Background Information About James

[FHII]

That Paul's doctrines and James' doctrines were not so far from each other....

Ok... Then I will refer you to my comments to Hidden In Him in post #40. I will also warn you that it easy for either of us to cherry pick verses to support our point... Again, I say, "either of us" so I include myself in that statement.

 

[FHII]

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

I absolutely agree! I will then refer you to my post #40.

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)

That is an interesting but debatable point. But I will concede for now...

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.

I am aware of that and it is a good point. It is one I had in mind when I started this thread. However, my focus in this thread is not on James's epistle. It's more of a focus on James's beliefs based on Biblical evidence outside is epistle and applying it to his epistle.

My mind is pretty weary now from a long day of working, so correct me if I am wrong: the council at Jerusalem was around 49 AD. Acts 21 happens about 57-59 AD. The Epistle of James was written, like you said, 45-50 AD.

So what can we conclude? In 57 AD James was still of the belief that Jewish Christian should or must follow the law.

In other words, it's a moot point when his epistle was written because he still hasn't changed his mind about Jewish Christians having to follow the law.

This, when we read the book of James we must realize it was written by a man who believes Jewish Christians and gentile Christians were not on equal ground.

And if you want to push the topic of the timeline, if his epistle was written before the council of Jerusalem, then he was still believing that gentiles must follow all the law. He didn't come to that knowledge until the council!

If so... It seems the Epistle was outdated.

 

[justbyfaith]

Ok... Then I will refer you to my comments to Hidden In Him in post #40. I will also warn you that it easy for either of us to cherry pick verses to support our point... Again, I say, "either of us" so I include myself in that statement.

I did not see anything in your comments that would lead me to change my mind.

I would point out to you, though, that every cherry has a seed within it that can be planted in the heart.

 

[FHII]

I did not see anything in your comments that would lead me to change my mind.

Well then go in peace.

I would point out to you, though, that every cherry has a seed within it that can be planted in the heart.

And no doubt, the spirit of cherry picking verses has been planted in your heart.

 

[Stranger]

I absolutely agree! I will then refer you to my post #40.


That is an interesting but debatable point. But I will concede for now...


I am aware of that and it is a good point. It is one I had in mind when I started this thread. However, my focus in this thread is not on James's epistle. It's more of a focus on James's beliefs based on Biblical evidence outside is epistle and applying it to his epistle.

My mind is pretty weary now from a long day of working, so correct me if I am wrong: the council at Jerusalem was around 49 AD. Acts 21 happens about 57-59 AD. The Epistle of James was written, like you said, 45-50 AD.

So what can we conclude? In 57 AD James was still of the belief that Jewish Christian should or must follow the law.

In other words, it's a moot point when his epistle was written because he still hasn't changed his mind about Jewish Christians having to follow the law.

This, when we read the book of James we must realize it was written by a man who believes Jewish Christians and gentile Christians were not on equal ground.

And if you want to push the topic of the timeline, if his epistle was written before the council of Jerusalem, then he was still believing that gentiles must follow all the law. He didn't come to that knowledge until the council!

If so... It seems the Epistle was outdated.

Yes, I believe the dates are as close as we can get. My point being that James was the first New Testament letter written. I would not say it is outdated as it speaks to those he intended it for, and it certainly speaks to those today who say they have faith, but no works support their claim. To James the one who said he had faith, was the one who still observed the Law, but he had no works.

He had no revelation of the 'Church'. He had no understanding of both Jew and Gentile being formed into one Body. I doubt he had any knowledge of the Law being fulfilled or done away. When James writes he is writing to Jews who believe. (James 1:1-2) "...to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. My brethren...." See also, (1:18), and (2:1). And he no doubt was witness to and part of the coming of the Holy Spirit in (Acts 2). But this would be Jewish also. Fulfillment of prophecy to the Jews. Done on the day of the Feast of Pentecost. Affecting many of the 12 tribes of Israel who traveled to attend.

Now, I would agree with you that when James wrote he did not see the Gentiles as on equal ground with the Jews. Just as Christ acknowledged. (Matt. 15:26) Such understanding would not come until Paul's revelation from the risen Christ.

But I do not see this as making James outdated or making it not relevant for any Christian, both Jew and Gentile, even though it is Jewish in it's emphasis. All are always saved by faith. Faith always produces works. This is true before the Law, during the Law, and after the Law.

