Partially No Part of the World

Witnesses profess that they are not part of the world. The word, they say, consists of three parts: a false religious system, a political system, and a commercial system. (w11 10/15 p. 28) They espouse complete neutrality in political matters, too. (uw chap. 21 p. 166) However, this claim is belied by their actions. Jehovah’s Witnesses make frequent use of legislative systems, which contradicts their supposed political neutrality. Moreover, their members are (for the most part) not forbidden from working for companies that ostensibly make up the commercial element of Satan’s work. Neither are they disallowed from investing in these companies by purchasing stocks and bonds, (w09 7/1 p. 11; g00 10/8 p. 27) nor are they penalized when they start their own (sometimes lucrative) companies.

This does not add up. In particular, if being no part of the world means having nothing to do with false religion, never voting, never going to war and the like, how can this group’s extensive use of the courts, its members' involvement in business and commerce be allowed? Or if it is allowed, how can an absolute prohibition on voting, for instance, be maintained as a necessary condition of being no part of the world? It seems ludicrous to me to suggest that voting in a local election is an impermissible political act, but appealing to the Supreme Court of the United States is a permissible non-political act.

With respect to the last claim, I am sure Witnesses will cite Paul’s appeal to Caesar. I do not begrudge them this. However, it only goes so far. It may justify the Witness use of the judiciary, but it doesn’t mean that their use is a non-political act. It must be kept in mind that the man to whom the Apostle appealed, Caesar, possessed ultimate executive, judicial, and legislative power. Likewise, Witnesses swayed the highest court of the federal judiciary, which is the third branch of the Federal government. The decision that was rendered has had more significant effects than would voting in most local elections.

I, for one, would not say that engaging in business, working for another’s company, or investing makes one part of the world. But if Witnesses can see this with respect to commercial systems of this world, (pe chap. 25 p. 212) why forbid all political activity on grounds that participating in it would necessarily make one part of the world?

 

God's Arborists (Part One)

In Romans 11:17-24 Paul likens the general apostasy of Israel, the coming in of the Gentiles, and the possibility of Jews to come to faith to the pruning of natural branches on a cultivated olive tree, the grafting in of the branches of a wild olive tree, and the grafting in of the broken-off branches respectively. Witnesses see in this passage a blueprint of how God is able to complete the Anointed class, a group that they say will total 144,000 persons. The branches that remained, were added, or were re-added to the tree are “the full number of the secondary part of Abraham’s offspring”, which is another way they refer to this group of 144,000 people, who alone, they say, are spirit-anointed Christians who will reign with Christ. (w80 7/15 p. 24; mwb19 February p. 6)

As part of their interpretation, they recognize that the broken off natural branches are “natural Jews who rejected Jesus”. (mwb19 February p. 6) They teach that most Jews were severed from the Abrahamic covenant in 36 AD and, accordingly, cannot in such a state make up this secondary part of Abraham’s offspring. (w83 8/15 p. 18) In their view, in order “to replace them, God turned to the non-Jews or, as it were, to a symbolic wild olive tree, to extract sufficient ‘branches’ to graft into the spiritual garden olive tree that was to be composed of 144,000 branches” (i.e. Anointed Christians). (w82 2/15 pp. 23-24)

On the Witness view one branch equals one person. This is indicated by three things. First, their replacement thesis: that for every Jewish branch that was broken off either a Gentile branch would have to be added to the tree or a Jewish branch would have to be reattached so that the tree will have its “full, foreordained membership”. (w74 2/15 pp. 127-128) Because of this “the number of branches in the trunk of that tree would stay the same.” (w80 7/15 p. 24) Second, that they say that there are 144,000 branches in the tree corresponding to 144,000 spirit-anointed persons whom they say make up the Anointed class also shows that they interpret one branch to be one person. (w/45 5/1 p. 135; w82 2/15 pp. 23-24) Third, it is indicated in this statement in a Witness article concerning a potential first-century Jewish convert. “If any individual Jew did not remain in his lack of faith, Jehovah God was willing to graft him back into the symbolic olive tree and make him a member of the spiritual seed of Abraham.” (w83 8/15 pp. 21-22) In other words, that Jewish convert counted for one branch in the cultivated olive tree.

This raises the question. How many branches were broken off from this tree? Given the Witness interpretation, which rightly identifies the broken-off branches with ethnic Jews, our answer will at least be roughly identical to the number of Jews who were alive in the first century. Witness literature does not state how many Jews were alive in this era, but it is beyond dispute that there were at least many hundreds of thousands of Jews alive in those days. Therefore, on the Witness view there must have been at least many hundreds of thousands of branches in the tree that were broken off. However, this undermines their claim that there can only ever be 144,000 thousand anointed persons. If, as they themselves say, each branch represents one person, then their own claim that “when one of the natural branches was broken off . . . a branch from a wild olive tree would be inserted in its place” (w80 7/15 p. 24) entails that there ought to be at least many hundreds of thousands of anointed persons when all is said and done.

