One critical point Jewish Christianity emphasized was the need for a letter of recommendation from the bishop of Jerusalem prior to acknowledging the legitimacy of preachers of Christ.
“Wherefore observe the greatest caution, that you believe no teacher, unless he brings from Jerusalem the testimonial of James the Lord’s brother, or of whosoever may come after him. For no one, unless he has gone up thither, and there has been approved as a fit and faithful teacher for preaching the word of Christ, – unless, I say, he brings a testimonial thence, is by any means to be received. But let neither prophet nor apostle be looked for by you at this time, besides us. (Clementine Recognitions XXXV)
It is of note that in 2 Corinthians, Paul acknowledged that he lacked a letter of recommendation.
“Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone. You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God” (2 Corinthians 3:1-3)
In fact, he claims that the Corinthian congregation should be the one offering a recommendation to him rather than demanding a letter of recommendation from him: “I ought to have been commended by you; for in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles” (2 Corinthians 12:11). Here, Paul is referring to the twelve apostles. Far from preaching the same message, they preached very different Jesuses and very different gospels.
“If anyone else preaches a gospel contrary to the gospel you received [from me], let him be damned” (Galatians 1:6). “For if he who preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you received a different Spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted – you put up with it easily enough! For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles.” (2 Corinthians 11:4-5). To “James, Peter, and John, those esteemed to be pillars” (Galatians 2:9), “we refused to give into them for a single moment” (Galatians 2:5). “I do not think I am in the least inferior to those eminent apostles” (2 Corinthians 11:5).
A lot of ink was spent trying to defend his apostolic credentials while railing against the Jerusalem leadership.
Paul argues, “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?” (1 Corinthians 9:1). “Are they Hebrews? So am I! Are they Israelites? So am I! Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I! Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one (though it may be foolish to say so), with greater labors, more floggings, more imprisonments, and more often near deaths” (2 Corinthians 11:22-23).
Paul concedes “even if I am not an apostle to others, at least I am to you” (1 Corinthians 9:2).
Galatians 1:17-19 “nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me … however after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother.”
So Paul believes he joined a faith in which Peter and James were apostles before he was.
Galatians 1:22-24 “I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea that are in Christ they only heard it said The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy And they glorified God because of me.”
So Paul believes the faith he know preaches is the very thing he tried to destroy when Peter and James were preaching it before he was.
Galatians 2:2-6 “Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain … to me they added nothing.”
So Paul spoke with Peter and James and told them the gospel he preaches and they had no issue with it.
So Paul spent the bulk of Romans and his other letters arguing that “a man is justified by faith without the works of the Torah” (Romans 3:28), while James spent the bulk of his epistle arguing that “faith by itself, if it does not have works [of the Torah], is dead” (James 2:17). Using Jewish terminology, James urges his followers to “be doers of the word [of God], and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves” (James 1:22). Here, the “word” refers to the word of God which God spoke through Moses on Mount Sinai, just as works, deeds, labors, and actions (depending on the translation) all refer to the works performed to remain complaint with the Mosaic Law.
James enunciates “But he who looks into the perfect Torah of liberty and continues, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work [of the Torah], this one will be blessed in what he does.” (James 1:25). “For whoever keeps the whole Torah and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it” (James 2:10). “So speak and act as those who will be judged by the Torah” (James 2:12).
“What profit my brethren, if someone [arguably, Paul] says he has faith but does not have works [of the Torah]? Can faith save him?…Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead…Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith from out of my works. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe – and tremble! You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without works is dead?” (James 2:14-20). “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.” (James 2:24). “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” (James 2:26). This does not look like James had “no issue” with Paul’s gospel.
The epistle of James preaches a very different gospel from that of Paul – James’ gospel is a Mosaic Law observant gospel.
Paul himself explains why there’s such a mismatch between the message he preached and the message the Jerusalem church preached. Paul clarifies “I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:11-12). Paul was an “apostle sent not from men” (Galatians 1:1) – men like James, the bishop of Jerusalem.
Paul may have gone up to Jerusalem to greet the apostles and announce to them that he was working to bring the Gentiles to Jesus, but I doubt he was very thorough about explaining his teachings to them as it seems James felt the need to write an entire epistle contradicting Paul’s teachings.
The epistle of Jude mentions that “certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness” (Jude 1:4). Paul is a very likely candidate for being one of these men who snuck in unnoticed, especially since Paul was not operating in Judea and would not have had oversight.
What should always be kept in mind when discussing James is that he was executed by the Sanhedrin on the charge of being a lawbreaker.
