By James Stalker
I.
IN the mind of the average Christian of the present day the idea of the state does not perhaps occupy a prominent position. Many of his duties appear to him more important than those he owes as a citizen. He probably considers that the most important question, which can be asked about him, is, What is he in himself, in his secret soul and inward character? Next to this in importance he might perhaps consider the question of what he is as a member of the Church, charged with sustaining its honour and sharing in its work. The third place he might give to the question of what he is in the family, as son, husband, father. But much less important than any of these would appear to him the fourth question-what he is as a citizen of the state.
On the whole, perhaps this is the right way of judging; probably it is the Christian way. * But it is the exact opposite of the view of the whole ancient world. The great thinkers of Greece, for example, put the state before the individual, the home and the Church. To them the supreme question about every man was, What is he as a citizen The chief end of man they believed to be to make the state great and prosperous, and to the interests of the state they sacrificed everything else. Whether the individual was good and happy, whether the family was pure and harmonious was not what they asked first, but whether the state was strong.
Jesus changed this. He was the discoverer, so to speak, of the individual. He taught that in every man there is a soul more precious than the whole world whole world, and that the best product of this world is a good and noble character. Instead of its being true that individuals do not matter if the state is strong, the truth is that the state and the Church and the family arc only means for the good of the individual, and they are tested by the kind of man they produce. ** In this, as in many other respects, Christianity turned the world upside down, and put the first last and the last first.
But, although the state does not hold the place in Christian teaching, which it held in heathen philosophy, it would be a great mistake to suppose that to Christianity the state is unimportant. Though the primary aim of Christ's religion is to make good men, yet good men ought to be good citizens.
II.
It is natural to a healthy human being to love the land of his birth, the scenery on which his eyes have first rested, and the town in which he resides; and it is part of the design of Providence to utilise these affections for the progress of man and the embellishment of the earth, which is his habitation. Every inhabitant of a town ought to wish to promote its welfare and adorn it with beauty; and there is no feeling more worthy of a youthful heart than the desire to do something- by making a wise plan, or writing a good book, or singing a noble lay, or expunging a national blot-to add to the fair fame of his native country.*** Some countries have had an exceptional power of awakening these sentiments and of binding their own children to their service. Palestine, was one of these. It was loved with a fervent patriotism. Its charm lay partly in its beauty. It may have lain partly in its very smallness, for feeling contracts an impetuous force when confined within narrow limits, as highland rivers become torrents in their rocky beds. But it is the memory of great and unselfish lives lived on its soil that chiefly excites patriotic sentiment in the inhabitants of any country;**** and Palestine possessed this source of fascination in unparalleled measure, for its history was crowded with the most inspiring names.
Jesus felt this spell. Can anyone read in His words the images of natural beauty gathered from the fields of Galilee without being convinced that He looked on these landscapes with a loving eye? The name of the village He was brought up in clings to Him to this day, for He is still Jesus of Nazareth. He vindicated Himself for healing a woman on the Sabbath on the ground that she was a daughter of Abraham; and the publicans and sinners were dear to Him because they were the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Jerusalem, the capital of the country had always laid a strong hold on Jewish hearts. The bards of the nation used to sing of it, "Beautiful for situation is Mount Zion;" "Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth if I forget thee, 0 Jerusalem." But all such tributes of affection were surpassed by Jesus, when He addressed it, " 0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children together even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings! "
This feeling survived even the transformation of the grave, for, in giving instructions, after He was risen, to His apostles about the evangelization of the world, He said, "Begin at Jerusalem." He lived in the closest sympathy with the great figures of His country's past and with the work done by them. Such names as Abraham and Moses, David and Isaiah were continually on His lips; and He took up the tasks, which they had left unfinished and carried them forward to their fulfilment. This is the truest work of patriotism. Happy is that country whose best life has been drained into some ideal cause, and whose greatest names are the names of those who have lavished their strength on this object. The deeds and sayings of these heroes ought, next to the Bible, to be the chief spiritual nourishment of her children; and the young ambition of her choicest minds should be concentrated on watering the seeds which they sowed and completing the enterprises which they inaugurated.
III.
