The Progressive Persecution of the First Century Church by the Sanhedrin Part 2

Persecution of the Apostles and Lay Leaders
Before we look at the direct persecution of the Apostles and leaders, let us look first at the reason for the persecution in the form of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The Pharisees objected more strongly to Christ and His teachings than any other religious or secular group in Israel.7 In Acts chapters 3 and 4 we find Peter and John going to the temple to pray, where they are confronted by a lame beggar. Peter tells the man to arise and walk by the power of Jesus and he immediately jumps up and is dancing and jumping around praising and worshiping God. Peter then asks everyone that witnessed this miracle why they marvel over this and proceeds to give his first sermon. Peter and John are seized by the Sadducees, the priests and the temple commander. At this point council concede that a true miracle has occurred, because this man was known and there was testimony that he was lame from birth.[1] This miracle shook the Sadducean theology to the core. At this point the council could have rendered many different verdicts in this case, but they chose to command the Apostles from doing the only thing they could not stop doing. They were to stop speaking the name of or spreading the teachings of Jesus. This was an area of clear disobedience to civil authority because it violated what God had instructed them to do. Before the apostles were released they were threatened to be quiet.[2] One explanation that I agree with as to why the apostles were not to use the name of Jesus is from Dr. Roy L. Laurin. He states, “When He was born (Jesus) He was given two names: first, Jesus, “because He shall save His people from their sins.” This is the name of the savior. Second, “Immanuel, God with us.” This is the name of deity. These two factors give power and authority to the use of the name of Jesus.”[3] In essence, by banning the name of Jesus the Apostles would lose the power and authority of the Holy Spirit. In Acts chapter 5 we find the Apostles back in the temple preaching and teaching in the name of Jesus. It is in chapter 5 we also find the warning from Gamaliel. Gamaliel was one of the most revered Pharisees (teacher of the law) and the top Jewish scholar of his time.[4] This passage brings us to two great lessons. The first, Gamaliel demonstrates for us that all Christians should be sober and under control. Secondly, committed believers must stand up against any heresy, cultic influences and attacks against fellow believers over minor matters.9
Stephen was the next person to be persecuted by the Sanhedrin. Stephen is also known as the first martyr, recorded in the New Testament scriptures. Although the Sanhedrin did not commit this atrocity directly, they were indirectly involved. Stephen was one of the seven chosen to pass out bread and distribute it among the Hellenistic Jews. The problem for Stephen came when he started to feed people the word of God.[5] He was brought before the council to make an account of what he was teaching and his wisdom surpassed all understanding. The final straw for the people present was when Stephen saw his vision of Jesus sitting at the right hand of God. The council and the Jews immediately rushed him, dragged him out of the city and stoned him to death.[6] I would like to point out some illegal actions that took place during the death of Stephen. The people of the council broke their own law. Even though this is considered to be heresy and is punishable by the death penalty, the law was clear in that they could not execute someone until the next day. They also violated Roman law. Roman law prohibited the council or any other governing body from allowing them to carry out capital punishment; this would disrupt the Pax Romana (Peace of Rome). Although the stoning would appear to have been mob driven, I think this may have been a ploy by the Sanhedrin to inflict the death penalty without repercussions from Rome. The stoning itself did appear to be a formal execution. According to Holman’s commentary most scholars believe that Saul did not just stand guard over the coats, he played some official role in the execution.[7] Stephen’s death occurred nearly eight years after the crucifixion of Jesus, dating his death around A.D. 35. The hate the people had for Jesus has now transferred to Stephen and will now transfer to anyone who professed Jesus as the Christ. The entire church or body of Christ is now under persecution from the Sanhedrin.[8]
Persecution of the Church
In Acts 8:3 we find Saul actively starting the persecution of the church by dragging off to prison both men and women who were Christians. Saul was born in Tarsus. This was a Roman blessed city, meaning the entire city had gained Roman citizenship. This happened several decades before Saul was born, but it afforded him and his family Roman citizenship with all the rights and privileges that come with that title. Saul, and perhaps some of his family, eventually makes Jerusalem their residence. Although Saul and his family were tent makers, Saul was following a career path to become a Pharisee. Saul even studied under the most prestigious scholar ever recognized, Gamaliel. The Pharisees were so obsessed with the Law of Moses that they created additional laws to help protect the written laws of Moses.[9]
In Acts Chapter 9, Saul is so zealous to rid the world of the heresy of the Christian theology he finally makes a request to the high priest and the council to pursue anyone involved with the movement at this point they are still called, “The Way.” They grant Saul a letter sending him to Damascus to bring back to Jerusalem any that belong to “The Way.”[10] Many of the Christians that were present in Jerusalem when Stephen was stoned had fled to seek refuge from the persecution. Saul’s sole mission at this point was to track down and bring back those who fled. This was perhaps to aide in the destruction and stopping of the spread of the Gospel message those believers carried. Saul’s efforts were pure and righteous in his sight. He saw the Christian movement as a treat to Judaism and Paul being a good Jew and a good Pharisee wanted to preserve the traditions of Judaism. [11] Perhaps the Holman commentary can better illustrate this. Tough and crafty, this young rabbi from Tarsus zealously wanted to exterminate Christians. He had no intention of letting the persecution of the church end with the death of Stephen and the expulsion of believers from Jerusalem. He obtained permission from the high priest and headed northeast to Damascus and Syria, intending to bring back as prisoners any Christians he might find. He had scheduled no random burning and looting but rather a sophisticated, officially authorized persecution.[12]
The final blow to the Sanhedrin was the conversion of their chief zealous persecutor Saul. Saul’s conversion on the road to Damascus can also be found in Chapter 9. Unfortunately this did not stop the persecution of the Church. We find that in Acts chapters 22 and 23 Paul, formally Saul stands before the Sanhedrin testifying about Christ being the messiah.

