Revelation-It's Grand Climax at Hand, 2006, page 52
If a person misrepresents your word or advocates things contrary to it while pretending to accept it, is this not treachery, a hypocrisy that you find disgusting? –The Watchtower, November 15, 1971, page 677.

Do Jehovah's Witnesses Believe the Bible?

Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Society profess to believe the Bible. When asked at your door, an individual Jehovah's Witness will tell you unreservedly that he believes and follows the Bible, that he accepts the entire Bible as being both accurate and inspired. Indeed, the Watchtower Society teaches and Jehovah's Witnesses sincerely believe that they alone of all the religions of the world truly accept and follow the teachings of the Bible, that they alone truly put the plain teaching of scripture ahead of religious creed.1 However, in discussing scripture with Jehovah's Witnesses over the years, it has become very apparent to this writer that individual Witnesses do not live up to their grandiose claims of such reverence for the Bible. As with other such statements made by the Watchtower Society, I believe this is a claim that merits scrutiny. After all, this supposed absolute belief and acceptance of the scriptures as the inspired Word of God is touted by the Watchtower Society as evidence of their "rightness" before God, of their being the one and only true religion.2 If such a claim proves to be specious, then the Society's self-aggrandizing claim to being God's chosen organization and the only true religion is forfeit.

It should be noted that the Watchtower Society publishes its own version of the Bible, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. This translation is used by Jehovah's Witnesses around the world and is held by them in higher regard than any conventional Bible. With its numerous unorthodox renderings, the NWT eliminates many scriptural conundrums for the Witnesses. Perhaps the most widely recognized of these is John 1:1 which in the NWT, rather than revealing Jesus as God, reads that Jesus is merely "a god". But it is not the purpose of this essay to debate the merits (or absence thereof) of the NWT with its highly unusual twist on the scriptures. Rather, this essay will consider those scriptures that even in the Watchtower Society's own bible are not accepted by Jehovah's Witnesses. This essay will hold the clear statement of scripture up to the following claims of Watchtower Society leaders:

Jehovah's Witnesses...accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God, hence as completely trustworthy.The Watchtower, April 1, 1990, page 10.
Jehovah's witnesses accept the entire Bible as inspired of God. Rather than skepticism, they have full confidence and conviction as to its truthfulness.The Watchtower, November 15, 1971, page 676-7.
God used...his holy spirit-to "breathe" his ideas into the minds of the writers. Thus, Jehovah God is the Source and Producer of the Bible. His thoughts directed the writing much as a businessman uses a secretary to write letters for him.The Watchtower, February 1, 1988, page 3.
The inspired Word of God has been transmitted to us accurately, and for such marvelous preservation we must thank primarily the Bible's Author.The Watchtower, November 15, 1988, page 30.

Are such statements a truly accurate representation of the position of Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Society? Or do claims such as these amount to a type of 'false advertising' used by the Society to delude its members and attract newcomers who are seeking a Bible-based religion? It is the purpose of this essay to answer these questions.

Recently I had opportunity to discuss Luke 23:43 with a Jehovah's Witness, and this led to a question about John 2:18-21:

Therefore, in answer, the Jews said to him: "What sign have you to show us, since you are doing these things?" In answer Jesus said to them: "Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Therefore the Jews said: "This temple was built in forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?" But he was talking about the temple of his body. (NWT)

John 2:18-21 has historically posed a very difficult problem for the Watchtower Society, since a straightforward reading of the text refutes two core Watchtower doctrines, these being that Jesus (and by extension mankind in general) does not possess an immaterial soul or spirit element, and that Jesus was not raised bodily from the dead. In opposition to the plain teaching of John 2:18-21, the Society teaches that:

  1. Jesus literally ceased to exist  for the three days in which his body lay in the tomb (and therefore could not and did not raise his own body as John 2:18-21 clearly states He would).
  2. Jesus' body was not raised at all; rather "Jehovah" re-created  Jesus as an invisible "spirit creature" (i.e. an angel) after his three days of non-existence. Jehovah then dissolved the physical body of Jesus into nothingness.

