Being bold is confidently courageous with a willingness, despite challenges, to push forward to get things done unto the Lord. This is the opposite of being ashamed, allowing thoughts of unworthiness and reluctance, which becomes a constant mind battle, justifying inaction. To speak the Truth in love when there is expected pushback requires a spiritually focused heart of charity, preferring others over our flesh and feelings. This maturity enables us to boldly minister to others, walking by faith even in fear and trembling.

As confident sisters, be driven by zealousness, praying to be a living sacrifice, tempered with nurturing. Pray to realize what the person specifically needs and how best to present it in order for it to be received: “But we were gently among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children: So being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you, not the gospel of God only , but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto us. For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God…as a father doth his children. (I Thes. 2:7-9,11) Nurturing often takes longer than we may expect.

Application Ideas Summarized: 1) Be reflective and evaluate your motive and the situation. Determine from personal experience and Scripture what fosters your reluctance and fear, preventing boldness. Pray about this issue. Be aware of your thoughts: are they temporal or eternal, are you seeing things as light affliction and just for a moment or are challenges exalted and blown out of perspective? Realize why you have been left here as ambassadors. 2) Prepare: To minister to others in love so they gain a renewed mind is often a slow process. Determine to be longsuffering and consistent. 3) Pray and think about what to say, how much, and how often to bring up the topic with those you have regular contact. 4) Use verses to teach and encourage. 5) List verses that can be your confidence in time of need, such as: “What shall we then say, If God be for us, who can be against us.” (Rom. 8:31), “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” (I Cor. 1:18), and “Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God…” (Eph. 6:10-11) Think on This.

Oh my. There has been a brewing controversy for a while in the grace movement over the doctrine of “the Trinity.” This comes as news to no one, I’m sure, and I suspect this controversy probably exists in Christendom generally.

Let’s defend the doctrine of the Trinity, shall we?

THE WORD “TRINITY”

I noticed that some of these anti-trinitarian saints like to post these rather in-your-face combative statements online declaring that the trinity is heresy, and there is no “trinity” in your Bible. As if to say that the doctrine of “trinity” doesn’t exist in the Bible because the word “trinity” doesn’t exist in the Bible.

Do you know what else doesn’t exist in your Bible?

The word “Bible.”

Show me chapter and verse where God says “Bible” in your Bible. How can anyone say that something isn’t a Bible word when the word “Bible” doesn’t exist in your Bible? That is a title added by the translators to God’s holy “word” or “scriptures.” Yet, Bible is a perfectly acceptable word, which means sacred volume.

I’d say that’s a pretty accurate word to precisely describe His scriptures, wouldn’t you agree? This glorious book truly is a sacred volume, a holy collection of writings inspired by the Spirit that reveals God to us.

In the same sense, “Trinity” is a perfectly accurate word to precisely describe the union of three persons in one Godhead - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

THE FATHER – SON RELATIONSHIP

I once read some anti-trinitarians (Partialists - 1 God made up of 3 parts) argue for a body–soul–spirit analogy. They said that man is 1 person with 3 parts that are distinct (body, soul, spirit) according to 1 Thess. 5:23. And the argument goes that the distinction in these parts is not the same as multiple persons.

I would absolutely agree with every word of that argument.

However, in Scripture, the triune Godhead goes way beyond some meager comparison to a person’s body, soul, and spirit. A soul does not pray to the body, like the way Christ prayed to the Father. A body does not send a soul, like the way the Father sends the Spirit. God presents Himself to us in Scripture as Father, Son, Spirit (Matt. 28:19). The Father is called God (Rom. 1:7). The Son is called God (Heb. 1:8), and the Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3-4).

Let’s consider the Father / Son relationship. How can anyone not view a father and a son as distinct persons? A typical father and son on earth are distinct persons that have a relationship in a family, do they not?

No father and son will ever be – one person. They are two independent, distinct people with separate wills in a relationship defined by family.

God knew perfectly well that we’d view the Father and the Son as distinct persons with separate wills in the same family, because a father and a son on earth are distinct persons with separate wills in a family.

How can this not be intentional on God’s part?

Did you ever notice how the Son submits His will to the will of His Father in Heaven? The Lord said in Luke 22:42, “Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.” (See also John 5:30, 6:38, Matthew 26:39, Matthew 26:42, John 4:34, John 8:29, John 14:31, Philippians 2:8, and Hebrews 10:7, 9.)

There are separate wills being contrasted in the Lord’s prayer.

Traditionally, people would explain this conflict of wills as the Son submitting His human will to the divine will of the Father. You still have separate wills. But I would also suggest that two sinless, holy persons can have differing ideas about how to accomplish things. Do you remember how the Lord invited sinless angels to give Him different ideas about how to kill Ahab in 1 Kings 22:19-23?

Just because you’re sinless and holy doesn’t mean that you don’t have different ideas than another sinless and holy person.

Wouldn’t separate wills indicate distinctly unique persons?

The issue isn’t whether one person can have differing components to his being. Of course, he can! The issue is - does scripture portray Father, Son, and Holy Ghost merely as parts of one person? It absolutely does not.

· The Father loves the Son (John 3:35; 5:20).

· The Son loves the Father (John 14:31).

· The Father sends the Son (John 5:37).

· The Son comes from the Father (John 16:28).

· The Son prays to the Father (John 17).

· The Father glorifies the Son (John 17:5).

· The Son glorifies the Father (John 17:4).

· The Spirit speaks concerning the Son and glorifies Him (John 16:13–14).

· The Son sends the Spirit from the Father (John 15:26).

Does this list not scream volition? Free will? Agency? Independence? These are the actions and relationships between distinct divine persons, are they not?

THE LORD’S BAPTISM

When the Lord was water baptized in Matthew 3:16–17, He is physically standing in the Jordan river. The Spirit descends upon Him as a dove. The Father’s voice comes from heaven: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

All three are simultaneously present and totally distinct in that moment. How can this be three parts of one person? How does this even remotely compare to the body-soul-spirit analogy?

More importantly, the Father doesn’t say: “This is another manifestation / component / aspect of Me.”

He says: “my beloved Son.”

Again, a Father / Son relationship, which compels us to view them as distinct.

JOHN 1:1

How can we not think of John 1:1? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

He was with God, and He was God.

Christ is the Word, logos. Just as words reveal hidden thoughts, Christ came into this world to reveal the hidden God, and Christ Himself is the Living Word of the living God, the one who spoke the words of the Father, revealing to us the very hidden thoughts of the Father for us. He said, “I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things” (Joh 8:28).

Let me ask a question: is the Living Word the Lord Jesus Christ or the words He spoke or the words in the Bible?

Yes.

John says, “Word was with God, and the Word was God.” He’s saying that Christ was WITH God and He WAS God.

How can He be God and WITH God at the same time?

How do you explain the preposition “with?” I’d argue that “with” in John 1:1 has only one solution - with indicates both equality, distinction of identity, along with unity. In other words, He was “face to face with God.” Christ was face-to-face with God the Father. He was equal to God. He was in perfect oneness with Him, yet distinct. Christ, the “Word,” is deity, eternal, one with God, co-equal with God, face to face with God the Father, yet distinct. We have eternal coexistence, eternal equality, eternal oneness, and eternal unity of God with God.

BIBLICAL ONENESS

To me, a debate about Trinity is really about Biblical oneness.

Oneness in the Bible is not necessarily sameness of person. “One” does not always mean “one person.” Biblical oneness can describe a genuine unity among genuinely distinct persons. Like Marriage. Like the Body of Christ.

Marriage

In Genesis 2:24, man and woman become “one flesh” –- a compound unity – more than one distinct entity brought into a new unified reality. Christ makes the distinction even more explicit in Matthew 19:5–6. He says, “...they twain shall be one flesh... Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.” Jesus doesn’t deny that they are two persons. In fact, He explicitly calls them “twain.” Yet those two are simultaneously called “one.”

So when the Bible calls two people “one,” does that mean the husband and wife suddenly become one physical human being made up of two parts? Of course not. Their distinction remains. She can speak to him. He can speak to her. He can love her. She can love him back. Or not. LOL They are one, but they remain distinct.

Scripture teaches us that oneness can exist with distinct persons brought together. That is true Biblical Oneness. That is practically being ignored in all of this Trinity controversy.

The Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12–13)

Paul teaches oneness in the Body of Christ while all of us members remain distinct. In partialism, the body, soul, and spirit are sub-components of one individual. But in 1 Corinthians 12, the members are full individuals baptized into one new collective reality.

Paul says: “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.” (1 Cor. 12:12)

Notice how deliberately Paul holds together two concepts: ONE — MANY — ONE.

And then verse 13, “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body...”

Then verse 14, “For the body is not one member, but many.”

This is practically tailor-made to illustrate Biblical Oneness. Paul does not say: Because the body is one, its members can no longer be distinct. He says, “the body is not one member, but many.” Yet all those many constitute “one body.”

A FAVORITE POINT

Here’s a favorite argument of mine. Consider this. Jesus is praying in John 17:21, and he says, “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us...”

Notice what He says here. Jesus uses the unity of the Godhead as a kind of baseline for how He wanted to see distinct believers united. If the Godhead was like one person with a body, soul, and spirit, then the Lord’s prayer would make absolutely no sense — believers cannot become one new physical being. They can, however, share absolute unity of purpose, nature, and love while remaining distinct persons - just like the Trinity.

Biblical Oneness is all about unity that can exist with distinct persons who are brought together.

1 JOHN 5:7

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

Every anti-trinitarian argument fails to adequately explain 1 John 5:7.

I once read that 1 John 5:7 is not really about the makeup of the Godhead. This is more about establishing legal testimony (”witness”). Because verse 8 talks about water, blood, and Spirit as non-person earthly witnesses, then these three heavenly witnesses in verse 7 somehow does not imply that there are three distinct divine Persons.

What are you talking about?

Verse 7 says the heavenly three “ARE ONE” (unified, one being as three persons). Verse 8 says the earthly three “AGREE IN ONE” (agreement toward a singular goal).

