Paul and James Reconciled

Kenneth Roberson

Active Member
Nov 8, 2020
57
12
Riverside, California
✟19,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hello. I have written an essay and would like to know what you think about the summary of it below. Thanks!

James teaches in his Epistle of James that (1) Christians are “justified by works” (Jas. 2:21, 25) and not “justified . . . by faith only” (Jas. 2:24) (as James uses those terms), and (2) Jewish Christians must comply with the law of Moses (the law).

On the other hand, Paul teaches four things. First, Christians are not “justified by works” (Rom. 4:2) but are “justified by faith” (Rom. 3:28; 5:1) (as Paul uses those terms). Second, Christians are free to live a Scriptural lifestyle that excludes complying with the law. Third, Christians are free to live a lifestyle that includes a nonobligatory compliance with the law in accord with their preferences or the dictates of their consciences. Finally, when Christians interact with people who comply with the law as a way of life (e.g., devout Jews), Christians are free to engage in a nonobligatory compliance with the law to avoid offending such people.

Galatians 1 and 2, and other Scriptures, teach the following. Paul received a “revelation from Jesus Christ,” a “gospel” that included not only truths that the other apostles knew but truths that the apostles did not know, including Paul’s teachings in the above paragraph. (This “revelation from Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12) that Paul received was just as much a revelation to him as the “revelation from Jesus Christ” (Rev. 1:1) and the Book of Revelations were to the apostle John.) Moreover, Paul shared this revelation, this “gospel,” with the other apostles. Three— James, Peter, and John—agreed at the “right hands of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9) that Paul and Barnabas would take this “gospel,” revealed to Paul, to the Gentiles, and James, Peter, and John would take this “gospel,” revealed to Paul, to the circumcision (generally, Jews who emphasized compliance with the law as a way of life). In other words, James also agreed that his doctrines on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian as taught in James’s epistle were transitional (like the law itself (Gal. 3:24-25)), and were no longer to be taught after the agreement of the right hands of fellowship. This is true even though James’s doctrines on those issues were and are inspired Scripture (like the law) and were correct at the time that he taught them in his epistle.
 

Jesus is YHWH

my Lord and my God !
Supporter
Dec 15, 2011
3,496
1,726
✟389,967.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I believe the Paul vs James is a man-made human argument. Nothing from scripture declares there was any dispute between them regarding the gospel.

IMHO they are saying the same thing in different ways.

Ephesians 2:8-10 says we are saved by grace through faith. That faith results in good works-, For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them

James says faith without works is dead, a dead faith. This is true and Jesus also said a good tree produces good fruit. A real living faith produces good works/fruit. Jesus said you will know them by their fruits. This Paul says emphatically in Galatians 5:22-23 with the fruit of the spirit. And he said in the previous verses those who live in the deeds of the flesh shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

hope this helps !!!
 
Upvote 0

Kenneth Roberson

Active Member
Nov 8, 2020
57
12
Riverside, California
✟19,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi brother! Thanks for your reply. Here are some thoughts.

Take Paul and James on the meaning of “faith.” When Paul says we are “justified by faith,” his essential meaning of “faith” is that part of the fruit of the Spirit which is the belief inside the Christian, and with the heart, that what God says is true. I say this because Paul says that “faith” is: (1) part of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22); belief (Rom. 4:3, 9); inside a person (2 Tim. 1:5); that of a Christian (“your” faith; Rom. 1:8; 2 Th. 1:3); and “with the heart” (Rom. 10:10); that what God says is true (Gen. 15:5-6; Rom. 4:3). In this sense, “faith” is a spiritual, technical term for Paul.

Like Paul, for James, in Jas. 2:14-26, “faith” involves belief that what God says is true. But a major key to understanding what “faith” is for James is to recognize that he teaches that just as a body without a spirit is dead, so “faith without works” is dead. (Jas. 2:26.) Thus you correctly note that James says that “faith without works is dead, a dead faith.” But James’s body metaphor implies that just as a body with a spirit is living, so “faith with works” (my shorthand for “faith . . . wrought with . . . works” (Jas. 2:22)) is living; otherwise “faith with works” is dead too and there is no point in James distinguishing between “faith without works” and “faith with works.” That means that, for James, just as a body can be dead or living and in that sense there are two kinds of bodies—a dead body and a living body—“faith” can be dead or living and in that sense there are two kinds of “faith” for James—dead “faith” and living “faith.” I will refer to James’s “faith without works” as his first kind of “faith” and his “faith with works” as his second kind of “faith.”

In fact, duality concerning “faith” is implicit throughout Jas. 2:14-26. James’s first kind of “faith”—“faith without works”—does not save (Jas. 2:14), and it is profitless (2:14), dead (2:17), alone (2:17), unshown (2:18), the kind that a demon has (2:19), and the “faith” of a vain or foolish man (2:20). Further, James’s discussion of Abraham shows that James’s first kind of “faith” does not work with “works” (2:22), is not perfected by works (2:22), does not fulfill Gen. 15:6 and is not counted for righteousness (2:23), is not the “faith” of a friend of God (2:23), and therefore is not the “faith” of a Christian. On the other hand, James’s second kind of “faith”—“faith with works”—saves and is profitable, living, not alone, and shown, and it is not the kind that a demon has and is not the “faith” of a vain or foolish man. Moreover, James’s discussion of Abraham shows that James’s second kind of “faith” works with “works,” is perfected, fulfills Gen. 15:6 and is counted for righteousness, and is the “faith” of a friend of God and therefore the “faith” of a Christian. (Nonetheless, James never says that this second kind of “faith” is part of the “fruit of the Spirit” or “belief with the heart.”)

James thus leaves us to deduce his essential meaning of “faith” from his two kinds. His essential meaning of “faith” (in the context of humans, not demons) is: belief inside a person that what God says is true. (And unlike Paul, James never teaches that “faith” in its essential meaning is part of the “fruit of the Spirit” or belief “with the heart.”) The essential meaning of “faith” for James is spiritually neutral and there are only two possibilities for such “faith”; it is either (1) the first kind and not the “faith” of a Christian or (2) the second kind, the “faith” of a Christian. “Faith” in its essential meaning for James does not tell you which kind it is. Which kind it is depends on an additional fact: whether the “faith” is without “works” or whether the “faith” is with “works.” When “faith” is without “works,” that “faith” is James’s first kind. When “faith” is with “works,” that “faith” is his second kind. In the context of justification, “faith” in its essential meaning for James is thus not the technical term that “faith” is in its essential meaning for Paul.

It is important to remember that sometimes the same words have different meanings in the New Testament. Sometimes they have an ordinary meaning and other times a spiritual or technical meaning. For example, Luke 18:18-19 record that a ruler once asked Jesus, “Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Italics added.) Jesus replied, “Why callest thou me good? None is good, save one, that is, God.” (Italics added.) The ruler was using the word “good” with its ordinary meaning among the Jews; Jesus was using it with a technical meaning making “good” an exclusive attribute of Deity. Jesus was trying to teach the ruler not to call Him good unless he acknowledged, correctly, that He was God. When James refers to “faith” with its essential meaning, he is using the term with its ordinary meaning among the Jews, while Paul invests the term with a spiritual, technical meaning.

Or take Paul and James on the phrase “justified by works.” For Paul, that phrase (Rom. 4:2) refers to two processes that a person engages in pursuant to a contract: (1) a person engages in “works” and (2) in return God “pays” that person with righteousness as a debt God owes for the “works.” (Rom. 4:4.) For Paul, “works” in this context means outward conduct done with the expectation of receiving righteousness from God in return as payment of a debt owed by Him. And Paul teaches that Abraham was not “justified by works” as Paul uses that phrase (Rom. 4:2). (As you point out, Paul clearly teaches that Christians are to do “works”—in another context, i.e., “good works”—but they have no place in Paul’s concept of justification by “faith,” which is simply “faith counted for righteousness” (Rom. 4:5)).

On the other hand, when James uses the phrase “justified by works” (Jas. 2:21), James is referring to four processes. According to Jas. 2:22-23, those processes are (1) “faith” works with “works,” (2) by “works” “faith” is perfected, (3) the person’s “faith” is counted for righteousness, and (4) the person is called the friend of God. (This does not involve a contract “obligating” God.) And this “faith” is James’s second kind. “Works” are outward conduct that show “faith.” Finally, James teaches that Abraham was “justified by works” as James uses that phrase. (Jas. 2:21.) Indeed, James, writing to Jews (1:1) teaches that even Gentiles are “justified by works,” because he teaches Rahab was “likewise” (2:25) “justified by works.”

So, although Paul and James use the terms, for example, “faith” and “justified by works,” they have different meanings for those terms, although they are all inspired Scripture.

The fact that, e.g., Paul teaches that Abraham was not “justified by works” and James teaches that Abraham was “justified by works” is not contradictory. Those teachings would be contradictory only if they were taught concurrently and the two apostles meant the same thing by the phrase “justified by works.” But the apostles do not mean the same thing by that phrase.

However, if the doctrines of Paul and James on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian must be taught today, the contradiction is more fundamental. For example, Paul has one essential meaning for “faith,” James has another, and each apostle received his respective meaning from Jesus Christ. Yet Paul, declaring that his essential meaning for “faith” is that part of the fruit of the Spirit consisting of the belief inside the Christian, and with the heart, that what God says is true, would deny James’s teaching that the essential meaning of “faith” is simply belief inside a person that what God says is true. James, declaring that his essential meaning of “faith” is simply belief inside a person that what God says is true, would deny Paul’s teaching that the essential meaning of “faith” is part of the fruit of the Spirit consisting of the belief inside the Christian, and with the heart, that what God says is true.

Similarly, Paul has one meaning for “justified by works,” James has another, and each apostle received his respective meaning from Jesus Christ. However, Paul, maintaining that “justified by works” means his two contract processes, would deny that that phrase means James’s four processes. James, maintaining that “justified by works” means his four processes, would deny that that phrase means Paul’s two contract processes. If the doctrines of Paul and James on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian must be taught today to Christians, the resulting purported Biblical teaching is contradictory.

However, “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Cor. 14:33). There is no conflict in these doctrines as reflected in the apostles’ respective epistles because when Paul introduced his “revelation” to James, James, giving the right hand of fellowship, accepted Paul’s revelation, agreed James would teach it in the future, and abandoned James’s previous teachings on, e.g., the essential meanings of “faith” and “justified by works.” In other words, the reconciliation is to view James’s doctrines on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian as transitional. It should be no surprise, then, that Paul’s doctrines on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Christian are taught in various New Testament books, but the only New Testament book containing James’s doctrines on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian is the Epistle of James. (As the essay discusses, James wrote his Epistle of James before, and Paul wrote his Galatian letter after, the “right hands of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9)). God bless you and I appreciate your thoughts brother.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Jesus is YHWH
Upvote 0

BrotherJJ

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2019
1,120
424
North America
✟166,313.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Paul and James Reconciled

Abrahams Faith via Paul, Abrahams Obedience via James

The two writers reference different time frames & statements in Abraham's life:

Paul's, recorded event is from Gen 15:6 "believed"

James, recorded event is from Gen 22:18 "obeyed"

Now, Contrast the word "believed" in Gen. 15:6 and the word "obeyed" in Gen. 22:18

Gen:15; Paul's speaks of a time 30-40 years before the time James refers to

In Paul's reference in Gen 15:6 It's Abrahams FAITH that obtains Him Righteousness.

In James reference in Gen 22:18 (30-40 YEARS LATER) Abrahams obedience seen here, is a result of his Faith, exercised 30-40 years earlier.

Genesis 15:6
Abram "believed" the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness

Romans 4:22
This is why "Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness"

Galatians 3:6 So also Abraham "believed God", "and it was credited to him as righteousness"

James 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God", "and it was credited to him as righteousness" and he was called God's friend.

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

19 Believing "that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead"

Romans 4:9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's "faith was credited to him as righteousness"
(NOTE: Only faith, NO CIRCUMCISION needed. Abraham was counted righteous by faith before he entered into the blood covenant of circumcision. He is the father of all who believe.)

God's unilateral, unconditional covenant promise to Abraham promise depends on faith & faith alone.

Hebrews 11:6 Without faith it is impossible to please him.

Faith is evidence of salvation. Works are evidence of faith.


Additionally:
James is writing to Israelites (Ja 1:1). Temple worship & sacrifices are still taking place, prior to the Council at Jerusalem.

James was written between 38 & 49 AD. to Israelites still required to observe Mosaic laws, circumcision etc. Temple still operating & Gentiles weren't allowed beyond the dividing wall inside (Eph 2:14)

It's not until the council at Jerusalem 50-51 AD. Where after a vigorous debate (Acts 15:5-24) the Apostles & elders (James is there) conclude gentiles ARE NOT required to be circumcised or adhere to Mosaic laws (Acts 15:24). The gentile Gospel of salvation isn't found in James Epistle.

At the Council of Jerusalem ALL the Apostles debate & agree. Then send letters to the gentiles churches. Stating gentiles don't have to be circumcised or keep the law of Moses

Our gentile Gospel of salvation isn't found in James Epistle. The gentile gospel by which we are saved, 1 Cor 15:1-4 Is that Christ died for our sins, was buried & rose from the dead.

Our gentile gospel has no connection to Temple worship. No connection to the Mosaic Laws. James writes nothing about the gentile Body of Christ/Church.

