70 Sermon Illustrations on Law

Judge Joseph Wapner, of "People's Court" and a Jew, finds that many American legal principles go back to the Bible, especially the book of Leviticus.

19:13 Fair Employment laws.

19:14 Concern for handicapped.

19:15 Evenhanded justice (rare in ancient world, and even rare today).

Comparison made with King John of England, who was so cruel and

arbitrary his nobles forced him to sign the Magna Carta.

Trial by jury prefigured in this verse.

19:16 Slander.

25:37 Unfair interest.

19:19 Do not deal falsely. Officer said he clocked car going 60, man said it

couldn't go over 30. Wapner drove car. Bad transmission, wouldn't

go over 35. Declared "not guilty."

19:18 Love neighbor as yourself. Jesus repeated this. Many people do not,

and sue at the drop of a hat. Divorces.

"I see the links between families, friends and neighbors dissolving. Silly quarrels that shouldn't last five minutes get into state courts. Neighbors arguing over a spare parking space have to get a judge to settle the matter; children need a court to patch up arguments with their parents. Men, women and children are alone. Without the healing power of love, we are becoming a nation of lonely people. Neither the law nor a thousand judges can retie the bonds between people. Each person will have to start doing that himself. And I know a good place to start - with Leviticus 19:18: Love thy neighbor as thyself."

#460

*

The role of human conscience in revealing to us God's will and standards. Conscience is innate in all people, but the norms or standards vary from culture to culture.

A missionary to northern Brazil observed a very nervous and fidgety native with sweat on his brow enter the village and seem very uneasy even in the presence of his friends. Later, the missionary had learned that this fellow had just killed a man of another tribe. Although in this society it was not considered wrong to kill a member of another tribe, this man was obviously under the pressure of a guilty conscience. While societal norms do set the conscience, there is also the witness of God in the nature of our relations with other human beings that overrides the errant social standard.

Article: Operation Greylord was an ambitious federal sting in Chicago to uncover crooked judges. Judges John J. (Dollars) Devine routinely took $100 to fix drunk driving charges. His bagman told clients: "Here I am. Fill me up." Police sergeants were allowed to stand in for judges during "bum call." One sentenced a bum to death.

Judge Devine: "Thanks are nice, but they don't go very far. For those who help you, you should show your appreciation."

Judge Wayne W. Olson: "I love people that take dough because you know exactly where you stand."

Other verses on bribery:

EXO 23:8 DEU 10:17 DEU 16:19 DEU 27:25 1SA 8:3 1SA 12:3 2CH 19:7

JOB 15:34 JOB 36:18 PSA 15:5 PSA 26:10 PRO 6:35 PRO 15:27 PRO 17:8

PRO 17:23 PRO 21:14 PRO 29:4 ECC 7:7 ISA 1:23 ISA 5:23 ISA 33:15

EZE 22:12 AMO 5:12 MIC 3:11 MIC 7:3 ACT 24:26

Human wills and testaments are used in the Bible to describe God's dealings with people, and give insight into how to interpret the Bible. The "new hermeneutic" adds to Scripture and does not illumine it. "When the judge departs from the letter, he turns into a legislator."

Gives two cases where judges wanted to help a defendant get off lightly so they could make restitution, but were overturned. The judges resigned rather than take part in injustice.

Think about it, SPEEDERS!!

Jack took a long look at his speedometer before slowing down: 73 in a 55 zone... Fourth time in as many months. How could a guy get caught so often? When his car had slowed to 10 miles an hour, Jack pulled over, but only partially. Let the cop worry about the potential traffic hazard. Maybe some other car will tweak his backside with a mirror.

The cop was stepping out of his car, the big pad in hand. Bob? Bob from church? Jack sunk farther into his trench coat. This was worse than the coming ticket. A Christian cop catching a guy from his own church. A guy who happened to be a little anxious to get home after a long day at the office. A guy he was about to play golf with tomorrow. Jumping out of the car, he approached a man he saw every Sunday, a man he'd never seen in uniform.

"Hi, Bob. Fancy meeting you like this."

"Hello, Jack." No smile.

"Guess you caught me red-handed in a rush to see my wife and kids."

'Yeah, I guess." Bob seemed uncertain. Good.

"I've seen some long days at the office lately. I'm afraid I bent the rules a bit-just this once." Jack toed at a pebble on the pavement.

"Diane said something about roast beef and potatoes tonight. Know what I mean?"

"I know what you mean. I also know that you have a reputation in our precinct."

Ouch! This was not going in the right direction. Time to change tactics.

"What'd you clock me at?"

"Seventy-one. Would you sit back in your car, please?"

"Now wait a minute here, Bob. I checked as soon as I saw you. I was barely nudging 65." The lie seemed to come easier with every ticket.

"Please, Jack, in the car."

Flustered, Jack hunched himself through the still-open door.

Slamming it shut, he stared at the dashboard. He was in no rush to open the window. The minutes ticked by. Bob scribbled away on the pad. Why hadn't he asked for a driver's license? Whatever the reason, it would be a month of Sundays before Jack ever sat near this cop again. A tap on the door jerked his head to the left.

There was Bob, a folded paper in hand. Jack rolled down the window a mere two inches, just enough room for Bob to pass him the slip.

"Thanks." Jack could not quite keep the sneer out of his voice. Bob returned to his car without a word.

Jack watched his retreat in the mirror. Jack unfolded the sheet of paper. How much was this one going to cost?

Wait a minute. What was this? Some kind of joke? Certainly not a ticket. Jack began to read: "Dear Jack, Once upon a time I had a daughter. She was six when killed by a car. You guessed it - a speeding driver. A fine and three months in jail, and the man was free. Free to hug his daughters. All three of them. I only had one, and I'm going to have to wait until heaven before I can ever hug her again. A thousand times I've tried to forgive that man. A thousand times I thought I had. Maybe I did, but I need to do it again. Even now... Pray for me. And be careful. My son is all I have left." Bob

Jack twisted around in time to see Bob's car pull away and head down the road. Jack watched until it disappeared. A full 15 minutes later, he, too, pulled away and drove slowly home, praying for forgiveness and hugging a surprised wife and kids when he arrived.

Life is precious. Handle with care.

*

God's commandments don't restrict us as much as they free us. A number of years ago a psychologist in California passed a school playground on a busy highway on his way to work each day. Kids played, but were bunched in middle of playground. One day he went by and a fence had been put up. Kids were scattered all over the place within the fence. They had a safe, clearly defined place to play.

While pastoring in

Everson, Wa. 1975-1979, we heard Paul Harvey tell of something which happened near us on I-5 Hwy. A man was traveling the

wrong way on the divided highway. When the state troopers finally got him

stopped they asked him if he knew he was going the wrong way. He stated that he

did know this, and so they asked why he didn't get off at one of the off ramps

and get on the right side of the highway. He said that he started to do this

several times but every time he started to do this he saw a sign that said,

Wrong Way, do not enter. He wanted to obey the law even though he was disobeying

it. But, every time he tried to do something to obey the law he found that he

was unable to do that which he wanted to do. In our own strength we are

all unable to obey God's law. The indwelling Christ makes this possible, however,

when we get saved.

Subject: Giving Content to Principle

Date: For the Week of June 14, 1999

Montana was the only state in the country with no specified daytime speed limit. The Supreme Court ruled last year that the state's "reasonable and proper" rule was too vague. Such a criterion, the court said, provided no objective standard for compliance with the law.

It reminds me of a story Marshall Shelley, editor of Leadership magazine, tells about an experience while studying Hebrew at the University of Denver. His teacher, an Orthodox rabbi, introduced himself as "what you all would call a Pharisee, one who takes God's Law seriously." He proceeded to lecture on various Sabbath, holy day, and dietary laws and how Orthodox Jews such as himself kept them.

