Quotations on False Prophecy

Recently I finished the first part of my compilation of quotations relevant to the question of whether Bible Student / Jehovah's Witness leaders are false prophets. This first set of quotations are those that, in my estimation, tend the most to directly show that they are (given that they've espoused false teachings, made erroneous prophetic interpretations, and gave false predictions). I will update this page as I finish the other three parts of my compilation.

https://tubertheologian.blogspot.com/p/jehovahs-witness-leaders-and-false.html

The Apologetic Significance of the Witness Doctrine of God (Corporeality and Temporality)

I suspect that it is not widely noted in anti-Witness apologetic literature that the Jehovah’s Witness doctrine of God holds that he is corporeal (i.e., bodily, albeit not material) and temporal. After documenting statements in Witness literature that affirm these positions, I will note the possible apologetic significance of these aspects of their theology.

In Witness Theology God is Corporeal 

Many Witness publications teach that God has a body and/or is located in a specific location to the exclusion of all others. Here are quotations from Witness / Bible Student publications.

1. “We could not imagine either our divine Father or our Lord Jesus as merely great minds without bodies. Theirs are glorious spiritual bodies, though it doth not yet appear how great is the glory, and it shall not, until we also shall share the divine nature.” - Millennial Dawn (Vol. I, p. 200)

2. “Whoever thinks of God as omnipresent necessarily thinks of Him as impersonal; and the more he thinks the more vague his God becomes, until finally he has no God, but merely (as some Christian Scientists, including Mrs. Eddy, express it) believes in a principle of good and calls that principle God. Such wish to believe in a supreme Creator, but by this erroneous reasoning they mislead their own intelligence, into the denial of a personal God. An omnipresent God is not a person. The Bible recognizes a personal God—a great Spirit Being—and gives Him a home, or locality.” - The Bible Students Monthly (1915, Vol. VII, No. 5, p. 2)

3. “God is a spirit being, having a divine organism, immeasurably higher, greater, grander, and more sublime than man can conceive; but a person just the same.” - April 23, 1924 Golden Age, p. 452

4. “It is not Scriptural to speak of Jehovah as being omnipresent in the sense that the heathen do, as if he were an all-pervading spirit. He has a throne in heaven on the right hand of which Jesus sat after his ascension, but he can reach any part of his universe and extend his power there and his eyes run to and fro through the whole earth to show his strength in behalf of the perfect-hearted ones. (2 Chron. 16:9) If he were omnipresent the Scriptures would not speak of his coming and visiting the earth; he would be already here.” - October 1, 1951 Watchtower, p. 607

5. “Before God began creating he was all alone in space, from time without beginning.” (“Your Will Be Done on Earth”, p. 14)

6. “Jehovah further merits being termed incomparable (4) because of his personal glory or excellence of body or organism. Some would have God omnipresent or as a Principle without a body or an organism. But not so. Jehovah God as a person has a body and a location.” - March 8, 1963 Awake!, pp. 27 -28

7. “Being a person, Jehovah God has a location, and to this the Scriptures repeatedly allude.” - August 8, 1963 Awake!, p. 28

8. “While there are physical bodies visible and palpable, there are also spiritual bodies, invisible to human eyes and entirely beyond human senses. (1 Cor. 15:44) The bodies of spiritual persons (God, Christ, the angels) are glorious.” - Aid to Bible Understanding, p. 247

9. "Thank you, Paul, for we are glad to learn that the holy place into which the resurrected Jesus Christ entered with the value of his own sacrificial blood was not a holy place on earth where his few disciples then were, but was “heaven itself,” where the “person of God” is, where God himself dwells personally rather than dwelling there by spirit." - December 1, 1972, Watchtower p. 713

10. "He does not need such a man-made temple at that onetime holy place, for he has plainly told us that he does not dwell in temples made with human hands. He has his true, spiritual temple in which he personally dwells. It is the temple into the Most Holy compartment of which his High Priest Jesus Christ entered in the spring of 33 C.E., with the precious merit of his perfect human sacrifice in behalf of all sinful, dying mankind." - December 15, 1972 Watchtower, p. 751

