He Saw His Glory (Part One)

“This happened so that the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke would be fulfilled: “LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED?” For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, “HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WILL NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED, AND SO I WILL NOT HEAL THEM.” These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke about Him.” (John 12:38-41)

From John 12:41 can be produced a powerful proof of the Deity of the Son and the rectitude of calling him by the Name of Jehovah. Isaiah 6 reveals that Isaiah sees the Lord of Hosts. John quotes from this passage and says that Isaiah saw Christ’s glory during that marvelous experience. Ergo, John says that Christ is the Lord of Hosts whom Isaiah saw.

This argument can be objected to in several ways. In this essay we will address a few of these, namely, those that resist identifying the Lord of Hosts of Isaiah 6 with Christ.[1] First, John does not mean to suggest that Isaiah saw Christ’s glory in Isaiah 6, but only in Isaiah 53. Second, John does not wish to identify Christ with the Lord of Hosts but rather with one of the seraphim. Third, John does not wish to identify Christ with the Lord of Hosts but rather with an unnamed but ostensibly implied figure. Only the last objection is made by Jehovah’s Witness official literature, though the other two have been made by Witnesses with whom I have conversed.

“These things” refers not only to the two questions from the quotation of Isaiah 53:1 (and by extension the immediate context of 52:13–53:12), as was suggested to me by one Witness,[2] but to both the quotations from Isaiah 53:1 and Isaiah 6:10 (and by extension the immediate context of Isaiah 6:1-13). The use of the plural “these things” (Ταῦτα) best fits multiple quotations rather than just one multi-sentence quotation. This is especially clear when we observe that John 12:41 immediately follows John’s quotation of Isaiah 6:10 and that John 12:41 has strong verbal or conceptual similarities to Isaiah 6 (which are arguably stronger than those it shares with Isaiah 53, i.e., 52:13-53:12). In other words, if John had meant to exclude Isaiah 6:10 from what Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and spoke about Him, then he would have placed 12:41 before quoting from Isaiah 6, referred to what Isaiah wrote in the singular (this), and arguably he would have expressed his claim in terms that were less evocative of Isaiah 6.

The verbal or conceptual similarities, namely, seeing, glory, and speaking, that exist between Isaiah 6 and John 12:41 are obvious. “He saw His glory.” Isaiah 6:1: In the year of King Uzziah’s death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe [glory in LXX] filling the temple.” Isaiah 6:3b: “The whole earth is full of His glory.” “Isaiah 6:5b: For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of armies.” “And spoke about Him.” Isaiah 6:9: “And He said, “Go, and tell this people:”.” Since Isaiah 6:10 is one of “these things,” it is quite clear that part of what John means when he says that Isaiah saw His glory is that “the Lord” (6:1), “the LORD of armies” (6:3), “the King, the LORD of armies” (6:5) whom Isaiah saw is the Christ. For these verbal or conceptual similarities are present only in connection with the Lord, on the one hand, and Christ, on the other.

A further consideration in support of our claim that Isaiah 6:10 is part of “these things” in 12:41 (and therefore Christ is the One whose glory was seen in Isaiah 6) is the fact that there are verbal and conceptual similarities between Isaiah 6 and Isaiah 53. These suggest that both passages refer to the same person – something that arguably would still be discernable even if John had not juxtaposed them for us. The Suffering Servant is clearly a man. But unlike mankind generally and yet like God he is exalted. Note what Isaiah 2:17 says. “And the pride of humanity will be humbled, and the arrogance of people will be brought low; and the Lord alone will be exalted on that day.” (Cf. Isaiah 2:11). The suggestion we offer is as follows. If mankind is humbled and the Lord alone is exalted, then the Servant must be more than just a man; he is also the Lord who is exalted. It is not vital to our argument that this suggestion be correct in final analysis, but we offer it here as an exercise for the reader and as a thread that we may develop in the future.

One or two Witnesses have suggested to us that Jesus is one of the seraphim in Isaiah 6. This is also not the official Witness position. But does it have any merit? We do not think so. For one thing, while the seraphim are obviously seen by Isaiah, since he mentions them, Isaiah does not emphasize this fact of his seeing them. Nor are they or their glory that which preoccupies the prophet’s awestruck mind. Surely, they are glorious, as far as creatures go, but he does not describe them in such terms. Rather, they themselves are said to shield themselves, presumably from the overwhelming glory of Jehovah of hosts. 

