***
Respecting God-given Authority
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WTS) teaches Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) that "anointed servants" of God are endowed with an appointment of authority over Christians. The basis of this teaching is the biblical text of Matthew 24:45-47, which reads,
"Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings."NWT
Assuming it true that God has appointed a "faithful slave" to serve in the capacity of His anointed authority over Christians, just what is expected of Jesus followers in terms of respect?
The biblical record contains many examples of God appointees filling the capacity of His anointed one. These manifest a consistent model in answer to the question of what God expects in terms of respect toward this extended authority.
Examples readily familiar to Jehovah's Witnesses include those of Moses and King Saul. We single out these two because incidents involving them are often used in WTS publications to explain proper respect for God-given authority. For example, Moses was once faced with actions of a man named Korah. Because of Korah's actions Jehovah destroyed him along with his supporters. In a separate incident an indisposed King Saul was unwittingly at the mercy of David. David had the opportunity and ability to kill or injure King Saul, which would have removed him from kingship, but he refrained because Saul was, as David put it, the anointed of Jehovah. David did cut away some of Saul's clothing and later felt regret for even this small act. These incidents between Moses and Korah and King Saul and David are often cited in WTS publications to instill respect for God-appointed authority.
What is almost never highlighted in WTS teachings is whether appropriate respect for God-given authority requires unquestioning submission. Why this omission can only be guessed at, but since the WTS usually cites examples to teach submission we can surmise they either see no need in teaching whether there are conditions that would warrant any retraction of support or corrective measures from subordinates, or they do not want their subordinates to consider these possibilities. So, given the same two examples of Moses and King Saul's God-appointed authority, does Jehovah expect and/or require unquestioning submission?
At Meribah Moses sinned so gravely that Jehovah removed him prematurely from his position of authority in Israel. Aaron too was removed prematurely from his position of high God-given authority. Aaron's situation is significant here because the Bible depicts Moses as the instigator of the sin with Aaron acting in support. The biblical account reads:
"So Moses took the rod from before Jehovah, just as he had commanded him. After that Moses and Aaron called the congregation together before the crag, and he proceeded to say to them: Hear, now, YOU rebels! Is it from this crag that we shall bring out water for YOU? With that Moses lifted his hand up and struck the crag with his rod twice; and much water began to come out, and the assembly and their beasts of burden began to drink."Later Jehovah said to Moses and Aaron: Because YOU did not show faith in me to sanctify me before the eyes of the sons of Israel, therefore YOU will not bring this congregation into the land that I shall certainly give them. "--Numbers 20:9-12, NWT
In this case did Jehovah expect Aaron to support Moses in his sin? Apparently not, since he was prematurely removed from authority along with Moses for doing just that! So what should Aaron have done? Before answering this question let's go on to the example of King Saul.
As noted earlier, David refused to remove Saul from his God appointed position by killing him. David apparently felt that God gave him the job so I'll let God remove it from him. But this did not mean David supported Saul in actions that David felt were ungodly or otherwise wrong. In fact another servant of God, Samuel, actually confronted King Saul on more than one occasion because of Saul's ungodly deeds. In express language Samuel informed King Saul that he would not support such actions, and this he said publicly. This was done despite the fact that King Saul was the anointed of Jehovah at the time.
So, what should Aaron have done at Meribah? Because of Jehovah's disapproval of how Aaron did act and because of His blessings on how Samuel acted later on, we can conclude the correct path for Aaron was to have at least removed his support from Moses' sinful act. As High Priest in Israel, too he probably should have acted to check Moses' action short of removing Moses from office by his own action.
From the examples of Moses and King Saul we can learn that God expects his followers to listen to and consider the teaching and directives his appointees. But Jehovah does not expect his worshippers to support his appointees without first making an unselfish and personal consideration of what God has said Himself in his written word, the Bible. In cases where Christians have unselfish and sound scriptural reasons they should defer to God's word the Bible and refuse to support what is evidently wrong. Christians can not forget that, in addition to considering what God-appointed representatives say, Jehovah also expects His followers to use their power of reason in their worship. In short, respect for God-given authority does not mean standing in support of wrong conduct despite that it may be on the part of His anointed one. When wrong conduct is evident true worship requires withdrawal of support just as Aaron should have acted at Meribah and Samuel did act in response to Saul.
As interesting end note to this discussion is the fact that David, a true worshiper, was put in the awkward position of having to hide himself from the anointed of Jehovah for sake of self-preservation and to continue his efforts at defending and otherwise helping his fellow Israelite brothers. This, along with other examples demonstrates that just because God appoints spokespersons and gives authority it does not mean the actions of these are always at His behest as though loyalty to them is equivalent to loyalty to Jehovah. Quite frequently the biblical model evidences that those whom God has appointed have acted on their own in some or many respects. In these instances it was appropriate for subordinates to apply their power of reason together with a love of God's written word and then act by refusing to support what was evidently wrong. Messages of Jesus to the seven congregations in the district of Asia evidence that Christians too are faced with wrong actions of servants of God. They should act accordingly.
Assuming it true that God has appointed a "faithful slave" to serve in the capacity of His anointed authority over Christians, Jehovah expects and requires that Christians will recognize this authority by listening to it and considering what it has to say. If, as it asserts, its teachings are food from the Master's table then true worshippers can confirm this by checking the Master's menu, the Bible. If it's on the menu then it's the Master's food. If it's not there, then it is some other kind of food and should be treated accordingly. In harmony with the biblical model, in the event of ungodly teachings or practices evidenced by this "faithful slave" then Christian should withdraw support accordingly. "Faithful slave" does not mean, "perfect slave." Undeniably, earthly slaves of God are yet imperfect and therefore susceptible to the same failings of past slaves of The Almighty.
Supporting ungodly teachings and/or practices committed by the "anointed of Jehovah" as an act of loyalty to God is an act of worship, and it is an idolatrous act of worship. It is idolatrous because unquestioning submission is due and appropriate toward only One, The Almighty. Anyone else with God-given authority is due relative submission. (Compare Romans 13:1; Ephesians 5:24; Hebrews 13:17)
________________
Marvin Shilmer