Tag: Deuteronomy 6:5

A Short History of the Sadducees

On By Jovan PayesIn College Papers, Judaism, New Testament Background, New Testament World, Second Temple Judaism

The Sadducees are portrayed unfavorably in the canonical Gospels as one of the Jewish sects Jesus had adversarial encounters. The word Saddoukaios, translated as “Sadducee” in English, appears fourteen times in the New Testament.[1] Unfortunately, these references do not provide programmatic insight into the group’s backstory and role in the Second Temple Period. They simply appear in the New Testament as a given element of the diverse Jewish sectarian milieu of “Second Temple Judaism” (515 BCE–70 CE).[2] What is clear is the Sadducees emerged as part of a larger conversation within a “common Judaism” during this period.[3]

The goal here is to provide a short historical sketch of the Sadducees. This sketch will examine the ancient sources that provide insight into this group’s origin, and period of activity, and after this reconstruction, attempt to provide some contours of their beliefs.

Sources

Our “most reliable” knowledge regarding the Sadducees comes from secondary ancient literature. There are no extant primary sources that were produced by the sect. Of these secondary sources, the writings of Flavius Josephus prove to be the most insightful, followed by the New Testament and other Jewish writings of the period.

Primary Sources. Bluntly put, “the Sadducees left no writings,” as Günter Stemberger observes. Stemberger further notes that attempts have been made to appeal to the Apocryphal literature 1 Maccabees, Sirach, and Judith as Sadducean but these attempts “fail to convince.”[4] The important Damascus Document (CD) is thought to be Sadducean by some scholars (R. H. Charles, L. Schiffman), but the “majority” view sees it as Essene.[5] However, other Qumran literature provides only indirect insight from halakhic texts (i.e., legal interpretations of the law).[6] There are possible allusions to the Sadducean legal views in the “commentary” Pesher on Nahum (“Manassseh”), the Qumran Temple Scroll, and the halakhic letter 4QMMT.[7] In general, scholarly debate makes the likelihood these texts are primary Sadducean literature nearly impossible to confirm.

Secondary Sources. On the other hand, Josephus and the New Testament provide much clearer source material regarding the Sadducees. In both cases, these two different bodies of literature offer episodic profiles of the Sadducees. The profiles provided within these divergent sources are not straightforward, unbiased history, but are part of the promotion of their own agendas (respectively) and must be read with sensitivity to the hostile biases against the Sadducees. This is not to say they are untrue, but that we must account for the specific framing of these literary sources.

For example, the first-century CE historian, Josephus, arguably offers the most insight into the beliefs, historical personalities, and character of the Sadducees, but he is a stoic-leaning Pharisee writing Judean history of the recent period with a slant toward extolling the greatness of the Flavian family in military victory over the Judeans.[8]

Likewise, the first-century New Testament documents Matthew, Mark, and Luke-Acts also provide profiles of largely adversarial interactions between Jesus and the Sadducees. These reveal the doctrinal disagreements between the sect and Jesus primarily over the resurrection. It does not explicitly articulate areas of common ground, such as the authority of the Torah, which is implied in Jesus’ use of Exodus 3:6 to affirm non-physical life after death (Matt 22:31-33; Mark 12:24-27; Luke 20:34-40). 

" 'I am,' He said, 'the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.' " (Exodus 3:6 NJPS)

Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong.” (Mark 12:24–27 ESV)

John seems to refer to the Sadducean influence with implied references to figures of the temple (i.e., Levites, priests). In Acts, however, the Sadducees only appear in adversarial engagements with early Christianity in Judea (4:1; 5:17; 23:6–8). 

And as they were speaking to the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them, greatly annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead. (Acts 4:1–2 ESV)

But the high priest rose up, and all who were with him (that is, the party of the Sadducees), and filled with jealousy they arrested the apostles and put them in the public prison. (Acts 5:17–18)

Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.” And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. (Acts 23:6–8 ESV)

The bias of the material in Synoptics and Acts documents the tensions between Christianity and the sect.

Origins

Time period. In the most basic sense, the historical origin of the Sadducees is a mystery. From the perspective of textual extremities, the sect, much like its counterparts, is not explicitly found in the Old Testament nor in the Hasmonean literature (e.g., 1–2 Maccabees).

They appear as a fully established and functional Jewish movement of the first century CE as documented in the New Testament and Josephus. In the first century CE, Josephus seeks to pinpoint the actions of John Hyrcanus (134–104 BCE), leaving the Pharisees to join the Sadducees (Ant. 13.288–98 [13.10.4-6]). Yet, Stemberger believes the Babylonian Talmud reproduces a version of this story, but at the time of king-priest Alexander Jannaeus (103-77 BCE; b. Qiddusin 66a).[9] Textually, there is no reliable explanation regarding the “when and how” of Sadducean origin. To account for Sadducean presence in Josephus and the Talmud, their origins are likely found in pre-Hasmonean movements along ideological debates found between other emerging sects, particularly those with the Pharisees.

Reconstructions. Scholarly reconstructions suggest a few theories. J. Julius Scott, Jr., notes that one theory uses the name Sadducee to etymologically connect it to the priestly family of Zadok (2 Sam 15:24–36). On this view, Zadok is Hebrew for “just” or “righteous” (saddiq) or even “court official” or “judges” as in the Greek syndikos.[10] Etymological views like this tend to be very problematic.

A related view looks at a Zadokite descendant named Boethius, whose family was responsible for several priests, as founding the Sadducees.[11] This historical speculation is from minimal evidence and is likewise problematic.

Our earliest historical literary source, Josephus, only provides the Sadducees as being active alongside Jewish “philosophies,” the Pharisees and the Essenes (Ant. 13.171 [13.9]).[12] 

At this time there were three sects among the Jews, who had different opinions concerning human actions; the one was called the sect of the Pharisees, another the sect of the Sadducees, and the other the sect of the Essenes.

Lawrence Schiffman argued that the Sadducees were an offshoot breakaway group from the Qumran community as a result of an unwillingness to compromise over the illegitimate priesthood.[13] There is just enough information to make connections for a reconstruction, but not the sort of data that establishes a definitive model.

Period of Activity

Terminus 70 CE. It is clear from the available sources that any attempt to reconstruct the movements of the Sadducees within early Second Temple Judaism will be difficult. This is patently clear for the pre-Hasmonean period and for the early Roman Empire. One helpful limit is agreed on by all students of the Sadducees. The Judaism represented by this movement ceases to exist after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE.[14] Leading up to this terminus ad quem, the secondary sources present a picture of an aristocratic Jewish movement that was influential in politics (religious and civic), priestly, and held strong “restrictive” religious beliefs that made it uniquely stand out in its approach to public life.

Activity. Despite the limitations of the sources, then, this picture goes a long way to providing a lens into understanding their movements in the first century CE.

When Josephus (c. 93–94 CE) recounts the period of transition to Albinus following the death of the procurator Porcius Festus (d. 62 CE), he recounts that Ananus, a Sadducean high priest (Ant. 20.199 [20.9.1]; Luke 3:2), flexes his authority as a priest and executes James the brother of Jesus (c. 62 CE):

“he assembled the [S]anhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned” (Ant. 20.200 [20.9.1]).[15]

While Josephus paints the unruliness of the Jewish aristocracy–even implying falsifying charges against James, and the harshness of Sadducean jurisprudence (Ant. 20.199 [20.9.1]), the portrayal is clear that Sadducean influence benefited from its association with the priests, the Sanhedrin, and the temple guards.

In Acts 4:1–3, this strong sense of deep-seated authority is also pointed to Peter and John preaching on the temple grounds (their turf!). The combined authority of priests and guards is used to stop their preaching: 

“the priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came to them, much annoyed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming that in Jesus there is the resurrection of the dead.”[16]

It must not be presumed that all high priests were Sadducees. Still, there was at least the perception that the Sadducees and the priests were strongly connected, along with the council, and had the authority to imprison those promoting contrary views, like the resurrection (Acts 5:17ff).[17] They seem to show interest in “new” teachers and investigate “new movements” as in the case of John the Baptist (Matt 3:7) and Jesus (Matt 16:1ff).