11. "High Priest Jesus Christ entered “into heaven itself” where the “person of God” is. This heavenly residence of the very person of God is the true Most Holy, the Holy of Holies, the Holiest of all." - God’s Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached, p. 100

12. “Actually, by teaching that God is omnipresent Christendom has confused matters and made it more difficult for God to be real to his worshipers. How could God be present everywhere at the same time? God is a spirit Person, which means that he does not have a material body, but a spiritual one. A spirit has a body? Yes, for we read, “If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one.” (1 Cor. 15:44; John 4:24) God being an individual, a Person with a spirit body, has a place where he resides, and so he could not be at any other place at the same time. Thus we read at 1 Kings 8:43 that the heavens are God’s “established place of dwelling.” Also, we are told at Hebrews 9:24 that “Christ entered . . . into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God for us.”

“Moreover, the disciple Stephen and the apostle John had visions of heaven in which they saw both God and Jesus Christ. So Jehovah God must be just as much a person, an individual, as Jesus Christ is. (Acts 7:56; Rev. 5:1, 9) Those Christians who have a hope of eventually living in heaven are assured that they will see God and also be like him, showing that Jehovah God truly is a person and has a body as well as a certain location.—1 John 3:2.” - February 15, 1981 Watchtower, p. 6

13. “While there are physical bodies, visible and palpable, there are also spiritual bodies, invisible to human eyes and entirely beyond human senses. (1Co 15:44) The bodies of spirit persons (God, Christ, the angels) are glorious.” - Insight on the Scriptures (Vol. I, p. 348)

14. “The true God is not omnipresent, for he is spoken of as having a location.” - Insight on the Scriptures (Vol. I, p. 969)

15. “Solomon’s statement does not mean that God has no specific place of residence. Nor does it mean that he is omnipresent in the sense of being literally everywhere and in everything. This can be seen from the fact that Solomon also spoke of Jehovah as hearing “from the heavens, your established place of dwelling,” that is, the heavens of the spirit realm.” - Insight on the Scriptures (Vol. I, p. 1060)

16. “All things having life [including God], either spiritual or fleshly, have an organism, or body.” - Insight on the Scriptures (Vol. II, p. 246)

17. “There are two vital points this text helps us appreciate: that God is a spirit person and that he has an established place of dwelling, heaven. (1 Kings 8:49; John 4:24) So he could not be at any other place at the same time.” - May 8, 1990 Awake!, p. 19

18. “Therefore, he resides in a spiritual realm independent of the physical universe. When the Bible refers to “the heavens” as God’s dwelling place, it is referring to the loftiness of the place where he resides in contrast with the material environment in which we reside. In any event, the Bible teaches that God’s abode is, indeed, clearly distinguished from the physical universe but is at the same time a very specific location.” - March 8, 2005 Awake!, p. 20

19. “The fact that Jehovah has a place of dwelling indicates that he is not in all places at all times.” - April 2011, Awake!, p. 28

20. “Actually, the Bible speaks of God as having a specific place of dwelling—the heavens. . . . Jehovah God dwells, not everywhere, but only in heaven. . . . He resides in the spiritual heavens, a realm independent of the physical universe.” - August 1, 2011 Watchtower, p. 27

21. “What kind of body does God have? . . . The Bible describes God as a spirit being. . . . Our Creator is so superior to us that we cannot even begin to imagine what he looks like. . . . There are, however, intelligent creatures who can see God and even speak with him face-to-face. How so? Because they too are spirits, and they live in heaven.” - Awake! (May 2013, pp. 14-15)

22. “God resides in the spirit realm, which is distinct from physical creation. Within that realm, God has a “dwelling place in the heavens.” (1 Kings 8:30) The Bible mentions an occasion when spirit creatures “entered to take their station before Jehovah,” showing that in a sense, God resides at a specific location.” - Bible Questions Answered, No. 123

