Cullings, Comments And Correspondence
[The following exchange between P. W. Stonestreet and the editor of the Gospel Advocate will be of interest to Bible Banner readers. Bro. Stonestreet is a business man, an elder of the Ridgedale Church in Chattanooga, Tenn., and a worthy nephew of the late M. C. Kurfees. The editor of the Advocate some time ago complimented Bro. Stonestreet in another connection for having an "observant eye and alert mind." The articles below indicate that his mind is still alert and his eye is on the editor of the Advocate.]
"We Must Obey God Rather Than Man"
P. W. Stonestreet
The general command to be in subjection to the government is plain from Rom. 13:1-7. That it is more inclusive than the universally accepted duties, such as paying taxes, buying war bonds, etc., is plain from verse 6: "For for this cause ye pay tribute also; for they are ministers of God's service," etc. Note the word "also" in the text implies that paying tribute is in addition to the previous general command. And that the Christian's divine obligation to the government involves more than mere passive submission is plain from Tit. 3:1, where we are commanded "to be in subjection to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready unto every good work," etc.
Thus the government has a divine mission. Therefore to resist its divine, civil military power is to resist an ordinance of God. The converse is necessarily implied: To obey the government, within the limits of its divine mission, is to obey God. Hence, as to whether or not the command of the government is also a command of God depends entirely upon whether its command pertains to its divine mission, and not on the nature of that mission, for God is the author both of the mission and the nature of the mission.
But the title of this article is in point here. It is the often quoted statement of the apostle Peter found in Acts 5:29. Fortunately, God has revealed to us not only the mission of the government, but also the mission of the church, and one is no less significant than the other; and there is no clash between the two divinely assigned, though they are of widely different natures and should not be confused. But just as human practice in the church is sometimes out of harmony with its mission, so does human practice in the government sometimes transgress its divine mission; and this was especially true when the Roman authorities commanded the apostles not to teach any more in the name of Christ, which prompted Peter's decisive reply in the words of the title of this article. Why, the government's divine mission was to oppose evil—not oppose good. (See text). Hence, that command of the Roman government was purely the words of men. No wonder Peter replied as he did. He knew the prohibition to teach in the name of Christ was not a prerogative of government as divinely assigned, but was simply man's word. This principle is equally true and applicable in the matter of obeying parents and elders, for all authority divinely vested in the human element of government, whether home, church, or state, is relative; and no violation of this principle can in the least logically vitiate the principle.
Hence, above all, let us pray to be more logical than to indiscriminately apply the apostle's statement to a command of government that is exactly in harmony with its divine mission, for the apostle was replying to a command wholly outside the government's divine mission. True, outlaw nations care nothing for their divine mission. That is the very reason they are outlaw nations. And their manifest evil is an occasion for a high appreciation of the wisdom, justice, and mercy of God in making provision for its opposition and overthrow by other of God's ordained governments, of which Christians are citizens and also in a spiritual sense citizens of heaven, inasmuch as inspired men exercised the former and declared the latter. The former being understood, there was no need to declare it as there was for the latter. So Christians in all countries and islands of the sea may observe the divine mission of government and compare it with the course of their respective governments and be governed accordingly. That mission is quite simple to understand, however difficult to perform.
Of course since military force cannot control the heart of evil men, the government's divine mission is, therefore, limited to enforcing just that part of the moral code that relates to the rights of others in the world, leaving the heart with all that it involves to be governed by the influence of the gospel as it may contact and arrest the volition of man's will. And, in harmony with this principle, it is significant that the distinguished Tennessean and brlliant Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, in his recent world-wide radio speech, so aptly and discriminately specified the enforcement of "Christian morality" as a war aim, thus scripturally, and therefore wisely, limiting the function of government to that realm with which all humankind is vitally concerned and which can only be corrected by force of arms.
Hence, according to what our text says in particular and the Scriptures say in general as they relate, respectively, to the spiritual and temporal governments, only the government's divinely—assigned mission marks the limits of the Christian's duty to bear arms at the government's call, except as conscience may protest.