A further difficulty for this view is that Christ is not a seraph. Witness theology holds that he is an archangel, which in their angelology is the highest rank of created spirit and a position held only by him. Even supposing that Christ is symbolically represented by a seraph does not remove the difficulties of this position for the Witness. For if Christ is represented by one of the seraphim, who is represented by the other apparently equal seraph? Apparently equal, that is, because they are the same kind or rank of spirit creature and engage in the same service so that nothing distinguishes one from the other. Needless to say, Witness theology holds that the Son has only one superior, the Father, and no equals. So, for an interpretation to imply that Christ has an equal would be problematic if not entirely untenable from a Witness perspective.

The official Witness interpretation is that Christ is unnamed in Isaiah’s vision and is only implicitly referred to when God asks, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” (Isaiah 6:8) Christ is part of that Us. “Whose glory? That of Jehovah and of the prehuman Jesus alongside him in the heavenly courts.” (June 15, 1998 Watchtower, p. 24; cf. December 1, 1989 Watchtower, p. 8; December 1, 2006 Watchtower, p. 9) This view suffers from the same problem that the seraphim proposal does, except more severely. At least the seraphim are explicitly mentioned in the passage. In this interpretation, however, Isaiah totally neglects to mention the one whose glory John asserts he saw. And, they would have John write 12:41 hoping that his readers would overlook Jehovah of hosts, the central figure of Isaiah 6 whose glory so thoroughly dominates the passage, to find Christ subtly alluded to in passing and make the connection that this is the one whose glory Isaiah saw and spoke about, even though Isaiah says nothing about his glory in the passage. The suggestion boggles the mind. And it is not a natural way to interpret John 12:41. In other words, if this is what John had wanted to do, he would have expressed himself differently.

Since the strong verbal and conceptual resemblance between Isaiah 6 and John 12:41 indicate that the Son is Jehovah of Hosts whom Isaiah the prophet saw, and all counter proposals fail to attain credibility, we are required to adopt the most natural reading of John’s words. When Isaiah saw the Lord in his glory in the year that king Uzziah died it was Christ whom he saw. And this is no small indication of the Deity of Christ.

[1] We will say nothing against those objections that would resist affirming the Deity of Christ despite admitting this fact in this essay, but we shall respond to those in a future essay.

[2] Note that this (that John is not saying that Isaiah saw Jesus’ glory in the event described in Isaiah 6) is not the official Witness explanation of Isaiah 6 and John 12:41. Nevertheless, the idea goes something like this. Isaiah 6:10 is only quoted to explain why Isaiah 53:1 is true (in other words, why the people did not believe) and it was only that they did not believe that Isaiah wrote because he saw his glory and spoke about him. If this suggestion seems desperate and tendentious to you, that is because it is.

Alone Directly Created?

For over seventy years, Witnesses have denied that Christ ought to be even called a co-creator along with the Father.[1] Still, they insist that all other created things were made through him. And this coupled with the claim that he alone was directly made by the Father distinguishes the Son, who is accordingly God’s only-begotten Son, from all other creation, and in particular the other angelic spirits. However, it is our contention that within Witness theology this distinction breaks down because every other of God’s spirit sons were as directly made by the Father as much as the Son was.

One of their publications states that “the Son was the agent or instrumentality through whom Jehovah, the Creator, worked.” (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. II, p. ?) And they speak of the Son as having a “share in the creative works” of God. (Aid to Bible Understanding, p. 918) But what does this mean? In particular, does the Son have an intrinsic power to produce these other creatures, is it something innate to his nature? It is not something that the Son innately possesses. “The power for creation came from God through his holy spirit or active force.” (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. II, p. ?) This distinguishes the Witness view from the ancient Homoian Arian doctrine that: “At the Father’s will and command, but by his own power, he made heavenly and earthly things, visible and invisible things, bodies and spirits, to exist out of non-existing things.” (The Arian Sermon, no. 3)[2]

Now, if the Son lacks an intrinsic ability to create, then it is false to say that he is the only creature to be directly made by the Father. Every other angel, for instance, would have been made directly by the Father at the point of contact, so to speak, that is, when these beings were made out of nothing. The only way to safeguard the distinction that Witnesses make is to say that the Son made all things by his own innate power, that is, by exercising a capacity that is intrinsic to him. But this would introduce an instability into Witness theology, which prides itself on being unitarian. For, if the Son can create out of nothing by his own innate power, how can he at the same time be a mere creature? Hence, they must avoid it.

