[Note: This message is the prepared text for a sermon delivered to the Dalles congregation of the United Church of God on Sabbath, August 31, 2024.]

In the previous two messages in this series we have discussed Moses as an ideal judge and examined the nature of judges in the Book of Judges. This time we will focus on what the Bible has to say about judges in the New Testament. In doing so we will look at how the Bible portrays judges and their behavior as well as what the bible says about members and our role in serving as judges both now and in the world to come. We will work our hardest in this exploration of judges and judging in the past, present, and future as organized as possible as we look to understand what the Bible has to say on the subject.

What does the New Testament say about judges and judgment? Let us begin by studying two parables. First, let us turn to Luke 18:1-8. Luke 18:1-8 reads: “Then He spoke a parable to them, that men always ought to pray and not lose heart, saying: “There was in a certain city a judge who did not fear God nor regard man.  Now there was a widow in that city; and she came to him, saying, ‘Get justice for me from my adversary.’  And he would not for a while; but afterward he said within himself, ‘Though I do not fear God nor regard man, yet because this widow troubles me I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.’ ” Then the Lord said, “Hear what the unjust judge said.  And shall God not avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him, though He bears long with them? I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?””

Let us note that the purpose of this parable, as we see, is to encourage believers to continue to pray to God because just as persistent prayer can even wear down unjust and corrupt judges who do not fear God or care about what others think–more on this later–so to the patient and persistent faith of believers can lead God to avenge His believers. It is also worthwhile to note that in this case the widow is seeking justice from the judge. She is in the place of the plaintiff, desiring the courts to work on her behalf and for her interests. Yet because she is a widow, she presumably does not have the means to engage in the usual bribery to motivate a judge to action. We tend to think of judges as people who could stand in judgement over us for our sins, putting ourselves in the point of view of the defendant who desires mercy, and that perspective is certainly one that the Bible considers and that we will shortly explore in more detail. That said, sometimes we have a case to make and we have interests to protect and wrongs that need to be righted, and so we are on the offense seeking judges to act in our behalf to enforce the law for our benefit. Within certain boundaries, this is by no means an unhealthy attitude.

It is necessary to point out, though, that the Bible does not view this position as an unmixed blessing, because often we find ourselves in the position of being on both sides of a judge, and finding that God tends to combine cases together in ways that we may not always appreciate. Let us, for example, turn to another parable, which we find in Matthew 18:21-35. Matthew 18:21-35 comes at the end of a chapter that deals with how we should approach problems with other brethren, and it gives us a harrowing example of what happens when we seek to be prosecutors of our brethren, seeking justice against them while seeking simultaneously for mercy from God. God does not accept this as an appropriate response, and it behooves us to consider this case closely when we examine our own behavior with regards to fellow brethren. Matthew 18:21-35 reads: “Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants.  And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents.  But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made.  The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, ‘Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’  Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt. “But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’  So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’  And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt.  So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done.  Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me.  Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’  And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.””

This particular passage has some very personal relevance to me that happens to also be relevant to the point of the passage and to its application to God’s judgment, so I hope you will indulge me in telling a bit of a personal story. A bit less than fifteen years ago, there was a time of great difficulty within the United Church of God, and I was very vocal in support of the Home Office in those difficulties. During that time, some online friends of mine found a speech of one of the pastors who was most vocal in opposition to the Home Office that had spoken eloquently and fiercely against rebellion in a previous time of difficulty that had happened six years earlier when I was a student at the Ambassador Bible Center. I sent this pastor his own message, saying that it described very well the problem of rebellion and that the minister ought to read the sermon transcript and take its message to heart. The reply I got from the pastor was terse and quite unfriendly, telling me that I ought to drop dead seventy times seven. As we all know, speakers of sermon messages and ministers within the Church of God are human beings like the rest of us, subject to feeling angry at having our own words thrown at us, and it was no doubt very uncharitable for me to use a minister’s words against him in such a fashion, though I did not do so publicly and had at least some hope that he would consider that God judges rebellion with the same standards and framework regardless of whether one happens to be personally on the side of rebels or the side of authority. He did not do so, and instead of forgiving me for what was an admittedly impertinent and pointed act, viewed me as a personal enemy for the rest of his life.

