Studying With J-Ws In Their "Knowledge" Book

If you choose to study the entire "Knowledge" book, they will study it one paragraph at a time. They read the paragraph and then ask the printed question at the bottom of the page that is numbered for that paragraph. In the study it is best to agree with as much as you can. In chapters 1 to 4 there is not much to really disagree with. If you find something that is truly offensive to you, just say it is an idea that was new to you and you will research it. Your goal is to study chapter 5 with them but you may have to travel through chapters 1-4 to get to chapter 5. For a few specific paragraphs there are some things you should say.
 
 

Chapter 1, paragraph 10 (The Paradise Earth)


The short answer:
"I see from reading this section you believe like some Christians who say the earth will be restored to a paradise. The majority of those who believe this think this will happen before the 1000 year reign of Christ while a few think it will happen after the 1000 year reign. Which do you believe?"
More information:
This subject is not discussed much among Christians so most guess it must be false and tend to argue with the J-Ws. Actually the belief that Jesus will rule a populated paradise earth for 1000 years is taught among conservative evangelical Christians as in: Nelson's Introduction to the Christian Faith (1995), page 285 (article entitled "The Millennium" by Grant Osborne); Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth (1975) pages 164-167; David Jeremiah's Escape The Coming Night, Vol 4 pages 45-48, 71-72 (1994) and his radio show "Turning Point". 


Charles Stanley's Eternal Security (1990) pages 107-110:
"Our Final Home

"Most Christians believe their ultimate destiny is heaven. That is not true. Man's ultimate destiny is planet earth. When God created the heavens and the earth, He intentionally placed man on the earth. He could have put him in heaven. But God placed man here for a specific purpose: to rule over creation (see Gen. 1:28-31). The earth became man's responsibility. To make his job easier, God designed a body for man that is tailor-made for living and working on planet earth. 

"That was God's plan in the beginning, and nowhere in Scripture are we informed that His original plan has been altered. On the contrary, all of Scripture teaches that we are moving toward a time in which God's original plan will be fulfilled. 

"Our Temporary Home

. . . 

"When a believer dies, he or she goes immediately to be with the Lord (see 2 Cor. 5:6-8). Since we know from numerous passages that Christ is seated at the right hand of God, in heaven, it is safe to say that Christians go to heaven when they die (see Col. 3:1). . . . 

"But Christians do not stay in heaven forever. When Christ returns, He will establish a kingdom on this earth, a kingdom that will last for one thousand years (see Rev. 20:4). If, as Paul said, 'we shall always be with the Lord' when He returns, it makes sense that we will be included in this kingdom. Keep in mind, this is an earthly kingdom (see Rev. 20:7-8). So once again, believers will make their home on earth. 

"When the thousand years are completed, and Satan has been defeated once and for all, God will re-create the earth: <here is a quotation from Revelation 21:1-3> 

"God will not only re-create the earth, He is planning to move in! Instead of men dying and going to heaven, John presents us with a picture of God packing up and coming to earth. The point is, after Christ returns, man is back on earth forever. Sin and death will be destroyed, thus erasing any potential division between man and his Creator. All in all, God's original plan will be fulfilled. 

"Think Again

". . . because heaven is just a stopover. Heaven is temporary. We are all coming back one way or another." 


It is not necessary for you agree with this view but it would be helpful to tell the J-Ws that you are aware of this belief that people will live on earth forever in paradise and it is taught within conservative evangelical Christianity (for example the above quotation from Charles Stanley's Eternal Security). The reason it is advisable to tell the J-Ws this is because when J-Ws feel challenged on other issues, they will usually try to resolve their discomfort by thinking "We may not have the right understanding on this issue but I KNOW we are right about the paradise earth and ONLY Jehovah's Witnesses believe in this so this MUST be the only true religion." But if you have informed the J-W that many Christians believe it and it is taught in Christian books, on radio (David Jeremiah's show Turning Point), and Christian TV (Charles Stanley) they will be shaken. 


 

Chapter 1, paragraph 14


The short answer:
This verse in Isaiah  mentions giving birth. Will the people that live in the restored Paradise have children? [They will answer 'Yes.'] . . . I noticed the picture in the front of the book shows families with children. What about people who had children who diee? Will the children be resurrected and be reunited with their parents? [They will usually answer 'Yes.'] What about those people who go to heaven and had children who died, will they be resurrected and reunited with their parents? [J-Ws officially believe: 'No. The children will be resurrected on earth and someone else will raise them.'] . . . What about Joseph and Mary, will they live together in this paradise? [They answer: 'No. Mary will be in heaven but Joseph will be eternally separated from her and live in the paradise.]

 

Chapter 3, paragraph 5 (What is God's name?)


The short answer:
"I like the idea of using God's name but since I had heard that the pronunciation "Yah-weh" was older than the pronunciation "Jehovah" I would be more comfortable using the name "Yah-weh."
More information:
This paragraph states that some think "God's name may have been pronounced 'Yahweh,' but they cannot be sure." But some are sure for the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (1980), section 484a, page 211 says 
    "Clement of Alexandria (early 3[r]d century A.D.) vocalized it as iaoue." 
So while it is true some ancient persons pronounced the name as "Yaho" or "Yahu", some definitely pronounced it as "Yahweh" and this pronunciation is much older than the pronunciation "Jehovah." So in your discussions with the J-Ws, from this point on, use the name "Yahweh" frequently and consistently. This will challenge the JWs for they are not allowed to use the name Yahweh consistently in prayer as it disturbs their unity. 

