Likely to Fall

Previously we argued that since Witness theology denies creaturely impeccability but affirms the immortality of the glorified Anointed it contradicts its own claim that annihilation is the ultimate punishment for sin. This, in turn, undermines its opposition to an eternal hell as necessarily unjust. In those two essays, we noted that according to Witness theology it is highly unlikely that any of the glorified Anointed will ever sin. Since the likelihood of their sinning according to Witness theology does not matter for our conclusion in those essays, we simply assumed this was the case for the sake of argument. However, in this essay we will advance two mostly internal arguments that we believe shows that it is problematic for Witness theology to claim that it is highly unlikely that any of the glorified Anointed will ever sin.

Purification of the Anointed

Witness literature frequently comments on the gradual process by means of which obedient mankind will be brought to a state of moral and spiritual perfection during the thousand year reign of Christ. (April 15, 1954 Watchtower, pp. 254-255; November 15, 1963 Watchtower, p. 679; January 1, 1977 Watchtower, p. 10; December 1, 1985 Watchtower, pp. 17-18; September, 2022 Watchtower, p. 22) But what of the Anointed? While they are still in the flesh they still commit sins, have to fight against sinful tendencies, and require forgiveness. They are not yet spiritually or morally perfect when they die. In fact the Anointed can totally fall away by committing an unpardonable sin. (March 1, 1976 Watchtower, p. 158; December 1, 1985 Watchtower, p. 12; July 1, 1996 Watchtower, p. 16; January 1, 2007 Watchtower, p. 22; June, 2014 Our Kingdom Ministry, p. 8; Insight on the Scriptures Vol. I, “Declare Righteous” par. 14) So, it stands to reason that they will still need to be perfected after they die. However, unlike mankind they will not undergo a gradual perfecting process on a paradise earth during the thousand year reign of Christ. Nor, would their purification take place while they are dead, since the dead are supposedly in a state of nonexistence. (September 1, 1978, Watchtower, p. 22) So when does this happen?

There are only two possible answers: an instantaneous moral transformation at the time of their resurrection as immortal spirits or a quick yet gradual spiritual purification following their resurrection in the heavens.[1] Witness literature appears to favor the former answer. Regardless, we suggest that either option is at odds with other aspects of Witness theology.

We believe that there are two objections to the first proposal of a sudden purification from sin. First, a purgatorial instant does not seem to fit well with the Witness view of free will. Second, the Witness view of the resurrection, and specifically of personal identity through resurrection, seems to preclude an instantaneous purification (at least according to one way that a Witness might describe it).

We do not object to a purgatorial moment as such. We believe that this is what actually happens to the redeemed at the moment of their death. Nor do we think that such a transformation conflicts with genuine creaturely freedom. However, we suspect that the Witness view of creaturely freedom precludes such a drastic, immediate change. The gradual moral and spiritual restoration of mankind fits much better with their view of creaturely freedom than would an instantaneous, complete sanctification of the Anointed. Such an instantaneous, complete transformation is entirely unexpected given their view of creaturely freedom.[2]

We think that there are two ways a Witness might explain the instantaneous purification of the Anointed.[3] First, God creates an angel-like spirit with a qualitatively identical life pattern to that which, say, anointed brother Bob had at the time of his death. At the very next instant he then drastically alters it. He removes every sinful tendency and supplies whatever good things were lacking in it in order to render the spirit being morally and spiritual perfect. Second, God creates an angel-like spirit that from the very instant of its existence has a qualitatively similar life pattern to the one Bob had at the time of his death, but one that already lacks everything morally defective in Bob’s life pattern as it was at the time of his death and has everything necessary for moral and spiritual perfection that was missing. The first option would be an alteration of a life pattern that concretely existed (albeit one that had only existed for a moment). The second option, however, would not and would rather be a replacement.

For this reason, the second option would not seem to be the best way for Witness theology to understand an instant purification of the Anointed at the time of their resurrection. First, it is hard to see why the newly created life pattern (the psychological composite of memories, knowledge, powers of perception, personality, and character traits) should even be thought to be the same life pattern that the human Bob had before he died. It is psychologically radically different. It did not emerge organically from the life pattern that concretely existed within Bob’s human brain; it is causally, spatially, and/or temporally[4] disconnected from the life pattern of human Bob. It would seem that, according to Witness theology, the spirit being with this supposedly improved version of Bob’s life pattern would be a numerically distinct person, since he has a distinct life pattern that only bears some resemblance to that of the actual Bob who died. Our friend Bob has not been resurrected. Pseudo-Bob has merely taken his place.

