Truth Magazine

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? Of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? Of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee (Matt. 17:24-27).

This incident in the life of Jesus tells how Jesus paid his Temple tax. On this occasion, those who were appointed to collect tribute money came to Peter to ask if his teacher (didaskalos) paid tribute. The tax under consideration is not the poll-tax for the Roman government (kenson, from which our word “census” is derived) or the tax on goods (phoros). He is asking about the “tribute,” the didrachma, the half-shekel tax collected in obedience to God’s commandment.

This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary: (a shekel is twenty gerahs:) an half shekel shall be the offering of the Lord. Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the Lord. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the Lord, to make an atonement for your souls (Exod. 30:13-15; cf. 2 Kings 12:4ff; 2 Chron. 24:6; Neh. 10:32).

The money that was collected was used to sustain the Temple and was generally known as the “Temple tax.” It was not enforced by civil government as those collected by government usually are; it was a voluntary “tax.” The question that is asked presupposes that the teacher will pay the tax, as commanded by the Law. 
 Jesus used the occasion of this tax to emphasize various lessons for his disciples which we now consider:

1. Jesus pays his taxes. Although Jesus argues that he is exempt from paying the Temple tax (see below, nevertheless, to avoid giving an offense to those who might take note of Jesus not paying such taxes, the son of God pays his tax. (In this respect, he voluntarily chose not to       practice that which he had the right to do to avoid occasions of stumbling. Compare Paul’s conduct in 1 Corinthians 9:1-16 and the general discussions in 1 Corinthians 8-10 and Romans 14.)  However, he does not have the funds to pay his taxes. Rather, he sends Peter to the Sea of Galilee with instructions for how to secure the funds to pay their taxes. He who was the Son of God indeed became poor that we might become rich (2 Cor. 8:9). Later he said, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head” (Luke 9:58). We see details of the degree to which Jesus denied himself, emptied himself, in order to become the Savior of mankind.

2. Jesus, the Son of God, is exempt from such taxes. When Peter approached Jesus about the tax, Jesus asked him about taxes in general. He asked whom kings usually taxed. Things were a bit different in Rome than in America. The Roman government usually exempted its own citizens and collected its taxes from those foreigners who had been defeated in war (designated here as “strangers”). Knowing the situation, Peter replied that taxes are usually paid by strangers, not their own children. 

Jesus affirmed his exemption from such taxes based on who he was. The tax was a Temple tax collected for God. As the Son of God, as Peter confessed Jesus to be at Caesarea Philippi just a few days earlier as recorded in Matthew 16:16 (“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”), Jesus was exempt from such taxation. His claiming exemption from taxation is an affirmation of his deity, his sonship. He was “son of God” not by adoption, as we are, but by the essence of his nature. Privately to Peter he affirms his deity. The verse affirms Jesus’ self-consciousness of his supernatural sonship. Indeed, a greater than the Temple is present (Matt. 12:6) and justly owes no Temple tax. He did not learn of his deity through Mary’s coaching him; the Lord was fully aware of his relationship to the Father and the events that transpired while he was in heaven (John 16:30; 17:5).

3. Jesus confirms his divine sonship by several miracles. Notice the several miracles recorded in this account:

a. Miracles demonstrating his omniscience. Matthew specifically indicates Jesus’ knowledge of the conversation that transpired between Peter and those who came to collect the Temple tax. Jesus “spake of it first” (Matt. 17:25, NIV and NRSV). H.A.W. Meyer comments, “. . . the evangelist must have ascribed what Jesus says to Peter to His immediate knowledge of the thoughts of others” (Matt. 3:17). This is one of several instances in which Jesus demonstrates his omniscience while on earth; he knows things that he could not have known by human knowledge alone (cf. John 1:50). John said, “But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man (John 2:24-25). Jesus’ knowledge of Peter’s conversation was one proof of Jesus’ omniscience.

Another proof of his omniscience is seen in his telling Peter how to collect the money to pay the tax. He said, “Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee” (Matt. 17:27). How did Jesus know about a fish in the Sea of Galilee with a coin in its mouth? He knew that by his divine omniscience. This miracle was not designed to show that the Father or the Holy Spirit possess omniscience, which no one doubts, but to prove that Jesus is the Son of God, with all the powers of deity, who is exempt from Temple taxes because he is the Son of God.

b. Miracles demonstrating his omnipotence. When Jesus instructed Peter to go catch the fish in whose mouth a coin would be found, he did more than display omniscience. He demonstrated his divine control over nature. Peter was responsible to get his fishing pole and go fishing. Jesus was the one who commanded the fish to swallow a coin, to go to the place where Peter would be fishing, and to bite his bait. This is the same control over nature that is demonstrated when Jesus walked on water (John 6:19), commanded the winds and the waves to obey him (Matt. 8:26-27), and controlled the fish on the occasion of the two miraculous draughts of fish (Luke 5:4-7; John 21:8-11). These miracles were not designed to demonstrate that the Father or the Holy Spirit are omnipotent, but to demonstrate that the Son of God is omnipotent.