Examining the doctrinal history of Jehovah's Witnesses shows that the Watchtower Society has taken more than one stab at discrediting Jesus' claim at John 2:18-21 over the years. In 1952, Watchtower leaders completely "spiritualized" this passage of scripture, claiming that Jesus did not refer to his body at all, but rather that Jesus was merely speaking about a "spiritual temple", figurative of the Christian church. Notice:

This setting shows that Jesus was not talking about his physical body, but "he was talking about the temple of his body". ... Now with this broadened view of matters we must return to the consideration of Jesus' words, "In three days I will raise it up." We have seen how he did start giving attention to the building up of the temple of living stones after his resurrection on the third day of his death. ... this building of "the temple of his body" started then and continued through the years that followed ... Jesus' words, "In three days I will raise it up," were merely predicting that the [spiritual] temple would be raised up on the third day after his death on the torture stake, and Jehovah God was the one who raised up the temple by first raising up the head member of it, the Lord Jesus Christ, and from then on, from that third day on, God used him to raise up all the other members of the temple class. (Zech. 6:12) So through the Roman military the Jews broke down the chief and initial member of God's spiritual temple, but on the third day Jehovah raised him as a spirit creature and chief cornerstone of the spiritual temple.The Watchtower, October 1, 1952, page 606-607.

By 1969 however, the Watchtower Society had backed away from this highly subjective and obscure explanation of John 2:18-21. Watchtower leaders abandoned their claim that Jesus was not talking about his body, instead admitting that John 2:18-21 was indeed a "plain statement" pertaining to the literal death and resurrection of Jesus:

To begin with, Jesus himself repeatedly foretold that he would be raised from the dead. Early in his ministry he referred to it, saying: "Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." "He was talking about the temple of his body." (John 2:19-21) ... How can we understand all these plain statements if Jesus was not actually raised from the dead?The Watchtower, November 15, 1969, page 678.

But this newfound acceptance of John 2:18-21 as a "plain statement" on the resurrection of Christ leaves the Watchtower Society in the undesirable position of having their doctrine - doctrine which goes against traditional Christian doctrine, I might add - refuted by a plain reading of scripture. Obviously unacceptable, the Watchtower Society would clarify their position by concluding that Jesus "simply could not have meant that he would raise himself up from the dead":

As evident from the context, John 2:19 pertains to the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. ... Other scriptures clearly show that God was the One who resurrected his Son. ... Accordingly, Jesus Christ simply could not have meant that he would raise himself up from the dead.The Watchtower, June 1, 1973, page 350-1.

There you have it. John 2:18-21, a "plain statement" of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus; yet Jesus "simply could not have meant" what he very plainly stated!  How ridiculous! Either it is a "plain statement" or it is not. If it is, as the Society professes, then clearly Jesus predicted that HE WOULD RAISE HIS OWN BODY. Now unless we are to accuse Jesus of lying, or otherwise disregard any notion of the book of John being an inspired account - neither of which the Watchtower Society is prepared to do - we must accept that Jesus Christ did indeed raise his own body.

In fairness to the Watchtower Society, let's take a moment to consider the Witnesses' most recent argument regarding John 2:18-21. The Society's position is that since other scriptures state that "God" raised the body of Jesus, this precludes the possibility that Jesus raised his body, and therefore (so says the Society) John 2:18-21 cannot be accepted as written. (Jehovah's Witnesses of course deny the Deity of Christ and therefore refuse to equate Jesus raising his body with God raising his body). But the Society's anti-Trinitarian stance aside, is it necessary to disregard Jesus' words at John 2:19 on account of verses that claim God raised the body of Jesus? Or, more importantly, is it even consistent of the Watchtower Society to do so? In other words, does the Society consistently apply this interpretive methodology when faced with other similar cases of scripture?

