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.

More Numerous or Less?

More Numerous or Less?

Witnesses say that there are only 144,000 persons who are born-again, spirit-anointed children of God (i.e., “the Anointed”). They alone are part of the New Covenant. They are the only ones who are co-heirs with Christ and who will go on to reign with him in heaven. Witnesses claim that along with Christ they comprise one of the two groups Paul speaks about in the following passage. In making this last claim, however, they unwittingly undermine their claim that only 144,000 believers are born again. This will be explained below.

Galatians 4:27: ”For it is written: “Be glad, you barren woman who does not give birth; break into joyful shouting, you woman who does not have birth pains; for the children [Jesus and the Anointed] of the desolate woman [the heavenly part of God’s organization] are more numerous than those [ethnic Jews] of her who has the husband [the nation of Israel].” (NWT)

The Barren / Desolate Woman = The Heavenly Part of God’s Organization (w06 3/15 p. 11)

The Children of the Barren / Desolate Woman  = Jesus and the Anointed (w85 3/15 p. 13; w95 8/1 p. 11; w06 3/15 p. 11)

Her Who Has the Husband = the Nation of Israel (w95 8/1 p. 11)

The Children of Her Who has the Husband  = ethnic Jews (at least those born under the Law) (w55 4/1 p. 223; w85 3/15 p. 12)

Witnesses cannot maintain that there have only been 144,001 spirit-begotten children of God and that there have been more than 144,001 ethnic Jews. The latter fact, however, is impossible to deny. In the first century there were already many hundreds of thousands of Jews. Only by abandoning their claim that only 144,000 humans will be born-again can they preserve their interpretation of which groups Paul is describing. Doing so, however, will undermine a great deal of their theological system and raise the question as to why their “faithful and discreet slave” has been so wrong on this issue for as long as they have.

Witnesses never directly comment on this difficulty. Nor do they offer an explicit explanation as to how 144,001 persons can be more numerous than the ethnic Jews are. However, something of a response to this objection can be constructed from what they do write. Consider the following quotations from Witness literature.

(1) “Nevertheless, the offspring of the Jerusalem above multiplied while those of the natural, earthly Jerusalem that proved unfaithful were cast off as children of the great Father and Husband, Jehovah. Sarah was a woman living in a tent, and a family increase would have meant enlarging the tent; so the woman organization corresponding to Sarah was told that the time would come when she would have to enlarge her tent. In time she would have more offspring than the Hagarlike law arrangement that produced the nation of Israel, but all of whom, except a small remnant, were unfaithful and remained in bondage to sin and death.”  (April 1, 1955 Watchtower p. 223)

(2) “She [the Jerusalem today / her who has the husband] perished at Roman hands in 70 C.E., with disaster for her “children.” (March 15, 1985 Watchtower, p. 130)

(3) “When Israel rejected and killed His Son, Jesus Christ, God finally rejected her. So no longer was that Jewish nation a figurative wife to him, nor was he the Father and Teacher of her wayward sons.” (August 1, 1995 Watchtower, p. 11)

(4) “The inspired record of first-century events shows that the fleshly nation represented by Hagar did not of itself produce sons who would be joint heirs with Jesus. Jews who proudly believed that they had a right to such an inheritance by virtue of their birth were driven out, rejected by Jehovah. Of course, some individual natural Israelites did become joint heirs with Christ. However, that privilege was granted on the basis of their faith in Jesus rather than because of their fleshly descent.” (March 15, 2006 Watchtower, p. 12)

To the extent that there is a Witness response to this objection it seems to be as follows. The spirit-anointed children of “the desolate women” outnumber the children of “her who has the husband” because the latter were disowned by God. Their mother, the nation as a whole, of which they were parts, was destroyed by God. Therefore, any number of spirit-begotten children of God will exceed the number of children of the nation of Israel, which is zero.

This response will not do, however. Being unfit to be co-heirs with Christ and consequently being disowned by God does not change the fact that these ethnic Jews were still children of “her who has the husband”. And even if the nation as a whole was brought to an end – which would be hard to square with Paul’s claims in Romans that they remain beloved on account of the patriarchs and that all Israel (the very same Israel upon whom a temporary partial hardening has presently fallen) will be saved – Witness literature acknowledges that she had many children prior to this time.