"You Christians claim to obey God," he continued. "I've just described the laws of God that I live by. Tell me, you Christians, what laws of God do you obey?"

After an awkward silence, Shelley finally said. "Well, I guess I'd answer the way Jesus did when asked to summarize the law. He said to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. And to love your neighbor as yourself."

The rabbi smiled, stroked his beard, and proceeded to tell a story. "Have you ever heard the story of the centipede with sore feet? He had 100 feet, and they were all sore. He couldn't walk, so he went to the wisest creature he knew -- the owl -- to ask what he should do. The owl heard his plight and then intoned his solution: ‘Learn to fly, give your feet a rest, and you'll be fine.'

"‘Oh, that's a wonderful idea!' replied the centipede. ‘How do I begin?' The owl retorted, ‘I gave you the principle. The specifics you'll have to work out for yourself.'

"That's what you Christians do," said the rabbi. "You talk about loving God, but how? That's a nice principle, but it's not very practical. It lacks specifics. We Jews like things a little more well-defined."

Ouch! The rabbi's rebuke is on-target for a generation that too easily puts love and law in conflict and argues that love may sometimes demand that one break the rules of so absolute a code as the Ten Commandments.

The ruling about Montana's highways reminds us why God has posted specific markers on the highway of life about murder and adultery, stealing and lying. Love needs law for guidance; law needs love as motivation. The two are not enemies, but allies. Thus Jesus said, "If you love me, you will obey what I command" (John 14:15).

If your moral life seems confused, maybe you need to reread the

Earlier this winter, I looked out the window to see cars trying to park in a snow-covered lot. I noticed that people were parking any which way they could. I thought back to my senior year of high school. Every winter, a new class would discover what it's like the first time they pulled into the parking lot to see nothing but a blanket of white snow. I would survey the lot and notice cars parked in the strangest ways; sideways, crooked, one inch from next car, or 4 feet from the car next to it. Then, come lunch hour, when the sun had some time to melt the snow, people would be able to see the lines, and notice how terribly far off most the cars were. The lines that showed where to park gave order and peace to the parking lot. Without the lines, there was chaos with a mess of cars facing every which way. There is another set of "lines" to provide us with peace and order in our lives. When I chose to follow the word of God, that is Scripture, and listen to and obey the example Jesus left for me, I found peace, comfort and of course, order. "The Lord your God commands you this day to follow these decrees and laws; carefully observe them with all your heart and with all your soul. You have declared this day....that you will walk in His ways, that you would keep his decrees, commands and laws, and that you will obey him." \reference{Deuteronomy 26:16}{Deuteronomy 26:16},\reference{17}{Deuteronomy 26:17} "He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths." \reference{Isaiah 2:3}{Isaiah 2:3} and "Let us walk in the light of the Lord." \reference{Isaiah 2:5}{Isaiah 2:5} Some may say, "How can a loving God allow such a terrible fate to befall those who have rejected Him?" Once again, we are merely reaping the consequences for our actions and decisions. If we freely choose to reject God, we must accept the "reward" of condemnation which accompanies it. It is God's desire for ALL to be saved and partake of the excellent rewards He has in store for those who believe. Are we willing to accept these rewards or just toss them by the wayside? Either way, we can be sure we will reap the consequences for our choices.

A man lived in another country whose laws were such that one could

not walk on the sidewalks after 6:00 P.M. Eventually this man moved

to the United States. After arriving here he decided to see the

sights and so he went for a long walk. Suddenly he realized it was

getting close to 6:00 P.M. and he was far from where he was staying.

In desperation, he stopped a stranger who was getting into an

automobile and in halting English said, "Please, sir, help me! It is

almost six and I am too far from my hotel to walk back before I will

be arrested. Can you give me a ride?"

The stranger at first was confused but then realized that the man

was new to the United States and so said to him, "Sir, let me assure

you that in the United States we do not arrest people for being out

after six."

This man knew he was in the United States, but he had not cast off

his obedience to the laws of his old country and so he was still being

controlled by what no longer had any jurisdiction over him. He was a

free man, needlessly bound to the rules and regulations of his former

life.

Conservative and Christian leaders were shocked to learn that the president of Michigan's Hillsdale College, George Roche III, reportedly carried on an affair with his daughter-in-law, Lissa. As noted in U.S. News and World Report last month, "The whole mess started unraveling ... when she (Lissa) died in what police call a self-inflicted shooting."

Lisa was editor of Imprimis, the school's magazine. In recent years, it became an important mouthpiece for conservatives. Before her apparent suicide, her father-in-law divorced his wife of 44 years and married another woman.

Neo-conservative leader William Bennett, author of The Book of Virtues, has resigned from the presidential search committee for Hillsdale, claiming that the college refused to confess to the adultery allegations. The news media has gleefully pointed out that Hillsdale College has refused to take federal funds or allow students to accept government loans because of a commitment to "moral and social instruction."

Saddened, we pray these revelations are not true. However, they underscore a theme of my organization, that is the opposition of both moralism and lawlessness to Christian redemption.

Friends who have worked behind the scenes at Hillsdale have long reported to us that they sensed an institutional/ moralistic bias there, combined with anti-Christian bigotry. These Hillsdale employees made it clear that something was not right. Of course, what was not right is that works without faith are dead, while faith-inspired good works and obedience to the law is one of God's blessings on mankind.

Paul's letter to the Galatians is very clear on this. Paul says it is impossible without the redemptive power of Jesus Christ to live under the Law. Eventually, any person who tries to do so will fall short and will need to be rescued. Such a person must be brought by God's grace to the point of understanding that he or she needs the grace and forgiveness which can only be found in Jesus Christ.

Recently, a fund-raising friend asked us to remove the name "Christian" from The Christian Film and Television Commission. He believes that, if we just get back to Victorian values, everything will be OK. Yet Victorian values only heighten the rebelliousness of sinful man. We need to recognize the redemptive power of Jesus Christ, who can make us more than conquerors and write His Law upon our heart.

Today's society - particularly the media - takes strong swipes at the church for being moralistic. They see God as marginal and look at Him as a big policeman, but society's view of God is too small. God is "just." God is "righteous." The fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom. The omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence of God is a blessing -- because God is powerful enough to come into our lives and give us the ability to be free from the tendencies that may have destroyed George Roche III.

Apart from Christ, the Law can only convict us of sin. With Christ, we can triumph over sin and death. The true foundation of God's Law is faith expressing itself through love (Galatians 5:6 and 14).

If there was an anti-Christian undertone at Hillsdale, that should have been a red flag that it was offering a conservative legalism that was no better than the lawlessness of the liberals. Those who still remember this truth should never want to remove Christian from their name because it is that name that makes us more than conquerors in Christ.

George Roche III once wrote, "Honor and virtue are increasingly rare commodities." He forgot, however, that these ideals do not come from man, but originate with God. As Paul says, "God sent his son, born of a woman, born under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the spirit of his son into our hearts, the spirit who calls out, 'Father.'"

Only Jesus Christ can redeem our society and turn around its moral decline. Honor and virtue without Christ is meaningless.

Baehr is chairman of The Christian Film and Television Commission, 2510-G Las Posas Rd, #502, Camarillo, CA 93010; (805) 383-2000. His essay was distributed by Assist Communications, an online agency run by veteran British journalist Dan Wooding.

NICKTOWN, Pa. (AP) - Roads winding around rolling hills cut picturesque paths through this western Pennsylvania hamlet.

But those curves make it difficult for drivers to spot slow-moving Amish buggies _ especially at night, when the all-black, horse-drawn vehicles can fade into the darkness.

"I have had some close calls, and it's really scary," said resident Bonnie DeFazio. "At night, you can see something there, but you can't always tell what it is."

There have been no deaths or serious injuries, but the threat has sparked a showdown with the small, conservative Swartzentruber Amish community.