Gerousia. The Sadducean participation with the Sanhedrin and the Gerousia (“the council [synedrion] and the whole body [gerousia] of the elders”) in this matter of handling inquiry proceedings (Acts 5:21) is consistent with the presence of a pre-Hasmonean Jewish Gerousia (“senate”). This projection back to this historical period is speculative but not without explanatory power. Josephus “reproduces” a letter from Antiochus III to Ptolemy explaining the terms of their relationship, based on how he was welcomed fully by the Jewish “senate” (gerousia; Ant. 12.138 [12.3.3]):

“Since the Jews, upon our first entrance on their country demonstrated their friendship towards us; and when we came to their city [Jerusalem], received us in a splendid manner, and came to meet us with their senate, and gave abundance of provisions to our soldiers, and to the elephants, and joined with us in ejecting the garrison of the Egyptians that were in the citadel..."

Ancient Jewish sources connect political and civic power to a tight relationship between the priests and this “senate” of Israel (Jdt 4:8; 2 Macc 11:27–33). In fact, since “the Maccabean revolt (167 BCE) the power of the high priest increased” (1 Macc 12:6).[18]

The evidence is very tenuous and circumstantial, and its greatest weakness is that there is no explicit placement of a Sadducean priest at this early period.

Beliefs

Bruce D. Chilton observed that to understand the New Testament, one must become a student of Second Temple Judaism. Conversely, it would be that the student of Second Temple Judaism is well equipped to understand the New Testament.[19] This would seem to be a proper holistic approach. As previously mentioned, the available sources for understanding the Sadducean movement within a common Judaism are secondary and written in a way that potentially stereotypes them. They are still our best sources.

Josephus summarizes the religious beliefs of the Sadducees as he differentiates them from other sectarian groups, the Pharisees and the Essenes, whom he also calls “sects of philosophies.”[20] The Sadducean Judaism, though likely a minority sect, was a unique form within “common Judaism” as it shared the same basic worldview premises about God, the temple, and the Scriptures.[21] Thus, it was not something so distinct that it did not resemble its sectarian neighbors.

The picture from Josephus regarding the Sadducean belief system that distinguished itself from the “common Judaism” may be seen in the following four areas.[22] We must guard against treating this as a monolithic portrait of Sadducean belief (cf. Ant. 13.298 [13.10.6]).

First, Josephus claims they denied the resurrection and angels, “That souls die with the bodies” (Ant. 18.16 [18.1.4]). Additionally, “They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades” (J.W. 2.164 [2.8.14]). It does not seem fair to describe them as materialists, as if this view denies the spirit plane of existence. Nevertheless, their canon (the Torah) includes several stories that should have left them open to discussions about the soul, the afterlife, and what that may imply.

Genesis speaks of the cherubim guarding Eden (Gen 3:24), Enoch taken by God without the phrase “then he died” (Gen 5:21), the angels who visit Abraham and Lot (Gen 18–19), Jacob wrestles with an angel (Gen 32:23–33), and the angel of the Lord in the Exodus and Numbers. It is striking that Jesus cites Exodus 3:6 and affirms that God is the God of the “living” even though the bodies of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had been dead (Matt 23:31–32).

Other later texts outside their “canon” were more explicit regarding the resurrection. “Many of those that sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life, others to reproaches, to everlasting abhorrence. And the knowledgeable will be radiant like the bright expanse of sky, and those who lead the many to righteousness will be like the stars forever and ever” (Dan 12:2–3 NJPS). The emphasis of resurrection in the teaching of Jesus and the church would explain why the Sadducees are portrayed as adversarial in the New Testament (Matt 22:23; Luke 20:27; Acts 4:1, 23:7–9).[23]

Second, they denied fate. Josephus writes, “they take away fate, and say there is no such thing, and that the events of human affairs are not at its disposal…” (Ant. 13.173 [13.5.9]; J.W. 2.164–165 [2.8.14]). While the ancient world had a role for Fate, it would seem unlikely that Josephus would be using a pagan ideology when explaining the Jewish theologies of the Pharisees, Essenes, and the Sadducees. As Jonathan Klawans notes, this use of fate most likely refers to terms such as “determinism,” “predeterminism,” or “predestination.”[24] Basically, how is human free will compatible or not with God’s sovereign will?

The difficulty lies in the lack of Sadducean literature to explain what Josephus means. The Second Temple book, Ben Sira 15:11–20, is regarded as a possible illustration of Sadducean thought on their denial of fate:

Do not say, “It was the Lord’s doing that I fell away”; for he does not do what he hates. Do not say, “It was he who led me astray”; for he has no need of the sinful. The Lord hates all abominations; such things are not loved by those who fear him. It was he who created humankind in the beginning, and he left them in the power of their own free choice. If you choose, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice. He has placed before you fire and water; stretch out your hand for whichever you choose. Before each person are life and death, and whichever one chooses will be given. For great is the wisdom of the Lord; he is mighty in power and sees everything; his eyes are on those who fear him, and he knows every human action. He has not commanded anyone to be wicked, and he has not given anyone permission to sin. (Sir 15:15–20 NRSV)

In short, there is “freedom of choice” (15:14–17), a denial of destined behaviors (15:11–12, 20), and a clear affirmation of “God’s absolute opposition to evil” (15:13, 20).[25] This lines up with Josephus’s words, “they say, that to act what is good, or what is evil, is at men’s own choice, and that the one or the other belongs so to every one, that they may act as they please” (J.W. 2.165 [2.8.14]). But this is a possible lens for understanding what Josephus intended to suggest.

In the New Testament, there is no explicit debate between Jesus and the Sadducees regarding “fate” along the determinism-compatibilism dichotomy. Jesus tells his followers to be leery of the “leaven” of the Sadducees (i.e., their teaching; Matt 16:5–12), but this points to a criticism that Jesus raises against them. They do not know how to interpret what is clearly in front of them, so how can you trust their teaching (Matt 16:1–4).

Third, they denied the oral tradition held by the Pharisees. Josephus explains the Sadducean logic for rejecting the oral tradition, as such are “not written in the law of Moses” (Ant. 13.297 [13.10.6]). To be clear, the Sadducees had their own interpretive traditions and sectarian logics within Second Temple Judaism. The reason they rejected these oral traditions is that they were “esteemed those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers” (Ant. 13.297 [13.10.6]).

The authoritative word for the Sadducees was the Torah, yet they had their interpretive traditions and “great” internal debates (Ant. 13.297-298 [13.10.6]). Josephus then notes that this movement was popular among the rich and did not win over (peithõ) the “populace” (dēmotikós). Perhaps the picture he desires to set forth is that the Sadducees were not only restrictive and biblical minimalists, but also out of touch with the average Jew. As a former Pharisee, Josephus’s bias against the Sadducees is likely apparent.

Fourth, they limited their authoritative scripture to the Torah for Sadducees, “[do not] regard the observation of anything besides what the law enjoins them” (Ant. 18.16 [18.1.4]). It is noteworthy that when Jesus responds to the Sadducean challenge against the resurrection, he responds from within the Torah to establish belief in the resurrection (Matt 23:31–32; Exod 3:6). The reality and viability of the resurrection is the core confrontation between the Sadducees and Jesus and the early church in the Gospels and Acts. Jesus uses their restrictive canon to affirm not only the existence of a spirit-afterlife but also the resurrection of the body.

It is difficult to determine whether this view is comparable to the Sola Scriptura formulation of the Reformation. Scripture Alone (or, Only) is the final authority for faith, doctrine, and practice over reason, experience, and tradition. The principle is mainly an attitude about the authority of Scripture over other competing regulators of faith and practice.[26] It does not necessarily offer a statement about the particular shape of the canon, nor does it mean an outright rejection of interpretive traditions (i.e., majesterial authorities). The secondary sources do suggest, at face value, that the Sadducees held a high view of the Torah’s authority, sharing similar logic as Sola Scriptura; they rejected that status of final prophetic authority for the rest of the Hebrew Bible of “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44).

Despite the biased nature of these secondary sources, it is generally agreed that the Sadducean beliefs are reliably transmitted.

The Sadducees and Christianity

It is remarkable to consider that all of the significant features of Christian theology are rooted in the Torah: sin and redemption, the afterlife and resurrection (Exod 3:6), Abrahamic promises to bless all nations (Gen 12:1–3; 26:1–5; 28:13–15), the offspring (seed) promise and its victory over the serpent (Gen 3:15), the promise of a prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15–19), the passover lamb (Exod 12:1–28), the scapegoat theology (Lev 16:6–10, 20–22), the two great commandments (Deut 6:5; Lev 19:18), the circumcision of the heart (Deut 10:16; 30:6), the priesthood and atonement (Leviticus), the prophetic office and its proofs by signs (Deut 18:20–22), the use of wealth to help the vulnerable among the land (Lev 19:9–10), the requirements of a king, the sceptor of Judah (Gen 49:10), justification by faith before circumcision (Gen 15:1–6), and so many others. This is not to suggest the Sadducees held to all of these interpretations, only that Christian theology fits within the textual limits of their canon.