JWs love to criticize Bible translations that do not use God's name. For this reason I strongly recommend that in your study with the J-Ws you use the New Jerusalem Bible. (The verse numbering is sometimes different from Protestant versions.) This uses the Hebrew name "Yahweh" for God's name everywhere it belongs in the Old Testament. The paperback edition can be gotten for a very low cost from the American Bible Society (phone = 1-800-322-4253). 


 

Chapter 3, paragraph 22 (The Trinity)

The J-Ws do not believe in the Trinity, instead they believe Jesus is a created angel, inferior to His Father. They attack this teaching of historic Christianity in chapters 3 and 4 of their book. When this subject comes up, it is best not to go into a long refutation of their doctrine but a few simple lines of reasoning can be presented to illustrate how you believe. (A fuller explanation is in my booklet "Explaining the Trinity".)

In paragraph 22 their book says:

  1. "Therefore, those who accept the Bible as God's Word do not worship a Trinity consisting of three persons or gods in one.
  2. In fact the word 'Trinity' does not even appear in the Bible.
  3. The true God is one Person, separate from Jesus Christ. (John 14:28; 1 Corinthians 15:28)
  4. God's holy spirit is not a person. It is Jehovah's active force, . . ."
Here is what you can tell the J-Ws when you get to this paragraph:
"As I read this paragraph, there were four points that either I did not understand or I do not see the support for what it said. . . ." 
  1. About this sentence here . . . historic Christians have never worship three gods in one. Neither have they worshiped three persons in one person. The historic doctrine of the Trinity says that in the nature of the One true God there are three distinct persons. This means that there are truly three distinct persons but they all have the same nature, the nature of God. Thus 'Trinitarians' worship three persons who have One nature or essence, that of being God. Those who believe in three gods are called 'Tri-theists' (three gods) and those who believe God is one person manifested in three ways are called 'Modalists'. Neither of these two groups are viewed as being 'Trinitarians'. From the scriptures I have seen I believe that the Father and Son both have the same nature but are two distinct persons. The Son is eternally submissive to the Father. So it seems to me that they are equal in nature but unequal in role or position. I realize this makes me a Trinitarian but it is only because the scriptures seem to say this. If I have this wrong then I want to know that but I would need to first see some scriptures that say so.
  2. Next, about the word 'Trinity' . . . while the word 'Trinity' does not appear in the Bible, there are many words that we use in our religions that are not in the Bible. For example, the word "Bible" does not appear in the Bible. Does your Bible have the phrase 'organized religion' in it? . . . If not, does that mean it is improper to refer to organized religion? Or, does the Bible ever mention using musical instruments during a Christian meeting? If not, does that mean it is wrong to use instruments? You probably believe such things are all right even though there is no specific reference to them in the Bible. Likewise I believe the concept of the Trinity is present in the Bible even though the label "Trinity" is not there.
  3. In this next sentence I can partially agree with some of it but the rest is different than what I am accustomed to. The Scriptures teach that the Father is a distinct person from the Son, Jesus and Trinitarians believe that. However, Trinitarians also believe that the Son shares in the nature of being God. I like to illustrate this with the biblical account of Adam and Eve. They were distinct persons yet they shared the same nature of being 'man.' Yet Eve did not have the same position as Adam. Likewise the Son is distinct from the Father but has the same nature of being 'God.' Does not your Bible call Jesus God at John 20:28 (or Isaiah 9:6)? . . . If so then Jesus cannot be separate from 'God' even though he is separate from the Father. I am not sure how you see the verses mentioned in this paragraph, John 14:28; 1  Corinthians 15:28. Do you feel they contradict John 20:28? To me they seem to support the Trinitarian concept that the Son is a distinct person and submissive to the Father, the final-decision-maker.
  4. In the next sentence is something that is also a different thought than I am accustomed to. I know the Holy Spirit does have force but I do not know of any verse that says the Spirit is NOT a person. I see in Acts 2:32,33 it describes the Spirit as being poured into Christians. I know of another verse like it, Galatians 4:6, where it says the spirit of Jesus is sent into the hearts of Christians. But Ephesians 3:17,19 says Jesus as a person is also in the hearts of Christians and fills them up. This tells me that just as the person Jesus can be sent into the heart so the Holy Spirit can dwell in Christians and be a person too. 
  5. Another passage that seems to imply  the Holy Spirit is a person is John 16:13-15. The verses say that the Spirit will come and whatever he hears he reveals to the apostles. To be able to hear implies  the Spirit is a person who can hear and can repeat what he hears. I do not think this is describing the Father nor the Son. In verse 14 the Spirit takes teachings from Jesus and reveals it to the apostles. This could not be referrring to the Father for the next verse says all things the Father has are given to the Son and after that these things are given to the Spirit. For that to happen, the Spirit would need to be distinct from both the Father and the Son and yet be able to take thigs from the Son. That implies to me that the Spirit is also a person.

The J-Ws do not understand what the doctrine of the Trinity really is. Therefore even with the above explanation they will usually be thoroughly confused. If they offer any response to what you said above, do not offer any more scriptures at this time but tell them you will think about what they have said. Tell them you are not there to tell them what to believe but are only trying to find out what they believe and then think about it. Then say that if they would ever like to hear how Trinitarians see God, you have an illustration that may help (see the material below). Do not present it unless they ask you to.
 
