Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses

by Ron Rhodes, Hank Hanegraaff (Foreword)

Many outstanding features make this the complete hands-on guide to sharing the truth of God's Word in a loving, gracious way. Includes favorite tactics used by the Witnesses and effective biblical responses.

Genres: Theology, Religion, Christian, Nonfiction, Cults, Christianity, Reference

444 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1993

Reviews

[Jerrill Wyler · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent resource to learn what the jws believe and how to communicate to them about the truth. Also a great resource for any Christian because it talks in detail about key doctrines and gives much scripture to back it up

[Sherlindreah · Rating 1 out of 5]

well well well...one thing is sure, this guy has got a very high diploma in sophism or how to present fallacious ideas with a seemingly perfect logic but actually just a big load of BS.I have no sympathy for the jehovah witnesses but I don't see how you can convince someone by making him read extracts from the Bible seeing that he has his own translation of the Bible and that his translation is different.
I also really really loved dr Rhodes epic sentences especially when he writes that men and women have the same nature but that women are subordinates...
So the author is either the king of hypocrist or a the king of morons.
I think I will stop right now with dr Rhodes or I may pass from antheist to frankly anticlerical...

[Luke Beattie · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book sheds light on basic JW doctrine and practice. It offers some helpful tips for engaging JWs. But is subpar when arguing for the two natures of Christ and gets bogged down in the subordination of the Son. And in some spots, hermeneutical commitments by the author do him no favors in drawing more compelling conclusions then the JWs.

[Danny Proffitt · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have this book in my library. I have it cover to cover. I have referred back to it many times. This should be in your christian library.

[Joseph · Rating 5 out of 5]

Definitely a big help.

[George · Rating 4 out of 5]

…First thing…I’m not a JW. Except for the Co-equal, co-eternal Triune Godhead dogma, I view them similarly as Rhodes does, who I have immense respect for. As for my belief in God, I agree completely with the statements in the Old Roman Symbol and the Apostles Creed, both most likely penned before the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds of the 4th century, hundreds of years after Christ and His Apostles.

So, in this review I’ll take the position of Amicus Curiae regarding JW’s view of the Trinity, a “friend of the court”. I’ll respond to two of Rhodes’ objections in this book, and some found elsewhere. It’s not meant to be exhaustive. More info can be found in my reviews of Rhodes’ other books.

Rhodes quotes Walter Martin as saying JWs can make a pretzel out of the average Christian when discussing the Trinity. This is partly true. From personal experience, a Trinity skeptic can befuddle Church of Christ ministers, Baptist ministers, Pentecostal ministers, Catholic priests, Lutheran honchos etc, etc. Most of whom know Koine Greek from seminary training.
He also says this is because of JW’s New World Translation. Eh. People were poking holes in the Trinity dogma well over a 1000 years before JWs. Forget the NWT. If you want to know the truth about the Trinity, acquire as many translations as possible, preferably before the 1970s, including a couple of Jewish Bibles. Then get yourself a bunch of interlinears, concluding your hunt with a Strong’s and a Vine’s.

Rhodes claims JWs use “isolated texts” to confuse people about the Trinity. The fact is, ANY texts regarding the Trinity, pro or con, are isolated. This is because the Bible nowhere discusses the subject. The doctrine is pieced together from scraps by people who really want it to be true. I mean no offence, but its foundations are very similar to evolution…weak evidence buttressed by wishful leaps in reasoning.
For example, any evangelical trying to scripturally disprove the Dogma of Immaculate Conception would need to use “isolated texts”. The Bible just doesn’t discuss the subject.

In spite of their being entire chapters and books on salvation by faith, (Romans, Galatians, Acts 15), there are no chapters, books or even verses on the Trinity. Remember, the Trinity is three co-equal, co-eternal Persons in one Godhead, not two. The only verse that supports such an idea is the infamous forgery, 1st John 5:7 in the KJV, NKJV, and Douay versions. This argues from silence that the Trinity is an extra-Biblical doctrine.

Nevertheless, Rhodes initially raises two objections.

