Making sense of the Book of Acts - 4

Aside for the statement "Peter, standing with the eleven" in Acts 2:14, only three of the apostles are mentioned by name from the day of Pentecost through the end of the Book of Acts (except ten words concerning the death of James, the brother of John, in Acts 12:2).  The three apostles mentioned are Peter, John and James.  In Galatians 2:7-9 these three are referred to as "pillars."  After the council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-19), there is only one short reference made to one of these men — James — when Paul visited Jerusalem (Acts 21:18-28).

If we study the ministry of Peter, James and John in Acts in light of Galatians 2:7-9, we will see that they agreed to go to the circumcision and Paul to the uncircumcision.  Why?  These verses seem pretty clear.

But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised (Gal 2:7-9).

All of the apostles mentioned in Acts proclaimed that "the Christ is Jesus" and that He had died and risen again, but the earthly kingdom was also being offered to Israel during this time — commonly called the "transitional period" (Acts 3:17-21).  And remember, too, at the council at Jerusalem it was agreed only that the Gentile believers were not to be subjected to the law of Moses. The status of the Jews was not even discussed.  It is evident that they had remained under the law up to that point, and it seems that they assumed they were to continue to do so.  God had not yet given the twelve apostles any revelation delivering believing Jews from the law.  See also later in Acts 21:20 that the Jews which believed remained "zealous of the law."

The ministry of the twelve apostles in Acts was, in fact, a ministry of confirmation, witnessed by signs and miracles (Heb 2:2-4). The messages they proclaimed were concerning events foretold by Israel's prophets (Acts 1:16-20; 2:16, 25, 30-31; 3:22-24; 4:11, 25-26; 7:1-50; 8:32-33; 10:43; 15:13-18). I believe that all of this should be studied in light of Colossians 1:24-28 and Ephesians 3:6-9 where Paul plainly says that "the mystery hidden for ages and generations" which he preached — the strange blessing of Gentiles in the Body of Christ — was unknown to Israel's prophets.  (See also Rom 2:16; 16:25; 2 Tim 2:8 regarding "my gospel.") 

One last note:  Wouldn't it make sense to use Acts 15:19-20, and Acts 21:18-25, and Galatians 2:3, 7-9 as the key to understanding James' Epistle "to the twelve tribes in the Dispersion" as well?

What is saving faith? cont.

Interestingly, James also used Abraham as an example to illustrate the importance of having living faith in relation to the message he proclaimed to the circumcision — "the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad" (James 1:1).  James, however, specifically singled out the account when Abraham was called upon to offer his son, Isaac, upon the altar.   This is significant because we know Abraham was already saved prior to this testing.

Approximately two years after Abraham was justified God gave him the covenant of circumcision (Acts 7:1-8) and changed his name from Abram to Abraham (Gen 17:5).  This covenant of circumcision was what separated him from the ungodly heathen nations around him.  Technically, this was the birth of the Hebrew nation, and it was not too long after this that Isaac was born. 

The sign of circumcision was the seal of righteousness of the faith that Abraham had placed in God (Rom 4:11-12).  Today, the seal is the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13-14).  But clearly, the covenant of circumcision was a covenant of works (Gen 17:10-14; 26:4-5).  The most obvious example of this is, every male child was to be circumcised the eighth day in order to be made a child of the covenant.  Although the rite didn't save him, in Israel a male couldn't be saved if he wasn't circumcised.  Circumcision gave him an opportunity to be saved.  It seems to me that it was under this program and message that James wrote:

But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:20-24).

James' question, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works?" merely indicates that Abraham's works confirmed his faith. The combination of faith and works verified that Abraham's faith was a living faith, which manifested itself by works. According to James, Abraham served as a pattern to the circumcision that faith plus works were required for salvation at that time.** And what time was that? The transitional period, which ended with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.

**A few years after the Book of James was written, the Jerusalem Council was held, which concluded that Gentile believers needn't be circumcised nor keep the Mosaic law in order to be saved (Acts 15:1-21).  Nothing, however, was said about whether or not Jewish believers were to remain under the law.  It seems they assumed they were because no revelation had yet been given to them that they were freed from it.  Also, even later in Acts 21:17-26 they were still "all zealous for the Law."  Apparently the middle wall of separation between Jew and Gentile was gradually broken down.

What is saving faith?

What does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”

Paul used the above quotation from Genesis 15:6 to prove that "the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Rom 4:2-5).

It's wonderful that God doesn't require — in fact, doesn't even permit — human works for salvation. He requires only faith. But what is faith? And what kind saves?

There is no indication in Scripture that "the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24) or "the preaching of the cross" (1 Cor 1:18) was proclaimed to Abraham. We must go back to the passage which Paul quotes to see what Abraham believed. Genesis 15:5 says:

And He took him outside and said, “Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.”

But that wasn't the first expression of Abraham's faith because Hebrews 11:8 says:

By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going.

This took place considerably before the Genesis 15 incident, and we are specifically told that through his faith he "gained approval" (Heb11:2). 

From all this it is clear that Abraham believed what God told him and was counted righteous, which we now know was through a redemption still to be worked by Christ in the future.  Today we must also believe what God tells us — and this is nothing less than the account of Christ's all-sufficient finished work on the cross for us (Rom 4:25).

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets (Rom 3:21).

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter (Rom 7:6).

Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen (Rom 16:25-27).


(to be continued)

James and Paul

I have recently come across two interesting quotes in my reading.  The first, based on Galatians 4:17 and 6:12-13, the author explains rather well the motives of the Judaizers in the Book of Galatians — they were using the Galatians for the purposes of 1) avoiding the persecution of devout Jews who sought to wipe out the Church, and 2) to earn points for themselves.  In a word, if the Judaizers showed zeal for following the law, they wouldn’t be persecuted as Christians.