They claim that all ethnic Jews born under the Law (“the Hagarlike law arrangement”) are children of “her who has the husband”. Many millions of such persons have existed over the many centuries between the establishment of the Law at Mount Sinai and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. So, even if this woman now no longer exists and so, properly speaking, no longer produces children, this does not alter the fact that this woman has had many millions of children. Even if the woman is no more, they still have to be reckoned to be her children. Therefore, since 144,001 is fewer than many millions, Witnesses still have a serious objection to their theological system.

Witness Are Adoptionists: Or, Why the Witness Definition of Personal Identity Fails.

Witness Are Adoptionists: Or, Why the Witness Definition of Personal Identity Fails.

April 2, 2024

What is the basis of one’s numerical identity in this current life and in the resurrection? On what basis can we say that it is the very same person who dies that will be raised to life again? Witnesses provide the following answer: psychological qualities. In particular, they say that God perfectly recalls one’s “life record” and is able to recreate a living body with exactly your life record. Sometimes they refer to it as a person’s “personality pattern”, which, for humans, they have claimed is stored in the brain and, to an extent, in the blood.[1] (Watchtower April 15, 1963 pp. 241-243 pars. 34-39 “Identifying the Resurrected”)

In the article just cited, they describe this “life record” or “personality pattern” as “the exact impressions and memories of all things that happened during the person’s previous consciousness, his power of recognizing people and scenes and locations, and all his personality traits, and everything that displays his mental growth or retardation.” Since the pattern possessed by the newly created body at the resurrection will match exactly that which a person had at the moment he died, the newly created living body will simply be them.

Witnesses also teach that persons who are resurrected as humans (that is, everyone who is not of the 144,000 or the irredeemably wicked) will also resemble their former appearance. This will be an aid to recognizing others, but they cannot (and do not appear to) claim that physical resemblance is part of what grounds a person's numerical identity over time. This is due in part to their teaching that the 144,000 will be raised up as angel-like spirit beings whose bodies greatly differ from those of human beings.

Concerning the 144,000 one Watchtower article says, “In spite of this transformation, the resurrected ones are still the same individuals they were before they died. They will be raised with the same memories and the same sterling Christian qualities.” (Watchtower July 1, 1998 pp. 20-21 par. 8 “Death is to Be Brought to Nothing”) So we see that it is personality or psychological traits that ground their numerical identity over time and change in their kind of being. God knows their personality, their memories, their intellectual abilities and the like. He is able to encode, as it were, these qualities in a new human body (or, with respect to the 144,000, a new angel-like body).

This account of personal identity is open to several criticisms. One is the duplication problem. There is nothing inherent in one’s psychological traits that prevents another being from having qualitatively identical ones. For instance, God could create two living persons at the same time that both have the same exact memories, personality, and intellectual abilities that you will have at the moment you die. Obviously, despite all their similarities to each other, they will be two distinct persons. Not because they begin to accrue new memories and may develop different personalities. Rather, they were distinct from the moment they were created, even when they possessed indistinguishable psychological traits. Moreover, they must be distinct from you. So their existence – and the power God has to create a person with psychological traits indistinguishable from those you will have at your death – cannot guarantee your resurrection. Consequently, something further is required to account for numerical identity overtime between a person now and the same person in the resurrection.

Another issue is the fact that “our personalities can change” (Watchtower April 15, 1963 pp. 241-243 pars. 34-39 “Identifying the Resurrected”). Memories can come and go, intellectual ability can develop or fade. The set of psychological traits that a person has now may differ greatly from those he has when he dies. If these are the basis of personal identity, then the Witnesses must say that with respect to these two times we are literally talking about two different persons. Don’t worry about a resurrection, you may not even survive until old age!