That the claim that it is God’s spirit that actually makes everything undermines the claim that Christ alone was directly created by the Father can be seen by the following comparison. Scripture teaches that Elisha raised the dead. But this power is not something that he had intrinsically, since it is not something that is proper to human nature. Rather it was God who raised the dead. Yes, the prophet spoke, prayed, or performed some other action. And we can say that he raised the dead in a certain extended sense. But ultimately the prophet contributed nothing to the actual revivification of those persons whom he is said to have raised, except the occasion on which God raised the dead to life. The prophet requested and God obliged him. Yet God’s giving of life to these (in Witness theology, non-existent) dead was no more mediated than when he gave life to the previously non-existent Adam when our father was first formed.

Might a Witness respond by saying that in this case, Elisha was given the reins, so to speak? Sure, the power was not intrinsic to him, nor was it part of him (as they say that the holy spirit is part of God), but he was the one who decided when it was exercised. If so, might they similarly suggest that Jesus was the one who decided when the spirit would be used to create all other creatures. If this is so, might they conclude that the Son had enough of a share in the creation of the other angels that he alone can be said to have been directly created by the Father (while also not being even a co-creator)?

We think not. First, no creature can command the holy spirit; hence what the spirit does is not up to a creature’s will. Nor can a creature be the one who calls the shots. Consider that if it is merely up to the prophet who to revive and when, this amounts to the prophet commanding the spirit. Now, since the spirit is itself not alive nor a person in Witness theology, it may not appear to be problematic to them that a mere man should, in effect, command the spirit. The spirit just is a force, power in action, so that a rational being should direct it, though he be a creature, poses no theological dilemma. This line of reasoning may appear to be strengthened by their claim that the Spirit is inferior, at least to the Father and Son.[3] “Nor can the holy spirit claim equality with either God or Christ.” (February 15, 1955 Watchtower, p. 119) “Nowhere in the Bible is the holy spirit mentioned with God and Christ as being equal to them.” (June 1, 1988 Watchtower, p. 14) Yet, we would argue that even within Witness theology a creature’s commanding of the spirit should be deemed problematic since the spirit just is part of the Father. Therefore, to genuinely command the spirit would be to command the Father; and would any Witness ever say that the Father could be commanded by another?

Witness theology really holds that the spirit is part of Father; it is God in a similar manner to how my right arm is me.[4] It is not all of me, but it is not something extrinsic to me. And from this it follows that the spirit cannot be directed except by will of God, who is obligated to no one, but who rather does as he pleases. It would be impossible, therefore, for the prophet Elisha to utilize the spirit except if, in fact, it were God himself utilizing his spirit merely on the occasion of the prophet’s prayer or action.[5]

Since the things that are made through the Son are made by the spirit, the Son’s role in creation resembles the prophet’s raising of the dead. He may be involved in some way. Perhaps he suggested some specifics about the sort of creature to be made, for instance, or it is upon the occasion of his asking that such and such a creature be made that God made it. But the Father himself is the only one who produces the creature out of nothing by the direct exercise of his own power. That the Son is involved somewhere along the way in some rather limited way is not enough to say that he alone is directly created by the Father. They are different claims altogether.

Nor would it suffice to say that if the power passes from the Father and, in a way, became localized in the body of the Son and from there was used to make all other creatures, that God did not directly create these creatures. Once we have established that the spirit is a part of God, nothing alters the fact that to say the spirit does X is to say that the Father himself does X. So, if we say that the Son uses the spirit to make Gabriel, this really amounts to saying that the Father himself makes Gabriel by his own proper part, the spirit – and that according to his own good pleasure, really.

We would also suggest that the Witness aversion to calling Christ either Creator or co-creator is an implicit admission that their distinction between the Son’s direct creation and the other angel’s supposedly indirect creation is not all that profound. For if it is just God’s spirit, ever under God’s control as his own proper part, that does the heavily lifting in making the angels – if, in other words, it is what makes the angels out of nothing – it would make no sense to call Christ Creator or co-creator. Only if he himself did the work (as even the Homoians claimed) would it be intelligible to call him Creator or co-creator.

