Hanging by a Thread

It has been many years since Witness publications have explicitly set a date for the end, yet their chronology does have an implicit terminus ad quem. Their religion will be shown to be false if this “system of things” persists past the end of this century, at least according to their present chronology. In fact, we can be even more specific than that. 

According to Witness theology, “this generation” will not pass away until at least a little while after the beginning of the Great Tribulation, which will take place just prior to Armageddon. What is “this generation?” It is a composite of two overlapping groups (some would say two or more generations): (a) those who were anointed in or before 1914 and perceived the significance of that year and (b) those who were anointed while the first group was still alive. “At least some of those in the second group will live to see the beginning of the coming tribulation.” (God’s Kingdom Rules!, pp. 11-12)

While Watchtower probably does not know when the last member of Group A died, we will assume that it was Fredrick Franz (1893-1993). Having reached the age of ninety-nine, he was unusually long-lived. Moreover, in explaining the concept of overlapping-groups comprising one generation David Splane, a member of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, uses Fredrick Franz as an example. He said, “Now do you know many who were of the Anointed in 1914 and who outlived Brother Franz? There may have been some, but not many.” For this reason, he uses Franz, at least tentatively, as the last living member of Group A. So we do not believe that it is prejudicial to the Witness position to use him as the last surviving member of Group A. So, for our purposes, anyone who is part of Group B must have been anointed no later than December 22, 1992.

Let us call the youngest member of Group B “Ray.” What can Ray tell us about the latest that the Great Tribulation must begin by? First, we must determine how old he was when he was anointed. It is not uncommon for those raised as Witnesses to be baptized in their teens or early twenties. Twenty is a nice round number that we suspect is close to the average age for someone who was raised as a Witness to be baptized. And, while Witness theology does not require that one who is Anointed to receive the heavenly calling at the time of his baptism, there is nothing that prevents this from taking place that early in his life. So we will assume that when Ray was baptized he also received the heavenly call. He is now fifty-three years old. If he will be as long-lived as Fredrick Franz was, then the Great Tribulation must begin no later than 2071. So it would probably be safe to say that by 2080 Christ’s thousand-year reign must begin. And for fun we will suppose that Armageddon will take place in 1975 – I mean 2075.

These assumptions can be tweaked. But they are not endlessly malleable. Facts of biology and limited populations cannot be ignored. And far before the technical limit of their definition of “this generation” is reached the just as vital limit of plausibility will have been overshot. Consider the following. As far as the definition of “this generation” offered by Witness leaders goes, there is nothing unreasonable with the following hypothetical situation. Anointed Brother Charles was born in 1908, baptized and anointed in 1914, and died in 2008. Anointed Brother Joseph was born in 2002, baptized and anointed in 2008, and will die in 2102. But to actually accept that an overlap of a mere six years of age and a few months as Anointed Witnesses suffices to make two men whose births were separated by ninety-four years part of the same generation is impossible. The closest that Witnesses can get to Brother Charles is Fredrick Franz. And of the 25,000 who are currently partaking of the Witness’ version of Communion (i.e., who consider themselves to be Anointed), we suspect that they will not find someone who is now just shy of forty and who has been partaking since 1992. The best that can be reasonably hoped for, we think, is our hypothetical Ray.

Needless to say, we have been overly generous to the present Witness chronology with our example of Fredrick Franz and Ray. While their lives overlapped by twenty years and their time as anointed Witnesses upon the earth overlapped by about a year, their births are separated by almost eighty years.[1] As far as age is concerned, Ray could easily be the great-great-grandson of Franz. To say that they belong to the same generation is only slightly less absurd than saying that Charles and Joseph are part of the same generation.

Witnesses are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The more plausible they make their claim about overlapping groups belonging to the same generation, the less time their chronology has before it will have to be abandoned. If Ray in our example was already sixty in 1992, then the Great Tribulation will have to begin by 2032 even if he lives to be a hundred years of age. On the other hand, they purchase more breathing room for their chronology only by sacrificing any semblance of plausibility with their two-groups-as-one-generation view, as was seen most clearly in the example of Charles and Joseph. 

