The Institutes of the Christian Religion

Translated by Henry Beveridge

     Introduction by The Rev. John Murray, M.A., Th.M.

     CHAPTER 3.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD NATURALLY IMPLANTED IN THE HUMAN MIND.

Sections.

     1. The knowledge of God being manifested to all makes the reprobate without excuse. Universal belief and acknowledgement of the existence of God.

     2. Objection--that religion and the belief of a Deity are the inventions of crafty politicians. Refutation of the objection. This universal belief confirmed by the examples of wicked men and Atheists.

     3. Confirmed also by the vain endeavours of the wicked to banish all fear of God from their minds. Conclusion, that the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in the human mind.

     1. That there exists in the human minds and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity, we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead, the memory of which he constantly renews and occasionally enlarges, that all to a man being aware that there is a God, and that he is their Maker, may be condemned by their own conscience when they neither worship him nor consecrate their lives to his service. Certainly, if there is any quarter where it may be supposed that God is unknown, the most likely for such an instance to exist is among the dullest tribes farthest removed from civilisation. But, as a heathen tells us, [54] there is no nation so barbarous, no race so brutish, as not to be imbued with the conviction that there is a God. Even those who, in other respects, seem to differ least from the lower animals, constantly retain some sense of religion; so thoroughly has this common conviction possessed the mind, so firmly is it stamped on the breasts of all men. Since, then, there never has been, from the very first, any quarter of the globe, any city, any household even, without religion, this amounts to a tacit confession, that a sense of Deity is inscribed on every heart. Nay, even idolatry is ample evidence of this fact. For we know how reluctant man is to lower himself, in order to set other creatures above him. Therefore, when he chooses to worship wood and stone rather than be thought to have no God, it is evident how very strong this impression of a Deity must be; since it is more difficult to obliterate it from the mind of man, than to break down the feelings of his nature,--these certainly being broken down, when, in opposition to his natural haughtiness, he spontaneously humbles himself before the meanest object as an act of reverence to God.

     2. It is most absurd, therefore, to maintain, as some do, that religion was devised by the cunning and craft of a few individuals, as a means of keeping the body of the people in due subjection, while there was nothing which those very individuals, while teaching others to worship God, less believed than the existence of a God. I readily acknowledge, that designing men have introduced a vast number of fictions into religion, with the view of inspiring the populace with reverence or striking them with terror, and thereby rendering them more obsequious; but they never could have succeeded in this, had the minds of men not been previously imbued with that uniform belief in God, from which, as from its seed, the religious propensity springs. And it is altogether incredible that those who, in the matter of religion, cunningly imposed on their ruder neighbours, were altogether devoid of a knowledge of God. For though in old times there were some, and in the present day not a few are found who deny the being of a God, yet, whether they will or not, they occasionally feel the truth which they are desirous not to know. We do not read of any man who broke out into more unbridled and audacious contempt of the Deity than C. Caligula, [55] and yet none showed greater dread when any indication of divine wrath was manifested. Thus, however unwilling, he shook with terror before the God whom he professedly studied to condemn. You may every day see the same thing happening to his modern imitators. The most audacious despiser of God is most easily disturbed, trembling at the sound of a falling leaf. How so, unless in vindication of the divine majesty, which smites their consciences the more strongly the more they endeavour to flee from it. They all, indeed, look out for hiding-places where they may conceal themselves from the presence of the Lord, and again efface it from their mind; but after all their efforts they remain caught within the net. Though the conviction may occasionally seem to vanish for a moment, it immediately returns, and rushes in with new impetuosity, so that any interval of relief from the gnawing of conscience is not unlike the slumber of the intoxicated or the insane, who have no quiet rest in sleep, but are continually haunted with dire horrific dreams. Even the wicked themselves, therefore, are an example of the fact that some idea of God always exists in every human mind.

     3. All men of sound Judgment will therefore hold, that a sense of Deity is indelibly engraven on the human heart. And that this belief is naturally engendered in all, and thoroughly fixed as it were in our very bones, is strikingly attested by the contumacy of the wicked, who, though they struggle furiously, are unable to extricate themselves from the fear of God. Though Diagoras, [56] and others of like stamps make themselves merry with whatever has been believed in all ages concerning religion, and Dionysus scoffs at the Judgment of heaven, it is but a Sardonian grin; for the worm of conscience, keener than burning steel, is gnawing them within. I do not say with Cicero, that errors wear out by age, and that religion increases and grows better day by day. For the world (as will be shortly seen) labours as much as it can to shake off all knowledge of God, and corrupts his worship in innumerable ways. I only say, that, when the stupid hardness of heart, which the wicked eagerly court as a means of despising God, becomes enfeebled, the sense of Deity, which of all things they wished most to be extinguished, is still in vigour, and now and then breaks forth. Whence we infer, that this is not a doctrine which is first learned at school, but one as to which every man is, from the womb, his own master; one which nature herself allows no individual to forget, though many, with all their might, strive to do so. Moreover, if all are born and live for the express purpose of learning to know God, and if the knowledge of God, in so far as it fails to produce this effect, is fleeting and vain, it is clear that all those who do not direct the whole thoughts and actions of their lives to this end fail to fulfil the law of their being. This did not escape the observation even of philosophers. For it is the very thing which Plato meant (in Phoed. et Theact.) when he taught, as he often does, that the chief good of the soul consists in resemblance to God; i.e., when, by means of knowing him, she is wholly transformed into him. Thus Gryllus, also, in Plutarch (lib. guod bruta anim. ratione utantur), reasons most skilfully, when he affirms that, if once religion is banished from the lives of men, they not only in no respect excel, but are, in many respects, much more wretched than the brutes, since, being exposed to so many forms of evil, they continually drag on a troubled and restless existence: that the only thing, therefore, which makes them superior is the worship of God, through which alone they aspire to immortality.

__________________________________________________________________

     [54] "Intelligi necesse est deos, quoniam insitas eorum vel potius innatas cognitiones habemus.--Quae nobis natura informationem deorum ipsorum dedit, eadem insculpsit in mentibus ut eos aeternos et beatos haberemus."--Cic. de Nat. Deor. lib. 1 c. 17.--"Itaque inter omnes omnium gentium summa constat; omnibus enim innatum est, et in animo quasi insculptum esse deos."--Lib. 2. c. 4. See also Lact. Inst. Div. lib. 3 c. 10.

     [55] Suet. Calig. c. 51.

     [56] Cic. De Nat. Deor. lib. 1 c. 23. Valer. Max. lib. 1. c. 1.

__________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER 4.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD STIFLED OR CORRUPTED, IGNORANTLY OR MALICIOUSLY.

Sections.

