IS OBEDIENCE NECESSARY?
By Editor
A FRIEND renews his subscription, and writes us that he does not wish to lose a number of the paper; that he greatly enjoys reading it, and then says:— I have always agreed with you on the Sabbath question. But we are under subjection to those who have the rule over us. God certainly will not condemn us for obedience to His Word. We do not ignore the law, but feel that whatever day we keep in remembrance of God’s rest from the creation is the Sabbath. Yet I will admit that I would prefer to keep the seventh day. These are “a shadow of ‘things to come, but the body is of Christ.’” Col. 2:16, 17. Yours in Christ Jesus. We notice this candid letter because it represents other minds in similar perplexities. 1. We are glad that our correspondent agrees with us; rather, we are glad that he agrees with God; for the making, the appointment, the sanctification, the law of the Sabbath, is not of us; it is of God through Jesus Christ. He it was who created; He it was who rested on the seventh day; He it was who declared, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy; . . . ‘the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.’” And when God in Jesus Christ revealed Himself to the world in the flesh, He kept the same Sabbath day. It is therefore God’s Sabbath and law, and we are glad our friend agrees with it. That is good so far. 2. How are “we under subjection to them that ‘rule over us’?” Let not our friend be deceived here. God has ordained civil government, because without government, anarchy would exist; and the worst of government is better than anarchy. The Lord also tells us to “submit yourselves to every ‘ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake’” (1 Peter 2:13); “to be subject to principalities and powers, ‘to obey magistrates’” (Titus 3:1); “wherefore ye ‘must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also ‘for conscience’ sake’” (Rom. 13:5). All this is true, and every Christian will obey all truly civil laws, not merely because they provide penalties for transgression, but because it is God’s will that he thus do. But God has ordained civil government only for things civil. This is a fundamental truth. The Jews, who wished no other nation to rule over them, came to Jesus with the question, “Is it lawful to give ‘tribute to Cesar, or not?’” They thought Him to be effectually trapped. Should He say “No,” they would accuse Him of sedition. Should He say “Yes,” they would prejudice the Jews against Him. He said, “Show Me the tribute money;” “bring Me ‘a penny, that I may see it.’” They brought it. He asked them, “Whose is this image and superscription?” And they said unto Him, “Cesar’s.” Then Jesus said, “Render to Cesar the things that are ‘Cesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’” Mark 12:15–17, and parallels. This is a universal and eternal principle, by which we may separate between duties to God and man; God’s claims and Cesar’s realm. It is duty to be civil to others, to respect the life, property, chastity, and reputation of others, to pay taxes to government. It belongs to the government to suppress outward incivility for the protection of its subjects, and to collect taxes or tribute for its support. It may unjustly oppress, yet the Christian will obey, providing he can conscientiously do this without contravening his duty to God. To Cesar—earthly government—belongs only the outward, overt act of things between man and his fellows. Man’s duty to God is another thing, lying wholly between the individual soul and its Maker. The first duty of every soul is to love the Lord his God with all his heart, mind, soul, and strength. Mark 12:29, 30. God has given us many illustrations of this. For instance, the Lord said to one heathen king:— “I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by My great power and by My outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto Me. And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, My servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him. And all nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son’s son, until the very time of his land come; and then many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of him. And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the Lord, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand.” Jer. 27:5–8. And yet, when Nebuchadnezzar assumed authority which belonged to God, and commanded men to worship the image he had made, God’s children refused, and the Lord honored them in their refusal. They said, “We will not serve thy gods, nor worship ‘the golden image which thou hast set up.’” See Daniel 3. When the kingdom was taken from Babylon, and the throne came to the Medes and Persians, the same battle was again fought. Daniel dared to disobey, and again the Lord honored His own. (See article in first part of this paper.) The same test came to the early church. Men assumed to direct in man’s duty to God, and here are apostolic answers to their demands:— “But Peter and John answered, . . . Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.” Acts 4:19. “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” Acts 5:29. Every slain martyr of God has gone down because he obeyed God rather than men. It is not “obedience to His Word” to disobey Him that we may obey man. It is disobedience to Him not to render to Him our first, best, and whole-hearted service, even tho all of earth oppose. 3. If we accept nine parts of God’s law, and reject one part, what is our attitude toward Him? Are we not saying that we accept the nine parts because they meet our mind, even as we reject the one part because it does not meet our mind? What, then, are we serving but self, but man, and that in the nine parts as truly as in the one? But if it be said, “We recognize the principle of the one part,—the Fourth Commandment,—but we keep a different day;” then are we not again judging the law and condemning the Lawgiver? Are we not saying to all, in effect, that God made a mistake in selecting the seventh day instead of the first, but that we are wiser than He? Did not He know which day was best? Did not He see all this from the beginning? Did He not say that antichrist would think to change His law, the law that Christ gave and kept, dying that we might be forgiven its transgressions, and be enabled to keep it as a “law of liberty”? Did He not know that His loyal ones would be tested as between His service and the service which is not of Him? Will He not give grace sufficient, and more joy in the obedience of persecution than in the disobedience of a purchased peace? Our correspondent prefers the day God gave; why not keep it with Christ Jesus? 4. Only those things are shadows which came in in consequence of sin, which, in their very nature, must pass away. Such were the yearly feasts and sabbaths of the Jews. See Leviticus 23, especially verse 38. The Sabbath came in before sin, and will be kept by God’s people throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity. Rev. 22:14; Isa. 66:22, 23. It commemorates not only God’s creative power; it is an ever-present pledge of His creative power in regeneration through Christ Jesus.