"What was the motive at work in the minds of the party of the circumcision? It was certainly not concern for the spiritual welfare and the eternal safety of the believers. On the contrary, the motive the apostle discerned behind their zeal was that they themselves might escape the consequences inseparable from the preaching of the Cross, which pronounces accursed not only man the sinner, the lawbreaker, but man the religious law keeper as well. The Cross is thus an offense to Jew and Gentile alike. The addition of something as a means to, or as a condition of, salvation (such as circumcision in apostolic days, or the sacraments in later times) to the free unmerited grace of God mediated by faith in Christ alone, has proved the most effective way of avoiding that offense. But to preach a gospel without the Cross is to preach what is no gospel at all."

The second quote is from a different author who brings up an interesting fact about the Church in Jerusalem:
 
"And it is a striking fact that at the very time Paul was nearly torn to pieces by the Jews at Jerusalem, there was in that city a Christian church with James and its elders, all apparently enjoying immunity from Jewish persecution (Acts 21:17-19, 31)."

After reading these quotes, a question sprang into my mind: "Why was James and the Church in Jerusalem enjoying immunity?"

You may recall that some 7-8 years earlier the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) was held, which concluded that Gentile believers needn't become Jews before they became Christians nor keep the Mosaic law after they became Christians; nothing, however, was said about whether or not Jewish believers had to continue to keep it.

It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath” (Acts 15:19-21 - NIV).

It was shortly after this that "certain men [came] from James" (Gal 2:12), inciting the Jewish believers there to "withdraw and hold [themselves] aloof" from the Gentile believers.  I think this author explains that situation rather well:

"It is clear that these men were sent by James, men of importance as is shown by the deference with which Peter treated them, and the obsequiousness with which he bowed to their requests. They were not from the ranks of the Judaizers, for James would not send men of that stamp, but Jewish Christians of Jerusalem who like James were still most scrupulous in their obedience to the Mosaic law. James, even after the decision of the council at Jerusalem regarding the relation of the law to Gentile converts to Christianity, still held to the view that the Jewish converts were under the law...Here he was the occasion of Peter's lapse when he [James] sent this mission to Antioch with the purpose of enforcing the Mosaic law so far as the Jewish Christians were concerned."

Jumping forward again to Acts 21, we are told in verse 20 that the Jewish believers in Jerusalem were (still!) "jealous for the law."  It would, therefore, stand to reason they wouldn't be a big target for the unbelieving Jews to persecute them.  But was James, the leader of the Church in Jerusalem, encouraging this kind of thinking? And if so, why?  Was he trying to avoid persecution? Or was he trying to reach the Jews where they were?  Was he trying to gain favor with the unbelieving Jews?  Or did he believe the Jewish believers were still under the law?  I guess my main question is, "Was James right or wrong?" 

James goes on in verses 21-26 and proposes that Paul, not only go along with but, pay for a purification ritual for himself and four other men.  Again, what was James thinking?  And, whyever did Paul go along with it?  Was Paul wrong to do so?

After these days we got ready and started on our way up to Jerusalem. Some of the disciples from Caesarea also came with us, taking us to Manson of Cyprus, a disciple of long standing with whom we were to lodge. After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law (v 20); and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication." Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them (Acts 21:15-26).

Okay, so here some possibilities.  I'm sure there could be more, but I'll stick with these for now:

1) James was right, he was trying to reach the Jews where they were; Paul was right to go along with James's proposal (1 Cor 9:20-21).
2) James was right, he was trying to maintain unity within the Church; Paul was right to go along with James's proposal to avoid being a stumbling block (Rom 14:13; 1 Cor 8:9; 2 Cor 6:3).
3) James was wrong; Paul was wrong to go along with James's proposal (Gal 3:1-3).
4) James was right, Israel hadn't yet been officially put aside and was therefore still observing the law; Paul was right to go along with James's proposal (Acts 21-28).

I've presented all four of these possibilities below, with supporting arguments from different theologians.

1) James was right, he was trying to reach the Jews where they were; Paul was right to go along with James's proposal (1 Cor 9:20-21).

"The Jewish opposition during this final period becomes massive and more intolerant.  Its primary object is the Apostle Paul, whose ministry to the Gentiles and alleged neglect of the Mosaic ritual is made the basis of their complaint.  Related to this was his progressive revelation of the nature of the ekklesia...But at bottom the cause celebre' was Paul's proclamation of Jesus as the Messiah of Israel."

"Upon his [Paul's] arrival at Jerusalem, by advice of the leaders of the church there, Paul made a last attempt to placate his Jewish enemies by conforming to a certain rite of purification in the temple (vss. 20-26).  But the attempt only made matters worse.  When he was seen in the temple, "all the city was moved, "and he was dragged out and would have been beaten to death by the mob had it not been for the Roman captain whose soldiers rescued him with some difficulty because of the "violence of the people" (vss. 27-36)."

This theologian doesn't address verse 20; and regarding Paul, is it okay to go along with something you don't believe in in order to placate your enemies?

2)  James was right, he was trying to maintain unity within the Church; Paul was right to go along with James's proposal to avoid being a stumbling block (Rom 14:13; 1 Cor 8:9; 2 Cor 6:3).

"When a person becomes a Christian, what becomes of his or her religious past? Must all previous pious practice be left behind? Or may some be made fit patterns for the new life in Christ? A patient thinking through of Luke's teaching on the Christian, the Old Testament law and religious tradition, as modeled in Paul's conduct, will give us guidelines by which we can make judgments about our own religious past.

At the home of Mnason, Paul receives a "warm welcome" from fellow Christians. Since Luke does not specify that only like-minded Hellenistic Jewish Christians so greet Paul and his party, we should probably think of a delegation representative of the whole Jerusalem church. From them news of his coming would filter back to all segments of the church (v. 22)..."

"In full spiritual unity, the elders point out to Paul that massive numbers of Jews, . . . all of them . . . zealous for the law, have become believers. These may be the converted Pharisees of Acts 15:5. Literally "zealots for the law," they lived out their loyalty to God by combining ardent nationalism with strict observance of the whole Mosaic code. Phinehas, Elijah and the Maccabees were their worthy predecessors (Num 25:10-13; 1 Kings 19:10, 14; Josephus Jewish Antiquities 12.271)..."