If a Witness is able to say with a straight face that a man and his great-great-grandson could be part of the same generation, that is a tremendous feat. But we are not obliged to believe him. And if we do not, we must find the present Witness chronological scheme totally bankrupt. And with that a key would-be justification for their organization’s legitimacy is dashed to pieces.

[1] The absurdity is underscored if the only overlap that matters is their earthly tenure as anointed Witnesses (not time on earth as such). The aforementioned Witness book seems to make such an overlap the key thing in the following quotation. “The two groups form one generation because their lives as anointed Christians overlapped for a time.” (p. 12)

How Much More Severe?

“Anyone who has ignored the Law of Moses is put to death without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severe punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:28-29)

How can a Witness affirm what this passage says when he also maintains that all sinners fully pay for their sins simply by being dead? Since the Witness view seems to affirm the equality of all punishment for sin, this passage presents a problem for Witness theology. But it is one for which Witnesses seem to have an answer. A Witness would respond by saying that those who have “insulted the Spirit of grace” will, in fact, be punished more severely than those who have “ignored the Law of Moses.” Such persons will be punished with everlasting annihilation, which is a more severe punishment than the merely temporary annihilation suffered by those who merely transgressed the Law of Moses. (December 15, 1985 Watchtower, p. 7; Insight on the Scriptures Vol. II, “Sleep” para. 9)

The Witness response has superficial plausibility. However, we argue that this explanation does not suffice to render the Witness position consistent with this passage from Hebrews. First, Witnesses cannot coherently say that some sinners will receive “more severe punishment” than others. Second, even if they could coherently claim that some sinners will receive more severe punishment, they cannot coherently claim that such sinners deserve more severe punishment than those who do not suffer such punishment. Third, even if they can claim that all those suffer the second death deserve more severe punishment than those who suffer only the first death, they are not necessarily able to affirm that the claim that those who “insulted the Spirit of grace” in the particular way described in Hebrews deserve a more severe punishment than all of those who merely “ignored the Law of Moses.”

According to Witness theology the second death, which is what the sinner who has “insulted the Spirit of grace” will receive, is (endlessly) longer than the temporary state of nonexistence that they say those who die the first death experience. It seems to be clearly worse. Why, then, do we object to Witnesses referring to the second death as a “more severe punishment” than the first death? Because elsewhere Witness theology considers how long a man has been dead or nonexistent to be irrelevant to whether he has been fully punished for his sin. So, the length of time that a person remains dead is a non-factor in determining how severe a punishment his being dead is.

That the duration of one’s state of death is irrelevant to whether it is the full payment for sin can be seen by the fact that Witnesses teach that everyone who is resurrected will have fully paid for their sins by being dead, irrespective of how long they have been dead. (September, 2022 Watchtower, pp. 18-19) How long one remains dead adds nothing to the full payment for sin that their being dead for even just a moment has already provided. This can be seen by considering the suggestion that the resurrection will progress in the reverse order of how men died: those who died most recently will be resurrected the soonest and those who died first will be resurrected last. While avoiding a definitive position on this suggestion, their publications consider it to be at least a reasonable possibility. (September, 2022 Watchtower, p. 20; December, 2017 Watchtower, p. 12; July 1, 1998 Watchtower, p. 23) And for our purposes, this suffices. Never did the thought that someone must be dead for a certain period of time, say, several centuries, before he can be resurrected lest he not fully pay for his sins cross the minds of those who wrote these articles. Such a thought would be alien to Witness theology. Merely having died, having passed into nonexistence, is what pays for one’s sins. How long one “is” nonexistent, while perhaps interesting or significant in other ways, does not have any bearing on whether one has been punished fully or given the full payment for his sins. 

And it is for this reason that we argue that Witness theology cannot consider being dead for say ten years instead of ten weeks, or for the rest of time instead of ten thousand years, to be a more severe punishment. One may be different from the other in duration. One may be more or less desirable than the other. But considered as punishment neither is worse than the other.