Yes, in (Acts 21) James still held to the Law for Jews. And for the Jew to abandon the Law would be for him wrong. As to exactly how much understanding he had at that time of the Law being done away, I don't know. But in (Acts 15) it was only the Law being placed upon Gentiles that he said was not necessary. And Paul never did argue the point at that time that neither was the Jew under Law anymore.

I personally believe both James and Paul were wrong in (Acts 21). And Paul would have been the more so as he had more revelation and knowledge of the Law being done away. I think both were doing it for the right reasons, but were wrong in the act.

I don't think I have answered anything. (James) is a difficult subject to say the least.

Stranger

 

[justbyfaith]

And no doubt, the spirit of cherry picking verses has been planted in your heart.

As has the spirit of rejecting individual seeds been planted in yours.

 

[Hidden In Him]

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.

Good morning, and Happy 4th of July! My face just lifted off of a pillow, so hopefully I can be coherent here, LoL.

About your question to me concerning equal ground, it was specifically in reference to salvation. I will present to you a case at the end of this post that had proved (to my my mind and several others at the site anyway) that James would have had to have been preaching salvation by grace or he would have been removed from his position as head of the church in Jerusalem.

But what I was arguing in previous posts is that Jewish Christians were keeping the law, not because it was necessary to their salvation but because they were seeking to save Jews under law, knowing that Christianity would have been rejected out of hand by Jews if it had become a religion that taught they should forsake Jewish law. Again, the teaching was to be all things to all men in order to save some, and they would not have been able to save Jews if their teaching and example was that Jews should forsake Jewish law. It would have been utterly impossible, and amounted to God Himself forsaking the Jews, and this is something Paul clearly taught several times had not happened.

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.

Yes, his letter was to Jewish believers specifically. Paul's was a ministry to the Gentiles whereas James' was a ministry to the Jews, as was Peter's and Jude's. You can tell when a NT writer was writing to the Jews because of the content.

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

See, this is why I went to a rather long explanation. If James had adopted this viewpoint about Paul then he would have owned it. His wording would have been, "WE have been informed concerning you...," and would have then immediately asked him to give a defense of himself. But he doesn't do that. He says "they have been informed concerning you," and instead of asking for a defense immediately sets out to give him a plan whereby it could be proven to the believing Jews that this was not the case, and this report they had heard amounted to nothing.

Let me go dig up the argument that was presented on another thread that James would have had to have preached salvation by grace. I can add some things to it as well.

 

[GodsGrace]

Good morning, and Happy 4th of July! My face just lifted off of a pillow, so hopefully I can be coherent here, LoL.

About your question to me concerning equal ground, it was specifically in reference to salvation. I will present to you a case at the end of this post that had proved (to my my mind and several others at the site anyway) that James would have had to have been preaching salvation by grace or he would have been removed from his position as head of the church in Jerusalem.

But what I was arguing in previous posts is that Jewish Christians were keeping the law, not because it was necessary to their salvation but because they were seeking to save Jews under law, knowing that Christianity would have been rejected out of hand by Jews if it had become a religion that taught they should forsake Jewish law. Again, the teaching was to be all things to all men in order to save some, and they would not have been able to save Jews if their teaching and example was that Jews should forsake Jewish law. It would have been utterly impossible, and amounted to God Himself forsaking the Jews, and this is something Paul clearly taught several times had not happened.


Yes, his letter was to Jewish believers specifically. Paul's was a ministry to the Gentiles whereas James' was a ministry to the Jews, as was Peter's and Jude's. You can tell when a NT writer was writing to the Jews because of the content.


See, this is why I went to a rather long explanation. If James had adopted this viewpoint about Paul then he would have owned it. His wording would have been, "WE have been informed concerning you...," and would have then immediately asked him to give a defense of himself. But he doesn't do that. He says "they have been informed concerning you," and instead of asking for a defense immediately sets out to give him a plan whereby it could be proven to the believing Jews that this was not the case, and this report they had heard amounted to nothing.

Let me go dig up the argument that was presented on another thread that James would have had to have preached salvation by grace. I can add some things to it as well.

Hi HIH
The dating of James would seem important to me in this discussion.
Some date it at about the early 60's, but most would agree on a date before 50AD.

This is important because immediately after Jesus ascended there was a discussion and the problem arose of what it meant to be Christian. Some were teaching that one had to first become a Jew (the Gentiles) and THEN become a Christian.

This was decided against, as we're told in Acts.

We know that Paul and James got along...this means, to me at least and to most theologians, that Paul and James agreed. And if we want to be honest and read carefully we really do not find any doctrinal difference between them. It would take a long post to prove this, but it seems pretty obvious to me.

