An Open Letter to a Jehovah’s

Witness
Or
‘I will read yours if you promise to read mine’

By Paul Hildreth

First Edition, August 2008

Copyright Paul Hildreth, 2008

Scriptures are taken from the New World Translation

1
 Contents

Chapter Page
Introduction 3

Common Ground? 7

Where do we Disagree? 11

What are some of your beliefs? 21

Who should we Obey? 25

The Bible: God’s Message to us 29

What does this Mean for our Lives? 35

What should be our Response? 39

2
 Introduction

And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free
John 8:38

3
I will read yours if you promise to read mine.

Imagine that you, as a Jehovah's Witness, wanted to convince a Roman Catholic of

the errors you believed to be found in the Catholic Church. But suppose that the
Roman Catholic would refuse to look at your literature or hear your arguments. What
would you think of them? How would you ever convince them that Roman
Catholicism was in error?
By the way, I am not a Roman Catholic.
If I was to give you literature which tried to show that the Watchtower was wrong, but
you refused to take it, how would you ever know if the Watchtower was correct?
So, please be fair and read my literature.
**
Why did I write this letter?

Believe it or not, this letter is written with love.

It is not intended to be a simple ‘put-down’ of your sincere belief.

It is written as a result of studies and discussions with Jehovah’s Witnesses.

I could easily sum up our meetings as ‘They had their beliefs, I had mine, and never
the twain shall meet’, and leave it at that.

However, I thought that both Jehovah’s Witnesses and ‘mainstream’ believers might
be able to use my experiences, so I decided to write down what I had found.

Before meeting with the Witnesses, I could simply not understand how or why people
could believe the teaching of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. After I had
finished it, I knew how, and I knew why.

During a series of very one-sided chats and studies, I felt that I was being given a step
by step exposition of indoctrinated belief, repeated, almost ‘parrot fashion’ in
justification of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ faith. I am sure that, had I spoken to any
other Witness, I would have received the same arguments in the same order, perhaps
even using the same words and phrases, and definitely using the same literature.

They were certainly well trained, I will concede that. They were extremely zealous for
their faith, and very persistent when I showed signs of interest. Their zeal could easily
put other Christians to shame.

Having listened to Witnesses and read the literature they so generously provided me
with, I sometimes found myself questioning my beliefs. Were the Jehovah’s
Witnesses, after all, correct?

4
You see, much of what you say makes sense, perfectly good sense. Until I look behind
it and investigate deeper, that is.

So, I can understand why you have so many members. Your approach appeals
strongly to people who might be seeking a religious or spiritual side to their lives. It
fits ‘modern’ ideas, and therefore can be easier to believe.

• It says that Jesus was not God.

• It says simply, if you are not accepted by God, you are annihilated, which fits
easily with the prevalent idea that ‘When you are dead, you are dead’. People
have been led to believe that ‘mainstream’ Christians all believe in eternal
torment in Hell.

• It confirms for many people their negative impressions of much of the visible
church in the world today.

• It promises a paradise on earth.

The subjects of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ pressure may also not have been presented with
any credible alternatives, so they may easily grab hold of the first one that is presented
forcibly and convincingly to them.

As a Jehovah’s Witness, they are then strongly discouraged from the study of
alternatives. Other Christian organisations are caricatured, emphasising the features
that are most easily criticised.

I understand now how the tactics you use can succeed.

On numerous occasions the Witnesses would turn up at my door unannounced,

presumably to catch me off my guard and unprepared. (or am I being too cynical?).

I also noticed how they were very reluctant to take with them anything I had prepared
as my side of the discussion, and yet they would regularly give me their own
literature. They would try to control any discussions we had, seemingly following a
well laid out path. It was as if they were so convinced they were correct, or so well
indoctrinated, that they would not listen to anything I said that contradicted their point
of view.

Even if my argument seemed to me to be eminently logical, well presented and very

self evidently correct, they chose to think not. They seemed to be closing their ears to
it, and on the next occasion we met it was like it had not been said.

These were people who were one hundred percent convinced of the absolute truth of
what they believed, or what they had been instructed to believe, to be more precise.

I could not help wondering, do you ever have doubts? If you do, are you reluctant to
voice them? Are you so well controlled or genuinely fully confident? I say that I am
fully confident in my belief, but it does not stop me from having occasional doubts
that I have to overcome. I am open-minded. My mind is open to alternative

5
arguments. A Jehovah’s Witness does not seem to have this capability, or is not
permitted it. Is that a good thing? Somehow, I don’t think so.

**

Where do we go from here?

I know that your belief and faith is sincerely held, and you should most certainly be
commended for your zeal on its behalf. It is the furthest wish from my mind that you
would feel that I was trying to belittle your beliefs with criticism that you may find
offensive or upsetting.

From both of our points of view, discussion should be based on truths from the Bible,
and the Bible only. I believe that we should both agree on this. I have no problem with
using your organisation’s ‘New World Translation’ of the Bible for this purpose.
However, in any discussion between a Jehovah’s Witness and a ‘mainstream’
Christian believer, they should not simply throw Biblical quotations back and forth at
one other, each retorting with their own interpretation. That, I have discovered, is
fruitless.

Might I suggest what we should do from here?

Perhaps we should ask ourselves the following questions:

1) What beliefs do we share? What is the ‘common ground’?

2) Where do we disagree?
3) What are some of your beliefs?
4) Who should we obey?
5) What is God telling us in the Bible? What is the basic message?
6) What does this mean for our lives?
7) What should be our response?

************************************

6
 Common Ground?

Former adversaries can come together to find common ground in a way

that benefits all their people, to let go of the past and embrace the
future, to forgive and to reconcile.
Bill Clinton

7
What beliefs could we be said to share?

Let me suggest some:

1 The Bible is the Word of God to us.

2 We share a disagreement with some ‘Christian’ organisations. They have almost

relegated the Bible to secondary importance, replacing it with human traditions,
interpretations and superstitions.

3 We both believe that the other has been led astray by false teaching.

4 We both seem to believe in Armageddon and the ultimate establishment of God’s

Kingdom of Heaven and a Paradise Earth.

5 Human death was brought about by Adam’s sin.

6 People who have not been given the chance to understand God’s message will be
judged according to their actions and their conscience.

7 We might agree more than you may think about the subject of Hell.

This one needs a little more explanation.

What might you do if you want to control people’s minds and lives, or to compel them
to believe?

You can threaten eternal, conscious, horrible punishment in Hell, as much of the
mainstream Christian Church over the centuries has done.

But what if you believe in the annihilation of the wicked?

You can then say that the end of the world is going to be within our lifetime, as the
Jehovah’s Witnesses tend to do (on numerous occasions).

Both methods are based on threats and fear.

