II. But the deference of the subject to his earthly ruler must be always subordinate to the will of the Divine ruler of both. There are cases in which to “fear the king,” in the sense of obeying him, would be to dishonour God, and times when he who demands obedience refuses to comply with the Divine demands upon himself. It is obvious therefore that the fear of the earthly king can only be carried so far as is consistent with loyal obedience to the “King of all the kings on the earth.” The first precept of the wise man in this verse admits of no limitation, but the second must be limited by the first. But those who have been the most faithful servants of God have ever been most ready to render “honour to whom honour is due” (Rom. xiii. 7); and when duty has compelled them to disobey their commands they have done so with all due respect for their lawful authority. That fear of God which compels them to disobey unrighteous laws makes them obedient subjects to lawful rule, and constrains them, so far as is possible, to live as peaceable citizens.
III. Therefore the peace of a kingdom and the stability of a throne will be in proportion to the reverence of king and people for the Divine Will. The fear of God is the great adjusting power in all relations of life. When it governs in the family the parents are loved and honoured by the children, and the children’s welfare is the constant care of the parents. It is this fear of God alone that can solve the vexed problem of the relations between masters and servants, between capital and labour, and between monarchs and people. Where it is wanting there will be a weak rule on the one hand, and a niggardly service and a half-hearted obedience on the other, and both are responsible for those outbursts of disorder which involve both in a common calamity.
outlines and suggestive comments.
The connection of the two fears in the passage before us is evidently intended to impress the one by the other:—If you fear God, fear the king. God, whom you are bound supremely to fear, and whose fear should produce obedience to His Will, has enjoined the fear of earthly rulers: so that a failure in the fear due to them becomes a violation of the fear due to Him.
I need hardly say, that by the king we are to understand the government of the country. It may be monarchical, or it may not. We are by no means to look upon such expressions as this, in Scripture, as attaching the authority of inspiration to one form of government more than to another. Respecting the comparative merits of different forms, the Word of God should not be regarded as giving any decision, whether for the kingly, the aristocratical, the popular, or the mixed. The respect, or fear, is due to the legislative and executive powers, of whichsoever description these may be.—Wardlaw.
Submission of heart and life to the King Eternal overrides and controls, yet does not injure a citizen’s allegiance to an earthly ruler. . . . The fear of the Lord must go first, but the fear of the king may follow. The supreme does not crush, it protects the subordinate. Although the heart is full of piety, there is plenty of room for patriotism. Nay, more, patriotism nowhere gets full scope except in a heart that is already pervaded by piety. These elements are like the two chief constituent gases of the atmosphere. The space which envelopes the globe is full of one gas—it is also full of the other. To discharge the nitrogen would not make the space capable of containing more of the oxygen. The absence of the one constituent destroys the quality but does not enlarge the quantity of the other. Take away godliness, and your loyalty, without being increased in amount, is seriously deteriorated in kind. Take away loyalty, and you run great risk of spoiling the purity of the remanent godliness. God’s works are all good—His combinations are all beneficial. If we attempt to mend, we shall certainly mar them. . . . Go forward in your allegiance to “the powers that be,” not until you think you have gone far enough, but until you come upon the law of God, claiming the space in front for Himself, and absolutely forbidding your advance. Go forward with the fear of the king, unless and until the fear of the Lord cross your path like a wall. . . . No feasible rule can be laid down except what the Scriptures contain. Let any man try to write down a scale showing when and where private persons may lawfully resist public authority, and he will soon be convinced that the case is hopeless. Every attempt to define the liberty of rebellion will be found to open a door to anarchy. In point of fact, very little of the liberty that now exists in the world has been achieved by violent resistance to governments because of oppression in temporal things.—Arnot.
main homiletics of the paragraph.—Verses 23–26.
Impartiality of Truth.
I. Two blessings to society. While there is nothing that more certainly undermines the moral tone of any community than that “respect of persons” which the Bible so emphatically and constantly condemns (Lev. xix. 15; Jas. ii. 1), there is no person who more contributes to the welfare of society, and contributes more to its well-being than the man who judges all men by the same standard, viz., their character. It is especially indispensable that those who are set apart to administer the laws of the land should be men above all suspicion of partiality. For, wherever there is a code of law, it is a testimony to that inborn sense of justice which is more or less active in every human being; and although it may sometimes be but an imperfect attempt to render to every man his right, if it is administered by men of integrity it is one of the greatest bulwarks of national prosperity and security. It may well be a matter of thankfulness to every Englishman that the judicial bench of this land occupies the high position that it does in this respect as in all others, and that the days when men thought it possible to use unlawful influences with an English judge have passed away. But to what do we owe this blessing, if not to the greater hold which the principles of the Bible has upon our national life? But Solomon brings before us another character which is as necessary to a nation’s moral health, which is, perhaps, rarer than the first, but which might and ought to belong to every man. Those who are called to sit in judgment are the few, but those who in various ways are called to bear witness concerning persons and things, are the many. And some who would deem it a crime to have respect of persons in judgment, do not realise how much the cause of truth and righteousness would be furthered if men, in their every-day intercourse, would give a “right or straightforward answer” (see rendering in [Critical Notes]) to the questions put to them. If it was the habit of merchants and statesmen, of masters and servants, in the market and in the social circle, to speak the “truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” how much purer would be the moral atmosphere which we breathe, and how much more nearly would society on earth be like that of heaven.
II. The recognition which such characters receive from their fellow-men. In a world where the unrighteous far outnumber the righteous, and where most men are but half loyal to truth, it is remarkable that it should be so. But history in general and individual experience in particular bears witness that Solomon was right. Even unrighteous men cannot help admiring a just and truthful man, and their consciences and their experience combine to testify that they themselves have more to hope from those who are morally above them than from those who are on a level with themselves. It is probable that both moral sense and self-interest combine to bring people as a whole to bless him who rebukes the wicked and to “kiss his lips” who giveth a right answer.