23. “God is a Spirit.” (John 4:24) Jehovah does not have a physical body. He is a Spirit who lives in heaven, a place that we cannot see.” - Enjoy Life Forever!, Lesson 7, p. 29

In Witness Theology God is Temporal

Many Witness publications teach that there is an infinite past during which God has existed. According to these publications, God is temporal, that is, he lives moment from moment. Besides being implicit in their claims that God does not know the future, could choose to know it, and can be surprised, this claim is also explicitly taught in Witness literature. Below are some quotations.

1. “There must have been a time when the great God was alone. There must have been a time before his creation.” (Creation, p. 10)

2. “Before God began creating he was all alone in space, from time without beginning.” (“Your Will Be Done on Earth”, p. 14)

3. “THE Creator, Jehovah God, needs no one. He is wholly self-contained. He existed alone throughout a past eternity without ever feeling lonely, without feeling the need of anyone.” - December 1, 1963 Watchtower, p. 734

4. “HAVE we ever thought about what is implied by the expressions “the Creator of the heavens,” also, “God, who created all things”? Those expressions imply that there was a time when God was all alone. (Isaiah 42:5; Ephesians 3:9) No creation existed. So for an eternal past this God was all by himself and he had not yet become a Creator. That is why the prophet Moses said in prayer to God: “Before mountains were born or earth and universe came to the pangs of birth, and from eternity to eternity, you are Deity.” (Psalm 90:2, Byington’s translation) During all that eternal past before creation God was able to enjoy Himself.” - God’s “Eternal Purpose” Now Triumphing For Man’s Good, p. 26

5. “Jehovah, who has existed for all time, was alone before creation had a beginning.” - Insight on the Bible, Vol. I, p. 526

6. “Did God have a beginning?

“Ps. 90:2: “Before the mountains themselves were born, or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God.” 

“Is that reasonable? Our minds cannot fully comprehend it. But that is not a sound reason for rejecting it. Consider examples: (1) Time. No one can point to a certain moment as the beginning of time. And it is a fact that, even though our lives end, time does not. We do not reject the idea of time because there are aspects of it that we do not fully comprehend. Rather, we regulate our lives by it. (2) Space. Astronomers find no beginning or end to space. The farther they probe into the universe, the more there is. They do not reject what the evidence shows; many refer to space as being infinite. The same principle applies to the existence of God.” - Reasoning From the Scriptures, p. 148

7. “Moses said in prayer to Jehovah: “You have always been, and you will always be.” (Psalm 90:2, The Holy Bible, New Century Version) Here Moses describes God’s existence as stretching in two directions. One is toward the future. Jehovah is “the One that lives forever and ever.” (Revelation 4:10) Thus, God’s existence stretches forward into the eternal future. The other is toward the past. In other words, God was neither created nor did he come into existence. Rather, God’s existence stretches back into the infinite past.” - July 1, 2010 Watchtower, p. 28

8. “Before creation, Jehovah was alone. But at one point, he welcomed his firstborn Son into his figurative tent. Jehovah took great pleasure in his new role as Host. The Bible reveals that Jehovah was “especially fond of” his Son. His first guest, in turn, “rejoiced before [Jehovah] all the time.”—Prov. 8:30.” (June, 2024 Watchtower: Study Edition, p. 2)

Apologetic Uses of These Facts

Sometimes Witnesses will argue against the eternal generation of the Son on the grounds that any kind of causation entails that that which is caused did not exist prior to being caused. In other words, they say that if the Son is generated by the Father, there was a time when he was not. 

However, Witness theology teaches that there is something co-eternal with God and apparently caused by him: space. This is both implicit in their conception of a body – they make no room for the idea that a body need not take up any space – and explicit in their description of heaven as God’s eternal dwelling place. For them, some space has always existed. And this space is both not God and not nothing. Presumably they would say that it depends on God for its existence; but this would seem to involve a kind of causation – a kind of causation in which there was never a time when that which is caused was not.

