Wednesday, 5 November 2025

How Jehovah’s Witnesses teach the immortality of the soul

 The Jehovah’s Witnesses have long presented themselves as the most consistent defenders of the belief that the soul is mortal. They denounce the idea of an immortal soul as a pagan doctrine inherited from Greek philosophy, and they claim to have restored the original biblical truth that man is wholly physical and dies completely. Yet when their doctrines are examined carefully, it becomes evident that they, in fact, teach the immortality of the soul under different names and in disguised form. Their system is filled with contradictions that prove their theology of death is not consistent with Scripture or even with their own stated principles.


---


**1. The nature of Adam**


Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that Adam was created mortal. They teach that Adam was created “perfect” and could have lived forever if he had not sinned. Yet the Bible nowhere says that Adam was created immortal or perfect. The record in Genesis simply declares that “The Deity saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). The text describes the whole creation as good in a *natural* sense, not in a spiritual or moral one. It does not single out Adam as being created in a state of moral perfection or incorruptibility. In Genesis 2:7, Adam is described as having become “a living soul” — not an immortal one. If the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the soul is mortal, as they claim, then Adam, being a living soul, must have been mortal by nature. But by denying his mortality, they in effect affirm that there was something immortal or undying in him before sin — which is precisely the doctrine of the immortality of the soul that they denounce in others. Their position thus contradicts itself: if Adam was not mortal, he was immortal; and if he was immortal, then death was not natural to him but an external punishment — an idea foreign to Scripture.


---


**2. The 144,000 as disembodied spirits**


Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that a group of 144,000 chosen ones are taken to heaven to live as spirit creatures with Christ. They claim that these individuals, after death, are resurrected not bodily but as spirits. This means they believe that the real person continues to exist in a different form after the body has died. Such a belief presupposes that there is something in man that survives death — precisely what they deny when they attack the traditional doctrine of the soul. If man ceases to exist entirely at death, then there is nothing left to be resurrected immediately as a spirit being. Yet the Jehovah’s Witnesses say these anointed ones are conscious, active, and ruling with Christ in heaven now. That is not a resurrection from nonexistence but a continuation of existence in another form — an implicit belief in an immortal principle within man.

Psalm 146:4 Psalm 78:39 For He remembered that they were but flesh, A spirit that passes away and does not come again


---


**3. The meaning of the resurrection**


The word “resurrection” in Scripture means a *rising again* — the reanimation and restoration of the body from death. But the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that resurrection involves a physical body. They say that the resurrection of the 144,000 is not bodily but spiritual, and that the resurrection of others in the earthly hope is a re-creation rather than a restoration. This destroys the biblical concept of resurrection and replaces it with a doctrine of replacement or transformation into a different being. If the resurrected person is not the same corporeal being who died, then there is no resurrection at all. Furthermore, the idea of a person continuing as a “spirit creature” after death assumes ongoing conscious existence apart from the body — again, a disguised form of belief in an immortal soul.


Daniel 12:2 1 Corinthians 15:53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality


This verse is referring to the body it makes more sense if it reads this corruptible body must pot on in corruption and this Mortal body must put on immortality

---


**4. The “anointed” and survival without a body**


The Witnesses claim that the 144,000 “anointed” die and are immediately resurrected as spirit creatures to live with Christ in heaven. But this claim implies survival without a body. It assumes that the person continues to exist as something distinct from the physical body and capable of consciousness without it. That is precisely the traditional definition of an immortal soul. If, as they also teach, death is the absence of existence, then no one could “go” anywhere or live in any form after death. Their doctrine of the anointed class therefore contradicts their own view of death as nonexistence.


This contradict simple Bible teaching Hebrews 11:39,40  2Corinthians 5:10 2Timothy 4:1

---


**5. Jesus’ resurrection as a spirit creature**


Jehovah’s Witnesses also claim that Jesus was resurrected as a spirit creature and not as a physical man. They insist that his human body was not raised but was dissolved or taken away by The Deity. This teaching denies that Jesus truly died, because if his spirit continued to live while his body was gone, then he did not experience real death — only bodily dissolution. Scripture teaches that the man who died is the man who was raised (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). To claim that the “spirit” of Jesus lived on while his body perished is to affirm the continued existence of a conscious being without a body — another admission of belief in the immortality of a soul-like essence. The Witnesses, in denying the bodily resurrection, have simply transferred the Platonic idea of the immortal soul to Jesus himself.