The End of the Sanhedrin
The final and great war against Rome in A.D. 66-73 not only destroyed the second temple, it reduced the Jewish people to the low status of provincials. This is the stripping away of their Roman Citizenship, but they are stilled obligated to pay their taxes and obey Roman law. This was the end of the political Sanhedrin causing all the leadership to fall to the religious Sanhedrin, making them the supreme authority. Unfortunately, at this point they had no political power at all in their own country. The Religious Sanhedrin now assumed not only the status but the name Sanhedrin exclusively. The religious Sanhedrin, also known as the court, became more and more of a religious academy. By the 2nd Century the religious Sanhedrin followed the political Sanhedrin into oblivion.[13]

Final Outlook
The Sanhedrin was necessary in the ultimate plan that God needed to fulfill His purpose. We may look back today and view the Sanhedrin as an evil entity, but my research had brought me to the conclusion that God used what was meant to be evil and do harm, to spread the Gospel message. Through the actions of the Sanhedrin, prophesies were fulfilled and Jesus proved with His life and works that He was the Son of God, The promised messiah. I am reminded of the scripture in Matthew 16:18, (Jesus)… Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means 'rock'), and upon this rock I will build My church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it.

[1] NASB Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999
[2] Gangel, Kenneth O. Holman New Testament Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998. (p.61, 79)
[3] Dr. Roy L. Laurin, Acts: Life in Action (Ohio, Findlay: Dunham Publishing Company, 1962) (p.95)
[4] Miller, Stephen M. Who's Who and Where's Where in the Bible. uhrichsville: Barbour Punblishing, Inc., 2004. (p.121)
[5] Miller, Stephen M. Who's Who and Where's Where in the Bible. uhrichsville: Barbour Punblishing, Inc., 2004.(p.358)
[6] NASB Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999
[7] Gangel, Kenneth O. Holman New Testament Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998. (p.111)
[8] Chadwick, John Foxe and updated by Harold J. Foxe's Book of Martyrs.( Gainesville: Bridge-Logos, 2001). (p.5)
[9] Miller, Stephen M. Who's Who and Where's Where in the Bible. uhrichsville: Barbour Punblishing, Inc., 2004. (p.297)
[10] NASB Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999
[11] New Living Translation Application Study Bible. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2004. (p.1834, 1837)
[12] Gangel, Kenneth O. Holman New Testament Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998. (p.138)
[13] Charles F. Pfeiffer, Howard F. Vos, and John Rea, Wycliffe Bible dictionary. Peabody: Hendrickson publishers, Inc., 2005. (p.1522)

The Progressive Persecution of the First Century Church by the Sanhedrin Part 1

Historical Facts: A Study of the Book of Acts

The Sanhedrin is translated into English as council. It is believed the Sanhedrin was officially formed during the centuries between the testaments or the 400 years of silence.[1] It consisted of 71 members and was presided over by the high priest or king. This would date back to old testament times referencing Numbers 11:16, The LORD therefore said to Moses, "Gather for Me seventy men from the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and their officers and bring them to the tent of meeting, and let them take their stand there with you. [2]
The Sanhedrin consisted of two separate parties: the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The Sadducees and the Pharisees can also be viewed as a political Sanhedrin and a religious Sanhedrin. The political Sanhedrin was chosen by the high priest or the king and there is no indication in ancient documents on how they were chosen. The people chosen were most likely friends of the high priest or king and came from the Levitical priesthood. This council was not a permanent entity, but was convened only in cases that demanded their attention. The council had the power to produce a verdict on any case but had no power to impose capital punishment. Capital punishment could only be implemented by Roman authorities. The second party was the Religious Sanhedrin. The religious Sanhedrin members were the highest court, similar to the U.S. Supreme Court. They would only hold trials on cases that were violating Jewish religious and criminal law. [3] These two councils of the Sanhedrin were concerned with two different areas. The political portion was concerned with secular issues, while the religious council dealt with enforcing the law of the Pentateuch. We can see these two groups broken down to the Sadducees who would be considered the secular party and the Pharisees considered the religious party.

Sadducees

The Sadducees did not hold power because of their political influence, but their power was from controlling most of the wealth. They collaborated with Roman authorities which provided them many material advantages. Being concerned with the secular part of their nation, their theology was less important to them than their place and position which brought about much conflict between them and the Pharisees.[4] The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection and they also did not believe in a personal messiah, but they believed in an ideal of a messiah. This can be illustrated when they were testing Jesus in Luke 20:27-40. They were trying to challenge Jesus on the theology of the resurrection with a trick question. Jesus redirects their theology and their misinterpretation of the scripture proving that God is a God of the living and not the dead by using the account with Moses and the burning bush. Matthew Henry has a great interpretation of this scripture. “The Sadducees deny that there is any resurrection, any future state, so anastasis (pertaining to the resurrection of the dead) may signify; not only no return of the body to life, but no continuance of the soul in life, no world of spirits, no state of recompense and retribution for what was done in the body.” According to Matthew Henry, the Sadducees caused a weakening of people’s faith in the doctrine of the resurrection if not in their entire faith based system. [5] This sounds very familiar with the arguments that are made today by Atheists and Agnostics. It is easier to deny an afterlife for the simple fact they may have to face God on the Day of Judgment, so they will not have to make an account for what they have done or how they lived their lives.
One final observation, according to F.F. Bruce a Sadducee could not become a Christian without first abandoning many of their theological beliefs. A Pharisee could become a Christian and remain a Pharisee. However, a Sadducee could become a Pharisee then become a Christian.[6]