Its members refuse to use the standard warning symbol of a bright orange triangle that state law requires on slow-moving vehicles, saying the colorful reflectors violate their belief in plain personal belongings. Instead, they outline the back edges of their buggies with gray reflective tape.

Although most other Amish groups in Pennsylvania use the orange reflectors, the Swartzentrubers have received the backing of the American Civil Liberties Union. And state Sen. John D. Wozniak, who represents the area including Nicktown, said last week that he would introduce a bill that would allow the Swartzentrubers to use their reflective tape.

In December, Jonas Swartzentruber spent three days in jail after being cited for not having a triangle on his buggy. Since then, 10 other members of the sect have been cited, and all say they would rather go to jail than pay the $100 fine or perform community service.

"Doing community service would probably require us to ride in a truck or work with electrical tools," said Levi Zook, one of those who have been cited. "We don't want to go to jail, but that is what we will do."

Pennsylvania law requires all slow-moving vehicles, including Amish buggies and farm equipment, to display the familiar triangle reflectors as a warning to drivers coming from behind.

"Slow-moving vehicles are at risk when they travel on the roads in Pennsylvania," said Jack Lewis, a State Police spokesman. "The reflective emblem law is designed to promote safety. We are enforcing that law."

Lewis said there have been a few crashes involving Swartzentruber Amish buggies, and State Police began enforcing the reflector law after other residents complained.

The Swartzentrubers are among several conservative Amish orders in Pennsylvania and elsewhere that object to the reflectors _ both because of the bright colors and the idea that they should wear a symbol for their protection.

"They've cited to me scriptural passages about the perils of putting your faith in a man-made symbol instead of putting your faith in God," said Donna Doblick, an attorney with a Pittsburgh law firm that is representing the Swartzentrubers. "You have to remember these people read the Bible very literally and find that aspect _ the symbol, the triangle _ very problematic."

Swartzentrubers came to western Pennsylvania in 1997 from eastern Ohio. There are now about a dozen families in the area some 65 miles east of Pittsburgh.

Doblick said four states - including Ohio - permit reflective tape outlining the back of a buggy as a substitute for the orange triangle. Doblick's firm and the ACLU are working with Wozniak to draw up similar legislation for Pennsylvania.

One safety researcher argues against an exemption.

"That triangle is there for communicating, 'Hey _ I'm moving slowly,"' said Tom Schnell, director of the Operator Performance Laboratory at the University of Iowa. "When you see not just a triangle, but an orange triangle, you know there's a slow-moving vehicle ahead."

But in a similar case in Wisconsin, state Supreme Court justices in 1996 upheld the right of conservative Amish to use white reflective tape instead of the required orange triangle. Courts in Minnesota and Michigan also have sided with the Amish.

"If we can find something that's equally effective, why not let them use it?" Wozniak said.

In a recent sermon, my pastor told of a frantic phone call he received from his mother several years ago. "Peter, you must come home right away!" she said. His elderly father had been knocked out, badly cut, and relieved of thousands of dollars. He was lying in critical condition in a local hospital. Peter caught the next plane home and congratulated the men who did the deed.

"You see," he explained, "they were cardiac specialists. By operating so quickly after his heart attack, they saved my father's life."

Last summer I too had an encounter with masked men bearing scalpels. A surgeon operated on my foot, not my heart, and my life was never in danger. Yet the horizontal recovery time did give me a chance to reflect on pain that we choose voluntarily, sometimes for our own good and sometimes to our peril.

While rehabilitating, I often did exercises that hurt because I knew that working through the soreness would allow my foot to regain its usefulness. On the other hand, the surgeon warned against bicycling, mountain climbing, running, and other activities that might endanger the healing process. Basically, anything that sounded fun, he vetoed.

On one visit I tried to talk him into granting me a premature golf match. "Some friends get together once a year. It's important to me. I've been practicing my swing, and if I use only my upper body, and keep my legs and hips very still, could I join them?"

Without a flicker of hesitation my doctor replied, "It would make me very unhappy if you played golf within the next two months."

"I thought you were a golfer," I said, appealing to his sympathies.

"I am. That's how I know you can't swing without rolling that foot inward and putting weight on the parts that are trying to heal."

Later, I told my wife about this strange way of expressing disapproval. "Why should I care if my doctor is unhappy?" I joked. "I'm not his psychiatrist."

The point was obvious. My doctor has nothing against my playing golf; as a fellow golfer, he sympathizes with me. But he has my best interests at heart. It will indeed make him unhappy if I do something prematurely that might damage my long-term recovery. He wants me to play golf next year, and the next, and the rest of my life, and for that reason he could not sanction a match too soon after my surgery.

As we talked, I began to appreciate my doctor's odd choice of words. If he had issued an edict - "No golf!" - I might have stubbornly rebelled. He left me the free choice and expressed the consequences in a most personal way: Disobedience would grieve him, for his job was to restore my health.

The role of a doctor may be the most revealing image in thinking about God and sin. What a doctor does for me physically - guide me toward health - God does for me spiritually. I am learning to view sins not as an arbitrary list of rules drawn up by a cranky Judge, but rather as a list of dangers that must be avoided at all costs - FOR OUR OWN SAKES.

Dr. Paul Brand told me about attending a meeting of government health experts. He compiled a list of all the behavior-related problems on the agenda: heart disease and hypertension exacerbated by stress; stomach ulcers and cancers associated with a toxic environment; aids; sexually transmitted diseases; emphysema and lung cancer caused by cigarette smoking; fetal damage stemming from maternal alcohol and drug abuse; obesity and other diet-related disorders; violent crime and automobile accidents involving alcohol. These were the endemic, even epidemic, concerns for health experts in the United States.

A comparable gathering of experts in India, he knew, would have dealt instead with malaria, polio, dysentery, tuberculosis, typhoid, and leprosy. After valiantly conquering most of those infectious diseases, the U.S. has now exchanged its old health problems for new ones-most of which involve personal choice.

Sin represents a grave danger to my spiritual, and perhaps my physical, health. The more I see my sins in this light, the more I understand God's strong words against them. I find myself gazing into the grieving eyes of a Doctor whose patients are destroying themselves. As Jesus said, applying the doctor image to himself, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Sometime today, sometime tomorrow, I will recreate the original rebellion of Eden and act by my standards and my desires, and not God's. God cannot overlook such behavior; it must be accounted for. But in that reckoning he aims not to destroy but to heal. No surgeon who wills the health of a patient can effect it without some pain.

The wounded surgeon plies the steel

That questions the distempered part;

Beneath the bleeding hands we feel

The sharp compassion of the healer's art.

- T.S. Eliot, THE FOUR QUARTETS

“Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.” (Romans 3:27-28 NKJV)

Faith Excludes Boasting

• Boasting — 1 Cor 1:30-31 — of Jews in their privileges; of Gentiles in their learning

• Excluded — shut out, abolished

• Nay [no] — Eph 2:8-9 — for if that law were kept, there is no merit in obedience

• Law — method, plan — “Gospel called a law in accommodation to the Jews.” — Schleusner

• Faith — which transfers all merit to another

• Conclude — infer, reckon

• Man — Jew or Gentile

• Justified — accepted as righteous before God

• Without [apart]…law — apart from works of the law

Justification — Rev. S. Martin

I. The means of justification here rejected.

II. The means acknowledged and exhibited — by faith — Faith:

1. In what?

2. In what sense?

3. To what extent?

Learn

(I) Guilt does not of itself prevent justification ;

(2) No circumstances of any kind in the case of those who hear the Gospel constitute an exception to the mode of justification;

(3) It is within reach of all who can believe

A captive of Jesus — In the year 1742, a veteran warrior of the Lenape nation and Monsey tribe, renowned among his friends for his bravery, and dreaded by his enemies, joined the Christian Indians at Bethlehem. He was now at an advanced age, was full of scars, and all over tattooed with the scenes of the actions in which he had been engaged. All who heard his history thought that it could never be surpassed. This man was brought under the influence of religion; and when he was afterwards: questioned respecting his warlike feats, he modestly replied, “that being now taken captive by Jesus Christ, it did not become him to relate the deeds done while in the service of the evil spirit; but that he was willing to give an account of the manner in which he had been conquered.”

