|
Watchtower Denials
Like Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses may
stress they do not teach salvation on the basis of works
of righteousness. They do this by maintaining an
arbitrary distinction between Mosaic works that cannot
save and New Testament works that can save. The goal is
to attempt to reconcile their doctrine of works
salvation with biblical statements denying works
salvation. Whenever the Bible denies works salvation,
they argue it must be referring to trying to earn one’s
salvation by outdated Mosaic works, not required Gospel
works. In effect, there are dead works of "the Law" and
saving works of "the Gospel." In denying salvation by
works of the Law1
while asserting salvation by works of the Gospel,2
Witnesses may claim to deny works salvation while in
fact supporting it. Thus we find both a denial and
affirmation of self-righteousness.3
The difficulty with the Watchtower
argument is that, morally speaking, Mosaic law and
Gospel law are not so easily separated. Further, the
requirements of the Gospel law are considerably more
stringent than the law of Moses as the Sermon on the
Mount makes clear. In fact, if the apostle Paul
describes the Mosaic law as a "curse" relative to
salvation, how could he possibly expect people to keep
the sinless perfection of the Gospel law? (Gal.
3:10-13). Or, if the Bible teaches that no one could
keep the Mosaic law for salvation (Acts 15:10), would
the apostle Paul proceed to argue that people must keep
the more difficult Gospel law for salvation? It hardly
seems credible.
We have now documented the Watchtower
teachings relative to salvation by works. At this point,
we only need briefly examine their interpretation of
Christ’s death on the cross to complete our discussion.
The Atonement of Christ
In speaking with individual Jehovah’s
Witnesses, it may initially seem as if they believe in
Christ’s atoning death on the cross. Certainly, they
claim this. Unfortunately, we encounter the same
problems we face with claims to believe in salvation by
grace and the doctrine of justification. In fact, the
Witnesses oppose the biblical doctrine of the atonement.
Numerous Christian scholars and researchers have
recognized this. The late Dr. Walter Martin called their
view of the atonement "completely unscriptural."4
Professor Edmond Gruss, a former Jehovah’s Witness and
author of the definitive Apostles of Denial
declares, "The Witnesses’ view of the atonement is very
different from that held by orthodoxy and in essence is
a rejection of that Biblical doctrine."5 In
his Four Major Cults, Anthony Hoekema agrees.6
Gruss actually points out that during
their early history the Witnesses had three entirely
different views of the "ransom" of Christ:
The
teaching of the Society on the ransom of Christ has
been confused from the beginning, with C.T. Russell
presenting three differing positions on this doctrine
in the publications of the WatchTower Society. The
teaching on the subject since Russell’s death has also
been unsteady as to the extent and application of the
ransom.7
How does the Witness view of the
atonement differ from the biblical view?
In summary, the key difference can be
seen in their limitation of the atonement. They
believe its value atoned for the death of one
perfect man. Christ died only for Adam’s sin,
which made potential forgiveness available for
others by faith and works. Just as Adam’s disobedience
brought death, so Christ’s obedience brought life, i.e.,
resurrection, with the potential to earn eternal life.
But Christ’s death alone did not atone for all men’s
sins; good works and character finally do this. Thus the
Christian concept of a completed atonement of infinite
value is denied.
Again, Christ’s death was not sufficient
for all men, and practically speaking, its sufficiency
varies individually. For some people, Christ’s death has
no value whatever because there are some sins that are
unforgivable regardless. Apparently, certain murderers
and the willfully rebellious receive no benefit. For
example, Adam is stated to be exempt from the benefits
of the atonement because he was a "willful sinner."8
Thus:
Under the
law the deliberate murderer could not be ransomed.
Adam, by his willful course, brought death on all
mankind, hence was a murderer (Rom. 5:12).
Thus the
sacrificed life of Jesus is not acceptable to God as a
ransom for the sinner Adam.9
What the Watchtower fails to recognize is
that all people everywhere are "willful
sinners"—that is the essence of being a sinner,
as the Bible plainly declares (Col. 1:21; Rom. 1:18-2:5;
3:9-20; Eph. 2:1-3). In addition, the Bible teaches that
murderers can be saved and there are biblical examples
such as Moses (Ex. 2:12). Regardless, according to the
Watchtower, there are millions of other people for whom
the atonement has had no value. These individuals have
already been annihilated forever:
Some people
have already been judged. They have shown that they do
not deserve life. These people will not be resurrected
from the dead in the new world. Adam and Eve were
judged unworthy of life. They were put to death by
Jehovah. The people who died in the flood of Noah’s
day received this same kind of unfavorable judgment.
God brought the flood that "destroyed them all." (Luke
17:27) The people of the city of Sodom died by a rain
of fire from heaven after receiving an unfavorable
judgment. At other times other groups also have
received an unfavorable judgment. They proved that
they were not worthy of life, and they will not be
resurrected.10
Again, the atonement involved the death
of one man for one man and as such could
logically only have the value of one death for one man.
But Jehovah’s Witnesses believe it could somehow be
applied to more than one man. The Witnesses refer to a
"corresponding ransom" theory in presenting this idea.