With the exception of citing an undeniable fact of history (the number of Jews in the first century), this is an entirely internal critique of the Witness claim that there will only be 144,000 spirit-begotten children of God. Further arguments, I think, will include increasingly external criticisms. I will make one below.

Witness literature acknowledges that if a Jew (at least a first century Jew) were to come to faith, “God was willing to graft him back into the symbolic olive tree”. At this time the status of the branches was to be part of the Anointed class. So he would be one of the putatively 144,000 spirit-anointed believers. This raises the question, what if all or most of the Jews of this era were to believe? Witness literature does not comment on this possibility directly, but Paul does give a clear answer in the very passage from which they make this statement about an individual Jew. “And they also, if they do not remain in their lack of faith, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them back in.” (Romans 11:23 NWT) Who is this “they” that may be grafted in? It includes up to all of the Jewish branches that have been broken off. They have been broken off, but God can graft them back in!

Witness literature teaches that not all Jewish converts can be grafted back into the cultivated olive tree, at least any longer. “Those speaking Yiddish or Sephardi or the original Hebrew of Palestine will be given no separate and distinct outstanding palace, as of special reservation. They will have to take, and some are now taking, their place among the ranks of the ‘great multitude’”. (w/45 5/1 p. 138) They can become part of (to use the contemporary Witness term) the great crowd, a distinct group from the 144,000. There are just no longer any spots left for them. For Paul, however, the only thing preventing the many hundreds of thousands of Jews (at least, Jews of his time) who were broken off from the cultivated olive tree from being reattached was their continued unbelief. It was not the fact that there was such a small quota.

One – or two, depending on how you look at it – further problems exist for the Witness position. I will give hints to them here. First, what was the status of the Jews prior to their being broken off, and what would have their status been if they did not reject Christ. Second, given what Paul says about potential Jewish reversion (which we above arbitrarily limited to only the first century), what would happen if the end-times generation of Jews were to convert en masse?

There May Be Hell to Pay

In Witness theology, the Anointed are granted immortality. This immortality evidently entails that even God cannot (or at least will never) annihilate them. Witness publications, however, state that such persons can still sin, even if this possibility is very unlikely. If any of the Anointed sinned they would need to be punished. And since that punishment cannot be annihilation, it would have to be a lot like an eternal hell – or possibly a purgatorial hell. So, they tacitly concede the permissibility of either an eternal hell or a purgatorial hell. This necessarily implication or tacit concession severely undermines their argument against eternal torment or universalism.

I imagine that the most contentious claim is that the immortality given to the Anointed includes God’s own inability or unwillingness to ever destroy the Anointed. After all, if they could simply be annihilated if they ever sinned, then there would be no inconsistency in Witness theology. Moreover, at least one article in the Witness corpus states that the Anointed can be destroyed. Why, then, do I suggest that in Witness theology the immortality given to the Anointed includes God’s inability or complete unwillingness to destroy even renegade Anointed persons? There are four reasons I make this claim.

First, their description of their immorality requires this interpretation. They are given “endlessness and indestructibility” and their bodies are “beyond decay and apparently are self-sustaining”. (February 15, 2009 Watchtower, p. 25) “Death has no hold on” them. (October 1, 2006 Watchtower, pp. 5-6) For them “death loses its sting forever. They are made eternally free from its power.” (December 1, 1963 Watchtower, pp. 773-734) Importantly for our purposes, they “are free from any possibility of harm by the second death”. (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. I, p. 598) Keep in mind that Witnesses state that the second death is never abolished. “The lake of fire, a symbol of second death, exists forever.” It means eternal annihilation. (November 15, 1955 Watchtower, p. 702) If they could be annihilated, then it seems that their lives are destructible, liable to decay, not truly self-sustaining, subject to death's hold, and capable of being harmed by the second death. So, the only way Witnesses can say the things quoted above is by also affirming that those in the Anointed class can never under any circumstances be destroyed, even by God.

They further speak of the trust God shows the anointed in bestowing this immortality upon them.[1] It is evidence of “the extent of Jehovah’s trust in the the faithful slave [the Anointed class]”[2] (February 15, 2009 Watchtower, p. 25). “The gift of immortality . . . is proof of Jehovah’s unshakable confidence in  their faithfulness.” (October 1, 2006 Watchtower, pp. 5-6) “The grant of ‘indestructible life’ . . . or ‘indissoluble life’ to those Christians who gain the privilege of reigning with God’s Son in the heavenly kingdom marvelously demonstrates God’s confidence in them.” (Aid to Bible Understanding, p. 824) Such trust would be unremarkable if, should the need arise, God would simply destroy them. With what did he trust them with, an ineffectual immortality? Such trust suggests that God is taking a risk, even if it is only an incredibly small risk, that one or more of them might prove to be unfaithful. And that would only be a risk if he could not or would not destroy them in such an eventuality. That he trusts them with immortality suggests that their further faithfulness is not a condition for their continued existence. Their record of faithfulness up until the time he grants them immortality is all that is relevant to the bestowal of this privilege.

