5/2/16

God’s Soap Recipe by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=517

God’s Soap Recipe

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

When Old Testament instructions are compared to the New Testament explanations for those actions, it becomes clear that many of the ancient injunctions were primarily symbolic in nature. For instance, when the Passover Lamb was eaten, none of its bones was to be broken. This symbolized the sacrifice of Christ, Whose side was pierced, yet even in death escaped the usual practice of having His legs broken (John 19:31-37).
With all the symbolism in the Old Testament, it is important that we do not overlook the Old Testament instructions that were pragmatic in value and that testify to a Master Mind behind the writing of the Law. One such directive is found in Numbers 19, where the Israelites were instructed to prepare the “water of purification” that was to be used to wash any person who had touched a dead body.
At first glance, the water of purification sounds like a hodge-podge of superstitious potion-making that included the ashes of a red heifer, hyssop, cedar wood, and scarlet wool. But this formula was the farthest thing from a symbolic potion intended to “ward off evil spirits.” On the contrary, the recipe for the water of purification stands today as a wonderful example of God’s brilliance, since the recipe is nothing less than a procedure to produce an antibacterial soap.
When we look at the ingredients individually, we begin to see the value of each. First, consider the ashes of a red heifer. As most school children know, the pioneers in this country could not go to the nearest supermarket and buy their favorite personal-hygiene products. If they needed soap or shampoo, they made it themselves. Under such situations, they concocted various recipes for soap. One of the most oft’-produced types of soap was lye soap. Practically anyone today can easily obtain a recipe for lye soap via a quick search of the Internet. The various lye-soap recipes reveal that, to obtain lye, water was poured through ashes. The water retrieved from pouring it through the ashes contained a concentration of lye. Lye, in high concentrations, is very caustic and irritating to the skin. It is, in fact, one of the main ingredients in many modern chemical mixtures used to unclog drains. In more diluted concentrations, it can be used as an excellent exfoliate and cleansing agent. Many companies today still produce lye soaps. Amazingly, through God’s inspiration, Moses instructed the Israelites to prepare a mixture that would have included lye mixed in a diluted solution.
Furthermore, consider that hyssop also was added to the “water of purification.” Hyssop contains the antiseptic thymol, the same ingredient that we find today in some brands of mouthwash (McMillen and Stern, 2000, p. 24). Hyssop oil continues to be a popular “healing oil,” and actually is quite expensive. In listing the benefits of Hyssop, one Web site noted: “Once used for purifying temples and cleansing lepers, the leaves contain an antiseptic, antiviral oil. A mold that produces penicillin grows on the leaves. An infusion is taken as a sedative expectorant for flue, bronchitis, and phlegm” (see “Hyssop”).
Two other ingredients stand out as having cleansing properties. The oil from the cedar wood in the mixture provided a minor skin irritant that would have encouraged scrubbing. And the scarlet wool (see Hebrews 9:19) added wool fibers to the concoction, making it the “ancient equivalent of Lava® soap” (McMillen and Stern, 2000, p. 25).
Thousands of years before any formal studies were done to see what type of cleaning methods were the most effective; millennia before American pioneers concocted their lye solutions; and ages before our most advanced medical students knew a thing about germ theory, God gave the Israelites an award-winning recipe for soap.

REFERENCES

McMillen, S.I. and David Stern (2000), None of These Diseases (Grand Rapids, MI: Revell), third edition.
“Hyssop” (no date), [On-line], URL: http://www.taoherbfarm.com/herbs/herbs/hyssop.htm.