Witness literature teaches that God’s ability to resurrect a person depends on his ability to remember “everything about all those he will bring back to life,” “all the details of their identity,” “the millions of traits and characteristics of the individual,” even “the smallest details about those he will resurrect.” (April, 2023 Watchtower, p. 9; April 1, 1999 Watchtower, p. 18; April 1, 1968 Watchtower, p. 200; What Can the Bible Teach Us?, p. 76) For, only by doing so, is he able to “bring back to life the same person, [by] giving him or her the same personality in a newly formed body.” (What Happens to Us When We Die?, p. 26; Cf. May 15, 1980 Watchtower, p. 15; March 22, 1980 Awake!, p. 11; February 1, 1975 Watchtower, p. 90) So, in order for human Bob to be resurrected as a glorious spirit, “his body will [have to] carry within it all the God-given characteristics that make him the same individual who died. He will [have to] possess the full identity of his former life.” (October 15, 1978 Watchtower, p. 5; Cf. December 1, 1975 Watchtower, pp. 726-727; March 1, 1969 Watchtower, p. 135; April 1, 1968 Watchtower, p. 200; April 15, 1963 Watchtower, pp. 241-243; June 1, 1959 Watchtower, p. 333; Life Does Have a Purpose, pp. 116-118, p. 175; Good News to Make You Happy, pp. 93-94) 

This includes such “minutiae” as his still extant sinful tendencies at the time of his death. That is why Witnesses have to posit some sort of post-resurrection purification for all of those who will be raised up as humans. They start off exactly as they were, psychologically, spiritually, and morally before their deaths. “Nevertheless, the resurrected one is still the same human. His death produced no change in him as to personality and sinful inclinations.” (October 1, 1974 Watchtower, p. 607; cf. July 15, 1965 Watchtower, p. 448) There is no good reason or explanatory mechanism within Witness theology to exempt the Anointed from this, even if ex hypothesi their purification, when begun, is accomplished in an instant.

So option one is the best way to understand an instantaneous purification from the Witness perspective. It might be able to avoid the issue of personal continuity (provided we grant the tendentious thesis that life pattern is what grounds personal identity), though we are not convinced that this is so. Regardless, there is still the problem that this transformation, given the Witness view of creaturely freedom, removes Bob’s free will. So we believe that an instantaneous purification of the Anointed at or immediately after their resurrection is still problematic for the Witness to affirm even according to their own theology.[5]

So let us explore the second answer a Witness could give to our question. Could a gradual purification of the Anointed work according to Witness theology? No. First, it appears that it would require the toleration of (something like) post-final test sin, which is supposedly unpardonable. Second, it would have to introduce a two-staged glorification of the Anointed that is nowhere hinted at in Witness theology and which conflicts with what they do say about glorification of the Anointed.[6]

For the Anointed their remaining faithful until their deaths serves the same function that remaining faithful through the final test does for perfected mankind. “The names of the anointed become permanent [in the book of life] upon their proving themselves faithful to death. (Rev. 3:5) The names of those who receive life on earth become lasting entries when they pass the final test at the end of the thousand years.” (February 15, 2009 Watchtower, p. 5) If being relatively faithful (as much as imperfect humans can be) until death serves the same function for the Anointed that actually attaining to moral and spiritual perfection and remaining absolutely faithful during the final test does for obedient mankind, then it is reasonable to suppose that just as any post-final test sin committed by any perfected human is unpardonable (since it would not covered by the Atonement), then any post-resurrection sin by the Anointed would have to be unpardonable. If this reasoning holds, Witness theology could not countenance a gradual purification of the glorified Anointed, since it would amount to their meriting irrevocable punishment.

A further consideration that suggests that in order to be consistent Witness theology would have to hold that any post-resurrection sin committed by any of the glorified Anointed would be unpardonable is that they are no longer humans. This status makes it awkward to say that they have Adamic sin, which seems to be a uniquely human phenomenon. If Witness theology cannot coherently say that the Anointed, even if still temporarily sinful, have specifically Adamic sin, then it seems that it ought to conclude that any sins committed by them could not be covered by the ransom and hence would be unpardonable. For, according to Witness literature, only sins that are due to Adamic sin, that is, inherited imperfection, are pardonable.

If post-resurrection sins (at least prior to the complete purification of the Anointed) would not be necessarily damning, the Anointed would have to be glorified in two stages. The first stage would be the resurrection as mighty spirit beings. The second stage would be being given immortality. Only once they are made morally and spiritually perfect could they be given immortality. Yet, no sort of two-stage glorification of the Anointed is ever hinted at in Witness literature. They already passed their final test, as the above cited quotation stated. Why should their complete glorification be delayed? Why suppose, for instance, that they are resurrected as mighty spirits and then only later are given immortality if they become morally and spiritually perfect? 

