Understanding the contrast between the teachings of James an
Jan 2, 2014 7:23:59 GMT
Post by Colossians on Jan 2, 2014 7:23:59 GMT
This material is for the teaching of the Body of Christ, however the author reserves copyright over it.
____________________________________________________________________
UNDERSTANDING THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE TEACHINGS OF JAMES AND PAUL
One of the marks of the novice theologian, is his propensity to consider the book of James an (ostensible) alternate teaching to that of Paul.
The impetus for such propensity, is legalism: he thinks that James' reference to faith with works contradicts Paul's reference to faith without works, and so being desirous to assure himself of (his own) salvation by means of his own works, proffers James as a sort of informal ‘correction’ to Paul.
But what the legalist hasn't noticed, is that James does not refer to works as that which is artificially (i.e. voluntarily) added to faith, but as the very possession of faith. Here is the reference:
"faith, if it hath not works, is dead' James 2:17,
the implication being that if the faith one has is really faith, it will irresistibly produce works (for the works are contained within it), and which is in fact the same as that which Paul says:
"it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken" 2 Cor 4:13
“therefore” relating that if one truly believes, one will irresistibly confess that belief.
So James is not in fact teaching an alternate doctrine to Paul, but is rather addressing a different mindset: he is addressing hypocrisy (see James 2:1-4); whereas Paul is laying down the foundation of grace at the fundamental level, which, being at the fundamental level, is of necessity unqualified, else grace were without absolute definition (see also Rom 11:6).
So the two teachers are not contradicting each other, but in fact complementing each other. In fact Paul’s works are (also) 'packed to the rafters' with rebuke and correction, extending even to the correcting of the apostle Peter’s hypocrisy (see Gal 2:11-14). And his chapter on charity (love) at 1 Cor 13 is so well known it is even cited in secular movies. How often have we heard on the silver screen:
"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal" ?
which differs from James in nothing.
But because Paul's more technical works on grace (found primarily at Romans 3-8 and Galatians) whereby he explains the legal mechanism by which we are set free from the law, are unique and unequalled by any other writer, and because we find in those works such statements as:
"a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" Rom 3:28
he is mistakenly considered by the legalist to be one who preaches a faith which doesn't contain works. And so the legalist naively pits the pragmatically-focussed work of James against the enormous body of doctrinally-focussed work of Paul, thinking to trump the latter with the former.
But as we have intimated, it is not the teaching of the two authors that differs, but the focus.
Once again then, and so that we have things clear ...
When Paul says:
"a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" Rom 3:28
and James says:
"faith, if it hath not works, is dead” James 2:17
the two apostles are not contradicting each other, but rather, Paul is laying down the necessarily-unqualified foundation of grace by which we might know that God will “save to the uttermost” them that call on the name of Jesus Christ, whereas James in contrast is rather ‘drilling down’ into the pragmatics of that same grace as it relates to the maturing church, pointing out to those inclined to hypocrisy and ‘easy-believism’ that the faith to which he (and Paul) refers is no mere state of the mind, but that which is without exception outworked in the physical realm, and that by love (see Gal 5:6).
And so we understand that the faith which we have is in fact not of ourselves, but is rather a fruit of the Holy Ghost within us, for a fruit is a food which by definition contains the seed for the production of itself within itself (see Gen 1:11), and such is the case with faith and, respectively, the works it contains. The vital implication then is that, being a fruit of the Spirit, the works that emanate from such faith, although appearing to emanate from ourselves, in fact emanate from Him who dwells within us.
So Paul:
"Whereunto I also labour, striving according to His working, which worketh in me mightily" Col 1:29
and from the same again, only now to the Body:
“it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure” Phil 2:13
And thus:
“For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?” 1 Cor 4:7
with which David concurs:
"But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee" 1 Chr 29:14
And so Paul again:
"For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me" 1 Cor 9:17
where, in implicitly making claim to the latter of the two options he presents, he necessarily declares his ministry to be in fact against his will (i.e. against the will of his own self), and to be rather the will of Him who dwells within him.
And thus the writer to the Hebrews:
“For he that is entered into [God's] rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from His” Heb 4:10
In concluding ...
It is appropriate that we close with complementary exposition from James.
In particular, let us note the following rarely-understood statement:
“Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge” James 4:11
where the legalist happily takes this “the law” to be in reference to the law of the Old Testament, and in particular, the 10 commandments.
But note here that James says that if one judges the law to which he (James) is referring, one is by definition a judge.
Really? Is not a judge rather one who administers the law rather than one who judges it? How shall a judge maintain his position as a judge if he judges the very law he brings to bear?
And so we see that James is in fact not referring to the OT law at all, but to that which he has earlier implored us to walk in – “the law of liberty” – and is in fact saying that one who judges the freedom of another in Christ, has become a judge.
And if a judge, then one whose disposition is in accord with the OT law.