Let us resolve to be wiser than the minister I dealt with and consider what this passage is telling us. Though we saw that Jesus Christ viewed the widow seeking justice with favor, those who seek justice against others while simultaneously seeking mercy from God are likely to find themselves deeply disappointed. We all are subject to wrong others, sometimes with a bit of malice or at least mischief, the latter which was the case for me in my dealings with the opposing minister, and others may very well resent the debt that we owe them, spiritually speaking, for the wrongs that we have committed against them. This passage indicates that the sinning fellow servant owed a hundred denarii. This was not an insignificant amount of money, as it was 100 days worth of labor, which in terms of present wages would be $12,000 at the minimum wage in Portland of $15 an hour. It is an act of considerable mercy to forgive someone of that sort of debt. But the unforgiving servant, like the rest of us, had sinned far more against God, and we must all remember, no matter how deeply we are wronged by others, that we have debts against God that are far greater than others owe us and that are indeed far greater than we can pay ourselves. The unforgiving servant owed his master–God–as a result of his sins, the truly staggering amount of ten thousand talents. A single talent is 70 pounds of gold. A pound has sixteen ounces, and at the time I wrote this sermon, gold was worth a bit more than $2500 per ounce. Doing some quick math, that comes up to a bit more than $2.8 million per talent, or just north of $28 billion for ten thousand talents. I don’t know about you, but if I was on the hook for that sort of debt, I have no idea how I would even begin to repay that, and I imagine the same is true for most of you as well. Jesus’ point was clear: we owe considerable sums to others through our sins against others, but we owe truly staggering sums to God through a lifetime of sins, and have no hope of repayment, and so we ought to be as merciful as possible to those who owe us much less in comparison given that God ties our being forgiven for sins with our forgiveness of others. Being merciful and forgiving doesn’t seem like such an imposition when we consider how much we have to be forgiven for.

It is essentially this problem that makes justice in the contemporary world such a big problem. We live in a world that claims to want justice, but those who claim to be social justice warriors are so insensitive to both the debts that they owe to others through casual racism against whites and sexism against men, for example, and even more insensitive to the debts they have against God for their lives devoted to the practice of all manner of deliberate sins against God’s laws that the debts that they seek to be paid for in reparations for the wrongs done mostly to their more blameless ancestors is truly an insignificant speck in comparison to the debts they ring up by refusing to follow those ways of God that they are familiar with–to say nothing about those parts of the law they are ignorant of. The unforgiving seekers of “justice” in our world are following the evil example of the unforgiving servant of this parable, and we would do well not to follow their example, seeing as we are told that servant’s grim fate.

Given the two parables we have seen so far, we can gather a few general approaches to follow for how the New Testament portrays judges and judgment. For one, the New Testament views many judges as being corrupt, and views human beings as being highly subject to being in the wrong, both of which combine to make judges people to avoid being in front of if possible. As we will see in this next section of the message, it was not always possible even for the godly believers of the early church to avoid facing problems with judges, and it is worthwhile to examine how it is that the New Testament views the encounters between believers and flesh and blood judges, not only in parables but in historical accounts. In so doing we will come to an understanding of the context in which the judges of the first century operated, and perhaps have a basis of comparison to look at how judges behave in our own context as early 21st century Americans.