More clarity: Body of Christ introduced by Paul has 3 Pastoral Epistles 1st & 2nd Timothy & Titus. In these epistles the leadership are Pastors & Deacons. Good luck finding Pastors & Deacons at the Temple when James is written.

There is a transitional period of time. From aprox 40 Ad til the Temple is destroyed in 70 AD. When BOTH Temple & Church assemblies, are valid & operating.

After the Temple is destroyed one valid message remains, Paul's! No circumcision, no Temple sacrifices, No Mosaic law to obey. This (Acts 15:23) agreed upon transition begins in 51 AD at the Council of Jerusalem. Many years after the epistle of James is written.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,599
Hudson
✟281,635.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Hello. I have written an essay and would like to know what you think about the summary of it below. Thanks!

James teaches in his Epistle of James that (1) Christians are “justified by works” (Jas. 2:21, 25) and not “justified . . . by faith only” (Jas. 2:24) (as James uses those terms), and (2) Jewish Christians must comply with the law of Moses (the law).

On the other hand, Paul teaches four things. First, Christians are not “justified by works” (Rom. 4:2) but are “justified by faith” (Rom. 3:28; 5:1) (as Paul uses those terms). Second, Christians are free to live a Scriptural lifestyle that excludes complying with the law. Third, Christians are free to live a lifestyle that includes a nonobligatory compliance with the law in accord with their preferences or the dictates of their consciences. Finally, when Christians interact with people who comply with the law as a way of life (e.g., devout Jews), Christians are free to engage in a nonobligatory compliance with the law to avoid offending such people.

Galatians 1 and 2, and other Scriptures, teach the following. Paul received a “revelation from Jesus Christ,” a “gospel” that included not only truths that the other apostles knew but truths that the apostles did not know, including Paul’s teachings in the above paragraph. (This “revelation from Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12) that Paul received was just as much a revelation to him as the “revelation from Jesus Christ” (Rev. 1:1) and the Book of Revelations were to the apostle John.) Moreover, Paul shared this revelation, this “gospel,” with the other apostles. Three— James, Peter, and John—agreed at the “right hands of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9) that Paul and Barnabas would take this “gospel,” revealed to Paul, to the Gentiles, and James, Peter, and John would take this “gospel,” revealed to Paul, to the circumcision (generally, Jews who emphasized compliance with the law as a way of life). In other words, James also agreed that his doctrines on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian as taught in James’s epistle were transitional (like the law itself (Gal. 3:24-25)), and were no longer to be taught after the agreement of the right hands of fellowship. This is true even though James’s doctrines on those issues were and are inspired Scripture (like the law) and were correct at the time that he taught them in his epistle.

Hello,

Choosing to obey to any set of instructions that are only for the good of someone else is about earning favor with the one who gave those instructions while choosing to obey to any set of instructions that are for our own good is about putting our faith in the one who gave them to rightly guide us. God's law was given for our own good (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13), so our obedience to it has never been about trying to earn our justification, which has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of the law, but rather our obedience has always been about putting our faith in God to rightly guide us, and we are justified by that same faith, which is why Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23). In Revelation 14:12, those who kept faith in Jesus are the same as those who kept God's commandments. In James 2:17-18, he said that faith without works is dead and that he would show his faith by his works, so doing good works in obedience to the law is what faith looks like. Only those who have faith in God to guide us in how to rightly live will obey His law and will be justified by the same faith, which is why Paul said in Romans 2:13 that only doers of the law will be justified, but did not say that we earn our justification by being a doer of the law, so he was in complete agreement with James that the only way to become justified is by being a doer of God's law. The problem is when people mistake what was only said against obeying the law for the goal of earning our justification as abolishing our need to obey the law when Romans 3:31 Paul did not want us to conclude that our faith abolishes our need to obey it, but rather he concluded by saying that our faith upholds God's law.

The goal of the Mosaic Law is to teach us how to experientially know Christ, or in other words how to have a relationship with him based on faith, which is why Romans 10:4 says that Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness for everyone who has faith. In Jeremiah 9:3, and 9:6, they did not experientially know God and refused to know Him because in 9:13, they had forsaken the Mosaic Law, while in 9:24, those who experientially know God know that He delights in practicing steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in all of the earth, so the way to experientially know God is through delighting in expressing those and other aspects of God's nature through our obedience to His law. In John 6:40, those who believe in Jesus will have eternal life, in John 17:3, eternal life is experientially knowing God and Jesus, and in Matthew 19:17, Jesus said that if we want to enter eternal life, then obey the commandments, so obedience to the commandments is what it looks like to believe in Jesus and to know him. In John 5:39-40, Jesus said that they search the Scriptures because they think that in them they might find eternal life, and the Scriptures testify about him, but they refuse to come to him that they might have life, and the fact that we can enter eternal life by obeying the commandments means that eternal life can be found in the Scriptures and that they were correct to search for it there, but they needed to recognize that the goal of everything in Scriptures is to teach us how to have a relationship with Christ and come to him for eternal life. In Philippians 3:8, Paul was in the same boat as the Pharisees, where he had been obeying the law, but without having a focus on knowing Christ, so he had been missing the whole goal of the law and counted it all as rubbish. In 1 John 2:4, those who say that they know Jesus, but don't obey his commands are liars and the truth is not in them, and in 1 John 3:4-6, sin is lawlessness and those who continue to practice lawlessness have neither seen nor known him. In Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so again the goal of the law is to teach us how to experientially know Christ, who is the exact expression of God's nature (Hebrews 1:3), which he expressed through his sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law. Furthermore, if Jesus will tell people to depart from him because they were workers of lawlessness, then obedience to the law through faith is a salvation issue.

Christians are obligated to practice righteousness in obedience to God's law and to refrain from sin and sin is the transgression of it (1 John 3:4-10). Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is an integral part of the Gospel message, which Jesus prophesied would be proclaimed to all nations (Matthew 24:12-14). The fact that Jesus also set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law means that he taught how to obey it both by word and by example, and Christians are those who seek by faith to follow what Christ taught by word and by example (1 John 2:4, 1 Peter 2:21-22). In Romans 15:18-19, Paul's Gospel message involved bringing the Gentiles to obedience in word and in deed, so he was on the same page as Jesus about teaching repentance from our sins. Jesus did not go around telling people that the law had ended and that they needed to stop repenting, but just the opposite. In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law is what it looks like to believe in what he accomplished on the cross (Acts 21:20). So Galatians 3:24-25 should not be interpreted as saying that God's law is transitional because that would undermine everything that Jesus accomplished both through his ministry and through the cross, especially when all of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160). To transition away from the Mosaic Law is that was given to teach us about how to have a relationship with Christ is to transition away from Christ.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mkgal1

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33
Supporter
Jun 22, 2007
27,339
7,349
California
✟551,233.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
and (2) Jewish Christians must comply with the law of Moses (the law).
Did James say that?

**I apologize if you already cited Scripture for this, I've not read through all the posts yet.
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,599
Hudson
✟281,635.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Hi brother! Thanks for your reply. Here are some thoughts.

Take Paul and James on the meaning of “faith.” When Paul says we are “justified by faith,” his essential meaning of “faith” is that part of the fruit of the Spirit which is the belief inside the Christian, and with the heart, that what God says is true. I say this because Paul says that “faith” is: (1) part of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22); belief (Rom. 4:3, 9); inside a person (2 Tim. 1:5); that of a Christian (“your” faith; Rom. 1:8; 2 Th. 1:3); and “with the heart” (Rom. 10:10); that what God says is true (Gen. 15:5-6; Rom. 4:3). In this sense, “faith” is a spiritual, technical term for Paul.

Like Paul, for James, in Jas. 2:14-26, “faith” involves belief that what God says is true. But a major key to understanding what “faith” is for James is to recognize that he teaches that just as a body without a spirit is dead, so “faith without works” is dead. (Jas. 2:26.) Thus you correctly note that James says that “faith without works is dead, a dead faith.” But James’s body metaphor implies that just as a body with a spirit is living, so “faith with works” (my shorthand for “faith . . . wrought with . . . works” (Jas. 2:22)) is living; otherwise “faith with works” is dead too and there is no point in James distinguishing between “faith without works” and “faith with works.” That means that, for James, just as a body can be dead or living and in that sense there are two kinds of bodies—a dead body and a living body—“faith” can be dead or living and in that sense there are two kinds of “faith” for James—dead “faith” and living “faith.” I will refer to James’s “faith without works” as his first kind of “faith” and his “faith with works” as his second kind of “faith.”

In fact, duality concerning “faith” is implicit throughout Jas. 2:14-26. James’s first kind of “faith”—“faith without works”—does not save (Jas. 2:14), and it is profitless (2:14), dead (2:17), alone (2:17), unshown (2:18), the kind that a demon has (2:19), and the “faith” of a vain or foolish man (2:20). Further, James’s discussion of Abraham shows that James’s first kind of “faith” does not work with “works” (2:22), is not perfected by works (2:22), does not fulfill Gen. 15:6 and is not counted for righteousness (2:23), is not the “faith” of a friend of God (2:23), and therefore is not the “faith” of a Christian. On the other hand, James’s second kind of “faith”—“faith with works”—saves and is profitable, living, not alone, and shown, and it is not the kind that a demon has and is not the “faith” of a vain or foolish man. Moreover, James’s discussion of Abraham shows that James’s second kind of “faith” works with “works,” is perfected, fulfills Gen. 15:6 and is counted for righteousness, and is the “faith” of a friend of God and therefore the “faith” of a Christian. (Nonetheless, James never says that this second kind of “faith” is part of the “fruit of the Spirit” or “belief with the heart.”)

James thus leaves us to deduce his essential meaning of “faith” from his two kinds. His essential meaning of “faith” (in the context of humans, not demons) is: belief inside a person that what God says is true. (And unlike Paul, James never teaches that “faith” in its essential meaning is part of the “fruit of the Spirit” or belief “with the heart.”) The essential meaning of “faith” for James is spiritually neutral and there are only two possibilities for such “faith”; it is either (1) the first kind and not the “faith” of a Christian or (2) the second kind, the “faith” of a Christian. “Faith” in its essential meaning for James does not tell you which kind it is. Which kind it is depends on an additional fact: whether the “faith” is without “works” or whether the “faith” is with “works.” When “faith” is without “works,” that “faith” is James’s first kind. When “faith” is with “works,” that “faith” is his second kind. In the context of justification, “faith” in its essential meaning for James is thus not the technical term that “faith” is in its essential meaning for Paul.

It is important to remember that sometimes the same words have different meanings in the New Testament. Sometimes they have an ordinary meaning and other times a spiritual or technical meaning. For example, Luke 18:18-19 record that a ruler once asked Jesus, “Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Italics added.) Jesus replied, “Why callest thou me good? None is good, save one, that is, God.” (Italics added.) The ruler was using the word “good” with its ordinary meaning among the Jews; Jesus was using it with a technical meaning making “good” an exclusive attribute of Deity. Jesus was trying to teach the ruler not to call Him good unless he acknowledged, correctly, that He was God. When James refers to “faith” with its essential meaning, he is using the term with its ordinary meaning among the Jews, while Paul invests the term with a spiritual, technical meaning.

Or take Paul and James on the phrase “justified by works.” For Paul, that phrase (Rom. 4:2) refers to two processes that a person engages in pursuant to a contract: (1) a person engages in “works” and (2) in return God “pays” that person with righteousness as a debt God owes for the “works.” (Rom. 4:4.) For Paul, “works” in this context means outward conduct done with the expectation of receiving righteousness from God in return as payment of a debt owed by Him. And Paul teaches that Abraham was not “justified by works” as Paul uses that phrase (Rom. 4:2). (As you point out, Paul clearly teaches that Christians are to do “works”—in another context, i.e., “good works”—but they have no place in Paul’s concept of justification by “faith,” which is simply “faith counted for righteousness” (Rom. 4:5)).

On the other hand, when James uses the phrase “justified by works” (Jas. 2:21), James is referring to four processes. According to Jas. 2:22-23, those processes are (1) “faith” works with “works,” (2) by “works” “faith” is perfected, (3) the person’s “faith” is counted for righteousness, and (4) the person is called the friend of God. (This does not involve a contract “obligating” God.) And this “faith” is James’s second kind. “Works” are outward conduct that show “faith.” Finally, James teaches that Abraham was “justified by works” as James uses that phrase. (Jas. 2:21.) Indeed, James, writing to Jews (1:1) teaches that even Gentiles are “justified by works,” because he teaches Rahab was “likewise” (2:25) “justified by works.”

So, although Paul and James use the terms, for example, “faith” and “justified by works,” they have different meanings for those terms, although they are all inspired Scripture.

The fact that, e.g., Paul teaches that Abraham was not “justified by works” and James teaches that Abraham was “justified by works” is not contradictory. Those teachings would be contradictory only if they were taught concurrently and the two apostles meant the same thing by the phrase “justified by works.” But the apostles do not mean the same thing by that phrase.

However, if the doctrines of Paul and James on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian must be taught today, the contradiction is more fundamental. For example, Paul has one essential meaning for “faith,” James has another, and each apostle received his respective meaning from Jesus Christ. Yet Paul, declaring that his essential meaning for “faith” is that part of the fruit of the Spirit consisting of the belief inside the Christian, and with the heart, that what God says is true, would deny James’s teaching that the essential meaning of “faith” is simply belief inside a person that what God says is true. James, declaring that his essential meaning of “faith” is simply belief inside a person that what God says is true, would deny Paul’s teaching that the essential meaning of “faith” is part of the fruit of the Spirit consisting of the belief inside the Christian, and with the heart, that what God says is true.

