The Watchtower's Prohibition Against Non-Food Uses of Blood

In my section “Uses of Blood” in my Chapter 9 of the Third Edition of Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, on pages 574-575 I show when and why the Watchtower Society transformed its blood policy in the late 1950s and early 1960s. It has changed in more ways since then, but the fundamental flaw in the Watchtower’s view on uses of blood and the Bible remains: Blood transfusions = eating blood or being nourished by blood. The result is, in part, some people loyal to the Watchtower Society may die without understanding what is truly involved with the Society’s policy.

For example, in “Questions from Readers,” The Watchtower, September 15, 1958, on page 575, we find one important place where the Watchtower’s unfortunate, blood transfusion = blood eating error appears to have taken root. Here the Society responds to a question about whether the injection of serums and blood fractions (such as gamma globulin) for the purpose of building up resistance to disease is the same as drinking or transfusing blood or blood plasma. Consider the Society’s answer (with my underlining added):

No, it does not seem necessary that we put the two in the same category, although we have done so in times past. Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden. ... The injection of antibodies into the blood in a vehicle of blood serum or the use of blood fractions to create such antibodies is not the same as taking blood, either by mouth or by transfusion, as a nutrient to build up the body’s vital forces. While God did not intend for man to contaminate his blood stream by vaccines, serums or [the use of] blood fractions, doing so does not seem to be included in God’s expressed will forbidding blood as food. It would [now, late in 1958,] therefore be a matter of individual judgment whether one accepted such types of medication or not.

Then in 1961 the Watchtower Society radically changed its blood policy to the following position but which still relied on the false equation of eating blood as a food with transfusing blood as blood and not as a food or nutrient (underling and other emphasis added):

God’s law definitely says that the soul of man is in his blood [see Lev 17:11]. Hence the receiver of the blood transfusion is feeding upon a God-given soul as contained in the blood vehicle of a fellow man or of fellow men. This is a violation of God’s commands to Christians, the seriousness of which should not be minimized by any passing over of it lightly as being an optional matter for the conscience of any individual to decide upon. [“Questions from Readers,” The Watchtower, January 15, 1961, page 64.]

Here it has become a question of "feeding up a God-given soul" contained "in the blood," rather than the blood itself. Yet, this a metaphysical view of the "soul" in the blood in a way that allows it to serve as a physical food of sorts by providing life, versus anything physical about the blood that may require prohibition. In other words, the concern here is not about what is sacred to God (the blood containing the soul) but what effect the soul-containing blood has on another person, specifically, when a person receives such blood as a "transfusion," not as or part of a food.

However, the fact is transfused blood is not usable as food or as nourishment but only as blood which may then “carry nourishment … to the tissues” (Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, Clayton L. Thomas, ed., 16th edition [Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis Company, 1989], page 223, under Blood). The transfused blood itself is not consumed as a “food,” the way it would be if it were eaten or drank through the mouth and then broken down like other foods through the digestion process. This could be, to use the Society's 1964 words quoted above, "feeding upon a God-given soul as contained in the blood." But when a person is starving to death a transfusion of blood does not provide nourishment for the body, that is, unless actual “food” or nourishment is next added to the body and then the transfused blood carries it “to the tissues” (Taber's, page 223). 

That the "soul" is in the transfused blood according to the Bible does not change this in any way, that is, the "soul" part of the blood still does not provide nourishment or "life" to any person on its own when transfused with blood. Further, there is no evidence of the "soul" in the blood being consumed (= "feeding upon") in any way during a medical transfusion of blood: Transfused blood is used as blood by the recipient's body, not as a food or as nourishment of any kind. It is similar with organ transplants, which is what a blood transfusion is since the organs are not ‘eaten’ by the body once they have been transplanted, and neither do the transplanted organs serve as “food” or as “nourishment,” as I explained. Organs, including blood, have specific purposes and functions created and designed by God. Transfusing blood is one way for blood to continue to function according to its designed purpose, while eating blood or organs as "food" does not permit any of them to continue working in the body according to their intended purpose(s).

Here is another look at how the Watchtower Society blurs this distinction between eaten blood and transfused blood, and how in the process I believe it further misapplies the biblical prohibition concerning uses of blood:

Q. Why did Octávio Corrêa refuse the blood transfusion?

A. Basically because of the Bible’s prohibition as to the use of blood for nourishment or to prolong life. The Great Encyclopedia Delta Larousse (Portuguese) says: “Blood is living tissue that runs in the circulatory system and whose main functions are: 1) to carry needed nutritive substances and oxygen to all tissues in the body; 2) to collect and take residues, useless or dangerous to the cellular activity, to the excretory organs (kidneys, lungs, skin, etc.).” (P. 6079) Thus, blood nourishes and cleans the body. Jehovah God, who knows more about blood than anyone else, prohibited the eating of blood. His Word, the Bible, states: “Only do not eat flesh with its life in it, that is, the blood.”—Gen. 9:4, Pontifical Bible Institute, Rome, Paulinas Editions, Brazil. [“Freedom of Worship Triumphant,” Awake! August 8, 1977, page 7 (underlining added).]

The Watchtower publication Awake! here quotes a source which speaks of blood as ‘carrying needed nutritive substances.’ But the Society then equates “the eating of blood” with transfusing blood. The Society does not here present the obvious differences between eaten blood and transfused blood even when it quotes a publication which makes the differences plain! In this same light, consider these more recent claims from The Watchtower:

Decades ago Jehovah’s Witnesses made their stand clear. For example, they supplied an article to The Journal of the American Medical Association (November 27, 1981; reprinted in How Can Blood Save Your Life? pages 27-9). That article quoted from [1] Genesis, Leviticus, and Acts. It said: “While these verses are not stated in medical terms, Witnesses view them as ruling out transfusion of whole blood, packed RBCs [red blood cells], and plasma, as well as WBC [white blood cell] and platelet administration.” [2] The 2001 textbook Emergency Care, under “Composition of the Blood,” stated: “The blood is made up of several components: plasma, red and white blood cells, and platelets.” [3] Thus, in line with medical facts, Witnesses refuse transfusions of whole blood or of any of its four primary components. [“Be Guided by the Living God,” The Watchtower, June 15, 2004, pages 21-22, par. 11 (underlined and bracketed numbers have been added).]

I have added the underlined and bracketed numbers, similar to what I presented in my “Uses of Blood” section. These numbers correspond to the following comments concerning the subject statements in the above quoted Watchtower:

[1]: Genesis, Leviticus, and Acts … [rule] out transfusion[s] of whole blood, packed [red blood cells], and plasma, as well as [white blood cells] and platelet administration.

Comment: Not one text in any of the three biblical books referenced by The Watchtower says or even implies anything about using blood for medical transfusions and where the blood continues to serve as blood, not as food or “nourishment,” in the human body. Further, not one of the three biblical books cited explicitly teaches or implies anything about uses of blood’s major “components” (red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma), as if they should under any circumstance be viewed differently from uses of blood’s “fractions.”

[2]: The 2001 textbook Emergency Care, under “Composition of the Blood,” stated: “The blood is made up of several components: plasma, red and white blood cells, and platelets.”

Comment: The Society here quotes a textbook definition for “blood” which makes it plain that blood is “made up of several components,” namely, “plasma, red and white blood cells, and platelets.” After noting this textbook’s definition, The Watchtower concludes:

[3]: Thus, in line with medical facts, Witnesses refuse transfusions of whole blood or of any of its four primary components.