Consider an example:

In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.Hebrews 1:10-12 (NIV)
In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.Psalm 102:25-27 (NIV)

Note that Hebrews 1:10-12 is written of the Lord Jesus, whereas Psalm 102:25-27 is written of the LORD (Jehovah) God. These two passages attribute the act of creation to Jesus and to "God", respectively. Does the Society then claim that these verses in Hebrews simply cannot mean that Jesus created the heavens and the earth, since verses in the Psalms state that God did these very things? This would be the consistent position, since the Society denies the plain teaching of John 2:18-21 supposedly based on scripture that claims God raised the body of Jesus. Yet in stark contrast to their position in relation to John 2:18-21, the Watchtower Society does accept the plain statement of Hebrews 1:10-12. The Watchtower position is that, although not being God, Jesus was involved in creation of heaven and earth alongside Jehovah God. In other words, because Hebrews says that Jesus created heaven and earth, and the Psalms says that God created heaven and earth, the Watchtower Society concludes that both were involved in the creation. It would seem only fair to conclude the same regarding John 2:18-21; for just as creation of heaven and earth is plainly attributed in scripture to Jesus and to "God", so also is the raising of Jesus' body.

What, then, can be said about the Society's argument in defense of their rejection of John 2:18-21? Certainly, it appears to be nothing more than a smoke-screen. The Society does not hesitate to harmonize other similar verses pertaining to God and Christ, yet not so with John 2:18-21. The difference, of course, is that John 2:18-21 lays bare the unscriptural nature of the Watchtower religion. It is in this case where Watchtower doctrine is at stake, that rather than accept the admittedly "plain statement" of scripture and make doctrinal adjustments where necessary, the Society opts instead to cling to their dogma, offering in their defense that "Jesus Christ simply could not have meant" what He said. Truly amazing for an organization that claims to put the plain teaching of scripture ahead of religious creed.

Another verse that has proved especially troublesome for the Watchtower Society and their Jehovah's Witness followers is John 20:28. Why? Because at the 20th chapter and 28th verse of the book of John, one of Jesus' twelve apostles is recorded in no uncertain terms as recognizing and confessing the Deity of Christ:

In answer Thomas said to him [Jesus]: "My Lord and my God!" (NWT)

When I state that Thomas' words are recorded in no uncertain terms I do not do so lightly, for the literal Greek at John 20:28 leaves no room for doubting Thomas' intent. Unlike John 1:1 where the Greek "theos" appears without the article (and upon which the Society pins their entire argument for a translation of "a god" rather than "God"), John 20:28 includes the definite article; Thomas called Jesus "ho theos", "the God". The significance of this fact cannot be overstated. According to scripture, Jesus is not only "God" ("a god", NWT), but He is also most assuredly "The God".

At the risk of digressing, it should be noted that Watchtower leaders have more than once tried to hide this most damaging of facts, even denying outright  that Thomas referred to Jesus as "ho theos", "the God":

Thomas was saying that Jesus was a god to him ... which is why Thomas said, "my" God and not "the" God.The Watchtower, June 1, 1988, page 19.
...Thomas addressed Jesus as a deity...The Watchtower, September 1, 1955, page 543.
...Thomas could call Jesus God, but not THE God...The Watchtower, September 1, 1955, page 543.
"The title ho theos...is not applied in the N[ew] T[estament] to Jesus Himself..."The Watchtower, July 1, 1986, page 31.

The clarity of John 20:28 notwithstanding, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Society cannot accept Thomas' words and at the same time uphold their Arian view of the nature of Christ. The Watchtower position, then, is that since a straightforward reading of John 20:28 refutes core Watchtower doctrine - in this case, the most-core Watchtower doctrine, that of the non-Deity of Christ - Thomas simply could not have meant  what he so plainly stated. Again, as with John 2:18-21, it is religious creed that wins out over the plain truth of scripture. Once again the Society's position belies their reverent claims of fidelity to the Bible.

