Witness cosmogony is what Witness theology holds about the origin of everything that is not God the Father, since they hold that he alone is uncreated. Key parts of their cosmogony include that there was an eternal past preceding creation, the Son is the only creature directly created by the Father, and the one through whom all other creatures were made. Each of these key aspects of their cosmogony, however, are contradicted by other doctrines they hold. It will be the purpose of this essay to describe these contractions. It is, if not the completion of the work begun in our essay Alone Directly Created?, at least a significant addition to it.
Creation of out Nothing
Witness literature affirms creation out of nothing. The 1953 book “New Heavens and a New Earth”. pp. 22-23 rejects “dualism,” the idea that there is uncreated eternal matter out of which God made things, in favor of the claim that God creates things “out of nothing” and is therefore “the First Cause of all else.” Over a decade later, the 1965 book “Things in Which it is Impossible For God to Lie”. p. 15 makes the subtle point that, even if “matter has always existed . . . then the Creator of matter has always existed.” That is, God would still be the Creator of eternal matter just as he is, in fact, the creator of matter that did not always exist. This doctrine is articulated in subsequent publications as well. For instance, the 1977 book Life Does Have a Purpose, p. 8 says, “Suppose we were to take the position that there is no Creator. Then we would be obliged to say that the universe has always existed, that the matter in it is eternal. Yet clear evidence shows that matter has not always existed.” The 1998 book Is There a Creator Who Cares About You?, p. 88 asks, “Does the Bible give us any idea as to how God produced all of these [visible things that make up the universe] out of nothing?” And the February 15, 2011 Watchtower, p. 6: “Starting with no preexisting material, Jehovah used his holy spirit—his powerful active force—to create the physical heavens, the earth, and everything else in the universe.”
God Not Always Creator
Witness theology holds that for most of eternal time, there was no creation. “Have we ever thought about what is implied by the expressions ‘the Creator of the heavens,’ also, ‘God, who created all things’? Those expressions imply that there was a time when God was all alone. . . . No creation existed. So, for an eternal past this God was all by himself and he had not yet become a Creator.” (God’s “Eternal Purpose” Now Triumphing for Man’s Good, p. 26-27) This claim is also entailed by their doctrine that the Son is the first creature and the only one directly created by God; since there was a time before he existed, there was a time before any other creature else existed, too.
Time, Space, and Energy
An article in the May 15, 1955 Watchtower, pp. 302-303 gives a very interesting description of time, space, and “various energies, spiritual and physical” that is worth quoting in its entirety.
“The Bible itself likens Jehovah God to a sun. (Ps. 84:11) As a sun radiates energy ever outwardly, so from God there has radiated eternally in all directions forms of various energies, spiritual and physical. This everlasting brilliant effusion can be described as the glory of God. These energies ever traveling into the outer reaches in very brief moments of “time” have filled what is called “space.” For this reason it is understood that “time” and “space” are as eternal as God, for God himself has had no beginning. (Ps. 90:2) If God decrees the holding back of physical energy at any one point in space, mass or matter immediately forms. (Rev. 4:11) Professor Einstein ascertained this basic truth from the Book of Nature when he discovered the law that energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. Therefore, everything that exists has been created from energy that originally emanated from the Great Source of the universe, Jehovah.”
This article appears to claim that time and space are caused by the emanation and movement of various energies that constitute the glory of God. At any rate, it teaches that time, space, and these energies are coeternal with God, whatever the causal relationship that exists between them. There has never been a time when time, space, or his energies did not exist. This means that there are two or three (depending on whether these energies are a metaphysical part of God or not, more on that below) creatures that have always existed and which, therefore, are not made through Christ. They serve as notable exceptions to the claim that the Son is the only creature directly created by God and the one through whom all other creatures are made; and it also entails that there has been no time when God has not been Creator.
Has this cosmogonical picture been carried on by subsequent literature? Largely. Time, as we have noted elsewhere,[1] is still regarded as coeternal with God. God, they say, is a body, so there has always been at least some portion of space that has existed, since a body occupies space. And even if newer publications are not as explicit as to the volume of this space (older publications call it infinite) they presumably would not claim that God was cramped in a universe coextensive with himself. So, then, Witness theology holds that there has always been some amount of eternal space that was not wholly occupied by God’s body.
God’s “various energies, spiritual and physical” are a somewhat different story, however. We have not found any subsequent publication that explicitly refers to energies being emanated by God since past eternity, though, there is reason to think that their theology still espouses that his energy is eternal. Nor have we found any publications that make a distinction between physical and spiritual energies. But subsequent publications continue to identify God’s energy with energy as used in the formula E=MC2 and the frequently invoked principle that energy and matter are convertible into each other. So, despite some change either in the details of the doctrine or how it is articulated, it remains substantially the same – similar enough for the argument we will go on to make.
A key aspect of their cosmogony is that God creates with his energy, not by using it as an instrumental efficient cause but as a material cause.[2] His energy is not itself a creature, but is rather some sort of part of him. And so, while it does not provide a further exception to the claim that the Son is the only directly created creature, it does pose a discrepancy to their affirmation of creation out of nothing, besides having other absurd consequences. We will make this clear by first conducting a thorough (though perhaps not exhaustive) historical survey of what Witness literature has said since the 1955 article quoted above, while making some comments along the way, and then by presenting in one place our reasons for thinking that Witness literature does, in fact, teach this.
1. The February 1, 1957 Watchtower, p. 73 states that matter came “into existence . . . by some great Source of energy . . . we recognize as God.”
2. The July 15, 1961 Watchtower, pp. 425-428 asks, “Who concentrated such incomprehensible energy as is bound up in minute atoms, the invisible particles of all physical matter?” Then it answers, “Jehovah the all-powerful Creator is the only true and original Source of all dynamic energy and vigorous power.” And it says of him, “Surely His power and energy are far greater than these things that he made,” for which Isaiah 40:26 is cited. The article also calls him “the very Fountainhead of all dynamic energy and vigorous power.”