Perhaps these themes were part of the conversion of Sadducees, or those likely within Sadducean influence, like members of the Sanhedrin council and the priesthood. It was the wealthy council member (bouleutēs), Joseph from Arimathea, who used his political power and influence to petition to take custody of the body of Jesus and lay him in his own tomb before sundown in keeping the Torah’s instruction to bury the executed (Mark 15:43). 

If a man is guilty of a capital offense and is put to death, and you impale him on a stake, you must not let his corpse remain on the stake overnight, but must bury him the same day. For an impaled body is an affront to God: you shall not defile the land that the Lord your God is giving you to possess. (Deut 21:22–23 NJPS)

For he was “looking for the kingdom of God” (Mark 15:43; Matt 27:57; Luke 23:50). The early church made strong inroads among the priests, the narrator of Acts affirms, 

And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith. (Acts 6:7 ESV)

It is not a foregone conclusion, then, that Sadducees were among the earliest members of the Christian faith. This should caution modern Christians from the convenient trope that the Sadducees were rigidly distinct without common ground.

Conclusion

This brief historical sketch of the Sadducees highlights four key points for a modern understanding of this ancient Jewish sect. There are no primary sources written by the Sadducees that are extant; all our information comes from secondary literature. The group emerged at some point during the Second Temple period and was active among the wealthy, the political and religious aspects of the Temple, and ceased at about 70 CE. Finally, the belief system of the Sadducees is explicitly stereotyped by Josephus and the New Testament; however, they reliably transmit core beliefs held by this movement. Early Christianity, as part of this period, anchored many of its core tenets from within the same religious literature the Sadducees regarded as their canon, that is, the Torah.

Endnotes

  1. The word appears seven times in Matthew (3:7; 16:1, 6, 11–12; 22:23, 34), once in Mark (12:18), and six times in Luke-Acts (Luke 20:27; Acts 4:1; 5:17; 23:6–8).
  2. Second Temple Judaism is the term I use for this period alternatively called Early Judaism by some. For dating, Larry R. Helyer, Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002), 17; for the term, see John J. Collins, “Early Judaism in Modern Scholarship,” Dictionary of the Early Judaism, eds. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 1–2.
  3. Collins, “Early Judaism,” 6.
  4. Günter Stemberger, “Sadducees,” Dictionary of the Early Judaism, eds. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 1179.
  5. For the Essene view as the “majority view” see Helyer, Exploring Jewish Literature, 297.
  6. For this short definition of halakah, Helyer, Exploring Jewish Literature, 66.
  7. Stemberger, “Sadducees,” 1179.
  8. Josephus, Life 2.12. Steve Mason observes that one of the agendas of Josephus is propaganda for the Flavian family, “In the domestic turbulence that followed Nero’s suicide (June 68), their claim to have conquered a foreign enemy gave them unique bona fides as men capable of uniting Rome in peace,” A History of the Jewish War: A.D. 66–74 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 3.
  9. “Sadducees,” 1180.
  10. J. Julius Scott, Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995), 206–07.
  11. Stemberger, “Sadducees,” 1180.
  12. “Josephus is the primary source in every description of the Jewish religious parties of the first century,” see Günter Stemberger, Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 5.
  13. Michelle Lee-Barnewall, “Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes,” The World of the New Testament, eds. Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 221–22.
  14. Stemberger, “Sadducees,” 1180.
  15. The translation of Josephus is from William Whiston, The Works of Josephus, new ed. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987).
  16. Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from the Bible are taken from the New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Nelson, 1989).
  17. Scott, Jewish Backgrounds, 208.
  18. G. H. Twelftree, “Sanhedrin,” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 2nd ed, eds. (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016), 837.
  19. Bruce D. Chilton, A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible (Wilmington: Glazier, 1984), 13. The quote is the opening line to his book: “Anyone who wishes to understand the New Testament is, consciously or not, a student of early Judaism.”
  20. He calls them “sects” (Life 2.10; Ant. 13.171, 293; 20.199) and philosophies in (Ant. 18.11).
  21. Josephus, Ant. 18.17. In comparison to E. P. Sanders who emphasized a “common Judaism” for understanding of the shared but diverse religious milieu of Second Temple Judaism, C. S. Lewis pleaded his case for the Christian faith by arguing for a “mere Christianity,” that is there are things that are “agreed, or common, or central” to the Christianity that is not bound to denominational lines, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1984), 8.
  22. I follow Stemberger’s discussion in “Sadducees,” 1180.
  23. Since the Torah mentions angels, scholars like Stemberger and N. T. Wright find it unlikely that Josephus is correct about the Sadducean view of angels (“Sadducees,” 1180; Contemporaries, 70). The book of Acts seems to clearly assert the same understanding of Josephus. Wright argues that this passage has been poorly translated and flattened, see The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 132–33.
  24. Jonathan Klawans, “Josephus on Fate, Free Will, and Ancient Jewish Types of Compatibilism,” Numen 56.1 (2009): 47–48.
  25. Klawans, “Josephus on Fate, Free Will,” 51–52.
  26. See, D. A. Carson, “Sola Scriptura: Then and Now.” The Gospel Coalition.

Works Cited

Carson, D. A. “Sola Scriptura: Then and Now.” The Gospel Coalition.

Chilton, Bruce D. A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible: Jesus’ Use of the Interpreted Scripture of His Time. Good News Studies 8. Edited by Robert J. Karris. Wilmington: Glazier, 1984.

Collins, John J. “Early Judaism in Modern Scholarship.” Pages 1–23 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.

Helyer, Larry R. Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period: A Guide for New Testament Students. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002.

Klawans, Jonathan. “Josephus on Fate, Free Will, and Ancient Jewish Types of Compatibilism.” Numen 56.1 (2009): 44–90.

Lee-Barnewall, Michelle. “Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.” Pages 217–27 in The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts. Edited by Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1980.

Mason, Steve. A History of the Jewish War: A.D. 66–74. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016.

Scott, J. Julius, Jr. Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament. 1995. Reprint, Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000.

Stemberger, Günter. Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes. Translated by Allan W. Mahkne. Minneapolis: Fortress,1995.

_____. “Sadducees.” Pages 1179–81 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.

Twelftree, G. H. “Sanhedrin.” Pages 836–40 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. 2nd edition. Edited by Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2013.

Wright, Nicholas T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 3. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.

Spiritual Growth: The Ezra Principle (Ezra 7:10)

On By Jovan PayesIn Leadership Ethics, Male Spiritual Leadership, Old Testament, Pastoral Leadership, Spiritual Formation

In pursuit of my own spiritual growth (such as it is) as a man of faith, it took me a long time to figure out where my journey was supposed to find not just the goal, but the starting point and the road map for the pilgrimage. Spiritual growth is not the result of knowing where our faith calls us to, but from the arduous journey to get there.

My journey has been massively blessed. I have had mentors, mothers, fathers – at times, even grandparent – figures. They have all given me something for my journey (perhaps, sometime, I’ll write about that), but I was only walking with them on their journey. Still, I would not be where I am, spiritually, without them.

I tried education. I figured “if I could be smarter” then I could discover all of the secrets that others are keeping to themselves behind the walls of academia – the proverbial mountain top. I found the tools and methods instead to help me navigate “the strange and yet immanent” world of Scriptures. They helped me raise questions and look at God’s word from various new angles that have indeed helped me in my journey to God. Despite its benefits of making me feel closer to the text, however, it was not the “end all” solution to my spiritual needs.

My personal life experiences, training, and those mentors in my life, all pointed me back to one thing: my journey to God only makes sense when I invest in a lifestyle of discipleship that has a consequential impact on my life. This required me to take seriously the words of the Psalmists.

I needed my desire for wisdom to mirror the Psalmist’s outcry to the Lord: 

Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law. (Psalm 119:18)[1]

In this great Psalm, David recounts the wonders of the Law of God and exalts its beauty, richness, guidance, and its loftiness as it is grounded in God’s righteousness. It begins with the words,

Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the Lord! (Psalm 119:1)

One of the empowering aspects of this Psalm is not actually found in what is written, but in the very process by which we see the Psalmist’s love for living out the Word of God, the Law of the Lord. The entire Psalm flows with a powerful example of losing oneself in the world of God’s Law.

