A PRONOUNCEMENT:        *

 

     Concerning Justice For

   Jehovah’s People

 

 

Jehovah, being a God who hates what is bad, does not leave any doubt as to his view of injustice and those who perpetrate unjust acts. De. 32:4; Pr. 8:13; 22:22&23; Isa. 28:1-22.

 

A steadily growing number of people from all the national groups has come to appreciate the God of Justice and have dedicated themselves as a body and individually to serve Jehovah and imitate his example in all things, one of which is justice. Mt. 5:48; Eph. 5:1; Ps. 82:3.

 

As witnesses for Jehovah, we declare to all that He alone is the true God and we are his people. In view of the Bible record, it is not difficult to see that we fulfill, in many details, the religious way of life of God’s people of earlier times, namely, the descendants of Jacob and the first century C.E. Christian congregation. De. 32:3; Ex. 9:16; Joh. 17:26; Ac.15:14.

 

Within this twentieth century, Jehovah’s witnesses have gained an international reputa­tion as uncompromising persons who have withstood much unjust treatment rather than break an integrity keeping posture. In many countries God’s people have taken issue with those who do not appreciate Jehovah’s principles and laws, through legal channels, in the courts. Never­theless, persecution and injustice are things which Jehovah’s people still suffer and expect to endure until this system comes to its end. It must be said, though, that Jehovah’s wit­nesses have had a great measure of success in obtaining freedom to live as Christians, due to adhering to the principles of justice outlined in the Bible.

 

In view of the foregoing, we might react in shocked disbelief if someone were to say that Jehovah’s witnesses do not practice justice. We might be inclined to laugh at such a state­ment as being either a deliberate lie or as gross misinformation.

 

Nonetheless, this is exactly what is being said about God’s people. There is an increas­ing current of opinion, which holds that Jehovah’s witnesses are unjust.

 

Who is it that says such a thing? Why do they say it? Does it not seem ridiculous to say such a thing when Jehovah’s witnesses have done so much in behalf of justice?

 

It will come as a shock to learn that the ones in the forefront of those claiming injust­ice by God’s people are themselves witnesses of Jehovah. Their claim is that many of God’s people are suffering injustice at the hands of their own brothers, which, if true, would mean that we are hypocrites, fighting for justice in the courts and practicing injustice in the congregations.

 

What is the basis for what seems to be an entirely unfounded allegation by some of the brothers that injustice exists within the congregations’ earth wide? If injustices do exist, who is responsible and is anything being done to rectify these injustices? These questions need to be answered so that this growing fire of controversy can be put out in a manner that will see the end of injustice in the congregations’ earth wide. Certainly, each one of us, desirous of imitating our Father, will do all in our power to end Injustice, will we not?

 

It has been seen that decisions reached by congregation committees with regard to the hearing and judging of cases of wrongdoing have, at times, been so controversial that congre­gations have been seriously affected over expulsions from the congregations of alleged wrong doers. You may be aware of such incidents occurring where you live.

 

 

Page 1
Are the brothers at fault when they take issue with such a decision by the congregation committee, or is it possible for committees to err in their judgments? To determine the answers to these questions, let us first of all review what we have been taught by the governing body on the matter of committee hearings and the practice of disfellowshipping. Secondly, we should check the records of the early Christian congregation as found in the Bible, in order to determine what the Lord and his apostles taught on these matters, to see how closely we comply with God’s instructions.

 

The governing body, besides teaching us the procedure for handling trials of persons accused of wrongdoing, has also appointed, through its various branch offices, what are called Judicial committees. The governing body has authorized these committees to act in behalf of the entire congregation in hearing cases of-sinful conduct and in rendering decisions, known as resolutions, for strict observance on penalty of disfellowshipping for rebel1iousness.

 

Trials are conducted secretly, with the result that the congregation usually knows nothing about a case unless and until the committee reads a resolution of expulsion or reinstatement at one of the congregation meetings. Witnesses at these trials are to keep the trial proceedings confidential. Rather than ask questions about cases of disfellowship­ping wrongdoers from the congregations, the brothers are told to trust the judgment of the committee.

