Background Information About James

[FHII]

Hello all,

Recently many of us have been discussing James's statements about works and faith and comparing them to what Paul said. We, as a whole, fail to come to an agreement. If you are like me, you believe they did not agree. Others say they agreed. I can't say why those who say that have come to that conclusion.

But what I want to do now is review the history of what James said and did, and through it I hope you can understand why I don't believe they were of like understanding.

James was the half brother of Jesus. They shared Mary as their mother. I understand Catholics and others don't believe that, but it really isn't too relevant to my point. The bottom line is that James was not a full believer until after Jesus raised.

Why is that pertinent? Well, because it shows he wasn't an apostle in training and wasn't called to be one from the beginning. So he takes a back seat to the apostles (I acknowledge Gal 1:19... Paul indirectly calls him one).

It does not matter much (some, but not much.. ) that James didn't accept him at first. But we must look at his judgments and actions.

The first place to look is the Council at Jerusalem. Some make the mistake of thinking Paul wanted approval and wanted to be there. He didn't. He did willingly go, but took his sweet time getting there. We can about it in Acts 15. He was charged, Peter stood up for him boldly, and James came to a decision.

James's decision was to trouble THEM not (the gentiles). This is Acts 15:19. But in verse 20 James already is placing rules on them. In verse 21 he justifies doing so with the law of Moses.

Furthermore, it's believed that Paul accepted this. To a point, he was satisfied, but he wasn't the one who delivered the verdict and at times didn't live up to it.

There are two things often missed here:.

1. James said they shouldn't trouble "them". That is, the gentiles. He didn't apply this to Jew Christians, as we shall see.

2. He still applied at least a few points of the Law to the gentiles, which Paul never upheld in his teachings, especially on a flesh level.

Now, for those of you who think this was some great decision, I beg to differ. Paul was a strong man of faith and received his orders from Jesus, not James or Peter. He won his case, but had he not, Paul would've been a rebel. He wasn't going to stray from Christ.

But what I take from this incident is that James never abolished the Law from Jew Christians. He said Gentiles weren't bound by it except for a few things. Paul disagreed. He WAS a Jew and he had freedom as did all.

The next incident I want to discuss is what happened in Acts 21. Paul goes to Jersusalem and tells Jemes and the elders what he has done with the gentiles Church. They all praise God..

...But James has a problem.

Acts 21:20-21 KJV
And when they heard it , they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
[21] And they are informed of thee, that thou 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.

Now, here we see that James was reporting that these so called believers were zealous for the law and James tells us that Paul was preaching to forsake the law to both the Jews and gentiles.

Now, Paul was asked to purify himself and others, and he did. I do wonder why, but I suppose it's because he didn't see any problem with appeasing.

But here is what we should remember: at this time the Jews who embraced Christ still were embracing the Law (and works). Paul had preached against that for both gentiles and Jews and James was NOT of like mind!

So when you read James 2:17 and when someone refers back to James 1:1, I ask you to remember Acts 15 and acts 21. James shows himself as one clearly clinging to the Law and trying to reconcile them when Paul does not, and speaks against it.

I am not against works. I encourage folks to be good, descent beings. So do Buddhists and Muslims. Even athiests have somewhat of a moral code. But Jesus said it all hinges on him

I like James and I believe he was a Christian. According to history we was matryed. I believed his words were inspired by God. But salvation is not obtained through what he said about works and faith.

Paul and James did agree on one thing:

James 2:18 KJV
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Romans 4:2 KJV
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

Your works may justify you before man... And that is good, but they don't justify you before God.

 

[Enoch111]

Others say they agreed. I can't say why those who say that have come to that conclusion.

The fundamental premise of the written Word of God is that THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTIONS AND CONFLICTS within the Word. Therefore if both Paul and James were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write Scripture, then their writings must be in perfect harmony.

The epistle of James would not be found in our New Testament if God had not expressly purposed to have it there. While it is addressed primarily to Hebrew Christians, so is the epistle to the Hebrews. But that does not mean that they do not apply to the whole Church (both Jews and Gentiles).