3. The 1969 book Is the Bible Really the Word of God?, pp. 15-17, says that “the Genesis account goes far beyond the confused theories of twentieth-century science. How so? They do not come to grips with the major question: Where did the original matter or matter-producing energy come from to form the universe in the first place. But the Bible answers that question.”
The book then goes on to state, “Interestingly, there seems to be one point on which most modern scientists agree. Following Einstein's equation, they hold that just as matter can be converted into energy, so energy can be converted into matter. If this is so, it would mean that an intelligent Source of tremendous energy would have no problem producing a material universe.” The book, quoting Isaiah 40:26 and citing Jeremiah 10:10-12, says, “The Bible speaks of that One as Jehovah God.”
4. The 1988 theological encyclopedia Insight on the Scriptures Vol. II, p. 1020, a revision of the 1971 Aid to Bible Understanding, p. 1544, which contained a nearly identical paragraph, states, “Modern science speaks of matter as organized energy, like bundles of energy, and recognizes that ‘matter can be changed into energy and energy into matter.’” Both books also continue, “The immensity of the universe that man has thus far been able to discern with his telescopes gives some slight concept of the inexhaustible source of energy to be found in Jehovah God.”
The description of matter as organized bundles of energy fits with the 1955 description of material objects as being God’s physical energies that are held back at particular points in space, and the 1961 description of matter as concentrated energy. And the principle of the convertibility of matter and energy, as was stated above, will be a running theme of subsequent literature. Notice that according to the description given in these books, the production of matter out of energy does not involve making matter ex nihilo, but merely involves the change of energy into matter. The phrase “the inexhaustible source of energy to be found in Jehovah God” suggests to us that this energy has always been with him and is, indeed, a part of his being.
5. The November 1, 1972 Watchtower, p. 645 states:
“It [the universe] could not come from nothing, for something never comes from nothing. Such a mighty concentration of dynamic energy as this establishment [universe] has in itself could never come from a hollow vacuum, from emptiness. According to our reasoning powers with which we have been gifted, it had to come from a central, inexhaustible source of power and energy. And that “source” would have to be intelligent, having know-how besides almighty ability.”
The principle ex nihilo nihil fit, which the article invokes, is consistent with creatio ex nihilo provided that the former be taken as only expressing the absolute necessity of a first efficient cause. That an efficient cause is needed, Witness theology clearly affirms. However, in our opinion Witness literature also seeks for a pre-existing material cause of the creation, albeit one that does not exist independently of God.
6. The 1976 book Holy Spirit—The Force Behind the Coming New Order!, pp. 8-9 states:
“All the things of the universe are bundles of particles of energy from him. These have been brought together into masses large and small. The twentieth-century scientist Albert Einstein worked out this formula for it: energy equals mass times the speed of light squared (or, E=mc2). Little wonder, then, that this Source of all energy finds nothing impossible for himself.”
This book also speaks of the energy that is “tied up in the sun of our solar system,” (p. 10) which is a description that is reminiscent of the previous descriptions of matter related above: matter is God’s energy that has been held back, been concentrated, been organized, been bundled together. God is also called the “Source of all energy” which may have a bearing as to the relationship between God and his energy, perhaps suggesting that it is a created thing, though we will have more to say on that below.
7. The 1977 book Life Does Have a Purpose, pp. 9-10 says that scientists have found “evidence that all matter is the product of energy,” that is to say, composed of energy. The source of this energy, the book says, “must be a person, with a mind far superior to man’s.”
8. The January 8, 1979 Awake!, pp. 4-6 raises the problem of how there is any material in existence, before stating:
“The vast majority of scientists today agree with Czech astrophysicist Josip Kleczek, who said in The Universe: “Most and possibly all elementary particles may be created by materialization of energy.” He then referred to Einstein’s famous formula E=mc2 (energy equals mass times the speed of light squared), which shows that matter can be produced from a tremendous source of energy. Scientifically, then, it is possible for matter to be created from a source of “high energy.” “But,” lamented one outstanding physicist, “where the energy came from we don’t know.”
“So, what logical conclusion can we reach? Simply this: That a source of “high energy” must have been that eternal “something” from which this material universe originated. This conclusion is backed up by the well-tested Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy, which says that energy-mass can neither be created nor destroyed, but merely converted from one to the other. Hence, science acknowledges that from an eternal source of energy you could get the material universe.”
Again, in describing the origin of the universe, Witness literature appeals to physical laws and formulae (the “Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy” and “Einstein’s famous formula E=mc^2”) which implicitly and bizarrely identifies the energy that God is the source of with physical energy. The origin of the universe has to be “scientifically” possible, as if physical science can explain the universe’ origin.
Particularly noteworthy is the claim that God (the “source of ‘high energy’”) must be eternal because of the “well-tested Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy, which says that energy-mass can neither be created nor destroyed, but merely converted to the other.” God’s eternality is supposedly proven by the uncreatability and eternality of energy. This seems to entail that the energy that God converts is part of him, since it is hard to see how a creature can be both eternal and uncreatable.
Moreover, notice that the origin of the universe is not described as God creating energy (i.e., out of nothing, which is ruled out by applying the “Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy” to the origin of the universe) but as his converting his energy into matter according to scientific law. This is not how those who truly affirm creation out of nothing speak.
9. The 1980 book Happiness – How to Find It, p. 31 states:
“With Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 scientists explain that all matter is nothing more than energy locked up in the basic atoms. . . . Imagine the awesome power of the Creator who put together all [sic] the atoms in the universe. Thousands of years before Einstein was born, the Scriptures acknowledged that the Supreme Being is the source of tremendous energy. (Isaiah 40:29)”
The description of matter as energy that has been locked up fits well with the previous descriptions of matter being energy that has been held back, been organized, been bundled together, or tied up, and so on. Again, God is said to be the source of the energy that makes up the material universe. And the energy that God is the source of is equated with energy as described in these physical laws.
