We will use some arguments often raised about Jehovah’s Witnesses as our text case. J. Warner Wallace is a leading Evangelical Christian apologist today. On his blog, he has the article titled, “10 Important Questions for the Jehovah’s Witness Worldview.” Therein, he writes,

“One way to examine the Jehovah’s Witness perspective is simply to see how well it answers a few important philosophical and theological questions as we examine what the Jehovah’s Witness religion teaches. The following questions are designed to challenge the Jehovah’s Witness claims about reality and help you to initiate a discussion with your friends or family who may hold this worldview”:

Philosophical Questions
Let’s begin with some questions springing from basic philosophical concerns:

In this article, I assume the role of an antagonist to Mr. J. Warner Wallace’s arguments against Jehovah’s Witnesses. Mr. Wallace posits a series of simple challenging questions aimed at uncovering inconsistencies or weaknesses in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ biblical views. However, this approach, while seemingly straightforward, may not be as effective as anticipated. Jehovah’s Witnesses have a long history of engaging in detailed scriptural discussions and have successfully converted millions of individuals from Protestant backgrounds. This suggests that their doctrinal foundations and methods of scriptural interpretation are both sophisticated and deeply entrenched within their community. Therefore, rather than relying on quick snippets or simplistic challenges, a more comprehensive and well-prepared approach is essential for those genuinely seeking to understand or challenge the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This introduction sets the stage for a detailed examination of how Jehovah’s Witnesses might respond to Mr. Wallace’s inquiries, demonstrating the depth and complexity of their doctrinal positions.

A primary concern in asking questions that undermine another’s faith is never asking any question that also applies to your side of the fence. Before we look at the 10 questions, let us consider some basics.

The Greek Term Apologia

Apologetics: (Gr. apologia) The term literally means “to defend” and is used in the biblical sense to refer to ones who defend the Christian faith, the Bible, and God in speech or in written form. The Christian apologist attempts to prove that the Christian faith, the Bible, and God are reasonable, logical, necessary and right. – Ac 25:16; 2 Cor. 7:11; Phil. 1:7, 16; 2 Tim. 4:16; 1 Pet. 3:15

Two Kinds of Apologetics

There are two basic kinds of apologetics. There is negative apologetics and positive apologetics.

Negative Apologetics

In negative apologetics, the Christian apologist is playing defense. We can use sports as an analogy. Whether it be baseball, football, or basketball, when we are playing defense, we cannot score any points. The only task we have while playing defense is to prevent the other team from scoring any points. Therefore, the atheist, agnostic, or Bible critic that has some kind of problem with the Christian faith, the Bible, or God raises issues that they believe undermine the Christian beliefs. They are on the offense, trying to score points. In playing defense, the Christian apologist only needs to show that this objection that was raised is not valid, it is unreasonable, illogical. There is no real substance to it. In this scenario, the burden of proof is on the unbeliever who is raising the issues. Negative apologetics is always easier than positive apologetics.

Burden of Proof

The burden of Proof: The burden of proof in a criminal trial is on the prosecution. The defense attorney only needs to undermine the argument(s) for guilt by the prosecution are not valid. The burden of proof in a trial of the Christian faith is on the unbeliever bringing the case. Either their arguments are valid, or they are not. The Christian apologist need not prove his innocence, so to speak, just that the case against him has no merit. The burden of proof falls on the one making the claims. If the Christian is witnessing to another, he has the burden to prove what he says is so if asked for proof. However, if the critic is challenging the Christian, the burden of disproving lies with the critic. The closer the claim is to socially accepted knowledge, the less proof is needed, while the further one moves from conventional knowledge, the more evidence is required.

Problem of Evil

Without a doubt, the problem of evil is the most difficult Bible difficulty to answer. The problem of evil refers to the question of how to reconcile the existence of wickedness and suffering when there is an all-knowing, all-powerful, loving God. The problem of evil is so serious that we can say that if a Christian is going to have doubts, this is the only issue that should take place because all other Bible difficulties are easily resolved in comparison. Under the burden of proof, the unbeliever who brings up the problem of evil is responsible for showing that this is a sufficient enough reason for not believing in God. The Christian apologist only needs to show that the problem of evil is not sufficient enough for not believing in God and need not provide an answer to the issue. Nevertheless, in APOLOGIST 3, we answer the problem of evil. We just need to show that there is a morally sufficient reason for God to temporarily allow evil to exist.

