehends, but only to what pertains to the object of God's vision knowledge.... not to the object of the knowledge of simple understanding...; and here it extends particularly, if not exclusively, to all that pertains to His mission and man's salvation. (ibid.)

> **B) Infused Knowledge**

Whereas "the vision is inexpressible in human concepts ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_ , 930) and is a knowledge that 'Christ derived from His contact with the Father," Christ's infused knowledge is "expressible in human concepts and words" (ibid., 938). "The distinction may be explicit in Scripture (cf Jn 7.16; Mt 11.27). Infused knowledge is similar to angelic knowledge, "Because vision knowledge is incommunicable in human terms, and Christ's mission entailed the communication to men of divine mysteries..." i.e., salvation, "... a communicable knowledge of these mysteries was necessary" (ibid.). Infused knowledge was required because of Jesus' mission.

> Today theologians incline to explain the extension of Christ's infused knowledge from the purpose and nature of His mission; this was a coming in lowliness, not in glory, and did not require the knowledge of all human learning... but only of all that pertains to men's salvation.... This was necessary and sufficient for Christ to discharge His mission." ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_

> **C) Acquired Knowledge**

"The fact of Christ's experiential, or acquired, knowledge is considered certain by theologians today," and like all of us was "limited and restricted." This knowledge "was perfect in keeping with the concrete circumstances of His time and place, age and mission, and His dealings with people for His redemptive and prophetic mission" (ibid.). Jesus "grew" in this knowledge (cf Luke 2.40, 52) through observation and experience and from other people (ibid.).

> **D) The Three Kinds of Human Knowledge were Distinct, but not Separate**

"[The] three kinds of human knowledge in Christ, required by what Scripture and revelation say of the God-man, did not hinder or exclude but rather complemented one another. The three were required on different grounds and existed on different levels, while uniting in one human consciousness for the purpose of Christ's mission" (ibid., 938, 939).

The three kinds of knowledge were the acts and possession of one human intellect and one human awareness; they were distinct, not separated. Their perfect harmony, however, remains mysterious; it is part of the very mystery of Christ." (ibid., 939)

Some modernists place less emphasis on Christ's vision knowledge believing that it could lead to interference and the exclusion of genuine human experience ( _Encyclopedia of Religion_ , 25).

> **14) Jesus' ignorance of the Last Day - Christ knew the Last Day in His vision knowledge which is inexpressible in human concepts, not His infused knowledge. But did the Holy Spirit know the day and hour of the Last Day?**

At Mark 13:32 Jesus stated "But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." "Son" in this context does not refer to the "God" of the God-man Jesus but the man and His human knowledge. St. Augustine offered a solution to the question of Christ's limited knowledge that today is universally accepted, namely, that "Christ had no communicable knowledge of the Last Day because it did not pertain to His mission to reveal it." "[One] could say that Christ knew the Last Day in His vision knowledge, not in His infused knowledge" ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_ , 939) (emphasis added).

> Augustine said this in the context of the question about human infirmities taken on by Christ; his solution here too has prevailed: Christ took all of these infirmities, except ignorance, which is not only a consequence but also a principle of sin. (ibid.)

Roch A. Kereszty explains "The Word has known man and the fullness of human experience from all eternity through his divine knowledge. But in the process of the Incarnation, he empties himself of his divine "status," renounces, it seems, the direct use of his divine consciousness and knowledge, and becomes aware of himself as man and learns as man gradually about God, himself, people and the world. He consummates his human experience in all these dimensions only in dying and rising to a new, definitive form of human existence ( _Fundamentals of Christology_ , 317).

There are also practical considerations regarding Christ's limited knowledge of the Last Day. Not only was it not necessary in order to fulfill His mission, but mankind's awareness of the exact day and hour has the propensity for unrepentant man, subject to death at any moment, to put off repentance and salvation until the last possible minute. This would countermand Christ's command to be constantly vigilant (Matthew 25: 1-13).

The Jehovah's Witnesses contend further that even if, "as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?" ( _Reasoning_ , 409). The answer is that the Holy Spirit did know because He is one of the _Hypostases_ or Persons of the Holy Trinity. Remember, usually "Father is not a title for the first person of the Trinity but a synonym for God" ( _Encyclopedia of Religion_ , 54). God is by nature triune and one of those Persons is the Holy Spirit. Therefore, when Jesus stated that only the Father knows exactly when the Last Day shall be, his reference to the Father, the triune God, by definition included the Person of the Holy Spirit.

> **15) How much was the ransom? God's justice did not require an exact equivalent man-for-man sacrifice between the First Adam and Jesus, the Second Adam. God's gift required more.**

Reducing Jesus Christ to a mere man and nothing more is, among other things, essential to the Jehovah's Witnesses' religious philosophy. They do this in part by arguing that God's law requires a strictly equivalent human ransom (Jesus) to compensate for Adam's sin of disobedience, restore the balance and reinstate the right to perfect human life on earth. Their rationale, however, is flawed for numerous reasons. The Jehovah's Witnesses write:

> One of the main reasons why Jesus came to earth also has a direct bearing on the Trinity. The Bible states: "There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all" (1 Timothy 2:5,6).

> Jesus, no more and no less than a perfect human, became a ransom that compensated exactly for what Adam lost - the right to perfect human life on earth. So Jesus could rightly be called "the last Adam" by the apostle Paul, who said in the same context: "Just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:22, 45) The perfect human life of Jesus was the "corresponding ransom" required by divine justice - no more, no less. A basic principle even of human justice is that the price paid should fit the wrong committed.

> If Jesus, however, were part of a Godhead, the ransom price would have been infinitely higher than what God's own law required. (Exodus 21:23-25; Leviticus 24:19-21) It was only a perfect human, Adam, who sinned in Eden, not God. So the ransom, to be truly in line with God's justice, had to be strictly an equivalent - a perfect human, "the last Adam." ( _Should You Believe_

The Jehovah's Witnesses are greatly mistaken. First, a literal translation of 1 Timothy 2:6 states that Christ Jesus gave "...Himself a ransom on behalf of all" (Green's Literal Translation, NAB, RSV). There is no mention that this ransom was "corresponding" and the Jehovah's Witnesses' insertion of this word leaves an improper impression of exact equivalency - one human for another mirrored human, no more.

Secondly, the Jehovah's Witnesses erroneously teach that God's justice necessitates an exact human-for-human match, quoting Exodus 21:23-25 and Leviticus 24:19-21, the old Mosaic Law, a pre-Christian standard of justice requiring an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth as just punishment. But Christians are not subject to the Mosaic Law, and the Jehovah's Witnesses know this. Jesus nailed the Law to the cross and specifically rejected this "eye for an eye" standard of justice at Matthew 5:38, 39:

> You have heard that it was said, 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also;...

Third, the Jehovah's Witnesses' underlying premise that one of Christ's purposes was to redeem man and provide a conditional right to perfect human life on earth is flawed in ways too numerous to list here. The idea that mankind's destiny is to return to a condition of naked semi-tropical bliss and ignorance in Gardens of Eden (a return to the status quo) where they will be ruled by the anointed 144,000 from heaven defies reason and Scripture. These issues, in particular the false theory that redeemed man will be ruled on earth by a heavenly class of 144,000, are exhaustively addressed in the accompanying treaties entitled ' _Why the Jehovah's Witnesses are Wrong in Teaching that only 144,000 go to Heaven to Rule over Humans on earth_.'

Fourth, the condition of redeemed mankind shall be nothing like the condition that Adam and Eve experienced because they were not immortal and were always subject to death as a consequence of disobedience. By virtue of Christ's sacrifice, however, death is done away with for the saved, "Death is swallowed up in victory" (1 Corinthians 15:54, 55); Christ abolished death (2 Timothy 1:10). The end result is a "new creation," as all things are ultimately made new (Revelation 21:5), including the resurrected glorified human body of the believer which shall resemble Christ's resurrected body (Philippians 3:20, 21), a body which is not the same as Adam's mortal fleshly body.

The "gift is not like the transgression but much more" (Romans 5:15 NAB). "God's grace in Christ will yet accomplish more than what Adam lost" ( _Strong and Vines_ , 77), whereas the ransom death of a mere man would be insufficient to attain the higher reward.

> But our commonwealth is in heaven, and from it we await a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself. (Philippians 3:20, 21)

Fifth, the very idea that Christ was, and is, nothing more than a man, the equivalent of Adam, as the Jehovah's Witnesses falsely teach, ignores the divine Person of Jesus of the Bible, and His many miracles, displays of power and all that Jesus said about himself. His ransom sacrifice was not an exact equivalent on par with Adam; it was not even close. The sacrifice was exceedingly greater.

Sixth, Man alone cannot redeem himself, as Psalm 49:7 in the vast majority of Bibles makes clear: "No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him ..." (In accord see _NIV, ESV, NASB, KJV, ASV, DRV, DBT, ERV_ , and _Young's Literal Translation_ ). To share in divinity and immortality requires the intercession of the divine, the God-man, Jesus, as Athanasius taught.

> Christ came and freely took upon Himself the penalty of sin - death and suffering - and by so doing He made satisfaction for the sin of man. Being God and man, He could do what only God can do: have a hold on and restore the whole of human nature and race. (No single merely human individual could do so.; if Adam could so act for the worse, it was because he happened to be the head of the race).( _Catholic Encyclopedia_

The fact that a mere man, Adam, brought down mankind in a single act of disobedience by eating a piece of fruit does not mean a mere man (the Jehovah's Witnesses' Jesus) could restore the human race to God's good graces and enable man to attain immortality and much more. Put another way, just because you chop down a tree doesn't mean you can make it grow.

> **16) Did the resurrected Jesus continue in a subordinate, secondary position? - (1 Corinthians 15:24, 28; Revelation 1:1)**

The Jehovah's Witnesses contend that, "In His prehuman existence, and also when he was on earth, Jesus was subordinate to God. After his resurrection, he continues to be in a subordinate, secondary position" ( _Should You Believe_ , Chapter 7). Once again, this leads us back to the hypostatic union. Trinitarians don't have an argument with the Jehovah's Witnesses when it comes to the created humanity of Jesus on earth, who was not God, and who indeed was subordinate as explained in great detail above in section 5.

But as to the God in the God-man equation of the union, He never ceased being fully God in His essential nature, during the incarnation being "always God in all of the co-equal attributes" ( _Strong and Vine's_ , 42). To the extent that they disagree with this, they are simply wrong.

Any subordination of God the Son to God the Father was relational, a change in status or order of precedence, but not in His essential being as He remained fully God, albeit with a veiled Glory. God the Son's subordination is voluntary. It does not mean He is not equal to God in essence.

Because the risen Christ never ceased to be human in heaven ( _Fundamentals of Christology_ , 318) apt parallels can be drawn. Just as there was a visual (and conceptual) distinctiveness between the created humanity of Jesus on earth, some of those distinctions can be carried over into heaven (i.e., the resurrected human stood in God's presence). But just because the Lamb is "seen" as distinct from "God," that does not sever the divine Son from God; it does not make them completely independent and separate entities particularly when it is remembered that Jesus is the Almighty, and shares His throne, and is the Alpha and Omega as detailed in the following sections. Recall also that the resurrected created humanity is ultimately folded into the Trinity.

The Jehovah's Witnesses should be careful in relying too heavily on the symbolic visions of the Book of Revelation. After all, spirit is invisible to us, as is God the Almighty.

This brings us to 1 Corinthians 15:24, 28 which the Jehovah's Witnesses rely heavily on to show that the heavenly Jesus can't be God because in the everlasting future in heaven Jesus will remain subject to God, and therefore He can't be God ( _Should You Believe_ , Chapter 7). But this refers to God the Son's voluntary subordination in the Trinitarian sense, subjection not as creatures are, but "as a Son voluntarily subordinate to, though co-equal with, the Father" ( _Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary_ on 1 Corinthians 15:28). Just because you voluntarily take a job scrubbing floors doesn't mean you are less human than your employer, even if you feel that way. Remember, one must always ask, "equal in what sense?"

> _The one who subjected everything to him_

The Jehovah's Witness also find fault with Revelation 1:1 where it is said that God gave Jesus the revelation, and accordingly, Jesus can't be God, but this ignores a) that the human resurrected Jesus could receive knowledge from God in heaven just as He did on earth either through his vision or infused knowledge, and b) God is self-communicating within the Holy Trinity, illustrated by Him saying such things as "Let us create man in our image" (Genesis 1:26). This is perfectly logical, after all, man exchanges information with himself all the time when he speaks to himself, that inner dialogue one carries around throughout life. It is the same basic principle. So whether the revelation was transmitted to the resurrected human and/or God the Son, this in no way diminishes God the Son's equality with God in all of the necessary Trinitarian aspects.

> **17) The Trinity in the Bible: Elemental Trinitarianism is evident throughout the Bible**

While the Jehovah's Witnesses are correct in stating that the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible, neither is the word "monotheism" so its absence has no bearing on whether the underlying basis for Trinitarianism exists in the Bible. Careful objective study of the Bible reveals strong scriptural support for recognizing by logical necessity the existence of a triune God - not three Gods, but one God Almighty existing in three _hypostasis_ (Persons) who share the one divine essence. Jesus Christ was sent in part to reveal and explain this threefold nature of God.

Early theologians who strove for a deeper understanding of the doctrine, as well as those of the Middle Ages and modernists, whether Catholic, Protestant or independent, recognize in Scripture an elemental Trinitarianism ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_ , 295).

> It is clear on one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, a product of centuries' reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - and hence an elemental Trinitarianism - went back to the period of Christian origins. Contemporary studies on the ancient Christian creeds have done much to bring this out." (ibid., 300)

J.N.D. Kelly attests that "[s]trictly triadic formulas and the triadic frame of mind so clearly mark at least later NT compositions, that the exegete and the historian must recognize a quasi-independent Trinitarianism coexisting with the purer and simpler forms of NT Christology" (ibid., 300). Among the earliest Christians there was "... consistent worship of God in a Trinitarian pattern and the practice of baptism into the threefold name of God" ( _Encyclopedia of Religion,_ 54).

> **18) The Trinity in the Old Testament**

While some downplay references to the Trinity in the Old Testament, many Bible scholars find implicit evidence and foreshadowing of God's triune nature even if the early Israelites failed to pick up on it. The fact that such evidence is limited is immaterial because the triune God was subsequently and intentionally revealed to man by and through Christ, and better understood in the centuries that followed. This progressive revelation was the Almighty's prerogative, and reasonable in light of the polytheistic pagan nations surrounding Israel at that time. It was necessary to contrast Israel's polytheistic, many-god worshipping neighbors with a monotheistic God rather than a triune-natured God which could be confused with tritheism, the worship of three Gods. It was Jehovah's intent to distinguish Himself from false pagan idols.

