Email to William Kelly, Author of "Are Jehovah's Witnesses False Prophets?"

Below is the body of a message that I just sent to William Kelly, a Witness apologist, pertaining to his book written to defend Witness leaders against the charge that they are false prophets. I do not know if he will see it, since the most recent post on his blog, which is where the contact form was located, is already several years old. However, if I do not get a response I will attempt to find his email address (which may very well be readily available on his blog; I haven't checked) and ask him that way.

___

I purchased and have read your book "Are Jehovah's Witnesses False Prophets". While I think you do a good job articulating a defense to the accusation that Witness leaders are false prophets, I think you overlook several arguments that support the charge that at least some Witness leaders have engaged in false prophecy. Consequently, I think your apologetic effort is at best incomplete and so does not really substantiate your negative answer to the titular question.

There are occasions, it seems to me, where Witness publications claim that some of their teachings, including the "present truth" chronology is "absolutely and unqualifiedly correct", or to present not their own or human interpretation, but God's own angelically-given or spirit-given interpretation of prophecy. Given the falsity of at least some of what is claimed, this seems to rise to the level of false prophecy.

Moreover, the implicit definition of false prophet used by Witness leaders to condemn "the clergy", when applied by Christian critics, seems to indicate that Witness leaders are false prophets. Since, what counts as false doctrine or bad fruit to such a critic differs from what it means to a Witness.

And the definition in "Reasoning From the Scriptures" seems applicable to Witness leaders. And I think that, when applied, it indicates that at least some of them have been false prophets.

Lastly, I think the related issue of credibility needs to be addressed. What good does it do to exonerate Witness leaders of the charge of being false prophets if the Witness organization's track record of prophetic interpretation is bad? I would argue that it is bad. And, if so, this fact would seems to discredit the claims to authority or organizational legitimacy made by such Witness leaders. And this is only slightly less problematic than would be the conclusion that they are false prophets.

If you are interested in discussing this or in providing feedback to an essay I am writing on this point, let me know. My email is tubertheologian@gmail.com

A Prophet by Any Other Name (Part Three)

     So far we have not offered our own definition of what a false prophet is. Now it would be appropriate to do so; doing so will furnish an additional argument that some Witness leaders are false prophets, one which is closely related to that which was just concluded. I think the definition provided in the Jehovah’s Witness book Reasoning From the Scriptures is a good definition. “Individuals and organizations proclaiming messages that they attribute to a superhuman source but that do not originate with the true God and are not in harmony with his revealed will.” (p. 132)

  Before using it, however, we need to clarify what is meant by “attribute”. Should we say that claiming that a certain passage in the Bible, X, means Y is to attribute something to God? If so and if what is claimed is false, is this to falsely attribute something to God? In a sense, perhaps. However, this by itself does not seem to make such an interpretation a false prophecy. Clearly, therefore, “attribute” must be meant in some sort of more robust sense. Consider another scenario. Suppose I claim that my biblical interpretation, Y, is God’s own interpretation of something in the Bible, X. Further, I claim that God revealed that X = Y to me through angels and/or the Holy Spirit because I am part of his sole channel of communication on earth and that otherwise no one, including myself, could have known it. (Incidentally, this interpretation bolsters my own authority as a religious leader whom you ought to, at least generally, believe and show deference to.) This sort of attribution seems to be the sort of thing that this definition of a false prophet means to include when it says that such a person “attribute[s a message] to a superhuman source”. In this scenario, the interpretation I teach is supposedly a revelation, not the product of my own conjecture. It purports to make what is, in fact, my own interpretation, come from God no less than did the original passage, to which it is supposedly equivalent in meaning.

  Importantly, claiming a specific mode of enlightenment or inspiration or infallibility is not part of the definition offered in this Witness publication. Admittedly, in the same chapter in which the above definition is given they write, “Jehovah’s Witnesses do not claim to be inspired prophets.” But they stop short of making such a claim part of their definition of a false prophet, presumably because they intend for this definition to cover a wide variety of cases, including those who may have little or no awareness of biblical prophets. And given that there are robust ways to attribute a message to a superhuman source without claiming to be inspired à la the biblical prophets or without claiming to be inerrant, it is reasonable to omit claiming either of these things from one’s definition of a false prophet. 