More information:
An illustration to help understand the Trinity

Jesus said: 

    Mark 10 " 6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. 7 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh." 
Adam and Eve had the same human nature but because one was the decision-maker and the other was to be in perfect subjection (1 Corinthians 11:3), they were one flesh (Genesis 2:24). They were to behave as one entity. Further emphasizing the point Jesus added that "they are no longer two." So it is NOT that they were "one" in some superficial way but essentially still two. No, they were not to be regarded as "two" any longer. 
    Genesis 5: " 1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and he blessed them and named them Man [Hebrew 'Adam'] in the day when they were created." 
This is not bad grammar. Adam AND Eve are together here named "Man." Literally the Hebrew word here is "Adam." So God's word tells us God named the first human couple "Adam"! Thus, a singular name addresses two persons. So although the name "Adam" could signify the one person, the first human, the name could also signify the one flesh, the one nature of Adam and Eve. 

Were Adam and Eve viewed as "one flesh" only because they were both human or was there another, more essential, reason? If Eve dwelt with Adam but made all her own decisions (which she later did), would they still be "one flesh" or would their essential unity have been compromised? Does this not mean there would have been two decision-makers and thus they would no longer be acting as one entity? Does it not seem reasonable the primary reason Adam and Eve were "one flesh" is because God intended there should be only one primary decision-maker with the other being a submissive complement? 

Imagine that Adam and Eve had remained sinless and had a child named Cain. Suppose we could ask Cain 'Who is your boss (or head)?' Cain would probably reason that since Eve was in perfect submission and one flesh with Adam, both his parents were his boss. He would say 'My boss is Adam and Eve.' If we asked 'Then how many bosses do you have?' He would reason that since Adam and Eve were ONE flesh, the authority was 'one', so he would say 'One boss.' But since Adam and Eve were two persons, does this not mean there were two bosses, a 'big' boss and a 'little' boss? No, for Adam and Eve were to be in perfect unity with perfect communication, acting as one entity with one decision-maker, one will. No, there was only one boss, the two persons together named "Adam" (or "Man"). They could not be two bosses for they were "no longer two." 

Next suppose we asked Eve. 'Do you have a boss?' She would reason that since she was in perfect submission, and Adam was her head, she would say 'Yes' she had a boss, Adam. Then how many human bosses are there in the Garden of Eden, one or two? The answer is 'one'. Yet if Eve is a boss and she has a boss, does this not mean one plus one are two bosses? No, if Eve were not ONE flesh with Adam, if she acted on her own initiative, then there would be two bosses and poor Cain would get confused about whom to obey. However, Eve was ONE flesh with her head, Adam and was not to act on her own initiative. So rather than viewing this as 'one boss plus one boss,' we should view it as 'one boss times one completely submissive boss' equals one boss. 

Further, just because Eve was to be submissive, this does not mean she was inferior. She was not a monkey nor was she to be a separate independent human. She was to be honored just as Adam (Exodus 20:12). Eve had the same nature as her head, Adam. She was not more or less human than him. She was made from Adam's rib so must have had the same genetic nature. He was the male gender and she was the female gender of the same humanity. But they each had a different role. Eve was a distinct person from Adam but they were not to be viewed as being separated, for they were "no longer two." 

The same is true for the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They are all Deity. They have the same essential attributes of immortality, having the authority to judge and give life, they all are credited with making the universe, their glory is one. Although the Son is submissive, he is to be honored just as much as the Father (John 5:23). However, they are all distinct persons. Generally we do not say they are 'separate' since the Father was always with the Son (John 8:29; 14:10; 16:32) except on one occasion when the Holy Father separated from the Son who bore all the sins of all mankind, living and dead (Matthew 27:46). When Yahweh, the One True God, spoke in the Old Testament, he usually spoke for "us," the three persons of the Trinity (Isaiah 6:1-10 Yahweh; John 12:36-43 Son; Acts 28:25-27 Holy Spirit). At times the name "Yahweh" distinguishes the Father from the Son (Psalm 110:1) but at other times Jesus has the name of Yahweh (John 17:6,11,12). Each person has a different role or function in the universe. One person, the Father, is the source of all authority and decisions, the Son is the perfect agent or servant (Acts 4:27) who carries out the one will better than any angel could. 

This explains why Jesus does not know those things that are reserved for the Father to decide, for he must first learn of those decisions from the Father (Mark 13:32; John 6:38; 7:16; 8:26,28,29,40,42; 12:49,50; 14:10,24,31). It explains why Jesus is eternally submissive to his Father as his head (1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:28; John 5:19,20). It explains how the Father is greater than Jesus (John 14:28) yet they are still one (John 10:30). Just as Eve was a boss and yet also had a boss, Jesus is called God (Isaiah 9:6; John 20:28) and yet he has a God (Hebrews 1:9; Ephesians 1:17; John 20:17; Revelation 3:12). Likewise, just as Adam and Eve were one flesh and were to behave as one unit and thus there was only one boss in the garden, in heaven there is just one authority, one God. 