There was one task of patriotism in Christ's day and country, which seemed to lie to the hand of anyone born with a patriotic spirit. Palestine was at that time an enslaved country. In fact, it was groaning under a double servitude; for, whilst several of its provinces were ruled over by the tyrannical race of the Herods, ***** the whole country was subject to the Roman power.
Was it not the duty of Jesus to free His country from this double tyranny and restore it to independence or even elevate it to a place of sovereignty among the nations? Many would have been willing to welcome a deliverer and to make sacrifices for the national cause. The whole of the Pharisaic party was imbued with patriotic sentiment, and a section of it bore the name of the Zealots, because they were willing to go all lengths in sacrifice or daring. ******
Jesus seemed to be designated for this very service. He was directly descended from David through the royal line. When He was born, wise men came from the East to Jerusalem inquiring, "Where is He that is born King of the Jews?" One of His first disciples, ******* on being introduced to Him, saluted Him as " the King of Israel;" and, on the day when He rode in triumph into Jerusalem, His adherents called Him by the same name, no doubt meaning that they expected Him to be literally the king of the country. These, and many other incidents which they will recall, are indications that it was His destiny not to be the private man He was, but to be the head of an emancipated and glorious state.
Why was this destination not fulfilled? This is the most difficult question that can be asked. It occurs often to every careful reader of the Gospels, but lands us as often as we ask it in a sea of mysteries. Did He ever intend to be the king of His native country? Was Satan appealing to the favourite fancies of His youth when he showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them? If the Jewish people, instead of rejecting, had welcomed Him, what would have happened? Would He have set up His throne in Jerusalem and made the whole world subject to it? Was it only when they had made it impossible for Him to reign over them that He turned aside from what appeared to be His destiny and limited Himself to a kingdom not of this world?
It is impossible to read Christ's life intelligently without asking such questions as these; yet it is vain to ask them, for they cannot be answered. We are asking what would have been, if something, which did happen, had not happened; and only omniscience is equal to such a problem.
We may, however, say with certainty that it was the sin of man, which prevented Jesus from ascending the throne of His father David. His offer of Himself to be the Messiah of His country was a bona fide offer. Yet it was made on conditions from which He could not depart: He could only have been king of a righteous nation. But the Jews were thoroughly unrighteous. They once tried to take Him by force and make Him a king; but their zeal was unhallowed, and He could not yield to it.
Then the tide of His life turned and rolled back upon itself. Instead of the expeller of tyrants, He became the victim of tyranny. His own nation, which ought to have raised Him on its shields as its leader, became His prosecutor at the bar of the alien government and He had to stand as a culprit before both the Roman and the Herodian rulers of the land. As a subject of the country, He yielded with all submissiveness, telling His followers to put up their swords. And the law-officers of the state made a malefactor of Him, crucifying Him between two thieves. His blood fell on the capital of the country as a deadly curse; and in less than half a century after His murder the Jewish state had disappeared from the face of the earth.
It is a terrible commentary on the imperfection of the state. The state exists for the protection of life, property and honour-to be a terror to evil doers and a praise to them that do well. Once, and only once in all history, it had to deal with One who was perfectly good; and what it did was to adjudge Him a place among the very worst of criminals and put Him to death. If this were a specimen of the law's habitual action, the state, instead of being a divine institution, would have to be pronounced the most monstrous evil with which the world is cursed. So the victims of its injustice have sometimes pronounced it; but happily such opinions are only the excesses of a few.
On the whole, the laws framed by the state, and the administration of them, have been a restraint on sin and a protection to innocence. Yet the exceptions in every age have been numerous and sad enough. Not everything is righteous which the law of the land sanctions, nor are those all unrighteous whom the administrators of the law condemn. It is of the utmost consequence in our day to remember this, because, in the changed arrangements of the modern state, we are not only subjects of the government, but, directly or indirectly, makers and administrators of the law. Through the exercise of the municipal and the parliamentary franchises, we have a part in appointing those who make and who administer the laws and thus we have our share in the responsibility of bringing up the laws to the standard of the divine justice and placing the wise and the good upon the judgment seat.
IV.
