Worst of Both Worlds (Part Two)

12.19.2024: I have decided that I am not entirely happy with the arguments contained in this essay.

If Witnesses deny that the future is alethically settled, then it seems that neither objection can get off the ground. Contrary to the initial open theist objection articulated earlier, Witnesses would not have missed the main point of open theism. And it seems that they could still object to exhaustive foreknowledge on the grounds that it is contrary to human freedom. So, I will try to prove that this position is at least implicitly taught in Witness literature.

 

The main point in favor of the claim that Witnesses affirm an alethically settled future is that they claim that God can know the future, not merely have reasonably well-established beliefs about what is or is not likely to occur. This by itself suggests that Witness theology holds that the future is alethically settled. A second, more specific reason for concluding that Witness theology holds that the future is alethically settled is that at least one of the methods for knowing the future that they ascribe to God entails that the future is alethically settled. To explain this second point I will now describe two methods of foreknowledge that Witness literature ascribes to God.

First, Witness literature sometimes seems to describe God as the Chess Grandmaster par excellence; this is method one foreknowledge. Through inference based off of his knowledge of the past and present as well as knowledge of his own power God is able to know whatever he wants to know about the future.[1] The March 1, 1968 Watchtower (pp. 133-134) seems to affirm this method of foreknowledge. It contrasts the ability of humans, who can only rarely have “a remarkably accurate view of the future” with God’s unlimited ability to have a completely accurate view of the future. Some further germane quotations will show that this article seems to affirm this method of foreknowledge to God. “What makes it possible to predict future events accurately? Important would be having a knowledge of all the factors that might affect the matter.” “Whereas humans are generally incapable of knowing all the necessary information, and of analyzing it properly, there does exist ‘One perfect in knowledge’ and who is thus able accurately to foretell the future.” “Jehovah God is unlimited in his powers to foretell the future, because not only does he possess all the facts, but he can control all the factors.” A more recent Watchtower article states that “one reason why Jehovah can foretell the future is that he has the power to make things happen. He does not need to fast-forward, so to speak, to see what the future will bring—as if all future events have already happened in some form and Jehovah merely reviews them in advance.”[2] (Watchtower: Study Edition February, 2024, p. 30)

 

Second, Witness literature sometimes seems to describe God as the great Intuitionist; this is method two foreknowledge. He simply sees the future as one might see a tree or rationally perceive the truthfulness of the law of non-contradiction. A June 1, 1953 Watchtower article states, “What he foreknows takes place because of the infallibility of his power of perception into the future.” (pp. 336-341) That the article describes his power of foreknowledge as “perception” suggests that they may mean a method of knowing the future as was just described. A January 1, 2011 Watchtower article states, “The ability to refrain from using foreknowledge can be illustrated with a feature of modern technology. Someone watching a prerecorded sports match has the option to watch the final minutes first in order to know the outcome. But he does not have to start that way.”[3] Obviously by skipping to the end one would simply see how things end up at the conclusion of the match. Such knowledge would not be the result of an inference based on its initial moments. In other words, the method of foreknowledge that this article seems to propose is method two foreknowledge. God has (and at least usually exercises) his ability “to refrain from using” his power of “foreknowledge” to see a previously unknown but apparently alethically settled future as one might choose to refrain from skipping ahead in a recording of an as-of-yet unknown but alethically settled sports match.

Lastly, that Witnesses concede that it was possible for God to have foreknown the fall appears to commit them to more than the first method of foreknowledge described above, since presumably it would not have been possible to determine from the still sinless Adam that he would, in fact, ever sin. (January 1, 1951 Watchtower, pp. 31-32) In Witness theology, Adam was made without any sinful tendencies. So all of the available evidence, if anything, would suggest that he would pass any test he came up against. Past and present evidence could not be used to know that Adam would sin. Likewise, in Witness theology, God trusts the Anointed when he bestows immortality upon them. His confidence is based on their life-record until that point. While Witness literature admits that it is still possible for the Anointed to sin, they think that it is utterly unlikely. In other words, God’s confidence is eminently reasonable. But this indicates that it is not possible to know (i.e, with complete, infallible, certitude) that an Anointed person will sin (or not) merely judging by knowledge of the past and present. Yet, if the Fall could have been foreknown, as Witnesses concede – or if God could choose to remove any scintilla of doubt about the Anointed – then something more than method one foreknowledge is required. This something more, I think, would have to be something like method two foreknowledge. 