1. John 17:3 says The Father is the “only true God”. (food for thought) Then, the NWT says Jesus is “a god”. This is supposed to mess up JWs programming, causing smoke to pour out of their ears. Maybe, but I doubt it.
The Pharisees raised a similar objection in John 10:33. Jesus responded by quoting Psalm 82:1, where the Bible Knowledge Commentary says Israelite judges were called “gods”. Jesus reasons that if humans are called “gods” in Psalm 82, how wrong is it for Jesus to truthfully call Himself “God’s Son”? Wouldn’t the Son of God be divine, as the American Translation and Moffat’s render John 1:1? Does this conflict with John 17:3? Not at all, Yahweh, the Father is God Almighty, the only true God. Paul says the same thing in 1st Corinthians 8:6, there is “…one God, the Father.”
I think we all agree that Yahweh was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus is His Son, and His Servant. Acts 3:13, John 20:31. Jesus, the Lamb, is different from the Lord God Almighty. Revelation 21:22. The God of the Jews resurrected Jesus and set Him at His right hand. Psalm 110:1, Acts 5:30, Galatians 1:1.

Is Yahweh’s only-begotten Son divine? Absolutely. Isaiah 9:6, 7. Just as Abraham’s son Isaac was human. But Jesus isn’t ALMIGHTY. The Father is greater than He. John 14:28, 1st Corinthians 11:3, 15:24-28. I’m sorry if Rhodes feels those vss are “isolated”, but they appear in EVERY Bible, rendered the same way, save for The Message, which is a paraphrase.
All worship rightly given to Jesus as our Savior, ultimately goes to the God the Father. Philippians 2:5-11. NASB, ESV.

2. Most Trinitarians are horrified by the NWT rendering of Colossians 1:16, which adds “other” to the verse. Rhodes is no different. Is it dishonest to do it without a footnote? Possibly. But again, forget the NWT. Here is Colossians 1:15, 16A according to the NASB…”He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, for by Him all things were created…”
The phrase “firstborn OF creation”, interpreted literally, obviously means Jesus is the first of Yahweh’s family of creation. A view which most theologians are severely allergic to, even though that’s what the verse plainly says. Colossians 1:3 even says God is the “Father of the Lord Jesus”. (2nd John 3 calls Jesus “the Son of the Father”, a plain, simple statement. Compare that with Revelation 3:14, then look up “beginning” in a Strong’s) Trinitarians often say that “firstborn” means rulership here, but the operative phrase is “firstborn OF”, which places the subject in a group, in this case, “of creation”. Even if the rulership sense is accepted, it’s in the sense of being GIVEN rulership, like with David. See Daniel 7:13, 14, Luke 1:32, Matthew 28:18-20, Revelation 1:1, where Yahweh gives His Son Jesus power, authority, and revelation. This is NOT a sign of co-equality in a Trinity, especially since Holy Spirit isn’t even mentioned in those vss.

The catch is in 16A, which says Jesus created “all things”. How can Jesus have created all things if He was created Himself? Easy. It’s implied that He’s excluded from 16A. That’s how Eve could be the “mother of all living”. Genesis 3:20. It’s implied she and Adam are excluded. No one questions that, nor should they.
When Jesus said John the Baptist was the greatest of those born of women, He was obviously excluding Himself. Matthew 11:11, Galatians 4:4.
But here’s the real kicker. Read 1st Corinthians 6:18…according to the NIV it says, “Flee from sexual immorality. All OTHER sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.”
Note the word “other”. It doesn’t appear in the NKJV. It appears in italics in the NASB to show it’s not in the Greek. it’s in the NIV and NASB because the verse says ALL sins committed are outside the body. Then it immediately says immorality is a sin against the body. A contradiction? No, of course not. It can be inferred that immorality was excluded from the earlier statement. Nevertheless, the NIV and NASB added “other”. The NIV didn’t even italicize it or alert the reader that it was an addition.
Trinitarians act as if the NWT is the abomination of desolation when it does this in Colossians 1:16, but it’s not. They neglect to mention the NIV and NKJV saying “firstborn OVER creation.” The Greek says “firstborn OF”. See the KJV.

Elsewhere Rhodes claims that while the Trinity isn’t explicitly taught in the Bible (He got that right), it IS implied. I’ve dealt with this in reviews of his other books, but I’ll briefly address it here.

