Part One: A Witness Defense Rebutted
Witness publications and apologists frequently inform us that their leaders have never claimed but rather frequently denied being inspired (à la the biblical prophets), infallible, or to have received direct revelation. For instance they write, “The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction.” (February 2017, Watchtower, p. 26) “They do not claim that their predictions are direct revelations. . . . Never . . . did [Witness leaders] presume to originate predictions ‘in the name of Jehovah.’ Never did they say, ‘These are the words of Jehovah.’” (March 22, 1993, Awake!, pp. 3-4) You can see many other quotations like these in the list of “Exculpatory Claims”. Implicit in this response is the claim that part of the definition of a false prophet is that one claims some or all of these things, or at least that a false prophet cannot deny these things. In other words, only if certain conditions are met is one a false prophet. Witness leaders do not meet all of these conditions. Therefore, they are not false prophets.
Witnesses also often compare their leaders to biblical or extra-biblical figures whom their Christian critics are not likely to regard as false prophets. Nathan, Jonah, the Apostles, and other early Christian disciples are the usual biblical proposed analogs. The list of extra-biblical figures will usually include important persons from Church history, such as Luther or Wesley, who made claims about end-times dates that have been shown to be false. Since such persons were not false prophets, even though they expressed false hopes and made predictions that did not come to pass, Witness leaders cannot be false prophets. Implicit in this response is the claim that everything Witness leaders have said or done is relevantly like what these other persons have done.
The claim that Witness leaders are not false prophets because they deny being inspired, infallible, or having had direct revelations amounts to the claim that they are only claiming to be sincere, supposedly spirit-directed, yet often misguided exegetes of prophecy. Their arguments from analogy with biblical and extra-biblical figures amounts to the same thing. And this matters, it is said, because a mere misguided exegete of prophecy is, for all his faults, not a false prophet. In the words of one Witness apologist, “There is a big difference between misguided and immature exegesis of prophecy or scripture and outright false prophecy.”
George D. Chryssides, who is cited by at least two Witness apologists, espouses this explanation. “Jehovah’s Witnesses do not claim special privileged access to divine messages, but rather base their teachings on the authority of the Bible. Their original name — ‘Bible Students’ — indicates that they were a group who tried to interpret the Christian scriptures, without any kind of privileged access, but who merely sought interpretations that, at least in principle, anyone who conscientiously and prayerfully studied the scriptures could find.” As can be seen by a review of the quotations found in the list of “Inculpatory Claims” Chryssides is mistaken. Moreover, this defense amounts to a limited hangout.
By conceding that their leaders have been wrong, perhaps even disastrously so at times, Witness apologists hope to put the whole matter to rest without needing to look further into the matter, since to look further into the matter results in three conclusions. First, given numerous statements from Witness leaders it is credible that at least some of their leaders are false prophets. Second, arguably their leaders have been duplicitous about their authority and the weight that is supposed to be assigned to their teachings. Third, Witness leaders have such a poor track record of interpreting prophecy that it would be unreasonable to trust their current prophetic interpretations, including their claims that their authority and their organization’s legitimacy are founded in biblical prophecy. I will develop these points below.
Chryssides says that “Witnesses do not claim special access to divine messages.” But this statement cannot bear up under scrutiny. The fact that they claimed that their doctrinal leadership was “in direct communication with Jehovah,” is enough to refute this point. (September 1, 1930 Watchtower, p. 263) Witness leaders have also claimed that God used “his angels to bear messages to them” and that he was the real source of their numerous books. (Ibid.) These books, they asserted, were God’s word. “The word” which the “Sovereign Lord giveth”, they claimed, “includes every revelation of truth down to and including the book Vindication and whatsoever shall be revealed and published, by the Lord’s grace.” (April 1, 1932 Watchtower, p. 101) They even claimed that they were not providing their own interpretations of passages or their own opinions on prophecy, writing, “No human interpretation of scripture is advanced,” and, “No man’s opinion is expressed in The Watchtower.” (Reconciliation, p. 6; November 1, 1931 Watchtower, pp. 326-328) Rather they claimed that they were publishing material “as fast as . . . Jehovah and Jesus Christ reveal the interpretations through” them. (April 15, 1952 Watchtower, p. 253) Witness leadership was even so bold as to say that they always have “a “Thus saith the Lord” for every part of the message that is delivered.” (Vindication Vol. I, p. 45) This hardly counts as disclaiming special access to divine messages.