10. The April 15, 1980 Watchtower, p. 29 asks the question, “Of what is our universe made?” It proceeds to cite a “‘Science Digest Special’ magazine issue” that made the following claims. “If there is any ultimate stuff of the universe, it is pure energy . . . but subatomic particles are not ‘made of’ energy, they ARE energy. . . . [sic] According to particle physics, the world is fundamentally dancing energy.” The article again refers to this magazine when it says that, “Governing this energy, and ‘limiting the forms that it can take,’ explains the magazine, ‘are a set of conservation laws.’” The Watchtower then proceeds to claim:
“This agrees nicely with the Bible’s description of God as the Source of all energy. He may well have used his energy in creating the stuff of the universe, evidently by ordaining “conservation laws” to govern the energy.—Isa. 40:26.”
This article at least suggests what previous and subsequent publications say more confidently, God “used his energy in creating the [material] stuff of the universe.” Since matter just is “dancing” energy, energy that is governed by “a set of conservation laws,” this amounts to God taking his energy and controlling it so as to form material particles; his energy, then, is the answer to the question “Of what is our universe made.” This is a pretty clear suggestion of creatio ex deo.
That it is presented as a suggestion, however, should not be taken as indicating that this position is something Witness theology only considers and not also something it actually holds. First, it is a feature of Witness literature to sometimes express its theological position in tentative language, without intending really to merely suggest an idea it, in fact, actually espouses. Second, that this “suggestion” fits so well with what previous and subsequent literature says without qualification (“may”) reveals the true mindset of Witness theology when it makes these claims without such quotations. Third, even if this publication merely meant to suggest this as a possible answer, it still reveals that their thinking about creatio ex nihilo is extremely muddled at best. A true adherent of creatio ex nihilio would never even bother suggesting that God takes some of his own energy and turns it into matter according to “a set of conservation laws.”
Interestingly, the magazine suggests that God ordained “conservation laws,” which implies that such laws are not a necessary feature of reality. Yet, they do not draw the inference that it is therefore misguided to inquire into the origin of the universe by seeking to apply such “conservation laws” that have not always held true.
11. The September 22, 1980 Awake!, p. 8 states that the “Creator produced the vast universe and all the things in it . . . By his great power. The universe is made up of matter that had to come from a source of boundless energy.”
12. The October 1, 1980 Watchtower (p. 6) asks, “Is it not more logical to accept the Bible account that states that the material universe is an expression of God’s ‘dynamic energy’ (for Einstein and others have shown that matter is a form of energy)?”
Here again is an implicit identification of God’s dynamic energy with energy in E=mc2. The description of the energy as God’s suggests that it is a part of him. Moreover, the phrase “expression of God’s ‘dynamic energy’” when used in the context of the constant appeal to E=mc2 and the principle that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed but only converted into each other, suggests that the universe is not the effect of the energy (understood as its efficient cause) but merely a particular form his energy has taken on (i.e., his energy is the pre-existing material cause of the universe).
13. The February 22, 1981 Awake!, p. 12 states:
“But the Bible does more than ask ‘Who put matter and energy into the universe?’ It points to the reasonable answer—the Creator, God. And consistent with Einstein’s discovery that energy and matter are interconvertible, the Bible testifies that the Creator is a source of tremendous “dynamic energy.”—Gen. 1:1; Ps. 90:2; Isa. 40:26-29.”
Notice that this publication does not claim that God’s energy created physical energy (i.e., out of nothing) but that God’s being the source of “tremendous ‘dynamic energy’” is said to be “consistent” with “Einstein’s discovery that energy and matter are interconvertible.” God “put matter and energy into the universe” by utilizing his own energy, not as an instrumental efficient cause, but (per previous descriptions of matter) as that which he holds back, concentrates, organizes, bundles, ties up, or locks up to form matter. He converts his energy into matter; he does not create it out of nothing.
Also observe how the existence of God is merely called “the reasonable answer.” Something can be reasonable without being true or even the only reasonable answer. It is a humble, tentative way to describe something that their theology holds as obvious and incontrovertible.
14. An article in the July 15, 1983 Watchtower, p. 10 criticizes “a new theory on the formation of the universe” that rejects the idea that “‘all the stuff of the universe was there from the beginning.’” The criticism that it mentions is that this new theory “is based on an exception to the law of conservation – that matter cannot be created from nothing.” And it says that the scientists who embrace it overlook “the Bible’s explanation of the universe,” that “Jehovah God, the source of all energy, created the universe and established laws governing it.”
Importantly the article cites the supposed “exception to the law of conservation” that this then new theory supposedly depends upon as a reason to reject it. That is to say, Witness theology reveals that it holds that the law of conservation holds true even with respect to the origin of the universe (despite saying that God “established laws governing it”). So, when it posits God as the eternal source of matter to counter this new theory, what it is saying is that this theistic account is not an exception to the law of conservation. Accordingly, “all the stuff of the universe was there from the beginning” must mean that (some of) God’s own energy serves as “all the stuff of the universe” that was there in the beginning (and, indeed, before the beginning) in its primordial state.
15. After describing an experiment that produced a “‘W-particle’ that is ‘eighty times the mass of either of the protons that spawn it,’” due to “the tremendous amount of energy put into accelerating the proton and antiprotons before collision,” the September 15, 1983 Watchtower, p. 30 then states:
“This extra mass could have meaning for those who believe in a Creator because, for a split second, according to the article, ‘energy is translated into mass.’ As the Source of an “abundance of dynamic energy,” Jehovah God can rightly point to the universe and ask puny man, “Who has created these things?” knowing that the answer is obvious.—Isaiah 40:26.”