As is true in The Way International, another Arian cult,
the Witnesses argue Jesus had to be only a man in
order to be our Savior:
If Jesus,
when he was baptized at thirty years of age, had been
a so-called God-man…he would have been superhuman and
would have had more value than a ransom for all
mankind. The perfect justice of God would not unjustly
accept more value than that of the thing to be
ransomed…. It was the perfect man Adam that had sinned
and so had lost for his offspring human perfection and
its privileges. Jesus must likewise be humanly
perfect, to correspond with the sinless Adam in Eden.
In that way he could offer a ransom that exactly
corresponded in value with what the sinner Adam lost
for his descendants. This requirement of divine
justice did not allow for Jesus to be more than a
perfect man. That is why, in writing 1 Timothy 2:5, 6,
the apostle Paul uses a special word in Greek,
antilutron, to describe what Jesus offered in
sacrifice to God.11
The human
life that Jesus Christ laid down in sacrifice must be
exactly equal to that life which Adam forfeited for
all his offspring: it must be a perfect human life, no
more, no less. It must be a "corresponding ransom."12
What the Witnesses miss here is that one
man alone could never atone for the sins of billions
of sinners. In theory, a perfect man could only atone
for one other person’s sins, not all of humanities. Only
if Jesus were both God and man could His atonement
forgive all human sin.
Nevertheless, somehow, Jehovah’s
Witnesses apply the death of one man to all "capable" of
receiving it through good works/character (some
murderers and certain others being excluded):
At the time
of Adam’s sin and his being sentenced to death, his
offspring or race were all unborn in his loins and so
all died with him. (Compare Hebrews 7:4-10; Romans
7:9.) Jesus as a perfect man, "the last Adam" (I Cor.
15:45), had a race or offspring unborn in his loins,
and when he died innocently as a perfect human
sacrifice this potential human race died with him.
Thus, Jesus was indeed a "corresponding ransom," not
for the redemption of the one sinner, Adam, but for
the redemption of all mankind descended from Adam. He
repurchased them so that they could become his family,
doing this by presenting the full value of his ransom
sacrifice to the God of absolute justice in heaven.13
Hoekema correctly questions this
reasoning:
For, as has
been pointed out, there is no real continuity between
Christ as he appeared in the flesh and [as] the
previously existing Archangel Michael. For the
Witnesses, therefore, God did not really send his
only-begotten Son (even if one understands this term
as designating the created Logos) into the world to
ransom man from his sins. Rather, He caused a sinless
man to be miraculously conceived by Mary; this man was
not even a "spirit-begotten son of God" at birth, but
only a human son. He was different from other men only
in two respects: (1) he had been born of a virgin, and
(2) he lived a perfect life…. At this point the
question cannot be suppressed: Why should the
sacrificed life of Jesus Christ have so much value
that it can serve to ransom millions of people from
annihilation? It was a perfect human life which was
sacrificed, to be sure; we must not minimize this
point. But it was the perfect human life of someone
who was only a man. Could the life of a mere
man, offered in sacrifice, serve to purchase a
multitude which no man can number?14
The Scripture is clear on this—the death
of one man is insufficient to ransom another: "No man
can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom
for him—the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is
ever enough…" (Ps. 49:7-8). Only God can redeem a life,
which is precisely why Christ had to be God.
It should be obvious that the
"corresponding ransom" theory of the Watchtower is not
at all equivalent to the substitutionary, propitiatory
atonement of Jesus Christ. The first pays only for the
sins of one man, and is of limited value (which again is
then somehow applied to others), while the second
actually pays for the sins of all the redeemed, and
is of infinite value. Further, as Gruss points out, the
Greek word antilutron does not carry the meaning
of "exact correspondence" which the Witnesses have
attributed to it:
The
"corresponding ransom" doctrine should be rejected on
the following grounds: First, the Greek word
antilutron occurs only once in the Bible (I Tim.
2:6) and the meaning need not be much different than
lutron ("ransom"). After an examination of the
words in the lutron group in the New Testament,
Morris concludes that in meaning antilutron
"does not seem to differ greatly from the simple
lutron, but the preposition emphasizes the thought
of substitution; it is a ‘substitute-ransom’ that is
signified. Such a term well suits the context, for we
read of Christ ‘who gave himself on behalf of all’ (I
Tim. 2:6). The thought clearly resembles that of Mk.
X:45, i.e. that Jesus had died in the stead of those
who deserved death. If the thought of substitution is
there, we find it here to an even greater degree in
view of the addition of the preposition which
emphasizes substitution."
It should
be obvious to the reader that what the Watchtower
writers convey with the words "corresponding ransom"
and what is conveyed by the words "substitute ransom"
as explained by Morris and the rest of the Scriptures
are not remotely the same.15
Watchtower writings speak highly of "the
atonement." But, in fact, as to its importance, they
relegate it to a secondary status behind human good
works. In an ultimate sense, what is it that determines
whether or not the salvation benefits of Christ’s death
are applied? It is not faith in Christ
that applies the merits of Christ, but the good works
and perseverance of the individual and his faith in the
Watchtower Society. For without these, the merits of
Christ are worthless. The atonement is therefore of
secondary importance to man’s own works of
righteousness. Apparently then, for the Watchtower
Society, what the Bible describes as "filthy rags" (our
works of righteousness) has more value for salvation
than the sacrificial and sanctified death of Jesus
Christ Himself!