> Though the doctrine is not developed in the Old Testament, it is implicit in the divine self-disclosure from the very beginning,...in a very rudimentary form. This is found not only in isolated passages but interwoven in the entire organism of the Old Testament Revelation. ( _New Bible Dictionary_

> The mystery of the Holy Trinity was not revealed to the Chosen People of the OT. On account of the polytheistic religions of Israel's pagan neighbors it was necessary for the teachers of Israel to stress the oneness of God. In many places of the OT, however, expressions are used in which some of the Fathers of the Church saw references or foreshadowing of the Trinity. The personified use of such terms as the Word of God [Ps 32(33.6] and the Spirit of God (Is 63.14) is merely by way of poetic license, though it shows that the minds of God's people were being prepared for the concepts that would be involved in the forthcoming revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity. ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_

Early theologians saw semblances of the triune activities of God - wisdom, word and spirit - embryonic members of the Trinity, and disclosure of the Trinity in the appearance of the three men to Abraham (Genesis 18) ( _Oxford_ , 1207).

> The earliest foreshadowing is contained in the narrative of the creation, where _Elohim_

> It is thought that Gn. I. 26 ('And God said, Let us make man in our image and after our likeness') implies that a revelation of the Triune God had been given to man when first created, in as much as he was to be given the divine fellowship, but that the consciousness was afterwards lost with the loss of his original righteousness. ( _New Bible Dictionary_

> **19) The Trinity in the New Testament**

> **a) Matthew 28:19 \----------------------------------------------------------**

The most explicit reference to the Trinity in the Gospels is Christ's baptismal formula found at Matthew 28:19: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit..." (NAB). "This is perhaps the clearest expression in the New Testament of the Trinitarian belief" (NAB notes, Matthew 28:19).

Not surprisingly, the Jehovah's Witnesses don't see it that way, stating: "Do these verses say that God, Christ and the holy spirit constitute a Trinitarian godhead, that the three are equal in substance, power and eternity? No, they do not, no more than listing three people, such as Tom, Dick, and Harry, means that they are three in one" ( _Should You Believe_ , Chapter 9).

The Jehovah's Witnesses have missed the point entirely. No credible scholar claims that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one just because they are numerated like Tom, Dick and Harry. That's silly. The unity of the three Persons or _hypostases_ \- the oneness of the three and singleness of essence - is indicated by the singular use of "name" by which all three Persons are referred to, not their plural "names." If, for instance, the Son were merely a separate subordinate creature as the Jehovah's Witnesses falsely teach, Jesus would have them baptizing in the "names" of the Father and Son, at a minimum. But he did not. Having all the same "name" puts Father, Son and Holy Spirit on par, on an equal plane with all which this connotes.

"Name" (Greek _Onoma_ ), "... as a noun, is used in general of the "name" by which a person or thing is called...." It also stands "for all that a "name" implies, of authority, character, rank, majesty, power, excellence, etc., of everything that a name covers" ( _Strong and Vine's_ , 178). The phrase "in the name" may represent the "authority of Christ"... or "in the power of"... or "in recognition of the authority of.... (MT 18:20; cf 28:19;..." (ibid.).

Under either scenario a Trinitarian formula is patently obvious. If the "name" into which believers are to be baptized is that by which a person or thing is called then Father, Son and Holy Spirit share the same name, that of God, and all three are called by God's name; three Persons in unity sharing the divine essence, yet distinct. It equates the three Persons, and ascribes to them essence, power and eternity equally.

The Jehovah's Witnesses reject the conventional application of "name" at Matthew 28:19 and argue that "name" does not mean a personal name at all, that "God" is not a name like Jehovah, but means "power or authority" ( _Should You Believe_ , Chapter 8). So, "'baptism in the name of the holy spirit recognizes the authority of the spirit, that it is from God and functions by divine will" (ibid.).

Actually, "I AM" can't be considered a name in the conventional English sense either, but that is what Jehovah said His name is. A name can have wide application, as Isaiah attests about Jesus, whose name is "God."

> And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God

Another weakness in their approach is that baptism under the Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation would be into three separate and unequal powers and authorities, with the Son possessing less than the Father because they believe Father and Son are not equal, since their Jesus is nothing more than a man, always inferior ( _Should You Believe_ , Chapter 7). This would conceivably require at least two separate baptisms but that would contravene Ephesians 4:5 which says that there is only "one baptism."

For the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Holy Spirit is only a power similar to electrical current flowing from God ( _Should You Believe_ , Chapter 8). But if that were the case, baptizing into the names of God and the Holy Spirit would be redundant, ascribing the same authority twice; it ascribes an authority and power of the Holy Spirit distinct from God, but that's not what Jesus meant.

> The expression "in the name of" (literally, 'into the name'), indicates a dedication or consecration to the one named. Thus Christian Baptism is a dedication or consecration to God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Since the Son and the Holy Spirit are mentioned here on a par with the Father, the passage clearly teaches that they are equally divine with the Father, who is obviously God _Catholic Encyclopedia_

"From the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek original, the intention of the hagiographer to communicate singleness of essence in three distinct Persons was easily derived" (ibid., 299).

> **b) 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 \-----------------------------------------------**

Likewise, 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 does not attempt to prove equality and unity simply by listing "Spirit," "Lord" and "God." Rather, the three are put on a par, thus indicating their divine nature, and consequently, their omnipotence, omniscience and eternal existence. In speaking of the spiritual gifts or charisms that are bestowed upon Christians, Paul says:

> There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit; there are different forms of service but the same Lord; there are different workings but the same God who produces all of them in everyone. (NAB)

This passage witnesses to the doctrine of the Trinity by ascribing the various charisms, viz, gifts, ministries, and workings, to the Spirit, the Lord (the Son), and God (the Father), respectively. Since all these charisms of their very nature demand a divine source, the three Persons are put on a par, thus clearly indicating their divine nature while at the same time maintaining the distinction of Persons ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_ , 306).

The Spirit is the donor in each instance and each gift contributes to the corporate life of the body of Christ, the Church. The one Spirit, Lord or God, is at work in the body; the embryonic Trinitarian formula is to be noted,...." (C.S.C. Williams, _Peake's Commentary on the Bible_ [London: Nelson and Sons, Ltd., 1964], 961) ( _Peake's Commentary_ )

> **c) 2 Corinthians 13:13 (14) \-----------------------------------------------**

2 Corinthians 13:13 (14) provides "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the charity (love) of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." "[This] is one of the clearest Trinitarian passages in the New Testament" (NAB notes 13, 11-13). What makes Paul's "use of these terms so significant is that they appear against a strictly monotheistic background" ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_ , 306).

> This blessing is perhaps a quotation from the early Christian liturgy. The grammatical usage in this blessing, especially the subjective genitives.... gives us a basis not only for the distinction of persons, but also for their equality in as much as all the benefits are to flow from the one Godhead." (ibid.)

2 Corinthians 13:13(14) "not only sums up the apostolic teaching, but it interprets the deeper meaning of the Trinity in Christian experience, the saving grace of the Son as that which gives access to the love of the Father and the communion of the Spirit" ( _New Bible Dictionary_ , 1299).

> **d) Romans 8:9-11-------------------------------------------------------------**

Romans 8:9-11 also makes a strong statement that the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ both dwell in the believer, and accordingly the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ since there is only one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4), an indwelling exemplified in a true Trinitarian fashion: God is in you, Christ is in you, and the Holy Spirit which proceeds from both (in the Latin Western tradition) is in you the true believer, all existing as one principle ultimately.

> But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if the Sprit of God really dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you. (Romans 9:8-11 RSV)

> Jehovah is the spirit. (2 Corinthians 3:17 NWT; "the Lord is the Spirit" RSV)

"[T]here are many other implicit references, for example at Jesus' baptism, where the Father speaks from the cloud and the Spirit descends as a dove upon the Son (Matthew 3.16-17). In Paul's letters there are many examples of Father, Son and Spirit being closely linked in their activity. [I]n Ephesians he speaks of 'one Spirit...one Lord... one God and Father' (4.4-6). In 2 Corinthians he speaks of God establishing us in Christ and giving us the Spirit as a first installment (1.21-2). He said to the Galatians that 'God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!' (4.6)" ( _Oxford_ , 1208).

# **20) Proof texts that Jesus was, and is, God**

Scriptural support for the triune nature of God, and the gradual recognition that Jesus Christ, the Word incarnate (John 1:1), was and is God, can be found throughout the Bible. The evidence is abundant and unfolds like a flower, foreshadowed in the Old Testament and revealed in the New Testament. The evidence is explicit and implicit as the following discussion of some of the many supporting scriptural verses illustrates.

**21) Phillip said to Jesus, "Show us the Father" - (John 14:8-10)**

One of Christ's most emphatic declarations that he was, and is, God, is found at John 14:8-10.

> Phillip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Phillip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me?"

Any claim by the Jehovah's Witnesses that Jesus thought of himself here as nothing more than a man is absurd. Of course, the Jehovah's Witnesses argue that Jesus could not have meant this because Jesus could be seen for God is an invisible spirit and no one has seen God at any time. Therefore Jesus could not be God. But again they fail to understand the two-fold nature of the divine person of Christ, the hypostatic union, and the indwelling of the Persons of the Trinity (see section 5). It is not the created humanity of Christ that is the Father. Jesus was referring to the divine person who assumed a human nature when He answered Phillip, and in this Person dwelt the fullness of the Godhead (Colossians 2:9).

> **22) Jesus Christ resurrected Himself - (John 2:19 - 22)**

Jesus made it clear that he would resurrect himself from the dead. Referring to his body Jesus said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," (John 2:19-22). Acts 2:32 appears to contradict Jesus. It provides, "This Jesus God raised up" (see also Galatians 1:1). To resolve this inconsistency the Jehovah's Witnesses argue that John 2:19-22 does not really mean that Jesus would raise himself up, even though it says so, but that "Jesus himself was responsible for his resurrection" ( _Reasoning_ , 423,424). They rely on Luke 8:43-48 where the ill woman with the flow of blood was healed not because she healed herself but because she exercised faith in Christ's power to heal (ibid., 423), and this exercise of faith made her responsible for the healing.

This analogy, however, is misplaced because John 10:17, 18 says that Christ's power to resurrect himself was a command (NAB) or charge (RS) given to Jesus from the Father. Yes, he was responsible for his resurrection as the obedient servant on a mission, but he also exercised a power granted to Him to raise Himself from the dead, a power and command which the ill woman of Luke 8:43-48 was not given, and who was not the product of a hypostatic union of God and woman.

> This is why the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again. This command I have received from my Father. (John 10:17, 18 NAB)

Jesus was not talking about some abstract "responsibility" for his resurrection as the Jehovah's Witnesses claim ( _Reasoning_ , 424). The language is unambiguous. He had the "power," and he exercised it.

Neither was Jesus claiming, as the Jehovah's Witnesses argue, that Jesus raised "himself from the dead independently of the Father as the active agent..." (ibid.) because it was not the dead created humanity of Christ - who was not God - who resurrected Jesus, but the divine second Person of the Trinity, God the Son who is fully God, and who never dies (Habakkuk 1:12 NWT). And it was He who was in a position to raise up the dead body of Christ. Recall that the three Persons of the Trinity never act independently of each other ( _New Bible Dictionary_ , 1299, 1300), so the act of the divine Jesus was the act of the Father. "All works of the triune God _ad extra_ are indivisibly one ( _Encyclopedia of Religion_ , 56).

This illustrates a fundamental flaw in the Jehovah's Witnesses' analytical process, their inability to reconcile two "apparently" conflicting concepts which do not conflict at all. Galatians 1:1 states that God raised up Jesus, but John 2:19-22 says that Jesus raised himself. Rather than reading both passages together, they discard one in favor of the other. Or ignore it. Or try to reason it away, or just change the Bible to accommodate their theology, but in so doing they violate their own often repeated admonition to read different verses pertaining to a particular topic together.

Looking at Scripture from their point of view, then, the Bible would be full of irreconcilable contradictions: both Jesus and God can't be Lord, but there is only one true Lord in the highest sense (Ephesians 4:5). Both Christ and God if separate entities can't be Savior granting eternal salvation, yet there is only one such Savior (Isaiah 43:11; Titus 1:4, 2:6). If Jesus is God and the Father is God and there can only be one God, there is no contradiction in the Trinitarian world, but not so with the Jehovah's Witnesses whose answer lies in reducing all of Jesus to the status of man and denying the divine unity, nothing more.

If Jesus is alone in "having immortality" (1 Timothy 6:16 Green's Literal Translation) it would mean, for the Jehovah's Witnesses, that the Almighty is not immortal, but we know that is not true (Isaiah 57:15). Similarly, all things were created and exist for God, but all things were created for Jesus as well (Colossians 1:16). And, Isaiah 44:24 states that God made all things, but at John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 it is the Word who made all things and all things were created through Him and for Him, to mention just a few of these examples.

And, if there is only one true God (John 17:3) and Jesus is the true God (1 John 5:20), is there really a conflict? Not if you believe in the triune God which supplies a very reasonable answer if you take the time to understand what the doctrine actually teaches. These apparently mutually exclusive concepts aren't exclusive at the expense of one or the other, but must be read together and combined which leads to only one conclusion - Jesus was, and is, God.

The Almighty would never inspire such blatant contradictions in His Bible, and He didn't. So if God raised up Jesus and the divine Person of Christ raised himself then Jesus must be God if one is to give weight and meaning to both passages within the Trinitarian context.

> **23) The heavenly resurrected Jesus is identified as Almighty God and the "First and the Last" because there can be only one "First and Last" and one "Alpha and Omega" and Jesus assumed both titles.**

In the Book of Revelation Jesus can be identified as the Almighty and the "Alpha and the Omega," titles used to identify God. Even if the Jehovah's Witnesses were correct in stating that Jesus is never specifically called the Almighty, which they claim is a title reserved for God ( _Reasoning_ , 414), that title can readily be ascribed to Jesus by logically piecing together selected verses.

For instance, both Jesus at Revelation 1:17, 18 and God as the Alpha and Omega at Revelation 22:13 are referred to as "the First and the Last." Therefore, because Jesus and the Almighty are both "the First and the Last," Jesus must be the Almighty who is the Alpha and Omega.

Also, the Alpha and the Omega (God) of Revelation 1:8 is identified as the Almighty, and because Jesus is also the Alpha and the Omega, Jesus is the Almighty, a title identifying Jehovah (Yahweh) at Genesis 17:1. Jesus was, and is, God. The logical train of thought is illustrated by quoting the actual verses.