It is clear that the article is at least suggesting that since the extra energy given to the proton and antiprotons becomes mass in the W-particles, we have insight into how God created the universe, namely, by translating his own energy into mass: creation out of God. True, the article presents this tentatively (“could have meaning”), but the same idea is presented more resolutely elsewhere; and those familiar with Witness literature know that it often presents ideas it, in fact, affirms merely in tentative language.
16. The 1985 publication Life – How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?, p. 126 states:
“That is the key to understanding how the universe could have come into existence: It must have involved a transformation of energy and matter. This relationship was verified by Einstein’s famous formula, E=mc2 (energy equals mass times the speed of light squared). One conclusion that derives from this formula is that matter can be produced from energy, just as tremendous energy can be produced from matter. . . .
“Hence, there is scientific evidence that a source of limitless energy would have the raw material to create the substance of the universe. The Bible writer quoted earlier noted that this source of energy is a living, intelligent personality, saying: “Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them [the heavenly bodies] [sic] is missing.” Thus, from the Biblical standpoint, this source of boundless energy was behind what Genesis 1:1 describes: ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’”
This publication makes several noteworthy claims. The convertibility of energy into matter as expressed in “Einstein’s famous formula” is “the key to understanding how the universe could have come into existence.” What is presented tentatively in at least two publications previously is here expressed with unmistakable confidence. Now, creation out of nothing does not hinge upon physical (e.g., kinetic, chemical) energy being convertible into matter and vice versa. No understanding of it is actually advanced by the truth of this law that itself presupposes the existence of the universe. So already we know that Witness theology has departed from creation out of nothing by supposing otherwise. But, since they do depart from creation out of nothing we can see why they think “Einstein’s famous formula” is “the key” to the creation of the universe. God’s own limitless energy is claimed to be the already existing “raw material” that he converts into “the substance of the universe” according to the principle that energy can be converted into matter at a predefined ratio expressed in E=mc2: creatio ex deo.
17. The March 15, 1985 Watchtower, p. 5 exclaims, “What “dynamic energy” Jehovah must have to have created billions of these nuclear furnaces!” To our mind this description suggests that this dynamic energy is part of God. It must be part of him, since he had it prior to creating and it is necessary in order to create. But if it were a creation, he would have to use it to make it, which is absurd.
18. Under the heading “Matter is a Form of Energy,” the May 8, 1986 Awake!, p. 17 states:
“The Bible is in perfect agreement with the scientifically proved fact that matter is a form of energy. Man has discovered how to release energy from matter in his atom bombs and in his nuclear power stations. The Bible shows God to be the source of the energy locked up in the material universe. We read: “Raise your eyes high up and see [bodies of the solar system, stars, galaxies] [sic]. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number. . . . Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing.” (Isaiah 40:26) “He is the Maker of the earth by his power.”—Jeremiah 10:12.”
From this we see an implicit identification of God’s energy with the energy that is “locked up in the material universe,” the latter being composed of material objects that just are forms of energy. For this reason, the energy must have existed prior to the creation, prior to its taking on these material forms. Moreover, since God is said to create because he has this “abundance of dynamic energy” it is seen to be not a creature, since it must exist prior to the creation for God to be able to create in virtue of having it.
19. The 1989 revision of Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 88, which was originally published in 1985, asks the question: “What is the origin of the raw material of which the universe is made?” It then claims, “Scientists have learned that matter is a concentrated form of energy. . . . From where could such energy come?” Isaiah 40:26 is cited as proof that “God himself is the Source of all the ‘dynamic energy’ that was needed to create the universe.”
20. The March 1, 1991 Watchtower, p. 4 states:
“Scientists have demonstrated that matter and energy are closely related and that matter can be converted into energy and energy into matter. As seen in nuclear explosions, a small amount of matter represents a huge amount of energy. Where, then, is the source of all the energy represented by the 100,000 million stars in our galaxy, as well as the more than 1,000 million galaxies that make up the visible universe?
“The Bible says: “Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing.” Who is that One? The Bible records the answer: “I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory.”—Isaiah 40:26; 42:5, 8.”
The conjunction of the scientifically demonstrated claim that energy and matter can be converted into each other and the claim that God is the source of the materialized energy in the stars implies that God converted his own energy into the stars. One who truly affirms creation out of nothing has no need to mention that physical energy is convertible with matter, because that is not what he thinks creation involves. Since the article, like many others, brings up this physical principle it tips its hand as to what it really thinks: creation out of God.
21. The February 1, 1992 Watchtower, pp. 8-9 describes the creation of the material universe as basically the reverse of detonating a nuclear bomb (turning matter into energy) before going on to say, “Jehovah has vast reserves of dynamic energy. (Isaiah 40:26) In the creation, he must have harnessed some of this energy when he formed all the matter that makes up the universe.” The idea that God harnessed not all but some portion of his “vast reserves of dynamic energy” also fits with other descriptions of energy as being tied up in material objects, held back, or bundled, organized, or locked up in order to form material objects. Further it reveals that this energy is part of God, since it exists prior to creation (to be harnessed) and independently of it (it exists whether or not it is harnessed).
22. The 1993 brochure Why Should We Worship God in Love and Truth?, p. 20 states:
“The source of matter in the universe, says the Bible, is “the abundance of [God’s] [sic] dynamic energy.” (Isaiah 40:26) Today, some 2,700 years after that was written, modern science has discovered that all matter is basically materialized energy.”
This publication clearly indicates that God’s energy is the material cause of matter. That is how it uses the word “source” here. This clearly follows from its claim that the scientific description of matter as materialized energy confirms the biblical statement that God’s energy is the source of matter. True, this particular publication does not explicitly state, “And this modern discovery confirms the Bible’s account,” but that is clearly what the meaning of putting those two sentences together.