     1. The knowledge of God suppressed by ignorance, many falling away into superstition. Such persons, however, inexcusable, because their error is accompanied with pride and stubbornness.

     2. Stubbornness the companion of impiety.

     3. No pretext can justify superstition. This proved, first, from reason; and, secondly, from Scripture.

     4. The wicked never willingly come into the presence of God. Hence their hypocrisy. Hence, too, their sense of Deity leads to no good result.

     1. But though experience testifies that a seed of religion is divinely sown in all, scarcely one in a hundred is found who cherishes it in his heart, and not one in whom it grows to maturity so far is it from yielding fruit in its season. Moreover, while some lose themselves in superstitious observances, and others, of set purpose, wickedly revolt from God, the result is that, in regard to the true knowledge of him, all are so degenerate, that in no part of the world can genuine godliness be found. In saying that some fall away into superstition, I mean not to insinuate that their excessive absurdity frees them from guilt; for the blindness under which they labour is almost invariably accompanied with vain pride and stubbornness. Mingled vanity and pride appear in this, that when miserable men do seek after God, instead of ascending higher than themselves as they ought to do, they measure him by their own carnal stupidity, and, neglecting solid inquiry, fly off to indulge their curiosity in vain speculation. Hence, they do not conceive of him in the character in which he is manifested, but imagine him to be whatever their own rashness has devised. This abyss standing open, they cannot move one footstep without rushing headlong to destruction. With such an idea of God, nothing which they may attempt to offer in the way of worship or obedience can have any value in his sight, because it is not him they worship, but, instead of him, the dream and figment of their own heart. This corrupt procedure is admirably described by Paul, when he says, that "thinking to be wise, they became fools" (Rom. 1:22). He had previously said that "they became vain in their imaginations," but lest any should suppose them blameless, he afterwards adds that they were deservedly blinded, because, not contented with sober inquiry, because, arrogating to themselves more than they have any title to do, they of their own accord court darkness, nay, bewitch themselves with perverse, empty show. Hence it is that their folly, the result not only of vain curiosity, but of licentious desire and overweening confidence in the pursuit of forbidden knowledge, cannot be excused.

     2. The expression of David (Psalm 14:1, 53:1), "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God," is primarily applied to those who, as will shortly farther appear, stifle the light of nature, and intentionally stupefy themselves. We see many, after they have become hardened in a daring course of sin, madly banishing all remembrance of God, though spontaneously suggested to them from within, by natural sense. To show how detestable this madness is, the Psalmist introduces them as distinctly denying that there is a God, because although they do not disown his essence, they rob him of his justice and providence, and represent him as sitting idly in heaven. Nothing being less accordant with the nature of God than to cast off the government of the world, leaving it to chance, and so to wink at the crimes of men that they may wanton with impunity in evil courses; it follows, that every man who indulges in security, after extinguishing all fear of divine Judgment, virtually denies that there is a God. As a just punishment of the wicked, after they have closed their own eyes, God makes their hearts dull and heavy, and hence, seeing, they see not. David, indeed, is the best interpreter of his own meaning, when he says elsewhere, the wicked has "no fear of God before his eyes," (Psalm 36:1); and, again, "He has said in his heart, God has forgotten; he hideth his face; he will never see it." Thus although they are forced to acknowledge that there is some God, they, however, rob him of his glory by denying his power. For, as Paul declares, "If we believe not, he abideth faithful, he cannot deny himself," (2 Tim. 2:13); so those who feign to themselves a dead and dumb idol, are truly said to deny God. It is, moreover, to be observed, that though they struggle with their own convictions, and would fain not only banish God from their minds, but from heaven also, their stupefaction is never so complete as to secure them from being occasionally dragged before the divine tribunal. Still, as no fear restrains them from rushing violently in the face of God, so long as they are hurried on by that blind impulse, it cannot be denied that their prevailing state of mind in regard to him is brutish oblivion.

     3. In this way, the vain pretext which many employ to clothe their superstition is overthrown. They deem it enough that they have some kind of zeal for religion, how preposterous soever it may be, not observing that true religion must be conformable to the will of God as its unerring standard; that he can never deny himself, and is no spectra or phantom, to be metamorphosed at each individual's caprice. It is easy to see how superstition, with its false glosses, mocks God, while it tries to please him. Usually fastening merely on things on which he has declared he sets no value, it either contemptuously overlooks, or even undisguisedly rejects, the things which he expressly enjoins, or in which we are assured that he takes pleasure. Those, therefore, who set up a fictitious worship, merely worship and adore their own delirious fancies; indeed, they would never dare so to trifle with God, had they not previously fashioned him after their own childish conceits. Hence that vague and wandering opinion of Deity is declared by an apostle to be ignorance of God: "Howbeit, then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods." And he elsewhere declares, that the Ephesians were "without God" (Eph. 2:12) at the time when they wandered without any correct knowledge of him. It makes little difference, at least in this respect, whether you hold the existence of one God, or a plurality of gods, since, in both cases alike, by departing from the true God, you have nothing left but an execrable idol. It remains, therefore, to conclude with Lactantius (Instit. Div. lib 1:2, 6), "No religion is genuine that is not in accordance with truth."

     4. To this fault they add a second--viz. that when they do think of God it is against their will; never approaching him without being dragged into his presence, and when there, instead of the voluntary fear flowing from reverence of the divine majesty, feeling only that forced and servile fear which divine Judgment extorts Judgment which, from the impossibility of escape, they are compelled to dread, but which, while they dread, they at the same time also hate. To impiety, and to it alone, the saying of Statius properly applies: "Fear first brought gods into the world," (Theb. lib. 1). Those whose inclinations are at variance with the justice of God, knowing that his tribunal has been erected for the punishment of transgression, earnestly wish that that tribunal were overthrown. Under the influence of this feeling they are actually warring against God, justice being one of his essential attributes. Perceiving that they are always within reach of his power, that resistance and evasion are alike impossible, they fear and tremble. Accordingly, to avoid the appearance of condemning a majesty by which all are overawed, they have recourse to some species of religious observance, never ceasing meanwhile to defile themselves with every kind of vice, and add crime to crime, until they have broken the holy law of the Lord in every one of its requirements, and set his whole righteousness at nought; at all events, they are not so restrained by their semblance of fear as not to luxuriate and take pleasure in iniquity, choosing rather to indulge their carnal propensities than to curb them with the bridle of the Holy Spirit. But since this shadow of religion (it scarcely even deserves to be called a shadow) is false and vain, it is easy to infer how much this confused knowledge of God differs from that piety which is instilled into the breasts of believers, and from which alone true religion springs. And yet hypocrites would fain, by means of tortuous windings, make a show of being near to God at the very time they are fleeing from him. For while the whole life ought to be one perpetual course of obedience, they rebel without fear in almost all their actions, and seek to appease him with a few paltry sacrifices; while they ought to serve him with integrity of heart and holiness of life, they endeavour to procure his favour by means of frivolous devices and punctilios of no value. Nay, they take greater license in their grovelling indulgences, because they imagine that they can fulfil their duty to him by preposterous expiations; in short, while their confidence ought to have been fixed upon him, they put him aside, and rest in themselves or the creatures. At length they bewilder themselves in such a maze of error, that the darkness of ignorance obscures, and ultimately extinguishes, those sparks which were designed to show them the glory of God. Still, however, the conviction that there is some Deity continues to exist, like a plant which can never be completely eradicated, though so corrupt, that it is only capable of producing the worst of fruit. Nay, we have still stronger evidence of the proposition for which I now contend--viz. that a sense of Deity is naturally engraven on the human heart, in the fact, that the very reprobate are forced to acknowledge it. When at their ease, they can jest about God, and talk pertly and loquaciously in disparagement of his power; but should despair, from any cause, overtake them, it will stimulate them to seek him, and dictate ejaculatory prayers, proving that they were not entirely ignorant of God, but had perversely suppressed feelings which ought to have been earlier manifested.

