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.
No comments:
Post a Comment