Witness literature, at any rate, explicitly states that they are given immortality at the very moment that they are resurrected. Witness literature teaches that “when [the anointed] remain faithful until the end of their earthly lives, they literally die and are resurrected ‘to an incorruptible and undefiled and unfading inheritance’.” (December 1, 1985 Watchtower, p. 12) The April 15, 2008 Watchtower, p. 31 states that “Anointed Christians enter into [“the very fullness of life”] when they are resurrected to heavenly life,” not some time after they are resurrected, as is the case with obedient mankind, who must wait until after the thousand years before they are considered to be fully alive.[7] (Cf. New World Translation: Study Edition, Note on John 6:53) How can they have their very fullness of life at the very time they are resurrected if they do not yet have immortality? No wonder, then, that another Witness publication says, “When the last trumpet sounds, the anointed Christians are resurrected instantaneously to immortal life in heaven.” (New World Translation: Study Edition, Note on 1 Corinthians 15:52; Cf. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. I, “Immortality” para. 6) 

So, if Witness theology wants to posit a gradual moral perfection, it evidently happens to those who are already made immortal. And that is basically to say that it is certain that immortal beings will sin. And even if such sins are not necessarily unforgivable, it does render it much more likely that some of the glorified Anointed will apostatize altogether and thus sin unforgivably. Witnesses already teach that this is possible before they die. According to Witness theology, in this world some of the Anointed fall away and suffer irrevocable judgment. If the Anointed who are resurrected start off as they were at death and are only able to be perfected gradually, it would appear that there would be a sizable chance that some of them will end up apostatizing, even as some of their former companions did while in the flesh. Highly unlikely becomes at least somewhat likely.

Failing the Final Test

Witness dogma holds that some morally and spiritually perfect humans will fail the final test which will be administered after the end of the thousand year reign of Christ. Those who do may make up only a relatively small minority of mankind, though the extent of the rebellion is not definitively settled in Witness literature. Yet what matters for our purpose is that a substantial cohort of morally and spiritually perfect humans will fall away. (Pure Worship of Jehovah – Restored At Last!, pp. 232-233) This suggests that the issue of how long the purification of the Anointed takes is moot. For, if some perfect humans will fall into unpardonable rebellion during a brief period of time during the final test, on what basis can it be said that it is highly unlikely that any of the glorified Anointed ever will? If the moral and spiritual perfection of these humans did not prevent a large number of them from falling away, why would the moral and spiritual perfection of the Anointed render it highly unlikely that any of them will ever fall away?

What tempts these perfect humans is, at least in part, self rule without the Messiah and God. (Cf. Insight on the Scriptures Vol. I, p. 981; Vol. II, p. 170; Pure Worship of Jehovah – Restored At Last!, pp. 232-233) If men, most of whom are to be mere subjects of the kingdom occupying the lower levels of the universal hierarchy, are enamored by this prospect, would it not be even more tempting to indestructible kings?[8] If some of the former will fail, is it not reasonable to think that there would be a significant chance that some of the immortal Anointed will fail, too?

While it is true that the Anointed are not said to be the objects of Satan’s final test, this does not mean that the Anointed are regarded as unmindful of what will be taking place. They would be. Therefore it stands to reason that they would be as open to the temptation as any of their human compatriots would be. Moreover, the rationale that leads God to put all redeemed and perfected mankind to the test after the thousand year reign of Christ would seem to apply to the Anointed, too. God must test perfected mankind to fully vindicate his sovereignty and to approve of them. Would he also not have to see if the morally and spiritually perfect and yet untested 144,000 king-priests will remain loyal? And, if he tests them, why think that it is highly unlikely that any of them will fail?

We recognize that within Witness theology only the Anointed have human perfection (Christ’s righteousness) imputed to them in this life in the place of actual human perfection; and they are said to have been tested in this life, too. (July 1, 1996 Watchtower, p. 16; September 1, 1986 Watchtower, p. 24; December 15, 1985 Watchtower, p. 30; February 1, 1982 Watchtower, p. 27; June 15, 1968 Watchtower, p. 370; September 1, 1954 Watchtower, pp. 522-523; February 15, 1951 Watchtower, p. 126) Yet remaining relatively faithful while being actually imperfect – something that the much larger Great Crowd supposedly will also do – is not the same thing as being fully tested while perfect beings. This is supposedly necessary in the case of redeemed mankind. And we do not think the imputation of righteousness and relative faithfulness of the Anointed truly suffices to relieve them of the necessity to be tested in this way. If anything, would it not be more necessary for those who have the much weightier and glorious hope to receive “a stricter judgment” than those who will merely be their subjects? (Cf. James 3:1)

Conclusion

So for these reasons we suggest that Witness theology cannot plausibly maintain that it is highly unlikely that any of the Anointed will ever sin. An instantaneous purification is problematic; but without it, they would have to accept that the Anointed will begin their existence as mighty, immortal spirits as sinners, which would make it fairly likely that some of them will fall away into unpardonable rebellion. And, even when they reach a state of moral and spiritual perfection, whether gradually or all at once, it would seem to be unreasonable to exempt them from the final test, which, it is said, will definitely ensnare some morally and spiritually perfect humans. In light of these considerations, we believe that the complete integrity of all of the Anointed for all time is in considerable doubt according to other principles of Witness theology.