Are these methods of ‘saving souls’ out of concern for people, or are they just to earn
merit in the eyes of God and man, for self aggrandisement, to control people’s lives,
or simply to put ‘bottoms on seats’?

Does God really want believers who have come to faith through fear and threats?

I believe that a more acceptable interpretation of what the Bible says about Hell is
this:

Hell is the place of destruction of the world and the wicked at the day of judgement,
after the dead (both good and wicked) have been resurrected.
In the meantime, between now and ‘judgement day’, the dead are just dead (again, the
good and the bad).

8
The resurrection of the dead takes place when this present world ends.
After judgement, the wicked then die a second death.
It is the second death that lasts forever, and this is the eternal punishment.
They are never again resurrected.
They are not tormented eternally, they are simply finally dead, for ever.
The righteous go on to eternal life in a different place referred to as Heaven, or
Paradise (or Heaven and a new Earth).

One thing is for sure. The ‘wicked’ will be in a permanent state of separation from
God, even if this means that they are eternally dead.

8 We both give God the name ‘Jehovah’.

You may not agree.

You say that Bible translations that render the Hebrew ‘tetragrammon’ YHWH as
‘LORD’ are giving God a title, when we should be using His name.

The King James Version of the Bible uses ‘Jehovah’ and LORD.1 Christians sing a
hymn called ‘Guide me, o thou great Jehovah’. Other versions of the Bible may use
the Greek attempt at rendering God’s name (Kyrios), and some translate it with a
capitalised ‘LORD’.

The capitals indicate it is a unique name, not a title. This is not neglecting the name of
God. It is expressing the original Greek (and Greek translations from Hebrew into
Greek). It also considers that the pronunciation or any revised spelling of YHWH was
not certain at the time the Greek was written. It also takes into account that to speak
the name was unacceptable to the Jews of that time.

YHWH can be translated as:

• ‘I am who I am’,
• ‘I am ever becoming what I am’
• ‘the self existent one’.

Should we translate it or speak it as this every time it is used? If they used the name,
that is what the Hebrews would have been saying. Surely, whatever word is used in
translation to give this name, as long as it means the same, it is acceptable.
Should we be calling Jesus ‘Jehoshua’? Should He be Jehoshua Messiah instead of
Jesus Christ? This name in both versions can be traced back through translations to
mean ‘Jehovah saves’ and ‘Annointed One’.

Your position on the name of God seems to me to be there to allow you to stress the
name ‘Jehovah’ in order to be able to distinguish it from LORD when the Greek
‘Kyrios’ is applied to Jesus, for example, when saying Jesus is LORD. You cannot
accept that this says that Jesus is Jehovah.

1
Look at Isaiah 26:4. The name of God appears to be used twice here, probably for emphasis. Your
NWT translates as ‘Jah Jehovah’, the KJV translates as LORD JEHOVAH and the NIV (New
International Version) translates as ‘The LORD, the LORD’.

9
9 We agree that the world as we see it leaves much to be desired, and is not as God
intended it to be.

So, sometimes the ‘common ground’ we share can be firmer than we might realise,
sometimes less so. This should be a good starting point, before we look at the areas
for which we might strongly disagree.

****************************

10
 Where do we Disagree?

To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable.

Barry Goldwater

11
Who was Jesus?

The person of Jesus is the most basic point over which we disagree.

A basic belief of yours is that Jesus is not God. Your organisation was founded in the
nineteenth century (of course, you may say that your beliefs were those of the first
Christians). The basis for its founding was that the historical ‘Christian’ churches had
got it all wrong.. This is partly because the Trinity (God the Father, God the Son, and
God the Holy Spirit, as three aspects of the one God) is not mentioned by name in the
Bible, so it is wrong.

You say that God would be more specific and not confuse us.

So, if you read the Bible without the guidance of the Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, would you come to the conclusion that Jesus was the Archangel Michael?
Has God really made it clear, as you say he should?

Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?

Where Bible reading and study is concerned, we should always look first for the
literal interpretation and accept it if it makes sense or is backed up by the weight of
the evidence elsewhere in the Bible. (some of your literature also makes this principle
clear).

‘While there is no statement in the Bible that categorically identifies Michael the
archangel as Jesus, there is one scripture that links Jesus with the office of
archangel’
From the JW’s ‘Awake’ magazine, February 2002

The verse is:

‘The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an
archangel’s voice…..’

If this alone justifies belief in Jesus as an archangel, I suppose that makes Charlotte
Church a real angel too. (Charlotte is a singer once described as having the ‘voice of
an angel’).

Let’s look at the references to the name Michael in the Bible.

Michael in the Old Testament

The name Michael appears once in Numbers, seven times in 1 Chronicles, once in 2
Chronicles, once in Ezra and three times in Daniel.

It is clear that the ‘Michaels’ in Numbers, 1 and 2 Chronicles and Ezra were simply
men named Michael, so there is no need to detail them here.

Michael in the Book of Daniel (3 references)

12
Daniel 10:13 This refers to Michael as “one of the foremost princes.” This is not a
description of Jesus. He is not likely to be one of a group of princes, as the rest of the
Bible clearly shows him as extremely special, as unique. He is the only Son of God
and the Messiah.
Daniel 10:21 This reference to Michael does not at all imply that this Michael is not
the same as the first one in Daniel, just being referred to as ‘the prince of YOU
people’. But Michael is still just one among many. But you use it to say that Michael
must be Jesus because he will protect Israel.
Daniel 12:1 Michael is referred to as “the great prince who is standing in behalf of the
sons of your people.” Again, you seem to assume that this means he must be Jesus,
because he protects Israel. But Michael is still just one among others, not the unique
person that is Jesus.
Michael is shown here as the guardian angel of Israel.
It is reasonable to say that this Michael is an angel, but unreasonable to equate him
with Jesus.

Michael in the Book of Jude

Jude 1:9 The Michael in Jude is clearly named as an archangel, with no reference to
Jesus.

Michael in the Book of Revelation

Revelation 12:7 has “Michael and his angels” fighting “the dragon and his angels.”
The Jehovah’s Witnesses seem to be saying that Michael is the leader of an army of
angels, so therefore he must be Jesus Christ.

Look at the other times Jesus is mentioned in the book of Revelation:

As ‘Jesus Christ’ 7 times

As ‘Jesus’ 6 times
As ‘Christ’ 4 times
As ‘Lord Jesus’ once
As ‘Lord Jesus Christ’ once.

Could you explain why the author of the book of Revelation would speak of Jesus
Christ so many times, and then only once call him Michael, just because he happens
to be leading an army of angels? This does not make sense, does it?

The most logical way to interpret this is as a description of a war between two armies
of angels, with the archangel Michael leading one army and the dragon (Satan)
leading the other. Satan can sometimes be referred to as a dragon, but where is Jesus
referred to as Michael?

