Nobodies Are Somebodies

We're in Matthew chapter 17, verse 24, going all the way to chapter 18, verse 9.

Matthew 17:24

The saints of God, to worship you together.

And now to sit under your word as you address us from it.

And we ask God that you would renew our minds and captivate our vision

with this unique vision that Jesus set out for his church,

for the community of his people,

characterized by those who are childlike in their humility, their dependence,

who treat each other with much love and respect because of whom we represent.

Father, won't you even in this time, this morning,

work powerfully within us by your spirit and make us a little bit more like that.

And a little bit more like Christ.

In Jesus' name we ask. Amen.

Please stand if you are able to honor God as we read from his word, Matthew 17, 24.

When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the two drachma tax went up to Peter and said,

Does your teacher not pay the tax?

He said, Yes.

And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying,

What do you think, Simon?

From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tax?

From their sons or from others?

And when he said, From others, Jesus said to him,

Then the sons are free.

However, not to give offense to them,

go to the sea and cast a hook and take the first fish that comes up.

And when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel.

Take that and give it to them for me and for yourself.

At that time, the disciples came to Jesus, saying,

Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said,

Truly I say to you, unless you turn and become like children,

you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me.

But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin,

it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck

and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

Woe to the world for temptations to sin,

for it is necessary that temptations come,

but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes.

And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin,

cut it off and throw it away.

It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame

than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire.

And if your eye causes you to sin,

tear it out and throw it away.

It is better for you to enter life with one eye

than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.

This is God's holy and authoritative word.

Please be seated.

Politics is inevitable

because politics is about how people relate to each other

and live together in society.

Wherever there is a community of people dwelling together,

you're going to encounter politics.

What makes politics distasteful to so many people, however,

is the sin that taints all earthly politics.

Selfish ambition, authoritarianism, rivalry, envy,

factions, rebellion, insubordination.

Because humans are sinful,

you see these sins and temptations at every level of society,

in city governments, state governments,

in federal governments.

You see it in corporations and schools

and even, unfortunately,

in local churches and denominations,

though if they are healthy churches to far less degrees.

In our passage, Jesus casts a new vision

for Christian community that is founded on humility,

on humble self-regard for others

rather than on prideful self-seeking.

But the realization of this grand vision

depends on a radical reorientation of our perspectives.

It requires a heavenly, eternal perspective

rather than an earthly and temporal one.

And according to this perspective,

children are the greatest.

According to this perspective,

the nobodies are the somebodies.

And according to this perspective,

the crippled and the lame

might be better off than the whole and able-bodied.

As I've been saying throughout my sermon series

in the Gospel of Matthew,

this book is organized around

five major discourses of Jesus,

the teaching discourses of Jesus.

We are now on the fourth one

where Jesus talks about Christian relations.

We know where the discourse kind of ends

because at the end of each discourse,

it has something along the lines

of when Jesus had finished these sayings,

and we find that here in chapter 19, verse 1.

And so this is the beginning of Jesus' fourth discourse,

which focuses on Christian relations,

but more specifically on how sin

affects those relationships

and how we ought to deal with that.

Usually people mark chapter 18

as beginning the mark of this new section in discourse,

but I'm treating 17, 24 to 27

as being a part of this passage

for two main reasons.

One, in chapter 18, verse 1,

the phrase, at that time,

specifically marks what follows in chapter 18

and links it back to what happened just before.

It's happening at the same time

as the conversation that took place in 17, 24 to 27.

Two, this whole section has a common thread

that runs through it all,

and that's the Greek word skandalon,

where we get the English word scandal from.

It's a word that means a stumbling block,

causing offense or causing someone else to stumble,

causing them to sin,

to make them trip and fall.

In 1727, the word translated giving offense

is that same word.

We see the same word again in 18.6

when it's translated as causing someone to sin.

And the same word appears repeatedly

in chapter 18, verses 7 to 9,

whether it's translated as temptation to sin

or things that cause you to sin.

Jesus is teaching us about the gravity of sin

and why we should take utmost care

to ensure that we don't put stumbling blocks

in front of people as we relate to each other.

So my main point of this morning is this,

remove every stumbling block

that prevents people, including you,

from entering the kingdom of heaven.

My outline's a little bit abstract,

but first I'm gonna start talking

about the subjective stumbling blocks,

secondly about the objective stumbling blocks,

and lastly about personal stumbling blocks,

which I'll explain what they mean.