I am not at all surprised that Psalm 119 found a communal niche at the Feast of Pentecost, as Nancy deClaissé-Walford recounts:

It is recited at the Feast of Pentecost, the spring festival observed fifty days after Passover, which celebrates the giving of the torah to Moses at Sinai during the wilderness wanderings.[2]

Nancy deClaissé-Walford in The Book of Psalms (2014)

Psalm 119 called my attention to the only true path to spiritual growth: the transformative power of the world of the scriptures. Knowing God through the scriptures, however, must lead toward discipleship, toward obedience.

The Ezra Principle

The “Ezra Principle” sounds catchy and new doesn’t it. I guarantee you it is not. I have not discovered anything hidden in plain sight. In fact, the “principle” is not just one thing, but a commitment to five values of discipleship that Ezra pursued himself.

In the fifth century B.C. (c. 458 B.C.), Ezra is commissioned by the Persian King Artaxerxes I (465–424 B.C.) in his return to Jerusalem (7:1–28). It is a time of fresh opportunity to “get things right” following the seventy years of captivity in the Babylonian due to the corruptive influence of pagan idolatry.[3] In this context, Ezra had begun a process of preparation for the task before him:

Ezra had set his heart to study the Law of the LORD, and to do it and to teach his statutes and rules in Israel. (Ezra 7:10)

The grammarian in me is interested in the verbal phrases of Ezra’s commitment: (1) “set his heart,” (2) “to study the Law,” (3) “to do it,” and (4) “to teach… in Israel.” That’s powerful. You may find other ways to divide this passage, but we will separate “study” and its object, “the Law of the Lord,” into two values themselves.

This is one of those passages that made clear to me the connection between knowing God’s word and being an authentic follower of God: the connection between personal commitment to know and to do God’s word.

Knowledge and Discipleship

This observation shifted my thinking away from just being absorbed in the Word of God. Spiritual growth must embrace knowledge but that is not the entire picture. James warns us that a people of knowledge alone is useless if not insulting because knowledge (i.e., faith) is to demonstrate itself by good works (1:22-27).[4]

James weaves together the two themes of favoritism and faith in order to illustrate just how practical saving faith must be. He illustrates this by examining the relationship between the poor and the rich in the church:

If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? (Jas 2:15–16)

What good is knowing that we are all saved in Christ, so goes the argument, if we do not care for each other in this life? How does God’s communal redemption of all impact our daily interactions? James argues that knowledge (faith) should be lived out in the community of the body of Christ in consequential ways.

For that matter, think about the community where the church meets. What good are we doing if we are strong on truth, but our community has never heard or seen us live out what the gospel is all about? The good we do should move people that thank God:

In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. (Matt 5:16)

In other words, spiritual knowledge and discipleship are inseparable.

To return to our point, knowing is only the beginning, the end is discipleship. The process from point A to point B is our journey of applying the narrative of Scripture (how God redeems humanity through Jesus Christ) to our lives so that we may be transformed by it (Rom 12:1-2). This makes the Word of God the essential guiding force behind all of our actions.

This brings us to the “main event” of this discussion: something I call the “Ezra Principle.”

(1) We Must Set Our Hearts

is one of the clearest descriptions of a targeted mindset in the OT. If the heart is not “into it” the body and life will not follow. Paul, speaking of the Macedonian’s benevolent efforts despite their deep poverty, describes the basis of their commitment: “they gave themselves first to the Lord, and then by the will of God to us” (2 Cor 8:5). Great advancements always stem from great commitments.

In the study and application of God’s Word, the commitment which begins at our spiritual core – the heart – will continue to be the driving force throughout our life of service to God (Deut 6:5, Lev 19:18).

(2) We Must Spend Time in Study.

Near the end of the apostle Paul’s life, he requested that Timothy come to be with him and bring his cloak, his books, and the parchments (2 Tim 4:13).  There are many speculations about the nature of these last two items, but at the very least the books and parchments would include copies of his letters to other churches. Paul would spend the last days of his life with those volumes he penned through inspiration to those in need of strength and faith.

The point we draw from here is that Paul was a studying man. In fact, he would encourage Timothy to be well equipped in the word of God and aptly able to “divide” the Scripture clearly and carefully (2 Tim 2:15). Ezra likewise spent renewed focus on studying the Law as he found himself and Israel back in the Land of their faith. Ezra knew, as we ought to today, that in order to rebuild our lives it must be based upon God’s word.

(3) We Must Select Only God’s Word as the Object of our Study.

There are many philosophical writings and even religious “scriptures” in the world. They often have maxims, sayings, or verses with which we would agree and commend. When building a biblical worldview as for the foundation of our spiritual growth, however, the Bible is the only set of “Sacred Writings” which are able to make a person wise to obtain salvation (2 Tim 3:14-15).

One may argue that this is an arrogant statement; however, despite the fact that such “writings” may provide insight into our lives, they pale in comparison with the never surpassed guidance given in the divine books of the Bible.

When one analyzes the Bible from the vantage point of predictive prophecy, historical accuracy, scientific foreknowledge, and literary harmony of this great anthology of 66 books in contrast to such other works, the Bible stands alone.

(4) We Must Steadfastly Practice God’s Word.

It is only by the conviction that the words inscribed on the paper we read are not mere words of human beings, but are instead the very words that God himself would breathe out (1 Thess 2:13; 2 Tim 3:16–17). Jesus teaches quite clearly that our lives are to reflect this type of respect, for in our prayers we are to express the sentiment, “your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt 6:10). The Lord declares: “to obey is better than sacrifice” (1 Sam 15:22)

(5) We Must Share both our Learning and Experiences.

In many ways, teaching is not only the sharing of facts and principles. In various instances, anecdotal interactions with God’s word can be very revealing and helpful in understanding and teaching God’s word. For example, consider all those who continue to leave the denominational world for the practice of pure New Testament Christianity.

The process of filtering out unbiblical accretions while adding to their learning and practicing the biblical faith can be a very helpful experience to teach others going through the same process. The bottom line is that God’s word was never designed to be a mental exercise to the exclusion of action and sharing; indeed, we must make “disciples” (Matt 28:19-20).

Steven Lawson, in his own words, calls attention to the advice of Walter Kaiser:

When a man preaches, he should never remove his finger from the Scriptures, Kaiser affirmed. If he is gesturing with his right hand, he should keep his left hand’s finger on the text. If he reverses hands for gesturing, then he should also reverse hands for holding his spot in the text. He should always be pointing to the Scriptures.[5]

S. J. Lawson, “The Pattern of Biblical Preaching,” Bibliotheca Sacra 158 (2001)

The advice is striking for those that proclaim the Word of God, but it is an excellent reminder to those would-be disciples interested in taking their discipleship to the next level, namely, to be teachers.

Studying is Complicated

This may seem like an aside, but it is not. I promise. We need to be very careful how we use scripture. Sometimes there are narratives regarding God’s people which seem contrary to the high moral calling which is expected of God’s leaders or people. Historical narratives need to be read with caution, as they often make their points indirectly (with no commentary). They are not always telling us something God wants us to imitate, but what God’s people have done.[6] It teaches me to be careful when seeking to “do” and “teach” God’s word.

I have often wrestled with some of the deeds of Ezra as recorded in the sacred record, particularly the covenant he seems to have initiated among the returning exiled Jews to “put away” all their foreign wives and children (cf. Ezra 10). Was this divorce en-masse commissioned by God? If one takes the view that whatever is written is positive teaching, as an authoritative command, then the text seemingly gives justification to divorce and remarriage on the count of practicing a different faith. This seems counter to the teaching of Jesus who affirms that there is only one justifiable cause for divorce and remarriage: adultery (Matt 19:1–9).

Yet, if one takes the view that each action must be taken into consideration on its own merits, then it is possible that Ezra was convicted by the significant teaching against inter-marriage with foreigners due to their influence on their spiritual corruption (Exod 34:12–16; Deut 7:1–6; Josh 23:19–23) that he overstepped its application and persuaded the men of Israel to do something not commanded of those who were already “married with children.” This would align with the fact that there is no explicit commentary nor “word from the Lord” to demand these families to be severed.

Providing an answer to this riddle is beyond the purpose of this essay. My point is in our commitment to setting the heart, studying the word, and living out the word in our individual lives, the weight of teaching is likewise an important discipline that should be taken with the heavy responsibility that comes with it.

The Lord’s brother James wrote:

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body. (James 3:1–2)

Humility must always accompany study and teaching (Rom 2:1–11).