It is clear to me (and I believe that it would be clear to any reasonable person) that
‘Michael’ is either used to refer to an Angel or (in everything but Daniel, Jude and the
book of Revelation) to mortal men.

There is not one mention of Michael where a logical or literal reading of the text
would suggest that Jesus is Michael. Your interpretation is, to say the least, tenuous,
and does not meet two of the generally accepted criteria for the study of God’s Word,
which are:

13
 • Acceptance of the literal interpretation if it makes sense
• Agreement with evidence elsewhere in the Bible.

But, of course, you would say that your leaders have been given a special insight,
wouldn’t you?

Why is this needed? I thought that God does not try to confuse us? Shouldn’t it be
readily apparent to us?

The value of Christ’s sacrifice

The possibility that one aspect of Almighty God was capable of living on earth as a
man seems to be too difficult to understand, so you look for alternatives.

You believe that Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel.

The problem is that such a belief devalues Jesus Christ’s sacrifice.

Christianity is so special because of the greatness of the sacrifice made by God for us.

Wasn’t Jesus’ sacrifice intended to demonstrate God’s eternal love for us?

For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that
everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.
(John 3:16, New World Translation)

In the words of a well known Christmas Carol, Jesus was ‘begotten, not created’.

According to you, God is capable of sending one of his creatures (Michael, as Jesus)
to suffer for him, rather than make the sacrifice himself.

Does this not strike you as less than real self sacrificial love?

I have seen an atheist’s criticism, saying they thought that God was supposed to be
good, but that he can’t be good if he sends his ‘Son’ to die. That is cruel and cowardly,
they say. They misunderstand, as does your organisation.

You seem to imply that God is saying ‘I love you, but I’m sending one of my servants
to die for you, not me’.

God tells us that we deserve punishment, but that he will give a sacrifice that takes
this punishment for us. You say that He then piles our punishment onto someone else
rather than himself.

People ask ‘Why should God allow suffering?’ They say it is not very good of him to
let us suffer without intervening. How would he feel if he suffered like us? Well, he
has!

14
I for one would not respect and worship a God who did not give Himself to suffer
with us and for us, but he has.

How do we really get to know God?

If you wished someone to get to know you, you would first make yourself known to
them. So, if God is a personal being and wishes us to get to know him, surely He will
make Himself known to us in a personal way. What better way, then, than to become
one of us?
This is therefore how the following verse should surely be interpreted:

No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side,
has made him known.
John 1:18 (New International version)

Note that your New World Translation says the following: ‘No man
has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the
bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him’.

This seems to be in order to avoid the conclusion that God is making

Himself known by meeting us in the person of Jesus Christ.

What does the ‘Son’ of God mean?

He sent his ‘only Son’ (John 3:16). Jesus is the Son of God. The word ‘son’ links
Jesus to God in a very personal way. It is our human way of expressing the
unfathomable. What else could we refer to him as? ‘God-Man’, or something? He was
seen to be born as a child, a son. Jesus had a mother on earth. He had a Father in
Heaven. God is born, as a son. The Son.

God’s own sacrifice, in the person of Jesus, is what makes the Christian faith so
unique. God himself loves us so much that he comes himself to experience our life
and to die.

The following are some scriptures that, I believe, say that Jesus as a man was also
God, come to earth to live amongst us. I know that you will have objections and
explanations for these.

John 1:1
In standard versions of the Bible, as almost all scholars of Biblical Greek would
verify, the first verse of John’s Gospel says ‘In the beginning was the Word. And the
Word was God’ Your New World Translation says ‘And the Word was a god.’ If it was
not there, you would have to admit that it said that Jesus was God, because John 1:14
says ‘the Word became flesh and resided among us’, clearly referring to Jesus. Of
course, you don’t believe that Jesus is God, so you appear to change the Bible. If
Jesus is ‘a’ god, this implies that there must be more than one. But I thought you
said that there was only one? Then, of course, in this case you say that god with a
small ‘g’ just means a ‘mighty one’.

15
‘The’ is not included specifically in the Greek text so you say it should be ‘a god’. But
Biblical Greek has no indefinite article ‘a’, and it is added in translation only when
thought suitable. If the definite article ‘the’ does not appear then quality is inferred,
not identity, and it is then inappropriate to enter ‘a’ in the translation.
The last clause is ‘theos en ho logos’: God was the Word. The subject is ‘The Word’.
The verb is ‘was’. The predicative nominative is ‘God’. If this follows the verb then
‘the’ would be necessary, but because in this case it precedes it, ‘the’ is not necessary.
If a Greek writer wanted to stress the quality of the predicative nominative, he would
put it in before the verb, exactly as he has here. Theos signifies ‘divine essence’.
So, the Word was divine essence. The Word was God.
Compare this with the Greek construction of John 1:6, 12 and 13. Should be a small
‘g’ for God in these cases?

Titus 2:13
In standard versions of the Bible, this says ‘while we wait for the blessed hope—the
glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ’
How do you translate it? You say ‘while we wait for the happy hope and glorious
manifestation of the great God and of [the] Saviour of us, Christ Jesus’.
The words ‘of’ and ‘and’ are not in the Greek text.
According to ‘Granville Sharp’s Rule’ of more than a century ago,
‘When the copulative ‘Kai’ connects two nouns of the same case, if the article ‘ho’ or
any of its cases precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated
before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that
is expressed or described by the first noun or participle, i.e. it denotes a further
description of the first-named person’
That’s a bit complicated, but it means that in the case of the Greek used here, Jesus is
presented as both God and Saviour.
I assume you might say that it was the early church that mistranslated the text, and
that you have the true translations, but where did you get them from? Where are the
early manuscripts to justify them?

Isaiah 9:6
Jesus is referred to as ‘Mighty God’ This section of Isaiah is generally accepted as a
prophecy of Jesus’ birth. This says just ‘Mighty God’, not ‘Almighty God’, so you say
that it does not suggest that the child that is to be born is God. What about Isaiah
10:21 ‘A mere remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the Mighty God’ Is this
not referring to Jehovah God? Also, Jeremiah 32:18: ‘the true God, the great One, the
mighty One, Jehovah’. Would this not say ‘the Almighty One’?

Isaiah 44:6, Rev 1:17and 2:8

Jesus and Jehovah are both ‘First and Last’

John 8:24, John 8:28, John 8:58, and John 13:19.

In this statement, Jesus referred to Himself as ‘I Am’, an Old Testament title for God.
(YHWH can be translated ‘I Am Who I Am’).
You translate John 8:58 as ‘before Abraham was born I have been’
Why translate this ‘I have been’? The better translation is ‘before Abraham was, I
am.’ The translation ‘I am’ would admit to Jesus using a name of Jehovah (Exodus
3:14). The Jews knew exactly what Jesus was meaning, and wanted to stone him for
blasphemy.