Does God Simply See Into the Future?

Perhaps a Witness will attempt to refute our argument by asserting that God simply foreknows that the glorified anointed will never sin. That God can often see into the future without violating creaturely freedom is affirmed by Witness theology. So, would this response be enough to answer not only the argument of this essay but of the previous two? We do not think so for two reasons. First, we do not believe that Witness theology can coherently claim that God can foreknow how free creatures will act into eternity. Second, Witness literature does not claim that he does.

Whether God’s foreknowledge would conflict with creaturely freedom according to Witness theology appears to us to be often arbitrary. However, one thing that has been consistent in Witness literature for at least the past eighty years is God’s inability to have foreknown that Adam was to sin without violating Adam’s free will. While he was yet not fully tested, Adam was still morally and spiritually perfect; and he had thus far passed the test successfully. There was insufficient evidence to infer whether he would sin or not; but if anything all signs would have indicated that he would likely succeed. Presumably God had some measure of confidence in Adam’s successfully passing the test before him, but he could not know whether Adam would ever sin at least merely by extending Adam’s life’s trajectory out into the future.

We think that such reasoning should apply to the continued faithfulness of the glorified Anointed and perfected post-final test mankind. God cannot know (which requires certainty) that the Anointed will never sin. Perhaps he can form a probabilistic assessment of their future fidelity based on their past conduct (particularly their relative faithfulness in this life) and their heart condition (particularly at the time of their death). At best, given this available evidence he may be able to reasonably infer that the Anointed will never sin again. But this is not the same thing as saying that God knows that they will never sin again. Nor is it quite the same thing as saying that the Anointed are actually unlikely to ever sin again.

This distinction – between something being actually unlikely versus it being unlikely merely given the available evidence – is well illustrated by what the 2018 book Pure Worship of Jehovah—Restored At Last! (p. 230) says about perfected mankind prior to their final testing. “Jehovah will then do something extraordinary, something that expresses great confidence in his earthly subjects. He will direct that Satan and the demons be released from the abyss in which they have been confined for the thousand years.” God presumably would have good reasons for this “great confidence” about mankind in general or about any individual in particular, just as we suggest he would have had about Adam. For instance, presumably he would take into consideration their past conduct, their then current morally and spiritually perfect state, and infer that it is unlikely any given individual will ever sin again. And yet in actuality some of them will sin.[9] Likewise, even if Witness theology can plausibly affirm that God can conclude that given available evidence it is highly unlikely for any given member of the glorified Anointed class to ever sin, this does not entail that it is, in fact, highly unlikely that any of the anointed will ever sin.

A further example may also illustrate the principle. If I have known you for five years, I would know a lot about you. Given my knowledge of you, I might reasonably conclude that it is highly unlikely for you to ride a rollercoaster. But that does not mean that you will not, nor does it necessarily mean that it is really unlikely at all that you would. Now, this gap between what is likely given my knowledge of you and what is actually likely or what will, in fact, happen is due, in large part, to me not having all evidence that would be relevant to coming to a conclusion on the matter. In Witness theology God would have access to all available relevant information about an Anointed believer’s past and present. Nevertheless, we believe that there is still a gap between, on the one hand, what is, in fact, likely and what will actually take place and, on the other hand, what God can reasonably conclude given available evidence.

This gap, we believe, is due to the nature of free will, at least as it is articulated in Witness theology.[10] As we have noted previously, in Witness theology creaturely free will includes a capacity to sin; and creaturely free will is never taken away. Moreover, Witness theology would deny that a free will is determined by what came before it, including its own activity. So, even exhaustive knowledge of a person’s entire life up to the present would not enable someone to know what he will do, especially when what one aims to know is far in the future. Something that is merely highly unlikely to happen within the next five days would be more likely (or less unlikely) to happen sometime during the following five years. The same should hold with respect to the glorified Anointed, especially as God is making a prediction about what will be true of them into the endless future.