 

This arrangement is taught as being the theocratic system of justice as outlined in the Bible. Disfellowshipping is said to be antitypical to the Israelite practice of stoning evildoers to death. It is further said, that, because we are now under the law of Christ, which is love, mercy obtains so that a person can have opportunity to repent even after his antitypical stoning. Otherwise, the sinner’s state of spiritual death would be permanent. Love is also the reason given for the practice of conducting secret hearings, whereby, a person is spared much shame and suffering (partially at least) rather than embarrassed before the entire congregation. Ro. 13:10; .Joh. 13:34; Mt. 9:13; Jas. 2:13.

 

How can anyone, especially Jehovah’s own people, claim injustice results from following the governing body’s instructions? The apparent reason seems to stem from certain informa­tion published by the legal printing agency of the governing body in the research work entitled, “Aid to Bible Understanding”. Let us read these controversial excerpts from that particular publication to see if we can ascertain the cause of this problem.

 

Under the subject heading, Court, Judicial, on page 384, a description of the manner of conducting trials under Israelite law is given in the last paragraph as follows:

“The local court was situated at the gate of a city. (Deut. 16:18; 21:19; 22:15,24; 25:7; Ruth 4:1) By “gate” is meant the open space inside the city near the gate. The gates were places where the law was read to the congregated people and where ordinances were proclaimed. At the gate it was easy to acquire witnesses to a civil matter, such as prop­erty sales, and so forth, as most persons would go in and out of the gate during the day. Also, the publicity that would be afforded any trial at the gate would tend to influence the judges toward carefulness and justice in the trial proceedings and in their decisions. Evidently there was a place provided near the gate where the judges could comfortably preside.”

 

The next paragraph says, in part:

“When a decision was handed down by the priests, the Levites at the sanctuary or by the judge who was acting in those days (for example, Moses or Samuel), it was binding, and anyone who refused to abide by the decision was put to death. -- Deut. 17:8-13.”

 

We see from this information that trials in Israel were not held secretly. The gover­ning body acknowledges the fact that the judges were less prone to carelessness and injust­ice because of the publicity of a trial. One of the excellent Bible dramas prepared by the

 

 

 

 

Page 2
governing body for portrayal at the assemblies a couple of years ago was about Ruth. If you recall it, you probably remember the part where she was brought to the judges for a hearing. You may also recall that there were curious observers at that hearing. All of this demonstr­ated the public manner of trials in Israel.

 

Some of the brothers have concluded from this, that a contradiction exists between what the governing body knows about Jehovah’s system of justice and what they are teaching in all the congregations. The feeling is, that, should a person be present at a trial or in a pos­it ion to know the full details of a trial and yet refused to abide by a decision to expel someone from the congregation he, too, should fittingly be expelled. On the other hand, to object to a committee decision of expulsion when one is ignorant of the charge, who the witnesses are, and what the testimony established, is not proper grounds to expel that con­scientious objector. Therefore, it is felt, that for any committee decision to be binding upon any and all in the congregations today, trials of alleged sinners must be public.

 

The command to expel someone is called a resolution. How can it be called a resolution of the entire congregation when there is no opportunity given the congregation to discuss the matter? All other resolutions which are for the congregation are voted upon, discussed, questioned, moved for adoption; that motion being seconded, then it is binding upon all. The committee would never think of changing the times for congregation meetings by passing a resolution that the brothers could not voice an opinion on. Why, then, are committees instr­ucted to pass such unorthodox resolutions when someone’s life is involved; an extremely ser­ious matter?

 

By strongly discouraging the brothers from challenging expulsion resolutions, the gov­erning body seems to be saying that committees are infallible, do they not? Should an actual miscarriage of justice occur, and we support that action through our ignorance, would it not be true of us that we are like blind persons following blind guides; blind to justice? As a congregation, would we not be like those going with the crowd to shed innocent blood? Would we not also be putting our trust in earthling man when we blindly accept the word of a com­mittee, contrary to the Bible command? If our conscience cannot fully accept the command to disassociate from someone because of uncertainty, but we suppress our conscience in defer­ence toward a committee resolution, are we acting in faith? Mt. 15:14; Pr. 1:10-19; 6:16-19; Ps. 146:3; Ro. 14:2&23.

