Responding to Jehovah's Witnesses

This argument engages a legitimate concern and draws the line in the right place. The Watchtower is not wrong that idolatry is a serious sin. The Reformed tradition has warned against sentimental and worshipful imagery for good reason, and the Protestant response should acknowledge that concern honestly. The Watchtower is wrong only about where the line falls. The second commandment forbids images made to be worshipped; it does not forbid representational art as such. The decisive texts are in the Torah itself, and the decisive example is one the Watchtower's own reference work concedes.

1. Start with the Hezekiah question. Read Numbers 21:8 in the JW's own New World Translation: "Make a replica of a poisonous snake and put it on a pole." Jehovah himself commands Moses to make a metal representation of a cursed creature and lift it up in the camp. The people who look at the replica live; the people who do not, die. That is a divine command to make a representational image of "something on the earth below" — the very category Exodus 20:4 allegedly forbids. Seven hundred years later, 2 Kings 18:4 reports that King Hezekiah destroyed the same bronze serpent — and the text tells us exactly why. Hezekiah broke it up not because it was an image, but because "the Israelites had burned incense to it." The Watchtower's own Insight on the Scriptures entry on the Copper Serpent says it in their own words: Hezekiah crushed it "because the people had made an idol of it." Same object. Righteous when commanded by God in Numbers 21. Righteous for seven centuries as a memorial and teaching aid. Destroyed only at the moment it became the focus of worship. The principle is not "images are forbidden." The principle is "worshipping images is forbidden." And then the capstone: in John 3:14 Jesus himself, in your own NWT, says: "just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up." Jesus takes the very image Moses was commanded to make and uses it as the type of his own crucifixion. The bronze serpent was not a reluctant concession to Israelite weakness. It was a prophetic picture of the cross.
2. Walk through the temple reversal. The same God who gave Exodus 20:4–5 commanded Moses four chapters later in Exodus 25:18 to "make two cherubim of hammered gold at the ends of the mercy seat." Exodus 26:1 commands cherubim woven into the tabernacle curtains — visible to the priests daily. 1 Kings 6:29 records Solomon, under divine sanction, carving "cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers" on all the walls of the temple, both the inner and outer sanctuary. 1 Kings 7:25 describes the bronze Sea resting on twelve oxen, three facing each compass direction — a public sculpture in the temple courtyard. Carved lions and oxen and cherubim and palm trees filled the temple stands (1 Kings 7:29, 7:36). The tabernacle and the temple were saturated with representational art of heavenly creatures, earthly creatures, and plants — exactly the categories rs says Exodus 20:4 prohibits. If rs is right that Exodus 20:4 forbids all representational art, the tabernacle and the temple were the most idolatrous buildings on the planet, built by direct divine command. That conclusion is absurd, so the premise is wrong. Exodus 20:4 is one commandment, not two: the making and the bowing are a single compound prohibition, and verse 5 supplies the rationale — "for I, Jehovah your God, am a God who requires exclusive devotion." The forbidden thing is cultic image-use, not representation per se.