I'm gonna focus the majority of my time

on the first section

because the latter two sections have,

those themes have already been touched on

in this series

and will be touched on again and again

in the coming passages.

In 17, 24 to 27,

Jesus first talks about subjective stumbling blocks,

and we are told in verse 24

that Jesus and his disciples

are passing through the Jewish region

of Capernaum once again,

and when in Capernaum,

usually Jesus and his disciples

made Peter's house their home base.

We saw that early in chapter 8, verse 14.

So they're presumably at Peter's house again,

which may explain why when these people

come to collect the two drachma tacks,

they address Peter in particular.

Does your teacher not pay the tax?

They don't address the other disciples,

just Peter,

and later Jesus only pays for himself and Peter.

This is Peter's house,

and I think that's why that's happening.

While they're at it

and asking Peter about that question,

they want to know what Jesus' opinion is,

what his view is on the temple tax.

Jesus is already at this point

quite a well-known, famous teacher

and miracle worker,

and so they wonder,

does your teacher not think

that we should pay this temple tax?

The collectors of the two drachma tax

approached Peter and asked this question,

and the two drachma tax

is the half-shekel temple tax

that was levied on adults,

all adult Jewish males.

If you've been following along

in the Bible reading plan

that we've recommended to the whole church,

you may have read this past week,

Exodus 30, verses 11 to 16.

Exodus 30:11–16

And if you read that,

that's where it talks about the census tax,

and the census tax of Exodus 30

is what's called the atonement money.

This was meant to be a ransom to the Lord

for your life.

So by collecting this census tax

for everyone in Israel,

for every adult male representative,

they were supposed to signify

that all of our life belongs to God.

He's the one who has ransomed us,

and the money that was collected in that way

was used for the administration

and the upkeep of the Tent of Meeting,

their tabernacle,

before the construction of the physical temple.

So even though the census tax

when it was first levied

was meant to be a one-time tax,

once-a-life tax,

the Jews used that rationale

to justify the annual temple tax

for the upkeep of the temple building.

And unlike the Roman tax,

which the Jews universally resented

because it was being imposed by these occupiers,

many Jews saw this temple tax

as a patriotic and religious duty.

So the collector's question

is phrased in a way

that expects a positive answer,

an affirmative answer.

Does your teacher not pay the tax?

Surely he does, right?

If he really is a Jewish prophet,

what's his view of the matter?

Their suspicion that Jesus

might not pay this tax,

I think is well warranted

based on the body of Jesus' teaching

up to this point.

In Matthew 12, 6,

Jesus said to his disciples,

I tell you,

something greater than the temple is here,

referring to himself.

And later on in chapter 21,

when he is in the Jerusalem temple,

he will overthrow and overturn

the tables of the money changers

who are changing money

so that people can pay,

among other things,

this two drachma tax.

And Jesus says,

it is written,

my house shall be called

the house of prayer,

but you make it a den of robbers.

Matthew 21, 13.

And then still later in chapter 24,

Jesus will prophesy of the downfall

and the destruction

of the Jerusalem temple.

And he says in John 2, 19,

destroy this temple,

referring to his body,

himself as the new

spiritual temple of God.

Destroy this body,

and in three days,

I will raise it up.

So if you examine the full body

of Jesus' teaching,

the Jerusalem temple

is going to one day soon

become obsolete.

So perhaps these tax collectors

are catching the drift

of what Jesus is saying,

and they ask,

does your teacher not pay the tax?

And Peter,

as he has the habit of doing,

blurts out the answer

before he has even had a chance

to get Jesus' mind on the issue.

Yes.

Yes, of course.

That's what he means.

Yes, of course he pays

the temple tax.

I mean, come on,

what kind of question is that?

And then he goes into the house

thinking, okay,

I better check with Jesus

about this.

But before he checks with Jesus,

Jesus knows what's on his mind.

He says,

when he came into the house,

Jesus spoke to him first.

He already knows

what's on Peter's mind.

What do you think, Simon?

From whom do kings of the earth

take toll or tax?

From their sons

or from others?

And when Peter responds,

from others,

Jesus says to him,

then the sons are free.

Every earthly ruler

levies tax,

you know,

because in order to rule

and govern,

you need revenue.

However,

some powerful empires

like the Roman Empire

primarily taxed

outsiders and foreigners

because they had conquered

so much territory

they could sustain

the running of their empire

without taxing

their own citizens.

