Our Lord is careful where men are inclined to be careless. Trifles may make the sum of life but life is no trifle. “You may be too superb to pay attention to the small debt due your neighbor,” says Dr. Deems, “but God is so great that he can pay attention to the least of things.” Matthew’s four verses concerning a matter of thirty-three cents have their place and their use in scripture. We soon lose sight of the half shekel and center our thoughts upon Christ, who corrects Peter so faithfully, who respects the feelings of those who receive the tax and who even takes account of us at this distance by giving us this minute view of himself. Little things like this reveal the greatness of our Lord and just such touches confirm Prof. Stalker’s statement that “the pagan world not only never produced one holy man but never drew the picture of one.”
God in the Case
In the nineteenth chapter we find these words from the lips of Jesus: “It is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” He is stating a thing that is impossible and the disciples ask in amazement, “Who then can be saved?” Their question calls forth His answer, “With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.” Men can be reconstituted but this requires divine assistance. As Canon Westcot has said, “Jesus established fresh foundations for society and a fresh standard of individual worth.”
Is it still hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven? As hard as ever and absolutely impossible as long as he makes riches his object in life, as long as he compromises with evil for a consideration, as long as he ruins competitors in business in order to create a monopoly. But does the Church know what Jesus meant to teach? Yes, if it knows itself and its duty, which is “to show to the world its chief concern is morality, not money; principles, not profits; the faith of the crucified Christ, not the favors of men who have accumulated fortunes without righteousness.”
Six words contain the solution of the whole problem, “With God all things are possible.” God can so completely transform a rich man that he can forget he is rich. He can think of himself as a man and as a servant of God. He can see himself as a sinner before God and also as saved by grace thru faith in Jesus Christ. He enters the kingdom not as rich but as believing. In the Simple Life we read: “If there are people at once rich and content, be assured that they are content because they know how to be, not because they are rich.”
God can trust saved men with money, to possess it, to invest it and to use it in the interest of His kingdom. But he cannot permit men who worship wealth to enter His kingdom. This is impossible. An unchanged nature cannot enter the kingdom of God and could not find happiness there because it is out of harmony with the laws and the life of the kingdom.
Use or Misuse
Two verses of chapter twenty-one suffice to record the manner in which Jesus treated traders in the temple. They were out of place. With no appreciation of the temple as a place of worship they naturally used it for their own ends and Jesus as naturally came in conflict with these mercenary men. After he cast them out he told them what the temple is for, “My house shall be called a house of prayer: but ye make it a den of robbers.” Such perversion is not permitted and their misused opportunity is suddenly forfeited.
Men who misuse God’s house invite their own overthrow. They are driven out by the very One who invites sincere souls to enter. Their punishment fits their sin. They have no place in the house of God, no part in his salvation, no share in his service.
The use and misuse of opportunity are set forth in comparison and in contrast in chapter twenty-five. Two of the servants in the parable of the talents proved worthy of their trust while one failed to appreciate his opportunity. Did the unequal division anger the man who received the one talent? The opportunity of the three servants is essentially the same, which appears plainly when their lord reckons with them. In identical terms he commends the two who so used their talents as to increase their holdings. How could he commend the servant who brought back his lord’s money without increase and in addition lodged a complaint against him?