In Essential Truths of the Christian Faith by R.C. Sproul in Chapter 26 ("The Subordination of Christ") it says: "A subordinate is not a peer; a subordinate is not on an equal level of authority with his or her super-ordinate. The prefix sub- means "under" and super- means "over" or "above." When we speak of the subordination of Christ we must do so with great care. Our culture equates subordination with inequality. But in the Trinity all members are equal in nature, in honor, and in glory. All three members are eternal, self-existent; they partake of all aspects and attributes of deity. In God's plan of redemption, however, the Son voluntarily takes on a subordinate role to the Father. It is the Father who sends the Son into the world . . . As they are the same in glory, the Father and the Son are also of one will. . . . By submitting Himself to the perfect will of His Father, Jesus did for us what we were unwilling and unable to do for ourselves. . . . As the subordinate One, He saved a people who had been insubordinate. . . . Although Christ is equal to the Father in terms of His divine nature, He is subordinate to the Father in His role in redemption. Subordination does not mean 'inferior.' " 


 

Chapter 4, paragraph 2 (Can Jesus be worshiped?)

This paragraph complains that some worship Jesus as Almighty God.
 
The short answer:
"I think I understand why you say that it is a distortion to worship Jesus as Almighty God. Only God should be worshiped and you do not believe Jesus is God. Is that how you see it? . . . I have not reached the conclusion that Jesus is not God but I can say that I could never worship someone that was not truly God. In reading ahead in this chapter I see it discusses why you do not believe Jesus is God so I will hold my questions until then."

 

Chapter 4, paragraphs 12, 13 (Was Jesus created?)

These two paragraphs claim that Jesus was created and quote as support these scriptures: Micah 5:2; John 3:16; Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14; Proverbs 8:22-31. Each is explained below.
 
A simple initial response:
I read the verses referenced here, John 1:1 & Colossians 1:15 along with the context and I am having difficulty putting it together the way you do. So could you comment on three verses: John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 and third, Acts 17:24. My question is: if Jesus is called God and he made Adam and the whole earth, who is spoken of in Acts 17:24? Or asked another way, is Jesus the God that made made the world and all the things in it? . . . That seems to be an easy question that could be answered clearly either 'yes' or 'no' but I cannot put it together with what I read in your book here.
The difficulty for the JWs here is that according to their translation of the Bible, Jesus is called "a god" (John 1:2) and he made the universe (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). So was Jesus "a god" when he made the universe? It would seem so. Then according to Acts 17:24 who is "The God that made the world and all the things in it, being, as this One is, Lord of heaven and earth, . . . [who] . . . gives to all persons life and breath and . . .  he made out of one man every nation of men"?
Here is a little longer presentation that gives evidence Jesus is God and he did not have a beginning.
Take a piece of paper and draw the illustration below. Write as title at the top "Everything that has ever existed . . .". Next, draw a line starting from the top, just below the title, to the bottom dividing it in half. On the left, slightly below the top, write: ". . . Those things that were brought into existence. . ." On the right, at the top, write: ". . . everything else . . . the things that have always existed." There are only two categories, every thing that has ever existed was either made or it was not made. Either it was brought into existence or it was always here. 

Next, on the left half, starting down below the second title, draw another line dividing it into half again. Thus you now have three columns or lists. At the top of the left-most list write the words ". . . through the agency of Jesus" and at the top of the middle list write ". . . not through the agency of Jesus." Logically the left side of ". . . Those things that were brought into existence. . ." can be broken into two categories: either the thing was made through Jesus or it was made but not through the agency of Jesus, that is, it was made apart from Jesus. There are no other categories, everything that has ever existed belongs on one of these three lists. 
 

Everything that has ever existed . . . 
(can be put into 3 categories according to John 1:1-3) . . .
Those things that were brought into existence . . . 
. . . everything else . . . 
(the things that have always existed) 

(3)

. . . through the agency of Jesus . . . or
(1)
. . . NOT through the agency of Jesus
(2)
All Things . . . 
  • stars and planets 
  • angels 
  • humans 
  • living things
  • etc. 
Not even one thing
  • God the Father 
  • Holy Spirit 
  • The Word <==? 
In which category does the Word, Jesus, belong?
Next, turn to John 1:3 where John comments on two of the three lists. There John says: 
    "Through him all things were made (category 1); without him nothing was made that has been made (category 2)." NIV (Some scholars think this last phrase belongs with the next verse, but either way, the point will be the same.) Or 

    "All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being." NRSV

The first phrase in this verse addresses our left-most list. It shows that all things that were ever made, or came into being, came through Jesus and therefore should be listed on the first list. So write the words "All things" on this list. Then add "stars and planets, angels, humans, living things, etc.

This alone would imply that the second list, those things made apart from the agency of Jesus, is an empty list. But could there be an exception? Are there things that were made by the Father apart from any action of the Son? 

John next says "without him not one thing came into being." John is specifically addressing the category of those things that came into being (or were made) by someone but without the agency of the Word. He comments that in this category there is "not one thing." In Greek the reference to "not one thing" is emphatic. It means zero, there are no exceptions. There are no objects in this category. 

So on your middle list write the words "not even one thing." Reaffirm the point by reading the three titles together: "Everything that has ever existed . . . those things that were brought into existence. . . (but) not through the agency of Jesus" and that according to John 1:3 this list contains "not even one thing.

Yet, the J-Ws believe there is at least one thing the Father made without the agency of the Word. Would you be surprised if someone said 'this jar contains not even one thing' and then when you looked inside there was something in there? For the J-Ws that is how it is. John said "not one thing" was made without the agency of the Word, yet J-Ws believe there was one thing, the Word himself, who was made without the agency of the Word. 