They could just tax

their subjects.

So that might be what

Jesus is referring to here.

But even more specifically,

even kingdoms that can't afford

to sustain themselves

by simply taxing outsiders

and must tax

their own citizens,

when they tax

their own citizens,

they don't tax

the king's children.

The king's kids,

their family,

are exempt

from the tax.

And that's the point

Jesus is making.

From whom do kings

of the earth

take toll or tax?

From their sons

or from others?

Of course it's from others.

And this raises

the natural question

in the case of the temple tax,

who is the ruler

levying the temple tax?

No human being

could rightly claim

to be the ruler

of the temple of God

because that's

the house of God.

If God is the ruler

of the temple,

who then are his sons?

Twice already

at Jesus' baptism

and at his transfiguration,

God the Father

has declared authoritatively

that Jesus

is his beloved son

with whom he is

well pleased.

And repeatedly

throughout the Gospel

of Matthew,

Jesus has referred

to God as my father.

So Jesus has confirmed

his divine sonship

and he's referring

to that.

If God is the ruler

of this temple

and he is my father

and I am his son,

the temple tax

does not apply to me.

And that's not all.

Jesus says in verse 26,

then the sons are free.

He uses the plural word,

sons.

Who else can claim

to be the sons of God?

By virtue of their relation

to Jesus,

his disciples

were also given

the privilege

of calling God

as their father,

praying to him

as our father,

as Jesus taught them.

And so Jesus said

in Matthew 5,

44 to 45,

love your enemies

and pray for those

who persecute you

so you may be sons

of your father

who is in heaven.

So sometimes Jesus refers

to when he is addressing

the disciples,

he refers to God the father

as your father.

And all of us,

all of us who are

in Christ Jesus

through faith

are sons of God.

He says in Galatians 3, 26

and uses the language

of sons to indicate

that we are all

heirs of God.

We all have an inheritance

in God's kingdom.

Those who are members

of God's family

through faith in Jesus

therefore should be

exempt,

free from this temple tax.

So neither Jesus

nor Peter

has to pay this tax.

It's a foolproof argument.

Imagine a lowly servant,

a tax collector

who is going around towns

and collecting

the king's taxes

unknowingly going up

to the crown prince

of the kingdom

and telling him,

hey lad,

pay your tax.

And then the son says,

excuse me,

do you know who I am?

However,

Jesus continues

in verse 27,

not to give offense

to them.

Go to the sea

and cast a hook

and take the first fish

that comes up

and when you open

its mouth

you will find a shekel.

Take that

and give it to them

for me and for yourself.

Jesus knows

that there's a fish

that has swallowed

a Jewish shekel

and that will be

the first fish

that Peter catches

and one shekel

is equivalent

to two Roman denarii

which is two days

worth of wages

for a common Roman worker

which is the equivalent

of the four Greek drachmas

necessary to pay

for two people's temple tax,

both Jesus and Peter.

It's fascinating

and instructive

that Jesus gives Peter

instructions

to pay the temple tax

despite the fact

that he just demonstrated

that he doesn't need

to pay the temple tax.

There is no theological

or biblical obligation

to pay the temple tax.

Their payment

of this temple tax

is a humble accommodation.

They are accommodating

the tax collectors

and other Jews

who believe

that it is not only lawful

but pious

and pleasing to God

to pay this tax

for the maintenance

of the temple.

So they are doing this

not to give offense

to or to not

to cause them

to stumble.

For Jesus

and his disciples

who are the sons of God

it is no sin

not to pay the temple tax.

However,

for these other Jews

who are collecting the tax

and who are watching

what Jesus will do

regarding his temple tax

for them

it would be sinful

to not pay this

because it would be

in their mind

neglecting the house of God

failing to honor God

consigning the house of God

to disrepair

and not prioritizing

the worship

and the sacrifices

that are offered

at the temple of God.

This is where

it's important for us

to distinguish

between objective sins

and subjective sins.

In Romans 14

Paul contrasts

a Christian

who has a weak conscience

who believes

because of his weak conscience

that it is wrong

to eat meat

or to drink wine.

And the Christian

with a strong conscience

on the other hand

believes that it's totally fine

to eat meat

and to drink wine.

The former eats only vegetables

and abstains from meat

the latter eats meat

to his heart's content.