'He [James] is called a pillar (Gal. 2:9), and this epistle of his cannot be disputed, without loosening a foundation-stone. It is called a general epistle, because (as some think) not directed to any particular person or church, but such a one as we call a circular letter. Others think it is called general, or catholic, to distinguish it from the epistles of Ignatius, Barnabas, Polycarp, and others who were noted in the primitive times, but not generally received in the church, and on that account not canonical, as this is. [CANONICAL = GENUINE SCRIPTURE]

Eusebius tells us that this epistle was "generally read in the churches with the other catholic [general] epistles." His. Eccles. page 53. Ed. Val. Anno 1678. James, our author, was called the just, for his great piety. He was an eminent example of those graces which he presses upon others. He was so exceedingly revered for his justice, temperance, and devotion, that Josephus the Jewish historian records it as one of the causes of the destruction of Jerusalem, "That St. James was martyred in it." This is mentioned in hopes of procuring the greater regard to what is penned by so holy and excellent a man.

The time when this epistle was written is uncertain. The design of it is to reprove Christians for their great degeneracy both in faith and manners, and to prevent the spreading of those libertine doctrines which threatened the destruction of all practical godliness. It was also a special intention of the author of this epistle to awaken the Jewish nation to a sense of the greatness and nearness of those judgments which were coming upon them; and to support all true Christians in the way of their duty, under the calamities and persecutions they might meet with. The truths laid down are very momentous, and necessary to be maintained; and the rules for practice, as here stated, are such as ought to be observed in our times as well as in preceding ages.'

Matthew Henry's Introduction to James

 

[prism]

Are we speaking of James or the Epistle of James?
The Epistle of James is fully inspired by God's Spirit as well as the Epistles of Paul and thus there is no contradictions as God does not contradict Himself.
What James did and when he did it, outside his one Epistle,. is a debatable matter and has little bearing on the inspiration and accuracy of his Epistle.

 

[FHII]

The Epistle of James is fully inspired by God's Spirit as well as the Epistles of Paul and thus there is no contradictions as God does not contradict Himself.

While God does not contradict himself, there are conflicts among people in the Bible. Paul had conflicts with many people, and not just unbelievers.

What James did and when he did it, outside his one Epistle,. is a debatable matter and has little bearing on the inspiration and accuracy of his Epistle.

I don't see what is debatable as the information I gave were quotes right from the scripture. If you disagree with my analysis please give me your reasons.

As For it having little bearing on the accuracy and inspiration, I agree. However, when people say that James and Paul agree on the topic of works and their roll in grace through faith, I do disagree. James's history clearly shows his mindset and how it was different from Paul's.

 

[Enoch111]

James's history clearly shows his mindset and how it was different from Paul's.

James was ministering primarily (if not exclusively) to Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem (and perhaps Judea). Paul, on the other hand, was the apostle to the Gentiles. But a close study of their teachings will show that they are exactly the same, just worded differently.

Let's take an example:

JAMES
2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations*; (*trials, testings, tribulations)
3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.

PAUL
3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

 

[Stranger]

I do believe James and Paul are talking about two different aspects of salvation. In the areas they appear to differ, Paul is speaking of that aspect of salvation from when one is first brought into salvation. James is speaking to your walk of salvation. But, I do not think they differ other than their emphasis.

I have made an observation, which may be true only to me, but here it is. When my walk with God is good, and I am in close fellowship with God and Christ, Grace seems to appear everywhere in the Scriptures as I read them and study them. From Old Testament to New Testament. But when I stray away and my fellowship with God is broken or hindered, as I read and study the Scriptures, it seems everywhere I go, there is warnings, and chastisements, and encouragement to return. From Old Testament to New Testament. That includes all of Paul's epistles.

Stranger

 

[Episkopos]

In both Hebrew and Greek, the word for faith is also the word for faithfulness. IOW it is assumed that one who believes in something will actually do it as it's supposed to be done.

James is merely pointing that out.

We could say that James was saying that faith divorced from faithfulness is dead (or just not real faith).

Paul was stressing that faith before God had nothing to do with the works of the law (Judaism)

Obedience to God is not synonymous to adhering to the Mosaic laws for they who walk by faith in Christ. This was a scandal to the Jews. So then Paul was protecting Gentiles against a legalistic and dead form of a Christianity modeled on Judaism.

But people tend to take things too far.

So the James is addressing the requirement of obedience to God...not just beliefs about God. Obedience to God is a requirement of salvation. Just as faith needs faithfulness for it to have any meaning.

 

[prism]

While God does not contradict himself, there are conflicts among people in the Bible. Paul had conflicts with many people, and not just unbelievers.

Yes as Paul had with Peter, but Peter later wrote...
[15] and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, [16] as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.2 Peter 3:15-16 NASBS

I don't see what is debatable as the information I gave were quotes right from the scripture. If you disagree with my analysis please give me your reasons.

you mean 'your interpretation of Scripture' is not debatable?