When it comes to a discussion of John 20:28, Jehovah's Witnesses are quick to point to other verses which, according to the Watchtower Society, preclude the possibility that Jesus is God. For example, the Witness will point to John 14:28 wherein Jesus is recorded as saying "the Father is greater than I." Once again, rather than harmonizing both verses to conclude that Jesus is indeed Deity (per John 20:28), and yet He is functionally  or positionally  lower than the Father (per John 14:28),3 as does the Christian community, Jehovah's Witnesses and their Watchtower leaders instead deny one inspired verse in favor of another.

Having rejected the import of John 20:28, the task remains for the Society to "reinterpret" Thomas' words. And in the same way that the Society has vacillated over their rejecting of John 2:18-21, they have tried more than one line of attack with John 20:28. The initial argument that an individual Jehovah's Witness is likely to proffer is a claim that, rather than being an address (i.e. to Jesus), Thomas' words constitute an exclamation, and as such was directed to no one in particular.4 In recent conversation with a Jehovah's Witness, the Witness informed me very matter-of-factly that Thomas' statement "was not directed at Jesus." This position may be seen in the following quotes from Watchtower publications:

John was there and heard Thomas exclaim: "My Lord and my God."The Watchtower, October 1, 1962, page 597.
Does Thomas' exclamation at John 20:28 prove that Jesus is truly God?Reasoning from the Scriptures, page 213.
And John says he wrote down these details (including Thomas' exclamation) "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God."The Watchtower, September 1, 1984, page 28.
Afterward, Thomas, who was not present, refuses to believe, but eight days later Jesus again appears and gives him the proof, at which Thomas exclaims: "My Lord and my God!"All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial, page 198.view
True, after his resurrection from the dead, Jesus did let the apostle Thomas examine the nail prints in his hands and feet, and Thomas said in amazement: "My Lord and my God!" But Jesus understood Thomas' exclamation in the right way, and so did the apostle John. In recording this incident in his Gospel account, John was not trying to convey the idea that Jesus was Jehovah God or that Jesus was a trinitarian "God the Son"...The Watchtower, December 1, 1974, page 730.

In a nutshell, the Watchtower Society says that Thomas' words constitute the equivalent of the modern day expression, "Oh my God!" (The irony of their position is that Jehovah's Witnesses consider such an exclamation to be a blasphemous utterance that they themselves will not even use.)

The problem for the Watchtower Society with this exposition of Thomas' words is that the literal Greek simply does not accommodate it. According to the Greek text, Thomas did direct his words to Jesus. The literal Greek of John 20:28 (transliterated) reads: "Apekrithe Thomas kai eipen auto ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou." This is literally translated as: "Answered Thomas and said to him [Gr: auto], the Lord of me and the God of me." Therefore, any argument to the effect that Thomas did not direct his words to Jesus, that his statement was only an "exclamation" or outburst, is an argument against the inspired record. Plainly put, the Watchtower position that Thomas' statement was an exclamation not addressed to Jesus is a position in opposition to and contradicted by the Bible.

The second argument used by the Society in answer to John 20:28 is equally misleading: The Society says that if indeed Thomas did direct his words to Jesus, then he was doing so only in the sense of referring to Jesus as "a god", not "the God". Recently I had a Jehovah's Witness take this position during a Bible discussion. The Witness told me that Thomas was only affirming the fact that Jesus is "a god" and his statement is "similar in meaning to the meaning conveyed when the prophet Moses is described as being a god in Exodus 7:1."  This argument is fallacious first and foremost because at John 20:28 Thomas did not call Jesus "a god"; rather, Thomas called Jesus "the God" ("the God of me"). In contrast to this is Exodus 7:1 which says that the LORD "MADE"  Moses to be "LIKE"  God to Pharaoh; the verse does not say that Moses is THE GOD, nor does it record Pharaoh in any way naming Moses to be "the God" of him as the apostle Thomas did of Jesus.

