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 the 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 not 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)

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.[3]

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.[4] 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] 4.24.2025 Interestingly, older Witness literature recognized the point that we are making here: to interpret “judgment” as mere evaluation rather than condemnation eviscerates the distinction between judgment and life. Consider the following statements from their literature. “The fact that life is here contrasted with judgment makes it clear that a condemnatory judgment is involved.” (Is This Life All There Is?, p. 183) “If Jesus, in speaking of a resurrection of judgment, meant a trial the result of which might be life, then there would be no contrast between this and the “resurrection of life.” Therefore, the context indicates that Jesus meant by “judgment” a condemnatory judgment.” (Aid to Bible Understanding, p. 1397)

[4] 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.

For Our Sins

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. “Christ carried our sins upon the stake and died in our place.” (January 15, 2009 Watchtower, p. 27)

4. “We can be forgiven of our sins only through the ransom sacrifice that Jesus paid with his blood.” (March, 2024 Watchtower, p. 32)

5. “Jehovah forgave his pre-Christian worshippers even before Christ paid the ransom [on the basis of it].” (January, 2025 Watchtower, p. 27)

6. “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. “What of those, then, who will be resurrected during Jesus’ thousand-year reign? Must these, too, come within the city of refuge and remain there until the “death of the high priest”? No. For these have paid the penalty for their sinfulness by their own death. (Rom. 6:7) They have been acquitted of sin by going down into the common grave of all mankind.” (May 15, 1973 Watchtower, p. 311)

2. “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)

3. “This is true, because at death they paid the penalty for their sinfulness.” (September 1, 1978 Watchtower, p. 22)

4. “Those resurrected will not be judged on the basis of the works done in their former life, because the rule at Romans 6:7 says: “He who has died has been acquitted from his sin.”” (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. II, p. 138)

5. “Must those resurrected during Jesus’ Thousand Year Reign enter the antitypical city of refuge and remain there until the death of the high priest? No, because by dying they paid the penalty for their sinfulness.” (November 15, 1995 Watchtower, p. 19)

6. “When the unrighteous are resurrected, will they be judged on the basis of their past actions? No. Romans 6:7 states: “The one who has died has been acquitted from his sin.” The unrighteous will have paid for their sins by dying. Thus, they will be judged on the basis of what they do after their resurrection, not what they did in ignorance before they died.” (June 1, 2014 Watchtower, p. 11)

7. “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)

8. “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)

9. “There is no punishment for sins after a person dies. The Bible says that “the wages of sin is death” and that “a dead person has been absolved from sin.” (Romans 6:​7, 23, NAB) Death is the full and complete punishment for sin.” (Bible Questions Answered No. 128)

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. 

12.20.2025: I finally added the additional quotations I found by 3.25.2025.

Sawing Off the Branch They're Sitting On: A Witness Objection to Exhaustive Foreknowledge

Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that if God possesses exhaustive foreknowledge he would be evil and a failure for his permission of the Fall. This position can be refuted head on, though it is not the purpose of this essay to present such a rebuttal. Rather, its aim is to demonstrate that in making this sort of argument Witnesses end up convicting God even as he is misunderstood in their own theology. Since Witnesses acknowledge that God is perfect, they ought to abandon their misguided criticism of the orthodox affirmation of exhaustive foreknowledge and meticulous providence. The argument of this essay succeeds because the Witness open theist view is sufficiently akin to the orthodox affirmation of exhaustive foreknowledge and meticulous providence. Therefore, many of the criticisms of the latter, including those made by Witnesses, are implicitly criticisms of the former.

While exhaustive foreknowledge is the target against which Witness polemics are directed, we will focus on one of the most important events that God foreknew, the Fall. Witnesses object that if God foreknew “Adam’s fall into sin . . . he would have become the author of sin when he made man, and God would be deliberately responsible for all human wickedness and suffering.” (April 15, 1998 Watchtower, pp. 7-8) Other publications make the same claim.[1] (E.g., Reasoning From the Scriptures, p. 142; June 1, 2006 Watchtower, p. 25) Another article in the January 1, 2011 Watchtower characterizes the orthodox view of the Fall as follows. “He [would have been] foolish . . . to embark on a bizarre venture, using his ability to know the outcome in advance and then staging a mere rerun of what he already knew.” (p. 13)