Second, their comparison of the immortality of the Anointed to the mere everlastingness of other creatures requires this interpretation. Witnesses state that faithful angels and righteous men will never be given immortality. Angels “were not created immortal, but mortal, yet with the opportunity to live everlastingly by continuing to be clean, holy, spirit sons of God.” (September 15, 1955 Watchtower, p. 571) “Perfect humans having the prospect of endless life on earth” are still described as “mortal humans”. (April 1, 1984 Watchtower, pp. 30-31) Their continued existence is conditioned upon consuming needed sustenance and, importantly for our purposes, unbroken faithfulness to God. Since Witnesses contrast the immortal condition of the Anointed with the condition of faithful angels and righteous men (April 1, 1984 Watchtower, pp. 30-31), it stands to reason that just as they claim that Anointed do not rely upon anything external to sustain their existence they claim (or at least ought to claim) that the continued existence of those in the Anointed class is not predicated upon their remaining “clean, holy, spirit sons of God”. This seems to be exactly what Aid to Bible Understanding lays out in one of its articles, in which it contrasts the mortality of angels that renders them capable of being sentenced to death with the immortality given to the Anointed. On page 824 it states, “Angelic mortality is evident in view of the judgment of death entered against . . . Satan.” Contrasting that, the article continues, “So the grant of ‘indestructible life’ or ‘indestructible life’ to” the Anointed “marvelously demonstrates God’s confidence in them.” Only if we are to infer that the Anointed are neither mortal nor susceptible to a judgment of death does this contrast make sense.

Third, their comparison of the immortality of the Anointed to the immortality of the Father requires this interpretation, or at least strongly suggests it. Christ becomes immortal at his resurrection. At this time, according to Witness theology, he becomes “the reflection of [God’s] [sic] glory and the exact representation of his very being”.[3] While this resemblance is not entirely exact, since Christ is not co-equal to the Father even at this point,[4] it does seem sufficiently close that we can safely reason that the sort of immortality that the Father has is the same sort given to the Son and the Anointed. I say this because one of the proofs of the Father’s immortality that they give is that Jesus, his exact representation, is immortal. If the Son’s immortality were different, then it would seem to be an inappropriate (or at least weaker) proof of the Father’s immortality. (April 1, 1984 Watchtower, pp. 30-31) Now obviously the Father cannot be destroyed by anyone, including himself. So, it seems that Witness theology would have us understand that the Son, too, cannot be destroyed by anyone, including the Father. If that is so, since the Anointed share in Christ’s resurrection, (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. I, pp. 1189-1190) then they, too, cannot be destroyed by the Father.

Fourth, some explicit statements support this interpretation. And, as will be shown, one of these statements include a retraction of the one statement (that I was able to find) that claims that the Anointed can be destroyed if they were to sin.

As evidence that the angels who became demons were created mortals, one article states, “Otherwise, now that quite a number of these have become demons, they could not be destroyed from the universe.” (September 15, 1955 Watchtower, p. 571) In other words, if demons were immortal, they could not be destroyed, evidently even by God. Hence we find a statement that immortality entails that God cannot (or at least will not) destroy the one with it.

This statement evidently closely matches a statement made in a contemporaneous booklet titled What Do the Scriptures Say About “Survival After Death”?. Later that year another article stated, “If such a thing [one of the 144,000 sinning] did happen, we need not think that Jehovah would be powerless. Jehovah could destroy even an immortal creature.” (November 15, 1955 Watchtower, p. 703) In light of this contradiction, one reader asked the following question a few months after that. “An answer in the November 15, 1955, Watchtower said Jehovah could, if he wished, destroy even an immortal creature. The booklet What Do the Scriptures Say About “Survival After Death”? says that if the demons had originally been created immortal they could not be destroyed from the universe. Which is correct?” (April 1, 1956 Watchtower, p. 219)

Their answer, while possibly tentative, affirms the claim that even God could not destroy an immortal creature found in the earlier Watchtower article and the booklet mentioned in the question. They write: 

“The statement in the booklet about survival after death refers to immortality according to its basic meaning of deathlessness, indestructibleness. The other statement about God’s ability to destroy even an immortal creature rested upon the view that he is absolutely almighty without any limitation upon his own power by even himself. So this latter statement presented what seems in accord with this view. However, it enters into the realm of speculation, because it is in fact based on a speculative question.

“Hence we are letting the statement in the booklet stand, in accord with the meaning of absolute immortality as conveyed in the Holy Scriptures. A fuller discussion on this may be expected in time in the columns of The Watchtower.” (April 1, 1956 Watchtower, p. 219)

The key phrase for our purposes is, “we are letting the statement in the booklet [that an immortal creature could never be destroyed] stand”. Also possibly relevant to the issue at hand is the phrase “without any limitation upon his own power by even himself.” Perhaps this is one way of construing the immortality granted to the Anointed in Witness theology. God promises never to destroy them; he sets a limitation upon his own exercise of power. They remain inherently destructible, but extrinsically indestructible because, come what may, God will never destroy them.