Notice what their 2019 study notes on Romans 6:7 says. “Paul reasons that one who has died has been acquitted from sin because by means of his death, he has paid the full penalty for sin. . . . When a person has died, his sinful record no longer stands against him. And if it were not for Jesus’ sacrifice and God’s purpose to resurrect the person, he would never live again. Still, he would remain acquitted from sin.” (New World Translation: Study Edition, Romans 6:7; Cf. October 1, 1974 Watchtower, p. 607) Notice that it is said that such a person, even if he were not to be resurrected, “would remain acquitted from sin” because he has already “paid the full penalty for sin,” “when [he] has died.”

Let us use Adam as an example, since he is someone who Witnesses say will receive no resurrection. He is not still paying the full penalty for sin; he is not still working on becoming acquitted for his sins. Long ago, at the time when he died, he already paid for his sins and has been acquitted from them ever since. The over five thousand years since he died has contributed nothing to the already fully accomplished payment for sin. Since Adam has already fully paid for his sins, there is nothing left for God to punish. That does not mean God owes Adam a resurrection. But that God does not resurrect him but rather lets Adam remain nonexistent cannot coherently be considered part of the penalty for his already full payment for his now acquitted sins.

Another way of looking at this issue is by noting that Witness theology explicitly regards both the first death (reversible annihilation) and the second death (irrevocable annihilation) as “the wages that sin pays.” Thus, they are viewed as fundamentally equal as punishment since they are both regarded as the full penalty for sin. Notice how the following quotations apply Romans 6:23 (and other relevant passages) to both the first and second death.

“God has set death, not torment in a fiery hell, as the penalty for sin. God told the first man, Adam, that he penalty for breaking God’s law would be death. . . . God has not changed the punishment for defying his laws. . . . Death, not torment in hell, is the full penalty for sin.” (Bible Questions Answered, No. 66) 

“There is nothing we can do on our own to avoid suffering the death penalty for our sins.” (November 1, 1980 Watchtower, p. 7) 

“The apostle Paul stated: “The wages sin pays is death.” (Rom. 6:23) From Adam’s time until now, man has experienced the truth of that statement. He has been suffering imperfection, sickness and eventual death because of sin.” (November 8, 1978 Awake!, p. 27) 

“Death, not the dying process itself, is the full payment of sin. The Bible says: “The wages sin pays is death.” (Rom. 6:23) This means that when a person has died his sinful record no longer stands against him.” (October 1, 1974 Watchtower, p. 607) 

“But how does God punish the incorrigibly wicked? The Bible plainly tells us that “the wages sin pays is death,” and death is the absence of life.” (March 1, 1973 Watchtower, p. 133) 

“Thus, the death of all humans, infants included, can be traced initially to disobedience to God’s law, that is, to sin. . . . God’s unchangeable law is that the “wages sin pays is death.” (Rom. 6:23)” (December 8, 1971 Awake!, p. 28) 

“What is generally overlooked is that what God placed before Adam were not the alternatives of life in heaven and life in eternal torment, but life (existence) and death (nonexistence). . . . God used Moses to put the same alternatives before his people: “I have put life and death before you.” And so we also read that “the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life.” – Gen. 2:17; 3:19; Deut. 30:19; Rom. 6:23.” (March 1, 1961 Watchtower, p. 132)

Some of these quotations pertain specifically to “the incorrigibly wicked” (the second death). Others apply to mankind generally (the first death). In some, both groups are at least implicitly ini view. Altogether these quotations clearly teach that both the first death and second death fulfill the one, unchangeable law of God given in Eden and described in Romans 6:23. Thus both count as the full payment for any and all sins whatsoever. So, even if these deaths differ in some respects, such as duration, considered as punishment they are regarded as equal.

But even if Witness theology could coherently say that the second death is worse specifically as a penalty than the first death, Witness theology would not be out of the woods yet. Notice that Hebrews 10:28-29 says that he who has “insulted the Spirit of grace” deserves more severe punishment than one who has merely “ignored the Law of Moses.” It is not merely that he will receive worse punishment but that he deserves it. If you and I commit the same crime under the same circumstances, we deserve the same punishment, say, five years imprisonment. That remains the same even if I am pardoned after a year and you serve the full sentence. You received a more severe punishment than I did, but it would be false to say that you deserved a more severe sentence than I did.