If Witnesses were run of the mill open theists, they might be left with a self-coherent (if otherwise defective) objection. However, since Witnesses believe that God has sometimes used his power of foreknowledge, they are at risk of finding themselves the targets of their own objection. A brief discussion of their view of the extent of God’s foreknowledge will reveal whether they do fall by their own polemical sword. Sometimes what God is said to know is general in nature. For instance, they claim that when it was originally predicted that one of the Twelve would betray Jesus, God did not specifically foreknow that Judas would be that one. (June 1, 1953 Watchtower, p. 339; July 15, 1984 Watchtower, p. 6) But that God has foreknown even rather specific things is also taught within Witness literature. The prophecies of Christ with respect to Peter and John’s deaths, for instance. (July 15, 1948 Watchtower, pp. 223) Josiah’s campaign against idolatry at Bethel. And Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon. (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. I, p. 856) Draw Close to Jehovah states that “the outcome of wars, the rise and fall of world powers, and even the specific battles strategies of military commanders” are among the things God foreknew. (pp. 177-178) Witnesses also believe that the foreordination of the Messiah is the preeminent example of God’s foreknowledge and providence in action. This includes the fact of his death, its manner, and time. (Ibid. pp. 858-859)

Let us focus on the sins against Christ that God foreknew and utilized. Since Witnesses claim that God foreknew and used these to bring about his own good purpose, how can they avoid the apparent implication of their own logic that God failed and must be culpable for these crimes?

Might a Witness take refuge in the fact that unlike the orthodox they do not claim that God foreknew all of the details of these crimes? As was noted above, in Witness theology God permitted his foreknowledge about Jesus’ betrayer to be somewhat vague. That it proved to be Judas was not yet known to God when these prophecies were first written. In those days, God only knew that he would be one of Jesus’ inner circle. They say the same thing with respect to the role of Pilate or Herod, also. “Without predestining the specific individuals to act against him when on earth, the prophecies did predict many of the events that occurred,” states one Watchtower article. (June 1, 1953 Watchtower, p. 339) Does this sort of (at least initial) vagueness to God’s foreknowledge absolve God of the charge of complicity in such crimes? 

No. The fundamental fact remains that even within Witness theology God still foreknew the sins themselves, even if his knowledge as to who would commit the sins only became more specific as time progressed. Moreover, even Witness literature concedes that such sins were “a vital part of the outworking of Jehovah’s purpose.” (October 1, 1974 Watchtower, p. 598) And, as even Witnesses would concede, God could have prevented any sins against Christ from taking place. They explicitly state that he was able to “thwart or even block any attacks or attempts upon the Messiah that did not conform to the manner or time prophesied.” (August 1, 1970 Watchtower, p. 476; Insight on the Scriptures Vol. I, p. 858) And the actual occurrence of the predicted crimes depended “in part upon God’s own exercise of power.” (Ibid.) And, they teach that such crimes would occur was inevitable, at least once God came to foreknew them. (Ibid., p. 852)

If God can infallibly foreknow certain sins and utilize them for his own good purpose while remaining neither evil nor a failure, why would this not hold with respect to the Fall? Or, if it would be immoral for God to foreknow the Fall how can he remain moral since he both foreknew and intended to utilize the sins against Christ? However the problem is articulated, we believe that Witness theology does not have a good solution to this difficulty. And while this by itself does not mean that the Witness view of the extent of God’s foreknowledge or providence is wrong, it does mean that one of their objections against the orthodox affirmation of its universal scope is untenable for a Witness to make. And this, we believe, is an important step in defending sound doctrine against its Witness critics.

[1] Interestingly, however, Russell, whose Bible Student movement gave rise to Jehovah’s Witnesses and some other groups, taught that God did foreknow the Fall. (Studies in the Scriptures Vol. I, p. 193)

An Argument That The Witness Doctrine of Foreknowledge is Contradictory

P1) “Whatever God foreknows must inevitably come to pass.” (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. I, p. 852)

P2) “Jehovah God foreknew and foretold the Messiah’s sufferings, the death he would undergo, and his subsequent resurrection.” (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. I, p. 858)

C) Therefore, Christ (faithful) death and (glorious) resurrection was ‘inevitable’.

P3) Christ was “still a free moral agent” who had “freedom of choice – either to be faithful or unfaithful.” (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. II, pp. 67-68)

C2) Therefore, (according to Witness theology) infallible foreknowledge does not negate free will.

P4) There is no good reason why this should only hold true with respect to merely a few persons, actions, or events.

C3) Therefore, Witness theology should concede that exhaustive foreknowledge does not obviate “freedom of choice.”

P5) Witness theology denies that exhaustive foreknowledge is compatible with "freedom of choice."

C4) Witness theology is contradictory.

12.19.2024: I think a Witness will argue that C2) should be qualified in the following manner: infallible foreknowledge does not necessarily negate free will. Likewise, I think that a Witness would deny P4), at least if these persons, actions, or events are foreknown by God via a certain method.