Final Thoughts

I am forever grateful for those who took the time to encourage me, prod me, and guide me to appreciate the special place Bible study is in the spiritual life and growth of God’s people. I would like to give a quick hat tip to them at the close of this essay.

Donald W. Hinds (1922–2008) taught me and encouraged me to read daily and widely, to be challenged by what I read, and to meditate carefully on it. His son David Hinds taught me the importance of finding the right book and the right teacher (author), in that some have so prepared themselves that if I should listen to other voices beyond the Bible, I should find such authors. I am thankful to Wayne Jackson (1961–2017), a true preacher’s preacher, who probably shaped my passion for the study of the Scriptures more so than anyone else in my early formative years through his writings in biblical studies (The Christian Courier), biblical apologetics (Apologetics Press, Inc.), and while a member of the church where he richly and profoundly proclaimed the scriptures.

Others have guided me along the way as well. Earl D. Edwards was one of my instructors in college, an elder in the church while I attended college, and a personal mentor during my early academic development. In him, I saw how the power of God’s word can so shape a man’s life with dignity, scholarship, and humility.

I wish I could say more about others, but I’ll save that for another time. These are but a few personal encounters with those who have lived out and assisted me to see that the “Ezra Principle” is not a “cute” title, but essential for the spiritual formation that comes from following God and his word. I pray that you take its challenge.

Endnotes

  1. Unless cited otherwise, all Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2016).
  2. Nancy deClaissé-Walford, “Book Five of the Psalter: Psalms 107–150,” in The Book of Psalms, NICOT, eds. E. J. Young, R. K. Harrison, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014), 870.
  3. M. J. Boda, “Ezra,” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 278.
  4. Craig L. Blomberg and Mariam J. Kamell, James, ZECNT, ed. Clinton E. Arnold (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 101.
  5. Steven J. Lawson, “The Pattern of Biblical Preaching: An Expository Study of Ezra 7:10 and Nehemiah 8:1–18,” BSac 158 (2001): 451.
  6. I am reminded of an “authorized” campus flyer I came across advertising a community college course on “The Bible as Literature” at the City College of San Francisco. It had a picture of the Bible with a sticker label on it that read:

    —-
    WARNING: This is a work of fiction. Do not interpret literally.

    CONTENT ADVISORY: Contains verses descriptive of or advocating suicide, incest, bestiality, sadomasochism, rape, murder, morbid violence, use of drugs or alcohol, homosexuality, criminal activity, human rights violations, and crimes against humanity.

    EXPOSURE WARNING: Exposure to contents for extended periods or during formative years in children has been known to cause delusions, hallucinations, decreased cognitive and objective reasoning abilities, and in extreme cases, pathological disorders, hatred, bigotry, and violence including, but not limited to torture, murder, and genocide.
    —-

    Are there stories in Scripture that record horrific events? Yes. Are they documented to promote such behavior? No. They are recorded to document the fallen nature of the world we live in.

My First Biblical Library

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Bible Study, Books, Christian Leadership, New Testament, Old Testament, Personal Story

At 18 I began in earnest to expand my reading beyond the Bible and gathered literature to inform my studies of the Scriptures. Months after my conversion to the Christian faith, I began transforming my bedroom so that I could study. My main hurdle was that as a high school drop-out I had no “equipment” that I imagined other kids my age would have had at the time: a desk, a bookshelf, highlighters, paper–you get the picture–study stuff.

On top of that, I felt I had a lifetime of study to catch up on. After reading the gospels and coming to faith in Jesus, I wanted to know more. Sermons and Bible classes seemed to talk about things that just went over my head, and I had more questions than the preachers had time to sit with me. I had great teachers and they often answered my questions, but like Johnny Five–a warbot that became alive–I needed “more input.”

Back then Bible tracts were the best way to share Bible studies, essays, and mini-monographs. Today we would call these blog posts. As I collected, collated, and created a cache of these tracts I had a problem of organizing and housing them. My solution was to repurpose something from my gaming life.

I remember it well. It was an old Nintendo Entertainment System Cartridge Library. Originally, it was designed to hold 18 NES games on three columns with six slots. It was my first “bookshelf” dedicated to my training and knowledge building as a young Christian interested in biblical studies.

Above: This is not my original shelf, but someone on eBay is selling theirs if you’re in the market.

How My Library Began

My modest library began with tracts and booklets. An older preacher encouraged me to collect tracts and booklets on whatever topics I could find. Church foyers were like scavenger hunts in my quest to stockpile tracts on subjects I had not heard of before, or topics I wanted multiple studies on. The best part of it is they were free for the curious student.

Back then I used to don a moss green pullover jacket with a kangaroo pouch from Abercombie and Fitch. I would always find a way to “smuggle” some tracts out of every church service I attended. The outcome: a pile of tracts began to collect upon my desk.

There came a point when I did not know where to place my cache of tracts and booklets. So what was an eighteen-year-old, new convert, who had not grown up on Bible lessons and sermons to do? I needed to find a better way to organize my pile. Remember, the internet was still a hit-and-miss resource, and pretty much the wild, wild West when it came to content. Google would not be born, so no real search engines. If I wanted a digital encyclopedia I needed a computer and a CD-ROM. AOL reigned supreme. Amazon wouldn’t be consequential for years.

Amid the chaos of my childhood relics came the NES cartridge library case. It had served me well in the past to house my games. Now it would be my “little library” bookshelf to fuel my newest interest of reading a variety of theological topics.

And so it was; I began to organize my little volumes in alphabetical order. The tracts that would fit I kept organized within the NES Library, and as my library expanded the more I became resourceful to contain it (the larger ones when into my drawers). Not only would I be able to house and organize them, but I began to strengthen my reading muscles that had atrophied.

Today, I have a couple thousand volumes in my library. At times, I am surprised to think that it started with this little box about a foot long by 10 inches tall. Now I have books on shelves and in boxes, journals, and magazines in filing cabinets, the near-limitless possibilities of software and the internet allow for e-books and audiobooks.

In the process I have learned that some books are worth keeping, others reading and passing on, and still others worth discarding. Books are much like selecting fruit: the joy is all in picking and savoring. But the rotten ones need to be tossed away!

Everyone Needs a Biblical Library

I firmly believe that God intends for His people to be readers, thinkers, and meditators: 

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. (Deuteronomy 6:5 ESV)[1]

Simply looking at the word “heart” (lēbāb) should cause us to consider that it is “the totality of man’s inner or immaterial nature” by which God’s people must love God.[2] Its root lēb refers to three elements of this inner world: emotion, thought, and will.[3] Much like its counterpart in the Greek Old Testament and New Testament, the metaphoric use of kardía points to the center of “the whole inner life.”[4] The heart controls the spiritual culture of one’s inner world, and love for God leverages such control.

Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life. (Proverbs 4:23)

It is then important to inform the heart, guide the heart, and supply the heart with the meditations which will strengthen our faith. Reading is an essential aspect of our faith. There is no way around that. The content of the faith reaches the heart through the mind. To do that God gave us a collection of sixty-six volumes mediated through a wide range of literary genres and styles, each with different rules of engagement.

To be ignorant of God’s word is to be in a dangerous position. Hosea lamented saying that his people are destroyed due to a lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6). To be ignorant of how to approach scripture may equally be disastrous.

Moreover, the maintenance of our faith and impact upon our salvation is also to be accomplished through the “public reading” of the Scriptures. Paul makes this abundantly clear to Timothy (1 Tim 4:13; Col 4:16). And while the Bible is a book that can be understood by the average person, any astute reader of this small library will acknowledge that sometimes we need help to guide us through the text (Acts 8:30–31).

To be a diligent student of God’s word requires us to explore other areas of knowledge. From Geography to regional political backgrounds; or from linguistics to religious thematic studies, etc., – good resources are essential to illuminate the text to promote an accurate understanding. Helpful resources prevent us–readers separated by thousands of years–from making uninformed conclusions.

This principle has been well stated:

[I]t is the epitome of folly to ignore the labors of countless Bible scholars across the centuries who have made available, by means of the printed page, the results of their research.[5]

Wayne Jackson, A Study Guide to Greater Bible Knowledge (1986)

There seems to be a connection, then, between being “people of the book” and being “book people.” It is one of the tragic currents of contemporary Christianity that it has become of religion that embraces being “people of emotion” rather than God’s written word–the subjective over the objective.

Every Christian and Christian home should have a budding romance with good literature which reinforces an understanding of God’s word, the Christian worldview, and engage reading that critiques our views.

