There was a significant lack of knowledge in the early years of the church. The cross and resurrection changed everything, resulting in the elimination of a covenant that had been in place for centuries. Consider if a Jewish person who believed in Jesus after the cross ... but still also believed the law of Moses was still to be applied for all Jewish people ... just exactly what did that mean for them? How did the blood of Jesus fit into that compared with the continued attempts to be doers of that old word? And what did it mean for Gentiles who never had the law?
When encouraging them to work at fulfilling that law, faith alone would be considered insufficient for salvation and justification. Righteousness would continue to be pursued by works plus faith. It formed a mindset that people such as Abraham and Rahab were not justified by believing, but by works being added in order to make faith perfect. How is this much different from the legalistic mumbo jumbo many of us have heard in works-based churches for so long? Let's take a closer look at the Rahab factor in the context of being justified.
Throughout the pages of the New Testament, we see numerous examples of how there were Jewish people coming to believe in Jesus, but understandably also believed the law of Moses was still in place for them. The Apostle Paul came along a short while later with a gospel message he claimed was taught directly to him by divine revelation ... to declare the former law had been put aside and nailed to the cross. His message was that life could not be found in the law which had now come to an end, and that the Jewish people had been delivered from such a burdensome ministry of death and condemnation.
But he was in the minority and suffered much persecution because of it. Various places within the New Testament show how James and his council of leadership within the Jerusalem church were part of this persuasion who believed that the Mosaic law was a component towards attaining salvation/justification (for the Jew). They also encouraged at least portions of it for the believing Gentiles. By not ignoring this important part of the big picture within the scriptures, we can begin to see how all of these books (including the works-based letter from James) harmonize with each other to tell the story. The story of what was happening with the struggles in the early church at that time—but more importantly—the message of Jesus and how eternal life is found in Him as a gift by grace through faith ... apart from works.
Here's the playlist for our previous series, "Faith and Works, Paul and James."
Continuing with program #3 of our series on being a "doer of the word" and what this was meant to be about...
The "law of liberty" is seen twice in the New Testament, both times used by James in the first two chapters of his letter written to the twelve tribes of Israel which had been scattered to different regions. If doing an online search to find out what the law of liberty is ... like many other Bible topics ... be prepared to see no fewer than hundreds of different opinions. But as we springboard off the context from chapter 1 of his letter and move into chapter 2, we'll notice clearly how James is using this phrase as a reference to the law of Moses—something he also refers to as the royal law.
Within this context, he encourages his audience to follow all of that law and to speak "and do" as those who will be judged by that law—what he calls a law of liberty—but had just defined it as the Mosaic law. James would double-down to say faith without works is dead (useless) and that one cannot be justified by faith without works (of the law). He will declare that faith is perfected by works ... the precise opposite of what Paul said in his writing to the Galatians at the beginning of chapter 3. Even when using the example of Abraham, there is a conflict with what Paul said along the same lines, which we will cover more on the next program.
When someone is accused of falling from grace in today's "religiondom" (introducing a new word on the podcast!), it is usually used in the context of a person who has been caught in some sort of "major" sin or was discovered to have broken a significant commandment from the Mosaic law. Perhaps it involved a habitually failed attempt at commandment-keeping—and caught the attention of the rumor mill—also known as the judge and jury.
The phrase "fallen from grace" appears in one passage (Galatians 5:4). Even within this very Bible verse, it tells us what caused the Galatians to have fallen from grace, and it's pretty much the precise opposite of what church attendees have been told. But as we often do, we will expand the boundaries of the context to help get a clearer understanding in order to avoid the pitfall of yet another false assumption which slipped through the religious church filter.
The final program in our Looking Back series revisits the subject of the apostles Paul and James … and the question of whether they were in disagreement and had different points of view on the subject of justification. We did a 21-part series on this last year.
The common mindset in the world of Christianity is that Paul and James had to be in agreement in order for the Bible to be considered completely valid. Whether coming from a legalistic perspective or one that is more based upon grace, both camps will arrive at that same assumption while trying to explain conflicting statements from the apostles in a way that fits into their narrative or doctrinal perspective. But both will also need to bend, twist and reshape Bible verses to fit the theology—whatever that happens to be. And although the explanations may vary, the purpose remains the same … convince ourselves that Paul and James could not have possibly been opposed on such an important issue as justification. Is it based upon grace? Works? A combination of both?
However, maybe there is a bigger picture to see. We quickly offer a number of things to consider on this topic—which may once again cause some of us to not only arrive at a different point of view, but to shift our thinking to an entirely different paradigm—which involves backing away from the verses for a view of the bigger picture.
Since this episode is essentially a summary of our original series, you may wish to take some time to go through the original series itself, which took place during Podcasts 778-799 (except episode 786, which was a Christmas episode). Click here for the first episode, and then click "Newer Post" at the end of each post for each subsequent episode. Or you can listen to the entire series via our YouTube playlist.
Christian theologians have always been concerned about the elephant in the room – the quandary or controversy regarding what appear to be conflicting statements by Paul and James about justification, salvation and righteousness. This week, we continue looking at the apparent differences or viewpoints between them and how it does not take away from the truth within the Bible as a whole or Jesus as King of kings and Lord of lords. Interestingly, both men use Abraham as the example to make their case (examples in Romans 4 and James 2). They both quote Genesis 15:6 about how Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness.
Paul dives into a much longer explanation, using the context that Abraham was declared righteous by faith before any work was performed, including circumcision … when he believed God would provide a child. Whereas James jumps out of context to when Isaac was taken to the altar. If one is going to tout a mixture of faith plus works when it comes to salvation, those who hold to James’ view will need to be much more specific on exactly what type of works or action is needed to maintain their justification. That ingredient is always missing, leaving people in doubt and fear instead of peace.
We’ve all seen it. Time and time again, Paul declared the gospel is based upon justification gifted freely by faith, through the blood of Jesus, apart from works. James said something that appears to be quite the opposite. Bible teachers will fear such a contradiction diminishes the validity of the written pages and therefore, may affect the credibility of the entire Bible and bring doubt to the truth of Jesus Christ.
Teachers and ministers begin to feel the need to try and explain that there was no disagreement between the two, and that their views simply complimented each other … as both legalistic and grace teachers put their spin on trying to assure people that Paul and James were in perfect harmony. Both guys use Abraham to make their case for justification but even their context from the Old Testament is different. We attempt to bring a different perspective in considering they were not in agreement at all, and yet it takes nothing away from the truth of Jesus.