Justification — Bishop Beveridge

If we suppose a man to act, not by his own natural strength, but by the grace of God, and that, influenced thereby, he performs ever so many good works — what then? He does no more than it was his duty to do. How, then, can he deserve anything for them; and, least of all, that God should for these account him a righteous man, notwithstanding the many evil works he has been guilty of? Besides, if he has done good works by the grace of God, God is not indebted to him, but he is indebted to God for them. But, did any man ever pay his debts, by merely owing more? Suppose he has done innumerable good works, and suppose, too, what cannot be truly supposed, that they are all perfectly good; yet, so long as he has been guilty of any one sin, the man is still a sinner, and, therefore, cannot be accounted righteous, or justified by anything lie himself does, however great or good it may seem to be; “for whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all;” and if guilty, the law condemns him. How then can he who is guilty of any, much less “guilty of all,” be justified before God? Can a man be guilty and not guilty at the same time; condemned and justified; a sinner and yet no sinner, but righteous, and that too in the eyes of God Himself?

“The best faith is not worth heaven. The value of it grows ex pacto — that God hath made that covenant, that contract, Orede, et vives, only believe, and thou shalt live” — Dr. Donne

“The justification of a sinner under the Gospel consists in the following things pardoning his sins, acquitting him from the punishment which they deserved, and entitling him to the rewards or blessings due by the law to perfect obedience.” — Dwight.

“Self-justification is said to be the attempt of one overtaken by a storm to run for shelter into an old house without a roof.”

“You can’t legislate morality.” You hear it all the time in Washington, D. C. Some Americans assume that there is something unseemly about making laws based on moral standards. Such a notion is absurd, of course. All laws are based on someone’s moral standards, someone’s view of how things ought to be. Nevertheless, there is a vocal element that insists that morality and law should be completely separate.

These radical separationists are the first to say, “I didn’t break any laws” when they are caught in a scandal. If accused of dubious business practices, they defend by saying, “It’s not against the law.” If caught committing adultery in a seedy hotel room they plead, “It’s not against the law.” If criticized for treating human embryos as raw material to be manipulated and destroyed, they intone, “It’s not against the law.”

Applications of new technologies can give rise to profound legal and ethical dilemmas. This is especially true in the field of biotechnology where the law-morality dichotomy is proving to be an enormous problem. Many scientists believe that, so long as it is legal, there should be no limit on what they can do in their laboratories. When it comes to scientific experimentation, the question, “Can I?” in the technical sense is often followed by the question, “May I?” in the legal sense. Sadly, that is often as far as the inquiry goes. The question that all too often goes unasked is, “Should I?”

The assumption that anything which is legal is morally permissible is not valid, especially in the area of bioethical decision-making. Those who look only to the law for guidance in making sound bioethical decisions will be poorly served. The law is seldom an adequate ethical guide in the biomedical field. Here’s why:

• Law follows rather than leads. Advances in the biomedical arena are occurring so rapidly that they often occur in a legal vacuum. Frequently, there simply is no law that governs decision-making in a given area of biomedicine. The reason is that the fields of biology, medicine and the law move at vastly different paces.

Changes in the law, by design, occur at a ponderously slow pace. “Delay” is the hallmark of change in the law. Not so with science and technology. Thanks to the “magic” of microchips and other state-of-the-art technology, changes are occurring so rapidly in scientific fields that by the time the law is applied to a given area, it is often out of date because technology has moved the field light years ahead. Decision-making in the biomedical field, thus, often occurs in uncharted legal waters. In a legal vacuum, that which is not prohibited is permitted. But merely because something is permitted, however, doesn’t mean it is right.

• Law is political. Law usually is made in a highly charged political environment. Anyone who has ever been involved in the legislative process knows that the merits of the matter are often irrelevant to the ultimate outcome of a proposed law. Money, special interests, partisan politics, procedural shenanigans, and political clout often drive the legislative process. Political expedience frequently prevails over principled decision-making. Because of this, the law is seldom an adequate standard by which to gauge ethical decision making in the biomedical field.

• Law does not rest on a transcendent standard. In the arena of ethics, right and wrong are judged by a transcendent standard. Something is viewed as morally right or wrong based on whether it comports with a “higher” law. That higher law may be deemed the Law of Nature or of Nature’s God; but it is deemed to be, in all events, something that is true and binding on everyone. In the legal arena, however, transcendent standards are frequently jettisoned. Lawmakers and judges often view themselves as the highest authority, and their pronouncements are deemed final and binding. This view of the law is called “legal positivism” and is rooted in the notion that the “law” is what judges and lawmakers say it is.

But this view has not always prevailed. Martin Luther King Jr., reasoned, “How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.... One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” Dr. King’s views mirror those of Augustine, who declared, “An unjust law is no law at all.” Our laws should always be rooted in the higher law binding on all men, but, sadly, sometimes they are not. Therefore, the law is not always a reliable guide for our behavior.

Abraham Lincoln, arguing against the institution of slavery, maintained that “[no]body has a right to do wrong.” His point very simply was that no one has the right to degrade or harm a person and call it their right. In many quarters, Lincoln’s argument would carry little weight in America today. In our “enlightened” secularized society, the relationship between moral truth and the law has been broken. Morals and ultimate values may be deemed to have a place, but only outside the legal arena.

Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the area of abortion. The “right” to abort a child results from the Supreme Court’s decision to give primacy to so-called “rights of privacy and personal autonomy.” Because of the weight given by the court to the interests an individual has in personal autonomy and privacy, a woman’s right of privacy was deemed by the court to outweigh any claim her unborn child had to a right to life. Nowhere in its decision did the court address the morality of a mother killing her unborn child.

In contrast, the transcendent moral law, spelled out in the Scriptures, recognizes the worth, value and dignity of all individuals, including children. A careful examination of Scripture on subjects relating to the sanctity of life, marriage and the family (all of which are implicated in many biomedical decisions) yields numerous conflicts with our current civil law.

The Psalmist declared, “The law of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.” Rarely are there decisions that call for greater wisdom than the life-and-death judgments that are involved in the biomedical field. May God grant us the wisdom to discern not only that which is legal, but also that which is right.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #4900]

“Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to [her] husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of [her] husband. So then if, while [her] husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another — to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.” (Romans 7:1-4 NKJV)

The Power Of The Law Dissolved By Death

• speak…law — i.e. to Jews who know the law of Moses — Rom 2:17-18

• long…liveth? — so long and no longer. Death breaks all such bonds, whether of the person bound, or to whom he is bound. The power of law ceases at death, and we are dead. (Vaughan)

• for — take the marriage bond as an example

• bound…liveth — unless divorced

• free [released]…law — free to marry another — 1 Cor 7:39

• dead…Christ — ye were made dead to the law of Moses, through the body of Christ, slain, on the cross — “The Apostle here speaks of the Mosaic Law as a husband and human nature as a wife. His comparison would naturally lead him to say that the law is dead; and that human nature has now been absolved from its obligation of the law, by the death of the law, so that mankind may now be married to another husband, Christ.” (Wordsworth)

Married to Christ — Rev. T. Robinson

I. How? By –

1. Renouncing all hope from the law

2. A cordial acceptance of Him as our righteousness

3. Dependence on Him for life, comfort, and everything

II. When? On the day of our believing. Then our life will be one of –

1. Dependence on Him

2. Duty to Him

III. The results. We shall–

1. Belong

2. Be subject to Him

The hardest commandment — As I stood one day by Mr. Jeffreys, says Mrs. Jeffreys, the widow of a missionary at Madagascar, in her journal, catechising the children, I asked them which of the commandments was the most difficult to observe. One, after a long pause, mentioned one, and another a different precept; till at last, a boy, about twelve years old, said, “The last is the hardest.” Mr. Jeffreys asked, “Why is it so, my boy?” He replied, “Because for one who is poor, to see another possessing a great deal of money, a great deal of clothes, and much cattle and rice, without wishing for some of them is very bard; I think no person can keep this commandment.” This little boy proved, by his remarks, that he had thought about this important commandment; but he does not appear then to have known, that whenever we fervently pray to God for His grace, He helps us to keep His requirements, however hard they may be.