My NIV bible says this about James...probably the brother of Christ who came to understand WHO Jesus was, after His death and resurrection. He was also the leader of the Jerusalem Council in 15 AD.

1. James was one of the select individuals to whom Jesus appeared.
2. Paul called James a Pillar of the church. Gal. 2:9
3. Paul spoke to James on his first visit to Jerusalem. (post conversion) Gal 1:19
4. Paul did the same on his last visit. Acts 21:18
5. Paul told his friends to advise James that he had been rescued from prison. Acts 12:17
6. James was a leader in the important Council of Jerusalem, 15 AD Acts 15:13
7. Jude identified himself as "brother of James"...so well known was James.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Let me go dig up the argument that was presented on another thread that James would have had to have preached salvation by grace. I can add some things to it as well.

Ok, here was the case presented on another thread, which never got much of a reply. If you can take a second, tell me how these verses (and historical facts) would have meshed with the notion that James was still teaching the keeping of law for salvation's sake. I'll just quote the posts here, since that will be easiest:

You were claiming that James was still teaching that the church was under law, so my first response was to ask you what you think the apostles would have believed about why Jesus allowed Himself to be crucified before the time Paul began preaching the gospel of grace. The Book of James is estimated to have been written around 45 A.D., which means that he was - according to your position - still not yet preaching the gospel of grace as of this time. That's 15 years removed from the time Christ was crucified. Now James was the head of the church in Jerusalem when he wrote his letter, so he would most certainly have not been the only one teaching something other than the gospel of grace. If not, the church would have removed him from his place of authority for teaching heresy.

So I am asking you what then would the church have been teaching during this entire time regarding why the Lord Jesus Christ allowed Himself to be crucified. If your answer is that "there is nothing in scripture," that would suggest they simply didn't bother answering the question amongst themselves for more than 15 years, sort of like ignoring the elephant in the room. Orthodox Christianity has an answer for what they would have believed about this question, and that is that James preached salvation by grace through Christ's sacrifice. This is why his letter was accepted as cannon. But you are arguing that James (and apparently the entire church for at least 15 years) was teaching something different.

Don't you think it behooves you to lay out what the church believed about why He allowed Himself to be crucified, if for 15 years they didn't know the purpose of it was to shed His blood to atone for man's sins? And why would they be completely in the dark during that entire time?

As @justbyfaith pointed out, Peter was preaching the gospel of grace in Acts 10, and in Acts 2:38 it also says that he was preaching being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Another member then posted that since Acts 2:38 was preached on the Day of Pentecost, just some 50 odd days from the time of the resurrection, this suggests Christ likely must have taught them the gospel on the road to Emmaus, to which I responded:

Yes. That seems evident enough from v.25-27 (of Luke 24):

25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning Himself.

This would have surely included explaining to them the Isaiah 53 passage:

4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by Him and afflicted. 5 But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed. 6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:4-6)

Now, let me add to this argument a little. In James Chapter 2, he asks about if faith alone can save a believer. Faith in what? The clear suggestion here is that he is talking about faith in God's grace alone. If not, the whole text doesn't make any sense. And James says he does have faith in this grace when he says "I will show you my faith by my works." So he believes in both. This passage clearly IS about salvation, and here he says he believes in salvation by grace, but such a faith will manifest works that prove it is genuine.

Anyway, not the end of the world, just still looking for someone from your viewpoint to give an answer regarding this line of argument.

 

[GodsGrace]

Ok, here was the case presented on another thread, which never got much of a reply refuting it. If you can take a second, tell me how these verses (and historical facts) would have meshed with the notion that James was still teaching the keeping of law for salvation's sake. I'll just quote the posts here, since that will be easiest:



Another member then posted that since Acts 2:38 was preached on the Day of Pentecost, just some 50 odd days from the time of the resurrection, this suggests Christ likely must have taught them the gospel on the road to Emmaus, to which I responded:


Now, let me add to this argument a little. In James Chapter 2, he asks about if faith alone can save a believer. Faith in what? The clear suggestion here is that he is talking about faith in God's grace alone. If not, the whole text doesn't make any sense. And James says he does have faith in this grace, which he says "I will show you my faith by my works." So he believes in both. This passage clear IS about salvation, and here he says he believes in salvation by grace, but such a faith, will manifest works that prove it is genuine.

Anyway, not the end of the world, just still looking for someone from your viewpoint to give an answer regarding this line of argument.

You're right of course.
James did not teach a works salvation.
It was understood by the time of James' writing that we were no longer under the law but under grace.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Hi HIH
The dating of James would seem important to me in this discussion.
Some date it at about the early 60's, but most would agree on a date before 50AD.

