The matter here is the headship of Jesus, as Mediator, over the nations of the world, or the political associations of men. Besides its own intrinsic importance, this branch of our subject demands attention, from the neglect with which it has long been treated, from the opposition it has had to encounter, and from its intimate connection with questions which are fiercely agitated from time to time.

The Evidence in support of Christ’s right of dominion, as Mediator, over the nations of the earth.

Christ’s mediatorial authority over the church is readily conceded. Nor is there any hesitation to admit that Christ, as God, exercises a sovereign control over the civil affairs of men. But that he does so in his mediatorial capacity seems not to approve itself so directly to the minds of many. Yet a candid consideration of the proof, which we have it in our power to bring forward, cannot fail, we think, to remove every shadow of doubt on this subject.

Indeed, the point in question might be argued on other than direct Scripture testimony. It might be argued on the ground that Christ’s investiture with mediatorial dominion does not suppose the abrogation of his necessary right of dominion as God. As before remarked, in assuming the office of Mediator, he did not divest himself of anything belonging to him as divine. His moral authority over all creatures being essential to his very existence and character, never was, and never indeed could be, laid aside. His moral fitness to exercise such dominion might also be insisted on.

The terms of absolute universality, as formerly shown, in which the mediatorial dominion is spoken of in the Word of God, further imply what we have now in view. For if all things are delivered to him of his Father, if all power is given to him in heaven and in earth, if all things are put under his feet, it is not easy to see on what principle any thing so vast and important as the civil associations of mankind could be excepted. Nay, the necessity of such an extent of mediatorial power as includes the nations of the world, to his performing with efficiency the functions, which belong to him as Head of the church, is enough to set this question forever at rest. Without such extent of power, he could never open up a way for the diffusion of his gospel among the nations of the earth; could never, either subordinate their administration, or overrule their rebellion, so as to bring about the period when the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ. But, without insisting on these points, in regard to which the evidence is of an inferential nature, let us give our attention to the direct proof by which the dominion of Christ as Mediator over the nations is supported. By nations, of course, we mean civil associations, men existing in civil or political institutions, including the office-bearers by whom the laws are administered, as well as the people at large for whose good they are appointed to govern.

1. In looking into the Word of God, we find subjection to Jesus Christ as Mediator directly enjoined upon civil rulers. “Be wise now, therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little” (Ps. 2:10-12).
2. The person to whom subjection is here enjoined is doubtless the Messiah. “The Son” is a title by which the Redeemer is often designated, both in the Old and New Testaments. If Solomon, the son of David, is referred to at all, it can only be in a very subordinate sense. We are at no loss to show that a greater than Solomon is here, even He who was at once David’s Son and David’s Lord—the Son of David according to the flesh, but the Son of God by a high, necessary, and ineffable relationship. Again and again throughout the New Testament we find passages from this psalm referred to Christ (Acts 4:25; 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5; Rev. 2:27). One may here suffice for the establishment of this point. “And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God which hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is; who, by the mouth of thy servant David, hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done” (Acts 4:24-27).

The psalm, then, refers to Christ; but does it refer to him in his mediatorial capacity? There can be as little doubt, we think, on this point, if only the scope of the psalm itself, and the purposes for which it is elsewhere quoted, are considered. The opposition of which it speaks is opposition made to him as Mediator; as the Lord’s Anointed; as He whom the Father hath set King upon his holy hill of Zion; in the same capacity, in short, in which he is to have the heathen given him for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession.

And on whom is it that this psalm enjoins subjection to the Mediator-King? On “kings,” and “judges”; that is to say, civil rulers, supreme and subordinate. But is it civil rulers in their personal, or in their official, capacity? There are some who evade the force of this passage by alleging that it is only in their private character that they are here addressed. But this is contrary alike to the whole scope and design of the psalm, and to the concurrent testimony of the most judicious commentators. Indeed we have only to consider in what capacity it was that the opposition spoken of was offered to the Son by civil rulers. It was in their public character, undoubtedly, that Herod and Pontius Pilate conspired against the holy child Jesus; and we are only acting on the plain principles of fair interpretation, when we conclude that it is in their public and official character also that civil rulers are here commanded to do homage to the Redeemer—that kings and judges are required as such to serve the Lord with fear, and to kiss the Son lest he be angry.