However,

in this situation

Paul instructs the Christian

with the stronger conscience

never to put

a stumbling block

or hindrance

in the way of a brother.

For if your brother

is grieved

by what you eat

you are no longer

walking in love

and so by what you eat

do not destroy

the one for whom

Christ died.

This is Romans 14

13 and 15.

Paul says

he is himself convinced

that no food

is unclean

and that it is perfectly fine

to eat meat

and drink wine.

Nevertheless,

for the Christian

who is not convinced

of that

and has doubts

about that

the Christian

who thinks

that it might be sinful

for him to eat meat

if he eats it

that's sin for him.

Why?

Romans 14 23

whoever has doubts

is condemned

if he eats

because the eating

is not from faith

for whatever

does not proceed

from faith

is sin.

What does

Paul mean by that?

Eating meat

is not objectively sinful.

However,

it is subjectively sinful

for those who believe

that it is sinful

and do it anyway.

If he eats it

he is eating

against his own conscience.

He is doing

what he believes

is sinful

what he believes

offends

and displeases God.

Therefore,

he is no longer

acting out of faith

and obedience

but out of unbelief

and disobedience.

I think it's wrong

to eat meat

but who cares

I'm going to do it anyway.

what's God

going to do about it?

A whole bunch

of people

do it anyway.

For that person

it is sin

to eat meat

for whatever

does not proceed

from faith

is sin.

It follows

from this then

that if the person

with the stronger

conscience

flaunts his freedom

and eats meat

in front of this

other person

with the weaker

conscience

he is actually

inadvertently

tempting this person

to sin.

he is putting

a stumbling block

in the way

of a brother

and putting

a stumbling block

in front of a Christian

brother or sister

is itself sinful

because that

Paul says

is unloving.

Romans 14, 15

for if your brother

is grieved by what you eat

you are no longer

walking in love.

So the Christian

with a weaker conscience

who eats meat

sins

because his action

does not proceed

from faith.

The Christian

with the stronger conscience

who eats meat

in front of that

weaker brother

sins

because his action

does not proceed

from love.

You guys following?

Paul addresses

a similar situation

in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10.

Should Christians

eat food

sold at marketplaces

that had previously

been offered

to idols?

Paul says

an idol has no

real existence

whatsoever there is

since there is

no God but one.

And for people

who understand

that it is no sin

to eat food

that had previously

been offered

to idols

as long as

you are not

actively participating

in idolatrous

worship

which is demonic.

However,

Paul continues

not all

possess this knowledge.

There are some

people in Paul's day

who came out

of that kind

of idolatry

who still think

that there is

something real

happening

in that meat

that has been

offered to an idol

that is associated

with idols

that it belongs

to an idol

and so they feel

this pang

of their conscience

to not eat it.

And for such people

to eat that food

that had been

sacrificed to an idol

Paul says

is that it defiles

their conscience.

So Paul warns

the people

with stronger conscience

take care

that this right

of yours

does not somehow

become a stumbling

block to the weak.

If they see you

eating food

offered to idols

and then they

follow your example

they themselves

lack the faith

and the knowledge

that this food

is fine to eat

that the idols

are nothing

but they follow

your example in it.

their conscience

is defiled

and they've become

entangled in sin.

You have

in effect

made them stumble

and fall

into sin.

So Paul

himself says

this is his own

avowal

he says

if food makes

my brother stumble

I will never

eat meat

lest I make

my brother stumble.

Imagine making

that kind of declaration.

it's quite a sacrifice

for all you meat lovers

out there.

But this raises

a question

why should

my liberty

be restricted

by someone

else's conscience?

Paul anticipates

that exact question

in 1 Corinthians 10

1 Corinthians 10:29

verse 29

and this is his answer.

Whether you eat

or drink

or whatever you do

do all

to the glory

of God.

Give no offense

to Jews

or to Greeks

or to the church

of God

just as I try

to please

everyone

in everything

I do

not seeking

my own advantage

but that of many

that they may be

saved.

Wait a minute

Paul just admitted

that he tries

to please

everyone

in everything

he does.

Isn't that

the definition

of a people

pleaser?

Isn't that

a bad thing?

Why should

I change

how I live

based on

other people's

concerns?

Why should I

give up

my freedoms

for them?

This idea

of foregoing

our rights

for the love

of others

and accommodating

other people's

weaker consciences

goes against

the grain

of our culture.