Pharisees

The word Pharisee is a Hebrew word meaning to divide or separate, which could be translated as the separated ones. The word Pharisee and its translation could be pertaining to being separate from the sinfulness and uncleanliness of this world or they purposely separated themselves to study and interpret the law. The Pharisees were the authors of the two fold law, both oral and written. [7] The Pharisees were also very popular with the people of Israel.
The Pharisees had adopted a strong nationalistic or patriotic posture and their only concern was the defense of the law. We can tell by scriptures that they despised the Romans and their rules. Their basic theology included the belief in the bodily resurrection of the dead. They believed in the authenticity of angels and demons. They were also missionary minded seeking the conversion of the gentiles. They believed that God was concerned with and intervened in the lives of people who worshiped Him. They also believed that each person had the right to choose, therefore each person was responsible for their own actions and the way they lived their lives. The Pharisees were monotheistic, which means that they believed in only one God.7


[1] Chad Brand, Charles Draper, Archie England. Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003.(p.1445)
[2] NASB Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999
[3] Charles F. Pfeiffer, Howard F. Vos, and John Rea, Wycliffe Bible dictionary. Peabody: Hendrickson publishers, Inc., 2005. (p.1520)
[4] Chad Brand, Charles Draper, Archie England. Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003.(p.66,67)
[5] Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary On the Whole Bible, Vol. 5 (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. 1991) (p.642)
[6] Bruce, F.F. The Book of Acts. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988. (p.428)
[7] Chad Brand, Charles Draper, Archie England. Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003.(p.917)

Sharing your Faith

What were the circumstances surrounding your conversation with the unbelieving person when you presented the gospel to him/her.

Recently, I was called to repair a nuclear camera. I finished the repair quickly and had some time so I asked my client to have lunch with me. We have not seen each other for several years so I started to ask him personal questions about his girlfriend and he told me they broke up. I decided to listen to him and asked him what happened. After several minutes of listening he stated that all women where out for one thing, his money. I told him that he probably would continue to meet women like that if he looked for a woman at a bar, like he has been doing. He said there was nowhere else to look and I said how about church?

What was the reaction (questions/comments/statements) of the Unbeliever?

His reaction was not what I expected. He started to voice objections about the church. He said the Bible wasn’t accurate and I walked him through what I knew about the accuracy of the Bible. I then asked him if he thought he was a good person. He said yes and I asked him if I could ask him a few questions to see if that was true and said I could. I walked him through 3 of the 10 commandments and he admitted that he was a lying, thieving, adulterer at heart. During these questions he voiced several other objections regarding hypocrites in the church. I agreed with him that there were a lot of people who did not live the life of a true Christian. I then redirected him back to the important questions. I asked if he was judged by those standards (Ten Commandments) would he be found guilty or innocent. I then presented what Jesus did for him so he would not have to go to hell.

What did you do/say to the person in light of the person’s reaction to your presentation of the Gospel?

After presenting the entire gospel to him. He thanked me for taking the time to talk with him. He then told me that he would start reading the Bible. I suggested that he start in the book of Romans then start reading the first four books of the Bible. He told me that there was a new church that was opening up near his house and he said that he would go to this church to see if he liked it. Since my witnessing encounter with my client, I have spent time in prayer for the Holy Spirit to minister to him and bring him into the full knowledge of Christ. I plan on doing a follow-up with him the next time I am there working.

Two major paradigms for reading Romans: The Reformation approach: The New Perspective.

I have to admit that the teaching of the two major paradigms in Romans mentioned by Douglas Moo made me think in different terms; in fact as he put it, I am able to look at these teachings from a different lens. I was guilty of looking at the book of Romans and applying it to today’s needs and putting into today’s context. This course has taught me to look at this book from a different point of view. This is a letter that was written to the early Roman church. So I am now applying this to what Romans is really about. It is also important to look at what a paradigm is.




Select image for more information about Douglas Moo

The definition for paradigm is: A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.[1]


The two different approaches to reading the letter of Romans is the Reformation approach and the New Perspective approach. The reformation approach which focuses on individual salvation and it assumes Jewish legalism. Whereas, the New Perspective approach focuses on people, groups, and a view called conventional nominism. To define this better the Jewish people saw no need for salvation because they thought they were protected by the law and the fact they have a covenant with God. Therefore they are saved because they are Jews who belong to this covenant. Paul’s problem with this approach is that it left no room for the gentiles in their plan of salvation.[2]
I made an interesting note as I read through the scriptures and the writings from Douglas Moo. The Jews were supposed to be the light to the rest of the world, to draw all men to God. They were given the scripture, also known as the oracles. It would seem that the Jews horded this and wouldn’t not give it back to the world.
In the New Perspective approach we can see a paradigm shift; this is a change in a model or pattern that has been universally accepted.[3] This method is more widely accepted by modern scholars. This approach encourages reading the letter of Romans from a different angle. This fresh look at this letter includes being justified by God was no longer identified with just the Jews and the covenant. It was freely given by God to all men, both Jew and gentile. I would like to point out that neither interpretation is wrong or right, but in order to apply the teachings of this book to our present day life, we must understand it in the context that it was originally intended for.

[1] (Answers.com 2008)
[2] (Moo 2002)
[3] (Answers.com 2008)

Is there tension between what Paul and James teach?

