DL-3-Chapter III.

Chapter III.

We directed attention in the first chapter, on this subject, to the fact that civil or human government originated among the rebellious and was the embodied effort of man to live free from the control and government of God; and that the whole of the Old Testament history is a record of the establishment and perpetuation by God of a government of his own, whose mission was to destroy these earthly governments and to bring all people to submit to this, his own government. It is said that human government "is a part of man’s nature. God in creating man with his peculiar nature, became by that act the author of civil government. " It grew out of man’s nature only after that nature had been perverted to the service and brought under the dominion and corrupting influences of the evil one. All the sin and the corruption and the rebellion of the world have come up as a part of and result of the same nature perverted and defiled by the service of the evil one. If God, by creating man, became the author of all that has grown out of his perverted and corrupted nature, he then is the author of all the sin and rebellion of the world. The truth is, man’s nature was defiled and whole being corrupted by sin. Out of this corrupted nature has grown the evils of the universe. All the institutions and evil influence of earth have sprung from this polluted fountain. All the institutions that grew out of this sinful fountain are necessarily evil. A depraved human nature can produce only corrupt and sinful institutions. It acting in and through these institutions is more and more defiled by them. Hence "evil men and seducers wax worse and worse. " All the institutions of God have been established with a view of counteracting and destroying these productions of a corrupted human nature, and of cleansing and purifying that nature itself, that it may be fitted for service in the Divine institutions, and that it may cease to be a prolific source of evil plants. The fact that human government is an outgrowth of perverted human nature, is a sure guarantee that its essential elements are evil, and that it is founded in a spirit of rebellion against God,

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be." The carnal, natural mind before it is brought into harmony with the will of God, by the regenerative power of the Holy Spirit by the implanting of the Divine seed, cannot be subject to the will of God, and can produce no fruit acceptable to God.

All the dealings of God with man, all the messengers and messages that God has sent to man, were intended to implant the word of God in the heart of men and so change that heart, from its rebellious spirit and life, and so eradicate and destroy the institutions and influences of earth that have grown out of that polluted soil, as to make the heart and the life flowing out of that heart pure and holy, and to build up institutions in which God’s Spirit would dwell, and that the nature of man once purified, in these Divine institutions might find an atmosphere of purity and love, in which man could develop a life in spiritual strength and holiness, and that his life might bear as fruits the graces so helpful to man and pleasing to God. Verily, the truth that human government is an outgrowth of human nature, is no evidence that God is its author, or that it is well pleasing to God, or that the children of God should sustain, support, perpetuate it, and drink into its spirit. But just the contrary.

It not only originated among the rebellious, but God from the beginning treated it as an out growth and development of rebellion against him, and its authors and supporters as his enemies.

God did not tolerate affiliation or affinity between the Divine and the human, nor between the subjects of the one and those of the other; and that prophetically this conflict, irrepressible and uncompromising was projected into the future, and extended to the limits of the world. The earthly kingdoms, that had the impress of their builder - man - upon them, were one and all to be broken in pieces and consumed by the kingdom which "the God of heaven shall set up, and which shall fill the whole earth and stand forever. " In this old dispensation the conflict was between the subordinates, the servants of God and the subjects of the evil one, but in the New, Jesus Christ who had undertaken to rescue the world, and the devil meet in fierce personal conflict. In accord with this, the kingdoms of the world, both by the devil and by Christ Jesus, are declared to be the possession of the devil and in his hands, to be disposed of as he saw fit. Christ had come specifically to rescue the world from the rule of the evil one, and to destroy all institutions that had grown up under his care, and to bring the world back to the dominion of God the Father, and to restore it to harmonious relations with the entire universe, ruled over by God. Of these conclusions it seems there can be no doubt. Take these truths as the key notes out of the Old and New Testaments and they are without point or meaning. The end of this conflict is thus described:

"Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father. When he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet. " ... "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him, that God may be all and in all."

There can be no doubt of the destruction of all that exercises authority, power, or dominion on earth, by the reign of Christ.

Revelation 11:15, declares as a future consummation of this conflict on earth, "The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of God and his Christ."

Many insist that this means, the conquest will be brought about by the conversion of all the people, and the civil governments will then be manned by Christians, and so will be Christian governments by having only Christian rulers and officers. But the declaration was, "It shall break in pieces and consume all these and it shall fill the whole earth and stand forever."