Comment: The only ‘fact’ from The Watchtower’s quote from Emergency Care is that blood is “made up of several components.” In stating this, the medical textbook is not claiming that any one of these four components of blood is blood or should be considered as blood. Indeed, the textbook’s definition shows all four are necessary for “blood.” None of the components of blood are “blood” individually or apart from all four being together as blood. So there is no ‘medical fact’ with which the Society is here “in line with” as it relates to its policy of refusing “transfusions of whole blood or of any of its four primary components.” Yet, this is the stated reason for why the Society quotes Emergency Care’s definition of “blood” in the first place.

The definition of “blood” from Emergency Care and which is quoted with approval in The Watchtower, actually supports the position of those who reject the Society’s view that these four components of blood should be viewed individually as “blood.” Simply quoting a medical textbook’s definition for “blood” which shows that blood has four primary components (from which components blood fractions are then derived) does not provide any “medical facts” which support the Society’s view that these components should be rejected as blood. This is a logical fallacy committed by The Watchtower, as shown in note 53 on page 586 of my “Uses of Blood” section.

In citing the 2001 textbook Emergency Care, the Watchtower Society has not only misapplied the textbook’s own expressed definition as support for its own unique view of blood’s components, but the Society does this using a definition which contradicts the Society’s own expressed view of blood’s four primary components. The definition for blood in Emergency Care clearly shows the components of blood are not blood, individually since, again, blood is “made up of” all four primary components, together.

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and its followers have not put forth any medical, scientific, or biblical good reasons for claiming that eating blood as a food is the same thing as transfusing blood to serve as blood (but not as a food) in the human body during a life-threatening emergency. The Society also has not shown the "soul" in the blood, according to the Bible, is in any way 'fed upon' by the recipient of a blood transfusion for the purpose of using the transfused blood as blood, not as a food or nutrient. Further, the Society has no basis in medical science or in biblical teaching to claim blood’s components are or should be considered the same as blood where it concerns the Bible’s prohibition. The only clear effort the Watchtower Society has expended to try and document its unique view of blood’s components from accepted medical science is to misquote a medical textbook’s definition which, in fact, contradicts the Society’s own expressed understanding and use of that very same 2001 medical textbook.

The Watchtower Society has consistently misapplied biblical texts which prohibit the use of blood as a “food” to medical transfusions of blood which do not ‘feed’ the body nor provide a "soul" for the recipient's body to 'feed upon,' but which transfused blood might save a person’s life by provide more of the organ (blood) lost or needed to carry nourishment to other organs and to remove toxins. For these and for other reasons, I no longer support the work of the Watchtower Society or its views and teachings on the subject of uses of blood.

"See That You Are Not Terrified" (Matthew 24:6)

Jesus of Nazareth told his earliest followers the words forming the title of this Blog, as recorded in Matthew 24:6. Just moments earlier, Jesus taught that many would come in his name to mislead others, in part (as the complementing account in Luke's historical record states) by stirring up people's fears about the time of the end. Note:

Then [Jesus] said to [his disciples], "You must see to it that you are not misled. For many will come using my name and saying, 'I am [the Christ/Messiah],' and, 'The defined/appointed time has drawn near.' Do not go after them."

For a further discussion of Luke 21:8 and how those whom Jesus warned his followers about clearly applies to the activities and proclamations of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, see my Blog, "'Do Not Go After Them' (Unless . . .)."

Apart from Jesus' warning about false teachers who would come in his name and proclaim, "The appointed time is near," in the opening part of Matthew 24 Jesus also warned that his people would "hear of wars and reports of wars." Yet, right after this Jesus tells them, "See that you are not terrified." Why? Because according to Jesus these wars "must take place, but the end is not yet" (verse 6). Then come verses 7-8:

For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress.

It is clear that the first part of the above quoted texts is a re-statement of the end of verse 6. "Nation" rising against "nation" and "kingdom" rising against "kingdom" has nothing specifically or explicitly to do with an entire world at war,  as in 1914. Of course, the events of World War I are consistent with Jesus' words, as would be true of any other 'rising against' which takes place between "kingdoms" and "nations." But Christians (those who trust in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth) are not to be "terrified" of these things, even though "wars and reports of wars" are an unfortunate part of the reality many of us face.--Matthew 24:6.

Then it is said that there will be "food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another." These, too, while frightening for anyone, should not 'terrify' anyone putting his or her faith in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. We are not scared or worried about the "end," whether it is our own personal end or the one we hope for in connection with the Christ, that is, the end of "Wickedness" (compare  Zechariah 5:8). For we  believe for good reasons that Jesus will "come as a thief in the night" (1 Thessalonians 5:1), and that he and his Father Jah, the Eternal Life who who gave life to life, will judge each of us according to what we do (Revelation 2:23; 20:11-13). It is right, therefore, that those who gave us life, those who know us best, are the ones who will deal with us.--Compare Isaiah 11:1-9; 1 Corinthians 8:6.

Before that time, and until that time, "earthquakes" are something we will hear more and more about. Regardless of how these or any other "signs" given by Jesus may be fulfilled now or in years to come, whether all these things take place while we're alive or after we're dead, we should set an example now for others by helping those in need,  by teaching them the good news about Jah God and about Jesus of Nazareth, showing them the history of their dealings according to the Bible, and by remaining strong, by 'straightening up and raising your heads,' whether your "redemption is drawing near," or not.--Luke 21:28.

Do not "weaken in [your] faith" (Romans 4:19). Rather, "strengthen the things remaining that were ready to die" (Revelation 3:2). Give people hope and help them build their faith on the best available reasons, some of which can be found here, but not on the promises or false teachings of men (Galatians 1:6, 10-12). Do not "yield by way of submission, no, not for an hour" to "the false brothers brought in quietly," this so "the truth of the good news might continue with you."--Galatians 2:4-5.

Where it concerns the events and affairs of men which Jesus spoke about in Matthew 24 and elsewhere in the Bible, specifically, in verses which discuss or which predict real concerns involving the affairs of the world, its nations and its peoples, and where it concerns the earth itself, "see that you are not terrified."--Matthew 24:6.

The Origin of Life Is Life (or Something or Someone Already Alive)

Life exists. It is all around us. We are alive, or living beings, creatures, either intentionally (intelligently) made/designed or the product of time, a lot of time and chance, and unintentional in design and in purpose or function. But we're alive! Even the most ardent skeptic must accept this. So how does that help us, or answer the question, What is the origin of life?

Here is an argument which I believe demonstrates sufficiently the origin of life is life, and therefore life must ultimately be eternal, since we are alive now. According to how we generally consider a matter to be "scientific," that is, by having sufficiently demonstrable results according to a repeated and testable process, I believe this argument fits the requirements for being accepted as the best available means of reliably explaining the origin of life:

1) Life exists.

2) Based on all known, shared, and/or otherwise available scientific study and information life can only come from something or from someone already alive or living.

3) Therefore, since based on all known, shared, and/or otherwise available scientific study and information life can only come from something or from someone already alive or living, the origin of life must be life, or something or someone already alive.

4) Further, and based on the above, namely, all known, shared, and/or otherwise available scientific study and information shows us without exception life can only come from something or from someone already alive or living, life must be considered eternal (without any beginning or start from non-life) because life is here now.

I also believe the above argument sufficiently responds to any argument which claims not to be able to account for the origin of life as life itself, or as something or someone already alive or living. This also means it is scientific to say life is eternal. This provides a basis for claiming it is scientific to believe "God" or some other superhuman being or alien is also eternal.

Whether this demonstrably and logically eternal origin of life is personal and intelligent, or impersonal or simply unintelligent, I will consider separately.