> **a)**

> **b)**

> **c)**

> **d)**

> **e)**

This makes perfect sense in light of John 17:10 where Jesus in praying to His Father said, "everything of mine is yours, and everything of yours is mine." "Everything" is very broad. It includes His disciples, words (truth), the Holy Spirit, and all power and authority as indicated by Christ's statement at Matthew 28:18, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Christ claimed universal power (NAB notes 28, 19); He is omnipotent, all powerful, and accordingly Almighty and sovereign of which there can only be one in the Universe.

The Jehovah's Witnesses attempt to circumvent this logic by arguing that the mere fact that one title (First and Last) is applied to two separate individuals, Jesus and the Almighty, does not mean those individuals are the same person. By analogy they contend that the expression "apostle" is applied to Jesus and to certain ones of his followers, but that doesn't prove that they are the same person or of equal rank ( _Reasoning_ , 413).

Their analogy, however, is not applicable to this situation. The Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus is always secondary and inferior to God in everything at all times, in heaven and on earth, never first ( _Should You Believe_ , Chapter 6). Thus, even by their own admission, there is only one who can be "the First and the Last."

On the other hand, there have been many apostles, and if there are many such "First and Lasts" they might have a point, but there aren't, there's just one. The Jehovah's Witnesses' analogy just isn't valid. As there can only be one First and Last, and both Jesus and God are "the First and the Last," Jesus must be God and Christ rightfully refers to Himself indirectly as the Almighty in the Book of Revelation. You could say it was the culmination of His gradual disclosure.

To put it another way, if there is only one person on planet earth and his title is King and name is Sherman, and if there is a person on earth whose name is Fred who also is called King, then Fred must be Sherman the King in the same sense that Christ must be God because there is only one "First and Last" of the universe, one King.

Furthermore, both God and Jesus are said to be "coming," an obvious reference to the much anticipated Second Coming of Christ's return (Rev 1:7, 8; 22:12, 13).

It is simply not logical that in the Book of Revelation the "First and Last" is a title reserved for the Almighty, the Alpha and Omega, but is also applied to a created angel who became man and reverted back to being an angel, who is always regarded by the Jehovah's Witnesses as secondary to God in everything, a created being, always inferior. Their theory just doesn't make sense.

> **24) The Father and I are one - (John 10: 27-30)**

This verse is often cited in support of the divinity of Christ, that Jesus was, and is, God. They are not two, but one. The Jehovah's Witnesses continue to argue that it only means they are one in purpose, nothing more. They reason that at John 17:21, 22:

> Jesus prayed regarding his followers: "That they may all be one, and he added, "that they may be one even as we are one." He used the same Greek word ( _hen_ _Reasoning_

Actually, they do.

First, His followers becoming collectively "one" is meant in the spiritual sense, similar to a husband and wife becoming one flesh (or a man and a prostitute), that is, one spirit, not two. "... Do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body? For "The two," says he, "will be one flesh. But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Corinthians 6:16, 17).

Secondly, the glorified believer eventually does become folded into the Trinity, which is the only means by which he or she can attain heavenly immortality. Jurgen Moltmann (1926 - ) explains it this way:

> The unity of God is the communion of persons. The missions of the Son and the Spirit have brought creation within the Trinitarian process. At the end of time, all will be folded into the Trinity. The history of salvation is the story of the inclusion of creation into the perichoretic relationship (mutual indwelling) of the persons of the Trinity _Oxford_

> [T]he monarchy of the Father is perceived in the Trinity because everything in the history of salvation comes from him and strives towards him. To throw open the circulatory movement of the divine light and the divine relationships, and to take men and women, with the whole of creation, into the life-stream of the triune God: that is the meaning of creation, reconciliation and glorification _Trinity and the Kingdom_

> **25) There is only one Savior who grants eternal salvation, and both the divine Person of Christ and God are that Savior.**

God states at Isaiah 43:11 that "Besides me there is no savior." Yet Jesus is also called our Savior at Titus 1:4, and again at Titus 3:6. Read together it is reasonable to conclude that since Jesus is a Christian's savior, yet there is no savior besides God, then Jesus must be God. The Jehovah's Witnesses counter that just because a judge in Israel by the name of Othniel is also called savior (or deliverer) (Judges 3:9) that similarity does not make Othniel Jehovah ( _Reasoning_ , 413).

Well, of course it doesn't, but the Jehovah's Witnesses are making the same mistake by failing to ask "What kind of savior?" The unique savior of Isaiah 43:11 and Titus 1:4, 3:6 is a savior on a much grander scale, on an altogether higher spiritual and religious plane; a Savior who saves in supernatural ways unknown to men, who knows and predicts future events, (Isaiah 43:9), an only savior (Acts 4:10, 12) whose salvation is complete (Colossians 2:10), powerful (Jude 24, 25), authoritative (John 10:18) and universal (1 Timothy 4:10). This one-of-a-kind savior saves from wrath (Romans 5:9), sin (John 1:29) and death through the gift of eternal life (John 11:25, 26). Any parallels with Othniel are seriously misplaced. There is only one kind of "savior" at issue here, not secular saviors, deliverers, kings or judges who have made their mark on history.

The Jehovah's Witnesses counter with Jude 25 and reason that God is a savior only through Jesus Christ ( _Reasoning_ , 413). Jude 25, however, is a doxology, a hymn or words of praise directed to God the savior through Jesus Christ:

>... to the only wise God, our Savior, be glory and majesty and might and authority, even now and forever, Amen. (Jude 25 Green's Literal Translation)

Jude is not saying that God is our only savior through Jesus as though he were some hollow tube. Christ offered up His life out of His own volition and he saves directly by Him, by His shed blood. Interestingly, a literal translation of Jude 25 makes no mention of Christ at all which lends credence to the argument that Jude 25 is a doxology directing praise to God, not a statement on Christ's role as savior, as some type of conduit. Acts 4:12 makes it very clear that "...there is salvation **in** no one else... (RSV, Green's Literal Translation, NKJV)," in Christ. Salvation **in** Christ and **through** Christ are not mutually exclusive terms.

> **26) Jesus is "master" and absolute ruler - (Despotes); a separate Christ and a separate God cannot both exercise this role - (2 Peter 2:1; Jude 4)**

That Christ is Almighty is also made evident by Peter and Jude's reference to Jesus as "master" or _despotes_ , a Greek word meaning an absolute ruler, lord or owner. "Such master exercises an unrestricted power and domination, with no limitations or restraints" ( _Strong and Vine's_ , 64). Revelation 5:9 clarifies that the master ( _despotes_ ) is Jesus.

> But false prophets were also among the people, as also false teachers will be among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, and denying the Master ( _despotes_ bought ()

> And they sing a new song, saying, worthy are You to receive the scroll, and to open its seals, because you were slain, and by your blood purchased ()

> For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master ( _despotes_

The inspired writer of Jude 4 condemns certain false teachers for denying "our only master ( _despotes_ ) and Lord, Jesus Christ" (NAB, RSV), as did Peter at 2 Peter 2:1 who refers to Christ as "the master ( _despotes_ ) who bought (Greek gragorazo, NAB "ransomed") them.

The word "master" ( _despotes_ ) is also used of God at Luke 2:29, Acts 4:24 and Revelation 6:10 ( _Insight_ , 1008), who is the Almighty sovereign of the universe (Genesis 17:1; Exodus 6:3). Referring to both Jesus and God as master ( _despotes_ ) creates a dilemma for the Jehovah's Witnesses who regard Jesus as less than all powerful, less than Almighty, a creature created by God exercising limited authority. But this false rendering ignores the clear intent of Peter and Jude's designation and the unequivocal statement of Jesus himself who said that "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matthew 28:18). Jesus, as _despotes_ , is accordingly all powerful, Almighty and sovereign, and as there can be only one such Master, namely God, then Christ must be God. Remember, Jesus is "upholding the universe by his word of power" (Hebrews 1:3 RSV).

> So while the Hebrew and Greek texts do not have a separate qualifying word for "sovereign _Adhonai_ _despotes_

But whereas the Jehovah's Witnesses would apply _despotes_ only to Jehovah God, it is quite obvious it is applied to Christ as well.

> **27) The eternal Christ was not created - (Isaiah 9:6)**

In addition to Jesus Christ's omnipotence, he is and always has been eternal, a Scriptural truth strongly denied by the Jehovah's Witnesses who teach, incorrectly, that Jesus is a created being granted immortality only after his resurrection. But even Isaiah 9:6 in the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation disproves that theory where Christ is referred to as "Eternal Father."

> For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be on his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father

The preexistent Christ's eternal nature is not the result of a forward-looking grant of immortality as the Jehovah's Witnesses teach, but is a condition that has always been because "He is before all things" (Colossians 1:17), and he created all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). There are only two options: He was created or He is eternal, but since He was before all things and created all things, He must be eternal.

To counter this, Colossians 1:15-17 in the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation (NWT) inserts the word [other] four times so that it reads:

> 15 He is the image of the invisible God **[other** **[other]** **[other]** **[other]**

The Jehovah's Witnesses' insertion of the word [other] does not change the clear language and meaning of Paul's discourse. They reason:

> (3) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to _pan'ta_ _all other things_ _All other things_ _Reasoning_

Such an arbitrary addition is based on a distorted reading of Luke 13:2 and the supposed over-all "context" of their Bible. They justify inserting "other" in four places here because the overall context of the Bible, in their opinion, requires it, and because some other Bibles insert "other" into Luke 13:2 where it had not existed before ( _Reasoning_ 408, 409). Luke 13:2 provides:

> At that very season there were certain ones present that reported to him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. So in reply he said to them: "Do you image that these Galileans were proved worse sinners than all other Galileans because they have suffered these things? No, indeed, I tell you; but, unless you repent, you will all likewise be destroyed." (NWT)

"The death of the Galileans at the hands of Pilate" were "timely reminders of the need for all to repent, for the victims of these tragedies should not be considered outstanding sinners who were singled out for punishment" (NAB notes 13, 1-5).

Equating Luke 13:1-3 with Colossians 1:15-17 is improper because inserting "other" into Luke 13:2 was not necessary and did not change the nature or status of the Galileans referred to. In the English language "other" might have helped clarify the object of the sentence but it could have been omitted. Leaving verse 2 as it was would still convey the same meaning - that of all Galileans, those killed by Pilate were not particularly worse sinners. Adding "other" here does not convert the Galileans into something entirely different; it does not turn them into Martians.

Inserting "other" into Colossians 1:15-17, on the other hand, fundamentally alters the object of those verses, Christ the Word, by downgrading Him from eternal God the Son to that of a creature; from God to not-god. Nothing could be more radical, theologically speaking, or heretical.

Furthermore, such unsubstantiated alteration of Scripture violates the context of verse 15, Hebrews 1:3, Philippians 2:6 and 2 Corinthians 4:4. Hebrews 1:3 states that Christ is "the express image of His essence (Green's Literal Translation). Here, image (Greek _charaktar_ ) denotes that the Son is "literally equal to" God, "of whose essence He is the imprint. It is the fact of complete similarity which this word stresses" ( _Strong and Vines_ , 269).

Philippians 2:6 says that the Word existed in the form (Greek _morphe_ ) of God prior to His incarnation. Here, form ( _morphe_ ) means nature or essence, but not in the abstract, subsisting in the individual ( _Strong and Vine's_ , 167). "It includes the whole nature and essence of deity" (ibid.). And at 2 Corinthians 4:4, the "image of God" means that Christ is "essentially and absolutely the perfect expression of the Archtype, God the Father" ( _Strong and Vine's_ , 77).

> [I]n Colossians 1:15, "the image of the invisible God "gives the additional thought suggested by the word "invisible," that Christ is the visible representation and manifestation of God to created beings; (5c) the likeness expressed in this manifestation is involved in the essential relations in the Godhead and is therefore unique and perfect; "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father," John 14:9. (ibid., 77)

As such, Luke 13:2 cannot serve as justification for altering the very nature and identity of Christ. Inserting "other" into Colossians 1:16, 17 in order to convert Christ to nothing more than a man or a created angel would obliterate all parallel contextual verses which show that the Word Christ was and is the exact imprint of deity, a perfect match, an exact equivalent with the divine essence. Inserting "other" would result in a "created" Christ being something far less than what He truly is.

When determining what context within which to assess the nature and identity of Christ it is best to start at the beginning and move forward in time, to reach back as far as possible. And in the beginning there was the Word (John 1:1) and the Word was before all things (Colossians 1:17) and all things were created by Him and through Him and for Him (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). This is the proper context within which to begin to analyze subsequent Scripture. You don't end here.

By now it should be evident that the Jehovah's Witnesses don't conform to context, they create it.

It is understandable why the Jehovah's Witnesses altered the Bible to accommodate their idea of what they wish it said. Had the preexistent Word been a created being he could not have been "before all things," nor could He have "created all things" (Colossians 1:16, 17) which would by necessity have included himself. But, since the Bible says that the Word was "before all things" and "without Him nothing came to be" (John 1:3) Christ the Word cannot have been created. It is absolutely impossible... unless you change the Bible.

Lastly, as expounded on in section 19(A) the baptismal formula at Matthew 28:19 reflects in one sentence the Trinitarian doctrine of three Persons as one by virtue of the singular "name" into which Christian believers are to be baptized. By means of logical deduction Christ must be eternal in accordance with the baptismal formula.

For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses would have Christians baptized under three distinct and separate authorities which is scripturally unfounded. If they were right, and the Son is separate from the Father, the Holy Spirit must also be separate from the Father, but that in turn would imply that the Father was without His electrical current or authority and He is not all powerful. If, on the other hand, the Holy Spirit is inseparable from the Father then neither can the Son be separate from the Father because Christ is the Spirit.

To illustrate further, Paul taught at Romans 8:9-11 that the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ and 2 Corinthians 3:17 teaches that Jehovah God (or the Lord) is the Spirit (NWT; "the Lord is the Spirit" RSV). And, it is this Spirit, the Holy Spirit, that dwells within the Christian believer. Thus, there are not two separate Spirits that reside within, God's and Christ's, but one Spirit, according to Ephesians 4:4.

> There is one body and one Spirit

> But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if the Sprit of God really dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you

> Jehovah is the spirit. (2 Corinthians 3:17 NWT; "the Lord is the Spirit" RSV)

However, if, as the Jehovah's Witnesses falsely teach, the preexistent Christ is a created creature only, then the Holy Spirit must also have been created and accordingly there would have been a time when there was no Holy Spirit and therefore God would have lacked power and authority and would not have been omnipotent, according to their theory. But, since the Holy Spirit is eternal, which the Jehovah's Witnesses must concede, and the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ, and this Spirit is the Holy Spirit, Christ the Word must be eternal.

Not surprisingly, the Jehovah's Witnesses changed Romans 8:10 by inserting the word "union," so that Christ is not in the believer, but only in union with the believer, writing: "But if Christ is in union with you, the body indeed is dead on account of sin..." NWT).