Things that are different are not the same.

Do you not remember how the law of Moses required two or three witnesses to establish a truth? This is in Deut. 19:15. A witness isn’t one person made up of three parts. Two or three witnesses are two or three distinct individuals.

A witness has to possess independent, personal agency in order to be a true witness, and 1 John was written to refute heresies that denied the true nature and identity of Jesus Christ (1 John 2:22, “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” Is not the Father and Son distinct individuals here?)

Verse 6 sets up the record: the Spirit bears witness because the Spirit is truth. Verse 9 states that this record is “the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.” Those are two distinct witnesses, as reflected in Deut. 19. When John was writing about witnesses, every Jew reading this very epistle knew that the law required two or three distinct witnesses as the legal standard to establish a truth.

John is fulfilling that Mosaic legal standard by declaring the distinct witnesses of the Father and the Spirit that Jesus is the Christ. That’s the point here. This threefold testimony fits naturally within their legal guidelines of two or three witnesses. The Father and the Spirit have to be distinct to satisfy the Mosaic standard of establishing a truth.

Yet, they ARE ONE. This is one Being as three distinct Persons. The three operate together as one unit with the same divine essence / nature.

PUSHBACK

On the podcast, the argument to this view I shared about 1 John 5:7 is that God used rocks as witnesses in Joshua 24:27. Tell me something - if a Jew was on trial before the Sanhedrin Council, do you think he could bring in some rocks, line them up on a table, and say, “Here you go! These are my witnesses!” How well do you think that is going to go over?

What was going on in Joshua 24? We have the final address of Joshua to the gathered tribes of Israel at Shechem. After reminding them of God’s faithfulness from the calling of Abraham through the conquest of Canaan, Joshua demands a covenant decision: “choose you this day whom ye will serve” (v. 15). The people respond three times promising to serve the LORD (vv. 16, 21, 24). Joshua cuts a formal covenant with them, writes the words in the book of the law of God, and takes a great stone to set it up under an oak by the sanctuary of the LORD (v. 26). Verse 27 was just the formal ratifying of the covenant.

The stone served as nothing more than a memorial to a moment in time, a silent reminder of the solemn oaths and the covenant that was made.

The rock cannot testify of a truth that Christ is the Son of God like the Father and the Spirit can testify as witnesses in 1 John 5:7. The Father, Son, and Spirit are not inanimate objects. You can metaphorically say a stone “heard” a speech, but a stone cannot pray, love, or commission someone to go on a mission like the Father, Son, and Spirit. The stone as a memorial isn’t even remotely similar to the law of two or three witnesses in Deut. 19.

The rock does nothing more than bear record simply by existing as historical evidence of an event. The Father, Word, and Spirit are active persons. The Father speaks from heaven. The Son dies on a cross and resurrects, and the Spirit indwells believers. They are not passive tokens of a moment in time like rocks.

They are active, personal, distinct participants as witnesses.

CONCLUSION

Of a truth Scripture is abundantly clear - God is one Being (one divine essence / nature) existing eternally as three distinct Persons.

Rom. 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Rom. 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Gal. 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Hab. 2:4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

When Paul says in Romans and Galatians that the “just shall live by faith,” he quotes from Habakkuk 2:4, Paul goes on to say in Galatians 3:11 that “no man” has ever been justified by the law, and that “it is evident that the just shall live by faith.” Hopefully when this study is over it will be “evident” unto you also that “the man” has always been justified unto eternal life by faith, and faith alone.

1. JUSTIFICATION UNTO ETERNAL LIFE:

Rom. 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Rom. 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Rom. 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Rom. 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Rom. 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Rom. 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Rom. 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Rom. 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

This justification in Romans 3 shows how that “the righteousness of God” unto eternal life is by faith alone, and when Paul says “but now” in verse 3:21; he is not saying that the righteousness of God was always by the law “but now” it is by faith alone in Christ. Paul is confirming that is has always been by faith! he says the “righteousness of God” is by faith of Jesus Christ, this is what was manifested “now” and before Jesus Christ, the “law and the Prophets” wrote that the “righteousness of God” would come by faith in the Christ, Paul just said that righteousness will never come by the deeds of the law. Even though the message is different, the justice of God has always responded to faith and faith alone, with Abraham he placed his faith in what the LORD said at that time, “Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be” Gen. 15:5, in verse 6 he believed, and it was counted “unto him for righteousness,” that’s not the gospel that we hear that justifies us today, just like it wasn’t the case when John the Baptist preached in the wilderness for Israel to “repent,” and that the kingdom was at hand, the gospel that justified man has been different, but God’s requirement for His justice to be satisfied has always been by the same way; faith.

2. JUSTIFICATION OF GOD BEING JUST IN HIS WORD WITH ISRAEL AND WITH US IN THIS DISPENSATION OF GENTILE GRACE:

Luk 7:28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

Luk 7:29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.

Luk 7:34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!

Luk 7:35 But wisdom is justified of all her children.

Rom 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

This type of justification shows God as being “just” or “righteous” in His word, it’s the issue of God confirming things that He promised in His word, and man getting the results from trusting God and His word. God will also be justified in His word in the day when God casts death and hell in the lake of fire and God is shown to “be true and every man a liar.”

3. JUSTIFICATION BY HUMAN JUDGES:

Deu 25:1 If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked.

Pro 17:15 He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.

Isa 5:22 Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:

Isa 5:23 Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!

This type of justification is the issue of an Israelite being judged by their judges based upon his conduct within that nation. Israel was appointed judges to judge the nation with all fairness and justly in circumstances that came up in the life of an Israelite. The judges were required of God to judge the nation with all fairness and righteousness, and not to judge unfairly. There were some that justified the unrighteous, and condemned the righteous, just as Proverb 17:15 points out, which is what Israel did with Jesus Christ. Today we also have judges in the court systems, and we also judge one another within our lives, it’s the issue of someone justifying us in any matter.

4. SELF JUSTIFICATION:

Job 9:20 If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.

Jer 3:11 And the LORD said unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah.

Luk 10:29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

1Co 4:3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.

1Co 4:4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

We oftentimes justify ourselves in certain matters, which is the issue of showing ourselves to be ‘just’ or ‘righteous’ in any aspect of our lives, if we are not judged fairly, we will try to prove or justify ourselves in the matter.

5. JUSTIFICATION AT THE JUDGEMENT SEAT:

Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

1Co 4:4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

When the Saints stand before the Lord, we are not being judged based upon our sins, but our service. Our sins are a dead issue with God, but He will judge a saint accordingly based upon how the saint responded to the doctrine according to godly edification and his reward will be according to how the Saint allowed God’s word to work effectually within the saint.

6. JUSTIFICATION IN THE MECHANICS OF GODLINESS:

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

This doctrine is a very interesting and important one to understand, Paul not only wanted to make sure that Timothy charged some “that they teach no other doctrine,” but he did not want the saints to be ignorant concerning this truth for the church. Paul says that “God was manifest in the flesh,” meaning He was manifest in Christ, “justified in the Spirit,” notice Spirit has a capital S, so it is talking about the Holy Spirit and His doctrine. Jesus Christ was a living testimony to the issue of Godliness, in the 4 gospel accounts we see the Holy Spirit bear witness to the ministry of Jesus Christ, and Godliness being put into practice by flesh and blood. Also, this was “seen of angels,” Godliness was put on display by Christ to the angels, and now it is “preached unto the Gentiles,” and we also have the opportunity to put it on display in the heavenly places also. This doctrine is “believed on in the world” by the “church,” and it is “received up into glory,” that’s why Ephesians 3:10 talks about the church making God’s manifold wisdom “known” to the angels. Godliness was never a mystery, Jesus Christ and the 12 apostles displayed Godliness, the mystery aspect of it was God using twice dead gentiles to display Godliness, and to teach it to the angelic realm as well. The issue of Godliness being justified is the doctrine of the Holy Spirit working within the believer the way it was intended to work.

7. JUSTIFICATION IN WORKS IN THE EYES OF MEN/ISRAEL BEING A FRIEND OF GOD:

Jas 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

Jas 2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

Jas 2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

Jas 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

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

Having justification unto eternal life was not all that God wanted Israel to have, He also wanted them to be faithful enough to be a “first fruit of His righteousness,” just as Abraham was in his day. In that day of tribulation (which is what this doctrine is designed for), Israel in the face of all tribulation and persecution, are to act as if that kingdom is already established, and they are to show themselves to be who God has made them to be; a friend of God. The gentile world and Satan would see that nation as being holy and “just” being a holy nation, and a kingdom of Priests. This justification compliments the first justification, these saints that James is writing to are saved and justified, James calls them “my beloved brethren,” and “begotten” of God.

Rod Jones

Sometimes a place in Scripture is merely a geographical detail. At other times, the recurrence of a place in remarkably similar circumstances invites us to stop and take notice.

Joppa is such a place.

Centuries before Peter lodged there in the house of Simon the tanner, another servant of God came to Joppa with Gentiles very much in view. His name was Jonah.

“But Jonah rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the LORD, and went down to Joppa; and he found a ship going to Tarshish...”
— Jonah 1:3

Jonah had been commanded:

“Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me.”
— Jonah 1:2

Jonah went to Joppa intending to go in the opposite direction.

Many generations later, the book of Acts brings us back to the same place. Peter had come to Joppa following the raising of Tabitha from the dead and “tarried many days in Joppa with one Simon a tanner” (Acts 9:43).

It was there that Peter received the vision that prepared him to enter the house of Cornelius.

Once again an Israelite servant of God was at Joppa.

Once again Gentiles were in view.

The two accounts are not identical, nor is one intended to be a prophetic picture of the other. Yet the parallels and contrasts are difficult to miss. More importantly, comparing them raises a larger question running through Scripture:

What was God’s purpose for Israel concerning the Gentiles?

The answer eventually takes us beyond both Jonah and Peter to the apostle Paul and to a purpose of God concerning Jew and Gentile that neither Jonah nor Peter could have known.