Alexander Maclaren wrote, “The miracle was for a trivial end in appearance, but it was a demonstration, though to one man only at first, yet through him to all the world, that this Christ, in His lowliness, is the Everlasting Son of the Father” (The Biblical Illustrator: Matthew 387).

Conclusion

From this miracle, let us be reminded of who Jesus is. He was, is, and ever will be God the Son. “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Heb. 13:8).

6567 Kings Ct., Avon, Indiana 46123 mwillis1@compuserve.com

By James Hahn

As we read the history of the Jews we find recorded a sad story of unfaithfulness and rebellion to the very One who had chosen them as his special people. As Jeremiah spoke of their turning from God to serve idols he said, “For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water” (Jer. 2:13). Josiah, the king of Judah at this time, is described as a man “that turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses” (2 Kings 23:24). Josiah not only loved the Lord, but he also put forth efforts to change the conditions which existed in Judah. He destroyed the altars that had been built for idol worship and slew the priests who served idols (2 Kings 22 and 23). However, the Bible says, “Notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal” (2 Kings 23:26).

Even though Josiah was a good man and made many changes there was one change he was unable to make. He was unable to change the hearts of the people. All the outward changes, as good as they may have been, could not change the one thing that needed to be changed if the people were to return to God. Surely we can learn a lesson from this.

From time to time I hear brethren talking about changes they think we need to make so that we can be more pleasing to God. Some have suggested that when we assemble to worship we have become cold, formal, and indifferent in our worship and that changes need to be made. Some say that the problem is one of being “tradition bound” and that we need to change from “two songs, a prayer and another song” to a different order every time we meet. May I suggest that if the problem does exist and this is the only change made then the only difference now is instead of having a cold, formal, indifferent group of people “singing two songs, having a prayer and another song,” we now have a cold, formal, indifferent group of people wondering “what are we going to do next?” The change that needs to be made is not in the “order of worship” but in the hearts of men. When we learn to worship God in spirit and in truth our worship will be pleasing to God (John 4:23, 24) even if we follow the same “order” every time we meet. If our worship is not from the heart we can make all the outward changes we want to make and it still will not be pleasing to the Lord.

Others say that some are looking upon the church of Christ as a denomination and are using the designation “Church of Christ” as a denominational name. Changes need to be made! What do we change? Some say the sign out front needs to be changed. Rather than identifying the group as a “Church of Christ” let’s just put up a sign saying “Christians Meet Here.” Brethren, we are changing the wrong thing. If people have a denominational concept of the church, changing a sign in front of the building won’t solve the problem. Men’s hearts must be changed by the teaching and reception of truth. If a church obeys Christ and respects his authority in all things, what’s wrong with saying they are a church of Christ? If they are “of Christ” there is nothing wrong with so identifying them; if they are not “of Christ” changing the sign out front won’t make them so. Yes, I believe there are times changes need to be made, but let us make sure we are seeking to change the right thing.

1212 Melanie Ct., Lawrenceburg, Kentucky 40342-1724

By Connie W. Adams

On Wednesday morning, April 5, the spirit of our beloved friend, Elwood Phillips, took its flight into the haven of rest. He was 83 years old. His busy and fruitful life was hindered at times by numerous health problems but these became only temporary setbacks. He was always thinking ahead and planning more work to do. The last two or three years were especially difficult. For over two years he was on kidney dialysis three times a week. Then circulation problems made it necessary to remove his left leg below the knee. Then they had to remove the right leg above the knee. Even after that, he worked on a bulletin which was handed out at South Livingston in Tampa, where he and Polly attended.

I first met Elwood and Polly in 1950 in Lake City, Florida. Since then our paths crossed many times. After he and James P. Miller began Searching the Scriptures in January 1960, we had a gentleman’s agreement confirmed simply by a handshake, that should it become necessary for him to give up the work with Searching the Scriptures, I would have first opportunity to take up that work. He never forgot and in June 1973, that became a reality when he could no longer carry the load of editing and publishing the paper with his developing heart problems. But as long as I had material from his pen, it was on the front page of the paper and he never failed to offer sound advice when it was needed.