 

How will you answer such charges? How can you justify secret trials when you are aware that the Lord himself was given a secret trial. He was arrested after dark because the religious leaders did not want to be observed by the people. Acting out of envy, the high priest even had evidence manufactured to condemn Jesus. The decision of the religious leaders was passed on to the crowds of ignorant Jews much like a present day committee res­olution. Because those people trusted their religious leaders, they cried out for Jesus’ death. No wonder Jesus condemned the things done in the darkness of secrecy. Lu. 20:19; 22:

52&53; Mt. 27:18; Joh. 3:19-21. (See also Jesus’ Trial,  p.1054, “Aid” book), 1 Jo. 1:5&6.

 

This is not all there is to the objections being raised by some of God’s people. Page 1053 of the “Aid” book, under the subject heading, Legal Case, says:

“A legal case was conducted in the Garden of Eden, to bring out the facts of that case and the issues involved and to establish them as a matter of public record, also to pass sentence on the offenders. Jehovah called Adam and Eve before him for questioning. Though he knew all, he held a hearing, made the charges clear, brought out the facts by questioning and gave them an opportunity to make expression in their own defense      

Jehovah God the Supreme Judge here set the pattern for all further juridical pro­ceedings among his people.”

 

Notice, the governing body acknowledges that Jehovah established a pattern which isn’t followed by God’s people in all further juridical proceedings. The trial In Eden has re­

 

 

 

Page 3
rnained a matter of public record down to this day, as have many other cases of wrongdoing. Since we are God’s people today, we should still be following such a pattern, should we not? Are we not to imitate Jehovah in this matter? Eph. 5:1.

 

You are beginning to understand what you must deal with. These are not issues that can be easily pushed aside. The integrity of the men who make up the governing body is, itself, in question. Are they being hypocritical? Are they responsible for widespread injustice the way the religious leaders of God’s earlier servants, the Israelites, were? Lu.11:42.

 

It would, perhaps, seem as though this whole matter were being blown way out of propor­tion. How often do cases of disfellowshipping become controversial? Not only that, but, If there were any miscarriage of justice, the expelled one can get a rehearing by writing to the Society. The decision to expel someone is not as final as a literal stoning of a person. Besides, a large percentage of expulsions are not so secret that the brothers in the con­gregations are unaware of the charges. Some cases are even scandalous, being known about by the whole community.

 

You may feel that such argumentation is sufficient to overcome the objections previously raised. Some will even argue that public hearings wouldn’t work today, because, it might divide the congregation, if family ties or strong friendships were to get in the way of justice. Some also feel that, because of the nature of some cases, it would not be good to discuss all the details of a case of wrongdoing in front of everyone; it would be too up­setting.

 

However, the objections do not end there. Much more is involved. Does the Bible use the expression, ‘judicial committee’? Did the early Christians have three man committees? The answer to both these questions is ‘no.’ This is not to say that the elders did not serve as judges, nor is it to say that in some congregations there might only be three such elders. The point here is, that, the governing body has arbitrarily set up so-called judicial com­mittees having only three members. These are said to represent Jehovah, within the congreg­ations, in an exclusive role of spiritual guardians of the congregations. All cases of ser­ious wrongdoing must be reported to them. They are to treat any wrongdoers with kindness. They are really like friends to the accused; trying to restore them; helping them to confess their sins and repent.

 

One would think that these seemingly mature members of the congregations would not act unjustly toward a person, even in private. Three elders would be able to fully examine a case in the light of Bible principles to come to a correct decision, would they not?

 

You might be interested to learn that the Bible discloses an account of a three man committee discussing allegations of wrongdoing on the part of one of Jehovah’s people. They were respected elders of their time and were good friends of the accused. They tried to bring that particular individual to his senses, but were unable to. In fact, that account shows that those three elders had the wrong view of the matter entirely. It was necessary for a fourth individual, one who was not an elder, to put the case in its proper perspec­tive. He, and not the three elders, was able to correct the wrong attitude of Jehovah’s servant.

 

This account demonstrates that a committee of three men can definitely err. It is also possible for others to make the correct assessment of a case. Public hearings would prevent committees from acting in a biased or narrow manner. The accused man was Job. The three elders were Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite. The one who had the right view of matters was Elihu the Buzite. It is all recorded in the book of Job.

