Is the book of James devoid of grace

In my opinion the book of James is devoid of the gospel of grace as taught by Paul. Here are some facts that support my opinion. I find them interesting.1. The word “Law” is found in 18 places2. The word “grace” is found in 2 places3. The word “Christ” is found in 2 places4. The word “Justified” is found in 2 place with the words “by works” after them5. The words “by faith” is found 1 time (justified by works and not by faith only)6. The word “cross” is not found7. The word “reconciled” is not found8. The word “sanctified” is not found9. The word “saved” is not found10. The words “in Christ” are not found

treeoflife, you have a good point but I think there is much, much, more that we can see in the scriptures that explain it better. IMO the book of Acts is a transistional book that explains what was happening in the transition from the age of the Law and the age of God's grace. This can be seen by comparing the 2 events that happened in Jeruselum as shown in Acts 15 and Acts 21.The difference between Acts 15 and Acts 21:When we read acts 15:1 we see that some Judaizers (Jewish believers in Jesus) came down from Judea teaching the GENTILES "Unless they are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, they cannot be saved."Because of this, Paul went to Jerusalem to consult with the Apostles (James and the elders) for clarification of the truth between them. James said that the Gentiles DID NOT have to be circumcised or keep the Law of Moses. ---- HOWEVER, he never said that the Jews did not have to keep the Law of Moses. ---- In the end of that meeting Paul was given the hand of fellowship and that was the end of it.But that is NOT what Acts 21 is about. In Acts 21 the problem is that Paul was teaching that the JEWS did not have to be circumcised or keep the Law of Moses either. The end of that meeting was not the same as the first. Paul’s teachings of God’s grace outside of the Law of Moses upset the believing Jews who were "zealous of the Law of Moses".This further proves the point that from Act 1 to Acts 21 James and the elders were still teaching the gospel of the kingdom which was, and will be, under the Law of Moses. They were NOT teaching salvation by God's grace based on what God did on the cross ALONE as Paul was teaching for this age.In addition, the rift between the Jews and Paul was further shown in what Paul said in Gal 2:1-161 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me.2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain.3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage),5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.6 But from those who seemed to be something — whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man — for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles),9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do. No Return to the Law11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all,"If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. NKJVI hope you will think about this before you reject what I have said.

This is a longer study on Acts 21 for anyone that wants to read it.A Study/focus on Acts 21:20-21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, "You see, brother (Paul), how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law;***verse 20: The "BELIEVERS" in Jesus "WERE ZEALOUS FOR THE LAW." That can only mean they still believed in keeping the Law.21 "but they (the Jewish believers) have been informed about you that you teach all the JEWS who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.***verse 21, Point 1: The above is NOT talking about Jewish unbelievers. That would be an assumption. The words "but they" in Acts 21, verse 21 is still talking about the Jewish believers in verse 20. I believe, since it is in the same context, it was the believing Jews that were being talked about.***verse 21, Point 2: It can easily be seen that what was upsetting the Jewish "believers" is that Paul was teaching the Jews (out in the Gentile world) that they do not have to be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses. Please notice that this is not the same problem as in Acts 15 about what the Gentiles had to do.***verse 21, Point 3: The only conclusion I can make, is that James and the Elders in Jerusalem "WERE NOT" teaching the same gospel of God's grace that Paul was teaching. If they were, they, James and the Elders, would have been accused of teaching the same thing Paul was teaching and it would be upsetting those same Jews.***My comment: Have you really considered the implications of what the Jewish believers were being taught by James and the elders? ---- If the Jewish believers got upset by Paul teaching """Jews""" (out in the Gentile world) that they did not have to be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses, then what “”were”” James and the Elders teaching the Jews in Jerusalem?***My comment: For those that refuse to open their minds and see the truth as shown in Acts 21, and continue to support the idea that James and the Elders were teaching the same gospel Paul was teaching, I say this; If James and the elders were teaching the same thing that Paul was teaching, the believing Jews in Jerusalem certainly didn’t know about it because they weren’t upset at them. This is so obvious that everyone should be able to see it.Paul's gospel of God's grace excluded the Law, but, obviously, James and the elders were not teaching this to the Jews in Jerusalem.The fact remains that if the Jewish believers were being taught the same gospel that Paul was teaching the Jewish BELIEVERS would have known they did not have to be circumcised or follow the Jewish Law.But we see that James and the elders were not upsetting the believing Jews by teaching salvation by faith, without the works of the Law, therefore I must conclude that the message James and the Elders were teaching was not the same as Paul's. If it were, they would have been subject to the Jew's displeasure as well.The Plot to Appease the believing Jews:We also see that the plot to have Paul participate in Jewish rituals was not allowed to be completed by God since it all came to naught. God was not going to let Paul go back under the Law and be a hypocrite.Acts 21:26-2726 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.27 And when the seven days were “””almost ended,”” the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him,(NKJ) --------------- almost ended is not is not the same as ended. Since the Jews rejected the gospel of the Kingdom in which Jesus was to sit on the throne of David, why would anyone want to say we are to be saved under that same gospel? None of the Jewish covenants were made to the Gentiles.Peter and Paul both preached Jesus. However, Peter preached Jesus after His prophetic revelation, and Paul preached Jesus according to His mystery revelation. Both preached Jesus crucified.----- However, Peter preached it as a curse, and something to be repented of (Acts 3:13-19)----- But Paul gloried in the cross (Gal.6:14).Both Peter and Paul preached Christ resurrected. Both preached salvation by faith, but Peter preached faith plus (+) works ("and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him") (Acts 10:34); James 2:21,22. ------ But Paul preached FAITH ALONE. --- Peter preached "repent and be baptized" (Acts 2:38), where as Paul preached, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved..." (Acts 16:29).Peter in the Gospels preached "the kingdom at hand," whereas Paul preached "the gospel of the grace of God," according to the revelation of the mystery "which was kept secret since the world began. Peter's preaching was circumcision - Law, Paul's preaching was un-circumcision - grace (no law); two opposing doctrines, and both commissioned by Jesus. Galatians 2:7 "But contrariwise, when they (the disciples) saw that the gospel of the un-circumcision (grace) was committed unto me as the gospel of the circumcision (law) was unto Peter."The twelve were commissioned "...to go to all the world..." (Mark 16:15), however in Galatians 2:9 they agreed with Paul that they would stay with the circumcision. Why, when their commission was "to all the world"?To those that study the scriptures from a dispensational viewpoint, there is a difference in the gospel of the Kingdom, as taught by Jesus and the 12, and what Paul taught. ----The gospel of the kingdom did not rescind the Law of Moses. It fulfilled it. However the Jews, to whom the covenant was made, rejected Jesus and His gospel of the kingdom. They rejected Him as their king along with His Jewish church.Some call this the "two gospel" idea. But it is a fact that in Acts 21:20-21 we see James (the brother of Jesus) and the elders, in Jerusalem, are still teaching the gospel of the kingdom, which included the Law of Moses. They are not teaching the gospel of God's grace as Paul taught it. As a matter of fact in James 2:24, James is still saying that we are JUSTIFIED by our works as well as our faith. He is not saying the same thing Paul said; that we are justified (saved) by faith without works.I write this as food for thought.