Build A Library

There is a sense in which we will always be learning. In the apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus, the grandson of Jesus ben Sirach (c. mid-second century BC) writes about the importance of reading for spiritual growth:

Many great teachings have been given to us through the Law and the Prophets and the others that followed them, and for these we should praise Israel for instruction and wisdom. Now, those who read the scriptures must not only themselves understand them, but must also as lovers of learning be able through the spoken and written word to help the outsiders. So my grandfather Jesus, who had devoted himself especially to the reading of the Law and the Prophets and the other books of our ancestors, and had acquired considerable proficiency in them, was himself also led to write something pertaining to instruction and wisdom, so that by becoming familiar also with his book those who love learning might make even greater progress in living according to the law. (Ecclesiastes/Sirach Prologue, NRSV)[6]

Reading the scriptures and “other books” can be very helpful. They create dialogue partners. When I opened those little tracts, I would often think what can this person add to my thinking about this topic. Sometimes I learned how to best summarize an idea, other times I learned about an approach to avoid. Some tracts proved outdated in the examples, but strong in the timeless instruction. There were plenty of times, the author would address the topic so firmly and with the conviction it was of “vital importance” but I left the conversation unconvinced or worse confused. Reading is a battlefield, but that is where we learn.

I soon began to find authors who had a gift for writing and I began to single them out. There is something artistic and soul-nourishing to be found in good writing–whether I always agree with the author(s) or not in every detail.

I started going to used book stores to find books and authors referenced in my little library. I found a small paperback copy of Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis (1898–1963) for a few bucks. I bought that and a Bible–the shop owner gave me the Bible. I found his writing style so compelling and personal. Lewis had a knack for not just pulling you in with his preliminary words but he could hold you together disarmingly well as he made his case for Christian theism or philosophy.

At a Gospel Meeting in South San Francisco, CA, I heard a preacher–Wayne Jackson (1937–2020)–who I had only read in his articles. I purchased a copy of his A Study Guide to Greater Bible Knowledge. To this day, it is probably one of the most important books in my personal developement as a young Christian. Jackson had a crisp, no fluff, popular writing style which made reading an enjoyable experience. Whether you agreed with him or not, he never left you to wonder if you understood his conclusion.

There is little doubt in my mind that reading is an experience of the soul, and we should do what we can to have the best, brightest, and engaging soul experiences possible. Reading has been my main strategy for fulfilling Paul’s command:

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12:1–2)

For this reason, I encourage everyone to build their own personal library.

Some Suggestions

I offer five (5) suggestions about what types of books should be included in a personal Bible-focused library. Solomon reminds us, “of making many books there is no end” (Eccl 12:12).

(1) Choose materials that respect biblical inspiration and authority.

Moses told the Israelites not to “add” or “take from” the Lord’s word:

You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you. (Deuteronomy 4:2)

John closes the Revelation with the same sobering warning (22:18–19).

God’s word is to be respected and observed without any intrusion of human opinion. It is a hard task to limit our opinions but if we are vigilant we can acknowledge them or debunk them in our study. Every word within the sacred text is from God (2 Tim 3:16–17). Consequently, it is important to select literature that is in keeping with these truths.

(2) Choose materials that have ongoing usefulness.

Not one can be expected to know everything, not even the expert. One of the keys to learning is to know where to locate information.

For this reason, I highly recommended getting access to Bible dictionaries, encyclopedias, handbooks, and Bible atlases. Most of these types of resources are available digitally.

Use them to refresh your mind, to introduce you to a topic, or expand your thinking. These resources are indispensable.

(3) Choose materials that illuminate the biblical text.

There is too much spiritual fluff peddled in the “Christian” markets. They do little to help understand the Scriptures. They may provide personal inspirational value, but they do not offer textual insight.

In his book Making Sense of the Old Testament, Old Testament scholar Tremper Longman, III, reminds us to respect the fact that the Bible we read is an ancient text, translated from an ancient language, set in an ancient world with ancient socio-economic customs. We would be wise to recognize the danger of imposing our own modern perspective when reading them.[7] This caution applies for both testaments.

It is important to include special background studies which will improve one’s knowledge of the world of the Scripture (archaeology, word studies, culture, and religion, etc.). These often contain information that is often inaccessible. Today, however, specialty blogs, background Study Bibles, and websites provide greater access to this information.

(4) Choose materials that have practical importance for a life of faith.

It is important to obtain practical and useful volumes which address marriage and the family, Christian Apologetics, how the Bible came to man, Christian history and denominationalism.

Books on doubt, the problem of pain and suffering, moral issues, or matters of personal nature are also important for faith development; issues that confront our faith daily.

In an age when we often feel our way to a conclusion, we must fight against the current and reason our way to solid ground.

(5) Choose faithful authors who are experts in their field.

An important criterion for selecting books is that they are written by those of proven worth, ability, and faithfulness. Some authors are well known for their knowledge depth on particular matters – experts.

No one would want a self-trained novice operating on them; but rather, a board-certified surgeon. So it is with those authors we invite into our minds and engage in our studies in the Scriptures.

Concluding Thoughts

As we conclude, we pray that our readers will begin to build a useful faith-building library. It does take time and money to accumulate the needed volumes, but the results of such an investment are tremendous. As Desiderius Erasmus (1469-1536) once said, “When I get a little money I buy books, and if any is left I buy food and clothes“.[8] Only someone who knew the value of study and learning could make such an irrational statement.

In the shadow of Paul’s final days, he asks Timothy to have John Mark accompany him on Timothy’s visit to the imprisoned apostle in Rome (2 Tim 2:11). Among the items Paul requests is a cloak, “the books” (to biblia), and “the parchments” (tas membranas; cf. 2 Tim 2:13).

There is no telling exactly what “the books” are but evidence shows that the apostle was quite familiar with a wider world of literature (cf. Acts 17); yet, “the parchments” is a unique technical term referring to a codice (a bound volume like a book) which retains copies of letters – possibly his letters.[9]

The point we conclude with is that as Christians we have a long tradition of reading and studying. Let us not lose sight of this noble task. Let our homes be a place where we may have access to resources to better inform our faith in order that we may do the most important work ahead of us – understanding and applying Scripture.

Sources

  1. Unless otherwise stated all quotations of The Holy Bible are from the English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016).
  2. Andrew Bowling, “lēbāb,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 466.
  3. TWOT 466.
  4. Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, rev. ed. (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart, 2003).
  5. Wayne Jackson, A Study Guide to Greater Bible Knowledge (Stockton, CA: Apologetics Press, 1986), 83.
  6. New Revised Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1989).
  7. Tremper Longman, III, Making Sense of the Old Testament: Three Crucial Questions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006).
  8. Desiderius Erasmus, “Desiderius Erasmus Quotes”, ThinkExist.com.
  9. E. Randolph Richards, “The Codex and the Early Collection of Paul’s Letters,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 8 (1998): 159-62.

God as Cause: The Cosmological Argument

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Christian Apologetics, Christian Evidences, Cosmological, Glendale Gleaner, Published, Theology, Theology

I clearly remember my elementary school science lesson of “cause and effect.” For every effect, there must be a sufficient and adequate cause. It is one of those self-evident truths of the natural world. Yet, when applied to the origin of our universe the matter becomes a disputable principle. For some time now, some physicists, like Dr. Victor Stenger, are on record affirming, “Not everything requires a cause.”[1] Meanwhile, the Hebrews writer affirms, “For every house is builded by some one; but he that built all things is God” (3:4 ASV).[2] Well, what about this “structure” —the universe— that houses “all things”? Is there an adequate cause to explain it? Is there reason to believe it was built by Someone? We, here, affirm that there is a reason to believe God exists.

There are four independent categories of arguments[3] used to provide a basis for believing a personal God exists, that we are not alone in the universe; and, more importantly, that our experiences have meaning and purpose. They all have their strengths, their appeal, and areas which the dispute naturally centers on. Yet, they are all valid reasons to make the case that God exists. Now, let us turn to the argument at hand.

Cosmological arguments are a group of arguments focused on establishing the “cause and effect” link between God (cause) and the universe (effect), by examining the effect and seeking an adequate and sufficient cause to explain it. In other words, it is based on a well established and self-evident principle of the world in which we live. Naturally, then, there are broad and narrow forms of the cosmological argument. A narrow form would be to focus on the origin of human beings as Thomas B. Warren did in his debate with then atheist Antony Flew.[4] We will be considering, however, the broad form, namely the origin of the universe (nothing too big).