16
John 20:28
Thomas called Jesus ‘My Lord and my God’

Matt 2:2,11, Matt 8:2,Matt 9:18,Matt 14:33,Matt 15:25,Matt 20:20,Matt 28:9

and17,John 9:38,Heb 1:6Phil 2:10-11
Jesus was worshipped (only God deserves worship)
You will agree with me that only God can be worshipped. Jesus was worshipped. The
Greek word "proskuneo" means "to kiss the hand, bow down before, show obeisance,
and to worship." You deny that Jesus is God, so you must say that he is not to be
worshipped. So, how does the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society translate the word
"proskuneo" when referring to Jesus or others? Of course, they do translate the word
as "worship" when referring to God. They also translate it “worship” when referring
to false worship of the dragon, the devil, the beast, demons and idols. They never
translate the word as "worship" when it refers to Jesus. They use the word
‘obeisance’.

Isaiah 40:28, Joel 2:32, Romans 10:9-13, Phil 2:10-11, 1Cor 12:3
Jesus and Jehovah are both confessed as Lord or God.
Romans 10:9-13 says (from your translation)
‘For if you publicly declare that ‘word in your own mouth,’ that Jesus is Lord, and
exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved’
and ‘For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for there is the same Lord
over all, who is rich to all those calling upon him. For “everyone who calls on the
name of Jehovah will be saved.” Ask yourself, who would not interpret this as Lord
and Jehovah being the same?
LORD is from the Greek Kyrios, which sometimes you translate as Jehovah, the name
for God. (e.g. Revelation 4:11)

Jesus forgives sins (only God can do that) Mark 2:5-7

The Jews claimed he was making himself equal to God John 5:18

Seeing Jesus, they were seeing God John 12:45

Receiving Jesus, they were receiving God Mark 9:37

Hating Jesus, they were hating God John 15:23

Jesus was prayed to (only God can be prayed to) Acts 7:59

*****

Of course, you have your carefully worked out objections to everything I have said.
Perhaps we should now look at some of the texts you use.

Colossians 1:15: Jesus is ‘the first born of all creation’

The Greek word used here is ‘Prototokos’. If ‘First–created’ was intended, it would
have been ‘Protoktistos’.

17
First-born here is a term of rank, like the first born in a family, receiving the
inheritance. Jesus is the heir of all things.
Also, look at Exodus 4:22. ‘Israel is my son my firstborn’
And Psalm 89:27 , concerning David (v20), God says, ‘ Also, I myself shall place him
as firstborn, the most high of the kings of the earth.’
Are we to understand that the nation of Israel and David were the ‘first-created’?
‘First born’ is a term of rank.
Yes, you say, but look at the next verse:
Colossians 1:16 : Because by means of him all [other] things were created in the
heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter
whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other]
things have been created through him and for him (New World Translation)
Notice the word ‘other’ is bracketed in the New World Translation, suggesting that it
is a word entered to fit a particular interpretation.
Look at the following other versions from more reliable translations, none of which
use the word ‘other’.
New International Version: ‘For by him all things were created: things in heaven and
on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all
things were created by him and for him’.
King James Version: ‘For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that
are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or
principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him’
Good News Bible: ‘For through him God created everything in heaven and on earth,
the seen and the unseen things, including spiritual powers, lords, rulers, and
authorities. God created the whole universe through him and for him’.
Revised English Version :’ for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon
the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or
principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him’

Revelation 3:14 ‘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’.
It is agreed that this refers to Jesus. The Greek word used here translated ‘beginning’
is ‘Arche’, and an honest and better translation of it is ‘Origin’ or ‘Source’. Early
Greek philosophers looked for the 'origin' or 'principle' of all things. Arche has both
meanings. Anaximander is said to have identified it with 'the Boundless' or 'the
Unlimited'.

1 Corinthians 11:3 : ‘the head of the Christ is God’

Look at the rest of the verse:
But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a
woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God’.
Using your interpretation, are we then to suggest here that men are superior to
women? The word is also used in this context in Ephesians 5:23: ‘because a husband
is head of his wife as the Christ also is head of the congregation, he being a saviour
of [this] body’.
Note that the Greek word used for ‘head’ in these passages is ‘Kephale’, which means
a provider, and suggests a position of responsibility combined with servanthood, not
superiority.
The Greeks used ‘Archon’ when referring to a ruler.

18
Jesus is the ‘head’ (Kephale) of the church, and as such is our saviour, suffering
servant, and a provider of our needs.
Kephale connects God to Jesus, and Jesus to us like a head on a body. It suggests
dependency through love, not superiority.

John 14:28: ‘My Father is greater than I am.’

Look at some more of the verse.
‘If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because
the Father is greater than I am’.
Your interpretation would suggest it is the Father’s ‘superiority’ to Jesus that is the
cause for rejoicing.
Jesus was speaking about going away from them to the Father. It makes more sense if
he was referring to where he was going being better than his current state.
Jesus was a man. If He had been more than a man whilst He was on this Earth, He
could not have truly experienced our lives. As an example, whilst on Earth He could
not be the omnipresent God. Does this make Him inferior? For everything miraculous
He did on Earth He would have needed to ask God the Father, because as a man He
was not omniscient either. This does not have to suggest that He was anything less
than God, unless that’s what you want to believe, of course.

The Trinity

You say that the Trinity is an error, because it does not appear as a word in the Bible,
and God would be more specific and not confuse us. You disregard the fact that it is a
reasonable concept, when based on interpretation and understanding of many verses
of scripture. Then you categorically state that Jesus is the Archangel Michael on the
basis of much more flimsy Biblical evidence.

Look at a list of the references in the Bible to Jesus as God (see above), and to the
Holy Spirit as God (see below). I do not understand how anyone who says that they
believe in the Bible as God’s Word can then have your point of view.

What you appear to do is amend your version of the Bible to try to disguise these
references because they do not agree with your interpretation, or you stretch
credibility beyond breaking point with your explanations of what you say the verses
really mean, implying that God was making it difficult for us to understand, and that
only the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society can give us the real meaning.

God has three parts to His being. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Trinity. Tri-Unity.
Three in one. Not three gods, but one triune God..

Why do people find it hard to understand the Trinity? They are three aspects of the
same God. The Trinity makes a mockery of all of the criticisms made like ‘How could
God come down here as a man, and still rule the universe at the same time? and
‘How can God be ‘inside us’ and still ‘up there’?’.

19
Very simply, study of the Bible shows that all three, the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit, each as the one God. Just because it does not give the Trinity a name, does not
mean the Bible has not revealed it to us. What is hard about understanding this? We
are said to have three aspects of our being: a body, mind and spirit, and people can
understand and accept that concept. Why not the Trinity?