These kingdoms were to be broken in pieces, and become as "the chaff of the summer’s threshing floor and the wind carried them away that no room was found for them. " For God to adopt them and rule through them, would be for God to displace the servants of the evil one, and in and through the institutions of the evil one to govern the world. God will overrule the kingdoms and governments of the world to the destruction of each other, that they may give way for his government, but he could not rule in, and exert his dominion through the governments of the evil one. To do so would be to proclaim to the universe the superiority of the institutions of the evil one. Besides, "these shall be moved, " "shall be burned up."

"Every plant not planted by my heavenly Father shall be rooted up."

God overrules these to the destruction of those institutions and punishment of the people that are not pleasing to him. But these human governments shall be "moved" and "burned up, " while his kingdom "cannot be moved, " but with "a new heavens and a new earth, " shall be the dwelling place of the righteous forever.

Babylon. The term Babylon is used almost from the beginning to the close of the Bible. It had in the beginning, a clear and well defined meaning. It preserves the same meaning to the end. In the beginning of the human race persons, things, institutions, were named according to the leading quality or characteristic of that which was named. The first human government was called "Babel, " which means confusion.

It was clearly so called, because man’s effort to govern himself brought confusion and strife. The effort by man to live without God, and to govern the world, resulted in confusion and strife from the beginning. It brings strife, war and desolation still. The people of Maine and Texas, of England and India, could never become enemies or be involved in strife and war, save through the intervention of human government to spread enmity and excite to war. Individuals in contact might, through conflict of interests, or personal antipathy, become embittered, and engage in war with each other, but distinct nations or peoples could have no strife save as they should be excited and carried on by these human governments.

All the wars and conflicts of earth, all the desolation, ruin and blood-shed, between separated nations, or distinct peoples, are the fruits of human government. The government of God breaks down divisions among those who accept it, and brings peace and complete union to all who submit to his rule. Whatever tends to wean men from this government of God, and to substitute other governments for it, brings confusion and strife.

Then, in every way, the introduction of human government brought confusion, division, strife. This, its chief result, its characteristic fruit, gave to it the name Babel, Babylon. As all human governments sprang, in some sense, from this first, Babylon became a patronymic, and is so used in the Scriptures, of human government. The term, Babylon, then, in the Scriptures, always refers to the original human government, or to human government in general. It is never bestowed upon the Divine government or any corruption of it. The Divine government, or the church, is frequently in Scripture represented by a woman. The corrupted church, by a lewd woman. The pure church, by a virtuous, faithful woman.

We rely but little upon interpretations of unfulfilled prophecy, yet there are some unfulfilled prophecies in such perfect harmony with those that have been fulfilled and with the leading purpose of God as declared in the whole Bible, that we may venture to say that they do not teach certain things. They probably do teach others.

"And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. And great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath."

Here a city of nations is spoken of. A city of nations must be a multitude of nations viewed together. Then Babylon came in remembrance before God to give to her the cup of the fierceness of his wrath. What is Babylon? The seventeenth chapter, first verse,

"I will shew unto thee the great whore, that sitteth upon many waters, with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman set upon a scarlet-colored beast, full of the names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of the abominations and filthiness of her fornications: And upon her forehead was a name written - MYSTERY - BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." The points we wish to bring out are these: The whore is the corrupted church. The waters, the spirit declares, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues; the beast a human government. Babylon typifies the human governments of earth. The kings of the earth had committed fornication with the church. All affiliations on the part of the church, or members of the church, with human governments are characterized as fornication or adultery.

These kings of the earth had been in alliance and affiliation with the church. The woman was carried by a bloody human government, "a scarlet colored beast full of names of blasphemy."

"The woman (church) was arrayed in purple and scarlet and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornications."

These were the rewards of her alliance with the kings and kingdoms of earth. The superscription on her forehead was descriptive of her character. She, the Mystery, dwelt in Babylon. She was the mother of those who committed fornication with the governments of the earth. Babylon and the woman who was allied with Babylon certainly were not the same. She was joined in alliance with the kingdoms of the earth, and supported by the human governments. This false church, bad woman, was drunken with the blood of saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. This blood she had shed through her alliance with the earthly kings, and by the use of carnal weapons. What shall be the end? These kings that carry the bad woman will come to hate her and will finally destroy her.