     Christian Classics Ethereal Library / Public Domain      Institutes of the Christian Religion

The Sacramental Laurus

By Rod Dreher 3/29/2016

     I was reading to the kids the other night from Land of the Firebird: The Beauty of Old Russia, by Suzanne Massie. It’s a wonderfully written book. Here’s a passage that caught my eye. Christianity first came to Russia in 988, with the conversion of the Kievan Prince Vladimir to Orthodoxy. In this passage, Massie explains how the Slavs brought their own traditions into the forms handed to them from Byzantium:

     For the Slavs, the destines of man, animals and plants were all blended into one; they blossomed and died together. For them, beauty lay primarily in an all-embracing, all-encompassing nature. To their church, the Russians brought this close feeling for nature. The Earth was the ideal of Eternal Womanhood, and so in Russia, there never was the extreme Latin veneration and cult of the Virgin as the Virgin of Purity but more importantly as the Virgin of Motherhood, fertility, and compassion; the Virgin was rarely portrayed without a child. Permeated by this sense of unity with nature and the earth, the Russians interpreted Christians rebirth quite literally as the beautifying and transfiguration of human life. The church building itself had a twofold meaning. It embodied the significance of the Resurrection and was also part of the natural world, blending harmoniously into the landscape.

     More:

     The Orthodox believe that it is possible to recognize the presence of the Holy Spirit in a man and to convey it to others by artistic means. Therefore, the function of an icon painter had much in common with that of a priest, and although it was important for an icon painter to be a good artist, it was essential for him to be a good Christian. Those who painted icons had to prepare themselves spiritually: fast, pray, read religious texts, for it was a true test, not only a pictorial work in the usual sense.

     … For an Orthodox worshiper, icons were far more than paintings; they were the palpable evidence of things hidden and a testimony to the possibility of man’s participation in the transfigured world which he sought to contemplate. The role of icons was not static but alive, a dynamic means by which man could actively enter into the spiritual world, a song of faith to man’s spiritual power to redeem himself by beauty and art.

• 1     Crunchy Cons: How Birkenstocked Burkeans, gun-loving organic gardeners, evangelical free-range farmers, hip homeschooling mamas, right-wing nature ... America (or at least the Republican Party)
• 2     How Dante Can Save Your Life: The Life-Changing Wisdom of History's Greatest Poem
• 3     The Little Way of Ruthie Leming: A Southern Girl, a Small Town, and the Secret of a Good Life
• 4     The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation

The Churches We Need

By Gracy Olmstead 8/24/2016

     Why aren’t people going to church? It could have more to do with the car drive than with philosophical agnosticism or disillusionment. Emma Green considers a new Pew survey on religious participation and church attendance over at The Atlantic:

     While Americans on the whole are still going to church and other worship services less than they used to, many people are actually going more—and those who are skipping out aren’t necessarily doing it for reasons of belief.

     … First, people who report going to worship services less frequently now than they used to overwhelmingly say the logistics of getting there are the biggest obstacle. Second, a significant number of people who said they’re not part of any particular religion expressed mistrust of religious institutions, suggesting these organizations’ reputations have something to do with why people are dropping out of public religious participation.

     … While it’s easy to empathize with the hassle of trying to wake up and rally kids to go sit still for several hours every Sunday morning, this explanation is interesting for a slightly different reason: It suggests that many people view religious services as optional in a way they might not have in the past. Fifty or 60 years ago, churches, in particular, were a center of social and cultural life in America. For many people, that’s still the case, but the survey suggests that many people may be creating their social lives outside of a religious context—or perhaps forgoing that kind of social connection altogether.

     To some degree, these findings are indicative of a society in which churches increasingly sit on the sidelines of cultural life. Geographically, they’re distanced from the actual places where people live and work (a consequence, some might argue, of suburban sprawl or consumer-centric urban planning). Culturally, they’ve grown increasingly segregated from the dominant political and artistic voices of our time. Communally, many churches have invested less in the needy and destitute than in building bigger church buildings or organizing short-term mission trips overseas (not to denigrate international ministry—but it does seem that many churches invest more internationally than they do locally).

The Churches We Need, Pt. II

By Gracy Olmstead 8/26/2016

     TAC commenters are the best commenters. Thank you for all of you who offered thoughtful input and commentary on my last piece regarding the church and declining attendance.

     Here are some responses to those comments—because they offered excellent food for thought, and I wanted to give some deeper thought to them. 1,000-or-so-word blog posts aren’t adequate to address the depth and complexity of the issues the U.S. church is facing, and it’s worth considering these issues in greater detail. So without further ado, here’s a look at some of the main objections I received Wednesday:

     It’s About Catechesis, Not Community

     This is true to some extent: don’t go to a heretical church, even if it’s just across the street. Don’t abandon doctrine or orthodoxy in your efforts to connect with a body of believers. When referring to “denominational difference” in the original piece, I was referring more to minor issues of worship or layout than core doctrinal considerations. If we’re considering two churches that are both Bible-preaching and doctrinally sound, then choosing between them becomes a matter of other, more gray issues: such as location, size, and communal integration.

     Because we’re discussing this issue in the public sphere, and because logistics are what people pinpoint as keeping them from church on Sundays, I think it’s important not to simply say, “The right doctrine and sound preaching will keep people in the pews.” It should—that’s true. We would hope that, as one commenter points out, “the Church that preaches repentance and hope” would draw and keep a congregation. It’s about the Gospel, first and foremost.