Similarly, Paul has one meaning for “justified by works,” James has another, and each apostle received his respective meaning from Jesus Christ. However, Paul, maintaining that “justified by works” means his two contract processes, would deny that that phrase means James’s four processes. James, maintaining that “justified by works” means his four processes, would deny that that phrase means Paul’s two contract processes. If the doctrines of Paul and James on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian must be taught today to Christians, the resulting purported Biblical teaching is contradictory.

However, “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Cor. 14:33). There is no conflict in these doctrines as reflected in the apostles’ respective epistles because when Paul introduced his “revelation” to James, James, giving the right hand of fellowship, accepted Paul’s revelation, agreed James would teach it in the future, and abandoned James’s previous teachings on, e.g., the essential meanings of “faith” and “justified by works.” In other words, the reconciliation is to view James’s doctrines on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian as transitional. It should be no surprise, then, that Paul’s doctrines on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Christian are taught in various New Testament books, but the only New Testament book containing James’s doctrines on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian is the Epistle of James. (As the essay discusses, James wrote his Epistle of James before, and Paul wrote his Galatian letter after, the “right hands of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9)). God bless you and I appreciate your thoughts brother.

It does not seem to me that James is saying that a dead faith is a legitimate form of faith, but that it is not really faith at all. What we believe is expressed through our actions and our actions testify about what we believe, which is why James said that he would show his faith by his works, so if someone claimed that they have faith in God to guide them in how to rightly live, but they refuse to follow his guidance, then their actions would reveal that their words were empty and that their claim was false. So when James spoke about Abraham being justified by his works, he was showing his faith by his works and being justified by that same faith, whereas when Paul was speaking against earning our justification by our works. However, Paul said that only doers of the law will be justified (Romans 2:13), so he was in agreement with James that we are still required to obey the law as an expression of our faith, but not for the goal of earning our justification.

The Bible often uses the same terms to describe the nature of God as it does to describe the nature of God's law, which is because it is God's instructions for how to express His nature, such as with it being holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12), or with justice, mercy, and faithfulness being weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23). The fruits of the Spirit are all aspects of God's nature, so the Mosaic Law is His instructions for what it looks like to express the fruits of the Spirit, as Jesus expressed through his sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law. Jesus is the exact expression of God's nature (Hebrew 1:3), so by delighting in expressing his nature through our obedience to the Mosaic Law through faith we are expressing our love for who he is, we are testifying about who he is, and we are experientially coming to know him. So what James may not have spoken about faith as being a belief in the heart or a fruit of the Spirit, I don't think that he would have been in disagreement with either of those statements, and I don't see good grounds for abandoning anything that James taught.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kenneth Roberson

Active Member
Nov 8, 2020
57
12
Riverside, California
✟19,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thank you Brother JJ. I agree with much of what you have written and I appreciate the spiritual insight of both you and the author of the previous reply. I don’t “know it all” and we are all learning, but I would make the following observations. First, Abraham’s (Abram’s) belief in God referred to at Gen. 15:6 is a recorded event for both Paul and James. That event, that belief, occurred right after God told Abraham how numerous his seed would be. Both Paul and James refer to that recorded event, because both cite Gen. 15:6. (Rom. 4:3; Jas. 2:23.)

A difference between Paul and James is James’s use of the word “fulfilled” in connection with Gen. 15:6. Paul in Rom. 4 cites Gen. 15:6 and teaches simply that Abraham’s “faith” was counted for righteousness at the time that he believed. Paul does not use the word “fulfilled” in this context.

On the other hand, James at Jas. 2:21-23 teaches that Gen. 15:6 was “fulfilled” when Abraham offered Isaac at Gen. 22, i.e., as you correctly observe, when Abraham obeyed God. But James necessarily implies that Gen. 15:6 was not “fulfilled” at the time Abraham believed as recorded at Gen. 15:6. If Gen. 15:6 was “fulfilled” at both times, there was no need for James to distinguish them.

James does not say that Abraham’s obedience at Gen. 22 was a result of faith exercised years earlier. James does not say there is a cause-effect relationship between faith and obedience, or even a time continuum starting with “faith” and having later “obedience.” At James 2:22, James says that “faith wrought with his works” (KJV), “faith was working with his works” (NASB), or “his faith and his actions were working together” (NIV). These phrases do not indicate sequence, that “faith” came first and “works” (or “obedience”) came later, or that “faith” caused “works” (or “obedience”). These phrases do not put one before the other. They simply indicate that “faith” and “works” existed concurrently and that “faith” was working with “works.” Abraham’s “faith” is working with “works” when James first discusses Abraham’s “faith.” And James does not discuss Abraham having a “faith without works” that becomes a “faith with works.”

One of the things my essay explores is Paul’s use of the phrase “the truth of the gospel” at Gal. 2:5 and 2:14. As discussed in my essay, the “truth of the gospel” at those verses includes the facts that Christians are not “justified by works of the law” but are “justified by faith” (as Paul uses those terms; Gal. 2:14, 16); Christians are free to live a Scriptural lifestyle that excludes complying with the law of Moses (Gal. 2:3-5, 14); and Christians are free to live a lifestyle that includes a nonobligatory compliance with the law in accord with their preferences or the dictates of their consciences (Gal. 2:12). These were aspects of the “gospel” that Jesus Christ gave by revelation to Paul (Gal. 1:11-12) and that the apostles in Jerusalem did not know. Paul later “communicated unto them”—the apostles in Jerusalem—these aspects of the “gospel.” (Gal. 2:1-2) These aspects are not found in James’s epistle.

The other apostles already knew, of course, other aspects of the “gospel,” such as, as you point out, that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day. (1 Cor. 15:1-4.) The essay discusses that when James gave the right hand of fellowship at Gal. 2:9: (1) he agreed with the “gospel” as Paul presented it—its newly revealed truths and the truths the apostles already knew; (2) James agreed this “gospel” was for the Jew and the Gentile, and (3) James abandoned as transitional James’s previous teaching on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian. Moreover, the essay discusses that the “right hands of fellowship” of Gal. 2:9 preceded Paul’s confrontation with Peter in Antioch (Gal. 2:11), and that the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 followed. In other words, Paul’s actions in Galatians 2 laid the groundwork for the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15.

Finally, I agree with your comment that “one valid message remains, Paul’s!” The essay presents the evidence that, in the Galatian letter, Paul fixes the transition point as the giving of the “right hands of fellowship” at Gal. 2:9.
 
Upvote 0

Kenneth Roberson

Active Member
Nov 8, 2020
57
12
Riverside, California
✟19,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Did James say that?

**I apologize if you already cited Scripture for this, I've not read through all the posts yet.

Did James say that?

**I apologize if you already cited Scripture for this, I've not read through all the posts yet.

Hi mkgal1. Yes, James did teach that Jewish Christians must comply with the law of Moses (the law). No apology necessary as I cited no Scripture for this. I will do so now. My essay includes a portion entitled, “James And The Roles Of Law And Works Of The Law”; that portion is set forth below. Some of the points made below are: (1) Jews, whether Christians or not, are under obligation to the law of Moses and must comply with it, (2) the sins of Jews, Christians or not, break the law, i.e., the sins are transgressions, (3) all Jews will be found guilty under the law, (4) Jews who have shown no mercy are not Christians and God will judge these Jews without mercy, and (5) Jews who are Christians show mercy, and God will show them mercy despite their guilt.


VIII. JAMES AND THE ROLES OF LAW AND WORKS OF THE LAW

Below we discuss the roles of the law of Moses and works of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian according to James. In order to do so, it is necessary to consider James’s various references to the law in his epistle.

A. THE “WORD” INCLUDES THE “PERFECT LAW OF LIBERTY,” I.E., THE LAW OF MOSES

At James 1:22-25, James states,

“22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. 23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: 24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. 25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.”​

(Italics added.)

Here, James says that his readers are to be doers of the “word,” and “not hearers only.” He later insists that his reader is to continue in the “perfect law of liberty,” “being not a forgetful hearer.” The parallel of “word/not hearers only” and “perfect law of liberty/not a forgetful hearer” is evidence that the “word” at least includes the “perfect law of liberty.”

Moreover, to the Jews to whom James was writing, the “word” would consist at least of the Old Testament, including the law of Moses. This too is evidence that the “perfect law of liberty” is the law of Moses. Further, Jews reading about a “law” of liberty would naturally think of the “law” of Moses. Further still, if the phrase “perfect law of liberty” is not the law of Moses, then James has introduced a phrase found nowhere else in the Bible to refer to an important concept without clearly explaining what it is or how it differs from the law of Moses.

The above facts indicate that the “perfect law of liberty” is the law of Moses and, if so, imply that James wants Jewish Christians to “continu[e]” in the “perfect law of liberty” and be a “doer of the work.” (Italics added.) That is, James wants Jewish Christians to do works of the law of Moses.

B. THE “ROYAL LAW,” THE “LAW,” AND THE “LAW OF LIBERTY” ARE THE LAW OF MOSES

At Jas. 2:1-7, James denounces having faith with “respect of persons,” i.e., preferring the rich over the poor. He then states at Jas. 2:8-13:

“8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: 9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced [NASB and NIV: “convicted”] of the law as transgressors. 10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, do not commit adultery, said also, do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.”​

(Italics added.)

These verses are divisible as follows. Verses 8 and 9 contrast (1) fulfilling the “royal law” according to “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” and (2) having respect of persons and being convicted of the “the law as transgressors.” Verses 10 and 11 explain why those having respect of persons are convicted of the law as transgressors. Verse 12 is an admonition of future judgment. Verse 13 explains, discussing the relationship between, on the one hand, that future judgment and, on the other, the presence or absence of mercy. As discussed below, these verses demonstrate that James is telling the Jews to whom he is writing that they are under obligation to the law of Moses and must comply with it.

First, at James 2:8-9, James contrasts fulfilling the “royal law” according to “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” and (2) having respect of persons and being convicted of the “the law as transgressors.” “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” is unmistakably a commandment of the law of Moses found at Lev. 19:18. That shows that the “royal law” to be fulfilled according to Lev. 19:18 is the law of Moses. Moreover, the Jewish reader would understand being convicted of the “law” as transgressors as being convicted of the law of Moses as transgressors or breakers of the law of Moses. That in turn, again, shows that the “royal law” is the law of Moses. Further, James says that if you fulfill the “royal law,” “ye do well.” (Italics added.) He clearly wants his Jewish reader to comply with the “royal law,” i.e., law of Moses.

Indeed, if “the royal law” is not the law of Moses, then James has introduced a phrase—“the royal law”—found nowhere else in the Bible, to refer to an important concept without clearly explaining what it is or how it differs from the law of Moses referred to multiple times in Jas. 2:9-13, as discussed below.

Second, James 2:10-11 explain verse 9. Verse 10 teaches that whoever will keep “the whole law” (italics added)—an undeniable reference to the law of Moses—and offend “in one point”—an obvious reference to a single point in the law of Moses—is guilty of all—a clear reference to being “guilty” of all points in the law of Moses. Verse 11 further explains, referring to two of the Ten Commandments of the law of Moses, “Thou shall not kill [murder]” (Ex. 20:13) and “Thou shall not commit adultery” (Ex. 20:14). One who breaks one commandment of the law of Moses but not another is nonetheless a transgressor of the law of Moses. Thus, having respect of persons makes one a transgressor of the law. James implicitly teaches his Jewish readers that their sin of having respect of persons makes the readers transgressors of the law, which presupposes they are under obligation to it.

Third, Jas. 2:12 implicitly admonishes the Jewish readers to not have respect of persons and to “do” as people who will be judged by the law of liberty. In the context of Jas. 2:8-11 and its multiple references to the law of Moses discussed above, James at Jas. 2:12 is warning his readers that what they “do” will be judged by “the law of liberty,” which is the law of Moses.

If the “law of liberty” is not the law of Moses, then James has introduced a phrase—the “law of liberty”—found nowhere else in the Bible (except at Jas. 1:25, which we have discussed) to refer to an important concept without clearly explaining what it is or how it differs from the law of Moses referred to multiple times in Jas. 2:9-13, of which Jas. 2:12 is a part. And James, telling them to “do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty” (italics added) is telling them to do works of the law of Moses.

Finally, James is teaching at Jas. 2:13 as follows. All Jews—Christian or not—will be judged by the law of liberty, i.e., the law of Moses. All Jews (certainly having offended at least in one point) will be guilty under the law. The Jewish unbeliever, having shown no mercy (e.g., having respect of persons), will be judged guilty and shown no mercy by God. Indeed, such a judgment is consistent with the harsh provisions of punishment under the law of Moses. Thus, Hebrews 10:28, referring to Jewish unbelievers, says, “He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses[.]” (See also Heb. 2:2-3.) However, the Jewish Christian, having shown mercy, will be judged guilty but will be shown mercy by God. The teaching of James that his Jewish readers will be judged guilty under the law of Moses presupposes that they are subject to it.

C. A “DOER OF THE LAW” IS A DOER OF THE LAW OF MOSES

At Jas. 4:11, James admonishes,

“Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.”​

Again, the Jewish reader would understand James’s references to “law” in this verse to be references to the law of Moses. The reader would also understand James to be enjoining him or her to be a “doer of the law” (italics added)—a doer of the law of Moses—and not a judge of the law. This reflects that James wanted his Jewish reader to do works of the law.