The definition offered by Witnesses in Reasoning From the Scriptures is sufficiently broad as to include both predictions and doctrine as well as those who attribute their message to God and those who attribute it to a false god. Yet it remains specific enough to exclude mere human conjecture that most people would not classify alongside ostensible prophetic utterances. It also fits well with the Biblical descriptions of false prophets.

Considering the evidence discussed above, I would suggest that at least some Witness leaders (e.g., those who claimed that they were not offering their own interpretations but God’s own, angelically or spirit-given interpretation) are false prophets by this Witness definition.

A Prophet by Any Other Name (Part One)

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. 

[1] I don't recall seeing this in Witness literature, but I have read individual Witnesses make this argument from analogy to Jonah.

A Prophet by Any Other Name (Introduction)

 A Prophet by Any Other Name

"These speculating ones may acknowledge that some of their past theories were wrong, but they do not show they have learned the lesson from these mistakes by refraining from bringing forth new theories." - February 1, 1952 Watchtower, pp. 80-81

“True, there have been those in times past who predicted an “end to the world,” even announcing a specific date. Some have gathered groups of people with them and fled to the hills or withdrawn into their houses waiting for the end. Yet nothing happened. The “end” did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying.” - October 8, 1968 Awake!, p. 23

Are the religious leaders of the Jehovah’s Witnesses false prophets? My answer is that at least some Witness leaders are likely false prophets. While there are exculpatory statements found throughout the Witness literary corpus, there are other damning statements that, to my mind, are hard to explain away by the methods usually adopted by Witness apologists. These statements may be at odds with the passages that Witness apologists cite in order to show that none of their leaders are false prophets, but all this reveals is that sometimes Witness leaders are either confused or duplicitous. But neither of these options nullify the presumptuous claims they have frequently made.

A key piece of evidence to answer the question given at the outset – with respect to Witness leadership as a whole, or to particular Witness leaders, such as Joseph Rutherford – will be to examine what they themselves have said about the nature and origin of their teachings. Accordingly, such evidence will play a key part in the essay to follow. Additionally, four compilations of quotations from Witness publications are included as appendices to this essay. The first list contains exculpatory claims, which tend to exonerate their leaders of the charge of being false prophets. The following three lists contain inculpatory evidence, which tend to substantiate the charge that at least some of their leaders are false prophets. The first of these three contains quotations that more directly contradict their more qualified, exculpatory claims. The second of these takes a less direct approach. It contains quotations that reveal an implicit definition of what a false prophet is that is used by Witnesses against others, especially the clergy of Christendom. In fairness it ought to be applied to their own leaders. The last of these lists contains further quotations wherein Witness leaders describe their authority and teaching office as the sole visible channel of communication used by God. Given the quotations presented in these three lists, one ought to suspect that no matter how vehemently Witness leaders may deny being inspired, infallible or the like their situation is much like Caesar’s, who denied the title king but aimed to possess the powers thereof. 

A fair consideration of the evidence will vindicate my claim that at least some Witness leaders are likely false prophets. However, even if Witness apologists could successfully refute this accusation, they would not have evaded the lesser included charge. For, whether they are false prophets or merely false teachers, Witness leaders have a poor track record of interpreting prophecies. Since they rely in no small part on their and their organization’s supposed place in end-times prophetic fulfillment to establish their own authority and the legitimacy of their organization and its restorationist claims, the fact that they have such a poor track record interpreting prophecy necessarily undermines their religious authority. This will be the argument of the final portion of this essay.

For the sake of this essay I am assuming that one is familiar with what Witnesses have claimed about various dates, such as 1799, 1874, 1878, 1914, 1919, 1925, and 1975. While such claims are not the only teachings made by Witness leaders that are relevant to the present topic, they are often central to this discussion. So, if one is not familiar with Witness chronologies, I suggest that he examines such claims first. For the remainder of this essay it will be assumed that any reader is familiar with the many false claims, including predictions, that Witness leaders have made about such dates.

