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.