BibleForums Christian Message Board
Bible Talk => Just Bible => Topic started by: RandyPNW on August 12, 2021, 02:17:51 PM
-
James 4.11 Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it.
What does this mean? How is slandering a brother in Christ judging the Law? I think that in the Law of Moses there were both rules and remedies for breaking those rules. And so, the Law was a guardian to keep people in compliance with the Law through a system of mercy.
Of course, in Christ today, we are no longer under the Law. We've received mercy beyond the Law because the Law could never bring everlasting mercy.
However, did mercy exhibited under the Law teach us not to slander one another? Is this the commandment: "Do not bear false witness against another?"
Is persisting in defying the commandments of the Law a form of "judging the Law?" Is it judging the worth of the Law?
-
James 4.11 Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it.
What does this mean?
It means the law also applies to the one doing the judging, so don't speak as if it doesn't,
There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another? Jas.4:12
-
The standard under the Law required compliance with the prescribed sacrifices with the appropriate heart of contrition.
The standard under grace requires one’s all.
-
James 4.11 Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it.
What does this mean?
It means the law also applies to the one doing the judging, so don't speak as if it doesn't,
There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another? Jas.4:12
The principle of the Law certainly condemns people who judge God's laws and covenants. But the Law isn't a current covenant, and has been superseded by Christ's covenant.
Moral Law, in general, continues in perpetuity, but covenants that are conditional do change, particularly when the covenant is violated by one of the parties and the other party doesn't wish to renew.
In this case, God no longer wished to renew the covenant of Mosaic Law, and instead had determined, in advance, to complete it with an entirely new covenant, fulfilling the intention of the Law to lead to a permanent fellowship between God and Israel.
I know this goes well beyond the point, but sometimes it needs to be said for whoever is listening.
-
The principle of the Law certainly condemns people who judge God's laws and covenants. But the Law isn't a current covenant, and has been superseded by Christ's covenant.
Moral Law, in general, continues in perpetuity, but covenants that are conditional do change, particularly when the covenant is violated by one of the parties and the other party doesn't wish to renew.
In this case, God no longer wished to renew the covenant of Mosaic Law, and instead had determined, in advance, to complete it with an entirely new covenant, fulfilling the intention of the Law to lead to a permanent fellowship between God and Israel.
I know this goes well beyond the point, but sometimes it needs to be said for whoever is listening.
The surrounding text is comparable to Rom.2, where Paul says,
as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law....Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? vs.12,23
The condemnation of the law is only superseded by Christ because Jesus didn't bring the Jews who knew what the law says but sinned against him into judgement.
Our Lord warned them to repent, because the day will come when the unrepentant discover that the law hasn't been entirely done away with.
-
The standard under grace requires one’s all.
So does the standard under the law,
Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Gal.3:10
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. Jas.2:10
-
James 4.11 Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it.
What does this mean? How is slandering a brother in Christ judging the Law? I think that in the Law of Moses there were both rules and remedies for breaking those rules. And so, the Law was a guardian to keep people in compliance with the Law through a system of mercy.
Of course, in Christ today, we are no longer under the Law. We've received mercy beyond the Law because the Law could never bring everlasting mercy.
However, did mercy exhibited under the Law teach us not to slander one another? Is this the commandment: "Do not bear false witness against another?"
Is persisting in defying the commandments of the Law a form of "judging the Law?" Is it judging the worth of the Law?
In another passage, James mentions three laws: the royal law, the law or whole law, and a law of freedom. How are these related?
James 2:8 However, if you fulfill the royal law, according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well. 9 But if you show partiality, you commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law, and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak, and so do, as men who are to be judged by a law of freedom. 13 For judgment is without mercy to him who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
The royal law is the commandment to love your neighbor, which is quoted to show that partiality violates the law. The royal law is just one commandment within the whole law, which contains a large number of commandments. James mentions the whole law, referring to the Law of Moses, to prove that a seemingly minor infraction of just one commandment, namely breaking the royal law by showing partiality, is a serious offense that must be avoided because breaking the royal law means breaking the Law of Moses.