Witness Theology Affirms that God is Literally a Body (Part One)

In this essay, I will defend my claim that Witness theology affirms that God is essentially a body. What I mean is that according to Witness theology God is a spatially extended and likely composite substance. God has volume, occupies space, and is apparently made of parts. I am not claiming that Witness publications assert that he has a physical body. Nor am I saying that any Witness publications make the claim I am attributing to their theology in the exact words I have used. But I am saying that Witness literature holds to the position itself however exactly it is articulated. What follows are my reasons for making this claim.

Witness publications state that God has a body or an organism. (April 23, 1924 Golden Age, p. 452; March 8, 1963 Awake!, pp. 27-28) The mere use of these English terms clearly suggest the idea of spatial extension and, at least, implies composition. This is especially the case for the following two reasons. First, the affirmation that God has a body was made to distinguish the Bible Student / Witness position from those who deny that God (in his divinity) is in any way bodily. Second, such publications make this claim – that God has a body or organism – about every living thing, including those of familiar experience, such as ourselves, who are somatically composite, spatially extended beings. (Study in the Scriptures Vol. I, p. 200; Insight on the Scriptures Vol. I, p. 348; Vol. II, p. 246) If, for instance, Russell had wanted to say that God was a non-spatially extended mental substance, he would have said, “We can imagine both our divine Father or our Lord Jesus as merely great minds without bodies.” But what he said was the opposite. Likewise, if the writers of Insight on the Scriptures had meant to exclude any idea of composition or extension with respect to God, they simply could have said that unlike all other living things God (or spirits generally) do not have a body or organism. They say the opposite.

While Witness publications explain biblical references to God having particular, human-like bodily features as examples of anthropomorphisms, they nowhere apply such an explanation to their affirmation that God is a body. Rather, anthropomorphism is used to clarify the sort of body that God has. (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. I, p. 348) That he has a body of some sort is taken for granted in Witness literature. And given that the explanation of anthropomorphism is not applied to this claim we should understand that, according to Witness theology, God is at least spatially extended if not also somatically composite, since these things are true of bodies generally. Moreover, in positing anthropomorphism as an explanation for biblical references to God’s eyes, ears, and the like, Insight on the Scriptures comments, “It is not to be supposed that he literally possesses these organs in the way that we know them.” (Ibid.) This statement apparently leaves open the possibility that God does possess some organs corresponding to those which he does not literally have. If this – my suggestion that their literature at least leaves this possibility open – is correct, then this reveals something important about how Witness theology conceives of “body” in general or “spiritual body” in particular.

Witness publications state that God can “literally” be seen by angels and the glorified Anointed. (December 1, 1966 Watchtower, pp. 710-711) This is significant, because it is hard to see how an unextended substance without any appearance can be literally seen by anyone. So, from this statement it is natural to infer that, according to this Witness publication, God is, indeed, a spatially extended being.

Relatedly, Joseph Rutherford infers that the spiritual body of Christ could be seen even by men. Concerning this point, he states in The Harp of God that a man could “look upon [the body with which Jesus ascended on high] and live . . . by the miraculous power of Jehovah.” Admittedly, neither this book nor any other Witness publication claims that any man has actually seen Christ’s resurrection body itself. Nevertheless, it is claimed that it was this body – and not a merely materialized form – with which he appeared to the Apostle Paul on the Damascus road. Accordingly, Paul, it was said, received “a partial revelation of the great spirit creature, Christ Jesus,” namely, the blinding “light from his glorious body.” (The Harp of God, pp. 171-172; January 22, 1957 Awake!, p. 25) Or, in the words of Charles Taze Russell, whose Bible Student movement gave rise to Jehovah’s Witnesses and several other groups, “Saul of Tarsus caught a . . . glimpse of Christ's glorious body shining above the brightness of the sun at noonday.” (Studies in the Scriptures Vol. I, p. 183) 