Conversely, since the Father alone is called Creator in their theology, they grant that it is he himself alone that makes a thing to exist out of nothing. And this just is direct creation. To say that if the spirit first goes to the Son and then from the Son is put to use to produce a creature out of nothing means that the Father did not directly create this creature is like saying that if a man were to stretch out his arm as far from the rest of his body as he can so that it first rests on the shoulder of another and then touch something rather than touching it with his head or torso that he did not directly touch it. Or it would be like supposing that since the water passes through a channel that it is not the water itself that directly nourishes the plants.

        The Son would remain the first and best creature; he had some role in the creation of everything else. But they can no longer talk of him being the only directly created spirit or creature. This supposed fact of his history no longer distinguishes him from other creatures. But this puts them in an awkward place. They call him the only-begotten because they say he alone was directly created. They thereby reveal that they are aware that there is a truly unique causal relationship between the Father and the Son. But their theology is not actually able to cash it out. They must look elsewhere in order to do so. And then they may recover the true doctrine of the Son’s eternal generation from the essence of the Father and reject any notion of him being from nothing or there being a time when he was not or his being anything other than God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God.

[1] Though, as late as 1951 they did refer to him as co-creator. “It could refer to Jehovah God and his co-creator and only-begotten Son, the Logos.” (January 15, 1951 Watchtower, p. 63) However, in our opinion this does not indicate a significant change into what they say about Christ’s role in creation. Rather it is but a clearer acknowledgement that in their theology Christ does none of the leg work in creation.

[2] For this and other reasons we sometimes pejoratively refer to Witness Christology or Triadology (i.e., the doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) as subpar Arianism. For these ancient heretics, despite falling short of sound doctrine, were yet more faithful to Scripture in what they attributed to Christ than are Witnesses, even if Witnesses are more internally consistent in denying what the Scripture says and accordingly assigning to Christ even less glory than did the ancient Arians. In particular, we would note that Scripture is clear that Christ is Creator and that he has innate power to create; and the Homoians recognized this. This is shown when the Apostle says that creation is preserved by the word of his (that is, Christ’s) power. (Hebrews 1:3) This is made equally clear, if not more clear, when the same Apostle says that Father says to the Son, “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heaven are the works of your hands.” (Hebrews 1:10) He thereby calls them the creatures of the Son and ascribes to the Son the intrinsic power to create and preserve them in existence. Of course, it beggars belief to imagine that a being that was himself created could make out of nothing everything else that exists by his own power. For which reason, therefore, the Arians were not as self-consistent in making these scriptural ascriptions to Christ while denying him his co-equal Divinity and full honor. And yet, again, they were truer to the Word of God than are the Witnesses, who are loathe to refer to Christ as either “our God” or “Creator” and show him even less honor than did the ancient Arians.

[3] We do not know of any instance where Witness literature says that the spirit is or was made inferior to prophets or apostles; though, this is something that one Witness confidently asserted to me did in fact happen as is supposedly evidenced by the fact that the apostles could perform miracles.

[4] We argue for this premise elsewhere. And for what it is worth, at least two Witnesses with whom we have discussed the point have agreed that the spirit is, indeed, part of God.

If the spirit was not God, but something that God created, then several absurdities follow. First, the Son would not be directly created by the Father, but only by the created spirit. Second, if the spirit is God’s power in action and a creature, it would need to be prior to itself. God would have to first create the spirit by his power in order to use it to create anything at all. But that is an impossibility. Nor could it be thought to be neither a part of God nor a creature but instead some secret third thing. Hence, within Witness theology, the spirit must be thought of as part of God and as merely his power when used.

[5] We are arguing that, in effect, the Witness view of creaturely miracles resembles the philosophical position of occasionalism. The creature has no true causal power to raise the dead, God himself does it simply when (on the occasion that) the prophet “does” it (i.e., prays or performs some other relevant action).

Beyond Their Reach?

Beyond Their Reach?

“None of them can ever redeem a brother

Or give to God a ransom for him. 

