What is a Jehovah Witness?
A Jehovah’s Witness (JW) is a follower of Charles Russell.
Who was Charles Russell?
Russell is the founder of the JWs and the first to articulate their system of theology. Later, the group was centralized around the leadership of Joseph Rutherford.
What is the theology of the JWs?
The leading beliefs of the JWs are:
- They deny the traditional Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
- They are Arians in their Christology meaning they deny the deity of Christ and believe that Jesus was created by the Father.
- They deny that the Holy Spirit is a person.
- They believe that there are two kinds of saved people. The rank and file JWs will live on the earth when it is remade into a paradise. The 144,000, however, will be the leaders of this paradise.
- There is no place of torment called hell. Anyone who is not a JW, will simply cease to exist (annihilationism).
- A rejection of worldliness for which reason JWs will not vote, vote, run for political office, salute flags, or serve in the military. They do not celebrate birthdays, Christmas, or Easter. They also refuse to receive blood transfusions.
How do Christians respond to these ideas?
The central doctrine of the Christian faith is the deity of Jesus. Therefore, Christians regard this as the central error of the JWs.
How can the deity of Christ be proven?
See here for a full explanation of this. A good first question for JWs is to ask them their understanding of Philippians 2:6:
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. (Philippians 2:5-7)
Why should we start with this verse?
Because it states so clearly that Jesus was equal with God, but this fact did not keep Him from coming to earth for our salvation.
How do JWs answer this?
The JWs have their own translation of the Bible. Note the differences:
| The NASB | The New World Translation |
| Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. | Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human. |
State the first difference.
The first difference is not explicit in that both translations say that Jesus existed in the form of God. They understand this expression very differently.
- The JWs understand this to mean that Jesus existed in a form that is similar to God by which they mean that Jesus was a spirit just like God the Father was a spirit. Jesus Himself, however, was not divine.
- Orthodox Christians understand “form of God” to mean that Jesus was Himself divine and was not just similar to God but was Himself God.
This is simply a question of the usage of this word in this context. The consensus today is that Paul used this expression to mean that Jesus had all the attributes of the eternal God.
What other difference is there?
The other difference is how the clause …did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped… is understood.
- On the one hand, we can think of something as already in possession and the person is holding on to it tightly as a child might cling to a toy or a piece of candy. This would mean that Jesus already possessed equality with God but that He did not regard this equality as something to be held on to. On the contrary, He emptied Himself of it and humbled Himself to come to earth for our salvation.
- On the other hand, it could mean something that we do not have in our possession and is something that we would like to grasp or seize or take into our possession. A person might desire to seize power in a given country, for example. This is how the JWs understand the text. They understand that equality with God was not something Jesus possessed, and He was humble enough not to grasp at it or to try to take what wasn’t His. Thus their translation, states that Jesus “did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God.”
A word study of this word (ἁρπαγμὸν) does not give us any help; both meanings are possible. The decision must be made from the context.
What is the correct reading of this text then?
When we read this text, we must caution against one thing. Any reading which makes equality with God something that Jesus was not supposed to have or something that was off limits to Him, is surely incorrect. The argument Paul is making here depends on Jesus having equality with God and this equality is the backdrop against which His humiliation appears all the more lovely, gracious, and amazing. Thus, the context requires the reading that Jesus already possessed equality with God.
How do the JWs understand the next verse which speaks of Jesus emptying Himself?
They understand this to mean that Jesus, who was a spirit, emptied Himself and became a human person. But this kind of emptying does not capture the idea of humiliation which is the central thought of the entire passage.