"These converts have been particularly troubled by reports that Paul has been teaching Diaspora Jews to turn away from Moses. This phrase translates apostasia, which refers to either political or spiritual rebellion (2 Chron 29:19; 1 Macc 2:15; Acts 5:31, 39; 2 Thess 2:3). Specifically, Paul is alleged to have instructed these Jewish believers to stop having their children circumcised and "to stop walking according to the customs" (so the prohibitions should be understood).

While it is easy to see how such implications might be drawn from Paul's teaching of a law-free gospel, there is no evidence that Paul ever instructed Jewish Christians this way (Rom 2:25-30; Gal 5:6; 6:15). In fact, Paul was most scrupulous not to offend the conscience of the "weaker brother," the Jewish Christian who maintained ancestral customs, and even went so far as to have Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3; Rom 14:1--15:13).

Our religious past can make distortions of the truth attractive to us, especially those that reinforce our pride in loyalty to our traditions. What can be done to overcome such falsehood, which always threatens to bring disunity to the church?

The church leaders counsel Paul to combat words with action. Four pious but indigent men in the congregation have taken on themselves a Nazirite vow of limited duration (Num 6). By abstaining from products of the vine, not cutting their hair and avoiding ritual impurity, they have been showing thankfulness for past blessings, earnestness in petition or strong devotion to God. The multianimal sacrifice and cleansing ceremony at the end of the vow period, when the hair is cut and offered to God, is financially prohibitive (6:13-20). Paul is asked to bear the expenses of the four. This was a commonly recognized act of piety (Josephus Jewish Antiquities 19.294). To do so he must go through a seven-day ritual cleansing himself, because he has recently returned from Gentile lands (m. Oholot 2:3; 17:5; 18:6; Num 19:12). The intended result is that the rumors about Paul will be shown to be baseless and he will be seen living in obedience to the law. Lest Paul's action be misunderstood in another direction, as making Jewish custom normative for Gentile Christians, the elders hasten to add that the Jerusalem Council decree is still in place (see discussion above at Acts 15:20, 29). It is repeated here in essential detail..."

"What does the elders' counsel to Paul say about Luke's view of Christians and their religious past? Before we can draw general principles, we must deal with unique and theologically significant factors concerning the Jewish law. At its core was divine revelation in three aspects: moral, civil and ceremonial. Surrounding that were oral tradition and rabbinic exposition. Luke's use of terminology often prevents us from easily distinguishing which aspects of the law he is referring to. Still, Luke's use of the term customs does seem to show he is aware of the difference between divine revelation and human tradition (15:1; 21:21; 26:3; 28:17). And there may be a distinction in Luke's thinking between the moral, ceremonial and civil aspects which will enable us to make decisions about normativeness based on content (Lk 10:25-28).

If we focus on the divine revelation component of a Jewish Christian's religious past, the Old Testament law, we can see Luke says it has no relevance for salvation (Acts 13:38-39; 15:10-11). While the moral aspect is universally normative (Lk 10:25-28; 18:18-23), Luke also sees a positive use for the ceremonial laws, to aid Jewish Christians in the expression of their piety. He does not make these laws binding on Gentiles, however. Only when Gentiles are in the company of Jewish Christians with scruples should they keep ceremonial ritual purity, and then not beyond what God mandated in the Old Testament for aliens living in Israel."

This theologian has addressed verse 20 and has concluded that those "jealous for the law" were weaker brothers in Christ and that James and Paul didn't want to be stumbling blocks to them.  But why didn't Paul tell the them what he told the Galatians (Gal 3:1-3)?  He didn't seem worried about being a stumbling block about this issue then.  It's true the Gentiles hadn't come out of Judaism, but previously Gentiles had been required to convert to Judaism (proselytes).  So why did Paul correct one and not the other?  Perhaps there's something more going on here?

3)  James was wrong; Paul was wrong to go along with James's proposal (Gal 3:1-3).

"...But the council at Jerusalem, while it had closed the mouths of the Judaizers as far as public opposition to Paul's message of grace was concerned, had by no means won them to the attitude which Peter had displayed in his noble declaration of Acts 15:8-11.  Instead they had dogged Paul's footsteps wherever he had gone, seeking to undermine his ministry among the Galatians, the Corinthians and the Gentile believers in general.  Indeed, Peter himself, along with other Jewish believers, including even Barnabas, had nearly caused serious division in the church at Antioch under the influence of "certain [that had come] from James" (Gal. 2:12,13).

And now do James and the elders make their proposal to Paul to help him, or because they are embarrassed by his presence in Jerusalem at this time?  If their desire is truly to help, they are in the position to do so now, but this does not appear to be the case, for, without offering to endorse his ministry or to stand by him in any way, they urge him to go through a Jewish ritual to appease those who have been informed (partly in truth) that he is leaving Judaism."

"...Thus the apostle [Paul] was urged to endorse the action of four Jewish zealots in taking a Nazarite vow, by financing, not one, but five bloody sacrifices for each.  And he was urged to do this to prove that he was a faithful observer of the law.  Would it be right or wrong of him to yield?  As we examine all the Scriptures involved we can come to but one conclusion:  It would be wrong."

"...This passage [1 Cor 9:20-21] is thought by some to contain the full justification of Paul's involvement in Judaism at this time.  They suppose that it means that he alternately placed himself in subjection to the law and at liberty from it as he labored, now with Jews and then with Gentiles.  Those who interpret this passage in this way to defend Paul's action at Jerusalem should take care that they do not charge him with worse than a lapse in faithfulness.  We can understand how the apostle, like all other men of God, should stumble and fall, but the above interpretation of 1 Cor. 9:20 would make Paul guilty of habitual duplicity.

...We believe that the passage in 1 Cor. 9 simply means that, sympathetically, he placed himself mentally in the position of those with whom he dealt.  He did not go back into Judaism while among Jews, but, recognizing their prejudices, he refrained from doing what might offend them — so that he might gradually teach them the same truths he had taught the Jews at Pisidian Antioch: justification from all things by faith in Christ, apart from the law (Acts 13:38,39)."