Thank you for your question mkgal1. :grinning:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Soyeong
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,599
Hudson
✟281,635.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
James does not say that Abraham’s obedience at Gen. 22 was a result of faith exercised years earlier. James does not say there is a cause-effect relationship between faith and obedience, or even a time continuum starting with “faith” and having later “obedience.” At James 2:22, James says that “faith wrought with his works” (KJV), “faith was working with his works” (NASB), or “his faith and his actions were working together” (NIV). These phrases do not indicate sequence, that “faith” came first and “works” (or “obedience”) came later, or that “faith” caused “works” (or “obedience”). These phrases do not put one before the other. They simply indicate that “faith” and “works” existed concurrently and that “faith” was working with “works.” Abraham’s “faith” is working with “works” when James first discusses Abraham’s “faith.” And James does not discuss Abraham having a “faith without works” that becomes a “faith with works.”

Agreed, obedience is what faith looks like, kind of like the front and the side of the same object.

One of the things my essay explores is Paul’s use of the phrase “the truth of the gospel” at Gal. 2:5 and 2:14. As discussed in my essay, the “truth of the gospel” at those verses includes the facts that Christians are not “justified by works of the law” but are “justified by faith” (as Paul uses those terms; Gal. 2:14, 16); Christians are free to live a Scriptural lifestyle that excludes complying with the law of Moses (Gal. 2:3-5, 14); and Christians are free to live a lifestyle that includes a nonobligatory compliance with the law in accord with their preferences or the dictates of their consciences (Gal. 2:12). These were aspects of the “gospel” that Jesus Christ gave by revelation to Paul (Gal. 1:11-12) and that the apostles in Jerusalem did not know. Paul later “communicated unto them”—the apostles in Jerusalem—these aspects of the “gospel.” (Gal. 2:1-2) These aspects are not found in James’s epistle.

The other apostles already knew, of course, other aspects of the “gospel,” such as, as you point out, that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day. (1 Cor. 15:1-4.) The essay discusses that when James gave the right hand of fellowship at Gal. 2:9: (1) he agreed with the “gospel” as Paul presented it—its newly revealed truths and the truths the apostles already knew; (2) James agreed this “gospel” was for the Jew and the Gentile, and (3) James abandoned as transitional James’s previous teaching on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian. Moreover, the essay discusses that the “right hands of fellowship” of Gal. 2:9 preceded Paul’s confrontation with Peter in Antioch (Gal. 2:11), and that the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 followed. In other words, Paul’s actions in Galatians 2 laid the groundwork for the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15.

In Acts 10:28, Peter referred a law that forbade Jews to visit or associate with Gentiles, however, this law is not found anywhere in the Mosaic Law and is therefore a man-made law. It was this law that Peter was following in Galatians 2:11-16 when he stopped visiting or associating with the Gentiles. By doing so, Peter was giving credibility to those who were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of the law in order to become justified, which is by Paul rebuked him and reiterated that we are justified by faith, not by works of the law. In Acts 15:1, they were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become justified, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the problem was that circumcision was being used for a man-made purpose that went above and beyond the purpose for which God commanded it. So the Jerusalem Council was upholding the Mosaic Law by correctly ruling against that requirement, and a ruling against requiring something that God never commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against requiring what God has commanded, as if the Jerusalem Council had the authority to countermand God. In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, so works of the law are of works, while he said in 3:31 that our faith upholds God's law, so he directly contrasted works of the law with the Mosaic Law. So Paul's problem in Galatians was not with those who were teaching Gentiles how to obey God's law as if obedience to God were somehow a negative thing, but rather his problem was with those who were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of the law in order to become justified. So Galatians 2:12 is not even referring to God's law.

The Mosaic Law is Scripture, so how does one live a scriptural lifestyle that excludes complying with Scripture? Jesus followed the Mosaic Law, so how can one follow Christ while excluding what he followed? Is following Jesus just for Jews or for Gentiles too?

In Ephesians 3:6, Paul described the mystery by saying that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. So the aspect revealed to Paul was not so much in regard to content of the Gospel message as it was in regard to who it was for.

In Psalms 19:7, the Mosaic Law is perfect, in Psalms 119:45 it is a law of liberty, and in Psalms 119:1, it blesses those who obey it, so when James 1:25 speaks about a perfect law of liberty that blesses those who obey it, he was not saying anything about the Mosaic Law that wasn't already said in the Psalms.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Kenneth Roberson

Active Member
Nov 8, 2020
57
12
Riverside, California
✟19,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Agreed, obedience is what faith looks like, kind of like the front and the side of the same object.



In Acts 10:28, Peter referred a law that forbade Jews to visit or associate with Gentiles, however, this law is not found anywhere in the Mosaic Law and is therefore a man-made law. It was this law that Peter was following in Galatians 2:11-16 when he stopped visiting or associating with the Gentiles. By doing so, Peter was giving credibility to those who were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of the law in order to become justified, which is by Paul rebuked him and reiterated that we are justified by faith, not by works of the law. In Acts 15:1, they were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become justified, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the problem was that circumcision was being used for a man-made purpose that went above and beyond the purpose for which God commanded it. So the Jerusalem Council was upholding the Mosaic Law by correctly ruling against that requirement, and a ruling against requiring something that God never commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against requiring what God has commanded, as if the Jerusalem Council had the authority to countermand God. In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, so works of the law are of works, while he said in 3:31 that our faith upholds God's law, so he directly contrasted works of the law with the Mosaic Law. So Paul's problem in Galatians was not with those who were teaching Gentiles how to obey God's law as if obedience to God were somehow a negative thing, but rather his problem was with those who were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of the law in order to become justified. So Galatians 2:12 is not even referring to God's law.

The Mosaic Law is Scripture, so how does one live a scriptural lifestyle that excludes complying with Scripture? Jesus followed the Mosaic Law, so how can one follow Christ while excluding what he followed? Is following Jesus just for Jews or for Gentiles too?

In Ephesians 3:6, Paul described the mystery by saying that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. So the aspect revealed to Paul was not so much in regard to content of the Gospel message as it was in regard to who it was for.

In Psalms 19:7, the Mosaic Law is perfect, in Psalms 119:45 it is a law of liberty, and in Psalms 119:1, it blesses those who obey it, so when James 1:25 speaks about a perfect law of liberty that blesses those who obey it, he was not saying anything about the Mosaic Law that wasn't already said in the Psalms.

Hi Soyeong! Thank you for all of your insightful posts. I am preparing a reply to all of them. God bless you.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Soyeong
Upvote 0

BrotherJJ

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2019
1,120
424
North America
✟166,313.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
THE “ROYAL LAW,” THE “LAW,” AND THE “LAW OF LIBERTY” ARE THE LAW OF MOSES

Hello,
Law of Liberty - Royal Law - Law of Moses. A different perspective:

Lk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
(MY NOTE: Jesus say's the Holy Spirit anointed him to preach: peace to the brokenhearted, salvation for sinners, to set at "LIBERTY" the hurt/injured.

Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. A-2,Noun,G859, aphesis. LIBERTY: "dismissal, release, forgiveness," is rendered "liberty". In Lk 4:18, RV, "release." See FORGIVENESS.

Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

2 Cor 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
(MY NOTE: Those indwelt/baptized by Christ with His Holy Spirit have "dismissal, release, forgiveness, LIBERTY from sin & death. Amen)

Law of Liberty:
Cited via Vine's above, Liberty = "dismissal, release, forgiveness,". I'll add: Liberty = complete sin remission/pardon, peace & the free promised gift of eternal life. Christ gives to those that trust Him via faith placed in Jesus Sin atoning death & resurrection.

Royal Law
Ja 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
(MY NOTE: Simply stated, according to the scripture, the royal law is: Love your neighbor as thyself. We can forgive our neighbor for any sin committed against us. Only Christ can eternally grant/give forgiveness/peace/LIBERTY from sins committed against a sovereign creator God's rule.)

Jn 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

It's our faith placed Christ’s faithful obedient sin sacrifice that brings redemption/liberty from sin's required wage/death.

Peter calls the law of Moses an unbearable yoke (Acts 15:10) Paul refers to Mosaic law as the the ministry of death (2 Cor 2:7). Although itself perfect, the laws purpose is to expose sin & condemn the sinner without mercy to death. Best wishes, JJ.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kenneth Roberson

Active Member
Nov 8, 2020
57
12
Riverside, California
✟19,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hello,

Choosing to obey to any set of instructions that are only for the good of someone else is about earning favor with the one who gave those instructions while choosing to obey to any set of instructions that are for our own good is about putting our faith in the one who gave them to rightly guide us. God's law was given for our own good (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13), so our obedience to it has never been about trying to earn our justification, which has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of the law, but rather our obedience has always been about putting our faith in God to rightly guide us, and we are justified by that same faith, which is why Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23). In Revelation 14:12, those who kept faith in Jesus are the same as those who kept God's commandments. In James 2:17-18, he said that faith without works is dead and that he would show his faith by his works, so doing good works in obedience to the law is what faith looks like. Only those who have faith in God to guide us in how to rightly live will obey His law and will be justified by the same faith, which is why Paul said in Romans 2:13 that only doers of the law will be justified, but did not say that we earn our justification by being a doer of the law, so he was in complete agreement with James that the only way to become justified is by being a doer of God's law. The problem is when people mistake what was only said against obeying the law for the goal of earning our justification as abolishing our need to obey the law when Romans 3:31 Paul did not want us to conclude that our faith abolishes our need to obey it, but rather he concluded by saying that our faith upholds God's law.

The goal of the Mosaic Law is to teach us how to experientially know Christ, or in other words how to have a relationship with him based on faith, which is why Romans 10:4 says that Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness for everyone who has faith. In Jeremiah 9:3, and 9:6, they did not experientially know God and refused to know Him because in 9:13, they had forsaken the Mosaic Law, while in 9:24, those who experientially know God know that He delights in practicing steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in all of the earth, so the way to experientially know God is through delighting in expressing those and other aspects of God's nature through our obedience to His law. In John 6:40, those who believe in Jesus will have eternal life, in John 17:3, eternal life is experientially knowing God and Jesus, and in Matthew 19:17, Jesus said that if we want to enter eternal life, then obey the commandments, so obedience to the commandments is what it looks like to believe in Jesus and to know him. In John 5:39-40, Jesus said that they search the Scriptures because they think that in them they might find eternal life, and the Scriptures testify about him, but they refuse to come to him that they might have life, and the fact that we can enter eternal life by obeying the commandments means that eternal life can be found in the Scriptures and that they were correct to search for it there, but they needed to recognize that the goal of everything in Scriptures is to teach us how to have a relationship with Christ and come to him for eternal life. In Philippians 3:8, Paul was in the same boat as the Pharisees, where he had been obeying the law, but without having a focus on knowing Christ, so he had been missing the whole goal of the law and counted it all as rubbish. In 1 John 2:4, those who say that they know Jesus, but don't obey his commands are liars and the truth is not in them, and in 1 John 3:4-6, sin is lawlessness and those who continue to practice lawlessness have neither seen nor known him. In Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so again the goal of the law is to teach us how to experientially know Christ, who is the exact expression of God's nature (Hebrews 1:3), which he expressed through his sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law. Furthermore, if Jesus will tell people to depart from him because they were workers of lawlessness, then obedience to the law through faith is a salvation issue.

Christians are obligated to practice righteousness in obedience to God's law and to refrain from sin and sin is the transgression of it (1 John 3:4-10). Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is an integral part of the Gospel message, which Jesus prophesied would be proclaimed to all nations (Matthew 24:12-14). The fact that Jesus also set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law means that he taught how to obey it both by word and by example, and Christians are those who seek by faith to follow what Christ taught by word and by example (1 John 2:4, 1 Peter 2:21-22). In Romans 15:18-19, Paul's Gospel message involved bringing the Gentiles to obedience in word and in deed, so he was on the same page as Jesus about teaching repentance from our sins. Jesus did not go around telling people that the law had ended and that they needed to stop repenting, but just the opposite. In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law is what it looks like to believe in what he accomplished on the cross (Acts 21:20). So Galatians 3:24-25 should not be interpreted as saying that God's law is transitional because that would undermine everything that Jesus accomplished both through his ministry and through the cross, especially when all of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160). To transition away from the Mosaic Law is that was given to teach us about how to have a relationship with Christ is to transition away from Christ.

Hi Soyeong. Thank you for your gracious and extensive discussion of the Scriptures. I have enjoyed reading your comments, which are faithful and clear, and I appreciate your citations to Scripture. I am addressing your comments in three parts. Part I is Introductory Comments. Part II contains relevant excerpts of my essay and another essay I have written; these provide a backdrop for part III. In part III, I copy your post and add my comments to it in brackets in bold; I do this not as “flaming” but simply to permit my comments to be distinguished. You have made numerous thoughtful points in your post (this is true of your later posts too) and, although I have not addressed in part III each point in your current post, I have attempted to address enough so that the thrust of my thinking is clear. I am using the KJV unless otherwise noted.

I. INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS

As I have mentioned, the essential meaning of “faith” for James is belief inside a person that what God says is true. If that “faith” is without “works,” James’s first kind of “faith,” it does not save. If that “faith” is with “works,” it saves. In other words, “faith” in its essential meaning for James is neutral and you cannot know from the mere term “faith” for James whether it does not save or does save; you have to know whether it is “without works” or “with works.” “Faith” in its essential meaning for James is thus not necessarily a saving “faith” and is not the technical term that it is for Paul.