Even if God’s assessment of the likelihood of an Anointed individual committing an unforgivable sin would hold true for all time (in other words, if the scope of time the assessment is meant to include would not diminish the confidence God could have in it), things still look fairly bleak. Suppose that the likelihood of any given Anointed person ever sinning is one in a hundred thousand (a 99.999% likelihood of remaining faithful). What is the likelihood that they will all remain faithful? Only about one in four: 23.69%. Even if we were to suppose that the likelihood of any given Anointed person ever sinning again was one in a million things would not get much better for the Witness view. The likelihood of all remaining faithful for the rest of time would only be 86.58%. Combining both factors – the diminishing relevance of past behavior or then current heart condition for predicting continued faithfulness when one’s time horizon extends toward eternity and the large number of the glorified Anointed – makes it even less credible to suppose that it is, actually, unlikely for any of the Anointed to ever sin.

While Witness literature often speaks in absolute terms with respect to either the Anointed or the men who pass the final test – that they will, indeed, live forever and therefore by implication live sinless lives – there have been more nuanced statements interspersed among these other statements that the more absolute statements appear to merely simplify. This more nuanced view is well summarized in the August 15, 2006 Watchtower, p. 31. “It cannot be said that no human will ever turn his back on God, as Adam did.” (Cf. November 15, 1955 Watchtower, pp. 702-703; February 1, 1960 Watchtower, p. 68; June 14, 1965 Watchtower, p. 383; Life – How Did it Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?, pp. 195-196; Will There Ever Be a World Without War?, p. 17) Witness theology regards the likelihood of either a post-test perfect human or a glorified Anointed spirit sinning to be very unlikely, so naturally their literature often elides this nuance. Yet, it has been explicitly acknowledged several times that this possibility cannot be ruled out with respect to the Anointed and/or redeemed mankind; and this view, we believe, is the most consistent with Witness theology as a whole.

But this is to say that Witness theology does not make the move that our hypothetical apologist would. It does not appeal to true foreknowledge to avoid the argument presented in “There May Be Hell to Pay.” And without true foreknowledge, which necessarily includes certitude, the argument presented in that essay stands firm. And for reasons we have just explained we do not think that God’s ability to astutely guess what free creatures will do based on their past history and present condition is great enough to warrant even the much more modest claim that it is merely highly unlikely for any of the glorified Anointed to sin.[11]

[1] This gradual option cannot take longer than a few years, since Witness literature teaches that some of the Anointed will go to heaven during the presumably short Great Tribulation. Since they will be among those who will help mankind attain perfection, it would stand to reason that they must themselves be perfect after Armageddon.

[2] We acknowledge that this objection is not fleshed out. We are issuing something of a promissory note that we hope to honor either in a later essay on free will in Witness theology or after such an essay is written. If we abandon our impression of the Witness view of free will and it becomes necessary to modify or to scrap this argument, we will add a retraction to this essay.

[3] For the purpose of what follows we will grant at least a few obviously wrong things for the sake of argument. We do not offer our usual arguments against the Witness view that life pattern (a set of psychological properties that includes memory, knowledge, and powers of perception) grounds personal identity. We do not here object to the mutability of the life pattern as such or its inherent replicability as disqualifying factors for it to explain something as absolute and unique as a person’s numerical sameness over time or through death and resurrection. More precisely what we would object to here is not change or mutability as such, but a radical, causally and psychologically discontinuous “change.” We would suggest that even if psychologically continuous, causally connected change in memory or any of the other attributes that comprise the life pattern would not render it ill-suited to explain personal identity (which Witness theology is at least implicitly committed to), it is still a bridge too far to suppose that one and the same life pattern can exist through such an extreme psychologically discontinuity that has no causal connection to the life pattern before death.

[4] It is spatially disconnected, because, while heaven in Witness theology is a spatial realm, it exists outside of the material universe. And Witness theology holds that any of the Anointed who died before the twentieth century ceased to exist for up to about two thousand years. Hence, their life pattern in the angel-like spirit body would be temporally discontinuous from their life pattern that existed in their human bodies upon earth.

[5] Further, in the first option, Anointed Brother Bob is brought back with his sinful tendencies and impulses. Yes, he supposedly exists in this state for just a twinkling of an eye. Yet might this not be enough time for him to become guilty of sin, to incur guilt? Consider that a Witness might suggest that even during a mere moment of time the will of Anointed Brother Bob can freely assent to an instantaneous purification; and thus his free will remains intact during this purification. Whether this is really consistent with Witness theology is another matter; let us take the suggestion as face value. If his will can thus act in such a brief moment of time, could it not also be active in some sinful way during an equally short duration of time just prior to the purification? (And given their still sinful character prior to their deaths, would it not be at least somewhat likely that one of the Anointed would sin in this way?) Thus, we suggest that option one does not necessarily rule out a glorified member of the Anointed class sinning after he is resurrected.

[6] We also would suggest that the toleration of sin in heaven doesn’t jibe with the Witness claim about its being cleansed when Satan and his demons were cast out.

