To Whom Shall We Go? — Peter Was Answering a Person, Not an Organisation
Jehovah's Witnesses are trained — often from childhood, and
certainly at every assembly — to think of John 6:68 as a proof-text
for organisational loyalty. When a Witness is tempted to leave,
other Witnesses and elders commonly say: "But where would you go?
Who else has the Truth? There is no life outside Jehovah's
organisation." The verse is quoted with the assumption that "words
of eternal life" means "the body of teaching provided by the
faithful and discreet slave" — which is to say, the Watchtower's
doctrinal system — and that Peter's loyalty to Jesus is
(by extension) the Witness's loyalty to the Governing Body. The
switch happens quietly: Peter is addressing Jesus, but the verse
is deployed to hold a Witness to the organisation.
This is one of the most common verses used to keep doubting Witnesses inside the organisation, and it is also one of the most easily handled — because the verse itself, read in context, answers the question. The strategy is gentle and textual.
- Read the whole passage together (). "On this account many of his disciples went off to the things behind and would no longer walk with him. Jesus therefore said to the twelve: 'You do not want to go also, do you?' Simon Peter answered him: 'Lord, to whom shall we go? You have sayings of everlasting life, and we have believed and come to know that you are the Holy One of God.'" Use the NWT. Let the JW read it aloud.
- Ask the simple question. "Who is Peter answering?" The grammar is unmistakable. Peter is answering Jesus. Not an organisation, not a council, not a body of elders. Jesus asked, "Are you leaving too?" — and Peter answered the question by confessing Jesus. "You have the words of eternal life." The word "you" is singular in Greek (σύ) and refers to Jesus personally.
- Point out the contrast. "When a Witness is tempted to leave the Watchtower, other Witnesses say 'where else would we go?' But that is a different question. The original question was: 'Where would we go without Jesus?' The modern version is: 'Where would we go without the organisation?' Those are not the same question. If the two were identical, the organisation would be Jesus. That is the Roman Catholic move, not the Christian move, and it is not what Peter is doing here."
- Give the positive answer to Peter's question. "You are right that there is nowhere else to go. But the right answer to 'where else could I go?' is to Jesus. Jesus himself said in , 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' Not through an organisation. Through Jesus. The answer to Peter's question is a Person, not a headquarters. And the good news is that the Person is still there, still speaking in his Word, still inviting everyone who is weary to come directly to him (). You will not find a better refuge — but you will find the same refuge Peter found, and you can come to him without going through Warwick, New York."
- Acknowledge the cost. "I understand this question is hard because it isn't really about theology. It is about community, family, identity, years of friendships, people who will walk away from you if you walk away from the organisation. That is a real loss. But the answer to 'where else would we go' is not 'back into the organisation that is asking the question.' The answer is 'I will go to Jesus, because he has the words of eternal life, and the same Jesus Peter confessed is the Jesus I can run to today.' That is the same answer Peter gave. It is the only answer that will actually hold."
- Leave them with it. Do not press for a decision at the door. The seed of this question often takes weeks or months to bloom. Say: "Will you read again tonight, and ask yourself who Peter is talking to? Then ask: if you had to give that answer today, who would you be talking to?"
is Peter's confession of Christ, not a defence of organisational loyalty. Peter is speaking directly to Jesus in response to Jesus' direct question. "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." The answer to the question is a Person — Jesus himself — not a committee, a congregation, or an organisation. The Watchtower's deployment of this verse to keep doubting Witnesses from leaving quietly substitutes the organisation for Jesus. Separate the two, and the verse becomes one of the strongest arguments for direct relationship with Christ and against organisational intermediaries.
Peter was speaking to Jesus — but Jesus is using his faithful slave today, and leaving the slave is leaving Jesus.
That claim requires two separate things to be proven: (1) that Jesus has appointed a single continuing organisation as his exclusive channel, and (2) that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is specifically that organisation. Neither is stated in any text of Scripture. certainly does not say it — Peter is confessing Jesus personally, and Jesus never in that passage redirects Peter to a future institutional body. If the Watchtower wants to equate "leaving the organisation" with "leaving Jesus," it needs a verse where the equation is stated — not inferred. I am not aware of one. And commends the Bereans for checking even Paul against Scripture — if an apostle can be tested that way, a twentieth-century organisation can certainly be tested that way.
But there has to be an organisational structure — Jesus wouldn't leave his sheep without a shepherd.