Positive Apologetics

Returning to our sports analogy, here in positive apologetics, the Christian is now playing offense, trying to score points, while the unbeliever is on defense, trying to prevent us from scoring points. Under positive apologetics, the Christian now has to own the fact that he or she is under the burden of proof. In other words, we are offering arguments, information, explanations, or evidence that will help the receptive person to accept biblical truths, with the eventuality of their accepting the Christian faith. We are trying to prove the existence of God, as well as that the Bible is the inspired, fully inerrant Word of God and that it is authentic and true. The unbeliever is trying to show that our arguments are not that valid or not that effective.

We must understand that not all Christian apologetic augments are equal. Some arguments have liabilities when they are used. Now, understand that this author has written a book undermining the beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, so this exercise below is only to demonstrate that some Christian apologetic questions are not effective and will backfire.

Wallace’s 10 Questions

WALLACE: If I am to accept the teaching of the Jehovah’s Witness religion, I am first going to have to trust the source of this teaching. But how can I trust someone who claims to speak for God when they have been wrong about prior predictions?

RESPONSE: The Witnesses will only say that under your logic, we would also reject Protestantism and all of their denominations because many Protestant leaders have predicted dates and were clearly wrong. They would also point out that the founding fathers of these denominations committed atrocious acts like killing or having killed other Christians who dared to believe differently. In fact, it was a Baptist pastor, Wiliam Miller, who set end-time dates that caused a breakup of his church that would influence the Witnesses in end-time prophecies.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses acknowledge that there have been instances where expectations about specific prophecies were not realized. However, this does not negate the truth of the Bible or the overall faithfulness of God’s promises. The Bible itself contains accounts of imperfect people who made errors—Moses, David, Peter, among others—yet were still used by God for His purposes. This highlights the biblical principle that human imperfection does not invalidate God’s truth. Instead, it underscores the need for ongoing spiritual vigilance and humility, traits that the Jehovah’s Witnesses strive to embody. Furthermore, the organization has openly revised its understandings in light of deeper scriptural study, showing a commitment to accurately interpreting the Bible, akin to the Bereans who were commended in Acts 17:11 for diligently verifying the Scriptures.

WALLACE: Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to be the only religious organization speaking for God, but don’t the Roman Catholic and Mormon religions make very similar claims? Why should I trust the Jehovah’s Witnesses?

RESPONSE: The Witnesses will only say that all Christian denominations believe that they are the truth and the way. There are 41,000 different denominations, all believing differently from the others. Certainly, they can not all be right. This includes the so-called salvation doctrines as well.

Jehovah’s Witnesses emphasize that their teachings strive to adhere closely to the biblical text, distinguishing them from organizations that may rely heavily on extra-biblical revelations or traditions. For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses base their practices and doctrines solely on the Scriptures, avoiding traditions that they find not to be supported directly by the Bible, such as the veneration of saints, which is prevalent in Roman Catholicism, or the additional scriptures used by Mormons like the Book of Mormon. This focus on a biblical foundation is central to their claim of representing true Christianity. The Witnesses would point to scriptures such as Revelation 18:4, which calls for God’s people to separate themselves from false teachings, implying the importance of adhering strictly to the Bible. This scriptural backing forms the basis of their invitation to others to examine the Scriptures with them and see if these things are so, in the spirit of the Bereans mentioned in Acts 17:11.

WALLACE: The Jehovah’s Witness translation of the Bible condemns false prophecy and says unfulfilled prophecy is an indicator God is not speaking thorough that Prophet and we should not, therefore, pay attention to what that prophet is saying. So shouldn’t this also apply to the teaching of the Watchtower?

RESPONSE: The Witnesses will only say this question is similar to the first one above. There have been many Protestant church leaders who set false dates and predicted false things. Thus, this argument like the other will only cause a self-inflicted wound.

Jehovah’s Witnesses acknowledge that the organization has adjusted its understanding over time, which reflects a process of continual refinement, not false prophecy. They distinguish between their interpretations and the role of a prophet as described in the Bible. The Witnesses would argue that their adjustments in understanding are akin to the early Christian community, which refined its views as new understandings were revealed through the apostles. For instance, the early Christians adjusted their views on circumcision and the application of Mosaic Law, as documented in Acts 15. Jehovah’s Witnesses see their adjustments in understanding as part of a sincere effort to achieve clearer comprehension of the Scriptures, not as false prophecy. They would cite Proverbs 4:18, which says, “But the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, that shines brighter and brighter until full day,” to illustrate that spiritual understanding improves progressively. This approach signifies humility and the ongoing quest for truth as guided by Jehovah’s spirit, not the unequivocal declarations often associated with false prophets.