Consider the following quotations from Watchtower publications wherein the Watchtower Society expounds upon their assertion that Thomas referred to Jesus only as "a god":

Thomas may have addressed Jesus as "my God" in the sense of Christ's being "a god", though not "the only true God."The Watchtower, January 15, 1992, page 23.
Trinitarians also cite John 20:28 to support their claims. There Thomas said to Jesus: "My Lord and my God!" As shown above, there is no objection to Thomas' referring to Jesus as a god.The Watchtower, June 1, 1988, page 19.
So there was nothing improper about Thomas' referring to Jesus in that way. Thomas was saying that Jesus was a god to him, a divine, powerful one. But he was not saying that Jesus was Jehovah, which is why Thomas said, "my" God and not "the" God.The Watchtower, June 1, 1988, page 19.
Jesus is a god. ... So Thomas could call Jesus God, but not THE God...The Watchtower, September 1, 1955, page 543 (capitalization in the original).
So there was no objection to John's reporting that Thomas addressed Jesus as a deity...The Watchtower, September 1, 1955, page 543.

Such statements despite the fact that Watchtower leaders know full well that Thomas referred to Jesus as "the God", not "a god". It does not take any familiarity with the Watchtower Society or their teachings nor any pre-existing view of the organization one way or the other to recognize the obvious intent to deceive:

"There is no objection to Thomas' referring to Jesus as a god." But Thomas DID NOT refer to Jesus as "a god". Thomas referred to Jesus as "the God."

"Thomas was saying that Jesus was a god to him." But Thomas DID NOT say that Jesus was "a god to him." Thomas said that Jesus was "the God of him."

"Thomas addressed Jesus as a deity." But Thomas DID NOT address Jesus as "a deity." Thomas addressed Jesus as "the Deity."

Despite the Watchtower Society's preconceived notions on the nature of Jesus Christ, despite their wishful thinking in regard to John 20:28, despite their best efforts to obfuscate the truth of Thomas' simple confession, the scriptural fact remains that to Thomas, Jesus was "ho theos", "the God". Acceptance of this one simple truth brings down the entire Watchtower theological house of cards and it is for this reason that Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe the inspired account at John 20:28.

The final scripture to be treated by this essay is Hebrews 1:5. This verse is absolutely devastating to Watchtower theology because it unquestionably rules out any chance of Jesus Christ being an angel (as the Watchtower Society teaches). Consider:

For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: "You are my Son; I, today, I have become your Father"? And again: "I myself shall become his Father, and he himself will become my Son"? (NWT)

Or, as the Contemporary English Version (CEV) renders it:

God has never said to any of the angels, "You are my Son, because today I have become your Father!" Neither has God said to any of them, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son!"

In direct opposition to Hebrews 1:5 is the Jehovah's Witness view of the nature of Jesus Christ. Since the Watchtower Society denies the Deity of Christ, yet accepts that He is something more than a mere man (John 1:1; Micah 5:2), doctrinally they have settled on Christ being an angel5 - their only remaining option. Note:

Though this fifth angel is not named, all the evidence indicates that he must be the glorified Lord Jesus.Revelation-Its Grand Climax at Hand, 1988, page 115.view
The most prominent angel is introduced at Revelation 1:5 as "Jesus Christ...The Watchtower, December 15, 1988, page 11.
It is reasonable to conclude that this angel...was Jesus Christ in his prehuman spirit form.The Watchtower, December 1, 1963, page 736.
Later this angel prince was transferred to earth as a human, becoming Jesus Christ the promised Messiah.The Watchtower, August 1, 1960, page 459.
Jesus Christ further deserves honor because he is Jehovah's chief angel, or archangel.The Watchtower, February 1, 1991, page 17.