23. The 2006 printing of the 1998 book Is There a Creator Who Cares About You?, pp. 88-91 brings up “modern science” to help answer the question, “Does the Bible give us any idea as to how God produced all of these [material objects] out of nothing?” The principle that matter can be converted into energy and vice versa is again brought up, along with the formula E=MC2 as if they would remotely helpful in answering hos something could be made from nothing. Just as atomic weapons turn some matter into energy, the book says, “the reverse is also possible.”
What is the relevance of these scientific findings? “Well, the Bible is not a scientific text book as such, yet it has proved to be up-to-date and in harmony with scientific facts. . . . And it clearly shows the relationship between energy and matter.” Again Isaiah 40:26 is quoted, after which the book continues, “Yes, the Bible is saying that a source of tremendous dynamic energy – the Creator – caused the material universe to come into existence. This is completely in harmony with modern technology.”
The claim, therefore, of this book is that both the Bible and science reveal that the origin of the universe must have involved not the creation of matter from nothing but from pre-existing energy, despite originally asking “how God produced all of these [material objects] out of nothing.” According to this book, the Bible goes further than science by revealing that the Creator is the source of the energy out of which all things are made according to certain scientific principles.
In fact, the book suggests that God may have directly turned some more of his energy into the earth in particular (as opposed to later using energy first put into the universe at its very start). “Where did it come from? The variety of chemical elements making up our planet could have been produced directly by God’s transforming unlimited dynamic energy into matter, which physicists today say is feasible.” Other possibilities, such as the earth being “formed out of matter ejected from the explosion of a supernova” are suggested. But whatever the exact means of producing the earth, ultimately God “is the dynamic Source of the elements that make up our earth.” While the book is agnostic about how the earth in particular was formed, its first proposal for the origin of the earth is just a miniaturized version of its account of the creation of the universe.
24. The January 8, 1999 Awake!, p. 26 states:
“The Bible also explains that God has an “abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power.” (Isaiah 40:26) Yes, God created the entire universe, which manifests his dynamic energy and power.”
This article says that “God has an ‘abundance of dynamic energy[’],” which is most naturally understood to mean that this energy is a part of him and not created, an inference which is strengthened by the fact that according to this article and many others, God creates with (which at least includes the sense of out of) this energy; that is, God’s energy cannot be a creature, since he creates with it.
25. The June 22, 1999 Awake!, p. 6 mentions E=MC2 and in connection to it states, “The forming of the material universe may have thus involved what one cosmologist called ‘the most awesome transformation of matter and energy that we have been privileged to glimpse.’” (Emphasis mine.) Despite the tentative language (“may”) the article continues under the assumption that this is, in fact, what the formation of the universe involved, asking, “From where, though, did the matter and energy needed for such a ‘transformation’ originate?” It then quotes Isaiah 40:26, which “says of God: ‘Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them [the heavenly bodies] [sic] is missing.’”
God is the source of this energy that is transformed into the universe. This reveals that his energy is not an instrumental efficient cause of the universe (at least is not only an instrumental efficient cause of the universe), but rather serves as the material cause of the universe. Since it is God’s abundant dynamic energy that serves as the material cause of the universe, the article implicitly affirms creatio ex deo rather than creatio ex nihilo.
26. The December 1, 2000 Watchtower, p. 10 states: “Yes, Jehovah is ‘vigorous in power,’ and he is the Source of the ‘dynamic energy’ used to bring the entire universe into existence.”
27. The 2001 booklet A Satisfying Life: How to Attain It, p. 16 states that, “To put the universe into motion, vast dynamic energy must have been involved. Who or what was the source of such energy?” Isaiah 40:25-26 is quoted, after which the article continues, “This text indicates that there was someone who put the universe into motion – the Source of the ‘dynamic energy.’”
28. The June 22, 2001 Awake!, p. 26 states that God “is the source of all the energy tied up in those stars.”
29. The August 15, 2007 Watchtower, p. 5 says that “Isaiah 40:26 then brings up a fact consistent with Einstein’s well-known formula E=mc2. That fact is that the universe was produced by a source of dynamic energy and power.” The attempt to connect “Einstein’s well-known formula” with the origin of the universe from God reveals a misunderstanding of creation out of nothing and carries with it the clear implication that God, in fact, creates the universe out of his own “dynamic energy.”
30. The February 15, 2011 Watchtower, p. 6 connects the principle that “matter can be changed into energy and energy into matter” with the creation of the universe. “Jehovah’s power and energy are inexhaustible.” “Obviously tremendous power and energy were required to create not just the sun but also the other billions of stars. Jehovah possesses the energy that was needed – and more.”
Besides the implicit identification between physical energy and the energy that God used to make the material universe there is another claim that is worth noting. God possesses the energy; this indicates that they think of the energy as something that God does not create but which he has an infinite supply of. And that a definite supply was used indicates also that it is uncreated. God only used some of it, but “possesses . . . more” that, therefore, exists prior to and independently of creation.
The very fact that a particular magnitude or amount of energy (“tremendous power and energy”) was “required to create” is interesting, yet fits with their view that God’s energy serves as the material cause of creation. The more massive or energetic an object is (a star compared to a planet, say) the more energy is required to create it. God’s energy is not used up in their theology (per the conservation of energy) but it is formed so as to become matter, something that would not make any sense on a classical theistic view of God.
31. The February, 2012 Awake!, p. 17 states:
“The prophet Isaiah made similar expressions. In fact, he went a step further, stating with remarkable scientific accuracy that the material universe is a product of God’s infinite energy. “Raise your eyes high up and see,” Isaiah wrote. “Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing.”—Isaiah 40:26.
“How did Isaiah, who lived some 2,700 years ago, know that the universe is a product of God’s infinite energy?”