So according to these Witness publications Christ’s body can be located within this universe and the light from it is visible to the human eye, albeit with deleterious effect. Moreover, Rutherford supposed that Christ’s body could, in principle, be seen by men, even if it never was. To hold to these positions requires supposing Christ’s spiritual body to be spatially extended and to have an appearance of some sort. This is significant because the resurrection body of Christ (and the resurrection bodies of the Anointed) are said to be “like unto Jehovah God.” (The Harp of God, pp. 171-172) Hence, we might reasonably infer that, according to the view expressed in these publications, God’s body is likewise spatially extended and, in principle, visible to men.

Likewise, Witness literature appears to teach that angels, whose glory is less than God’s, have been seen by men wholly apart from materializing physical bodies, which is the usual method Witness theology ascribes to angelic appearances. In particular, it seems that Witness publications claim that Balaam, his donkey, Elisha, and his attendant saw the spiritual bodies of at least one angel and some of the heavenly hosts, respectively. If this is the correct reading of these Witness claims about these incidents, this indicates that their literature at least implicitly teaches that such spiritual bodies are spatial – they have a location and are extended at least along the three dimensions familiar to us. Concerning the angelic appearance to Balaam and his donkey, the September 1, 1984 Watchtower states that “Jehovah opened Balaam’s eyes to see present an angel, a superhuman spirit.” (p. 31; Italics mine.) Likewise, Insight on the Scriptures states the following with respect to the incident at Dothan. “Here the prophet’s fearful attendant had his eyes miraculously opened to see the fiery war equipment of God.” (Vol. I, p. 647; Italics mine.) Since these publications describe the manner in which these men (and donkey) saw the angel or spiritual armed forces of God as God opening their eyes, I suggest that what is meant is that such persons were miraculously given the ability to see these spirits in their natural, spiritual condition as opposed to these spirits merely materializing temporary, physical bodies, which would have been visible to all. 

Russell, affirmed the position which I just attributed to more recent Witness literature. In the first volume of Studies in the Scriptures, he clearly distinguishes the appearances of the angel to Balaam and his donkey and the appearance of the angelic hosts to Elisha and his attendant from the angelic power to “assume human bodies and appear as men.” (pp. 182-183; Italics original.) He first cites these incidents as examples that shows that angels “can be and frequently are present,” albeit (usually) invisibly. Then, only after discussing these incidents does he say, “Secondly, angels can assume human bodies and appear as men.” This shows that he thought that when these angels were seen by Balaam, his donkey, and Elisha, and his attendant that they were seen in their natural form: that is, their spiritual bodies were seen. And this at least implicitly commits him to affirming that the spiritual bodies of angels are spatially extended, since otherwise they could not be made visible to men. I see no reason to think that later Witness literature deviated from this position.

That Witness publications comment on God’s appearance and volume also indicates that they conceive of God’s spiritual body as a spatially extended substance. After raising the question “What kind of body does God have,” the May 2013, Awake! states, “Our Creator is so superior to us that we cannot even begin to imagine what he looks like.” (pp. 14-15) In a similar vein, the July 22, 1979 Awake! comments, “Jehovah God, Christ Jesus and the angels all have spirit bodies, and those who go to heaven receive similar spirit bodies. How big the bodies of spirit persons are – whether God, for example, has a much bigger body than Christ or the angels – or what their bodies look like, we do not know.” (p. 27) Claiming that questions pertaining to the appearance and size of spiritual bodies are not presently answerable by men shows that the concept of body that Witness theology applies to God, Christ, and the bodies of other spirit beings is one that includes extension (and is, at least, consistent with composition). That Witness publications treat these as valid questions (as opposed to category errors) requires us to make this inference.