A further problem appears when it comes to the case of the unborn or infants, whose mental lives are radically different from those of an adult human. (Indeed, what memories of personality does an embryo have?) Is your unborn self even the very same person that you are? Maybe you were not even born in the first place! Likewise, if you should fall into a coma, or suffer serious brain damage and, as a result, lose many memories, lose or gain mental abilities, and experience a significant personality change are you the same person you once were? Or has another person taken your place? I think a Witness will be unable to explain how a coma-ridden you remains you, or a TBI-altered you remains you, at least if he remains an “orthodox” Witness.

The psychological traits theory of personal identity espoused by Witnesses ruins into an insurmountable problem with respect to Jesus. Recall, they teach that Jesus only ever has had one nature (at a time). First he was an angel-like spirit being. Then he became a human being in the womb of Mary. He died as a man. Then, he was raised up as a more exalted angel-like spirit being.

It is impossible to maintain numerical identity through these transformations. When a thing of a certain kind is changed into a thing of a different kind, it does not remain what it was, even if some underlying material persists through the transformation. A cat that is turned into a tree does not remain in existence. In undergoing what an Aristotelean would call substantial change it ceases to exist and something else takes its place. This seems to me to be obviously correct. At the very least, Witnesses ought to provide some explanation as to how it is possible for Jesus to persist through these essential changes: going from being one kind of thing to being an entirely different sort of thing. However, that is not the problem I referred to above.

Rather, I want to note a problem that arises when we apply their definition of personal identity to Jesus.[2] They teach that Jesus existed as Michael the Archangel for billions of years, during which time he accumulated memories and experience. God, they say, transferred his lifeforce to the womb of Mary. But does this make sense on their account of what makes a person the very person they are? If possession of certain psychological traits is necessary for personal identity between the resurrected person and their pre-death self, would this not be the case with respect to Christ? Even if we grant that a human being is capable, in principle, of having the same memories and personality and intellectual abilities as an angel – a hard ask, if in my opinion – it is obvious that the man Jesus did not have these qualities, at least on the Witness view, when he was conceived. 

Citing Luke 2:52, their book Insight on the Scriptures (vol. 2, p. 1194 “Wisdom”) says, “Experience contributes measurably to wisdom. Even Jesus grew in wisdom as he passed through childhood.” So, at least throughout his childhood, on the Witness view he did not possess his pre-human memories, experience, and wisdom. They suggest – sometimes as a fact, other times more tentatively – that these memories and experiences were restored to Jesus at his baptism. One such definitive statement is found in the article “Restrictions of Christian Freedom” in the July 1, 1952 Watchtower (p. 413 par. 28):

At the commencement of his ministry, when he was baptized in the Jordan A.D. 29, the “heavens were opened up” and God’s spirit came upon him. (Matt. 3:16, NW) From that time forward he recalled all his prehuman experiences and spirit life. This meant that the brain of that perfect man was sufficient in size for the mind of Jesus to retain all the mental attainments and memories of his prehuman career as a mighty spirit creature in heaven gathered over a period of untold billions of years. This accounts for Jesus’ allusions to many of his personal conversations with Jehovah God in heaven which he remembered accurately.

Likewise there is this statement from the 2015 book Jesus—The Way, the Truth, the Life:

Right after Jesus is baptized by John, God’s spirit leads Jesus into the Judean wilderness. He has a lot to think about. At Jesus’ baptism, “the heavens were opened up.” (Matthew 3:16) He thus can recall things he learned and did in heaven. Indeed, there is much for him to meditate on! (p. 36)

More tentative statements are found in the New World Translation Study Bible comments on Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:21. Also, consider this quotation:

“In what way were ‘the heavens opened up’ at the time of Jesus’ baptism? This seems to indicate that Jesus’ memory of his prehuman existence in heaven returned to him.” (January 15, 2008 Watchtower p. 29 “Highlight From the Book of Matthew”)

So, Witnesses teach that the man Jesus did not always have his pre-human memories, experiences, and wisdom. These were likely or at least possibly restored to him, at the time of his baptism. They also say that psychological qualities, like memory, constitute personal identity. But they also say that Jesus was made a man in the womb of Mary. They cannot, consistently, affirm all of these claims.

If they wish to retain their account of personal identity, they end up being Adoptionists. The man Jesus Christ became the Son of God when all of Michael’s memories were restored to him. While Witnesses are Arians, even that is a bridge too far for them. So they ought to abandon their account of personal identity.