Evolutionists Want It Both Ways by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=728

Evolutionists Want It Both Ways

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Astronomers from more than 30 research institutions in 15 countries are working together to select a site for a giant telescope that they hope will read TV or radio signals from alien civilizations. Slated to cost one billion dollars, the Square Kilometer Array, or SKA, would be the world’s most powerful radio telescope. Speaking at a conference of the International Society for Optical Engineering in Orlando, Florida, project astronomers said they hope to find “immediate and direct evidence of life elsewhere in the Universe” (“Sites Under...,” 2006).
Despite this bold venture, the scientists admit that “such a search would have distinct limitations, to be sure.” “Distinct limitations”? Like what? For one, the scientists “aren’t sure how to recognize such signals, if they do turn up. The hope is that the signals would consist oforganized patterns suggestive of intelligence, and not attributable to any known celestial sources” (“Sites Under...,” 2006, emp. added). Wait a minute. Evolutionary scientists are renowned for their condescending ridicule of creationists because those who believe in God assert that evidence of intelligent design in the Universe is proof of an Intelligent Designer. No, the evolutionists counter, the Universe got here by accident through random chance, mindless trial and error, and the blind, mechanistic forces of nature. They maintain that life on Earth owes its ultimate origin to dead, non-purposive, unconscious, non-intelligent matter. Yet they are perfectly willing to squander one billion dollars on a telescope with the speculative idea that solid proof—hard evidence—for the existence of alien life would reside in otherwise undecipherable radio or TV signals that convey “organized patterns suggestive of intelligence.” [NOTE: One is reminded of NASA’s Viking mission to Mars in the mid-seventies in which scientists eagerly declared evidence for life on Mars based on initial photos that appeared to show a “B” or even a face on a rock (cf. “‘Life’ on Mars,” 2006; Warren and Flew, 1976, pp. 112,156). Such judgments soon were deemed premature and incorrect.] Atheistic evolutionists want it both ways: organized patterns prove the existence of life and organized patterns do not prove the existence of God. Philosophers and logicians refer to such duplicitous posturing as irrational and “logical contradiction.” Apparently, evolutionists call it “science.”

REFERENCES

“‘Life’ on Mars” (2006), [On-line], URL: http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/mars_life.html.
“Sites Under Review for Telescope that Could Detect Alien TV” (2006), World Science, July 10, [On-line], URL: http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060711_ska.htm.
Warren, Thomas B. and Antony Flew (1976), The Warren-Flew Debate (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).

Did Peter Authorize Infant Baptism? by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1138

Did Peter Authorize Infant Baptism?