Omnipresence in Witness Theology: A Contradiction

The claim of this essay is that the Witness doctrine of God contains the following contradiction. While explicitly denying that God can be omnipresent, Witness literature implicitly concedes that he is or could be omnipresent by other claims that they make with respect to the holy spirit. Therefore, they undermine their own claim that for God to be personal he cannot be omnipresent but must rather be essentially bodily.[1] We believe the presence of this contradiction within the Witness doctrine of God has the following implications. First, it weakens the doctrinal authority of Witness leaders, who cannot even harmonize their account of God's attributes. Second, it undermines Witness opposition to the orthodox claim that God is omnipresent. Third, it weakens their opposition to the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

According to Witness theology, what is the holy spirit? Their literature describes the spirit as "an instrumentality rather than a separate and distinct person." (July 15, 1957 Watchtower, p. 432) Their literature teaches that it basically is God's power. For, while Witness theology distinguishes God's spirit from his power, we would suggest that no real distinction is actually made between them. Rather, God's spirit is merely his power considered under a particular description, namely, that of being used. Put another way, we believe that the distinction made within Witness literature is between the thing itself and the thing considered under a particular description.

Their theological dictionary, Insight on the Scriptures, states the following with respect to the holy spirit. "It is not Jehovah’s 'power,' for this English word more correctly translates other terms in the original languages." (Vol. I, p. 1020) Yet this same article claims that there is "an inherent connection between" God's power and his spirit. This connection is indicated in how this article defines the two terms. "Power," it says, "is basically the ability or capacity to act." Spirit, on the other hand, "more specifically describes energy projected and exerted." Or in the words of an older Witness publication the spirit is "not Jehovah's power residing within himself but his energy when projected out from himself." (July 15, 1957 Watchtower, pp. 432) In our opinion Witness theology calls it power when God does not use it and spirit when he uses it. We believe that this view is also supported by a more recent Witness periodical referring to the holy spirit as God's "power in action." (February 1, 2009 Watchtower, p. 5)

Since Witness theology holds that the spirit is basically God's power it is evident that Witness theology regards it as intrinsic to God's being.[2] Given that Witnesses affirm metaphysical composition in God, Witness theology should have no qualms with affirming that the spirit is literally a part of God.

While some of their analogies for the spirit, such as comparing it to the electricity that comes from a power plant, might suggest that they conceive of it as extrinsic to God – that is, not part of God but rather a created force – we believe that drawing this inference is to take these analogies too far. (February 15, 1981 Watchtower, p. 6) Besides the reason given above, two further considerations support the conclusion that within Witness theology the spirit is conceived of as part of God.[3] First, other analogies indicate this. For instance, one Witness publication compares the spirit to a father's loving hand. (February 1, 2009 Watchtower, p. 5) Second, certain absurdities follow from supposing that the spirit is extrinsic to God, that is, not a part of him. According to Watchtower literature, the spirit is how God creates, gives life, inspires prophets, judges and the like. Supposing that his spirit is a creature seems to amount to saying that God is dependent upon a creature to do these things, which is absurd. And if God would be dependent upon a creature to do these things, it would be inexplicable as to how he would interact with this said creature in the first place. For if he requires the mediation of a creature to create or interact with the created world, how could he interact with a creaturely holy spirit in the first place? Clearly, therefore, Witness theology both does and must regard the spirit as part of God or as intrinsic to his being.

And this is where the problem arises. Witnesses claim that God cannot be omnipresent since he is personal. (Millennial Dawn Vol. I, p. 200; The Bible Students Monthly (1915) Vol. VII, No. 5, p. 2; October 1, 1951 Watchtower, p. 607; February 15, 1981 Watchtower, p. 6; March 8, 2005 Awake!, pp. 20-21; Bible Questions Answered, No. 123) Why they make this false and tendentious assertion is besides the scope of this essay. That they make this claim is relevant, though. Because they implicitly contradict this claim by conceiving of the spirit as part of God. If the spirit is part of God, then God must be present wherever the spirit is present.

Where is the spirit present according to Witness theology? Everywhere, at least potentially so. And for the purpose of this essay claiming that the spirit is potentially ubiquitous is just as problematic for Witness theology as claiming that it is actually ubiquitous. For the claim that Witnesses make is not that God merely is not omnipresent but that God cannot be personal if he is omnipresent. Even if their theology only leads them to conclude that he merely can be omnipresent, this would still be a contradiction. The following quotations show that according to their literature, Witnesses believe that the spirit is at least capable of being omnipresent. “His holy spirit as an active force is pervading all the unseen heavens.” (Holy Spirit—The Force Behind the Coming New Order!, p. 32) "God's spirit can reach everywhere." (Insight on the Scriptures Vol. II, p. 1022) "Jehovah's holy spirit – or power in action – can be extended from his fixed location to any place in the material universe." (March 8, 2005 Awake!, p. 21)

Our argument is straightforward. Witness theology affirms that the holy spirit is part of God. His holy spirit is or can be omnipresent. Therefore, Witness theology implicitly affirms that God is or can be omnipresent. However, they explicitly deny that he can be; they claim that he could not be personal if he was omnipresent. So there is a contradiction within Witness theology.