At least one Witness publication states that “we cannot be dogmatic about such matters” as “how or when he [foretells the future] or even how much he chooses to know”. (Watchtower: Study Edition February, 2024, p. 30) Nevertheless, I believe that these two methods of foreknowledge are taught within Witness literature.  The latter of which is most immediately damaging for the Witness, since it seems to presuppose the existence of an alethically settled, exhaustive description of the future. If God simply has an unlimited ability to perceive or intuit truths about the future, then there must be something “out there” for him to perceive, namely, a complete, true description of the future. If an affirmation of an alethically settled future is part of Witness theology, then the Witness rejection of complete foreknowledge on the grounds that the unalterable veracity of God’s knowledge is incompatible with creaturely freedom is nonsensical. There are already unalterable facts about the future that God can know. If this is not incompatible with genuine creaturely freedom, then what is it about God’s knowledge of these facts that would obliterate creaturely freedom? Nothing. So, by conceding an alethically settled future, Witnesses theology removes any reasonable grounds to object to exhaustive foreknowledge as somehow contrary to creaturely freedom. Consequently, Witnesses should give up this argument against the orthodox position that God foreknows everything.

If, however, my argument that Witness theology at least implicitly teaches an alethically settled future were not well-founded, the main argument of this essay – that the Witness opposition to exhaustive foreknowledge as being somehow contrary to creaturely freedom is nonsensical – might still succeed. If in Witness theology the future is alethically settleable without injury to creaturely freedom, then this argument still accomplishes its goal. And Witness literature might make this claim, at least implicitly. This will be discussed in part three.

[1] Witnesses say that God can know the future by this means, but in my opinion this is not plausible. Such a method seems to be capable of attaining probabilities, not certitude. Nevertheless what is most salient for this essay is what Witnesses attribute to this method, namely, knowledge.

[2] This quotation seems to contrast two methods for being able to know the future, which correspond to the methods I am presently discussing. One is based on conjecture and control and the other based on simply perceiving. Moreover, the article says that God does not need to adopt the latter method, not that he cannot do so. This by itself suggests that Witness literature would have us believe that God is capable of this second method.

[3] Note how this method matches the description of the method mentioned in the quotation from the February, 2024 Watchtower quoted at the end of the last paragraph. God does not need to employ this method, according to Witness theology, but it seems that he can do so

Worst of Both Worlds (Part One)

12.19.2024: I have decided that I am not entirely happy with the arguments contained in this essay.

Witnesses espouse an interesting variant of open theism. While they maintain that God does not know (most of) the future, they claim that he is able to know it exhaustively. He simply refrains from doing so. This variant of open theism is sometimes referred to as Voluntary Nescience. Unlike (most?) open theists, they evidently do not object to the existence or knowability of future truths, but object merely to God’s knowing (too many of) them. It seems that on the Witness view, creaturely freedom is not contrary to the future being alethically settled (i.e., there already being a true, complete description of the future). It is only contrary to God’s knowing (most of) that maximal description of the future. This position will not please many open theists nor the orthodox proponent of divine foreknowledge.