(The ransom price for their life* is so precious

That it is always beyond their reach)”

(Psalm 49:7-8 NWT)

In Witness theology, death is the full payment or penalty for sin. A man’s death has no upper limit of sins for which it can pay for.[1] Every sin a man has committed is fully paid for once he has died. Duration of death, which they regard as a “state” of non-existence, cannot coherently be said to have any punitive or pecuniary value for reasons we explain in another essay.[2] All those who are resurrected are said to have still fully paid for their pre-death sins because they had died, their being resurrected notwithstanding. It does not matter what sins they had committed, how many, or whether they were dead for a long or a short time. That they had died and were dead for any period of time is sufficient for them to have fully paid for all of their sins.

Once we establish this principle, it becomes hard to see why they can say that the Atonement is necessary. Every man is capable of fully ‘acquitting’ himself of sin and so it appears superfluous to have someone else pay for his sins. Yes, there is supposedly the matter of Adamic sin, inherited imperfection, that needs to be dealt with; and those who are resurrected are not deemed worthy of everlasting life on a paradise earth merely because they have died; indeed, they did not deserve to come back to life at all. But none of these can supply the necessity of the Atonement.

Witnesses do describe the Atonement as Christ repurchasing for mankind that which Adam had lost for himself and his descendants: everlasting life on a paradise earth. And they say that justice requires that something be given that is equivalent to this: a perfect man must die and relinquish his right to continued human existence. This, they say, an imperfect man cannot do. But should we take this at face value? Is this something that Witness theology can coherently claim?

We do not believe so. For one thing, it does not appear to take seriously the very radical claim that a man’s own death is the full payment for his sin. If it is the full payment for sin, there should be no further debt or liability for penalty arising from inherited sin or personal sin; both have the same penalty, since there is but one unchanging law for sin: the wages sin pays is death.

But they don’t deserve to be resurrected! Neither did Adam deserve to come into existence in the first place.

But they will need to be healed of all moral, spiritual, and physical imperfections! Sure, but once a man has provided the full payment for his sins, what legal obstacles could prevent God from simply employing the same “mechanism” that will be used to bring redeemed mankind to this state of perfection (e.g., the binding of Satan, the influence of the holy spirit, etc.) without a ransom?

But they do not deserve everlasting life on a paradise earth! Neither did Adam before he came into existence nor, in fact, when he sinned. That sort of justification had not yet been granted to him at that time. Moreover, this justification to everlasting life is supposedly only (provisionally)[3] granted to redeemed mankind after they pass the final test, at which point the ransom could no longer avail them. It is not something that Christ merits for them in the first place. They themselves must prove worthy of it.

But they will commit sins in the interim! Since a man’s death is the full payment for sin, God can simply kill them all on a Friday and resurrect them on a Sunday.

For these reasons, we believe that there is simply no good reason to think that if men can fully pay for their own sins by their own deaths that there needs to be a ransom at all. We would go further and suggest that if one grants that if death is the full penalty or payment for sins, then even an imperfect man could have provided the (unnecessary) ransom just as well as Christ had. That is, his death would have the same sin-atoning power as Christ’s death does.

All that is necessary for this to work – for an imperfect man to at least fully pay for all the sins of the world – is for him to be the substitute for all other men. If he can stand in their stead, his death would be the full payment for their sins as well as his. And we would argue that there is no good reason for a Witness to object to the possibility that a sinner could substitute for the whole world, for the following reasons.

First, Witnesses acknowledge animal substitution was permitted in Abraham and Isaac’s case and under the Law. The deaths of these animals did not have quite the same sin-atoning properties that Christ’s death is said to have in Witness theology, nor the sin-paying properties that a man’s own death has for his sin according to their theology, but they illustrate that Witnesses think that another lesser being can substitute for a sinful man so as to spare his life. If this is possible, then a sinful man’s equal, another sinful man, surely could do so in a more effectual way.

Second, Witnesses acknowledge that imperfect men can be punished for the sins of others. This does not always happen so as to relieve the other party of liability to punishment. But to concede that one person can be punished for the sins of another is to go a long way to concede substitution. Witnesses acknowledge the historicity of the following examples: one generation of Amalekites being destroyed for what their forefathers had done, David being spared while his son was punished, Gehazi not only bringing Naaman’s leprosy upon not only himself but upon his descendants after him too, Israel suffering for all the righteous blood that had been spilled upon the earth.[4]

Third, our hypothetical sinful substitute’s death has sufficient payment power, so to speak, to fully pay for all the sins of the word if the man himself had committed all of them. If a man were to have lived two trillion years (so twenty-five-billion eighty-year-lives worth of sinning) and then to be killed, he would have fully paid for those sins merely by having died. Witness theology is forced to concede this point, since it says that death fully pays for all of the sins that a man has committed.

