I’ve long been fascinated by a conundrum in the beliefs of
those who say they are one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I’ve never seen a satisfactory
solution to my question.
Now I just want to say that I admire them in some tangible
respects. If they were my next-door neighbours, I would feel confident that I
had honest well-behaved neighbours whom I could trust. And I actually admire
how they try not to be swept to and fro by the ever-changing culture of the fast-changing
modern world, even if I don’t necessarily agree on their stances sometimes. And
insofar as there is a genuine appetite for reading the Bible, I admire that
too. Indeed, there is inevitably common ground with the mainstream of
Bible-reading Christians, even if the narrative they tell themselves as a group
is that this is not so. Even if they tell themselves that they stand in opposition
to mainstream Christianity. I always like to acknowledge common ground.
Recognising there's a problem
This conundrum, though. It’s a belief and practice thing.
In their NWT translation, their John 1:1 says "with God... was a god." How many gods does one count there?
I know my readers are very capable to answer this. If a version says "with God... was a god," how many gods do you count?
A total of two gods, clearly. Their version of the whole verse reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was a god." So to reframe the question: according to that, how many gods in total in the beginning? It has to be two. There would surely be no satisfactory way to argue for translating the verse that way and then deny that the count is, obviously two.
Some of form of avoiding saying 'two' will typically arise though. A Jehovah's Witness will respond that these are gods in different senses. But as a matter of simple addition, it's a statement of some kind of two gods, and that's what their John's Gospel begins with. It's an emphatic beginning to his Gospel, so the way it's translated matters. Two gods
in complete harmony, perhaps, but two gods to be counted in that translation.
That is, they believe Jesus is rightfully called a god, in some sense, and in a different sense from God the Father.
I rather hoped for some frankness in conversation over this, when I have discussed it, and one time, an answer was given back to me rather cleverly, thus:
"One God.
One god."
Spot the different case 'G' and 'g'? Clearly willing to delineate a difference, but not willing to use the word 'two.' We need to understand why. I could have waited all day and the plain answer "two gods" wasn't going to be given back to me. That there's a problem with the answer should already be becoming apparent. Further enquiry saw something of a smokescreen appear.
Smokescreen
I was given a standard Jehovah's Witness reply: that the word 'god' or 'gods' is applied to various beings in the Bible, be it angels, kings and rulers, even Satan, and, indeed, God. Words all clumped together as if that were enough to throw me off my line of questioning. It's not enough. There are various categories of biblical so-called '#gods,' but Jehovah's Witnesses, fairly conventionally, don't believe that any of them is like YHWH God in his divinity. In principle anyway,
Clumping all that together under the category 'gods' is therefore just hiding a cosmology behind a verbal smokescreen. And here's the thing: depending who is the subject, these identities mean incomparably different things to Jehovah's Witnesses. Through one of them, and only one of them, they believe creation was made: Jesus. And basically, they believe he was pre-existent before the creation of the cosmos, unlike angels. They believe he is a pre-existent divine heavenly being, unlike men. An incomparably different meaning from the other categories of 'gods' so trying to explain away that you can count two gods in their version of John 1:1 doesn't work.
They believe both of them are unique pre-existent divine heavenly beings with supernatural power on the cosmic universe-creating level. And in their meetings, they sing songs to both of their heavenly beings. And they don't believe anyone or anything else is in that complex category. It is ticking so many boxes on the 'god-like characteristics indicator' that it is really unpersuasive to try to disqualify this from begin a two-god system by invoking a broader banner of 'gods' such as the world of men and angels. The significance of Jesus being called theos in John 1:1 is of a totally different kind of order.
So they are still left with two unique gods, despite the smokescreen. That comes of splitting Jesus and the Father apart into two completely separate beings like two private individuals, which is the effect of "with God... was a god." Regardless how many contrasting categories of gods there be, their John 1:1 is evidently a two god beginning, a two god creation, etc. Two unique pre-existent divine heavenly beings, in that very particular sense as their translation says. Two heavenly gods at the beginning, two gods at creation. Two contrasting gods of different kinds who are the two unique pre-existent divine heavenly beings, both supernaturally able on a cosmic universe-creating level, unlike other 'gods.'