"...It is strange to see Paul yielding to James and going back again to what he had only recently called "weak and beggarly elements."  What all his own reasons were for doing so we do not know.  It cannot be said that, being at Jerusalem, he submitted to the authority of the circumcision apostles, for there is no evidence that any of them were there — indeed, the evidence rather indicates that they were not present at the meeting."

This theologian has addressed verse 20 as well as the rest of the passage and has concluded that both James and Paul were wrong.  Now I know we all have feet of clay, but I have to admit I have a hard time believing this one.

4) James was right, Israel hadn't yet been officially put aside and was therefore still observing the law; Paul was right to go along with James's proposal (Acts 21-28).

"Many think that the apostle [Paul] erred in persisting to visit Jerusalem, and they support their conviction by pointing out that at this juncture the record of his evangelistic labours ceases.  They find it also difficult to understand how the author of the epistle to the Galatians could take the vow of the Nazarite and offer the sacrifices (vs. 25-27) of Numbers vi. I3-20.

But both this difficulty and this conviction disappear when the Book of the Acts is intelligently interpreted, and its relation to Messiah's earthly kingdom recognised, and when the approbation of xxiii II is remembered.

Paul was a chosen vessel (ix. I5) to offer that kingdom to Israel, as well as to proclaim it among the Gentiles.  The final and official offer to the Twelve Tribes at Jerusalem, and at Rome, by the greatest of the apostles, and its rejection, is the subject of chapters xxi.-xxviii.  This final offer was a Divine necessity; and, therefore, the apostle is bound to go up to Jerusalem and afterwards to Rome."

"...He [Paul] was a child of the promises made to the Fathers, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, a Pharisee, and as a godly Israelite he offered the sacrifices of Numbers vi. in commemoration of the Great Sacrifice which, prior to it, they fore-shadowed.  They were a Divine institution, and they pointed forward and backward to Christ with equal significance.  It is true that personally he was quite willing to surrender all his privileges as a Hebrew in favour of the greater glories of the calling on high of God in Christ Jesus (Phil. iii.); but that desire did not release him from his appointment as a prophet to Israel (ix. I5)."

"...At Jerusalem Paul recognised the authority of the Twelve (vs. I9-26), and did so intelligently."

"...Each one had to offer a burnt-offering, a sin-offering, a peace-offering, a meal-offering, a drink-offering, and unleavened bread as commanded by God in Num. vi...so it was a somewhat costly matter, and among the Jews it was esteemed a very great proof of fidelity to the law to pay for such sacrifices.  A Nazarite bound himself for a period or for life.  Paul and his companions had taken this vow for a given period of time; and as commanded by the law they hastened to offer the prescribed sacrifices appointed for the termination of the vow.  These sacrifices struck at self-righteousness, for the Nazarites in offering them declared themselves to be lost and guilty sinners, notwithstanding their religious resolution and conduct.  They publicly confessed that sin attached even to their holy things, and that they themselves needed cleansing and forgiveness."

This theologian believes the Jewish believers were still observing the law because Israel hadn't yet been officially put aside.  While this explains verse 20, wouldn't that still mean Paul was guilty of "habitual duplicity" like the previous theologian suggested?  Perhaps this could be explained by the transitional period, where Judaism was decreasing at the same time the Church (both Jew and Gentile) was increasing?

So what do you think?  In light of the whole of Scripture, which explanation makes the most sense to you?

Acts - a rough timeline

(timeline of Acts and beyond)

30 AD - Ascension of Jesus Christ (Acts 1:9-11)
32-33 AD - Ananias and Sapphira put to death (Acts 5:1-11)
34-37 AD - Stephen martyred; Paul's conversion (Acts 7-9)
42-50 AD - Book of James (half-brother of Jesus Christ) written (because of its content, I'd put it closer to 42 AD)
44 AD - 1st of the Twelve — James (brother of John) — martyred (Acts 12:2)
46 AD - Famine in Judea
47 AD - Ananias becomes high priest
47-48 AD - Paul's first missionary journey (Acts 13:1-14:28)
49-50 AD - Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-35); Galatians written
49-52 AD - Paul's second missionary journey (Acts 15:36-18:22)
51 AD - 1 & 2 Thessalonians written
54 AD - Nero becomes Roman emperor
56-58 AD - Paul's third missionary journey (Acts 18:23-21:26)
57 AD - Paul's fourth and last visit to Jerusalem (Acts 21-23)
56-57 AD - 1 & 2 Corinthians written
56-58 AD - Romans written
58-60 AD - Paul imprisoned at Caesarea (Acts 23:11-26:32)
59-60 AD - Porcius Festus appointed governor of Judea; Paul taken to Rome for trial
60-61 AD - Paul under house arrest at Rome (Acts 28:11-31)
61-63 AD - Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon written
62 AD - James (half brother of Jesus Christ) martyred
63-66 AD - 1 Timothy, Titus, and 1 & 2 Peter written
64 AD - Fire at Rome
64-68 AD - Hebrews written
67 AD - 2 Timothy written; Peter and Paul martyred
68 AD - Roman emperor Nero dies
70 AD - Destruction of Jerusalem

Luther's book of straw (part three)

Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him (James 5:14-15).

A while ago I left a "cliff hanger" at the end of one of my posts.  I'd like to come back to it now.  So what about this passage?  How should we interpret it?  If we call for the elders of the church to come and pray over us and anoint us with oil, will we be healed?  Will our sins be forgiven (again) at that time, too?  As believers, haven't our sins already been forgiven us past, present and future, though?