Witness theology holds that God resurrects the vast majority of those who died in order to give them a second chance to know him and accommodate themselves to his righteous ways. Doing so cuts short the otherwise endless state of nonexistence that those who suffer the first death would otherwise “experience.” However, this does not mean that they deserve to exist again, deserve this supposedly less severe punishment. So merely pointing out the relatively short term of nonexistence of those who suffer the first death does nothing to extricate Witness theology from the present objection.

Witness literature describes the resurrection of the dead as gracious and unmerited. “The provision of a resurrection for humankind is indeed an undeserved kindness of Jehovah God, for he was not obligated to provide a resurrection.” (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. II, p. 791) “One of the greatest ways that Jehovah will show his undeserved kindness on earth will be the resurrection of humans from ‘the Grave.’” (July, 2016 Watchtower: Study Edition, p. 26) This underscores that according to Witness theology those who suffered merely the first death and who will be resurrected would otherwise have the same fate as those who die the second death and who will never live again. Both deserve to be dead, neither deserves to live again. Therefore, neither group deserves a more severe punishment than the other.

It is also worth keeping in mind that insulting the Spirit of grace in the way described in Hebrews is not the only way one can unrepentantly or incorrigibly sin. So, even if Witnesses could say that those who suffer the second death both receive and deserve a more severe punishment than those who merely suffer the first death, it would remove the difficulty that this passage poses for Witness theology. According to Witness literature, King Solomon, who they seem to regard as one who ended his life unrepentantly, was an Israelite who “ignored the Law of Moses.” Their literature is agnostic about whether he will be resurrected. The May, 2024 Watchtower (p. 4) states with respect to him:

“But was the manner of his burial a guarantee that he would be resurrected? The Bible does not say. Some might reason, though, that “the one who has died has been acquitted from his sin.” (Rom. 6:7) True, but this does not mean that all who have died will be resurrected, as if a new life were a right that they have earned. Resurrection is a gift from a loving God. He bestows it on those whom he wants to give an opportunity to serve him forever. (Job 14:13, 14; John 6:44) Will Solomon receive such a gift? Jehovah knows the answer; we do not. We do know, though, that Jehovah will do what is right.” 

This shows that, according to Witness theology, one who “ignored the Law of Moses” can suffer the second death. This is problematic for Witness theology. For, if the second death is also the worst that anyone who has “insulted the Spirit of grace” in the particular way described in Hebrews can receive, according to Witness theology, it would be patently false to say one who has “insulted the Spirit of grace” in that way deserves a far worse penalty than anyone who has “ignored the Law of Moses” could deserve. Witness theology would make null the word of God for its own sake. 

Resurrection to Probation?

“Do not be amazed at this; for a time is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come out: those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the bad deeds to a resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:28-29)

Prior to 2022, Witness publications claimed that this passage distinguishes two groups on the basis of what they will go on to do after being resurrected. However, in face of the obvious significance of Jesus’ words, their literature finally conceded that Jesus here distinguished between two groups based off of what those in each did prior to their deaths. (September, 2022 Watchtower, p. 18) Yet, they still retain their overall view that both groups are resurrected to the same probationary state in which some of “those who did the good deeds” may end up failing and many – probably most – of both groups, including “those who committed the bad deeds,” will be saved.[1]

This view of the resurrection bears little resemblance with what Jesus describes in John 5:28-29. Why, then, do Witnesses maintain this view? In other words, why do they reject the obvious meaning of this passage that each group is resurrected to its own distinct eschatological fate? Largely, because of their view that it is one’s own physical death (understood as a state of non-existence) that fully pays for one’s sins. Hence, at the time of resurrection, there is no further penalty due to anyone for their sins. So, while some will end up meriting final punishment (and thus will be irrevocably annihilated) neither group can be resurrected to this punishment or final judgment. The only purpose of resurrecting both groups is to give both an opportunity to reach a state of perfection and prove to be worthy of everlasting life.