Actually, Hebrews 1:5 is only one verse in a chapter that is dedicated to dispelling the myth that Jesus is an angel. Jehovah's Witnesses will generally respond to the thrust of Hebrews 1 by arguing that Jesus was appointed (by Jehovah) to a higher position than the other angels, and that it is in this way and this way alone that He is superior to [other] angels. The plausibility of this position in relation to the rest of Hebrews 1 is a topic for another day, but clearly, such a defense does nothing to refute the crystal clear doctrine found in verse 5: God has never said to ANY of the angels, "You are my Son".

So cutting is this doctrine that the Watchtower Society seems loath to even acknowledge it. In researching this essay, I was unable to find even a single attempt at a refutation of Hebrews 1:5 in any Watchtower publication. Any exposition of the first chapter of Hebrews by the Society is limited to promoting the idea that Christ is superior to angels only because of an appointment to a superior position, as mentioned above. Hebrews 1:5 is either glossed over or ignored completely. Only once have I had a Jehovah's Witness offer an explanation of Hebrews 1:5. When asked about this verse, the Witness' response was a stupefying, "the verse says 'angel', not 'archangel'".  A classic example of the lengths to which individual Jehovah's Witnesses will go to uphold Watchtower doctrine in the face of scripture. The Greek "arche"  which is the prefix in archangel has the meaning of "chief". An archangel, then, is a chief angel.6 In harmony is Daniel 10:13 where the archangel Michael is called "one of the chief  princes."

In researching this essay I encountered a second explanation of Hebrews 1:5 offered by a Jehovah's Witness. The Witness argued that Hebrews 1:5 does not apply to Jesus Christ despite the fact that He is an angel  because while on earth, Jesus was a man. In other words, even though the Witness believes the Son to be an angel, the fact that God never said to any angel "You are my Son"  is deemed irrelevant because Jesus had become a man during his earthly ministry.7 The Witness further argued that it was during Christ's earthly ministry that the Father said to Jesus, "You are my Son."8

Before refuting this fallacious argument, it is worth reflecting again on just how far Jehovah's Witnesses are prepared to go to defend Watchtower doctrine despite the plain teaching of scripture. Consider: If our Witness friend is correct in his assertion, then really, what is the point the writer of Hebrews attempts to make in verse 5? If his point is simply to assert that Jesus was a man while on earth, certainly he could have done so in a more direct manner. Why bring angels into the mix at all? And had the writer truly known that the Son was indeed an angel, why oh why would he make such a misleading claim as to suggest that the Father never called any angel His Son? Really, does this sound like a statement made by a man who believed the Son was an angel?  If the Son of God is indeed an angel - in fact the greatest of all the angels - and if He existed alongside the Father as an angel for eons upon eons, being "re-created" as a man for a mere 33 years, after which he resumed his native role as an angel and in fact was an angel when the writer of Hebrews penned his letter, then what did the writer of Hebrews intend in claiming that the Father never said to any angel, "You are my son"? What was the point? What could such a statement accomplish? If, on the other hand, the intent of the writer of Hebrews was to refute the idea that the Son of God is an angel, then the plain statement of verse 5 makes perfect sense. The Father never called any angel His son; ergo the Son is not an angel.

In way of refutation it is important to give consideration to the context of Hebrews 1:5. As mentioned, the entire first chapter of Hebrews is dedicated to showing the superiority of Jesus to angels. According to Hebrews chapter 1, far from being described as an angel, the Son is the heir of all things (verse 2). He is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of God's very being (verse 3). He sustains the entire universe by his mighty power (verse 3). He is greater than the angels (verse 4). God never called any angel His Son (verse 5). The Son is worshipped by ALL the angels (verse 6). He is called God (verse 8). He is called Lord (verse 10). He is the creator (verse 10). He is immutable and He is eternal (verse 11, 12). The context could not be more clear. The Son of God is no angel.