> **28) "Let us make man in our image" was not directed to Jesus the created master craftsman working beside the Creator, but was self-communication within the triune God - (Genesis 1:26)**

The Jehovah's Witnesses argue that Genesis 1:26 where God said "Let us make man in our image" proves that God was not alone in the beginning but had the Word by his side, a master craftsman, the created pre-human Jesus through whom all things exist. They believe it cannot refer to the Word as the Second Person of the Trinity because people cannot inhabit each other, cannot indwell in each other as the Trinity doctrine teaches ( _Should You Believe_ , Chapter 6).

However, they overlook Isaiah 44:24 where God states that in the beginning there was no one else, no other individual. It was God alone who made all things.

> Thus, says the Lord, your redeemer,  
>   
>   
>   
>   
>

God could not say this if a separate created pre-incarnate Jesus master craftsman was by his side doing the work, creating the heavens and earth, but he could do this as an Almighty triune God subsisting in three distinct self-communicating Persons. John 1:3 makes far more sense in a Trinitarian context where the Word created all things. That a triune God alone (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) created man is emphasized by Genesis 1:27: "So God created man in his own image," a poignant reference to the unity of the Persons when read in conjunction with Genesis 1:26. And to reiterate, because the preexistent Christ the Word is "before all things" (Colossians 1:17) He could not be a created being standing beside God creating Himself as the Jehovah's Witnesses teach.

Furthermore, God also stated "Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me" (Isaiah 43:10), which completely disproves the Jehovah's Witnesses' version of John 1:1, i.e., that "The Word was a god" created after God was formed. And, because Isaiah 43:11 continues "I, I am Jehovah; and there is no Savior besides me" the only reasonable conclusion, in light of all other supporting Scripture noted above, is that Jesus was, and is, God.

> **29) The fullness of the Godhead dwells inseparably in Jesus - (Colossians 2:9); He is the very imprint of God's being - (Hebrews 1:3)**

Colossians 2:9 is convincing evidence of the divinity of Christ. It states of Christ that "in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Green's Literal Translation). The Greek word for "Godhead" is _theotes_ and means divinity. It "stresses deity, the state of being God ( _Strong and Vine's_ , 115). It is to be distinguished from theiotes which refers to the attributes of God, his divine nature and properties and it is this definition which the Jehovah's Witnesses incorrectly attach to Col 2:9 when they claim that the Godhead there merely refers to His "divine qualities" ( _Reasoning_ , 420). This is manifestly incorrect according to _Strong and Vine's_ , and what the Jehovah's Witnesses are actually doing is swapping _theiotes_ for _theotes_. Regarding the Godhead ( _theotes_ ) at Colossians 2:9:

> In Col 2:9, Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fullness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of divine glory which gilded him, lighting up His Person for a season and with a splendor not His own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the apostle uses theotes to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son. Theotes indicates the divine essence of Godhood, the personality of God; ( _Strong and Vines_ _Theotes_

> ( _Theiotes_ _Strong and Vine's_

The Jehovah's Witnesses argue that "[b]eing truly "divinity," or of "divine nature," does not make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father, any more than humans are coequal or all the same age just because they share humanity or human nature" (Reasoning, 421). But that is not necessarily true. If all persons share humanity it does make them all human, and they are all equally "human." One person is not more or less human than another. So, if the inevitability of death is one aspect of humanity, then all humans die, all are mortal; they are equal in that regard. Similarly, if divinity inherently includes an eternal nature, and Jesus and God are divine, of the same essence (consubstantial), then both are eternal.

Actually, the Jehovah's Witnesses' comparison of Jesus with all humans who share humanity is another flawed analogy because Jesus doesn't share God at all like humans have a share in humanity. Jesus is fully God, and not somehow made God by virtue of the hypostatic union.

At Hebrews 1:3 Christ is said to be "the very imprint of His (God's) being" (NAB) ("the very stamp of his nature" (RS) ("the express image of His substance" ( _Strong and Vine's_ , 269). The Greek word used here for image, stamp or imprint is _charaktar_ and means an exact copy or representation, and stresses complete, not partial, similarity of essence.

> (2) In the NT it is used metaphorically in Heb 1:3, of the Son of God as "the express image of His substance." The phrase expresses the fact that the Son "is both personally distinct from, and yet literally equal to, Him of whose essence He is the imprint. The Son of God is not merely his "image" (His character), He is the "image" or impress of His substance, or essence. It is the fact of complete similarity which this word stresses. ( _Strong and Vine's_

Accordingly, such equality applies to His eternal existence, omnipotence and omniscient nature, as God and the Word are literally equal to each other with respect to their essential being.

> **30) Prior to His incarnation Christ subsisted in the form (** _morphe_ **) of God - (Philippians 2:6)**

Philippians 2:6 is considered strong evidence that the Word was God. Verses 1-11 clarify that it is a plea for unity and humility, with Christ Jesus' "humbling of self and obedience to the point of death" as the exemplary attitude true believers should emulate (NAB notes 2,1-11).

> Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus,  
> in the form of God,  
>  did not regard equality with God  
>  something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself,  
>   
>

The Jehovah's Witnesses argue that these verses are not grounds for equating the Word with God, and focus their analysis on the latter part of verse 6 which reads "...who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped (NAB; "gave no consideration for a seizure" NWT; "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" NKJV). They teach that "robbery" (Greek _harpagmos_ ) does not convey the idea of holding in possession or retention in the sense of holding on to equality, but that it means to seize or snatch violently ( _Reasoning_ , 420). Therefore, Christ was not holding on, or trying to hold on, to equality with God but thought it as something that could not or should not be attained or grasped or reached for, being only a man.

_Strong and Vine's_ disagrees with their assessment and applies "robbery" ( _harpagmos_ ) in a different way that comports more with the context of the entire sentence and accompanying verses. "At Philippians 2:6 "robbery" ( _harpagmos_ ), "as a verb, means "to seize, carry off by force" ( _Strong and Vine's_ , 42). "The middle/passive sense gives meaning to the passage as the purpose of the passage is to set forth Christ as the supreme example to the Philippians (and us) of humility and self-renunciation: "Who though He was subsisting in the essential form of God, yet did not regard His being on an equality of glory and majesty with God as a prize and a treasure to be held fast, he would not feel as if He had been robbed to give up His shared glory" (ibid., 42). _Strong and Vine's_ application of "robbery" ( _harpagmos_ ) is diametrically opposed to the Jehovah's Witnesses' use of that same term.

In all fairness to the Jehovah's Witnesses it should be noted that there are at least two views on the matter, one of which agrees with the Jehovah's Witnesses. With reference to Philippians 2:6 the _Catholic New American Bible_ (NAB) states that it is:

> Either a reference to Christ's preexistence and those aspects of divinity that he was willing to give up in order to serve in human form, or to what the man Jesus refused to grasp at to attain divinity. Many see an allusion to the Genesis story: unlike Adam, Jesus, though... in the form of God (Gn 1, 26-27), did not reach out for equality with God, in contrast with the first Adam in Gn 3, 5-6.

So, equality with God is something Christ was willing to relinquish, or as the Jehovah's Witnesses interpret verse 6, Christ gave no consideration to seizing or grasping for equality with God.

The Jehovah's Witnesses, however, have utterly missed the point again by focusing on the wrong issue. Equality within the immanent Godhead is not established by the Word relinquishing it prior to His incarnation or grasping for it as a man after He became incarnate. Even though the latter part of verse 6 assumes His equality one way or the other, the first part establishes that assumed equality because the Word existed in the "form" of God. Focusing on "robbery" or "seizure" or "grasping" in order to determine the Word's equality with God detracts from the primary issue of Christ's subsisting in God's "form" ( _morphe_ ).

That His existing in God's form equates Him with God is only emphasized by His stated "equality" (verse 6) regardless of whether it could be retained by God the Son or grasped for by the created humanity of Jesus.

"Form" (Greek _morphe_ ) denotes "the special or characteristic form or feature" of a person or thing;... it is used with particular significance in the NT only of Christ... in Phil 2:6, "being in the form of God," and... 2:7 "taking the form of a servant" ( _Strong and Vine's_ , 167).

> An excellent definition of the word is: _morphe_ nature or essence _morphe Theou_ Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the person of Christit includes the whole nature and essence of Deity, and is inseparable from them, since they could have no actual existence without it

> (4) The true meaning of _morphe_ _Strong and Vine's_

In other words, if the Word existed in the form of a servant He was that servant, and if the Word existed in the form of God He was that God. This complete similarity, the consubstantial existence, includes of necessity the divine person Christ's eternal existence and all other relevant characteristics of the immanent triune God - the "fullness" of the Godhead. Had the Word been created, the imprint or stamp (Hebrews 1:3) would have been far less than "complete," or "whole."

The Jehovah's Witnesses want you to believe that Jesus was not God because he did not consider seizing or acquiring equality with God, which would mean he was just a man, and therefore He could not be God. But at the expense of repetition, Trinitarians hold that the created humanity of Jesus is not God, and accordingly His grasping for equality has no bearing on whether God the Son, the preexistent Word, was divine, which is the primary issue. Conversely, if "robbery" or "seizure" or "grasping" refers to Christ hanging on to equality Christ would have to be equal because it says he was equal and because He was in the form of God. As such, the created Jesus' thoughts and actions would have been immaterial in proving or disproving His preexistent equality. Philippians 2:6 means in part:

> Christ possessed equality with God prior to His incarnation, and then for a time veiled that glory, being always God in all of the co-equal attributes, but in the incarnation never using His Godly powers to better Himself. He was fully God, fully man, God taking on the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3), not a man adding Godliness. ( _Strong and Vine's_

> **31) The Word, Christ, was the firstborn of all creation, but not in the sense of being created - (Colossians 1:15)**

The Jehovah's Witnesses erroneously teach that "Having been created by God, Jesus is in a secondary position in time, power, and knowledge. Jesus, in his pre-human existence, was "the first-born of all creation (Col 1:15 NJB)" ( _Should You Believe_ , Chapter 6), the first created thing.

They apply "first-born" (Greek _protokos_ ) narrowly and limit it to human procreation. Like a man fathering a son, Jesus, they claim, was the first creature born, or fathered, by God; a created subordinate being and therefore not eternal.

The Jehovah's Witnesses base this argument on prior usage of the phrase "first-born (of)" in the context of then-living creatures which they claim always belonged to a group of some kind, and therefore Jesus belonged to the group of all created things. They write:

> (2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression "the firstborn of" occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures _Reasoning_

The manner in which they phrase the issue assumes Christ the Word is a creature, writing: each time the expression "first born of" occurs, in each such instance that it is applied to creatures the same meaning applies, that the first born is part of a group." But this is a mere play on words and begs the question whether Christ was a creature in the first place? The issue, rather, revolves around the definition of "first born" or "first born of" creation and how that is applied before its use at Colossians 1:15 and afterward, whether or not it was applied to creatures.

> "First born of" is not limited to a group of creatures but is used in the Old Testament figuratively for disease or plague (NAB notes Job 18:13). The "first-born of death consumes his limbs" (NAB Job 18:13).

Isaiah 14:30 illustrates the figurative use of "the firstborn of." It states: "And the firstborn of the poor shall eat; and the needy shall lie down in safety" (Green's Literal Translation). These verses emphasize the poorest of the poor. It does not state, nor can it be implied, that only those people who were the procreative firstborn of each family who happened to be poor would eat, and their poor siblings would starve. It does not carve out one group of first-born poor from the rest of the poor, but it identifies those hungering poor in general, the neediest of the needy.

The term "first-born" (son) (Hebrew _bkowr_ ) was used at Exodus 4:22 to refer to all of Israel as a group, not part of a group, and that relationship was not the result of physical procreation because they already existed. Rather, it was a spiritual and religious relationship; Israel was God's Son.

> (7) Israel was God's "first-born"; it enjoyed a privileged position and blessings over all other nations (Ex 4:22; Jer 31:19). ( _Strong and Vine's_

At Deuteronomy 21:16, 17 "first-born" (Hebrew _bkowr_ ) also has the meaning of superiority of position, not the first created male child.

> [T]hen on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the first-born in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the first-born, but he shall acknowledge the first-born, the son of the disliked, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the first issue of his strength; the right of the first-born is his.

Here, the son of one wife who is not the mother of the actual first-born son should not be treated as such with respect to disposition of her husband's inheritance (ibid.).

As you can see, "first-born" or "first-born of" is not limited to a member of a group of creatures but has broad application. According to _Strong and Vine's_ , "firstborn" (Greek _protokos_ ) with reference to the preexistent Christ is used "of His relationship to the Father, expressing His priority to, and preeminence over, creation, not in the sense of being the first to be born. It is used of superiority of position (cf. Ex 4:22; Deut 21:16, 17)" (ibid., 218).

> ( _Prototokos_ of His relationship to the Father, expressing His priority to, and preeminence over, creation, not in the sense of being the first to be born. It is used of superiority of positionHe was the firstborn before all creation and that He Himself produced creation _Strong and Vine's_

As such, the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong in their interpretation of "first-born" at Colossians 1:15, 16, and Trinitarian Christians are correct in saying "that the 'first-born' here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished. Thus, Christ could be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those whom he created," ( _Reasoning_ , 408). This is particularly true in light of the unequivocal language of Colossians 1:17 which says "He is before all things" (RSV).

> **32) The Word was "begotten," but not made, not created - (John 1:14)**

In a similar vein, the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus was "begotten" in the sense that he was created or born, which is not a Christian Trinitarian teaching. The Jehovah's Witnesses write:

> Trinitarians claim that in the case of Jesus, "only-begotten" is not the same as the dictionary definition of "begetting," which is to "procreate as the father." ( _Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary_ _Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words_

> Furthermore, why does the Bible use the very same Greek word for "only-begotten" (as Vine admits without any explanation) to describe the relationship of Isaac to Abraham? Hebrews 11:17 speaks of Isaac as Abraham's "only-begotten son." There can be no question that in Isaac's case, he was only-begotten in the normal sense, not equal in time or position to his father. ( _Should You Believe_

Actually, _Strong and Vine's_ does in fact explain why the very same Greek word for "only-begotten" ( _monogeneses_ ) is used to describe the relationship of Isaac to Abraham, and how "only-begotten" is used with respect to Isaac at Hebrews 11:17 as subsequently explained.

One major weakness in the Jehovah's Witnesses' argument lies in the fact that Isaac was not an only-begotten son in the natural procreative sense since Abraham actually had another son, Ishmael, (and others after Ishmael) who was born before Isaac (Genesis 16:15), so the Jehovah's Witnesses' reliance on that verse is unfounded. Because Abraham had no less than two sons, "only-begotten" cannot be applied to Isaac as an "only-begotten son," in the procreative sense because he wasn't. It applied to him in a religious, legalistic and figurative connotation as he was the only legitimate son; it refers to a non-biological relationship just as Trinitarians teach with respect to the Word.