Christian Thinkers 101: A Crash Course on Blaise Pascal

By Kenneth R. Samples 4/19/16

     Did you know that the first digital calculator was invented by a seventeenth-century French mathematician? In his brief time on Earth, Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) wore many hats and left an imprint on both modern science and Christian philosophy that lingers to this day. Here’s your crash course on the life and accomplishments of Blaise Pascal—and why he still matters today.

     Who Was Blaise Pascal?

     Blaise Pascal lived during the scientific revolution and worked as a mathematician, physicist, inventor, polemicist, and writer. His invention of the calculator was one of the major achievements of the early scientific revolution and the precursor to the modern computer.

     Pascal grew up as a nominal Catholic, but as an adult he had a dramatic religious experience that led him to commit his life to Christ and to put his remarkable mind to work for Christ’s kingdom. As a Christian philosopher, theologian, and apologist, Pascal provided a penetrating and provocative analysis of Christianity’s broader world-and-life view. In particular, Pascal’s wager argument was a key contribution to Christian apologetics. He accomplished all this before dying at the age of 39.

     What Did Pascal Write?

Philosopher and theologian Kenneth Richard Samples has a great passion to help people understand the reasonableness and relevance of Christianity's truth claims. Through his writing and speaking as senior research scholar at Reasons to Believe (RTB), he encourages believers to develop a logically defensible faith and challenges skeptics to engage Christianity at a philosophical worldview level.

     An intellectual even at a young age, Kenneth's journey to faith in Christ began in earnest during his teenage years as he wrestled with a deep sense of longing and restlessness. His older brother's suicide spurred his efforts to seek answers to life's "big questions." Eventually, he began reading the Bible and attending church, but it was his sister's gift of Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis that helped Kenneth to truly understand the Christian Gospel and to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. From then on, he pursued an intellectually satisfying and deeply personal faith.

     Today, Kenneth focuses on demonstrating the unique compatibility of Christianity's great doctrinal truths with reason and logic. He is the author of several books, including God Among Sages, Christian Endgame, 7 Truths That Changed the World, A World of Difference, and Without a Doubt. He leads RTB's Straight Thinking podcast and also writes Reflections, a weekly blog dedicated to exploring the Christian worldview. Kenneth has spoken at universities and churches around the world on such topics as religion and worldview, the identity of Jesus, and Christian apologetics. He also makes frequent guest appearances on radio programs such as The Frank Sontag Show, Issues Etc., and Stand to Reason, lectures as an adjunct professor at Biola University, and teaches adult classes at Christ Reformed Church in Southern California.

     An avid student of American history, Kenneth earned a BA in social science with an emphasis in history and philosophy from Concordia University and an MA in theological studies from Talbot School of Theology. Prior to joining RTB in 1997, Kenneth worked for seven years as senior research consultant and correspondence editor at Christian Research Institute, where he regularly cohosted The Bible Answer Man, a popular call-in radio program founded by renowned apologist Dr. Walter Martin. In addition, Kenneth's articles have been published in Christianity Today, Christian Research Journal, and Facts for Faith, and he holds memberships in the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the Evangelical Theological Society, and the International Society of Christian Apologetics.

     Kenneth lives in Southern California with his wife, Joan. They have three children.

• 1     God among Sages: Why Jesus Is Not Just Another Religious Leader
• 2     A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test (Reasons to Believe)
• 3     God among Sages: Why Jesus Is Not Just Another Religious Leader
• 4     Christian Endgame: Careful Thinking about the End Times
• 5     Christianity's Most Dangerous Idea (Ebook Shorts)

Acts 19

By Don Carson 8/1/2018

     One of the strangest accounts in the book of Acts concerns the seven sons of Sceva (Acts 19:11-20). Paul’s ministry in Ephesus lasted some considerable time, perhaps two and a half years, and during that time “God did extraordinary miracles through Paul”(19:11). The result is that various “competitors” tried to keep up with him. By itself, this was not surprising. It has always been so. When God especially empowered Moses to perform miracles before Pharaoh, the magicians of Egypt could reproduce most (though not all) of what he did.

     So in Paul’s day some Jews steeped in syncretism traveled around, engaging in some kind of deliverance ministry. They had little idea what they were engaged in. When they saw what Paul was doing in the name of Jesus, they started to refer to that name too, as if it were nothing more than some magic talisman: “They would say, ‘In the name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out.’” (Acts 19:13).

     The seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish priest, were particularly engaged in this operation. One day the evil spirit they were trying to exercise talked back to them: “Jesus I know, and I know about Paul, but who are you?” (Acts 19:15). Then the man possessed by this spirit leaped on them and beat up all seven of them.

     Note:

     First, the result of this encounter was entirely beneficial. When the story circulated, many were seized with a healthy fear and an enlarged respect for the name of the Lord Jesus. This was a name so powerful that it could not be treated as a magic formula. This name could not be domesticated. The result was that infatuation with occult practices was curbed. Many confessed their evil deeds, and others brought their occult books and burned them, totaling an enormous value (Acts 19:17-19). “In this way the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power” (Acts 19:20).

     Second, the really striking element is the utterance of the evil spirit: “Jesus I know, and I know about Paul, but who are you?” One can understand why Jesus would be known among demonic powers. There is no surprise there. But Paul is known too! His ministry had been assaulting the powers of darkness. He was known to be protected and defended by the living Christ — there is no way the demon could have used the possessed man to beat him up. These other characters were another matter; as far as the demon was concerned, they were a bit of a joke, easily ignored, easily subdued and shamed. But Paul was known!

     Christians engaging the Enemy will be known not only in the courts of heaven but in the courts of hell.

Click here to go to source

Don Carson is research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, and co-founder (with Tim Keller) of The Gospel Coalition. He has authored numerous books, and recently edited The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures (Eerdmans, 2016).

Acts 20

By Don Carson 8/2/2018

     Paul's address to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:18-35) can be broken down into three parts. In the first (Acts 20:18-24), Paul talks about his own ministry in Ephesus and his own future. In the second (Acts 20:25-31), he uses his example of ministry as an encouragement to the elders in Ephesus to “keep watch” over themselves and over “all the flock” of God (Acts 20:28) of which the Holy Spirit has made them overseers, with special emphasis on the challenges ahead when people within the church will prove eager to gain disciples and be prepared to distort the truth. In the third (Acts 20:32-35), Paul not only commits these elders “to God and to the word of his grace” (Acts 20:32), but quietly testifies again to the exacting standards of personal probity in his own life when he served among them.

     More commonly than not, when this passage is preached we lay the emphasis on the central section. But here I would like to draw attention to some of the features that characterized Paul’s ministry.

