Background Information About James

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

prism

Blood-Soaked
Jan 24, 2011
1,895
834
113
So. Cal
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Ok, and what's your point? What here do you want to discuss?
My point was even though their were conflicts, what we have in their writings do not conflict.
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.
The information you gave was your analysis of the verses you quoted. but thanks anyways.
I had said, "Do tell, what are their actual doctrinal differences (not their background differences, of which we all have)?"
...but you went on again about their background differences.
Let me be clearer. What doctrinal differences/contradictions are there between Romans and James?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WalterandDebbie

WalterandDebbie

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2009
4,453
3,097
113
76
USA
firstthings1sttab.tripod.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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
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.
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
 

WalterandDebbie

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2009
4,453
3,097
113
76
USA
firstthings1sttab.tripod.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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.
ACTS CHAPTER 15 KJV
 

Phoneman777

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2015
7,184
2,534
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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.
The position from which you start - "James' understanding was crippled due to having arrived late for the party" - is the wrong place altogether. Start here: "...holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

James spake as he was moved by the Holy Ghost. Therefore, every word of James was inspired, infallible truth.

There is no dichotomy between James and Paul. Paul was fighting Legalists who were keen on being saved by their works and James was fighting the Licentious who fall down every time temptation rises up -- while claiming to be "more than conquerors" as Satan is handing their butts to them. Paul and James are back to back fighting against Satanic error seeking to enter the church, not each other.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
...but you went on again about their background differences.
Let me be clearer. What doctrinal differences/contradictions are there between Romans and James?
Within that portion of my OP that I posted again contains their differences. But out of patience I will propose it with a different approach.

Let me ask a question: Does anyone here believe that God places different demands and expectations on different groups of people under the New Covenant?

While you are meditating on your answer, let me remind you that in Gal 3:28 and Col 3:11, Paul said their is neither Greek nor Jew... We are all one in Christ [paraphrasing]. Romans 12:4 and several other places in 1 Cor 10-12 says we are ONE body (not two). Eph 4:4-5 says there is one body, one faith one baptism.

So back to the question: Does God under the New Covenant place different demands and expectations on different people, or are we all on equal ground when it comes to what is needed for salvation?

Now, if your answer is no, he doesn't place different demands and expectations on different people, then I agree and we can move on to my next point. If you believe he does have different expectations, then I have nothing more to say to you on this topic: go in peace.

So if we are all the same in regards to what is expected, let us examine what James said:

Acts 21:20 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:

These believing Jews who were following James were zealous of the law. They believed that even with the New Covenant they had to follow the law.

Acts 21:21 KJV
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.

These Jews were upset that Paul was teaching Jews to forsake the law. It is very clear that there is a difference in doctrine here. The believing Jews led by James believed they were still under the law and Paul was teaching Jews (not only gentiles) to forsake the law.

Acts 21:24 KJV
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.

James was demanding that Paul undergo some ritual and he (being a Jew) had to keep the law himself. Yet this is contrary to his entire message that he was not under the law. He said, all things are lawful into me, but not all things are expedient.

Acts 21:25 KJV
As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

So there is the point of my question. Believing Jews had one set of expectations while believing Gentiles had another set of expectations. This may be the first to Christian denominations!

Paul did not teach the same thing James was teaching, and if you disagree with that, then James disagrees with you! This is James calling out Paul for teaching something different.this very chapter shows there was a difference in their doctrine.

What's amazing to me is that Paul saw the difference and James saw the difference; so why can't so many Christians today see what the two men involved clearly see?

Let me put it one other way:. If they were teaching the same thing, then this conversation would have never happened.

.....….

In James's eyes there were separate standards for the believing Jews and Gentiles. As such, when you read James's epistle, this must be kept in mind. Unlike Paul (and remember, James himself said it) he expected Jewish Christians to keep the Law.
 

prism

Blood-Soaked
Jan 24, 2011
1,895
834
113
So. Cal
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Within that portion of my OP that I posted again contains their differences. But out of patience I will propose it with a different approach.
I only saw differences in background, not in their writings (epistles).