One of the most notable situations where we see someone dealing with the behavior of judges is when we look at the trials of Jesus Christ. Amazingly, the Gospels records that over a period of only a few hours several trials of Jesus Christ took place, all of them highly unjust (as they would have to be to convict the only perfectly innocent man who has ever existed) and highly irregular. Let us examine two of those trials. First, let us turn to Matthew 26:57-68. This passage tells us of the trial of Jesus in front of the man who was high priest that year, the corrupt Caiaphas. Matthew 26:57-68 reads: “And those who had laid hold of Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. But Peter followed Him at a distance to the high priest’s courtyard. And he went in and sat with the servants to see the end. Now the chief priests, the elders, and all the council sought false testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none. Even though many false witnesses came forward, they found none. But at last two false witnesses came forward and said, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.’ ” And the high priest arose and said to Him, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?”  But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy!  What do you think?” They answered and said, “He is deserving of death.” Then they spat in His face and beat Him; and others struck Him with the palms of their hands, saying, “Prophesy to us, Christ! Who is the one who struck You?””

If one chooses to read the Talmud to see the civil rights that defendants were supposed to enjoy under Jewish law, there are a lot of problems with this particular trial, which would similarly fail to pass muster under contemporary rules of jurisprudence as well. Obsessed on finding a capital charge, the prosecutors keep parading false witnesses in order to attempt to gin up a serious enough charge, until two false witnesses can be found to make the claim that Jesus’ statement about his own time dead as being three days was a statement against the temple was brought up, a misunderstanding of a genuine quote of his at least, before the prosecutors seek to goad Jesus into making a comment that will justify the death penalty, leading to a true and innocuous comment about the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven and sitting at the right hand of God the father, a hint of Psalm 110:1 that was later seen under similarly fatal circumstances by the deacon Stephen just before he was killed by a lynch mob led by the pre-conversion apostle Paul, about whom we will have more to say shortly.

While this particular trial was a travesty of justice, it was not the most ridiculous of the trials to which Jesus Christ was subjected. My own choice for that would be the disgraceful farce that was the trial of Jesus before Herod Antipas, told in Luke 23:6-12. Luke 23:6-12 reads: “When Pilate heard ^[b]of Galilee, he asked if the Man were a Galilean.  And as soon as he knew that He belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent Him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time.  Now when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceedingly glad; for he had desired for a long time to see Him, because he had heard many things about Him, and he hoped to see some miracle done by Him.  Then he questioned Him with many words, but He answered him nothing.  And the chief priests and scribes stood and vehemently accused Him.  Then Herod, with his men of war, treated Him with contempt and mocked Him, arrayed Him in a gorgeous robe, and sent Him back to Pilate.  That very day Pilate and Herod became friends with each other, for previously they had been at enmity with each other.”

It is strange, but rather significant, that this particular trial allowed Pilate and Herod Antipas to become friends. Nothing binds people together in fond friendship faster than sharing in injustices committed against others though, I suppose. Herod, seeing Jesus’ residence in Galilee as a means of passing off a potentially difficult case to a fellow ruler, sends Jesus Christ over to Herod Antipas. This unserious Herodian, curious about Jesus Christ and desiring to see him do some miracles, gets bored at Jesus’ silence and he and his soldiers mock and ridicule Him and send him back to Pilate, indicating that he didn’t think Jesus was a big deal, perhaps a bit tired of the fuss that the high priests made over Him. Overall, this particular scene makes Herod Antipas look rather bad, in being rather superficial in his expectations of Jesus Christ and unwilling to deal seriously with the matters of judgment that are important for a ruler to master. One gets the feeling from this account that it would not have been an enjoyable experience for someone to come before Herod Antipas seeking him to judge righteously or to treat the accused with respect.

When we turn our attention to examine the Apostle Paul’s experience with trials, even a partial look at his record with judges indicates that the level of professionalism for judges during the first century was shockingly low at very high points in the Roman government. In the trials I will be talking about, it is important to note that in several cases, Paul is dealing not merely with local politicians and judges (as is the case, for example, in his trial in Phillipi, where we will begin), but with provincial governors, who ranked very high in the Roman world, some of whom were among Rome’s most powerful leaders, including members of the Senate. When we see that even at the highest level judges had both high degrees of power but also a shocking lack of attention to what we would consider to be basic matters of jurisprudence, one can understand why the Bible indicates that it was best if one never put one’s fate in the hands of such judges. Let us not get too far ahead of ourselves, though.