You claim that the idea of Jesus as God was a fourth century invention, and that your
view was the view of the early church, before the Roman Church took over in the
fourth century. Where is your evidence for this?

Ignatius of Antioch taught the concept of the trinity in the second century The deity of
Christ and the trinity were also taught by early ‘Church Fathers’ such as as Polycarp,
Irenaeus, Basil, and Tertullian., who said (in the second century):
"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy
Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation..[which] brings about
unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in
power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one
God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father,
Son and Holy Spirit."
Novation wrote a text called ‘The Trinity’ in the third century .
The concept of the trinity therefore appears in early writings and creeds. The word
“trinity” is found 106 times in the writings of the pre-fourth century ‘Fathers’.
The precise wording of the doctrine of the Trinity doctrine was formulated over
time, and found its final expression in the Nicene creed in 325AD. The doctrine was
certainly there well before then.

Is the Holy Spirit also God?

The Spirit is eternal John 14:16, Hebrews 9:14, omnipresent Psalm 139:7-9,
omnipotent Job 33:4, Psalm 104:30, Matt 12:28, Romans 15:18-19
and omniscient 1 Cor 2:10-11, John 14:26. All of these are attributes of God.

Lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to God Acts 5:3-4

The Spirit can be blasphemed without forgiveness Matt. 12:31.

In the Bible, Jesus is described in various places as being raised from the dead by his
Father, by the Holy Spirit and by himself. Galatians 1:1, John 2:19, Romans 8:11.
Some might say this is a contradiction, as Bible critics do. In 2Cor 4:14 God is said to
have raised Jesus. There is no contradiction, because in all of these, God raised Jesus.

My conclusion is that the Jehovah’s Witness point of view might possibly make
sense to me if I was looking at isolated texts and I was seeking something that is
easier to believe. However, if I take the Bible as a whole I come to the inescapable
conclusion that it tells me that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all
God.

20
 *******************************
What are some of your beliefs?

Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it
Andre Gide

21
22
In this letter I will not discuss two of your beliefs that are probably the best known
and most publicised. These are the refusal of blood transfusions and not celebrating
Christmas and birthdays. This is because I think that these are not critical to the
understanding of the differences between us, and they could take us down long roads
of unnecessary debate.

You are welcome to disagree, of course.

The corrupt Christian Churches

You may have been told that other churches are declining, corrupted, misled, or
whatever your leaders tell you. Some of them are, no doubt. But is your statement
based on investigation of the many good Christian churches that are growing across
the world, or is it really based on an age old (and sometimes justified) criticism of the
Roman Catholic, Orthodox or Anglican Churches?. Do your leaders show you the
vibrancy and tremendous growth of independent churches, community churches, local
fellowships and the like? Probably not. They show you the declining Church of
England and the superstitions of the Roman Catholics, and still refer to this as
‘Christendom’, as though it was still the monolithic monster that it was in the Middle
Ages.

Isn't it funny how your leaders don't apply to themselves what they say about other
denominations of Christianity? For some reason they call all other imperfect
Christians ''satanic'' because they feel they have a few errors in their theology, but if
anyone points out the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society claimed Jesus returned in
1874 and appointed them to rule, but then change this to 1878 , then 1914 etc) then
they remind everyone to tolerate them since they are just men.

False Prophecies

"If he is a false prophet, his prophecy will fail to come to pass." (Watchtower,
5/15/30).

"Their prophecies did not come true. Therefore they are false prophets; and the
people should no longer trust them as safe guides." (Watchtower, 5/15/30).

These statements are quite true. What if we apply them to the Watchtower Bible and
Tract Society?

I don’t have the space here to discuss all of the false prophecies that your leaders,
claiming to speak for God, have made. Are you aware of all of these? Do they tell you
about them, and if they do, do they explain them away as a ‘learning process’, or a
‘gradual increase of the light’? You cannot ‘learn’ to be a prophet of God, and, as you
say regarding the Trinity, God would not confuse us. Either the Watchtower Bible
and Tract Society is a prophet of God or it isn’t. The evidence suggests to me (as it
would do to most people) that it is not. Here are just a few examples amongst many:

23
 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 by the end
of AD1914.
Charles Taze Russell, a founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses from ‘The Time is at
Hand’

The deliverance of the saints must take place some time before 1914
Charles Taze Russell, from ‘Studies in the Scriptures’, 1910 issue. (Italics mine)

The deliverance of the saints must take place some time after 1914
Charles Taze Russell, from ‘Studies in the Scriptures, 1923 issue. (Italics mine).

"...the ‘battle of the great day of God Almighty' (Revelation 16:14), which will end
in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth's present rulership, is already
commenced." (The Time Is at Hand, page 101, 1908 edition).

"Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old, particularly those named by the
Apostle in Hebrews 11, to the condition of human perfection." (Millions Now
Living Will Never Die, page 89).

Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish
out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a
fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end.
From ‘Our Kingdom Ministry’, May 1974. Armageddon had been forecast for late
1975.

I can remember a top young footballer on the TV in the early seventies announcing
that he was a Jehovah’s Witness, and had ended his career because Armageddon was
forecast for 1975.

"the battle of armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975.... it may involve
only a difference of weeks or months, you not years."
(why are you looking forward to 1975), watchtower 8/15/68

Then, in the same year, they were not as specific:

Does this mean that the year 1975 will bring the battle of Armageddon? No one can
say with certainty what any particular year will bring. Jesus said: "Concerning that
day or the hour nobody knows." (Mark 13:32)

Not very consistent, for God’s mouthpiece on earth, is it?

24
Later your leadership claimed they never said it would definitely be 1975, and blamed
it all on over-zealous members speculating.

Doubtless your leaders will have their explanations, denying that these are exactly
what they are: False prophecies.

****************************

25
 Who should we obey?

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth

Albert Einstein

26
Where should authority lie? As I see it, you take as your authority as the Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society’s interpretation of the Bible. Your organisation guides your
interpretation of the Bible, and you don’t appear to be allowed to deviate from it.
As a Christian, I see my authority as:

Primarily, the Bible and the guidance of God’s Spirit.

Plus help gained from the following:

• Teaching, opinions and advice from two thousand years of Christian

knowledge and writing (You may be surprised, but here I include the
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society)
• Other Christians
• Church pastors.

These writers and teachers do not always agree with each other on some things, and
for any disputed issues that are not part of the core message, I can decide for myself.

I cannot accept that any human organisation, whether it is the Watchtower Bible and
Tract Society, the Church of Rome, or ‘fundamentalist’ Christian, should be able to
say that they have the monopoly of the truth and attempt to dictate rules and
regulations to believers. This is the legalism that has been swept away by Jesus.