Paul did not teach the same thing James was teaching, and if you disagree with that, then James disagrees with you! This is James calling out Paul for teaching something different.this very chapter shows there was a difference in their doctrine.
This is crazy, what James was reminding Paul (not demanding as you say) in Acts 21:24-25, was not to be a stumbling block to the Jews. It follows Paul's own principle of becoming all things to all people that he may win some. 1Cor 9:20-23.
Back to the Epistle of James and Romans. Differences?
 

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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.

The Christian teaching was to be a Jew among Jews and a Gentile among Gentiles, to save as many as possible. Hence they were to keep the law among Jews and not concern themselves with it among Gentiles. This is what was laid down by James, and confirmed by Paul to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).

I truly wish I had reserved myself for discussing this with you, as I know you would have responded to me and we might have been able to discuss it out in full. But I'm worn out. Maybe some other time.

Blessings in Christ, and I like your thread.
Hidden
 

prism

Blood-Soaked
Jan 24, 2011
1,895
834
113
So. Cal
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I don't believe you would recognize them if I showed them to you.
Try me without excuses for not showing me.
Besides, Scripture is not so esoteric where only a few have the secret codes to unlock it's deep dark mysteries lol.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Christian teaching was to be a Jew among Jews and a Gentile among Gentiles, to save as many as possible. Hence they were to keep the law among Jews
Well there is a problem then, because according to James he (Paul) was not doing that. According to James, Paul was teaching Jews to forsake the Law.

As concerning Paul's statement in 1 Cor 9 about to the Jews he would become a Jew, that would explain why he underwent the purification ritual. However, it does not explain why he taught them to forsake the law. He was looking to win them to Christ, not keep them blind.
 

justbyfaith

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2018
21,740
4,114
113
51
San Pedro
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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.
Just to clarify, I want to point out what Paul said in Romans about the law:

Rom 8:4, That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Rom 8:7, Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Rom 13:8, Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Rom 13:9, 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.
Rom 13:10, Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
 

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Well there is a problem then, because according to James he (Paul) was not doing that. According to James, Paul was teaching Jews to forsake the Law.

As concerning Paul's statement in 1 Cor 9 about to the Jews he would become a Jew, that would explain why he underwent the purification ritual. However, it does not explain why he taught them to forsake the law. He was looking to win them to Christ, not keep them blind.

I'm supposed to be leaving this place alone, LoL! Oh, well. Another post won't hurt.

Let's look at the text more strictly for a second. I will post it first:

17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 And the following day Paul went in with us unto James, and all the elders were present. 19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the law. 21 And they are informed concerning you that you teach 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. 22 What is it then? The multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that you are come. 23 Do therefore this that we say to you: We have four men which have a vow on them; 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 you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.

Now if you'll notice, it's not James who is proclaiming that Paul is not keeping the law. It's merely a rumor going around concerning him among the Jewish Christians, for they were being "informed" as much concerning him (from some unnamed party), but it is clear from the text that it could not have been true.

Now how do we know it could not have been true? Because in v.20 you see James and the other heads of the church transitioning directly from praising God over his ministry immediately into addressing a rumor that was going around concerning him. If Paul were indeed not truly keeping the law and teaching Jewish Christians not to keep it, and if James regarded this as heretical, he and the others would not have saluted him, and then praised God over his ministry. If they truly believed he was teaching heresy then they were being completely two-faced here, and trying to sway him over to something he didn't believe in instead of disciplining him. Likewise, his agreement to do what they asked and fulfill the law likewise becomes a sort spineless acquiesce to what they too were asking.

For starters, Paul was not known for responding this way to anyone, ever. It is entirely contrary to what scripture records of his nature. He was ordering the execution of believers as a Pharisee, refused to back down from preaching the gospel to authorities that had him flogged five times, and eventually boldly withstood the apostle Peter directly to his face over a doctrinal dispute very similar to this one. This was clearly not a man to back down to anyone. So if Paul and James were somehow deeply at odds in their theology going in, you have here one of the saddest episodes in all of Christendom taking place, with both parties exhibiting cowardice on a level that would have cast doubt on the worthiness of any of them to lead the church.