We argue that, given the premises discussed above (as well as in other essays) Witness theology cannot coherently deny this conclusion. They should say that a sinful man could die for the sins of the world just as well as they say that Christ actually did. That means that something else has got to give: the value of the Atonement must be greater, the penalty due for sin must be greater, etc. But until these doctrines are revised, this remains the sad reductio that their theology entails. It is merely an extension of the idea that indefinitely many perfect rational creatures could have paid for the ransom just as well as Christ did and the idea that a man can fully pay for his own sins.

[1] This includes unpardonable offenses and those who will, they say, not be resurrected, such as Adam. They still will have fully paid for them when they die. We touch upon this point in the other essay mentioned below.

[2] See “How Much More Severe?” here.

[3] As we argue elsewhere, redeemed mankind still has the potential to sin, even after they pass the so-called final test; so they could lose this justification for everlasting life.

[4] “In King Saul’s time Amalekite bands were found roaming throughout hundreds of miles of wilderness from the border of Egypt to Havilah, a designation that may include north-central Arabia. At this time Jehovah commanded Saul to execute the Amalekites on account of “what Amalek did to Israel when he set himself against him in the way while he was coming up out of Egypt.”” (September 1, 1963 Watchtower, p. 534)

“Thus the grievous sin of David was forgiven—though not without punishment, let it not be forgotten” August 15, 1963 Watchtower, p. 509)

“As a result, Gehazi was stricken with leprosy. So his greed, coupled with his deceptiveness, cost Gehazi his privilege of continuing to serve as Elisha’s attendant, besides bringing leprosy on himself and his offspring.” (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. I, p. 905)

“Because Zechariah courageously chastised Israel’s leaders, “they conspired against him and pelted him with stones at the king’s commandment in the courtyard of Jehovah’s house.” But, as Jesus foretells, Israel will pay for all such righteous blood spilled. They pay 37 years later, in 70 C.E., when the Roman armies destroy Jerusalem and over a million Jews perish.” (March 1, 1990 Watchtower, p. 24)

Christ Alone

An implication of the Witness doctrine of the Atonement is that indefinitely many existing or possible persons could have provided the ransom, the objective basis of our salvation, just as well as Christ did. This follows from their claim that salvation only costs the value of a perfect human life. And this is problematic insofar as it undermines the uniqueness of Christ’s sacrifice.

To provide this sacrifice Jesus had to become a mere perfect man. To do this his life was transferred from heaven to earth. The human organism that he became was preserved from any trace of Adamic sin, because he had no human father and because of a special operation of the holy spirit.

A Witness has no principle by which he could object to Gabriel or any run-of-the-mill angel filling this role; his sacrifice would be just as effective. Further, it seems to us that they have no reason to suppose that God needed to use an already existing angelic person for this mission. He could have simply created – even directly created – a new angel for this task and sent him to earth; or he could have created a new human person free from Adamic imperfection. If, after all, Jesus could be preserved from Adamic sin in virtue of having no human father and by a special operation of the holy spirit, surely the same could hold true for someone who did not pre-exist at all, too.

Now, this by itself does not mean that everything whatsoever would be the same if God had chosen someone other than Jesus to pay the ransom. There are several reasons in Witness theology why it was specifically Michael who was chosen. First, he is the greatest and most well-loved of God’s spirit sons. (Though, this does not seem to be necessarily the case.) The sacrifice on God’s part is therefore greater; and this fact has some moral influence upon sinners. Second, Christ is enabled to prove his metal, so to speak, as the appointed heir of all things. Nevertheless, all these other real or possible persons would be able to pay the price for mankind’s redemption equally well.[1]

Given this fact, there is arguably some advantage in having either a newbie or a less significant person pay the ransom. Consider that the Witness theodicy is, in essence, the claim that God is conducting a trial whereby he will show that his rule is the best, self-rule on man’s part is not possible, and that humans can maintain their integrity. Jesus, they say, provided the first proof of perfect human obedience.[2]

But is Jesus the best person to offer this proof? Arguably not. He is the most virtuous, wise, faithful, and loved creature. His success, therefore, would be, if not absolutely certain, at least virtually guaranteed. Why is that a problem? Because their theology seems to assign a certain legitimacy to the objections of Satan. They are questions that need to be answered. And if answered, answered conclusively.