”For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin [leading] to death, or of obedience [leading] to righteousness?” (Romans 6:14-16 NKJV)

We Are Not Under Law, But Under Grace

• dominion — Gk., lord it over you: all. master and slave: absolutely tyrannical government

• but…grace — Gal 5:18, Rom 10:5, Gal 3:11-12, Rom 4:16, John 1:17, 8:34, 36 — which helps to subdue sin

• what then ?…grace? — 1 Cor 9:21 — verses 1-2

• know…not — 1 Cor 3:16, 5:6, 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19, 9:13, 24, Jam 4:4 — phrase denoting well known and self-evident truth

• servants [slaves] — slaves, bound to obey

• whether, etc. — Matt 6:24, John 8:34, 12:26, Isa 54:17 — the master is known by the service you render

Real and fictitious holiness — W. Spensley

We “are not under the law, but under grace.”

I. As the means of our justification. The office of

1. The law-to inform us of sin, and its penalty;

2. Grace-to provide a means of justification for sin.

II. As the standard of conduct.

III. As the empowering instrument whereby we fulfil the rule of our life. It affords us the needful power for this by

1. Conferring upon us a nature corresponding to its requirements;

2. Supplying us with Divine strength through the Holy Ghost,

Learn: There is here –

1. A warning to the sinner;

2. Encouragement to the penitent.

The wages of sin — The tale of the goblet, which the genius of a heathen fashioned, was true, and taught a moral of which many a death-bed furnishes the melancholy illustration. Having made the model of a serpent, he fixed it in the bottom of the cup. Coiled for the spring, a pair of gleaming eyes in its head, and in its open mouth fangs raised to strike, it lay beneath the ruby wine. Nor did he who raised that golden cup to quench his thirst and quaff the delicious draught suspect what lay below, till, as he reached the dregs, that dreadful head rose up, and glistened before his eyes. So, when life’s cup is nearly emptied, and sin’s last pleasure quaffed, and unwilling lips are draining the bitter dregs, shall rise the ghastly terrors of remorse, and death, and judgment upon the despairing soul. Be assured, a serpent lurks at the bottom- of guilt’s sweetest pleasure. — Dr Guthrie

“There is none other more common nor more troublesome guest than sin. This our Hagar will abide many strokes, ere she be turned out of doors. She shall go at last; and the seed of the promise shall inherit alone.” — Bp Hall

A. Psalm 19:7–11 (NKJV) God’s Wondrous Words « Leader information shown in this fashion »

7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul;

The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple;

8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart;

The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes;

9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever;

The judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.

10 More to be desired are they than gold,

Yea, than much fine gold;

Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.

11 Moreover by them Your servant is warned,

And in keeping them there is great reward.

B. In verses 7 to 9, God’s words are described by various terms

1. which term stands out as different from the others? « — fear »

2. in what way(s) does this fit in with the others after all?

a. « fearing God is the beginning of wisdom – Job 28:28, Psalm 111:10, Proverbs (among others) 9:10 »

b. _____ing God encompasses saving doctrine « (Fearing) »

(A) recognition of one’s S __ __ « (sin) »

(B) S __ __ __ __ __ & repentance for it « (sorrow) »

(C) T __ __ __ __ and dependence upon God « (trust) »

(D) W __ __ __ __ __ __ humbly with Him « (walking) »

c. so note that it is the one with specifically eternal results

3. what do God’s wondrous words bring? « — conversion, wisdom, joy, enlightening, enduring, and truth & righteousness »

C. From verses 10 and 11, how would you describe God’s wondrous words in your own way?

1. « they are most precious, meeting the deepest needs of the heart and giving directions away from penalty and to blessing »

Acts 7:30–60 — Stephen’s Defence, Part II (outline by F. F. Bruce, NICNT) « Leader information shown in this fashion »

{A.} The Birth of the Church (1:1–5:42)

{B.} Persecution and Expansion (6:1–9:31)

{1.} Stephen (6:1–8:1a)

A. The Appointing of the Seven (6:1–6)

B. Progress Report (6:7)

C. Stephen’s Activity Raises Opposition (6:8–10)

D. Stephen Accused before the Sanhedrin (6:11–15)

E. The High Priest’s Question (7:1)

F. Stephen’s Reply (7:2–53)

1. The Patriarchal Age (7:2–8)

2. Israel to Egypt (7:9–19)

3. Moses’ Early Days (7:20-29)

Review: what is implied by what Stephen has already said:

(A) Abraham did not need Moses, the law, the temple for his having a relationship with God

(B) Patriarchs rebelled against God’s plan disclosed by Joseph

(C) God effected His plan despite them and through them

(D) There were 2 unrecognized deliverers: Joseph and Moses

4. The Call of Moses — 7:30–34 (NKJV): 30 And when forty years had passed, an Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire in a bush, in the wilderness of Mount Sinai. 31 When Moses saw it, he marvelled at the sight; and as he drew near to observe, the voice of the Lord came to him, 32 saying, “I am the God of your fathers — the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses trembled and dared not look. 33 Then the Lord said to him, “Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground. 34 I have surely seen the oppression of my people who are in Egypt; I have heard their groaning and have come down to deliver them. And now come, I will send you to Egypt.”

a. What makes a place holy (cf. Acts 6:13, Exodus 3:2)? « — the presence of God Himself; note this was Gentile territory »

b. Was this limited to the temple: Exodus 20:24, Numbers 6:27? « — no; God intends it be wherever His people should be »

c. What does removal of shoes mark? « — in visiting it showed respect to the host »

d. What did God’s message to Moses convey about Himself? « — omniscient, merciful, compassionate, wise, faithful, powerful »

5. Wilderness Wanderings — 7:35–43 (NKJV): 35 This Moses whom they rejected, saying, “Who made you a ruler and a judge?” is the one God sent to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the Angel who appeared to him in the bush. 36 He brought them out, after he had shown wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness forty years. 37 This is that Moses who said to the children of Israel, “The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear.” 38 This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us, 39 whom our fathers would not obey, but rejected. And in their hearts they turned back to Egypt, 40 saying to Aaron, “Make us gods to go before us; as for this Moses who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.” 41 And they made a calf in those days, offered sacrifices to the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. 42 Then God turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the Prophets: “Did you offer Me slaughtered animals and sacrifices during forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? 43 You also took up the tabernacle of Moloch, And the star of your god Remphan, Images which you made to worship; And I will carry you away beyond Babylon.” (Amos 5:25-27)

a. What marks of Israel’s rebellion are found in these verses?

(A) v. 35 « — repudiation of Moses »

(B) v. 39 « — disobedience to Moses »

(C) v. 39 « — rejection of Moses »

(D) v. 39 « — refusal of salvation coming through Moses — (hearts still looking to Egypt) »

(E) v40, 42–43 « — idolatry »

(F) v. 41 « — pride »

b. How did God use Moses despite Israel’s rejecting him?

