See WT 1 December 1981 page 29
?Happily, in the year 1962, Jehovah led his people to an understanding of the principle of relative subjection. It was seen that dedicated Christians must obey secular rulers as the "superior authorities," gladly recognizing these as "god's ministers," or servant for their good. ((Rom. 13:4) However, if these "authorities" ask them to violate God's laws, what then? Up to that point Christians have obeyed the command at Romans 13:1: "Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities." But this is qualified by Jesus' words, as recorded at Matthew 22:21: "Pay back, therefore, Caesar's things to Caesar, but God's things to God." So whenever "Caesar" asks Christians to do things contrary to God's will, they must place Jehovah's law ahead of "Caesar's."
This had also been referred to in a 1972 article:
WT 1972
?Then again, because Romans 13:1 had been construed to mean that the governments of the world must be given unqualified obedience, the witnesses interpreted the "higher powers" or "superior authorities" there mentioned as applying to Jehovah God and Christ Jesus. However, a closer examination of the context revealed that Romans 13:: does indeed refer to political governments of this world But by comparing this scripture with others, such as Acts 5:29, which states, "We must obey God as ruler rather than men," it was seen that the "subjection" mentioned at Romans 13:1 must be a relative subjection, not an unqualified one. That is, Christians are to be in subjection to the governments of this world so long as these do not ask Christians to go contrary to God's laws?.
Most readers of those articles would have accepted what they were being ?fed? as they would only be aware of the previous WT position on issues like military and alternative service (1929 to 1962) so would presumably have accepted the 1962 change as the bright light getting lighter.
I have a problem with this, as it is clear to me that this so called new understanding had been the position the WT Society from the 1880s and lasted right up to 1929. How was it a new understanding in 1962 when the principle of ?relative subjection? contained in Romans chapter 13 was perfectly understood by Russell and Rutherford and the Watchtower Society for decades. This is evident from the following:
Volume I of Studies in the Scriptures (1886)
CT Russell described what Jesus & apostles taught as the Christian position:
? They taught the Church to obey the laws, and to respect those in authority because of their office, even if they were not personally worthy of esteem; to pay their appointed taxes, and, except where they conflicted with God's laws?(Acts 4:19; 5:29), to offer no resistance to any established law
.? (
WT January 15, 1916.
Russell, the editor of The Watch Tower and the author of the article in question, stated:
?The Bible directs the followers of Jesus to be subject to the powers that be. (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17) But while seeking to be thus law-abiding in every respect, Christians are to recognize that there is still a higher law and a still higher Ruler, and are to be subject to the worldly powers only in the absence of a contrary admonition from the Higher Power - from God?.
The Watch Tower
, July 15, 1916
, CT Russell wrote in the article, "Militarism and Conscience":
? While Christians are enjoined to be subject to the "Powers that be"?the kings, governors, magistrates, etc. - nevertheless this is not to be understood as meaning the renouncement of our fidelity to the King of kings and Lord of lords. He is our Over-Lord. Our allegiance to earthly lords and powers and their commands is merely to the extent that they do not conflict with the commands of our Over-Lord. The Jews in renouncing Jesus cried, "We have no king but Caesar"! The Christian's position is, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's but unto God the things that are God's." Whenever Caesar and his laws conflict with the divine requirements, all true soldiers of the cross are left no alternative?.
Even if the author were misinformed, I would find it hard to accept that whoever approved the 1972 and 1981 articles would not have known about the Watchtower?s pre-1929 clear understanding of ?relative subjection?.
Once again this raises the question of how, and to whom exactly, this new light is revealed?