Isaiah 40:26 is presented as a statement of scientific fact, implicitly connecting the principle that matter and energy are equivalents and convertible into each other with how God produced the universe out of his energy. Therefore, since the universe is presented as a product of his infinite energy, we do not think this is meant in any other sense than that God’s energy is the raw material out of which things are made, this energy being held back, bundled together, locked, organized, and tied up in material objects. The universe is not created by his energy (in the sense of an instrumental efficient cause, or at least only in the sense of an instrumental efficient cause), but is created from it (as one creates something from a pre-existing material cause). Just as raw iron can be used to produce finished iron and steel goods, so too this article teaches that God uses his spirit as the raw material of a finished creation.
32. The January 2014 Awake!, p. 13 first raises the question, “Where did the raw material of the universe come from?” before stating:
“WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS God is the Source of infinite power, or energy. (Job 37:23) This is significant, because scientists have learned that energy can be converted into matter. The Bible says that God himself is the Source of the “vast dynamic energy” that produced the universe. (Isaiah 40:26) God promises to use his power to sustain his creation, for the Bible says regarding the sun, moon, and stars: “[God] keeps them established forever and ever.”—Psalm 148:3-6.”
God’s energy is identified as the “raw material” out of which the physical universe was made. Therefore, it is not that by means of which he created matter out of nothing, but that which he converted into matter. And his power will be used, the article says, to sustain the sun, suggesting a continued injection of energy from beyond the universe, which is interesting, but unimportant for the present point.
33. The July 1, 2014 Watchtower, p. 14 says: “What is the source of this energy driving the expansion and acceleration of the universe? The Bible tells us that the Creator has ‘vast dynamic energy.’ (Isaiah 20:46) God’s creation shows us that he is ‘the Almighty’ – the One ‘great in power.’ – Job 37:23.” (Emphasis original.)
34. The January, 2018 Watchtower, p. 8 states:
“Read Isaiah 40:28. Jehovah is the Source of dynamic energy. Consider, for example, the amount of energy that he supplies just to our sun. Science writer David Bodanis observed: “The mass our Sun is exploding into energy each second is equivalent to [billions of atomic] bombs.” Another researcher calculated that the sun “currently radiates . . . sufficient energy in one second to meet mankind’s needs for 200,000 years”! Can anyone doubt that the One who “fuels” the sun can give us the strength we need to cope with any problem?”
There may be something significant to the claim that God supplies (not supplied) and fuels (not fueled) the sun. As was suggested above, it seems that their literature holds that God continues to inject more of his energy into the universe. And some things we have to say in another section below also indicate the same thing. But the chief thing to note is that the energy within the sun comes from God since he “is the Source of dynamic energy.”
Despite already touching upon most of the points that we believe show that Witness theology affirms creation out of God, we will present our reasoning in one place after outlining the bare possibilities of what could be meant if one says that God turns his energy into the universe.
If this energy is eternal and is a creature, then we have something that was made that has not been made through the Son. Along with time and space it would be a third exception to their claim that only the Son was directly made by the Father and that everything else was made through the Son.
If this energy is eternal but is not a creature, then creation out of nothing is implicitly denied, since this energy must then be a metaphysical part of God. Some portion of this metaphysical part of God will have served as the material cause (in the Aristotelian sense) or “raw material” (in Watchtower terminology) of physical (and presumably spiritual) creatures into which it was converted. You get creatio ex deo, with its implication of some form of pantheism (everything is a part of God, even if the universe is not the totality of God).[3]
If this energy is not eternal but is a creature, then (aside from that portion that presumably served as the material cause of Michael the archangel), perhaps they could argue that the Son is still the one through whom it was made.
If this energy is not eternal and is not a creature, then the problems of creatio ex deo and pantheism lurk their heads again.
Which of these views is the one espoused by Witness literature? We think that Witness theology affirms that God’s energy is an eternal, metaphysical part of him.
First, merely by calling it his energy is basically to regard it as a part of him. True, one’s X is not necessarily a metaphysical part of that person. We speak of our money, for instance, which is not a metaphysical part of us, except perhaps if one is extremely greedy. However, the infinite energy that God uses to create sounds more like wisdom, justice, and mercy, which Witnesses regard as properties (which, in their understanding, would be metaphysical parts of God) rather than something like money. So, it is safe to conclude that Witness theology regards God’s energy as a part of him simply because they call it his energy and speak of him as having or possessing it. And since it is a part of him, it surely is an eternal part.
Second, as we noted above God uses his energy to create so it must be a part of him. Otherwise, God would be unable to create. Yet if it were not part of God, then it would have to be a creature. But then God would have to rely upon it to create anything, including it itself, which is absurd, not only because that would make his energy prior to itself, but also because it would make God powerful enough to create only in virtue of a creature. So, God’s energy must be intrinsic to himself. And this agrees with what their literature says quite nicely. Citing Psalm 62:11, the June 1, 2006 Watchtower, p. 11 says, “God does not have to depend on any external source of energy. He is the very source of power. ‘Strength belongs to him.’”
Also notice that creation was said to involve him harnessing some of his infinite energy “reserves.” This indicates that his energy is part of him. For, since only some of it was used, we see it exists prior to and independently of creation: there was a lot left over, to say the least, and it need not be fashioned or converted into matter in order to exist.
Third, that God is called the Source of this energy does not refute our proposal. For one thing, what we think is meant is merely that God is the source of the energy that is already tied up, bundled together, or locked up in material objects; these exist outside of his body, so they came from him in some sense. But this does not mean that Witness theology holds his energy to be something other than a metaphysical part of God. A comparison with the holy spirit is useful here. God is said to be the source of the spirit, and yet for reasons we have argued elsewhere (and will touch upon below) the spirit is held to be a part of God in their theology, albeit neither a body part nor one that is located, at least wholly, within his body.