Nor can there be a doubt that the duties, to which the terms in which these injunctions are expressed refer, involve the idea of complete moral subjection—the subjection that inferiors owe to a superior, that subjects owe to a king. Such is the common meaning of the verb to “serve,” as well as the sense in which it is often used in Scripture. One passage will be sufficient to show that to “kiss” is expressive of loyal subjection to a reigning prince: “Then Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his [Saul’s] head, and kissed him, and said, ‘Is it not because the Lord hath anointed thee to be captain over his inheritance?’” (1 Sam. 10:1).

Here, then, we have a most decided, unequivocal proof of the right of dominion over the nations of the earth which is possessed by the Mediator; for, had not such been his right, it is inconceivable that the Spirit of God should have enjoined subjection to him upon all civil rulers without exception, whether supreme or subordinate, whether belonging to Old or to New Testament times. We have here a command of universal and permanent obligation; and, while it retains its place in the Word of God, it will be impossible to deny the dominion which Jesus as Mediator possesses over the nations of the earth and their rulers.

2. Predictions respecting the kingdom of the Mediator conduct us to the same conclusion. Predictions in general unfold the purposes and appointments of God. Whatever, therefore, we find predicted regarding Christ must be included in the grant of the Father to the Son. Dominion over the nations is matter of frequent announcement in prophecy.
3. Psalm 47 is understood to refer to the Messiah. His exaltation to glory, the gathering of the Gentiles, and the ultimate establishment of his kingdom of righteousness and peace form the subject of this beautiful ode. The ascension of the Redeemer is plainly referred to in the expression, “God is gone up with a shout, the Lord with the sound of a trumpet.” Nor can it be doubted, from this circumstance itself, that it is in his official, and not his personal, character that he is spoken of throughout the psalm. Now, mark the expressions which are employed with regard to his dominion. He is described as “a great king over all the earth”; as he who “shall subdue the people under us, and the nations under our feet”; as he who “reigneth over the heathen”; as he to whom “the princes of the people are gathered together, even the people of the God of Abraham”; as he “to whom belong the shields of the earth” (Ps. 47:2-3, 8-9). These are not equivocal expressions. The nations and their princes are distinctly specified as brought under his control, and as doing him homage, which certainly imply a right of dominion over them; while magistrates who are set for the defense of the people, are undoubtedly meant by the shields of the earth, which are said to be his property.

Psalm 72 is, by universal consent, referred to Christ. In only a very inferior or subordinate sense can it be understood of Solomon. To whom but David’s greater Son can its lofty descriptions be applicable? Of whom but the Messiah can it be affirmed that his name shall endure forever; that men shall be blessed in him; and that all nations shall call him blessed? We may rest assured that the psalm celebrates the majesty, benignity, and dominion of Jesus as Mediator, with the glory, peacefulness, extent, and duration of his kingdom. Now, observe how many things are contained in it bearing on our present subject. “The kings of Tarshish and of the Isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts. Yea all kings shall fall down before him; all nations shall serve him. All nations shall call him blessed” (Ps. 72:10-11, 17). No language can more directly assert the doctrine for which we are contending. The Mediator, as such, is spoken of. Kings and nations are expressly introduced in their civil capacity as recognizing his dominion. And the acts of homage in which they are represented as engaging, are such as necessarily involve the idea of distinct moral subjection—namely, bringing presents, offering gifts, falling down before him, serving him, and calling him blessed. He who is the legitimate object of such acts must possess a rightful dominion over the nations and kings of the earth.

“Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders. And kings shall be thy nursing-fathers, and their queens thy nursing-mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and shall lick up the dust of thy feet” (Isa. 49:22-23). This is a very decisive passage. The prophecy refers to New Testament times, when the Gentiles are to be gathered unto the Redeemer. A prominent feature of these times shall be the subserviency of civil rulers to the church, which surely supposes their subjection to Christ her Head. “Kings shall be thy nursing-fathers” is a similitude, which imports the most tender care, the most endearing solicitude; not mere protection, but active and unwearied nourishment and support. If, according to the opinions of some, the best thing the state can do for the church is to let her alone, to leave her to herself, to take no interest in her concerns, it is difficult to see how this view can be reconciled with the figure of a nurse, the duties of whose office would certainly be ill discharged by such a treatment of her feeble charge.