Now fill in the rest of the paper by deciding where to list "The Father." Since the Father has always existed, He is from eternity (Psalm 90:2; 93:2), list "the Father" on the right-most list. Next, decide where the Holy Spirit should be listed. Did Jesus bring the Holy Spirit into existence? Scripture says the Spirit was in the beginning with God (Genesis 1:1,2). So add the "Holy Spirit" to the right-most list. Finally decide where Jesus should be listed. Did Jesus make himself, did he bring himself into existence? No, that is logically impossible. Jesus cannot be put on the middle list for John 1:3 insists "not even one thing" could be listed there. Therefore, the only place Jesus can be listed is on the right side as one of those things that was always here. 

Although this simple presentation does not fully prove that the Holy Spirit is a person, we must admit there are three items on the list of things that always existed. All three were involved in creation, including the Holy Spirit (Psalm 104:30). Yet Isaiah 44:24, Malachi 2:10, Acts 17:24 say only ONE God made the universe, all by himself. Thus we have three entities, but ONE God.


Micah 5:2


The simple response:
"I am puzzled a bit over how you see Micah 5:2 but if I can ask a question I think that will clear things up for me. Do you see something in Micah 5:2 that suggests Jesus was created? . . . (If they say yes . . .) . . . Do you have a translation that has explanatory footnotes to explain special words in the verse? I ask this because my translation says that where your translation says 'origin' my translation has it being plural. If it is plural and it is referring to Jesus being created, it must mean he was created several times in the distant past. Do you believe Jesus was created more than once?"

For comparison here are how two translations render this verse . . .

They will not be able to explain why the Hebrew word there is plural. Therefore, they cannot justify their suggested meaning of a single origin for Jesus' life. You should not need to say more than this. If you were to go into a long scholarly response the J-Ws will become uncomfortable for they prefer to be the teachers.
 
More information (it should not be necessary to present this to the JW at this time):
This prophecy of the coming Christ says that He will go forth from Bethlehem. But for the rest of the verse there appears to be a dispute as to what is meant. One thought is that although he will go forth from Bethlehem, in reality his "goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity." Another thought is that although his humanity will originate in Bethlehem, in reality his "origins are from of old, from ancient times." What is the difference? Those that believe the Son was created would say that He had an origin, a day of beginning, that was long ago. Is it possible that this meaning is present here? 

This can be answered simply by considering this: if the Son were actually created, how many times was he created? The answer would necessarily be ‘one.' How could the Son have more than one beginning, one origin? Yet the Hebrew word in this verse translated either "origins" or "goings forth" is plural. This cannot be speaking about the Son's origin in the sense of beginning of existence. 

Another point that often escapes the reader is that this Hebrew word refers to a "place" (or in this case, places). The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Vol. 1 word # 893d) defines it as a "place from which one comes or to which one goes." This word also appears in 2 Kings 10:27 referring to the place where one goes, that is, an ‘outhouse.' So this verse is not speaking about a single origin in time but rather multiple points from which the Ruler has come from or through. The Wordbook suggests that this refers to the ancestry of the Ruler which can be traced back through many generations to long ago. The Contemporary English Version reads "someone whose family goes back to ancient times." 

Others have suggested that this refers to other earthly appearances of Jesus prior to his birth (Exodus 14:19 & 1 Corinthians 10:4; Genesis 18 and John 8:39,40,56-58; and possibly Hebrews 4:8 — translating the name as ‘Jesus' instead of ‘Joshua'). With this view, Micah was foretelling that although it would appear that Bethlehem was the Messiah's home, it was not really the first earthly place from which he came. 

Another possible meaning, but less likely, is found in the Syriac version of Micah 5:2: ". . . yet out of you shall come forth a ruler to govern Israel; whose goings forth have been predicted from of old, from eternity." 

This rendering would suggest that it is not the Ruler's "origin" that is from long ago but rather it was the prediction of a coming Ruler that was from long ago (Genesis 3:15; 49:10). 

What about the word rendered either "ancient times" or "days of eternity?" If the rendering of "ancient times" is preferred, would this prove that the Ruler started his existence at some point in the ancient times? As we saw above, this would only be significant if the verse were actually speaking about the Ruler's origin of life, His creation. If it were only speaking about His ancestry or the places he has come from, then there is no implication to his beginning of life. 

But even if this verse were referring to the time of the Ruler's origin (singular) the word does not necessarily mean "ancient times." This Hebrew word can also mean "from eternity." In Psalm 90:2 and 93:2 this word is translated as saying that God is from eternity. So just as God is from eternity, this verse would be saying the same thing for the Ruler that was to appear in Bethlehem. 


John 3:16

In paragraph 13 of chapter 4 their Knowledge book claims that John 3:16 proves Jesus was created. They reason this way because in that verse Jesus is called the "only-begotten" (also see in John 1:14,18; 3:18; 1 John 4:9).
 
