At this time of year Jehovah’s Witnesses go into overdrive with their Memorial campaign, to ensure that everyone is on-side, hyped up and motivated for a bumper attendance. Some of this is directed towards the faithful, and this year does not disappoint. It takes the form of two Watchtower articles entitled ‘Why We Need the Ransom’ and ‘How Will You Respond to the Ransom?’
Both of these titles cause disquietude in me. In the first instance the ‘need’ is placed in the present tense, with the implication that its fulfilment will be in the future, perhaps in the same way as we are expecting the presence of the Son of Man, or we need Armageddon, or we need the resurrection – events that will occur but have not yet. This contradicts scripture that states, unequivocally, that Jesus’s ransom sacrifice was once for all time, complete and sufficient. The second looks like the classic WTS tactic of generating feelings of unworthiness, anxiety, and obligation.
What does the Bible say about the ransom? Here are some texts, all from NWT (highlights mine). There are many more.
And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean; you have been sanctified; you have been declared righteous in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God. (1 Cor 6:11)
But God, being rich in mercy, because of his great love with which he loved us, 5 made us alive together with the Christ, even when we were dead in trespasses—by undeserved kindness you have been saved. 6 Moreover, he raised us up together and seated us together in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming systems of things he might demonstrate the surpassing riches of his undeserved kindness in his graciousness toward us in union with Christ Jesus. 8 By this undeserved kindness you have been saved through faith, and this is not of your own doing; rather, it is God’s gift. (Eph 2:4-8)
To him who loves us and who set us free from our sins by means of his own blood. (Rev 1:5)
If we compare the past, and completed, tense of these texts – we have been washed, sanctified, declared righteous (justified), saved, set free, and so on – with the general tone of the WT article we find a distinct dichotomy. Here are some specific phrases from that first article:
P2 – we need to be saved
P3 – That ransom can rescue us
P4 – We need the ransom in order to be forgiven of our sins
P6 – The ransom provides a sound basis for Jehovah to forgive our sins
All the way through to:
P18 – the benefits that the ransom makes possible for us
These statements push the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice into the future leaving adherents with feelings of unworthiness, obligation, indebtedness, and in fear of displeasing Jehovah. Rather than creating comfort it puts us under pressure which cannot be relieved until some unknowable future date. This leads to the second article – how will you respond? – where our salvation is presented as something unfinished, conditional and for which we must prove ourselves worthy, usually by engaging fully in a ‘spiritual routine’ that is prescribed by Jehovah’s Witnesses. This feels like a test, a demand for loyalty, offered with gentle warnings about the consequences of failure to comply.
So how does the ransom work, according to scripture? At 1 John 2:12 we are told ‘your sins have been forgiven through (for the sake of) his name.’ This is in the perfect tense which indicates a completed action. We have been forgiven. This is a gift, not a burden. ‘The gift God gives is everlasting life’ (Rom 6:23); ‘For it is by grace you have been saved through faith… not by works’ (Eph 2:8-9 - BSB). These texts emphasise love, freedom, reconciliation and relief. There is no overlay of organisational loyalty and obligation. It is a gift that brings comfort and peace, that cannot, Biblically speaking, be used as a behavioural goad to keep us all in line and heading in the same direction.
In the Old Testament sacrifices had to be repeated, because the benefits were temporary. They highlighted human sinfulness and the need for atonement, but they could not of themselves redeem anyone. At Hebrews 10:4 it is plainly stated ‘it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take sin away’. But then the author proceeds to explain:
But this man [Jesus] offered one sacrifice for sins for all time and sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from then on waiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet. 14 For it is by one sacrificial offering that he has made those who are being sanctified perfect for all time. (Heb 10:12-14).
Or as he says in v10 ‘once for all time’. And that is it! Through the perfect blood of Jesus we have been redeemed, our sins have been forgiven, and we have been sanctified and made perfect. The emphasis is on completeness, finality and sufficiency. There is no need for an ongoing rescue that depends on loyalty to an organisation. God’s gift is perfect; it is complete.
This gift is available to every single person on this planet. Referring back to Ephesians 2 we note that we have been saved by God’s grace through our faith. We do have to accept this gift and we do this by exercising faith in God’s only-begotten son, Jesus Christ (John 3:16). We demonstrate this by living a penitent life and getting baptised in the name of the Father, Son and holy spirit. If we constantly feel the urge to seek forgiveness, then perhaps we are stating that Christ’s blood was not quite good enough for me, that I need to go and slaughter another cow because the effects of the last one has worn off, and that I am so incorrigible that I cannot believe that I really have been forgiven. These emotions are fully encouraged by the WTS.
In his model prayer, Jesus told us to seek forgiveness for our debts, but he includes in the same sentence ‘as we have forgiven others’. If we expect forgiveness but refuse to extend the same to others, that rather exposes a certain hypocrisy, and we know what Jesus thought of Pharisees, hypocrites (Matt 23). Jesus is not telling his disciples that they must re-earn forgiveness, but that they need to live in truth, humility and brotherly affection, love. Of course, we are all still subject to sin. Paul bemoaned frequently the reality that he was trapped inside a sinful body and that he did things that he wished he did not, and did not do what he knew he ought (Romans 7). James and John both spoke of confession. ‘Therefore confess your sins to each other’ (James 5:16 – NB to each other, not to a priest or secret committee of elders), and ‘if we say we have not sinned we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us’ (1 John 1:10). The fact is that we remain sinners until that time when God chooses to undo all the effects of sin physically. This does not debar us from forgiveness and redemption. That has been done, once for all time. We are saved.
That is not to say that we cannot reject God’s gracious gift. The writer to the Hebrews repeats the command ‘do not harden your hearts’ (3:8, 15, 4:7). This is not about ordinary sin. We all struggle, stumble, and need encouragement and mutual support. We do not harden our hearts by failing to pray sufficiently, by not attending meetings and doing insufficient field ministry, not even by moral lapses and emotional doubts. A hardened heart is one that resists the spirit, refuses to listen to God’s voice, withdraws trust, and rejects the forgiveness offered through Christ.
The Hebrews had lost sight of Jesus – in fact this epistle is the only place in scripture that describes Jesus’s role as heavenly High Priest. They were still zealous for the Law; they had returned to the temple liturgy of sacrifices and rituals instead of Christ. They loved the religious rituals and outward displays of piety, and had abandoned that once-for-all-time sacrifice that Jesus had made. Their hardened hearts were not the result of human weakness, but in rejecting the one and only source of life. Therefore the writer could justifiably state ‘For if we practice sin wilfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left’ (10:26). There is no other sacrifice to turn to. This is apostasy. Apostasy is not:
* Leaving an organisation
* Disagreeing with doctrine
* Questioning elders
* Failing to perform
In fact, nowhere does the letter to the Hebrews mention elders, congregations, meeting attendance, preaching performance or loyalty. Apostasy is leaving Christ, not leaving a religion.
The opposite of a hard heart is a soft heart. This is a heart that is humble, remains open to the leading of the spirit, is honest with itself as well as others, and always returns to Christ. The same letter that warns also reassures.
We have confidence to enter the holy place (10:19);
He is able to save completely those who come to God through him (7:25);
He always lives to intercede for us (7:25);
We have this hope as an anchor for the soul (6:19);
The author is inviting his audience to reaffirm their faith in Christ. His warnings are not threats but invitations to realign their beliefs and lives in Christ.
What, therefore, is wrong with these two Watchtower articles, specifically? Here goes…
Paragraph 1 pictures a collapsed building in which those who are trapped can only cry out and hope for rescue.
Paragraph 2 starts ‘Each one of us is in a comparable situation’ and concludes ‘We need to be rescued’. In between we are asked to read Romans 7:22-24 which describes Paul’s struggle with sin – an inner warfare between God’s law and sin’s law. This passage is carried over into paragraph 3 where Paul’s delighted exclamation is quoted ‘Thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!’ The climax of Paul’s argument is in chapter 8 but that is not explained in the paragraph. He says ‘Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ’ (8:1 - BSB). The Greek word for 'condemnation' is katakrima which is used in law to describe those who have been found guilty and sentenced to death. There is no miscarriage of justice, there are no loopholes. The sentence is just and right. This describes the situation we all found ourselves in. The judge glowers down at us and cries ‘Guilty as charged. I sentence you to death by hanging.’ But then he removes his wig, comes down from the bench, enters the dock and takes our place. We are free to go because the judge has chosen to accept the full punishment himself, on our behalf. This is what Jesus has done for us. (I read this illustration somewhere – apologies if it was yours – it’s very good.)
That chapter of Romans is quite amazing. It starts with ‘Therefore there is no condemnation…’ That ‘therefore’ refers to Paul’s mind being a slave to God’s law, even though his body is a slave to sin’s law. It moves us through to the position where ‘we are more than conquerors’ (v37 - KJV) in a state where nothing, absolutely nothing, can separate us from God’s love in Christ Jesus our Lord. I know they cannot include everything in a one-hour discussion, but if we are majoring on Paul’s predicament, then it seems reasonable to focus on his logical conclusion.
The paragraph concludes by quoting Colossians 1:14 which is only half a sentence. The full passage (13-14) says:
He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins.
Verse 13 is mostly definitely in the perfect tense, completed, finished. What is? We have been rescued. We have been transferred. This does not sit comfortably with the illustration of us crying out for rescue in a collapsed building. So it has been ignored!
The quote from 1 John in paragraph 5 harmonises completely with Paul’s predicament described in Romans 7 which he concludes with the observation that he serves God with his mind, but serves sin with his body. We are all still subject to sin and we must acknowledge this.
Paragraph 6 begins ‘The ransom provides a sound basis for Jehovah to forgive our sins (Eph 1:7)’. This part of Ephesians describes our spiritual blessings – chosen by Christ, adopted as sons and redeemed through Christ’s blood. This does not sound like a basis for some future status that we can but aspire to.
Paragraph 7 concludes with a quote from 1 Corinthians 6:9-10,with emphasis on ‘washed clean… sanctified… declared righteous’. I would put my emphasis on the three instances of ‘have been’.
Paragraph 14 talks of reconciliation and why it is needed. It concludes ‘The ransom makes that reconciliation possible.’ It cites Romans 8:7-8 and Colossians 1:21, but not Romans 8:9 and Colossians 1:22. The former tells us that we are controlled by the spirit of God and subsequently explains how we are heirs with Christ and adopted as children of God. That latter verse tells us plainly that those who were once alienated and enemies are now reconciled by means of Jesus’s fleshly body, and his death. The paragraph says that reconciliation is possible; the Bible says that we are already reconciled. You can start to see quite how subtle and devious they are in the carefully chosen words and verses that are either quoted, cited, or left out completely!
Paragraph 16 discusses fathers and friends. This is a real problem for Watchtower. The Bible makes it very clear that all believers are adopted as God’s children. As children of Adam we can inherit nothing but sin and death, so if we wish to inherit the kingdom, life, the earth, we must be adopted. The Watchtower teaches that only a select few, 144,000, have this privilege. Hence they are promoting this idea that we are merely ‘friends’ of God. Anyone with an enquiring mind can see the difficulties.
In paragraph 17 there is a read scripture – Ephesians 2:4-5, previously quoted. It then cites Acts 13:48 where we have another case of interpretation imposing itself over translation. The NWT offers ‘those who were rightly disposed for everlasting life’, whereas most other versions go with ‘appointed’, and some ‘chosen’ or ‘ordained’. The Greek verb is tasso (5021); to arrange, appoint. Apparently it is used in military contexts as ‘to designate, to draw up in fixed order’. The verb ‘to appoint’ has been turned into an adjective ‘rightly disposed’. Why is this naughty? ‘Appointed’ underscores divine initiative, whereas ‘rightly disposed’ suggests human inclination, our natural personality.
Paragraph 18 mentions a ‘bigger picture’. This vindication theology is important so I have dealt with it separately (below).
Paragraph 17 of the second article states ‘Jesus said that the ransom was provided “so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life”’. Whilst that is technically true, it misrepresents the verse it quotes. John 3:16 does not say this. It says that ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life’. Yes, we are granted everlasting life through our faith in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. During his sojourn here on earth he paid the ransom, atoned for our sins, gave us a basis for faith, and if he contributed to the resolution of other issues, well and good, but he was given, first and foremost, for our salvation, and that of the whole world. Anything that obfuscates that supreme act of love and selflessness must be discarded.
Here are some other texts that say essentially the same as John 3:16:
But God recommends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:8)
By this the love of God was revealed in our case, that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world so that we might gain life through him. The love is in this respect, not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins. (1 John 4:9-10)
The one who exercises faith in me, even though he dies, will come to life; and everyone who is living and exercises faith in me will never die at all. (John 11:25-26)
Since he did not even spare his own Son but handed him over for us all, will he not also, along with him, kindly give us all other things? (Rom 8:32)
The message is clear and consistent: God loves first; he gives his Son; Christ’s death gives us life; belief is our response; the gift is everlasting life.
The second article is about how we respond to the ransom. Rather than demolishing it, let us build our own response based, not on Rutherfordian doctrine, but on scripture itself.
The key text is 2 Corinthians 5:14-15:
For the love the Christ has compels us, because this is what we have concluded, that one man died for all; so, then, all had died. And he died for all so that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for him who died for them and was raised up.
The explanation is given as: ‘This means that Jesus’ love should move us to respond in some way…’ (paragraph 2). We do not respond to Christ’s love by trying to earn it. We allow it to transform our view of God, ourselves and others. It is relational, not transactional. ‘This is eternal life: that they know you…’ (John 17:3 - NIV). With faith in God, we learn to trust him absolutely. Constantly striving to do more rather undermines that faith and trust in revealing a personal insecurity that comes from, possibly not lack of appreciation, but lack of understanding. We would be like those Hebrews who had returned to the Law.
We respond by being forgiving because we have been forgiven, not simply to keep the scales level, but as a genuine response to having had our crimes wiped out and subsequently adopted as God’s children.
We love others because God first loved us (1 John 4:19). God’s love is the motivating quality behind everything he does; it flows through us towards everyone we interact with. Love God, love neighbour. If we love God we will be talking to him constantly, and we will be listening to him by regular and frequent expeditions into his word, the Bible. What we learn shapes our very being. All scripture is inspired of God; it is a product of the holy spirit and when we absorb it we blossom and produce fruit – the fruitage of the spirit as described at Galatians 5. Christ’s love takes root in our daily life and demonstrates itself and we become kind, merciful, generous, hospitable, forgiving, humble, serving as Christ served us. These qualities rise unbidden, and are not forced by organisational obligation. We participate in Christ’s work by sharing his compassion, the gospel message, and our hope with others. We do this because we want to and whenever the opportunity naturally arises, not because we are under pressure to do hours, place literature, make return visits, and conduct studies, knowing that anything less is ‘weakness’. 'My yoke is kindly and my load is light' (Matt 11:30).
This piece also gives me the opportunity to elaborate on my opposition to the vindication of Jehovah’s name doctrine. It is restated in paragraph 18 on page 19. It is referred to as a ‘bigger issue’ but that’s OK because ‘He also saves us from sin and death’. Not only is this in direct contradiction to John 3:16 which specifically states that Jesus was given so that no one might be destroyed but have everlasting life. It also makes Jehovah, the Almighty, seem petty, selfish, and vindictive; who would send his son to earth to do his dirty business, to die a horrible death, just so that he can say ‘there, I told you so!’. That is not the God I worship. Wherever did this horrible idea come from? Anyone who has read any biographies of Rutherford will not be surprised at the source. It first surfaced in 1932:
While the sacrifice of our Lord was necessary for salvation and redemption of the human race, yet that is incidental to the far greater work of the vindication of Jehovah’s holy name. (Vindication 1932, p236)
When we come to see Jehovah’s chief purpose is the vindication of his name and it is those who are taken out for his name that preach the gospel… (Watchtower 01/08/1935 p232)
However by the 1980s this had died out and was formally abandoned in 1995. Whilst Knorr and Franz promoted this doctrine, it created a god who was cold and impersonal, who was more interested in legalities than love, and was interested in us only for what we could do for him, reducing salvation to a reward for loyalty.
Similarly, for a long time, Witnesses spoke of the vindication of Jehovah’s name. But had Satan called Jehovah’s name into question? For that matter, had any of Satan’s agents done so, as if Jehovah did not have a right to that name? No, not at all. It was not the name of Jehovah that was challenged and that needed to be vindicated. That is why the Watch Tower Society’s recent publications do not speak of Jehovah’s name as being vindicated. They speak of Jehovah’s sovereignty as being vindicated and of his name as being sanctified. This is in keeping with what Jesus told us to pray: “Let your name be sanctified.” (Matthew 6:9) Time and again, Jehovah said that he was going to sanctify his name, which the Israelites had not challenged but had profaned.—Ezekiel 20:9, 14, 22; 36:23. (Watchtower 15/05/95 p25)
But recently it has started to return:
Jehovah’s gift of the ransom addresses issues of universal importance, such as the vindication of his name and sovereignty. (Meeting workbook Feb 2019 p4)
Jesus knew that if he proved faithful under the coming difficult test, he would contribute to the vindication of Jehovah’s name (Watchtower April 2019 p8).
All of us have come to see that God’s name must be cleared of reproach. We have also learned that Jehovah’s sovereignty, or way of ruling, must be proved to be the best. Both issues merit our respect and attention (Watchtower June 2020 p2).
On occasion our publications have taught that Jehovah’s name does not need to be vindicated because no one has called into question his right to bear that name. However a clarified understanding was presented at the 2017 annual meeting. The chairman stated: ‘Simply put, it’s not wrong to say that we pray for the vindication of Jehovah’s name because his reputation certainly needs to be exonerated (Watchtower June 2020 p7).
When Satan told the first lie, he slandered Jehovah. That is, he damaged Jehovah’s reputation as a fair and loving Ruler. When Jehovah undoes human suffering in the near future, he will vindicate himself. In other words, he will prove that his rulership really is best. The vindication of Jehovah’s name is a matter of highest importance in the universe – Matt 6:9-10 (Enjoy Life lesson 26).
There is quite a lot of truth in these newer statements. But then we come to this from Watchtower May 2025 p23:
Because of his love for Jehovah, Jesus wanted to do all he could to sanctify and vindicate Jehovah’s name. ‘I surrender my life,’ Jesus said. (John 10:17, 18) Yes, he was even willing to die for Jehovah’s name.
At this point there is a footnote which says:
Jesus’ death also provided the way for mankind to gain everlasting life.
So there we have it. Ninety-three years after it was first propounded, and thirty years after it was abandoned, they have come full circle. Is the holy spirit so utterly confused, disorientated and bewildered that it leads us round and round in circles? Are we lost on the moor with a torn map and broken compass?
The true bits – Satan did lie. He did slander Jehovah. Jehovah’s rulership is best. Jesus did want to do all he could to sanctify his Father’s name, as we all do. Yes, Jesus did surrender his life, but here’s a lie – according to John 10 he surrendered his life ‘for my sheep’ (10:11, 15, 17). Why lie here? Because the word ‘vindication’ does not appear in scripture, not even in the NWT, so a misquote is necessary. The footnote reduces our salvation to a felicitous by-product of Jehovah’s pettiness.
In the Russell era the Bible Students were, unsurprisingly, focussed on Bible study. The emphasis was on Christ’s ransom with an imminent expectation of restoration and blessing (and an obsession with dates). It was an open culture in which congregations were largely autonomous and elected their own elders. Russell himself was, on the whole, a reasonable man, warm and generous (except with his own wife).
Rutherford dismantled this entire edifice and created an autocracy where duty eclipsed devotion. This doctrine especially turned the Witnesses into unwitting pawns in a universal court case, just to prove a point to Satan, just so that Jehovah could demonstrate something along the lines of ‘You’re wrong and I’m right. Told you so!’ At an individual level each Witness was to personally vindicate Jehovah’s name. The preaching work became less a work of good news and compassion and more a legal testimony to the nations; not to save people but to bear witness to God’s name. Salvation became secondary to loyalty and obedience.
As a result a culture developed where everyone was expected to do more. What they were doing was never enough.
Nothing has changed. It is a performance-driven organisation where hours, placements, return visits, studies, meeting attendance and participation, standards of conduct, morality, dress and grooming, are all recorded as evidence for the defence in this cosmic court case. As a consequence the fear of failure is not just at a personal level. We would be letting our brothers down, letting Jehovah down, letting ourselves down. Such pressure!
Even worse ‘Jehovah’s Organisation’ became the channel of vindication, with the governing body having the final say on all matters. Of course, nobody knew that Jehovah had an organisation until 1925 and that seminal article ‘Birth of the Nation’. Terms such as ‘organisation’ and ‘theocracy’ do not appear in scripture. Anyway, this all requires absolute loyalty and obedience to the governing body; the belief that we can support Jehovah only from within this organisation; that leaving is joining Satan’s side; that Jehovah’s Witnesses are the one and only true religion. Anything else is disloyalty to Jehovah and thus apostasy. We might call this authoritarianism, and we would not be far wrong, but it is also the result of taking the doctrine to its logical conclusion.
Is this blasphemy? Jesus was accused of blasphemy in claiming to be the Son of God. That is a strong word, but here is why it might be appropriate:
The Bible says that God gave his son so that everyone can have everlasting life;
The Watchtower says that he saves us because he needs to win an argument in a personal vendetta with Satan.
The Bible says that salvation is the central story;
The Watchtower says it is vindication.
The Bible states that God is love – for God loved the world so much...;
The Watchtower presents him as someone who loves himself more, who is selfish and petty; as a God who is so much smaller, harsher, and self-interested than he who is revealed in scripture.
The Bible says that ‘there is one God and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus’ (1 Timothy 2:5);
The Watchtower says they, specifically the governing body, are the mediator between God and ‘the great crowd’. On earth, they have substituted for Christ (note the unauthorised insertions at 2 Corinthians 5:20).
The Bible says that God really is Almighty;
The Watchtower says that he suffers human emotions. Do you really think he gets a bit stressed by a few lies and misrepresentations?
And who of you, having been lied to and slandered, would send their child to sort matters out, knowing that they would die in the attempt, just so that you could say ‘I told you so’!
Back