New World Translation Footnotes to John 8:58

In the New Testament (NT) Jesus of Nazareth is presented to us as a preexistent Son of God who “stepped out of heaven” to do only the God Jah’s will (John 3:13; 7:16-18; 8:47, 54: 12:49). Jesus’ real, personal preexistence can be seen in his identity as “the Word” and “Wisdom” of God according to the Bible (Proverbs 8:22-31; Micah 5:1-2; John 1:1; Revelation 19:3; see also my Third Edition of Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics [Murrieta, CA: Elihu Books, 2009], Chapter 4, pages 308-316, and Chapter 5, pages 406-418). This teaching is also consistent with what Jesus is recorded as having said in John 8:58 (see Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended, Third Edition, Chapter 3, pages 223-225).

As for whether Jesus claimed to have eternally preexisted or to have preexisted “before Abraham was born,” or whether Jesus used “I AM” as a divine name in John 8:58 and also for an extended discussion about how John 8:58 should be translated into English, see pages 274-296 of my Third Edition of Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended. See also my recent answer to the question, “Why do different editions of the New World Translation (NWT) contain different footnotes to its rendering of John 8:58?” published December 17, 2009, online through Elihu Books’ “Upon the Lampstand.”

The question and the answer in the above referenced “Lampstand” article indicates that since its first edition of the New World Translation (NWT) New Testament (NT) in 1950 to its latest 1984 Reference Bible and 1985 Kingdom Interlinear Translation (KIT), the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (the publisher of the NWT and the KIT) has had more than one footnote in its English translation of John 8:58. In my recent “Lampstand” Q&A I provide an extended evaluation of these different NWT/KIT footnotes to John 8:58, in response to many harsh and unfounded criticisms made over the past 50+ years by scholars and critics of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Indeed, scholars and critics of Jehovah’s Witnesses through to this past year 2009 have published what is demonstrably false and which contradicts readily available information, including the originally misunderstood and misused 1950 John 8:58 (NWT) footnote’s use of the incontrovertibly clear English expression “rendered in.”

First, consider how Ron Rhodes captioned the 1950 NWT’s use of “perfect indefinite tense” in his 1993 book Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1993), page 116:

Scholars agree that the Watchtower Society has no justification for translating ego eimi in John 8:58 as “I have been.”

The above has been removed from Rhodes’ 2009 edition of his Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2009), which is a positive indication. Indeed, Rhodes must now realize that many scholars not only agree with the NWT translation of John 8:58, but it has been sufficiently demonstrated that Rhodes’ preferred “I am/AM” translation of John 8:58 is unacceptable for many good reasons. For example, after categorizing the Greek idiom correctly as an “Extension from Past” (also known as a “Present of Past Action Still in Progress”) in which the present verb eimi (“I am”) is “used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications” (as in “before Abraham was born”), K.L. McKay gives an English rendering that is almost identical to the NWT’s, namely, “I have been in existence since before Abraham was born” (Kenneth L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek [SBG 5; New York: Peter Lang, 1994], pages 41-42).

As I attempted to make plain in my online Q&A, “Why do different editions of the New World Translation (NWT) contain different footnotes to its rendering of John 8:58?” page 11, note 9, while addressing some of the claims made by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.:

As I have shown on pages 283-284 of my Third Edition of Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended, Bowman misquotes every single one of the Greek grammars he cites in connection with his claim, “most grammars specifically state that accompanying the present tense verb is some adverbial expression indicating the extent of the duration of the time indicated by the verb” (Bowman, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John, page 105 [underlining added]). Each one of Bowman’s referenced grammars makes it clear that a past expression and a present verb together denote duration from the past point of reference (“before Abraham was born”) to the present (“I am”). Yet, not one of the grammars cited by Bowman on this point says anything about “the extent of the duration of the time” being indicated by the adverbial, past-referring expression. Shifting the focus (as Bowman does) from a past expression modifying a present verb to “a clause beginning with prin” ignores the role of the present verb in relation to the adverbial clause. By doing this, Bowman can disconnect “‘duration’ up to the present” from the past expression. But the adverbial “prin clause” is not considered in isolation from the present verb! It is, in fact, the present verb which denotes duration (though not always the extent of the duration) from the time indicated by the past-referring adverbial clause.

You may review for yourself the what I recently referenced again in my new “Upon the Lampstand” Q&A regarding NWT footnotes to John 8:58 (see page 7), and in my Third Edition of Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended (see Chapter 3, pages 277-294), namely, the following writers who describe or who classify the Greek idiom of John 8:58 just as the Watchtower Society now does:

1) J.A. Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1858), page 370.

2) A. Tholuck, Commentary on the Gospel of John (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1859), page 243.

3) H.A.W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Gospel of John, trans. William Urwick (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884), page 293.

4) G.B. Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, trans. J. Henry Thayer (Andover: Warren Draper, 1897), page 267.

5) F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and R.W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), page 168, sec. 322. (Note: John 8:58 is cited erroneously in the grammar’s text, in the referenced section, as John 5:58.)

6) N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3, Syntax (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963), page 62, sec. 1(c).

7) J.N. Sanders and B.A. Mastin, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), page 236.

8) Kenneth L. McKay, “Time and Aspect in New Testament Greek,” NovT 34 (1992), page 212.

— A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5; New York: Peter Lang, 1994), pages 41-42.

— “‘I am’ in John’s Gospel,” ExpT 107.10 (1996), page 302.

Rhodes neglected to consider each and every single one of the above in connection with this issue in his 1993 edition (which means Rhodes would not have had available to him only the last two cited sources) and Rhodes does not consider or reference any of them in his 2009 edition of Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Yet, in 1993 Rhodes wrote that “scholars agree” there is “no justification” for the NWT rendering! Then sixteen (16) years later in 2009 Rhodes still hides available references which clearly support the NWT rendering and/or the Greek idiom cited explicitly by the Watchtower Society since its 1984 NWT Reference Edition was published.

In so doing, Rhodes makes it nearly impossible for his readers to completely and accurately understand these issues. Therefore, I believe for the above and for other reasons stated elsewhere in documents referenced in this Bog that Ron Rhodes and those who support his work against Jehovah’s Witnesses are misleading people by what Rhodes writes about the NWT and about John 8:58.

Further concerning John 8:58 and the NWT, consider the following from Rhodes’ 1993 edition of his Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, page 116 (with my underlining added):

It is highly revealing that at one time, the Jehovah’s Witnesses attempted to classify the Greek word eimi as a perfect indefinite tense rather than a present tense.

The above words are gone from Rhodes’ 2009 edition. Indeed, at no time have Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Watchtower Society attempted to “classify the Greek word eimi as a perfect indefinite tense rather than a present tense”!

Rhodes’ claim is a fabrication, one easily contradicted by the expressed use of “rendered in” in the very same 1950 NWT footnote to John 8:58 which is the source of the issue Rhodes’ writes about above concerning the “perfect indefinite tense”! The original fabrication begun by Dr. Walter Martin on this issue has been carried forward by many of Martin’s disciples since at least 1957, and possibly as early as 1953 (see notes 1, 2, 24, and 25 in my “Why do different editions of the New World Translation (NWT) contain different footnotes to its rendering of John 8:58?”). Unless Martin was intending to deceive people by his treatment of John 8:58 in the NWT, his false claims could have been avoided had Martin and his research staff understood the simple English expression, “rendered in,” which expression plainly reveals that “perfect indefinite tense” in the 1950 NWT footnote to John 8:58 has to do with the English translation, not with “the Greek word eimi as a perfect indefinite tense.”