 

Most open theists will object to the Witness view on the grounds that the real issue is the existence of facts about the future. If it is already true that tomorrow I will do X, they suppose, then nothing I can do can change this fact. And this seems to mean that I am unfree. The problem arises whether or not God knows the truth of the matter. So, merely denying that he does cannot preserve my freedom. What is needed is to deny the reality of such truths in the first place. It is not yet true that I will do X tomorrow. Thus, while God would be able to make the best informed guess as to what I will do, he cannot know what I will do. And this view, it is said, is not incompatible with omniscience, since there is not yet any fact that God fails to know.

 

The objection of the orthodox is the other side of the coin. Since Witnesses do not fall for the common open theist objection that an alethically settled future entails that there is no genuine creaturely freedom, they should not object to God knowing these truths (at least on the grounds that doing so would remove creaturely freedom). The truths that the Witness view of divine foreknowledge seem to implicitly concede exist are just as unalterable as the orthodox say God’s knowledge of these truths is. It is nonsensical for Witnesses to object to the inalterability to God’s knowledge (as contrary to creaturely freedom) but not the facts in question. Since they have already conceded that the inalterability of prior truths about the future does not limit genuine freedom, Witnesses ought to give up their argument that for creatures to have free will God must choose to not know most of the future.

 

Three things to note. First, my argument is that the Witness position that God’s meticulous foreknowledge of the future is inconsistent with creaturely freedom is nonsensical. However, since Witnesses maintain their denial of exhaustive foreknowledge for other reasons, this  argument does not amount to a claim that their version of open theism is nonsensical. That would be an argument for another time. Second, the argument of this essay (that the Witness rejection of meticulous foreknowledge on the grounds that this would be contrary to creaturely freedom is nonsensical) depends on the premise that Witness theology at least implicitly concede that the future is alethically settled (i.e., there is a true, complete description of the future) – or that it can be, without injury to creaturely freedom, settled prior to its occurring. I will argue for this in part two. Third, Witnesses seem to affirm at least two methods by which God can know the future. These will be described in part two, partly to establish my claim that Witnesses affirm an alethically settled (or settle-able) future and partly because it is of interest to me.

By Your Standard of Measure [A Prophet by Any Other Name (Part Two)]

Sometimes Witnesses will compare their leaders to others who throughout history have attempted and failed to predict significant dates in connection to the end of the world. Such persons are often respected Church figures who their Christian critics are not likely to condemn as false prophets. Witnesses do this to reveal what they suppose to be a fundamental unfairness in their critics' denunciations against their leaders. However, this does not paint a complete picture of things, in two respects. The first, which is not the concern of this essay, is that Witness leaders claim a special mandate and to have authority that most, if not all, of the historical persons they cite do not. The second, which is relevant to this essay, is that Witness leaders are more than happy to condemn others as false prophets. Doing so, however, is problematic for their attempt to exonerate themselves from the charge of being false prophets, as this essay will show.

When it comes to lambasting others, particularly “Christendom’s clergy-prophets”, the Witnesses’ polemical right hand does not know what their apologetic left hand is doing. (November 1, 1979 Watchtower, p. 26) If it did, it would not set up a definition of false prophet that undermines their whole apologetic effort on this point. Witnesses aim to exonerate their leaders of the accusation of being false prophets even in the eyes of those who disagree with their doctrines and practices. They argue that even if you disagree with their date setting, doctrines, or practices you still ought to concede that their leaders are not false prophets. But the Witness polemic aimed especially at “the clergy” presupposes a definition of false prophet that when applied by their Christian critics to their leaders requires these critics to arrive at precisely the opposite conclusion, namely, that Witness leaders are false prophets. Further, this polemic removes the Witness ability to evade this accusation by merely claiming that their leaders often deny being infallible or possessing the gift of prophecy.