The gospel that both Paul and James preached was that Jesus had died for the sins of the world. however the implications of this gospel were still argued over. One extreme was that nothing had changed and salvation was still through strict observance of the law – this was what Paul was arguing against.
The other extreme was that followers of Jesus were now free from of all moral constraint and could do whatever they pleased – this is what James was arguing against. And this is who Jude referred to when talking about certain men who slipped in – “They are ungodly people, who change the grace of our God into a debauchery” (that certainly wasn’t Paul).
Paul never preaches breaking the law – “You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?” He preaches living by and doing the works of the spirit. That it is faith in Jesus that will bring this about, so followers are no longer slaves to the law but slaves to christ. He preaches against the necessity of circumcision as that would render the sacrifice of christ pointless.
James, speaking to the new church that believes Jesus is Lord, says the father “chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.” This word given to James and his fellow believers is Jesus. Who is the “only lawgiver and judge”. James preaches that it is not enough to simply hear this lawgiver but you must also do what he says.
Galatians 5:14 “For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command Love your neighbor as yourself.”
James 2:8 “If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, Love your neighbor as yourself, you are doing good.”
They both agreed but tailored their message for their different audiences.
Although the historical accounts of how the bishop of Jerusalem died varies depending on if it’s Clement, Hegesippus, or Eusebius doing the reporting, Josephus does record that James was charged with violating the Law by the younger Ananus who had an “exceedingly bold and reckless disposition” and belonged to the “the sect of the Sadducees, who are the most cruel of all the Jews in the execution of judgment”. However, Josephus does note that “those in the city who seemed most moderate and skilled in the Law were very angry at this, and sent secretly to the king, requesting him to order Ananus to cease such proceedings.” It sounds like a corrupt high priest filed a bogus charge against James to a Sanhedrin he controlled prompting enough outrage that the rabbis of Jerusalem filed grievances on James’ behalf. It’s unlikely that those most skilled in the Torah would race to James’ defense, or be upset at all, if James himself did not uphold the Mosaic Law.
Being caught in violation of one commandment (probably on trumped up charges), does not mean James did not follow the remaining 612 commandments. He would not have been able to set up his home base in Jerusalem and live for decades in the shadow of the 2nd Temple had he not been Torah compliant. James was able to survive in Jerusalem for so long because his gospel was a Mosaic Law observant gospel, while Paul – after he became famous – approached Jerusalem expecting to die there knowing his non-Mosaic Law observant gospel would not be well received.
As for Jesus’ atoning death, 1 John does the best job of explaining the Jewish Christians’ viewpoint. It is a Mosaic Law observant epistle (if you read carefully, you’ll notice there is no new covenant in the Gospel of John), the author believed that while “the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin…And He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world” (I John 1:7-2:2), it would be a one time atonement for past sins, not license to break any of the commandments of the Mosaic Law in the future: “My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin.” (1 John 2:1). In Judaism, “sin is Torahlessness” (1 John 3:4) and “Whoever commits sin also commits Torahlessness” (1 John 3:4). In completely non-Biblical terms, the Jewish Christians viewed Jesus’ atoning sacrifice almost like of a full restore potion in Pokemon, the Pokemon is completely heal, status effects are erased, but that didn’t mean the Pokemon couldn’t take more damage in future battles (i.e. by committing further sins against the Torah).
I John urges his readers “Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments [the Mosaic commandments]. He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word [given through Moses], truly the love of God is perfected in him.” (1 John 2:3-5).
You have to read James 2:8 in context:
“If you really keep the royal law according to the Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself”, you do well. But if you show partiality (if you only partially keep the Torah and not the whole thing), then you commit sin, and are convicted by the Law as Lawbreakers. For whoever shall keep the whole Torah, and yet stumble on one point, he is guilty of violating them all. For He who said, “Do no commit adultery,” also said “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you commit murder, you have become a Lawbreaker of the Law.” (James 2:8-12)
James is saying, if you keep the greatest commandment, good! But that’s not enough. You also have to follow the remaining 612 commandments. You need to keep the whole of the Mosaic Law, for if you violate even one commandment, you are a sinner who has violated all the commandments. If you follow commandment A, but not commandment B, then you are a sinner to the Law regardless.
James 2:8-12 is a classic example of a chiasm – a Hebrew literary technique where the thesis is nestled in the middle of a symmetrical A-B-X-B-A structure. The central point of James’ chiasm is if you break even one commandment of the Torah, then you are guilty of breaking the entire Torah. Both the sentence above it and below it support that argument. For James, it’s not enough just to follow the ‘Love your neighbor’ commandment, the other commandments are also mandatory.
