THE NATURE OF GOD'S KINGDOM
By J. O. C.
God's Spirit Rules the Inner Life—Civil Law Deals with the Outer Act—Can Human Laws Perform This Inner Work of God?
A KINGDOM, wherever existing, is a system of government. Human kingdoms, or governments, are regulated according to human discernment and direction, through formulas of earthly jurisprudence. They are openly operated, regarding matters discernable by common vision. The process of God's kingdom, or sovereignty, is beyond the purview of earthly scenes and human judgments, being regulated entirely by divine foresight and sagacity, impossible of penetration to earth-impelled intelligence. Isa. 55: 8, 9. So infinitely high, indeed, above human thought is the mind of Jehovah-King, that any earth-born intervention in the regulation of His kingdom would be but to corrupt its policies. TO UNBELIEVERS KNOWN ONLY IN PARABLES
Because of this unlimited disparity between divine and human conception, the operation of God's government, of necessity, must be enshrouded in mystery to all but heavenly subjects. To the disciples of Christ, indeed—those heaven-born souls—it was imparted to know, or measurably to comprehend, that mystery. But it was emphatically told them that to those not in the kingdom itself with them, the power of heavenly control would appear only as parables, or earthly similitudes. Mark 4: 11. This was to say that to those not entirely under the control of the Lord's Spirit, heavenly methods of government would simply be comparable to what they knew of earthly powers. The mistaken idea of God's kingdom is now clearly illustrated in the teachings of National Reformers. While taking the logical ground that God's kingdom in or among men should radically change the trend of human thought and action, they insist that because the indistinct transition from low-born to exalted mind operation has not met the Christian standard of development, human laws should be enacted to coerce adherence to heavenly requirements. SHOULD ONE COUNTRY ENFORCE ANOTHER'S LAWS?
A single consideration alone should discourage such a conclusion. The advocates of that policy would themselves quickly rebel, were the United States to legislate, requiring its citizens, while on native soil, to conform to the laws of Russia, made especially for the subjects of that empire. How much more reprehensible, then, for this or any other civil government to attempt to force its subjects to conform strictly to spiritual laws, adaptable only to the citizenship of heaven! These thoughts, and others of a similar character, were stimulated by hearing a recently delivered lecture from Dr. J. S. McGaw, of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, a widely advertised agent of the National Reform Association. Speaking of what he termed a lack of respect, in California, for Sunday, which he called the Lord's day, he directly affirmed that the state should make a law to compel rest on that day, that would give recognition to its supposed holy character. A VIGOROUS VIRTUE IMPARTED
But the good doctor had just previously discoursed at length upon the strength of character to be generated by the reception of God's kingdom in the human heart, saying that it would instil a vigorous virtue in men, like that possessed by both Elijah and Christ, which caused them to defy the Hebrew and the Roman government in pursuance of right principles. This being so, then why the need of civil law to oblige men to rest, even though the demand of employers run contrary to right ways? Why should not professors of Christianity receive enough of promised spiritual energy (Matt. 28: 20) to take them in the way they believe to be right, without demands upon a human government for laws to oblige them to do that which they lack the courage to undertake in the name and strength of God? The aim, however, seems to be to oblige those who are not church-members to fall into line with the professed practise of the church.11But can a human law do for these what the Spirit of God has failed to do against their carnal minds? Can legally constrained Sunday rest by them add to the day's supposed sacredness, when only God's rest on a day could sanctify and set it apart as the Sabbath? Gen. 2: 2, 3. So then those who are disinclined to rest from choice on Sunday, but are legally obliged to do so, do not by their act recognize a particular distinction between it and other days, but simply bow to arbitrary demands of a reputed unjust law. IS GOD EITHER UNABLE OR UNWILLING?
In view of the situation, one of two things must be true. Either Sunday-law advocates do not believe that there is distributable power in heaven for their needs, in harmony with Bible promises, or else they do not believe God is willing to grant them the spiritual help needed, even though He has promised it so abundantly. Outside of these two reasons, there can be no convincing one assigned for making flesh the arm of assistance, when the only assured blessing is in trusting the Lord Jehovah to build up His own kingdom in men's hearts by the power of His Holy Spirit. Jer. 17: 5, 7. To forsake infinite power, by which the heavens and the earth are sustained in their functions (Heb. 1: 3), and turn to human might, is to hew out "broken cisterns, that can hold no water." Jer. 2: 13. RECONCILIATION, NOT LEGISLATION
God has never given to men a commission, under the gospel, to legislate for the uplift of His kingdom. To them is simply committed the "word of reconciliation," by which they may and should beseech—that is, exhort, or entreat—their fellows, in Christ's stead, to be reconciled to God. 2 Cor. 5: 20. Human laws may restrain men in certain directions, but these can never reconcile one to God. Such a result must ever and always be effected by the "death of His Son" (Rom. 5: 10), who tasted death for every man. Heb. 2: 9. His mission to earth, therefore, was not to condemn men for wrong, but to save them from it. John 12: 47. Reference was also made, by Dr. McGaw, to the divorce situation. He said that on the average, one marriage in every seven, throughout the United States, was annulled by court decree, which was a burning disgrace to the commonwealth. So far, one can easily agree with the conclusion drawn; for the condition is certainly appalling, and to be greatly deplored by all lovers of decency. SHALL DIVORCE BE WHOLLY FORBIDDEN?
But can civil decrees really change matters for the better, as the doctor declared they would, and so assist in bringing about the answer to the petition, "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven"? Let us see. Suppose laws were enacted forbidding any dissolution of the marriage contract. Would that heal the breach which prevents man and wife from living for each other's interests? If living separate without civil sanction, would the state disgrace be less?—Not unless both parties to illegal separation could be spied upon, and so be prevented from forming new alliances; and that is a thing next to impossible. The binding force of marriage vows depends on the principle of love, an essential feature of God's provision, which can not be regulated by legislative enactment. The fact is that the world's need to-day is more for old-fashioned preaching to the heart, than for civil laws designed to restrain action in those things that only Jehovah Himself can regulate. Indeed, nothing short of sound heart conversion can bring humanity within the precincts of God's kingdom, where His blessed Spirit may not only re-strain from wrong, but also con-strain to walk in His ways, which are the paths of joy and peace. J. O. C.