| Glossary: J |
NOTE: Never criticize brothers who offer public prayer for their words offered from the heart. On the rare occasion that something genuinely inappropriate is said, trust that Jehovah was listening and will care for any correction that may be needed.
Until 1976 witnesses appeared in The Watchtower in lower case. Then in the April 1st issue, for what was apparently the first time, it appeared as ``Witnesses'', in upper case, in the third item under ``Insight on the News''. The change to upper case did not find its way into the blurb explaining the purpose of the magazine on the inside cover until the August 15, 1976 issue.
Although almost all {dedicated} and {baptized} persons are {active} in the preaching activity, the {Society}, in reporting numbers of Witnesses in various areas counts only those who are active as publishers, i.e., those who actually witness, whether baptized or not. The number of unbaptized publishers is probably roughly equal to the number of baptized ones who are {irregular} or {inactive}, effectively canceling out any inaccuracy conveyed by the statistic.
NOTE: Just as the work Jehovah has assigned his people is sometimes difficult to do, so the name he has given us is sometimes difficult to explain. It is grammatically correct to use the indefinite article and singular form. <<He is a Jehovah's Witness.>> However, it is awkward because it does not sound right to follow the indefinite article with a possessive, even though it is used functionally as a modifier.
Personally, I almost never use that form, but prefer to use the more verbose form. <<He is one of Jehovah's Witnesses.>> It is probably because of this awkwardness that some people, including a few Witnesses, have sometimes resorted to an ungrammatical form that drops the possessive. <<He is a Jehovah Witness.>> Not!! This expression is illiterate and a sign of great ignorance. But there is nothing wrong with just saying ``He is a Witness.'' (See {Witness}.)
Some people in the world refer to us as ``Jehovahs''. <<You Jehovahs are always knocking on my door!>> I have never heard anyone solidly based in the {Truth} use that form.
NOTE: These days the {politically correct} term when talking about unconfirmed bad acts is alleged. But anyone can make allegations; the elders don't appoint a {judicial committee} until it has been seen that there is a basis for it.
NOTE: Unbelievers have criticized the Christian arrangement for judging and when necessary {disfellowshipping} wrongdoers, overlooking that the practice is sanctioned in God's Word. (1Co 5:11-13) But consider the superiority of the theocratic judicial process as compared to what takes place in today's courts. The modern judicial system is not designed to serve true justice. Paid lawyers on one side have the job of convicting an accused person, and paid lawyers on the other side have the job of defending him; both try their best to win regardless of the actual guilt or innocence of the accused one. Under the theocratic judicial arrangement all persons assigned to judge a case are concerned first of all about finding out the truth of what happened, and if wrongs have been committed, with helping to restore the errant one's relationship with Jehovah, nursing him back to good spiritual health. It is only in a case when a patently unrepentant sinner refuses to be helped that disfellowshipping must take place, for the protection of the congregation and ultimate good of even the wrongdoer, who may be shocked into an appreciation for Jehovah's righteous standards. (Compare 2Sa 24:14.)
| Glossary: |