Paul’s trial, if it may be called that, in the city of Philippi is a tale told in two parts. We find the first part of the story told in Acts 16:20-24. Acts 16:20-24 reads: “And they brought them to the magistrates, and said, “These men, being Jews, exceedingly trouble our city; and they teach customs which are not lawful for us, being Romans, to receive or observe.”  Then the multitude rose up together against them; and the magistrates tore off their clothes and commanded them to be beaten with rods. And when they had laid many stripes on them, they threw them into prison, commanding the jailer to keep them securely. Having received such a charge, he put them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks.” Let us note what a farce this trial is. The city magistrates hear an accusation from some slaveowners who, just before, had lost the profit of a demon-possessed slave girl because Paul exorcized the demon. Without a hearing, without making sure that they had the authority to beat and imprison Paul and Silas without legal formalities, or even without verifying whether what Paul did was in fact against any sort of local or Roman law or custom, Paul and Silas are stripped of at least their outer clothes, eaten with many stripes, and thrown into prison. While such conduct is outrageous to us, this would have been legal to do in the Roman empire at the time except for one thing–Paul and Silas were Roman citizens, who had to be treated with a certain degree of respect, and not the usual sort of Jews who could be treated however a magistrate wished.

This becomes important when we examine the second part of the scene, which happened the next morning, after Paul had intervened to save the prison warden from killing himself and teaching and baptizing his whole household over the course of the night. Let us pick up the story in Acts 16:35-40. Acts 35:40 reads: “And when it was day, the magistrates sent the officers, saying, “Let those men go.” So the keeper of the prison reported these words to Paul, saying, “The magistrates have sent to let you go. Now therefore depart, and go in peace.” But Paul said to them, “They have beaten us openly, uncondemned Romans, and have thrown us into prison. And now do they put us out secretly? No indeed! Let them come themselves and get us out.” And the officers told these words to the magistrates, and they were afraid when they heard that they were Romans.  Then they came and pleaded with them and brought them out, and asked them to depart from the city.  So they went out of the prison and entered the house of Lydia; and when they had seen the brethren, they encouraged them and departed.” The next morning, the magistrates want to let Paul and Silas go and let bygones be bygones. However, Paul is upset when hearing that the town’s leaders, who had beaten him and Silas illegally, want the two of them to leave the town secretly, thus indicating to the people of the city as a whole that the truth of the accusation that Christianity is contrary to the laws and customs of Rome, which was not the case, since biblical religion was considered a licit faith during this time, and insists on being able to encourage the brethren and leave the town openly. As one might imagine, this particular incident does not demonstrate the thorough or proper behavior on the part of local Roman magistrates or give the reader much confidence in their skill as judges, despite their undoubted power.

Later on, Paul faces a similar sort of trial when in Corinth. We find this trial recorded in Acts 18:12-17. Here we see a rather abrupt trial which goes surprisingly well for Paul, given his history. Acts 18:12-17 reads: “When Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him to the judgment seat, saying, “This fellow persuades men to worship God contrary to the law.” And when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, “If it were a matter of wrongdoing or wicked crimes, O Jews, there would be reason why I should bear with you.  But if it is a question of words and names and your own law, look to it yourselves; for I do not want to be a judge of such matters.”  And he drove them from the judgment seat.  Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat. But Gallio took no notice of these things.” Here we see the Jews making the same argument that the slaveowners did in Philippi, that Christianity was contrary to the law, this time the law of the Jews. And though the result is highly favorable to Paul (if not his accusers), the trial is equally informal, with Paul not even speaking in his defense, and there being highly irregular recourse to physical violence based on the prejudices of the audience, though in this case the mob appears to be motivated by anti-Semitism, beating the leader of the synagogue in front of the judgment seat without the governor taking notice or intervening on their behalf. Let us note as well that Gallo was no neophyte when it came to Roman authority, as he was a Roman proconsular senator, known formally as Lucius Junius Gallio Annaeanus, having served as a suffect consul of the Roman Empire in 51-52 AD, and being the elder brother of the noted philosopher Seneca the Younger, both of them being sons of Seneca the Elder, a previous important Roman Senator. Gallo’s position as one of the most notable Romans of the time, having reached the very top of the Roman political ladder allowed his decision to carry a great deal of weight, viewing Christianity as being legal alongside Judaism and not at all subject to punishment.