     (1) The most obvious is the fact that Paul perceived how he lived and served to be a role model. Elsewhere he openly tells the Corinthians to imitate him, as he imitates Christ (1 Cor. 11). In Paul there is no trace of a double standard. Do what I teach but not what I do.

     (2) Paul “served the Lord with great humility and with tears,” even though he was “severely tested” by the machinations of “the Jews” (Acts 20:19). In other words, opposition neither defeated him nor whipped him into a frenzy of retaliation. By contrast, how easy it is to get discouraged and quit, or get angry and destroy what is being built.

     (3) Paul’s ministry was edifying, and conveyed in a mixture of public meeting and faithful visitation (Acts 20:20). One gets the impression that above all it was the ministry of the Word, communicated through a man set on fire by that Word.

     (4) Paul did not flinch from dealing with the immutables of the Gospel, no matter how uncomfortable or unpopular they might be. As a result he boldly declared, to Jews and Gentiles alike, “that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus” (Acts 20:21).

     (5) On occasion, Paul felt himself “compelled by the Spirit” to adopt a certain course without knowing exactly where that course would lead (Acts 20:22-24). Having enough illumination to decide on an action does not guarantee enough information to know how things will turn out. In this case he knows only that he is promised “prison and hardships”– and all he wants for himself is to complete the task the Lord Jesus has given him, “the task of testifying to the gospel of God’s grace.”

Click here to go to source

Don Carson is research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, and co-founder (with Tim Keller) of The Gospel Coalition. He has authored numerous books, and recently edited The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures (Eerdmans, 2016).

Perspectives on Social Ethics 3 - Christ’s Teachings on Social Ethics

By Charles C. Ryrie     1976

     The image of Jesus Christ as an ethical Reformer has evoked a variety of responses. Some think this was His primary mission on earth; others suggest that He did not concern Himself at all with social questions. And of course, a whole spectrum of views exists between these two extremes. That He was a great Teacher of social ethics is supported by a distinguished Jewish scholar, J. Klausner, who states, “The main strength of Jesus lay in his ethical teaching. If we omitted the miracles and a few mystical sayings which tend to deify the Son of Man, and preserved only the moral precepts and parables, the Gospels would count as one of the most wonderful collections of ethical teachings in the world.”

     Other scholars give little place to His ethical teaching. The index to Emil Brunner’s classic The Divine Imperative lists forty-six references to Luther, thirty-five to Calvin, twenty to Paul, and none to Jesus (though by diligent search one is able to find an occasional allusion by Brunner to Jesus’ views on ethics). In the popularly held image of dispensationalism, the teachings of Jesus are thought to have no relevance to the church; furthermore, since His emphasis was on personal redemption He is not to be considered a social Reformer at all. T. A. Hegre, for example, in a book entitled The Cross and Sanctification: Three Aspects of the Cross, heads one of the chapters “Have You Lost Your Bible?” He devotes two pages to the disastrous effects of liberalism on the Bible, but five pages to what he calls the “damaging” results of dispensationalism. C. Norman Kraus, an evangelical, misrepresents dispensationalism by insisting that in it “Jesus’ life and teachings are lost to the Church.” A typical contemporary statement concerning the importance of the teachings of Jesus as they relate to ethics is expressed by the late Georgia Harkness, of the Pacific School of Religion:

… we cannot find our primary authority for the demands of Christian decision in the general field of moral philosophy, or in the moral standards of Christendom, past or present, or in the ethical pronouncements of the churches, corporately or through the words of any one of its leaders, though from all of these sources important insights may be gleaned which we cannot afford to overlook or to discard. It was also said that Christian ethics is rooted in the Bible, but not equally in all parts of it, the New Testament being our more definitive point of reference. It was said, furthermore, that within the New Testament no final authority is to be located in particular words or passages but rather in the total picture it gives of the person and work of our Lord, the life, teachings, ministry, and death of Jesus Christ as the revelation of God.

     However, this ordained Methodist minister believed that the Gospels are the product of the first-century church and that one cannot indiscriminately “take every word recorded as spoken by Jesus to be accurate or authoritative.” Nevertheless, she defined Christian ethics as “the systematic study of the way of life set forth by Jesus Christ, applied to the daily demands and decisions of our personal and social existence.”

     In the final analysis, all the various appraisals of the ethics of Jesus are mainly of academic interest, since the obvious task at hand is to discover, correlate, interpret, and apply what He said on these subjects. The discovery and correlation is not a difficult task. Anyone can do it with the aid of a concordance. But the interpretation and application are more difficult. Interpretation can be greatly assisted by the many good commentaries available, but application involves one’s views on hermeneutics, progress of revelation, and systematic theology.

     Passages dealing with the teachings of Christ present probably the most difficult problem of proper and consistent interpretation of any portion of Scripture. The reason is simple: Christ lived and taught in relation to three different stewardship arrangements. He actually lived under the dispensation of the Mosaic law which was still very much in force all during His earthly life. Thus many of His teachings pertained to that economy. Since the New Testament says unequivocally that the law has been done away for the Christian ( 2 Cor 3:7–11; Heb 7:12; Rom 10:4 ), how shall one interpret the sayings of Christ which had to do with that economy?

     Christ also delivered teachings about the coming church which would be inaugurated “when the Spirit is come.” These are not usually difficult to isolate since they are clearly distinguished from the actual time in which He was ministering. Most of these sayings are found in the Upper Room Discourse in  John’s Gospel.

     In addition, Christ taught many things about the kingdom. These passages represent undoubtedly the greatest challenge to proper and consistent interpretation. Confusion at this point is not hard to document. For example, a great Scottish preacher and New Testament scholar wrote the following: “Jesus came preaching a kingdom, and the very use of that idea raised profound social issues … Either Jesus must be king everywhere, or he has no place at all.” The Life and Teaching of Jesus Christ And again, “If the Kingdom was the rule of God in the world, it followed, first, that the kingdom of God was social, not individualistic …” In order to find one’s way through the maze of the Gospels, it is necessary to realize that the Lord came proclaiming the imminency of the Messianic (Davidic) kingdom promised in the Old Testament. He announced the need for repentance and explained in the Sermon on the Mount what that would involve for individuals. But the immediate establishment of the kingdom was dependent on the heart acceptance of His claims by His Jewish kinsmen, a thing they were unwilling to do. So the kingdom was not established at that time; instead, revelation of the coming church was given. However, the kingdom promises were not abrogated but merely postponed until His second coming. Clearly, some of the things Jesus taught do relate primarily to the kingdom which is yet to be established. Yet those precepts may (and should) readily be applied to God’s people today, which explains why the dispensationalist does not tear out these pages from his Bible!