While the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son involves a different conception of eternity – namely, a timeless eternity – this may still be of some apologetic use as a kind of reasonable ad hominem argument (i.e., an argument that proceeds from premises that they accept).

However, the greatest apologetic use of these arguments arises from the inferior conception of God that they involve. If one can persuade a Witness that God is either incorporeal and/or timeless, then the following question is worth asking. Why has God’s sole visible channel for communication and the dispensation of spiritual food at the proper time so consistently erred in its doctrine of God? To persuade a Witness of the incorporeality or timelessness of God tends to undermine the perceived authority of the organization and its governing body.

Worst of Both Worlds (Part Two)

If Witnesses deny that the future is alethically settled, then it seems that neither objection can get off the ground. Contrary to the initial open theist objection articulated earlier, Witnesses would not have missed the main point of open theism. And it seems that they could still object to exhaustive foreknowledge on the grounds that it is contrary to human freedom. So, I will try to prove that this position is at least implicitly taught in Witness literature.

 

The main point in favor of the claim that Witnesses affirm an alethically settled future is that they claim that God can know the future, not merely have reasonably well-established beliefs about what is or is not likely to occur. This by itself suggests that Witness theology holds that the future is alethically settled. A second, more specific reason for concluding that Witness theology holds that the future is alethically settled is that at least one of the methods for knowing the future that they ascribe to God entails that the future is alethically settled. To explain this second point I will now describe two methods of foreknowledge that Witness literature ascribes to God.

First, Witness literature sometimes seems to describe God as the Chess Grandmaster par excellence; this is method one foreknowledge. Through inference based off of his knowledge of the past and present as well as knowledge of his own power God is able to know whatever he wants to know about the future.[1] The March 1, 1968 Watchtower (pp. 133-134) seems to affirm this method of foreknowledge. It contrasts the ability of humans, who can only rarely have “a remarkably accurate view of the future” with God’s unlimited ability to have a completely accurate view of the future. Some further germane quotations will show that this article seems to affirm this method of foreknowledge to God. “What makes it possible to predict future events accurately? Important would be having a knowledge of all the factors that might affect the matter.” “Whereas humans are generally incapable of knowing all the necessary information, and of analyzing it properly, there does exist ‘One perfect in knowledge’ and who is thus able accurately to foretell the future.” “Jehovah God is unlimited in his powers to foretell the future, because not only does he possess all the facts, but he can control all the factors.” A more recent Watchtower article states that “one reason why Jehovah can foretell the future is that he has the power to make things happen. He does not need to fast-forward, so to speak, to see what the future will bring—as if all future events have already happened in some form and Jehovah merely reviews them in advance.”[2] (Watchtower: Study Edition February, 2024, p. 30)

 

Second, Witness literature sometimes seems to describe God as the great Intuitionist; this is method two foreknowledge. He simply sees the future as one might see a tree or rationally perceive the truthfulness of the law of non-contradiction. A June 1, 1953 Watchtower article states, “What he foreknows takes place because of the infallibility of his power of perception into the future.” (pp. 336-341) That the article describes his power of foreknowledge as “perception” suggests that they may mean a method of knowing the future as was just described. A January 1, 2011 Watchtower article states, “The ability to refrain from using foreknowledge can be illustrated with a feature of modern technology. Someone watching a prerecorded sports match has the option to watch the final minutes first in order to know the outcome. But he does not have to start that way.”[3] Obviously by skipping to the end one would simply see how things end up at the conclusion of the match. Such knowledge would not be the result of an inference based on its initial moments. In other words, the method of foreknowledge that this article seems to propose is method two foreknowledge. God has (and at least usually exercises) his ability “to refrain from using” his power of “foreknowledge” to see a previously unknown but apparently alethically settled future as one might choose to refrain from skipping ahead in a recording of an as-of-yet unknown but alethically settled sports match.