[7] And even then, their fullness of life lacks the immortality that the Anointed are said to enjoy.

[8] Keep in mind that it is not as if in this life the Anointed are regarded as necessarily better Christians than those of the Great Crowd.

[9] How God could know that some morally and spiritually perfect humans, many of whom do not yet exist, will fall away in about a thousand years but could not know that Adam, a person who then existed, would sin without violating Adam’s free will is not entirely clear to us. We would suggest that claims such as these reveal that the Witness doctrine of foreknowledge is incoherent. But for the sake of this essay we will simply accept these claims as we find them.

[10] While we do not believe that creaturely free will requires a capacity to sin, we would suggest that there does exist a gap between what can be predicted about a person’s conduct in the future based on all available present and past facts about them and what they will actually do. The best that could be hoped for are probabilistic assessments, not true knowledge. God’s foreknowledge does not depend on making such inferences. Anyone who affirms true foreknowledge (which requires both truth and certitude) should not imagine that God foreknows anything by essentially guessing as to what will be based off of the totality of what he knows about the past and present.

[11] We would further suggest that, even if Witness theology could coherently claim that God would know that the glorified Anointed would never sin, our argument in “There May Be Hell to Pay” may still be salvaged as long as Witnesses maintain that the Anointed are still peccable, capable of sinning. Even if they would never sin, this peccability might be all that is needed to show that even by its own lights, Witness theology cannot coherently argue that death is the only just ultimate penalty for sin. Yes (let us suppose) the Anointed would never sin; but asking what they would deserve or how God would punish them are perfectly meaningful and legitimate questions to ask. And we think that is all that is needed to get the ball rolling, so to speak.

To Correspond or Not to Correspond (Part One)

Introduction

In a previous essay, we argued that the doctrine of the Atonement in Witness theology contains a significant contradiction. Their theology both attributes supra-Adamic blessings (blessings that exceed what Adam had and lost for himself and his descendants) to the merit or value of Jesus’ sacrifice while also attributing only the restoration of the Adamic heritage (only what Adam had and lost) to the merit or value of Jesus’ sacrifice. In other words, the value of Christ’s blood is supposedly only sufficient to restore the Adamic heritage and yet also procures blessings far greater than this heritage. In this present essay, we will rearticulate our argument that this contradiction is a long-standing feature of Witness theology in preparation for answering possible Witness objections to our argument in a further essay.

Only the Restoration of the Adamic Heritage

A Witness may object to our claim that their theology teaches that Jesus’ sacrifice only can restore the Adamic heritage. In fact, one Witness said in part. “The problem [with your argument is that it] starts by saying: "only" the restoration of the adamic heritage. In no way [do] we say that Jesus [sic] blood restores "only" the things Adam lost. There is no [W]atchtower I've seen so far that says that.” We believe that this reveals a misunderstanding of our argument, which we will clear up presently, and possibly a lack of familiarity with Witness literature. Our claim is not that Witness literature ever expressly says, “Christ’s sacrifice serves only to restore the Adamic heritage.” Rather, we argue that the idea that Christ’s sacrifice can only merit the mere restoration of the Adamic heritage is the inescapable and at least almost explicit meaning of what their literature so often states.

That the life that Jesus sacrificed is exactly equivalent to Adam’s life is Witness dogma. “The life that Jesus sacrificed was an exact equivalent of the life that Adam forfeited when he sinned.” (March 1, 2008 Watchtower, p. 6) This mathematically precise equivalence between the value of Jesus’ life and Adam’s life is said to be required by God’s justice.  “A ransom must be the equivalent of that for which it substitutes, or covers.” (February 15, 1991 Watchtower, p. 12)[1] From these closely associated claims, particularly the latter (which serves as the justification for the former), follows the idea that Christ’s ransom can only merit the mere restoration of the Adamic heritage.

Consider how the following Witness publications describe the value of the ransom price Christ paid to restore the Adamic heritage (emphasis mine):

“As we know, a ransom is a payment of a corresponding value to redeem or buy back something lost or forfeited. That is why the Bible describes Jesus as a ‘corresponding ransom.’” (September 1, 2009 Watchtower, pp. 14-15)

“Christ Jesus, who ‘gave himself a corresponding ransom’ in order to restore all that was lost through Adam’s sin.” (February 1, 1999 Watchtower, pp. 10-11)

“Jesus, no more and no less than a perfect human, became a ransom that compensated exactly for what Adam lost—the right to perfect human life on earth.” (Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 15)

“Jesus Christ offered his perfect human life in sacrifice on the torture stake as the price to redeem what Adam had lost, thus ransoming mankind.” (August 15, 1983 Watchtower, p. 7)