Jesus on Poverty and Wealth

     More than a dozen references to money can be found in Jesus’ teachings.

     Now this frequency of allusion might seem surprising until we remember how inextricably the whole question of money gets mixed up with the lives and experience of ordinary men and women in this world, even against their will. It gets mixed up even with fine, spiritual things — like the love of parents for their children, or the compassion of a good Samaritan for the distress of his neighbor, or the thank offering a man makes to God. Now Jesus was no fanciful dreamer, dwelling in the clouds; Jesus was a realist and saw the facts as they were. Here, then, was a whole aspect of life which could not be ignored. Here was a clamant need for all the guidance he could give.

     What directions did He give concerning the monetary aspect of societal life?

Concerning Poverty

     At Bethany Jesus uttered the well-known statement, “For you have the poor with you always” ( Mark 14:7 ). By this He affirmed the inevitability of poverty as a social phenomenon. The occasion was His anointing by Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus ( John 12:3 ), with costly ointment of pure nard. These twelve ounces of highly aromatic perfume were worth the equivalent of a year’s wages for the average agricultural worker. When the disciples protested that the money might better have been given to the poor, the Lord made His well-known remark. The statement should never be understood callously, as if Christ were saving one need never concern himself with the alleviation of poverty. In effect, Christ was saying that opportunities always exist to do something for the poor, but not always to do what had just been done to Him since He was about to be put to death. To put it another way, Jesus was saying that on that occasion “an extravagant gift of perfumed ointment was more appropriate than a donation to the poor.”

     Jesus’ statement furnishes a second principle: The mere presence of poverty does not necessarily constitute a call to action to alleviate that poverty. If poverty alone constituted a call to action, then no Christian could justify having anything but the barest necessities of life since the poor are constantly everywhere. In view of the fact that ten thousand people die of starvation or malignant malnutrition every day, how could anyone justify steak when he could eat hamburger, or even hamburger when he could eat cereal, and so on? If a person “were to follow the slogan, ‘The need constitutes the call,’ he would soon be a nervous and starved wreck! It is not the goodness or necessity of a work which determines whether we can enter into it, but whether it is the specific will of God for us to do it at this time.” Charismatic Approach to Social Action Or to be explicit, it may be in the will of God to own and properly use expensive perfume rather than give the equivalent amount of money to the poor. Then again, the converse may be equally true in a given situation.

     A third principle suggested by Jesus’ words in  Mark 14:7 is this: The Lord commended sacrificial giving and condemned selfish and showy giving. The object of commendation was a poverty-stricken widow who gave all she had ( Mark 12:41–44 ). The Lord had just finished teaching in the Court of the Gentiles. Passing through one of the nine gates in the dividing wall around the Temple proper, he walked into the Court of the Women where the treasury was. Throngs of people were casting their offerings into the thirteen trumpetlike receptacles placed there for receiving religious and charitable contributions. A destitute widow cast in two small coins, the least valuable of any denomination then in use but representing her entire means of sustenance. Her gift not only demonstrated the highest kind of sacrifice, but also showed her complete trust in God to sustain her and provide her with a means of earning more. Two observations may be noted here: (a) all should give, even the poor; and (b) people should give proportionately and generously. The test of true giving is not simply what is given but what is retained.

     A fourth principle is this: While the poor are blessed, it is desirable to work for self-advancement.  Luke’s account of the Beatitudes begins, “Blessed are the poor” ( Luke 6:20 ). This is different from  Matthew’s account where the words “in spirit” are added. Undoubtedly, actual poverty is meant here. However, the Lord is not saying the state of poverty is more desirable, as if men should renounce all their possessions, for elsewhere He clearly commends those who work for self-betterment. It is possible that the beatitude should be applied only to the disciples, indicating that they were blessed in their poverty as it made them more dependent on God. The parable of the pounds commends trading and legitimate gain ( Luke 19:11–28 ). Apparently each man could have gained additional pounds, thus showing that God commends industry and profit.

Concerning Wealth

     From Jesus’ teaching on wealth, four principles can be derived. First, He did not say that possessions were necessarily or intrinsically wrong. His circle of friends included well-to-do people like Joseph of Arimathaea ( Matt 27:57 ), Nicodemus ( John 3:1 ), the centurion of Capernaum ( Luke 7:2 ), the family at Bethany ( Luke 10:38 ), and the women who “ministered unto him of their substance” ( Luke 8:3 ). When the Lord demanded the rich young ruler to sell everything he owned, He was testing the ruler’s claim to have kept the commandments, especially the command,  “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” The young man’s unwillingness to obey belied his claim of obedience from childhood, and showed him to be a sinner in need of salvation ( Matt 19:16–22 ).

     Second, Jesus did say that riches make it more difficult for a man to enter the kingdom of God ( Matt 19:24 ). The needle referred to in this verse is a sewing needle, which accentuates the solemnity of the warning. Christ did not say that a rich man could not be saved, but only that it is more difficult since such a person seldom senses his personal need as readily as a poorer man does.

     Third, the Lord warned that a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions ( Luke 12:15 ). Life derives its value from the way one makes use of his possessions; its continuance depends solely on the will of God.

     Actually, these principles concerning wealth say not one word about social responsibility. They are all couched in a personal context, not a societal one. Thus there is no scriptural support for a statement like this: “For the Christian the ‘war on poverty’ is not a political option. It is a lifelong battle based on the mandate of Christ, who loved the poor,” The Social Conscience of the Evangelical  Luke 16:20 being cited as scriptural support for the statement.

     Fourth, in the parable of the unjust steward ( Luke 16:1–13 ), Jesus instructed believers on how to use money in the service of others. The ingenuity of the dishonest steward in using his present opportunities to prepare for the future is commended by Christ to His followers. They too should be ingenious in using the “mammon of unrighteousness” (v.  9 ) to assure rewards in heaven. The admonition is clear: Use money wisely in this life, so that when it fails (not “when ye fail”), that is, when you can no longer use money because death occurs, they (those you have helped during life) may receive (i.e., welcome) you into heaven. Who are these who are the objects of charity in this parable? Unquestionably they are also believers, for both donor and donees are seen in the “everlasting habitations.” “What the steward did in his sphere in relation to people of his own quality, see that you do in yours toward those who belong like you to the world to come.” Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel, 2 Volume Set Faith alone opens heaven, but good works gain an abundant entrance. Thus the Lord taught that money should be rightly used by His followers to help other followers. No word is found here concerning the believer’s responsibility outside the circle of disciples. The elimination of poverty or the equalizing of wealth was not Jesus’ goal.