We saw at the beginning of the book that James was writing to the twelve tribes of Israel, which immediately tells us that this epistle must be interpreted in light of Paul's epistles.  The Book of James is filled with practical exhortations for the kingdom saints during the first century, which would then also place it in the future for those saints enduring the coming Tribulation.  The links between the Book of James and the earthly ministry of Christ are undeniable, during which time people were still under the Law.  As brought up before in previous blog posts, James acknowledged that the Gentiles were exempt from keeping the Law of Moses.  But it is important to remember that James recognized there was one order for the Jews (they were still under the Law) and another order for the Gentiles, who were members of the Body of Christ (See also Acts 21:24-25).  During the transitional period in Acts, both programs of God were in operation simultaneously.
   
In this passage James asks, "Is anyone among you sick?"  If so, "he must call for the elders of the church."  The elders being spoken of here would have been the spiritual leaders of the assembly at that time.  When called, these elders were to visit the bedside of the sick and pray over them, anointing them with oil.  Anointing with oil in biblical times was often done for medicinal purposes, as seen in the story of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:34).  This was a very common practice in the east.

James, however, seems to connect the need to anoint the sick with oil with the time when Jesus Christ was on the earth.  It was said of those who labored with Him, "And they were casting out many demons and were anointing with oil many sick people and healing them" (Mk 6:13).  Notice how the anointing was closely associated with the miraculous healing of the sick?  It is also significant that the anointing with oil was to be done in the name of the Lord.  It appears that God used the physical element of anointing to convey the healing, whereby restoring the sick believer.

The "prayer of faith" also looks back to the earthly ministry of Christ when our Lord promised those who proclaimed new revelation at that time, namely that the kingdom was at hand: "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive" (Matt 21:22).  Salvation and physical healing often went hand in hand during that time as James suggests when he says, "...and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick..."  The lame man at the gate of the temple was immediately healed when Peter took his hand.  He went into the temple with Peter and John, walking and leaping and praising God.  But as we read further in Acts we see that it was through faith in Jesus Christ that the man was healed.  In other words, he had trusted Christ and was restored as a result of his faith (Acts 3:16).  That's why Peter says, "...the faith which comes through Him has given him this perfect health in the presence of you all."

We must be very, very careful to remember that James was ministering during a time in which miracles were quite common (Acts 8:7, 9:34, 10:38, 28:8). What James records here does not apply to us now. (See also Supernatural Activity.)  James wanted his countrymen to know that, if they prayed in faith believing, God would answer their prayers and heal their sick.

James goes on to tell them, "...and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him." Our bodies are prone to sickness and disease, and most sickness is due to the frailty of our flesh, not the result of personal sin.  But, there are times when that may be the case.  If someone is living a promiscuous lifestyle and contracts a venereal disease, that person is suffering the consequences of his sin.

In Jerusalem, by the sheep market, there was a pool called Bethesda.  A great number of sick people frequently gathered there, hoping to be healed.  From time to time an angel of the Lord would stir the waters of the pool and the first to step into the water after it was stirred was miraculously healed.*  Of course, many were unable to reach the water in time, such as the man who had been ill for 38 years.  But Jesus had compassion on that man and healed him, instructing him to take up his pallet and walk.  Later, when our Lord found the man worshipping in the temple, He told him: "Behold, you have become well; do not sin anymore, so that nothing worse happens to you" (See Jn 5:1-15).  It seems obvious that this man's sin had been the cause of his illness. 

The man who was sick with the palsy is another example of how sickness and sin were sometimes connected.  There were so many people pressing in to hear the Lord that the friends of this man lowered him through a hole in the roof so they could have an audience with the Lord.  When He saw their faith, he said to the man, "...your sins are forgiven you" (Lk 5:20).  And the Lord healed him.

Although James was writing to Hebrew believers under a different economy and before salvation by grace through faith alone was widely known, there are still many practical instructions in this book that we can apply in our own lives, such as those about temptation, the tongue, worldliness, riches, etc.  All Scripture is for us (2 Tim 3:16-17)!  But, not all Scripture is about us or addressed directly to us. That's why it's so very important to study with understanding, "accurately handling the word of truth" (2Tim 2:15).


*The last clause in verse 3 and all of verse 4 are not in the earliest manuscripts and were probably added later by someone other than John.  If verse 4 wasn't written by John, there was probably a superstition that when the spring bubbled, the first one in would be healed. And since, as this passage shows, the healthier always got in first, the superstition probably wasn't often put to much of a test.  If an angel did move the water, perhaps it was to show the impotency of the Law to save — The crippled man was there 38 years! — and how Christ was far superior to the Law.

Luther's book of straw (some observations and questions, cont.)

It's always rather gratifying to come across someone who's come to the same conclusion(s) that you're rather leaning toward, especially if it's someone you respect.  If nothing else, it lets you know you're not completely crazy.  Yesterday I read this in Wuest's Word Studies on Galatians 2:11-13:

"Here the argument for Paul's apostolic independence has come to the highest level yet attained.  In Jerusalem Paul faced Peter as an equal in rank and in the gospel ministry.  At Antioch he faced him as his superior in character and courage.

Translation.  But when Kephas came to Antioch, to his face I opposed him, because he stood condemned.

Verse twelve.  For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles.  It is clear that these men were sent by James, men of importance as is shown by the deference with which Peter treated them, and the obsequiousness with which he bowed to their requests.  They were not from the ranks of the Judaizers, for James would not send men of that stamp, but Jewish Christians of Jerusalem who like James were still most scrupulous in their obedience to the Mosaic law.  James, even after the decision of the council at Jerusalem regarding the relation of the law to Gentile converts to Christianity, still held to the view that the Jewish converts were under the law.  James was the occasion of Paul's lapse when the apostle at his request took upon himself a Jewish vow to show the Jews in Jerusalem that he was still a strict Jew (Acts 21:18-26).  Here he was the occasion of Peter's lapse when he sent this mission to Antioch with the purpose of enforcing the Mosaic law to far as the Jewish Christians were concerned.  News had reached Jerusalem that Jewish and Gentile Christians were eating together, hence the mission from James.