“Jesus Christ gave his own perfect life to buy back what Adam lost.” (November 15, 1982 Watchtower, p. 9) 

“According to God’s standard of perfect justice as revealed in the Mosaic law, that price had to correspond exactly to what had been forfeited. The Mosaic law stated: “You must give soul for soul.” (Ex. 21:23) Since Jesus was conceived by holy spirit without the aid of an imperfect human father, he had precisely what Adam forfeited—human life totally free from all weaknesses and imperfections. That is why Jesus could give himself “a corresponding ransom for all.”” (May 1, 1976 Watchtower, p. 264)

The ransom in Christ’s blood has “a corresponding value” to that which was “lost or forfeited.” It must be paid to get back what was lost. But once paid, what excess value remains that might be used to obtain anything further? If there is any further value, how can it “correspond” to that which was forfeited (in the sense of “correspondence” that is used within Witness theology)? If the ransom “compensated exactly for what Adam lost,” what value is left of the ransom to purchase anything greater, such as the super-celestial benefits enjoyed by the Anointed? If at the time he offered himself as a ransom, Jesus only had “precisely what Adam forfeited” and this was given as a “price” that “according to God’s standard of perfect justice” had to “correspond exactly to what has been forfeited,” how could he purchase anything greater with this same price? If the merit of Christ’s blood was used to purchase benefits greater than the Adamic heritage, the whole idea of correspondence as it is articulated within Witness theology falls apart. So, we believe it is safe to say that Witness theology paints itself into a corner. If the value of Jesus’ blood corresponds exactly to the first man and what he lost, then, when it is given as a price, it can obtain nothing more than what the first man had.

Why is this significant? Because, according to Witness literature, Adam never had the prospect of going to heaven. It was not part of God’s intention when he created mankind. “God said nothing about Adam going to heaven.” (March 1, 1961 Watchtower, p. 132; cf. April 15, 1999 Watchtower, p. 8; February 1, 2010 Watchtower, p. 5; Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 162; Should You Believe in the Trinity?, p. 15) So, if Christ’s ransom merited only the restoration of the Adamic heritage, then it can only obtain endless, perfect human life on a paradise earth for those for whom it is effectual.

Also Supra-Adamic Blessings

However it is our contention that Witness literature has consistently affirmed that supra-Adamic blessings were also merited by Christ’s ransom sacrifice. Among these are the New Covenant itself, the creation of “the true church” or “the Christian Congregation,” their being born again to a hope of immortal spiritual existence in heaven, and their reigning as kings and priests. Since these things are attributed to the merit of Jesus’ blood, we conclude that the Witness doctrine of the Atonement contains a significant contradiction.

That these things are attributed to the merit of Christ’s blood can be seen from the following somewhat overlapping claims made within Witness publications:[2]

The Anointed are purchased from out of mankind by the merits of Christ’s blood in order to become a heavenly class of kings and priests. (February 1, 1954 Watchtower, p. 86; September 1, 1956 Watchtower, pp. 530-531; September 1, 1961 Watchtower, p. 524; God’s “Eternal Purpose” Now Triumphing For Man’s Good, pp. 182-183; April 15, 1974 Watchtower, p. 252; February 15, 1991 Watchtower, pp. 17-18)

Christ’s blood is what opens the way to heaven for the Anointed. (January 15, 1956 Watchtower, p. 50; March 1, 1962 Watchtower, pp. 142-143)

Christ’s blood puts the new covenant with the Anointed into force. (February 15, 1952 Watchtower, p. 107; January 15, 1956 Watchtower, p. 50; July 1, 1959 Watchtower, p. 408; March 1, 1962 Watchtower, pp. 144, 146; February 15, 1966 Watchtower, p. 108; February 15, 1966 Watchtower, p. 112; March 22, 1972 Awake!, p. 28; Paradise Restored To Mankind—By Theocracy!, pp. 275-276; November 15, 1972 Watchtower, p. 685; April 1, 1973 Watchtower, pp. 198-199; God’s “Eternal Purpose” Now Triumphing For Man’s Good, p. 159; Man’s Salvation Out of World Distress at Hand!, pp. 97-98; March 1, 1978 Watchtower, p. 11; Worldwide Security Under the “Prince of Peace”, pp. 144-145; April 15, 1987 Watchtower, pp. 6-7; February 1, 1989 Watchtower, pp. 18-19; December 15, 1989 Watchtower, p. 25; “All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial”, pp. 129, 297; January 15, 1990 Watchtower, p. 12; February 15, 1991 Watchtower, pp. 17-18; January 15, 2012 Watchtower, pp. 28-29; October 15, 2014 Watchtower, pp. 15-16; July, 2020 Watchtower, p. 31)