by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

While there is no documentation of infant baptism in Acts 2, some allege that Acts 2:39 proves the necessity of infant baptism (e.g., Lenski, 1961, p. 110; Barnes, 1972, p. 54). Acts 2:39 reads: “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call” (emp. added). This immediately follows Acts 2:38, which reads: “Then Peter said unto them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’ ” The phrase “to all who are afar off ” implies that Gentiles would have the opportunity and obligation to submit to baptism for the remission of sins (see Coffman, 1977, p. 57; Lenski, 1961, p. 110). But what did Peter mean when he said “the promise is to you and to your children”? Did he command infants to be baptized?
When Peter said, “the promise is to you and to your children,” he was not speaking specifically about infants or implying that young children needed to respond to the commands of Acts 2:38. Peter’s presentation was designed for the people who shared responsibility for the crucifixion of Christ (verse 36), a group that certainly did not include children. Peter assured his listeners that the promise of salvation was not limited to them, but would be available to every future generation. Albert Barnes commented on the “promise” of Acts 2:39:
Similar promises occur in Isaiah 44:3, “I will pour my Spirit on thy seed, and my blessing on thine offspring;” and in Isaiah 59:21, “My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord from henceforth and for ever.” In these and similar places their descendants or posterityare denoted. It does not refer merely to children as children... (1972, p. 54, emp. in orig.).
Luke intended the reader to understand “children” to mean “descendants” in Acts 13:33, so it is not unreasonable to suggest that the same meaning is present in Acts 2:39. One meaning ofteknois, the Greek word translated “children” in Acts 2:39, is “descendants” (Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, 1979, p. 994). Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker suggest that teknois does denote “descendants” in Acts 2:39. This interpretation fits in the context of Peter’s discussion concerning the fulfillment of prophecy: Joel prophesied that everyone who called upon the name of the Lord would be saved (Joel 2:32), and Peter affirmed that the blessings associated with conversion would be available not only to those in his hearing, but also to the members of every subsequent generation who obeyed (see Longenecker, 1981, p. 285).
The idea that God cares for all people in every generation, and desires that all be saved, is not unique to Peter’s comments in Acts 2:39. God said to Israel, “ ‘As for Me,’ says the Lord, ‘this is My covenant with them: My Spirit who is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your descendants, nor from the mouth of your descendants’ descendants,’ says the Lord, ‘from this time and forevermore’ ” (Isaiah 59:21). The message of concern for future generations is evident in the New Testament as well. The text of 2 Peter 3:9 reveals that God is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”
If Peter’s use of the word “children” did include a reference to the children who were in his audience, Peter did not command the children to be baptized. Nor did Peter imply that Joel, Isaiah, or David prophesied concerning infant baptism (see McGarvey, 1863, p. 44). Peter simply said that the “promise” was partially for the children. Of what promise did Peter speak? In the context of Peter’s presentation on Pentecost, it appears that the promise was salvation through Christ, but nowhere did it imply the necessity of infant baptism (see Longenecker, 1981, p. 285; De Welt, 1967, p. 49; Reese, 1983, p. 79). Wayne Jackson observed:
Peter affirmed that the divine promise (of salvation with its accompanying gift of the Spirit) would be available to future generations (expressed by the phrase “your children”). Contrary to the assertions of some (cf. Lenski, 110), there is no support here for infant baptism. Prof. Howard Marshall of the University of Aberdeen (Scotland) declared that to use this passage in support of infant baptism is to “press it unduly” (81). Babies can neither believe nor repent, hence, are not valid candidates for immersion (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). Hackett renders the phrase “unto your descendants” (cf. Acts 13:3) [2000, p. 28, parenthetical comment in orig.].
Not every gift given to children is intended for children to possess and enjoy at the time the gift is given. Instead, gifts often are intended to be used by recipients after they mature. In such cases, the gifts will be ready when the children are ready for them. Peter said that the gift of salvation is available to all those who were called by God (Acts 2:39)—and God calls people by His Gospel (2 Thessalonians 2:14). But people who cannot yet understand the Gospel cannot believe in Christ and obey the Gospel (Romans 10:13-16). Furthermore, infants cannot repent of wrongdoing or decide to cease sinning, because they cannot choose to do wrong. Peter commanded the members of his audience to repent, so the applicability of his message was not to infants. Only those who can believe and repent can be included in the “children” of Acts 2:39, because the “promise” was conditioned on belief and repentance (see McGarvey, n.d., p. 40).
As children grow up, they learn the difference between right and wrong, and, eventually, they reach an age when they have the ability to choose sin. All mature humans sin at some point (Romans 3:23). It is at that time that we need to have our sins washed away by Christ’s blood—we need to be baptized, but not when we are infants.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William, F.W. Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker (1979), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), second edition revised.
Barnes, Albert (1972 reprint), Barnes’ Notes on the Old and New Testaments: Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Coffman, James Burton (1977), Commentary on Acts (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).
De Welt, Don (1967 reprint), Acts Made Actual (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Jackson, Wayne (2000), The Acts of the Apostles: From Jerusalem to Rome (Stockton, CA: Courier).
Lenski, R.C.H. (1961 reprint), The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Longenecker, Richard N. (1981), The Expositor's Bible Commentary, F.E. Gaebelein, Ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
McGarvey, J.W. (1863), Original Commentary on Acts (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth), ninth edition.
McGarvey, J.W. (no date), Commentary on Acts (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
Reese, Gareth L. (1983 reprint), New Testament History: Acts (Joplin, MO: College Press).