The existence of a council to which disputes between early congregations were

referred, at Jerusalem in the early days of Christianity, does not tell us that the Church
should be ruled by a central organisation that knows all of the truth and the rules to
follow. What right does anybody have to take on the authority that the very first
Christians had, by virtue of their witnessing of Jesus’ life and Resurrection? We have
the New Testament. It is their witness and their authority, in writing, for each believer
to refer to.

Our authority should be the Bible and the indwelling Spirit of God, plus an attentive
but discriminating approach to human guidance and teaching.

In other words, we certainly need to be part of a congregation of believers, but within

it and within the bounds of the basic message, we should be allowed to exercise our
own discernment, with the Bible and God’s Spirit as our guide.

Provided that the Bible’s basic message is upheld, then surely different interpretations
of less central issues should be allowed to be discussed, and not be rigidly suppressed.
Remember that those different interpretations have been made by human beings with
human failings, personal agendas and intentional or unintentional bias.

Sadly, it is the highly publicised exposure of these less critical disagreements that give
non-believers an excuse to say that Christianity is false.

27
What authority do you obey? Are you being controlled?

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society rightly criticises the Roman Catholic Church
for laying down detailed rules to follow, controlling people based on their own
interpretations. Jesus said that we were no longer subject to the Law, or detailed rules
and regulations. The Roman Catholic Church is like the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. So
why do you allow the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society to do the same to you?

Why do you fall for these double standards?

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is like the Roman Catholic Church and the
Pope, claiming to be the voice of God on earth. Your only authority should be God’s
Word to you in the Bible. Study it (not just your own New World Translation).
Question their interpretations. It is your right. They have no right to control you.
Ask yourself. Are you discouraged from studying the Bible on your own, without any
Watchtower literature or study aids? Would you be happy to let it be known around
the congregation and to the elders that you were doing this?
When Jehovah’s Witnesses invite someone to a 'Bible study', is it really a study of the
Bible, or is it a study of Watchtower literature?
If your doctrines are correct, it should surely be possible for a person to become a
Jehovah's Witness by reading the Bible alone. Can someone really come to believe
your doctrine by reading the Bible only?
If you were to have only read the Bible, with no Watchtower study aids, do you think
that you would have decided for yourself that Jesus is really the Archangel Michael?
But God would not confuse us, would he? So, it should be readily apparent.
Is it readily apparent that Jesus is Michael?
Why are you discouraged from reading other Christian literature?
Consider the following:

Avoid independent thinking...questioning the counsel that is provided by God's

visible organization." (Watchtower, Jan. 15, 1983 p. 22).

They (other Christians) say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either
alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such 'Bible reading,' they
have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by
Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago,... (Watchtower; Aug. 15, 1981;
p. 29).

Of course they did, because these ‘apostate doctrines’ are what God’s Word says, and
are there in ‘black and white’ for anyone to see. God has not confused us.

28
 Is it that you have not been shown the alternatives? As a Christian, I examined the
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society as one of the alternatives, because I was free to
use my own mind, and not dictated to by my church. When studying God’s Word
(including your version), I found that in my opinion your doctrines were false. My
church had no doubt that this would be my conclusion. They were not afraid to let me
study the Bible, because they knew that the conclusion would be obvious. The
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society know this too, so they tell you not to read other
churches’ literature or other Bible versions.

Can you still say your mind is not being controlled?

You are cautioned against creating Jehovah’s Witness websites, mainly to prevent you
from discovering the truth about your organisation on other websites. (There are many
former members’ pages)

By your own Yearbook accounts, membership is shrinking in many Western countries

over the last few years, as the Internet spreads information critical of Jehovah’s
Witnesses. Membership is growing in the poorer countries (they have less internet
access) and some Roman Catholic countries (you find it easier to persuade them that
their religion is in error).

To question the teachings of the Watchtower can result in you being totally cut off,
with family and friends being forbidden to talk to you. The Watchtower Bible and
Tract Society appears to be an Orwellian world of thought and mind control.

****************************

29
30
 The Bible : God’s Message to us.

The Bible is the greatest example of the whole being greater that its
parts.
Michael Phillips

31
Versions of the Bible

Are you ever told that there has been a vast amount of scholarly research in the past
hundred years that has produced more and more reliable translations of the Bible? Do
you have the impression that all Christians use the Church of Rome’s version, or the
King James Version, (with all of it’s ‘thees’ and thous’ and begats)’? What about the
Revised Standard Version, the New International Version, or the Good News Bible, to
name just three out of many. Are you aware of these?

The New World Translation of the Bible.

It’s strange how a nineteenth century organisation can suddenly have the correct
translation of the Bible, and that some of the changes made to it have happened in
recent years, despite centuries of critical Biblical scholarship that has produced many
more reliable translations. You may say that it is these scholars that have it wrong. So,
you are in step, and the vast majority are out of step. Easy to say. Harder to believe, if
you really think about it.

The New World Translation committee members are said to have been Frederick W.
Franz, Nathan H. Knorr, George D. Gangas, Albert D. Schroeder, Milton G. Henschel,
and Karl Klein.
I believe that the only member of the translation team who had any kind of training in
biblical languages was F.W Franz. He had done some courses in classical Greek, but
had only a minimal knowledge of Biblical Koine Greek. He could not translate
Hebrew.
The others had no training in biblical languages, and none of them were trained in
principles of translation or linguistics. Set this against the multitude of highly
educated biblical scholars involved in standard translations, and there is no
comparison.

What is the basic message of the Bible?

Do we agree on it?

Correct me if I am wrong, but your view may be something like this:

• Adam’s sin was passed on to all humanity.

• Christ’s perfect human life was paid as a ransom for obedient humans, who
can now make themselves acceptable to God. They have the opportunity to
earn the reward of salvation.
• Christ is God’s first creation, the Archangel Michael.
• Jesus’ purpose on earth was to vindicate Jehovah’s name and establish
Jehovah’s Kingdom.
• People God approves will receive everlasting life.
• Only a little flock of 144,000 go to heaven and rule with Christ (Rev 14)2 The
rest of the Witnesses and others approved by God will live for ever on the
restored Paradise Earth that God has promised, providing that they ‘abide in

2
Note from verse 4 that they seem to all be men, and they are also virgins.

32
 Him, keeping their good conscience through loyal faith and service’, and they
‘pass the test that Adam failed, by maintaining their integrity’.

According to this, how does someone know if or when they are approved by God?

But shouldn’t we be able to have complete assurance that we will be acceptable to

God? That would give us true peace of mind, wouldn’t it?

I believe that the Bible’s basic message is this:

• God is Love. Perfect Love.