(A) through Moses He S_________ … « (saved them) »

(B) through Moses He D____ … « (did wonders, miracles) »

(C) through Moses He F___________… « (foretold The Prophet) »

(D) He acclaimed Moses before the people at Sinai by His thundering voice and by giving living oracles to Moses

c. How did God respond to Israel

(A) Cf. Romans 1:24, 26, 28 « — abandoning them to idolatry »

(B) sending « them into captivity »

d. What parallels are found in Jesus Christ & His treatment

(A) wonders and signs « gave him only grudging acceptance which was quickly deserted »

(B) the living oracles « of Jesus’ teaching were soon ignored »

6. Tabernacle and Temple — 7:44–50 (NKJV): 44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as He appointed, instructing Moses to make it according to the pattern that he had seen, 45 which our fathers, having received it in turn, also brought with Joshua into the land possessed by the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers until the days of David, 46 who found favour before God and asked to find a dwelling for the God of Jacob. 47 But Solomon built Him a house. 48 However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says: 49 “Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. What house will you build for Me?” says the Lord, “Or what is the place of My rest? 50 Has My hand not made all these things?”

a. how was the tabernacle constructed

(A) verse 44 « — according to a God-given pattern »

(B) Heb 8:1–2 « — by men representing a spiritual reality »

b. What God answer David’s proposal to build Him a house?

(A) 2 Samuel 7:7 « — “I have never asked for a house” »

(B) 2 Samuel 7:11-12, 17 « — the true house as Christ (Heb 3:1ff) »

c. Was Solomon’s temple the real house of God?

(A) vv 48-50 (also I Kings 8:27, Isaiah 66:1-2) « — no, it was not adequate for the majestic, omnipresent God »

(B) Mark 11:17 « — earthly temple defective in use and scope »

(C) Isaiah 57:15, Ephesians 2:19-22 « — God’s people a temple »

7. Personal Application — 7:51–53 (NKJV): 51 You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. 52 Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers, 53 who have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept it.

a. Exodus 33:5, Leviticus 26:41; Whose words did Stephen use? « — both are quotes of how God described Israel; there are many similar statements; eg., Deuteronomy 10:16 »

b. Matthew 23:29-37; What is Jesus’ judgement? « — the rulers were of the same character as their forefathers »

c. 1 Thessalonians 2:14b–16; What is Paul’s judgement? « — this people is still the same »

«

d. The final judgement: they had not kept the law as shown by their actions to the prophets and their actions to the Christ. Contrast our reading with G. B. Shaw in the preface to the play, “Androcles and the Lion” »

G. Stoning of Stephen, 7:54–1:8a

1. Stephen’s Final Witness — 7:54–56 (NKJV): 54 When they heard these things they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed at him with their teeth. 55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, 56 and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”

a. Did Stephen’s audience understand “his drift”?

b. See Mark 14:62; what supposed crime did Jesus & Stephen both commit? « — exalting Jesus to enthronement with God (term “Son of man” from Daniel 7:13–14; also, Psalm 110:1) »

2. Death of Stephen — 7:57–60 (NKJV): 57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord; 58 and they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

a. Stephen was treated as a blasphemer even though he had not pronounced the Name, At this date, the Jews allowed only the High Priest to say yearly, using Numbers 6:24-26

b. the presence of the witnesses at the stoning marks it as being an judicial execution; see Deuteronomy 17:7, Leviticus 24:14; why need they be there? « — their actions to back up words »

c. The only possible way this could have been justified under Roman occupation was considering it a temple desecration.

3. Saul’s Agreement — 8:1a (NKJV): Now Saul was consenting to his death. …

The game of word association, which most of us learned as children, works this way: I say a word or phrase, and another player says what immediately comes to mind. It is a simple exercise in exposing predispositions. The assumption is that the game reveals something significant about your personality or your biases.

So, for example, if I say, “The Ten Commandments,” what immediately comes to mind? “Two tablets”? “Religious document”? “Old relic”? “Raiders of the Lost Ark”? “Charlton Heston”?

How about “American law”? Would you think of that? Well, as it turns out, you should.

Unbeknownst to many, American law and the Ten Commandments are inextricably associated. But the catch is this: It only goes one way. While the Ten Commandments can stand alone as God’s law revealed to Moses, American law would be drastically different without the Ten Commandments.

Consider the following:

• The structure of modern American law is derived from the Ten Commandments. Historically speaking, the Ten Commandments provided the basis for the division of law into branches of constitutional, criminal, family, property, contract, and tort law. Official recognition of this historical fact does not establish a religion.

• Every commandment has played a key role in American legal history. Whether revisionists want to admit it or not, the entire Ten Commandments were incorporated into the civil and criminal laws of the colonies and shaped the common law of the colonies.

• American courts repeatedly have acknowledged the foundational role of the Commandments. Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court repeatedly have recognized the foundational role the Ten Commandments played in the development of our legal system. And state Supreme Court decisions contain well over 100 references to the Commandments.

• The meaning of “establishment” of religion is not strict separation between church and state. As ADF argued on behalf of Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council in a friend-of-the-court brief recently submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court for a case involving the Ten Commandments, the “hallmark of historical establishments of religion was coercion of religious orthodoxy and of financial support by force of law and threat of penalty.” “Establishment” doesn’t mean that religion can never be mentioned in public or rightly acknowledged as a basis for American law.

• There are literally thousands of Ten Commandments displays in the public square across the nation. The displays are commonly placed at seats of government and are often found in and around courthouses.

When we consider all the rhetoric about the supposed inviolable “wall of separation between church and state,” it is not surprising that some people are confused. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause was meant not only to protect the church from government intrusion, but also to prevent government from imposing a particular religious belief with the threat of punishment for non-compliance. This is the true meaning of that famous clause. Thousands of Ten Commandments depictions have been displayed in the public arena for more than a century, and no one has ever been punished for failing to follow them or been forced to bow down and worship them.

The Ten Commandments are by no means the sole foundation of American law, but they obviously played a pivotal role in its development. Indeed, without their influence, this nation’s moral and legal character would look much different today.

Though “American law” and “the Ten Commandments” may not be commonly known companions in the “Word Association” game, they are indeed inseparable. The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will hear two cases March 2 on the display of the Ten Commandments in public venues. While the court should uphold these displays, the Ten Commandments will remain inscribed in the stone of American history no matter what they decide.

________

Jeremy Tedesco is a constitutional attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, a pro-family legal organization based in Arizona.

Acts 15:13–35 — The Jerusalem Council: the Decision (outline by F. F. Bruce, NICNT) « Leader information shown in this fashion »

{A.} The Birth of the Church (1:1–5:42)

{B.} Persecution and Expansion (6:1–9:31)

{C.} The Acts of Peter and Beginnings of Gentile Christianity, 9:32-12:25

{D.} Church Extension from Antioch & Apostolic Decree at Jerusalem Acts 12:25–15:35

{1} Barnabas and Saul (12:25–13:3)

{2} Cyprus (13:4–12)

{3} Pisidian Antioch (13:13–52)

{4} Iconium, Lystra, Derbe (14:1–18)

{5} The Council of Jerusalem (15:1–35)

A. Judaizers Visit Antioch (15:1–2)

B. Paul & Barnabas Go Up to Jerusalem (15:3–5)

C. The Council Meets (15:6)

D. Peter’s Speech (15:7–11)

E. Paul & Barnabas Address the Council (15:12)

« Last week we looked at the issue being addressed and noted that it was not just circumcision, but whether salvation is by the Law or by God’s mercy; by our works or by God’s grace. But another concern was Gentile versus Jewish morality: how could these have table fellowship? The decision addresses these issues. »

F. James’s Summing Up (15:13–21, NKJV): 13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written: 16 ‘“After this I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up; 17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,” Says the Lord who does all these things.’ 18 Known to God from eternity are all His works. 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

1. Who is this James (Galatians 1:19)? « – called “the brother of the Lord” to distinguish from “the son of Zebedee” (now dead) and “the son of Alphaeus” (also known as James the lesser); this James an elder in Jerusalem, probable writer of Book of James »

2. In Deuteronomy 14:2, who are the Israelites? « – a people taken out of all peoples (ie., nations) by God to be His own possession »

3. What are these Christians described in verse 14? « – a people of Gentiles taken out by God to be surnamed “God’s” »

4. The writers of the New Testament had no problem in taking promises to Israel such as Exodus 19:5–6, Deuteronomy 14:2, Psalm 130:7–8, Isaiah 42:21 and applying them to the church of Jesus Christ as in Titus 2:14 and 1 Peter 2:9; so it is here in Acts.