On the other hand, for Paul “faith” is always, by definition, a saving “faith.” Thus, Paul said at Eph. 2:8, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God[.]” (Italics added.) Acts 16:30-31 record that the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” and “they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” (Italics added.) Paul taught at Rom. 10:9, “if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (Italics added.)

There appear to be three possibilities when it comes to the relationship between (1) the Christian with Paul’s “faith” and (2) the law of Moses (the law). First, Christians are to have “faith” and are to comply with the law as a matter of obligation. Second, Christians are to have “faith” and Christians can comply with the law, not as a matter of obligation, but as a matter of preference and/or because of the dictates of conscience. Third, Christians are to have “faith” and need not comply with the law for any purpose (although they are to live otherwise Scriptural lifestyles). My essay presents the evidence that the second and third possibilities are part of the revelation that Jesus gave to Paul.

The first possibility reflects your view. Your comments clearly and effectively demonstrate the need for “faith.” However, they also make clear your position that Christians are to comply with the law as a matter of obligation. Thus you write that Paul maintains that “the only way to become justified is by being a doer of God’s law.” (Italics added.) Similarly, you mention that “Christians are obligated to practice righteousness in obedience to God’s law[.]” (Italics added.) Further, you clearly indicate that Christians are to “obey” the law.

Your position definitely finds support in James’s epistle, at least when it comes to Jewish Christians, for he taught that Jewish Christians are to comply with the law as a matter of obligation (see my 3:52 p.m. response to mkgal1). However, the essay I have written demonstrates that this teaching of James on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian was transitional and that he abandoned it during the giving of the “right hands of fellowship” referred to at Gal. 2:9. He abandoned it in favor of Paul’s teaching on justification and the previously discussed second and third possibilities that were part of Jesus’s revelation to Paul.

I will discuss your view below, in part by quoting those portions of my essay that discuss the relationship between (1) the Christian with Paul’s “faith” and (2) the role of the law. I will also incorporate portions of another essay I have written.
 
Upvote 0

Kenneth Roberson

Active Member
Nov 8, 2020
57
12
Riverside, California
✟19,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
II. ESSAY EXCERPTS

A. THE ROLE OF THE LAW

Paul speaks of the role of the law at Gal. 3:23-25. There he says:

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.”​

(Italics added.) Note Paul speaks of a “faith” that was the subject of revelation. The “gospel” that he preached was a “revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Gal. 1:11-12.) Note also that Paul does not say, “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith while complying with the law as a matter of obligation (or otherwise).” Instead, Paul says that “after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster,” and Paul does not there express any further role for the law.

Christians are righteous. They are righteous by “faith.” (Rom. 1:17; 3:22; 4:5.) But the law is not made for the righteous. Paul said at 1 Tim. 1:9-10:

the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine[.]”​

(Italics added.)

As you know, when a person becomes a Christian, the person shares in Christ’s death and resurrection, and this impacts the person’s relationship to the law. Thus, Paul teaches at Gal. 2:19 (NASB) that he can say of himself, “I died to the law, so that I might live to God.” (Italics added.) Paul did not say that he lived “to God and the law,” or that he lived “to God while complying with the law as a matter of obligation (or otherwise).”

Similarly, Paul tells Christians at Rom. 7:4-6 (NASB): “you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. [¶] . . . [¶] . . . 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.” (Italics added.)

Indeed, Ephesians 2:13 and 15 record that Christ died and thereby “abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; “setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations” (NIV), and “abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances” (NASB). (Italics added.)

But if Christians are dead to the law, they are not subject, or under obligation, to the law of Moses or its commandments, whether ceremonial, judicial, or moral. Therefore, Paul proclaims at Rom. 6:14 (NASB), “for you are not under law but under grace.” (Italics added.) Under grace, Christians pursue a Scriptural way of life with repentance from sin, and with faith, love, and good works. And Christians are free not to comply with the law for any purpose.

Christians sometimes sin and offend God. However, since Christians are dead to, and not under, the law, their sins do not break that law, i.e., Christians’ sins are not transgressions. This is consistent with Paul’s statement that “where no law is, there is no transgression” (Rom. 4:15). The law has no hold on the dead; as a practical matter, to the dead there is no such law. And because Christians cannot transgress the law, they cannot be found guilty of violating it. Consequently, Paul writes, “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 8:1, NASB.)

With the above as background, consider Romans 13:8-10. There Paul declares,

“8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”​

(Italics added.) Paul teaches that “love” has fulfilled the law. “Love” is part of the fruit of the Spirit. (Gal. 5:22.)

Paul says that love “hath fulfilled” the law. The phrase “hath fulfilled” here is a translation of the Greek word “pepleroken,” which is a word in the Greek perfect tense. (Barbara and Timothy Friberg, Analytical Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), p. 502.) Basically, the Greek perfect tense conveys the idea that previous on-going action has culminated in an abiding state. (Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1994), p. 126; Ray Summers, Essentials of New Testament Greek (Nashville, Tenn. Broadman Press, 1950), p. 103). Paul is teaching that, by love, the law has been fulfilled, and stands fulfilled. And, if the law stands fulfilled by love, nothing but love is necessary, or sufficient, to fulfill the law.

Paul begins Rom. 13:9 with the word “For,” signaling an explanation to come. Paul then lists five commandments based on the law of Moses. Sometimes people distinguish between the “moral,” “judicial,” and “ceremonial” commandments of the law, and teach that the ceremonial ones (such as those requiring animal sacrifice) are transitional but the moral commandments are permanent and binding on the Christian. It is important, then, to note that, at Rom. 13:9, Paul lists five “moral” commandments. Four of them, those involving adultery, killing (murder), stealing, and bearing false witness, are prohibitions involving outward conduct. One, involving coveting, is a prohibition involving inward desire.

Paul teaches that these five moral commandments, and any other commandment of the law of Moses, is summed up by another commandment of the law. That commandment is “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” found at Lev. 19:18.

Thus, Paul has shifted focus from several moral commandments of the law to a single moral commandment of the law: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Moreover, Paul has shifted from moral commandments, several of which prohibit outward conduct, to a single commandment that requires an inner virtue.

But Paul did not tell the Roman Christians to comply with the moral commandment “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” That is, Paul did not tell the Roman Christians to comply with the commandment of the law of Moses found at Lev. 19:18. Paul’s reference to Lev. 19:18 is part of his explanation concerning why Paul has himself commanded Christians to “love one another.” The Roman Christians are subject to a commandment based, not on the law of Moses, but on Paul’s independent and personal authority as an apostle of Jesus Christ. The commandment based on the law is “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Lev. 19:18.) The commandment from Paul the apostle to the Roman Christians is “love one another.” (Rom. 13:8.)

Indeed, John 13:34 records that Jesus Himself said to His disciples, “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.” (Italics added.) Why did He give a new commandment if the old one (“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Lev. 19:18)) applied? Lev. 19:18, referred to in Rom. 13:9, commanded love of one’s neighbor as one loves oneself. The new commandment commanded love of one another as Christ loved His disciples.

At Rom. 13:10, Paul teaches that love “worketh no ill to his neighbor.” That is, a person motivated by love would never commit adultery, kill (murder), steal, bear false witness, or covet, whether or not these things were specified in the law. Therefore, love itself, an inner virtue produced by the indwelling Spirit of God in the Christian, is the fulfillment of the law. Paul is not saying that we fulfil the law when we use love to comply with the commandments of the law. Instead, Paul is teaching that, if we simply have love, we no longer need be concerned about the moral commandments of the law, including the Ten Commandments or “any other commandment” (Rom. 13:9) of the law of Moses.

Thus, Paul has again shifted focus, this time from a single commandment of the law pertaining to love, to love itself, without the commandment of the law. And importantly, Paul invests the word “love” with a technical meaning; it is part of the “fruit of the Spirit.” (Gal. 5:22.)

Paul says at Rom. 13:10 that “love is the fulfilling of the law.” What does he mean by “fulfilling?” The “-ing” suffix could suggest continuing activity. This in turn could suggest continuing outward conduct. But the Greek word translated “fulfilling” at Rom. 13:10 in the KJV means neither continuing activity nor continuing outward conduct. That Greek word is “pleroma.” (George V. Wigram and Ralph D. Winter, The Word Study Concordance (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1978), pp. 630-631.) “Pleroma” is a noun, not a verb. (Vine’s New Testament Expository Dictionary. Fulfill, Fulfilling, Fulfillment - Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words - Bible Dictionary; italics added.) It is used 13 times by Paul and, each time in the KJV, except here at Rom. 13:10, “pleroma” is translated “fulness.” (Wigram, pp. 630-631.) The other 12 times are found at Rom. 11:12, 25; 15:29; 1 Cor. 10:26, 28; Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:10, 23; 3:19; 4:13; Col. 1:19; 2:9. (Ibid.) Although the phrase “love is the fulfilling of the law” (italics added) is found at Rom. 13:10 in the KJV, there is no reason that that phrase cannot be rendered, “love is the fulness of the law.”

Accordingly, one Greek-English interlinear translates this phrase in Rom. 13:10 as “love [is] fulness therefore of [the] law.” (George Ricker Berry, The Interlinear KJV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1897), p. 429.) One commentator observes, “Vs. 10, literally translated, reads ‘The fullness of the law, therefore, is love.” (Gerald R. Cragg, “The Epistle to the Romans,” The Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1954), IX, p. 607 (italics added).)

Thus, Paul commands the Roman Christians to “love one another.” (Rom. 3:8.) He does so knowing that love itself is the fulness of the law of Moses. Paul does not command that we comply with any commandment of the law of Moses. He does not command that we keep the “moral” commandments of the law of Moses. He does not command that we comply with the commandment of the law found at Lev. 19:18, i.e., “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” He does not command that we comply with or keep the Ten Commandments. Instead, the law of Moses has been fulfilled, and stands fulfilled, by love, produced by the Spirit of God in the Christian.

To say that we are free from any obligation to comply with the Ten Commandments is not to say that we are free to sin. Christian are still, of course, taught not to sin. (1 Jn. 2:1.) But as Christians, our motivation for not sinning is no longer a fear of condemnation for transgressing a law, but a desire not to grieve and hurt God. (Eph. 4:30) and instead to glorify Him (1 Cor. 6:20). God teaches Christians to love Him (Rom. 8:28; 1 Cor. 2:9), and to love one another (Rom. 13:8, 1 Th. 4:9), but not as commandments of the law.

The account of the discreet scribe at Mark 12:28-34 reveals that the scribe knew that “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God” and “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” were the greatest commandments of the law but, even then, Jesus taught that the scribe had not yet made it into the kingdom of God, though he was “not far” from it. The scribe had yet to learn that the law would be “fulfilled in” (Rom. 8:4) us, not kept, through the love of the One with Whom the scribe was speaking, and from Whom the scribe was “not far” physically or spiritually.

Accordingly, Jesus taught at Mt. 5:17, “. . . I [the person of Christ] am . . . come . . . to fulfil [the law].” The Greek word translated “has fulfilled” at Rom. 13:8 is a form of the Greek word translated “fulfil” at Mt. 5:17. (Wigram, p. 630. The Greek word is “pleroo.” (Ibid.)) Christ came to fulfill the law. He did not say that His audience or Christians were to fulfill it. Christ in fact fulfilled it, He now dwells in the Christian by faith (Eph. 3:17), and now love, part of the fruit of the Spirit, has fulfilled the law. Christians can voluntarily comply with the law as a matter of preference or conscience, but not because they are under the obligation of the law.

What Paul teaches at Rom. 13, he teaches more briefly at Gal. 5:13-14. Those verses read:

(13) For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. (14) For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”​

(Italics added.)

The Galatian Christians were being wrongly taught by unbelieving Judaizers that the Galatian Christians had to comply with the law. Here, at Gal. 5:13, Paul commands the Galatian Christians to do works of service motivated “by love.” Paul begins Gal. 5:14 using the word “For,” again, signaling an explanation to come. Paul’s explanation is that the law is fulfilled by “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” i.e., by Lev. 19:18.

But Paul has not commanded the Galatian Christians to comply with the commandment of the law, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” According to Paul, if persons, including Christians, could hypothetically comply with that Mosaic commandment, and all the other commandments of the law of Moses, perfectly throughout their lives, then, and only then, would their compliance with that verse fulfill the law. For “cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” (Gal. 3:10; italics added.)

The commandment which the apostle Paul gives to the Galatian Christians is to serve one another “by love.” He knows that the love motivating that service has fulfilled the law.

The phrase “is fulfilled” at Gal. 5:14 is a translation of the Greek word “peplerotai,” which is a word in the Greek perfect tense. (Friberg, p. 585.) “Peplerotai” here and “pepleroken” at Rom. 13:8 are different forms of the same Greek word (“pleroo”). (Wigram, p. 630.) Paul is teaching that the law has been fulfilled by the commandment of the law, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” But this is Paul’s explanation concerning why Paul, in the exercise of his apostolic authority, commands the Galatian Christians to serve by “love.”
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Kenneth Roberson

Active Member
Nov 8, 2020
57
12
Riverside, California
✟19,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
B. CHRISTIANS REPENT

The above does not give Christians a license to sin. John at 1 Jn. 2:1 says, “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin.” (Italics added.) Paul wrote at Gal. 5:13, “do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh.”