And while conscience is God-given, unfortunately it is not always God-instructed. It is the divine urge to do right, but is dependent upon further instructions for knowing what is right. The word conscience coming from the Latin, meaning "to know together," is thus a counterpart of knowledge of good and evil from whatever source known "together." Hence, it is not strange that it varies so widely in what it dictates; its instructions do not always come from the same source of authority. And since it may be only a facsimile of spurious knowledge, its dictates may not be scriptural and can never be any more infallible than knowledge of good and evil. Yet, since its possessor assumes it to be genuine, it should be respected, as the Scriptures teach, regardless of its lack of genuineness, lest it become seared and thus be insensible to impressions of good and evil from any source. So our government again scripturally and wisely distinguished between what is and what is not a function of government and made provision for conscientious objectors accordingly. And on this phase of the subject the Gospel Advocate, in its issue of August 6, 1942, carries editorially a most timely lesson, which is here commended.
Finally, there has never been a time since the first function of civil government on the plains of Shinar that the God of heaven could not have destroyed every one of them, but instead he ordained them to their divine mission. So there can be no constant rivalry between the spiritual and the temporal governments as they are divinely ordained for their respective ends, despite the fact that the word "kingdom" applies to both. For the same reason there can be no scriptural incongruity in the exercise of citizenship in both. And the prophecy of Dan. 2: 44 only shows on this point that God contemplates a time when he will have no further use for temporal governments, and they will then be destroyed. But the prophecy has nothing whatever to do with the Christian's relation to them in the meantime. And may we all meet our responsibility to God, to one another, and to the government under his teaching.
____________________
Editor's Note: We do not doubt that "the powers that be are ordained of God," and that we should obey them in everything consistent with God's will; but when they enjoin upon Christians something not in harmony with God's will, then God must be obeyed rather than men. Nothing which is intrinsically wrong can be made right by mere civil legislation. The nature of the thing involved or commanded will determine whether there is a clash between Christ and Caesar. Paul enjoined obedience to the powers that be, yet died in disobedience to them. So did many of the early Christians. When it came to the matter of selecting between the two, the faithful selected to obey God rather than men. If the prophecy in Dan. 2: 44 contemplates only a future disagreement and clash between the kingdom of God and "all these kingdoms," then some interesting considerations follow. First, this portion of the great image seen in Nebuchadnezzar's dream and described as the legs of iron and feet of iron mixed with clay is generally understood to have reference to the Roman Empire, is the Roman Empire. Second, the kingdom of heaven was to break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, even smite the image upon its feet that were of iron and clay and break them in pieces. Third, the Roman Empire fell in A.D. 476. Fourth, if Dan. 2: 44 contemplates a time in the future when these kingdoms, including the Roman Empire, shall be smitten and broken into pieces, then it follows that the old Roman Empire must be restored. If not, why not? How can the image be smitten on the feet of iron and clay, in the future, if Rome is not restored? How can the kingdom smite a nonentity? This interpretation of Dan. 2: 44 demands the return of the Roman Empire. In other words, it is at this point premillennial!-(Editor, Gospel Advocate.)
_________________________
Editor's Note Noted P. W. Stonestreet
In his very courteous observations on an article of mine in the Gospel Advocate of Sept. 17, 1942, the editor succinctly says: "Nothing which is intrinsically wrong can be made right by mere civil legislation." Exactly and conversely, nothing is intrinsically wrong when it is a part of the divine mission of a thing, even though it is also civil legislation.
He also says: "The nature of the thing involved or commanded will determine whether there is a clash between Christ and Caesar." That is the very point to be proved and the burden of proof rests on the affirmative. In the meantime it is respectively denied that there can be a clash between Christ and Caesar within the limits of Caesar's divine mission.