"The ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore and make her desolate and naked and shall eat her flesh and shall burn her with fire. For God shall put it into their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree and give their kingdom unto the beast - until the word of God be fulfilled. And the woman which thou sawest is that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth." Which we take to teach that God will use these human governments with which the church has committed fornication to destroy the corrupted church. Those she used to punish others will destroy her. This will be another exemplification that God uses the wicked to punish the rebellious, and that those who take the sword shall perish by the sword. It is wrong for Christians to persecute, to use violence in opposing the false churches that maintain themselves by alliance with or by use of the civil power; still God will use these human governments to destroy the churches that have sought alliance with them. But the point especially before us, is, that Babylon was, and is, not the false church, but it is the civil or human governments of earth, and in this instance united with, and supporting the false church. This great Babylon, the human governments that have grown up in rebellion against God, he first uses to punish and destroy the false church that has been in alliance with the civil power, then Babylon itself, having subserved its end, comes in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.

"Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down and shall be found no more at all." The result of that judgment is presented in the 18th chapter of Revelations. "I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power and the earth was lightened with his glory, " and he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying,

"Babylon the Great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird." This was certainly the human governments that have held universal sway over the peoples of earth.

It was of this Babylon of human government that another angel cried, saying, "Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins." The result of this downfall of all these human governments and churches in alliance with them, that had enjoyed the power and protection of human governments, is presented, also the rejoicing the true saints who always suffered at their hands.

"In her (the false church) was found the blood of prophets and saints and of all that were upon earth." The 19th chapter declares, of the destruction of these governments of earth which are the possession of the evil one,

"After these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven saying, Alleluia, salvation and glory and power and honor unto the Lord our God." The remainder of the book of the Revelation is taken up with the final triumph of the church or government of God after the destruction of this government of man that has been the enemy of God and his government from the beginning.

Protestants habitually refer this language concerning the lewd woman that is in Babylon to the Romish church. But if the Romish church be the mother of harlots, who are the harlot’s daughters. "Like mother, like daughters. " All affiliation of the government of God, or of the subjects of that government with the human government, or its subjects, was declared by God, from the beginning, to be adultery. Then the church that joins affinity with human government is guilty of adultery - is a harlot. The church that led the way in it is the mother, the others who follow in that affiliation are the harlot’s daughters. What is the difference between those which like the church of Rome, or the other state churches, make alliance with the civil power, and those churches which, while not supported by the state, yet rely upon the state for protection, and through their membership serve and support the human government? The non-state churches just as much support the state, train their children to serve the state, give their brightest children to the state in preference to the church as fully as the state churches do. The difference is, the one gets support from the state, in turn, the others support the state, deprive themselves of the service and devotion of their own children in order to support the human government, but get no support from the state in return. The difference between them is presented in the type of harlot who is guilty of lewdness for hire, and the wife who shares her bed with another, without hire. One is hired to commit adultery by her lovers, the other hires her lovers to come in to her. The state churches get support for the service to the state, the non-state churches serve the human government, and get no pay. The term "beast" is used in the Bible frequently and always refers to human government. When particular animals are mentioned, the unclean and beasts of prey represent the human kingdoms or kings, and the clean inoffensive animals, as the lamb, the sheep, the dove, represent the kingdom or servants of God. In all the historic accounts of the kingdom of God and human government no account is found of affiliation of the pure woman with human governments. No prophetic vision ever saw the beast carrying the pure woman, or supporting the true church, but always it supported and made alliances with the lewd woman.

Objections.