Think about

how many times

you have

uncritically

adopted

these

mantras

of

popular

therapy speak.

Don't live

for other people.

Be your

authentic

true self.

You don't

owe anyone

anything.

Protect

your peace.

Set

boundaries.

Set

boundaries.

Our culture

has gone

well beyond

simply trying

to avoid

being controlled

by others.

Now we don't

even want

to be

concerned

by others.

Doing

concerns,

doing things

out of concern

for others

because we

feel that

that is

what we

should do

is not

viewed as

a threat

to authenticity

because we

should really

only do

what we

ourselves

want to

do.

And

telling people

to bear

that kind

of emotional

burden

for the

sake of

other

people

is seen

as a

form of

manipulation.

Externally

imposed

expectations

and obligations

are automatically

suspect in

our culture.

This

kind of

thinking

has in

fact

become

so

pervasive

that it

almost

feels

intuitive.

But

this kind

of thinking

is rooted

in

18th

century

romantic

philosophy

of

Jean-Jacques

Rousseau

who

taught

that we

must

be

true

to

our

internal

feelings

and

resist

conforming

to

external

expectations.

This

kind of

thinking

is rooted

in

19th

century

Sigmund

!

Freud

who

taught

that

psychological

unhealth

comes

from

among

other

things

letting

your

reality

be

defined

by

and

restricted

by

your

super

ego

which

is

your

moral

conscience

representing

the

internalized

societal

and

parental

expectations.

This

kind

of

thinking

is

rooted

in

20th

century

Abraham

Maslow

who

taught

that

self

actualization

involves

becoming

one's

own

true

self

rather

than

living

to meet

the

expectations

and demands

of others.

It's

this

kind

of

thinking

that

has

given

rise

to

the

radical

expressive

individualism

of our

age.

This

kind

of

thinking

does

not

come

from

the

Bible.

Now

please

don't hear

what I'm

not saying.

I'm

not

saying

that

you

should

live

enslaved

to

other

people's

opinions

and

expectations.

Far

from it.

Having

concern

for other

people

is not

the same

thing

as being

controlled

by other

people.

Living

out of

the fear

of man,

being

controlled

by what

they perceive

of you,

what they

think of

you,

and wanting

to do

everything

you can

to please

them,

living

out of

the fear

of man

is

night and

day

different

from

living

out of

the fear

of God

and the

love

of man.

The

secular

culture's

antidote

to the

fear of

man

is love

of self.

But the

Bible's

antidote to

the fear

of man

is the

fear of

God

and the

love

of neighbor.

Do you

see the

difference?

God

is the

God.

That's

what

Christianity

is all

about.

Faith

working

through

love.

The

aim of

our

charge

is love

that

issues

from a

pure

heart

and a

good

conscience

and a

sincere

faith.

When

we are

transformed

from the

inside out

by the

love of

Christ,

we have

the power

to

selflessly

serve

others

and to

accommodate

even our

weaker

brothers and

sisters with

weaker

consciences.

This is

what Paul is

talking about

in 1 Corinthians

1 Corinthians 9:19

9 verse

19.

For

although I

am free

from all,

I'm free

from all,

he says,

I have

made myself

a servant

to all

that I

might win

more of

them.

Martin

Luther

captures this

paradox in

his book,

The Freedom

of a

Christian.

A

Christian

is a

perfectly

free

lord of

all,

subject

to none.

A

Christian

is a

perfectly

dutiful

servant

of all,

subject

to all.

earlier

on in

chapter 15

when Jesus

taught that

it is not

what goes

into the

mouth but

what comes

out of

the mouth

that defiles

a person,

the disciples

kindly informed

Jesus that

the Pharisees

were offended

when they

heard this

saying.

And that

word offended

is actually

the same

word that's

used in our

passage to

cause someone

to stumble.

Jesus

made the

Pharisees

stumble.

So Jesus

at times

had no

qualms

whatsoever

about

making

certain

people

stumble.

So why

does he

take a

different

approach

here with

these

two

drachma

tax

collectors?

Because

there

previously

Jesus

was

teaching

on the

fundamental

inside

out

principle

of the

gospel

and in

order to

confront

the

Pharisees

self

righteousness

and

outside

in

legalism

there

was

no

way

to

avoid

scandal.

There's

no

way

to

avoid

putting

a

stumbling

block

in

front

of

these

Pharisees.

However

here

this

morning

in our

passage

what's

at stake

is not

a

fundamental

gospel

principle.