The law of freedom allows us to be judged with mercy, and this should motivate us to speak and do things differently. But since the Law of Moses does not prescribe mercy in judgment (Deut. 13:8; 19:13, 21), the law of freedom cannot be the Law of Moses.
Deuteronomy 19:21 Your eyes shall not pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
Regarding judging one another, James says in the verse that you quoted that to speak against a brother is to oppose the law. Since our brothers in the Lord will be judged with mercy by the law of freedom, we act contrary to this law of freedom if we judge them without mercy.
So what is this law of freedom that James speaks about? It necessarily includes justification by faith and forgiveness of sins as a legal principle, because that is God’s expression of mercy. It likely also includes the teachings of Jesus, including His Sermon on the Mount that warns people about judging others.
Matthew 7:1 “Don’t judge, so that you won’t be judged.”
If you humbly receive the word of the gospel of Jesus Christ and show mercy to others, you will be judged with mercy, so that you can stand and gain eternal life (Tit. 3:5; 1 Tim. 1:16; Matt. 5:7; 18:33; Rom. 14:4).
Matthew 5:7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.”
Matthew 18:33 “‘Shouldn’t you also have had mercy on your fellow servant, even as I had mercy on you?’”
Romans 14:4 Who are you who judge another’s servant? To his own lord he stands or falls. Yes, he will be made to stand, for God has power to make him stand.
-
James 4.11 Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it.
What does this mean? How is slandering a brother in Christ judging the Law? I think that in the Law of Moses there were both rules and remedies for breaking those rules. And so, the Law was a guardian to keep people in compliance with the Law through a system of mercy.
Of course, in Christ today, we are no longer under the Law. We've received mercy beyond the Law because the Law could never bring everlasting mercy.
However, did mercy exhibited under the Law teach us not to slander one another? Is this the commandment: "Do not bear false witness against another?"
Is persisting in defying the commandments of the Law a form of "judging the Law?" Is it judging the worth of the Law?
In another passage, James mentions three laws: the royal law, the law or whole law, and a law of freedom. How are these related?
James 2:8 However, if you fulfill the royal law, according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well. 9 But if you show partiality, you commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law, and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not commit murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak, and so do, as men who are to be judged by a law of freedom. 13 For judgment is without mercy to him who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
The royal law is the commandment to love your neighbor, which is quoted to show that partiality violates the law. The royal law is just one commandment within the whole law, which contains a large number of commandments. James mentions the whole law, referring to the Law of Moses, to prove that a seemingly minor infraction of just one commandment, namely breaking the royal law by showing partiality, is a serious offense that must be avoided because breaking the royal law means breaking the Law of Moses.
The law of freedom allows us to be judged with mercy, and this should motivate us to speak and do things differently. But since the Law of Moses does not prescribe mercy in judgment (Deut. 13:8; 19:13, 21), the law of freedom cannot be the Law of Moses.
Deuteronomy 19:21 Your eyes shall not pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
Regarding judging one another, James says in the verse that you quoted that to speak against a brother is to oppose the law. Since our brothers in the Lord will be judged with mercy by the law of freedom, we act contrary to this law of freedom if we judge them without mercy.
So what is this law of freedom that James speaks about? It necessarily includes justification by faith and forgiveness of sins as a legal principle, because that is God’s expression of mercy. It likely also includes the teachings of Jesus, including His Sermon on the Mount that warns people about judging others.
Matthew 7:1 “Don’t judge, so that you won’t be judged.”
If you humbly receive the word of the gospel of Jesus Christ and show mercy to others, you will be judged with mercy, so that you can stand and gain eternal life (Tit. 3:5; 1 Tim. 1:16; Matt. 5:7; 18:33; Rom. 14:4).
Matthew 5:7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.”