While these things are true beyond successful dispute, we are told the Scriptures show that God’s children did participate in the management and support of the human government. Joseph and Daniel are instances in the Old Testament, and Cornelius, the Philippian jailor, and Erastus in the New Testament. Joseph and Daniel served in their position only when in slavery, and did what service they rendered in these governments as slaves of their masters, and not as officers or rulers in the state. They did not seek to support, maintain, exalt or perpetuate the governments in which they served. Slavery then involved the right of the king to the life of the slave. Joseph was sold by the Ishmaelites to Potiphar, whom he served as his slave, faithful and trusted, but a slave. He was imprisoned by Potiphar as his slave; remained in prison over two years at the will of Potiphar; was brought to Pharaoh’s attention when he had the dream. He showed he was under Divine guidance in the interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream. Whether Pharaoh bought him of Potiphar we are not informed, but he went into Pharaoh’s service as his slave, and so served through the fourteen years of abundance and of famine. Joseph gathered the harvest during the years of plenty as Pharaoh’s slave, his personal slave. He sold the food as Pharaoh’s slave. He sold the food as long as there was money and brought the money into Pharaoh’s house. (Genesis 47:14.) He bought the cattle then, and afterwards the land. "And Joseph bought all the land for Pharaoh. " Then he bought the people. "Behold I have bought you and your land for Pharaoh. " Joseph was a faithful and trusted slave, but only a slave. Had Gen. Jackson, while president, ordered one of his slaves to do any service, he would have done it as the slave of Gen. Jackson, and not as an officer of the government. So of Joseph. He was so far from being a voluntary officer of the government, seeking to build up and strengthen the government, that is was a service hated by him. He regarded it as a deep degradation to so serve.

"Joseph said unto his brethren, I die, and God will surely visit you and bring you up out of this land unto the land which he sware unto Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence."

Oh, no, Joseph was not a citizen of the kingdom of Egypt, nor an officer, supporter, or upholder of the Egyptian government. He was a slave in a foreign land; faithful as a servant of God should be to his master. He felt the humiliation and shame of this slavery so keenly, that before dying he took the oath of his brethren, that his bones should not be left in the land of his degradation and slavery.

Daniel was situated as was Joseph. He was a slave first to the king of Babylon. God gave him favor with his overseer, then through his wisdom gained for his the respect and consideration of the king. He was faithful to the king as his slave, but faithful in bearing to him testimony of God against him. But he was a slave and not an officer or supporter of the Babylonish government. On the other hand he foretold its destruction, and the ruin of its king. When the government was overthrown by Darius, as the slave of the conquered king, he passed to the ownership of the conqueror and became the slave of Darius, to whom he was faithful as he had been to Nebuchadnezzar. He obeyed his master, served the new one as readily and faithfully as the old. He was no partisan, friend, supporter or officer of either government. As a slave he obeyed his master, and was faithful in all things, save when obedience to him involved disobedience to God - rather than obey then he was cast into the lions’ den.

If any think Daniel was a voluntary supporter and upholder of these governments, let them read the prophecy of ruin and destruction he spoke against them, and against all human governments. How his heart joyed in foreseeing their destruction and the triumph over them of the kingdom which the God of heaven should set up. Let them read the ninth chapter and see the deep humiliation and shame he felt in having to serve the ruler of this human government, when God’s government by the sins of his people was subverted and in ruin.

"In those days (when thus honored by the king) I Daniel was mourning three full weeks. I ate no pleasant bread, neither was flesh nor wine in my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all."

Certainly he regarded all this service an accursed slavery and a burdensome bondage from which he prayed deliverance. In the 9th chapter Daniel says,