That work created a bond between us which only strengthened as the years passed. I am convinced that his most lasting work in the kingdom was through Searching the Scriptures. He was a preacher of great ability. He and Polly made many friends and served as parents and grandparents to a host of young people whose lives were greatly influenced for good by them. But the products of his pen reached around the world. His book on Scriptural Elders and Deacons remains the best work available on the subject. It has been circulated in many countries. But Searching the Scriptures came to be circulated regularly in every state and in 25 countries. At one point the circulation reached 12,000. When I began editing the paper in 1973, our first printing was still 8,000 copies. One of our special issues required three printings and sold over 20,000 copies. The influence of the paper was particularly strong in the southeast. It played a major role in helping many brethren to stand as churches were being divided over the institutional issues. The paper lasted 33 years. While I served as editor for the last 19½ years, it was the course charted by H.E. Phillips that continued through the history of the paper. In the first issue he stated “We have no policy but to be scriptural, fair and balanced.” That well summarized the content of the paper throughout its history.

Elwood was a man of principle. He was not swayed by popular sentiment nor political expediency. His first concern was always with truth and right. He laid no claim to perfection and would have been the first to acknowledge blunders along the way. But his bedrock convictions, founded solidly upon the word of God, were not for sale to any paper, school, or human agency. Such a course made him some enemies. In later years there were some brethren of powerful influence who ignored him.

Elwood and Polly had a great influence in their family circle. All three children, all grandchildren, and all of the great-grandchildren who are old enough have obeyed the gospel and are faithful to the Lord.

Funeral services were conducted on Saturday, April 8, 2000 at Hutchison Auditorium on the campus of Florida College. According to the funeral home people, about 450 were in attendance. Mike Willis, J.T. Smith, this writer, Tom O’Neal and Donnie Rader took part in the services. Congregational singing was directed by Ray Hines. Burial was at Sylvan Abbey in Clearwater in a peaceful and beautiful setting. Harry Osborne spoke briefly at the grave and final prayer was led by Rhymer Knight.

Elwood is at rest. But the family and a great host of friends will miss him. Our love and best wishes go to Polly, Carolyn, Juanita, Elaine and the rest of the family. This writer has a huge empty place in his life by the death of this giant of the faith.

P.O. Box 69, Brooks, Kentucky 40109

By Larry Ray Hafley

(Addendum: Below is Margaret’s follow up response to the review you read in the last issue of Truth Magazine. Using the same format, my reply is also included below. LRH)      

Mr. Hafley:

Sad to say, your response was typically what I expected. By the format you used, I can only draw the conclusion you intend to publish this at some point in time, obviously to embarrass me. 
    
(How did you learn that my purpose was to “embarrass” you, “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him” [1 Cor. 2:11]? What did you say that would prove embarrassing to you? If you were to publish the complete text of my remarks, I would not be embarrassed. Neither would I be embarrassed by your comments upon my words, for I would be free to review them, too. So, in what way could I “embarrass” you?
    
Further, why did you not cite portions of my remarks which justify your “conclusion”? Your assumptions and assertions are not sufficient to sustain your allegations. Where is the evidence of your charges?)  

That is also typical.
    
(If such attempts to “embarrass” are “typical,” that means you have numerous examples of such behavior. Please produce them. Cite similar cases. Surely, you are able to do so, for you say my remarks are “typical.” If you cannot document your charge, will you kindly withdraw it? We shall soon see.) 

My reply to you was a personal one, but by publishing it in a publication, you only serve to prove my point. Your purpose is not to teach, correct, or anything of the sort. It is to puff yourself up before your peers. 
    
(If I confirmed and proved your point, why complain? Further, if I fell into your hands and proved your point, in what way could I “embarrass” you?
    
I dealt with a public situation in a public medium. Thus, your claim to privacy rings rather hollow, especially since you said nothing about your desire for privacy in your first response. Again, how did you learn what my “purpose” was? How did you learn what my motives are? I documented my purpose in my initial article; you ignored that documentation and repeated your unproven assertion. Is that fair? Worse yet for you, is it godly? 
    
If my goal is to “puff [myself] up before [my] peers,” evidently I have done a poor job, since, according to you I have succeeded only in displaying a partisan, bullying spirit of self aggrandizement. 

[1] Was Paul’s “purpose” to “puff [himself] up before [his] peers” when he wrote the severely critical letters of 1 Corinthians and Galatians? Shall we say that Paul’s purpose [was] not to teach, correct, or anything of the sort . . . [But] to puff [himself] up before [his] peers”? [2] Since what I have written allegedly sustains your unproven accusations against me, do the serious charges in the book of Hebrews prove the same allegations against the writer of that letter? If not, why not? [3] When Elijah sarcastically ridiculed and “mocked” the prophets of Baal, was his sole purpose to “embarrass” them and to “puff [himself] up before [his] peers” [1 Kings 18:27f.]? If not, explain the difference between what he did to expose Baal and what I did to oppose Billy?  Margaret, “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth” [Gal. 4:16]?  
  
Please, cry no tears for me; nor be concerned that I have been “led astray” by the likes of Bro. Shelly. I have come  to my conclusions through Bible study and prayer, and am more assured of my salvation now than in my many years in the doctrine of fear.