First, we will reflect on the Bible’s cosmological affirmations, and then secondly, we will suggest a reasonable argument that affirms that the universe had a cause, and that cause is God.

Arguments from Revelation

The essence of the cosmological argument is found in the Bible. Consider a few examples. The very first line of scripture makes the clear “cause and effect” affirmation, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Some readers of Genesis think that since there are poetic elements to this creation narrative (i.e., “God said,” “God saw,” measured creation days, etc.) its historicity is questionable; however, as Old Testament scholar Clyde Woods points out the passage conspicuously lacks Hebrew parallelism, “the fundamental characteristic of Hebrew poetry.”[5] Nevertheless, while the passage is stylistically shaped, artistry does not by itself dimmish its historic claims. Would one question the historicity of the “Star Spangled Banner” commemorating the Battle of Fort McHenry in the War of 1812 simply because it is stylized? In a clearly “narrative” text, Moses affirms: “for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is” (Exodus 20:11). 

The “Creation Hymn” psalms also offer cosmological affirmations. They extoll the power and greatness of God and display the sense of wonder, confidence, and admiration filling the psalmist.[6] In Psalm 19, David praises God:

“The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament showeth his handiwork.” (Psalm 19:1)

In Psalm 8, David reflects on both the universe and the status of humanity as part of this universe: 

“When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers… For thou hast made [mankind] but little lower than God [lit. heavenly beings]” (Psalm 8:3, 5).

The universe (i.e., “heavens”) exists because of the will of God. David praises God for creating the universe and for creating humanity (cf. 139:7–16). This emphasis on the universe and humanity, reflects both the broad (the universe) and the narrow (mankind) forms of the cosmological argument.

The New Testament likewise affirms the cosmological argument. A biblical faith accepts that the universe was made by God —ex nihilo— from nothing (Hebrews 11:2). The prologue of the Gospel of John affirms that Jesus is the agent of creation.

In the beginning was the Word… The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. (John 1:1–3; cf. v. 14)

The Father brought “all things” into being through the pre-incarnate Lord Jesus. In a very real sense, then, Jesus is the cosmological argument.

The apostle Paul employed the cosmological argument on several occasions. Acts records sermons where he affirms natural theology (Acts 14:15; 17:24) to Greeks and Romans building his plea from the God who made the world. In Romans 1:19–20, Paul pointedly affirms that the testimony of the visible world reveals the attributes of the invisible Creator, namely, “his everlasting power and divinity.” Those that reject such evidence, he argues, are “without excuse.” Finally, Paul lifts up Jesus as the one who created “all things” and presently holds everything together (Colossians 1:16–17).

Arguments from Reason

Providing reasons for our belief in a personal God from nature and reason is found throughout Scripture. It is an act of faith and a natural outflow of loving the Lord with all our heart and mind (Deuteronomy 6:5; Matthew 22:26). We should be very clear, that God has provided sufficient witness in the world to point us back to him. Yet, when asked why we believe in God and have hope in Jesus (1 Peter 3:15), it would be wise to think outside “the book” since for many quoting the Bible is insufficient.

Even when fully convicted that truth is on our side, we must face the truth of Alvin Plantinga’s words, “there are no proofs of God that will convince all rational persons.”[7] But that has always been the story even among believers (Isaiah 53:1; Luke 16:27–30).

All we can do is present our reasons hoping that the “accumulated weight” of such arguments will be hard to ignore. After all, as biochemist Dr. Joseph DeWeese (Lipscomb University) once said,

“Creationists and evolutionists don’t have different evidence… we have different filters through which we understand and interpret that data.”[8]

Joseph DeWeese, “Why I am a Creationist.”

We share our “filter” in hopes it will persuade them to see that the universe points us to “clues” which point to God as the only adequate answer to existence.

Apologist Dr. Ralph Gilmore (Freed-Hardeman University) stresses that the heart of the cosmological arguments centers on three key concepts: causality, necessity (necessary existence), and contingency (contingent existence).

  1. Causality stresses the cause and effect connection between A and B (A causes B, or B is caused by A). This is the causal relationship.
  2. Necessity means that A necessarily exists due to its essence which makes A impossible to not exist.
  3. Contingency points to the dependency B has upon another for its existences, it has an “iffy” existence (B only exists “if…”). Thus, contingency points to non-eternal things or existence and implies the need for another to bring it into existences.

So, if the universe exists (and it does), its existence must be explained. It is as simple as that.[9] It is either here by necessity or contingently. Does it necessarily exists —is it eternal? Is it dependent upon itself —did it create itself? Did something outside of itself bring it into existence —God? Many have tried to side-step the force of this issue, but not without breaking away from the rules of proper thinking and established scientific knowledge.

The cosmological argument presented here stresses in the simplest terms that the universe began and has a cause for its existence. It is called the Kalam Cosmological Argument and was developed by Arabic philosophers of the late Middle Ages (kalam means “Arabic philosophy”).[10] One of these Arabic philosophers was the twelfth-century theologian Al-Ghazali, and his argument has been employed by theists of various persuasions ever since. It is considered one of the foundations of modern Christian apologetic approaches to establishing a positive philosophical case for the existence of God.

In his volume, On Guard, Apologist William Lane Craig summarizes Al-Ghazali’s argument into three simply stated premises:[11]

Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

Premise 3: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Craig asserts that this is a “logically airtight argument” because in order to deny premise 3 (“the universe has a cause”) one must prove that the first two premises are false. Though the issues are complex we will examine some of the objections made against premises 1 and 2.

Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause

Craig affirms that in order to deny premise 1 two things must be argued: (1) that contrary to experience something can come from nothing and (2) that the universe broke into existence for no reason whatsoever – that is, without a cause.

To invalidate premise 1, some have appealed to subatomic particles (or, virtual particles, elementary particles), which are the basic building blocks of “all matter.” This includes elements which are “various self-contained units of matter or energy”[12] such as electrons, protons, neutrons, etc., and even the smaller parts which make them up. Some have argued that such can appear and disappear from nothing. From this, it is then argued that premise 1 does not always hold true. 

Craig reminds us that these particles, however, emerged in a vacuum which is not the same thing as “nothing,” for “in physics, the vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy governed by physical laws and having a physical structure.”[13] It has contours so to speak. Nothing, on the other hand, has no properties at all. Zero. Meaning, then, that nothing remains to be nothing; whereas, something can emerge in a vacuum.

This is not a controversial assertion. In a 2013 article posted on the Scientific American website entitled, “Something from Nothing? A Vacuum can Yield Flashes of Light,” Charles Q. Choi discusses the Casimir Effect, which was predicted in 1948 by Hendrick Casimir and measured in 1996 by Steve K. Lamoreaux.[14] This “effect” is a measurable phenomenon in quantum field theory. It basically says that the vacuum is not empty space but is full of virtual particles and their electromagnetic wavelengths which leave behind measurable effects.[15]

These subatomic particles have a “quirky” nature. However, though they seem to appear and disappear from nothing, in reality, they are emerging from the complex structure of the vacuum governed by the laws of thermodynamics. Consider Choi’s words:

Quantum physics explains that there are limits to how precisely one can know the properties of the most basic units of matter—for instance, one can never absolutely know a particle’s position and momentum at the same time. One bizarre consequence of this uncertainty is that a vacuum is never completely empty, but instead buzzes with so-called “virtual particles” that constantly wink into and out of existence. These virtual particles often appear in pairs that near-instantaneously cancel themselves out. Still, before they vanish, they can have very real effects on their surroundings. (Italics added)[16]

Charles Q. Choi, “Something from Nothing? A Vacuum can Yield Flashes of Light,” ScientificAmerican.com

If someone were then seeking evidence that something can come from nothing and without cause, subatomic particles, it appears, is not that evidence. They do not emerge from nothing, they emerge from the vacuum.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist

The focus of the denial of premise 2 centers on denying that the universe began. Those that deny that the universe had a beginning appeal to concepts which are a bit complex. Case in point, some have said that the universe must be potentially a part of an infinite series of finite (contingent, “iffy”) causes.

In other words, looking backward, the universe has a whole series of causes, but no ultimate cause. There is no real line to separate a time from when the universe did not exist to when it began to exist. The same is true when looking forward. There is no real moment when the present causes will cease with the end of the universe.

Craig raises two problems to this approach. First, an infinite series of finite (contingent) causes cannot be potentially infinite at the same time. let me add another element to this claim. We must keep in mind that this infinite series of causes is made up of finite, or contingent causes. As Gilmore reminds us above contingency points to non-eternal things or existence, and this implies the need for another to bring it into existences. This denial has not solved the problem for it only further extends the dependent state of the universe indefinitely. This is not a solution.

