Does God want Christians to establish the kingdom and force people to obey God's laws?

Take another instance, which the system of these brethren furnishes of the havoc it works for all the practice as well as the truth of the church. Indisputably Christians are called to be unworldly, suffering, separate, and subject like the crucified Lord here below. Now if Dan. 2:44 (p. 140) is thus misapplied to the kingdom already set up, the church has to subdue and destroy the imperial powers, or "anti-Christian systems," as they are styled. That is, it must, like Popery, subjugate and overthrow all opposing powers that be. Thus does the church, through that error, become a rebel in Christ's name, instead of a holy sufferer, as Christ and His servants taught and practiced. Take it as God's kingdom when Christ comes "in the days of these kings," the ten toes of the statue, and all becomes true, plain, and consistent. No need then to metamorphose the instant and irreparable destruction of the powers into the slow dealing of providence, any more than to rob Christ of His prerogative of filling the whole earth with indisputable authority, immediately consequent on His judgment of the quick. Dan. 7 confirms this as the only true interpretation. The Ancient of days comes when judgment is given to the saints of the high or heavenly places. Then they will safely and holily reign with Christ to God's glory. To attempt it now is a sin and a lie; it is in theory if not in fact to play the part of fifth-monarchy men, whether Papists or Protestants, Covenanters or Roundheads.

Have Christians been commissioned by God to set the world right? Are they set as kings upon God's holy hill of Zion to dispense judgment and justice in the earth? They are NOT. But a day is coming in which CHRIST will be, according to Psalm 2 and Psalm 72, and other scriptures. The putting of the world right will be quickly accomplished by Him at His second coming.

Apart from the principles outlined above the Lord Himself made a statement in front of Pilate which should also be weighed by any Christian who considers involvement in politics. John reports that the Lord said the following: 'My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence' (19:36). Should not these words alone settle the issue? If Christians argue today that they should be politically active in order to fulfil their role in the kingdom, the Lord's words 'my kingdom is not of this world' should make clear that these are spiritual and not civil duties. If others point to the negative developments in our societies and argue that Christians must not tolerate this, do not the Lord's words give the answer again? 'If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.' A more scandalous event than the Lord's trial has never happened since. Yet, his servants were not called to fight. One of them, Peter, had not understood this and cut off the right ear of Malchus (John 18:10). 'Put up thy sword into the sheath' is the calm instruction of the Master.

But were the hearers prepared for the gospel? For the due enjoyment of the blessing of God's kingdom, whether in its moral or material form, an inward change is essential. Hence the Lord calls upon men to repent. He was not here to subjugate men by the exercise of irresistible force. He came to "call sinners to repentance." In this the Lord reiterated the exhortation of His forerunner; for John the Baptist called upon men to repent. And those who received his testimony were baptized in Jordan, confessing their sins. It was no less necessary that men should repent and accept the gracious witness concerning the coming kingdom, trusting simply to the word of Him who brought the good tidings.

I begin with Matthew 13:36, the parable of the tares. It brings out this circumstance that, whilst men slept, the enemy sowed tares in the field of the householder; and that, upon the demand of the servants whether the tares ought to be plucked out, the answer was, No - that the wheat and the tares were to grow together until the harvest. It is, then, the sentence of the Lord, that the evil, which Satan has done in the field where the good seed of the word has been sown, shall remain and ripen there until the end. It is an express declaration, that the efforts of Christians shall not have the result of taking away the evil, which is to remain until the day of judgment: "Let both grow together until the harvest." The harvest is at the end of the world - the end of this age; that is, of the dispensation closed by the coming of Christ. We must bear in mind that now, in God's dealings with us and by us, we have to do with grace and not with judgment. We have not to judge the world. Even could we say with certainty of such an one - he is a child of the devil, he is precisely on that account out of our jurisdiction; it is a tare. We have to do with grace; we cannot lay hand upon the evil which Satan has produced; but we can act as instruments of grace, for God permits us to sow good seed.

Political Relations. — Further, the Christian belongs to, and indeed is an inheritor of a kingdom, which is not of this world. His citizenship, or commonwealth is in heaven (Phil. 3:20). In what relation, then, does he stand to the civil power on earth? An important question, and one which the Spirit of God has not left unanswered: "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resists the power, resists the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves (not, damnation, but) judgment" (13:1-2). Government upon earth was established by God just after the flood. Earthly rule is God's order, to which those under it are to be subject. The Jews, as we know, were ready to rebel against the Roman yoke. A Christian might, perhaps, have been tempted to question the propriety of subjection to a heathen and idolatrous monarch. Now this was readily settled, and in a way which admitted of no subterfuge or casuistical reasoning to neutralise the apostolic injunction: for "the powers that be are ordained of God." In resisting the power, the individual would be resisting the ordinance of God. Bringing God into the question would free the Christian man's conscience at once.

The Domain of the Civil Power. — Is, then, blind obedience in everything to the ruling power here inculcated? Has it authority to exercise unlimited sway over the conscience? Within its proper sphere of civil rule it is to be obeyed, and to that the apostle clearly points, as he adds, "Rulers are not a terror to the good work (so we should read) but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he bears not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil" (3, 4). The good and the evil here must clearly be understood of that which is good or evil in God's sight. That will guide as to the domain of civil rule, and the Divine purpose for which such authority has been instituted upon earth.