Lastly, that Witnesses concede that it was possible for God to have foreknown the fall appears to commit them to more than the first method of foreknowledge described above, since presumably it would not have been possible to determine from the still sinless Adam that he would, in fact, ever sin. (January 1, 1951 Watchtower, pp. 31-32) In Witness theology, Adam was made without any sinful tendencies. So all of the available evidence, if anything, would suggest that he would pass any test he came up against. Past and present evidence could not be used to know that Adam would sin. Likewise, in Witness theology, God trusts the Anointed when he bestows immortality upon them. His confidence is based on their life-record until that point. While Witness literature admits that it is still possible for the Anointed to sin, they think that it is utterly unlikely. In other words, God’s confidence is eminently reasonable. But this indicates that it is not possible to know (i.e, with complete, infallible, certitude) that an Anointed person will sin (or not) merely judging by knowledge of the past and present. Yet, if the Fall could have been foreknown, as Witnesses concede – or if God could choose to remove any scintilla of doubt about the Anointed – then something more than method one foreknowledge is required. This something more, I think, would have to be something like method two foreknowledge. 

At least one Witness publication states that “we cannot be dogmatic about such matters” as “how or when he [foretells the future] or even how much he chooses to know”. (Watchtower: Study Edition February, 2024, p. 30) Nevertheless, I believe that these two methods of foreknowledge are taught within Witness literature.  The latter of which is most immediately damaging for the Witness, since it seems to presuppose the existence of an alethically settled, exhaustive description of the future. If God simply has an unlimited ability to perceive or intuit truths about the future, then there must be something “out there” for him to perceive, namely, a complete, true description of the future. If an affirmation of an alethically settled future is part of Witness theology, then the Witness rejection of complete foreknowledge on the grounds that the unalterable veracity of God’s knowledge is incompatible with creaturely freedom is nonsensical. There are already unalterable facts about the future that God can know. If this is not incompatible with genuine creaturely freedom, then what is it about God’s knowledge of these facts that would obliterate creaturely freedom? Nothing. So, by conceding an alethically settled future, Witnesses theology removes any reasonable grounds to object to exhaustive foreknowledge as somehow contrary to creaturely freedom. Consequently, Witnesses should give up this argument against the orthodox position that God foreknows everything.

If, however, my argument that Witness theology at least implicitly teaches an alethically settled future were not well-founded, the main argument of this essay – that the Witness opposition to exhaustive foreknowledge as being somehow contrary to creaturely freedom is nonsensical – might still succeed. If in Witness theology the future is alethically settleable without injury to creaturely freedom, then this argument still accomplishes its goal. And Witness literature might make this claim, at least implicitly. This will be discussed in part three.

[1] Witnesses say that God can know the future by this means, but in my opinion this is not plausible. Such a method seems to be capable of attaining probabilities, not certitude. Nevertheless what is most salient for this essay is what Witnesses attribute to this method, namely, knowledge.

[2] This quotation seems to contrast two methods for being able to know the future, which correspond to the methods I am presently discussing. One is based on conjecture and control and the other based on simply perceiving. Moreover, the article says that God does not need to adopt the latter method, not that he cannot do so. This by itself suggests that Witness literature would have us believe that God is capable of this second method.

[3] Note how this method matches the description of the method mentioned in the quotation from the February, 2024 Watchtower quoted at the end of the last paragraph. God does not need to employ this method, according to Witness theology, but it seems that he can do so

Worst of Both Worlds (Part One)

Witnesses espouse an interesting variant of open theism. While they maintain that God does not know (most of) the future, they claim that he is able to know it exhaustively. He simply refrains from doing so. This variant of open theism is sometimes referred to as Voluntary Nescience. Unlike (most?) open theists, they evidently do not object to the existence or knowability of future truths, but object merely to God’s knowing (too many of) them. It seems that on the Witness view, creaturely freedom is not contrary to the future being alethically settled (i.e., there already being a true, complete description of the future). It is only contrary to God’s knowing (most of) that maximal description of the future. This position will not please many open theists nor the orthodox proponent of divine foreknowledge.

