THIS Psalm is divided into four parts, each consisting of three verses. In the first part we see the heathen and the people, the kings of the earth and the rulers, rising in their rage against the Lord and His anointed. In the second, appears Jehovah sitting and treating with derision the impotent wrath of men, and high over all their rebellious uprisings constituting Messiah King upon His holy hill of Zion. In the third, the King of Zion speaks from His throne, declaring Jehovah’s decree announcing Him to be the Son, and pointing to a day when there was a manifestation of His eternal Sonship. That day was the day of His actual enthronement in human nature by His resurrection and ascension. He declares that He was allowed to ask and would receive the heathen for His inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for His possession. And His power is sufficient to secure this, for as “with a rod of iron” He shall break them all and “dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” How terrible in this aspect seems His reign! But let us not forget that, as given to Him, they were all hostile, actually in revolt. Nations, as such, shall be broken out of their form, and a reconstruction of their broken pieces shall take place, and as to individuals, by the word of His mouth shall He break them in pieces, that He may heal all who will not finally be utterly destroyed. In the fourth part, kings and judges are addressed. They are subject to Jehovah’s king who is the Son, and they are called to serve the Lord and to kiss His Son—His King. And they are solemnly assured that if they refuse to submit to Messiah, they shall utterly perish. How fitting a finale to all this is the declaration, “Blessed are all they that put their trust in him!”
The text is at the beginning of the third part of the psalm, “Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.” In this announcement all who love God and His anointed must rejoice. Over all who are rebelling against God, on earth and in hell, is one set as king in whose hand the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper. How sweet to every lover of God ought the rest, given by this assurance, to be! And to every lover of Messiah, how glad this announcement! When he thinks of His divine glory as the eternal Son, and of His human nature subsisting in its perfect beauty in His divine person, where but on the throne would he wish to see Him? And when he thinks of what He was in Bethlehem, in Nazareth, on the hillsides of Judea, shelterless and amidst the people despised and persecuted, of His agony in Gethsemane, and His reproach before ungodly courts, and of the shame and agony of His death on Calvary, and of His burial in the grave of Joseph, how well-earned does the lover of Christ count His place upon the throne! And the children of Zion must rejoice in their King. For them He reigns, and amongst them He dwells. All His wisdom, grace, and power are pledged to make His reign effective for their good, and let all who love the nations be glad. True, they must join trembling with their mirth as they think of the destruction of rebellious men and peoples by His rod of iron, but let them join mirth with their trembling, as they think of the time when all nations shall yield to His sway as the Prince of Peace, and the earth shall be filled with knowledge and resound with His praise.
It is Jehovah who speaks in the text, Jehovah the Father as representing the Godhead. It is of His anointed He speaks—of the Son as Mediator. Him the Father constitutes King; He is His King. All the reins of the divine government are in His hands; and by divine appointment and as associated with God, because Himself divine, He reigns. And He is set upon the hill of Zion. That is God’s hill. It is a hill of holiness as it is set apart for the residence and service of God. Messiah is King upon it, because it is placed under His kingly protection and sway, and because He dwells there as nowhere else in all His dominions. The place is in Zion.
This is in Old Testament language the doctrine taught us in such New Testament words as “head over all things to the Church.” It is quite true that there is a peculiar relation to the Church as His mystical body which Christ sustains as King. But the visible Church is also peculiarly related to His reign, as distinguished from the world. The visible Church is the organisation set up for the spiritual edifying of His body; it is a society in the midst of which His spiritual people are, and separate from the world by the common profession of its members, as claiming to be the people of the Lord. In behalf of the Church in that aspect of it, He specially reigns, and in this mixed community, there is a special presence of this King. But while this is true, it is just as true that His dominion extends beyond the Church. “All power in heaven and earth is given” unto Him. All nations are subjected to His sway. Kings and rulers are required to submit to Him. All the powers of darkness are subject to Him. “All things are put under Him.” And it is manifest that it is because He is King of Zion that this universal dominion is given Him. He is “head over all things to the Church.” He hath “power over all flesh” that He may “give eternal life to as many as” the Father gave Him. It is to Him who is set upon the hill of Zion kings and judges are called to submit. It is the King of Zion who is King of nations. And it is because He is King of Zion, this universal government has been given Him. True, this universal government is natural and necessary to God. Apart from the mediation of Messiah, there must have been this government. But it is quite as true that all this government has been given over to Messiah’s hands as mediator. As mediator the Son exercises this divine, natural, necessary government of all; and it is because He is the mediatorial King of Zion, and in order to the fulfilment of God’s purposes bearing on His Church, that this power is now given into His hands.