This is important because immediately after Jesus ascended there was a discussion and the problem arose of what it meant to be Christian. Some were teaching that one had to first become a Jew (the Gentiles) and THEN become a Christian.

This was decided against, as we're told in Acts.

We know that Paul and James got along...this means, to me at least and to most theologians, that Paul and James agreed. And if we want to be honest and read carefully we really do not find any doctrinal difference between them. It would take a long post to prove this, but it seems pretty obvious to me.

My NIV bible says this about James...probably the brother of Christ who came to understand WHO Jesus was, after His death and resurrection. He was also the leader of the Jerusalem Council in 15 AD.

1. James was one of the select individuals to whom Jesus appeared.
2. Paul called James a Pillar of the church. Gal. 2:9
3. Paul spoke to James on his first visit to Jerusalem. (post conversion) Gal 1:19
4. Paul did the same on his last visit. Acts 21:18
5. Paul told his friends to advise James that he had been rescued from prison. Acts 12:17
6. James was a leader in the important Council of Jerusalem, 15 AD Acts 15:13
7. Jude identified himself as "brother of James"...so well known was James.

There is debate about if the James spoken of in Acts 15 as the head of the church, the obvious writer of the book of James, was one and the same as James the brother of Jesus. But I am absolutely in agreement that the dating of the letter is of utmost importance. A very early date is suggested by the fact that there is no mention yet of any of the issues associated with Gentile involvement in the church, such as idolatry, food offered to idols, fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians, etc. Plus James quotes from the Gospel of Matthew several times, and Matthew is now widely held to have been written in the early 40s A.D. I place James to be dated to roughly 45 A.D., in agreement with Edward Reese.

 

[GodsGrace]

There is debate about if the James spoken of in Acts 15 as the head of the church, the obvious writer of the book of James, was one and the same as James the brother of Jesus. But I am absolutely in agreement that the dating of the letter is of utmost importance. A very early date is suggested by the fact that there is no mention yet of any of the issues associated with Gentile involvement in the church, such as idolatry, food offered to idols, fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians, etc. Plus James quotes from the Gospel of Matthew several times, and Matthew is now widely held to have been written in the early 40s A.D. I place James to be dated to roughly 45 A.D., in agreement with Edward Reese.

Do you agree that James DID NOT teach a salvation by works?
(but by faith).

 

[GodsGrace]

There is debate about if the James spoken of in Acts 15 as the head of the church, the obvious writer of the book of James, was one and the same as James the brother of Jesus. But I am absolutely in agreement that the dating of the letter is of utmost importance. A very early date is suggested by the fact that there is no mention yet of any of the issues associated with Gentile involvement in the church, such as idolatry, food offered to idols, fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians, etc. Plus James quotes from the Gospel of Matthew several times, and Matthew is now widely held to have been written in the early 40s A.D. I place James to be dated to roughly 45 A.D., in agreement with Edward Reese.

Don't you think Peter was the head?
When there was a question, Peter was summoned.
Dinner time...but I do remember that Peter was the head of the very early church.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Do you agree that James DID NOT teach a salvation by works?
(but by faith).

Yes.

Don't you think Peter was the head?
When there was a question, Peter was summoned.
Dinner time...but I do remember that Peter was the head of the very early church.

Well, it appears on the surface anyway that James actually was.

From the Wiki on James:

James the Just was "from an early date with Peter a leader of the Church at Jerusalem and from the time when Peter left Jerusalem after Herod Agrippa's attempt to kill him, James appears as the principal authority who presided at Council of Jerusalem."[16]

The Pauline epistles and the later chapters of the Acts of the Apostles portray James as an important figure in the Christian community of Jerusalem. When Paul arrives in Jerusalem to deliver the money he raised for the faithful there, it is to James that he speaks, and it is James who insists that Paul ritually cleanse himself at Herod's Temple to prove his faith and deny rumors of teaching rebellion against the Torah (Acts 21:18ff).[note 3]

Paul describes James as being one of the persons to whom the risen Christ showed himself,[note 4] and in Galatians 2:9, Paul lists James with Cephas (better known as Peter) and John the Apostle as the three "pillars" of the Church.[17]

Paul describes these Pillars as the ones who will minister to the "circumcised" (in general Jews and Jewish Proselytes) in Jerusalem, while Paul and his fellows will minister to the "uncircumcised" (in general Gentiles) (2:12),[18][note 5] after a debate in response to concerns of the Christians of Antioch.
James, brother of Jesus - Wikipedia

 

[FHII]

Do you agree that James DID NOT teach a salvation by works?
(but by faith).