Paul probably had a copy of James’ epistle and was responding to James’ critiques of him in 2 Corinthians.
James: “But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. But let your “Yes” be “Yes” and “No”,”No,” lest you fall into judgement. (James 5:12)
Paul: “Therefore, when I was planning this, did I do it lightly? Or the things I plan, do I plan according to the flesh, that with me there should be Yes, Yes, and No, No?” (2 Corinthians 1:17)
James: “You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without works is dead?” (James 2:20)
Paul: “I say again, let no one think me a fool” (2 Corinthians 1:16) “For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God [the Torah]”(2 Corinthians 2:17)
The point is that James and a group of his followers were executed by the chief priest, this backs up Paul’s claim that he originally persecuted the church James belonged to and was himself persecuted having joined the church. It was zealousness for the traditions of his fathers that led him to try to destroy the church.
I’m not sure how you can describe 1 John as a mosaic law observant epistle. It says Jesus is the word of life who’s blood purifies believers from their sins.
None of Paul, John, James advocate for breaking the law. Paul says “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous with God, but it is those who obey the law who justified.” Agreeing with James ” Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.”
Paul, John, James agree that all sin is lawlessness. And that the sacrifice of Jesus cleanses believes from their sins and allows them to become children of god. That as children of god they will avoid sin, and so avoiding sin it is not necessary to have the law.
It is insistence on having the law that denies the sacrifice of Jesus.
1 John 3:21 ” if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.
James 1:12 “Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that he (the Lord) has promised to those who love him.”
They all believe the same thing, they’re just saying it in different ways.
Well, you have to understand that the traditions of the fathers refers to the Oral Torah and not the Written Torah. The “traditions of my fathers” in Galatians 1:14 refers to the oral traditions passed down from father to son that modern rabbinical Judaism would describe as explaining and further detailing the Written Torah, a point of view Jesus vehemently did not agreed with.
In Matthew 15, the scribes and Pharisees asked Jesus “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread” (Matthew 15:1). Mark clarifies, “The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the Law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.” (Mark 7:1-4)
Jesus responds to their accusations with “you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me, and in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men'”(Matthew 15:6-9). “For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men – the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.” (Mark 7:8)
By the 1st century AD, for Jews, the Orah Torah had become a mandatory adjunct to the Written Torah. Because Jesus and his followers didn’t follow these traditions of the fathers, they would have been outliers in Judean society and were persecuted for it by Paul and the high priest, along with other denominations of Oral Torah observant Judaism. Similarly, there is a long history of bloody, bitter clashes between the Jews and the Samaritans – members of the tribe of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Levi – because the Samaritans did not following the Oral Torah nor did they treat the Books of the Prophets as authoritative, even though they strictly followed the Mosaic Law.
James’ congregation would have followed in Jesus’ footsteps and upheld the Written Torah – the commandments of God – while forgoing the Oral Torah which they saw as commandments of men. You see evidence of this in the New Testament. Long after Jesus’ crucifixion, Peter reported to God that he had never eaten pork: “I have never eaten anything defiled or unclean” (Acts 10:14). The reason Peter withdrew from eating with the Gentiles in Galatians 2 after “certain men came from James” (Galatians 2:12) was because during the 2nd Temple era, Jews avoided mixing with Gentiles because it was thought that the Gentiles were unclean because they ate unclean foods. Peter reports “You known how unLawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation”(Acts 10:28). Now Acts records that Peter had a vision from God in which he concluded that “God has shown me that I should not call any man defiled or unclean” (Acts 10:28) most likely making him more amenable to table fellowship with Paul’s Gentile converts. However, James was clearly more conservative and pressured Peter and Barnabas to leave the table. Galatians 2:14 supports this thesis, as James appears to have sent men to “compel Gentiles to live as Jews” (Galatians 2:14).
You do have to understand that Paul gave his followers permission to eat meat sacrificed to idols. When converts in the Greek city of Corinth asked Paul about eating meat sacrificed to idols, Paul wrote back saying, “So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world and that “There is no God but one.”… [thus] we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do” (1 Corinthians 8:1-8). Per that logic, he grants members of his congregation strong in his faith the “liberty” (1 Corinthians 10:29) to “Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake” (1 Corinthians 10:25), presumably questions about whether or not the animal had been sacrificed at the altar of a pagan god.
“Meat markets in Asia Minor and Greece, as throughout the empire, often sold meat left over from sacrifice in local temples…But strictly observant Jews regarded such meat as polluted”.[1] The Mosaic Law observant author of the Book of Revelations was clearly not okay with anyone eating meat sacrificed to idols (Revelations 2:14) and James in his letter to the Gentiles ordered them “to abstain from food polluted by idols” (Acts 15:19).