When we look at the Apostle Paul’s trials that form the dramatic closing to the Book of Acts and set up his dramatic trip to Rome as a prisoner, we find that the power of judges can be both incredibly capricious as well as deeply corrupt. After Paul unsuccessfully tried to calm the lynch mob that tried to kill him on false charges of bringing a Gentile into the temple, which was forbidden on pain of death, he opened his more formal defense with the Roman commander of troops in the following way in Acts 22:22-30. Acts 22:23-30 reads: “And they listened to him until this word, and then they raised their voices and said, “Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he is not fit to live!”  Then, as they cried out and tore off their clothes and threw dust into the air, the commander ordered him to be brought into the barracks, and said that he should be examined under scourging, so that he might know why they shouted so against him.  And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said to the centurion who stood by, “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman, and uncondemned?” When the centurion heard that, he went and told the commander, saying, “Take care what you do, for this man is a Roman.” Then the commander came and said to him, “Tell me, are you a Roman?” He said, “Yes.” The commander answered, “With a large sum I obtained this citizenship.” And Paul said, “But I was born a citizen.” Then immediately those who were about to examine him withdrew from him; and the commander was also afraid after he found out that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him. The next day, because he wanted to know for certain why he was accused by the Jews, he released him from his bonds, and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down and set him before them.” Here we see that the Roman commander thought he could deal with Paul like he dealt with other Jews, by binding them and scourging them as a means of encouraging them to answer his questions. When he finds out that not only was Paul a citizen but was born a citizen–without the need for bribery and corruption as the commander had used to get his citizenship by fraud–the commander is afraid because he could get in serious trouble even for binding a Roman citizen who had not been convicted of any crime. The Empire at this time cared a great deal about its citizens, though noncitizens could be treated as cruelly as anyone wished, since they had no rights at all.

Paul’s experience with the Sanhedrin, the Jewish court that did not cover themselves with glory in Jesus’ trial, was hardly any more promising. We find this account in Acts 23:1-10. Acts 23:1-10 reads: “Then Paul, looking earnestly at the council, said, “Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.”  And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth.  Then Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?” And those who stood by said, “Do you revile God’s high priest?” Then Paul said, “I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’ ” But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!” And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided.  For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection—and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both.  Then there arose a loud outcry. And the scribes of the Pharisees’ party arose and protested, saying, “We find no evil in this man; ^[a]but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let us not fight against God.” Now when there arose a great dissension, the commander, fearing lest Paul might be pulled to pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from among them, and bring him into the barracks.”

We can see from this passage that Paul really got under the skin of his enemies. He was exactly the sort of person who made his enemies wish that he would drop dead seventy times seven. I can relate. During the course of this trial Paul first makes a misstep by calling a corrupt high priest a whitewashed wall and being told that this insult was contrary to the biblical law against reviling or cursing authorities. In a similar situation, I imagine I would not have been able to think of anything nicer to say myself, unfortunately. After this, though, Paul returns to his usual able rhetoric and is soon able to divide the Sanhedrin and prevent it from coming to a united judgment against him. While this was a savvy mode, it also prompted so great a disorder that the Roman commander again felt it necessary to rescue Paul by taking him into the barracks and protecting him with Roman troops. He then, later on, wrote a letter to the governor of Judea and Samaria, who promised to hear Paul’s case when it was convenient for him to do so.