It's the same with the preexistent Christ where "only-begotten" lays stress on characteristics of Christ's relationship. The phrase "the only-begotten of (from) the Father," (John 1:14) indicates that as the Son of God He was the sole representative of the Being and character of the One who sent Him," compared to the original traditional rendering where the definite article is omitted ( _Strong and Vine's_ , 67). _Strong and Vine's_ speaks of a unique relationship and stresses that "begotten" does not imply a beginning of Sonship nor generation as applied to offspring like Isaac, or that Christ became the only begotten son by incarnation.

> _Monogeneses_

> (4) With reference to Christ, the phrase "the only begotten of (from) the Father," Jn 1:14, indicates that as the Son of God He was the sole representative of the Being and character of the One who sent Him. (4a) In the original the definite article is omitted both before "only begotten" and before "Father," and its absence in each case serves to lay stress upon the characteristics referred to in the terms used.

> (4b) The apostle's object is to demonstrate what sort of glory it was that he and his fellow apostles had seen. (4c) That he is not merely making a comparison with earthly relationships is indicated by _para_ The glory was that of a unique relationship and the word "begotten" does not imply a beginning of His Sonship.It suggests relationship indeed, but must be distinguished from generation as applied to man

> (5) We can only rightly understand the term "the only begotten" when used of the Son, in the sense of un-originated relationshipThe Christ did not become, but necessarily and eternally is the Son. He, a Person, possesses every attribute of pure Godhood. (5c) This necessitates eternity, absolute being; in this respect He is not 'after' the Father;

> (8) In Jn 3:16 the statement, "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son" must not be taken to mean that Christ became the only begotten son by incarnation. (8a) The value and greatness of the gift lay in the Sonship of Him who was given. (8b) His Sonship was not the effect of His being given. ( _Strong and Vine's_

Hebrews 1:5 also argues against the Jehovah's Witnesses' "procreation definition" because "begotten" is used with reference to the enthronement of the existing Christ; an Old Testament parallel to Psalm 2:6-8.

Lastly, even an English definition of "beget" as applied to Christ means to bring into a special relationship, and not by procreation.

> Beget in English means to bring into a special relationship  
>   
>  **33) The Messiah of the Old Testament stems from eternity - (Micah 5:2; Proverbs 8:22)**

The Messiah is described at Micah 5:2 as being from eternity (Hebrew olam), hence without beginning. _Green's Literal Translation_ of Micah 5:2 states:

> And you, Bethlehem Ephratah, being least among the thousands of Judah, out of you he shall come forth to Me, to become ruler in Israel; and His goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity.

" _Olam_ " means "eternity; remotest time; perpetuity, i.e., the vanishing point; gen, time out of mind (past or future), always, ever, everlasting, perpetual" ( _Strong and Vine's_ , 205).

Reference to Christ's prior eternal existence is also found at Proverbs 8:22 where many commentators equate Wisdom with Christ.

> Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of His way, from then, before His works I was set up from everlasting _olam_

"Wisdom is of divine origin. It is here represented as a being which existed before all things (22-26) and concurred with God when he planned and executed the creation of the universe,..." (NAB notes 8,22-31).

The Jehovah's Witnesses' _New World Translation_ , and a few other Bibles, translate "possessed" as "created," implying that Christ (Wisdom) had a beginning. But this misinterpretation ignores the middle of the sentence which states that Wisdom existed from everlasting ( _olam_ ), that is, eternity. Christ (if indeed Wisdom) is eternal, from the beginning, of eternity, before God's work, not as the first product of God's works, just as Paul says at Col 1:17: "He is before all things." He was not created but rather "set up" or "poured out" (Hebrew _Nacak_ ) as one pours out an existing libation, or casts existing metal or anoints an existing king ( _Strong and Vine's_ , 188).

The Jehovah's Witnesses attempt to minimize these verses with Revelation 3:14 which they interpret to mean that Christ was the "beginning" (Greek _arkhe_ ) of all creation, the first thing created.

> And to the angel of the congregation in Laodicea write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God,... (NWT)

Trinitarians believe _arkhe_ is properly interpreted as "source" or "active cause," that the Word is the source of all creation.

Here, the Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation relies to a great extent on the fact that "Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon lists "beginning" as its first meaning of _arkhe_ ( _Oxford_ , 1968, p. 252) ( _Reasoning_ , 409). Be that as it may, whereas " _arkhe_ " can mean "a beginning" it also can mean "source" (NAB) or "active cause" ( _Strong and Vine's_ , 43). This harmonizes with John 1:3, that all things were created by Christ ("and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being" (Green's Literal Translation). As he could not have created Himself, and existed before He would have been created, He must be the source by and through which all things were created as the eternal Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

Because the Word was before all things (Colossians 1:17) and he created all things (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16), it excludes His being created. He is the source of all creation, the active force.

> **34) The Almighty says of Jesus "Your throne, Oh God, is forever and ever" - (Hebrews 1:8, 9)**

In accordance with the vast majority of translations, the inspired writer of Hebrews 1:8, 9 specifically referred to the Son as God. Chapter 1 is devoted to distinguishing Christ from angels and identifying Him as God the Son which should leave no doubt that Christ is not an angel as the Jehovah's Witnesses preach.

> [B]ut as to the Son, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever

According to the _Catholic New American Bible_ "[T]he application of the name "God" to the Son derives from the preexistence mentioned in vv 2-3;..." (NAB notes 1:8-12).

>...in these last days, he spoke to us through a Son,  
>   
>   
>   
> imprint of his being  
>

> When he had accomplished purification from sins,  
>

First, at verse 3 a literal translation says that Christ is "the express image of His essence" (Green's Literal Translation; "imprint of His being" NAB). Here, "image" (Greek _charaktar_ ) denotes that the Son is "literally equal to God," of whose essence he is the imprint. It is the fact of complete similarity which this Word stresses" ( _Strong and Vine's_ , 269). Clearly, Christ could not have been created and most certainly was not an angel because either way He would not be literally equal to God, but much less.

Secondly, verse 13 quotes Psalm 110:1 where Jehovah God is said to refer to Christ as _Adonai_ ( _adonay_ ) (Hebrew for Lord) which is a title used exclusively for God ( _Strong and Vine's_ , 6) , an interpretation even the Jehovah's Witnesses concede ( _Insight_ , 1008). Hebrews 1:13 reads:

> But to which of the angels did He ever say,  
>   
>   
>

This is a direct quote of Psalm 110:1, a psalm of David, which reads:

> A statement of Jehovah to my Lord ( _adonai_  
>   
>

_Adonai_ is identified with Interlinear Number 136 which cross-references to _Strong and Vine's_ entry for " _adonai_ ," at page 6.

Not only is the Son not an angel, but this supports the interpretation of verse 8 which refers to the Son as God.

Third, it is important to note that verses 10-12 also play a significant role in the interpretation of Hebrews 1:8 because that is an Old Testament passage directed to God Almighty but "redirected to Jesus" (NAB notes 1, 8-12). Of the Son, He said:

> And, "You, Lord, at the beginning founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands. They will vanish away; but You will continue; and they will all become old like a garment, and You shall fold them up like a covering, and they shall be changed. But You are the same and Your years shall not fail." (Hebrews 1:10-12 Green's Literal Translation)

Fourth, Hebrews 1:8 is an Old Testament quote from Psalm 45:6,7 (7,8) which also says in part "Your throne, O god..." (NAB). Psalm 45 is a royal wedding song. Here, "god" refers to "the king" who "in courtly language is called "god," i.e., more than human, representing God to the people. Heb 1,8-9 applies 7-8 to Christ" (NAB notes Psalm 45:7).

Since they deny that Jesus is God, the Jehovah's Witnesses invert Hebrews 1:8 and Psalm 45:6 (7) to read "God is thy throne." They justify this in part by quoting B.F. Wescott who in 1889 wrote regarding Psalm 45:6 that "It is scarcely possible that [Elohim] (god) in the original can be addressed to the king" ( _Reasoning_ , 422). Therefore, if _elohim_ (god) cannot refer to the secular king, then a traditional rendering "Thy throne, Oh god" in Psalm 45:6 or "Thy throne, Oh God" in Heb 1:8 is not possible.

Their expert's reasoning, however, contradicts the Jehovah's Witnesses' own statement in the previous paragraph where they state "Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel" ( _Reasoning_ , 422). Such an obvious contradiction is perplexing, especially in light of the official definition of _elohim_ which actually did apply to secular kings and magistrates in the Old Testament, i.e.,

>... rulers; judges, either as divine, representatives, at sacred places or as reflecting divine majesty and power, divine ones, superhuman beings including God and angels." ( _Strong and Vine's_

A simple reading makes it quite obvious that Psalm 45 did in fact apply to a secular king, possibly Solomon. Psalm 45:6 also applied to Christ; it has a dual application as seen by reference to the throne lasting forever and ever. This cannot be said about that earthly Jewish king's Old Testament throne at Psalm 45:6, but can be said of Christ's throne.

Even though "throne" can refer to a seat (Matthew 23:22), heaven (Matthew 5:34), or grace (Hebrews 4:16) ( _Strong and Vine's_ , 117), the Jehovah's Witnesses use it here exclusively with reference to "power and authority." Thus, for them, "God is thy throne" only means God is the source of Christ's power, authority and kingship ( _Reasoning_ , 422).

While at first glance that might be true, a deeper look at the use and application of "throne" (Greek _thronos_ ) shows that God's throne is also Christ's throne and if it is also Christ's throne then it is illogical to say "God is your throne," in the exclusive sense that it is a separate power or authority apart from Christ. It wouldn't make sense.

For example, before the 1,000 year reign Revelation 3:21 refers to Christ sitting down with His Father on His throne, together. Christ is seen as being not only at the right hand of God's throne at Revelation 5:6 but at 7:17 the Lamb is in the midst of God's throne. And, at Revelation 22:3, after the millennial reign, the throne is "of God and of the Lamb;" it is both their throne, and "his servants shall worship Him" (NAB; "sacred service" NWT) which is a direct reference to the Lamb or the unity of God and the Lamb and an overt declaration that the Lamb shares the power and authority symbolized by the throne which implies equality.

Jesus illustrated the shared equality of power and authority with his "hand," a metaphor for the power of God ( _Strong and Vine's_ , 271).

> 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; 28 and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one. (John 10: 27-30)

Jesus is saying far more than the Father and He share a unity of purpose, as the Jehovah's Witnesses interpret these verses. Having the same purpose goes without saying. Verse 30 is "justification for v. 29; it asserts unity of power and reveals that the words and deeds of Jesus are the words and deeds God" (NAB notes 10, 30).

> Out of the mutual recognition between Jesus and his own comes the gift of eternal life, and the ultimate security of believers, that is, of those who stand under the authority of Jesus (in his hand). This authority, and this security, are moreover the authority and security of God himself; say 'Jesus' and you have said 'God.' (C.K. Barrett, _Peake's Commentary_

Jesus is not simply acknowledging unity of power and authority with God. To be God is to have God's power and authority inherently. The illustration necessitates a unity of identity in the triune fashion because Jesus speaks of only one hand. If no one (including God) can take Christ's sheep out of his hand, and no one can take these same sheep out of God's hand (including Christ) there can only be one hand, the same hand. Thus, Jesus could rightfully claim that "The Father and I are one," not two as the Jehovah's Witnesses argue, but one, and the same. Hence, Hebrews 1:8, "Thy throne, Oh God, is forever and ever."

This is made all the more evident by Christ's own proclamation that he possesses all power and authority in heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18), and rightfully so because as mentioned in section 23 since there can only be one "First and Last" and since both the risen Jesus and God Almighty are "the First and the Last"; and, because "the First and the Last" (Jesus) is also the Alpha and the Omega, and furthermore, because at Revelation 21:5 the Alpha and the Omega sits on God's throne, the throne of power and authority is that of God and the Lamb ultimately, as one principle. The Jehovah's Witnesses don't realize it, but by interpreting Hebrews 1:8 to read "God is your throne," they inadvertently concede that Jesus is God.

Fifth, this "kingship" or throne of power and authority lasts forever and ever:

> [B]ut as to the Son, "Your throne, O God  
>

Daniel 7:14, which the Jehovah's Witnesses cite in support of Christ's kingship and dominion, or rule and authority, also makes it very clear that it lasts forever and shall never be destroyed:

> His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. (Green's Literal Translation)

But even the Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe that. Their version of Jesus Christ, the angel, has a very limited, narrow role to play in salvation history and for all practical purposes He is dispensed with after the millennial reign. He is not regarded by them as the eternal king of an eternal kingdom, but reverts back to being an angel on the sidelines. They write:

> Since sin and death are to be completely removed from earth's inhabitants, this also brings to an end the need for Jesus' serving as "a helper with the Father" in the sense of providing propitiation for the sins of imperfect humans. (1Jo 2:1, 2) That brings mankind back to the original status enjoyed when the perfect man Adam was in Eden. Adam, while perfect, needed no one to stand between him and God to make propitiation. So, too, at the termination of Jesus' Thousand Year Reign rule, earth's inhabitants will be both in position and under responsibility to answer for their course of action before Jehovah God as the Supreme Judge, without recourse to anyone as legal intermediary, or helper. ( _Insight_

> When God... raised Jesus Christ from the dead to spirit life in heaven... the heavenly Jerusalem received him into the midst of her organization of angelic sons in heaven, but as the Chief One among them, in the position of Archangel. (M. Alfs, _Concepts of Father, Son and Holy Spirit_ _Concepts_

The Jehovah's Witnesses should probably take a closer look at Hebrews 7:25: "Consequently He is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them" RSV). This refers to the "intercession of the exalted Jesus, not the sequel to His completed sacrifice but His eternal presence in heaven, cf. Romans 8:34 (NAB notes Hebrews 7,25).

Sixth, the Jehovah's Witnesses contend that someone other than God is speaking at Hebrews 1:8, reasoning that "God, thy God" must be someone other than God, "showing that the one addressed is not the most high God but is a worshipper of that God," and therefore presumably cannot be God speaking ( _Reasoning_ , 422). But this argument is weak because no mention there is made of any third party "worshipping" God the Son. It refers to what God was saying about the Son; it is not the Son or anyone else speaking, but God the Father speaking of the Son and emphasizing His divinity. Chapter 1 verses 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12 and 13 are obviously in reference to what God said, and it is no different at verses 8 and 9.

Seventh, the _Catholic New American Bible_ at John 1:18 makes an emphatic declaration that the Son is God: "No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father's side, has revealed him."

