New Page 1

Peter’s Response to the Leaders – Part 2 - No Other Name

Passage To Study: Acts 4:11-22

11This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ 12Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

13Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marveled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus. 14And seeing the man who had been healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it. 15But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves, 16saying, “What shall we do to these men? For, indeed, that a notable miracle has been done through them is evident to all who dwell in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. 17But so that it spreads no further among the people, let us severely threaten them, that from now on they speak to no man in this name.”

18So they called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. 19But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. 20For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” 21So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way of punishing them, because of the people, since they all glorified God for what had been done. 22For the man was over forty years old on whom this miracle of healing had been performed.

(Verse 11) - This is the stone - This passage is found in Ps. 118:22. It is quoted, also, by our Savior as applicable to himself. (See Matt. 21:42). The ancient Jews applied this to David. In the Targum on Ps. 118:22, this passage is rendered, “The child who was among the sons of Jesse, and was worthy to be constituted king, the builders rejected.” The New Testament writers, however, apply it without any doubt to the Messiah. (Compare Isa. 28:16; Rom. 9:33; Eph. 2:20). And from this passage we may learn that God will overrule the devices and plans of wicked men to accomplish his own purposes. What people despise and set at naught, he esteems of inestimable value in his kingdom. What the great and the mighty contemn, he regards as the very foundation and cornerstone of the edifice which he designs to rear. Nothing has been more remarkable than this in the history of man; and in nothing is more contempt thrown on the proud projects of people, than that what they have rejected God has made the very basis of his schemes.

(Verse 12) - Neither is there salvation - The word “salvation” properly denotes any “preservation,” or keeping anything in a “safe” state; a preserving from harm. It signifies, also, deliverance from any evil of body or mind; from pain, sickness, danger, etc., (Acts 7:25). But it is in the New Testament applied particularly to the work which the Messiah came to do, “to seek and to save that which was lost,” (Luke 19:10). This work refers primarily to a deliverance of the soul from sin (Matt. 1:21; Acts 5:31; Luke 4:18; Rom. 8:21; Gal. 5:1). It then denotes, as a consequence of freedom from sin, freedom from all the ills to which sin exposes man, and the attainment of that perfect peace and joy which will be bestowed on the children of God in the heavens. The reasons why Peter introduces this subject here seem to be these:

(1) He was discoursing on the deliverance of the man that was healed - his salvation from a long and painful calamity. This deliverance had been accomplished by the power of Jesus. The mention of this suggested that greater and more important salvation from sin and death which it was the object of the Lord Jesus to effect. As it was by his power that this man had been healed, so it was by his power only that people could be saved from death and hell. Deliverance from any temporal calamity should lead the thoughts to that higher redemption which the Lord Jesus contemplates in regard to the soul.

(2) This was a favorable opportunity to introduce the doctrines of the gospel to the notice of the Great Council of the nation. The occasion invited to it; the mention of a part of the work of Jesus invited to a contemplation of his whole work. Peter would not have done justice to the character and work of Christ if he had not introduced that great design which he had in view to save people from death and hell. It is probable, also, that he advanced a sentiment in which he expected they would immediately concur, and which accorded with their well-known opinions, that salvation was to be obtained only by the Messiah. Thus, Paul (Acts 26:22-23) says that he taught nothing else than what was delivered by Moses and the prophets, etc. (Compare Acts 23:6; 26:6). The apostles did not pretend to proclaim any doctrine which was not delivered by Moses and the prophets, and which did not, in fact, constitute a part of the creed of the Jewish nation.

In any other - Any other person. He does not mean to say that God is not able to save, but that the salvation of the human family is entrusted to the hands of Jesus the Messiah. This is an important idea. God has ordained not only that Salvation be exclusively by grace through faith, but He has ordained the means by which that salvation must come. It is His privilege so to do. There can be no hesitation or equivocation on this point. Here, if no where else, does the Gospel hang in the balance, and if the Gospel so hangs, salvation so hangs!

For there is none other name - This is an explanation of what he had said in the previous part of the verse. The word “name” here is used to denote “the person himself” (i. e., There is no other being or person.) As we would say, there is no one who can save but Jesus Christ. The word “name” is often used in this sense. (See Acts 3:6, 16). That there is no other Savior, or mediator between God and man, is abundantly taught in the New Testament; and it is, indeed, the main design of revelation to prove this. (See 1 Tim. 2:5-6; Acts 10:43).