The Unbelievers’ Examination of Jesus’ Miracle in John 9 by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=5146


The Unbelievers’ Examination of Jesus’ Miracle in John 9

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Christians believe that Jesus worked miracles for two primary reasons: (1) a supernatural Creator exists (see Lyons and Butt, 2014), Who is capable of working supernatural miracles in accordance with His will, and (2) the Bible is the inspired Word of God (see Butt and Lyons, 2015), which testifies to the miracles of Christ. Of significance is the fact that the Bible does not record the miracles of Christ in a flippant, feel-good, hocus-pocus type of manner. On the contrary, the accounts of Jesus’ miracles are consistently characterized with reason and restraint. At times, there was great investigation that took place—even by Jesus’ enemies—in hopes of discrediting Him.
Consider, for example, the occasion on which Jesus gave sight to a man born blind (John 9:7). After receiving his sight, neighbors and others examined him, inquiring how he was now able to see. Later he was brought to the Pharisees, and they scrutinized him. They questioned him about the One who caused him to see, and then argued among themselves about the character of Jesus. They called for the parents of the man who was blind, and questioned them about their son’s blindness. Then they called upon the man born blind again, and a second time questioned him about how Jesus opened his eyes. Finally, when they realized the man would not cave in to their intimidating interrogation and say some negative thing about Jesus, “they cast him out” (9:34). They rejected him, and the One Who made him well. Yet, they were unable to deny the miracle that Jesus performed. It was known by countless witnesses that this man was born blind, but, after coming in contact with Jesus, his eyes were opened.
The entire case of Jesus healing the blind man in John 9 was scrutinized thoroughly by Jesus’ enemies, yet even they had to admit that Jesus caused the man to see (John 9:16,17,24,26). It was a fact, accepted, not by credulous youths, but by hardened, veteran enemies of Christ. Considering that positive testimony from hostile witnesses is the weightiest kind of testimony in a court of law, such reactions from Jesus’ enemies are extremely noteworthy in any discussion on the miracles of Christ.

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle and Eric Lyons (2015), “3 Good Reasons to Believe the Bible is from God,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1180.
Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2014), “7 Reasons to Believe in God,” Apologetics Press,http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1175&article=2452.

"But Augustine Said..." by Brad Bromling, D.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=574

"But Augustine Said..."

by Brad Bromling, D.Min.

By many estimations, Augustine was one of the most significant theologians of the Christian age. Born in north Africa in 354 to a pagan father and pious mother, Augustine lived a playboy’s life until age 33 when he was baptized by Ambrose of Milan. After his conversion, he diligently studied theology and devoted his life to preaching and teaching. Through his writings, he left an enormous legacy that has served to inform each generation since his time of the doctrinal concepts of the fourth century.
Genesis and its account of creation often were discussed by Augustine. Therefore, it is not surprising to hear his name mentioned in the creation/evolution debate. But it is surprising to see how some modern writers employ his work (Barbero, 1994, p. 38; Frye, 1983, p. 15; Ross, 1994, pp. 16-24). First, they make an issue over Augustine’s equivocation on the exact nature of the creation days: “What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!” (Augustine, City of God, XI:6). Second, they observe that Augustine cautioned his readers against speaking about such things as the orbit and motion of stars, lest an infidel should hear them make a mistake on these matters and dismiss their teaching concerning the resurrection and other core doctrines of Scripture (Snow, 1990, p. 25).
The impression is given, then, that if the great theologian Augustine felt skittish about strictly defining the creation days, and was wary of Christians speaking about science, then perhaps the creation-science movement is an illegitimate venture. In other words, theology and science don’t mix.
Giving Augustine his due, the fact remains that he was only a man. He held erroneous positions and missed the mark at various junctures in his theological writings. What he said is not to be considered normative. Departing from Augustine should not be construed as departing from scriptural authority.
Truth is not determined by one’s agreement with a specific scholar. This is recognized in science as well as theology. Modern scientists would bristle at being forced to conform to all of Darwin’s views. So, creationists feel unfairly treated when told their views don’t jibe with Augustine’s. If Augustine was wrong about the creation days, so be it. His mistake need not be accepted blindly.
Augustine’s point regarding a Christian discussing science seems be that caution should be taken to ensure that what is said is true: “...it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics...” (Augustine, as quoted in Van Till, 1990, p. 149). No creationist would deny the importance of accuracy when discussing scientific matters. Obviously, a Christian who presents erroneous information from the sciences hardly will be taken seriously. That is not to say that a Christian should not present accurate science and accurate biblical exegesis together. All truth runs in parallel lines.
What often is missed in these discussions about Augustine is his firm belief in the infallibility of Scripture and in its clear teaching of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing). He wrote: “God didn’t find [some preexisting matter—BB], like something co-eternal with himself, out of which to construct the world; but he himself set it up from absolutely nothing” (Augustine, 1993, p. 151). He adamantly denied that any material thing existed before the creation week of Genesis 1: “And if the sacred and infallible Scriptures say that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...it may be understood that he made nothing previously” (City of God, XI:6).
Historically, Augustine has made many contributions to theology: some good, some not so good. His writings are worth reading, but they are not our standard. Our “faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (1 Corinthians 2:5).

