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.

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.”[1]

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 in 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.

[1] 3.25.2025 Note what the January 15, 1975 Watchtower, p. 55 says. “For like reasons, the dead cannot be helped by the living. They have returned to the lifeless dust. (Gen. 3:19; Ps. 104:29) Being lifeless, unconscious, they simply could not be in any place of permanent or temporary torment. God’s Word, at Romans 6:7, plainly says: “He who has died has been acquitted from his sin.” That would not be true if he continued to be punished for his sins after death. Rather than being acquitted, he would still be paying for his sins.” While this argument is directed against temporary or eternal post-mortem torment, the logic, we would suggest, applies equally well to regarding anything, including continued non-existence, as punishment. If remaining non-existent were part of the punishment inflicted upon any of the wicked then it cannot be said that such a person has been acquitted from his sin. (Cf. October 22, 1975 Awake!, p. 7; Bible Questions Answered No. 128)