Jonah, Nineveh, and the Gentile World

The significance of Jonah’s commission becomes clearer when we appreciate where God was sending him.

Nineveh stood on the eastern bank of the Tigris River in the region opposite modern Mosul in northern Iraq. It became one of the great cities of the Assyrian world and eventually the capital of the Assyrian Empire under Sennacherib. Its location placed it along important routes of commerce, and the city became associated with wealth, culture, pagan religion, and imperial power.

But Assyria was also notorious for its cruelty toward conquered peoples.

Jonah therefore was not being sent merely to a foreign village outside the borders of Israel. God was sending an Israelite prophet into a major city belonging to a powerful and fearsome Gentile people.

And God said:

“Arise, go to Nineveh.”

Jonah arose—but went down to Joppa.

There he found a ship headed toward Tarshish and attempted to flee “from the presence of the LORD” (Jonah 1:3).

Why?

Jonah eventually tells us himself. After Nineveh responded to his preaching and God withheld the threatened judgment, Jonah said:

“Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.”
— Jonah 4:2

Jonah understood that God could be merciful to Gentiles.

Indeed, that was precisely his problem.

If Nineveh repented, Jonah knew God might spare it.

Consequently, Jonah’s story establishes something important long before we ever reach Acts 10: God’s separation of Israel from the nations never meant that God had no purpose of mercy toward the nations.

Separated—but for a Purpose

God had indeed separated Israel.

The distinction between Israel and the Gentiles was neither imaginary nor merely a product of Jewish tradition. It was established by God Himself.

Israel possessed the covenants, the promises, the law, the worship of God, and a privileged national relationship with Him that the Gentiles did not possess.

Paul later describes the Gentile condition:

“Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:”
— Ephesians 2:11–12

There really was a distinction.

But separation was not the end of God’s purpose for Israel.

God had promised Abraham:

“in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.”
— Genesis 12:3

Israel was called:

“a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.”
— Exodus 19:6

And Isaiah spoke of light extending beyond Israel:

“I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.”
— Isaiah 49:6

The prophetic expectation was therefore not Israel separated from the Gentiles merely for separation’s sake.

Israel was separated unto God, with a purpose that ultimately involved blessing reaching the nations.

The Gentiles did not possess Israel’s position, covenants, or promises. But God’s purpose for Israel always looked beyond Israel.

Jonah proves the point dramatically.

God could take one of His prophets and say, in effect, “Go to that Gentile city and speak My word to them.”

Israel’s separation did not prevent that mission.

It made the mission significant.

Peter at Joppa

Now return to Joppa.

Peter was staying in the house of Simon the tanner when he received the vision of the great sheet descending from heaven.

Meanwhile, at Caesarea, Cornelius had been instructed to send for him.

Cornelius was not merely a Gentile:

“There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band.”
— Acts 10:1

He was associated with Rome—the dominant Gentile imperial power of Peter’s world.

That creates an intriguing correspondence with Jonah.

Jonah was sent toward Nineveh, a great city associated with Assyrian Gentile power.

Peter was summoned to Cornelius, an officer associated with Roman Gentile power.

In both accounts an Israelite servant of God confronts the Gentile world.

And in both accounts Joppa stands at the turning point.

But the responses are quite different.

Jonah knew exactly where God wanted him to go and went to Joppa attempting to get away from the Gentiles.

Peter was already in Joppa—and the Gentiles came looking for him.

“An Unlawful Thing”

It is here that Peter says something particularly interesting.

After entering the house of Cornelius, Peter declared:

“Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.”
— Acts 10:28

The first half of that statement deserves more consideration than it often receives.

What exactly was “unlawful”?

The law certainly separated Israel from the nations. It contained dietary restrictions, ceremonial distinctions, prohibitions concerning idolatry and intermarriage, and numerous provisions preserving Israel’s sanctified identity.

But where did the law establish an absolute prohibition against an Israelite entering the company of a Gentile?

Israel’s own Scriptures make such an absolute separation difficult to maintain.

Rahab was received.

Ruth was received.

Solomon specifically prayed concerning the stranger who would come from a far country for God’s name’s sake (1 Kings 8:41–43).

And perhaps most strikingly for our comparison, God Himself had commanded Jonah to enter the Gentile world and preach to Nineveh.

Peter was therefore correct that God had established a real distinction between Israel and the nations. But it appears that the practical separation practiced in Peter’s day had carried that distinction beyond its intended purpose.

Israel was to be separated from the idolatry and uncleanness of the nations.

That did not mean Israel had no ministry toward the nations.

Perhaps Peter’s problem was not that he believed Israel was separated. Scripture confirms that she was.

The problem was treating separation as though separation itself were God’s ultimate purpose.

And God’s explanation to Peter is telling:

“but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.”
— Acts 10:28

Peter himself tells us what the vision meant.

The great lesson was about men.

Two Kinds of Reluctance at Joppa

The comparison with Jonah now becomes even more interesting.

Jonah knew God could send an Israelite to Gentiles.

He simply did not want to go.

Peter apparently believed that entering the company of Gentiles was unlawful.

God had to show him otherwise.

Jonah’s reluctance came despite knowing God’s mercy toward Gentiles.

Peter’s reluctance grew out of his understanding of Israel’s separation from Gentiles.

Jonah went down to Joppa looking for a ship that would take him away from his Gentile commission.

Peter sat in Joppa trying to understand a vision when:

“the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate.”
— Acts 10:17

The scene is almost impossible to improve upon.

Jonah went to Joppa trying to get away from Gentiles.

Peter was sitting in Joppa when Gentiles came looking for him.

Peter obeyed.

Yet Acts 11 demonstrates that his difficulty was not peculiar to Peter.

When Peter returned to Jerusalem:

“they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.”
— Acts 11:2–3

Peter had to rehearse the entire matter “from the beginning” and explain what God had done.

Only then did they respond:

“Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.”
— Acts 11:18

Israel’s struggle with the Gentile question was real.

And yet Israel’s Scriptures had always contained a purpose concerning the nations.

Israel’s Rise and Gentile Blessing

That purpose is beautifully expressed in the prophets.

Isaiah speaks concerning Israel:

“Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee.”

And then:

“And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.”
— Isaiah 60:1, 3

Notice the order.

Israel rises.

Gentiles come to Israel’s light.

This is entirely consistent with the prophetic purpose.

Paul himself confirms that Gentile blessing was no secret:

“Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy...”
— Romans 15:8–9

Paul then cites Israel’s Scriptures:

“Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.”
— Romans 15:10

And:

“Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.”
— Romans 15:11

Gentile salvation, therefore, was never itself the mystery.

Jonah alone should prevent us from saying that.

God’s revealed prophetic purpose had always anticipated blessing reaching the Gentiles.

The expectation was that blessing would reach them through God’s purpose for Israel.

But Israel did not rise.

Israel fell.

And it is here that the purpose of God takes an astonishing turn.

“Through Their Fall”

Paul asks:

“I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.”
— Romans 11:11

That is not the expected prophetic order.

Prophecy anticipates:

Israel’s rise → Gentile blessing.

Paul announces:

Israel’s fall → salvation unto the Gentiles.

The difference is profound.

Israel’s rejection did not defeat God’s purpose.

Rather, God used Israel’s very fall as the occasion for accomplishing something concerning Gentiles that He had not previously revealed.

And only two verses after announcing salvation coming to the Gentiles through Israel’s fall, Paul writes:

“For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:”
— Romans 11:13

Jonah could never say that.

Peter never said that.

Paul did.

God’s concern for Gentiles did not begin with Paul.

But God’s revelation of what He was now accomplishing among Gentiles through Israel’s fall was committed distinctively to him.

“But Now”

Ephesians 2 brings the magnitude of that change into focus.

Paul first tells Gentiles to remember their former position:

“aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise...”
— Ephesians 2:12

That was “time past.”

Then comes one of Paul’s great dispensational expressions:

“But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.”
— Ephesians 2:13

Notice what Paul does not say.

He does not say that Gentiles have now been brought into Israel so that they may participate in Israel’s covenant position.

Instead:

“For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;”
— Ephesians 2:14

And:

“for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:”
— Ephesians 2:15–16

This is something far greater than an Israelite prophet entering Nineveh.

It is something different from Peter entering the house of Cornelius.

The answer to the Jew-Gentile distinction is no longer merely Gentiles receiving blessing through Israel’s privileged position.

God has made both one.

The former dispensational distinction has given way, in the Body of Christ, to a new creation in which Jew and Gentile are reconciled unto God “in one body by the cross.”

And this purpose was not simply another feature of Israel’s prophetic hope waiting to be discovered.

The Purpose That Had Been Hidden

Ephesians 3 guards us against confusing what God had revealed concerning Gentiles in prophecy with what He later revealed through Paul.

Paul writes:

“How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery...”
— Ephesians 3:3

And:

“Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;”
— Ephesians 3:5

What did that revelation concern?

“That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:”
— Ephesians 3:6

There had always been a revealed purpose concerning Gentiles.

But there was also an unrevealed purpose concerning Gentiles.

That distinction is essential.

The mystery was not that God loved Gentiles.

Nineveh proves otherwise.

The mystery was not simply that Gentiles could be saved.

Israel’s prophetic Scriptures had already anticipated Gentile blessing.

The mystery concerned what God would accomplish through Christ apart from Israel’s national rise: Jew and Gentile made one in Christ, reconciled unto God in one Body, according to a purpose previously kept hidden in God.

And herein lies one of the remarkable ironies of the biblical story.

Israel struggled with God’s revealed purpose toward the Gentiles.

Yet God used Israel’s rejection as the historical occasion for revealing His secret purpose concerning Jew and Gentile through the apostle of the Gentiles.

Israel’s failure did not frustrate the wisdom of God.

It became the occasion upon which another dimension of that wisdom was made known.

Back to Joppa

And so we return once more to that little port city on the Mediterranean.

Joppa does not mark the beginning of God’s concern for Gentiles.

Far from it.