The words eat with are from sunesthio.  The verb is in the imperfect tense.  The preposition sun prefixed to the verb implies close fellowship or cooperation.  The tense of the verb tells us that it was a practice of Peter to eat with the Gentiles.  The preposition speaks of the fact that in the act of joining in their meals, not only in the Christian love-feast which was connected with the worship program of the local church, but also in their homes, Peter was on terms of the greatest intimacy.  The love-feast was recognized as the bond of fellowship in the infant church.

The probable origin of the Antioch practice of Jew and Gentile eating together, was that the church argued that since the Jerusalem council had upheld the position of Paul on the freedom of the Gentiles from the obligation of circumcision, that all restrictions of the Mosaic economy had been set aside.  This would include the Levitical legislation regarding foods.  The foods previously forbidden the Jew and found on Gentile tables, now could be included in his menu.   Accordingly, the Jewish and Gentile Christians welcomed the opportunity of Christian fellowship at meals.  This practice could not have been in force before the Jerusalem council, for, had it been, that question would also have been dealt with.  Peter, finding this situation at Antioch, fell in with it in his usual impetuous way.  The church at Jerusalem, hearing of his actions, sent this deputation to investigate.  These men sent by James, found Peter eating with the Gentiles."

"Translation.  For before certain from James came, with the Gentiles it was his habit to eat meals.  But when they came, he began gradually to draw himself back, and began slowly to effect a final separation, fearing those of the circumcision.

Verse thirteen.  This verse gives the result of Peter's action in the church at Antioch.  The Jewish Christians there refused to eat anymore with their Gentile brethren in the Lord.  The church was split wide open on the issue.  The love-feast, that bond of fellowship expressive of Christian love amongst the brethren, was divided into two groups.  The friendly groups of Jews and Gentiles in the fellowship of the home were discontinued.  The fact that the Jews of the Antioch church followed Peter in his withdrawal from the Gentiles, shows that the entire group had eaten with the latter.

Paul says that the Jews dissembled with Peter.  The word is from hupokrinomai, which speaks of the act of concealing one's real character under the guise of conduct implying something different.  The word itself means literally "to answer from under," as an actor who speaks from under a mask.  Our word hypocrite comes from this Greek word.  It usually referred to the act of concealing wrong feelings or character under the pretence of better ones.

But in the present case, the knowledge, judgment, and feelings which were concealed, were worse only from the viewpoint of those who had come from Jerusalem of whom Peter and the Antioch Jews were afraid.  From Paul's viewpoint, it was their better knowledge which they covered up by their misconduct, the usual type of hypocrisy that proceeds from fear.  Paul, by characterizing their actions as hypocrisy, implied that there had been no real change of conviction on the part of Peter and the rest of the Jews, but only conduct that misrepresented their true convictions.

But now regarding Barnabas, the fact that he was swept off his feet and carried away with their hypocrisy.  It was bad enough for Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles and the champion of Gentile liberty from the law, to have Peter act as he did.  But the hypocrisy of Barnabas was the cruel blow.  With the single exception of Paul, Barnabas had been the most effective minister of the gospel in the conversion of the Gentiles.  He had been deputed with Paul by the Antioch church to the council at Jerusalem as its representative.  He had come back with the news that the position held by Paul and himself with regard to Gentile freedom from circumcision had been sustained by the Jerusalem apostles.  Now, his withdrawal from social fellowship with the Gentiles, came with the force of a betrayal to Paul and the church at Antioch.  The defection of Barnabas was of a far more serious nature with regard to Gentile freedom than the vacillation of Peter.  Barnabas was Paul's chief colleague in the evangelization of the Gentiles, and now to have him play the hypocrite and deserter, was a bitter blow to the great apostle.  This may well have prepared the way for the dissension between them which shortly afterwards led to their separation (Acts 15:39).  Barnabas, the foremost champion of Gentile liberty next to Paul, had become a turncoat.

Translation.  And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite jointly with him, so that even Barnabas was swept along with their hypocrisy.

Verse fourteen.  The word translated uprightly is from orthpodeo.  Orthos means straight, and pous, which has the same root as the verb podeo, means foot, literally "to walk with straight feet," thus "to walk a straight course."  It speaks of straightforward, unwavering, sincere conduct in contrast to a crooked, wavering, and more or less insincere course such as Paul had said Peter and the other Jews were guilty of.  Keeping in mind the foregoing definition of the Greek word we could say, "But when I saw that they walked not orthopedically," that is, in a straightforward, unwavering, and sincere way.

The words according to are from pros, and put definite limitations upon the words walked uprightly.  The sense here is not that Peter failed to walk in conformity to the precepts of evangelical truth, but that his attitude towards the truth of the gospel was not straightforward.  The idea is, "He did not pursue a straight course in relation to the truth of the gospel."  He did not deal honestly and consistently with it.  His was an attitude that led him to juggle with its sacred truth, to warp it, to misrepresent it, to deal crookedly with it.  What an indictment of Peter.

Before all is from emprosthen panton.  Paul's rebuke of Peter was in the sight of the whole Antioch church, in the presence of everybody.  The fact that the article is absent before the word all make it a general statement.  The rebuke was not given before the officers of the church only, or before a specially convened and restricted number of people, but right in open church meeting and before all the members of the Antioch church who were present.  Augustine said, "It is not advantageous to correct in secret an error which injured openly."

If thou being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?  The word live here, from zao, does not refer to the moral living according to Gentile or Jewish fashion, but to the shaping of the life with reference to the external social observances in the Christian fellowship, such as Levitical restrictions on eating.  The present tense of live must not be pressed to to the point of teaching that Peter at the time of this rebuke, was living as the  Gentiles do, for he was not.  It describes a mental attitude or habit which had in times past shown itself in outward actions, and which was still in force, but which was being hypocritically covered up by Peter's action of withdrawing from fellowship with the Gentiles.  It shows that Peter had not in principle abandoned it, but had trimmed his sails to the sudden change of wind that came from Jerusalem.  Paul, in his rebuke forcibly sets forth Peter's inconsistency in compelling the Gentiles to obey the Levitical legislation regarding foods, for the Gentiles had only one of two choices in the premises, either to refuse to obey the law in this respect and thus cause a split in the Christian Church, or to preserve harmony by coming under the law.  And the apostle Peter did all this with a full understanding of the vision God had given him which clearly taught him that the Levitical legislation for the Jew was now a thing of the past (Acts 10:28), and that the line of separation had been broken down between Jew and Gentile by the Cross.