Even more outrageous is the following 1993 description of the alleged reaction by Jehovah’s Witnesses to Martin’s false claims concerning the 1950 NWT footnote to John 8:58, which alleged reaction is portrayed by Rhodes as follows:

However, this claim proved to be very embarrassing when Greek scholars pointed out to the Jehovah’s Witnesses that there is no such thing as a perfect indefinite tense in Greek grammar. [Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses (1993), page 116].

The above has now been eliminated from Rhodes’ 2009 edition, not because it no longer fit with the text and overall scope and subject of Rhodes’ work on Jehovah’s Witnesses (obviously). Rather, it seems clear that the change was made because Rhodes’ claim “proved to be very embarrassing when” English-speaking persons pointed out to Rhodes and to the Christian Research Institute which Martin founded that the NWT’s use of “perfect indefinite tense” had nothing to do with “Greek grammar”! 

Many of these same and other Trinitarian apologists and scholars still seem unable or unwilling to try and further unwind Walter Martin’s mishandling of NWT footnotes to John 8:58. The result is the NWT is continuously tainted unfairly over this issue when, in true and unfortunate irony, the NWT’s footnotes to John 8:58 should continue to serve as an embarrassing reminder of the false and misleading claims made by many Trinitarian scholars and critics of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Rhodes has a note at the end of the above quotation (note 63) which refers to Robert M. Bowman, Jr.’s 1989 publication Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), pages 90-98. Yet, Bowman’s publication reveals the truth of the matter (in part) involving the 1950 NWT’s use of “perfect indefinite tense” in its footnote to John 8:58. Note Bowman’s weak but revealing admission on his page 94, “it may be ... that the expression ‘rendered in’ in [the 1950 NWTNT] footnote should be understood to refer to the tense of the English rendering.”

It not only “may be,” it is clearly true (based on the 1950 NWT footnote’s use of “rendered in”) that “the expression should be understood to refer to the tense of the English rendering.” Further ‘embarrassment’ for many Evangelicals, such as those who support the claims made by Martin, Rhodes, Bowman, Morey, Ankerberg, Weldon, and others who followed Dr. Martin down this path in varying degrees, can be seen in Martin’s book, The Kingdom of the Cults, Revised Edition (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany Fellowship, 1977 [1965]), page 78. Here Martin alleges “the term ‘perfect indefinite tense’ is an invention of the author of the note.” 

Yet, twenty (20) years after the publication of Martin’s The Kingdom of the Cults in 1965, in Martin’s 1985 Revised edition, his strong allegation has been significantly changed. In fact, the change made in the 1985 edition of The Kingdom of the Cults still remains in editions of Martin’s work published almost forty (40) years after the book was first published according to the Revised, Updated, and Expanded Edition of Martin’s book edited by Ravi Zacharias (Grand Rapids: Bethany, 2003). Consider the following comparison of these editions of Martin’s Kingdom of the Cults (with underlining added):

1977 (1965) Kingdom of the Cults, pages 77-78:

It is difficult to know what the author of the note [on page 312 of the 1950 NWT] means since he does not use standard grammatical terminology, nor is his argument documented from standard grammars. The aorist infinitive as such does not form a clause. It is the adverb Prin which is significant here, so that the construction should be called [a] Prin clause. The term “perfect indefinite” is an invention of the author of the note, so it is impossible to know what is meant.

1985 Kingdom of the Cults, page 88:

It is difficult to know what the author of the note [on page 312 of the 1950 NWT] means since he does not use standard grammatical terminology, nor is his argument documented from standard grammars. The aorist infinitive as such does not form a clause. It is the adverb Prin which is significant here, so that the construction should be called a Prin clause. The term “perfect indefinite” is not a standard grammatical term and its use here has been invented by the authors of the note, so it is impossible to know what is meant.

2003 Kingdom of the Cults, page 111:

It is difficult to know what the translator means, since he does not use standard grammatical terminology, nor is his argument documented from standard grammars. The aorist infinitive as such does not form a clause. It is the adverb prin that is significant here, so that the construction should be called a prin clause. The term “perfect indefinite” is not a standard grammatical term, and its use here has been invented by the authors of the note, so it is impossible to know what is meant.

Note that in the later edition of Martin’s work it is not said the NWT translators ‘invented’ “the term ‘perfect indefinite tense.’” Rather, in the 1985 edition of Kingdom of the Cults Martin’s charge is that the NWT footnote authors “invented” the perfect indefinite’s “use here” in John 8:58! As I wrote in my recent Q&A on NWT footnotes to John 8:58:

It is unclear how those responsible for the 1985 and later 2003 editions of Martin’s work (quoted above) could have made such a change (but without any retraction for Martin’s false claim that the NWT authors invented “the term ‘perfect indefinite tense’”), but at the same time fail in their research (all the way up to at least 2003) to note the explanation of the NWT authors’ “use” of “perfect indefinite” given by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in its 1978 letter to Firpo Carr. In fact, this 1978 letter (which I discuss in the main body of this article) is referenced and considered in part by Robert M. Bowman, Jr., in his 1989 book Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), pages 93-94, and 100. So it was not “impossible to know what” was meant in 2003, that is, had those responsible for editing Martin’s work bothered to fully research the matter according to the published explanation given by the Society over thirty (30) years ago, and subsequently critiqued by Bowman twenty (20) years ago! [Greg Stafford, “Why do different editions of the New World Translation (NWT) contain different footnotes to its rendering of John 8:58?,” note 1 continued on page 9.]

I have attempted to fairly consider issues pertaining to Jehovah’s Witnesses, the NWT, and John 8:58 in my three editions of Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended (1998, 2000, and 2009), in my answer to the December 17, 2009, “Upon the Lampstand” question, “Why do different editions of the New World Translation contain different footnotes to its rendering of John 8:58?” and now here in this Blog. I plan on continuing to engage all demonstrably false teachers over this or concerning any other important biblical text or issue, in order to try and help those who are truly attempting to learn about the best available reasons for beliefs concerning Jah God, Jesus of Nazareth, and the Bible.

In closing, I will here again produce a listing of several English translations which are similar to NWT’s rendering of John 8:58 in that they, too, attempt to express Jesus’ preexistence rather than an identity as “I AM” or an explicit claim to have existed eternally. Neither of these latter conclusions have any place in John 8:58, for neither of them come from the grammar or from any of the clear teachings of this text in its context, as I have repeatedly and expressly shown:

“From before Abraham was, I have been”

George R. Noyes, The New Testament (Boston: A. Williams and Company, 1871).

“Before Abraham was born I was already what I am” and (in the 1904 edition) “I was”

The Twentieth Century New Testament (Chicago: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1904).

“I have existed before Abraham was born”

James Moffatt, The Bible: A New Translation (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1935).

“I am here – and I was before Abraham!”

J.A. Kleist and J.L. Lilly, The New Testament (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1956).

“I was before Abraham”

William F. Beck, The New Testament in the Language of Today (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1963).

“I was in existence before Abraham was ever born”

Kenneth N. Taylor, The Living Bible (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale, 1979).

“I am from before Abraham was born!”

Richard Lattimore, The Four Gospels and the Revelation (New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 1979).

“I existed before Abraham was born”

C.B. Williams, The New Testament in the Language of the People (Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 1986).

“I have been in existence since before Abraham was born”

Kenneth L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5; New York: Peter Lang, 1994), page 42.

For more on the history and meaning of John 8:58, and on the use of ego eimi by Jesus and by others in the New Testament and in related literature, see my Chapter 3, “Jesus of Nazareth: The Christ from Heaven,” in the Third Edition of Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics (Murrieta, CA: Elihu Books, 2009), and also my online Q&A, “Why do different editions of the New World Translation (NWT) contain different footnotes to its rendering of John 8:58?”