Whether this weaker version of immortality or the stronger version which view the Anointed as inherently undestroyable by God is true makes no difference for my argument. If God cannot or will not destroy a potential sinning Anointed member, then it follows that they must affirm that something either very much like an eternal or a purgatorial hell is possible. And that raises the question: if it would have to be true of a hypothetical sinning member of the Anointed class, then why wouldn’t it be true generally? If the Anointed person were given no opportunity to repent but was straight away sentenced to eternal punishment, why is that not true of all the wicked, at least if they exceed God’s patience with them? Or, if the errant Anointed member were permitted to repent and given remedial punishment until they do, why would that not be true of everyone?

It is unlikely that a Witness will dispute the defectibility of the Anointed. They acknowledge this of the Great crowd with reasoning that they then apply to the Anointed. “But the passing of the final test at the end of the thousand years will not make men into robots. They will still be free moral agents, choosing their own course of conduct. Hence they could sin if they chose to do so.” (November 15, 1955 Watchtower, p. 703) And the comments about God placing his trust in them based off of their past record is further indication that Witness theology regards that as still capable of sinning. Trust indicates a possible gap between what is expected and what may happen; it also indicates that God is not basing his expectation off the fact that, once immortal, the Anointed will not be in a position to sin. Sure, they claim that it is virtually impossible this will happen, but my argument does not depend upon it happening only that it could happen, however unlikely. Even a one in a google odds of it happening are good enough for my argument.

Until Witness theology changes, I think this argument is decisive. Their own theological system undermines their opposition to either an eternal hell or a purgatorial hell. Maybe they will revise their system so that the Anointed cannot sin. But that might be difficult given their anthropology, angelology, view of the freedom of the will, and foreknowledge. But, perhaps, the discrepancies I feel might be present here are not, in fact, real discrepancies. Or they may not be so great that they themselves cannot be revised without significant disruption to the Witness theological system as a whole.

[1] It must be kept in mind that in Witness theology, God chooses to not know much of the future, including, evidently, most of what all or most creatures will do in the future.

[2] As used in this article “the faithful slave” (or faithful and discreet slave) refers to all of the Anointed. It was not until 2013 that Witness publications began to teach that the Faithful and Discreet Slave only consists of the Governing Body, the leadership of their organization. (July 15, 2013 Watchtower, pp. 21-22) Even if that was what was meant in the 2009 article, it would not matter for our purposes, since the Governing Body are regarded as Anointed persons.

[3] Never mind that Hebrews says nothing about Jesus becoming this as if he was not already it from eternity.

[4] Though, someone has suggested to me that for Russell, the theological ancestor of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, along with a few, smaller groups, Christ does share in the exact same nature as the Father. And this would suggest a way out of the dilemma. Just as God cannot sin, those who come to have the same exact nature as him (Christ and the Anointed) are absolutely incapable of sin. However, modern Witnesses have not made this claim about Christ and the Anointed for many decades.

More than You Bargained For (Part One)

In Witness theology, the only way that the Atonement could work was if Christ became solely human – not also Divine or even angelic. Thus their view of the first advent entails a denial of the orthodox doctrine of the incarnation and its claim of a hypostatic union. They hold to this position for the following two reasons, among others. First, they claim that God’s strict justice demands this exact equivalence. Second, they believe Christ’s mere humanity in the Atonement is indicated by Scripture’s description of  him as a corresponding ransom.[1]

Given their claim of an exact equivalence between Adam and Christ it is unsurprising that they should claim that the Atonement results in exactly a restoration of what Adam lost: that is, in solely what was lost. They further define what Adam had and subsequently lost as the prospect of eternal life on a paradise earth, which they describe as God’s original purpose for mankind.[2] So, in the Witness theological system it seems that this is all that they can claim followed from the Atonement: redeemed mankind will enjoy everlasting life on a paradise earth.

However, Witnesses attribute more to the Atonement than the mere restoration of the Adamic heritage of perfect human life on a paradise earth. They claim that the Anointed are formed as a result of Christ’s atoning death.[3] This is problematic given their other claims, because the Anointed are a group of 144,000 persons with whom only Christ made the New Covenant. They are the only group that will reign with Christ in heaven as super-human, angel-like spirit creatures. They possess a hope mutually incompatible with the earthly hope afforded to the vast majority of faithful mankind, whom Witnesses refer to as the Great Crowd. According to Witness theology, therefore, their hope is both different than and greater than that which was given to Adam.