I realize I have previous posts to attend to, but I want to quickly address this. James did!

James 2:9,11,14 KJV
[14] What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

James 2:24 KJV
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes.


Well, it appears on the surface anyway that James actually was.

From the Wiki on James:

James the Just was "from an early date with Peter a leader of the Church at Jerusalem and from the time when Peter left Jerusalem after Herod Agrippa's attempt to kill him, James appears as the principal authority who presided at Council of Jerusalem."[16]

The Pauline epistles and the later chapters of the Acts of the Apostles portray James as an important figure in the Christian community of Jerusalem. When Paul arrives in Jerusalem to deliver the money he raised for the faithful there, it is to James that he speaks, and it is James who insists that Paul ritually cleanse himself at Herod's Temple to prove his faith and deny rumors of teaching rebellion against the Torah (Acts 21:18ff).[note 3]

Paul describes James as being one of the persons to whom the risen Christ showed himself,[note 4] and in Galatians 2:9, Paul lists James with Cephas (better known as Peter) and John the Apostle as the three "pillars" of the Church.[17]

Paul describes these Pillars as the ones who will minister to the "circumcised" (in general Jews and Jewish Proselytes) in Jerusalem, while Paul and his fellows will minister to the "uncircumcised" (in general Gentiles) (2:12),[18][note 5] after a debate in response to concerns of the Christians of Antioch.
James, brother of Jesus - Wikipedia

Make sure you read First Leader of the Early Church
Peter was, without a doubt, the leader of the other Apostles.
I didn't learn this from Wikipedia by the way,,,but from Christian History.

Saint Peter - Wikipedia

 

[GodsGrace]

I realize I have previous posts to attend to, but I want to quickly address this. James did!

James 2:9,11,14 KJV
[14] What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

James 2:24 KJV
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

It seems many more knowledgeable than us do not agree with you.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I realize I have previous posts to attend to, but I want to quickly address this. James did!

James 2:9,11,14 KJV
[14] What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

James 2:24 KJV
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

I knew this was coming, buddy.

The thing is, James is not here discussing works "of the law," which is what you are proposing. The works he is talking about in this letter have to do with those parts of the law that were still binding upon all believers, in particular what he stresses repeatedly in the letter; the royal law of "Love your neighbor as yourself." This is likewise a law in the Old Testament, but one that was retained by the early church as incumbent upon believers to keep.

In Acts 21, the works being discussed regard those laws which were no longer binding upon salvation; circumcision and the other "customs" of the Jews, which would have including things like not eating unclean foods, and the washing of hands. These sorts of things are never mentioned or discussed by James in the letter.

 

[farouk]

I knew this was coming, buddy.

The thing is, James is not here discussing works of the law, which is what you are proposing. The works he is talking about in this letter have to do with those parts of the law that were still binding upon all believers, in particular what he stresses repeatedly in the letter; the royal law of "Love your neighbor as yourself." This is likewise a law in the Old Testament, but one that was retained by the early church as incumbent upon believers to keep.

In Acts 21, the works being discussed regard those laws which were no longer binding upon salvation, circumcision and the other "customs" of the Jews, which would have including things like not eating unclean foods, and the washing of hands. These sorts of things are never mentioned or discussed by James in the letter.

Ephesians 2.9 does not contradict James; what James is saying is that if there is no evidence of faith, it's dead.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Make sure you read First Leader of the Early Church
Peter was, without a doubt, the leader of the other Apostles.
I didn't learn this from Wikipedia by the way,,,but from Christian History.

Saint Peter - Wikipedia

You're confusing me, LoL. The paragraph reads:

The Gospels and Acts portray Peter as the most prominent apostle, though he denied Jesus three times during the events of the crucifixion. According to the Christian tradition, Peter was the first to whom Jesus appeared, balancing Peter's denial and restoring his position. Peter is regarded as the first leader of the early Church,[21][22] though he was soon eclipsed in this leadership by James the Just, "the Brother of the Lord."[23][24] Because Peter was the first to whom Jesus appeared, the leadership of Peter forms the basis of the Apostolic succession and the institutional power of orthodoxy, as the heirs of Peter,[25] and is described as "the rock" on which the church will be built.[21]

That's what the Wiki on James said (not that Wiki is always 100% on). But it too stated that James became the head of the church when Peter left Jerusalem after the persecution began : )