Jesus on Duties to All Men

     Are there no universals in Jesus’ teachings? Does He not commend social service to all men? Has the believer no obligation to unbelievers other than preaching the gospel to them?

Being Salt and Light

     Christ’s two metaphors, salt and light, are often used as evidence of the need for penetration by the church into the world. Wirt explains the metaphors as believers “imparting flavor and wisdom and lasting value to all of life.” The Social Conscience of the Evangelical Usually salt is explained as the preservative power of the followers of Christ in this world, and light is explained as the attraction of the life and witness of believers.

     What is Christ’s intention in likening believers to salt? The idea of preservative power of Christians in the world is certainly inherent is Jesus’ words. Plummer makes this comment:

Perhaps the connecting thought is, that Christians, like the Prophets who saved Israel from corruption, must be ready to suffer persecution … But they must beware lest, instead of preserving others, they themselves become tainted with rottenness. The salt must be in close contact with that which it preserves; and too often, while Christians raise the morality of the world, they allow their own morality to be lowered by the world. An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew

     Salt preserves; salt gives flavor; salt cleanses; salt de-ices; salt creates thirst; and salt, when poured into a wound, stings. But how do followers of Christ, like salt, do these things? That question is answered by understanding the Old Testament significance of salt. Salt, in the Old Testament expression “covenant of salt” ( Num 18:19; 2 Chron 13:5 ), was a symbol of that which gave life. Salt symbolized a permanent covenant, since the eating of salt with another person signified that the two were bound together in loyalty ( Ezra 4:14 ). Elisha purified the spring at Jericho with salt in order that “neither death nor miscarriage [should] come from it” ( 2 Kings 2:19–22 ). Thus Christians are the salt of the earth as they give life and preservation to the world.

     Light, the second metaphor, serves as a safeguard. Lest believers think they have light in themselves with which to enlighten the world, they should remember that they are only reflections of Him who is the ultimate light of the world ( John 8:12 ). Light both attracts and repels. The believers’ testimony concerning the One who is the light of the world attracts some and repels others ( 2 Cor 2:16 ). But their light must be set on a hill, far above and uncontaminated by the moral decay of the world, illuminating far and wide for all to see. The light shines because of good works; it affects unbelieving men; it glorifies God.

     These two metaphors illustrate the believer’s responsibility to the whole world. Their character and works preserve, give life, affect men, and glorify the Father.

Loving One’s Neighbor

     No discussion of ethics would be complete without including the parable of the Good Samaritan. Scribes were interpreters, teachers, and judges of the law. The one who evoked the story of the Good Samaritan came to Jesus to tempt Him. His question was simple, basic, and to the point: What must I do to inherit eternal life? Because the dispensation of grace had not yet been introduced, and men were still living under the law, the Lord asked him what the law demanded. The man’s answer was again simple, basic, and to the point, for he quoted the two greatest commandments. The Lord responded that if the man would continue to do this he would live. But of course, neither this man nor any other man could love the Lord with all his heart, and his neighbor as himself. In order to justify his inability to keep these basic commandments, the scribe seized on the one word in the commandments that was ambiguous, on which an argument could be raised. Playing to the grandstand, he asked for a definition of the word neighbor.

     According to this story, who is one’s neighbor? He is the person in need who crosses one’s path. The man who was robbed was the Samaritan’s neighbor, and the Samaritan by his actions loved him as himself. But the Samaritan was also in need of concern, and he in turn was the neighbor of the Jewish scribe. Of course, the scribe refused to accept the fact. Since the scribe would not recognize the Samaritan as his neighbor (Samaritans were considered scum), he could not claim to have fulfilled the law. Rather, he needed to acknowledge his sin and cast himself on the mercy of God.

     A second emphasis in the story is the extolling of good works done to those in need who cross one’s path. This may involve someone of different economic status, different race, different religion, or different political persuasion. Salt, light, and neighborliness are all part of the social ethic for Christians. The believer who shows these good works will be imitating his Lord “who went about doing good” ( Acts 10:38 ).

The Question of Matthew 25:31–46

     Undoubtedly, the judgment scene in  Matthew 25:31–46 is one of the most often - used passages in support of the idea that Christians are primarily responsible to feed and clothe the world. Liberals interpret the “brethren” (v.  40 ) to mean all men. Harry Emerson Fosdick wrote that Jesus “even said that at the judgment seat … human service to hungry, thirsty, naked, sick, and imprisoned would prove the one passport to the favor of the Eternal.” Adventurous Religion and Other Essays Many evangelicals use the passage to promote general social concern on the part of believers. Wirt, for example, says that Christians should seek new ways for the earth to supply the necessities of man’s existence, and that such “opportunities are limited only by the stretch of human imagination and the time of the return of him who said, ‘Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me.’“ The Social Conscience of the Evangelical Moberg clearly states, “The ‘brethren’ referred to here include all members of the human race, not solely those who are brothers in the added sense of being born again. Jesus identified Himself with the whole of humanity by carrying the burden of sin of all mankind.”

     The brethren in this passage cannot be all mankind. After all, it is the Gentiles who are being judged for treatment of the “brethren,” obviously indicating some group other than those standing before the King. They must be the natural brethren of the King, the Jews (as in  Rom 9:3 ). In the tribulation days, to render service to a persecuted Jew will be the most conclusive evidence of one’s own spiritual relationship to the Lord, for to do so will only be at the risk of one’s own life. While the passage does not teach that all men are a Christian’s social responsibility, it does teach that redeemed people of that future time will show to the world the grace of God by their good works to the “brethren.”

     The common theme underlying these four ideas — salt, light, neighborliness, and treatment of the brethren — is that good works, the fruit of the redeemed life, will attract men to the One who is the Light of the world and who alone can save. The emphasis is on one-to-one activity. The passages, for example, say nothing about how to implement the principles if a believer should find one thousand victims of robbers lying along the Jericho Road!

Jesus on Priorities

     No man can help every other person in the world. Even Christ did not help everyone He contacted, nor did He command His followers to do so. It is perfectly obvious that He did not heal everyone who needed it. In the recorded miracles of Christ performed on specific individuals or groups, one reads of thirty-nine instances of healing. Of these, only two (Malchus and the Syrophoenician’s daughter) involved individuals outside the commonwealth of Israel. It goes without saying that thousands more whom the Lord contacted during His earthly life needed phvsical healing. For example, “a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered” lay at the pool of Bethesda ( John 5:3 ), yet Christ threaded His way through the crowd to find a single individual to heal — a man, oddly enough, who exhibited no faith that he would be healed.