So, the Witness system is contradictory. They say that the merely human Adam lost only the prospect of perfect human life on a paradise earth. For several reasons they assert that for mankind to be redeemed, their Savior has to give himself as a ransom sacrifice that exactly corresponds to Adam (a perfect man), or put somewhat differently, the value of what was lost (perfect human life). He does this to restore exactly what Adam forfeit. And, given their claims about the value of Christ’s sacrifice (that its value was merely that of a perfect human life) it seems they can have it no other way: Christ can only restore the prospect of endless human life that Adam lost. However, they further posit the Anointed class as a direct result of Christ's ransom sacrifice. Their hope is distinctly greater than that afforded to the Great Crowd, who only share in the restored paradise earth. You cannot consistently maintain all of these claims, since a conjunction of some of them would produce the negation of the remaining claim.

Any possible resolution to this contradictory view of the Atonement would involve significant revision to their theology. It is highly unlikely that the doctrinal authorities of the Witnesses, whom they call the Governing Body or the Faithful and Discreet Slave, will make such revisions. Such a revision is unlikely not only because it would prove to be highly embarrassing after decades of espousing the system described above, but also because any such revisions are highly problematic and come with their own pitfalls. For instance, if they revise their theology on this point along certain lines they remove one of their arguments against the hypostatic union. But exploring possible Witness objections to my claim that their system is contradictory as well the implication of any possible revisions will be saved for a future essay.

[1] NWT Study Edition: Note on 1 Timothy 2:6; Insight on the Scriptures Vol. I, p. 212; Ibid. Vol. II, p. 735; Draw Close to Jehovah, p. 142; January 2024 Watchtower, p. 10; February 2017 Watchtower, p. 6; July 15, 1997 Watchtower, p. 7; January 15, 1992 Watchtower, p. 21; April 15, 1976 Watchtower, p. 239; August 1, 1973 Watchtower, p. 465

[2] Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 15; November 2023 Watchtower, p. 7; January 2024 Watchtower, p. 10;5 2019 Watchtower Public Edition No. 1, p. 11; February 2017 Watchtower, p. 6;6 January 15, 1992 Watchtower, p. 21;8 July 15, 1990 Watchtower, p. 5; May 1, 1976 Watchtower, p. 264; February 1, 1954 Watchtower, p. 84

[3] Insight on the Scriptures Vol. II, p. 736; Revelation – Its Grand Climax at Hand, p. 19; April 1, 1973 Watchtower, p. 198; July 1, 1978 Watchtower, p. 24; June 1, 1959 Watchtower, p. 333

No Take Backs!

One of the reasons that Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that Christ was raised up as a human is their claim that this would undo the Atonement. Since Christ gave his human life, died as a man, to provide a ransom for sinful mankind, to take it up again would be to undo the ransoming and hence the Atonement. However, when it comes to their claim that one’s physical death pays for one’s sin they do not apply this no-take-backs rule consistently. 

When the resurrection takes place, they say, both (most of) the righteous and (most of) the wicked are brought back to life on a world from which Satan has been removed for 1,000 years prior to a final trial. Witnesses say that the sins of both groups have already been paid for. While their interpretation of John 5:29 has undergone at least one recent revision – in particular, they finally acknowledge that Jesus spoke of what two classes of persons did prior to their deaths and resurrections and not what they would go on to do after their resurrection – they still maintain the above mentioned claim as part of their interpretation of this (and other) passages. They say that “those who practiced vile things before they died” had “their sins . . . canceled at death”. They are now no longer answerable for them. In fact, Witnesses say that such persons “were acquitted of their previous sins when they died.” They say the same thing about the sins of the righteous. “The sins committed by these righteous ones were canceled at death.” (September 2022 Watchtower, pp. 18-19)

But if they get their life back, wouldn’t this undo their acquittal? Shouldn’t it be reversed, since its basis, namely, their deaths, have been undone? Given their argument against the orthodox doctrine of the Resurrection mentioned at the outset, Witnesses would have to answer this question in the affirmative: yes, such persons have their sins uncancelled. Doing this, however, would tend to undermine their simple annihilationism.[3] Or, they would have to abandon at least one of their argument against the orthodox doctrine of the resurrection, since they already have implicitly made a distinction between dying and being dead, which can be easily applied to the Atonement to show that a human resurrection would not undo the saving effects of Christ’s human death. Coming back to life would undo his state of being dead, but it would not undo his having died, which is where the power of the Atonement lay.

[1] There are several problems with their claim that one’s physical death acquits one from sin. Here are three of them. First, it seems to render the Atonement itself pointless. Second, it conflicts with their claim that certain sins cannot be forgiven and therefore certain people (e.g., Adam) will not be resurrected. On the Witness view they no longer stand in need of forgiveness, since their death has paid for the sin in full. And yet Witnesses also claim that God still holds their sins against them. Third, Scripture clearly affirms that eschatological punishment will come in degrees, something that the simple annihilationism espoused by the Witnesses cannot account for.

[2] Their interpretation of John 5:29 is still incongruent with the passage and makes a mockery of the distinct Christ makes between these two groups.

