A Message to a Jehovah’s Witness

Man with eyes covered

AUTHOR’S NOTE: The following a written response to a Jehovah’s Witness (JWs).  His name has been changed to preserve his identity, and his written correspondence has been omitted, as I didn’t seek nor obtain permission to use it.  Therefore, this will be more like reading a Pauline epistle, and readers must deduce the other end of the conversation.

The interaction stemmed from a JW door-to-door visit that occurred. He came to my home, appearing sincere and open to/seeking truth (his words).  As expected, his intentions and willingness to interact with Christian material and my response proved to be consistent with other JWs—i.e., they aren’t allowed or willing to engage in others’ religious material. After thoroughly engaging and reading his source material, here’s my reply with only minor edits for clarity:

Hi Josh,

I finally had a chance to read/watch/review each link and text message that you provided. Now, again, I trust that if you respond, you’ll do so in good faith, reviewing what I share just as I’ve done for you (if not, I kindly ask that you state that you can’t or won’t—that way we don’t waste each other’s time).

Related to what appears to be your comments about Christians who do not claim to be a part of JWs, I hear you. Yet, I do not believe that I nor other genuine Christians are deceived of Satan, but I understand that you may think that about me or other Christians. Most Christians think the same about JWs.  This is why we must pursue truth with an open and honest heart. It’s why I pray for you, and I pray for me, too—because one of us is right, and one of us is wrong. While there are similarities among orthodox Christians and Jehovah’s Witnesses, our words have different meanings, and our teachings, Bibles, and understandings of the Scriptures are stark in contrast. Those contrasts are too great to innumerate here, but I’ll address some of them while interacting with the content that you sent.

I read the JW Watchtower Online Library for Friday, April 7, which you sent.  I generally agree with the commentary for that particular day. The only exception being the “torture stake,” which I’m sure you probably figured.  I believe “cross” is the most appropriate translation for that word as it relates to Jesus, His crucifixion, and what we know about that Roman form of capital punishment.  While the Greek word for cross, “σταύρος,” can mean single pole, that’s not the appropriate translation in most, if not all, of the NT citations. “Stake” is also not the translation that Christians nor secular scholars and historians generally use for that word in the Bible.  The cross is an important symbol of the faith, not because we want to make it so, but because an honest reading of the text in its original language, coupled with lexical definitions, makes it so.

If scholarship and historical readings weren’t enough regarding the “cross,” John 20:25 provides more insight. If Jesus was crucified on a single stake/pole, then his hands would have been above His head, together and fixed with a single nail. Yet, John writes “nails” as plural, referencing Jesus’s hands in Ch. 20, v.25 (Gr. ἥλων). This suggests that there was a nail driven through each hand (wrist), and such would likely have required a crossing beam to form a cross. Now, we certainly could go back and forth on this “cross” point, but please know that I’m already aware of the singular work of John Denham Parsons (c. 1896) and JW.org’s references here and here. I find their argumentation unconvincing, akin to those who suggest that King James of England was homosexual or “black” in ethnicity.

As for your sharing of the New World Translation’s (NWT’s) Mtthw. 27 and 28, I appreciate that. The Resurrection is a hallmark of the Christian faith.  I couldn’t help but notice, however, the NWT translation of κύριος (Gr.) to “Jehovah.”  Aside from doctrinal bias, I wonder why the inconsistent translation [throughout the Bible]? When Thomas calls Jesus his Lord and his God (Jn 20:29, “κύριος μου και ο θεός μου”), thus ascribing divinity to Jesus, the NWT simply translates that same word as “Lord” and not “Jehovah.”

In essence, Josh, I’m a Christian, one who was steeped in sin and in desperate need of a Savior. Jesus Christ transformed my life. When I heard the gospel and responded in repentance and faith (Mk. 1:14-15; Acts 20:21), He took the lust, anger, lying, and wickedness out of my life and set me on a path to serve the Almighty.  I saw how great my sin was before a holy God, and like Isaiah, I saw that I was ruined (Isa. 6:5).  I also learned from the Scriptures that no amount of good works could ever make up for the wrong I’d done, for the sins I’d committed. That’s when the Lord, in His mercy, rescued me; I experienced the great exchange: my sin for His righteousness (2 Cor. 5:21).

Finally, I appreciate your time and you reaching out to me, yet I’m sweetly enjoying the rich grace of the Lord, and I want you to enjoy it, too.  The gospel—the true gospel—is not about works and earning right standing with God (rf. Eph. 2:8-9); it’s living in light of the finished work of Jesus Christ through Spirit’s power (Rom. 12:1-2; 1 Cor. 12:3). I pray that in your pursuit of truth (I believe that’s what you said to my wife when you stopped by), you would find that life-giving, heart-transforming, peace-inducing faith in Christ.

6-min clip on the “Gospel” from Dr. John Piper:

YouTube Link

-Van

 

AUTHOR’S FINAL NOTE: Josh barely interacted with this text. After this message, he sent me more reading material, which I ignored.  After roughly a month, he casually mentioned my treatment of the cross while reaching out and seeking to have a Bible study, which I’d previously declined and declined again (I know that it’s a goal of Jehovah’s Witnesses to schedule as many Bible studies as possible, and I had no desire to perpetuate that works-based act. It  would also likely prove to be just as unfruitful as our written dialogue). From this point, I informed Josh that I would discontinue my communication with him since it seemed clear he was unwilling or unable to thoroughly engage my material as I had done with his material.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *