What is the “Take Back the Ransom” argument?

The Watchtower argues against the bodily resurrection of Jesus by claiming that if Jesus’ body rose from the dead, he would have been taking back the payment for our sin debt.

Here is its reasoning:

If a man pays a debt for a friend but then promptly takes back the payment, obviously the debt continues. Likewise, if, when he was resurrected, Jesus had taken back his human body of flesh and blood, which had been given in sacrifice to pay the ransom price, what effect would that have had on the provision he was making to relieve faithful persons of the debt of sin?[1]

If you get blindsided by an argument like that, it can be difficult to come up with a good response.

An unexpected way to respond is to challenge the premise that it was Jesus’ body by pointing out that it was his life—not just his body—that was the sacrifice.

One of the best aspects of this response is that it accords with the Watchtower’s view of “the ransom” that it was Jesus’ life—rather than his physical body—that was the sacrifice:

The Watchtower states:

Since a perfect human life was lost, no imperfect human life could ever buy it back… So, what would cover the value of the perfect human soul, or life, that Adam lost? Another perfect human life was the “corresponding ransom” that was required.[2]

Here is a summary of the points you are making.

  1. The ransom Jesus paid was his life.
  2. The life he surrendered was the life he had authority to take back.
  3. By the Watchtower’s logic, wasn’t that a taking back of the sacrifice which negated the payment?
  4. Neither the Father nor the Son seemed to think so.

Ask:

  • I’m confused. Wasn’t it Jesus’ life that was the sacrifice rather than just his body?

If the Witnesses ask you what you mean, you can respond: “I’m thinking of what Jesus himself said in John 10.”

Ask them to explain to you Jesus’ statement in John 10:17-18: “This is why the Father loves me, because I surrender my life, so that I may receive it again. No man takes it away from me, but I surrender it of my own initiative. I have authority to surrender it, and I have authority to receive it again. This commandment I received from my Father.”

Witnesses may argue that it was Jesus’ human life that he sacrificed, not his heavenly one.

But Jesus’ statement in John 10 makes no such distinction.

Jesus didn’t say he would receive a different life; he said the life that he surrendered is the life he would receive again.

Follow up by saying, “Jesus said that when he sacrificed his life, he knew that he had authority to receive it back again. Did his receiving his life back again constitute a taking back of the ransom? Clearly not.”

The stone-in-the-shoe soundbites you want to leave with the Witnesses are:

  • Wasn’t it Jesus’ life that was the sacrifice rather than just his body? 
  • Jesus didn’t say he would receive a different life; he said the life that he surrendered is the life he would receive again. 
  • Did Jesus’ receiving his sacrificed life back again constitute a taking back of the ransom? Clearly not. 

Summary

The “Take Back the Ransom” argument caught me off guard the first time I heard it.

But if you know in advance the Witnesses’ talking points, not only can you have an answer ready, but your answer can contain stone-in-the-shoe responses that will be triggered whenever those Witnesses present their talking points to someone else.

 

[1] Reasoning From the Scriptures, p. 217

[2] What Does the Bible Really Teach?, p. 50 

 

 

 

 

Comment Policy