[3] As of 6.21.2024 I am not sure if this would undermine their simple annihilationism. Also, by "simple annihilationism" I mean to distinguish the Witness view from the view of Rethinking Hell. Simple annihilationism is the view that mere annihilation is the sole sufficient punishment for all wickedness. It denies that there will be an indefinite period of torment preceding such annihilation.

Witnesses (Probably) Implicitly Affirm (an) Hypostatic Union

Angelic Materializations in Jehovah Witness’ Theology

In this essay I hope to show that the view that Jehovah’s Witnesses have of angelic materializations either proves to be internally inconsistent with either (a) part of their rationale for rejecting the human resurrection of Christ or (b) one of the reasons they reject the hypostatic union or that their view of angelic materialization (c) results in other theologically objectionable conclusions.

Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that angels materialized physical, fleshly bodies. “Angels definitely did materialize human bodies on occasion.” (Insight on the Scriptures (Vol. 2, p. 997) With such bodies they were able to eat, drink, speak, walk, procreate, and enjoy human pleasures. (October 1, 1965 Watchtower, p. 581; October 22, 1979 Awake!, p. 28 June 8, 1986 Awake!, p. 23) They evidently claim that such bodies were composed of actual human flesh and bone as can be seen from their gloss of Luke 24:39. All of this seems to amount to saying that such materialized human bodies were, strictly speaking, genuine, living human bodies.

 

However, in describing Jesus’ earthly sojourn their literature appears to distinguish his human body from those previously formed by angels and by himself after his resurrection.[1] I say that they appear to distinguish their bodies, because they never actually explicate what this difference is. Rather, the differences they mention seem to apply to the persons, not the bodies, being contrasted.

What angels did – and what Christ did after his resurrection – they say, was to materialize human bodies. This is what they mean by the term “incarnation”. Such “angelic sons of God [did] not truly [become] human but had materialized bodies”. (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. I p. 349) That they remained essentially spirits is indicated, they say, by the fact that such angels could simply dematerialize their bodies when they wished. This is exactly what Witnesses say that the angels, whom they claim are the “sons of God” who fathered the Nephilim, did in order to escape the flood. However when Christ was conceived in the Virgin Mary for the purpose of providing a ransom for sinful man “his fleshly body had to be a real human body, no incarnation.” (Ibid. p. 348 "Body"; Emphasis added) Accordingly, they say that he “divested himself of spirit nature” and became a merely human person. (Ibid. p. 841) 

That Witness literature speaks of the body that Christ had during his earthly sojourn as a real human body in apparent contradistinction to the bodies that angels were able to materialize would suggest that they think there is something different about these bodies. In particular, that the bodies of the latter were not, strictly speaking, living human bodies. However, for all that was said above, there does not seem to be any difference posited between the bodies materialized by angels and that which Christ had during his earthly sojourn. The natures of the persons contrasted (angels and Christ during his earthly sojourn) are different on the Witness view, but that does not entail that the bodies are different on the Witness view, at least given what they say elsewhere about these angelically-materialized human bodies.

Some possible differences may be gleaned from how they describe the Nephilim, the supposed offspring of angels and humans. The Nephilim, Witnesses say, were “freakish hybrids” who apparently were “without power to reproduce”. Their procreation involved “the mixing of what is spiritual or angelic with what is human” resulting in something that was not “purely human”. (September 15, 1955 Watchtower, p. 575; October 1, 1965 Watchtower, p. 581) Does this indicate that on the Witness view the bodies prepared by angels were not, strictly speaking, human? I do not think so. 

First, it is not clear why Witnesses describe the Nephilim as hybrids or speak of their procreation as involving the mixing of spirit and humanity. They allege that it was necessary for certain angels, whom they identify as “the sons of the true God”, (Genesis 6:2 NWT) to materialize human bodies in order to produce offspring. So the only bodies involved in the procreation of the Nephilim were the human bodies produced by these angels, which were described at the outset of this article, and the human bodies of the merely human wives. Two human bodies would not reproduce something nonhuman, right? Second, Witnesses evidently would agree with this conclusion, since they say that (by means of their assumed bodies) “angels can eat, drink, and procreate human offspring (who, unlike their fathers, were not able to [de]materialize and escape the flood).”[2] (October 22, 1979 Awake!, p. 28; Emphasis mine.)

Witnesses seem to affirm a close connection between the spiritual nature of the angel and its assumed human body; the angel is able to experience pleasure by means of that body, for instance. So perhaps they would also say that this connection also involves some enhancement to the human body that the angel materialized. And maybe we should think of the Nephilim as GMO-humans. Altered in some fashion by the power of the angel expressed through its materialized human body, but still fundamentally human. If this is so, it would not indicate that, on the Witness view, Nephilim were not another species and in fact, human. And this would mean that the bodies of the angels were really human. So, even if there is some difference posited in the Witness view between the human bodies assumed by angels and that which Christ had during his earthly sojourn, it does not seem to be a relevant difference. In other words, the difference in the Witness view is not such that the body Christ then had was human but that those made by angels before and later made by Christ were not, strictly speaking, human. 