"I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplication, with fasting and sack cloth, and ashes, ... we have sinned and have committed iniquity and have done wickedly, and have rebelled even by departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments; neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, which spake in thy name to our kings, our princes and to our fathers, and to all the people of the land. O, Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces as at this day; to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and unto all Israel, that are near and that are far off, through all the countries whither thou hast driven them, because of their trespass, they have trespassed against thee. To the Lord our God, belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against thee; neither have we obeyed the voice of the Lord our God to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets. Yea all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath which is written in the law of Moses, the servant of God, because we have sinned against thee." The chapter is full of these confessions, supplications, deprecations of the curse of God that is poured out upon them, unto this bondage and slavery they were enduring. Certainly Daniel was not a voluntary office-holder, or a supporter of human government. He was a slave in bondage for the sins of his people and prayed humbly and earnestly for deliverance. No encouragement or authority can be found for the voluntary holding of office in, or upholding the human government, now so common among servants of Christ. The only lesson taught by the cases of Joseph and Daniel is, that it is right for God’s children, when slaves, to do faithful service to their masters, not as eye servants, but they must do service "heartily, as unto the Lord. " They teach the same lesson of duty that is taught in the New Testament, submission to the powers that be. When the power changes, the duty of the Christians changes with it. Submission to whatever power is over them, partisanship to none. When the requirements of the government are contrary to the law of God, refusal, even to the lion’s den, or the fiery furnace, but no participation in, no support of, no affinity with human government is found. The New Testament Office Holders. A number of those mentioned in the New Testament as converts to Christ held office. Among these were Matthew, the eunuch, Cornelius, Paul, the Philippian jailor, and as is supposed, Erastus. It is not said of any one of these that he gave up his office. Of these, we know the after lives of Matthew and Paul, only. We know that they gave up their offices, from the record of those lives. Those whose after lives are given, having surrendered their offices, creates the presumption that the others did so, too. It is not said that those who worshiped idols, ceased to worship them on their conversion to Christ. It is not said that those who stole or lied, or were habitual drunkards, or whoremongers, ceased to follow those sins; yet no one doubts they did forsake these sins, because it was well understood that the Christian religion demanded the cessation of such courses; and no declaration that they ceased the practices was needed. Now, if it was equally true that it was well understood by all, friend and foe, that a profession of the Christian religion involved a ceasing to support human government, it would no more need a declaration that an officer, on his conversion, ceased to hold his office, than that a rogue, on his conversion, ceased to steal. The failure to mention one would be no more evidence of its approval than the failure to mention the other. All, both friend and foe, did understand this very thing. The long tutelage of Judaism in separation from human governments had impressed it. The Savior had declared he was not a citizen of even the Jewish government. His opponents understood it. This apprehension was the ground of the slaughter of the male children in and around Bethlehem. Christ, in the payment of the tax required of strangers, but not of the children, refused to claim that exemption, to which his birth entitled him, and placed himself among the strangers to human governments. It was on the clear apprehension of this truth by the Scribes and Pharisees and lawyers, that they based the effort to entrap him in reference to paying tribute to Caesar. It was clearly understood he was proposing to build a kingdom that would uproot and destroy Caesar’s kingdom, and they thought he would forbid the paying of tribute to him and thus furnish them an accusation, to secure his condemnation. It was on this well understood truth, that he was in antagonism to the governments of earth, and so an enemy of Caesar, that his death warrant was extracted from Pilate. His disciples so understood, and asked: "Wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" It was so strongly impressed that the Holy Spirit must needs bid the disciples, "Be subject to the powers that be. " "Submit to kings and governors. " "Obey magistrates, " etc. This general and well defined understanding of both friend and foe on this subject, taken together with the fact that those converted officers, whose lives are given, all gave up their offices, makes the presumption strong, that all did give up their offices, and certainly throws the necessity on those who would affirm the right of Christians to hold office, of finding a clear precept, or example for the same. Can it be found? While I have a right to demand the proof that they did hold office, I yield the vantage ground to which the position is entitled and affirm not one of them continued to hold office. The centurion and the jailor were officers in the Roman government. It was persecuting Christians. The work of the centurion at the crucifixion of Christ, was to have him crucified, then to seal and guard the tomb. His duty was to arrest, scourge and place in the stocks, or execute men and women convicted of being Christians. It was the duty of the jailor to imprison Christians, place their feet in the stocks, lacerate their bare backs, cast them into the dungeons and keep them fast and safe. This work of arresting and imprisoning Christians, a Christian could not do. The escape of the Christian prisoners subjected the jailor to such torture, that he of Philippi preferred death by his own hand to incurring it. He was saved from this by Paul assuring him, "We are all here. " His conversion caused him to loose them at once. Now, if their escape without his connivance involved such punishment, what must his willful loosing them bring on him? Yet he took them out and incurred the risk. Beyond a doubt the wonderful occurrence excused his course in the eyes of the magistrates on the ground, but as the governor was not present, was not so terror-stricken, and still continued the persecution, it is probable that greater wrath was excited against the jailor, aggravated by his becoming a Christian, and hence himself a criminal to be punished with death, and that he paid the penalty by torture and a dreadful death, unless he fled. Had we his later history, it would much more likely be of his death than of continuance in office. Then the government itself was seeking to destroy Christians. They were regarded as rebels and traitors to the government. It could not have tolerated Christians as its officers, had they been willing to continue in office. It is certainly true that neither Cornelius nor the jailor continued in his office.