• The Bible shows us God’s Love for us, despite our failings.
• Human beings have a basic fault. We cannot love perfectly. We are self
centred, we are sinners. Every one of us.
• This is how God showed us what love is:
 By demonstrating his love and saving grace in Israel’s history
 As the ultimate demonstration of His Love, as Jesus Christ He became
one of us, and suffered and died for us, so that anyone who believes in
Him is guaranteed eternal life.
 By His Resurrection, He showed us that death is conquered.
• This world will end in judgement, and the wicked will be dead for ever. There
will be a new Heaven and Earth, a perfect Paradise for the righteous.

Once accepted as the only reasonable, sensible and true explanation of what God is
trying to tell us, this core concept should form the basis of the interpretation of
anything that is in the Bible. In other words, once the message is grasped, then the
Bible can almost be said to interpret itself. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) said that 'There
is light enough for those whose main wish is to see, and darkness enough for those of
an opposite disposition'

God does not demand good works as a condition of your salvation. He knows you are
not perfect.

If you believe what God has done for you, it is 100% certain to change your life. You
will be ‘born again’ into a new life. Jesus said we must be ‘born again’.

As a Jehovah’s Witness, you too may say that ‘God is Love’, and that God loves us.
However, is this really unconditional love if God says ‘I love you if you do as I say’,
or’ I love you if you remain faithful’? Where is the forgiveness in this that is part of
unconditional love?

The following are some of the texts used by Jehovah’s Witnesses to emphasise that
salvation requires ‘works’, that is, as they say, you must ‘remain faithful to the end’.

Matthew 24:13 ‘but he that endures until the end is the one who will be saved’
When taken together with the rest of the Bible’s teaching on salvation, there is no
reason to interpret this by saying that we can only make God favour us by obeying
Him and enduring to the end. It is referring to the great tribulation (see verse 21) and
is set in the context of the end times. Some may fall away from the faith during the

33
tribulation, and do not endure until the end. Some will be misled by false prophets.
These are more likely to be those who did not have God’s assurance of salvation.
Salvation is assured by faith. Assurance of salvation ensures we stand firm. If we
don’t have assurance, we are relying on our own abilities to save us. If we had to rely
on our own efforts at faithfulness without God’s assurance, we could easily give up.
Salvation is not a reward for our efforts, it is a gift from God, by His Grace.

James 2:17 ‘faith, if it does not have works, is dead in itself’

This verse does not say that works save us rather than faith. Works are not the basis of
salvation, but are the evidence of a genuine faith. We do not do good works because
we have to, but because we want to, returning love for love. Our good works are also
a witness to non believers. See v14: ‘Of what benefit is it, my brothers, if a
certain one says he has faith but he does not have works?’ Lack of
good works would imply that faith was not real. God would know
that, as would other people. What good is it if we do good works to
try to earn our salvation, but never know if we have done enough?
The fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) are signs that a person is
a Christian, they are not the basis of salvation.

Matthew 7:21 ‘Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom
of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will’.
The preceding verses (15-20) refer to knowing true Christians by their fruits.
7:20: Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those [men].
A mere profession of faith without its fruits is worthless, because this demonstrates
that it is false. This is not saying that the fruits are a requirement for entering the
Kingdom. The fruits come from true faith and assurance of salvation, not the other
way round.

Philippians 2:12 ‘Consequently, my beloved ones, in the way that you have always
obeyed, not during my presence only, but now much more readily during my absence,
keep working out your own salvation with fear and trembling’
See the next verse:
2:13 ‘for God is the one that, for the sake of [his] good pleasure, is acting within you
in order for you both to will and to act’.
The works are there because we already belong to God.
We are not being told to work FOR our salvation but we are to work OUT our
salvation. We are to work at godly living because we are saved. Working out our
salvation means that we are giving our salvation a practical expression. It is done in
fear and trembling because we realise the tremendous seriousness of what we are
doing and we know our own weaknesses. It should not be easy for us.

In contrast to the use made by the Jehovah’s Witnesses of the above texts, here is
some scriptural evidence for salvation by Grace and faith alone, and for our assurance
of salvation.

Salvation is by Grace and faith alone, not works.

Ephesians 2:8-10
Romans 4:1-5
Romans 10:3

34
Romans 11:6
Galatians 2:16
Galatians 2:20,21
Galatians 3:1-14
Romans 6:23
Acts 16:30,31
Romans 4:16
Philippians 3:9

Let’s look at what Christ has done for us. We are credited as righteous by the
blood of Jesus, not by our own efforts.

For some of these I will give the text from the New World Translation (NWT) and the
New International Version (NIT), to highlight the NWT’s use of the word ‘ransom’ for
‘redemption’ used in other versions.
Redemption is the payment of an obligation or a debt. Jesus paid the price for our sin,
the debt we owe to God.
Ransom is a payment to release someone from captivity or punishment. In this sense,
Jesus released us from captivity to sin and God’s punishment. Yes, Jesus set us free
from sin (ransom), but also paid our obligation for sin (redemption)

Both words are used in different parts of the Bible in different ways, to express what
Jesus has done, but ‘ransom’ is used here in the NWT when ‘redemption’ is in my
opinion a more suitable translation to express the meaning intended.

John 3:16

Galatians 1:4

Colossians 1:14
NWT ‘by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins’
NIT ‘in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins’.

Romans 3:24-26
NWT ‘and it is as a free gift that they are being declared righteous by his undeserved
kindness through the release by the ransom [paid] by Christ Jesus. God set him forth
as an offering for propitiation through faith in his blood. This was in order to exhibit
his own righteousness, because he was forgiving the sins that occurred in the past
while God was exercising forbearance; so as to exhibit his own righteousness in this
present season, that he might be righteous even when declaring righteous the man
that has faith in Jesus.
NIT ‘and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ
Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He
did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins
committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present
time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus’.

1 Corinthians 1:30

35
NWT ‘But it is due to him that YOU are in union with Christ Jesus, who has become
to us wisdom from God, also righteousness and sanctification and release by ransom’
NIT ‘It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom
from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

Ephesians 1:7
NWT ‘By means of him we have the release by ransom through the blood of that one,
yes, the forgiveness of [our] trespasses, according to the riches of his undeserved
kindness.
NIT ‘In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in
accordance with the riches of God's grace’

Matthew 7:20

Now, the texts about Assurance of Salvation:

Romans 8:1-4
Acts 13:39
John 5:24
John 3:36
Philippians 4:3
John 1:12
2 Corinthians 5:1

Finally, our position before God and the futility of our attempts to please Him

1 John 8-9
Romans 3:10
Romans 3:23
Psalm 130:3

****************************

36
 What does this mean for our lives?

Faith is the confidence, the assurance, the enforcing truth, the knowing.
Robert Collier

Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident

demonstration of realities though not beheld.
Hebrews 11:1 (New World Translation)

37
As a Christian, you will have loyal faith and do loyal service, not as a condition of
your salvation, but as a result of it. It’s not because you are required to do it, but
because you want to.
You will repent. This means ‘turn around’. You will turn your life around. It is
with God’s help and your glad willingness, and not because you must.