 

Most open theists will object to the Witness view on the grounds that the real issue is the existence of facts about the future. If it is already true that tomorrow I will do X, they suppose, then nothing I can do can change this fact. And this seems to mean that I am unfree. The problem arises whether or not God knows the truth of the matter. So, merely denying that he does cannot preserve my freedom. What is needed is to deny the reality of such truths in the first place. It is not yet true that I will do X tomorrow. Thus, while God would be able to make the best informed guess as to what I will do, he cannot know what I will do. And this view, it is said, is not incompatible with omniscience, since there is not yet any fact that God fails to know.

 

The objection of the orthodox is the other side of the coin. Since Witnesses do not fall for the common open theist objection that an alethically settled future entails that there is no genuine creaturely freedom, they should not object to God knowing these truths (at least on the grounds that doing so would remove creaturely freedom). The truths that the Witness view of divine foreknowledge seem to implicitly concede exist are just as unalterable as the orthodox say God’s knowledge of these truths is. It is nonsensical for Witnesses to object to the inalterability to God’s knowledge (as contrary to creaturely freedom) but not the facts in question. Since they have already conceded that the inalterability of prior truths about the future does not limit genuine freedom, Witnesses ought to give up their argument that for creatures to have free will God must choose to not know most of the future.

 

Three things to note. First, my argument is that the Witness position that God’s meticulous foreknowledge of the future is inconsistent with creaturely freedom is nonsensical. However, since Witnesses maintain their denial of exhaustive foreknowledge for other reasons, this  argument does not amount to a claim that their version of open theism is nonsensical. That would be an argument for another time. Second, the argument of this essay (that the Witness rejection of meticulous foreknowledge on the grounds that this would be contrary to creaturely freedom is nonsensical) depends on the premise that Witness theology at least implicitly concede that the future is alethically settled (i.e., there is a true, complete description of the future) – or that it can be, without injury to creaturely freedom, settled prior to its occurring. I will argue for this in part two. Third, Witnesses seem to affirm at least two methods by which God can know the future. These will be described in part two, partly to establish my claim that Witnesses affirm an alethically settled (or settle-able) future and partly because it is of interest to me.

By Your Standard of Measure [A Prophet by Any Other Name (Part Two)]

Sometimes Witnesses will compare their leaders to others who throughout history have attempted and failed to predict significant dates in connection to the end of the world. Such persons are often respected Church figures who their Christian critics are not likely to condemn as false prophets. Witnesses do this to reveal what they suppose to be a fundamental unfairness in their critics' denunciations against their leaders. However, this does not paint a complete picture of things, in two respects. The first, which is not the concern of this essay, is that Witness leaders claim a special mandate and to have authority that most, if not all, of the historical persons they cite do not. The second, which is relevant to this essay, is that Witness leaders are more than happy to condemn others as false prophets. Doing so, however, is problematic for their attempt to exonerate themselves from the charge of being false prophets, as this essay will show.

When it comes to lambasting others, particularly “Christendom’s clergy-prophets”, the Witnesses’ polemical right hand does not know what their apologetic left hand is doing. (November 1, 1979 Watchtower, p. 26) If it did, it would not set up a definition of false prophet that undermines their whole apologetic effort on this point. Witnesses aim to exonerate their leaders of the accusation of being false prophets even in the eyes of those who disagree with their doctrines and practices. They argue that even if you disagree with their date setting, doctrines, or practices you still ought to concede that their leaders are not false prophets. But the Witness polemic aimed especially at “the clergy” presupposes a definition of false prophet that when applied by their Christian critics to their leaders requires these critics to arrive at precisely the opposite conclusion, namely, that Witness leaders are false prophets. Further, this polemic removes the Witness ability to evade this accusation by merely claiming that their leaders often deny being infallible or possessing the gift of prophecy.