A second deficiency with the Witness' argument is that it depends on Jesus being the Son of God only during his earthly ministry. It means restricting the Father's confession of Jesus as his Son to that brief moment for which the Watchtower Society says Christ shed his angelic nature and existed as a man. (For if Christ were the Son of God before or after his earthly, human ministry, then, according to Watchtower doctrine, the "Son" is an angel, and this does not accord with Hebrews 1:5.) If the Father still confesses Jesus as his Son, or if Jesus was his Son prior to the incarnation, then the Witness' argument falls apart. Yet it is clear from scripture that Jesus was and is the Son of God, both before and after his earthly ministry. 1 John 4:9 and John 20:30,31:

This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.  (NIV)

Jesus was already the "one and only Son" when the Father sent Him into the world.

Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.  (NIV)

At the time of the writing of John's letter (post-resurrection), Jesus was still the Son of God.

The final nail in the doctrinal coffin for our Witness' argument comes from Hebrews 1:13, which, similar to Hebrews 1:5, reads:

God never said to any of the angels, "Sit at my right side until I make your enemies into a footstool for you!"  (CEV)

The question that begs to be asked is when did God make this statement to the Son? Can this statement be limited to Jesus' earthly ministry, as our Jehovah's Witness friend would do with verse 5? Well, long before the incarnation and Christ's earthly ministry, during which time Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Society claim that Jesus was an angel, the Psalmist wrote of the LORD God speaking these words to the Son (David's "Lord"). Psalm 110:1:

The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."  (NIV)

The words were spoken prior to the earthly ministry of Christ, and the actual fulfillment of the words occurred after Jesus' earthly ministry, after the resurrection. In both these instances, the Watchtower Society teaches that Jesus was an angel. Yet Hebrews 1:13 gives no quarter: God never said to any angel, "Sit at my right side until I make your enemies a footstool". Another plain statement of scripture not believed by Jehovah's Witnesses; another plain scriptural teaching rejected by Jehovah's Witnesses in favour of preconceived religious creed. Where is the "deep respect for the Bible"? Where is the acceptance of the Bible as "completely trustworthy"? Where is the "full confidence and conviction as to its truthfulness"?

All efforts to hide or befuddle the facts aside, God has never said to any of the angels, "You are my Son". He never said to any of the angels, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet". Yet He said these things to Jesus Christ. The reader is left to reach his or her own conclusions as to the Biblical nature of Jesus.

Do Jehovah's Witnesses truly believe the Bible? Do they live up to their boastful claims of reverence and absolute acceptance of scripture? Are "all their beliefs" truly "based on the Bible", as they profess? The facts speak for themselves and I believe they do not support such claims. The Society touts itself as a Bible-believing religion - in fact the only truly Bible-believing religion; a religion that bases ALL its teachings on the Bible. Yet, clearly, Watchtower teachings are at variance with a plain reading of numerous verses. The context of the verses considered by this essay shows them not to be allegorical  or symbolic  in nature; rather they are simple, straightforward verses to be understood in a literal sense - the Watchtower Society admits this much. Despite this fact, Jehovah's Witnesses reject these scriptures.

The Watchtower Society says that "Jehovah's witnesses truly believe what the Bible says".9 But they do not believe what the Bible says at John 2:18-21. Jesus said that He would raise up his own body from the tomb. In disbelief, Jehovah's Witnesses reply that "Jesus Christ simply could not have meant that he would raise himself up from the dead." The Society says that Jehovah's Witnesses "do not try to alter [the Bible's] teachings to conform to creedal teachings."10 But is this not precisely what they do in regard to John 20:28? One of Jesus' twelve apostles confessed him as "Lord" and "God", literally calling Jesus "the God of me." Yet the Society would alter the verse such that Thomas called Jesus "a god" rather than "the God". John 20:28 says that Thomas spoke his words "to him" [Jesus], yet the Society would alter the verse such that Thomas DID NOT direct his words to Jesus. And finally, Hebrews 1:5. The Watchtower Society says that "Jehovah's witnesses are different" from other religions "because they really believe the Bible"; they do not "use only parts of the Bible."11 But do they believe Hebrews 1:5? Do they use Hebrews 1:5 in formulating their doctrine on the nature of Jesus Christ? The writer of Hebrews could not have been more clear when he said at the heart of an argument for Christ's superiority over the angels that the Father never called any angel his Son. In teaching that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is an angel, the Watchtower Society disbelieves and ignores Hebrews 1:5. Not only do Jehovah's Witnesses not believe the Bible, but the Watchtower Society is guilty of doing just what they accuse "other religions" of doing - taking a higher critic or modernistic view and using only parts of the Bible.