Observe the criteria by which Witness literature judges “the clergy” to be false prophets. “The clergy claim the exclusive right to speak for God and to have His spirit.” (November 1, 1976 Watchtower, p. 665) Presumably they proclaim “messages that they attribute to a superhuman source but that do not originate with the true God and are not in harmony with his revealed will.” (Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 132) Witnesses claim that “Christendom’s clergy also walk in falsehood, spreading apostate doctrines, teachings not found in God’s word,” such as the doctrine of the Trinity. (March 1, 1994 Watchtower, pp. 9-10) They promoted a merely human organization, the United Nations, as the best hope for mankind. (November 1, 1958 Watchtower, p. 650; April 1, 1972 Watchtower, p. 197) The fruitage of their teaching, such as immoral laity, is bad. (February 1, 1990 Watchtower, p. 21) So they are “false prophets – religious teachers who falsely claim to speak for God.” (True Peace and Security—How Can You Find It?, p. 81) In other words, the clergy are false prophets because they claim a special mandate to speak on God’s behalf, to teach and instruct others, but they fail to live up to these lofty claims because they teach false doctrines and produce bad fruit.

From the Witness perspective only a few of these criteria are met by their own leaders. For instance, Witness leaders claim to constitute the sole visible channel of communication used by God. (October 1, 1994 Watchtower, p. 8) Arguably, even a Witness ought to concede that their leaders have made occasional significant errors. Russell, for instance, revived his 1880s teaching that the Church is not under the New Covenant. (January 1, 1907 Zion’s Watch Tower, p. 9-10) Rutherford taught that the Holy Spirit ceased to be the paraclete or advocate for the Church. (Preservation, p. 51, pp. 193-194) And the disappointments caused by the false expectations that were fostered in part by Witness leaders surely must count as bad fruit even by Witness standards, since it drove many away from “the Truth”. However, Witnesses probably feel content that their leaders cannot count as false leaders by their own standard.

But, they should at least not begrudge others, who do not share their misguided notions of what counts as “apostate doctrines”, the right to apply this standard to the Witness leaders. When such critics do, I think, they are eminently justified in concluding that Witness leaders are false prophets. What Witnesses would call sound doctrine their Christian critics would call false teaching; the sub-par Arianism of Witnesses would be one example of this. And a good deal of what Witnesses would call the good fruit of the “Faithful and Discreet Slave” their Christian critics would call bad fruit; the deception promulgated onto millions of Witnesses, the breaking up of families and friendships over their sectarian teachings, and the needless deaths of those who were taught or pressured to refuse blood transfusions would examples of this. Moreover, Witnesses leaders promote a merely human organization as the best hope for mankind, namely, their own. Turnabout is fair play.

Notice, also, that Witnesses do not claim that “the clergy” – an apparently supposedly monolithic group – claim infallibility or the gift of prophecy. (If they were to do so, this would not be credible. For while some clerics, such as the Roman Pontiff, make relatively limited claims of infallibility, this is not true of clergy generally.) Since Witnesses condemn as false prophets a group that does not claim infallibility or a special gift of prophecy, they tacitly admit that claiming either is not a necessary feature of a false prophet. They thereby concede the irrelevance of one of their best responses to the accusation that their leaders are false prophets, namely, their leader’s statements that they lack both of these.

Scripture warns, “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.” (Matthew 7:2) Witness leaders ought to have known better than to apply a definition of false prophet to their religious enemies that in all fairness should be applied to them. When their Christian critics do so, is it really surprising that they would conclude that Witness leaders are false prophets? Moreover, in their polemic zeal Witness leaders reveal that they do not really think that claiming infallibility or a gift of prophecy is a necessary feature of being a false prophet. So, either they are being unfair when they condemn others or they are being disingenuous when they defend themselves on this point. Clearly, the Witness leader’s condemnation of others as false prophets does their defense against the same charge no favors.

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.[3]

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”.[4] While this resemblance is not entirely exact, since Christ is not co-equal to the Father even at this point,[5] 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.”[6] (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] See also “The Truth Shall Make You Free” (p. 44): “Did this firstborn Son possess immortality, that is, deathlessness? That he did not have this quality and was not immortal at this time is proved by later facts as well as plainly stated in the Bible. Endless life is dependent upon unending obedience to God. By faithful and perfect obedience the Son would live by his Father’s approval and could live with him forever. The time came, however, that Jehovah God opened up to his Son the opportunity to gain such immortality.” Since immortality is contrasted with mere endless life, which is contingent upon “perfect obedience,” it stands to reason that according to this publication, an immortal being’s continued existence is not contingent upon continued perfect obedience.