This leaves Witnesses in the awkward position of explaining how their interpretation fits into this passage. They must explain why Jesus distinguished between groups on the basis of their pre-death actions and described their experience of what is supposedly one post-resurrection state as if it were two different resurrections. So their theology posits the following differences between these two groups. “Those who committed the bad deeds” are more predisposed away from righteousness; and they are not brought back to life with their names already written in the book of life. Thus, “theirs will be ‘a resurrection of judgment.’” “Those who did the good deeds” are already predisposed toward righteousness; and they are already written in the book of life. Thus, “the righteous, who did good things before their death, will receive ‘a resurrection of life’ because their names will already be written in the book of life.” (September, 2022 Watchtower, p. 18)

While these initial differences between the two groups may appear to explain why Jesus so sharply distinguished between them and appeared to assign to each their own resurrection, they are shown to be really quite superficial differences. The world into which both groups are resurrected is the same: a renewed earthly paradise under the direct control of Christ’s Kingdom and free of Satan’s influence. No amount of dissimilarities between the two groups can warrant calling the resurrection of one group one “of judgment” and that of the other one “of life.” There is but one resurrection in the Witness view.

The differences between the two groups are not that great. For example, while it is true that within Witness theology only “those who did the good deeds” already have their name written in the book of life, they teach that most of those resurrected, including the far greater number of “those who committed the bad deeds,” will end up with their names written in it, as was noted earlier: most men will be saved. Moreover, that the righteous already have their names written in the book of life does not mean that they cannot perish either during the thousand year reign of Christ or during the final test. Neither they nor “those who committed the bad deeds” will have their names indelibly written in the book of life until after the final test.[2] So “those who did the good deeds” are not that much better off than “those who committed the bad deeds.”

Also, the sense in which Witnesses say that “those who committed the bad deeds” will be judged is common to the righteous, too. Witness literature says that “The unrighteous will be judged in the sense that they will be evaluated. . . . It will take time to determine whether they are judged worthy of having their names written in the book of life.” But that is no less true of the righteous. Those in either group have to be evaluated for the same period of time and go through the same final test in order to be saved. So, if the wicked are said to be resurrected to judgment because they are being evaluated, then the righteous, too, are resurrected to judgment and the dichotomy Christ made breaks down.

Further, while Witnesses claim that “those who committed the bad deeds” will have a harder time adjusting to God’s righteous ways during the thousand years, this initial distinction is hardly significant. First, all of those who are resurrected are still sinful and persons in either group may end up perishing. Second, the spiritual conditions that will prevail upon earth will be so great that any initial disadvantage that “those who committed evil deeds” would have would be quickly ameliorated. Accordingly, their theology holds that the vast majority of both groups will reach a state of moral, spiritual, and physical perfection and will prove to be faithful during the final test.

Since there is no substantial difference between the righteous and the wicked as it relates to their experience of the same resurrection state, Witness theology cannot explain why Jesus distinguished two groups on the basis of their pre-death conduct and assigned to each a distinct resurrection fate. If the Witness view were true, one would not have expected Jesus to speak as he did. 

So where does this leave us? We are left with Jesus’ teaching of two resurrections, one of reward (“of life”) and the other of punishment (“of judgment”), each of which will be the exclusive fate of one of two clearly distinguished groups. This passage teaches that there will be a post-mortem penalty for pre-death sins, which refutes the Witness claim that it is one’s own physical death that fully pays for one’s sins. Moreover, that this punishment is given in its fullness to those who have been resurrected shows that eternal hell is a live theological position.[3] In other words, Witness eschatology is shown to be severely defective. And we think that to resolve this problem their opposition to an eternal hell must at least be weakened somewhat.