3. Engage the Reformed spectrum honestly. The Westminster Larger Catechism question 109, which hardline Reformed Protestants take very seriously, condemns "the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons." This is the strictest Protestant position on images and it is genuine. But notice what even WLC 109 does not condemn: the making of cherubim, landscapes, plants, saints in historical scenes, or narrative Bible art. WLC 109 targets representations of God or Christ, not representation as such. Even in that position, John Calvin himself wrote in the Institutes (1.11.12): "I am not so superstitious as to think that all visible representations of every kind are unlawful ... sculpture and painting are gifts of God." Calvin, the father of Reformed iconoclasm, rejected the absolutist position. The Protestant spectrum runs from Reformed iconoclast (no images of the divine Persons; other imagery permitted) through Anglican and Lutheran retention (crosses and stained glass tolerated) to Catholic and Orthodox veneration. The Jehovah's Witness position is to the left of even the most extreme Reformed iconoclasts — it forbids categories Calvin explicitly permitted. That is not a recovery of apostolic Christianity. It is a novel expansion unprecedented in Christian history.
4. Pull the Watchtower's own inversion. The Watchtower prints illustrated depictions of Jesus in almost every issue — standing on the torture stake, teaching the crowds, being baptised by John, healing the sick. My Book of Bible Stories is illustrated on every page. The rs book you are holding is illustrated. If Exodus 20:4 forbids making any "likeness of anything on the earth below" — and a pen-and-ink drawing of Jesus is a likeness of something on the earth below — then the Watchtower's own publications are idolatrous by its own rule. The only coherent Watchtower defence is: "those illustrations are not objects of worship; they are teaching aids, and the prohibition is against images used in devotional practice." That is exactly right. And it is exactly the Protestant position. Once the Watchtower grants the distinction between representation and worship for its own publications, it cannot deny the same distinction to a Protestant who hangs a cross on a wall or sets out a nativity scene in December.
5. Correct Isaiah 40:18 and Acts 10:25–26. Isaiah 40:18 — "to whom will you liken God? to what image will you compare him?" — is a rhetorical warning against humans making their way up to God through images, which cannot work because God is incomparable. But the Incarnation is the reverse movement: God descending into visibility. Colossians 1:15 calls Jesus "the image [eikon] of the invisible God." Hebrews 1:3 calls him "the exact representation of his nature." John 1:14 says "the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us; we have seen his glory." God chose to become visible. Depicting the historical Jesus in his human nature is not the human invention Isaiah condemns — that is precisely what Protestants within the Reformed mainstream argue (though the strictest WLC-109 readers disagree, and this is a live internal Protestant conversation; the Jehovah's Witness position remains an outlier to the left even of that conversation). Acts 10:25–26 is irrelevant to the images question entirely. Cornelius prostrates before Peter, a living person, and Peter refuses personal worship — "Stand up; I am only a man myself." The parallel is Acts 14:14–15 (Paul and Barnabas at Lystra) and Revelation 22:9 (John and the angel). The prohibition in view in Acts 10 is worshipping a creature, which is exactly the Protestant reading of the second commandment. The passage cuts against the rs move, not for it.
6. Close by acknowledging the real concern and drawing the real line. "Brother, you are right that idolatry is serious and that images can become idols. That is a warning Christians should take to heart. But your rule — 'making an image is the sin' — would condemn the tabernacle and the temple and the bronze serpent your own Bible says Jehovah commanded. The real line is the one your Insight book draws in its Copper Serpent article: the problem is when the people start burning incense to the thing. Hezekiah did not destroy the serpent until it was worshipped. He did not need to. A representation used for teaching is not a violation of the second commandment. A representation used as an object of worship is. Your own Watchtower illustrations operate on exactly that principle. So do Protestants who display a cross as a memorial of where Jesus paid for our sin."