REFERENCES

Augustine (1993), “Sermon 214,” The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, ed. John E. Rotelle (New Rochelle, NY: New City Press, translated by Edmund Hill), Sermons III/6.
Barbero, Yves (1994), “NCSE Makes Impact at AAAS Annual Meeting,” NCSE Reports, pp. 38-39, Winter/Spring.
Frye, Roland Mushat (1983), “Creation-Science Against the Religious Background,” Is God a Creationist?, ed. R.M. Frye (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons), pp. 1-28.
Ross, Hugh (1994), Creation and Time (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress).
Snow, Robert E. (1990) “How Did We Get Here?,” Portraits of Creation, ed. Howard J. Van Till, et al. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), pp. 13-25.
Van Till, Howard J. (1990), “The Character of Contemporary Natural Science,” Portraits of Creation, ed. Howard J. Van Till, et al. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), pp. 126-165.

Borrowing from Other Nations by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2829

Borrowing from Other Nations

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

It’s no secret that the U.S. Government has been borrowing unprecedented amounts of money in an effort to stave off financial calamity (cf. Ip, 2009; Zuckerman, 2009). The sum of all recognized debt of federal, state, and local governments, international, private households, business and domestic financial sectors in America is now $57 trillion (Hodges, 2009). The majority of that debt has accumulated just in the last three decades, with 79% ($45 trillion) of total debt created since 1990. America is, in fact, the world’s largest international debtor (Hodges).
So what? Is that bad? After leading the nation for 40 years, before departing this life, Moses delivered a magnificent speech to the new generation of Israelites pertaining to their imminent occupation of the Promised Land. In his farewell remarks, God empowered him to articulate critical factors necessary to national survival. He also delineated the specific curses that would afflict the nation if it turned its back on God and His Word, as well as the specific blessings that would enrich the nation if the citizens maintained their commitment to God. Here are insightful, relevant social, political, and economic factors that beckon the attention of the United States of America.
Consider just one: In view of the economic woes facing our own nation, one feature in particular ought to give every American pause. It is listed first in the series of blessings that would characterize the nation if its citizens and leaders would “diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments” (Deuteronomy 28:1). That blessing? “You shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow” (vs. 12). If, on the other hand, the nation declined spiritually by failing to obey God and keep His commandments, aliens would lend to them (vs. 44).
Economists, politicians, and all Americans should beware. The God of the Bible has articulated precisely the details of national success as well as national catastrophe. We would do well to give sober consideration to them. America is moving swiftly down a pathway to destruction—and that end result will be due to a single factor: America’s shift away from offering due respect and submission to God and Jesus Christ. The solution?
If you diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God,...the Lord your God will set you high above all nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, because you obey the voice of the Lord your God (Deuteronomy 28:1-2).