Jesus's body did not see corruption" is a core Christian belief based on biblical passages, primarily Acts 2:27 and 2:31, which cite Psalm 16:10 Acts 13:37


---


**6. Dualism disguised as materialism**


Although Jehovah’s Witnesses profess to reject dualism — the idea that man is composed of body and soul — their theology of heaven and the 144,000 makes a clear dualistic division between two substances: physical humans and spiritual creatures. The “anointed” are said to exist as spirits in heaven, while the rest of mankind remain physical on earth. This is not a mere difference of location but of *substance*. Thus, they have unwittingly introduced the very dualism they denounce.


---


**7. Platonism under another name**


Their teaching that the 144,000 live forever as non-material spirit beings is simply Platonism under another name. They reject the terminology of “immortal souls,” yet the concept is identical. Plato taught that the soul escapes the body and lives eternally in a higher realm. The Witnesses teach that the anointed escape their bodies and live eternally in heaven as spirits. They have merely exchanged Greek philosophical terms for Watchtower terminology, while retaining the same essence of doctrine.


---


**8. The contradiction of death and heavenly rule**


If, as Jehovah’s Witnesses claim, the dead are non-existent until the resurrection, then the anointed who have died cannot yet be ruling with Christ. Nonexistence cannot reign. Yet they teach that these ones are presently alive and conscious in heaven. This means that the dead continue to exist — a denial of their own doctrine that death is the cessation of being. The only way the 144,000 can reign now is if they survived death in some form — which is to teach that they have an immortal aspect.


---


**9. The corporeality of angels**


The Witnesses describe angels and “spirit creatures” as non-physical and immaterial. Yet the Scriptures present angels as corporeal beings who can appear, speak, and even eat (Genesis 18–19). If angels are corporeal, then to claim that resurrected humans become “spirit creatures like angels” is to admit that they, too, have bodies — not immaterial spirits. But the Witnesses deny this, teaching that spirit beings are formless energies. This contradiction shows that their entire conception of “spirit” is based on an unscriptural notion of immaterial existence — precisely what they accuse Christendom of believing.


---


**10. The mortality of Adam revisited**


Their denial of Adam’s mortality destroys their own doctrine of death. If Adam was not mortal, he was immortal by nature. To say that he “became mortal” through sin implies that he lost an original immortality — a contradiction of their claim that the soul is mortal and can die. It also makes death a punishment rather than a natural process of the body, even though Genesis describes mortality as inherent in man: “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return” (Genesis 3:19). Mortality was the natural condition from the beginning; Adam’s sin did not create mortality, it only made death inevitable for all his descendants. The Witnesses, in denying this, embrace the very error they claim to oppose.


---


**11. Two substances of being**


Finally, their teaching that the heavenly class lives forever as spirit beings while the earthly class lives forever as physical humans introduces a fundamental division of substance. The heavenly class are non-physical; the earthly class are physical. This distinction implies that the heavenly class possesses a kind of indestructible, non-corporeal existence that cannot die — in other words, an immortal soul. The distinction is not between two locations but between two modes of being, one physical and the other spiritual, which is the classic dualism they denounce.


---


In every major doctrine concerning life, death, and resurrection, the Jehovah’s Witnesses contradict their own claim that the soul is mortal. By denying the corporeal nature of resurrection, by affirming disembodied existence for the 144,000, and by teaching that Jesus himself was raised as a spirit creature, they have revived the very Greek dualism they pretend to have abolished. Their doctrine is not consistent materialism but disguised spiritualism — a teaching of the immortality of the soul under another name.