Chryssides claim that Witness publications teach doctrines that “at least in principle, anyone who conscientiously and prayerfully studied the scriptures could find” is no less misleading. Their position is that it is only “through his organization [that] God provides this light.” (May 1, 1957 Watchtower, p. 274) Likewise, they claim that only those who are “in touch with God’s channel of communication” can have the “holy spirit”. (April 1, 1962 Watchtower, p. 215) Or as they say elsewhere, “He does not impart his holy spirit and understanding and appreciation of his word apart from his visible organization.” (July 1, 1965 Watchtower, p. 391) Clearly, in the opinion of Witnesses the Bible is a closed book for all except them. Hence, it comes as no surprise that they previously claimed that their (now largely abandoned, but then supposedly “unqualifiedly correct”) “present-truth chronology” could “not be ascertained, known or recognized . . . without divine guidance and the unction of the holy spirit of God.” (July 15, 1922, Watch Tower, pp. 217-219) Clearly, then, in Witness theology at least many “truths” that Witness leaders have taught (including some of those that have since been abandoned) were not in principle knowable to just anyone. Rather they were given by God specifically through the upper echelon of Witness leadership, the Faithful and Discreet Slave and their helpers.
Not only do these facts contradict Chryssides, but they also contradict the claims made in the March 22, 1993 Awake! (pp. 3-4). There it is said that Jehovah’s Witnesses never “presume[d] to originate predictions ‘in the name of Jehovah.’ Never did they say, ‘These are the words of Jehovah.’” The quotations just cited, as well as others that are found in the list of “Inculpatory Statements” shows this to be false. The thrust of the “Inculpatory Claims” is to show either that Witness leaders have often claimed inspiration, infallibility (on at least some points), or direct revelation, even if they do not wish to use those terms, or that, whether or not they claim precisely these things, what they do claim is sufficiently similar. In other words, given the falsity of many of their teachings, chronologies, and predictions, at least some Witness leaders reveal themselves to be false prophets.
It is debatable whether claiming these things – inspiration, infallibility, direct revelation – is necessary for one to be a false prophet. But for now it suffices to drive home the point that Witness leaders do seem to claim these things, even if on other occasions they have denied them. So, to underscore this point let us briefly retread these points a second time, point by point.
Inspiration
Witness apologists assure us that their leaders have never claimed to be inspired à la the biblical prophets. But this denial – which official Witness publications make from time to time – rings hollow given what Witness leaders have sometimes said about at least some of their writings. They allege that their teachings or prophetic interpretations did not come from human wisdom or perception; rather, they allege that they contained God’s own interpretations given by Christ through angels and/or the “unction [anointing] of the holy spirit” (July 15, 1922, Watch Tower, pp. 217-219). This closely resembles what Scripture says about the Mosaic Law (“the Law as ordained by angels”) and prophecy (“[n]ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God”’). Even their claim that they never made predictions “in the name of Jehovah” as did biblical prophets is contradicted by their claim that every part of their message has a “thus saith the Lord” or their having referred to a relatively mundane thing (the hour requirements for door-to-door preaching, for instance) as God’s very own words that were on par with “Let us make man in our image.” (July 1, 1943 Watchtower, 1943, p. 205)
Infallibility
While some of their publications state that their leaders are not infallible, their leaders have also claimed the opposite. In particular they have claimed that certain of their teachings, including chronologies, or past predictions were certain, unerringly, and the like. Even though many of its dates are no longer affirmed by Witnesses, their literature used to describe the then “present-truth chronology” as “absolutely and unqualifiedly correct”. Their admittedly true (albeit unremarkable) prediction that “the democracies would win World War II” is said to have “unerringly [taken] place” because it came from “Jehovah’s unerring spirit”. (July 15, 1960 Watchtower, p. 444) Moreover, insofar as they identify this or that prediction, chronology, or prophetic interpretation as God’s own interpretation they at least implicitly claim it to be inerrant. So the claim that Witness leaders have never claimed that their teachings, prophetic interpretations, or predictions were infallible is not credible.