[1] Witness theology appears to teach that most men will be saved. Most men will be resurrected. (May, 2024 Watchtower, p. 4; March 15, 2006 Watchtower, p. 6) Probably only a few will find themselves in the minority who are destroyed before the end of the thousand year reign of Christ because of obstinately refusing to accommodate themselves to God’s righteous ways. (February 15, 1989 Watchtower, pp. 14-15; March 15, 1990 Watchtower, p. 31) Of those who reach a state of “spiritual, moral, and physical perfection” by the end of the thousand year reign of Christ and who experience the final test, only a small fraction will perish during that test. (January 1, 2009 Watchtower, p. 10; Pure Worship of Jehovah—Restored At Last!, p. 233) Therefore, according to Witness theology, most men, whether they were among “those who committed the bad deeds” or “those who did the good deeds,” will be saved.

[2] Even here “indelibly” should be understood as at least slightly hyperbolic, since the possibility of committing (now unpardonable) sin after the final test and thus meriting eternal annihilation is explicitly acknowledged within Witness literature. (August 15, 2006 Watchtower, p. 31) However, this nuance is safely set aside for the purposes of this essay.

[3] Though, more sophisticated annihilationists are able to account for post-resurrection punishment per se. For example, the group called Rethinking Hell affirms post-resurrection torment that culminates in annihilation. Thus they are able to account for a post-resurrection penalty and a penalty that comes in different degrees (severity and/or duration). This is not to say that they are correct, but their view is able to account for more of the pertinent biblical information than the Witness view and is, at this stage of the discussion, as viable an option as the traditional view of an eternal hell.

Witnesses, on the other hand, appear to eschew any eschatological torment, and hold that it is annihilation by itself that is the full and sufficient penalty for sin. They’re simple annihilationists. Their view is not able to account for post-resurrection punishment nor for eschatological punishment coming in degrees.

It also occurs to me that universalists could even affirm the facts of post-resurrection punishment and degrees of eschatological punishment. Whether they can account for passages like John 5:28-29 is another matter, which is not the subject of this blog post.

For Our Sins

There is a discrepancy within Witness theology that touches upon one of the most important doctrines of theology, the Atonement. On the one hand Witness literature claims that since Christ died for our sins, his ransom sacrifice is the basis upon which God can justly forgive our sins. On the other hand their publications teach that it is a man’s own death that pays for or acquits him of his sins. These beliefs cannot be harmonized; and the latter claim disparages the Atonement and robs Christ the only Savior of the glory that is due him, since it amounts to saying that Christ did not die for remission of all the sins of those for whom the Atonement is efficacious.

We are not claiming that since Witness theology holds that it is a man’s own death that does away with the guilt of his sins committed prior to his death that it views the Atonement as meaningless. While we believe this claim does introduce a fatal incoherence in the Witness doctrine of the Atonement, the claim that it makes the Atonement of absolutely no account is not our present contention. We recognize that Witness theology ascribes several things to the Atonement besides the acquittal of sins committed prior to death: pardon for post-resurrection sins, the possibility of resurrection, the elimination of Adamic sin, and the gradual restoration of mankind to a state of moral and physical perfection, for instance. For the purposes of this essay, we will grant that it makes sense to attribute these to the Atonement and even to say that (with the exception of the acquittal of post-resurrection sin) the Atonement is necessary to accomplish these things. Even so, Witness theology undermines the Atonement by asserting that it is a man’s own physical death that totally acquits him of his prior sins.

Before proceeding, let us demonstrate that Witness literature teaches both of the claims mentioned at the outset.

1) Since Christ died for our sins, his ransom sacrifice is the basis upon which God can justly forgive our sins.

1. “When faithful servants of God have made a mistake, committed a sin, Jesus has presented evidence before God as the Judge that they are not worthy of death—that his propitiatory sacrifice covers their mistakes and sins.” Life Does Have a Purpose, p. 73

2. “Christ’s ransom covers the sins an individual has because of being a child of sinful Adam.” (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. II, “Resurrection” par. 58)

3. “We can be forgiven of our sins only through the ransom sacrifice that Jesus paid with his blood.” (March, 2024 Watchtower, p. 32)

4. “Jehovah forgave his pre-Christian worshippers even before Christ paid the ransom [on the basis of it].” (January, 2025 Watchtower, p. 27)

5. “But because of our faith in the atonement arrangement and the ransom price that was paid, Jehovah has a basis for canceling our debts.” (February, 2025 Watchtower, pp. 5-7)

2) Since physical death is the complete penalty for sin, It is a man’s own death that pays for or acquits him of his (pre-death) sins.