Instead, Joppa appears twice in Scripture at remarkable moments when servants of Israel are confronted with God’s purpose toward the nations.

Jonah knew God had sent him to Gentiles—and resisted going.

Peter understood Israel’s separation from Gentiles so strongly that God intervened to show him that he should “not call any man common or unclean.”

One fled from Joppa rather than go.

The other had to be divinely persuaded at Joppa to go.

Yet in both cases God’s mercy reached beyond Israel.

Nineveh repented.

Cornelius believed.

And neither account exhausted God’s purpose concerning the Gentiles.

The prophets had foretold a day when the Gentiles would come to the brightness of Israel’s rising.

But Israel stumbled.

Israel fell.

And then came an announcement no student of prophecy would have anticipated:

“through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles.”

Along with that announcement came an apostle who could say:

“I am the apostle of the Gentiles.”

And through that apostle God revealed something that Jonah could not have known, Peter at Joppa did not yet understand, and the prophets had never disclosed:

“to make in himself of twain one new man.”

The story that begins with an Israelite prophet reluctant to enter a Gentile city and continues with an apostle of Israel reluctant to enter a Gentile home eventually leads us to something neither man’s reluctance could prevent:

the manifold wisdom of God.

God had a revealed purpose by which blessing would reach the Gentiles through Israel.

And when Israel rejected that purpose, God revealed through the apostle of the Gentiles a purpose that had been hidden in Himself.

Jonah at Joppa helps us see that God’s mercy toward Gentiles was never a secret.

Peter at Joppa helps us see how deeply Israel struggled with the implications of that mercy.

Paul helps us see the mystery:

Not Gentiles blessed because Israel had risen,

but salvation sent to Gentiles through Israel’s fall;

not Gentiles brought into Israel’s privileged standing,

but Jew and Gentile made one new man in Christ.

The comparison does not erase the dispensational distinctions.

It brings them into view.

-Paul was thankful for the Philippians: “Always in every prayer of mine for you all making request with joy, For your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now.” (Phil. 1:4-5)

-God calls us to fellowship: “God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.” (I Cor 1:9) This is intimacy in our relationship with the Lord.

-We are joined together and have communion: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness.” II Cor.6:14) We can have this with the Body of Christ.

-There is companionship in ministry: “Praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints.” II Cor. 8:4)

-We have opportunity to be unified in purpose and understanding: “…they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.” (Gal. 2:9) Also, “And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery…” or “fellowship in the gospel,” “fellowship of the Spirit.” and “fellowship of his sufferings.” (Eph. 3:9, Phil. 1:5, 2:1, and 3:10) Think on these things for your own ministry.

So then, as we realize the great opportunity to value oneness in the grace bestowed upon us, love constrains us as faithful women to work together closely, experiencing one heart in ministry to God’s glory. How? “Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye 1) stand fast in one spirit, 2) with one mind 3) striving together for the faith of the gospel; 4) And in nothing terrified by your adversaries…” (Phil 1:27-28) Think on this for personal application in your roles.

What would it look like for you, knowing we each have unique opportunities? Whether you are a friend, daughter, wife, or employee, you can choose to be “led by the Spirit” (Rom. 8:14) to manifest Christ in every aspect of daily living to impact others. A few things to consider: be self-aware of choices in responses to situations and open to be renewed by sound doctrine, preferring others before yourself. Examine your heart and think whether it is in line with who you are in Christ. This type of reflection will provide insights to grow or make corrections, enabling and empowering you to mature and live as “becometh the gospel” in any situation.

To Do: Make time as you start and throughout your day to consider where you are personally and whether your relationships reflect grace. Adjust as needed. Rejoice to edify and work with others.

DID JAMES REALLY CONTRADICT PAUL?

Faith, Works, and Justification in the Epistle of James

BUT WHAT ABOUT JAMES?

This article grew out of a thoughtful response to our earlier consideration of Peter and Paul.

The question was essentially this:

What about James?

If Peter had come to understand that salvation rested upon the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, what did James understand?

The question becomes especially interesting because Acts presents an intriguing picture.

Peter had been prominent throughout the opening chapters of Acts. He preached at Pentecost. He confronted Israel concerning the rejection of her Messiah. He healed the lame man. He stood before Israel’s rulers. And when God determined to send him to the Gentile Cornelius, Peter required a vision repeated three times before he would go.

Peter was unmistakably identified with Israel and her prophetic expectation.

Yet by Acts 15 something appears to have changed.

Peter gives crucial testimony:

“But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.”

— Acts 15:11

But Peter does not render the concluding judgment of the Jerusalem council.

James does.

“Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:”

— Acts 15:19

James’s prominence at Jerusalem is also evident elsewhere. Paul later speaks of men who:

“came from James”

— Galatians 2:12

And when Paul returns to Jerusalem in Acts 21:

“Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.”

— Acts 21:18

Something has clearly developed in the leadership at Jerusalem.

We need not speculate beyond what Scripture tells us about precisely why that development occurred. But we should recognize that Peter and James need not have occupied identical positions within this changing situation.

Peter had personally been brought through a remarkable progression: from his proclamation of Israel’s prophetic hope in Acts 2 and 3, through the divine intervention that sent him to Cornelius, to his declaration at Jerusalem that:

“through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.”

James, meanwhile, remained prominently identified with Jerusalem, the circumcision, and Israel’s continuing kingdom expectation.

Those different responsibilities may help explain their differing emphases without requiring us to conclude that they held contradictory views of righteousness before God.

James could remain intensely occupied with Israel’s responsibility under her kingdom expectation while fully recognizing that righteousness itself was never something Israel could earn from God.

That distinction is important.

James does not have to become Paul in order to understand grace.

Neither does James have to abandon his responsibility toward Israel merely because God is revealing and accomplishing something different among the Gentiles through Paul.

This raises the question we really need to answer.

Did James believe that works had to be added to faith in order for righteousness to be imputed?

If not, what did he mean when he wrote:

“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

— James 2:24

Few statements appear more difficult to reconcile with Paul:

“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

— Romans 3:28

Paul says:

“justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

James says:

“by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

What are we to do with that?

One solution is simply to make James say what Paul says. James, we are told, really means precisely the same thing as Paul, only expressed differently.

Another solution is to push the distinction so far that James and Paul are allowed to contradict one another—as though righteousness before God could be earned by works in one setting but received by faith in another.

Neither solution is necessary.

As we observed when considering Peter and Paul:

Difference does not require contradiction. Harmony does not require identicality.

The question is not how we can make James sound like Paul.

The question is:

What is James actually saying?

And the place to begin is not James 2:24.

It is James 1:1.

TO WHOM DOES JAMES WRITE?

James identifies his audience immediately:

“James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.”

— James 1:1

That statement should be allowed to mean what it says.

James writes to:

“the twelve tribes.”

His audience is Jewish, and his epistle belongs naturally within Israel’s kingdom expectation.

That setting appears throughout the book.

He speaks of:

“your assembly”

in James 2:2—the underlying word being synagogue.

He speaks of:

“the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him”

— James 2:5

He calls Abraham:

“our father”

— James 2:21

He invokes:

“the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord”

— James 5:10

And the expectation throughout the latter portion of the epistle is unmistakable:

“Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord.”

— James 5:7

And:

“Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.”

— James 5:8

That context matters.

James is not writing Romans before Paul writes Romans.

He is not explaining the Body of Christ.

He is not setting forth Paul’s gospel of the grace of God.

And we should not import Paul’s later and distinctive revelation into James merely because James uses words that also appear in Paul’s epistles.

Content, context, and intent matter.

James must first be allowed to speak within James’s own audience, expectation, and purpose.

A PEOPLE PREPARING FOR TRIAL

James begins his epistle with trial:

“My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;

Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.”

— James 1:2–3

The subject is not incidental.

James is preparing his readers to endure.

“But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.”

— James 1:4

Again:

“Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life…”

— James 1:12

And by the end of the epistle James has returned to the same theme:

“Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job…”

— James 5:11

This is an epistle concerned with faith under pressure.

That observation becomes important when James speaks of salvation.

He writes:

“Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.”

— James 1:21

It would be easy for a reader accustomed to Paul’s terminology to see the word save and immediately hear:

justification from sin by grace through faith.

But James’s context gives us good reason not to make that assumption.

At the conclusion of the epistle James writes:

“Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;

Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.”

— James 5:19–20

Notice that James is addressing:

“Brethren.”

And the soul is explicitly saved:

“from death.”

Within an epistle concerned with trial, endurance, the coming of the Lord, and deliverance, salvation language need not automatically mean Pauline justification.

The language also fits naturally alongside the Lord’s teaching to Israel concerning endurance:

“But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.”

— Matthew 24:13

And:

“In your patience possess ye your souls.”

— Luke 21:19

We should therefore be careful not to enlist James 1:21 as though James were explaining Romans 3–5.

James’s salvation language must be understood within James’s own context.

And that context includes the coming Tribulation and the necessity of faithful endurance in anticipation of the Lord’s return.

ALREADY BEGOTTEN BY THE WORD OF TRUTH

Immediately before James 1:21, however, James has said something important about the people to whom he writes:

“Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.”

— James 1:18

Whatever further deliverance James anticipates for them, he describes these people as already:

“begat…with the word of truth.”

And then he exhorts them:

“But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.”

— James 1:22

That is the point important to our discussion.

James is not addressing pagans who know nothing of God and telling them to perform works so that God might finally make them righteous.

He is addressing people who have received the word of truth and are now being tested concerning whether they will do what they have heard.

That prepares us much better for James 2.

James is deeply concerned with works.

But he is concerned with works in the life of those who profess to believe what God has said.

The question becomes:

Will their faith act?

“THOUGH A MAN SAY HE HATH FAITH”

James asks:

“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?”

— James 2:14

Again, we should resist the temptation to hear Paul’s question merely because James uses the words faith and save.

James has already established his setting.

He is concerned with endurance.

With obedience.

With doing the Word.

With the coming of the Lord.

