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.