Erastus, it is claimed, at the time the letter to the Romans was written, was acting as treasurer of the city of Corinth. The ground for this is, Paul writing to the church at Rome from Corinth, said, "Erastus, the chamberlain of the city, Saluteth you and Quartus a brother."

While the treasurer, or properly steward, of the city, may mean the treasurer to the city government, it may mean the steward for the church in the city. The whole context is so directly concerning church matters that this would seem the more reasonable, and as we shall find by further consideration more in harmony with what else we know of Erastus, and of the relations of the government to the church and to Christians. Some writers report that he held this same position in the church at Jerusalem at an earlier period. This letter was written during the intensity of the persecution of the church by Nero. It is morally impossible the government seeking to annihilate the church, should, in so prominent and influential a city as was Corinth, having constant communication with all parts of the empire, tolerate a Christian in so high and important an office as treasurer of the city. It is impossible that it should have tolerated so active, well-known, and earnest a Christian as was Erastus.

Erastus is first introduced to us in Acts 19:21. After Paul had left Corinth, and while at Ephesus, "he sent into Macedonia two of them that ministered unto him, Timotheus and Erastus; but he himself staid in Asia for a season."

Erastus with Timothy was traveling with him on one of his missionary tours. This was in the year 59. Paul had left Corinth before this, and Erastus may have been converted during his years and six months stay at that city. But the report of his having been at an early day with the church in Jerusalem has been already referred to, and indicates the probability that he went with Paul to Corinth from Jerusalem as a missionary worker. But he sent Erastus with Timothy from Ephesus into Macedonia. We know not how long they remained on the Macedonian mission, but doubtless some time, as their trip seems to have been to supplement an intended visit of Paul which was, for the time, delayed. Macedonia was from three to five hundred miles both from Ephesus and Corinth.

Paul remained in Asia for a season, doubtless through the winter and until the next season for navigation. But in the 20th chapter, after the escape of Paul from the Ephesian mob, we are told he followed on to Macedonia, where he doubtless joined Timothy and Erastus, whence he went to Greece, of which Corinth was the chief city. Timothy did not accompany him to Corinth, but Erastus most likely did. Paul remained three months at Corinth, and wrote the letter to the church at Rome during this stay, in the year 60. Erastus was then called the chamberlain. He was no nearer Corinth when in Macedonia than when in Ephesus. He doubtless spent some time in Macedonia. He would not have gone three or four hundred miles out of his way to Corinth, unless it had been necessary that he should remain with these Macedonian churches for a time. While at Corinth, in the year 60, Paul wrote the letter to the Romans, and then calls Erastus the chamberlain of the city. The case is this then. It is doubtful if Erastus had been a citizen of Corinth up to this time, but if he was, he had been absent with Paul two or more years, on a missionary tour through Asia and Macedonia. He reaches Corinth and within three months after his arrival Paul calls him treasurer of the city. Does any one believe that after a two years’ absence on a missionary tour preaching, he arrived at home and in this prominent city was so soon made its treasurer? Certainly not.

Some years after this, Paul writing to Timothy, giving an account of those who had been his companions in labor, said: "Erastus abode at Corinth. " This would hardly have been told if Corinth had been his original home, but it indicates that after traveling around as a missionary, he made his final stopping place at Corinth. Then Erastus was certainly not the treasurer of the city. If the expression means really the treasurer of the city organization, it must have been in consequence of having held that position before his conversion, as we call a judge by his title after the expiration of his office. But I think it simply means he was the steward of the church in the city of Corinth, as he is reported previously to have been in Jerusalem.

Some writers, seeing the impossibility of the traveling companion of Paul being the treasurer of the city, conclude that two different persons of the same name are mentioned, but circumstance indicate clearly that all the references are to the same person. It is impossible he should have been the treasurer of the city at the time the Roman letter was written. If he was not then, he could not have been for two or three years preceding this, for he was absent preaching with Paul. If he was a former citizen of Corinth, he must have been converted during Paul’s eighteen months sojourn there, so could not have been the treasurer of the city after his conversion. This vanishes the last vestige of an example of a Christian holding office in the New Testament times.