The simple response:
"This verse was interesting. I tried to do some cross-checking in my Bible to see what 'only-begotten' meant. It seemed to me that the reference to 'only-begotten' was related to Psalm 2:7. There it affirms that Jesus was begotten so I would have to say I agree he is 'only-begotten' and, as it says, begotten on one certain day. Do you see this day as the day of his creation? . . . I am not sure that it was. Verses like Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:3-5 suggest that Jesus was begotten on a day after his resurrection. I had heard  some Christians believe that begotten has a special meaning that has something to do with being appointed to a position of prominence and authority in God's household. Could that be its meaning?"
More information (too much to present to the JWs at this time):
Note that this word does not necessarily mean "only-child" as one might assume. In Hebrews 11:17 the word refers to Isaac as the "only-begotten" but he was neither the first one born nor the only son of Abraham for Ishmael was the oldest son. For this and other reasons, Bible scholars believe that the word is best translated "only-kind" or "unique" rather than "only-begotten". (The word "only-begotten" is built from two Greek words monos and genos. While genos can mean offspring it also means "kind" as in Matthew 13:47 referring to kinds of fish.) 

The Greek noun genos (as in "only-begotten") is derived from the Greek word 'ginomai' as is another Greek word, the verb gennao ("to beget" — as a father begets a son; Philemon 10; Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5; 5:5). Note that in Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:3-5 (both quoting from Psalm 2:7) the term is applied to a specific day when Jesus was "begotten" by the Father. This day does not, could not, refer to the beginning of Jesus' existence. The context clearly shows it refers to a day soon after his resurrection. In Hebrews 5:5 this same word refers to the day he was glorified as High Priest, which was also after his resurrection. So instead of Psalm 2:7 applying to the day of Jesus' beginning, it refers to the day of His exaltation to being the Son (Romans 1:4), the Firstborn (Revelation 1:5), the Unique One ("only-begotten"), the High Priest, the Prominent One in the Father's house who inherits all things. 

So while it is true that the Word has the title of ‘begotten,' this title is in reference to his becoming heir of all his Father's house and was bestowed upon him soon after his resurrection. This is also true of the title "first-born of the dead" (Revelation 1:5), also bestowed after his resurrection. Like "first-born" this title refers to a position of prominence and authority in God's household. This explains why Isaac was the "only-begotten" (Hebrews 11:17) even though he was not the only-son. Isaac was the only one that was promised to inherit his father's household. 


Colossians 1:15

Next, their Knowledge book refers to Colossians 1:15 but without much comment. Often the J-Ws point to this verse and claim that the reference to being the 'firstborn' means he was the first creature given life, the first one born.
 
The simple response:
"I wondered about the reference to Jesus being the 'firstborn' and did some more Bible reading. Hebrews 12:23 also refers to 'firstborn' but I do not think it applies to Jesus. If not, then it would seem that this title 'firstborn' could mean something other than 'first created'. Somewhere I heard that the term for 'firstborn' in Hebrews 12:23 is plural and therefore scholars think it must refer to  many people like all born-again Christians. Do you know if this word really is plural in Hebrews 12:23? If so, who are these firstborn persons? . . . I think that most scholars think this title of firstborn applies to born-again Christians because they will form a congregation of kings over the earth and will all be first in prominence. I heard the title 'firstborn' in this case has emphasis not on the sequence of birth, but on the prominence in God's kingdom. This is supposed to explain how Jesus is the 'firstborn' because he is the most prominent in God's kingdom. Had you heard this explanation before?"
More information (too much to present to the JWs at this time):
    Colossians 1:15 "He is . . . the firstborn of all creation" 

    Hebrews 1:6 "And when He again brings the firstborn into the world"

What does "firstborn" mean here? Does it suggest that Jesus is the first (in chronological sequence) to be born? Is Colossians 1:15 teaching that the Son is a member of ‘creation?' 

If the reference to "firstborn" in the Bible primarily means being the first to have been given life, then that title could never be lost because it would refer to a factual event, the first birth. Further, the title could never be applied to someone that was not truly the first in sequence. 

But the Bible shows that the title of "firstborn" can be removed or gained independently of whether a person is the first one to be born. 

  • 1 Chronicles 5:1,2 shows that Reuben was the first one born to Isaac and yet he lost this position due to bad conduct. The position of "firstborn" passed to Joseph. 
  • David was called "firstborn" yet he was the youngest in the family (Psalm 89:27, 1 Samuel 16: 11-13). 
  • Ephraim was called the "firstborn" even though he was the second born (Jeremiah 31:9, Genesis 41:51-52).
While the term "firstborn" could refer to the first child born, either male or female (Genesis 19:31), it was more importantly a title bestowed on the one to inherit the father's patriarchal position. If the first born child were a female, then the title was given to the first male born. But this privilege could be lost and passed to another son as seen above (1 Chronicles 5:1,2). So in the case where a man had many daughters born first and then a few delinquent sons, it could be that the last son born becomes the "firstborn." Thus when the term "firstborn" is used as a title, as in its application to Jesus, it has nothing to do with sequence of birth but rather with authority in the Father's house. 

Only when we view "firstborn" as referring to a position of leadership can we understand how the entire nation of Israel was called God's firstborn at Exodus 4:22 or how a terrible disease could be called the "firstborn of death" at Job 18:12,13. 

At Romans 8:29 Jesus is said to be the firstborn among believing mankind. Is the point of this verse to teach that Jesus is the first member of the class of believing humans. No. The title of "firstborn" here would be a title exalting Jesus as being the first in prominence and in leadership rather than the first in sequence. Christ is the head of the congregation (Ephesians 5:23) and therefore has the title of "firstborn" over all Christians. 