Matthew 18:33 “‘Shouldn’t you also have had mercy on your fellow servant, even as I had mercy on you?’”
Romans 14:4 Who are you who judge another’s servant? To his own lord he stands or falls. Yes, he will be made to stand, for God has power to make him stand.
I don't agree that the Law of Moses prescribed no mercy. All of the applications of the Law were designed to mercifully keep Israel in relation to God, despite their judgment from the Garden of Eden. So it was mercy.
But I do understand how you're framing this, and largely agree with it. In fact, I think it was an excellent explanation, notwithstanding the minor point of difference. Thanks much!
-
I don't agree that the Law of Moses prescribed no mercy. All of the applications of the Law were designed to mercifully keep Israel in relation to God, despite their judgment from the Garden of Eden. So it was mercy.
But I do understand how you're framing this, and largely agree with it. In fact, I think it was an excellent explanation, notwithstanding the minor point of difference. Thanks much!
Thanks Randy. Definitely the commandments were merciful. e.g. the Sabbath gave a nation of former slaves time to rest.
Although the law of freedom offers certain mercies that were not available in the Law of Moses according to the author of Hebrews, those who reject the gospel of Jesus Christ and the law of freedom would face worse punishment.
Hebrews 10:28 A man who disregards Moses’ law dies without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment do you think he will be judged worthy of who has trodden under foot the Son of God, and has counted the blood of the covenant with which he was sanctified an unholy thing, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?
-
James 4.11 Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it.
What does this mean?
Isn't this saying the same thing as Luke 6?
Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
Interestingly enough, one can find similar sentiments in the Talmud.
-
James 4.11 Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it.
What does this mean?
Isn't this saying the same thing as Luke 6?
Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
Interestingly enough, one can find similar sentiments in the Talmud.
I don't know why that should be surprising. Both Jewish sources. Both influenced by the Law.
Yes, I think the comparison is correct between what James said and what Jesus said. James seems to say a lot of what Jesus said. After all, I think they were brothers, ie had the same mother.
-
I don't know why that should be surprising. Both Jewish sources.
Eh, maybe. Jury is out on whether Luke was a Jew or a gentile.
-
I don't know why that should be surprising. Both Jewish sources.
Eh, maybe. Jury is out on whether Luke was a Jew or a gentile.
Luke had to be a Jew. My opinion only! :)
-
Luke had to be a Jew. My opinion only! :)
Colossians 4 might imply otherwise. But yeah, could go either way. Not really critical to the outcome I suppose.
-
Luke had to be a Jew. My opinion only! :)
Colossians 4 might imply otherwise. But yeah, could go either way. Not really critical to the outcome I suppose.
Right, the thought is that he was a Hellenized Jew. It is unthinkable to me that the founders of the Christian Church were anything other than Jews, whether Hellenized or not.
-
Right, the thought is that he was a Hellenized Jew.
Some scholars feel that way. Others suggest that he was a gentile.
It is unthinkable to me that the founders of the Christian Church were anything other than Jews
Why?
-
Right, the thought is that he was a Hellenized Jew.
Some scholars feel that way. Others suggest that he was a gentile.
It is unthinkable to me that the founders of the Christian Church were anything other than Jews
Why?
Because Gentiles knew nothing about Jewish Law. Nobody could tell the story unless they knew about the Law and about the experience of the Jewish People, unless they knew the Torah thoroughly. That's why all of the early Christian leaders were Jews--all of the Apostles. They were appointed, specifically, by Jesus to transmit the Jewish Gospel to the Gentile world, to go into "all nations." They were chosen because they were Jewish and also because they were specifically trained by Jesus.
Paul is an exception. He had no personal training by Jesus, but claimed to have mystic revelation of him. Future leaders were trained by believing Jews, trained by Jesus, or by Jewish converts who were trained by the Apostles and their co-workers among the Jews.
I have to be honest. I've been a Christian my entire life, and received catechism as a Lutheran. I've been reading the Jewish and Christian Bibles my entire life, and yet until I turned 17 I don't think I grasped much significance outside of Lutheran systematic theology.