As For it having little bearing on the accuracy and inspiration, I agree. However, when people say that James and Paul agree on the topic of works and their roll in grace through faith, I do disagree. James's history clearly shows his mindset and how it was different from Paul's.

Do tell, what are their actual doctrinal differences (not their background differences, of which we all have)?

I noticed also you avoided the important matter of both letters were inspired by the same Person...the Holy Spirit.

 

[Enoch111]

Now, here we see that James was reporting that these so called believers were zealous for the law and James tells us that Paul was preaching to forsake the law to both the Jews and gentiles.

You are misunderstanding James. He had no problem and these were not so-called believers. These were all genuine Hebrew Christians but they had not been taught all the truths of the New Covenant as yet. They believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and continued to observe the Mosaic Law, since Christ Himself had remained under the Law. It was only later on that Paul had to start teaching these Jewish Christians what we find in the NT. But this has nothing to do with the validity of his epistle as a Christian book.

 

[FHII]

You are misunderstanding James. He had no problem and these were not so-called believers. These were all genuine Hebrew Christians but they had not been taught all the truths of the New Covenant as yet. They believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and continued to observe the Mosaic Law, since Christ Himself had remained under the Law. It was only later on that Paul had to start teaching these Jewish Christians what we find in the NT. But this has nothing to do with the validity of his epistle as a Christian book.

Enoch111

I meant to reply to your first post (even wrote it out), but I didn't press the "post reply" button. I wasn't ignoring you... But this is a better post to respond to, as it actually addresses what I wrote.

I disagree that I am misunderstanding James. I listed the problems and conflicts he was having with Paul, and I will refer back to my OP.

As for the believers (or as I called them, "so-called believers"), at the time of Acts 15 I might have agreed with you when you say they hadn't been taught. However, Acts 21 was towards the end of Paul's ministry. It was his last stop before being shipped off to Rome. When were they going to get it? Had they not heard yet?

Paul tried to preach to the Jews, but they rejected him and he turned to the gentiles (Acts 13). Paul stated that he was sent to the gentiles and Peter to the Jews, but these were believers in Jerusalem and we're under who's watch? James! Now in Acts 15 James, Peter, many of the elders and John (possibly) heard Paul's testimony and doctrine. So they knew...

Even so, if what you say is true (that they had not been taught all the truths of the new convenient), what do we say about James's beliefs in Acts 15, 21 and his epistle? Did he understand all the truths, and if so, why wasn't he teaching them to his congregation?

If he didn't know all the truths, well then....

 

[Enoch111]

...what do we say about James's beliefs in Acts 15:21 and his epistle?

Acts 15 is focused on which of the commandments of the Torah apply to Christians. And all the apostles and elders agreed that there were only four commandments that were still applicable (and are even to this day). Indeed the Holy Spirit was the one who gave us those stipulations.

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Once we understand that James is focused on PRACTICAL CHRISTIANITY everything falls into place.

 

[101G]

the apostle Paul and the apostle James are not in conflict with each other. as Stranger pointed out and I myself many time before. the works before salvation don't get one saved. it's your work in salvation, that as James says "SHOWS" THAT you're save. James 2:18 "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works".

this concept can be seen as in the example of Natural works. one just don't walk up on a job and start working and expected to get paid, no one must first be Hired/save in order to be paid/reward... eternal life. our Lord gave the prefect example of this in "the labourers of the vineyard", Matthews chapter 20.

PICJAG.

 

[FHII]

Yes as Paul had with Peter, but Peter later wrote...
[15] and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, [16] as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.2 Peter 3:15-16 NASBS

Ok, and what's your point? What here do you want to discuss?

you mean 'your interpretation of Scripture' is not debatable?

No, let me explain:

I don't see what is debatable as the information I gave were quotes right from the scripture. If you disagree with my analysis please give me your reasons.

Do tell, what are their actual doctrinal differences (not their background differences, of which we all have)?

Gladly.

The first place to look is the Council at Jerusalem. Some make the mistake of thinking Paul wanted approval and wanted to be there. He didn't. He did willingly go, but took his sweet time getting there. We can about it in Acts 15. He was charged, Peter stood up for him boldly, and James came to a decision.

James's decision was to trouble THEM not (the gentiles). This is Acts 15:19. But in verse 20 James already is placing rules on them. In verse 21 he justifies doing so with the law of Moses.