The Watchtower Society urges of its readers: "Each of us may ask, then, 'Does my religion accept the Bible as inspired and accurate?"12 While this statement was no doubt intended to be understood as applicable to those who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, the irony is that it is Jehovah's Witnesses themselves who should be asking this question of their religion.

Footnotes

1. Consider the following as representative of the Watchtower Society's view of their own reverence for and adherence to the Bible in contrast to other religions:

What is the basic difference between Jehovah's witnesses and other religions? Jehovah's witnesses truly believe what the Bible says and try to live according to its principles. Others may say that they believe God's Word, but do they?The Watchtower, April 15, 1970, page 245.
In this age of easy religions, Jehovah's witnesses are different because they really believe the Bible; they really live by the Bible. They do not take a higher critic or modernistic view and use only parts of the Bible.The Watchtower, April 15, 1959, page 253.
[Jehovah's Witnesses] have only one creed: the Bible itself, and they do not try to alter its teachings to conform to creedal teachings...The Watchtower, November 15, 1971, page 677.

2. Consider the following statements made by the Watchtower Society in reference to "true religion":

Another mark of true religion is that its members have a deep respect for the Bible. They accept it as the Word of God and believe what it says.What Does God Require of Us?, lesson 13.
Similarly, another mark [of true religion] is that "all their beliefs are based on the Bible." Of course, members of most religions in Christendom think that theirs is. But do you know a religion where all members have taken the trouble to open their Bibles to see if this is true of their beliefs? If you have any problems in your search, Jehovah's Witnesses will be glad to help you.The Watchtower, March 1, 1982, page 9.
We can be assured by this statement of Jesus that he and his followers accepted the Bible as inspired and reliable. Such acceptance is an important distinguishing mark of true religion. (2 Tim. 3:16, 17) Each of us may ask, then, 'Does my religion accept the Bible as inspired and accurate...?The Watchtower, April 15, 1978, page 12.

3. Is this not what the very titles "Father" and "Son" indicate?

4. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary defines "exclamation" as follows:

  1. A loud calling or crying out; outcry; loud or emphatic utterance; vehement vociferation; clamor; that which is cried out, as an expression of feeling; sudden expression of sound or words indicative of emotion, as in surprise, pain, grief, joy, anger, etc.
  2. (Rhet.) A word expressing outcry; an interjection; a word expressing passion, as wonder, fear, or grief.
  3. (Print.) A mark or sign by which outcry or emphatic utterance is marked; thus [!]; – called also exclamation point.

5. Specifically, the archangel Michael.

6. Note that this fact is acknowledged by the Watchtower Society:

Jesus Christ further deserves honor because he is Jehovah's chief angel, or archangel. –The Watchtower, February 1, 1991, page 17.

7. Note that according to Watchtower doctrine, the nature of Jesus Christ has transitioned through the following states:

  1. Non-existence (prior to his creation by God).
  2. Angel (after his initial creation by God).
  3. Human (after his "re-creation" in the womb of Mary).
  4. Non-existence (after his crucifixion).
  5. Angel (after his "re-creation" three days following the crucifixion).

How the Witnesses reconcile this view with Hebrews 13:8 is hard to fathom:

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. (NIV)

8. Cf. Matthew 3:17.

9. The Watchtower, April 15, 1970, page 245. See note 1.

10. The Watchtower, November 15, 1971, page 677. See note 1.

11. The Watchtower, April 15, 1959, page 253. See note 1.

12. The Watchtower, April 15, 1978, page 12. See note 2.

1