(Sorry, Margaret, but despite your request to the contrary, I shall shed tears for you [cf. Luke 13:34]. As Paul said of certain ones, “For many walk, of whom I have told you often and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ” [Phil. 3:18].
    
Since you say you have come to your “conclusions through Bible study and prayer,” would you be so kind as to show us from the Bible what you have learned that authorizes fellowship with Billy Graham [2 Cor. 6:14-18; Eph. 5:11]? Why did you not take the fruit of your “Bible study” and show the error of what I wrote? To this point, Margaret, you have not dealt with a single argument I have made. No, not one! Rather, you have resorted to unproven charges, indicting my motives and demeaning my character.  Why not take the knowledge you have gleaned and gathered from your “Bible study” and show me what you have learned so that I, too, may know the truth? 
    
According to you, I am a brother who has “erred from the truth;” it is, therefore, your job to convert me [cf. Ezek. 3:18; Jas 5:19, 20]. Since you know the truth, and I do not, you are bound to share that light with me. You have not done so. You have made no effort to do so. [As an aside, let me remind you that I dealt in some detail with James 5:19, 20, in my first reply to you. You failed to deal with my point and the questions I asked you, just as you ignored my explanation of Mark 9 and other passages.]   

Margaret, would you please be so kind as to define what you mean by “the doctrine of fear”? Also, are the following statements examples of “the doctrine of fear” which you have renounced? [1] “Fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” [Matt. 10:28]. [2] “He that believeth not shall be damned” [Mark 16:16]. [3] “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” [Luke 13:3]. [4] “If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” [John 8:24]. [5] “But unto them that are contentious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish upon every soul that doeth evil” [Rom. 2:8, 9]. [6] “The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power” [2 Thess. 1:7-9]. [7] “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” [Heb. 10:31]. [8] “For our God is a consuming fire” [Heb. 12:29]. [9] Other words of Jesus — Matt. 25:41, 46; Mark 9:43-48 — are they part of “the doctrine of fear” you now oppose? [10] “Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off” [Rom. 11:22; cf. Rev. 20:10-15; 21:8]. 
    
What is it about what I preach that may be castigated as “the doctrine of fear” that differs in tone and content from the very words of the Lord himself? Please show me why I preach “the doctrine of fear,” but that the passages above do not qualify as part of that alleged doctrine. Will you do it? Or, will you ignore this as you ignored everything else I gave you to study in our first exchange? If so, is this how you seek to foster a “polite discussion”?)   

I prefer to keep our conversations between you and me, but if you choose to exploit them (I did not reply to you in a ‘letter to the editor’ format, remember). This is not in any way to imply that I am unsure or ashamed of my views. I write articles, too. I mistakenly, perhaps, thought you might want to have a polite discourse on the matter — apparently not. 
        
Sincerely,
Margaret 

(Margaret, I deny that I have sought to “exploit” our exchanges. Too, I deny that my remarks have been contrary to the spirit of “a polite discourse.” I confess that I have used your remarks to display a number of things which I believe to be dangerous to the faith once delivered. I have done so with objective reasoning and with scriptural appeals [2 Cor. 13:5; 1 Thess. 5:21; 2 Tim. 2:15]. 

For example, I dealt with your abuse of 2 John 9 and showed the error of your misuse of the passage. If I had sought to embarrass you, I would have cast personal aspersions against you and your motives. If I did not care for you, I would not have taken the time to explain at length and in detail the error of your way. Why did you not respond as I did, using Scripture to establish your position? Why did you not attempt to overthrow my remarks with well defined scriptural analysis such as I used in an attempt to help you? I used many Scriptures to show the truth in contrast to what you had said. Instead of accusing me of seeking to “embarrass” you and of attempting to “puff” myself up, why did you not deal with the objective, scriptural arguments that were made? I have answered you from Scripture, with Scripture. Now, who is it that is truly interested in having “a polite discourse”?  
    
Again, you responded to a public review of a public affair and requested no privacy. If your remarks are so devastating to my course and so helpful to your own, I see not why you object to their publication. It seems to me that you should delight and rejoice in the notoriety of our exchanges, since, according to you, they display the corrupt character of folks like me and the wisdom of folks like you and brother Shelly. 
    
I will be happy to correspond with you. If you will take the Bible and show me the error of my way, I shall examine your remarks with all candor. If you will reply to the questions I have asked you, and show me from the Scriptures that I have been mistaken, I shall happily correspond with you, either privately or publicly. If, however, you do as you have done thus far; namely, ignore questions and scriptural arguments, make personal charges which you cannot prove, and refuse to show divine authority for your preaching and practice, then you may have the field to yourself [Acts 13:41, 46].) 

Sincerely, 
Larry Ray Hafley 

4626 Osage, Baytown, Texas 77521 LarryHafley@compuserve.com