I will hit the other bullet points later. It’s time consuming to type up an essay explaining why the Gospel of John most likely belongs to the writings of Samaritan Christians. By the way, I’m not saying I agree with James. I report his theology purely as a historian. You can clearly see why James’ teachings would have been unpopular with Gentiles and never gained much traction. Toss in the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 CE and the Bar Kochba rebellion in 132 CE and you’ve decimated the population of the Jewish Christians – paving the way for proto-orthodox Christianity.
[1] Pagels, Elaine. Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, & Politics in the Book of Revelations. Viking Penguin: New York, NY. 2010. Pg. 50.
Concerning Jude 1:4, I’m not sure if the word debauchery transmits Jude’s point very well.
asélgeia – properly, violent spite which rejects restraint and indulges in lawless insolence
By now, it should be pretty clear than any reference to the word law in the Bible should be under suspicion for being a shoe in for the Mosaic Law. Jude is trying to say there were certain men who crept into the faith unnoticed who practiced Lawlessness – they rejected the commandments of the Mosaic Law and thus were “ungodly sinners” (Jude 1:15).
For the author of the epistle of Jude and for the post-Sinai authors of the Old Testament and many authors of the New Testament, the Mosaic Law would have been the dividing line between morality and immorality, good and evil, godliness and ungodliness, sexual purity and sexual immorality, righteousness and sin, perseverance and temptation. By secular standards, it’s myopic and very closed minded, but one cannot judge Jude’s moral compass by 21st century standards. Even though Balaam blessed Israel against King Balak’s wishes (and monetary enticement), Balaam is nevertheless reviled and treated as an example of wickedness because he enticed the Israelites to become Lawbreakers.
Balaam could have been a loving father, a faithful husband, a charitable neighbor – none of that would have mattered if he advocated for the Hebrews to violate any of the commandments of the Mosaic Law because, for an Israelite, righteousness is in the Torah. Thus it was for Balaam, thus it was also for Paul.
I don’t think the “perfect law that brings freedom” James 1:25 is supposed to be the mosaic law. This is the law of the “one lawgiver and judge” James 4:12 , who is “standing at the door”.
This is the Jesus of Matthew “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
Same as Paul’s Jesus “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.”
The traditions of the fathers are the interpretations of the law, and those in christ have the freedom to make their own interpretations of that law, as it will be written in their hearts. James equates it with looking at yourself intently in the mirror. 1 John says “if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God”. Paul says of the gentiles “They show that the works of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness”.
asélgeia = “sensuality, lasciviousness, watonness”
Jude equates it with sodom and gomorrah who “gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion”
Same as Paul sees it, Galatians 5:13 “But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh rather, serve one another humbly in love”
They’re all saying the same thing just with different nuances and for different audiences. It’s what Paul persecuted originally and its what got James and his companions executed.
Exactly. Paul got what he wanted, nobody interfered with him, but he still didn’t get enough. He scares the Greek peasants of Galatia with some lunatics with knives hunting foreskins. Paul doesn’t believe a word these lunatics say about the historical Jesus, and he’s not going to use anything he hears.
Because Paul entered the religious movement in the traditional way through revelation. An acceptable way and a time-honored tradition in many earlier religions. Elegant and unverifiable – a unique, personal experience. This is how the Gods announced themselves to people from the beginning of both.
For Paul, all these senior apostles are impostors.
Of course, Paul and the disciples are just heroes in different stories.
The letter writer was outraged by the insolence of less able competitors who took shortcuts and attributed their own words to Jesus (GoThomas, Q) or created fictional stories and characters from the life of Jesus. He knew the LXX, Callirhoe, Ephesian tales and Josephus. He saw the sources of competing productions.
I have to admit he was right – he was the most honest of them all.
The creator of the character of the Apostle Paul was surprised. He assumed his story based on standard revelation would be sufficient introduction. Grand Entrance. But it happened otherwise. For the first time, the human incarnation of God/Son of God was a “real person” with a known biography, with his own quotes and stories, with companions and family. The idea was risky and difficult to accept for many current Christians who were unfamiliar with these stories before, but it was very attractive to new recruits.
The author of Paul knew that he could not beat the words of the disciples and Jesus himself. So he creatively brought the two sides together and did what he did. His hero got what he wanted, by the way he made fun of the competition. He could do it without a problem – he himself was an imaginary figure from the past, as was this competition.
