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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated 8.29.2024

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