First, why ISN’T it explicit? Jesus told the Samaritan woman that Jews KNEW whom they worshipped. That’s explicit. John 4:22. It’s also significant because Jews didn’t believe in the Trinity then, and they don’t now. At some point, Jesus must’ve revealed the co-equal, co-eternal Triune Godhead doctrine to the Apostles, then the 70, Mary Magdelene, Joanna, Susanna, etc., and then they must’ve taught it to others, using the OT for support. Just as they did with salvation by faith in Acts 15, Romans, and Galatians.

But did they?

No.

There’s no record of this. In Peter’s speech at Pentecost, to Cornelius in Acts 10, Paul’s sermon in the synagogue in Acts 13, on the Areopagus to Greeks in Acts 17, (Surely Greeks schooled in Plato would have been interested in a Trinity!), or when Aquila and Pricsilla (Jews) taught Apollos. They said nothing of a Trinity, only that Jesus was the Messiah. Acts 18:24-28.

This is curious, indeed.

Evangelicals claim to believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture. They say the ransom doctrine is explicit. The same with salvation by faith, not works, a seven day creation week, eventual salvation of Israel etc, etc. (All of which I agree with).

Yet, the Triune identity of Almighty God is “implied”?

Come on, Man!

Again, I have touched on this elsewhere. But:

A. Yahweh is God. Granted. Obviously.
B. Jesus is the Son of God. Dealt with above.
C. The Holy Spirit is the third co-equal, co-eternal Person of the Trinity? Not proven. Holy Spirit literally means “Sacred Breath/Wind”. See Genesis 1:2 in the Common English Version which says “God’s Wind”. (Compare with Genesis 8:1) That Holy Spirit is an energizing force of some kind can be seen from Numbers 11:17, 25. Read it in the Tanakh for comparison. Also compare Matthew 12:28 with Luke 11:20. Holy Spirit is “God’s finger” or “God’s power” (NLT). See also Exodus 31:18.
The Holy Spirit is referred to in Hebrew and Greek with gender neutral pronouns THROUGHOUT the Bible, except in John 15, 16, where Jesus was speaking “figuratively”. John 16:25, 29. Everywhere else, (as far as I can determine) Holy Spirit is referred to with “it”, and “which”, whereas almost all translations say “He” and “Whom”. This can be confirmed with interlinears. Some commentors in these interlinears admit this with broken hearts, but they do admit it. Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible uses the gender-neutral pronouns, as do Jewish translations of the OT. Furthermore, Holy Spirit is absent from all of Paul’s epistolic greetings, as well as Peter’s, arguing from silence against it being a third Person of a Godhead. In fact, Paul and Peter say, “God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”, NEVER “God the Father and God the Son.” (or “God the Holy Spirit”.) See also 1st Corinthians 8:6. This clear understanding of God and Lord takes the starch out of the Trinitarian interpretation of John 20:28, especially in light of the contextual verse at John 20:17, as well as Revelation 3:12.

This review is in danger of becoming the Never-Ending Story. In conclusion, read many translations, and always read the footnotes. It’s disingenuous for Rhodes to say JWs need a pet translation to challenge the Trinity.

These so-called Trinitarian verses can and have been translated to have a non-Trinitarian sense, and they know it. John 1:1, 2, John 8:58, Acts 20:28, Romans 9:5, Philippians 2:5, 6, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, Revelation 1:11.

The irony is, if JWs were to use the fairly sound reasoning in their other doctrines as they do with the Trinity, 95% of those doctrines would collapse. On the other hand, if Evangelicals were to use the same interpretive methods on the Trinity that they do elsewhere, the Trinity would collapse.

JWs still elevate their organization and its Governing Body/Faithful Slave above Jesus, which is blasphemous. Nevertheless, their criticism of the Trinity is warranted, Scripturally, historically, and reasonably. No matter what Rhodes says, 3 x 1=3, not 1.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A VERY THOROUGH EVANGELICAL CRITIQUE OF THE WATCHTOWER'S DOCTRINES

Ron Rhodes is currently President of "Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries," and sometimes teaches cult apologetics at various seminaries. He was formerly Editor/Associate Editor of the Christian Research Institute's Journal and Newsletter, and a frequent guest on the "Bible Answer Man" radio program. He has written many books, such as 'The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Jehovah's Witness,' 'Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons,' 'Answering the Objections of Atheists, Agnostics, and Skeptics,' etc.