And now with the profit of a professed faith that produces no corresponding action.

One word deserves particular attention:

“say.”

James does not merely tell us:

A man has faith.

He says:

“though a man say he hath faith.”

A claim is being made.

A profession is being examined.

And James immediately gives us an illustration:

“If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?”

— James 2:15–16

Notice again:

“say.”

Someone says:

“be ye warmed and filled.”

The words sound good.

But the hungry person remains hungry.

The naked person remains unclothed.

James asks:

“what doth it profit?”

Words that produce no corresponding action accomplish nothing for the person in need.

Then James applies his illustration:

“Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”

— James 2:17

James is confronting a profession of faith that produces nothing.

That is why he continues:

“Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.”

— James 2:18

The issue is something that can be:

shown.

Faith itself is invisible.

James says, in effect:

Show it to me.

How?

“I will shew thee my faith by my works.”

Works make faith visible.

They demonstrate what a man actually believes.

And that prepares us for Abraham.

ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD

James writes:

“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?”

— James 2:21

Paul writes:

“For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.”

— Romans 4:2–3

There is no benefit in pretending those statements do not create a difficulty.

James says:

“justified by works.”

Paul says:

“if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.”

But before declaring contradiction, we should ask a simple question:

When did these things happen?

Paul reaches back to Genesis 15:

“And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.”

— Genesis 15:6

Abraham believed God.

God counted righteousness to him.

James, however, points to another event:

“when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar.”

That is Genesis 22.

These events are separated by years.

Abraham did not first believe God when he raised the knife over Isaac.

He had already believed God.

Righteousness had already been counted to him.

And James himself knows it.

Indeed, James quotes the very same Scripture Paul quotes.

But notice how James describes its relationship to Abraham’s later work:

“And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness…”

— James 2:23

That word deserves our attention:

fulfilled.

James does not say that Abraham’s offering of Isaac caused Genesis 15:6 finally to become true.

Genesis 15:6 was already true.

Abraham had believed God.

Righteousness had been imputed to him.

Years later Abraham acted upon his confidence in what God had said.

James explains:

“Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?”

— James 2:22

Notice the relationship.

James does not say:

works replaced faith.

He says:

“faith wrought with his works.”

The faith worked.

And:

“by works was faith made perfect.”

The word perfect fits James’s argument from the beginning of the epistle:

“But let patience have her perfect work…”

— James 1:4

The idea is completion, maturity, something brought to its intended expression.

Abraham’s faith did not remain merely a confession.

It acted.

Genesis 22 demonstrated in action the confidence Abraham had already placed in what God had said.

WHAT DID ABRAHAM BELIEVE?

This becomes even more significant when we remember what God had promised Abraham.

Isaac was not incidental.

God had said:

“for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.”

— Genesis 21:12

Yet God subsequently commanded Abraham to offer Isaac.

Abraham’s obedience therefore required him to act upon his confidence that God’s word concerning Isaac could not fail.

Hebrews explains Abraham’s reasoning:

“Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead…”

— Hebrews 11:19

Abraham acted because Abraham believed God.

His work did not substitute for faith.

His work expressed faith.

That is precisely what James has been arguing:

“I will shew thee my faith by my works.”

FAITH WAS NOT ABRAHAM’S WORK

James does not oppose faith and works as though Abraham could choose one means of acceptance or the other.

He joins them:

“faith wrought with his works.”

The works proceeded from the faith.

That matters when we compare James with Paul.

Paul writes:

“Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”

— Romans 4:4–5

Paul is answering a particular question:

Upon what basis can God justify the ungodly?

The answer cannot be human works.

If righteousness is earned, it becomes:

“debt.”

James is addressing a different problem:

What value does a professed faith have if the person will not act upon what God has said?

Those are not identical questions.

Consequently, we should not demand identical answers.

EVEN THE DEVILS BELIEVE

James presses the point:

“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.”

— James 2:19

This verse is sometimes treated as though James were saying:

Faith cannot save because even devils have saving faith.

But that is not what James says.

The devils know something true:

there is one God.

They do not dispute His existence.

Indeed:

“they tremble.”

But intellectual acknowledgment of a fact is not the same thing as faithful confidence in what God has said.

Abraham believed God sufficiently to act upon God’s word.

The devils’ acknowledgment produces no faithful obedience to Him.

Again, James is testing the character of a professed faith.

Is it merely something said?

Or does the person actually act upon what he claims to believe?

RAHAB MAKES THE SAME POINT

James’s second example is Rahab:

“Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?”

— James 2:25

Why did Rahab receive the spies?

Joshua records her confession:

“I know that the LORD hath given you the land…”

— Joshua 2:9

And:

“for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.”

— Joshua 2:11

Rahab had heard what God was doing.

She believed what she had heard concerning Israel’s God and Israel’s coming possession of the land.

Then she acted accordingly.

Think of the alternative.

Suppose Rahab had said:

I believe the LORD has given Israel this land.

And then immediately delivered Israel’s spies to the king of Jericho.

Her actions would have contradicted her profession.

Instead, her actions demonstrated that she actually believed what she had confessed.

Again:

faith acted upon what God had said.

Her works did not create the truth.

Her works demonstrated her confidence in it.

WHAT, THEN, DOES JAMES MEAN BY “JUSTIFIED”?

We should allow James to use the word within his own argument.

James is not writing an exposition of Paul’s gospel.

He is not discussing an ungodly Gentile asking:

How can I receive the righteousness of God apart from the law?

That question is central to Paul’s argument in Romans.

James is writing to the twelve tribes in a setting characterized by trial, endurance, kingdom expectation, and the approaching coming of the Lord.

He confronts people who say they have faith.

He asks:

“what doth it profit?”

He challenges:

“shew me thy faith.”

He points to Abraham, whose obedience:

“fulfilled”

the Scripture which had already declared:

“Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.”

James is concerned with faith demonstrated—faith brought to completion in action.

Paul is concerned with the basis upon which the ungodly can be declared righteous before God.

The distinction allows both writers to say exactly what they say.

We do not need to rewrite either one.

BUT JAMES IS NOT PAUL

Here we need the same care that was necessary when considering Peter and Paul.

Recognizing harmony does not require us to eliminate distinction.

James is not writing Romans.

His audience is:

“the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad.”

His readers stand within Israel’s expectation.

His epistle prepares them for trial, endurance, and the coming of the Lord.

His language concerning faith, works, salvation, and endurance must first be understood within that setting.

Paul’s distinctive apostleship and the revelation committed to him should not simply be read backward into James.

James does not give us Paul’s developed explanation of justification in Romans 3–5.

He does not develop our identification with Christ as Paul does in Romans 6.

He does not explain the one Body as Paul does in Ephesians.

He does not unfold the believer’s heavenly position in Christ.

And we should not require James to teach revelation God entrusted particularly to Paul.

But neither does that require us to conclude that James teaches sinful men can accumulate works sufficient to place God in their debt for righteousness.

James can be different from Paul without being contrary to Paul.

James does not have to be Paul in order not to contradict Paul.

JAMES AND THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL

There is another piece of evidence that should not be ignored.

In Acts 15, the apostles and elders gathered at Jerusalem over the controversy concerning Gentiles, circumcision, and the law.

Peter stood and said:

“Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.”

— Acts 15:10–11

That is an extraordinary statement.

Peter does not say merely that Gentiles can somehow be fitted into Israel’s existing arrangement.

He says:

“we shall be saved, even as they.”

And the basis he names is:

“the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Then Barnabas and Paul speak.

And afterward:

“James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles…”

— Acts 15:13–14

James heard Peter’s declaration.

He heard the testimony of Barnabas and Paul.

And James did not rise to correct Peter’s statement concerning salvation through:

“the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Instead, he accepts Peter’s testimony and proceeds to give his judgment concerning the Gentiles.

That does not make James a Pauline apostle.

It does not make his epistle Pauline.

It does not erase the distinction between Israel’s kingdom program and the revelation committed to Paul.

But neither can James’s words in chapter 2 legitimately be made to mean that faith was insufficient and that works had to be added to faith in order for God to impute righteousness.

James himself has already told us otherwise.

Abraham:

“believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.”

That imputation occurred in Genesis 15.

The work to which James appeals occurred years later in Genesis 22.

James does not say that the later work completed an otherwise insufficient imputation of righteousness.

He says:

“the scripture was fulfilled.”

Abraham’s work demonstrated and brought to expression the faith already present when righteousness was imputed to him.

And at Jerusalem James heard Peter declare that salvation was:

“through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

He did not contradict him.

James’s insistence upon works must therefore be allowed to serve the purpose James himself gives them: not as an addition to faith required to obtain imputed righteousness from God, but as the necessary expression of a faith that acts upon what God has said.

James teaches a faith that works. He does not teach faith plus works as the means by which righteousness is imputed.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO “CAME FROM JAMES”?

That still leaves an uncomfortable incident.

Paul tells us concerning Peter:

“For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.”

— Galatians 2:12

Why were men “from James” associated with an incident in which Peter separated himself from Gentiles?

First, we should be precise about what Paul actually says.

He does not say that Peter feared James.

He says Peter was:

“fearing them which were of the circumcision.”

Neither does Paul tell us that James had instructed these men to require Peter to separate from the Gentiles.

They:

“came from James.”

We should not make that statement say more than it says.

But neither should we minimize the tension.

Peter had been eating with Gentiles.

When these men arrived, he withdrew.

And Paul tells us that Peter knew better.

Paul calls his behavior:

“dissimulation.”

Indeed, Barnabas himself:

“also was carried away with their dissimulation.”

— Galatians 2:13

That word is significant.

This was not simply a theological disagreement in which Peter sincerely believed one doctrine and Paul another.

Peter’s conduct ceased to correspond with what he already knew.

The incident therefore demonstrates something important about this transitional period.

Doctrinal understanding did not instantly erase deeply rooted Jewish distinctions, customs, social pressures, or sensitivities surrounding fellowship with Gentiles.

James remained at the center of a strongly Jewish believing community in Jerusalem.