(waquinas;55898)
I think Paul's problems with his fellow Jewish Christians was more basic. Most of the original converts to the Church were Jews. They did not trust Paul and with reason. So the decision to send him out to spread the Word to others was pretty much a no brainer as the locals still remember him as a murderer of their kind. The debate about kosher pickles stems from his fighting the position that all converts must first become Jews (kosher pickles) before being baptized as Christian. Naturally his converts, being mostly non-Jewish had a lot at stake, so to speak, in this debate. I do not think we can seperate this struggle and his former history with what we read. Food for thought.
So sending Paul out to the Gentiles was the Jews idea and a way of getting him out of the way. On what do you base that idea.I always thought it was God that sent him out to the Gentiles. Since God was turning to the Gentiles he was to be the Apostle to the Gentiles.

(tomwebster;55913)
I believe we are talking about to different concepts in Paul's writing and in James' writing. When Paul states, "we are justified by grace through faith not of works" he is using the word "works" to describe, "works of the law." He does bring circumcision into the conversation here at one point. The Jewish leaders were telling people they needed to follow certain laws, ie. Circumcision, special religious rituals before eating, etc. in order to be accepted by the "faith." Paul was saying, "No, you do not need to be circumcised in order to be a Christian." James was talking about "works" as the good things Christians do because of their love of God, Feeding the hungry, taking care of those in need, basically the fruit of the Spirit, etc. You know some people tend to get lazy after they become "Christians". They expect God to do everything for them, a free ride, so to speak. James is saying, No to that free ride. "If you are truly a Christian it will show in your life and your way of living.
The standard way modern Christianity deals with all the conflicts between faith +works (James) and faith without works (Paul) is to try and rationalize that the two are talking about the same thing and there is no conflict.I am sorry, but I can see the conflicts and rather than try and put a square peg in a round hole I try to make what both of them say to be correct, not by rationalization, but by understanding that they were writing to two different groups. James to the Jews with the message of the kingdom at hand and Paul with a message that he says was hidden in God and revealed to him. --- But many in modern Christianity just can't see the words Paul wrote.Notice that in Acts 3:21 Peter is proclaiming things made known by the prophets since the world began. In contrast, in the book of Romans, 16:25, Paul is proclaiming things kept secret since the world began. Something made known cannot be a secret and something kept secret has not been made known. Notice that Peter proclaimed the crucifixion of Jesus as something for the Jews to repent of (Acts 2) where Paul proclaimed that he gloried in the cross of Christ (Gal 6:11-15). IMHO, Peter and Paul proclaimed two different messages but modern Christianity refuses to see it.The book of Acts is a transitional book from a gospel that was fading away to a new gospel of God's grace for all men.In my OP, and other replies, I made a statement that no one has dealt with as yet. If James and the Elders were teaching the same gospel Paul was teaching why were the believing Jews only upset with Paul?????????????? Care to deal with it????The statement: ""But we see that James and the elders were not upsetting the believing Jews by teaching salvation by faith, without the works of the Law, therefore I must conclude that the message James and the Elders were teaching was not the same as Paul's. If it were, they would have been subject to the Jew's displeasure as well.""