Jesus did not leave his sheep without a shepherd. He said he was "the fine shepherd" () and that his sheep would know his voice (). He appointed apostolic elders in every local congregation (; ) — plural elders in each congregation, not a single central body. He poured out his Spirit on all flesh () so that each believer would be indwelt. The "shepherd structure" Jesus left us is distributed and Christ-centred, not centralised and office-centred. A single global organisation claiming to be the shepherd under Christ is an addition to the New Testament picture, not a reflection of it.
If I leave, I'll lose my family and my friends. Where would I go?
This is the hardest question, and I am not going to be glib about it. The shunning practice is a terrible cost — and I want to say plainly that the cost is real and the grief is legitimate. You are allowed to grieve it. But listen to the shape of Peter's answer again: "You have the words of eternal life." Peter's answer does not promise an easier community or a warmer social network. Peter's answer names a Person — and the Person is enough. Jesus did not promise an easier community to those who follow him; he promised himself. He said in , "Come to me, all you who are toiling and loaded down, and I will refresh you." The refuge is a Person, and the Person will not turn you away. Other believers outside the Watchtower will receive you. Many ex-JW believers have built new communities that love them without conditions. The practical logistics of leaving are hard — but the spiritual logistics of Peter's answer are simple. He went to Jesus. You can too, and Jesus himself will not turn you away.
But the Governing Body teaches the truth — where would we find correct doctrine elsewhere?
Two gentle observations. First, the Watchtower has changed its "truth" repeatedly — the Generation doctrine has been revised seven times, the 1914 chronology was built on a date-setting tradition Russell inherited from William Miller and adjusted, the 1925 and 1975 end-dates failed publicly, and in 2012 the identity of the "faithful and discreet slave" was redefined to mean the Governing Body itself (previously it had meant all anointed Christians). If those were "the truth," when did God change his mind about them? Second, the test Peter himself submits to — "you have the words of eternal life" — is the words of Jesus. Not the words of an organisation. Jesus' words are preserved for us in the apostolic writings: the New Testament. If the Governing Body and the New Testament ever disagree, which one takes precedence? For Peter, it would be obvious. The One who has the words is the One whose words settle the question.
Peter and the apostles stayed together as a group — that's our pattern for needing the organisation.
Peter and the apostles did stay together — with Jesus. That is the group Peter is committing to in . When the apostles later scattered to plant churches across the Roman world, they did not gather around a single continuing council issuing decisions; Acts 15 was one meeting for one specific dispute, never reconvened. Paul founded churches across Asia Minor, Greece, and eventually Rome — answering pastoral questions by his own apostolic authority under the Spirit. Peter writes letters to scattered believers without saying "appeal to the council in Jerusalem for clarification." The apostolic pattern was distributed congregational life, not centralised organisational governance. If "staying together with the group" is the pattern, the New Testament pattern is staying with Christ and with the local body of believers he has given you, not with a single office in one city.
Jesus isn't physically here now. We need a visible channel that we can see and hear.
Jesus has given us something visible — his Word, which was written precisely so that we could hear him across the centuries. says Scripture is "inspired of God and beneficial" so that the man of God may be fully competent. says the Gospel was written "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ." says the Bereans checked even an apostle against the Scriptures. And Jesus himself said in : "My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" — the sheep hear Jesus' voice in his Word, by his Spirit. The question "where can I see and hear Jesus now?" has an answer, and the answer is: open his Word, pray, and listen to him through the Spirit who indwells every believer who trusts him. That is not a hidden or inaccessible channel — that is the closest, nearest relationship described in the New Testament.
Do not dismiss the pain behind the question. For many Witnesses, "where else would we go?" is not a theological puzzle — it is a real, agonised cry from someone who has built their entire life, family, and identity around the Watchtower. Treat the question with the seriousness of Peter's own moment. Do not mock the verse or make it sound as though the Watchtower is stupid for quoting it. Many sincere Witnesses have been taught this reading all their lives, and it feels deeply true to them — because the confession of Christ part is true. What is not true is the organisational substitution. Separate the two carefully. Also, do not lead with Greek grammar ("the 'you' is the singular σύ"). It sounds academic and puts up a wall. Let the NWT do the work: read the verse aloud from their own Bible and ask, "Who is the 'you' here?" The plain English of the NWT is enough.
Read slowly, aloud if you can. Notice who is speaking to whom in each verse. Ask yourself: "If I answered Jesus' question today — 'Do you want to leave me too?' — who would I be answering? A person, or an organisation?" Take your time with it.