Of course, it must be kept in mind that the Witness position on this relatively arcane matter might not be entirely consistent. Perhaps the writer of one article thought that angels did not, literally, assume human bodies (only “human” bodies) whereas Christ alone of spirit beings had a human body, albeit temporarily. But the gist of their writing on this topic seems to be that angels really made human bodies; and to the extent that Witness literature seems to distinguish these bodies from that which Christ had during his earthly sojourn it seems to me best to view that as a distinction between the persons as such and not their bodies. Or, put another way, the difference between angels who materialized human bodies and Christ during his earthly sojourn is that the two had a different relationship to the genuinely human bodies in question. The former merely “assumed” fleshly bodies; Christ became one.[3] (Cf. Aid to Bible Understanding, p. 587)

Nevertheless, for thoroughness sake, let me suppose that Witnesses do not actually think that angels literally produced human bodies for themselves. Doing so will, in fact, reveal one further reason to suppose that they do think that angels were capable of this. If they were to deny that angels literally had real human bodies, they would undermine one of the ways they attempt to avoid the obvious fact that Christ was raised up as a human being. 

They allege that passages such as Luke 24:39 can be explained by supposing that the now angelic Christ was able to materialize human bodies that sometimes resembled the human body he had between his conception and death. Hence, they say that his claim to have flesh and bone was true and consistent with him being raised up as an angelic being. (September 15, 1960 Watchtower, p. 576; Insight on the Scriptures Vol. I, p. 131) But if angels do not, strictly speaking, actually materialize genuine human bodies, then they seem to remove this attempt to avoid the fact that Christ was raised up as a human being, since Christ’s claim to have flesh and blood appears to be a claim to have a human body. To the extent they want to retain this apologetic defense against the orthodox doctrine of the resurrection they seem to be committed to the affirming that angels can materialize genuine living human bodies.

 

Let us, then, regard this as the Witness position. This raises the question. What is the relationship of these genuine, living human bodies to the angels who materialized them? No matter how a Witness answers this question he would run into problems.

 

If the human body is part of the angel, then it seems to commit them to an angelic-human hypostatic union: true angel and true man. They do not actually claim this. Quite the contrary. As was quoted above, their literature says that “these angelic sons of God were not truly human”. But what I am saying is that they cannot say this, at least if they wish to be consistent and also maintain both their claim that angels can form genuinely human bodies and their anthropology.

Witnesses claim that a human person is simply an enlivened human body. There is the created body and there is an impersonal principal of life, which they call “spirit” or “life-force”. The latter was created by God, can be passed down by procreation, and is sustained by, among other things, breathing. (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. II, p. 246; Ibid. Vol. I, p. 348) Witnesses say that Angels produced living human bodies that, therefore, they have to concede, possessed this life-force. So it is a living human being. If it is part of the angel, then we find that this angelic person possesses two distinct natures: one angelic and the other human.

Witnesses might say that angels did not become man (whereas Christ did), but (if we suppose that, in Witness theology, the materialized body is part of the angel) other statements require that they conclude that angels became men without ceasing to be angels. And this undermines their opposition to the orthodox doctrine of the hypostatic union. While they might insist that, even if it is possible for a being to have two natures, Christ could not have had two natures during his earthly sojourn, since Scripture says that “he emptied himself”, (Philippians 2:7) this argument can be easily dispatched. And, more importantly, their opposition to the orthodox doctrine of the incarnation on another basis, namely, that it means that Christ was not truly human has to be given up – at least if they wish to continue to affirm that angels formed truly human bodies that were part of them, given their other views that were just describe above. This is no small concession, I think.

Importantly, Witness opposition to the incarnation on this basis is still undermined even if they were to say that the bodies materialized by angels were, say, shuman bodies, not human ones. Consider that, even if these bodies were not quite human, Witnesses still describe them as having life. Reading the description of these bodies given in Witness literature proves beyond a doubt that they consider the bodies produced by angels as living ones.[4] So, if they view these bodies as part of the angel, then they still have to affirm some sort of hypostatic union, just a shuman-angelic union. They still end up having to affirm a complete shuman nature conjoined with an angelic one. But once they concede that, how can they allege that the orthodox doctrine of the incarnation, with its claim of a divine-human hypostatic union, cannot affirm a genuinely human Christ?[5]

But what if Witnesses were to claim that these bodies were not part of the angel? Then, they are faced with two other problems for their theological system. First, it seems that they have to suppose that angels have the Godly power to create human life.[6] Second, given their definition of a human person, these living human bodies, if not part of another person, are just their own person. Therefore, let Witnesses explain the existence of apparently possessed human beings who have no connection to Adam and who have lives that are sometimes measured in minutes or hours.