 

Yes, it is quite possible, under the present arrangement, for a committee to act like

 

 

 

Page 4

Job’s three false friends. This, in turn, makes clear that being an elder does not guaran­tee that one will have a greater sense of justice than someone who is not an elder; justi­fying any exclusion of members of the congregation from committee hearings. The following Scriptural references indicate that judgments were rendered in the congregation of the first century C.E. in a public manner. 1 Ti. 5:20; Ac. 5:1-11; 1 Co. 5:1-13; 1 Ti. 1:20; 2 Ti. 4:14; 3 Jo. 9&10.

 

All of the references showed that individuals acted as judges; such as, Peter and Paul, both of whom were apostles. Paul makes the point that a single brother is sufficient to judge a case if only one wise man, in the congregation, existed. He did point out though, that there were judges appointed in the congregations, and he left the number indefinite. 1 Co. 6:1-6.

 

Let us now consider the teaching of the governing body concerning the necessity of the committee handling all cases of serious wrongdoing, with the exception of personal diffi­culties between individuals. The restoration of sinners is also something to be handled exclusively by the committees. The committee has the sole responsibility to reinstate an expelled person into the congregation.

 

Such a dividing of responsibility seems to give the appearance of a clergy/laity dis­tinction, does it not? For instance; the Catholic Church maintains that only the clergy are able to absolve persons from their sins, and that, unless a person confesses to a priest, he cannot be forgiven. That church believes, that to confess to any of the par­ishes members would be insufficient to cleanse the sinner. What is the basic difference between that arrangement, and the governing body’s teaching about the necessity to go before a committee? There is none, yet we are quick to point out that the Catholic priest­hood does not have any exclusive right to forgive sins.

 

Matthew 18:15-17 is said to be Jesus’ instructions on settling personal differences. Three steps are outlined for the restoration of someone practicing wrong conduct. Let us read the first step of the instructions, as found in verse 15. Two words are added to the text. Take careful note of those words, because they will aid you to see the meaning of the Scripture in its true context. “Moreover, if your brother commits a sin against you, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone, if he listens to you, you have gained your brother.”

 

You have, no doubt, noted that the two words, ‘against you’, are not part of the text. if you check this verse by comparing the rendering of Benjamin Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott, you will see that his Greek text contains those two words. Wilson comments that those two words should be omitted. Apparently, they were added to the original text sometime after the first century C.E. The New World Translation Bible committee agrees with Wilson’s view; omitting those two words from the New World Translation.

 

Those two words alter the context considerably. Included in the text, they would un­questionably indicate that Jesus was talking about personal differences between individ­uals. On the other hand, the correct omission of those same words shows that the sinning, referred to by the Lord, is unqualified. Any sin could be meant, including wrong actions toward an individual.

 

We must now ask why it is, that the governing body continues to hold to the view that Jesus was referring to offenses, against you, personally, when they are fully aware that this wrong interpretation is due to two spurious words in the text? The New World Trans­lation does not contain the incorrect rendering, yet the governing body would have us believe that, that is what it means, anyway.

 

Taking Jesus’ first step as written, we can only conclude, that, as individuals,

 

 

 

Page 5

Christians have the responsibility to try to restore one who sins, that is, If he is aware of another’s error, regardless of its nature. Of course, it is only reasonable to conclude that, for a brother to be able to go to another for the purpose of restoring that one, the brother must be spiritually capable of discerning right from wrong, and must be motivated by love. Sometimes, it is even necessary to try to aid a person who has begun a course of action that will lead to serious sin, if not checked in time. As James put. it, “My broth­ers, if anyone among you is misled from the truth and another turns him back, know that he who turns a sinner back from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” Ja. 5:19&20; 1 Th,. 5:14; Ga. 6:1&2; Ro. 15:14; Ge. 4:4-10.

 

Even seemingly mature men can go astray without realizing it. The apostle Paul had the necessary spiritual qualification to correct a bad situation existing In Antioch, stemming from the actions of James and other elders of the Jerusalem congregation in insisting on circumcision of Gentile converts. The apostle Peter was unable to discern the error of this view and went along with It. James apologized later, by saying that it was his decision not to trouble the Gentiles with this burden. Ac. 15;19, 23&24; Ga. 2:11-14; Ac. 15:l&2.