Under heaven - This expression does not materially differ from the one immediately following, “among men.” They are designed to express with emphasis the sentiment that salvation is to be obtained in “Christ alone,” and not in any patriarch, or prophet, or teacher, or king, or in any false Messiah.

Given - In this word it is implied that “salvation” has its origin in God; that a Savior for people must be given by him; and that salvation cannot be originated by any power among people. The Lord Jesus is thus uniformly represented as given or appointed by God for this great purpose (John 3:16; 17:4; 1 Cor. 3:5; Gal. 1:4; 2:20; Eph. 1:22; 5:25; 1 Tim. 2:6; Rom. 5:15-18, 21); and hence, Christ is called the “unspeakable gift” of God, (2 Cor. 9:15).

Whereby we must be saved - By which it is fit, or proper, that we should be saved. There is no other way of salvation that is adapted to the great object contemplated, and therefore, if saved, it must be in this way and by this plan. The schemes of people’s own devices are not adapted to the purpose, and therefore cannot save. The doctrine that people can be saved only by Jesus Christ is abundantly taught in the Scriptures. To show the failure of all other schemes of religion was the great design of the first part of the Epistle to the Romans. By a labored argument Paul there shows (Rom. 1) that the Gentiles had failed in their attempt to justify themselves; and in Rom. 2–3 that the same thing was true also of the Jews. If both these schemes failed, then there was need of some other plan, and that plan was that by Jesus Christ. If it be asked, then, whether this affirmation of Peter is to be understood as having respect to infants and the pagan, we may observe:

(1) That his design was primarily to address the Jews, “Whereby we must be saved.” But,

(2) The same thing is doubtless true of others. If, as Christians generally believe, infants are saved, there is no absurdity in supposing that it is by the merits of the atonement. But for that there would have been no promise of salvation to any of the human race. No offer has been made except by the Mediator; and to him, doubtless, is to be ascribed all the glory of raising up even those in infancy to eternal life. If any of the pagan are to be saved, as most Christians suppose, and as seems in accordance with the mercy of God, it is no less certain that it will be in consequence of the intervention of Christ. Those who will be brought to heaven will sing one song Rev. 5:9, and will be prepared for eternal union in the service of God in the skies. Still, the Scriptures have not declared that great numbers of the pagan will be saved who have not the gospel. The contrary is more than implied in the New Testament, Rom. 2:12.

Neither has the Scripture affirmed that all the pagan will certainly be cut off. It has been discovered by missionaries among the pagan that individuals have, in a remarkable way; been convinced of the folly of idolatry, and were seeking a better religion; that their minds were in a serious, thoughtful, inquiring state; and that they at once embraced the gospel when it was offered to them as exactly adapted to their state of mind, and as meeting their inquiries. Such was extensively the case in the Sandwich Islands; and the following instance recently occurred in the earlier history of this country:

“The Flathead Indians, living west of the Rocky Mountains, recently sent a deputation to the white settlements to inquire after the Bible. The circumstance that led to this singular movement is as follows: It appears that a white man (Mr. Catlin) had penetrated into their country, and happened to be a spectator at one of their religious ceremonies. He informed them that their mode of worshipping the Supreme Being was radically wrong, and that the people away toward the rising of the sun had been put in possession of the true mode of worshipping the Great Spirit. On receiving this information, they called a national council to take this subject into consideration. Some said, if this be true, it is certainly high time we were put in possession of this mode. They accordingly deputed four of the chiefs to proceed to Louis to see their great father, General Clark, to inquire of him the truth of this matter.

They were cordially received by the general, who gave them a succinct history of revelation, and the necessary instruction relative to their important mission. Two of them sunk under the severe toils attending a journey of 3,000 miles. The remaining two, after acquiring what knowledge they could of the Bible, its institutions and precepts, returned, to carry back those few rays of divine light to their benighted countrymen.”

In what way their minds were led to this State we cannot say, or how this preparation for the gospel was connected with the agency and merits of Christ we perhaps cannot understand; but we know that the affairs of this entire world are placed under the control of Christ (John 17:2; Eph. 1:21-22), and that the arrangements of events by which such people were brought to this state of mind are in his hands. Another observation may here be made. It is, that it often occurs that blessings come upon us from benefactors whom we do not see, and from sources which we cannot trace.