When it is convenient for the governor to hear the case, we get the following account in Acts 24:1-21. Here, impressively, we actually get a professional trial with the Sanhedrin being represented by a professional prosecutor (with a Roman name no less) to engage in rhetoric, while Paul defends himself ably and proves he does not have a fool for a client. Acts 24:1-21 reads: “ Now after five days Ananias the high priest came down with the elders and a certain orator named Tertullus. These gave evidence to the governor against Paul. And when he was called upon, Tertullus began his accusation, saying: “Seeing that through you we enjoy great peace, and prosperity is being brought to this nation by your foresight, we accept it always and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness.  Nevertheless, not to be tedious to you any further, I beg you to hear, by your courtesy, a few words from us.  For we have found this man a plague, a creator of dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.  He even tried to profane the temple, and we seized him, and wanted to judge him according to our law.  But the commander Lysias came by and with great violence took him out of our hands, commanding his accusers to come to you. By examining him yourself you may ascertain all these things of which we accuse him.” ⁹ And the Jews also ^[d]assented, maintaining that these things were so.

Then Paul, after the governor had nodded to him to speak, answered: “Inasmuch as I know that you have been for many years a judge of this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself, because you may ascertain that it is no more than twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem to worship.  And they neither found me in the temple disputing with anyone nor inciting the crowd, either in the synagogues or in the city.  Nor can they prove the things of which they now accuse me.  But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.  I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.  This being so, I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men. “Now after many years I came to bring alms and offerings to my nation, in the midst of which some Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with a mob nor with tumult. They ought to have been here before you to object if they had anything against me.  Or else let those who are here themselves say if they found any wrongdoing in me while I stood before the council, unless it is for this one statement which I cried out, standing among them, ‘Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged by you this day.’ ””

Looking at the difference between the two accounts we can see the difference between formal Roman legal rhetoric as it was practiced by professionals, where the Roman orator flatters Felix the governor as a godsend to Judea and Samaria and then making all sorts of false accusations against not only Paul himself, but against commander Lysias for protecting Paul from the anger of the Sanhedrin. For his part, Paul was a straightforward and honest attorney, pointing to his being obedient to God’s laws and ways despite his long sojourn among the Gentiles, and pointing to his being a law-abiding person who did not behave in a chaotic or troublesome way.

Felix’s response to Paul’s defense is interesting, and we find it in Acts 24:22-27. Acts 24:22-27 reads: “But when Felix heard these things, having more accurate knowledge of the Way, he adjourned the proceedings and said, “When Lysias the commander comes down, I will make a decision on your case.”  So he commanded the centurion to keep Paul and to let him have liberty, and told him not to forbid any of his friends to provide for or visit him. And after some days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, he sent for Paul and heard him concerning the faith in Christ. Now as he reasoned about righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and answered, “Go away for now; when I have a convenient time I will call for you.”  Meanwhile he also hoped that money would be given him by Paul, hat he might release him. Therefore he sent for him more often and conversed with him. But after two years Porcius Festus succeeded Felix; and Felix, wanting to do the Jews a favor, left Paul bound.” While at the beginning of his response Felix the governor–the highest ranking Roman in the entire province, it must be noted–behaved properly and formally, seeking to check what the commander said before making his verdict, the rest of the account is highly irregular. Instead of deciding upon a verdict at all, Felix comes to hear Paul talk about biblical truth, but is rather put off by the discussion of righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come, which could have been comfortable subjects to hear for a corrupt politician like himself who sought bribes to make the decision that he knew to be right, and left Paul imprisoned without making a decision to do the corrupt Jewish authorities a favor.

After years of being held in house arrest without being brought to trial, Paul was understandably pretty irritated at the Roman justice system, and this irritation shows in Acts 25:1-12. Acts 25:1-12 reads: “Now when Festus had come to the province, after three days he went up from Caesarea to Jerusalem.  Then the high priest and the chief men of the Jews informed him against Paul; and they petitioned him, asking a favor against him, that he would summon him to Jerusalem—while they lay in ambush along the road to kill him.  But Festus answered that Paul should be kept at Caesarea, and that he himself was going there shortly.  “Therefore,” he said, “let those who have authority among you go down with me and accuse this man, to see if there is any fault in him.” And when he had remained among them more than ten days, he went down to Caesarea. And the next day, sitting on the judgment seat, he commanded Paul to be brought.  When he had come, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood about and laid many serious complaints against Paul, which they could not prove, while he answered for himself, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all.” But Festus, wanting to do the Jews a favor, answered Paul and said, “Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and there be judged before me concerning these things?” So Paul said, “I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged. To the Jews I have done no wrong, as you very well know.  For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar.” Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, “You have appealed to Caesar? To Caesar you shall go!””