Witness literature has always taught that God is not omnipresent but is rather located somewhere. Prior to the 1950s it was taught that God lives somewhere within and governs the entire universe from the Pleiades, perhaps Alycone, which was described in one of Russell’s books as “the central one of the renowned Pleiadic stars”, in particular. (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. III, p. 327; June 15, 1915 Watchtower, p. 185; Reconciliation, p. 14) Since the time this teaching fell out of favor, which was at least by the time of the writing of the November 15, 1953 Watchtower (p. 703), the claim has been made that the spiritual realm in which he dwells is outside of the physical universe. (March 8, 2005 Awake!, p. 20) In both cases, however, God is said to reside at “a very specific location”. And this is the key point, since being located somewhere indicates spatial extension. So it is reasonable to infer that Witness theology teaches that God’s body is spatially extended.

Witness literature affirm ontological composition of some kind in God. Like all living beings he has a body and life-force. In his case, it is an inexhaustible, inherent life-force. That body and life-force are different is clearly taught in Insight on the Scriptures, which says, “All things having life, either spiritual or fleshly, have an organism, or body. Life itself is impersonal, incorporeal, being merely the life principle.” (Vol. II, p. 246) So, should it be surprising if Witness theology also taught that God’s spiritual body is also composite? Given the other indications that their publications at least implicitly teach this, I do not think so.

Witness publications teach that the spiritual bodies of angels, which resemble those of God, Christ, and the Anointed, are corruptible. “Angels, though spirit creatures, are shown to have corruptible bodies, inasmuch as they are declared to be subject to destruction.” (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. I, p. 1197) It would seem that for a body to be corruptible it must be composed of parts; in other words, such a body is composite. So, since Witness theology appears to at least be implicitly committed to the composition of some spiritual bodies, this gives us reason to think that it would also hold that God’s spiritual body is likewise composite, even if he, like some other spirit persons, has an incorruptible body.

For these reasons it is at least reasonable to conclude that Witness theology teaches that God is a spatially extended, likely composite substance, albeit not a material one. It is beyond the scope of this essay to argue against this view. Nevertheless it is at least worth noting that this view is a further difference between the Witness doctrine of God and the traditional Christian doctrine of God. Consider, for instance, how the Articles of Religion of the Church of England describes God. “There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions.” That there is such a difference is at least noteworthy for persons on both sides of the debate. And there is some apologetic significance to this fact. Though, how impactful this difference remains given the rise of open-theism, so-called theistic personalism, and the prevalence in folk theology of a mutable God remains to be seen.

Now, there are to my knowledge at least two statements in Witness publications that might not too implausibly be used to challenge this claim, at least when viewed in isolation. And it is to these that I will turn in the second part of this essay.

Updated 8.29.2024

9.8.2024: At some time after finishing the 8.29.2024 revision of the essay, I came across the following quotation, which is further evidence of my claim. (I've also added it and a few other quotations to my compilations of quotations, which are contained in another blog post.) “Before God began creating he was all alone in space, from time without beginning.” (“Your Will Be Done on Earth”, p. 14)

Sufficient to Stand Though Free to Fall

In “There May Be Hell to Pay” I argued that Witness opposition to either an eternal or remedial hell as necessarily unjust is untenable given their commitment to the peccability and immortality of the glorified Anointed class. Their own doctrines lead them to affirm the possibility of at least one of these options. (Likely just the former, given their affirmation of irrevocable judgment and the possibility of committing an unforgivable sin.) The only way for them to avoid this is to affirm the impeccability of the Anointed. Will they? I think that is highly unlikely. Can they? Maybe, but not without some revision to their theology.

It is central to Witness theology as it currently stands that man – or any rational creature – has free will, which by their definition, includes the ability to choose to do good or evil. Such an ability is part of what it meant for man to be made in the image of God. In the words of the November 1, 1978 Watchtower, “Man’s ability to choose between right and wrong, between serving the true God Jehovah or serving self and false gods shows him to be a free moral agent, created in the image and likeness of Jehovah God.” If men could only do good, then they would be “robots”. (p. 12) “Robots” is exactly how another, November 15, 1955 Watchtower article describes redeemed mankind if they were unable to sin. (p. 703) Similarly, an article in the August 15, 1971 Watchtower reasons that if men were unable to sin, then they would be “like machines”. The article continues, “Therefore, if the [first] human pair had not had this ability to choose, they would actually have been incomplete, imperfect, according to God’s standards.”