Adoptionism and the Rejection of the Virgin Birth: A Historical and Theological Examination

**Adoptionism and the Rejection of the Virgin Birth: A Historical and Theological Examination**

Some said, “Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.” They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled. She is a great anathema to the Hebrews, who are the apostles and the apostolic men. This virgin whom no power defiled [...] the powers defile themselves. And the Lord would not have said “My Father who is in Heaven” (Mt 16:17), unless he had had another father, but he would have said simply “My father.” — *Gospel of Philip*

The quotation above from the *Gospel of Philip* reflects an early Christian theological current that challenged the idea of the virgin birth. It presents a distinctly non-Trinitarian interpretation of Jesus’ origin, closely aligned with what later came to be known as *Adoptionism*. In this view, Jesus was not born as the eternal Son of The Deity but was instead a man chosen and empowered by The Deity at a decisive moment—usually at his baptism, resurrection, or ascension.

---

### Gnostic Adoptionism Is Not Docetism

Furthermore, they will say of him that he is unbegotten, though he has been begotten, (that) he does not eat, even though he eats, (that) he does not drink, even though he drinks, (that) he is uncircumcised, though he has been circumcised, (that) he is unfleshly, though he has come in the flesh, (that) he did not come to suffering, <though> he came to suffering, (that) he did not rise from the dead, <though> he arose from the dead. — *Melchizedek* (Nag Hammadi)

Gnostic Adoptionism is not Docetism. While both reject the notion that Jesus was an eternally divine being by nature, they differ fundamentally in how they interpret his humanity. Adoptionism affirms that Jesus was a real man of flesh and blood, born, eating, drinking, circumcised, suffering, and rising from the dead, as the *Melchizedek* text declares: “they will say of him that he is unbegotten, though he has been begotten… that he is unfleshly, though he has come in the flesh.” This passage directly rebukes the Docetic claim that Christ merely *appeared* to be human. Gnostic Adoptionism maintains that divinity was conferred upon the man Jesus through election or descent of divine power—often at his baptism—rather than through preexistent essence. In this view, Jesus’ flesh was genuine and subject to suffering, but his moral perfection and obedience enabled him to be adopted by The Deity as Son. Thus, far from denying his humanity, Gnostic Adoptionism exalts it as the vessel through which divine grace was manifested.

---

### The Nature of Adoptionism

Adoptionism is best described as a theology of relationship rather than of nature. It does not affirm the virgin birth, nor does it hold that Jesus was inherently divine by substance. Rather, it understands divinity as a status conferred by The Deity upon a worthy and righteous human being. In this view, Jesus was “adopted” as the Son of The Deity because of his perfect obedience and moral purity.

The roots of Adoptionism go back to Jewish Christianity, particularly the *Ebionites*. According to early patristic sources such as Epiphanius of Salamis, the Ebionites regarded Jesus as a man chosen because of his sinless devotion to the will of The Deity. He was a prophet, Messiah, and righteous teacher, but not pre-existent or inherently divine. Their theology was grounded in the conviction that The Deity alone is eternal and unbegotten, while all other beings, including the Messiah, are temporal and created.

---

### The Ebionites and the Rejection of the Virgin Birth

The Ebionites provide the earliest and clearest example of Adoptionist belief within the historical record. They maintained that Jesus was born of Joseph and Mary, a natural birth without miraculous conception. The virgin birth doctrine, which came to dominate later Christian orthodoxy, was entirely absent from their scriptures. The *Gospel of the Ebionites*, which combined elements of the Synoptic Gospels, began its narrative not with a birth story but with the baptism of Jesus.

In their gospel, the voice from heaven at Jesus’ baptism—“You are my Son, this day I have begotten you”—was taken literally as the moment when Jesus became the Son of The Deity. This baptismal adoption marked his elevation from a righteous man to the chosen Messiah. Their Christology was therefore moral and relational: Jesus’ perfection of conduct and complete submission to The Deity’s will merited his adoption.

The Ebionites also rejected the Apostle Paul, whom they viewed as an apostate from the Law. They insisted on the observance of Jewish commandments and rites, affirming continuity between Jesus’ teachings and the Torah. Their emphasis on voluntary poverty (reflected in their name *Ebionim*, “the poor ones”) highlighted their rejection of worldly power and wealth.