On this principle we receive many of the mercies of life; and from anything that appears, in this way many blessings of salvation may be conferred on the world, and possibly many of the pagan be saved. Still, this view does not interfere with the command of Christ to preach the gospel, (Mark 16:15). The great mass of the pagan are not in this state; but the fact here adverted to, so far as it goes, is an encouragement to preach the gospel to the entire world. If Christ thus prepares the way; if he extensively fits the minds of the pagan for the reception of the gospel; if he shows them the evil and folly of their own system, and leads them to desire a better, then this should operate not to produce indolence, but activity, and zeal, and encouragement to enter into the field white for the harvest, and to toil that all who seek the truth, and are prepared to embrace the gospel, may be brought to the light of the Sun of righteousness.

(Verse 13) - Boldness - This word properly denotes “openness” or “confidence in speaking.” It stands opposed to “hesitancy,” and to “equivocation” in declaring our sentiments. Here it means that, in spite of danger and opposition, they avowed their doctrines without any attempt to conceal or disguise them.

Peter and John - It was they only who had been concerned in the healing of the lame man, Acts 3:1.

And perceived - When they knew that they were unlearned. This might have been ascertained either by report or by the manner of their speaking.

Unlearned - This word properly denotes “those who were not acquainted with letters, or who had not had the benefit of an education.”

Ignorant men - This word properly denotes “those who live in private, in distinction from those who are engaged in public life or in office.” As this class of persons is commonly also supposed to be less learned, talented, and refined than those in office, it comes to denote “those who are rude and illiterate.” The idea intended to be conveyed here is, that these men had not had opportunities of education (compare Matt. 4:18-21), and had not been accustomed to public speaking, and hence, they were surprised at their boldness. This same character is uniformly attributed to the early preachers of Christianity. (Compare 1 Cor. 1:27; Matt. 11:25). The Galileans were regarded by the Jews as particularly rude and uncultivated, (Matt. 26:73; Mark 14:17).

They marveled - They wondered that men who had not been educated in the schools of the rabbis, and accustomed to speak in public, should declare their sentiments with so much boldness.

And they took knowledge - This expression means simply that riley knew, or that they obtained evidence that they had been with Jesus. It is not said in what way they obtained this evidence, but the connection leads us to suppose it was by the miracle which they had performed, by their firm and bold declaration of the doctrines of Jesus, and perhaps by the irresistible conviction that none would be thus bold who had not been personally with him, and who had not the firmest conviction that he was the Messiah. They had not been trained in their schools, and their boldness could not be attributed to the arts of rhetoric, but was the native, ingenuous, and manly exhibition of a deep conviction of the truth of what they spoke, and that conviction could have been obtained only by their having been with him, and having been satisfied that he was the Messiah. Such conviction is of far more value in preaching than all the mere teachings of the schools; and without such a conviction, all preaching will be frigid, hypocritical, and useless.

Had been with Jesus - Had been his followers, and had attended personally on his ministry. They gave evidence that they had seen him, been with him, heard him, and were convinced that he was the Messiah. We may learn here:

(1) That if men wish to be successful in preaching, it must be based on deep and thorough conviction of the truth of what they deliver.

(2) They who preach should give evidence that they are acquainted with the Lord Jesus Christ; that they have imbibed his spirit, pondered his instructions, studied the evidences of his divine mission, and are thoroughly convinced that he was from God.

(3) Boldness and success in the ministry, as well as in everything else, will depend far more on honest, genuine, thorough conviction of the truth than on the endowments of talent and learning, and the arts and skill of eloquence. No man should attempt to preach without such a thorough conviction of truth; and no man who has it will preach in vain.