The argument that Paul makes in these passages is justification by works verses justification by faith (grace). Paul uses Abraham as a basis for his contrast between these two beliefs. I particularly like what Thomas Schreiner says,

“Now in salvation history the saving righteousness of God has been manifested
apart from the works of the law.”

Paul could build his case by using two prominent figures from the Old Testament, Abraham and David. Paul contrasts Abraham’s righteousness to his faith, not by his works. Douglas Moo puts this into a better way of understanding this passage. Works creates an obligation to the one who is working. For example, as an employee we work for our reward of a paycheck and our employer is now obligated to present you your wages for the obligation of you working for them. The problem with this is God is not obligated to anyone. He cannot be under obligation to any human being. Now the flip side is faith. It is by faith that we humbly accept this gift which then brings us under obligation to God for this gift of faith by grace. My conclusion or interpretation is that this passage brings us into the fullness of God’s plan for our salvation and clarifies what needs to be done for us to receive salvation. That it is only available by faith and you cannot work your way into heaven.[1]
The last area to look at is the contrast between Romans 3 and 4 and James 2. James, in the previous chapters, has already acknowledged the saved by faith principle. I personally do not feel that there is any contention between what Paul has written and what James has written. John MacArthur has a great commentary on this area of James. James is not talking about saving works here. He is referring to faith is living or dead. This tests our actual faith in God and if we are obeying God’s word. The works to which he is referring to is demonstrating a Godly nature? James is not disputing the importance of faith he is merely showing that saving faith can be just an intellectual exercise, which would be missing the key ingredient of actively obeying God’s word. James is showing us that there are two types of faith, living faith that saves and dead faith that doesn’t. [2]

1 Moo, Douglas J. Encountering The Book of Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. (pg. 93)
2MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Bible Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2005. (pg. 1187, 1888)

Paul's use of the Old Testament in the book of Romans

I found Paul’s use of the Old Testament an interesting concept, considering that the letter was written to the Roman Church. I had to refocus my lens from applying these teachings and place myself as one of the recipients of the letter when it was read for the first time. The main question that comes to my mind is why Paul used the Old Testament Scriptures when the first century Roman Church consisted of mostly gentile believers. We find that Paul has used more direct quotes from the Old Testament than in any of his other writings. There are approximately 55 quotes from the Old Testament. At first glance I thought that the book of Genesis was the most quoted until I counted them out. The most quoted book in Romans is the book of Isaiah, used around 18 times. I think that the reason why Paul used the Old Testament was because of the few Jews who were actually counted with the Romans Church. I think the key to unlocking the theme or the central point of this book is found in Romans 1:17. Paul uses a passage out of Habakkuk 2:4 the righteous will live by faith. I did find that in some of those quotes Paul used that he did not use the entire scripture or some did summarize what he was referring to. I could entertain the thought that Paul was quoting most of these scriptures from memory. We must remember that Paul was a Pharisee who was trained by Gamaliel, who was the grandson of the most beloved scholar, Rabbi Hillel. Because of this status and being trained by this Rabbi, Paul most undoubtedly was the crème dele crème, the best of the best. In order to be taught by a Rabbi of this stature the young Saul would have had to memorize the entire scriptures. That is from Genesis through to Malachi, all from memory. My favorite persons that Paul uses in his presentation are Abraham and Adam. It was fascinating to me how Paul showed us the contrast between the first and second Adam, the second Adam referring to Jesus. I also enjoyed the argument that Paul makes by contrasting Abraham and his being considered righteous before the law, or even before his circumcision.

Miller, Stephen M. Who's Who and Where's Where in the Bible. uhrichsville: Barbour Punblishing, Inc., 2004.

Moo, Douglas J. Encountering The Book of Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.

Porter, Stanley. "Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament." 509,510.

Leiden: Brill, 1997.Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Acaddemic, 1998.

A Biblical view on one's responsibility to government

In Romans chapter 13, God establishes the governing authorities. If we rebel and are not law abiding citizens we are actually rebelling against God Himself. The scripture also says that we will be held accountable and if we choose to disobey the law of the land, there may be consequences that we must suffer. In verse 4 I take that scripture as God using the government to bring His judgment upon those who disobey him. The government is also used to exercise God’s wrath. There are two reasons given to obey, (1) because we may be punished and, (2) because of our conscience. In Jesus’ time the poll tax of one denarius was the most hated tax of all because it suggested that the Romans owned the people of Israel. By looking at what Jesus said in Matthew in context, we see that Christ was asked if the Jews should pay these taxes. It was a trick question; if he answered yes then the people of Israel would not follow him anymore, he would not be a friend to the people of Israel. If he said no, he would’ve been arrested for treason. I like what MacArthur says about this,

“Caesar’s image is stamped on the coin; God’s image is stamped on the person.”

The book of Acts also deals with this issue of the tax, teaching when to obey, and when not to obey civil authority. We find in the book of Acts there is one reason that we are not only responsible, but obligated to disobey the commands of the governing authorities. That would be in situations where we find ourselves in opposition with God’s law. This is the only time we are called to be disobedient. I believe it was the responsibility and the obligation of the apostles to be civilly disobedient when ordered to no longer speak the name Jesus or testify to the truth of the Gospel. Today, according to the scriptures, we are to look at our leaders as divinely chosen by God, therefore we must be in submission to our governing authorities unless what they are asking us is against God’s commandments. When and if that happens we also must be ready and willing to suffer the consequences for our disobedience. That is why we are to follow our conscience; it will reveal what God wants.

MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Bible Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2005.
Moo, Douglas J. Encountering The Book of Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.
Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Acaddemic, 1998.

The Jew-Gentile relationship in the first-century Church and the Roman Church.

In Acts 14, we see that Paul is aware of tensions between the Jewish and Gentile believers. One issue raised was their dietary habits and laws. The Jewish believers would not eat meat or drink wine because most of the meat and wine were contaminated according to kosher laws because they were offered to idols. The Gentile believers seemed to have eaten these meats offered to idols without any regard or without guilt. In fact we find in Acts 15 that the council met to discuss this issue of what the Gentiles must do as far as following Mosaic Law. The council concluded the Gentiles should abstain from anything that has been contaminated by idols, from fornicating and they should also abstaining from anything strangled and avoid any contact with blood.
It is evident there were major problems with the relationship between Jews and Gentiles by Paul’s seeming seesawing between the two groups found in Romans. Paul’s final plea to these two groups was to not cause your brother to stumble. Paul’s reminder to them should also serve as a reminder to us today not to do anything that would cause our brother to stumble.
Observing Acts, Galatians and James, we still see the same divisiveness today, just under a different banner or title. In light of recent events, we see in the media that a certain politician and his pastor are being scrutinized over their affiliation with one another. Pastor Wright seems to be preaching this very division we see and parallel with the fist-century church. I think that the cure is going to ultimately be love. The love of Christ poured out on all of us. If we pick up the banner of love, we will no longer look at what divides us like race, culture, etc. We will become united. The first-century church was so caught up in their own rules and regulations, that they missed the true blessing that God sent his Son Jesus to unite us all under His banner of grace and atonement, to all that would be in unity and submission to Him.

How Romans 9-11 fits into the overall scheme and purpose of the book of Romans

Romans 9-11, demonstrate to us an overall plan that God has set in place for the world’s salvation through his revelation of salvation history. The overall scheme seems to be the salvation-history. Now let’s look at the purpose. Paul demonstrates God’s desire to be revealed with all who will believe and confess that Jesus is the Christ and Jesus was raised from the dead. Even to the point of saving the gentiles to provoke Israel into repentance. These passages also reflect God’s faithfulness to Israel by fulfillment of his covenant promise to Israel. There has always been and will always be a remnant of believers to fulfill God’s promise in his faithfulness to his chosen people. This demonstrates God’s word will never be compromised, no matter how grim the circumstances may seem.
These passages can also be summed up as Paul clearing up may key theological issues. Paul develops his theology of predestination or Justification. However, I think the most important reason or purpose that Paul wrote this was to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ, while embracing his Jewish heritage and God keeping with the promises of the Old Testament.
I especially like how Douglas Moo sums this up by showing that Romans 9-11 is a celebration for God’s unshakable love to us and he reveals his plan to us all. He states,

“God’s wisdom and knowledge, his plans and his purposes, are ultimately quite
beyond the capacity of any human being figured out. In other words God is
sovereign and we must come to a point that we stop questioning God and
surrender and accept His will and bow down and worship our Creator."

Moo, Douglas J. Encountering The Book of Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.
Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Acaddemic, 1998.

Justification

If we look at the big picture God is conveying to us through the entire Bible we can see the theme of reconciliation. Starting with justification which then leads to sanctification and will place us into the final area of our reconciliation and that is glorification. John MacArthur breaks down God’s salvation plan like this: First justification is looked at from the point of view of being past tense. Sanctification is looked at as being in the present tense and finally, glorification is looked at in the context of being in the future tense. Justification can therefore be looked at as being saved immediately upon a person’s conversion, which is their accepting Jesus Christ as their personal savior. Sanctification can be seen as a progressive growth, which will cause us to live our lives with sin having less power over us. Finally, the future of our glorification will ultimately save us from sin’s presence.[1] For the sake of this discussion we will be exploring the area of justification.
Another explanation that I will be covering is by Wayne Grudem. The order that follows is taken from his Systematic Theology book. First there is a calling, which is a calling from God to the unbeliever to trust Christ as their savior. The next phase is regeneration which is God’s imparting to us a new spiritual life. This can also be looked at as God breathing life into the spiritual lifeless body of the new believer in Jesus Christ. The next step in the process of salvation is conversion. This is when a person responds to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and they realize they are sinners. They fall short of the Glory of God and they place their faith in Jesus Christ as their only source for salvation. I especially like how Wayne Grudem summed up this process.
“

Regeneration made it possible for us to respond to that invitation. In conversion we did respond, trusting in Christ for forgiveness of sins. Now the next step in the process of Applying redemption to us is that God must respond to our faith and do What He promised, that is, actually declare our sins to be forgiven. This must be a legal declaration concerning our relationship to God’s laws, stating that we are completely forgiven and no longer liable to punishment.”[2]

[1] (MacArthur, The MacArthur Bible Commentary 2005, 1519)
[2] (Grudem, Systematic Theology 1994, 722)

What Is Meant By Justification By Faith?