Paul’s Citizenship. In the prison at Philippi, when the magistrates sent to let them go, Paul said unto them,

"They have beaten us openly and uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison; and now do they seek to thrust us out privily? Nay, verily; but let them come and fetch us out. And the sergeants told these words unto the magistrates, and they feared when they heard that they were Romans, and they came and besought them and brought them out and desired them to depart out of the city."

Paul (Acts 21:39), at Jerusalem was beaten by a Jewish mob,

"They went about to kill him, when the chief captain took soldiers and centurions, and ran down unto them, and when they saw the chief captain they left off beating Paul. Then the chief captain came near and took and commanded him to be bound with two chains, and demanded who he was and what he had done ... Paul said I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a citizen of no mean city, and I beseech thee suffer me to speak unto the people."

"The chief captain commanded him to be brought into the castle and bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him, and as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by: Is it lawful for you to scourge a man, that is a Roman and uncondemned? When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying: Take heed what thou doest, for this man is a Roman. Then the chief captain came and said unto him, tell me, art thou a Roman? He said yea. And the chief captain said, with a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, I was free born. Then straightway they departed from him, who should have examined him, and the chief captain also was afraid after he knew that he was a Roman and because he had bound him. " (Acts 22:24.)

After Paul had been taken in custody by the Roman officers, and by them tried and no evil found in him; forty Jews bound themselves under a solemn oath to "neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul. " To further this end, the high priest and the chief of the Jews requested Festus "that he would send him bound to Jerusalem, laying wait in the way to kill him. Festus was disposed to grant the favor and said to Paul:

/114//

"Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem and there be judged of these before me? Then Paul said, I stand Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged. ... I appeal unto Caesar." This claim of Paul to the privileges of Roman citizenship and the appeal to Caesar are regarded as authorizing Christians to engage in managing human government.

We are all by birth or adoption subjects of the government under which we live, but that does not obligate us to actively participate in the affairs of government. Women in one sense are citizens, yet barred from active participation in the affairs of government. Paul claimed,

"Men and brethren I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. Of the hope and resurrection of the dead, I am called in question."

Yet he was not a member or an active supporter of the sect of the Pharisees, but the Pharisees were being used to persecute him, chiefly for the faith he had in common with them, and he used the fact of his agreeing with them to avoid persecution by them. When the Jewish mob was persecuting Paul without using the Romish government to aid them, he did not claim the protection of that government, but when the Romish authorities were used to persecute him, he used the rights and immunities guaranteed to him as a Roman citizen by that law to protect himself against oppression through the law. This did not indicate that he sustained and upheld that law. During the existence of the rebel government, when a loyal man’s liberty or property was endangered by the officers of the rebel government, he did not hesitate to avail himself of the guarantees and rights that the rebel government granted him to avoid harm to his person or property. He did not in doing this recognize himself as under obligation to support that government, nor was it a recognition of its right to exist. Paul used the privileges the law guaranteed him to protect himself against the oppression that law was used to inflict. When the pretense of a trial in Jerusalem was urged as a means of delivering him to a Jewish mob, he took advantage of a privilege the law guaranteed him, to appeal to Caesar, and go to Rome instead of Jerusalem for trial. A Christian on trial would be justified in using any privilege the law guaranteed him to avoid the oppression inflicted on him through the law. When subjected to the penalties he is entitled to the immunities and privileges guaranteed by the law to avoid the inflictions, and punishments of the law. The whole drift, teaching and example of the Scripture, both of the Old and New Testaments, forbid the idea of the servants of God becoming participants in the government that originated in the rebellion of man against his maker. All of which Christ came to destroy, and which must be destroyed, consumed, before Jesus Christ the Savior delivers the kingdom up to God the Father, that God may be all in all.

Then neither, Matthew, nor Paul, nor Cornelius, nor the Jailor, nor Erastus held office after becoming Christians. They could not have retained office; because, 1st. The end of the church of Christ, which they entered, and the principles of the religion which they embraced, forbade it. 2nd. The government in which they held office, was seeking through persecution to exterminate the Christians as private citizens, much less could it honor them as its representatives, and the executors of its laws. 3rd. They could not have held these offices, because the special duties they would have been required to perform were utterly abhorrent to the Christian. They would have been called upon to persecute, imprison, beat, and even put to death men and women, whose only crime was believing in Jesus as the Lord and Savior. No Christian could hold an office which imposed such duties.