> _The only Son, God_ _monogenes theos_

> **35) Thomas called the resurrected Jesus "My Lord and my God" \- (John 20:26 - 29)**

The Jehovah's Witnesses also contend that even the apostles never thought that Jesus was God, but this ignores John 20:26-29 where Thomas, after witnessing the risen Christ, calls Jesus "My Lord and My God."

The Jehovah's Witnesses reject this traditional Christian view and teach that Thomas thought of Jesus as no more than a special human occupying a "position far higher" than men and judges who were addressed as "gods" in the Old Testament (see John 10:34, 35 RS; Ps 82:1-6) ( _Reasoning_ , 213). Thus, Jesus was "like a god" ( _Should You Believe_ , Chapter 9). They also suggest "that Thomas may simply have made an emotional exclamation of astonishment spoken to Jesus but directed to God" (ibid.).

First, this position ignores the common sense fact that Jesus had just appeared out of thin air, risen from the dead, and any Old Testament comparison to special god-like men are woefully misplaced.

Secondly, Thomas was engaged in a direct conversation with Jesus, not God in heaven, when he uttered those words. He answered Jesus who replied to him in return and nothing in those verses remotely suggests Thomas was speaking to the heavenly Father or referring to Him.

> Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, "Peace be with you." Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing." Thomas answered him

Third, calling out "My God" in astonishment would have amounted to taking God's name in vain and blasphemy in violation of Exodus 20:7 and Leviticus 24:16, crimes punishable by death.

Fourth, Thomas was fully cognizant of the many miracles Jesus performed, in addition to Christ's implicit and explicit references to himself as God. It truly stretches credulity to think that Thomas thought of Jesus as nothing more or less than a resurrected man. Casting all doubt aside, Thomas knew that Jesus was his Lord and his God. His answer to Christ "forms a literary inclusion with the first verse of the gospel: "and the Word was God" (NAB notes John 20, 28).

Fifth, highly significant is Thomas' use of "Lord" and the manner in which "Lord" is tied directly to God. Here, Lord refers to God in the supreme sense because there can only be "one Lord" according to Paul at 1 Corinthians 8:6, 7 and Ephesians 4:5. Although Lord (Greek _kurios_ ) has a wide application and can apply to men as a title of honor, such a lower meaning of Lord was eventually superceded by the higher meaning after Christ's resurrection, and this is the meaning employed by Doubting Thomas.

> (11) His purpose did not become clear to the disciples until after His resurrection, and the revelation of His Deity consequent thereon. Thomas, when he realized the significance of the presence of a mortal wound in the body of a living man, immediately joined with it the absolute title of Deity, saying, "my Lord and my God," Jn 20:28. Thereafter, except in Acts 10:4 and Rev. 7:14, there is no record that _kurios_

> (12) How soon and how completely the lower meaning had been superseded is seen in Peter's declaration in his first sermon after the resurrection, "God hath made Him - LordHe is Lord of all _Strong and Vine's_

"The full significance of this association of Jesus with God under the one appellation, "Lord," is seen when it is remembered that these men belonged to the only monotheistic race in the world. To associate with the Creator one known to be a creature, however exalted, though possible to Pagan philosophers, was quite impossible to a Jew" (ibid., 147, 148 (16).

Sixth, as we learned earlier, (see section 23) ascribing to both Jesus and God a role which can only be filled by one "Person" must lead one to conclude that Jesus is God. So, if Jesus alone is Lord in the highest sense, and God is Lord, then Jesus must be God. If both God and Jesus are sovereign Lord and master over all and eternal savior, and there can be only one such Lord over all, then consequently Jesus must be God. Similarly, God is Lord of heaven and earth, but Jesus also has all power and authority in heaven and on earth. These roles are not mutually exclusive as there can only be one such sovereign when read together. Therefore, Jesus was, and is, God.

Given the above, the Christian confession "Jesus is Lord" at Romans 10:9 takes on a heightened significance in that Jesus is acknowledged not as mere man, or angel, but God. "[K]urios is the NT representative of Heb. Jehovah ('LORD' in Eng. Versions), see Mt 4:7; Jas 5:11" ( _Strong and Vines_ ,147).

Seventh, Psalm 110:1 makes all of this abundantly clear. It says, "A statement of Jehovah to my Lord: Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as your footstool" (Green's Literal Translation). The "Lord" of this verse refers specifically to Jesus, but this "Lord" in the Hebrew is adonay, which is "used as a proper name of God, only" ( _Strong and Vine's_ , 6). "In the form _adonay_ the word means "Lord par excellence or "Lord over all..." (ibid.). It is "used exclusively as a divine name" (ibid., 4). Jesus, therefore, was, and is, God, because Jehovah called Him adonay, Lord over all, and Peter also referred to Him as Lord of all (Acts 10:36).

Eighth, one of Christ's disciples, Stephen, when stoned to death, cried out "Lord, Jesus, receive my spirit" (Acts 7:59). No doubt Stephen was familiar with Ecclesiastes 12:7 "...and the spirit returns to God who gave it" (RSV, Green's Literal Translation). Stephen was not beseeching an angel to take back his spirit, but the Word who was, and is, God the Son, and who gave Stephen his spirit and to whom it would return.

Ninth, when Thomas said "My Lord and my God," he used the exact words that David used at Psalm 35:23 with reference to God, writing, "Awake, be vigilant in my defense, in my cause, My God and my Lord," (RSV, NAB, KJV and Green's Literal Translation). "Lord" here is translated from the Hebrew _adonai_ used exclusively of God. Thomas would never have used these same words when addressing the risen Christ if he were just a man. The Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation changes verse 23 to read in part, "My God, even Jehovah."

**36) Jesus refers to Himself as the "I AM," which is God's own self-designation - (John 8:58)**

Jesus Christ's express declarations that he was, and is, God, are found at John 8:24, 28, 58, and John 13:19. These are the famous I AM statements where Christ not only revealed God's name I AM (John 17:6, 26) but stressed His own divinity. Christ also made God's name manifest throughout his ministry in a larger sense beyond its common usage, for _onama_ as a noun stands "for all that a "name" implies of authority, character, rank, majesty, power, excellence etc.., of everything that the name covers," ( _Strong and Vine's_ , 179).

The significance of the I AM statements can only be understood in the context of Exodus 3:13-15 where God made his name and what it signifies known to Moses during the incident of the burning bush where Moses was called upon to help lead the Israelites out of Egypt.

> And Moses said to God, Behold, I shall come to the sons of Israel and say to them, The God of your fathers has sent me to you; and they will say to me, What is His name? What shall I say to them? And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM; and he said, You shall say this to the sons of Israel, I AM sent me to you. And God said to Moses again, You shall say this to the sons of Israel, Jehovah the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is my title from generation to generation. (Exodus 3:13-15 Green's Literal Translation)

Thus, God said His name is I AM THAT (or WHO) I AM ('Ehyeh -'Asher -'Ehyeh), or the shortened I AM. I AM THAT I AM is one of the most debated phrases with respect to the Hebrew verb hayah. A distinct minority of interpretations render it I-Will-Be-That-I-Will-Be, (R. Alter, _The Five Books of Moses: a Translation with Commentary_ [New York, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2004], 321) ( _Books of Moses_ ).

The Jehovah's Witnesses prefer, "I shall prove to be who I shall prove to be," arguing that _hayah_ "means 'become,' or 'prove to be.'" They claim that the reference here is not to God's self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others ( _Insight_ , 12). But this is incorrect, at most a half truth.

Even scholars who prefer this minority view concede that "the common rendering of "I-AM-THAT-I-AM" cannot be excluded," (Alter, _Books of Moses_ , 321). Furthermore, "Since the tense system of Biblical Hebrew by no means corresponds to that of modern English, it is also perfectly possible to construe this as "I AM HE WHO ENDURES" (ibid.).

I AM THAT I AM without a doubt represents the majority view, the traditional common rendering, and _hayah_ in this context means "to exist," "to be." "The verb makes a strong statement about the being or presence of a person or thing" ( _Strong and Vine's_ , 68 (1a)). "Ex 3:14 is more than a simple statement of identity: "I am that I am"... is a declaration of divine control of all things (cf Hos 1:9) (ibid., 68). Remember, Jesus said "All power and authority has been given to me" (Matthew 28:18).

The precise meaning of the divine name Yahweh, which stems from hayah, is likewise much debated, (ibid., 109). _Strong and Vine's_ defines Yhovah (Yahweh) as "(the) self-Existent or Eternal," and illustrates how God explained the meaning of "I AM WHO I AM."

The overall context of Jesus' claim to be the I AM was His "identity." In verses 25 and 53 the Jews ask Jesus outright "Who are you," and "Whom do you make yourself?" And at verse 48 they accuse him of being a Samaritan. John 8:12-59 chronicles a heated debate between Jesus, the Pharisees and other Jews, the central issue being the true identity of Christ, but it should be noted that identity involves more than a name or label. Personal characteristics such as origin, destination, occupation or purpose, associations and age, among other things, combine to identify who a person is, and it was these kinds of attributes the Pharisees and other Jews were prying into and how Jesus responded.

> Then the Jews answered and said to Him, Do we not say well that you are a Samaritan

> Then the Jews said to Him, Now we know that you have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets, and you say, If anyone keeps My word, he will never ever taste of death. Are you greater than our father Abraham who died? And the prophets died! Whom do you make yourself?

> Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I AM. Then they took up stones that they might throw them on Him

Previously at verse 19 Jesus stated that the Jews did not know Him. At verse 12 he identifies himself metaphorically as "the Light of the world." He tried to explain his origin, having come from heaven above to where he was returning (verse 23) and he stated as one of his purposes conveying to the world what he had heard from the Father (verse 26). He also alluded to his age, that he was preexistent (verse 56). It seems evident, then, that the controversy centered around who Jesus was, and it was in response to that series of inquires that he told them that he was the I AM, understood by the Jews as Yahweh's own self-designation (NAB notes 8, 24-28).

The Jehovah's Witnesses take an extremely narrow view and seem to think that Jesus was only referring to his preexistence at John 8:58, and not his identity, going so far as to change the Bible to read "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been" (NWT). But the problem there, of course, is that the Bible doesn't say that or come remotely close. Jesus said "I AM," nothing more (Green's Literal Translation). Their overly narrow view ignores the many repeated references to Christ's identity which the Jews sought to discover. Furthermore, the Jews weren't trying to stone Him to death for being old, but rather for his claim to divinity, to being God, which amounted to blasphemy under the Mosaic Law.

Granted, Jesus' claim to being the I AM did reflect on his age, but in a much larger, preexistent eternal sense. Being the eternal I AM he existed before Abraham by implication, that went without saying, but his preexistence was only one aspect of who he really was, one of His many attributes.

Jesus also referred to himself as the I AM at verses 24 and 25, saying "for if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins." So they said to Him, "Who are you?" The Jehovah's Witnesses change this to read "I AM [he]."

At verse 28 Jesus stated prophetically that after they had "lifted up the Son of man, then they would realize that He was the "I AM." The Jehovah's Witnesses also change this to read "I AM [he]."

Highly instructive is the lack of noun or adjective complement with the I AM statements (C. K. Barrett, _Peake's Commentary_ , 854). It does not say "I am he," but only "I AM," awkward, yes, but very telling. Even Greek translations of the same words in the Old Testament recognize that Jesus was employing the title I AM which Jehovah applied to himself ("that you may know and believe and understand that I AM") (Isaiah. 43:10).

The Jews contesting with Jesus knew exactly who he was claiming to be. I AM is "... an expression that late Jewish tradition understood as Yahweh's own self-designation (Is 43, 10)... Jesus is here placed on a par with Yahweh" (NAB notes 8.24-28).

> **37) And the Word was God - (John 1:1)**

The divinity of Christ the Son, that he was consubstantial or of the same essence as the Father, was formally acknowledged at Nicaea I in the 4th century. The decision was in great part a response to the flourishing heresy of Arianism which saw in Christ no more than a creature, a special god-like individual, subordinate to God Almighty in every way at all times. At the very core of Nicaea I was the council's belief in the inescapable Biblical conclusion that Christ the Word was, and is, God. Church doctrine evolved from, and revolved around, this fundamental Scriptural truth. And central to this thought was John 1:1 which in part states in plain language that "The Word was God" (Green's Literal Translation, NAB, RSV, NKJV).

The Jehovah's Witnesses and others, reflecting Arian Subordinationism, interpret John 1:1 differently. The Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation Bible reads: "and the Word was a god." A distinct minority of other translations conveying the same general idea read: "and the Word was divine" ( _The Bible - An American Translation_ , 1935), or "and godlike kind was the Logos" ( _Das Evangelium nach Johannes_ , 1978).

The Jehovah's Witnesses base their interpretation "the Word was a god" on **a)** rules of grammar, and **b)** the overall context of the Bible. Basically, they argue that even though a literal translation does not include the indefinite article "a" before God, it can and should be inserted, depending upon the context ( _Should You Believe_ , Chapter 9), even though a literal Greek rendering is "and God was the Word" or in English "and the Word was God," (ibid., Chapter 10; _Reasoning_ , 416, 417).

_Strong and Vine's_ vehemently disagrees with this grammatical assessment.

> (4) _Theos_ _ho theos)_ **John 1:1** as when the absence of the article serves to lay stress upon, or give precision to, the character or nature of what is expressed in the noun

> (4c1) A notable instance of this is in Jn 1:1, "and the Word was God"; here a double stress is on theos by the absence of the article and by the emphatic position. To translate it literally, "a god was the Word" is entirely misleading

In other words, the absence of "a" in "a god" lays a double stress on and emphasizes _theos_ so that it should read "God," ie., "and the Word was God."

Interestingly, in time the church fathers' overriding struggle was with the question of the humanity of Christ, i.e., how could God the Son be truly human, not His divinity. The Jehovah's Witnesses take the opposite view, seeing Christ as only a man while assailing his divinity. Of course the real reason the Jehovah's Witnesses deny the divinity of Christ and reduce Him to "a god" is the context of the entire Bible, or more precisely, their notion of their Bible's context ( _Should You Believe_ , Chapter 9). One hears that quite often.

But after examining the weaknesses in the Jehovah's Witnesses' many arguments thus far, and the extreme degree to which they actually change the Bible to accommodate their preconceived notions, is that a reasonable conclusion? Does the context of Scripture require us to conclude that Jesus Christ was nothing more or less than a man as they deeply believe and preach?

John 17:3 plays a large role in their theory. There, Jesus, praying to the Father, referred to the Father as the "only true God."

> And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God,  
>

The Jehovah's Witnesses argue that since Jesus was praying to the Father he cannot be the Father, and more importantly, there can only be one "true God." This would accordingly exclude Christ from being that God. However, as explained in detail above, it is the created humanity of Jesus (who was not God) who prayed to His Father. He was not denying His own divinity, that He was a divine Person who assumed a human nature. The God-man was praying as man to God the Father.