(tomwebster;55917)
Richard,I might be missunderstanding something you are saying because it seems we are almost saying the same thing."In my OP, and other replies, I made a statement that no one has dealt with as yet. If James and the Elders were teaching the same gospel Paul was teaching why were the believing Jews only upset with Paul?????????????? Care to deal with it????"They were upset with Paul because they did not have or know Paul's Call to the Lost Tribes and Gentiles
Oh! I thought they were upset because Paul was teaching both the Jews and the Gentiles that they did not have to keep the Law of Moses any longer. Both are under grace, not law.

I am going out of town for about 5 days so I will not be on this forum for awhile.I would like to post this for consideration:Was James confused? Or was he still preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, which included the Law?James 2:20-2120 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? (NKJ)No, he was not!!!!!!!* ---- He was accounted righteous before God several years earlier, BEFORE the birth of Isaac, and before he had done anything to "prove" his faith in God.*Gen 15:4-64 And behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, "This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir."5 Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be."6 And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.(NKJ)Not only that, but God accounted him righteous solely for his faith in His Promises, and not by anything that He did.* Paul accurately reports this.* It seems that James, in order to mix salvation by works and faith, did not consider this fact in the scriptures.* It was not until Genesis 22, many years after Isaac was born, when Abraham was well over 100 years old, that he agreed to offer Isaac.* James writes:22* You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.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.Neither of those last two statements jives with the Genesis 15:4-6 account.* Nowhere does the OT Scripture say that Abraham "was called God's friend" because he was willing to offer Isaac. As a matter of fact I cannot find a statement in the O.T. that says Abraham was called a friend of God.Based upon faulty premises, one is bound to come to a faulty conclusion:24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. Which is, as shown above, a direct contradiction of the Gospel that Paul taught and the account given in the scriptures.

(kriss;55921)
RichardI don't agree with your conclusions the prophets did proclaim things since the World began it doesn't say they proclaimed all things. Many things they proclaimed they did not see clearly nor understand the entire meaning of until they were fulfilled, that is made known. I do not see this as contradiction. Some things were made known some kept secret. I also do not agree with your take on what Peter was telling the Jews in Acts 2, yes he told them to repent and be baptised but that is the duty of all Christians. I do not see where you draw the conclusion that what they were to repent of was crucifying Christ. Acts 2:5 "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven."Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."Peter is telling them how to be saved.Acts 2:41 "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."They understood Peter's teaching of the Word, and they accepted it gladly, and were baptized. Acts 2:23 "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:"Peter is saying that it is with the foreknowledge of God that this would come to pass. Psalm 22 gives us the detail of how Christ would be crucified, and by God's controlling hand on the events, Jesus was taken, tried before their counsel, and by the wicked hands of the Priests and Pharisees, Not these devout menActs 2:44 "And all that believed were together and had all things common;"The whole church body of the early church thought as a unit, one for each other. In the doctrine of Christ, and in the Holy Spirit, there were no divisions amongst them at this time. Acts 2:45 "And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men as every man had need."Acts 2:46 "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread with gladness and singleness of heart,"They took communion together as a body of Christ, in singleness of heart. They all thought alike, with a common caring for each other.
I know you see it differently. treeoflife does too. But that is okay.

(kriss;55930)
What I do know from experience is when you think you see a major contradiction in Gods Word it is the readers misunderstanding not Gods Word. So one must keep at it untill you find the solution.Do not make the mistake of just accepting there are contradictions or you miss the forest thru the trees so to speak. So keep at it till you find the answer There are no condradictions in Gods WordGod Bless
Kriss, you are saying that I am looking for the answers. On this you are wrong. I already have the answers based on what I see in the scriptures as revealed to me by the Holy Spirit.What is obvious is that we disagee.I am 75 years old and have been a child of God since I was eight years old. I have studied the scriptures just as much as most children of God and I depend on God to reveal his words to me by the Holy Spirit.In other words, you think you are right and I think I am right.