As reported by Douglas Moo, justification by faith is such an important topic of discussion and theology that it was this very point that brought Martin Luther to a full understanding of what salvation truly was. Justification by faith is the very heart of the gospel, the very essence of the letter written to the Romans and found at the very heart of God’s Holy Scripture.[1] Paul further elaborates on these results and what Paul means by three truths is that people can only be justified by faith. The first truth Paul reveals is that humans can’t boast. We play no part in the justification process. Second, all people are able to experience the benefits of God, both the Jew and the gentile and lastly, the law is not put aside or abolished it has been established through the death of Christ on the cross. This is all due to faith and grace. This is worth reiterating, there is nothing we are able to do to obtain justification. It is a free gift that only God could have provide for us. I head a preacher say one time that our very best to God is still sin.[2] Moo then expounds further on his explanation of justification by faith saying it is for both Jew and Gentile, circumcised and uncircumcised in the same way, through faith. He also states:

“Those who are in Christ fulfill the demand of the law. Suggesting that Paul is alluding to this idea when he claims that his teaching of justification by faith “upholds the law.” It does so by bringing people into relationship with Christ so that Christ’s own perfect fulfillment of the law might be applied to them.[3]

[1] (Moo 2002, 23)
[2] (Moo 2002, 86-87)
[3] (Moo 2002, 88)

How Do We Know That We are Justified?

Before we expound on this question, we must address a fundamental argument that seems to come up whenever this question is raised. That is the different views between Paul’s teachings and the teachings of James. First, we will start from the root (faith) and work our way into the branches (believers) and then to the fruit (justification and sanctification). According to the Willmington’s Guide to the Bible, the root of justification is faith. This is in sharp contrast with the teaching that James teaches, or is it? James states that through works man is justified.[1] James 2:24 says, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”[2] Paul says the root of justification is faith. So we are able to see that there is really no argument between these two apostles. What they demonstrate is, according to Paul’s view, faith is the root of justification, while James teaches that works is the fruit of justification.[3] The supposed contradiction here is very evident when you look at the context in which these men wrote on the subject of justification. Basically, Paul concentrates his writing and teaching on the root of justification and James concerns himself with the fruit that is bore from justification.[4] After reading several sources on the subject of “Fruit of Justification,” the common theme was that the fruit of justification produces sanctification, which is the process that a Christian will go through to become Christ like and Christ minded. Another fruit of justification is tranquility of mind. This can be classified as serenity or a peace of mind apart from guilt. Louis Berkhof seems to have captured the exact definition and explanation of the fruits of justification in the following quote:

“The Bible clearly teaches that the fruit of justification is much more then pardon. They who are justified have “peace with God,” “assurance of salvation,” Romans 5:1-10, and an “inheritance among them that are sanctified,” Acts 26:18, the following points of difference between justification and sanctification should be carefully noted:

1. Justification removes the guilt of sin and restores the sinner.
2. Justification takes place outside of the sinner in the tribunal of God, and does not change his inner life, though the sentence is brought home to him subjectively.
3. Justification takes place once for all. It is not repeated.”[5]

Many theologians present their case and the evidence that a person is justified by their works and others say it is realized through a person’s sanctification. Sanctification is the process by which we are made Holy. This process is a result of a changed lifestyle for those who have committed their lives to Christ.[6] One point of view is our works do not save us, not one bit. It doesn’t even factor. On the other hand, justification by faith will always produce good works. It is the evidence of justification by faith.
[1] (Willmington 1984, 738)
[2] (NASB Study Bible 1999)
[3] (Willmington 1984, 738)
[4] (Willmington 1984, 511)
[5] (Berkhof 1996, 513)
[6] (Chad Brand 2003, 1443)

Who Is Justification For?

The simple answer is that justification is for both Jews and Gentiles. Paul demonstrates the plan God has for justifying both the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers. Israel was God’s chosen people; their commission from God was to establish a Godly nation to be the light to stand out and call the rest of the world to Him.[1] In light of this it is interesting to note that the Jews were supposed to be the light to the rest of the world. They were to draw all men to reconciliation with our creator. It would appear that the Jewish nation decided to hoard this saving grace. This would have lead the entire state of Israel into the new age of salvation and into a full justification.[2] However, God in his infinite wisdom has set aside a remnant of Jewish believers who will always represent the truly repented Israel until the end of the age when all of Israel will submit to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to God’s original plan. This remnant also represents the fulfillment of God’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. One major problem that should be addressed in regards to the Jewish nation is that even though they are the chosen people to represent God, most of them rejected the Gospel message. This is demonstrated in the scripture found in Romans 9:30-32 where is says, “What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue righteousness by faith, they tried to pursue it though was by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone."[3] I would highlight that it was due to the fact that Israel rejected the gospel. Instead of pursuing righteousness by grace, they pursued righteousness through the Mosaic Law. This was a contributing factor inhibiting total submission to God’s will.
[1] (Karris 2005, 71,72)
[2] (Locke 1824, 331)
[3] (NASB Study Bible 1999)

