No Take Backs!

One of the reasons that Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that Christ was raised up as a human is their claim that this would undo the Atonement. Since Christ gave his human life, died as a man, to provide a ransom for sinful mankind, to take it up again would be to undo the ransoming and hence the Atonement. However, when it comes to their claim that one’s physical death pays for one’s sin they do not apply this no-take-backs rule consistently. 

When the resurrection takes place, they say, both (most of) the righteous and (most of) the wicked are brought back to life on a world from which Satan has been removed for 1,000 years prior to a final trial. Witnesses say that the sins of both groups have already been paid for. While their interpretation of John 5:29 has undergone at least one recent revision – in particular, they finally acknowledge that Jesus spoke of what two classes of persons did prior to their deaths and resurrections and not what they would go on to do after their resurrection – they still maintain the above mentioned claim as part of their interpretation of this (and other) passages. They say that “those who practiced vile things before they died” had “their sins . . . canceled at death”. They are now no longer answerable for them. In fact, Witnesses say that such persons “were acquitted of their previous sins when they died.” They say the same thing about the sins of the righteous. “The sins committed by these righteous ones were canceled at death.” (September 2022 Watchtower, pp. 18-19)

But if they get their life back, wouldn’t this undo their acquittal? Shouldn’t it be reversed, since its basis, namely, their deaths, have been undone? Given their argument against the orthodox doctrine of the Resurrection mentioned at the outset, Witnesses would have to answer this question in the affirmative: yes, such persons have their sins uncancelled. Doing this, however, would tend to undermine their simple annihilationism.[3] Or, they would have to abandon at least one of their argument against the orthodox doctrine of the resurrection, since they already have implicitly made a distinction between dying and being dead, which can be easily applied to the Atonement to show that a human resurrection would not undo the saving effects of Christ’s human death. Coming back to life would undo his state of being dead, but it would not undo his having died, which is where the power of the Atonement lay.

[1] There are several problems with their claim that one’s physical death acquits one from sin. Here are three of them. First, it seems to render the Atonement itself pointless. Second, it conflicts with their claim that certain sins cannot be forgiven and therefore certain people (e.g., Adam) will not be resurrected. On the Witness view they no longer stand in need of forgiveness, since their death has paid for the sin in full. And yet Witnesses also claim that God still holds their sins against them. Third, Scripture clearly affirms that eschatological punishment will come in degrees, something that the simple annihilationism espoused by the Witnesses cannot account for.

[2] Their interpretation of John 5:29 is still incongruent with the passage and makes a mockery of the distinct Christ makes between these two groups.

[3] As of 6.21.2024 I am not sure if this would undermine their simple annihilationism. Also, by "simple annihilationism" I mean to distinguish the Witness view from the view of Rethinking Hell. Simple annihilationism is the view that mere annihilation is the sole sufficient punishment for all wickedness. It denies that there will be an indefinite period of torment preceding such annihilation.