It is understandable that in a case where Paul knew he was innocent and where the Jews were seeking to kill Paul and lure him into death. Paul, like most people, wanted resolution and he saw that the corrupt provincial Roman governors around were not going to give it to him, and so he appealed to Rome. And yet this was not even the end of it, as Festus had no idea what the case was actually about–because the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem lied about it and Paul was not much more helpful, though he was accurate, in denying any wrongdoing whatsoever. It is not until Paul presents his story again to Festus, Agrippa, and their entourage that he is allowed at long last to leave to Rome, which is an event with all kinds of drama on its own. From these examples that we have seen of Jesus Christ’s and Paul’s involvement in the Roman justice system, we can pretty quickly see that justice was elusive, and even when Paul occasionally found justice in his dealings, there were often a lot of very unjust actions going on towards others presented in these accounts. How did the injustice of the Roman world have an effect on how the Bible speaks about judgment for God’s people? Let us now turn to that question.

There are at least a few passages in the New Testament that point squarely to the role of believers in judgment, and as we might expect from what we have seen so far, they often tend to be cautionary in nature. Let us begin with perhaps the most cautionary of those passages, Matthew 7:1-5. Matthew 7:1-5, part of the Sermon on the Mount, reads: ““Judge^[a] not, that you be not judged.  For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?  Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye?  Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” We see in this passage a very pointed approach to judgment as we are once again reminded that we will be judged by the same standard by which we judge others. This passage reminds us of something else that often happens when it comes to judgment, and that is the way that we tend to be harshest on those people whose sins we share, and our ability to correctly critique others is hindered by our blindness about the extent to which we sin in the same way. While other people usually see our own sins pretty clearly and recognize our own hypocrisy in such matters, we may often fancy ourselves to be good judges of others and do not recognize that our own lack of self-examination and repentance hinders our abilities to fairly judge others. Jesus Christ reminds us that He will be fair in judging us, which is something that we might not like if we adopt an attitude that is highly critical of other people and not nearly critical enough of ourselves.

Later on in Matthew, we see a passage that shows how it is that members of the Church of God are to resolve their difficulties. We have already looked at the last part of this chapter, but let us turn our attention to the conflict resolution passage in Matthew 18:15-20. Matthew 18:15-20 reads: ““Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. ¹⁶ But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’  And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. “Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven.  For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”” Mr. Petty made a six-part sermon out of this passage and its implications, and I don’t wish to try to copy his efforts, but what I would like to comment on is that while people tend to assume that this passage relates to ministers and their authority, it is more about the body of Christ as a whole. If there is a problem between brethren that involves sin, the goal is repentance of sins and reconciliation between brethren. When two people cannot work things out between themselves, they escalate to having other brethren serving as good faith mediators to try to resolve matters, and if that does not work, it goes before the congregation–and if ministers tend to be the ones making a decision on whether someone is disfellowshipped or not, that particular determination has to be enforced by members as a whole for it to hold.

Now, I think that the understanding of corporate discipline like disfellowshipping in the Church of God is not something that is very strong among members, but although I do not want to take too much time talking about the subject at this time, I would like to point out at least a couple of passages that show how the responsibility in dealing with those who are outside of the pale falls on all members as a whole and not merely the ministry. Let us begin this brief digression with 1 Corinthians 5:9-13. 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 reads: “I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people.  Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.  But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”” Note that Paul is telling the brethren in Corinth to put away from themselves the evil person, indicating that while he is pronouncing that the man who committed sexual immorality with his stepmother (detailed earlier in 1 Corinthians 5) was disfellowshipped, the members of the congregation themselves has to put the evildoer away. We read in 2 Corinthians that when the sinner repented, he was restored to fellowship with the brethren and not left in isolation and despair. There was a way back, just as there should be with any kind of godly judgment.