Peter's action of refusing to eat with the Gentiles, did not merely have the effect of maintaining the validity of the law for Jewish Christians, but it involved the forcing of that law upon the Gentile Christians, that, or creating a wide-open division in the Church.  This latter was what concerned the apostle Paul.  He deemed it of utmost importance to maintain the unity of the Christ Church as against any division into Jewish and Gentile groups.  At the Jerusalem council he had agreed to a territorial division of the missionary field into Gentile and Jewish divisions, but to create a division between Jew and Gentile in a Gentile community and church, was out of the question and was something not be be permitted.

At the Jerusalem council, it was agreed that the Jewish Christians should continue to keep the law, and that the Gentile Christians were to be free from the law.  But this arrangement left the question undecided as to which decision of the council should take precedence when an issue arose such as we see at Antioch where Peter's action brought pressure to bear upon the Gentiles.  Paul insisted that in such an instance, the Jews were not obligated to keep the law." 

The questions, then, are these: Why was it decided that the Jewish Christians should continue to keep the law?  When were they no longer required to?  And why?  What was the determining criteria?

Luther's book of straw (some observations and questions)

While studying the Book of James and comparing it to other portions of Scripture written about the same time period, I came across some interesting observations and questions.  For some I have an idea as to what the answers are, but others, I'm still trying to figure out.  See what you think.

After Paul was converted around 33 AD, he spent three years receiving revelation from God. In fact, in Galatians Paul seems to go out of his way to say he did not receive anything from the other apostles; what he was given was completely new.

For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus. Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother. (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.) Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; but only, they kept hearing, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy." And they were glorifying God because of me (Gal 1:12-24).

Finally around 36 AD Paul visits Jerusalem and stays 15 days with Peter, and sees James. Paul doesn't return again to Jerusalem until some 14 years later, at which time he submits to them what he's been preaching to the Gentiles.

Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.

But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)--well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. They only asked us to remember the poor--the very thing I also was eager to do.  (Gal 2:1-2, 6-10).

It is interesting to note that some time after the Book of James was written, certain men from Judea came to Antioch and began to teach the newly converted Gentiles that unless they observed the law and were circumcised, they could not be saved (Acts 15:1).
So, here's the timeline so far:

1. 33 AD - Paul is converted and spends 3 years receiving revelation from God.  After which, Paul visits Peter for 15 days, and sees James.  He does not return to Jerusalem again until some 14 years later (around 49-50 AD).

2. 42 AD (or there abouts) - James, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Tim 3:16), writes the Book of James.  At this point in time, the Jewish believers are undergoing tremendous persecution, from both the religious establishment of the day and Rome.  James encourages these believers and addresses some of the serious problems that have arisen in the church.  (Things slowly turn around and by 49-50 AD the Jewish believers have attained so favorable a position that the church can hold the great council of Acts 15 with no one to molest them.)

3. Around 49-50 AD - "some men came down from Judea" to Antioch and begin to teach the newly converted Gentiles that unless they observe the law and are circumcised, they cannot be saved (Acts 15:1).

4. At the Council of Jerusalem that follows (49-50 AD), Paul submits to the church in Jerusalem what he has been preaching to the Gentiles — namely that the law was fulfilled by Christ — and James, Peter and John give Paul (and Barnabus) the right hand of fellowship.  Paul is to go to the uncircumcised and James, Peter and John to the circumcised (Acts 15:1-29; Gal 2:1-10).

The Council at Jerusalem resolves the issue for James, Peter, the apostles and elders about whether or not Gentile believers were subject to the law of Moses. But even after that, while Peter is visiting Antioch, "certain men came from James."  Peter joins them in holding themselves aloof from the Gentiles and is sternly rebuked by Paul for hypocrisy (Gal 2:11-12).  The interesting thing in all this is, the Jerusalem Council doesn't even consider the question of whether or not the Jewish believers are to remain under the law. It seems they assume they are because in Acts 21:17-20 (around 62 AD - another 12-13 years later) they are still "zealous for the law."

After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. "What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. "Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. "But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication." Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them (Acts 21:17-26).

The only thing I can figure is that the "middle wall of separation" between the Jew and Gentile was gradually broken down. It makes sense that God did not reveal everything at once, that there was some kind of transitional period. But why were the Jewish believers in Jerusalem and Judea still clinging to the law at this late date (Acts 21)?  As you can see, James was right there among them — he's even their leader (v 18).  Were they not expected to recognize the change in program from law to grace and move on with it?  And furthermore, whyever did Paul go along with James' proposal*?  Was Paul wrong to do so?


*The proposal was no small matter.  Paul was urged to publicly join with four Jews in taking a Nazarite vow and financing, not one, but five, bloody sacrifices.  This was a considerable amount, since two doves or pigeons, one he-lamb, one ewe lamb and a ram had to be offered for each of the four, plus his own (Num 6).  This procedure was evidently not uncommon at that time.  In fact, Josephus tells how Agrippa I courted Jewish favor by financing Nazarite vows (Ant. XIX, 6,1).

Luther's book of straw (part two)

Those who resist the truth often point to the words of Martin Luther as evidence that Scripture contains glaring contradictions. But we must always remember that God never contradicts Himself. When we are confronted with what seems like a discrepancy, the problem is not with the Word of God, but with our understanding of it.

You see, justification simply means to be declared eternally righteous. It’s a legal term. For example, if a prisoner is brought before a judge, there is only one way he can be justified — he must be found not guilty. If he is proven to be not guilty, then he is a just man. However, if he is found guilty of a state crime and sentenced to death, the governor can pardon him, but he can never justify him or erase his crime. Even though the man is pardoned, he is still a criminal. There is no way of justifying him.