@Stephen
Paul tells us that in antioch Peter would eat with and live like the gentiles. But when the circumcision group arrived from James, and Peter withdrew from the gentiles for fear of them, Paul called him out on his hypocrisy.
Paul may be showing the uncompromising zeal of a new convert here, but would become somewhat more tempered when writing Romans.
The possible other account of this incident in Acts 15 has James say the men didn’t go up to antioch on his authority, and they create a new ruling to keep everyone happy. A ruling not derived directly from Jesus’s teaching.
So we have a church still working out the consequences of christ’s supposed sacrifice but looking to make compromises to maintain a united church. The compromises James made were still not enough however to avoid execution.
I would argue that James 4:12 -“There is only one Lawgiver and judge, He who is able to save” – is a direct reference to Isaiah:
“For the YHWH is our judge,
YHWH is our Lawgiver…
He will save us” (Isaiah 33:22)
Within Judaism, YHWH is referred to as the Lawgiver, who gave His commandments through Moses on Mt. Sinai. If Isaiah had wished to write the name Jesus as the Lawgiver, he had every opportunity to do so, but the passage in chapter 33, verse 22 specifically uses the tetragrammaton.
In James 2:11, he quotes passages from the Law that he’s referring to in his epistle:
“For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a Lawbreaker.” He’s quoting from the Mosaic Law in the Old Testament. There’s not even a one sentence separation between James 2:11 and James 2:12 where he says “Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the Law that gives freedom”.
The aforementioned definition for asélgeia was pulled directly from ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
766 asélgeia (from aselgēs/”brutal”) – properly, violent spite which rejects restraint and indulges in lawless insolence (wanton caprice).
How this word was intended to be interpreted as should be dependent on if the author belonged to a Gentile or Jewish Christianity. Given that the author quotes from the Book of Enoch in Jude 1:14-15, scholarship has generally veered toward Jude being an example of Jewish Christian literature.
I would argue that the passage in Romans 2 is referring to when a Gentile unwittingly comes into compliance with the Mosaic Law. Paul is making the case that this also makes that person a doer of the Law and thus justified by the Law, even though that person didn’t consciously strive to obey the Mosaic Law or even know of its existence. “For not the hearers of the Law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the Law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the Law, by nature do the things in the Law, these, although not having the Law, are a Law to themselves, who show the work of the Law written in their hearts” (Romans 2:13-15).
In doing so, the Gentile would inadvertently come into compliance with at least one commandment of the Mosaic Law, but James set a high bar and expected all of the commandments of Law to be adhered to. “But if you show partiality (if you partially keep the Law), you sin and are convicted by the Law as Lawbreakers…For He who said, “Do no commit adultery,” also said “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you commit murder, you have become a Lawbreaker of the Law.” (James 2:9-12) While statistically possible, it is nevertheless highly improbabe that someone not making a conscious effort would never be in violation of the Mosaic Law for the duration of his or her life.
Yes the lawgiver and the judge is the “Lord”. For James the lord is Jesus. James’s audience are to be patient until the coming of the lord (Jesus). This is the same lord that Job persevered with. The same Lord that the prophets spoke in the name of – James 5:10-11
His audience should not judge each other on how they follow the law. They should wait until the lawgiver and judge (Jesus) arrives James 4:11-12 “But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?”
So James and Paul both preach that the law should be obeyed but followers of christ should be free to decide how they follow through the spirit. Just as according to Paul the gentiles have shown is possible.
Judgement should wait until the Lord comes.
brenmcg there is clearly a divide between Paul, who did not think gentiles needed to keep kosher and James, who did. Even the author of Acts, who does his best to smooth over the conflict, cannot ignore it existed. My question is simple. Between James and Paul, who do you think had views that most closely resembled those of Jesus?
Why do you think James thought gentiles should keep kosher? Acts just has him say “abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled[j] and from fornication.”
There is a clear disagreement among early christians in exactly how the law should be kept. But why think there’s a clear conflict between Paul James and Peter. Peter ate with and lived like gentiles according to Paul. And Acts 21 only has James say “see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and *they are* all zealous for the law”.
Why not think James is acting like Paul – “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.” James and his companions were executed by the sanhedrin after all.
Paul says he persecuted the church James belonged to – then joined it. He says he met with Peter and James to make sure he hadnt been running his race in vain – and they added nothing to his message.
I think the nearest we have to the teaching of Jesus is Matthew’s gospel – in it Jesus says “What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.” Mark further clarifies with “so cleansing all foods”.
Why think that early christianity was anything other than a movement away from absolute obeyance to a literal interpretation of the law?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)