Furthermore, Christ is also referred to as the "true God" (1 John 5:20). And as there can only be one true God, as the Jehovah's Witnesses insist, then Jesus was, and is, God.

And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given to us an understanding that we might know the true One, and we are in the true One, in His son, Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and the life everlasting. (1 John 5:20 Green's Literal Translation)

> **38) The Holy Spirit is the divine third Person of the Holy Trinity**

The Holy Spirit was joined with Father and Son as one God by Christian writers very early in the first millennium [St. Clement of Rome (c. 95); St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107)], but the Holy Spirit did not gain official recognition by the church as being divine and part of the Trinity until Constantinople I. Early Christian theologians in search of a deeper understanding of God's nature and the works of the Holy Spirit "gradually made more explicit that which was contained only implicitly" in Scripture ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_ , 96).

As explained, the Jehovah's Witnesses reject the idea that the Holy Spirit is a Person or _hypostasis_ , and teach that it is nothing more than God's active force, "likened to electricity, a force that can be adapted to perform a great variety of operations" ( _Should You Believe_ , Chapter 8). This interpretation, however, is wrong.

First, it is true that in the Old Testament God's Spirit is primarily referred to as a power used to create and influence men's souls and minds like Moses, David or the prophets either temporarily or permanently ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_ , 574). It would teach, guide and eventually affect a moral transformation of mankind under the future New Covenant (ibid.). "The OT clearly does not envisage God's spirit as a person, neither in the strictly philosophical sense, nor in the Semitic sense. God's spirit is simply God's power" (ibid.).

In the New Testament, however, the Spirit of God is both a power and a Person (ibid., 575). The Jehovah's Witnesses regard the supporting verses as mutually exclusive - the Spirit must be either a power or a person, and since it can't be a person it must be a power. However, Scripture read together cannot accept one meaning at the expense of another, so, as indicated in _Strong and Vine's_ the power is the "Power of the Holy Spirit" (at 162), which is the Spirit of God (Romans 9:8-11 RSV), and Jehovah (or Lord RSV) is the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17 NWT). The Holy Spirit is not simply an inert unthinking electrical current flowing from Jehovah God. It is a powerful spirit Person.

"The revelation that the Spirit of God is a Person is gradual" ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_ , 575). The majority of NT texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone... (ibid.), but "in the Synoptic Gospels [the Trinitarian formula in Mt. 28.19] clearly speaks of the person of the Holy Spirit." So even though in most cases "the phrase 'spirit of God' reflects the OT notion of "the power of God," as a result of the teaching of Christ, the definite personality of the Third Person of the Trinity is clear" (ibid.).

In the Acts of the Apostles the Spirit's personality is not overtly demonstrated in the texts although "[t]he statement in Acts 15.28, "the Holy Spirit and we have decided," alone seems to imply full personality" (ibid., 575). Paul uses the [Greek word for spirit] 146 times. Sometimes it means man's natural spirit, but more often it signifies the divine sanctifying power (2 Cor 3.17-18; Gal 4.6; Phil 1.19). However, the Trinitarian formulas employed by St. Paul (e.g., 2 Cor 13.13), indicate a real personality" (ibid., 575).

The personality of the Holy Spirit is very obvious in the theology of the apostle John and is "very rich in meaning" (ibid.).

> The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth (Jn 14.17; 15.26; 16.13; cf. 1 Jn 4.6; 5.6), and "another helper," the " _paraclete_ _Catholic Encyclopedia_

The New Testament contains many additional references to attributes of the Holy Spirit that indicate personality such as "speaking, hindering, desiring [or] dwelling (Acts 8.29; 16.7; Rom 8.9)" (ibid., 575). Granted, taken in and of themselves one should not automatically identify them as personality traits because "the same expressions are used in regard to rhetorically personified things or abstract ideas (see Rom 8.6; 7.17)." However, in light of the above verses that clearly identify the Holy Spirit as a Person, other activities of a personal nature reinforce the fact that the Holy Spirit is a Person, not an impersonal "it" - and most certainly not an electrical current, or a mere "figure of speech."

Thus, the Person of the Holy Spirit speaks (Acts 28:25), teaches (John 15:26), strives with sinners (Genesis 6:3), comforts (Acts 9:31), helps our infirmities (Rom 8:26), is grieved (Eph 4:30) and is resisted (Acts 7:51) ( _Strong and Vine's_ , 95, Supplement).

Secondly, the Jehovah's Witnesses reason that "[t]he Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father - Jehovah. They inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name applied to the holy spirit" ( _Reasoning_ , 407). The weakness in this argument lies in the fact that Scripture does not disclose the personal name of the pre-incarnate Word either (John 1:1) and since Jesus is not an archangel, the Word's name cannot be Michael as they claim (see section 46 ). In line with the Jehovah's Witnesses' logic the Word was not a Spirit person either because we don't know His name (based on their assumption that the Word is completely separate from God), but we know that to be untrue. Neither are we told all of the personal names of all angelic spirit and demonic forces but that does not establish their impersonal natures or prove they don't exist.

Third, the Jehovah's Witnesses argue further that "Acts 7:55, 56 reports that Stephen was given a vision of heaven in which he saw "Jesus standing at God's right hand." But he made no mention of seeing the holy spirit (see also Revelation 7:10; 22:13)" ( _Reasoning_ , 407). But this ignores the fact that the Holy Spirit has manifested itself visibly as a dove and flames of fire in the past, and is spirit and unseen to the eye in the unaltered form. Just because we don't see angels or the Almighty does not mean they don't exist.

Also, the Jehovah's Witnesses claim, falsely, that the Second Coming of Christ, the _parousia_ , occurred in 1914 A.D. and that Jesus is present among us today although invisible. According to their way of thinking then, Jesus is not a person either because he can't be seen. Remember, God Almighty is an invisible spirit (Colossians 1:15) so the Jehovah's Witnesses should be careful in placing too much literal emphasis on Stephen's "vision" of God in heaven, or the accompanying Spirit which, after all, is spirit.

Fourth, the personal nature of the Holy Spirit is further illustrated by Jesus' reference to the Holy Spirit as a "helper" or "advocate" (Greek _paraclete_ ) who would teach, guide and speak (John 14:16, 26; 16:13). Even though Jesus used the masculine personal pronoun with reference to the Holy Spirit, the Jehovah's Witnesses claim that Jesus was referring to an "it" when He called the advocate "he" or "him." They write:

> Jesus spoke of the holy spirit as a "helper," and he said it would teach, guide, and speak. (John 14:16, 26; 16:13) The Greek word he used for helper ( _pa-ra'kle-tos_

> Most Trinitarian translators hide this fact, as the Catholic New American Bible admits regarding John 14:17: "The Greek word for 'Spirit' is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English ('he,' 'his,' 'him'), most Greek MSS [manuscripts] employ 'it.'

> So, when the Bible uses masculine personal pronouns in connection with _pa-ra-kle-tos_ _Should You Believe_

It should first be noted that since the New American Bible "admits" the Greek word for Spirit is neuter they're not hiding that fact at all. And what the current New American Bible actually states is that "While it has been customary to use masculine personal pronouns in English for the Advocate, the Greek word for "spirit" is neuter, and the Greek text and manuscript variants fluctuate between the masculine and neuter pronouns" (NAB notes John 14:17). Therefore, there is no grammatical prohibition against referring to the Holy Spirit as "he" or "him" versus "it." It can be either/or.

A literal rendering of "he" at John 15:26 is "that one" (Greek _ekeinos_ ), and should not be translated as a gender-neutral "it." According to _Strong and Vine's_ , " _ekeinos_ denotes "that one, that person"; its use marks special distinction, favorable or unfavorable; this form of emphasis should always be noted;..." ( _Strong and Vine's_ , 80). Thus, the Jehovah's Witnesses have it backwards. The "it" is a "he" or a "him," a Person, not the other way around.

This is further illustrated by 1 John 2:1, which the Jehovah's Witnesses forgot to bring to your attention in their publication " _Should You Believe in the Trinity?_ " There, John refers to Jesus as an advocate/helper or _paraclete_ also. It provides in relevant part "And if anyone sins, we have an advocate ( _paracletos_ ) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (Green's Literal Translation).

Thus, both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are referred to as advocate/comforter/helper ( _paraclete_ ) yet according to the Jehovah's Witnesses' rules of grammar Jesus is not a person but a gender-neutral "it." For that matter, Jehovah who can't be proven to be male or female would also be an "it" although clearly personified as "Him" and "Father" throughout the Bible. That goes for angels as well who, though being gender-neutral are similarly regarded as spirit persons, not electrical currents. The Holy Spirit is the _paraclete_ , the advocate, the counselor and comforter, and in the relevant context a "Person" ( _hypostasis_ ); the third Person of the Holy Trinity.

Fifth, 1 Corinthians 2:10, 11 illustrates a distinctiveness of the Holy Spirit compared to God (though not independent of God), and an intellectual ability to probe the thoughts of God, something a current of electricity is most likely not capable of doing.

> For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

> **39) Early Trinitarianism in the patristic times (2d - 4th centuries)**

> **40) The Jehovah's Witnesses rejection of so-called "Satanic Trinitarianism" is based on mischaracterizations and a flawed understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity which developed in response to heretical Arianism in the 4th century.**

"The doctrine of the Trinity emerged as theologians of the early church tried to reconcile the revelation of God in Jesus Christ with the conviction of the unity of God that dominates the Hebrew scriptures" ( _Oxford_ , 1207). The divinity of Christ is based on strong scriptural support and it is this fundamental truth which forms a cornerstone of the Trinity doctrine and Christian faith ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_ , 932).

The notion of Christ's divinity met with considerable opposition by heretics before and after the church's official endorsement and acceptance at the council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. (Nicaea I). The divinity of Christ was so patently obvious and logically inescapable the council could draw no other conclusion at Nicaea I, but not without a fight. They accepted the Bible for what it said explicitly and implicitly, fully aware of the role faith played, and humbly conceding that conceptual difficulties were part of the "mysteries of their religion" (1 Timothy 3:16 RSV).

> **41) The Arian Heresy - The Jehovah's Witnesses teach 4th century Arian Subordinationism, an early heresy condemned at Nicaea I.**

Most Jehovah's Witnesses are unaware that their conception of Christ is an adaptation and resurrection of 4th century Arian Subordinationism and theories propounded by earlier Ebionite heretics ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_ , 919). In 318, Arius, a priest of Baucalis, propounded the doctrine that Christ is not fully divine ( _Oxford_ , 1209; _Encyclopedia of Religion_ , 54). "Arius asserted that the Son was a perfect creature, at most a kind of demigod subordinated to the Father" ( _Encyclopedia of Religion_ , 20).

> The Father alone, Arius argued,... is ungenerate, source without source, self-existent. Therefore the Father alone is truly eternal.... ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_

> "Jesus must be a creature, albeit one who was exalted and achieved union with God.... Arius insisted 'there was when he was not.' Arius was simply fulfilling the Stoic-shaped logic of trinitarian reflection prior to Origen, for he assumed that the expressed word of God (the Son) was inferior to the inherent reason of God (the Father). ( _Oxford_

> Subordinationism suggests "... that the Father is somehow prior to the Son and the Spirit.... It was this tendency, pursued by Arius and others, which the Nicaene and Constantinopolitan creeds set out to avoid. ( _Oxford_

"Arius conceded that Christ was divine; but only in a translated figurative sense of the term. In other words, He is not literally divine at all. He is the most exalted of God's creatures, authorized by God to be His agent in the work of creation, and adopted as His Son. The Word, then, was specifically different from the Father. He is a secondary deity, subordinate in nature to, not the equal of the Father.... From Arius' viewpoint, Christ's coming signifies nothing more noteworthy than the arrival of another creature, the decent of a demiurge into flesh" ( _Catholic Encyclopedia,_ 919).

Semi-Arianism taught that Jesus Christ is a god subordinate to the Father, which is precisely what the Jehovah's Witnesses teach as reflected in their translation of John 1:1, "And the Word was a god" (NWT), not the "God" of mainstream Christianity.

With minor modifications, the similarities between Arianism and the Jehovah's Witnesses' theory on the nature of Christ are striking. Their conception of Christ is not a unique revelation by the society's founder Charles Taze Russell but reaches back 1,600 years to the first centuries. The Jehovah's Witnesses teach:

> Jesus, (was) no more and no less than a perfect human. ( _Should You Believe_

> Jesus was a created spirit being.... Having been created by God, Jesus is in a secondary position in time, power, and knowledge. (ibid.)

> (God) created the prehuman Jesus directly. Thus, Jesus had a beginning and could never be coequal with God in power and eternity. (ibid.)

> Not only is Almighty God, Jehovah, a personality separate from Jesus but He is at all times his superior. Jesus is always presented as separate and lesser,.... ( _Should You Believe_

> In every period of his existence, whether in heaven or on earth, his speech and conduct reflect subordination to God. God is always the superior, Jesus the lesser one who was created by God. ( _Should You Believe_

> **42) Early Trinitarian thought: Nicaea I proclaims Christ's divinity, coeternity and consubstantial nature; that he is of the same substance as God. Christ must be divine in order to bring about mankind's salvation.**

In condemning Arius, Nicaea I proclaimed "Christ's unequivocal divinity" ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_ , 298). "... the Son is indeed begotten, but begotten, not made; he is of the substance of the Father, true God of true God; he is uncreated, eternal, nor was there ever when he was not" (ibid.).

"To preclude once and for all the Arian equivocation on the concept of true divinity they introduced a speculation, an explanatory device of their own. This was the famous "consubstantial": The Word is truly God in the sense that he is consubstantial, that he is of the same substance as the Father" (ibid.). Coeternity was unequivocally asserted, all manner of creature-hood definitely excluded and eternal generation of the Son was firmly established (ibid., 298). A difficulty, however, remained with the term "of the same substance."

> Is "same" used here in the generic or numerical sense? Is the Word of the same substance as the Father in the way that John is of the same substance as Paul - as both belong to the same species? Or is He of the same substance as the Father in the way that cannot be extended to John and Paul, or to any finite being, the way of simple identity? In terms of objective implication, of course, Nicaea I's "sharing the same substance" has to be the latter. The Godhead is not a species, nor a general class admitting distribution among individuals. Unless the son possessed the entire Godhead, the (quasi-) numerically and identically same Godhead as the Father, He could not be truly God and to define His unequivocally true divinity was precisely Nicaea I's purpose. (ibid., 298, 299)

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296 - 373) emerged as the arch defender of Nicaea I and for him the "issue was about salvation: the Son could only save if he was fully divine, for no creature could save" ( _Oxford_ , 1209).