Why We Need Justification

The exact reasons that we need to be justified has been a matter of debate since the beginning of recorded history. In the following paragraphs we will systematically walk through the process of justification starting from the very beginning, with the fall of mankind by direct sin against God from Adam and Eve. Romans 1:17-3:20 walks us through the realization that all are sinners.[1] We can see that throughout history the human race is in a constant state of rebellion against God and God’s plan to redeem us and bring us back into fellowship with Him. The reason that we as human beings are separated from God is because of sin, which can be easily defined as, failure to conform or submit to God’s moral law, by our action our attitude, or our very nature. Sin can also be defined through scriptures.[2] 1 John 3:4 states, “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.” In Romans 3:20 we find that violating God’s law provides us with the knowledge of sin. That passage also states that we can’t work our way to be righteous because the scripture states that none are justified by their works.
The exact definition for justification is a legal term which can be found in a court of law. Justified is a legal verdict that means we are found innocent and we are acquitted of any wrongdoing or crime. This is what is meant by justification by grace. Even though we are guilty of a serious crime, we are acquitted for everything that we have ever done wrong and which was contrary to God’s law.[3]
Not only is it important to cover that we are sinners in the sight of God, keeping in mind that the definition of sin is the act of rebelling against God, we must also look at original sin. In studying the origin of sin we will study Adam the first man and Adam the last man. Adam the first man is the Adam that God created at the beginning of the creation and the last Adam is a reference to Jesus Christ of Nazareth. According to Douglas Moo, when we explore original sin it will at first seem unfair and may provoke the question why am I being held responsible for something that happened thousands of years ago? There are several ways to understand original sin. First, we as human beings can be evil and self-serving in all areas of our life. This is why we steal, lie, cheat and sometimes commit atrocities like abortion or murder. The simple explanation as to why we commit these crimes before God is because we inherited the sin of Adam and as Moo puts it, “we are stained by its consequences.” The next reason Paul walks us through that everyone has sinned and we all die because we have sinned. Moo spoke correctly when he said,[4]
“Our sin is the sin of Adam, in which we share. But the point is this: according to Paul, we really did sin when Adam did. Admittedly, we do not understand perfectly the mechanics of how that takes place. Some theologians think that Adam is our legal representative. Others suggest a more organic relationship: we are all genetically tied to Adam, the ancestor of all humans.”[5]
The last Adam, also called the second Adam, is Jesus Christ. In Romans 5, Paul starts to unravel the nature and effects that Adam’s sin caused. The first Adam brought about death to all mankind, whereas the second Adam, in obedience to His Father, submitted to being hung on a cross to correct the disastrous results of the first Adam’s fall.[6] It is also important to place the first and second Adam in parallel to see the results that each one had on the justification of all mankind. We see the first Adam in the Garden of Eden being tempted by satan and Christ in the desert being tempted by satan. Here are some of the parallels between Adam and Christ. We see paradise versus wilderness, satisfied versus starving. Both are tempted by lust of the eyes and flesh along with pride. We see Adam’s disobedience to obeying God and Christ’s complete obedience and submission to God, and finally banished by angels versus ministered to by angels. Max Anders sums this up perfectly:
“Clearly, the early church (Matthew as well as Luke) saw the temptation experience of Christ as being the Garden of Eden revisited. – But under the harshest of conditions, making Christ victory all the more profound. In his victory, the second Adam regained dominance over satan which the first Adam gave up in Eden.”[7]
The next provision that God gave to the world was the law given through Moses, also known as the Mosaic Law. There is also reference to this law in Romans 9:31 and it is mentioned as the Law of righteousness. According to Moo, the law is placed into a very negative light, serving in salvation history.
“It brings knowledge of sin, it cannot justify, it stirs up wrath, it increases the trespass and it is contrary to grace.”[8]
In the seventh chapter of Romans, Paul makes it very clear that the law made our situation even worse off by turning sin into transgressions. Transgressions can be characterized by a willful disobedience against God and His word. [9] An expectation in studying the Mosaic Law would suggest that God uses this for a greater good for all humanity. However, it is seldom looked at in a negative context and that is the next area of study that we will pursue. To put it bluntly, the law did not bring about life for Israel, instead it brought death. It is through our unification to the second Adam, Jesus Christ, that we are dead to the law. This has empowered those who believe in Jesus as the messiah to bear the good fruit God has intended for humanity. It is through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that we are able to accomplish the law and serve all humanity, instead of the failure that Israel experienced.[10] We can also see another parallel being formed between the law and Christ. I would like to use an analogy that is from a book called, “The Way of the Master,” which will illustrate this point correctly. Imagine yourself in a courtroom and you are being charged with a very serious crime. The judge tells you that you have to pay a fine of ten million dollars or you are going to jail for the rest of your life. Of course, we do not have ten million dollars and sadly we don’t know anyone who does. At that moment the judge says, “Bailiff, take him away!” Then someone you don’t even know, stands up and walks to the judge and says, “Your honor, I sold everything I own, my cars, my house and all that I have so I can pay this fine. The judge looks at the check for ten million dollars and states that you are free to go. The letter of the law and the fine has been satisfied. This analogy is precisely what Jesus did for us by sacrificing himself for our sins. Allowing Him to suffer the consequences for the actions that we caused and ultimately fulfilling every letter of the law because we were unable to.[11]

Cite
[1] (Sproul 2000, 28)
[2] (Grudem 1994, 490)
[3] (Borg 2001)
[4] (Moo 2002)
[5] (Moo 2002, 105)
[6] (Moo 2002, 106)
[7] (Anders 2000, 176)
[8] (Moo 2002, 120)
[9] (Moo 2002, 122)
[10] (Schreiner 1998)
[11] (Cameron 2002, 133,134)

Young Earth (Creation)

Many questions arise when trying to contemplate the age of the earth. Do we subscribe to the evolutionary viewpoint that the earth is billions of years old? Or do we hold to believe what the Bible says? In the book of Genesis we find that God created the earth in six days and rested on the seventh day. Many Biblical scholars and I subscribe to a young earth belief. According to most theologians the earth is approximately 6,000 years old. How was this number figured out? It was in part by the genealogy found in Genesis 5-11, combined with the life of Abraham and combined again with exodus experience. The word for day in Genesis is a literal one solar day which equals 24 hours. The word that was used for day is not an allegory and it did not refer to a day as figuratively.

1. Day one – Heaven, Earth, Light, Dark
2. Day two – Firmament (sky)
3. Day three – Land and plants
4. Day Four – Celestial Bodies, Sun and moon, stars
5. Day Five – Sea creatures and birds
6. Day Six – Land animals, man and woman (Man & Woman made in image of God)
7. Day Seven – God rested on the seventh day and blessed it.