The
Witnesses’ doctrine of the ransom largely ignores the
Biblical teaching on the subject, by claiming to
accept the "ransom sacrifice" which was provided in
the death of Christ not as a finished work, but only
as a foundation from which man works to provide his
own salvation.16
A former Witness of 16 years points out
that, despite their claims to believe in the atonement,
they deny this through their demand for works:
As I laid
aside The Watchtower and other study guides of
the Jehovah’s Witnesses and read the New Testament
with an open mind, I became aware of two things.
First, salvation comes by faith in Jesus Christ and
not by works (Eph. 2:8-10)…. I found out that they
said one thing but believed another. They will often
speak highly of Jesus’ sacrifice and yet deny its
efficacy by saying that to be saved one must do all
the things the organization directs.17
There is an additional sense in which the
death of Christ is secondary. Jehovah’s Witnesses teach
that the primary goal of Jesus was to vindicate the name
of Jehovah in response to a challenge of Satan’s; it was
only Jesus secondary purpose to die for Adam’s
sin. In other words Jesus’ principal goal was not
to die for our sins.18
Dr. James Bjornstad comments:
His primary
purpose was to vindicate (provide a defense for
Jehovah’s name) and establish Jehovah’s kingdom….
After Adam disobeyed God, Satan challenged God to put
a creature on earth who could experience all the
temptations Satan could give and still remain faithful
to God until death…. The burden fell upon His first
created being, His son, Michael the archangel. God’s
son came to earth as Jesus and met all the temptations
of Satan, according to the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Moreover, he remained true to God until death. In so
doing he was able to establish God’s kingdom. Thus
Jesus was Jehovah’s chief witness. Jehovah’s Witnesses
claim Jesus also had a secondary purpose in being
here. He came to sacrifice his human body as a ransom
to God for Adam’s sin.19
Finally, Jehovah’s Witnesses not only
deny a completed atonement by declaring its
practical application dependent on works, but also deny
it by declaring its future application occurs only at
the end of the millennium. It is at "the end of Christ’s
thousand-year reign as King when he finishes applying
the merit of his human sacrifice."20 Thus,
Dr. Martin correctly observes:
Jehovah’s
Witnesses argue that the atonement is not wholly of
God, despite 2 Corinthians 5:21, but rather half of
God and half of man. Jesus, according to their
argument, removed the effects of Adam’s sin by His
sacrifice on Calvary, but the work will not be fully
completed until the survivors of Armageddon return to
God through free will and become subject to the
theocratic rule of Jehovah.21
In conclusion, the Jehovah’s Witnesses
view of salvation and the atonement of Christ must be
considered deficient and powerless to save. It does not
accept God’s teaching about salvation, and therefore
cannot have God’s blessing. To the contrary— "As we have
already said, so now I say again: If anybody is
preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted,
let him be eternally condemned!" (Gal. 1:9)
Notes
1 Things
in Which it Is Impossible for God to Lie (1965),
p. 396. [Note: Most Jehovah’s Witnesses’ materials are
published anonymously by the Watchtower Bible and
Tract Society [WBTS], Brooklyn, NY. Few are listed
with a specific author.]
2 Aid to
Bible Understanding, p. 1671.
3 Things
in Which it Is Impossible for God to Lie, p. 401;
pp. 401-404; From Paradise Lost to Paradise
Regained (1958), p. 152; pp. 242, 244, 246-247,
249.
4 Walter
Martin and Norman Klann, Jehovah of the Watchtower
(Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1974), p. 71.
5 Edmond
Gruss, Apostles of Denial (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Book House, 1976), p. 90.
6 Anthony
Hoekema, The Four Major Cults (Eerdmans, 1970),
pp. 276-279.
7 Gruss,
Apostles of Denial, pp. 142-143.
8 Aid to
Bible Understanding, p. 33; cf. Let God be True
(1946), p. 119, cited in Hoekema, p. 277.
9 Aid to
Bible Understanding, p. 1373.
10 From
Paradise Lost, p. 236.
11
Things in Which it Is Impossible for God to Lie,
p. 232.
12 You
May Survive, pp. 38-39.
13 Aid
to Bible Understanding, p. 1373.
14 Hoekema,
pp. 278-279.
15 Gruss,
Apostles of Denial, p. 144.
16 Ibid.,
p. 145.
17 Gruss,
We Left Jehovah’s Witnesses, pp. 37-38.
18 James
Bjornstad, Counterfeits at Your Door (Glendale,
CA: Gospel Light Publications, 1979), p. 85, cites
New Heavens and a New Earth (1953), pp. 147-148;
What Has Religion Done for Mankind (1951), pp.
240-245.
19
Bjornstad, Counterfeits at Your Door, p. 85.
20 You
May Survive, p. 357.
21 Martin,
Jehovah of the Watchtower, pp. 71-72.
|