5. Peter quotes, in verses 16–17 from the Greek translation of Amos 9:11-12 which “spiritualises” the Hebrew original

a. The overall sense of the Hebrew is « — God will restore the house of David to rule over its former territory, including Edom’s remnant and the nations “called by my name” »

b. The spiritualization, quoted by James, is « — God’s restores so that the remainder (remnant) of humanity may seek God »

c. What has the tabernacle of David to do with this? « — Jesus, Messiah, the Son of David, has established the house (read Hebrews 3:6), the church, which is a possession of all nations which are called by the name of the God of Israel »

6. In verses 14–18, who does James say is taking the initiative? … on what basis (verse 18)? « — God took all the initiative; the basis is that it is all according to His eternal knowledge (plan, purpose) »

7. What practical church problem does verse 20 address? … what two applications of this are pertinent today?

a. Problem: « how to have in the same body, the church, both Jew and Gentile with their widely varying standards of behaviour, and particularly with respect to those things that were offences to Jewish sensibilities. »

b. Application 1: « We need to be sensitive to actions that offend those of other cultures who are part of the church. »

c. Application 2: « We also live in a promiscuous, pagan society and need to state clearly Christian morality; our missionary in Guinea, Chantal Pilon, discovered this with new believers. »

8. How would Moses being read affect Gentile Christians (v. 21)? « — (1) they had opportunity to learn of Jewish concerns (2) they would be in frequent concourse with Jewish believers »

G. The Apostolic Letter to Gentile Christians (15:22–29, NKJV): 22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren. 23 They wrote this letter by them: “The apostles, the elders, *and the* brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, ‘You must be circumcised and keep the law’ — to whom we gave no such commandment — 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.” « – *and the* not in MSS before 8th century; read “apostles and elders, brothers;” so I see why some of you looked questioningly at me last week »

1. Note that Judas is mentioned only here; Silas same as Silvanus

2. How does the greeting in this letter reinforce its message? « — the emphasis that those sending it and those receiving it are related by the new birth through the two-fold use of “brothers” »

3. Why the addition of Judas Barsabas and Silas? « – first, to provide reliable, confirming witness to the letter’s authenticity; second, to enlarge by spoken word on what was in the letter »

4. Who is addressed in the letter? … who omitted? … did that limit it? « – the new Gentile believers living in the area of Antioch, Cyprus and Tarsus; omitted are the more recent converts in area of Galatia to whom the Judaizers had not yet reached; no. »

5. What concern is expressed? « – for the effect of the confusing and upsetting words of unapproved teaching of legalism on them »

6. In addition to the testimonies of Judas and Silas, what was to encourage the Gentile Christians in their faith?

a. Regarding Paul and Barnabas « – the dangers they had faced for the sake of the gospel message »

b. Regarding the message « – it was not primarily men’s ideas, but a leading of the Holy Spirit »

7. Did these necessary things diminish with time (Revelation 2:14, 20)? « – no, their non-observance in the churches of Pergamum and Thyatira are condemned by the exalted Lord Jesus »

8. How is this to be reconciled with 1 Corinthians 8:1–13; 10:14, 19ff? « – eating of such meat, sold in the marketplace pure and simply as meat, was not wrong, but that the partaking of such meat as part of a feast directly or indirectly in honour of a pagan idol is to what Revelation refers; in addition, eating such meat if it defiles the conscience – your own or another’s – is wrong »

9. What application can we make today? « – there are actions and attitudes that identify us with the pagan world in which we live rather than with the newly begotten redeemed of Jesus Christ, rather than with God’s people, the church – these are therefore just as clearly forbidden to us »

H. The Church of Antioch Receives the Apostolic Letter (15:30-35, NKJV): 30 So when they were sent off, they came to Antioch; and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the letter. 31 When they had read it, they rejoiced over its encouragement. 32 Now Judas and Silas, themselves being prophets also, exhorted and strengthened the brethren with many words. 33 And after they had stayed there for a time, they were sent back with greetings from the brethren to the apostles. 34 However, it seemed good to Silas to remain there. 35 Paul and Barnabas also remained in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also. « – MSS before 5th cent. omit v. 34 »

1. How did the Antiochenes perceive and receive the letter? « – they saw it as one of encouragement and viewed it with joy »

2. What other reason do we find here for Judas and Silas being sent along with the letter? « – their prophetic gift which they added to those in Antioch with like gifts, could give direction to these believers (exhortation) and build them up and strengthen them in their new life (encouragement). The presence of others in Antioch with prophetic gifts served to confirm that of these two who had come from Jerusalem (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:29). »

3. In this missionary and New Testament church, who carried on the ministry of God’s word? « – those who had been sent to them and many others (presumably of their own number) »

4. Do you begin to understand what the local church should be?

Acts 15:13–35 — The Jerusalem Council: the Decision — (outline by F. F. Bruce, NICNT)

« Leader information shown in this fashion — This repeats, in part, what was in the previous week in order to cover some questions that were raised the previous week and not adequately answered. In the handout there was a picture of a small portion of the Dead Sea Scrolls in order to demonstrate how difficult was the task of the early copyists and translators of the Hebrew scriptures. There is also a excerpt of the Hebrew for the passage in Amos as well as what the translators read to show the impact of reading a daleth in place of a yodh. This will show in Hebrew characters mapped according to the OLBHEB font provided with the Online Bible. »

{A.} The Birth of the Church (1:1–5:42)

{B.} Persecution and Expansion (6:1–9:31)

{C.} The Acts of Peter and Beginnings of Gentile Christianity (9:32-12:25)

{D.} Church Extension from Antioch & Apostolic Decree at Jerusalem (12:25–15:35)

{1} Barnabas and Saul (12:25–13:3)

{2} Cyprus (13:4–12)

{3} Pisidian Antioch (13:13–52)

{4} Iconium, Lystra, Derbe (14:1–18)

{5} The Council of Jerusalem Acts (15:1–35)

A. Judaizers Visit Antioch (15:1–2)

B. Paul & Barnabas Go Up to Jerusalem (15:3–5)

C. The Council Meets (15:6)

D. Peter’s Speech (15:7–11)

E. Paul & Barnabas Address the Council (15:12)

F. James’ Summing Up (15:13–21)

A. Last week in looking at the words with which James summed up the deliberations of the council of apostles and elders at Jerusalem, we noted a number of things:

1. That this James is that one described in Galatians 1:19 as being … « “the brother of the Lord” »

2. That both the children of Israel and the Gentile Christians are a people … « “taken out for His (God’s) name” »

3. The passage that James quotes is from the Greek translation (known as the “Septuagint” or “LXX”) of Amos 9:11–12 — more about this on the next page.

4. The decision reflected a practical church problem: new Christians coming to Christ from … « non-Christian, pagan morals & ethics »

B. Amos 9:11-12 – good comments & questions from last week

1. NIV: “In that day I will restore David’s fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations that bear my name,” {Hebrew; Septuagint so that the remnant of men and all the nations that bear my name may seek the Lord} declares the Lord, who will do these things.