We are therefore required to consider in connection with the enthronement of Christ in Zion:—
I.—How the Church stands related to this King; and
I.—The Church is so related to this King, that, first, she must be regulated solely by His will; secondly, that she is specially under His protection; and thirdly, that she may be honoured and benefitted and gladdened by His presence.
- The will of Christ must be the law of the Church. If He is king by divine appointment, and if He who is appointed King of Zion be himself the Son, surely the Church must take her laws from Him alone. This is surely sufficiently plain to require no proof. And He has issued a statute book. The Bible is the book of His statutes, and the Church has received it. She has access to an open Bible in which all the laws of her King are clearly revealed. She needs no directions beyond those which are there given her. At all times, and in all circumstances, there is enough to guide her in the Scriptures.
And He can guide her, according to His Word. The Church needs this guidance, and Christ can give it. By His Spirit, He can dispose and enable the Church to know and to walk according to, His mind in the Word. His glory as King demands this. He must surely have the power to make His reign efficient. Needs His Church aught besides His Word and His teaching in order to her work being regulated according to His mind. What infidelity is at the foundation of all Erastianism! Civil rulers claim the control of the affairs of the Church, and on what ground, except such as implies unbelief in the efficiency of Christ’s government by His Word and Spirit? Christ is ignored as King of Zion. His laws are set aside as if without authority, and the idea of His Spirit’s power and presence scouted and ignored.
-
The Church is specially under the wing of His protection. O, were it not so, how long would a Church survive on this earth! The presence of His Church on earth is intolerable to all that is in the world, and to all that is from hell on earth. It is only by ceasing to be what a Church should be that she ever becomes tolerable to the enemies of God and His anointed. But under Christ’s wings she can be protected. How much is being done by the great enemy, sometimes as a roaring lion, at other times as an angel of light! Sometimes he seeks to devour, at other times to ensnare. Sometimes the spirit of error, other times the spirit of persecution, and again at other times the spirit of licentiousness, is at work. How could the purity, the steadfastness, or even the existence of the Church be preserved, if Christ were not King of Zion. If there is a Church on earth, it is only because of the reign of Him whom Jehovah set as King upon His holy hill of Zion.
-
His presence in Zion may be enjoyed. Not all who are in the visible Church enjoy this privilege, but all the true children of Zion do. All who were born of God in Zion, and have, in the right of Christ, the status of citizens there, do enjoy the honour, the privilege, the blessedness of His presence. He can by His Spirit, visit them; He can, by His Word and Spirit make Himself known to them; He can speak to their hearts; He can bring them near to Himself; He can cause them to embrace Him and find rest in Him. He can delight them with His beauty, constrain them with His love, guide them by His light and truth. They have at times such views of His glory as abase them before Him; at other times such impressions of His Word as do them good; and at other times, they can sing in His ways and in hope of His glory.
II.—How the kingdom of Christ in Zion stands related to the powers outside the Church.
II.—We must consider the relation of the kingdom of Christ in Zion to the powers outside. The very position of the text demands this. On one side we see the people and their rulers rising in rebellion against God and His Christ, and on the other side, we see nations given over to His hand, smitten by His rod of iron. How do He and His Church stand in relation to these powers outside Zion?
- What is Christ’s relation to the kingdoms of this world? (1) It is such that they are subjected to His sway; (2) That He is to exercise power over them with a view to the fulfilment of God’s pleasure in reference to the Church.
(1) Subject to His sway. “By him kings reign.” Since, in a certain sense, civil government is founded on nature, according to the normal state of things, in relation to God, there must be a civil government administered under God, and were there no Mediator and no Church there would be this. But while it is true that civil government is thus of God as God, all control of that government has been given to Christ as mediator, so that by Him “kings reign and princes decree justice.” This authority as Mediator over kings and nations Christ hath because He is King of Zion. To the Mediator who is King of Zion they are all subject. (2) He exercises His power over them with a view to the fulfilment of God’s purposes bearing on His Church. The effectual calling, the edification and glorifying of His people, the confusion of all their foes, and the manifestation of His own glory in and through all—these are the ends to be answered by the exercise of Christ’s power. Let these unquestionable Scripture truths be kept carefully in view.