Peter had been compelled by God Himself to cross a boundary he initially resisted crossing.

Paul had been commissioned as the apostle of the Gentiles.

Those realities could produce genuine tension without requiring three contradictory doctrines of justification.

That is why we must distinguish between:

how righteousness is imputed

and:

how believing Israel was expected to live and respond within her kingdom program.

Confusing those questions creates much of the apparent contradiction.

HARMONY WITHOUT IDENTICALITY

We therefore need not choose between two unnecessary alternatives.

We do not have to say:

James and Paul are saying exactly the same thing.

And we do not have to say:

James and Paul contradict one another.

James writes within his own audience, context, and purpose.

Paul writes within his.

Paul tells us:

“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”

— Romans 4:5

James tells us:

“shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.”

— James 2:18

Both statements should be allowed to stand.

Paul excludes works as the ground upon which the ungodly are justified before God.

James insists upon works as the expression of a faith that acts upon what God has said.

Paul takes us to Abraham in Genesis 15:

“Abraham believed God.”

James takes us years later to Abraham in Genesis 22 and says that through his obedience:

“the scripture was fulfilled.”

One does not cancel the other.

One need not be made identical to the other.

Abraham believed God.

Righteousness was imputed.

Then Abraham acted upon what God had said.

The harmony is real.

The distinction is equally real.

WORDS MEAN THINGS

Perhaps the difficulty with James teaches us something larger about reading Scripture.

Words mean things.

But words do not exist in isolation.

They must be understood according to their:

content,

context,

and:

intent.

We have already seen this with the word save.

To see:

“save your souls”

in James 1:21 and automatically substitute Paul’s doctrine of justification is to allow familiar theological usage to override James’s context.

The same care is required with:

faith.

works.

justify.

The word justify cannot simply be lifted from James, placed beside the same word in Romans, and required to carry every shade of meaning and theological purpose Paul develops there.

Nor can the word works automatically be assumed to address precisely the same issue every time it appears.

We must ask:

Who is speaking?

To whom?

About what?

Under what circumstances?

For what purpose?

And what argument is actually being made?

When we do that, the apparent contradiction begins to disappear without diminishing either writer.

James can say:

“by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

Paul can say:

“a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

And Scripture need not be embarrassed by either statement.

The problem arises when we demand that two different writers, addressing different audiences and different questions within distinguishable dispensational settings, must use theological vocabulary in precisely the same way.

LET JAMES BE JAMES

Perhaps that is ultimately the safest conclusion.

Let James be James.

Let Peter be Peter.

Let Paul be Paul.

Do not make James a premature Pauline apostle.

Do not make Paul merely a later commentator on James.

Do not erase their audiences.

Do not erase their expectations.

Do not erase the progress of revelation.

And do not take salvation language belonging naturally to Israel’s Tribulation and kingdom expectation and automatically redefine it according to Paul’s later explanation of justification.

But neither should we manufacture contradiction where Scripture does not require it.

James knew that God had:

“begat…us with the word of truth.”

James knew that Abraham:

“believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.”

James knew that Abraham’s later obedience:

“fulfilled”

that declaration.

James heard Peter confess salvation:

“through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

And James insisted that a faith merely professed with the lips but never acted upon was:

“dead, being alone.”

James could remain devoted to Israel’s kingdom expectation and insist upon the obedience appropriate to that expectation without believing that those works purchased righteousness from God.

That distinction allows us to take James seriously without turning him into Paul.

There is distinction.

There is context.

There is development.

And there is harmony.

As with Peter and Paul:

Difference does not require contradiction.

Harmony does not require identicality.

And sometimes the best way to demonstrate the harmony of Scripture is simply to allow each writer to say exactly what God gave him to say.

DID JAMES REALLY CONTRADICT PAUL?

Faith, Works, and Justification in the Epistle of James

BUT WHAT ABOUT JAMES?

This article grew out of a thoughtful response to our earlier consideration of Peter and Paul.

The question was essentially this:

What about James?

If Peter had come to understand that salvation rested upon the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, what did James understand?

The question becomes especially interesting because Acts presents an intriguing picture.

Peter had been prominent throughout the opening chapters of Acts. He preached at Pentecost. He confronted Israel concerning the rejection of her Messiah. He healed the lame man. He stood before Israel’s rulers. And when God determined to send him to the Gentile Cornelius, Peter required a vision repeated three times before he would go.

Peter was unmistakably identified with Israel and her prophetic expectation.

Yet by Acts 15 something appears to have changed.

Peter gives crucial testimony:

“But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.”

— Acts 15:11

But Peter does not render the concluding judgment of the Jerusalem council.

James does.

“Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:”

— Acts 15:19

James’s prominence at Jerusalem is also evident elsewhere. Paul later speaks of men who:

“came from James”

— Galatians 2:12

And when Paul returns to Jerusalem in Acts 21:

“Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.”

— Acts 21:18

Something has clearly developed in the leadership at Jerusalem.

We need not speculate beyond what Scripture tells us about precisely why that development occurred. But we should recognize that Peter and James need not have occupied identical positions within this changing situation.

Peter had personally been brought through a remarkable progression: from his proclamation of Israel’s prophetic hope in Acts 2 and 3, through the divine intervention that sent him to Cornelius, to his declaration at Jerusalem that:

“through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.”

James, meanwhile, remained prominently identified with Jerusalem, the circumcision, and Israel’s continuing kingdom expectation.

Those different responsibilities may help explain their differing emphases without requiring us to conclude that they held contradictory views of righteousness before God.

James could remain intensely occupied with Israel’s responsibility under her kingdom expectation while fully recognizing that righteousness itself was never something Israel could earn from God.

That distinction is important.

James does not have to become Paul in order to understand grace.

Neither does James have to abandon his responsibility toward Israel merely because God is revealing and accomplishing something different among the Gentiles through Paul.

This raises the question we really need to answer.

Did James believe that works had to be added to faith in order for righteousness to be imputed?

If not, what did he mean when he wrote:

“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

— James 2:24

Few statements appear more difficult to reconcile with Paul:

“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

— Romans 3:28

Paul says:

“justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

James says:

“by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

What are we to do with that?

One solution is simply to make James say what Paul says. James, we are told, really means precisely the same thing as Paul, only expressed differently.

Another solution is to push the distinction so far that James and Paul are allowed to contradict one another—as though righteousness before God could be earned by works in one setting but received by faith in another.

Neither solution is necessary.

As we observed when considering Peter and Paul:

Difference does not require contradiction. Harmony does not require identicality.

The question is not how we can make James sound like Paul.

The question is:

What is James actually saying?

And the place to begin is not James 2:24.

It is James 1:1.

TO WHOM DOES JAMES WRITE?

James identifies his audience immediately:

“James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.”

— James 1:1

That statement should be allowed to mean what it says.

James writes to:

“the twelve tribes.”

His audience is Jewish, and his epistle belongs naturally within Israel’s kingdom expectation.

That setting appears throughout the book.

He speaks of:

“your assembly”

in James 2:2—the underlying word being synagogue.

He speaks of:

“the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him”

— James 2:5

He calls Abraham:

“our father”

— James 2:21

He invokes:

“the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord”

— James 5:10

And the expectation throughout the latter portion of the epistle is unmistakable:

“Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord.”

— James 5:7

And:

“Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.”

— James 5:8

That context matters.

James is not writing Romans before Paul writes Romans.

He is not explaining the Body of Christ.

He is not setting forth Paul’s gospel of the grace of God.

And we should not import Paul’s later and distinctive revelation into James merely because James uses words that also appear in Paul’s epistles.

Content, context, and intent matter.

James must first be allowed to speak within James’s own audience, expectation, and purpose.

A PEOPLE PREPARING FOR TRIAL

James begins his epistle with trial:

“My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;

Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.”

— James 1:2–3

The subject is not incidental.

James is preparing his readers to endure.

“But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.”

— James 1:4

Again:

“Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life…”

— James 1:12

And by the end of the epistle James has returned to the same theme:

“Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job…”

— James 5:11

This is an epistle concerned with faith under pressure.

That observation becomes important when James speaks of salvation.

He writes:

“Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.”

— James 1:21

It would be easy for a reader accustomed to Paul’s terminology to see the word save and immediately hear:

justification from sin by grace through faith.

But James’s context gives us good reason not to make that assumption.

At the conclusion of the epistle James writes:

“Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;

Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.”

— James 5:19–20

Notice that James is addressing:

“Brethren.”

And the soul is explicitly saved:

“from death.”

Within an epistle concerned with trial, endurance, the coming of the Lord, and deliverance, salvation language need not automatically mean Pauline justification.

The language also fits naturally alongside the Lord’s teaching to Israel concerning endurance:

“But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.”

— Matthew 24:13

And:

“In your patience possess ye your souls.”

— Luke 21:19

We should therefore be careful not to enlist James 1:21 as though James were explaining Romans 3–5.

James’s salvation language must be understood within James’s own context.

And that context includes the coming Tribulation and the necessity of faithful endurance in anticipation of the Lord’s return.

ALREADY BEGOTTEN BY THE WORD OF TRUTH

Immediately before James 1:21, however, James has said something important about the people to whom he writes:

“Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.”

— James 1:18

Whatever further deliverance James anticipates for them, he describes these people as already:

“begat…with the word of truth.”

And then he exhorts them:

“But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.”

— James 1:22

That is the point important to our discussion.

James is not addressing pagans who know nothing of God and telling them to perform works so that God might finally make them righteous.

He is addressing people who have received the word of truth and are now being tested concerning whether they will do what they have heard.

That prepares us much better for James 2.

James is deeply concerned with works.

But he is concerned with works in the life of those who profess to believe what God has said.

The question becomes:

Will their faith act?

“THOUGH A MAN SAY HE HATH FAITH”

James asks:

“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?”

— James 2:14

Again, we should resist the temptation to hear Paul’s question merely because James uses the words faith and save.

James has already established his setting.

He is concerned with endurance.

With obedience.

With doing the Word.