A comparison with the sun is also relevant. The March 8, 2005 Awake!, p. 10 states that “The sun is the earth's primary energy source.” The October 8, 1972 Awake!, p. 25 refers to the sun as “the source of man’s bodily energy.” Similarly, the March 8, 1990 Awake!, p. 25 refers to the sun as “this energy source.” Likewise, the February 8, 1980 Awake!, p. 21 refers to the sun as “an unfailing, unlimited source of energy.” And the May 8, 1980 Awake!, p. 25 refers to the sun as “an amazing source of energy.” The sun does not produce its energy out of nothing, nor is its energy something that is distinct from it (except in the way a part is distinct from a whole), since it is the energy that makes up the matter of the sun. In other words, their literature can easily speak of something being the source of something that it has and which is one of its parts.
This holds true for a wide range of things. Consider the following examples.
The October 22, 1970 Awake!, p. 26 describes a fuel cell composed of 1.1 pounds of pure hydrogen and 8.9 pounds of pure oxygen” as a source of energy; the energy being part of the battery itself, of course.
The November 22, 1970 Awake!, p. 21 says that “the typhoon’s source of energy is its water vapor.” The source of its energy is a part of it.
The January 8, 1980 Awake!, p. 9 refers to petroleum “as an indispensable source of energy.”
The May 22, 1981 Awake!, p. 31 refers to wood “as a source of energy.”
The April 22, 1987 Awake!, p. 26 refers to carbohydrates as “your body’s main source of energy.”
The May 22, 1984 Awake!, p. 29 refers to nuclear power “as an alternate source of energy.”
The September 8, 1989 Awake!, p. 8 refers to hydrogen as “an excellent source of energy.”
The October 8, 1993 Awake!, p. 18 refers to “overripe fruit that falls to the ground” as a “plentiful source of sugary energy” for tropical butterflies.
The May 8, 2002 Awake!, p. 27 refers to certain foods as a “source of vitamin C.”
Fourth, that Witness theology feels driven to explain how the universe can be created by appealing to a combination of Isaiah 40:26 and physical laws reveals an implicit rejection of creation out of nothing. Witness theology holds that the key to explaining how the universe was produced is that there was some “raw material” that was there to be converted into the material objects within our universe. And this just is a rejection of creation out of nothing, even if the “raw material” is not some independently existing eternal matter à la platonism.
Nor would it make sense for a Witness to say that this energy itself is created out of nothing; because then they could not say an understanding of the universe’s origin is advanced by connecting God’s energy with physical laws and principles. Supposedly, finding the pre-existing raw material out of which the universe was made advances an understanding of (what they call) creation out of nothing. But to say that the raw material itself had no prior material cause would leave them back at square one: a better theological position, to be sure, but one which they do not want to hold.
The entire drive to find the material cause of the universe indicates an inability or unwillingness to grasp that creation does not need nor could possibly have a pre-existing material cause that is converted into it, their lip service to creation out of nothing notwithstanding. So, it would be out of character for Witness theology to hold that God’s energy (a creature in this scenario, contrary to what we have shown above) was made from no preexisting thing, even as it serves as the preexisting stuff from which the universe is fashioned.
If their theology held that his energy was itself is created out of nothing, it would not make sense to constantly be appealing to a physical law that “says that energy-mass can neither be created [that is, out of nothing] nor destroyed [that is, into nothing], but merely converted from one to the other” to explain how God’s energy enables him to create the universe. For to say that his energy is created out of nothing would undermine their bizarre attempt to explain the creation of the universe in terms of physical laws that deny that energy can be created out of nothing. In other words, by (mis)applying the principle of the convertibility of energy into matter as a cosmogonical principle, they must reject creation out of nothing.
So God’s energy, which is implicitly and bizarrely identified with energy in E=mc2, that is, physical energy, the sort of energy described by the principle of the conservation of matter and energy, is regarded by their theology as an eternal metaphysical part of him. Some portion of this part was the “raw materials” or material cause of creation. This is an absolute rejection of creation out of nothing, which by way of comparison seems to be affirmed less frequently than does creatio ex deo.
But why keep giving lip service to creation out of nothing if they really reject it? Besides the manifest confusion their writers evince on the topic, we offer this suggestion. They might take creation out of nothing to mean that God does not create material and spiritual beings out of independently existing, uncreated matter (creatio ex materia). Their teaching of creation out of God is not that, so that may be why they also refer to their doctrine of creation out of God as creation out of nothing.
In light of this, consider how some of the quotations given near the very outset of the essay can be re-read or recontextualized. “New Heavens and a New Earth”, pp. 22-23 does pay lip service to “the miracle of God’s creating things out of nothing,” but almost immediately goes on to say, “Today, matter is understood to be concentrated energy, and God is the source of all energy. The dualist theory [therefore] is not necessary, [nor] it does not give the satisfactory explanation, it does not hold true, it is not Scriptural. God remains the First Cause of all else.” Dualism, as it is there described, is the theory that there is eternally existing uncreated matter that God forms into created things. Creation out of nothing in that book is really just creation out of God’s energy. It, unlike, dualism (creatio ex materia) “gives the satisfactory explanation” because it accords with the scientific understanding of matter as “concentrated energy.”
“Things in Which it is Impossible For God to Lie” also objects to eternal matter, not a pre-existing material cause full stop. And when it speaks of God as being the creator of matter that began to exist (or hypothetically of eternal matter) it says, “For matter to exist, there must be a creator of matter and a source of all its energy.” (Emphasis mine.) This puts it in line with the creatio ex deo position that is more clearly articulated in subsequent positions, even if p. 15 of that publication does not explicitly describe what it means for God to be the source of the energy of matter.
And the statement for Life Does Have a Purpose is consistent with there being some sort of material cause of the universe in the form of God’s energy. Matter, which is God’s energy that has held back, etc., did not always exist, sure, but that does not get us a true affirmation of creation out of nothing. In other words, merely to deny that matter (organized energy) has not always existed, is not the same thing as to say that the energy that serves as the material cause of the universe has not always existed and that, therefore, the universe had no previously existing material cause out of which it was made.