 

Again, we see that being an elder or even an apostle does not mean that one will have the correct view of all matters pertaining to true worship. It is also demonstrated how a brother in a position of authority can cause others to be swayed to a wrong view. James and others of the circumcised class influenced Peter toward their judgment of things, and in turn, Barnabas was swayed for a time.

 

That very same effect can result, and has resulted, many, many times; when the presi­ding overseer, or circuit overseer, or other influential brother, persuades, by his position and/or argumentation, the other elders of, the committee to adopt his personal view. This is never seen by the brothers in the congregations as they are barred from the proceedings of trials and are never present when the committee discusses what decision to render.

 

So then, any brother, recognizing another’s wrong actions, can, and should, go to that person privately to restore that one. If successful, would there be any need to thereafter relate the incident to any so-called judicial committee? Love covers a  multitude of sins, does it not? Is not one who uncovers confidential talk acting as a slanderer? 1 Pe. 4:8; Pr. 20:19.

 

If unsuccessful in effecting restoration of a sinner, one is to fulfill the second step of Jesus’ instructions; namely, to take two or three witnesses to try again to re­store the evildoer. If still unable to restore the person, at least the matter has been established before sufficient witnesses. On the other hand, should restoration of the sinner be accomplished, would any need exist to relate the matter to the committee or anyone else?

 

It must be understood, that, Jesus showed insight into human nature when instructing us as he did. When we make mistakes, we have the bad tendency to cover up, or justify, our sins. We feel that others have love and compassion for us if they approach us privat­ely, to bring our wrong actions out in the open. We feel respected, knowing that our wrongdoing has not been blabbed all over the congregation. We are in a much better frame of mind; enabling us to discuss our sin and ask for forgiveness. Depending on how great our guilt and shame may be, we might confess when the first step is applied, or, perhaps when the second step is applied. Certainly, if we love Jehovah and his son, we will humble ourselves rather than be expelled from the congregation. Nonetheless, some have such pride that they will not repent until after their sin becomes public, at the time the third step is applied.

 

We, hereby, see that three opportunities are extended to a person; so that, he will have sufficient time to come to his senses. Anyone, so stubborn and hard-hearted to refuse to listen to the pleadings of the entire congregation, deserves to be disfellowshipped

 

 

 

Page 6
        As things are now, a person who commits a sin; for example, fornication, is immediately reported to the committee and tried without the benefit of two previous attempts at restor­ation. Being given insufficient time to overcome his guilt and shame, the person usually lies about his actions. He is considered to be unrepentant and is summarily expelled. The committee think they are showing love to the sinner by not explaining his sin to the con­gregation; however, such confidentiality is reserved only for the first two steps of Jesus’ instructions. Really, greater love would be shown had the sinner been given three chances to repent. In this way, mercy would triumph over judgment. Ja. 2:13.

 

Peter’s three denials of Christ Jesus demonstrate the fallen tendency of man to lie defensively. Did Jesus disfellowship Peter? Since Peter manifested sincere remorse over his actions, it was obvious that he had come to his senses; he was restored, There would be no need to expel one under similar circumstances, because it should be our goal to restore, not expel. Lu. 22:61&62.

 

It cannot be overlooked, that by sidestepping the first and second steps of Jesus’ in­structions, and going directly to the committee, we are nothing less than betrayers of our brothers. We show no love to them. We are certainly not doing to them what we would want done to us, are we? Mt. 7:12; 2 Ti. 3:4.

 

So then, if Matthew 18:15-17 were properly carried out for the purpose of restoring sinners, not just for settling personal disputes, all of us would have ample opportunity to repent, should we sin. Public hearings, for those either too proud to repent, or for those having great difficulty overcoming their imperfect tendency to save face, would en-sure that all would have just treatment at the hands of the congregation. The entire con­gregation would have the necessary information to act upon, in case a sinner proves unre­pentant. None would have to act in ignorance, following the commands of mere men, nor would they feel that they were going against their own consciences.

 

Through such extensive attempts to restore sinners, we show our agreement with the attitude of the shepherd of Jesus’ illustration, who left the ninety-nine sheep to search for the one stray sheep. We, like our Lord, will be saving sinners. Mt. 18:12-14; 9:13.