In Witness theology, free will, which is a necessary aspect of man’s being in the image of God and a precondition for genuine love, includes a potential for sin. (Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 428) Such an ability was inherent in man in his initial perfect state. Accordingly, it is no surprise that Witness literature explicitly affirms the possibility for post-restoration, perfect mankind to sin. They are returning to perfection, which, while it did not include actual sin, did include the potential for it. Given Witness anthropology, if redeemed mankind lacked the ability to sin, they would not be perfect, but would rather lack the image of God.

Even Jesus, who they say “worked for aeons with the Father” prior to coming to earth was still able to sin while upon the earth. When he became man, he was “still a free moral agent” who had “freedom of choice – either to be faithful or unfaithful”. (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. II, pp. 67-68) All this despite the fact that, as they say, his and his father’s mutual love is greater than any other love. “It can rightly be called the oldest and strongest bond of love in the whole universe.” (“Come Be My Follower”, pp. 130-132) If billions of years of perfect virtue, ever-increasing knowledge of God, and the strongest love for God did not absolutely remove the possibility of sin, what, in Witness theology, could a creature gain so as to become impeccable? Evidently, nothing.

Nevertheless, the Witness denial of creaturely impeccability is bizarre. They rightly claim that God, who has absolute freedom, cannot sin. “Jehovah God, however, cannot act contrary to what he is – the holy, all-wise and almighty God.” (January 22, 1977 Awake!, p. 28) Moreover, they seem to affirm that the damned (i.e., those who receive eternal annihilation) are fixed in their evil ways. This last claim appears to be made of King Saul, whose heart, they say, “had gone bad, to the point of no return.” (June 15, 1965 Watchtower, p. 362) Admittedly, I have not found any publication that says that King Saul will not be resurrected. Nevertheless, the claim that the wills of the damned are incapable of repentance is arguably entailed by their claim that some people will be annihilated forever. Why destroy them if they would eventually have come around to faith and repentance? In fact, they explicitly state that wicked persons “may become depraved, incorrigible, irreformable. The Bible compares such a person to a leopard that cannot change its spots. . . . Beyond repentance, the individual commits what the Bible calls “everlasting sin,” for which there is no forgiveness.” (December 1, 2011 Watchtower, p. 24)

So, on the one hand they affirm the potential to sin is a necessary consequence of the genuine freedom that true love requires. And yet, they affirm that at least one person, God, has a will that is only capable of good; and they arguably affirm that some persons may possess wills that are incapable of repentance (i.e., incapable of good). These beliefs provide some theological resources that could be used to reach the conclusion that the redeemed will become impeccable, incapable of sin. However, what is true of God is not invariably true of creatures, both in actuality and in Witness theology. Moreover, it is one thing for those who are annihilated to lose what Witnesses see as an essential element of the image of God, the ability to choose good or evil, and another for the redeemed, who actually attain to perfection, to lose it. In other words, just because God and perhaps the damned have wills whose fundamental dispositions are inalterable does not mean that perfect creatures would. 

As things stand, Witnesses explicitly affirm that creatures will always remain peccable, capable of sin. They have some conceptual resources at their disposal to come to the opposite conclusion, though doing so will require altering other doctrines they espouse. For instance, they may have to adopt a view of the will that would hinder their polemics against monergistic accounts of conversion, especially that which is articulated in Reformed theology. It will also require adopting new doctrines, such as one that corresponds to the doctrine of the beatific vision, an idea that is strikingly absent in Witness theology.

At any rate, the continued peccability of creatures is not an incidental feature of their theology as it actually is. And this serves to strengthen the argument I made in “There May Be Hell to Pay”. As long as they affirm the peccability of immortal creatures, Witnesses cannot object to either an eternal, punitive hell or, perhaps, a remedial hell. And this is not a small blow to Witness polemics.