Were the civil power (how often has it done it?) to dispute God's authority over the conscience, and to command that which He has forbidden, any resisting it would not have praise from it; and if they did obey it in such a case, they would not be doing that which is good. Hence, subjection to it in its own lawful domain is what is here enjoined. If it oversteps the bounds, the answer of Peter to the rulers at Jerusalem will guide the Christian: "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken to you more than to God, judge ye" (Acts 4:19). Where man's claims conflict with God's claims, the path, however trying, is clear, "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). And this important question receives further elucidation. For the same apostle, who so boldly addresses the rulers in the council, wrote by the Spirit to saints scattered abroad, "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or to governors, as to them that are sent by him" (for civil power can be delegated) "for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God" (1 Peter 2:13-16). Subjection, then, to the civil power is to be rendered not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake. It is God's ordinance, and rulers are His ministers, and Christians are His servants. How this clears up matters, and would remove any scruples that might present themselves, arising out of the question of the ruler's religious belief. A heathen, an idolatrous monarch or ruler, was to be obeyed in that domain in which, according to God, he had lawful sway. And the Christian doing good would have praise of the same, and be manifesting that he was a servant of God.

Tribute and Custom. — Another question, and one apparently not yet settled for some in our day, presents itself, and is finally dealt with by the apostle. Tribute, custom, fear, honour, each should be cheerfully rendered, where and when due. Taxes, and custom dues are to be paid, and those in authority feared, or reverenced, and honoured. What is due is the guiding principle, and the righteous rule. Is not this at times forgotten? How it simplifies matters! What is lawfully due, pay. There the Christian's responsibility ends. Thus the Word could smooth his path, whilst maintaining the authority of God, stimulating him too to subjection in all things lawful to the civil power for conscience' sake. For in paying what was due he was obeying God. This puts conscience really in the right place, and sheds a true light on the duty of a servant of the Most High. A rightly ordered conscience will not refuse the payment of that which is due.

Ignorance of the kingdom of the heavens, whether in its manifest form according to the prophets, when the Lord returns to reign in power and glory, or in its mysteries as now running their course while the Lord is seated on the Father's throne and Christendom is the result - in either way ignorance of the kingdom is the common and fatal fault of most commentators. Hence they fall into the further error of confounding the kingdom with the church or assembly of God, which is fraught with evil consequences, both doctrinal and practical. Of this fanatics took advantage, or perhaps by it fell into a snare on the other side; for it is hard to say which were most astray, persecutors or persecuted. In fact, to take an instance from Protestants, whether one thinks of the wild Anabaptists who tried to set up a Zion of their own by force of arms, or of their more sensible, if not more spiritual, antagonists who put them down by fire and sword, both went on the mistaken ground of the servants in the parable of the wheat-field, who would root up the tares spite of the Saviour's interdict, instead of leaving that work of judgement to the angels at the end of the age. The powers that be are responsible and competent to maintain order and punish evil-doers. Popery, as is notorious, has always acted, ecclesiastically, on the same error. Others, shocked by the evident mistake of Papists and Protestants alike, fell into the opposite extreme of denying to the king and the magistrates the title and duty of using the sword. All these serious aberrations of men are due to confounding what ought to be held simply but firmly, and without confusion - God's external authority in civil government, which holds good everywhere, and His spiritual power in His assembly, the church, where alone the Spirit is present to maintain the rights of the Lord according to the written word.

Where these truths are seen, it is not merely that one stands amazed at those Calvin Calvin Translation Society Series [Isaiah 1 p101, 102] calls "madmen," who torture this passage to promote anarchy, but at the Genevese chief who chides them for thinking that "it took away from the church entirely the right to use the sword," and bringing it forward for condemning with great severity every kind of war. Certainly those Christians were inexcusably wrong who dictated to the powers that be, and interfered with their policy, either domestic or foreign. But not less in error was Calvin, who claimed for the church the right to use the sword. Mischievous idea! which denies in principle the pattern of Christ, the place of suffering holiness and love in this present evil world (1 Peter 2:20-21). So the citation by Calvin of Luke 22:36 in this connection is just of a piece with that which we see in Romish controversialist. They are equally mistaken, from not seeing the true nature and calling of the Christian, they are equally mistaken in thinking that it is a question of acknowledging the kingly power of Christ (for He has not yet taken His own throne); they are equally mistaken in fancying we must always think of making progress, and so gradually bring in the perfection of that peaceful reign. Calvin charges it on the revolutionaries as excessive folly to imagine Christ's kingdom in the sense of Isa. 2 consummated. But was it wise in himself to think that it was even beginning? Not less unintelligent and false is his conclusion that "the fulfilment of this prophecy in its full extent must not be looked for on earth"; for it is plain and certain that its terms refer to Christ's future kingdom on earth exclusively, and not to heaven. How important to distinguish difference of dispensation and relationship!

It is God's plan to put things right in this world, not by our initiative, but by establishing Christ's kingdom on the earth (the very place where He was - and still is - rejected. Then (during the Millennium) Christ will make the Church the central seat of government (Rev. 20:6 and 21:9-27)

Rev. 2:26-28. The politics of a Christian — reigning over the earth with Christ. The answer to all ideas of setting the world right now. Christ has to wait for His kingdom, — so must we. To try to rule the world now is to go before Him and to go without Him — a grievous dishonour to Himself. We shall reign with Him if we endure for Him.

327 I do not now discuss whether multitudinous bodies are right or wrong, but they are multitudinous bodies, not a gathering of saints, as such, to Jesus' name. They are not — cannot pretend to be — the body of Christ, nor a part of it, nor even the true family of God. Further, their object is to impose religion on the state, to make the state act on Christian principles. The gathering together in one the children of God, which were scattered abroad, does not enter their minds, but getting the state to act Christianly; and they insist on the authority and independence of the church exactly on popish grounds, not that of a little despised flock suffering under its persecution, but pressing its own principles on the state. That Christianity has modified men's habits is quite true. Men do not do in the light what they do in the dark. But making the world Christian in its ways is not gathering together the children of God. It is a return to Judaism, as indeed the Covenanters, true-hearted people as they were, clearly did. They took the sword, and perished by the sword.