Direct Revelation
Sometimes Witness publications note that their leaders have never attributed their teachings or writings to dreams, visions, audible voices or the like. (July 15, 1906 Zion's Watch Tower, p. 230; Preparation, p. 64) But that does not rule out the possibility that their leaders have also claimed what amounts to direct revelation, as can be seen from the following. At least one Witness publication claimed that “the servant” is in “direct communication with Jehovah”. That this claim would be made is entirely understandable given what we have described above. If something as unimportant as the hour requirements for preaching is just God speaking, and if the prophetic interpretations and doctrines taught in the Watchtower are not man’s opinions but are God’s own interpretations given by Jesus Christ through angels or the holy spirit, it only make sense to also claim that the same “servant” that teaches these things is in “direct communication” with God. If being given new revelations from God (i.e., prophetic interpretations or doctrines) by Christ through angelic mediation or the anointing of the holy spirit does not count as “direct revelation”, nothing does.
For the sake of thoroughness, let us also consider in some details the claim that what Witness leaders have done is analogous to what certain biblical figures, who were not false prophets, have done. The presentation of this Witness defense is largely drawn from Reasoning From the Scriptures (p. 134).
Nathan
When King David expressed his desire to build the temple, Nathan initially expressed his approval, saying, “Go, do all that is in your mind, for the Lord is with you.” However, God shortly thereafter told Nathan to inform David that he would not be allowed to build the temple. Witnesses claim that just as Nathan was not a false prophet but rather continued to be used by God despite expressing a wrong expectation their own leaders are not false prophets but have continued to be used by God.
Jonah
When called by God, Jonah reluctantly went to Nineveh to proclaim that the city would be destroyed in forty days. However, because the Ninevites repented, God spared the city. Accordingly, the previously promised destruction did not occur. Even though the prediction was, strictly speaking, false, this false prediction did not mean that Jonah was a false prophet. Witnesses claim that just because their leaders have made various wrong claims about many dates, including some that were predictions, they are no more false prophets than was Jonah.[1]
The Apostles
The Apostles held several errant beliefs, including the idea that the Kingdom was about to be restored to Israel. This is revealed in their question to Jesus at the beginning of Acts. However, despite holding wrong eschatological expectations, his Apostles were not false prophets but continued to be used by him. Likewise, Witnesses claim, their own leaders continue to be used by Christ even though they have held false eschatological expectations.
Other Disciples
Some disciples thought that the Apostle John would never die. But, even though they misinterpreted Jesus’ words they were not false prophets. Likewise, even though Witness leaders have wrongly interpreted at least some of Jesus’ words, Witnesses assure us that they are not false prophets.
Carefully omitted from such analogies, however, is the sort of evidence discussed above and documented at greater length in the list of “Inculpatory Claims”. Witnesses would have us believe that these cases are of the same kind with their leader’s chronologies, predictions, and teachings. However, they are not. Nathan’s off-the-cuff remark to David, Jonah’s true albeit conditional prophecy, and the errant opinions of some disciples are not comparable to at least some of what Witness leaders have taught. Nathan did not claim to be speaking in God’s name when he encouraged David to proceed with his plan to build the temple, but some Witness leaders have expressly claimed to be merely relaying God’s own words, interpretation, or predictions given to them by angels or through the holy spirit. Jonah’s implicitly conditional proclamation was true, but so many doctrines and predictions given by Witness leaders are false. The Apostles and other early Christian disciples may have held false opinions, but nowhere in Scripture do we see them teach them authoritatively as spiritual food given at the proper time, which is what the Faithful and Discreet Slave claims to be doing.
Likewise, their claim that just as figures who have made false prophetic interpretations, such as Martin Luther or John Wesley, were not false prophets their own leaders are not false prophets fails for the same reason. The cases are not comparable. If they were, so much the worse for the historical figures that Witness apologists cite! But as regrettable as it may have been for men such as Wesley and Luther to make predictions or to offer their wrong interpretations about end-times chronology, they did not claim to have received these interpretations from angels and purport to offer God’s own interpretation of such passages..
The foregoing discussion has shown that the standard Witness defenses – Witness leaders deny inspiration, etc; they are comparable to these other non-false prophets – fails. On many occasions Witness leaders do appear to claim things like inspiration, infallibility, and direct revelation. This warrants concluding that at least some of their leaders have engaged in false prophecy, a conclusion that is absolutely devastating to Witness theology. But we need not stop here. There is at least one further reason for concluding that they are false prophets, namely their own condemnation of others as false prophets.
No comments:
Post a Comment