> **43) The light gets brighter: formulation of the triune nature of God under Irenaeus, Tertullian and the Cappadocian fathers; how is God one and how is God three?**

The early church fathers' recognition of the triune nature of God can be traced back to Irenaeus and further articulated by Tertullian who stated: "The divine unity is disposed [distributed] into Trinity" ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_ , 297). Tertullian introduced "persona" as the Latin rendering of _hypostasis_ (Greek) to express the distinctiveness of the three persons ( _Oxford_ , 1208). "Substance conveys the reality shared by the three persons, which expresses the unity of the three persons" (ibid.).

Tertullian displayed a good sense of the manner in which God is one, and the way in which he is at the same time three:

> God is indeed three: in grade or order, in appearance or aspect, but with a realist connotation, and in manifestation; but in substance (granting an indecisiveness in Tertullian's use of the term), in power, God is perfectly one. ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_

> The Word stands forth and is other than the Father though still within the Godhead in the manner suggested by human reflection, as internal discourse is in some sense another, a second in addition to oneself, though yet within oneself. (ibid., 296)

The Cappadocians defended the identity of substance but emphasized three distinct _hypostasis_ or persons (ibid., 301). They "... made a clear distinction between _hypostasis_ and _ousia_ (roughly equivalent to particular and universal).... ( _Encyclopedia of Religion_ , 55).

> _hypostasis_

In 381 Constantinople I extended the concept of consubstantiation to the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_ , 297) and enthroned Nicaea I's teaching (ibid, 299). "The faith that emerged from the council was a Cappadocian one - the three divine persons united in one divine substance" ( _Oxford_ , 1209). Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in being, three _hypostasis_ ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_ , 299).

> The tome of Constantinople I expressed in sufficiently clear and simple language what would forever afterward stand as the Trinitarian dogma. And what the formulation really amounted to was a solution to the problem of plurality within the unique, undivided Godhead.

> After so long a reflection and contest, the sense in which God is one became fixed in the Christian consciousness: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are consubstantial, one Godhead, one power, one substance, of equal dignity and majesty; but in three perfect _hypostasis_ _Catholic Encyclopedia_

> **45) West/East - Latin/Greek Split**

Unknown to many, there is to this day a significant theological split or divergence between the western (Latin) Roman Catholic church and eastern (Greek) Orthodox church with respect to at least one aspect of the Trinity. Generally speaking, whereas the eastern theological approach places more emphasis on the _hypostases_ (three persons), ie. "Trinity in unity," western Latin theology emphasizes the divine nature, or "unity in Trinity" ( _Encyclopedia of Religion_ , 55). The Jehovah's Witnesses' theories vaguely resemble eastern Greek theology rather than the Latin west (though not in terms of the eternal nature of the three Persons and more).

> The Greek approach can be represented by a line: Godhead originates with the Father, emanates toward the Son, and passes into the Holy Spirit who is the bridge to the world. Greek theology (following the New Testament and early Christian creeds) retains the "monarchy" of the father who as sole principle of divinity imparts Godhood to Son and Spirit. The Greek approach tends toward subordinationism (though hardly of an ontological kind) or, in some versions, to tritheism since in Greek theology each divine person fully possesses the divine substance.

> The Latin approach can be represented by a circle or triangle. Because the emphasis is placed on what the divine persons share, Latin theology tends toward modalism (which obscures the distinctiveness of each person). (ibid., 55)

Also, in the West the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son as one principle ( _filoque_ ), but in the East it proceeds from the Father and passes through the Son.

Because "the three persons together and inseparably (though without mingling or confusion) bring about salvation and deification, and because the one God is worshipped as Father, Son, and Spirit, no divine person is inferior to any other person. Although undivided, God exists as the pure relationality of love given and received" (ibid., 56). Furthermore:

>... all works of the triune God ad extra are indivisibly one.... The decree of the Council of Florence (1442) that "everything in God is one except where there is opposition of relation" was regarded as a final answer to tritheism (belief in three gods), Arian subordinationism (ontological hierarchy of persons), Sabellian modelism (no real distinctions "in" God), and Macedonianism (denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirit). (ibid., 56)

"Trinitarian theology is par excellence the theology of relationship. Its fundamental principle is that God, who is self-communication and self-giving love for us, is from all eternity love perfectly given and received. The traditional formula "God is three persons in one nature" compactly expresses that there are permanent features of God's eternal being (and three persons) that are the ontological precondition for the three distinct manners of God's tripersonal activity in the world (as Father, Son and Spirit)" (ibid., 55).

> Whatever is other, distinct, plural, personal, and proper in the Godhead is exclusively a matter of relationship. Father, Son and Spirit do not differ as God, but in the way each is God with respect to the others. Each has and is the divine nature, but each has it differently: the Father from Himself, the son from the Father, the Spirit from both the Father and the Son. God, then, is one in substance, three in Person, and what is significant about this distinction, what makes it non-contradictory, is that what is personal in the Godhead is not something absolute, but something purely relative. (Council of Florence, 1442). ( _Catholic Encyclopedia_

> **46) Jesus Christ is not Michael the Archangel as the Jehovah's Witnesses teach.**

Little known to most people is that the Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach that Jesus Christ is an angel, Michael the Archangel to be precise ( _Reasoning_ , 218; _Insight_ , 108, 156, 393-394). They base this on Daniel 10:13, 12:1; Jude 9; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; Revelation 12:7-12, 19:11-16; and John 12:31 ( _Reasoning_ , 218), but none of these verses come remotely close to overturning the context of Bible teaching or convert God the Son into an angel.

Understandably this little piece of information is downplayed, and for good reason. It's truly mind-boggling and causes most Christians to pause and take a deep breath. Incredible as it may seem, their preincarnate Jesus was a created angel, then became nothing more than man, and after his resurrection and exaltation returned to being an angel, but a type of super angel, higher and more glorified than all the other angels ( _Concepts_ , 65-73). But they are wrong about this as well.

First, the strongest proof that Jesus was not an angel is found in the pages you just read. For all of the reasons that Jesus was, and is, God, those Scriptural truths automatically exclude Him from being an angel. To reiterate just a few, and without intentionally denigrating any angels who might be watching, the Word was eternal, but angels are created. The Word was before all things, but angels are created. The Word created all things, but that would have included Himself if He was an angel. The list is endless, and at some point, common sense must prevail here.

Secondly, and to repeat a point made earlier, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8 NWT). He cannot have been a preexistent angel who changed completely into mere flesh, and then reverted back to heaven as an angel. On the other hand, there is no such radical change in the Trinitarian Christian world where the preexistent Word was God the Son, remained God the Son during His earthly sojourn, and continued as God the Son after the resurrection and ascension. He never stopped being divine.

Third, when John fell down to worship at the feet of the angel at Revelation 22:8,9, the angel warned him not to and told him to worship God instead. Since the act of worship must only be directed to God, and God at Hebrews 1:6 said with respect to the Son, "Let all the angels worship Him" (NAB), Jesus obviously must be God. There are several other examples of people worshipping Jesus, such as His disciples prior to His ascension (Matthew 28:17 NAB) and when He restored the blind man's vision (John 9:38 NAB).

The Greek word used for "worship" is _proskuneo_ , and can mean "to make obeisance, do reverence to" and "is the most frequent word rendered 'to worship'" ( _Strong and Vine's_ , 214). Since the Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus is God, they use "obeisance" or "homage" or "reverence" throughout the Bible when such conduct is directed to Christ. Granted, falling down to one's knees alone might not equate to worship, and ultimately it is a matter of the heart, but who knows what the heart is feeling? With respect to New Testament worshipers, one can only determine that through circumstantial evidence and the context of the Bible.

The Jehovah's Witnesses' Bible shows no one "worshipping" Christ; they do obeisance or pay homage, but after all that you have read thus far, do you really believe that? Can you honestly say that Jesus Christ was just an angel in light of everything He said about Himself, and other people's testimony, and the many miracles that He performed? Of course not.

In the final analysis the Jehovah's Witnesses have no legitimate scriptural "context" to rely on, no rational basis for their interpretation, and no justification for altering God's word as they have done here and elsewhere. The angels were told to worship Jesus and they did, along with His disciples. And as for the blind man who regained his sight, he didn't simply pay his respects, he dropped to the ground and worshipped Jesus as one would anticipate.

Fourth, verses 5-14 in the first chapter of Hebrews is devoted to clarifying with great specificity that the Son is not an angel, but God. Hebrews 1:1-14 (NAB) states in full:

> **CHAPTER 1**

> 1 In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through prophets; 2 in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe,

> 3 who is the refulgence of his glory,  
>   
>   
>   
>   
>

> **II THE SON HIGHER THAN THE ANGELS**

> **Messianic Enthronement**

> "You are my son; this day I have begotten you"?

> Or again:

> "I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me"?

> 6 And again, when he leads the first born into the world, he says:

> "Let all the angels of God worship him,"

> 7 Of the angels he says:

> "he makes his angels winds and his ministers a fiery flame";

> 8 but of the Son:

> "Your throne, Oh God, stands forever and ever;  
>

> 9 You loved justice and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions";

> 10 and:

> "At the beginning, O Lord, you established the earth,  
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>

> 13 But to which of the angels has he ever said:

> "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool"?

> 14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent to serve, for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?

Much of chapter 1 has been dealt with in previous sections and will only be summarized briefly here. The Christ is God the Son and not an angel for the following reasons, to mention a few:

> **a)** _charaktar_ _Strong and Vine's_

> **b)** far superior to the angels

> **c)**  
>   
>

> **d)**

> At the beginning, O Lord, you established the earth,  
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>  **e)** _adonay_

As strong as this evidence is, the Jehovah's Witnesses don't read Hebrews 1:1-14 the same way, but believe that any implication of Christ's superiority and distinction from the angels means only that he was higher than all the other angels, in a superior position vis-à-vis the angels, though still an angel himself; a super angel. They also teach that many of those speaking in chapter 1 were worshippers of God, not God himself. But the clear language speaks for itself.

Fifth, the Jehovah's Witnesses attempt to shore up their reading of these verses by arguing that according to the verse following verse 4, the Son must be an angel because both angels and the Son are called Sons of God. If the Son is completely different from the angels, then angels are not Sons of God.

> A Watchtower textbook, in commenting on the verse _following_ wherein the Son is distinguished from angels _Concepts_

As a preliminary matter, there is nothing in verses 1-3 that even remotely suggests that the inspired writer of Hebrews in chapter 1 was contrasting God the Son with Old Testament prophets. This is pure fabrication. Read it carefully, and then take a close look at verse 4 which sets the stage for all of the "contrasting" verses that follow:

> 1 In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through prophets; 2 in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe,

> 3 who is the refulgence of his glory,  
>   
>   
>   
>   
> far superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

The superior Son is contrasted with inferior angels in verse 4 and all following verses, not prophets.

Furthermore, their logic is unsustainable. It is illogical to say that because angels are called sons of God and Jesus is the Son of God then Jesus must be an angel. That is what they are arguing, but it ignores verse 5 which makes it very clear that Jesus the Son of God is completely different from angels who are called, figuratively, sons of God.

> 5 For to which of the angels did God ever say:  
>

This question in effect means that angels are not his sons in the same way Christ is His Son. Angels are not "His Son."

Additionally, since the nation of Israel is also called God's "son" at Hosea 11:1, that would make humans angelic beings as well according to the Jehovah's Witnesses' line of thought, but they aren't. Humans (Israel) are lower than angels ( Hebrews 2:7) though called sons of God yet in a completely different sense and class, just like angels are lower than Christ who is superior, who dwells in a non-angelic class of one, as God the Son, who was and is God.

> **47) Conclusion**

The Jehovah's Witnesses insist that the Trinity is a work of Satan the Devil ( _Should You Believe_ , Chapter 10) and is invalid because it is a mystery (ibid., Chapter 1). And, as God is not a God of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33; ibid.) He would not permit such a confusing doctrine because it would prohibit the true worship of Him (ibid.)

First, their reliance on 1 Corinthians 14:33 is misplaced because the "confusion" there was in reference to order during church meetings, those speaking out of turn, and those speaking in tongues. Secondly, the mere fact that the Trinity doctrine is mysterious in some ways, as is God Himself for that matter, doesn't invalidate the doctrine. After all, Paul is one of the "stewards of the mysteries of God" (1 Corinthians 4:1). He speaks to Timothy of the "mystery of the faith" (1 Timothy 3:9), and the "mystery of our religion" (1 Timothy 3:16). Even Peter referred to some of Paul's writings as difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:16) but that didn't make Paul wrong.

As difficult as the Trinity might appear to some, remember that certain aspects like the hypostatic union are taken on faith grounded in reason, but faith is not a bad thing, it is a good thing, "For by grace you were saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God - not because of works, lest any man should boast" (2 Ephesians 2:9). If faith has no role in the Christian world, belief in the resurrection of Christ would be nonexistent and salvation impossible to achieve.

It is reasonable to have faith in the Trinity doctrine.

This inability to "know God entirely" (presumptuous in itself) did not hinder the ancients like Noah, Job, Abraham, Isaac and Moses from worshiping Him before the Mosaic Law was handed down. The triune nature of God wasn't more fully explained until Christ arrived, so even the Old Testament Jews didn't "know God" as Christ revealed Him, but that did not prevent the Israelites from worshiping God. And just because wrapping your mind around the doctrine of the Trinity might challenge you, that in itself doesn't mean it is a false teaching, because it's not.

If you're still convinced that the Jehovah's Witnesses are God's one and only true organization and that they disseminate the truth, please read the two accompanying papers entitled **1)** _Why the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong in teaching that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C. and that Jesus' Second Coming occurred in 1914_ **,** and **2)** _Why the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong in teaching that only 144,000 go to heaven to rule over humans on earth._

Finally, whether the Jehovah's Witnesses (those who devise their religious teachings) are genuinely confused or simply lack the ability to understand the Trinity doctrine, or whether something far more dark and sinister is at work here, is ultimately for the reader to determine.

Jesus is Lord!

> **Table of Contents to the Watchtower Society's online publication Should You Believe in the Trinity**

( _Should You Believe in the Trinity_? [New York, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1989; http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/index.htm], Chapter __ ) ( _Should You Believe_ )

http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/index.htm

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 - Start  
Chapter 2 - Should You Believe It?  
Chapter 3 - How Is the Trinity Explained?  
Chapter 4 - Is It Clearly a Bible Teaching?  
Chapter 5 - How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?  
Chapter 6 - What Does the Bible Say About God and Jesus?  
Chapter 7 - Is God Always Superior to Jesus?  
Chapter 8 - The Holy Spirit—God's Active Force  
Chapter 9 - What About Trinity "Proof Texts"?  
Chapter 10 - Worship God on His Terms

The End