So in fact the book of James, rather than affirming the legalist in his endeavours, condemns him.
"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage" Gal 5:1
Amen.
____________________________________________________________________
UNDERSTANDING THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE TEACHINGS OF JAMES AND PAUL
One of the marks of the novice theologian, is his propensity to consider the book of James an (ostensible) alternate teaching to that of Paul.
The impetus for such propensity, is legalism: he thinks that James' reference to faith with works contradicts Paul's reference to faith without works, and so being desirous to assure himself of (his own) salvation by means of his own works, proffers James as a sort of informal ‘correction’ to Paul.
But what the legalist hasn't noticed, is that James does not refer to works as that which is artificially (i.e. voluntarily) added to faith, but as the very possession of faith. Here is the reference:
"faith, if it hath not works, is dead' James 2:17,
the implication being that if the faith one has is really faith, it will irresistibly produce works (for the works are contained within it), and which is in fact the same as that which Paul says:
"it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken" 2 Cor 4:13
“therefore” relating that if one truly believes, one will irresistibly confess that belief.
So James is not in fact teaching an alternate doctrine to Paul, but is rather addressing a different mindset: he is addressing hypocrisy (see James 2:1-4); whereas Paul is laying down the foundation of grace at the fundamental level, which, being at the fundamental level, is of necessity unqualified, else grace were without absolute definition (see also Rom 11:6).
So the two teachers are not contradicting each other, but in fact complementing each other. In fact Paul’s works are (also) 'packed to the rafters' with rebuke and correction, extending even to the correcting of the apostle Peter’s hypocrisy (see Gal 2:11-14). And his chapter on charity (love) at 1 Cor 13 is so well known it is even cited in secular movies. How often have we heard on the silver screen:
"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal" ?
which differs from James in nothing.
But because Paul's more technical works on grace (found primarily at Romans 3-8 and Galatians) whereby he explains the legal mechanism by which we are set free from the law, are unique and unequalled by any other writer, and because we find in those works such statements as:
"a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" Rom 3:28
he is mistakenly considered by the legalist to be one who preaches a faith which doesn't contain works. And so the legalist naively pits the pragmatically-focussed work of James against the enormous body of doctrinally-focussed work of Paul, thinking to trump the latter with the former.
But as we have intimated, it is not the teaching of the two authors that differs, but the focus.
Once again then, and so that we have things clear ...
When Paul says:
"a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" Rom 3:28
and James says:
"faith, if it hath not works, is dead” James 2:17
the two apostles are not contradicting each other, but rather, Paul is laying down the necessarily-unqualified foundation of grace by which we might know that God will “save to the uttermost” them that call on the name of Jesus Christ, whereas James in contrast is rather ‘drilling down’ into the pragmatics of that same grace as it relates to the maturing church, pointing out to those inclined to hypocrisy and ‘easy-believism’ that the faith to which he (and Paul) refers is no mere state of the mind, but that which is without exception outworked in the physical realm, and that by love (see Gal 5:6).
And so we understand that the faith which we have is in fact not of ourselves, but is rather a fruit of the Holy Ghost within us, for a fruit is a food which by definition contains the seed for the production of itself within itself (see Gen 1:11), and such is the case with faith and, respectively, the works it contains. The vital implication then is that, being a fruit of the Spirit, the works that emanate from such faith, although appearing to emanate from ourselves, in fact emanate from Him who dwells within us.
So Paul:
"Whereunto I also labour, striving according to His working, which worketh in me mightily" Col 1:29
and from the same again, only now to the Body:
“it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure” Phil 2:13
And thus:
“For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?” 1 Cor 4:7
with which David concurs:
"But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee" 1 Chr 29:14
And so Paul again:
"For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me" 1 Cor 9:17
where, in implicitly making claim to the latter of the two options he presents, he necessarily declares his ministry to be in fact against his will (i.e. against the will of his own self), and to be rather the will of Him who dwells within him.
And thus the writer to the Hebrews:
“For he that is entered into [God's] rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from His” Heb 4:10
In concluding ...
It is appropriate that we close with complementary exposition from James.
In particular, let us note the following rarely-understood statement:
“Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge” James 4:11
where the legalist happily takes this “the law” to be in reference to the law of the Old Testament, and in particular, the 10 commandments.
But note here that James says that if one judges the law to which he (James) is referring, one is by definition a judge.
Really? Is not a judge rather one who administers the law rather than one who judges it? How shall a judge maintain his position as a judge if he judges the very law he brings to bear?
And so we see that James is in fact not referring to the OT law at all, but to that which he has earlier implored us to walk in – “the law of liberty” – and is in fact saying that one who judges the freedom of another in Christ, has become a judge.
And if a judge, then one whose disposition is in accord with the OT law.
So in fact the book of James, rather than affirming the legalist in his endeavours, condemns him.
"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage" Gal 5:1
Amen.