The life of Jesus appeared to miscarry. He who was meant to be a king was held unworthy to live even as a subject; instead of inhabiting a palace, He was consigned to a prison; instead of being seated on a throne, He was nailed to a tree.
But although this was a miscarriage in so far as it was due to the wicked will of men, it was no miscarriage in the wisdom of God. Looked at from man's side, the death of Christ was the blackest spot on human history, a mistake and a crime without parallel; but, looked at from God's side, it is the grandest scene in the history of the universe; for in it human sin was expiated, the depths of the divine love were disclosed, and the path of perfection opened for the children of men. Jesus was never so completely a king as at the moment when His claims to kingship were turned into ridicule. It was in savage jest that the title was put above His cross, "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews." Pilate wrote these words in ridicule; but, when we look back at them now, do they appear ridiculous? Do they not rather shine across the centuries with inextinguishable splendour? In that hour of uttermost shame Christ was proving Himself to be the King of kings and the Lord of lords.
Jesus had all along had a conception of His own kingship, which was distinct, original and often repeated. He held that to be a true king is to be the servant of the commonweal, and that he is most kingly who renders the most valuable services to the greatest number. He was well aware that this was not the world's view of kingship, but precisely the reverse of it. The world's view is that to be a king is to have multitudes in your service, and the greater the numbers ministering to his glory or pleasure the greater is the king. So He said: " The princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them." "But," He added, "it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." Such was Christ's conception of greatness; and, if it is the true one, He was never so great as when, by the sacrifice of Himself, He was conferring on the whole world the blessings of salvation.
But this conception of greatness and kingliness was not meant by Jesus to be applied to His own conduct alone; it is of universal application. It is the Christian standard for the measurement of all dignities in the state. He is greatest, according to the mind of Christ, who renders the greatest services to others.
Alas! this is as yet but little understood; it makes but slow progress in the minds of men. The old heathen idea is still the governing one of politics that to be great is to receive much service, not to render it. Politics has been a game of ambition, if not a hunting ground for rapacity, rather than a sphere of service. The aim of the governing classes hitherto has been to get as much as possible for themselves at the expense of the governed; and it has yet to be seen whether the new governing class is to be swayed by a better spirit.
Still, the Christian idea is growing in this department also of human affairs. The common heart responds to Christ's teaching, that the kingliest is he who sacrifices himself most willingly, works the hardest and achieves the most for the weal of all; and, although the quaint old saying of the Psalmist is still too true, that "men will praise thee when thou doest well to thyself," yet the number of those is daily growing who feel that the greatness of a ruler is measured, " not by the amount of tribute he levies on society, but by the greatness of the services he renders it."
*The relative importance of these different ways of considering man affords scope, however, for endless discussion and difference of opinion. Rothe's ethical speculations were powerfully influenced by deference to the ancient view of the priority of the State. Martensen holds that a theory of society must start from the family. Ritschl and his school have re-emphasized the ethical and religious importance of the Church. Among ourselves several causes are contributing at present to give prominence to the social aspects of religion it is impossible to overestimate these, unless they are put above its individual aspects. I can entertain no doubt that in the mind of Jesus the individual was the prius. Indeed, one of the most decisive steps forward taken in His moral teaching was the substitution of the individual as the unit for the nation or the Church. ** "The test of every religious, political, or educational system is the man which it forms -Amiel's Journal, vol. i., p. 49.
*** "I mind it weel, in early date,
When I was beardless, young and blate,
And first could thresh the barn,
Ev'n then a wish (I mind its power),
A wish that to my latest hour
Shall strongly heave my breast:
That I for poor auld Scotland's sake
Some Usefu' plan or beuk could make
Or sing a sang at least."
BURNS
**** Says Novalis: "The best of the French monarchs had it for his purpose to make his subjects so well off that every one of them should be able on Sundays to have roast fowl to dinner. Very good. But would not that be a better government under which the peasant would rather dine on dry bread than under any other on roast fowl, and, as grace before meat, would give God thanks that he had been born in such a country? "
***** Herod the Great, the founder of this dynasty, was an ldumaean, but tried to conciliate the national sentiment by marrying a Jewish princess.
****** One member of this party, Simon Zelotes, joined the discipleship of Jesus.
******* Nathanael.