(4) God often employs the ignorant and unlearned to confound the wise, (1 Cor. 1:27-28). But it is not by their ignorance. It was not the ignorance of Peter and John that convinced the Sanhedrin. It was done in spite of their ignorance. It was their boldness and their honest conviction of truth. Besides, though not learned in the schools of the Jews, they had been under a far more important training, under the personal direction of Christ himself, for three years; I and now they were directly endowed by the Holy Spirit with the power of speaking with tongues. Though not taught in the schools, yet there was an important sense in which they were not unlearned and ignorant men. Their example should not, therefore, be pled in favor of an unlearned ministry. Christ himself expressed his opposition to an unlearned ministry by teaching them himself, and then by bestowing on them miraculous endowments which no learning at present can furnish. It may be remarked, further, that in the single selection which he made of an apostle after his ascension to heaven, when he came to choose one who had not been under his personal teaching, he chose a learned man, the apostle Paul, and thus evinced his purpose that there should be training or education in those who are invested with the sacred office.

(5) Yet in the case before us there is a striking proof of the truth and power of religion. These men had not acquired their boldness in the schools; they were not trained for argument among the Jews; they did not meet them by cunning sophistry; but they came with the honest conviction that what they were saying was true. Were they deceived? Were they not competent to bear witness? Did they have any motive to attempt to palm a falsehood onto people? Infidelity must answer many such questions as these before the apostles can be convicted of imposture.

(Verse 14) - They could say nothing - The presence of the man that was healed was an unanswerable fact in proof of the truth of what the apostles alleged. The miracle was so public, clear, and decisive; the man that was healed was so well known, that there was no evasion or subterfuge by which they could escape the conclusion to which the apostles were conducting them. It evinced no little gratitude in the man that was healed that he was present on this occasion, and showed that he was deeply interested in what befell his benefactors. The miracles of Jesus and his apostles were such that they could not be denied, and hence, the Jews did not attempt to deny that they performed them. (Compare Matt. 12:24; John 11:45-46; Acts 19:36).

(Verse 15-18) - What shall we do to these men? - The object which they had in view was evidently to prevent their preaching. The miracle was performed, and it was believed by the people to have been made. This they could not expect to be able successfully to deny. Their only object, therefore, was to prevent the apostles from making the use which they saw they would to convince the people that Jesus was the Messiah. The question was, in what way they should prevent this; whether by putting them to death, by imprisoning them, or by scourging them; or whether by simply exerting theft authority and forbidding them. From the former they were deterred, doubtless, by fear of the multitude; and they therefore adopted the latter, and seemed to suppose that the mere exertion of their authority would be sufficient to deter them from this in future.

The council - Greek: The “Sanhedrin.” This body was composed of 71 or 72 persons, and was entrusted with the principal affairs of the nation. It was a body of vast influence and power, and hence they supposed that their command might be sufficient to restrain ignorant Galileans from speaking. Before this same body, and probably the same men, our Savior was arraigned, and by them condemned before he was delivered to the Roman governor, (Matt. 26:59, etc). And before this same body, and in the presence of the same men, Peter had just before denied his Lord, (Matt. 26:70), etc. The fact that the disciples had fled on a former occasion, and that Peter had denied his Savior, may have operated to induce them to believe that they would be terrified by their threats, and deterred from preaching publicly in the name of Jesus.

A notable miracle - A known, undeniable miracle.

That it spread - That the knowledge of it may not spread among them any further.

Let us straitly threaten them - Greek: “Let us threaten them with a threat.” This is a “Hebraism” expressing intensity, certainty, etc. The threat was a command (Acts 4:18) not to teach, implying their displeasure if they did do it. This threat, however, was not effectual. On the next occasion, which occurred soon after (Acts 5:40), they added beating to their threats in order to deter them from preaching in the name of Jesus.

(Verse 19) - Whether it be right - The apostles abated nothing of their boldness when threatened. They openly appealed to their judges whether their command could be right. And in doing this, they expressed their full conviction of the truth of what they had said, and their deliberate purpose not to regard their command, but still to proclaim to the people the truth that Jesus was the Messiah.

In the sight of God - That is, whether God will judge this to be right. The grand question was how God would regard it. If he disapproved it, it was wrong. It was not merely a question pertaining to their reputation, safety, or life; it was a question of conscience before God. We have here a striking instance of the principle on which Christians act. It is, to lay their safety, reputation, and life out of view, and bring everything to the test WHETHER IT WILL PLEASE GOD. If it will, it is right; if it will not, it is wrong.

To hearken - To “hear” and to “hearken” are often used to denote to “obey,” (John 5:24; 8:47, etc).