- How stands the Church related to “the powers that be,” to civil rulers? The relation must be such that she ought not to be enslaved or ignored, but rather acknowledged and aided. This is the important practical question. This is the question of the times.
(1) The Church must not be enslaved by civil rulers. Her province is distinct from theirs. Her work within that province is well defined. Over her in that province there is but one Head, the King of Zion, and in all her work, His Word must be the only rule. No power hath a right to interfere between her and Christ. Christ gave no such right. True, in civil matters, the members of the Church are in subjection to “the powers that be.” It is Popery to claim exemption from this. And no power is qualified to interfere. Is it likely that civil rulers know better than the Church what the mind of Christ is? If they have neither the right, nor the qualification to interfere, on what ground can Erastianism be justified? Just think of ungodly men acting as patrons, pretending to know better than the Church who are to be pastors of the flock. And think of a conclave of judges, who may never have spent one earnest hour in studying the Word of God, controlling and reversing the action of the Church in spiritual matters.
(2) The Church must not be ignored. Civil rulers are not to act as if the Church had no existence, as if they had only to let it alone. This is very evident from their relations to Christ and to each other under Him, from the divinely sanctioned conduct of civil rulers in days of old, and from the prophecies of God’s Word bearing on the Church and civil rulers in the New Testament times.
(1) From their relation to Christ. Both are under subjection to Him. From Him the Church derives its functions as “the pillar and ground of the truth,” and its power of “the keys.” As already stated, by Him “kings reign and princes decree justice.” The right of government over the nations, wherewith Christ is invested, He hath, because He is King of Zion, and He hath, in order to Zion’s protection and prosperity. Is it likely that He would delegate power to civil rulers, that can be legitimately employed without reference to the Church, or in a way that practically ignores its existence? Christ’s own mediatorial kingdom over the nations, He hath, with a view to the Church’s weal, and is the power He confers to be used with no bearing on that end? It is monstrous to suppose this.
(2) From their relation to each other. They are separate and distinct, but they are at any rate neighbours. The Church is a benefit to the nation, and apart from its influence on their views and habits, there is no guarantee for a right social condition of the people. The nation must owe much to the Church. And is there to be no acknowledgment of this? Is there to be no return for this boon? The Church, by doing its work within its own sphere, proves a blessing to the nation, and shall not civil rulers, acting within their own sphere, reciprocate? Their very neighbourhood, as well as their delegation to consider above all the honour of Christ in the prosperity of His Church, lays them under obligation to see to it that the Church is acknowledged and supported.
(3) There was a divinely sanctioned acknowledgment of the Church by civil rulers in Old Testament times. There was nothing then in the relation of Church and State to Christ to make their mutual obligations exceptional and temporary. Their several provinces were distinct as now. The king who ventured then to do the priest’s work was smitten with judgment, and yet so was the king who refused to countenance and aid the Church.
(4) The Word expressly declares that “the nation and kingdom that will not serve” the New Testament Church “shall perish.”—(Isaiah lx. 12.) Not “the nation” only, as if it referred only to the conduct of the people, but “the kingdom” also, referring to the civil government. This, of course, is no warrant for the pretensions of Popery, claiming as it does for the Church the government of the nations, but it does declare the certain destruction of all peoples and governments that shall not countenance and aid the Church. And the idea of “the earth helping the woman” is not an Old Testament one merely.
The New Testament directions as to the mode of supporting a gospel ministry furnish no argument against a State endowment of the Church. The general condition of the New Testament Church made such directions seasonable, and in any circumstances the free-will offerings of the members of the Church ought to be required and used. And the abuse of this, which has been so often made, furnishes another instance of the contempt that has nowadays been shown towards Old Testament teaching. All that is not expressly abrogated in the authorised practices of Churches and nations in days of old, is, and must be, still binding. To desiderate express sanction in the New Testament for all that would be regarded as binding on the conscience is to cast contempt on the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and utterly to repudiate their authority.
Such I hold to be the doctrine of this Psalm regarding the reign of Christ in Zion and over the nations, and such I hold the testimony of our Church to be. It is because I regard it as Scriptural that I care to hold it. I believe that it has been given to our Church by the Lord, and that, as to a Church of old, so to her, He saith, “Hold that fast which thou hast that no man take thy crown.” The Lord, in the light of His Word, and by the working of His providence, defined the position He assigned to our Church in 1843. It lies between that of a Church which consents to be enslaved, and a Church which refuses to be established. To move towards either side is to abandon the post which has been assigned to her. So long as the Established Church is under the accursed yoke of patronage,* and so long as she refuses to assert her right to spiritual independence, and until that right is conceded by the State, union with the Established Church is an unlawful alliance. Nor is it a call from heaven that invites her to the other side.