He says further: "Paul enjoined obedience to the powers that be, yet died in disobedience to them." Certainly, but he did not die in disobedience to their commands that were in harmony with their divine mission, nor did he die at their hands in their performance of their divine mission. No claim has been made that the powers that be will not sometimes transgress their divine mission, precisely as the church sometimes transgresses its divine mission. But errors do not vitiate missions.
And he very aptly observes: "If the prophecy in Dan. 2: 44 contemplates only a future disagreement and clash between the kingdom of God and `all these kingdoms', then some interesting considerations follow. First, this portion of the great image seen in Nebuchadnezzar's dream and described as the legs of iron and feet of iron mixed with clay as is generally understood to have reference to the Roman Empire, is the Roman Empire. Second, the kingdom of heaven was to break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, even smite the image upon its feet of iron and clay and break them in pieces. Third, the Roman Empire fell in A. D. 476. Fourth, if Dan. 2: 44 contemplates a time in the future when these kingdoms, including the Roman Empire, shall be smitten and broken into pieces, then it follows that the old Roman Empire must be restored. If not, why not? How can the image be smitten on the feet of iron and clay, in the future, if Rome is not restored? How can the kingdom smite a nonentity? This interpretation of Dan. 2: 44 demands the return of the Roman Empire. In other words, it is at this point premillennial!"
With the foregoing I agree and I was unfortunate in not more definitely qualifying my statement in the article accordingly. Of course Daniel's statement, while prophecy when made, has been history ever since its fulfillment. And I only meant that, to the extent that it is now held to have a future fulfillment, it has no bearing on the Christian's relation to civil governments nor suggestive of any constant rivalry between the temporal and the spiritual governments.
But in thus failing to qualify the statement according to history rather than according to prophecy, I am in good company, for in an editorial in the Gospel Advocate of August 13, 1942, the editor himself says on Dan. 2: 44: "What kind of relation between the kingdom of God and these kingdoms' does this prediction suggest? Since the former is to break in pieces and consume' the latter, are we to conclude that there is no antagonism between them?"
Of course I accept the editor's more recent statement on that text and of course he will charitably accept my more recent statement on it. So whether Dan. 2: 44 is read in the light of history or prophecy, antagonism between the temporal and the spiritual of necessity will be at a time when the temporal is not divinely ordained for God's purpose on God's part, and at a time when it is not performing its divine mission on its part.
Finally, it is encouraging that there is manifest agreement on what has been said on "conscience," which is the basis for mutual consideration on the part of conscientious objectors and conscientious approvers.
_______________________
Comment
The humorous feature of the foregoing exchange between the editor of the Gospel Advocate and Brother Stonestreet is that so recent as August 13th, Brother Goodpasture himself cited Dan. 2: 44 in support of his present position of antagonism between Christianity and civil government. He can see premillennialism in Brother Stonestreet's use of it, but he could not see it in his own application of it! But if Brother Stonestreet's adaptation of Dan. 2: 44 is barred because the prophecy is of past fulfillment, then Brother Goodpasture's application of it in the Advocate of August 13 is barred for precisely the same reason. Verily, the legs of the lame are not equal! The fact is, Brother Stonestreet alluded to the same text (Dan. 2: 44) because it had been used on the other side of the question by the editor of the Gospel Advocate himself. So the editor's note got noted, and I guess that makes a noted editor! But up to the time of this writing the Advocate editor had not published the reply to his note.
The statement that "Paul enjoined obedience to the powers that be, yet died in disobedience to them" constitutes a new charge against Paul. He is not here to defend himself against such a charge now but under similar indictment he once denied the charge: "For if I be an offender, or have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof they accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar." Paul recognized the right of the state to take his life if he had been an "offender" or had done anything for the exaction of that penalty. He demanded the proof of that charge from his accusers, and they could not prove it. If the editor of the Advocate had been there perhaps he could have furnished them the proof they needed against Paul. Really, was disobedience to the law the reason for the death of Jesus Christ and his servant Paul? I believe that I would think a long time before I would put that statement down on paper.