WALLACE: Jehovah’s Witnesses often talk about John 1:1 and argue the original Greek wording is more correctly translated “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was ¬a god”, rather than the orthodox rendering, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” But if this is true why do so many translators agree with the orthodox view?

RESPONSE: The Witnesses will only say I am not going to argue the Greek grammar because the Witness’s reason for translating John 1:1 as such is by following the Protestant religion grammar books, which all do not agree, by the way. What I will point out, Mr. Wallace, is your last point. You asked, “if this is true why do so many translators agree with the orthodox view?” The majority of something does not in and of itself make something correct; otherwise, we would all be Catholic.

Jehovah’s Witnesses base their translation of John 1:1 on scholarly examination of Koine Greek grammar and syntax, particularly focusing on the anarthrous (lacking a definite article) predicate noun preceding the verb. This grammatical construction in Greek can suggest a qualitative, rather than equative, meaning, implying “the Word was divine” rather than “the Word was God.” This interpretation aligns with their theology that distinguishes Jesus’ divine nature as God’s creation rather than as Almighty God Himself. They would argue that traditional translations reflect Trinitarian bias introduced post-first century, which affects translation choices. Furthermore, it’s important to recognize that translation is as much an art as it is a science, with each rendering reflecting theological interpretations that vary among scholars. As to the prevalence of traditional translations, Jehovah’s Witnesses would argue that truth is not determined by majority rule but by fidelity to scriptural teachings. They might cite Matthew 7:13-14, where Jesus talks about the narrow gate leading to life, suggesting that true understanding might not always align with the majority view.

WALLACE: Jehovah’s Witnesses often argue God’s true name is “Jehovah”. But if this is true, why doesn’t the word, “Jehovah” appear in the New Testament?

RESPONSE: Wallace, Jehovah was used by Bible scholars up to the 20th century. Look at the names in your Bible. Many Hebrew kings and others used by God personally in Bible times used part of the Father’s personal name in their name, like Jehoash, Jehoram, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, Jehoram, Jehohanan, Jehonadab, Jehoahaz, and even the wife of High Priest Jehoiada; daughter of King Jehoram of Judah, Jehosheba,  among many more. We notice that the beginning of the Father’s personal name is used in every one of these cases. Does anyone find it a bit troubling that the Bibles (JB, LEB, HCSB), which choose to use the so-called scholarly “Yahweh” rendering still spell the above names with Jeho? Why do these same translations not spell Jehoash “Yahash”? Moreover, the 1901 American Standard Version uses Jehovah. Lastly, we do not have the original New Testament manuscripts so we can not say with certainty that the name Jehovah was not in there.

Mr. Wallace, the absence of the specific name “Jehovah” in the existing New Testament manuscripts is a matter of historical transmission rather than theological omission. The earliest manuscripts of the New Testament were written in Greek, not Hebrew. It is worth noting that the Tetragrammaton, the four Hebrew letters YHWH, appears frequently in the Hebrew Scriptures and was considered incredibly sacred by the Jews. Due to this reverence, when the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek in the Septuagint, the name was often substituted with the term “Kyrios” (Lord), a practice that continued into the New Testament writings.

Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain that this does not diminish the importance of using God’s name. Rather, it highlights a tradition of replacing it with titles like “Lord” or “God” that continued into the early Christian era. The use of “Jehovah” in more modern translations, such as the American Standard Version of 1901, reflects a return to acknowledging God’s personal name, which is consistent with the practice of early Bible writers who used the Tetragrammaton in the original Hebrew texts.

Additionally, the preservation and use of the form “Jehovah” in English translations align with the historical usage and transcription of the Tetragrammaton from Hebrew into vernacular languages for the purpose of making the divine name pronounced and understood. The argument that the divine name should appear in Scripture is supported by passages such as Romans 10:13: “For ‘everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.'” This rendering follows the logic that the New Testament authors, writing to a predominantly Greek-speaking audience familiar with the Septuagint, would have understood the significance of the divine name even when it was rendered as “Kyrios” in their texts.