But to neutralize the force of this beautiful passage, it has been alleged that rulers are here spoken of, not in their public or official, but in their private or personal, capacity. It is supposed to mean nothing more, than that persons of exalted station shall become the devoted servants of Messiah, and take a deep and pious interest in the concerns of his kingdom…On the contrary, the prediction before us leads us to conclude, that, in the times of the gospel, persons of the most exalted public stations shall exert their influence on behalf of the church of Christ; and this certainly supposes the subjection of such to Christ himself.

The same view is strongly corroborated by another passage in this prophecy. “Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought. For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted. Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breasts of kings” (Isa. 60:11-12, 16). Here there cannot be the shadow of a doubt about the sense in which kings are spoken of. The pronoun “their,” in this instance at least, is decidedly in favor of the view that they are to be regarded in their public capacity; they are spoken of as the people’s kings, or kings in the possession and exercise of official power and influence. In this capacity, they are represented as ministers to the church of Christ in various ways. Nor is the passage less decisive, that it comprehends a threat of awful judgment denounced on such nations and rulers as shall refuse to yield the service required. Surely, unless civil society had been placed under the dominion of the Mediator, there could have been no room for supposing, either that such duties are obligatory, or that such consequences shall follow the neglect of them.

“And it shall be the prince’s part to give burnt-offerings, and meat-offerings, and drink-offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel” (Ezek. 45:7). The remarkable prophetic vision, with which these words are connected, is, we believe, held by all judicious commentators to refer to the church in New Testament times. Without pretending minutely to explain the import of all the figurative allusions, the words we have quoted would seem plainly enough to carry in them the idea, that the civil ruler is to give public support to the institutions of the church of Christ, which, as in the case of the passages above quoted, necessarily implies that magistrates, as such, are under the authority of the Mediator.

“And I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him” (Dan. 7:13-4). The reference of this passage to Christ will not be doubted. The eternal Son of God, viewed with regard to his human nature and mediatorial character, is he who is called “the Son of Man.” The power spoken of is clearly mediatorial, as it is said to be “given” him. It is also universal, including “all nations,” of whom it is predicted that they should “serve him,” which certainly supposes the possession of rightful authority over them. “And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ” (Rev. 11:15). The phrase “the kingdoms of this world” necessarily suggests the idea of social relations and civil rights—all those public interests and immunities, in short, which distinguish a compact civil body from a loose assemblage of private persons living in a disconnected state or individual capacity. All know that such is the idea attached to a kingdom. But the kingdoms of this world are to become the kingdoms of Christ. It must, therefore, be, in the same sense in which they are kingdoms in the one case, that they are to become kingdoms in the other. Now it is not the private sentiments or individual conduct of the inhabitants of a land, which gives character to a kingdom of this world, as such; neither are the adoption of Christian principles and practices, by the great bulk of a people, sufficient to constitute the nation a kingdom of Christ. The nations of the world have, in their national capacity, too plainly acknowledged and served the god of this world. They have also, in too many instances, proclaimed themselves kingdoms of antichrist, giving their power and support directly to the beast, in their public social character. When the happy state of things announced in this prediction shall have been introduced, it is impossible to believe otherwise than that these kingdoms shall, in the same public social capacity, become the kingdoms of Christ. And what does their becoming the kingdoms of Christ import? Certainly, at the very least, that for which we are now contending; namely, that, in token of their subjection to him, they shall recognize his authority, and subordinate their interests to the advancement of his glory.

“And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honor into it. And they shall bring the glory and honor of the nations into it” (Rev. 21:24, 26). It is the church which is here spoken of as receiving the attention in question. Whether in its millennial or celestial state, commentators are not agreed. But whichever of these views is taken, the passage must be understood as describing a course of preparation that takes place on earth, as it is only in this world that national and official distinctions exist. Now, if nations, as such, are to walk in the light of the New Jerusalem, that is to say, are to derive distinguished honor and privileges from the church of Christ, they must surely be regarded as under the dominion of the church’s Head. And if kings, as such, are to bring their glory and honor into it, that is to say, are to subordinate their authority, power, revenues, and whole administration to the interests of Christ’s kingdom, they also must be regarded as under the dominion of the Mediator.