     Neither did the Lord feed all those who were hungry. On two occasions He fed more than ten thousand people, but only for a single meal. He did not continue to supply them with food. Furthermore, the healings and feedings were not done primarily to benefit those who were healed and fed, but to glorify God or to teach the disciples or to confirm His claims of deity. It is as if the actual physical benefit was secondary to the spiritual lessons intended, for indeed His priorities were spiritual.

     Neither did Jesus attempt to reform the Roman government under which He lived. He acknowledged the rule of Rome ( Matt 22:21 ). When faced with the question of the poll tax which was annually paid to Caesar, the Lord did not address Himself to the basic question of whether or not Rome had the right to occupy Palestine (and if not, whether the Jews should try to gain independence from Rome). He simply said that if one accepts the benefits of government (in this case by using the money they coined), then one is obligated to pay taxes. The particular denarius with which the poll tax was paid bore the emperor’s image and acclaimed him to be God. The inscription on the coin read “Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of the Divine Augustus.” Nor did Jesus address Himself to the question of idolatry which the people felt was involved in using these coins. He simply said, “Pay.” But He also said something else which indicates His priorities. He reminded His hearers that they had an obligation to God. The Lord was making a connection between the image of Caesar on the coin and the image of God which is stamped on every man. The point is clear: the Jews were subjects of Caesar. His image was stamped on the coin. What then did they owe Caesar? The tax. Members of the human race bear the stamp of the image of God. What then do they owe God? Themselves. The most important thing is not one’s relation to the government under which he lives, but his relation and obligation to God. Once again, His priorities were spiritual. Jesus Christ was not a political revolutionary; ‘but He certainly was a very radical religious one.

     On another occasion the Lord was asked to settle a dispute between two brothers ( Luke 12:13–21 ). He refused to do so because He would not invade the sphere of constituted authority. The manner in which He addressed the questioner is severe and shows Jesus’ indignation at being asked to step out of His sphere of ministry (see v.  14 ). However, the Lord did not leave the matter there. He used the request as an occasion for a sermon on covetousness and, more importantly, on the priority of soul over substance (v.  20 ). Once again priority is given to the spiritual rather than to the material.

     The incident concerning payment of the Temple tax ( Matt 17:24–27 ) points to Jesus’ priorities as a Reformer. The tax was based on the regulation recorded in  Exodus 30:11–16 which required every Israelite who was to be enrolled in the census of the people to pay half a shekel as a ransom for his soul. Originally the silver collected was used for making the sockets which supported the boards of the tabernacle ( Exod 36:19–25; 38:25–31 ), the sockets of the pillars of the veil, the hooks for the pillars of the court, the capitals, and the connecting rods. Thus the ransom money was always in sight so long as the tabernacle stood. This tax, different from the Roman poll tax referred to in  Matthew 22:17, was collected from every male Jew twenty years of age and older, including Jews living in foreign countries. In the time of  Nehemiah a voluntary tax of one-third shekel was adopted ( Neh 10:32–33 ), but by Jesus’ time it was half a shekel. After the destruction of Jerusalem the tax still had to be paid to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome as a punishment for the rebellion. It could be paid at any of the three great festivals. Apparently here in  Matthew 17 the collectors were calling in the taxes at the time of the Feast of Tabernacles that had not previously been paid at Passover or Pentecost.

     Seeking out Peter, either because he was the recognized leader of the Twelve or perhaps because he was the only one over twenty years of age, the collectors asked him if Jesus would pay. Peter gave a quick affirmative answer, but then had second thoughts by the time he got inside the house. The Lord, anticipating those misgivings, sought to instruct Peter further in the uniqueness of His person. Then follows the dialogue which results in the conclusion that the children are free. This cannot refer to the Jewish nation (for the Lord would then be teaching that the tax should not be imposed on any Jew) nor to Jesus and His disciples (for the account assumes that the disciples would pay; only Jesus’ payment is in question). Rather, this refers to Jesus alone as the unique Son of God. Jesus claimed exemption because of His deity. The money, a stater or four-drachma piece, was produced by a miracle and used to pay Peter’s and Jesus’ taxes. The miraculous demonstration of omniscience and omnipotence served to dispel any doubt Peter might have had that Jesus was the Son of God.

     However, it is the reason why Christ paid that is so instructive — “lest we should offend them” ( Matt 17:27 ). The same verb is used in  Romans 14:21 and  1 Corinthians 8:13 to show that Christians should sometimes surrender their freedom for the sake of others. In this incident at Capernaum the Lord practiced a good principle for all reformers to follow, as stated by Plummer:

     [This principle is] the avoidance of actions which are not absolutely essential for the success of the reform, and which, because easily misunderstood, and so arousing prejudice, would make it more difficult for others to join in the good movement … Some who might otherwise have listened to Him would have turned away had He seemed by His example to teach that the Temple - services were not worth maintaining. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (International Critical Commentary) Volume III (VOLUME 3)

     On other occasions the Lord cleansed the Temple of the moneychangers and predicted the destruction of the Temple, but here He conformed to a Temple law which in actuality was not commanded in the Torah. Not offending took priority over insisting on His rights.

     Reformers must be wise, and reformers must be humble. The example of humility demonstrated by Christ in paying the Temple tax is followed by a striking object lesson on the subject. Childlike character is Christlike character, and is a requirement for all of Christ’s followers in all their activities.

     These examples clearly demonstrate that Jesus gave top priority to the spiritual needs of those around Him. Though not insensitive to physical needs, He ministered to relatively few of them. Though always obedient to government He led no attempt to reform the system. Though capable of correcting all injustices in the social order, His message was a call to personal repentance. These were His perspectives on social ethics.

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 124

124:1 If it had not been the LORD who was on our side—
let Israel now say—
2 if it had not been the LORD who was on our side
when people rose up against us,
3 then they would have swallowed us up alive,
when their anger was kindled against us;
4 then the flood would have swept us away,
the torrent would have gone over us;
5 then over us would have gone
the raging waters.

6 Blessed be the LORD,
who has not given us
as prey to their teeth!
7 We have escaped like a bird
from the snare of the fowlers;
the snare is broken,
and we have escaped!

8 Our help is in the name of the LORD,
who made heaven and earth.

Fox's Book Of Martyrs

By John Foxe 1563

CHAPTER XVI | Persecutions in England During the Reign of Queen Mary

The Continual Burnt Offering (2 Timothy 4:6)

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

November 20

Ask those who now their palm of victory wave,
Conquerors through Him, who died the lost to save,
If now they murmur at their former lot,
Or wish they had escaped one mournful spot?
No, you would hear such grateful pilgrim tell,
That vale of grief was blessing’s richest well:
The pools of trouble, filled with heavenly rain,
Turned into myrtles every thorn of pain.
--- J. G. Deck