Judge ye - This was an appeal to them directly as judges and as men. And it may be presumed that it was an appeal which they could not resist. The Sanhedrin acknowledged itself to have been appointed by God, and to have no authority which was not derived from his appointment. Of course, God could modify, supersede, or repeal their authority; and the abstract principle that it was better to obey God than man they could not call in question. The only inquiry was whether they had evidence that God had issued any command in the case. Of that the apostles were satisfied, and that the rulers could not deny. It may be remarked that this is one of the first and most bold appeals on record in favor of the right of private judgment and the liberty of conscience. That liberty was supposed in all the Jewish religion. It was admitted that the authority of God in all matters was superior to that of man. And the same spirit manifested itself thus early in the Christian church against all dominion over the conscience, and in favor of the right to follow the dictates of the conscience and the will of God. As a mere historical fact, therefore, it is interesting to contemplate this, and still more interesting in its important bearings on human liberty and human happiness. The doctrine is still more explicitly stated in Acts 5:29, “We ought to obey God rather than man.”

(Verse 20) - For - This is given as a reason why they should obey God rather than man. They had had so clear evidence that God had sent the Messiah, and they had received a direct and solemn command Mark 16:15 to preach the gospel, that they could not be restrained. There was a necessity laid on them to preach. (See 1 Cor. 9:16. Compare Jer. 20:9; Acts 18:5; Job 32:18-19; Ps. 39:1-3).

It has already been remarked that these two verses contain an important principle in favor of religious liberty the liberty of conscience and of private judgment. They contain the great principle of Christianity and of the Protestant religion, that the responsibility of men for their religious opinions is direct to God, and that other men have no power of control. The opposite of this is tyranny and oppression. It may be proper, in addition, to present some further remarks, involved in the principle here stated:

(1) Religion, from the beginning, has been favorable to liberty. There was no principle more sacred among the Jews than that they were to be independent of other nations. Perhaps no people have ever been so restive under a foreign yoke, so prone to rebel, and so difficult to be broken down by oppression and by arms, as were the Jews. So true was this, that it appeared to other nations to be mere obstinacy. They were often subdued, but they rose against their oppressors and threw off the yoke. No people have been found who were so difficult to be reduced to slavery. It is well known that the Romans were accustomed to subject the captives taken in war to perpetual servitude; and commonly the spirit of the captive was broken, and he remained quietly in bondage. But not so the Jew. Nothing ever tamed his spirit. No bribes, or threats, or chains could induce him to violate the laws of his religion. Even in captivity, we are told that the Jewish slaves at Rome would observe the Sabbath; would keep the feasts of their nation, and would never conform to the customs of an idolatrous people. To the Romans this appeared to be mere obstinacy. But it was the genius of their religion. The right of liberty of thought was one which they would not surrender. The spirit of the patriarchs was favorable to liberty, and implied responsibility only to God. Familiarity with the sacred books had taught them these lessons, and neither time nor distance could obliterate them. In the time of Christ, the great mass of the nation were evidently opposed to the tax paid to the Roman nation, and sighed under this burden, until they rose and attempted to assert their rights; and their city, and temple, and land were sacrificed rather than yield this great principle.

(2) This same principle was evinced by the apostles and by the early Christians. With this doctrine fresh upon their hearts, they went forth to other lands. They maintained it at the expense of their blood, and thousands fell as martyrs in the cause of liberty and of private judgment in religion. No one ever defended liberty more firmly than the early martyrs; and each one that died, died in defense of a principle which is now the acknowledged right of all people.

(3) The designs of tyranny and superstition have been to destroy this principle. This was the aim of the Sanhedrin; and yet, when Peter and John appealed to their consciences, they did not dare to avow their purpose. This has been the aim of all tyrants, and this the effect of all superstition. Hence, the Church of Rome has taken away the Scriptures from the people, and has thus furnished incontestable evidence that in its view the Bible is favorable to liberty. For centuries, tyranny reigned in one black flight over Europe; nor was the darkness dispelled until the Bible, that taught people the principles of freedom, was restored to them.