Some

sincere

Jews

who

believe

that

faithful

God

honoring

Jews

should

pay

the

temple

tax

are

asking

whether

or not

Jesus

pays

the

temple

tax

because

they

just

don't

know

better

yet

and

Jesus

does

not

want

to

cause

them

to

stumble.

Jesus

don't

value

the

temple

or

don't

value

the

worship

or

the

sacrifice

of

God

the

very

things

that

point

to

Jesus

ultimate

sacrifice

on the

cross.

So it

requires

wisdom and

discernment

to know

when

you take

what

approach.

You see

the same

adaptation

in Apostle

Paul and

I think

the reason

why Apostle

Paul has

these kinds

of

teachings

!

in

Romans

14

and

1

Corinthians

10

and

other

places

is

because

Jesus

taught

this.

In

Acts

Acts 16:3

chapter

16

verse 3

when

he

is

traveling

and

ministering

in

Jewish

cities

he

circumcises

his

apprentice

Timothy.

Why

does

he

do

it?

Because

he

doesn't

want

to

cause

the

Jews

to

stumble

because

the

Jews

were

aware

that

Timothy

had

a

Jewish

mother

but

he

had

a

Greek

father

a

Gentile

father.

So

they

didn't

want

people

to

think

that

Timothy

was

this

lawless

faithless

Jew

who

just

flaunts

just

openly

disobeys

the law

of God.

So

he

circumcised

Timothy.

However

later on

in

Galatians

2

3

to

5

when

the

Judaizers

who

insist

that

Gentile

converts

to

Christianity

must

become

a Jew

by

getting

circumcised

and

they

start

to

pressure

Paul

and

people

who

are

with

him

to

therefore

circumcise

Titus

who

is a

Gentile

convert

to

Christianity

Paul

says

here

in

Galatians

2

we

did

not

yield

in

submission

even

for

a

moment

so

that

the

truth

of

the

gospel

might

be

preserved

for

you.

Completely

to

completely

different

responses.

Why?

Because

in one

situation

the

gospel

is

at

stake

in

the

other

situation

it

is

not.

So

you

can

accommodate

others

and give

up your

own

preferences

and

freedoms.

Jesus

and the

apostles

followed

they

operated

on

higher

principles

of

fear

of

God

love

of

neighbor

and

the

stewardship

of

the

gospel.

Love

is a

higher

value

than

individual

freedom

and

autonomy.

Christian

love

demands

that

we

sometimes

forego

our

rights

for

the

sake

of

others

rather

than

insisting

on

our

rights

at

the

expense

of

others.

So

you

might

understand

for

example

that

it's

no

sin

to

drink

alcohol

but

if

your

Christian

brother

or

sister

formerly

struggled

with

alcoholism

and

they

are

finally

sober

after

years

of

hard

fought

battle

and

you're

drinking

in front

of

him

and

inviting

him

out

to

a

bar

in

doing

so

you

might

cause

him

to

stumble.

Maybe

you're

convinced

that

behaving

in a

certain

way

with

members

of

the

opposite

sex

or

the

way

you

spend

alone

time

with

or

show

physical

affection

to

your

boyfriend

or

girlfriend

is

perfectly

proper

and

fine.

But

a

Christian

friend

of

yours

disagrees

and

your

behavior

in

front

of

them

might

set

a

bad

example

for

him

or

her

cause

her

to

stumble

into

sin

with

her

boyfriend.

Maybe

your

practice

of

yoga

is

causing

Hindu

converts

to

Christianity

to

stumble

because

they

associate

it

with

their

former

practices

within

Hinduism.

Don't

destroy

your

Christian

sister

for

the

sake

of

your

freedom.

Why?

Because

their

eternal

souls

matter

more

than

your

temporal

preferences

and

desires.

Undoubtedly

we need

to apply

this

carefully

and

wisely

and I

don't

want

you

to

ever

compromise

gospel

principles

or

biblical

commands

but if

it's a

matter

of

giving

up

your

preferences

and

desires

why

not

gladly

give

up

your

preferences

and

desires

for

the

eternal

good

of

your

neighbors

Jesus

drives

this

point

home

even

more

pointedly

in

chapter

18

verses

1

to

6

he

says

in

verse

1

at

that

time

the

disciples

came

to

Jesus

saying

who

is

the

greatest

in

the

kingdom