With the coming of the Lord.

And now with the profit of a professed faith that produces no corresponding action.

One word deserves particular attention:

“say.”

James does not merely tell us:

A man has faith.

He says:

“though a man say he hath faith.”

A claim is being made.

A profession is being examined.

And James immediately gives us an illustration:

“If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?”

— James 2:15–16

Notice again:

“say.”

Someone says:

“be ye warmed and filled.”

The words sound good.

But the hungry person remains hungry.

The naked person remains unclothed.

James asks:

“what doth it profit?”

Words that produce no corresponding action accomplish nothing for the person in need.

Then James applies his illustration:

“Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”

— James 2:17

James is confronting a profession of faith that produces nothing.

That is why he continues:

“Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.”

— James 2:18

The issue is something that can be:

shown.

Faith itself is invisible.

James says, in effect:

Show it to me.

How?

“I will shew thee my faith by my works.”

Works make faith visible.

They demonstrate what a man actually believes.

And that prepares us for Abraham.

ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD

James writes:

“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?”

— James 2:21

Paul writes:

“For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.”

— Romans 4:2–3

There is no benefit in pretending those statements do not create a difficulty.

James says:

“justified by works.”

Paul says:

“if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.”

But before declaring contradiction, we should ask a simple question:

When did these things happen?

Paul reaches back to Genesis 15:

“And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.”

— Genesis 15:6

Abraham believed God.

God counted righteousness to him.

James, however, points to another event:

“when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar.”

That is Genesis 22.

These events are separated by years.

Abraham did not first believe God when he raised the knife over Isaac.

He had already believed God.

Righteousness had already been counted to him.

And James himself knows it.

Indeed, James quotes the very same Scripture Paul quotes.

But notice how James describes its relationship to Abraham’s later work:

“And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness…”

— James 2:23

That word deserves our attention:

fulfilled.

James does not say that Abraham’s offering of Isaac caused Genesis 15:6 finally to become true.

Genesis 15:6 was already true.

Abraham had believed God.

Righteousness had been imputed to him.

Years later Abraham acted upon his confidence in what God had said.

James explains:

“Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?”

— James 2:22

Notice the relationship.

James does not say:

works replaced faith.

He says:

“faith wrought with his works.”

The faith worked.

And:

“by works was faith made perfect.”

The word perfect fits James’s argument from the beginning of the epistle:

“But let patience have her perfect work…”

— James 1:4

The idea is completion, maturity, something brought to its intended expression.

Abraham’s faith did not remain merely a confession.

It acted.

Genesis 22 demonstrated in action the confidence Abraham had already placed in what God had said.

WHAT DID ABRAHAM BELIEVE?

This becomes even more significant when we remember what God had promised Abraham.

Isaac was not incidental.

God had said:

“for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.”

— Genesis 21:12

Yet God subsequently commanded Abraham to offer Isaac.

Abraham’s obedience therefore required him to act upon his confidence that God’s word concerning Isaac could not fail.

Hebrews explains Abraham’s reasoning:

“Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead…”

— Hebrews 11:19

Abraham acted because Abraham believed God.

His work did not substitute for faith.

His work expressed faith.

That is precisely what James has been arguing:

“I will shew thee my faith by my works.”

FAITH WAS NOT ABRAHAM’S WORK

James does not oppose faith and works as though Abraham could choose one means of acceptance or the other.

He joins them:

“faith wrought with his works.”

The works proceeded from the faith.

That matters when we compare James with Paul.

Paul writes:

“Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”

— Romans 4:4–5

Paul is answering a particular question:

Upon what basis can God justify the ungodly?

The answer cannot be human works.

If righteousness is earned, it becomes:

“debt.”

James is addressing a different problem:

What value does a professed faith have if the person will not act upon what God has said?

Those are not identical questions.

Consequently, we should not demand identical answers.

EVEN THE DEVILS BELIEVE

James presses the point:

“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.”

— James 2:19

This verse is sometimes treated as though James were saying:

Faith cannot save because even devils have saving faith.

But that is not what James says.

The devils know something true:

there is one God.

They do not dispute His existence.

Indeed:

“they tremble.”

But intellectual acknowledgment of a fact is not the same thing as faithful confidence in what God has said.

Abraham believed God sufficiently to act upon God’s word.

The devils’ acknowledgment produces no faithful obedience to Him.

Again, James is testing the character of a professed faith.

Is it merely something said?

Or does the person actually act upon what he claims to believe?

RAHAB MAKES THE SAME POINT

James’s second example is Rahab:

“Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?”

— James 2:25

Why did Rahab receive the spies?

Joshua records her confession:

“I know that the LORD hath given you the land…”

— Joshua 2:9

And:

“for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.”

— Joshua 2:11

Rahab had heard what God was doing.

She believed what she had heard concerning Israel’s God and Israel’s coming possession of the land.

Then she acted accordingly.

Think of the alternative.

Suppose Rahab had said:

I believe the LORD has given Israel this land.

And then immediately delivered Israel’s spies to the king of Jericho.

Her actions would have contradicted her profession.

Instead, her actions demonstrated that she actually believed what she had confessed.

Again:

faith acted upon what God had said.

Her works did not create the truth.

Her works demonstrated her confidence in it.

WHAT, THEN, DOES JAMES MEAN BY “JUSTIFIED”?

We should allow James to use the word within his own argument.

James is not writing an exposition of Paul’s gospel.

He is not discussing an ungodly Gentile asking:

How can I receive the righteousness of God apart from the law?

That question is central to Paul’s argument in Romans.

James is writing to the twelve tribes in a setting characterized by trial, endurance, kingdom expectation, and the approaching coming of the Lord.

He confronts people who say they have faith.

He asks:

“what doth it profit?”

He challenges:

“shew me thy faith.”

He points to Abraham, whose obedience:

“fulfilled”

the Scripture which had already declared:

“Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.”

James is concerned with faith demonstrated—faith brought to completion in action.

Paul is concerned with the basis upon which the ungodly can be declared righteous before God.

The distinction allows both writers to say exactly what they say.

We do not need to rewrite either one.

BUT JAMES IS NOT PAUL

Here we need the same care that was necessary when considering Peter and Paul.

Recognizing harmony does not require us to eliminate distinction.

James is not writing Romans.

His audience is:

“the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad.”

His readers stand within Israel’s expectation.

His epistle prepares them for trial, endurance, and the coming of the Lord.

His language concerning faith, works, salvation, and endurance must first be understood within that setting.

Paul’s distinctive apostleship and the revelation committed to him should not simply be read backward into James.

James does not give us Paul’s developed explanation of justification in Romans 3–5.

He does not develop our identification with Christ as Paul does in Romans 6.

He does not explain the one Body as Paul does in Ephesians.

He does not unfold the believer’s heavenly position in Christ.

And we should not require James to teach revelation God entrusted particularly to Paul.

But neither does that require us to conclude that James teaches sinful men can accumulate works sufficient to place God in their debt for righteousness.

James can be different from Paul without being contrary to Paul.

James does not have to be Paul in order not to contradict Paul.

JAMES AND THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL

There is another piece of evidence that should not be ignored.

In Acts 15, the apostles and elders gathered at Jerusalem over the controversy concerning Gentiles, circumcision, and the law.

Peter stood and said:

“Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.”

— Acts 15:10–11

That is an extraordinary statement.

Peter does not say merely that Gentiles can somehow be fitted into Israel’s existing arrangement.

He says:

“we shall be saved, even as they.”

And the basis he names is:

“the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Then Barnabas and Paul speak.

And afterward:

“James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles…”

— Acts 15:13–14

James heard Peter’s declaration.

He heard the testimony of Barnabas and Paul.

And James did not rise to correct Peter’s statement concerning salvation through:

“the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Instead, he accepts Peter’s testimony and proceeds to give his judgment concerning the Gentiles.

That does not make James a Pauline apostle.

It does not make his epistle Pauline.

It does not erase the distinction between Israel’s kingdom program and the revelation committed to Paul.

But neither can James’s words in chapter 2 legitimately be made to mean that faith was insufficient and that works had to be added to faith in order for God to impute righteousness.

James himself has already told us otherwise.

Abraham:

“believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.”

That imputation occurred in Genesis 15.

The work to which James appeals occurred years later in Genesis 22.

James does not say that the later work completed an otherwise insufficient imputation of righteousness.

He says:

“the scripture was fulfilled.”

Abraham’s work demonstrated and brought to expression the faith already present when righteousness was imputed to him.

And at Jerusalem James heard Peter declare that salvation was:

“through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

He did not contradict him.

James’s insistence upon works must therefore be allowed to serve the purpose James himself gives them: not as an addition to faith required to obtain imputed righteousness from God, but as the necessary expression of a faith that acts upon what God has said.

James teaches a faith that works. He does not teach faith plus works as the means by which righteousness is imputed.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO “CAME FROM JAMES”?

That still leaves an uncomfortable incident.

Paul tells us concerning Peter:

“For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.”

— Galatians 2:12

Why were men “from James” associated with an incident in which Peter separated himself from Gentiles?

First, we should be precise about what Paul actually says.

He does not say that Peter feared James.

He says Peter was:

“fearing them which were of the circumcision.”

Neither does Paul tell us that James had instructed these men to require Peter to separate from the Gentiles.

They:

“came from James.”

We should not make that statement say more than it says.

But neither should we minimize the tension.

Peter had been eating with Gentiles.

When these men arrived, he withdrew.

And Paul tells us that Peter knew better.

Paul calls his behavior:

“dissimulation.”

Indeed, Barnabas himself:

“also was carried away with their dissimulation.”

— Galatians 2:13

That word is significant.

This was not simply a theological disagreement in which Peter sincerely believed one doctrine and Paul another.

Peter’s conduct ceased to correspond with what he already knew.

The incident therefore demonstrates something important about this transitional period.

Doctrinal understanding did not instantly erase deeply rooted Jewish distinctions, customs, social pressures, or sensitivities surrounding fellowship with Gentiles.