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

[5] 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.

[6] 1.15.2025: The August 15, 2006 Watchtower, p. 31 states that “it is possible for those [perfected humans] who pass the final test to rebel against God and hence be destroyed,” even if “it is very unlikely.” (Only Adamic sin and death are said to be said to be destroyed; Compare the September 15, 2014 Watchtower, p. 25) What makes it unlikely? The article answers, “Those who pass the final test will differ from Adam in one crucial sense. They will have been fully tested. We can be confident of the thoroughness of the final test because Jehovah knows how to examine people inside out.” Yet, such testing only allows one to say that it is “very unlikely” that any of redeemed mankind will sin. It still precludes confidently concluding “that no human will ever turn his back on God, as Adam did.” If the testing of mankind is incapable of producing certainty, why think that the testing of the Anointed can remove all doubt?

3.23.2025: Compare also the June 15, 1965 Watchtower, p. 383. “First of all, let us note that this enemy could not be the “second death” repeatedly mentioned in the book of Revelation. (Re 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8) Why not? Because nowhere do we read of its being destroyed. How could it be, since it means eternal annihilation, everlasting destruction or punishment? It will always exist, and that in two respects. First, it will never be destroyed in that it will never give up the dead in it. Second, it will exist forever in that, should anyone throughout all eternity rebel against Jehovah (though this is highly improbable), he would be cast into the “lake of fire,” the “second death.” So the “second death” will neither release those who are in it nor become powerless should any deserve to be committed to it throughout eternity.”

Compare also Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?, pp. 195-196 (originally published in 1985): “Also, by allowing enough time to settle the issues relative to human rule, God has established a permanent precedent for the future. It could be likened to a fundamental supreme court case. For all time the issue has been settled: Human rule apart from God cannot bring about desirable conditions on the earth. Thus, in the future, if any free agent should challenge God’s way of doing things, it would not be necessary to allow thousands of additional years to try to prove his contention. Everything that needs to be proved has been proved in this period of about 6,000 years that God has allowed. So, throughout the eternity of time ahead, no rebel will ever again be allowed to mar the peace and happiness of life on the earth, or to interfere with God’s sovereignty anywhere else in the universe. As the Bible emphatically states: “Distress will not rise up a second time.”—Nahum 1:9.”

Compare also Will There Ever Be a World Without War?, p. 17 (originally published in 1992, last printed in March, 2018): “By allowing enough time to settle the issues raised, God establishes a permanent precedent. If in the future God’s exercise of sovereignty should again be challenged, it would not be necessary to allow the rebel any additional time to prove his contention. (Nahum 1:9) Everything that needs to be proved will already have been proved.” (For what it is worth, the text of this book available through Watchtower Library is the March, 2018 printing.)

3.30.2025: Compare also the February 1, 1960 Watchtower, p. 68: “What if a person should become rebellious when death is no more? Will there be no way to end his life? Yes, there will. The end of death does not mean that if any person should become wicked he would be safe from destruction. The Bible says: “Death and Hades were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire.” (Rev. 20:14) It is evident from this that the death symbolized by the lake of fire will always be possible for man, but not inevitable. As long as a person remains obedient to the Supreme Sovereign he will not experience it. The death that has come automatically to all humans because of Adam’s sin is the death that is destroyed by being cast into the lake of fire. Anyone that dies in God’s new world will die because of his own wickedness, not Adam’s. It is the death that is inherited from Adam that is referred to when the Bible says: “As the last enemy, death is to be destroyed.”—1 Cor. 15:26.”

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