NEW Christian Tract: "Beliefs Based on the Best Available Reasons"

Remember my "Christian Tract Idea #1"? Back on January 1, 2009, I put up a Blog about a tract idea which has now been realized. It's a little different from the fist vision about how the tract should look, but I believe in the end it came out better than I first intended!

You can view and download PDFs of the tract on the Elihu Books Topical Index under "C," "Christian Tracts: Beliefs Based on the Best Available Reasons." Elihu Books and CWJ will be making high quality printed copies available to all who are interested, and we will be distributing them far and wide throughout the earth, Jah willing.

We will also have an option for ordering large quantities of our tracts, or to simply have some added for free to any order from the Elihu site. We will also be doing mass mailings and other forms of distribution. You are welcome to join us in making "Beliefs Based on the Best Available Reasons" known throughout the world, especially since the beliefs here have to do with Jah, with Jesus of Nazareth, and with the Bible. But you may use the material, as it is presented, however you like. You do not need to use our mailing address label; you can use your own address; but I will only defend what is presented on the tract as it is presented. So be careful if you do alter the material, and be prepared to defend whatever it is you put forth in association with this tract or with any other material, based the best available reasons.

Christian Witnesses of Jah are working on more tracts, audio and videos, and more material in print and/or for use online. Keep doing your part! Don't ever let yourself believe that you cannot give others hope in Jah's and in Jesus' names based on the good teachings and history presented to us all in the Bible. You can! And if you are having a hard time getting started, then find one or more persons with whom to work (compare Matthew 18:20) in teaching others about Jah's goodness, no, about Jah's greatness! Teach them about the history of Jesus of Nazareth, and about his many wonderful and helpful teachings. Point others to the Bible, not fanatically, or as if you are not aware of its origin and transmission among men. But do so the way you present beliefs in everything else: Based on good reasons, preferably, based on the best available reasons!

Help those in need. But start with yourself. Then take care of your family. After that, if you have more time to give, reach out to as many as possible, reasonably, but with conviction and with trust in Jah and in Jesus, who will send the holy spirit to empower you and to give you strength. Because they will send it, and you "will receive power," not as a distraction from your message, but to stabilize your presentation, and to help you reach the hearts and minds of others who are made in Jah's image, as Jah, Jesus, and the holy spirit speak through you, or bring back to your mind the things you have learned in connection with them.--John 14:26; 16:7; Acts 1:8.

Praise Jah!

Holidays, Birthdays, and Spiritual Gifts

Given the time of year, with several holidays fast approaching, is it a fact that many Christians and others are often confused about to what extent, if any, persons should participate in festivals or other celebrations. In particular, those persons who follow the directives of the Watchtower Society regularly publish information about such celebrations and festivals which is not accurate, and even misleading in several respects. 

For example, and as I presented in my book Three Dissertations on the Teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Murrieta, CA: Elihu Books, 2002), Third Dissertation, pages 208-209:

More recently, a similar question was asked about why Witnesses celebrate wedding anniversaries but not birthdays, which are essentially anniversaries of a person’s date of birth. The Watchtower pointedly stated that there is no need to celebrate either, but that it would not be a problem for Christians to celebrate their wedding anniversary since weddings are placed in a favorable light in the Bible, being a ceremony to commemorate a divine institution, namely, marriage. In contrast, the Bible is said to link birthdays with “cruel acts” of pagans.[NOTE: “Questions from Readers,” The Watchtower, October 15, 1998, pages 30-31.]

The two examples of “cruel acts” given by The Watchtower involve the birthday of Pharaoh during the time of Joseph (Genesis 40:20-23) and the birthday of Herod as recorded in Matthew 14:6-10. Regarding Pharaoh’s birthday, there is nothing explicit linking birthday celebrations in general to “cruel acts.” Naturally, occasions for celebration can provide an outlet for excessive or immoral acts. But in this case the “cruel acts” against the chief of the cupbearers and the chief of the bakers were in fulfillment of the dreams interpreted by Joseph. It is similar with Herod’s birthday celebration. The account in Matthew does not say that John was beheaded because of Herod’s birthday celebration. Rather, he was beheaded because of the request of Herodias and her daughter, and Herod’s oath to her. Indeed, there is nothing in Matthew’s account that explicitly states that John’s head was brought to the birthday celebration at all. It only says that his head was “given to the maiden, and she brought it to her mother” (Matthew 14:11). The presentation may have occurred at the celebration, but as with the account in Genesis 40 there is nothing tying such an act to birthdays in general.

The Watchtower Society regularly publishes such information, along with other arguments which are not convincing or which do not support its position concerning birthdays. For example, though C.T. Russell and the early Bible Students who later became Jehovah’s Witnesses celebrated Christmas and people’s birthdays until up to at least the late 1920s, one fairly recent issue of The Watchtower had this to say about the celebration of Christmas by early Watchtower Society followers (with my underlining added):

Bible Students [Jehovah’s Witnesses] also commemorated December 25 as the anniversary of Jesus’ birth, or birthday. It was even customary to have Christmas dinner at the Brooklyn headquarters. Of course, since then God’s people have grown spiritually in many respects. In the 1920’s increased light of truth enabled them to see the following: Jesus was not born on December 25, a date linked to pagan religion. The Bible directs us to commemorate the date of Jesus’ death, not the anniversary of his or anyone else’s birth. Doing so accords with Ecclesiastes 7:1 and the fact that how a faithful person’s life turns out is more important than the day of his birth. The Bible has no record that any faithful servant celebrated his birthday. [“Questions from Readers,” The Watchtower, October 15, 1998, pages 30-31.]

Yet, as I pointed out also in Three Dissertations (page 210): “There is no record of any faithful servant, in the Bible, celebrating a wedding anniversary, either. So this cannot be used as part of an argument against Christmas.” But it is used as just such an argument here by the Watchtower Society, an entity which for some unexplained reason does not speak about wedding anniversaries in the same way that it does about birthdays.

In the above quote fromThe Watchtower,we can see the Society claims increased understanding made the Bible Students in the late 1920s aware that Jesus was not born on December 25. In fact, however, Russell and the early Bible Students knew full and well that December 25^th was not the actual day of Jesus’ birth long before the 1920s. Consider Russell’s own published words as far back as 1893 (with my underlining added):

We have elsewhere presented the Scriptural evidences that the date usually celebrated as the anniversary of our Lord Jesus’ birth is incorrect and that, instead of being Dec. 15, B. C. 4, it really was about October 1, B. C. 2; nevertheless this need not mar our pleasure, nor our appreciation of the great fact so generally celebrated on the wrong date; for its lessons are as appropriate to one date as to another. [“The Birth of Jesus,” Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, December 15, 1893, reprint page 1603.]

The footnote to the above quotation from Russell refers to Millennial Dawn, vol. 2, pages 54-62. See also “Christmas Hopes and Joys,” Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, December 1, 1902, reprint pages 3114-3116; “Christmas Review,” Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, December 15, 1903, reprint pages 3289-3290. It is clear, however, that the October 15, 1998, Watchtower was in error about its assessment of the reasons for why the Society decided to no longer celebrate Christmas. It was not because “increased light of truth enabled them to see the following: Jesus was not born on December 25.” The Society/Russell knew and published this as early as 1893, along with an explanation for why this difference in date should not really matter to those who take pleasure in the celebration of the birth of the Messiah. See my Q&A on this subject (link below) for some of the good reasons from the Bible which make clear why Christians are free to decide whether to celebrate Christmas or any other birthday, so long as it is “in honor of the Lord.”—Romans 14:6.

