Christ Alone

An implication of the Witness doctrine of the Atonement is that indefinitely many existing or possible persons could have provided the ransom, the objective basis of our salvation, just as well as Christ did. This follows from their claim that salvation only costs the value of a perfect human life. And this is problematic insofar as it undermines the uniqueness of Christ’s sacrifice.

To provide this sacrifice Jesus had to become a mere perfect man. To do this his life was transferred from heaven to earth. The human organism that he became was preserved from any trace of Adamic sin, because he had no human father and because of a special operation of the holy spirit.

A Witness has no principle by which he could object to Gabriel or any run-of-the-mill angel filling this role; his sacrifice would be just as effective. Further, it seems to us that they have no reason to suppose that God needed to use an already existing angelic person for this mission. He could have simply created – even directly created – a new angel for this task and sent him to earth; or he could have created a new human person free from Adamic imperfection. If, after all, Jesus could be preserved from Adamic sin in virtue of having no human father and by a special operation of the holy spirit, surely the same could hold true for someone who did not pre-exist at all, too.

Now, this by itself does not mean that everything whatsoever would be the same if God had chosen someone other than Jesus to pay the ransom. There are several reasons in Witness theology why it was specifically Michael who was chosen. First, he is the greatest and most well-loved of God’s spirit sons. (Though, this does not seem to be necessarily the case.) The sacrifice on God’s part is therefore greater; and this fact has some moral influence upon sinners. Second, Christ is enabled to prove his metal, so to speak, as the appointed heir of all things. Nevertheless, all these other real or possible persons would be able to pay the price for mankind’s redemption equally well.[1]

Given this fact, there is arguably some advantage in having either a newbie or a less significant person pay the ransom. Consider that the Witness theodicy is, in essence, the claim that God is conducting a trial whereby he will show that his rule is the best, self-rule on man’s part is not possible, and that humans can maintain their integrity. Jesus, they say, provided the first proof of perfect human obedience.[2]

But is Jesus the best person to offer this proof? Arguably not. He is the most virtuous, wise, faithful, and loved creature. His success, therefore, would be, if not absolutely certain, at least virtually guaranteed. Why is that a problem? Because their theology seems to assign a certain legitimacy to the objections of Satan. They are questions that need to be answered. And if answered, answered conclusively.

So, then, as far as the question of mankind’s faithfulness is concerned, is having the the Son provide this proof the best strategy? Not obviously. Supposedly, when Jesus was baptized – at which time he began to be tempted in earnest – he gained all his pre-human memories, billions of years of character-shaping experiences that would have fortified him beyond the ability of normal men to withstand any challenges he would face. Is this really a convincing demonstration on God’s part? Does this really prove that an ordinary perfect human would be able to show the same integrity? Not as well as if a less virtuous (yet perfect) angel-become-man or newly created perfect man showed similar integrity. If you were Satan, should this satisfy you? Perhaps it would be better for God to provide an a fortiori argument: if the newly made perfect man (let’s call him James), then anyone whatsoever should be able to do so.

Now, even if this last suggestion is either faulty or at least not persuasive to a Witness, what we suggest is the deeper problem with their doctrine of the Atonement (that they implicitly undermine the uniqueness of Christ and his ability to provide the objective basis of our salvation, the merit by which pardon is made possible) remains intact. To inadvertently undermine the uniqueness of the Savior’s sacrifice should cause embarrassment for a religion that professes to be Christian. Maybe it will afford them some reason to suspect that the value of the Atonement needed to be greater than just a perfect man’s life.

And against this argument it would not do to suggest that since in our theology the Father or the Spirit could have become man just as well as the Son we are in the same boat. Our pool of potential candidates is much, much smaller, and all Divine. There is a great difference between saying that just about any run of the mill rational creature could have provided the ransom equally as well as the Son did and saying that just two other consubstantial Divine Persons could have done so as well. The one devalues Christ’s offering and the second esteems it very highly.

[1] We would also suggest that Witness theology cannot coherently deny that even a sinful man can die for the sins of the world. Death is supposedly the full payment for every and all sin. There is no upper limit of sins that a man’s death can fully pay for. If, for instance, a sinful man were to live for two trillion years and die, his death would fully pay for all these sins, even if he were to be resurrected on the third day. Two trillion years’ worth of sinning is what twenty-five billion people will do with a life span of eighty years each. So, if this sinner can die vicariously for them, he can fully pay for their sins on top of his own.

Further, if a sinner can fully pay for his own sins, it would seem that there is no need for an atonement at all. We will discuss both of these suggestions at greater length in another essay, where we will address at least two Witness objections that we have in mind. But for now, we want to stress that in Witness theology there is only one full payment for sin, death. We believe these objections (that seek to explain why a ransom given by a perfect man is necessary) do not take this claim seriously enough.

[2] Evidently according to Witness theology angelic psychology is similar enough to man’s that an angel’s life pattern (memories, personality, knowledge, and powers of perception) can be transmitted to a man, so that the man is the selfsame person as the angel, but not so similar that the perfect integrity of two thirds of the angels, who can even be tempted by things that tempt humans, can be used to show that perfect human obedience is, indeed, possible.