I just don't see it that way. Because Paul had just arrived, James praised God over his ministry, but then immediately began warning him about a problem they would soon have to address, since the Jewish believers would be coming soon to meet with Paul and discuss it (v.22). So James, having received Paul not as a heretic but as a true believer, gave him a plan whereby he could assure them of what James already knew: That Paul was indeed keeping the law among the Jews. He would keep the law so that all might know that those things whereof they were informed concerning him were actually nothing, and that he himself also walked orderly and kept the law, not advising Jewish believers to break it (v.24).

If the rumors were actually true that Paul was teaching Jewish Christians to forsake the law, and/or if once they confronted him about it Paul withstood them to their face and admitted he was, he would have been denounced as a heretic, not rejoiced over at his arrival. And they would not have simply overlooked the matter and attempted to smooth it over, or sway him into obedience. They would have dealt with him, and firmly. There was already enough chaos going on already, if the rumors going around bore any resemblance to the truth.
 
Last edited:

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Just to clarify, I want to point out what Paul said in Romans about the law:

Rom 8:4, That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Rom 8:7, Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Rom 13:8, Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Rom 13:9, 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.
Rom 13:10, Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

So what is it you are concluding?
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I'm supposed to be leaving this place alone, LoL! Oh, well. Another post won't hurt.

Let's look at the text more strictly for a second. I will post it first:

17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 And the following day Paul went in with us unto James, and all the elders were present. 19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the law. 21 And they are informed concerning you that you teach 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. 22 What is it then? The multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that you are come. 23 Do therefore this that we say to you: We have four men which have a vow on them; 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 you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.

Now if you'll notice, it's not James who is proclaiming that Paul is not keeping the law. It's merely a rumor going around concerning him among the Jewish Christians, for they were being "informed" as much concerning him (from some unnamed party), but it is clear from the text that it could not have been true.

Now how do we know it could not have been true? Because in v.20 you see James and the other heads of the church transitioning directly from praising God over his ministry immediately into addressing a rumor that was going around concerning him. If Paul were indeed not truly keeping the law and teaching Jewish Christians not to keep it, and if James regarded this as heretical, he and the others would not have saluted him, and then praised God over his ministry. If they truly believed he was teaching heresy then they were being completely two-faced here, and trying to sway him over to something he didn't believe in instead of disciplining him. Likewise, his agreement to do what they asked and fulfill the law likewise becomes a sort spineless acquiesce to what they too were asking.

For starters, Paul was not known for responding this way to anyone, ever. It is entirely contrary to what scripture records of his nature. He was ordering the execution of believers as a Pharisee, refused to back down from preaching the gospel to authorities that had him flogged five times, and eventually boldly withstood the apostle Peter directly to his face over a doctrinal dispute very similar to this one. This was clearly not a man to back down to anyone. So if Paul and James were somehow deeply at odds in their theology going in, you have here one of the saddest episodes in all of Christendom taking place, with both parties exhibiting cowardice on a level that would have cast doubt on the worthiness of any of them to lead the church.

I just don't see it that way. Because Paul had just arrived, James praised God over his ministry, but then immediately began warning him about a problem they would soon have to address, since the Jewish believers would be coming soon to meet with Paul and discuss it (v.22). So James, having received Paul not as a heretic but as a true believer, gave him a plan whereby he could assure them of what James already knew: That Paul was indeed keeping the law among the Jews. He would keep the law so that all might know that those things whereof they were informed concerning him were actually nothing, and that he himself also walked orderly and kept the law, not advising Jewish believers to break it (v.24).

If the rumors were actually true that Paul was teaching Jewish Christians to forsake the law, and/or if once they confronted him about it Paul withstood them to their face and admitted he was, he would have been denounced as a heretic, not rejoiced over at his arrival. And they would not have simply overlooked the matter and attempted to smooth it over, or sway him into obedience. They would have dealt with him, and firmly. There was already enough chaos going on already, if the rumors going around bore any resemblance to the truth.
I am not buying the notion that it was merely a rumor. Not in the least bit despite your efforts to try to show Paul's character or what each were thinking at the time.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
...editing button is not working and I didn't finish my thought. So, hidden in him, you are a prime candidate to answer my question I proposed:

Does God under the New Covenant place different demands and expectations on different people, or are we all on equal ground when it comes to what is needed for salvation?
 