 

For those who resist every attempt to restore them, Jesus said, they were to be trea­ted as a man of the nations and as a tax collector. What does this indicate to you? Can you say that we presently treat such ones as we treat people we know, who are not wit­nesses, or, do we treat them far worse? Why is it, that we act as though a disfellowshipped person were not present, even though that one attends meetings? Why do we not speak to them? Just what is meant by the command, to stop associating with expelled persons?

 

Even though a person sins, he is still a brother. The disassociation is not on a spir­itual level so much as it is on a social level. For instance, Jesus had spiritual assoc­iation with the demons when he went to preach to them, after his resurrection. He also discussed Scripture with Satan. We are counseled to treat disobedient ones as brothers, by admonishing them, whereas we are not to socialize with them. For instance, Paul said, that we should not even share a meal with a practicer of sin. There seems to be one case where more severe treatment is meted out to certain ones. The apostle John indicates that we should have nothing at all to do with a person who does not any longer believe in Christ Jesus, but in some other messiah. 1 Co.5:ll; 1 Pe. 3:19; Lu. 4:1-13; 2 Th. 3:14&15; 2 Jo. 9-11; Mt. 24:5.

 

It becomes apparent that the discipline we administer to practicers of sin within the congregation is the disconnecting of social ties. The Israelites treated the people of the nations as unclean and would not socialize with them any more than necessary. Yet, they were not cruel towards them, acting as though they did not exist. On the other hand, the

 

 

 

Page 7

Jews made every effort to bring spiritual enlightenment to the Gentiles by converting them to Judaism. Mt. 23:15; Ac.11:2&3.

 

To cut them off from Scriptural counsel and admonition, would be unmerciful; because, we would be denying such ones the necessary help, so badly needed to restore a sinner. As long as a person lives, there is opportunity to repent. By not socializing with wrongdoers, we show that we do not approve of their uncleanness; but, by continuing to admonish them as brothers, we show that we do not view them as enemies, and that we still love them and want them to repent. Is this not what you would do for a fleshly relative? Ga. 6:10.

 

As for someone who no longer accepts Christ Jesus, there is no basis for association with such a person. His life depends on the ransom sacrifice; which, if rejected after his having been enlightened, means that there is no forgiveness for sins left. In that case, it is impossible to revive these ones to repentance again. Ga. 1:6-9; He.  29&30.

 

For the most part, our brothers do not stop believing in the ransom sacrifice; they succumb to sinful desires. They are weak and sickly, not having enough resistance to fight off the law of the flesh. They need our help, more than ever, at such a time. The present practice of negating the instructions of the Lord, by following the governing body’s instr­uctions regarding the handling of cases of wrongdoing, results in the weak and sickly ones being pushed around by the spiritually fat and strong ones.

 

Therefore, Jehovah has prophesied regarding his people today, by means of his prophet Ezekiel. This particular prophecy was fulfilled in the first century C.E. and serves as a pattern for his people today. The prophecy states, “I myself shall feed my sheep, and I myself shall make them lie down,” is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah. “The lost one I shall search for, and the dispersed one I shall bring back, and the broken one I shall bandage and the ailing one I shall strengthen, but the fat one and the strong one I shall annihilate. I shall feed that one with judgment.

 

And as for you my sheep’ this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said: ”Here I am judging between a sheep and a sheep, between the rams and the he-goats.... Here I am, I myself, and I shall certainly judge between a plump sheep and a lean sheep, for the reason that with flank and with shoulder you kept pushing and with your horns you kept shoving all the sickened ones until you had scattered them to the outside. And I will save my sheep, and they will no longer become something for plunder; and I will judge between a sheep and a sheep. And I will raise up over them one shepherd, and he himself will become their shepherd.” Ez. 34:15-17, 20-23; Mt. 25:31-46; Jo. 10:14-16.

 

In view of this, each one must decide for oneself, whether or not to disassociate from a practicer of sin, and to what extent that disassociation goes. No individual Christian would want to be guilty of mistreating the weak, and sickened, and broken ones; but rather, would try to restore such persons by following the counsel of the Lord and his apostles.

 

Should a brother know that another has sinned, thereby becoming unclean, he needs no one to tell him to stop mixing in company with that one. He knows that he must lovingly try to restore that one by applying Matthew 18:15-17. If the sinner does not repent, re­quiring his expulsion, he should be treated no worse than a worldly person. In accord with the circumstances, he should still be given spiritual assistance. Whenever it is that an expelled person shows heartfelt remorse, the individuals in the congregation should wel­come him back into their association.