If "firstborn" primarily signified first in a sequence, and Jesus is the "firstborn" among all spirit-filled believers (Romans 8:9,29), then those believers would necessarily be ‘born' after the firstborn and thus be something like ‘second-born' or ‘third-born.' Yet Hebrews 12:23 says that all these spirit-filled Christians form the church of the 'firstborn.' There the title 'firstborn' is in the plural form and is applied to all born-again Christians. How can all believers that have ever lived, even those alive today, be the first ones born? They cannot be 'first' if we imagine that the title refers to those 'first' in a sequence. But since Christians will form a congregation of kings over the earth (Revelation 5:10) they will all be first in prominence. In the title 'firstborn' the emphasis is not on the sequence of birth, but on the prominence in God's kingdom. 

A similar problem would exist in Revelation 1:5 where Jesus is said to be the "first-born of the dead." Jesus was not the first to be resurrected from the dead, others were. While Jesus was the first to be resurrected and then go to heaven, this verse does not make any direct reference to his glorification to heaven (while 1 Corinthians 15:23 does). In this verse it instead specifically assigns the title "first-born" in connection with his being from the dead. It also declares him to be the "ruler of the kings of the earth," also a position of prominence. So any thought of ‘firstness' with respect to sequence is of lesser importance, the main point is ‘firstness' in position of authority

From the context of Colossians 1:15-18 it is evident that the passage is not making a statement about Jesus being the first thing created but rather that he is over all things because he created all things for Himself and he is to have the "first place in everything" (see verse 18). The emphasis is on being first in prominence. 

What about the reasoning that since Jesus is the firstborn "of" creation that therefore he must be a member of that group? This would be like referring to Acts 17:24 and claiming that God must be "of" the earth because He is Lord of the earth. Saying that Jesus is the firstborn of creation is only saying that he has a position of rulership over all creation. 


Revelation 3:14

The JWs think this verse means Jesus is ‘the first of the creation by God.'
 
The simple response:
"I have seen that other translations render this verse differently so I hesitate to draw a firm conclusion from just this one verse. The New International Version reads "the ruler of God's creation" and the New Revised Standard reads "the origin of God's creation." Somewhere I saw a reference to Luke 20:20 saying that the Greek word that is here in Revelation 3:14 is the same word as in Luke 20:20 where it means 'ruler.' Do you know if this is true?"

Proverbs 8:1-4,11-17,22-30

J-Ws take this passage from verse 22 to 30 to teach that Jesus was the first created angel, who became known as a "master workman."
 
The simple response:
"I can see that if this passage were to be applied literally to a person then that person would be the first created angel. But where are the words that identify this person as Jesus. . . . Is there a New Testament verse that specifically refers to this passage and says that it is Jesus?"
More information (probably too much to present at this time to the JW):
If we assume this passage literally refers to a person, then what is the significance of the statement about when God "marked out the foundations of the earth; Then I was beside Him, as a master workman"? One might conclude this "master workman" was a creature, distinct from the Creator, who assisted in making the earth. But this would contradict Isaiah 44:24, which says God made the earth by Himself, alone. Anyone that was involved in the creation of the earth would also have to be the One True God (see Malachi 2:10; Psalm 102:1,24-27 and Hebrews 1:10-12). 

If we ignore both Isaiah 44:24 and Malachi 2:10 and then imagine Proverbs 8 refers to the first created angel, this still does not conflict with a belief in the Trinity. One could simply believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (three Divine persons all sharing the nature of the One True God) plus one (or more) angels participated in making the universe. Proverbs 8 does not limit the participants to just the Father plus one angel. It also does not identify that angel as being the Son (or the Holy Spirit or Michael or Gabriel). The idea that Proverbs 8 informs us of an angelic assistant does not conflict with the Trinity, it conflicts with Isaiah 44:24 and Malachi 2:10. 

Also, note the context. Beginning in verse 1 it says "wisdom" (female in Hebrew) is calling out in the city streets and gates. Then in verse 4 her testimony begins and goes through verse 36. Verses 22 through 30 cannot be taken as a separate, unconnected passage. (Compare Proverbs 1:20-33 for a similar testimony of "Wisdom" calling out in the streets.) 

If verse 30 is evidence that "wisdom" is a real person that dwelled with God, then what is meant in verse 1 and verse 12? In verse 1 it says "wisdom" calls and "understanding" lifts her voice. Does this person then have two names, "wisdom" and "understanding" or are there two different persons here? Verse 14 could be viewed as supplying the answer since "wisdom" says "I am understanding." But is that the real meaning of verse 14, to say that this one person has two names, "Wisdom" and "Understanding"? 

What about verse 12 where it says that "wisdom" dwells with "prudence"? If verse 30 proves that "wisdom" dwells with God and is therefore a distinct person from God, then we should consistently conclude that there was another person called "prudence"identified  in verse 12. 

Notice some of the things "wisdom" says. In verse 11 she says that "wisdom" is better than jewels. Is the main point here that she is a valuable person, worth more than jewels? Or is it not more likely the point being made is that it is more valuable for a man to have the quality of wisdom than to have riches? (Compare Proverbs 2:2-4 where the reader is told to search for wisdom as one would for treasure.) 

What about verse 14 where "wisdom" says she has "sound wisdom?" Is she claiming to have herself? Isn't it more reasonable to see this as just a pictorial of having the abstract quality of "wisdom?" 