How might a Witness defend against this claim? We believe that there are three ways. First, one might argue that the Spirit is not actually part of God. Second, one might deny that the Spirit is ever literally present anywhere. Third, one might claim that God can be present everywhere just not in person or bodily. We believe that our earlier arguments suffice for now to show that the first option is not a viable candidate for a response. The second does not fare any better. Their literature clearly speaks of the spirit pervading heaven, being able to reach anywhere within the physical world, interacting with creation and the like. The sort of language used and the sort of claims made about the holy spirit should lead a Witness to dismiss the idea that according to their theology the spirit is not truly present where it operates.

Therefore, we believe that the third option is the only possible way out. Though, this appearance is fleeting, too. This response does have the benefit of apparently being suggested by some statements within Witness literature. For instance, one publication claims that “heaven itself” is “where the ‘person of God’ is, where God himself dwells personally rather than dwelling there by spirit.” (December 1, 1972 Watchtower, p. 713) And the idea of a genuine spiritual (as opposed to personal) presence is affirmed in an article in Insight on the Scriptures. There it is claimed that certain biblical “accounts illustrate God’s power to ‘be present’ on earth in a spiritual (hence, invisible) way while He yet remains in heaven.” (Vol. II, p. 677) So the third option would seem to be the most plausible and exegetically supported response a Witness can make.

Be that as it may, it fails as an answer to our charge of contradiction. We argue that distinguishing personal and spiritual presence is nonsensical if the spirit is part of the Father. A person is personally present wherever he is either in whole or in part. If, therefore, the spirit is truly part of God, then God must be present where it is. That Witness theology also conceives of God as essentially embodied does not alter this fact. That the sort of omnipresence we argue that Witness theology has to affirm is at least possible for God is not a somatic presence is also besides the point. (In part, because orthodox Christians do not claim that God as such is embodied.) Whatever the words Witnesses would use to describe this non-somatic presence of God would not affect the argument either. They are still led to affirm that God is truly and genuinely present wherever his spirit is; this is the main point.

That this contradiction has long been overlooked within Witness theology, we believe, reflects poorly on the reliability of the doctrines espoused by Witness doctrinal leaders. Making what amounts to two (we believe, obviously) contradictory claims about God’s attributes does not inspire confidence in the theology espoused by Witness leaders. 

Their tacit admission that God is, in fact, omnipresent is not the same thing as the Christian affirmation of God’s omnipresence. In particular, Witnesses would not claim that God is wholly present in any location he is present. This is so for at least one reason. In Witness theology, God is more than his spirit. He also has a body, which is located somewhere to the exclusion of all other places. However, a Christian would maintain that God is both present everywhere and wholly present at any place he is at without being either contained in space or partitioned across space. So the Witness doctrine of the omnipresence of God would differ from its orthodox articulation in some important respects. Nevertheless, we believe that the similarity is sufficient that it at least severely weakens if not outright refutes their claim that a person cannot be omnipresent.[4]

Relatedly, to the extent that we have shown that even according to their own theology a person can be omnipresent, any supposed proof that Witness theology would draw from the Spirit’s ubiquity to his alleged lack of personhood also refuted. The Father is a person, yet he is omnipresent. This would hardly refute all of the objections that Witnesses make against the personhood of the Holy Spirit, but it is not nothing either.

Given how easy it is to demonstrate that Witness theology affirms God’s (at least potential) omnipresence, we are left wondering why they denied it in the first place. What exactly did the Bible Student or Witness religious leaders who opposed omnipresence, such as Charles Taze Russell, imagine the orthodox claim amounted to? Perhaps they severely misunderstood it to begin with. While the historical origins of the Witness opposition to omnipresence might be interesting to know, we feel that the most interesting thing is how it is part of a self-contradiction within Witness theology, that like self-contradictions generally, tends to weaken the system it is a part of.

[1] Some Witnesses with whom I’ve conversed deny that the Witness doctrine of God attributes spatial extension or somatic composition to God. However, there are numerous Bible Student and Jehovah’s Witness publications that teach that God is a spatially extended and somatically composite substance. A compilation of such quotations can be found in this blog post. And a defense of the claim that somatic composition and spatial extension is affirmed by Witness theology can be found in this essay.

[2] By “intrinsic” we do not mean that it is located wholly within his body, but that it is truly him, that is, part of him.

[3] So, even if a Witness were to dispute that the Spirit is really just God’s power considered under a particular description, we suspect that he would still agree that his theology holds that the spirit is truly part of God.

[4] We suspect that if Witness theology was revised to remove this contradiction (by conceding that God is truly omnipresent or capable of the same), Witnesses would likely modify one of their existing claims. They would assert that whether a person is omnipresent or not, he must have a body. But this equally tendentious claim is beyond the scope of this essay.