In my opinion, Witness literature regards angels as being able to make genuinely living human bodies which would be part of them.[7] But, as long as they insist on describing these bodies as living human bodies theological problems arise for them. So their view of what they call angelic materializations, however exactly they would describe it, should be rejected. That, of course, also would pose a problem for the Witness view, weakening their already hopeless attempt to deny the fact that Christ was raised up as a man, a fact indicated by, among other things, his claim to have human flesh and bones.

Excursus: Three Possibilities

If Witnesses were to grant that the bodies materialized by angels were living human bodies, or at least living bodies of some sort, and were part of the angel, perhaps they would describe this view as an angelic equivalent to Apollinarianism. I don’t get the impression that they would be in favor of a two-minds hypostatic union, so I will offer them this alternative, as well one reason why I think they could not take view.

While Witnesses seem to speak of the angels as continuing to have only one center of consciousness (and hence why I suggest they might be open to an angelic form of Apollinarianism), the pleasures they say angels were able to experience by materializing human bodies are obviously bodily pleasures. These pleasures indicate that the human body that they materialized had a functioning nervous system; and the brain is part of the nervous system. For Witnesses a functioning human brain is all that is needed for a human mind to be present, so it seems that they have to concede that the human body materialized by the angel had a human mind and center of consciousness. Or, that it would if it were permitted to develop fully. So long, therefore, as they would say that the angel retained its own angelic mind, they are committed to a two-minds view; or, put differently, they end up affirming an angelic hypostatic union.

Earlier I said that if Witnesses grant that the bodies formed by angels were living but were not part of the angelic person then the human persons that were formed would be an apparently angelically possessed human. Perhaps there is another possibility: an angelic form of Nestorianism. What this looser sort of union would consist of and how it would be distinguishable from possession, however, is hard to see. So I doubt that they would embrace this. Moreover, it still entails that there are human persons who were not descended from Adam who lived sometimes brief lives, both of which seem problematic positions to hold.

Lastly, could a Witness say that the angel transformed his angelic body to a human one? I do not think so for three reasons: one of which is external to their system and two of which are internal. First, while Witnesses speak of humans becoming angelic spirit beings (and no longer remaining human) this seems as plausible as saying that a cat can both continue to exist and become a tree. While there may be material continuity between the two – as Witnesses do not appear to say about the bodies of the “anointed” – the change involved in this case is, philosophically speaking, substantial change: a conversion of one substance into another, with the destruction of the former. So claims that humans can be transformed into angels or vice-versa is simply impossible. Second, saying that angels transformed their angelic bodies into human ones would seem to nullify the distinction they want to make between angelic materializations and Christ’s having been man. Third, they obviously view the angels as having the ability to dematerialize their bodies on a whim; this is obviously not a power that mere humans have. So clearly their angelic powers have to remain. And given that the claim, “All things having life, either spiritual or fleshly, have an organism, or body” this seems to means that they would have to say that the angelic body must remain. (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. II, p. 246) Angelic powers require an angelic body, after all.

[1]  It must be remembered that Witnesses claim that Jesus was not raised up as a human being but as an angelic spirit.

[2]  In other places, Witness literature explicitly states what may be inferred from this statement, namely, that the angels whom they say fathered the Nephilim remained materialized for many, many years – up to the 120 years that Witnesses say elapsed between their coming and the flood. (September 15, 1955 Watchtower, p. 574; Insight on the Scriptures Vol I, p. 358)

 [3]  It must be kept in mind that I am arguing that this distinction made by Witnesses – that Christ became a man, a living human body, but angels only “assumed” human bodies – does not hold. More on this below.

[4]  If Witnesses do not view them as living, then they are left with a problem of a different sort. Let them explain how a nonliving body can do any of the things they say that angels did, for instance.

[5] 6.21.2024 Not that I find this claim particularly compelling in the first place. On the orthodox view, he possesses a complete human nature. So he is, indeed, true man. The Witness argument that an "incarnation" would negate his humanity simply fails. 

[6]  I can see two ways a Witness might try to avoid this. First, they might say that God cooperates with the creation of the materialized human body by separately imparting the breath of life (i.e., the life-force) to the newly materialized human body. This avoids committing them to the claim that angels have the Godly power to create life. Second, they might view the power the angel has to give the human body life as analogous to procreation. In their own body – note that Witnesses say that “All things having life, either spiritual or fleshly, have an organism, or body” (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. II, p. 246 – they have the life-force; so they can simply extend or transmit it to the body that they materialized. Maybe this, too, would avoid the problem of attributing Godly power to angels.

[7] 6.21.2024 That they seem to think the orthodox doctrine of the incarnation resembles their claims about angelic materializations suggests that they may view the bodies produced by angels as parts of the angels. Arguably, the close connection that must exist between the angel and its materialized body indicates this too. Suggesting otherwise, I think, opens up the Witnesses to the claim that possession, not materialization, is the best way to Read Genesis 6 -- if one thinks that the sons of God are, in fact, angels. For instance, if angels can experience human pleasures through a materialized body that is not really part of them, presumably they could do so through a human person whom they could possess, too.