This is a genuine relationship of love, from both sides.

Detailed laws and regulations telling you what to do and what not to do are no longer
required. You will do God’s will voluntarily.

You will want to worship God for what He has done, and want to learn from God’s
Word the Bible
.
You will have complete assurance of resurrection to eternal life in God’s Kingdom.

You will know you are saved.

Your life on this earth will be free from fear and full of hope, joy and love, and you
will be a living example of the Good News of God’s Grace and Love.

You will want to spread the Gospel and you will want to do good works.

Compare the two versions of the Bible’s message shown in the last chapter: Which
one could be said to be a legalistic ‘religion of works’, and which one truly reflects
God’s Love and Grace? Which one makes most sense if God is a God of Love?

‘What is the problem?’ someone might say. ‘Why can’t Jehovah’s Witnesses and other
Christians just let each other get on with it. They both seem to produce better people,
and God will accept them all, surely.’

Well, yes, probably, but there is a real difference between the two approaches that will
affect the way the Christian life is lived and enjoyed.

We know that both ‘sides’ in the debate will honestly have the best intentions for the
other.

Neither should believe that the other is rejected completely by God if they do not
follow what they say.

A ‘mainstream’ Christian trying to convert a Jehovah’s Witness wishes to give them a

complete assurance of salvation and a freedom from man-made organisational rules
and regulations.

But if a Jehovah’s Witness tries to convert a Christian believer, what is he giving him
that he did not already have?

38
Compare the two approaches:

• One is being told to ‘work out your salvation in fear and trembling’, and never
to be 100% sure if you have done enough. If you say you are sure you will be
in God’s Kingdom, please tell me the details of what you must do to have this
assurance. What is the precise level of obedience required? Would this not
require detailed instructions? Didn’t Jesus sweep away the detailed
requirements of the Law? Didn’t Jesus ‘fulfil’ the Law?

• The other approach is being fully sure of your salvation, and enjoying the
fruits of a ‘new creation’, and a joyful new life of good works that follow from
this assurance, as sure as night follows day.

One approach says that Christ’s sacrifice gives you the opportunity or the incentive to
work to please God, or the realisation that you can. The other gives you the
opportunity to know you are pleasing to God, because the full price for your sins has
been paid by God’s Grace (you call this God’s ‘undeserved kindness’)3.

One approach only pays the deposit, the other pays in full.

A Christian’s incentive to do good works should come from the appreciation of such a
gift, and the natural inclination to return such love. This then confirms to themselves
and others that their faith is true. 4

You may say that God gives us undeserved kindness, and you may agree that good
works are as a result of faith, not a substitute for it. But how is God’s undeserved
kindness gained? Is it by faith itself, or by the constant ‘exercising’ of that faith? Do
you see the difference? Are you told what ‘exercising faith’ is? Ask yourself, are your
meeting attendances and door to door work or donations recorded? Are they measured
against what is required? Do you constantly have to demonstrate you faith by obeying
‘God’s organisation’? Do you believe that if you don’t do enough, you will be rejected
by God?

Just as one might criticise Roman Catholicism for stressing attendance at mass and
obedience to rules, does this not make your religion ‘legalistic’ and a religion of
‘works’?

Christianity should set itself apart from other religions by saying that we cannot
please God by our own efforts, either by sacrifices, religious rituals or good works.

Which way do you choose?

I know which one I choose, and I know which one is real.

3
Grace can also be said to be ‘unmerited favour’, a reprieve, mercy, clemency or a favour rendered by
one who need not do so.
4
John 14:15: ‘If you love me, you will observe my commandments’
John 14:23: ‘If anyone loves me, he will observe my word, and my Father will love him, and we shall come to him
and make our abode with him’.

39
I know which believer will find it easier to hold on to their faith for the full
course of the time of tribulation.

It’s the one with total assurance, the one with a joy in life that nothing life throws at
them can take away.

God is not a taskmaster. God is not a tyrant. God is a parent. Our Father in Heaven.

Parents love their children unconditionally. They may discipline them for their own
good, as the people of Israel were disciplined when they went astray. God’s love was
always there to save them from the consequences of their sin, if they would believe
Him. Their lives and their fortunes would then change. This is the lesson of the
Hebrew Scriptures, in addition to pointing the way to what was to come.

The Old Testament from beginning to end is a story of our unworthiness before God.
His special people, with so many advantages and divine deliverances, could not keep
the Law. It is a tale of human failure and attempts to come to atonement with God, but
never succeeding, and always pointing the way to the Messiah as the answer, through
God’s Grace and mercy. For this reason, the Bible should be interpreted by this
constant theme. To say in any way that we must work to achieve our salvation is
inconsistent with this.

How much more is there, then, as an incentive to turn our lives around, than God’s
ultimate expression of His love for us, in the event that the Hebrew Scriptures were
pointing to? God Himself took human flesh, experiencing all of our emotions, pain,
sorrow and joy, and then died as the punishment for our sin, only to rise again in glory
to show us the future we can have if we believe and know Him.

However great any creation of God might be, to believe that a creature of God can do
this for us can surely never come anywhere near to having the same impact.

We may decide that we have much in common, but always come back to the basic
difference over Christ’s person.

I will conclude with the following:

Look at Exodus 33:11.

This is Jehovah speaking face to face with Moses.

Then look at Exodus 33:20, the next time Moses speaks with God.
Jehovah says that Moses cannot see His face and live.

Is God contradicting Himself within the space of a few verses?

No, of course not.

Could it not be two different aspects of Jehovah speaking?

The Father and the Son?

40
************************************

41
 What should be our response?

And he brought them outside and said: “Sirs, what must I do to get
saved?” They said: “Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will get saved,
you and your household.”
Acts 16:30-31

42
So, please, how can you believe it all?

Think for yourself. You will be enlightened by God’s Spirit, leading you to the truth.
And the truth will set you free.

Don’t be afraid of being ‘disfellowshipped’ or suffering whatever method your

organisation uses to threaten members who wish to leave. If the Watchtower Bible and
Tract Society are wrong, they can have no authority over you.

Please consider the true Christianity that can be found in the Bible.

Although you can still find enough evidence (even in your own version of the Bible)
to prove what I am saying, please refer to other versions of the Bible too, not just the
New World Translation. Be fair.

You must now ask yourself how you should respond to this message of God’s Love.

You should believe and accept what God has done, and follow Jesus.

You should open your heart and your life to Him.

Believe me. No, believe God. You will never regret it.

**********

43