So, then, as far as the question of mankind’s faithfulness is concerned, is having the the Son provide this proof the best strategy? Not obviously. Supposedly, when Jesus was baptized – at which time he began to be tempted in earnest – he gained all his pre-human memories, billions of years of character-shaping experiences that would have fortified him beyond the ability of normal men to withstand any challenges he would face. Is this really a convincing demonstration on God’s part? Does this really prove that an ordinary perfect human would be able to show the same integrity? Not as well as if a less virtuous (yet perfect) angel-become-man or newly created perfect man showed similar integrity. If you were Satan, should this satisfy you? Perhaps it would be better for God to provide an a fortiori argument: if the newly made perfect man (let’s call him James), then anyone whatsoever should be able to do so.

Now, even if this last suggestion is either faulty or at least not persuasive to a Witness, what we suggest is the deeper problem with their doctrine of the Atonement (that they implicitly undermine the uniqueness of Christ and his ability to provide the objective basis of our salvation, the merit by which pardon is made possible) remains intact. To inadvertently undermine the uniqueness of the Savior’s sacrifice should cause embarrassment for a religion that professes to be Christian. Maybe it will afford them some reason to suspect that the value of the Atonement needed to be greater than just a perfect man’s life.

And against this argument it would not do to suggest that since in our theology the Father or the Spirit could have become man just as well as the Son we are in the same boat. Our pool of potential candidates is much, much smaller, and all Divine. There is a great difference between saying that just about any run of the mill rational creature could have provided the ransom equally as well as the Son did and saying that just two other consubstantial Divine Persons could have done so as well. The one devalues Christ’s offering and the second esteems it very highly.

[1] We would also suggest that Witness theology cannot coherently deny that even a sinful man can die for the sins of the world. Death is supposedly the full payment for every and all sin. There is no upper limit of sins that a man’s death can fully pay for. If, for instance, a sinful man were to live for two trillion years and die, his death would fully pay for all these sins, even if he were to be resurrected on the third day. Two trillion years’ worth of sinning is what twenty-five billion people will do with a life span of eighty years each. So, if this sinner can die vicariously for them, he can fully pay for their sins on top of his own.

Further, if a sinner can fully pay for his own sins, it would seem that there is no need for an atonement at all. We will discuss both of these suggestions at greater length in another essay, where we will address at least two Witness objections that we have in mind. But for now, we want to stress that in Witness theology there is only one full payment for sin, death. We believe these objections (that seek to explain why a ransom given by a perfect man is necessary) do not take this claim seriously enough.

[2] Evidently according to Witness theology angelic psychology is similar enough to man’s that an angel’s life pattern (memories, personality, knowledge, and powers of perception) can be transmitted to a man, so that the man is the selfsame person as the angel, but not so similar that the perfect integrity of two thirds of the angels, who can even be tempted by things that tempt humans, can be used to show that perfect human obedience is, indeed, possible.

"It Is Indeed Divine Revelation"

 Introduction

Below is a very interesting letter found within the February 1, 1931 Watchtower (p. 47) from J. A. Bohnet. Despite its exceedingly bold claims about Rutherford’s two volume book Light, we are not presenting it as conclusive proof that Witness leaders had prophetic pretensions, because it is not clear that everything within the letter was endorsed by the Watchtower. Nonetheless, it is relevant to this topic for the following reasons. First, it was reprinted approvingly in an official Witness publication. Second, at least many of its claims are the same as those made by the Watchtower and in Watchtower books of that time. Third, its author appears to have been a prominent pro-Rutherford Bible Student during this era.

The letter's author is likely the same J. A. Bohnet who was an officer of the International Bible Student Association in (at least) 1917 and one of the Board of the Directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in (at least) 1918 and 1920. (November 1, 1917 Watchtower, p. 6162; January 15, 1918 Watchtower, p. 6202; January 15, 1920 Watchtower, p. 30) He appears to have been a travelling Watchtower speaker during the 1920s and the same Pilgrim who wrote another less extreme letter praising Rutherford's philosemtic book Comfort for the Jews, which was also reproduced in a 1926 Watchtower and which we also include below. (May 15, 1926 Watchtower, pp. 159-160)

1931 Letter

“Dear Brethren:

“I have just read the double volume Light carefully, and now intend going over it again more thoroughly and studiously, looking up its various references and citations with still more care and prayerfulness for deeper mind impression. Its perusal in a cursory way should very clearly show to those falling away from the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society that they are entirely wrong and are affiliated with Satan, and it should hasten their steps toward reuniting themselves with the instrument God is using to enlighten the world; namely, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, which was formed of Jehovah and has been his earthly mouthpiece ever since its inauguration, and still is.