Observe the criteria by which Witness literature judges “the clergy” to be false prophets. “The clergy claim the exclusive right to speak for God and to have His spirit.” (November 1, 1976 Watchtower, p. 665) Presumably they proclaim “messages that they attribute to a superhuman source but that do not originate with the true God and are not in harmony with his revealed will.” (Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 132) Witnesses claim that “Christendom’s clergy also walk in falsehood, spreading apostate doctrines, teachings not found in God’s word,” such as the doctrine of the Trinity. (March 1, 1994 Watchtower, pp. 9-10) They promoted a merely human organization, the United Nations, as the best hope for mankind. (November 1, 1958 Watchtower, p. 650; April 1, 1972 Watchtower, p. 197) The fruitage of their teaching, such as immoral laity, is bad. (February 1, 1990 Watchtower, p. 21) So they are “false prophets – religious teachers who falsely claim to speak for God.” (True Peace and Security—How Can You Find It?, p. 81) In other words, the clergy are false prophets because they claim a special mandate to speak on God’s behalf, to teach and instruct others, but they fail to live up to these lofty claims because they teach false doctrines and produce bad fruit.

From the Witness perspective only a few of these criteria are met by their own leaders. For instance, Witness leaders claim to constitute the sole visible channel of communication used by God. (October 1, 1994 Watchtower, p. 8) Arguably, even a Witness ought to concede that their leaders have made occasional significant errors. Russell, for instance, revived his 1880s teaching that the Church is not under the New Covenant. (January 1, 1907 Zion’s Watch Tower, p. 9-10) Rutherford taught that the Holy Spirit ceased to be the paraclete or advocate for the Church. (Preservation, p. 51, pp. 193-194) And the disappointments caused by the false expectations that were fostered in part by Witness leaders surely must count as bad fruit even by Witness standards, since it drove many away from “the Truth”. However, Witnesses probably feel content that their leaders cannot count as false leaders by their own standard.

But, they should at least not begrudge others, who do not share their misguided notions of what counts as “apostate doctrines”, the right to apply this standard to the Witness leaders. When such critics do, I think, they are eminently justified in concluding that Witness leaders are false prophets. What Witnesses would call sound doctrine their Christian critics would call false teaching; the sub-par Arianism of Witnesses would be one example of this. And a good deal of what Witnesses would call the good fruit of the “Faithful and Discreet Slave” their Christian critics would call bad fruit; the deception promulgated onto millions of Witnesses, the breaking up of families and friendships over their sectarian teachings, and the needless deaths of those who were taught or pressured to refuse blood transfusions would examples of this. Moreover, Witnesses leaders promote a merely human organization as the best hope for mankind, namely, their own. Turnabout is fair play.

Notice, also, that Witnesses do not claim that “the clergy” – an apparently supposedly monolithic group – claim infallibility or the gift of prophecy. (If they were to do so, this would not be credible. For while some clerics, such as the Roman Pontiff, make relatively limited claims of infallibility, this is not true of clergy generally.) Since Witnesses condemn as false prophets a group that does not claim infallibility or a special gift of prophecy, they tacitly admit that claiming either is not a necessary feature of a false prophet. They thereby concede the irrelevance of one of their best responses to the accusation that their leaders are false prophets, namely, their leader’s statements that they lack both of these.

Scripture warns, “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.” (Matthew 7:2) Witness leaders ought to have known better than to apply a definition of false prophet to their religious enemies that in all fairness should be applied to them. When their Christian critics do so, is it really surprising that they would conclude that Witness leaders are false prophets? Moreover, in their polemic zeal Witness leaders reveal that they do not really think that claiming infallibility or a gift of prophecy is a necessary feature of being a false prophet. So, either they are being unfair when they condemn others or they are being disingenuous when they defend themselves on this point. Clearly, the Witness leader’s condemnation of others as false prophets does their defense against the same charge no favors.