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.