WALLACE: Jehovah’s Witnesses say 144,000 people will be part of the “anointed Class’ who will live with God in Heaven and will reign over the ‘Great Crowd’. But doesn’t the Bible describe this group in contradiction to what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe?

RESPONSE: All I can say here is the Bible makes it clear that not all good people are going to heaven. If the Witnesses are false over this misinterpretation, all Protestant religions have misinterpreted the Bible since the Reformation. Highly respected conservative evangelical scholar Robert L. Thomas, Jr., professor of New Testament at The Master’s Seminary in the United States, wrote: “The case for symbolism is exegetically weak.” He added: “It is a definite number [at 7:4] in contrast with the indefinite number of 7:9. If it is taken symbolically, no number in the book can be taken literally.”—Revelation: An Exegetical Commentary, Volume 1, page 474.

Jehovah’s Witnesses understand the 144,000, mentioned in Revelation 7:4 and Revelation 14:1-3, as a literal number representing those who are anointed to rule with Christ in heaven. This interpretation aligns with the description in Revelation that these individuals are “bought from the earth” and “first fruits to God and to the Lamb.” The concept of a heavenly calling is supported by Jesus’ words in John 14:2-3, where He mentions going to prepare a place for His followers, implying a heavenly abode.

Moreover, the distinction between the 144,000 and the “great crowd” (Revelation 7:9) who survive the great tribulation and live on earth is based on a careful analysis of scriptural texts. The “great crowd” is described as serving God day and night in His temple and being sheltered by His presence, which Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret as living in a paradise earth under the reign of Christ and the 144,000.

The difference in interpretation largely arises from how literally one takes certain numbers and descriptions in the book of Revelation, a prophetic and highly symbolic book. While many Protestant interpretations spiritualize these numbers, Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain a literal approach to both the number and the promises. This perspective is also consistent with the scriptural teaching that not all followers of Christ have the same destiny; as Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians 15:40-41, there are different kinds of glory in the resurrection, likened to the glory of the sun, moon, and stars, each differing from the other. This analogy supports the idea of distinct heavenly and earthly hopes for different groups of believers. In conclusion, while interpretations vary, the Witnesses’ views are based on their understanding of biblical teachings and prophecies, consistently applied across scriptures.

WALLACE: Why Do Jehovah’s Witnesses feel the need to make obvious changes to certain passages of Scripture?

RESPONSE: Your reference to the square brackets in the 1984 edition of the New World Translation is a mistake. The square brackets [ ] enclose words inserted to complete the sense in the English text. All translations do this, and in some, these words are italicized. Moreover, again, it is your grammar that advocates for some of these additions.

The practice of adding words for clarity in translation is common among all Bible translations, not exclusive to the New World Translation used by Jehovah’s Witnesses. The inclusion of words not directly found in the original manuscripts, indicated by square brackets [ ] or italics, is a standard practice in Bible translation to aid understanding and ensure the text reads smoothly in the target language. This approach is based on scholarly principles of translation and is intended to convey the meaning of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts as accurately as possible.

Furthermore, the grammatical structure of languages like Greek and Hebrew often requires additional words in English to preserve the intended meaning. For example, Greek often omits the verb “to be,” which must be added in English for the sentence to make sense. This type of addition is not arbitrary but critical for the translation to reflect the original text’s meaning accurately.

In addition, the New World Translation committee has striven for transparency in its translation efforts by providing extensive footnotes and appendices that explain translation choices and the reasons for any added words. This openness allows readers to see the basis on which translation decisions were made, ensuring that these additions are not seen as doctrinal biases but as efforts to enhance comprehension.

Therefore, the changes you refer to are not attempts to alter scripture but to help readers understand it as it was understood in its original context. This method follows the biblical exhortation found in Nehemiah 8:8, where it is noted that the Levites “read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly, and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.” This precedent underscores the importance of clear communication in scripture translation and teaching.

WALLACE: Jehovah’s Witnesses obviously deny Jesus is God, but how can they do this when Scripture repeatedly describes Jesus as Divine?

RESPONSE: Divine does not equal God. The Greek terms simply mean a divine person. Jehovah’s Witnesses acknowledge that Jesus is described as having a divine nature, but they differentiate between being divine and being Almighty God. The term “divine” denotes characteristics that belong to the realm of God, but does not necessarily equate an individual with Jehovah God Himself. For example, the term theos in Greek, which is often translated as “God” or “god,” can refer to someone with divine qualities without confirming them as Almighty God. This distinction is seen in the way angels, and even humans, are sometimes referred to with terms like theos in the Scriptures due to their authority or position, not because they are viewed as Jehovah.