Indeed, many of the Ten Commandments, which applied to the Jews, correspond to teachings of the apostles and the New Testament applicable to Christians. (1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (Ex. 20:3); “Flee from idolatry” (1 Cor. 10:14). 2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image[.]” (Ex. 20:4); “Flee from idolatry” (1 Cor. 10:14). 3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain (Ex. 20:7); Paul teaches against blasphemy (1 Tim. 1:20). 4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. (Ex. 20:8); “For we who have believed enter that [sabbath] rest.” (Heb. 4:3). 5. “Honour thy father and thy mother[.]” (Ex. 20:12); “Honour thy father and mother[.]” (Eph. 6:2). 6. Thou shalt not kill (murder) (Ex. 20:13); Paul lists “murders” as one of the works of the flesh. (Gal. 5:19, 21). 7. “Thou shall not commit adultery.” (Ex. 20:14); Paul lists “adultery” as one of the works of the flesh. (Gal. 5:19). 8. “Thou shalt not steal.” (Ex. 20:15); “Let him that stole steal no more[.]” (Eph. 4:28). 9. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. (Ex. 20:16); “Lie not one to another[.]” (Col. 3:9). 10. “Thou shalt not covet . . . anything that is your neighbour’s.” (Ex. 20:17); “I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be . . . covetous . . . with such an one no not to eat.” (1 Cor. 5:11).)

Moreover, the Scriptures teach that Christians are required to repent of their sins. One well known Greek lexicon states that to repent, or repentance, means, “to change one’s way of life as the result of a complete change of thought and attitude with regard to sin and righteousness – ‘to repent, to change one’s way, repentance. [Footnote omitted.]” (Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament[:] Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1989), vol. 1, p. 510, sec. 41.52, italics added.) The lexicon also states, “Though in English a focal component of repent is the sorrow or contrition that a person experiences because of sin, the emphasis in [repent] and [repentance] seems to be more specifically the total change, both in thought and behavior, with respect to how one should both think and act.” (Ibid.)

At 2 Corinthians 7:9, Paul told the Corinthian Christians, “I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful [by an earlier letter he had written to them], but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; . . .” (Italics added.) At 2 Cor. 12:21, Paul lamented, “I am afraid that when I come again my God may humiliate me before you, and I may mourn over many of those who have sinned in the past and not repented of the impurity, immorality and sensuality which they have practiced.” (Italics added.) At Rev. 2:21-22, John wrote that Christ said concerning a certain woman, “21 I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality. 22 Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds.” (Italics added.)

C. CHRISTIANS ARE TO DO GOOD WORKS

Outward conduct has no role in Paul’s conception of justification by faith. That is not however to say that outward conduct has no role in Paul’s teaching to the church. He clearly taught that Christians are to do “works.” But these “works” are not outward conduct done with the expectation of receiving righteousness from God in return as payment of a debt owed by Him.

Instead, Paul commended to the church “works” in the context of “good works.” At Ephesians 2:10, he said, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God had before ordained that we should walk in them.” (Italics added.) At 2 Timothy 3:16-17, he stressed, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, . . . That the man of God may be . . . thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (Italics added.) As mentioned, Paul instructed Titus to affirm constantly that “they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works.” (Titus 3:8, italics added.)

But if you have “faith” as Paul uses that term, even “good works” have no role in justification according to Paul. “Faith,” as Paul uses that term, need not be continuously accompanied by “good works” in order to be “faith.” Titus 3:8 above presupposes that those who “believe” must be encouraged to do “good works.” The encouragement would be unnecessary if Paul were teaching that “good works” necessarily and continuously accompany “faith.”

The account of Abraham’s faith at Gen. 15:5-6 demonstrates this as well. At Gen. 15:5, God said to Abraham, “Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he [God] said unto him, So shall thy seed be.” Gen. 15:6 immediately follows and simply records, “And he [Abraham] believed in the Lord; and he [the Lord] counted it to him for righteousness.” Gen. 15:6 does not say that Abraham did any “work.” The verse does not say whether Abraham did so much as look towards heaven or “tell the stars.” Paul never wrote that “works”—in the context of “good works”—must continuously accompany “faith” in order for “faith” to be counted for righteousness.

D. THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL OF ACTS 15

At Acts 15, the apostles and elders in the Jerusalem church convened in what is commonly referred to as the Jerusalem Council. The Jerusalem Council reached a decision for the Jerusalem church concerning issues related to what we have discussed, including the issue of whether Gentile Christians were obligated to comply with the law.

Acts 15:1 teaches that “certain” persons came from Judea to Antioch and erroneously taught Gentile Christians that “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” The Jerusalem church, later writing to the Gentile Christians, said persons “went out from us” and “troubled you.” (Acts 15:24.)

Paul and Barnabas went to the Jerusalem church to obtain a formal pronouncement by that church on the issue. Paul did not need this to establish for him that what the “certain” persons were teaching was false. He knew from his “revelation of Jesus Christ”—the “gospel” he preached—that what the “certain” persons were teaching was false. Paul wanted a decision by the Jerusalem church to silence the “certain” persons from that church, and any of their potential followers.

After Paul and Barnabas arrived in Jerusalem, certain “Pharisees which believed” (Christian Pharisees, if you will) spoke up. They declared, as to the Gentile Christians, that “it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” (Acts 15:5.) The believing Pharisees did not expressly say why. But they were claiming that Gentile Christians were required to comply with the law like Jews. In effect, this presented Christianity, for Jewish and Gentile Christians alike, as less a new teaching from God, and more like an extension of Judaism. The “apostles and elders” came together to consider the matter (Acts 15:6) at what is commonly called the Jerusalem Council.

At the Jerusalem Council, Peter testified that Jewish and Gentile Christians were saved through grace. (Acts 15:11.) This amounted to a rejection of the claim made by the “certain” men to Gentile Christians that “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” (Acts 15:1.)

Moreover, Peter demanded to know of the “Men and brethren” (Acts 15:7), “why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” (Acts 15:10; italics added.) Peter thereby proclaimed that it was a sin to try to put on Gentile Christians the “yoke” of the law. Peter’s proclamation about the “yoke” occurred in the context of a claim that Gentile Christians had to be circumcised under the law to be saved, and a claim that Gentile Christians had to be circumcised and keep the law. In other words, the “yoke” was the burden of the obligation to comply with the law. Peter’s proclamation was a rejection of the claims of the certain persons from Judea and the believing Pharisees.

Indeed, the believing Pharisees claimed “it was needful to circumcise them [Gentile Christians], and to command them to keep the law of Moses” (Acts 15:5) and Acts 15:5 does not record that the believing Pharisees explained why, i.e., whether Gentile Christians had to keep the law to be justified, saved, or simply because the law was obligatory. Peter’s proclamation that it was sin to try to put on the Gentile Christians the yoke of the law was in effect a rejection of any claim that Gentile Christians had to comply with the law for any purpose. But if Gentile Christians were free from the yoke of the law, they would naturally continue to live a Gentile (though now Scriptural) lifestyle that did not include compliance with the law.

And Peter told the Jewish Christians present that “we” were not “able to bear” the yoke of the law. Peter was teaching that the yoke of the law was unbearable for Jewish Christians and it was futile for them to try to bear it.

Peter’s testimony compels the conclusions that Jewish and Gentile Christians were saved through grace; Gentile Christians were free to live a Scriptural lifestyle that excluded compliance with the law; and it was futile for Jewish Christians to try to bear its yoke.

The decision of the Jerusalem Council was left to James, who apparently headed the Jerusalem Council. He declared, “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God[.]” (Acts 15:19, italics added.) The Jerusalem church then sent letters to the Gentile Christians outside Jerusalem. (Acts 15:22-29.) The letters stated that the Jerusalem church was sending Paul, Barnabas, and others (Acts 15:23-27) to the Gentile Christians because

“certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law; to whom we gave no such commandment[.]”

(Acts 15:24, italics added; the NASB and some commentators end this verse with the word “souls.”) All the Gentile Christians had to do, as far as the Jerusalem church was concerned, was to “abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.” (Acts 15:29.) James’s earlier “sentence” called for this as well. (Acts 15:20.) However, these four requirements were not based on the law of Moses. (Acts 15:19, 21, 24; 21:24-25 [James acknowledges to Paul that Gentiles do not have to “keepest the law”].)

In light of the above, a number of observations concerning the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 are appropriate. First, Acts 8:26-39 recounted the conversion of the Ethiopian. Acts 10-11:18 chronicled the conversion of Cornelius and those in his house. Those accounts presented the issue of whether a Gentile (the Ethiopian) and Gentiles (Cornelius and those in his house) were required to comply with the law in order to become Christians. (Only Acts 10-11:18 presented the issue to the Jerusalem church.) The answer in both cases was a decisive no. At Acts 15, the issue presented to the Jerusalem Council was whether Gentiles who were already Christians were required to comply with the law; the answer again was a resounding no.

Second, at Acts 15, the issue presented was whether Gentile Christians had to comply with the law. But Peter’s testimony went beyond that: he testified that Jewish Christians could not bear the yoke of the law. Third, the concept of justification was not expressly referred to in Acts 15. The words “just,” “justified,” “justification,” or “righteousness” nowhere appear in Acts 15. But salvation was referred to; Peter testified that Christians were saved through grace. (Acts 15:11.)

E. ACTS 21 AND PAUL KEEPING THE LAW

Acts 21:17-26 recount the last meeting between Paul and James recorded in the Book of Acts. The meeting occurred in Jerusalem following Paul’s third missionary journey.

At Acts 21:20, James told Paul, “Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law[.]” (Italics added.) These were Jewish Christians zealous of the law. According to Acts 21:21, James told Paul that these Jewish Christians in Jerusalem had been told (erroneously) that Paul “teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.” (Italics added.)

James proposed a solution. For the benefit of these Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, James told Paul that “We have four men” (Jewish Christians) taking a vow, and asked Paul to participate in a ritual ceremony. (Acts 21:23-24.) The details of the ceremony make clear that this vow was part of a ritual under the law, perhaps a Nazarite vow. (See Num. 6:2, 5.) Importantly, James asked Paul to participate in this ceremony so everyone would know that Paul “keepest the law” (Acts 21:23-24).

James did not, by the phrase “keepest the law” at Acts 21:24, mean keep it as a matter of obligation. First, previously at the right hands of fellowship of Gal. 2:9, James had agreed with Paul’s “gospel” that Jewish and Gentile Christians were not under the obligation of the law and were free to enjoy a Scriptural lifestyle that excluded complying with the law of Moses or its commandments for any purpose. Second, at the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, James was present and did not dispute Peter’s testimony that Christians were saved by grace and it was futile for Jewish Christians to try to bear the yoke of the law.

Thus here at Acts 21, Paul complied with James’s request. Paul complied with the law as one would keep local customs, not as a matter of obligation, not as a “guideline” from God, or for God’s sake at all. When Paul was in Jerusalem, he would comply with the law of Moses, though not from any obligation based on the law. If Paul were in Rome, he “would do as the Romans do,” as long as that was consistent with God’s Word. (See 1 Cor. 9:19-22.)

There is no record that Paul had been teaching what the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem were hearing that he had been teaching, but the rumor had impacted them. It was one thing to hear that Paul was teaching that Jewish Christians were not obligated to comply with the law. It was another to hear that he was teaching Jews among the Gentiles to “forsake” the law entirely for any purpose, to not circumcise children, and to not walk after the customs. That Paul never did. He never taught that (1) Jewish Christians could not comply with the law on a nonobligatory basis as a way of life or

(2) Jewish Christians were to reject complying with the law for any purpose, even on a nonobligatory basis. The issue for Paul was always compliance based on Mosaic obligation.

For example, in the case of Titus, Paul categorically rejected circumcising a Christian as a matter of obligation based on the law. Paul wrote at Gal. 2:3, “But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.” The issue was compulsion, i.e., obligation. Indeed, Paul said at Gal. 5:3, “I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” (Italics added.) However, before Paul took Timothy with him in Paul’s ministry, Paul circumcised him, not based on obligation to the law, but to avoid offending Jews, because they knew Timothy’s father was a Greek. (Acts 16:1-3.) Similarly here, to quell the false rumor that Paul had been teaching Jews among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, to not circumcise their children, and to not walk after the customs, Paul complied with James’s request and “keepest the law.”

Paul accomplished two things by doing this. First, he made clear that a Jewish Christian, such as one living in Jerusalem, is free to enjoy a lifestyle that includes a nonobligatory compliance with the law of Moses to honor God in accord with his or her preferences or consistent with the dictates of his or her conscience. Second, Paul made clear that when a Christian, such as Paul, interacts with people who comply with the law as a way of life, the Christian is free to engage in a nonobligatory compliance with the law to avoid offending such people. Paul complied with the law simply to avoid offending the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and to respect Jewish traditions and culture.

The apostle Paul teaches that Christians are not under obligation to the law of Moses and thus are free to comply with it voluntarily as a matter of preference or conscience as well as free not to comply with the law for any purpose (although otherwise living a Scriptural lifestyle). God loved the Jewish Christians in the Jerusalem church and the Gentile Christians in the church in Antioch.
 
Upvote 0

Kenneth Roberson

Active Member
Nov 8, 2020
57
12
Riverside, California
✟19,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
III. COMMENTS ON YOUR POST

As mentioned, I quote your post below and add my comments to it in brackets in bold.