Such is the voice of prophecy on this interesting subject. Every unprejudiced mind must admit that it bears decided testimony to the doctrine we are now attempting to establish. Many more passages might have been quoted. Indeed, the whole tenor of Old Testament prediction speaks the same language. No one, therefore, who has any respect for the Word of God, can hesitate to admit that Christ possesses mediatorial dominion over the nations of the earth.1

3. Another set of proofs will be found in numerous designations, implying dominion over the nations, which are given to Christ in the Scriptures. Such are the following: “For the kingdom is the Lord’s, and he is governor among the nations” (Ps. 22:28). That the psalm in which this occurs refers to Christ, we need not wait to prove; and that it refers to him as Mediator, is evinced by the whole tenor of the composition itself. His being called in the verse Lord or Jehovah, is not inconsistent with this view, as the same high appellation is applied to him in other parts of Scripture. It cannot be doubted that the preceding verse foretells the extension of the church of Christ. “All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord; and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.” What immediately follows being introduced as accounting for the universal spread of the kingdom of Messiah, it must be considered as referring to the same illustrious personage. “For the kingdom is the Lord’s; and he is the governor among the nations.” Here, then, is a glorious title, distinctly recognizing the dominion of the Mediator over the nations of men—a title which the nations may, indeed, overlook, but which they cannot disregard with impunity, and which shall one day be as fully acknowledged by them as it has been hitherto shamefully neglected and despised.
4. Psalm 89 refers to Messiah. He is the chosen of the Father, with whom he has made a covenant, whose seed he will establish forever, and whose throne he will build up to all generations. Now, mark what he says of him in the course of this psalm: “I will make him my first-born, higher than the kings of the earth” (Ps. 89:27). Here is another glorious title. His being to be made what the title imports, determines in what character it belongs to him. It must be as Mediator that the Son of God is here described as “made higher than the kings of the earth.” In the sense of natural superiority he is “higher,” and needs not to be made: in the sense of official supremacy only, then, can this phrase be understood. Besides, the words might have been rendered most high or supreme over the kings of the earth. The very same term is often used to express the supremacy of God, and is translated “Most High.” The dominion of Messiah over civil rulers on the one hand, and the subjection of such to him on the other, are thus clearly imported in this title.

In the prophecy of Jeremiah, there occurs the following passage: “Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O Lord; thou art great, and thy name is great in might. Who would not fear thee, O King of nations?” (Jer. 10:6-7) “Nations” here mean organized civil bodies. “King” is a title of office, expressive of supreme rule or government. He to whom this title belongs is the true and living God, the God of Israel as distinguished from heathen idols. But as the God of Israel is God in Christ, the title may be regarded as equally applicable to the Redeemer.

Should any hesitate, however, to admit this inference, the excuse for doing so cannot be urged in respect to the next proof we have to adduce. The exile of Patmos, while introducing his apocalyptic vision under the influence of the Spirit, speaks of Jesus Christ as “The Prince of the kings of the earth” (Rev. 1:5). The whole context, not to speak of the very verse in which the title occurs, determines the reference to the mediatorial character of our Redeemer—that character, namely, in which he bore faithful witness as a prophet, rose from the dead, and washed us from our sins in his blood. There is no room to doubt for a moment that it is Christ as Mediator who is spoken of as oJ arcwn twn basilewn thß ghß. The persons who are here supposed to be subject to Christ, are kings, civil rulers, supreme and subordinate, all in civil authority, whether in the legislative, judicial, or executive branches of government. Of such Jesus Christ is Prince—oJ arcwn, ruler, lord, chief, the first in power, authority, and dominion. The most splendid title of all remains to be noticed. It occurs twice in the Revelation of John. “These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings” (Rev. 17:14). “His name is called the Word of God—and he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords” (Rev. 19:16). The whole book of Revelation relates to Christ as Mediator. The sublime predictions, in which this resplendent title is ascribed to him, treat of the last struggle betwixt Christ and his enemies, in which these enemies are to be finally subdued, and their opposition to him to be buried in oblivion. He, by whom the victory is to be secured, is the same who is spoken of, in the 45th psalm, as “girding his sword upon his thigh, and in his majesty riding prosperously, because of truth and meekness and righteousness!” and, in the prophecy of Isaiah, as “coming up with dyed garments from Bozrah, red in his apparel, and his garments like him that treadeth in the wine fat.” It is “the Faithful and True, who in righteousness doth judge and make war.” He is represented as Head of the church, sitting on “a white horse”; while, as Head over all things to the church, he is described as “having on his head many crowns, as clothed with a vesture dipped in blood, as smiting the nations with a sharp sword, ruling them with a rod of iron, treading the wine-press of the fierceness and wrath of almighty God, and having on his vesture and on his thigh the name written King of kings and Lord of lords.”