Hebrew … Mywgh-lkw Mwda tyras-ta wsryy Neml

2. Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Benton’s translation of the LXX: “In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and will rebuild the ruins of it, and will set up the parts thereof that have been broken down, and will build it up as in the ancient days: that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things.”

for Hebrew … Mywgh-lkw Mwda tyras-ta wsrdy Neml

3. James’ quote, Acts 15:16-17 (NIV): ‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’

C. As Jim remarked, the word tent or tabernacle often means, as it does here, the succoth or booths or huts in which the Israelites dwelt during their wilderness wanderings, and during the feast of booths or tabernacles which commemorated that time. This is appropriate in this instance, because at the time of writing, David’s … « palatial royal house had fallen to be a mere hut, one needing restoration »

D. David asked if these Gentiles who “were called by my name” (NIV: “bear my name”) only meant God’s name had been placed on them to carry out His plan (e.g., as was the case with the Chaldeans acting as God’s tools in punishing Judah)? Jame’s quote, means otherwise, however. It is literally, “…the nations, upon who, my name is upon-called upon them…” The same use of this verb is found, for example, in Matthew 10:3, Luke 22:3, James 2:7 (also, but less obviously, Hebrews 11:6). In such places it means … « named or surnamed; expressing relationship or quality of the person named »

E. Dave also asked “are not the Gentiles being sought along with the Lord?” Usually the Greek would make this clear, but not here! « because "all the nations" in Greek is in the neuter gender where the nominative (subject) is indistinguishable from the accusative (object) » So we have to go back to the LXX quoted. “The remnant of men, and all the Gentiles…” is a compound subject who do the seeking. James clarifies the original by inserting “the Lord” in his quote, but also introduces this ambiguity. The “and” may be translated … « “to whit, even, namely” it is the explicative use of waw and kai in the original Hebrew and Greek; explanator »

1. The Apostolic Letter to Gentile Christians (15:22–29, NKJV): 22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren. 23 They wrote this letter by them: “The apostles, the elders, *and the* brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, ‘You must be circumcised and keep the law’ — to whom we gave no such commandment — 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.” « – *and the* not in MSS before 8th century; read “apostles and elders, brothers;” so I see why some of you looked questioningly at me last week »

a. Note that Judas is mentioned only here; Silas same as Silvanus

b. How does the greeting in this letter reinforce its message? « — the emphasis that those sending it and those receiving it are related by the new birth through the two-fold use of “brothers” »

c. Why the addition of Judas Barsabas and Silas? « – first, to provide reliable, confirming witness to the letter’s authenticity; second, to enlarge by spoken word on what was in the letter »

d. Who is addressed in the letter? … who omitted? … did that limit it? « – the new Gentile believers living in the area of Antioch, Cyprus and Tarsus; omitted are the more recent converts in area of Galatia to whom the Judaizers had not yet reached; no. »

e. What concern is expressed? « – for the effect of the confusing and upsetting words of unapproved teaching of legalism on them »

f. In addition to the testimonies of Judas and Silas, what was to encourage the Gentile Christians in their faith?

i. Regarding Paul and Barnabas « – the dangers they had faced for the sake of the gospel message »

ii. Regarding the message « – it was not primarily men’s ideas, but a leading of the Holy Spirit »

g. Did these necessary things diminish with time (Revelation 2:14, 20)? « – no, their non-observance in the churches of Pergamum and Thyatira are condemned by the exalted Lord Jesus »

h. How is this to be reconciled with 1 Corinthians 8:1–13; 10:14, 19ff? « – eating of such meat, sold in the marketplace pure and simply as meat, was not wrong, but that the partaking of such meat as part of a feast directly or indirectly in honour of a pagan idol is to what Revelation refers; in addition, eating such meat if it defiles the conscience – your own or another’s – is wrong »

i. What application can we make today? « – there are actions and attitudes that identify us with the pagan world in which we live rather than with the newly begotten redeemed of Jesus Christ, rather than with God’s people, the church – these are therefore just as clearly forbidden to us »

2. The Church of Antioch Receives the Apostolic Letter (15:30-35, NKJV): 30 So when they were sent off, they came to Antioch; and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the letter. 31 When they had read it, they rejoiced over its encouragement. 32 Now Judas and Silas, themselves being prophets also, exhorted and strengthened the brethren with many words. 33 And after they had stayed there for a time, they were sent back with greetings from the brethren to the apostles. 34 However, it seemed good to Silas to remain there. 35 Paul and Barnabas also remained in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also. « – MSS before 5th cent. omit v. 34 »

a. How did the Antiochenes perceive and receive the letter? « – they saw it as one of encouragement and viewed it with joy »

b. What other reason do we find here for Judas and Silas being sent along with the letter? « – their prophetic gift which they added to those in Antioch with like gifts, could give direction to these believers (exhortation) and build them up and strengthen them in their new life (encouragement). The presence of others in Antioch with prophetic gifts served to confirm that of these two who had come from Jerusalem (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:29). »

c. In this missionary and New Testament church, who carried on the ministry of God’s word? « – those who had been sent to them and many others (presumably of their own number) »

d. Do you begin to understand what the local church should be?

The first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, are commonly called the Five Books of Moses. So far as we know, they have always been grouped together as the Law (Torah). Jesus, in describing the witness of the Old Testament Scriptures about himself, summarizes them in terms of “the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms” (Luke 24:44). Thus, at the time of the Lord’s earthly ministry, the Jews recognized a threefold division of the Scriptures. The Law came first, as it does in every arrangement of which we have any record.

THE UNITY OF THE FIVE BOOKS

The first book, aptly called Genesis (beginning) in the Greek Version, begins with creation and brings the history down in an ever-narrowing stream to the death of Joseph. The name of the author is not stated, but since it so evidently prepares the way for the story of the Exodus and the great events which follow, it is logical to assume that it was written or compiled by Moses.

How much of Genesis is based on trustworthy ancient traditions and records of which Moses had knowledge and how much is a matter of direct revelation, we cannot say. Abraham probably possessed records of events lying in the distant past, and the genealogies in chapters 5 and 11 and the table of nations in chapter 10 may go back to a very early date. On the other hand, the account of creation must be a matter of revelation, but whether to Moses or not, we cannot say. The fact that Abraham caused his servant to swear by “the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth” (Genesis 24:3; compare 14:19, 22), would indicate knowledge of the creation before Moses’ time. In its literary form Genesis stands in close relationship to the other books of the Pentateuch.

All four books which follow Genesis relate to Moses and his times. Exodus deals with the period from the oppression in Egypt and the birth of Moses to the erection of the Tabernacle. Leviticus, the manual of the priests, is closely connected with Exodus by the account which it gives of the consecration of Aaron and his sons on the eighth day after the erection of the Tabernacle (Leviticus 9:1; compare Exodus 29:35). All the laws it contains are declared to have been given by God through Moses at Sinai (Leviticus 7:37-38; 25:1; 26:46; 27:34).

Numbers deals with the events of the year after the erection of the Tabernacle up to the refusal of the people to go up to possess the land and their sentence to perish in the wilderness (chapters 1-14); the period of wandering is passed over briefly (chapters 15-19). Then the narrative describes events of the fortieth year and concludes with commandments given by Moses to Israel while they were encamped in the plains of Moab (chapters 20-26).

Deuteronomy consists mainly of three addresses delivered by Moses in the plains of Moab and concludes with a brief appendix describing his death. Such a brief survey indicates that these four books record a sequence of events all of which took place during the lifetime of Moses. His name appears constantly in connection with the events described. The laws and instructions of the Lord are all given through him. It is several times stated that he wrote them down (for example, Exodus 24:4; Deuteronomy 31:9, 22; compare John 5:46). It is eminently proper, therefore, to call these five books “the books of Moses.”

Anti-religious comedian Bill Maher, speaking to Kurt Vonnegut Jr. on a television show:

“In your new book you make a very interesting point about how the Republican right is always wanting to post the Ten Commandments in public places, which of course is from the Old Testament, but they never, ever seem to want to post the sayings of Jesus, like the Beatitudes: Blessed are the meek, Blessed are the merciful, Blessed are the peacemakers. They’re such Christians but they never want to put up what Jesus said.”