1. “Death, not the dying process in itself, is the full payment for sin. The Bible says: “The wages sin pays is death.” (Rom. 6:23) This means that when a person has died his sinful record no longer stands against him. And were it not for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and God’s purpose to resurrect the person, he would never live again. Still, he would remain acquitted from sin, as God would not repeatedly reexamine his case and then sentence him to other kinds of punishment for his sin.” (October 1, 1974 Watchtower, p. 607)

2. “This is true, because at death they paid the penalty for their sinfulness.” (September 1, 1978 Watchtower, p. 22)

3. “Paul reasons that one who has died has been acquitted from sin because by means of his death, he has paid the full penalty for sin. At Ro 6:23, Paul says: “The wages sin pays is death.” So when a person has died, his sinful record no longer stands against him. And if it were not for Jesus’ sacrifice and God’s purpose to resurrect the person, he would never live again. Still, he would remain acquitted from sin, since God would not reexamine his case and then sentence him to further punishment.” (New World Translation: Study Edition, Romans 6:7)

4. “The sins committed by these righteous ones were canceled at death, but their record of faithfulness remains. . . .

“What about those who practiced vile things before they died? Although their sins were canceled at death, they have not established a record of faithfulness.” (September, 2022 Watchtower, pp. 18-19)

We believe that both of these ideas are clearly taught in Witness literature, which seems to be entirely unaware of what is at least a prima facie contradiction between the two ideas. At least, we have not found any Witness publication that attempts to explain how, if God actually forgives believers of their sins and pardons them of their sins on the basis of Christ’s death, that they die as a penalty for their sins and are thereby fully acquitted of them. Nevertheless, we will attempt to speculate as to what a Witness might say to harmonize such matters.

One can be punished even if forgiven. Witnesses say this with respect to David. While he was pardoned for his adultery and murder of Uriah, he “did not escape all punishment. By the mouth of the prophet Nathan, Jehovah pronounced: “Here I am raising up against you calamity out of your own house.” (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. I, “David” par. 28) But is this really a viable path forward for Witnesses? No. Even if we accept that this is the correct explanation of the death of David’s son, it does not follow that this can explain what Witnesses need to explain. First, even if it is consistent for God to inflict some punishment upon someone even though he forgives the person, we would have to ask if the punishment in question is retributive or merely disciplinary. Second, the punishment that David suffered was not the ultimate penalty for sin as defined by Witnesses, so even if God does inflict punishment of some kind on those whom he has forgiven in certain, limited cases, it does not follow that God would then have a believer pay the full penalty for their sins that he has pardoned in Christ.

Further, the issue is not just that the Witness view makes the death of a believer a redundant ultimate penalty for sin, but that it regards it as a sufficient basis of acquittal for all sins committed by believers prior to their deaths. Indeed, things are more dire than this, since according to Witness theology, even unbelievers are fully acquitted for their pre-death sins. In Witness theology unbelievers who die are fully acquitted of their pre-death sins, too, and that without even having been pardoned by God on the basis of the Atonement in Christ’s blood.

The Atonement accomplishes more than the pardon of a person’s actual sin. We mentioned this earlier to head off this objection. We suspect that nothing a Witness can say will be able to turn this into a viable response to our objection. Heap as much praise upon the Atonement as you want and ascribe to it all manner of benefits. Yet, if you suppose that the sins of both the righteous and the wicked are fully paid for by their deaths and that these deaths truly acquit them of these sins, all your praise does not alter the fact that you have undermined the Atonement and robbed Christ of his glory. Yes, even if you say that Christ’s death is the basis for the pardon of such pre-death sins and that God actually forgives believers of these, you merely take away with one hand what you gave with the other. The incoherence remains and the detraction of the Atonement is not absolved.