Hidden In Him

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
10,600
10,883
113
59
Lafayette, LA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
...editing button is not working and I didn't finish my thought. So, hidden in him, you are a prime candidate to answer my question I proposed:

Does God under the New Covenant place different demands and expectations on different people, or are we all on equal ground when it comes to what is needed for salvation?

Equal ground.
I am not buying the notion that it was merely a rumor. Not in the least bit despite your efforts to try to show Paul's character or what each were thinking at the time.

But let me ask you then. What do you interpret the words, "And they are informed concerning you that you teach such and such" mean? You seem (though I could be wrong) to be interpreting the one doing this informing is James, but this would have him sort of double-talking and being a little deceitful, saying "They are informed concerning you" when it was actually him who was doing the informing, LoL.

I'm not assuming this is what you are saying, but who exactly do you say is doing the informing here?
 

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Paul was teaching Jews to forsake the Law.
Paul was teaching GENTILES that the Law of Moses was not given in order to be saved. He was also teaching the Hebrew Christians that the Old Covenant had now been superseded by the New Covenant. In any even, there is absolutely NO CONFLICT between Paul and James, both being servants of Christ.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
...editing button is not working and I didn't finish my thought. So, hidden in him, you are a prime candidate to answer my question I proposed:

Does God under the New Covenant place different demands and expectations on different people, or are we all on equal ground when it comes to what is needed for salvation?

We all are on equal ground when it comes to what is needed for salvation. Faith.

'But'...all were on equal ground before Christ came also. Even Israel under the Law, salvation was only by faith. And before the law, salvation was only by faith. (Gen. 15:6)

So, how was 'believing faith' of the Jew exercised under the Law? And how is 'believing faith' exercised now that Christ has come? Point being is that faith produces works whether you are under the Law or not.

Something to consider also, James is the oldest New Testament writing. 45-50 A.D. To Paul was the 'mystery of the Church' given. (Eph. 3:1-5) The book of (Romans) was not written until 58 A.D. Point being, James was not writing to counteract any of Paul's writings.

As you indicate, the historical setting is extremely important here.

Stranger
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Equal ground.

Ok. I absolutely agree! But what is Paul's stance? I believe he agrees too because he made many statements to support such.

Does James support the notion we are on equal ground (and again, that means that God isn't giving two different sets of demands on different groups)? I think he doesn't because the text I have provided clearly show he says believing Jews still keep the law while Gentiles aren't to be bothered by it except for a few points.

So I don't believe James thinks all are one "equal ground" (as we are noting it) based on his own statements.

Furthermore, I want to revisit my entire reasoning for this thread. If you agree that James does have this viewpoint, then it is important to keep this viewpoint in mind when reading his epistle. And James 1:1 tells who is speaking and who his intended audience is. It's written by a man who believes Jewish Christians still must follow the law and written to Jewish Christians who believe they must follow the law. I am NOT saying it isn't inspired. I am NOT saying gentiles shouldn't read it, and I am NOT saying all can't learn from it. I am only saying we should keep in mind the circumstances and mindset of the writer and intended audience at the time.

But let me ask you then. What do you interpret the words, "And they are informed concerning you that you teach such and such" mean? You seem (though I could be wrong) to be interpreting the one doing this informing is James, but this would have him sort of double-talking and being a little deceitful, saying "They are informed concerning you" when it was actually him who was doing the informing, LoL.

I'm not assuming this is what you are saying, but who exactly do you say is doing the informing here?
First of all, it's not even important to my purpose. But it is a good question and since you answered my question, I will answer yours:

When James said, "And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses," I interpret that to mean, " they are informed of thee, that thou teachers all the Jews which are..."

I interpret as it says. I am not delving into whether it was a rumour or truth. I understand that James wasn't the one doing the informing. It is entirely possible he did, but if so it was because he himself (James) was informed of it. Again, I am not saying that is what happened, only that it is possible.

But I am certain that James hadn't personally attended Paul's sermons where this allegedly happened. There were, however, "informants".

Did these informants go to the congregation with this information or to James first? I have reason to believe the latter.

Let me address the notion that it wasn't true, but rather a rumour and an untrue one... I apologize for my short answer yesterday as I was having internet issues, but I don't believe it was a rumour. I will be happy to discuss this in the near future, but for now I want to stick to my original point. When we settle that we can move on to this...