Then explain Exodus 25:18, where the same God in the same Torah four chapters later commands Moses to make "two cherubim of hammered gold." Explain Exodus 26:1, where cherubim are woven into the tabernacle curtains. Explain Numbers 21:8, where Jehovah commands Moses to make a bronze replica of a poisonous snake — "a thing on the earth below," exactly the rs category. Explain 1 Kings 6:29, where Solomon under divine sanction carves cherubim and palm trees and open flowers on all the temple walls. Explain 1 Kings 7:25, where twelve bronze oxen stand in the temple courtyard holding up the Sea. Either the Watchtower position requires that Jehovah contradicts himself within four chapters, or Exodus 20:4 is governed by verse 5 and the prohibition is about worship-use. Verse 5 supplies the rationale: "I, Jehovah your God, am a God who requires exclusive devotion." The forbidden thing is giving exclusive devotion to an image, not making one. And Deuteronomy 4:15–18 makes this even plainer: Moses tells Israel to be careful not to make any idol "in the form of" male or female or beast, because "you saw no form of any kind on the day Jehovah spoke to you" at Horeb. The concern is representing God — who has no seen form — for devotional use, not representing creatures for memorial or teaching.

Read the text carefully. 2 Kings 18:4 in your own NWT says Hezekiah "crushed the copper serpent that Moses had made; for down to that time the people of Israel had been making sacrificial smoke to it." The triggering condition is explicitly named: sacrificial smoke — that is worship. For seven hundred years — under Joshua, under the judges, under Samuel, under David, under Solomon, under Jehoshaphat — the bronze serpent was preserved as a memorial and nobody destroyed it, because nobody was worshipping it. The moment the people started burning incense to it, Hezekiah acted. This is the exact pattern the Protestant position teaches: images become idolatrous when they become objects of worship, and then they should be removed. The Watchtower's own Insight on the Scriptures Copper Serpent entry says it in so many words — Hezekiah destroyed it "because the people had made an idol of it." The Watchtower knows what the text says. It just does not apply the principle consistently, because applying it would legitimise a cross on a wall that nobody worships.

Granted, with care. No Protestant tradition represents the invisible Father in his divine nature; even the most image- friendly Catholic and Orthodox traditions have historically resisted this. Isaiah 40:18 warns humans against making their way up to God through images, which cannot work because God is incomparable. But the Incarnation is the reverse movement: God descending into visibility. Colossians 1:15 calls Jesus "the image of the invisible God" — the Greek word is eikon. Hebrews 1:3 calls him "the exact representation of his nature." John 1:14 says "the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us; we have seen his glory." The Word became visible. Depicting the historical Jesus in his human nature is not the human invention Isaiah condemns — Isaiah condemns pretending to see God from below; the Incarnation is God showing himself from above. There is a live Reformed conversation about whether even historical depictions of Jesus are permissible (the Westminster Larger Catechism question 109 leans no), but that entire conversation takes place within a framework that permits the cherubim, the temple carvings, and the bronze serpent. The Jehovah's Witness position is to the left of even the strictest Reformed iconoclasm.

Read the text. Cornelius is not prostrating before an image of Peter. He is prostrating before Peter himself, a living person. Peter refuses personal worship: "Stand up; I am only a man myself." The prohibition in view is worshipping a creature, which is exactly the Protestant reading of the second commandment. The parallel passages are Acts 14:14–15 (Paul and Barnabas refusing worship at Lystra) and Revelation 22:9 (John told not to worship the angel). In every case the prohibition is on worshipping a creature — a human, an angel — not on representing one in art. The passage has nothing to say about a cross on a wall or a nativity scene in December. If anything, Acts 10 supports the Protestant position: the sin is worship of the creature, and that is exactly what the second commandment forbids.

The Watchtower's answer would be: "those are illustrations for teaching, not objects of worship, and the second commandment forbids worship-images." That answer is exactly right. And it is the Protestant position word for word. Once the Watchtower concedes the distinction between representation for teaching and representation for worship in order to defend its own publications, it cannot deny that same distinction to a Protestant who hangs a cross on a wall as a memorial of the atonement, or displays a nativity scene in December as a remembrance of the Incarnation. The cross on the wall is not bowed down to; incense is not burned to the nativity figures; no one prays to a stained-glass window. By the Watchtower's own operating principle for its own art, these representations are teaching aids, not cultic objects. The rs book's argument on pages 183-187 demands an absolutist rule that its own publications break on every page. The only consistent position is the Protestant position.

Read Numbers 21:8–9 in your own New World Translation. Ask yourself whether Jehovah commanded Moses to make a representational image of a creature. Then read 2 Kings 18:4 in the NWT and note the triggering phrase — "had been making sacrificial smoke to it." Then open Insight on the Scriptures to the "Copper Serpent" entry and read the Watchtower's own explanation of why Hezekiah acted. Then read Exodus 25:18–22, 26:1, 1 Kings 6:29, and 1 Kings 7:25, and ask yourself whether the tabernacle and the temple — commanded by Jehovah himself — contained representational art of heavenly and earthly creatures. Finally, read John 3:14 in your own NWT, where Jesus takes the bronze serpent Moses made as the prophetic picture of his own crucifixion. Ask yourself one honest question: would Jehovah command Moses to make something that was inherently idolatrous, and would Jesus adopt it as a picture of his own death?