* This sermon was preached before the abolition of Patronage in the Established Church, and about the beginning of the old Union negotiations with the U.P. Church.
True, her main testimony was that on behalf of right to spiritual independence. But what was the nature and form of that claim? Did the Church concede that she must receive her right to that independence of civil control, from the State? Verily no; she maintained that her right was given her by her glorious King. She insisted that whether the civil rulers of this country acknowledged or disallowed it, it was already hers from Him by whom all kings reign and princes decree justice. Did she claim from them the right to act in loyalty to Christ, in the face of all the trials which she might have to endure? Verily no; this she had as made free by Christ, and this she could have in spite of all the powers in earth and hell. This had Daniel in the lions’ den as surely as when a prince in the palace of the king. The right to act according to conscience no power could deprive her of; and the resolution so to act in the face of all opposition only the grace of God could give her. But what she claimed was the right of exemption from all interference with her, while acting according to the will of Christ within her own province. This she claimed on the ground of her being a Church of Christ, constituted by Him to do His work, according to His laws on earth. She demanded to be acknowledged by the State as a Church of Christ exclusively occupying the spiritual province, and therefore entitled to do the will of Christ within that sphere.
And she claimed this in terms of a special settlement between the State and the Church in Scotland. She acknowledged the lawfulness of such a compact as had been formerly entered to, and of an alliance, according to such a compact, between the Church and the State. Her very position was an acknowledgment of this. She disowned and refused any alliance that would enslave her, but she claimed, in the name of Christ, and in terms of previous compact, such an alliance as would consist with liberty to act according to the will of Christ.
Is it lawful to abandon that position? Has not our Church a testimony to raise in behalf of Christ’s supremacy before the State, as well as to her own members? Does not the honour of Christ demand this? Can she do so, if she occupies the same platform with those who will allow no statutory acknowledgment of the Church and repudiate all aid from the State? Is she to cease to tell the rulers that it is a sin not to support, without enslaving the Church of Christ? Was she once entitled to do so, and has her King now called her to be silent? What was duty in 1843 is duty now. Is there less done now than then to the dishonour of Christ? Is Christ less worthy now than then of all that was claimed in His name? If we think not so, let us hold fast our testimony. He is, I fear, coming to settle longstanding controversies with our guilty land. We have had our period of quiet. Not long did such a respite ever last. The nations are waxing wanton in their forgetfulness of Christ’s supremacy. Nor is ours an exception. Our rest may soon be broken. The chariot wheels may as yet be unheard, and the glare of the flame of His anger may as yet be unseen. But judgment’s visits take individuals and nations by surprise. Blessed, in prospect of Britain’s morrow, is the Church or the individual found faithful when He cometh!
“There is a great talk nowadays of union,” Spurgeon says in a recent sermon. “The walls of the various Churches are to be broken down, and the denominations are to be blended. Think not of it in such a fashion; the only union possible or desirable is that we all unite to sit at Jesus’ feet. It is not allowable that we concede one truth, and you, another. That is not Christian charity, but common treason to Christ. We have no right to yield an atom of the truth of God, under the pretence of charity. Truth is no property of ours; we are only God’s stewards, and it behoves us to be faithful to our trust. Neither one Church nor another has any right to abate its testimony one jot, if it be true. To alter the statute-book of Christ is blasphemy.”
England and Observance of the Lord’s Day.—
As has been noticed in these pages already, a Joint-Committee of the Lords and Commons has had under consideration the question of trading on the Lord’s Day. The Committee, in their report, maintain that it is important to keep the Sabbath as a day of rest, not only on moral and religious grounds, but because it is necessary for the health and strength of the community. They recommend that every shop assistant shall be secured one day’s rest in seven, and that no such person shall be subject to penalty who conscientiously objects to Sabbath labour. They suggest the punishment of the employer who places an obligation on an assistant to work on the Lord’s Day as a condition of employment, without provision for one day’s rest in seven. Some of the Committee’s recommendations are eminently satisfactory, though others of them are far from having reached the goal that all true lovers of Sabbath rest would like to see. Prosecutions for Sabbath trading during 1904 reached the number of 5,411; whether this means a stricter enforcement of the law, or a more daring defiance by greater numbers of heaven’s laws, we are not in a position to say.