The Holy Spirit
We have argued elsewhere that according to Witness theology the Spirit is a metaphysical part of God, something that is immaterial, non-bodily but is truly a part of God’s being. If we are wrong in claiming this, then the holy spirit would be a creature that the Son did not make. Indeed, it would be that which presumably made him (since God creates by means of his holy spirit). And from this it would follow that the Son would not be directly made by the Father at all, but only through a creature. For this reason alone, to say nothing of these we give in another essay,[4] Witness theology must hold that the spirit is a part of God.
The January 1, 1999 Awake!, pp. 26-27 says that holding “that the holy spirit has its own identity apart from God” or is “an entity separate from God” based on certain Bible passages is based on misreadings of those passages. Rather, such language was used because explaining that the spirit is God’s invisible active force, his power in action, is difficult:
“In Bible times this concept may have been difficult to grasp. Speaking of the holy spirit as a separate force undoubtedly helped readers to comprehend how God exercises his power even though he does not personally place himself at the location of its operation. When the Bible refers to the holy spirit as having done this or that, it is in effect saying that God himself has projected or exerted his power on persons or things to accomplish his will.”
This confirms the arguments of our other essay. God’s spirit is basically his power (in action) and, most importantly, is a part of him. It is not “a separate force,” nor “an entire separate from God,” and it does not have “its own identity apart from God.” Any idea that it is a creature distinct from God is wholly ruled out by Witness theology.
More could both be asked and said about the spirit according to Witness theology. Do they hold that the spirit is eternal? What is its relationship to God’s energy? At least one publication, Holy Spirit—The Force Behind the Coming New Order!, p. 11 seems to distinguish God’s energy from his spirit when it says, “We do not join the modern-day scientists in their denying that God is the Source of all energy now in operation. We know that he is also the Source of something else that scientists deny, not knowing anything about it. What is that? It is ‘spirit.’” (Emphasis mine.) But we leave such topics largely unexamined for now.
Creatures Made When the Son was Only a Man
Since Witness theology holds that the Son ceased to be an archangel while he was a man, it presumably would concede that when he was a man he was not the one through whom any creature was made, nor the one who then upheld creation by the power of his word. (Hebrews 1:3) Hence we find Witness theology making yet another exception to John 1:3: “without him was not any thing made that was made.”
Perhaps Witnesses will object to this by asking us to prove that any creatures were made during the Son’s earthly sojourn. This task is easy enough. Living things of various kinds came into existence. And if modern science is to be accepted, as Witness literature seems to accept it, the universe expanded and new portions of space came into being. These seem to count as creatures that were made without the Son.
At this point a Witness may object, saying, “But the universe was started through the Son. And any living things that came into existence were procreated by other beings that can all trace their origin to God through Christ. Hence, these were not created without him.” And this may be a perfectly sensible thing to say as a Witness, though, we do not feel that it adequately deals with Christ being the conserver of creation, but we will discuss that at another time.
But we would suggest that Scripture does not permit us to think this way; and there are some indications that Witness literature would view the procreation of creatures and the emergence of new portions of space to count as ongoing creation, and hence something that the Son must be involved with, lest John 1:3 be further denied by Witnesses.
Psalm 104 discusses various living creations. Verse 30 says. “You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; and You renew the face of the ground.” (Emphasis mine.) Hence creation is presented not just as a one time act, but as something that is ongoing. If it is something that is ongoing, it must be through the Son. Yet Witness theology cannot claim that this continued to happen through him while the Son was a man.[5]
The May 15, 2002 Watchtower, p. 5 cites this passage. It does not explicitly draw attention to the ongoing aspect of creation initiated in it, but does connect it to God’s creation of “the physical heavens, the earth, and all living things,” which suggests that even within Witness theology valid to view God as continuing to create new things, which requires Christ to be apart of this continual creation in order for John 1:3 to be true.
The April 15, 1963 Watchtower, p. 241 cites Psalm 104:29-30 as evidence of God’s ability to resurrect the dead. “These inspired words assure us that Almighty God can re-create, yes, re-create human souls.” (Compare the September 1, 1955 Watchtower, p. 538.) To our mind this also suggests that creation that takes place after the initial creation of the universe, or earth, or of living things according to their kinds is also, properly speaking, creation. Hence, it is something that the Son must be a part of for John 1:3 to be true.
Witness literature accepts that the universe continues to expand due to the continued involvement of its Creator. (July 1, 2014 Watchtower, p. 14) Holy Spirit—The Force Behind the Coming New Order!, p. 8 says that “God lives to endless time, to keep on producing and creating beyond the present universe, expanding it.” At least as early as the February 1, 1956 Watchtower, p. 722, they could say, “Men of science think the universe is expanding. The Scriptures say that God continues to work, to do good. (John 5:17, NW) Dare we set limits to Jehovah’s range of activity, his power, his productive ability? “Behold, God is great, and we know him not; the number of his years is unsearchable.” (Job 36:26, AS)” Since the expansion of the universe is referred to as God’s producing or creating, it follows that the Son ought to be involved within it in order for them to hold to John 1:3 (setting aside their already glaring exception of the Son himself).
It is not especially vital to the main arguments of this essay that Witness theology does or should view these things as creatures that need to be made through the Son as were those creatures that were first made were. Time and space already serve as glaring exceptions to their claim that there was a time when creation was not, that the Son was the first creature, the only one made by the Father directly, and the one through whom all other creatures were made. And our argument that their theology contradicts itself by affirming creation out of God even while it gives lip service to creation out of nothing is wholly independent of this present point. Nonetheless, we feel that a plausible case can be made for this point, but leave it in a somewhat nascent state in this essay, perhaps as a thread to be picked up later and developed more fully in a future essay.
Also, we may discuss this connection between creatio ex deo and pantheism in another essay, including both what we would say if we were a Witness wanting to resist this implication and our responses to those arguments.