Hello,

Choosing to obey to any set of instructions that are only for the good of someone else is about earning favor with the one who gave those instructions while choosing to obey to any set of instructions that are for our own good is about putting our faith in the one who gave them to rightly guide us. God's law was given for our own good (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13), so our obedience to it has never been about trying to earn our justification, which has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of the law, but rather our obedience has always been about putting our faith in God to rightly guide us, and we are justified by that same faith, which is why Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23). [I agree that Christians can both have “faith” and comply with the law of Moses (the law). At Acts 21:20, James told Paul that there were Jewish Christians who were “zealous of the law.” The issue is whether Christians are obligated to comply. Paul taught that Christians were also free not to comply with the law. Mt. 23:23 does not teach differently. I agree that Jesus there taught that “faith” was one of the “weightier matters of the law.” But context is important and, in Mt. 23:23, Jesus was denouncing the hypocrisy of unbelievers claiming to comply with the law. Jesus there said, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” He said of them, “ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.” (Mt. 23:28.) He did not claim at Mt. 23:23 that the scribes and Pharisees were keeping the law but instead pointed out their hypocritical failure to keep it. Jesus was not at that verse teaching obligatory Christian compliance with the law. He was teaching that since the scribes and Pharisees claimed to keep its obligations, they should do it all, the “weightier matters of the law” and tithing tiny seeds. He was pointing to the falsity of their claim.



The law and its obligations were designed to drive unbelievers to a Savior. Those who failed to cast the first stone for adultery should have turned to Him for their own inescapable condition of sin, even if they had not committed adultery. The woman whom He told to go forth uncondemned for the adultery should have turned to Him because it was impossible for her to “sin no more,” even if she never committed adultery again.



Paul’s “gospel” was a “revelation” that Jesus gave to him after Jesus’s personal ministry on earth among the Jews, and after He said what Mt. 23:23 records that He said about the law. Paul said at Gal. 3:23, “before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.” When it comes to complying with the law as a matter of obligation, Paul presents law and faith as mutually exclusive systems, including mutually exclusive systems of justification. Paul said at Gal. 5:3, “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” (Italics added.) Obligation to do a part is obligation to do the whole. Paul, quoting Deut. 27:26, wrote at Gal. 3:10, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” (Italics added.) Gal. 3:11-12, speaking of life as well as justification, say: “11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.” (Italics added.) Paul teaches that Christians are free to comply with the law, not as a matter of obligation, but in accord with their preferences or conscience, but that Christians are also free not to comply with the law for any purpose.] In Revelation 14:12, those who kept faith in Jesus are the same as those who kept God's commandments. [Rev. 14:12 says, “here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” It does not say, “keep the commandments of the law, and the faith of Jesus.” John would not have written that Christians are obligated to comply with the law, because he understood Paul’s “revelation” and, with James and Peter, agreed to it. (Gal. 2:7-9.) And John never uses the phrase “commandments of the law” in the Book of John, 1, 2, or 3 John, or the Book of Revelations.] In James 2:17-18, he said that faith without works is dead and that he would show his faith by his works, so doing good works in obedience to the law is what faith looks like. [Jas. 2:17-18 do not mention “the law” or “obedience to the law.” In fact, a few verses later at Jas. 2:21-24, James appeals to the example of Abraham, who lived before the law of Moses. I agree however that James teaches that Jewish Christians are obligated to comply with the law; the essay maintains this teaching was transitional.] Only those who have faith in God to guide us in how to rightly live will obey His law and will be justified by the same faith, which is why Paul said in Romans 2:13 that only doers of the law will be justified [Paul wrote at that verse that “the doers of the law shall be justified,” but he was not teaching there that Christians who were “doers of the law shall be justified.” Rom. 2:13 in context is part of Rom. 1:18 through 3:20, in which Paul proves that unbelievers, Jewish and Gentile, are guilty before God. He says at Rom. 2:6, for example, that God “will render to every man according to his deeds” (italics added), and the verse does not refer to “faith.” Paul later declares that “To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life” (Rom. 2:7, italics added) and “glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile” (Rom. 2:10, italics added). But this is hypothetical only, for Paul declares at Rom. 3:9-11 concerning unbelievers: “9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.” He also says at verse 12, “there is none that doeth good, no, not one” and at verse 19, “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” If there are “none that doeth good,” there are (1) none who “by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality” (Rom. 2:7, italics added) and (2) none who “worketh good” and thus receive “glory, honour, and peace.” (Rom. 2:10.) Rom. 2:13, says that “doers of the law shall be justified,” but the context is a discussion pertaining to unbelievers and showing that (1) their efforts to be justified this way will be unsuccessful and (2) such justification is only hypothetical. Paul does not in Rom. 1:18 through 3:20 refer to “faith,” or to Christians having “faith” and being “doers of the law.” And Paul does not in those verses teach that a Christian complies with the obligations of the law, or is a doer of the law, to be justified, to be saved, or for any other purpose. After Rom. 3:20, the good news for Christians begins at Rom. 3:21!] but did not say that we earn our justification by being a doer of the law, so he was in complete agreement with James that the only way to become justified is by being a doer of God's law. The problem is when people mistake what was only said against obeying the law for the goal of earning our justification as abolishing our need to obey the law when Romans 3:31 Paul did not want us to conclude that our faith abolishes our need to obey it, but rather he concluded by saying that our faith upholds God's law. [Rom. 3:31 says, “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Paul does not here say that he “did not want us to conclude that our faith abolishes our need to obey” the law. He implies that we do not make void the law through faith but instead we establish the law through faith. He does not say we establish the law through faith and complying with the law, as a matter of obligation or otherwise. Thus Rom. 8:4 teaches that God sent His Son “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Italics added.)] The goal of the Mosaic Law is to teach us how to experientially know Christ, or in other words how to have a relationship with him based on faith, which is why Romans 10:4 says that Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness for everyone who has faith. [I agree, but just to be clear I would note the following. Rom. 10:4 says, “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth” (KJV; italics added) and “Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes” (NIV). In other words, the person of Christ, is the end, culmination, or goal when it comes to the issue of righteousness, and we have the righteousness of God by believing in the person of Christ. (Rom. 3:22) Rom. 10:4 does not say that the end or goal of the law is “to have a relationship with him based on faith” and complying with the law as a matter of obligation or otherwise.] In Jeremiah 9:3, and 9:6, they did not experientially know God and refused to know Him because in 9:13, they had forsaken the Mosaic Law, while in 9:24, those who experientially know God know that He delights in practicing steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in all of the earth, so the way to experientially know God is through delighting in expressing those and other aspects of God's nature through our obedience to His law [Jer. 9:3 (speaking to Jews, not Christians) says, “they know not me”; Jer. 9:6 says, “they refuse to know me”; and Jer. 9:13 says, “Because they have forsaken my law.” But those verses do not prove that “because in 9:13, they had forsaken the Mosaic law,” the preceding statements in verses 3 and 6 were true. In fact, the phrase “Because they have forsaken my law” in verse 13 relates to a subsequent verse, i.e., verse 15 (if not also 16). This is so because, after verse 13 says, “Because they have forsaken my law,” verse 15 says, “Therefore” God would feed them with wormwood and give them water of gall to drink.]. In John 6:40, those who believe in Jesus will have eternal life, in John 17:3, eternal life is experientially knowing God and Jesus, and in Matthew 19:17, Jesus said that if we want to enter eternal life, then obey the commandments [Mt. 19:17 in context is part of the Mt. 19:16-22 account of Jesus’s encounter, not with a Christian, but with a Jewish man who had “great possessions.” (v. 22). The man said nothing about “faith” or belief in Christ to obtain eternal life (compare, Jn. 3:16) but instead focused on what work or deed the man could do, asking “what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” (Italics added.) The man claimed to have kept the commandments but Jesus showed him he would not thereby obtain eternal life because he would not sell his possessions and follow Jesus. Jesus did not tell the man to follow Him and comply with the law. The Mt. 19:16-22 account is not an account of a Christian obtaining eternal life by complying with the law as a matter of obligation (or otherwise).], so obedience to the commandments is what it looks like to believe in Jesus and to know him. In John 5:39-40, Jesus said that they search the Scriptures because they think that in them they might find eternal life, and the Scriptures testify about him, but they refuse to come to him that they might have life, and the fact that we can enter eternal life by obeying the commandments [Jn. 5:39-40 do not contain the phrase “obeying the commandments”] means that eternal life can be found in the Scriptures and that they were correct to search for it there, but they needed to recognize that the goal of everything in Scriptures is to teach us how to have a relationship with Christ and come to him for eternal life. In Philippians 3:8, Paul was in the same boat as the Pharisees, where he had been obeying the law, but without having a focus on knowing Christ, so he had been missing the whole goal of the law and counted it all as rubbish. [You are suggesting that “obeying the law” with a focus on knowing Christ is the whole goal of the law. But Phil. 3:8 does not say that or use the phrase “obeying the law.” In fact, verse 8 refers to the “excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord” (italics added) without referring to “obeying the law.” Verse 9 says that Paul wants to “win Christ” (italics added) and “be found in Him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.” (Italics added.) Verse 9 does not contain the phrase “obeying the law.” Verse 10, clearly discussing knowing Christ, says, “That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death[.]” The verse does not add, “obeying the law.”] In 1 John 2:4, those who say that they know Jesus, but don't obey his commands are liars and the truth is not in them [1 Jn. 2:4 reads, “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” But John does not say here “commandments of the law.” In fact, instead of using the phrase “commandments of the law,” John says in the very next verse (vs. 5), “But whoso keepeth His word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.” (Emphasis added.) As mentioned, John never uses the phrase “commandments of the law” in any of his letters.], and in 1 John 3:4-6, sin is lawlessness and those who continue to practice lawlessness have neither seen nor known him. [John refers to “lawlessness” twice in 1 Jn. 3:4 (e.g., NASB & NIV) but does not refer to “lawlessness” in 1 Jn. 3:5-6. Moreover, each time “lawlessness” is found in 1 Jn. 3:4 it is a translation of a form of the Greek word “anomia.” (George Ricker Berry, The Interlinear KJV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1897), p. 612.) “Anomia” does not necessarily denote acts contrary to the law of Moses. Thus, in the KJV it is translated simply “iniquity” or “iniquities” at Mt. 7:23, 13:41, 23:28, 24:12; Rom. 4:7, 6:19; 2 Th. 2:7; Titus 2:14; Heb. 1:9, 8:12, and 10:17, and “unrighteousness” at 2 Cor. 6:14. (Wigram, p. 55.) 1 Jn. 3:4 is the only time the KJV translates a form of “anomia” as “transgression of the law.” (Ibid.)] In Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him [Mt. 7:23 in the English Standard Version refers to “workers of lawlessness.” But “lawlessness” here is a translation of a form of the Greek word “anomia” (Wigram, p. 55), which, as mentioned, can simply be translated “iniquity” or “unrighteousness,” i.e., words that do not expressly refer to the law of Moses], because he never knew them so again the goal of the law is to teach us how to experientially know Christ, who is the exact expression of God's nature (Hebrews 1:3), which he expressed through his sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law. Furthermore, if Jesus will tell people to depart from him because they were workers of lawlessness, then obedience to the law through faith is a salvation issue.​
 
Upvote 0

Kenneth Roberson

Active Member
Nov 8, 2020
57
12
Riverside, California
✟19,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Christians are obligated to practice righteousness in obedience to God's law and to refrain from sin and sin is the transgression of it (1 John 3:4-10) [Here you may be using the KJV, which says at 1 Jn. 3:4 that sin is the “transgression of the law.” As mentioned, “transgression of the law” at that verse is the KJV’s translation of the Greek word “anomia.” “Anomia” does not necessarily refer to the law of Moses. And the phrase “transgression of the law” is not found elsewhere in 1 Jn. 3:4-10.] Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is an integral part of the Gospel message, which Jesus prophesied would be proclaimed to all nations (Matthew 24:12-14) The fact that Jesus also set a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law means that he taught how to obey it both by word and by example, and Christians are those who seek by faith to follow what Christ taught by word and by example (1 John 2:4, 1 Peter 2:21-22). [The essay demonstrates that after Jesus’s personal ministry among the Jews, Paul received a “revelation of Jesus Christ” that, first, Christians are not “justified by works” but are “justified by faith” (as Paul uses those terms); second, Christians are free to live a Scriptural lifestyle that excludes complying with the law; and third, Christians are free to live a lifestyle that includes a nonobligatory compliance with the law in accord with their preferences or the dictates of their consciences. Jesus’s focus on the law of Moses during His ministry was thus transitional. And if the above three points were not the “revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12), where, for example, do we find in the New Testament, and outside of Paul’s letters, teachings that Christians are “justified by faith” and not “justified by works” as Paul uses those terms?] In Romans 15:18-19, Paul's Gospel message involved bringing the Gentiles to obedience in word and in deed, so he was on the same page as Jesus about teaching repentance from our sins. Jesus did not go around telling people that the law had ended [At Mt. 5:17, Jesus said that He came to fulfill the law (Mt. 5:17). He did not say there that He wanted others or Christians “to fulfill” it. At Luke 24:44, Jesus told His disciples after His resurrection, “These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.” (Emphasis added.) (The Greek word translated “fulfilled” at Lk. 24:44 is a form of the Greek word “pleroo” (Wigram, p. 630), forms of which are also found at Mt. 5:17, Rom. 13:8, and Gal. 5:14 as previously discussed. (Ibid.)) Paul later wrote in inspired Scripture that the love of the Christian has fulfilled the law. (Indeed, at Mt. 5:17, Jesus said He came to fulfill the law and the prophets. Where does the New Testament teach that Christians are to fulfill the prophets?)] and that they needed to stop repenting [yes, Christians repent of their sins], but just the opposite. In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness [the English Standard Version uses the word “lawlessness” here; it is a translation of a form of “anomia.” The KJV uses the word “iniquity.”] and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law [Titus 2:14 does not contain the phrase “Mosaic Law” or “obedience to the Mosaic Law.”] is what it looks like to believe in what he accomplished on the cross (Acts 21:20) [Acts 21:20 in context refers to Jewish Christians in the Jerusalem church who were zealous of the law. Immediately after James asked Paul to “keepest the law” for them, James said at Acts 21:25 (NASB), “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.” James did not there state that Gentile Christians had to comply with the law of Moses or keep the law with its estimated 613 commandments.] So Galatians 3:24-25 should not be interpreted as saying that God's law is transitional because that would undermine everything that Jesus accomplished both through his ministry and through the cross, especially when all of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160). To transition away from the Mosaic Law is that was given to teach us about how to have a relationship with Christ is to transition away from Christ.
 