I have tried walking through this with Jehovah's Witnesses, and despite everything above, was given the stubborn answer on one occasion: "God’s anointed messiah was/is called god, as were other human beings, because they were sent by God and represented God on earth." Feeling like this was just going round in circles, I simply answered that that's not a persuasive description of their faith, because I know they don't believe Jesus was 'a man' in the beginning and at creation, because they actually believe he was a divine heavenly being at that time, unlike other 'gods.' Given that they believe that in the beginning he was the pre-existent divine heavenly being through whom creation was made, referring to other 'gods' is a moot point. It's a two god creation with a higher heavenly being and a lower one. There are precedents for this kind of religion, as I will mention.
Let's move on to practical effects.
Following two gods
If you disconnect Jesus from the Father and split then apart into two separate beings, what practical implications does this have for worship? Let's turn to that now.
Jehovah's Witnesses sing songs of praise to a heavenly Jesus who they believe was their unique pre-existent second divine heavenly being, with supernatural power on a cosmic universe-creating level. I'd love to see how a secular anthropologist could be persuaded that this is not a two god religion. That is, if these are split into two separate heavenly beings.
As well as songs of praise to two gods, do Jehovah’s witnesses today follow and bow the knee to two gods in some sense? I’m not even particularly asking if they worship
them both. Just whether they today follow and bow the knee to two gods.
Another of Jehovah’s Witnesses once wrote to me that he follows ‘one
true God Jehovah the creator’, and that he follows ‘a created god, in essence,
a lesser god, Jesus.’
Sadly, we lost contact many years ago. But clearly, he
meant, in a carefully worded statement that he follows two gods, a greater and a
lesser god, as he sees it. I admire him for his honesty. He said he worships
only the former, not the latter, but he follows both gods. Now,
this will sound odd to a mainstream Christian to whom the idea of this being
two separate gods is very unorthodox. As I say, I asked how many gods he follows, and
he gave me a frank answer - two. That’s a Jehovah’s witnesses position.
Let’s consider this.
Bowing the knee in adoration
Jehovah’s witnesses clarify what they mean about Jesus being
‘a lesser god’ typically by saying Jesus is an ‘angel,’ specifically the Archangel
Michael, extending the idea of an ‘angel’ being in some sense ‘divine,’ a god.
The words divine and god to have a rather wide semantic range. We can all
acknowledge that as common ground.
Sometimes they spread the net by referring to human 'gods,' using a pretty rare biblical phrase. But they especially have in mind that Jesus is the Archangel Michael. (In another post, I ask what
happens if you consider that Jesus is the Archangel Michael.)
So it helps to look at scripture.
"To him who sits on
the throne and to the Lamb
be praise and honour and glory
and power,
for ever and ever!"
(Revelation 5:13)
This passage of Scripture pictures bowing the knee to Jesus the lamb in adoration. (Effectively bowing the knee to two 'gods' in their view.)
Whether one chooses to call it worship or not (there are
different Greek words for different kinds of religious reverence if you want to
be picky), here’s the thing. Whether one chooses to call it worship or not,
this scripture pictures a true Christian practice of bowing the knee in
adoration to Jesus. We could illustrate the same from other scriptures.
It is clear, and the man who was writing to me didn’t
dispute this, it is acceptable to Jehovah’s Witnesses to give the following
adoration to an angel.
""To him who sits on
the throne and to the Lamb
be praise and honour and glory
and power,
for ever and ever!"
(Revelation 5:13)
It ought to strike any Christian as problematic to bow the knee
in vocal adoration to an angel. That is, this problematic meaning: “to the
angel be praise and honour and glory and power, for ever and ever."
It’s just not Christian.
Jehovah’s witnesses deny ‘worshipping’ Jesus in the deepest religious sense. They tend to refer to this bowing the knee by
the English word ‘obeisance’. (Translating the Greek word proskuneo.) That is, all the same, still surely problematic. Consider. What would the angel who objected to
receiving obeisance in Rev 19:9 and 22:9 have said, if he saw a believer
offering this adoration to an angel, saying effectively "to the angel be
praise and honour and glory and power, for ever and ever" ? The angel in Rev
19:9 and 22:9 was forbidding of giving him adoration or bowing the knee to him. This really is a problem. I find it
difficult to understand how any Christian would think it acceptable to offer
such vocal adoration as seen for Jesus in Rev 5:13 to an angel. But that’s a Jehovah’s
witnesses position.