Furthermore, it's believed that Paul accepted this. To a point, he was satisfied, but he wasn't the one who delivered the verdict and at times didn't live up to it.

There are two things often missed here:.

1. James said they shouldn't trouble "them". That is, the gentiles. He didn't apply this to Jew Christians, as we shall see.

2. He still applied at least a few points of the Law to the gentiles, which Paul never upheld in his teachings, especially on a flesh level.

Now, for those of you who think this was some great decision, I beg to differ. Paul was a strong man of faith and received his orders from Jesus, not James or Peter. He won his case, but had he not, Paul would've been a rebel. He wasn't going to stray from Christ.

But what I take from this incident is that James never abolished the Law from Jew Christians. He said Gentiles weren't bound by it except for a few things. Paul disagreed. He WAS a Jew and he had freedom as did all.

The next incident I want to discuss is what happened in Acts 21. Paul goes to Jersusalem and tells Jemes and the elders what he has done with the gentiles Church. They all praise God..

...But James has a problem.

Acts 21:20-21 KJV
And when they heard it , they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
[21] And they are informed of thee, that thou 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.

Now, here we see that James was reporting that these so called believers were zealous for the law and James tells us that Paul was preaching to forsake the law to both the Jews and gentiles.

Now, Paul was asked to purify himself and others, and he did. I do wonder why, but I suppose it's because he didn't see any problem with appeasing.

But here is what we should remember: at this time the Jews who embraced Christ still were embracing the Law (and works). Paul had preached against that for both gentiles and Jews and James was NOT of like mind!

I noticed also you avoided the important matter of both letters were inspired by the same Person...the Holy Spirit.

Because it was not my purpose to address it. I don't even deny it. My purpose was to give some back ground of James that I believe is pertinent to the controversy concerning the statement James made about works and faith.

 

[FHII]

Acts 15 is focused on which of the commandments of the Torah apply to Christians. And all the apostles and elders agreed that there were only four commandments that were still applicable (and are even to this day). Indeed the Holy Spirit was the one who gave us those stipulations.

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Once we understand that James is focused on PRACTICAL CHRISTIANITY everything falls into place.

The problem is Paul didn't teach that. The other problem is James didn't apply that to all Christians... Only to the gentiles.

Even so, it wasn't even applied to the gentiles as we saw in Galatians.

 

[FHII]

the apostle Paul and the apostle James are not in conflict with each other.

Did you even read my OP? I gave two accounts where they were in conflict. Again, if you disagree with my analysis, please tell me why.

 

[101G]

Did you even read my OP? I gave two accounts where they were in conflict. Again, if you disagree with my analysis, please tell me why.

...But James has a problem.

Acts 21:20-21 KJV
And when they heard it , they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
[21] And they are informed of thee, that thou 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.

this was the whole basis for works, the Law or grace.which both agree on.

PICJAG.

 

[H. Richard]

Did you even read my OP? I gave two accounts where they were in conflict. Again, if you disagree with my analysis, please tell me why.

I will pray for you. The religious will not hear you anymore than they will hear from me. But you are handling it perfectly.

I truly believe there are not many willing to listen to what others say. The are too wrapped up in themselves.

 

[FHII]

this was the whole basis for works, the Law or grace.which both agree on.

PICJAG.

That's nutty! No they didn't! From James own mouth we hear the conflict!

 

[101G]

That's nutty! No they didn't! From James own mouth we hear the conflict!

Acts 21:20 "And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
Acts 21:21 "And they are informed of thee, that thou 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.
Acts 21:22 "What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
Acts 21:23 "Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
Acts 21:24 "Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law".

now the answer to this action, 1 Corinthians 9:18 "What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.
1 Corinthians 9:19 "For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.

1 Corinthians 9:20 "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;(bingo, there's the answer).

1 Corinthians 9:21 "To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
1 Corinthians 9:22 "To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
1 Corinthians 9:23 "And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you".

I hope you get it now?.

PICJAG.

 

[Enoch111]

ry

The problem is Paul didn't teach that. The other problem is James didn't apply that to all Christians... Only to the gentiles.

Correct. And that is because the issues was the Gentiles, not the Jews. And James was merely the spokesman for all the apostles and elders.

Even so, it wasn't even applied to the gentiles as we saw in Galatians.

Galatians addressed the issue of circumcision (and the keeping of the Law of Moses in its entirety) for the Gentiles as a necessity for salvation. There is nothing there about what Paul already knew was good and proper for Gentiles according to Acts 15.