“To read Light and then persist in antagonizing the Society is clear evidence of being on the side of the great adversary of God and men, whether its reader is cognizant of the fact or not. Light proves conclusively and indisputably that the Society of Bible Students have the correct understanding of the Bible and are positively right in their faith and work. Careful readers of this book can now plainly see why the Lord has kept secret his Revelation until now, and in his due time has made it so plain to his faithful remnant class, and has thus afforded ample opportunity for all the outgoers to select and appoint their own course of action, that is, to exercise their free moral agency on affiliation.

“After reading Light how can any of the outgoers continue longer in their present course, the evidence being so clear that they are on the wrong side? There is now no excuse whatever for antagonizing the Bible Society. All right-minded ones of them must at once renounce their adherence to the faction to which they have belonged, and instead take a stand with the Lord, or prove themselves worthy of God’s righteous indignation and punishment. And every wavering one of the Society, and such as may entertain some measure of criticism respecting its work, or may to some extent have questioned its more recent interpretation of Bible truth, should feel stimulated to greater zeal and confidence that God is with his human instrument, namely, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, and is its guiding light. Our faith is strengthened and our confidence is made more secure. To Jehovah be all praise for this wonderful book, and thanks to the Brooklyn staff of ardent workers. This book will stimulate the colporteur corps to greater activity and incident blessing.

“In his sending forth the book Light Jehovah leaves no excuse for any Bible Student to doubt that the Society has the truth and is being used of him for the proclaiming of his message. This book within itself conclusively proves that God directed its presentation, and that its human author was not employing his own judgment and wisdom in its preparation. No human creature could have written Light unless the holy spirit of God operated on his mind, actuated his thoughts and guided its utterances. It matters not whether Jehovah individually inspired the volume or had his representative Jesus do it. The evidence is there that the work is of the Lord. Brother Rutherford could not of himself have written this book. The wisdom therein is beyond human. It is divine. This double volume is priceless. It is wonderful. It should be an inspiration to the entire remnant class, prompting to still greater zeal and service, and should steady any who are wavering in faith or wondering whether the Society is right and correct in Bible interpretation and understanding. It should prompt any faltering ones to get into line and herald the divine message to the peoples of earth. No other agency on earth is doing that service.

“Light carries witness in itself that its presentations have divine origin. It is indeed divine revelation entrusted to human for portrayal. God be praised for this gift, a satisfying portion. At last Revelation reveals. Brother Rutherford could not have improved on the book Life except by divine supervision. What a comfort to our dear brother this must be. I hesitate to take up his precious time with a personal letter of my deep appreciation. May the Lord continue to strengthen him is my prayer. Not once in this book does he allude to himself either directly or indirectly, but ever accords credit to the whole Society membership, and he treats the deluded outgoers as gently and as kindly as circumstances and conditions would admit of his doing in justice to his sacred trust.

“If this letter seems too long, please pardon me, for “my cup runneth over’’ with gratitude. 1 heartily endorse everything set forth in Light. It is sublime.

“Faithfully in Christ, your brother,

“J. A. Bohnet, Michigan.”

1926 Letter

“Dear Brother Rutherford :

“I have just read your new book of 712 Scripture citations bearing upon the restoration of Palestine to the Jewish people.

“How any Jew can read that book and not be convinced that we have the correct understanding of prophecy relative to the Jewish regathering in Palestine in the very near future as God’s first people, is beyond my comprehension. The Jew must surely believe his return to divine favor is near at hand when he reads this wonderful book.

“What a research of Bible texts you have put into that work I The subject throughout is handled admirably, forcefully and conclusively. Except the Lord were with you the subject could not have been so delightfully dealt with. There is nothing omitted and nothing more needing to be said. It is complete.

“I congratulate you on the achievement. Now it is up to us to do our part. I’ll do my very best,

“Faithfully yours, J. A. Bohnet.—Pilgrim.”