Two saviours
This compounds difficulties elsewhere. I could demonstrate
this with many texts but here is just one.
OT - ‘I, even I, am the Lord [Yahweh];
and beside me there is no saviour.’ (KJV Isaiah 43:11)
NT – ‘the Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ’ (KJV 2 Peter 3:18)
According to Isaiah there is no saviour but Yahweh. By
calling the saviour Jesus, and making Yahweh and Jesus into two separate gods, then
Jehovah’s witnesses do believe in two saviours. To be clear: you can't
make out they are two gods and not two saviours - that would be sophistry. No matter how much these would be 'two gods' in harmony. Their
belief in two separate gods gets them into problems like this: two separate saviours. I could illustrate the
same mess with many other texts.
Polytheism
Now bravely, the man writing to me denied that his belief in
a higher god and a lesser god, following and adoring both as two saviours, adds
up to polytheism. But denying that doesn't wash. Not only is it polytheism but curiously
it fits Plato's ancient Greek pagan model of two gods especially well. Plato
believed in a higher god of all goodness and a lesser god involved with
physical creation. The philosopher Plato would approve. But would Jesus?
Isaiah’s Yahweh: ‘there is no God beside me’
The right thing to do next is to look at a longer Bible
passage.
The Kingdom Hall view is effectively that the is one higher
creator saviour God, and one lesser sub-creator sub-saviour sub-god.
Isaiah chapters 43-44 have a one-God polemic. He has a worldview
in which there is only one God and all other gods are false gods. Isaiah never
uses the word 'god' of angels. Given the 'one God' message which Isaiah is
shouting from the roof-tops, that is unsurprising; it would have undermined Isaiah’s
impact if he had started adding footnotes about other scriptural uses of the
word 'god'.
Isaiah conveys his clear distinction between the one true
God and man-made false gods. It is in this context that Isaiah's fiercely
monotheistic statements are found: there is only one God, one creator, one
saviour. That is what Isaiah is trumpeting.
Those from Kingdom Halls read Isaiah through the lens of
other books in such a way that it really undercuts Isaiah’s polemic. They want
to prise open Isaiah's 'one-God' polemic to squeeze in other biblical books' inferior angelic 'gods.’ But that's not the way to read Isiah.
Reading other books, we can accommodate that Yahweh is uniquely pre-eminent over angelic 'gods'. This is something Isaiah could have said, but it would have struck an awkward note with his 'one God' polemic. And we should not overwrite other books onto Isaiah so as to say that God did sub-contract creation and salvation. Isaiah doesn't say that. If we try to make Isaiah say that there is an angelic 'god' beside him, that’s a problem because Isaiah says there isn’t any god beside him.
Isaiah does not have 'angelic gods'; and his
one-God polemic has to be heard in its own terms: Isaiah's stark one God, one
creator, one saviour picture. Isaiah does not provide any system for including
an angel at the centre of his picture of one God, one creator, one saviour. It is quite incongruous with Isaiah's picture to try to say there is
one creator plus one sub-creator, and one saviour plus one sub-saviour. To try
to posit that sort of picture is just not taking Isaiah seriously.
That leaves the Christian question of how Jesus fits into
Isaiah's one God, one creator, one saviour picture. We can't fit Jesus into Isaiah as a sub-contractor. That is ripping the heart out of Isaiah's message. And that is where I have to
nail my colours to the mast as a mainstream Christian. Isaiah does not leave
room to posit an angelic 'god' beside him in creation and salvation. Jesus must
be something else if he is to fit into Isaiah's one-God picture of one creator
and one saviour. And to the Trinitarian the mainstream fit works: Jesus in some sense
embodies Yahweh.
I could say more but will leave it their for a moment. I
just don’t see a solution to the conundrum facing Jehovah’s witnesses with
their two-gods belief and practice.