There is also a lingering question in the minds and hearts of many Christian Witnesses of Jah about use of spiritual "gifts," such as speaking in tongues or as it may involve some other manifestation of God’s holy spirit among us. Therefore, to help further the constructive discussion of these issues among Christian Witnesses of Jah and others, I have put together two brief Q&As on the subjects of holidays/celebrations and on the use of spiritual gifts or powers today. They are:

As a Christian Witness of Jah, what are your good reasons for celebrating or for not celebrating one holiday over another (such as Christmas, Thanksgiving, or Halloween), or for celebrating or for not celebrating birthdays or various other festivals?(September 10, 2009)

Since speaking in different “tongues” and “prophesying” are spoken of in the Bible as being practiced by Christians (1 Corinthians 14:22), how will a Christian determine how or if such gifts are to be practiced today?(October 12, 2009)

I hope they are helpful to all who are considering these issues.

Lucian of Samosata: A Warning for Christians from an Early Non-Christian

Lucian of Samosata lived from around 120 CE to 190 CE. He wrote many dialogues in which he satirizes humanity as well as various philosophies circulating during his time. Lucian was not a Christian. In fact, in his work The Death of Peregrine Lucian writes about the devotion of “the Christians” to “a man” who “was crucified” because of the “novel rites” which the “crucified” man is said to have introduced (Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11). Lucian can therefore be said to have provided one of the earliest non-Christian references to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, the only “man” historically identified with “the Christians” and who was also said to have been “crucified” or put to death by the Romans in the first century.—See the New Testament record of Luke 3:1 and 23:24-25, 33.

However, Lucian does more than simply refer to “the Christians” and to “the man” to whom Christians of the mid- to late-second century CE were devoted. In The Death of Peregrine Lucian writes about a historical figure of his time (also called “Proteus”) whose background and whose interests are of the worst kind. Unfortunately, Peregrine is credited with “the corruption of a handsome boy” and then with buying off his (poor) parents so he is not ‘brought before the Governor’ (9). Peregrine is also said to have hanged his sixty-plus-year-old father (10). But, and this is where Christians must be alert, Lucian also speaks about how Peregrine pretended to be interested in Christianity for his own selfish gain, not just once, but for quite some time and to a rather astonishing degree.

Consider how Lucian presents Peregrine’s actions in this regard (with my bracketed words added for clarity). Keep in mind, Lucian is likely not an expert on Christianity, and to him the whole matter is amusingly tragic, according to his satirical style of writing:

It was now that he [Peregrine] came across the priests and scribes of the Christians, in Palestine, and picked up their queer creed. I can tell you, he pretty soon convinced them of his superiority; prophet, elder, ruler of the Synagogue—he was everything at once; expounded their books, commented on them, wrote books himself. They [the Christians of this time] took him [Peregrine] for a God, accepted his laws, and declared him their president. The Christians, you know [as Lucian writes about this matter to a man named Cronius], worship a man [Jesus of Nazareth] to this day,—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. Well, the end of it was that Proteus [Peregrine] was arrested and thrown into prison. This was the very thing to lend an air to his [favorite] arts of clap-trap and wonder-working; he was now a made man [because he had deceived the Christians into believing he was sincere]. The Christians took it all very seriously: he was no sooner in prison, than they began trying every means to get him out again,—but without success. Everything else that could be done for him they most devoutly did. They thought of nothing else. Orphans and ancient widows might be seen hanging about the prison from break of day. Their officials bribed the [jailers] to let them sleep inside with him. Elegant dinners were conveyed in; their sacred writings were read; and our old friend Peregrine (as he was still called in those days) became for them “the modern Socrates.” In some of the Asiatic cities, too, the Christian communities put themselves to the expense of sending deputations, with offers of sympathy, assistance, and legal advice.—Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13 (As translated by .W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, vol. 4 [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905], pages 82-83).

Lucian goes on to explain why the Christians of this time were seemingly so accepting of Peregrine, and so willing to help him to the extents he describes above. In what follows I will continue to add bracketed words to help with the reading of the text, and I will also underline just two sentences at the end. For in these the problem for us ‘trusting’ Christians will be manifest:

The activity of these people [the Christians], in dealing with any matter that affects their community, is something extraordinary; they spare no trouble, no expense. Peregrine, all this time, was making quite an income on the strength of his bondage; money came pouring in. You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver [Jesus of Nazareth] that they are all brothers [compare Matthew 23:8], from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage [Jesus of Nazareth], and live after his laws. All this they take quite on trust, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property. Now an adroit, unscrupulous fellow, who has seen the world, has only to get among these simple souls, and his fortune is pretty soon made; he plays with them.

If the trust, or faith, which Christians have in Jesus of Nazareth and in those with whom we associate as “brothers” was so easily manipulated in the mid-second century CE, there is little to keep this same thing from happening today. Indeed, all too often we hear of men who sneak in and who live among us and who then do some of the very things Peregrine is said to have done: molest young boys and cause those with true faith to give of their possessions, to those who are not deserving, when we should instead use them to take care of ourselves, our families, and others who are truly in need. If Peregrine was so fit as to work as hard as he did in misleading Christians of his time, he should have been made to work in ways that were in imitation of those Christians who set a truly righteous example for all of us to follow:

2 Thessalonians 3:7-15 (NRSV)

For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; we were not idle when we were with you, and we did not eat anyone’s bread without paying for it; but with toil and labor we worked night and day, so that we might not burden any of you. This was not because we do not have that right, but in order to give you an example to imitate. For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat. For we hear that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living. Brothers and sisters, do not be weary in doing what is right. Take note of those who do not obey what we say in this letter; have nothing to do with them, so that they may be ashamed. Do not regard them as enemies, but warn them as believers.

So, do not be so quick to accept even those who appear to show great zeal for what is good. If they do truly love what is right, then they would not continue to have you or anyone else bear their burdens. Of course, there are many who need help, such as ‘orphans and widows,’ as well as persons with infirmities and those of our family who are elderly and without much (Matthew 8:1-3; 1 Timothy 5:3-10; James 1:27). But we must be “cautious” (Matthew 10:16) and try hard never to allow the wicked one to find his place among us, as he has done with so many persons and Christians groups before, and today (Matthew 13:37-39; 2 Thessalonians 3:3). “Put those to the test who say they are apostles” (Revelation 2:2), such as those who show by their burdening of others that they are claiming superiority to Paul who, in spite of ‘having the right’ chose to instead work “night and day” so as not to burden anyone, “but in order to give you an example to imitate.”—2 Thessalonians 3:9.

Finally, learn from the Christians of Lucian’s time. They had a chance to investigate just why Peregrine was being imprisoned, and to do something about it before giving him any more of their time, support, and material things. Fortunately, as Lucian tells us, they did eventually see Peregrine for who he was:

The Christians were meat and drink to him; under their protection he [Peregrine] lacked nothing, and this luxurious state of things went on for some time. At last he got into trouble even with them; I suppose they caught him partaking of some of their forbidden meats. They would have nothing more to do with him ... .—Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 15-16.