The heavenly hope (and what goes with it, such as the imputed righteousness of Christ and being born again) are benefits of the ransom. (April 1, 1953 Watchtower, p. 207; January 15, 1962 Watchtower, p. 38; March 1, 1962 Watchtower, pp. 136-137, 142-143, 144, 146; July 1, 1968 Watchtower, p. 405; August 1, 1973 Watchtower, pp. 11-12; April 15, 1987 Watchtower, pp. 6-7; February 1, 1989 Watchtower, pp. 18-19; February 15, 1991 Watchtower, pp. 17-18; July 1, 2006 Watchtower, pp. 24-25; God’s Word for Us Through Jeremiah, pp. 172-173)

One of the purposes of the new covenant is the creation of a “kingdom of priests.” (February 15, 1966 Watchtower, p. 112; November 15, 1979 Watchtower, p. 26; April 15, 1980 Watchtower, p. 30; April 15, 1987 Watchtower, pp. 6-7; February 1, 1989 Watchtower, pp. 18-19; “All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial”, p. 129; January 15, 1990 Watchtower, p. 12; February 15, 1991 Watchtower, pp. 17-18; July 1, 2006 Watchtower, pp. 24-25; God’s Word for Us Through Jeremiah, pp. 175-176; January 15, 2012 Watchtower, pp. 28-29; October 15, 2014 Watchtower, pp. 15-16)

These overlapping claims amount to a clear assertion within Witness theology that it is by the value or merit of Christ’s blood that the Anointed receive the following blessings: being brought into the new covenant; the new birth as spirit-begotten sons of God; the imputation of Christ’s perfect human righteousness; immortal, spirit existence in the heavens; and kingdom rule with Christ. In other words, Witness literature has consistently affirmed that Christ merited for his 144,000 followers supra-Adamic blessings.

Moreover, the Witnesses’ (mis)translation of Romans 8:23 requires their theology to adopt the view that the supra-angelic resurrection of the Anointed (which is a supra-Adamic blessing) is obtained by the merit of Christ’s blood. As it is rendered in the New World Translation the passage reads: “Not only that, but we ourselves also who have the firstfruits, namely, the spirit, yes, we ourselves groan within ourselves while we are earnestly waiting for adoption as sons, the release from our bodies by ransom.” Notice the phrase “the release from our bodies by ransom.” The exchange of a human resurrection in favor of a spiritual resurrection is attributed to the purchase price of Christ’s blood. It is through this ransom that such a resurrection has supposedly been obtained or bought. (Cf. August 1, 1973 Watchtower, pp. 11-12; Insight on the Scriptures Vol. I, “Adoption” para. 6.)

Significance

One of the ramifications of this contradiction is that Witnesses will have to abandon one of their arguments against the doctrines of the hypostatic union and Christ’s Deity. They can either concede that the value of Christ’s ransom does not correspond (i.e., exactly) to what it procures; by doing so they lose one of their (already weak) arguments against the doctrines of the Hypostatic Union and Deity of Christ, namely, that Christ had to be only a perfect man to give himself as an ἀντίλυτρον (supposedly corresponding ransom) for all. Or they can accept that the value of Christ’s sacrifice was exactly equal to what was obtained and conclude that, since Christ obtained super-celestial blessings, that Christ was himself more than just a perfect man. Either way, opposition to these doctrines (or at least an hypostatic union) on the basis of their obvious misreading of 1 Timothy 2:6 is severely undermined.

It is also highly problematic for a restorationist religion to have so badly erred with respect to the Atonement: to at one time disparage the value of the sacrifice of Christ (by saying that it was only worth what Adam was) and also to attribute to it super-celestial value with respect to what it obtains, namely, heavenly glory. This inadvertent inconsistent impiety is a proof that the Witness religion is not what it purports to be, the restoration of the true faith.

[1] Compare the following Witness publications: September 15, 2014 Watchtower, p. 26; December 15, 2006 Watchtower, p. 6; November 15, 2001 Watchtower, p. 6; July 15, 1997 Watchtower, p. 7; June 15, 1992 Watchtower, pp. 5-6; June 1, 1985 Watchtower, p. 5; September 1, 1984 Watchtower, pp. 28-29; October 1, 1977 Watchtower, p. 584; May 1, 1976 Watchtower, p. 264; April 15, 1976 Watchtower, p. 239; August 1, 1973 Watchtower, p. 465; April 15, 1972 Watchtower, p. 236; October 1, 1963 Watchtower, p. 604; September 15, 1961 Watchtower, p. 550; April 1, 1953 Watchtower, p. 206; July 15, 1952 Watchtower, p. 444.

[2] At some point we hope to complete our compilation of quotations from the publications cited below among others.