But now, amazingly, we are proven guilty before God and yet are said to be justified by the blood of Christ (Rom 5:9). The law shows decisively that we are sinners, guilty as charged, and therefore we are condemned to die. But then Christ steps forward as our sentence is about to be pronounced and says to the Father, “I will bear their guilt and punishment.” So today, those who place their faith in Christ are justified freely by His grace. Our sins and guilt were placed on Christ and in return, His righteousness was imputed to us. We are complete in Him by faith alone (Rom 4:5; 2 Cor 5:21; Col 2:10)!

This was not the case for those who lived under the law. Paul revealed to us that the basis of justification has always been by grace through the shed blood of Christ. But, it was God who determined what would be required to receive this wonderful gift. And under the law, God required men to have faith and show it in their works in order to be justified. They could not say they had faith and refuse to obey the law. If they did, it showed they didn't have faith.  Works were part of the package under the law. It was not by faith alone.

I think we have a tendency to forget that Jesus Christ, while on the earth, was, and also taught His disciples to be, subject to the Law of Moses (Matt 23:2-3). In fact, the principles found in the Sermon on the Mount go even beyond those of the Law of Moses (Matt 5:20). Obviously “the fullness of time” referred to by Paul in Galatians 3:13 and 4:4-5 had not yet come because rather than redeeming those under the Law, our Lord made the law even more searching and binding. And for a very good reason. It was meant to further show men the impossibility of their perfectly obeying God, and hence their deep need for a Savior.

But even after Christ’s death and resurrection, although the people understood that their Messiah had risen, they didn't understand all that His death and resurrection had accomplished. It wasn’t until Paul came along and explained, that they understood. This is where I believe the Book of James fits in — after the cross but before Paul’s message was widely known. When viewed from this point in the progression of Scripture, James 2:20-21 makes perfect sense.

I think this author explains it rather well:

Faith will most assuredly approach God in God’s way at any time, and to seek to gain acceptance with Him in any other way would, of course, be unbelief and self-will. Thus, while works never did or could save as such, they did once save as expressions of faith…..Does this mean that works will be efficacious in themselves? No! They will avail only as the expression and evidence of faith as, indeed, James clearly teaches.

Luther's book of straw (part one)

Winston Churchill, in one of his well-known quotes, once referred to Russian policy as “a puzzle inside a riddle wrapped in an enigma.” Sometimes I think the same thing about the Book of James because it seems to so directly contradict what the Apostle Paul says:

For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness (Rom 4:2-5).

But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:20-21, 24).

In fact, when my father teasingly said to me a couple of weeks ago — "So, you've left a "cliff-hanger" at the end of one of your posts, just like on the TV shows." — I decided I needed to resolve that and dug into studying the Book of James and reading the different points of view of several commentaries and books. As a result, I’ve found answers to some of my questions, but I’ve also added a few new ones. One thing, though; I am becoming more and more convinced that James couldn't have been merely writing from a different angle than Paul. There are just too many other things going on.

I’m not the only one who’s ever found the Book of James difficult to understand. Martin Luther referred to the book as "an epistle of straw" and stated the following regarding the teachings of Paul and James on the subject of justification:

Many sweat to reconcile St. Paul and St. James, but in vain. ‘Faith justifies’ and ‘faith does not justify’ contradict each other flatly. If anyone can harmonize them I will give him my Doctor’s Hood and let him call me a fool.

It’s easy to see why Luther had a problem with James. When he rediscovered the doctrine that man is justified “by faith” and “not by works,” it so completely transformed his life that he became an ardent defender of this Pauline truth, and rightly so. It’s been correctly said that it's “the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls.” What I believe Luther failed to grasp is that we can’t reconcile what God never meant to be reconciled.

Yet it seems that’s what most of us try to do. In an attempt to reconcile Paul and James we read back Paul’s doctrine into the Book of James, explaining that James emphasizes the practical aspects of Christian conduct, whereas Paul concentrates on theology; or, that James refutes the perversions and abuses that had arisen around Paul’s doctrine. Neither explanation, however, resolves the apparent contradictions between the two.

Let's not forget the cardinal rules for interpreting Scripture; that context is king!, and that looking at the context is more than just looking at the verses immediately surrounding the verse(s) we're studying. We must also ask ourselves: To whom and when was the book written? What were the circumstances, and have things changed since then? Always watch for the progression of Scripture!

To answer these questions: The Book of James is written to the “twelve tribes scattered abroad.” (The scattering was probably a result of the persecution that arose after the stoning of Stephen - Acts 8:1.) James is grouped with what is commonly called the General Epistles. I believe this is somewhat misleading, though, because it implies that these epistles were written to both Jews and Gentiles. Some interpret the phrase "twelve tribes scattered abroad" metaphorically and say it refers to Christians in general, but there’s no reason to interpret it this way, especially since we read in Galatians that James was a minister to the Jews (Gal 2:1-10).

Also, because James makes no mention of the Gentiles or of Paul's ministry among the Gentiles having come to the forefront, it must have been written early on. In fact, it is almost universally agreed that James is the earliest written book in the NT, with many placing its composition around 42 AD, the same year Peter was supernaturally released from prison in Acts 12.  The book's many links to the OT and the Sermon on the Mount (e.g., James 1:25, 2:8, 12) also point to a Hebrew audience as well as to an early date, all of which gives the book a decidedly “Jewish flavor.”

What does all this tell us? First, since it’s addressed to the twelve tribes of Israel, we must be careful when reading “other people’s mail.” And second, because of its content and early composition, we can safely assume that James was written before the doctrine of salvation by faith alone through grace alone had been widely revealed and therefore people were still operating under the revelation given up to that point, namely the law with establishing the kingdom in view.

So often we have the tendency to read back newer revelation into what was previously revealed, but James meant what he said to the people he was writing to. And while it’s certainly true that we should interpret the Book of James in light of what Paul taught, this does not mean we should read back Paul’s doctrines into James. Later revelation does not change the meaning of earlier revelation. It may add to or supersede it, but it never changes it — it says what it says!