 

In all of this, the brothers must exercise their own consciences. It is really not something that any expulsion or reinstatement resolution by any so-called judicial committee makes valid or official. Of course, the elders should set an exemplary lead in these matters; but, each individual realizes that bad association spoils useful habits, and that a little leaven ferments the whole lump. Each individual is, therefore, discreetly account-­

 

 

 

Page 8
able to Jehovah for his actions. 1 Co. 15:33; Ga, 5:9; Col, 3:23-25; Ro. 14:12.

 

We must keep foremost in mind that Jesus paid for our sins; all of them, so long as we exercise faith in him. As Paul pointed out, we are not to think that we have license to sin merely because of the undeserved kindness. Insofar as we continue to fight the evil inclination of the flesh, we are forgiven our sins when we do slip, because we have a high priest whose sacrifice needs no renewal. That greater Melchizedek makes intercession on our behalf as long as we continue to serve him to the best of our ability. This makes clear that a resolution to expel or reinstate a person really has no value, other than in a token sense. Even that would be untrue, where persons are wrongly or prematurely expel­led, because it does not reflect the judgment of Jehovah. In fact, it would be in opposi­tion to the ransom sacrifice. 1 Jo. 1:7&9; 2:1&2; Ro. 6:1-20; 7:4-24; He. 7:7-25.

 

Whether a member of, a committee or just, a lowly brother in the congregation, each one must not override the conscience of another or stifle his own conscience because of the commandments of men. Therefore, in the interests of justice and mercy, let each one judge for oneself what is right respecting committee hearings and disfellowshippings. To do what is wrong, under the influence of the governing body, constitutes idolatry. Following men in such actions constitutes apostasy from the ways of Jehovah God. Are you going to stand by while the temple of God’s people remains defiled by those who have exalted themselves above God through their corrupt teachings? 1Co.3:16; 2 Th. 2:3-12.

 

We are counseled not to go beyond what is written in God’s Word. We also know that Jehovah is not a God of injustice, and neither will innocent blood go un-avenged when Christ comes at Armageddon. I Co. 4:6, De. 32:4; Re. 6:9-11; Mt. 13:41&42.

 

Harsh, unloving treatment of wrongdoers, as well as unjust expulsions, are the respon­sibility of all in the congregations; but, particularly is it the responsibility of the ones that God has entrusted with the stewardship over his people; the present day governing body. By enforcing their wrong view of hearings and expulsions upon all of the con­gregations earth wide, they are seen to be an evil slave who beats his fellow slaves. They, in turn, will be punished with the greatest severity when Christ comes, on a day and in an hour that he does not expect; at Armageddon. Mt. 24:48-51; 18:21-35; 23:23&24.

 

It is imperative that you show yourselves on Jehovah’s side! Speak out for justice. Let the governing body know that you are aware of the hypocrisy of their system of justice. Do not let fear of men prevent you from speaking the truth. Those who follow in the foot­steps of the Lord are not afraid to expose the religious leaders of God’s people, today, as he did, nineteen hundred years ago. He. 3:6; Jo. 15:20-16:11; He. 10:32 –39; Ac. 14:19, 20&29.

 

Through his prophet Isaiah, Jehovah explained what he will do to the rulers of his people, as portrayed by what happened in Israel. In chapter twenty-eight, Jehovah explains that the braggarts, the rulers of his people, will be made to stumble backwards and be broken, ensnared, and caught. By what means? “Command upon command, command upon command, measuring line upon measuring line, measuring line upon measuring line, here a little, there a little,” is the way Jehovah describes his method. Verse seventeen is most interes­ting, as the explanation is given for the expression, the measuring line. JUSTICE is the measuring line, which is even now being used to expose the leaders of God’s people as dis­obedient.

 

“And now do not show yourselves scoffers, in order that your bands may not grow strong, for there is an extermination, even something decided upon, that I have heard of from the Sovereign Lord, Jehovah of armies, for all the land.” vs. 22.

 

Malachi 4:1-6

Matthew 17:11

 

By Chris Christensen

Page 9