He writes in the Introduction to this 1993 book, "You will notice that there are more chapters on Jesus Christ than about any other subject. This is because many of the Bible passages cited by Jehovah's Witnesses deal in some way with Christ. Each chapter in this book begins with a short summary of what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe about a particular subject. Following you will find individual discussions of the major passages the Jehovah's Witnesses cite in supporting their interpretation... you may consult individual chapters as needed---each one is self-contained."

He points out, "Consider the Lord's Prayer. Jesus did not begin this prayer with the words, 'Jehovah God, who art in heaven.' Rather, He said, 'Our Father, who art in heaven." (Pg. 54) Later, he suggests, "You might point out to the Jehovah's Witnesses that the word Jehovah does not appear as such in the Bible. In fact, Jehovah does not appear in ANY legitimate Hebrew or Greek manuscript of the Bible. The word was originally formed by superstitious Jewish scribes who joined the consonants YHWH with the vowels from 'Adonai.'" (Pg. 221)

He observes, "The Watchtower Society must have been utterly embarrassed when the names of the translators of the 'New World Translation' were made known to the public. The reason for that is the translation committee was completely unqualified for the task. Four of the five men in the committee had no Hebrew or Greek training whatsoever..." (Pg. 97)

He argues, "Since the 'great multitude' serves God day and night in His temple (Revelation 7:15), and since God's temple is IN HEAVEN (Revelation 11:19; 14:17), then doesn't this mean that the great multitude is in heaven?" (Pg. 274)

He contends, "We find another example in the Watchtower's change of position on organ transplants... organ transplants were forbidden for some thirteen years. During this time, many Jehovah's Witnesses died or suffered greatly as a result of not having such a transplant. But then the Watchtower changed its view (in 1980)..." (Pg. 381) He adds, "Did you know that the Watchtower Society prohibited vaccinations in the early 1930s but then reversed its position and began allowing them in the 1950s?" (Pg. 382)

Rhodes' books are carefully-argued, and will be of great interest for those looking for critical works on the unconventional Christian sects.

[Daniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

A book about how to show that Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong using the Bible. It deals thoroughly with many arguments and beliefs Jehovah's Witnesses have, from those that the Watchtower has had at a point in time but no longer publicizes and that most JWs don't know about, to the most essential tenets of the belief that everyone knows about. It does deal well with many arguments. But it mixes strong arguments with weak arguments and specious arguments. Some of the arguments for the deity of Christ are excellent. Why, then, add lots of weak arguments that can easily distract from the stronger arguments, even bad arguments? Another significant weakness is that it seemingly argues a brute force approach to breaking JWs down. It rightly emphasizes the importance of using the Bible to argue, and rightly emphasizes the importance of teaching them to read the Bible in its context by themselves before going to the Watchtower's interpretation, and of planting seeds of doubt about the Watchtower's reliability. But among the questions that it suggests we ask JWs, we have, for instance, "Did you know that the overwhelming majority of Greek scholars in the world say the Watchtower Society is absolutely wrong - indeed, deceptive - in its translation of John 1:1?", and "An impressive array of Greek scholars assure us that Colossians 2:9 points to the absolute deity of Jesus Christ. Can you name a single renowned Gree scholar who agrees with the Watchtower rendering of the verse?" Though such questions surely have a place in discussing with certain JWs, there are so many of this kind of question that one would assume they all can be swayed by such appeals to authorities outside the Watchtower Society.

[Janelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

It gives the JW position and what scripture they us and then points out why it's wrong.

I enjoyed it immensely. Even if I wasn't interest in Jehovah's Witness doctrines, it's fun to see the defence of the Christian position layed biblically.

[Killer of Dreams · Rating 2 out of 5]

A decent book in answering Watchtower theology. Some of the points aren't very strong though.

Many arguments are refuted on the basis that the verses that the Witness will use take precedence over your verses. For example, even though Isaiah 43:11 says that God is the only savior and Luke 2:11 says that Jesus is the savior, they'll say that God's plan changed and Jesus became savior and that Luke 2:11 takes precedence over Isaiah 43:11. They'll say that for every Old Testament-New Testament parallel and even parallels in the New Testament, even though such a methodology would go against their concept of the Bible being in harmony with itself.

They won't listen to the claims that there are "mistranslated verses" in the NWT. On their database they will find scholars that will approve of their translation of the scripture and the Witness will believe your translation to be biased to the trinity.