But at what cost, after paying what price to one who cared nothing for the one whose teachings Peregrine falsely claimed so zealously to have embraced? Let us be resolved, then, to do all that we can to keep the Peregrines of our time away from us, and to instead do what we can to expose those who lie and who cheat and who steal from others in the name of Jesus of Nazareth. We can do so by trusting in Jesus himself, and by praying to his God, our God, Jah, to cause those who misuse their names to see their faces every time they come near us. We can also evaluate ourselves and each other, where and when appropriate, by comparing what we do and what others claim to be with the writings and with the witness of those whom we have come to trust, whose writings we have come to accept as having good reasons to believe.Among these are Paul and John, Peter and James, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, for in these we see the one after whom we have been called “Christians” (Acts 11:26) those who bear witness to what is true about Jesus of Nazareth, the Bible, and about the God Jah, whom one day all living things will “praise”!—Psalm 102:18; 106:48; 150:6; Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6.

"Do Not Go After Them" (Unless . . . )

The words forming the quoted portion of the title of this Blog come from one of the four best historical witnesses to the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth (Luke 21:8). The fuller text of Jesus’ words here is as follows: “Then [Jesus] said to [his disciples], ‘You must see to it that you are not misled. For many will come using my name and saying, “I am [the Christ/Messiah],” and, “The defined/appointed time has drawn near.” Do not go after them.’”

These last words are unique to Luke’s account, though similar parts of Jesus’ speech are recorded in Matthew 24:4-5, 11, and 23-28. But Matthew does not include the part about those who falsely claim, “The defined [or ‘appointed’] time has drawn near,” followed by Jesus’ warning, “Do not go after them.” By contrast, later in Matthew 24 Jesus gives a series of illustrations about individuals whom he would consider “faithful and discreet,” in part “because [it is] not at what time [they] think” Jesus “is coming” when he will in fact appear. Rather, “he will come on a day that [we] have not looked for and at a time that [we] do not know” (Matthew 24:44, 50). Then in Matthew 25 Jesus continues his warning by giving still more illustrations about how each one of us must be ready, “in the middle of the night” (verse 6), for even “the discreet” (verse 8) “do not know the day or the time/hour” of his coming.—Matthew 25:13.

Today, and in times past but since the days of Jesus, many have done just as he foretold, claiming “the defined/appointed time has drawn near.” Indeed, in spite of Jesus’ warning millions have ‘gone after’ such ones, in part because many of these false teachers also proclaim other things about Jesus and about God which are true, or which are based on good reasons. Just as Jesus also foretold, “weeds” have grown up together with “wheat” so that they are, at times, difficult to distinguish from each other and where any attempt to prematurely remove the “weeds” from the “wheat” could threaten the growth of the “wheat,” though the “wheat” will be separated during “the harvest” and then “the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun,” no longer indistinguishable from the “weeds.”—Matthew 13:30, 43.

It is not for us to determine when is this “harvest,” and yet being a Christian involves doing good and being “righteous” (Matthew 25:37-40) concerning that which we have good reasons to believe is true and according to the will of the one who made us (Genesis 2:9; Isaiah 7:15-16). This is the case in spite of our sin or disobedience to God at times because he permits us to act according to our own will and desire (James 1:14-15), for we are in his image (Genesis 3:22). It is the “angels” who are sent forth to “separate” the “wheat” from the “weeds,” those who “kept awake” in spite of not knowing when “the thief was coming” from those who mislead others for their own selfish gain, in part by falsely proclaiming, “The appointed time has drawn near!”—Matthew 13:39-41; 24:43-44; Luke 12:8.

I write these things, because I myself was misled into ‘going after’ or working with those who, probably more than any other significant religious organization in the past 100 years, consistently and falsely proclaimed, “The defined/appointed time has drawn near.” Part of the reason I joined in with this group, as noted above, is because of many teachings these ones proclaim which are based on good reasons, such as the names and the biblical identities of God and of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth (see my Third Edition of Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics, Chapters 1 and 2, in particular [Murrieta, CA: Elihu Books, 2009]). Today the “field” of the world is indeed mixed with “wheat” and “weeds,” and it takes time not only for each of us to grow and to learn about what is true, and about what is false, but by the time we come to an understanding of how to use the best available reasons to make such determinations, either alone or in association with others, we have already likely come to accept things which are not true, or which are not based on the best available reasons. Thus, there will always be a period of growth and learning which will bring each one of us to points of decision about what to continue believing, or about what to accept or reject as we grow.

With that said, consider the following selections from the Watchtower Society’s 2006 CD ROM Library, and then ask yourself: Do the underlined portions of what follows fit the description of those whom Jesus warned us about in the latter part of Luke 21:8, or do they suggest persons whom Jesus gives a life-time appointment as “faithful and discreet slave[s],” whose identity and position as such could never be challenged or questioned by anyone else on earth?

The time that God has allowed for humans to experiment with self-government is about to end. [“Comfort for Those Who Suffer,” The Watchtower, January 1, 2003, page 6.]

of this and of wickedness and suffering is nearing its end. ... From the fulfillment of Bible prophecies, we know that the new world is at the door, and God’s permission of suffering is nearing its end.—Matthew 24:3-14. [“God’s Permission of Suffering Nears Its End,” The Watchtower, May 15, 2001, pages 6 and 8.]

In 1914 this world entered its “last days.” (2 Timothy 3:1-5, 13) We are now 83 years into that period and are nearing its end ... [“Deliverance Into a Righteous New World,” The Watchtower, April 1, 1997, page 14, paragraph 3.]

Bible prophecies indicate that Satan’s world has been in its last days for nearly 80 years now, since the pivotal year 1914. This world is nearing its end. (Romans 16:20; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 2 Timothy 3:1-5) Jehovah’s Witnesses therefore take heart because they realize that soon God’s Kingdom will assume complete control of all earth’s affairs. [“Trust in Jehovah to Fulfill His Purpose,” The Watchtower, March 15, 1994, page 20, paragraph 20.]

True, for most of mankind, there has not been much happiness on earth since 1914. But the woeful conditions on earth are proof that Satan’s rule is about to end. [“Be Thankful—Jehovah’s Messianic Kingdom Rules,” The Watchtower, October 15, 1990, page 19, paragraph 18.]

For over seven decades now, the people of this 20th-century generation living since 1914 have experienced the fulfillment of events listed in Jesus’ prophecy found in Matthew chapter 24. Therefore, this period of time is nearing its end, with the restoration of Paradise on earth close at hand.—Matthew 24:32-35; compare Psalm 90:10. [“Opening Up the Way Back to Paradise,” The Watchtower, August 15, 1989, page 14, paragraph 18.]

These prophecies undergoing fulfillment show clearly that we are living in “the time of the end.” (Daniel 12:4) Yes, we are nearing the final phase of the last days, the climax of which is the destruction of Satan’s entire wicked system of things. Indeed, this pleasure-loving world is about to end. [“A Pleasure-Loving World About to End!” The Watchtower, July 1, 1983, page 7.]

The question I asked before the above quotations from The Watchtower is for each person to answer for him- or for herself, ultimately. But I will here tell you what I believe is true and also what I believe is what motivates such ones to constantly make these inappropriate claims in complete defiance of Jesus’ warning, even in Jesus’ and in Jehovah’s names (with underlining added):

The fact that the “harvest” of the “sons of the kingdom” is well advanced proves that the “conclusion [synte´leia] of the system of things” is nearing its end (telos). Your attitude toward the wheatlike anointed “brothers” of Christ and the treatment you accord them will be the determining factor as to whether you go into “everlasting cutting-off” or receive “everlasting life.” (Matt. 25:34-46) Prove yourself to be a loyal companion of the anointed “wheat” class, the “faithful and discreet slave,” whom Christ has appointed to provide spiritual “food at the proper time.” (Matt. 24:45) [“Harvesting in the ‘Time of the End,’” The Watchtower, August 1, 1981, page 26, paragraph 20.]