REFERENCES

Hodges, Michael (2009), “America’s Total Debt Report,” Grandfather Economic Report, June, [On-line], URL: http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat.htm.
Ip, Greg (2009), “We’re Borrowing Like Mad. Can the U.S. Pay It Back?” The Washington Post, January 11.
Zuckerman, Mort (2009), “Drowning in Debt: Obama’s Spending and Borrowing Leaves U.S.Gasping for Air,” New York Daily News, October 10.

Good Works—To Be Seen or Hidden? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=648&b=Matthew

Good Works—To Be Seen or Hidden?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

When examining the various lists of alleged Bible contradictions that skeptics have compiled, a person likely will notice how some alleged contradictions seem to appear on almost every list. The question, “Has anyone seen God?” (cf. John 1:18; Genesis 32:30), appears quite frequently, as does the supposed difficulty of Joseph being the son of two different men (cf. Matthew 1:16; Luke 3:23). One question that also has made its way onto numerous skeptics’ lists (somewhat to my surprise) is that of whether or not God wants His disciples to do good works to be seen of men. Purportedly, two statements that Jesus made within the “Sermon on the Mount” (Matthew 5-7) are incompatible. First, Jesus stated:
You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven (Matthew 5:14-16, emp. added).
Later, Matthew recorded a warning Jesus gave His audience, saying:
Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them.... [W]hen you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly (6:1,3-4, emp. added).
According to skeptics, these New Testament passages are contradictory. At one moment Jesus supposedly said, “We should” let others see our good works, and in the next He said, “We shouldn’t” let others see our good works (see Wells, 2001). Are the skeptics correct in their assertions? What is the truth of the matter?
The Bible student who carefully examines these passages (and others) will notice that Jesus never said that His followers must not do good deeds in the presence of others. On the contrary, He always has wanted good deeds to be done, but they are to be done for the purpose of giving God the glory, not man. Sadly, many Bible critics have twisted the true message of Jesus, in an effort to find a contradiction in His teachings (cf. 2 Peter 3:16). The Bible teaches that God expects His followers to be doing good deeds. To the churches of Galatia, the apostle Paul wrote: “As we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith” (6:10). During the last week of His life, Jesus taught that His disciples are responsible for doing such things as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and visiting the sick (Matthew 25:31-46). But these good works, and many others, are to be done in order to bring glory to God, not ourselves. When Jesus said, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works,” He ended this sentence with the phrase, “and glorify your Father in heaven.” A similar statement was written years later by the apostle Peter:
Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation (1 Peter 2:11-12, emp. added).
Through the good works of mankind, God is to be exalted. (“To Him be the glory both now and forever”—2 Peter 3:18). Man, on the other hand, must never perform godly works for the purpose of drawing attention to himself.
In their efforts to expose the Bible as a book of errors and Jesus as less than divine, skeptics frequently omit the part of Matthew 6:1-4 that gives the context of Jesus’ statement concerning good deeds. Jesus was not forbidding all good deeds done in public. Rather, He was condemning the performance of “charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them” (6:1, emp. added). In the very next verse, Jesus elaborated on what He meant, saying, “Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men.” The hypocritical scribes and Pharisees, whom Jesus explicitly condemned earlier in this sermon (5:20), performed “all their works…to be seen by men” (Matthew 23:5). This was the attitude of which Jesus warned His listeners. Do not do charitable deeds in order to receive praise from men, but do them (whether private or public) to be seen of God.
Jesus taught that the proper motivation must lie behind every “good” action, in order for that action to be pleasing in God’s sight. Some godly actions may be done in secret (e.g., giving monetarily to a good work, praying for the sick, fasting, etc.). Others can (and must) be done openly (e.g., preaching the Gospel—cf. Acts 2). Whatever actions in which we engage ourselves, in order for them to be pleasing to God, they must stem from a sincere heart whose motivation is to bring glory to God.
REFERENCES
Wells, Steve (2001), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, [On-line], URL: http://www.Skepticsannotatedbible.com.