One of the key scriptures Jehovah’s Witnesses use to support this understanding is John 1:1, which they translate as, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” This translation reflects the belief that while Jesus has divine qualities, he is not the Almighty God but a distinct, created being who exists in close association with God.

Furthermore, Philippians 2:6-7 discusses Jesus’ nature, saying he “did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.” Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret this to mean that Jesus, while possessing divine qualities, did not consider himself to be on par with Jehovah but took on a humble human form.

Thus, the assertion that Jesus is divine aligns with Jehovah’s Witnesses’ teachings that Jesus is a powerful heavenly being, God’s first creation, who reflects God’s qualities perfectly but is not Almighty God Himself. This distinction helps Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain the core belief in Jehovah as the only true Almighty God, as emphasized in scriptures like Isaiah 45:5, where Jehovah says, “I am Jehovah, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God.”

WALLACE: How Can Jehovah’s Witnesses claim Jesus is a created being when Jesus created everything ever created?

RESPONSE: Jesus was the first divine person to be created, and then he became the master worker of the Father and created all things.

Jehovah’s Witnesses hold that Jesus, identified as the Word in John 1:1-3, was indeed the first and direct creation of Jehovah God. From this unique position as the firstborn of all creation, Jesus, whom they also identify as the archangel Michael in his pre-human existence, then acted as God’s agent or “master worker” in the creation of all other things. This interpretation is based on scriptures such as Colossians 1:15-16, which describe Jesus as “the firstborn over all creation” and states that “by him all other things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.”

This understanding distinguishes between being the ultimate source of creation, which is Jehovah, and the means through which creation was accomplished, which Jehovah’s Witnesses attribute to Jesus. They further support this view with Proverbs 8:22-31, where wisdom, personified and regarded by them as symbolic of Jesus in his pre-human existence, is described as being “produced as the first of his works, before his deeds of old.” Here, wisdom is involved with Jehovah in the creation process, described as “beside him as a master worker.”

Therefore, while mainstream Christianity holds that Jesus as God Himself directly created all things without being created, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus was the first creation through whom Jehovah made everything else. This belief aligns with their overall theological framework that maintains a strict monotheism with Jehovah as the only Almighty God and Jesus as His created son who plays a pivotal but subordinate role in divine activities.

1 Corinthians 15:27-28 English Standard Version (ESV)

²⁷ For “God [the Father] has put all things in subjection under his [Jesus’] feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he [God the Father] is excepted who put all things in subjection under him [Jesus, the Son]. ²⁸ When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

If you are going to ask an apologetic question to undermine a belief or a translation be certain that your side is also not guilty of the same things or it is not your grammars that they are depending on for their translation renderings.

In concluding our discussion on the challenges posed by Mr. J. Warner Wallace to Jehovah’s Witnesses, it becomes evident that engaging effectively with individuals of different faiths, particularly those as doctrinally distinct as Jehovah’s Witnesses, requires a deep understanding and respect for their beliefs. Simple questions intended to undermine or challenge may not suffice for those who have devoted considerable time to studying and living by their religious convictions. The apostle Paul serves as an exemplary model in this regard; his approach was multifaceted, involving reasoning, proving, persuading, explaining, and defending the faith. His methods were not merely about confrontation but were grounded in a profound commitment to communicating truth in a manner that was both respectful and intellectually robust.

This level of engagement demands more than superficial knowledge or quick challenges. It requires apologetic skills that extend beyond simple statements and instead delve into the heart of doctrinal differences with sensitivity and substantive knowledge. Whether you are seeking to share your faith or understand another’s, the goal should always be to foster dialogue that is both meaningful and enlightening.

This understanding has inspired the creation of my book, Jehovah’s Witnesses 101: How Can You Share Your Faith When the Jehovah’s Witnesses Come Knocking? This resource is designed to equip readers with the necessary tools to engage thoughtfully and respectfully with Jehovah’s Witnesses, ensuring that discussions are not only about defending one’s faith but also about inviting deeper understanding and mutual respect. By embracing the principles of reasoned dialogue and empathetic engagement, we can hope to bridge the divides that separate us, finding common ground to build on in our shared quest for spiritual truth.

About the Author

SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHRISTIAN

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN DEVOTIONALS

CHRISTIAN FICTION