---

### Theodotus of Byzantium and Valentinian Adoptionism

In the late 2nd century, Theodotus of Byzantium—described by Hippolytus of Rome as a Valentinian—became one of the most articulate proponents of Adoptionism. According to *Philosophumena* VII.xxiii, Theodotus taught that Jesus was born of a virgin according to the decree of the Council of Jerusalem but lived as an ordinary man distinguished by his piety and virtue. At his baptism in the Jordan, “the Christ” descended upon him in the likeness of a dove. The man Jesus thus received the anointing of divine power, but he did not become fully identified with The Deity until after his resurrection.

This teaching reflects a layered understanding of the Christ event: the human Jesus became the vessel of divine power through moral and spiritual elevation. Theodotus’ interpretation is compatible with the *Gospel of Philip’s* statement that Jesus’ true father was “another Father,” not Joseph nor the Holy Spirit as a feminine power. The passage implies that the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit—a “woman conceiving by a woman”—is nonsensical, rejecting any notion of divine generation through an immaterial or feminine principle.

---

### The Rejection of Adoptionism and the Rise of Orthodoxy

By the late 3rd century, Adoptionism was officially declared heresy. The Synods of Antioch and later the First Council of Nicaea (325 CE) defined the orthodox position that Jesus Christ was eternally begotten, “of one substance with the Father.” This formulation rejected the idea that Jesus became divine through moral elevation or divine choice. Instead, it affirmed that Jesus was divine by nature, not by adoption.

The Nicene doctrine established an ontological unity between Jesus and The Deity, forming the foundation of what became the Trinitarian creed. Yet, this marked a decisive departure from earlier Christian traditions that emphasized the moral and relational union between the human Jesus and The Deity. In suppressing Adoptionism, the Church also rejected the earlier Jewish Christian understanding of Jesus as a chosen servant of The Deity, in favor of a metaphysical view of eternal divinity.

---

### The Bogomils and the Later Survival of Adoptionism

Adoptionism did not disappear with Nicaea. It resurfaced centuries later among dualistic sects such as the *Bogomils* of medieval Bulgaria. Though primarily known for their dualism—dividing the cosmos between the good Creator and the evil maker of the physical world—the Bogomils also embraced an Adoptionist Christology. They denied that Jesus was eternally divine by nature, holding instead that he was a man upon whom divine grace descended.

According to their teachings, Jesus was identified with the angel Michael, the younger son of The Deity, who took on human form to liberate humanity. At his baptism in the Jordan, he was “elected” and received power to undo the covenant Adam had made with Satan. In their view, Jesus became the Son of The Deity through grace, not by nature—mirroring the Ebionite and Theodotian positions.

The Bogomils further rejected the doctrine of the virgin birth and the physical incarnation, seeing these as attempts to sanctify the material world, which they viewed as the domain of Satan. They interpreted the Logos not as a person but as the spoken word of The Deity—an expression of divine reason and wisdom manifested in the teachings of Christ. This rational and relational interpretation of divinity paralleled earlier Adoptionist currents, though framed within their dualistic cosmology.

---

### Conclusion

From the Ebionites to Theodotus and the Bogomils, Adoptionism represents a persistent thread of early Christian theology emphasizing the humanity of Jesus and the relational nature of divine sonship. The *Gospel of Philip* provides a Gnostic articulation of this same impulse, rejecting the literal virgin birth and affirming instead that Jesus’ divine sonship derived from his relationship to “another Father,” the true Power in Heaven.

This view upholds that Jesus’ union with The Deity was not biological or metaphysical but moral and volitional. It portrays divinity as something that can be conferred through righteousness and perfect obedience—a state that can be attained rather than innately possessed. In this light, Adoptionism was not merely a heresy but a profound affirmation of moral transformation: that a human being, through devotion and purity, could become one with the will of The Deity.

By redefining sonship as adoption rather than innate essence, Adoptionism preserved the transcendence of The Deity while maintaining the full humanity of Jesus. It stood as a testament to an earlier, more dynamic understanding of divine relationship—one in which the boundary between the human and the divine was not fixed by nature, but opened through grace.