Interestingly enough, this sort of corporate discipline that members themselves were to enforce is also something that we find in 2 John :7-11. 2 John :7-11 reads: “For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.  Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we may receive a full reward. Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.  If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.” Let us note here that in the Apostle John’s eyes, inspired by the Spirit of God, those who fellowship, even to the point of sharing a meal or sharing their room, share in either the good or bad behavior of the people they are generous to. In this case again, we see that enforcement of the disfellowshipping of those who believed in the heresy that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh was not only done by the ministry but by ordinary members like you and me.

Returning now to the issue of judgment, let us go to 1 Corinthians 6:1-9a. 1 Corinthians 6, starting from verse one to the first part of verse 9, reads: “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?  Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? ³ Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?  If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge?  I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren?  But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers! Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated?  No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!  Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?” Here we see that Paul expected ordinary brethren to be able to serve as mediators in conflicts between brethren, to ensure that people in the Church were not cheated and were treated justly. To be sure, brethren do sometimes have problems with regards to contracts, where people cheat others and take advantage of others, and with Paul we should all agree that this should not be so. We are reminded that the mediation we engage in during this life is practice for a larger judgment in the world to come. And it is to that judgment that we should now turn.

It is pretty clear that the time when we judge angels and will judge the world is the same that John speaks of in Revelation as the Great White Throne Judgment. Let us turn to this passage to see where it is that we will judge the world, in Revelation 20:4-6. Revelation 20:4-6 reads: “And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.  But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.  Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.” Here we see that those saints who are blessed to be in the first resurrection will reign as kings and priests and will have judgment committed to them, just as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6.

Let us therefore summarize our point here when looking at the sort of judgment that believers have. We have seen that the first priority of believers is self-examination, judging ourselves so that we will not need to be judged, and repenting and overcoming so that we can be fair-minded in our critiques of other people. As believers, we are also called upon here and now to cultivate the mindset of being fair-minded and peace-seeking so that we can serve as mediators in the conflicts of other brethren, to keep problems from escalating and to practice our skills at deliberation and judgment. We are also called upon to enforce disfellowshipping when someone crosses the line in terms of doctrine or personal behavior that puts them beyond the pale of the ordinary struggling Christian, at least until repentance and overcoming allow someone to be restored to the good graces of the Church as a whole. All of this practice is meant to prepare believers for our role as judges of the world and of the angels in the Great White Throne judgment to come, and presumably to prepare us for an eternity of practicing sound judgment as part of God’s kingdom.

Let us also summarize, at least briefly, the course of the whole three-part series that we have undertaken in looking at the power of a judge. We saw in the first message that judging is a fundamental aspect of God’s nature and that Moses served as the model for judges to follow in terms of his behavior and his role in leading Israel. Next, we examined the book of Judges in some detail and saw that the judges that God raised up were largely of three kinds: military leaders who delivered Israel from oppression, those we would recognize as judges like Deborah whose wisdom allowed them to teach and guide Israel, and political leaders who ruled over Israel in peacetime and who appear to have mostly sought to make their appointments into dynastic ones. In this message we have seen that the New Testament closely links justice with mercy and that the Bible soberly and critically views the corruption as well as the use of power of many of the judges who existed during the first century world. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 6, calls them those who are least esteemed by the church, and he had plenty of experience in dealing with judges to say that. We have also seen the sort of judicial temperament and abilities that believers are called upon to practice here and now, so that we are fit to be judges alongside Jesus Christ in the world to come. Let us cultivate the abilities necessary to be wise and godly judges so that we may be fit to serve in that role when the time comes. I hope you all have a great rest of the Sabbath.