Upvote 0

Kenneth Roberson

Active Member
Nov 8, 2020
57
12
Riverside, California
✟19,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi Soyeong. Thank you for your comments. I quote your post below and add my comments to it in brackets in bold.

It does not seem to me that James is saying that a dead faith is a legitimate form of faith, but that it is not really faith at all. [The essay shows that James is not teaching that dead faith is not really faith. In other words, James’s dead faith is an actual (legitimate) faith. It is sometimes taught that the “man” of Jas. 2:14 says or claims he has “faith,” but does not actually have “faith.” But verse 14 does not teach this. An analogy may help. If a man says he has an inflatable lifeboat, but has no air, can the lifeboat save him? No. The problem is not that the man claims that he has a lifeboat but does not actually have one. The man claims he has a lifeboat, and actually has one, but, without air, it is just not a saving kind of lifeboat.

Similarly, the “man” of verse 14 claims he has “faith,” and actually has “faith.” However, it is just not a saving kind of “faith.” At Jas. 2:17 and 26, James teaches that “faith without works” (italics added) is dead. James does not say that this is not “faith”; it is an actual “faith.” It is just an actual “faith” that is dead. James, describing what “faith” is (dead) is describing something existing—“faith.” At Jas. 2:14, James refers to a man who says he has “faith” but does not have “works,” then James asks, “Can faith save him?” (Italics added.) James is referring to an actual “faith” (“faith without works”) but teaching that it is not a saving “faith.” James does not ask, “Can claimed faith save him?” James does not say that “faith without works” is a nonexistent “faith”; he teaches that this existing “faith” does not save.

At Jas. 2:26, James underscores, “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so “faith” without works is dead also.” (Italics added.) James compares a body without a spirit to “faith” without “works,” and says such a body and such a “faith” are dead. The body without a spirit is an actual body. It is just an actual body that is dead. So too, according to James, “faith” without “works” is an actual “faith.” It is just an actual “faith” that is dead. The person with this kind of “faith” believes what God says is true, but does no “works.” If one reads Jas. 2:14 alone, which records that the man

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Kenneth Roberson

Active Member
Nov 8, 2020
57
12
Riverside, California
✟19,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi Soyeong. Again, thank you for your comments, and I quote them below and add my comments in brackets in bold.

In Acts 10:28, Peter referred a law that forbade Jews to visit or associate with Gentiles, however, this law is not found anywhere in the Mosaic Law and is therefore a man-made law. It was this law that Peter was following in Galatians 2:11-16 when he stopped visiting or associating with the Gentiles. [Gal. 2:11-16 involved more than merely a law, Mosaic or man-made, that forbade Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles. First, Gal. 2:12 says that Peter “did eat with the Gentiles.” (Italics added.) In other words, Peter had been eating Gentile foods, not in accord with the dietary restrictions (e.g., regarding kosher foods) of the law. Second, Paul told Peter, “thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews” (italics added), i.e., Peter’s lifestyle was not in accord with the law. (Italics added.)

Third, Peter withdrew from the Gentiles because he feared an accusation of wrongdoing from the circumcision who came from James. Paul rebuked Peter because his hypocritical withdrawal in effect taught the Gentiles that they were obligated to live like Jews as a matter of lifestyle and comply with the law. That is why Paul asked, “why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (Gal. 2:14, italics added).

The above facts indicate that more was at issue at Gal. 2:11-16 than whether a law, Mosaic or man-made, forbade Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles. Paul was aware of the above facts, implicating the law, when he told Peter that we are not “justified by works of the law.” (Italics added.)

Finally, it should be noted that Paul asked Peter “why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” and not “why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews to be justified?” Obligation and justification were separate though related issues, and Peter hypocritically erred as to both.] By doing so, Peter was giving credibility to those who were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of the law in order to become justified, which is by Paul rebuked him and reiterated that we are justified by faith, not by works of the law. In Acts 15:1, they were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become justified [Acts 15:1 does not use the term “justified,” but says that the certain men said, “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” (Italics added.) Salvation and justification are, as you suggest, related concepts.], however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the problem was that circumcision was being used for a man-made purpose that went above and beyond the purpose for which God commanded it. So the Jerusalem Council was upholding the Mosaic Law by correctly ruling against that requirement, and a ruling against requiring something that God never commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against requiring what God has commanded, as if the Jerusalem Council had the authority to countermand God. [First, as mentioned, the “certain men” were requiring the Gentile Christians to be circumcised after the manner of Moses to be “saved,” not to be “justified.”

Second, let’s assume for sake of argument that, as you maintain, the “certain men” of Acts 15:1 were claiming that Gentile Christians were subject to obligatory Mosaic circumcision for justification. Your position is that God never commanded circumcision for that purpose; it was therefore circumcision for a man-made purpose; and, while the Jerusalem Council correctly rejected circumcision for that purpose, it otherwise upheld the law of Moses and what God did command. But I would respectfully submit that more than that happened during the Jerusalem Council.

One, Acts 15:5 records that “there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” (Italics added.) In other words, these believing Pharisees (Christian Pharisees, if you will) required Gentile Christians (1) to be circumcised and (2) to keep the law of Moses. Moreover, Acts 15:5 does not record that these believing Pharisees qualified their requirement by saying that Gentile Christians had to be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses, to be justified. Acts 15:5 shows that believing Pharisees maintained without limitation that circumcision and keeping the law were obligations for Gentile Christians, whether or not Acts 15:1 was referring to obligatory Mosaic circumcision for justification.

Two, Peter’s testimony rejected (1) the claim of the “certain men” regarding obligatory circumcision for salvation and (2) the claim of the believing Pharisees regarding obligatory circumcision and obligatory keeping of the law. Peter asked at Acts 15:10, “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” (Italics added.) Peter thus testified it was sin to put this yoke on the Gentile Christians. And Peter’s question was unqualified, i.e., he did not ask “why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples concerning justification?”


Three, James’s judgment was “that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God[.]” He said this in the context of the claim of the “certain men” and the claim of the believing Pharisees, and James did not qualify or limit his judgment to the issue of justification.

Four, the apostles, elders of the Jerusalem church, and that church later wrote a letter to the Gentile Christians that said, “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.” (Acts 15:29, italics added.) If “no greater burden” was laid upon the Gentile Christians than these four things (“That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication”) then the Gentile Christians were obviously not required to comply with the law, which by some estimates contains 613 commandments. It is important to remember that Paul taught at Gal. 5:3, “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” (Italics added.) He wrote at Gal. 3:10, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” (Italics added.) Even James declared, “whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” (Jas. 2:10.) (Italics added.) If the Jerusalem church was instructing the Gentile Christians that they were only to abstain from the four things and the Jerusalem church was basing that instruction on the law, then the Jerusalem church was instructing the Gentile Christians on how not to keep “the whole law” and instead on how to be “cursed” and “guilty.” The Jerusalem church obviously was not doing that.

Moreover, it should be noted that the letter did not say that it seemed good to impose “no greater burden when it comes to the issue of justification.” Further, in his epistles, Paul would teach about the four prohibitions, not as based on the law of Moses, but as part of his apostolic doctrine. (See 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 and 6:9-10, 18 (fornication prohibited); and Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8, 9:19-22, and 10:31-33 (how to handle debatable things such as eating meats offered to idols and related issues).)

Five, Peter went beyond the issue of obligatory Mosaic Gentile Christian circumcision for the purpose of justification. At Acts 15:10, he stated concerning Jews that “neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” (italics added) the yoke. And he did not limit this statement to the issue of justification. Thus, more happened during the Jerusalem Council than merely a rejection of the claim that the law required circumcision for justification.] In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, so works of the law are of works, while he said in 3:31 that our faith upholds God's law, so he directly contrasted works of the law with the Mosaic Law. [At Rom. 3:27, Paul is teaching that a “law of faith,” not a “law of works,” excludes boasting. He does not say at that verse that the “law of faith” is having faith and complying with the law]. So Paul's problem in Galatians was not with those who were teaching Gentiles how to obey God's law as if obedience to God were somehow a negative thing, but rather his problem was with those who were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of the law in order to become justified. [Paul’s problem was unbelieving Judaizers who were teaching Gentile Christians the twin errors that they were (1) obligated to comply with the law and (2) obligated to do so to be justified. Concerning the Gentile Christians alleged obligation to comply with the law, Paul noted, first, that Titus was not “compelled” to be circumcised. (Gal. 2:3.) This was an issue of obligation. Second, Paul thereby rejected the false brethren’s efforts to “bring us into bondage.” (Gal. 2:4, italics added.) Third, Paul confronted Peter’s hypocrisy for living “after the manner of Gentiles,” and not in accord with the law, and then hypocritically withdrawing for fear of judgment under the law from the “circumcision.” (Gal. 2:12.) Fourth, Paul also confronted Peter for hypocritically and erroneously “compelling” Gentiles to live like Jews, i.e., complying with the law; this was an issue of obligation. Fifth, Paul taught that he “died to the law.” (Gal. 2:19.) Sixth, Paul proclaimed that “after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster” (Gal. 3:25) and he did not there express any further role for obligatory compliance with the law. Seventh, Paul said at Gal. 5:1, “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” (Italics added.) Eighth, at Gal. 5:3, Paul declared, “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” None of these statements contains a limitation restricting application of the statement solely to the issue of justification, although Paul also taught against obligatory compliance with the law to be justified. So Galatians 2:12 is not even referring to God's law. [Gal. 2:12, is referring not merely to Peter associating with Gentiles, but with him eating with them. And when that verse is considered with Gal. 2:14, they reflect that Peter was living after the manner of Gentiles, contrary to the law; wrongly fearing judgment for living contrary to the law; and erroneously teaching Gentiles that they were obligated to comply with the law.]

The Mosaic Law is Scripture, so how does one live a scriptural lifestyle that excludes complying with Scripture? [If because something is Scripture, Christians must comply with it, doesn’t that mean Christians should comply with the “ceremonial” laws of Moses including animal sacrifice? If not, doesn’t that mean Christians are correctly viewing at least those ceremonial laws as transitional and no longer binding upon the Christian, even though they are inspired Scripture?] Jesus followed the Mosaic Law, so how can one follow Christ while excluding what he followed? Is following Jesus just for Jews or for Gentiles too? [The essay maintains that, after Jesus’s earthly ministry among the Jews, Paul received a “revelation of Jesus Christ” for Jews and Gentiles just as John received a “revelation of Jesus Christ” (Rev. 1:1).]

In Ephesians 3:6, Paul described the mystery by saying that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. So the aspect revealed to Paul was not so much in regard to content of the Gospel message as it was in regard to who it was for. [As noted, the essay maintains the revelation included content. For example, where else, other than in Paul’s epistles, does the New Testament teach that Christians are “justified by faith” and not “justified by works” as he uses those phrases?] In Psalms 19:7, the Mosaic Law is perfect, in Psalms 119:45 it is a law of liberty, and in Psalms 119:1, it blesses those who obey it, so when James 1:25 speaks about a perfect law of liberty that blesses those who obey it, he was not saying anything about the Mosaic Law that wasn't already said in the Psalms. [The essay demonstrates that Paul’s revelation and Galatians 2 indicate that James agreed that James’s teaching on the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian was transitional.]

How happy are those whose way of life is blameless, who live by the Torah of Adonai! [Gal. 3:12 emphasizes that, as an obligatory system, “the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.” (Italics added.) Paul in that verse expresses no further role for obligatory compliance with the law].

Fury seizes me when I think of the wicked, because they abandon your Torah.

Your righteousness is eternal righteousness, and your Torah is truth. [There is a difference between (1) the wicked abandoning the Torah and (2) Christians acknowledging the doctrinal truth of the apostle James’s abandonment of his teachings on justification and the role of the law in the life of the Jewish Christian at the “right hand of fellowship” as a result of the “revelation of Jesus Christ” given to Paul.]

I long for your deliverance, Adonai; and your Torah is my delight. [Paul wrote at Rom. 7:22-24: “22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (Italics added.) Paul discussed this “delight” as part of the struggle of a wretched man needing deliverance from conflicting inner laws. Paul never discussed this “delight” in the context of a Christian having faith and complying with the law of Moses as a matter of obligation (or otherwise).]
 
Upvote 0