I knew at least one Witnesses who was a body-soul dualist. I cannot say for sure, but perhaps these sort of considerations played a role in his coming to that conclusion – besides other exegetical and philosophical considerations, that is.

[1] 6.21.2024 I do not believe that Witnesses currently claim that one's "personality pattern" is stored in one's blood.

[2] 6.15.2024, 10.13.2024 I want to more thoroughly look at how they apparently ground the numerical identity of Christ at the time he became a human. It should be noted that Witnesses seem to provide two explanations of the personal identity of the Son in heaven (as Michael) and as a newly conceived human child on earth (as Jesus). First, "they" have the same life-force, since God transfers it from heaven to the embryo conceived in Mary. Second, God also transfers the personality pattern of Michael to this newly conceived embryo. In their own words, "Instead, by performing a miracle that only God, the Creator, could have devised, he transferred the life-force and personality pattern of a heavenly son to the womb of a woman, Mary the daughter of Heli, of the tribe of Judah." (February 1, 1997 Watchtower, p. 11) But this is not enough to acquit the Witnesses of my accusation of Adoptionism.

First, the life-force that they mention is, according to them, merely an impersonal principle of life that is present in all living things, including angels and humans. Since it is impersonal it is hard to see how it can ground the numerical identity of a person over time. (Insight on the Scriptures Vol II, p. 246) Particularly, since they compare this life-force to electricity and state that the life-force is incapable of bearing any imprint of the person who previously had it. (August 8, 1972 Awake!, p. 27)

Moreover, as described by Witnesses, it appears that a particular instances of it (i.e., each person's own breath of life) is not literally transferable. That it does not subsist after death is affirmed in this statement from one of their publications. "When a person dies, his impersonal spirit does not go on existing in another realm as a spirit creatures." (July 15, 2002 Watchtower, p. 5) On the Witness view, therefore, the life-force that a person has seems to be tied to their body (either human or angelic). So if that body ceases to exist, then the life-force previously animating it is no more. So, when Michael's angelic body ceased to exist -- which seems to be necessarily part of what the Witnesses say happened when Jesus became a human being -- the life-force animating it did not go anywhere; in fact, it no longer existed. So any "transfer" of it must not be a literal transfer of one and the same thing. And without that, what function could appealing to the life-force play in grounding the numerical identity of Jesus during this transfer?

That Witnesses would accept this claim -- that God did not actually transfer one and the same instance of life-force from a then annihilated angelic body to a then newly created human body -- is indicated not only by the quotation from the previously paragraph, but also from their comments on passages such as Ecclesiastes 12:7 and Luke 23:46. One says, "That there be an actual and literal transmission of some force from this planet to the heavenly presence of God is not necessarily required" by expressions such as "the spirit itself returns to the true God" and "into your hand I entrust my spirit". (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. II, p. 1025) Another publication of theirs commenting on Ecclesiastes 12:7 explicitly rules out any transfer of the life-force (formerly) present in those who die. It states, "Similarly, in the case of the spirit or life-force, no actual movement from the earth to the heavenly realm takes place. But the grant of existence as an intelligent creature as enjoyed once by the dead person now reverts back to God." (August 8, 1972 Awake!, p. 28) That the life-force present in the person ceased to be is of no matter. God has an unlimited supply of life-force and so simply breath it back to the person in question at the resurrection. (Compare the January 1, 1981 Watchtower, p. 31)

Second, while Witnesses claim that God transferred the personality pattern of Michael to the human embryo when Jesus was conceived, this is untenable given what else they say. There are two reasons for that. One, what in the embryonic human could store the personality of Michael? While I noted that Witnesses used to claim that the personality pattern could be imprinted into one's blood, I doubt that they would continue to affirm this claim. But, even if they did, the embryo did not yet have blood, nor a brain! Without something to store this personality pattern, the embryo could not receive it; so Witnesses simply cannot now assert that it was, in fact, transferred. Two, Witnesses also state that Jesus gained all of his pre-earthly memories and experiences sometime after birth, probably at the time he was baptized. So it evidently was not given at his conception.