They want you to follow them. Thus, just as Jesus foretold they (repeatedly) tell others, “The appointed time has drawn near” (Luke 21:8). The Watchtower Society and those loyal to them no matter what they teach have also misled others into believing that Jesus has appointed them as a class known as “the faithful and discreet slave,” rather than waiting for the Master to “arrive” and to make that determination himself, “when he returns from the marriage.”—Luke 12:36.

I have elsewhere attempted to further expose the Watchtower Society’s false claims concerning their self-appointment and their failure to be more balanced in their presentation of “the form of worship that is clean and undefiled” before Jah and before Jesus of Nazareth (James 1:27; see “The People of God,” Part Three: “The Sons of the Kingdom”; “The Congregations of God During ‘the Lord’s Day’”; and “Submissive to Those Taking the Lead”). 

The Society, like each one of us, can repent; they can “turn around”; they can ‘bridle their tongue’; they can “become watchful, and strengthen the things remaining,” rather than continuously weaken them by their false teachings concerning “the times and the seasons” (Isaiah 50:5; Jeremiah 15: 34:15; 1 Thessalonians 5:1; Revelation 3:2). Indeed, if I can “turn around” so can they! If “that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and [who] teaches and misleads [Jesus’] slaves” has “time to repent,” then so does the Watchtower Society (Revelation 2:20:21)! But they, like each one of us (and like “that woman”) must first realize it is not about them, or about any man or woman. It is about the Lord Jesus Christ and about his God and Father, Jah Jehovah.—Exodus 17:16; Isaiah 12:2; Galatians 1:11-12; Revelation 5:13-14; 21:22.

Until they do, as with anyone else, I encourage all Christians ‘not to go after them.’ For if they “are not willing” then, as in times past, even if “Moses and Samuel were standing before” Jah God and now before Jesus, they will send forth and “kill with deadly plague, so that all the congregations will know that [Jesus, and not any man or woman] searches the kidneys and hearts, and [he, like Jah God before him] will give to [us] individually according to [our] deeds.”—Jeremiah 15:1-2; 17:9-10; Revelation 2:23.

We must resist the temptation to think that our association with any human, whether it be “Moses” or “Samuel,” will protect us from this “deadly plague” if we do not “individually” “turn around” and “repent.” So do not give your “oil” (Matthew 25:8-12) to those who have, apparently, “understood the will of [the] master” but ‘not gotten ready or done in line with [the Master’s] will.’ Indeed, in Luke 12 Jesus went further and spoke, not about peace among those who would claim to follow him, “but rather division” for “from now on there will be five in one house divided, three against two and two against three ... father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”—Luke 12:51-53.

Yet, there can be peace and joy among just “two or three” (Matthew 18:20) if we are gathered together, not in fear of men who refuse to listen to the Master, but in Jesus' and in Jah's names out of love for what is true and good, based on the best available reasons and not on men’s traditions. This way we can truly do “the will of God,” the one who made us, and not follow in the footsteps of men or women who wish to enslave us according to their own selfish desires.—Isaiah 29:13; Mark 3:35; Luke 16:11; John 3:20-21; Galatians 2:4.

The Significance of the PAROUSIA

The New Testament speaks several times of the PAROUSIA of Jesus of Nazareth, that is, of his “return,” second “presence,” or “coming,” depending on which translation you use or how you understand this Greek word in each context in which it is used (see, for examples, Matthew 24:3; 1 Corinthians 15:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:1). However, too often religious groups have and continue to misuse the significance of Jesus’ PAROUSIA to wrongly or to falsely motivate others to action, which action almost always involves following the particular group’s or organization’s unique methods or teaching.

Such groups are often built around the use of fear over Jesus' return rather than on love for what is good or what can be shown to be true for good reasons. Consider this example from one such organization:

Jesus promised that in the last days of this system of things, he would gather his faithful disciples into a clearly identifiable Christian congregation that he would use to accomplish his will. (Matthew 24:14, 45-47) He is right now using that congregation to gather together “a great crowd” of men, women, and children “out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues,” and he is uniting them under his headship into “one flock” under “one shepherd.”—Revelation 7:9, 14-17; John 10:16; Ephesians 4:11-16.

Turn away, then, from any institutions or organizations that have besmirched the name of Christ and defamed Christianity over the past two thousand years. Otherwise, as Jesus Christ told the apostle John, you could “receive part of [their] plagues” when God executes his judgment on them in the near future. (Revelation 1:1; 18:4, 5) Make it your resolve to be among those spoken about by the prophet Micah when he said that “in the final part of the days,” true worshippers—adherents of true Christianity—would listen to God’s instructions and “walk in his paths” of restored pure worship. (Micah 4:1-4) The publishers of this magazine will be happy to help you identify those true worshippers. [from “Who Are Genuine Christians?” The Watchtower, March 1, 2006, page 7.]

Yes, I am sure “the publishers of [The Watchtower] will be happy” to tell you they are the ones you must join in order to avoid being among those whom “God executes ... in the near future” (emphasis added). But the Watchtower Society has “besmirched the name of Christ and defamed Christianity over the past” hundred or more years, time and time and time again. How? By continuously putting forth false interpretation after false interpretation about the return of the Christ, and then failing to humble itself and accept that, as a result of its repeated failures, the Watchtower Society is not who they have claimed to be, namely:

Consider another means by which Christ leads the congregation today. Commenting on his presence and the conclusion of the system of things, Jesus said: “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. Truly I say to you, He will appoint him over all his belongings.”—Matthew 24:3, 45-47.

The “master” is Jesus Christ. The “slave” is the group of anointed Christians on earth. This slave class is entrusted with caring for Jesus’ earthly interests and with providing timely spiritual food. A small group of qualified overseers from among the composite “faithful and discreet slave” form the Governing Body, serving as the representative of the slave class. They direct the worldwide Kingdom-preaching work and the supplying of spiritual nourishment at the right time. Christ thus leads the congregation by means of the spirit-anointed “faithful and discreet slave” and its Governing Body. [“Go On Walking as Jesus Christ Walked,” The Watchtower, September 15, 2005, page 22.]

Here the publishers of The Watchtower attach its teachings directly to the ‘leadings’ of “Christ.” Yet, in spite of some of the good things it has done, the Society’s history is ‘plagued’ with failures over the significance of dates such as 1914, 1925, 1975, the meaning of “this generation” (Matthew 24:34) and as it relates to many of its other teachings, such as uses of blood and uses of blood's components and fractions. To such ones, Jah God himself spoke long ago, in this way according to Deuteronomy 18:20-22 (NWT):

“[T]he prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die. And in case you should say in your heart: ‘How shall we know the word that Jehovah has not spoken?’ when the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word does not occur or come true, that is the word that Jehovah did not speak. With presumptuousness the prophet spoke it. You must not get frightened at him.”

Indeed, though the Bible does contain prophecies which can be evaluated through time, these are not to be the focus of genuine Christian efforts to help others, as I try to explain in this brief response to a question about the meaning of the Greek word PAROUSIA.

No one is perfect. We all make mistakes, even serious ones (Romans 3:23). But for those who make special claims which lead others to depend on them for a relationship with God and with Jesus, when serious mistakes are made in connection with their special claims then they must humble themselves or be held accountable for abusing their place and their authority.—Compare Galatians 2:11-14.

Thus, the time has come, for me at least, to praise Jah and to defend the goodness of biblical Christianity apart from false traditions and failed interpretations of prophecy and chronology, and to expose those who falsely motivate others to serve Jah God and Jesus of Nazareth out of fear, rather than out of love for what can be shown to be true based on the best available reasons.