There is nothing equivocal here. The Mediator is exhibited as waging war with the kings of the earth, who oppose his reign: and his right so to do is plainly involved in the title conspicuously inscribed on his vestment—a title not more fraught with terror to those who oppose his dominion, than confirmatory of his official supremacy over civil rulers of every description.

The proof of the mediatorial dominion over the nations, derived from these sources—from commands, predictions, and designations—is so abundant, varied, direct, complete, that we cannot but express our surprise the doctrine in question should ever have been denied or overlooked. After what has been said, there may be few who will venture formally to impugn this precious truth; but it cannot escape observation, that there are many, very many, who are in the habit of constantly neglecting it. This is the case to a mournful extent, not only with the nations and their rulers, whom it greatly concerns to recognize and act upon it; but with private Christians, who profess to be concerned for the mediatorial honors of their Redeemer. That it should be so, is much to be deplored, and is, to a considerable extent, unaccountable. How dishonoring to Christ thus to attempt to tear from his head the crown of the nations! And how blind, even to their own true interests, are those who thus provoke the Lord to anger, and expose themselves to the withering frown of his sovereign displeasure!

To the doctrine thus established, no solid objection can be made. Standing as it does on such a basis of Scripture evidence, it bids defiance to every argument which prejudice, or self-interest, or perverted reason can muster against it. It has been violently assailed in some quarters, notwithstanding. The grounds on which this opposition has proceeded have, for the most part, been already overturned.

It has been supposed, for example, to exclude Jehovah, essentially considered, from the government of the nations. This objection is just a branch of the common objection which is brought against the mediatorial dominion altogether, and which has already been sufficiently answered. We repeat, that delegation does not involve the surrender of power; and Messiah’s dominion over the nations being of a delegated character, it does not at all follow that when the Father committed this power to the Son he parted with it himself. Indeed, it is with the mediatorial power over the nations as it is with that over the church; and as the latter certainly does not interfere with the essential dominion of God, no more does the former.

Equally vain is it to object that the doctrine in question is at variance with the opinion that civil society originates with God as the God of nature. True, civil society is founded in nature, and not in grace, but its subjection to Christ is not the least inconsistent with this. The objection will be found to carry further than, perhaps, its friends were aware of; for, if everything that springs from the law of nature is to be excluded from the dominion of the Mediator, many things must be excepted which they have been accustomed to admit as under that dominion. Marriage originates in a law of nature: does it follow that parties united in this relation are to have no regard to the authority and honor of the Redeemer, that they are not to be guided by his law, or to act under the influence of his grace? “Let him that marrieth, marry only in the Lord.” The domestic relation has its foundation in the law of nature: are parents and children, masters and servants, at liberty to regard themselves as not under subjection to the Redeemer? What, then, are we to make of those commands which require parents to “bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord”; children to “obey their parents in the Lord”; and servants to be obedient to them that are their masters “as unto Christ”? Nay, are there not even some prominent parts of religion, such as prayer and praise, which have their foundation in nature, and in which we are certainly not at liberty, much less bound, to have no respect to Christ as Mediator? On the same principle, then, it by no means follows, because nations originate in nature, which we freely admit that they do, that they are not placed under Christ: or, in other words, it is no objection to the dominion of Christ over the nations, that civil society springs from God as the God of nature.

But the most specious objection, perhaps, is derived from what is matter of fact. The nations do not acknowledge Christ. They are, many of them at least, in a state of open rebellion against him. Not a few of them hath given their power to the Beast—to the avowed enemy of the Messiah. “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder and cast away their cords from us.” But, as before remarked, right and acknowledgment are different things; and the former is not dependent on the latter. On the one hand, an unlawful usurper may be acknowledged, but this can never confer on him the right to rule. On the other hand, acknowledgment may be refused to one whose right of dominion rests on the most solid foundation. It is easy to see that if acknowledgment were necessary to establish right, neither the Messiah’s dominion over the church, nor Jehovah’s moral government of the world, could be established, as there are many who not only refuse to recognize, but pointedly dispute, both the one and the other. Because, “we see not yet all things put under him,” as respects active moral subjection, we are not to consider the statement as invalidated, that the Father “hath put all things in subjection under his feet,” as respects his right of sovereignty.