In addition, it is significant to understand that the mathematical concept infinity (symbolically as ∞) is just that — conceptual; it does not exist in reality.[17] This is not controversial mathematics. Physicist Dr. Tom Hartsfield’s article, “Infinity is Not Real,” from the blog Real Clear Science (6 Aug 2013) outlines how problematic infinity would be if it were real.[18]

In summary, Hartsfield explains that while the concept of infinity is incredibly valuable for fields such as mathematics, physics, and philosophy, when brought into our world of measurable things it ruins all mathematical comparisons. It would require rewriting the rules for counting and division. For example, 6/2=3 and 6+2=8. Makes sense. Now observe infinity in the following mathematical sentences: 6/∞=0 and 6+∞=∞. Makes no sense in our world. “Compared to infinity,” Hartsfield points out, “every other number is nothing.” He concludes:

In our material, measurable world, though, infinity is never a real, physical quantity; it is only an abstraction. A mathematician can tell you about an infinite set of numbers, but as much as he wishes, he can’t find you a cup of coffee with infinite joe. That “bottomless” cup of coffee eventually runs dry.[19]

Tom Hartsfield, “Infinity is Not Real,” BigThink.com

The universe cannot exist due to an infinite set of causes in the past or the future, because actual infinities do not grow or shrink. Thus, you cannot drink infinite coffee out of a cup of infinite coffee, and still, have the same amount of infinite coffee left over. Infinity does not shrink or grow. This well-established application of infinity, then, supports that the universe began to exist and is not the result of an infinite set of causes.

A second problem is found in this arguments rejection of the established thermodynamics laws of nature. These laws clearly establish that the universe had a beginning. Dr. Don B. DeYoung calls them, “the two most basic laws in the entire science realm.”[20] He summarizes them as follows:

The first law states that energy is conserved or constant at all times. Energy, in whichever of its many forms, absolutely can be neither created nor destroyed. This rule ensures a dependable and predictable universe, whether for stars or for human life…

The second basic law of nature also involves energy. It describes unavoidable losses in any process whatsoever which involves the transfer of energy. The energy does not disappear, but some always becomes unavailable, often as unusable heat. Stated in another way, everything deteriorates, breaks down, and becomes less ordered with time.[21]

Don B. DeYoung, “Physics,” in In Six Days (2001)

The second law, known as entropy, says that “unless energy is being fed into a [closed] system, that system will become increasingly disorderly.”[22] Imagine an unopened carbonated bottle of soda. Over time the soda in the bottle will lose its fizz and go flat. That analogy reflects the effects of entropy on the universe.

This implies a few things. First, eventually all the energy in the universe will eventually spread itself evenly throughout the universe, and the usable energy will decrease and the universe will “flatline” like the soda analogy. This is a fixed issue.

Second, since we are not in a present state of disorder, and energy is still available, then our universe has not had an infinite past. As Craig points out, “we’re in a state of disequilibrium, where energy is still available to be used and the universe has an orderly structure.”[23] Since an infinite set of events is a complete number of events, we should be experiencing entropy (equilibrium), but we are not.

And third, this “running down” (entropy) of our universe implies that it had a beginning. Even the late Stephen Hawking affirmed:

Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.[24]

Whether one’s cosmology (view of the origin of the universe) includes the Big Bang model or not, the universe had a beginning. In order to have a “running down” ending, there must have been a point when all the available energy was at its peak. Much like our cell phones, the fact that the battery will die implies that it was fully charged at its beginning. For our universe, then, the fact that it will “flatline” in what is called the “heat death” points to a time when it was new and full of energy.

Premises 1 and 2, then, still hold firm, and they should be upheld as formidable arguments that the universe and all that is in it had a beginning. It had a beginning and was brought into being (Premise 3) by a Cause Who necessarily exists due to His essence, namely God.

Concluding Thoughts

At times, well-meaning Christians do not feel compelled to enter debates like this, yet the apostle Peter told his Christian readers to be “ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).

At other times, well-meaning Christians see the damage often done when entering such discussions. As my friend Jeremy Marshall cautions, “preachers tell the story of the home [the human story] while scientists tell the story of the house [the natural world]; preachers err when they try to tell the story of the house, and scientists err when they try to tell the story of the home.” I agree, but Someone brought both the house and the home into existence, and these point us back to Him (Romans 1:19-20).

Let us remember one significant point to all of this:

[I]f there was ever a time when absolutely nothing existed, then there would be nothing now, for nothing produces nothing but nothingness! Since something does exist, it must follow logically that something has existed always [namely, God].[25]

Wayne Jackson in Surveying the Evidence (2008)

Endnotes

  1. Qtd. in Jeff Miller, “Can Quantum Mechanics Produce a Universe from Nothing?“
  2. All Scripture references are taken from the American Standard Version unless otherwise noted.
  3. The ontological, cosmological, teleological, and the moral/axiological.
  4. Thomas B. Warren and Antony N. Flew. The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God. Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press, 1977. The link leads you to the video version of the debate.
  5. Clyde Woods, “Concerning Creation —Genesis 1,” in New Beginnings: God, Man and Redemption in Genesis, ed. David L. Lipe (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University, 2001), 488.
  6. Roland E. Murphy, The Gift of the Psalms (2000; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 44.
  7. Timothy Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Dutton, 2008), 128, italics added.
  8. Joe Deweese, “Why I am a Creationist – Joe Deweese, Biochemist.” Youtube.com.
  9. Wayne Jackson, et al., Surveying the Evidence (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 2008), 24–25.
  10. Bruce Milne, Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief, 3rd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 68–69.
  11. William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Colorado Springs, CO: Cook, 2010), 74.
  12. Christine Sutton, “Subatomic Particle,” Encyclopedia Britannica.
  13. Craig, On Guard, 74.
  14. Charles Q. Choi, “Something from Nothing? A Vacuum can Yield Flashes of Light,” ScientificAmerican.com, 2013.
  15. Choi, “Something from Nothing?”; Stephen Reucroft and John Swain, “What is the Casimir Effect?,” ScientificAmerican.com.
  16. Choi, “Something from Nothing?”
  17. Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 103.
  18. Tom Hartsfield, “Infinity is Not Real,” Real Clear Science; BigThink.com.
  19. Hartsfield, “Infinity is Not Real.”
  20. Don B. DeYoung, “Physics,” in In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, ed. John F. Ashton (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2001), 342–43.
  21. DeYoung, “Physics,” 342–43.
  22. Craig, On Guard, 93.
  23. Craig, On Guard, 92.
  24. Qtd. in Keller, The Reason for God, 128, italics added.
  25. Wayne Jackson, Surveying the Evidence, 25–26.

Suggested Reading

Ashton, John F. Editor. In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2001.

Baxter, Batsell Barrett. I Believe Because… A Study of the Evidence Supporting Christian Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1971.

Choi, Charles Q. “Something from Nothing? A Vacuum can Yield Flashes of Light.” ScientificAmerican.com. 2013.

Craig, William Lane. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision. Colorado Springs, CO: Cook, 2010.

Dickson, Roger E. The Dawn of Belief. Winona, MS: Choate Publications, 1997.

Geisler, Norman L., and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004.

Jackson, Wayne, Eric Lyons, and Kyle Butt. Surveying the Evidence. Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 2008.

Keller, Timothy. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. New York: Dutton, 2008.

Lewis, C. S. God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics. Edited by Walter Hooper. 1970. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994.

Miller, Jeff. “Can Quantum Mechanics Produce a Universe from Nothing?” ApologeticsPress.org.

Milne, Bruce. Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief. 3rd edition. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009.

Moreland, J. P. Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1997.

____. Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity. 1987. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1988.

Morris, Henry M. Compiler. That Their Words May be Used Against Them: Quotes from Evolutionists Useful for Christians. San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1997.

Reucroft, Stephen, and John Swain. “What is the Casimir Effect?” ScientificAmerican.com.

Shelly, Rubel. Prepare to Answer: A Defense of the Christian Faith. Nashville, TN: 21st Century Christian, 1990.

Sire, James W. The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog. 5th edition. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009.

Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004.

Sutton, Christine. “Subatomic Particle.” Encyclopedia Britannica.

Warren, Thomas B., and Antony N. Flew. The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God. Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press, 1977.

This is a much-expanded version of the article originally published in The Glendale Gleaner (Newbern, TN: Glendale church of Christ).