As I read more, I began to feel as though the clarity of the Bible is highly subjective and falls upon interpretation by trinitarians and nontrinitarians. In sections describing Jesus as the "first-born", it can be taken in a literal sense in today's common English or in the old traditional way. Some arguments felt as though they were just as deceiving and convoluted as the Watchtower explains passages. At what point does either side commit eisegesis?

Some arguments are well constructed in debunking the eschatology of the Jehovah's Witness. It should receive 5 stars but I felt as though some arguments were weak.

Rating Update 3/13/2019 - 4 to 3 stars. I enjoyed specific sections but since others seemed bias, it held the book back from being a full proof guide to counter Jehovah's Witnesses' arguments.

Update 4/6/19- Reflecting on the book, I gave it 3 stars because I like it as a resource to proving the Trinity and reminding me of the ability to manipulate text for any Christian denomination.

August 24, 2019
Rating Update
With the adoption of my new rating system, a two star rating is befitting. The original review and rating update conform to the new rating system. The reason behind the two star demotion is based heavily on my disappointment with my later reading of the sections in the book, as noted in the original review: "As I read more, I began to feel as though the clarity of the Bible is highly subjective and falls upon interpretation by trinitarians and nontrinitarians". This bittersweet realization led me to find little faith in the later half of the book (I believe this realization occurred at the halfway mark) and changed my opinion of readings that were of four star content in the first half of the book. I glanced at one section in the beginning of the book and felt that the reasoning utilized just as much exegesis as the Watchtower. Few sections would I rate at three and four stars, the first coming to mind is the three pages with Trinitarian Bible verses. I still believe this is a useful reference book for aiding with proof for the Trinity, but there is not enough solid content, probably because the Trinity is just as theological as the nontrinitarian stance.

[Sharon Kline · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a fantastic book for those who want to understand JWs and share the true gospel of grace with them. His research was very thorough using multiple scrpture passages to respond to each erroneous doctrine. Also the author's research of the New World Translation and familiarity with the JW doctrine was extensive. I learned so much and want to read it again.

[Alexandru Balaur]

Не лучшая книга по данной теме. Мало хороших аргументов.

[Manuel Brambila · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everything you need to know about the JW's is here. Easy to read and to understand. It was a pleasure to read and a powerful weapon to have studied.

[Unapologetic_Bookaholic · Rating 2 out of 5]

***Pre-review***So far I can see that the author is relating his experience in a way that can teach and not 'point the blame' at this organization.

Finished review- Though complete in its assessment of using Scripture to unfold the "truth" about Jehovah's Witness. I did not think the author was user friendly enough for the average person to grasp the concept of how to approach a JW with the message of Christianity using his book. I felt you would have to have some biblical understanding yourself before reading this book.

Overall it is a good reference but I will also look forward to reading other books based on the teachings of the Jehovah's Witness and also other books by Ron Rhodes.

[M. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Just for full disclosure, I'm a fairly vocal atheist, thus this was anything but my particular cup of tea. However, it deserves better than a one star, which I was very tempted to give, if only for the amusement factor. Want a lesson in what cognitive dissonance is, read this little tome. Oy vey . . .

[Joseph · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the book to read for interacting with Jehovah's Witnesses. The question format is still intact from the original edition. The chapters are expanded and this is helpful. I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to be quickly equipped to share the truth of the Bible with the JW's at their door.

[Josue · Rating 4 out of 5]

I believe this is a great tool to have. No doubt much more could have been said for each passage of Scripture that Rhodes explained. Nevertheless, Rhodes does a great job "reasoning from the Scripture with Jehovah's witnesses."

[Andy Field · Rating 4 out of 5]

For those Christians who feel called to reason lovingly with Jehovah's Witnesses from the Scriptures rather than shut the door, this is an excellent book. Not an easy read but well worth persevering and keeping it handy for the time when the knock on the door comes.

[Debra · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you come from a mainstream Christian worldview, this book can help you answer the questions Jehovah's Witnesses might ask you. A great apologetic resource!

[AddyF · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good resource for learning about the core beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and forming a biblical response to their beliefs

[Solomon]

reasoning from the scriptures

[Kyle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great resource if you're reaching out to Jehovah witnesses.