It has taken me a lifetime to recognize the connection between Jewish instruction under the Law and Christian revelation. And that's why I post in the forums, to share with those who I know won't be able to see the connection very easily.
Most Christians simply present Christian doctrine, or quote NT Scriptures, without fully understanding its metamorphosis from Jewish teaching to Christian teaching. I've had an enormous burden, from an early age, to understand where Paul got his information from, and how he justified the transition from Law to Gospel.
I've never wanted to just argue a "position." Rather, I want to understand *why* I hold to a particular position. Understanding Paul helps me to know why I'm a Christian instead of a convert to Judaism.
-
Because Gentiles knew nothing about Jewish Law. Nobody could tell the story unless they knew about the Law and about the experience of the Jewish People, unless they knew the Torah thoroughly.
I mean, it would kind of depend, right? If someone is an apostle and all they do is quote Jesus and talk about his life, why would it matter if they were Jewish or not? Their knowledge of the Jewish bible would not really be relevant. And Luke wasn't trained by Jesus, it's my understanding that he was a disciple of Paul.
Most Christians simply present Christian doctrine, or quote NT Scriptures, without fully understanding its metamorphosis from Jewish teaching to Christian teaching. I've had an enormous burden, from an early age, to understand where Paul got his information from, and how he justified the transition from Law to Gospel.
Yeah. I don't really see were Paul is coming from though. I think there's a disconnect between what Paul says and what Jesus says. And it's interesting to me that most Christians don't see it.
-
Most Christians simply present Christian doctrine, or quote NT Scriptures, without fully understanding its metamorphosis from Jewish teaching to Christian teaching. I've had an enormous burden, from an early age, to understand where Paul got his information from, and how he justified the transition from Law to Gospel.
Yeah. I don't really see were Paul is coming from though. I think there's a disconnect between what Paul says and what Jesus says. And it's interesting to me that most Christians don't see it.
I think Paul got a lot of his theology from his vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus.
Acts 26:15 “I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’
“He said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 16 But arise, and stand on your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose: to appoint you a servant and a witness both of the things which you have seen, and of the things which I will reveal to you; 17 delivering you from the people, and from the Gentiles, to whom I send you, 18 to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’
1) Jesus is alive and is the glorious Lord
2) He is sent to preach to Gentiles
3) Remission of sins
4) Inheritance with believing Jews -- I think this is the mystery of the church that Paul talks about in Ephesians 2 and 3, where both Jews and Gentiles make up the church.
5) Sanctified by faith in me -- see Romans 4 and Galatians 2-4. Paul talks about being justified by faith in Jesus, and not depending on fully keeping the law to earn salvation (because he couldn't do keep it perfectly).
These seem very similar to what Jesus Himself taught:
Luke 24:46 He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
-
I think Paul got a lot of his theology from his vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus.
Acts 26:15 “I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’
“He said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 16 But arise, and stand on your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose: to appoint you a servant and a witness both of the things which you have seen, and of the things which I will reveal to you; 17 delivering you from the people, and from the Gentiles, to whom I send you, 18 to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’
1) Jesus is alive and is the glorious Lord
2) He is sent to preach to Gentiles
3) Remission of sins
4) Inheritance with believing Jews -- I think this is the mystery of the church that Paul talks about in Ephesians 2 and 3, where both Jews and Gentiles make up the church.
5) Sanctified by faith in me -- see Romans 4 and Galatians 2-4. Paul talks about being justified by faith in Jesus, and not depending on fully keeping the law to earn salvation (because he couldn't do keep it perfectly).
These seem very similar to what Jesus Himself taught:
Luke 24:46 He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
I agree. Jesus' earthly ministry largely took place while the Law, as a covenant, was still in effect. But the same truths existed, that mankind, apart from Christ's redemption, could not be saved by the Law alone.