Likewise, verse 15 and 16 says kings and princes rule by "wisdom." If "wisdom" is an actual person, then this is saying the earthly kings in the days of Solomon, the writer of Proverbs, were ruling by this creature named "Wisdom." Verse 17 adds that those who were seeking this creature were actually finding her. But there is no Old Testament reference that even suggests that such was the case! 

The context of the chapter and the whole book of Proverbs makes it plain that this is figurative speech referring to the importance of having the quality of ‘wisdom', understanding and prudence. God used all these in making the universe and man should seek to have them. 

Although it might sound odd for this passage to say that "Wisdom" was a "master workman" supposedly helping God lay the foundations of the earth note this: 

    Proverbs 3: "13 How blessed is the man who finds wisdom and the man who gains understanding. 14 For her profit is better than the profit of silver and her gain better than fine gold. 15 She is more precious than jewels; and nothing you desire compares with her. . . .  19 The LORD (Yahweh) by wisdom founded the earth; By understanding He established the heavens. 20 By His knowledge the deeps were broken up, and the skies drip with dew. 21 My son, let them not depart from your sight; Keep sound wisdom and discretion." (Also see Psalm 104:24)
This wording sounds very similar to chapter 8 but is this passage really talking about a person called "wisdom", "understanding" or "knowledge?" What about God's "knowledge" in verse 20, is this a person or an abstract quality? And what is verse 21 telling the son to keep, a person? The message here is that God made the universe (by himself — Isaiah 44:24; Malachi 2:10) but he used His qualities of wisdom and understanding. 

If this passage were actually referring to a heavenly person that was created as a helper, where is the proof that this is referring to the Word, Jesus? There is no contextual evidence pointing to Jesus nor is there any New Testament verse that says this is Jesus. If this were actually referring to a creature instead of God's quality of wisdom, this would be an angel, most likely the first one from "the beginning of His way." But there is no connection here to Jesus. 

Proverbs chapter 8 is figurative speech. This passage is not teaching that wisdom literally calls out in the streets or that it physically dwells with "prudence" or that it was created at some point in time. The purpose of this passage (as clarified in Proverbs 3:19-21) is to say to the reader: ‘Wisdom is important. You should seek it. It will make you wealthy. It is what great people seek. Wisdom is what kings use to rule. Wisdom is older than the earth because God has it. God greatly manifested his wisdom when He made the earth.' This passage is not talking about a literal person but is just personifying wisdom as if it had personal attributes. This is similar to Luke 7:35 where wisdom is said to have children.



 

Chapter 4, paragraph 15 (The Holy Spirit)


The simple response:
"I did some reading on whether the Holy Spirit could be a person. It would seem to me that Romans 8:22-27 suggests that the Spirit is a distinct person from the Father. There it says that all creation groans and Christians groan too, but in verse 26 it says the Spirit groans in the same way. To me that sounds like the Spirit is an entity that can groan like creation and like Christians. Next the verse says the Spirit intercedes between us and the Father. Now if the Spirit were really part of the Father, how does one part of the Father intercede between us and another part of the Father? Then in verse 27 it says the Spirit has a mind. All this sounds like the Holy Spirit is a person to me."



 

Chapter 9 (Conditionalism / Annihilationism)

J-Ws have a cherished belief regarding the wicked. Briefly they believe the wicked are never resurrected, they never experience any suffering for what they have done. Instead they cease to exist when they die. I do not know of any evangelical Christians who have the same identical belief as J-Ws. However, there is an increasing number of evangelicals who are reaching the conclusion that although the wicked may suffer for a time they will ultimately be destroyed (or annihilated) because immortal consciousness is conditional upon being a believer (thus the name - Annihilationism or Conditional Immortality).

This view is certainly a minority view, some even consider it to be heresy. But the following evangelical Bible scholars and commentators believe it in one form or another: John Stott (Evangelical Essentials, 1988 pages 313-320), John Wenham (The Goodness of God, 1974; Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell, 1991, chapter 6: The Case for Conditional Immortality), Stephen Travis (I Believe in the Second Coming of Jesus, 1982), Philip Hughes (The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ, 1989), Clark Pinnock (The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent, 1990), and Michael Green (Evangelism through the Local Church, 1992). Also see my article on this.

You do not need to give the impression you embrace this concept. But I strongly recommend you mention that there is a significant number of Bible scholars and commentators who believe the wicked will ultimately be brought to a state of eternal unconsciousness when all suffering will cease. As mentioned above, the reason I recommend telling this is because J-Ws love this doctrine and imagine they alone believe this. When they see there are other persons like them in the Christian community with the same feelings, they are more open to leaving the Watchtower. Once free of the Watchtower's authority they are more able to examine what the Bible says about the punishment of the wicked and then decide for themselves.

If appropriate you could mention a few scriptures that challenge the Watchtower's explanations:

There is a spirit that leaves the body at death and goes somewhere. They may feel this spirit is not conscious but at least it does continue to exist and returns to that person in the resurrection.

Ecclesiastes 12:7

Psalm 31:5

Luke 23:46

Acts 7:59

Philippians 1:23

2 Corinthians 5:2-8

Hebrews 12:23

Luke 8:55

After the resurrection, those whom Jesus judges as wicked based on their past sins will experience some suffering in the future.

2 Corinthians 5:10

Revelation 22:18

Matthew 18:5-10

Mark 9:42-48

Hebrews 10:26-30

Matthew 8:11,12

Matthew 24:51

Luke 13:27-29