Archbishop James Ussher determined that the earth was created on October 23rd, 4004 B.C. Ussher was a renowned historian of his day and wrote the Annals of the World, covering ancient history with miraculous clarity. Many have dismissed this date, thinking that Ussher pulled it out of thin air; however there is some scientific explanation for this date. David Dewitt explains it as follows:


Select image for more information about Ussher

Ussher developed his chronology assuming that the ages listed for people in the genealogy were accurate and that there were none missing. This gave the year of 4004 B.C. That seems reasonable enough, but why would anyone pick
October 23rd date?
The section of the date makes more sense when we understand the rationale and its relationship to the Jewish calendar. The Jewish people started their week on Sunday and their days began at sundown. Therefore, it would be a reasonable assumption that the beginning of creation would be on the evening before a Sunday.

This would make the seventh day a Saturday which Jews recognize as the Sabbath. Importantly, October 23 would have been the date of the Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashanah) in 4004 Day 1, the date of the Jewish New Year is probably the most reasonable one to choose. Besides suggesting the date for creation, Ussher also posited that the fall took place on the tenth day. The tenth day also seems arbitrary at first glance. However, this corresponds to Yom Kippur which is the Day of Atonement. (David A. Dewitt, 2007)

There is no way of course to prove this, but it is intriguing to think about and I would encourage a dialogue to discuss this issue critically.

Worldviews Make the Differnece

Until 4 years ago, I took the world view of evolution instead of a Biblical worldview. When I became a Christian my world view was seriously and intentionally altered by God Himself. I remember when I first was saved; God led me down a road of discovery. During that journey, He provided every answer I had to the question of His existence, the proof that is available and most importantly, that His Word (Bible) is inerrant and trustworthy.

My previous world views did not believe everything in the Bible. In fact, I attempted on many occasions, to make the theory of evolution mesh with the Genesis experience described in the Bible. This was of course a futile attempt on my part, because both views are extremely incompatible.

Prior to becoming a Christian, I was okay with abortion and I thought nothing about subjects like eugenics. This is an extremely scary subject. It has been argued that Darwin’s theory of evolution helped to pave the road to the eugenics era, as well as euthanasia, infanticide, abortion and racial extermination. Although not under the banner of eugenics this did provide Hitler and Nazi Germany a justified path to follow: The extermination of all who are inferior to them.

“How does an evolution worldview or a creation worldview impact the way that human life is valued.” I think that two case studies speak for themselves as to how we would treat others according to our own world view.




Carrie Buck was the first to be forcibly sterilized due to feeblemindedness. She had a child out of wedlock and was considered promiscuous and incorrigible. Later, it was discovered that she was actually raped by a relative and conceived a child as a result of the rape. What particularly grieves me on this subject is that during the lectures they said that 75% of the fetuses in the UK are aborted when there is any discovery that the child has Down syndrome. This was particularly hard for me, because I have a cousin who has Down syndrome and she is the most loving, trusting and perfect person I have ever had the privilege to know.



The second case study on Ota Benga, is a second demonstration of how we would treat someone with the world view that is other than a Biblical or Christian worldview. We would take human beings and put them on display at a zoo or pack them like fish in a small ship and hope that some of them survive so there is a profit.

Denial

You may be here because of an addiction, but I would like to address a specific topic, denial. The most important aspect of recovery is honesty. I found that if a person is completely honest with themselves and others they are well on their way to a life of peace and serenity.

Denial can be seen as a defense mechanism, it protects us from emotional pain. Letting go of denial is an essential step in the recovery process. This is generally brought about in a person’s life through hitting a bottom. This can be a physical bottom, like contracting a STD from sexual encounters due to our addictions. Emotional bottoms, where you just come to the end our yourself and the feeling of dread and hopelessness follows. And lastly, a spiritual bottom, which can be a feeling of separation from our higher power.

A friend of mine named Dennis wrote a step study book and he states some common denial messages with which we may delude ourselves.

Common Denial Messages
1. I can stop any time I want to.
2. I only practice my addiction because I want to.
3. Things aren’t that bad.
4. When things get better (or worse), I’ll stop my…


Projecting Blame
1. You make me do what I do!
2. If only ______ would ______ then I would be happy.
3. I would be okay if _____ stopped acting out.
4. If _____ stops drinking I will be happy.

Subtypes of Denial
1. Projection – I don’t have a problem – you have a problem.
2. Minimizing – He doesn’t drink or drug that much.
3. Rationalization – I drink because of my crummy job/life/wife/parents etc., or he drinks because of his job/life/me.
4. Intellectualizing – being too much “in your head” about your problems – those constant conversations – the committee in your head.
5. Withdrawing – leaving relationships, jobs, etc. rather than facing our problems.
6. Geographic escape – my life is unmanageable – but it’ll get better if I move to another place, or if we move he won’t have these friends and he will stop.
7. Blame – I am miserable, it is your entire fault. If you would change, I would be happy again.
8. Fear of losing control – I can’t just sit here and do nothing. He/She needs me now more than ever. No one understands him/her like I do. I’m his/her only hope.
9. Suppression – don’t talk about it, it only makes it worse.

Welcome

My name is Joe Searles and I am starting this Blog to help those who struggle with life's hurts, habits and hang-ups. My life was transformed through an organization called Celebrate Recovery combined with finding my faith in a higher power, Jesus Christ. As I continue to write on this blog, I hope to be able to share a little of my personal story and my triumphs and failures in order to bring hope to the hopeless.