(4) The effect of the principle avowed by the apostles had been uniform. Luther began the reformation by finding in a monastery a copy of the Bible, a book which until that time - when more than twenty years of age - he had never seen. The effect on the liberties of Europe was immediately seen. Hume admitted that whatever liberty England possessed was to be traced to the Puritans. Our own land (America) is a striking instance of the effect of this great principle, and of its influence on the rights of man. And just in proportion as the New Testament is spread abroad will people seek for freedom and break the chains of oppression. The best way to promote universal liberty is to spread the Bible to the ends of the earth. There is not a precept in it that is not favorable to freedom. It tends to enlarge and liberalize the mind; to teach people their rights; to put an end to ignorance, the universal stronghold of superstition and tyranny; and to diffuse the love of justice, truth, and order. It shows man that he is responsible to God, and that no one has a right to ordain anything which contravenes the liberty of his fellow.

If it be asked here what the principle is, I answer:

(1) That people have a right to their private judgment in matters of religion, subject only to God. The only restraint which, it is now settled, can be imposed on this, is, that no man has a right, under pretence of conscience, to injure or molest his fellow-men, or to disturb the peace and harmony of society.

(2) No magistrate, church, council, or parent, has a right to impose a creed on others, and to demand subscription to it by mere authority.

(3) No magistrate, church, or parent, has a right to control. the free exercise of private judgment in this case. The power of a parent is to teach, advise, and entreat. The duty of a child is to listen with respect; to examine with candor; to pray over the subject, and to be deliberate and calm, not rash, hasty, impetuous, and self-willed. But when the child is thus convinced that his duty to God requires a particular course, then here is a higher obligation than any earthly law, and he must obey God rather than man, ever a father or a mother, (Matt. 10:37-38).

(4) Every man is responsible to God for his opinions and his conduct. Man may not control him, but God may and will. The great question before every man is, What is right in the sight of God? It is not, What is expedient, or safe, or pleasurable, or honorable among people? but, What is right in the sight of God? Neither in their opinions nor their conduct are people free from responsibility. From this whole subject we see the duty of spreading the Bible. If we love liberty; if we hate tyranny and superstition; if we wish to extend the knowledge of the rights of man, and break every arm of oppression, let us spread far and wide the Book of God, and place in every palace and every cottage on the globe a copy of the sacred Scriptures.

(Verse 21) - Finding nothing - That is, not being able to devise any way of punishing them without exciting a tumult among the people, and endangering their own authority. The Sanhedrin was frequently influenced by this fear; and it shows that their own authority was much dependent on the caprice of the multitude. (Compare Matt. 21:26).

All men - That is, the great mass or body of the people.

Glorified God - Praised God for the miracle. This implies:

(1) That they believed that the miracle was genuine.

(2) That they were grateful to God for so signal a mercy in conferring health and comfort on a man who had been long afflicted. We may add further, that here is the highest evidence of the reality of the miracle. Even the Sanhedrin, with all their prejudice and opposition, did not call it in question; and the common people, who had doubtless been acquainted with this man for years, were convinced that it was real. It would have been impossible to impose on keen sighted and jealous adversaries in this manner if this had been an imposture.

(Verse 22) - For the man - The age of the man is mentioned to show the certainty and greatness of the miracle. If it had been a man who had been lame but a few years, or if it had been a child or a very young man, the case would not been so remarkable. But after a continuance of 40 years, all hope of healing him by any ordinary means must have been abandoned, and all pretence that this was jugglery or deception must have been absurd.

The truth that there is no other Name but the Name of Jesus is a marvelous truth – to the redeemed! To many of the unredeemed, it is not so wondrous! Man, we are told in the Bible, is hostile to the Gospel. He hates the idea that he must submit himself to God and to His plan for salvation. This is what the Bible describes as “enmity”. Yet, man’s enmity does not make it one whit less needful that he call upon the Name of Christ in order to be saved. God is not concerned, in this regard, with our opinions. Today, all opinions, particularly in spiritual matters, are to be regarded as equally true and equally valuable and valid. To deny anyone’s truth claim is the highest of sin in the modern world. Yet, God here denies all human truth claims in one fell swoop. That is hardly politic! He does not alter reality to fit the prejudice and wickedness of man. We are all responsible before Him to call upon the Name of Christ, the only mechanism by which men can enter (peaceably) His august presence and dwell with Him in blessedness forever!

We need to be careful that we do not alter the Gospel to “fit” our perceptions and our desire to get along with others in the world.