James remained at the center of a strongly Jewish believing community in Jerusalem.

Peter had been compelled by God Himself to cross a boundary he initially resisted crossing.

Paul had been commissioned as the apostle of the Gentiles.

Those realities could produce genuine tension without requiring three contradictory doctrines of justification.

That is why we must distinguish between:

how righteousness is imputed

and:

how believing Israel was expected to live and respond within her kingdom program.

Confusing those questions creates much of the apparent contradiction.

HARMONY WITHOUT IDENTICALITY

We therefore need not choose between two unnecessary alternatives.

We do not have to say:

James and Paul are saying exactly the same thing.

And we do not have to say:

James and Paul contradict one another.

James writes within his own audience, context, and purpose.

Paul writes within his.

Paul tells us:

“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”

— Romans 4:5

James tells us:

“shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.”

— James 2:18

Both statements should be allowed to stand.

Paul excludes works as the ground upon which the ungodly are justified before God.

James insists upon works as the expression of a faith that acts upon what God has said.

Paul takes us to Abraham in Genesis 15:

“Abraham believed God.”

James takes us years later to Abraham in Genesis 22 and says that through his obedience:

“the scripture was fulfilled.”

One does not cancel the other.

One need not be made identical to the other.

Abraham believed God.

Righteousness was imputed.

Then Abraham acted upon what God had said.

The harmony is real.

The distinction is equally real.

WORDS MEAN THINGS

Perhaps the difficulty with James teaches us something larger about reading Scripture.

Words mean things.

But words do not exist in isolation.

They must be understood according to their:

content,

context,

and:

intent.

We have already seen this with the word save.

To see:

“save your souls”

in James 1:21 and automatically substitute Paul’s doctrine of justification is to allow familiar theological usage to override James’s context.

The same care is required with:

faith.

works.

justify.

The word justify cannot simply be lifted from James, placed beside the same word in Romans, and required to carry every shade of meaning and theological purpose Paul develops there.

Nor can the word works automatically be assumed to address precisely the same issue every time it appears.

We must ask:

Who is speaking?

To whom?

About what?

Under what circumstances?

For what purpose?

And what argument is actually being made?

When we do that, the apparent contradiction begins to disappear without diminishing either writer.

James can say:

“by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

Paul can say:

“a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

And Scripture need not be embarrassed by either statement.

The problem arises when we demand that two different writers, addressing different audiences and different questions within distinguishable dispensational settings, must use theological vocabulary in precisely the same way.

LET JAMES BE JAMES

Perhaps that is ultimately the safest conclusion.

Let James be James.

Let Peter be Peter.

Let Paul be Paul.

Do not make James a premature Pauline apostle.

Do not make Paul merely a later commentator on James.

Do not erase their audiences.

Do not erase their expectations.

Do not erase the progress of revelation.

And do not take salvation language belonging naturally to Israel’s Tribulation and kingdom expectation and automatically redefine it according to Paul’s later explanation of justification.

But neither should we manufacture contradiction where Scripture does not require it.

James knew that God had:

“begat…us with the word of truth.”

James knew that Abraham:

“believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.”

James knew that Abraham’s later obedience:

“fulfilled”

that declaration.

James heard Peter confess salvation:

“through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

And James insisted that a faith merely professed with the lips but never acted upon was:

“dead, being alone.”

James could remain devoted to Israel’s kingdom expectation and insist upon the obedience appropriate to that expectation without believing that those works purchased righteousness from God.

That distinction allows us to take James seriously without turning him into Paul.

There is distinction.

There is context.

There is development.

And there is harmony.

As with Peter and Paul:

Difference does not require contradiction.

Harmony does not require identicality.

And sometimes the best way to demonstrate the harmony of Scripture is simply to allow each writer to say exactly what God gave him to say.

DID JAMES REALLY CONTRADICT PAUL?

Faith, Works, and Justification in the Epistle of James

BUT WHAT ABOUT JAMES?

This article grew out of a thoughtful response to our earlier consideration of Peter and Paul.

The question was essentially this:

What about James?

If Peter had come to understand that salvation rested upon the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, what did James understand?

The question becomes especially interesting because Acts presents an intriguing picture.

Peter had been prominent throughout the opening chapters of Acts. He preached at Pentecost. He confronted Israel concerning the rejection of her Messiah. He healed the lame man. He stood before Israel’s rulers. And when God determined to send him to the Gentile Cornelius, Peter required a vision repeated three times before he would go.

Peter was unmistakably identified with Israel and her prophetic expectation.

Yet by Acts 15 something appears to have changed.

Peter gives crucial testimony:

“But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.”

— Acts 15:11

But Peter does not render the concluding judgment of the Jerusalem council.

James does.

“Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:”

— Acts 15:19

James’s prominence at Jerusalem is also evident elsewhere. Paul later speaks of men who:

“came from James”

— Galatians 2:12

And when Paul returns to Jerusalem in Acts 21:

“Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.”

— Acts 21:18

Something has clearly developed in the leadership at Jerusalem.

We need not speculate beyond what Scripture tells us about precisely why that development occurred. But we should recognize that Peter and James need not have occupied identical positions within this changing situation.

Peter had personally been brought through a remarkable progression: from his proclamation of Israel’s prophetic hope in Acts 2 and 3, through the divine intervention that sent him to Cornelius, to his declaration at Jerusalem that:

“through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.”

James, meanwhile, remained prominently identified with Jerusalem, the circumcision, and Israel’s continuing kingdom expectation.

Those different responsibilities may help explain their differing emphases without requiring us to conclude that they held contradictory views of righteousness before God.

James could remain intensely occupied with Israel’s responsibility under her kingdom expectation while fully recognizing that righteousness itself was never something Israel could earn from God.

That distinction is important.

James does not have to become Paul in order to understand grace.

Neither does James have to abandon his responsibility toward Israel merely because God is revealing and accomplishing something different among the Gentiles through Paul.

This raises the question we really need to answer.

Did James believe that works had to be added to faith in order for righteousness to be imputed?

If not, what did he mean when he wrote:

“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

— James 2:24

Few statements appear more difficult to reconcile with Paul:

“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

— Romans 3:28

Paul says:

“justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

James says:

“by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

What are we to do with that?

One solution is simply to make James say what Paul says. James, we are told, really means precisely the same thing as Paul, only expressed differently.

Another solution is to push the distinction so far that James and Paul are allowed to contradict one another—as though righteousness before God could be earned by works in one setting but received by faith in another.

Neither solution is necessary.

As we observed when considering Peter and Paul:

Difference does not require contradiction. Harmony does not require identicality.

The question is not how we can make James sound like Paul.

The question is:

What is James actually saying?

And the place to begin is not James 2:24.

It is James 1:1.

TO WHOM DOES JAMES WRITE?

James identifies his audience immediately:

“James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.”

— James 1:1

That statement should be allowed to mean what it says.

James writes to:

“the twelve tribes.”

His audience is Jewish, and his epistle belongs naturally within Israel’s kingdom expectation.

That setting appears throughout the book.

He speaks of:

“your assembly”

in James 2:2—the underlying word being synagogue.

He speaks of:

“the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him”

— James 2:5

He calls Abraham:

“our father”

— James 2:21

He invokes:

“the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord”

— James 5:10

And the expectation throughout the latter portion of the epistle is unmistakable:

“Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord.”

— James 5:7

And:

“Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.”

— James 5:8

That context matters.

James is not writing Romans before Paul writes Romans.

He is not explaining the Body of Christ.

He is not setting forth Paul’s gospel of the grace of God.

And we should not import Paul’s later and distinctive revelation into James merely because James uses words that also appear in Paul’s epistles.

Content, context, and intent matter.

James must first be allowed to speak within James’s own audience, expectation, and purpose.

A PEOPLE PREPARING FOR TRIAL

James begins his epistle with trial:

“My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;

Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.”

— James 1:2–3

The subject is not incidental.

James is preparing his readers to endure.

“But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.”

— James 1:4

Again:

“Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life…”

— James 1:12

And by the end of the epistle James has returned to the same theme:

“Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job…”

— James 5:11

This is an epistle concerned with faith under pressure.

That observation becomes important when James speaks of salvation.

He writes:

“Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.”

— James 1:21

It would be easy for a reader accustomed to Paul’s terminology to see the word save and immediately hear:

justification from sin by grace through faith.

But James’s context gives us good reason not to make that assumption.

At the conclusion of the epistle James writes:

“Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;

Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.”

— James 5:19–20

Notice that James is addressing:

“Brethren.”

And the soul is explicitly saved:

“from death.”

Within an epistle concerned with trial, endurance, the coming of the Lord, and deliverance, salvation language need not automatically mean Pauline justification.

The language also fits naturally alongside the Lord’s teaching to Israel concerning endurance:

“But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.”

— Matthew 24:13

And:

“In your patience possess ye your souls.”

— Luke 21:19

We should therefore be careful not to enlist James 1:21 as though James were explaining Romans 3–5.

James’s salvation language must be understood within James’s own context.

And that context includes the coming Tribulation and the necessity of faithful endurance in anticipation of the Lord’s return.

ALREADY BEGOTTEN BY THE WORD OF TRUTH

Immediately before James 1:21, however, James has said something important about the people to whom he writes:

“Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.”

— James 1:18

Whatever further deliverance James anticipates for them, he describes these people as already:

“begat…with the word of truth.”

And then he exhorts them:

“But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.”

— James 1:22

That is the point important to our discussion.

James is not addressing pagans who know nothing of God and telling them to perform works so that God might finally make them righteous.

He is addressing people who have received the word of truth and are now being tested concerning whether they will do what they have heard.

That prepares us much better for James 2.

James is deeply concerned with works.

But he is concerned with works in the life of those who profess to believe what God has said.

The question becomes:

Will their faith act?

“THOUGH A MAN SAY HE HATH FAITH”

James asks:

“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?”

— James 2:14

Again, we should resist the temptation to hear Paul’s question merely because James uses the words faith and save.

James has already established his setting.

He is concerned with endurance.

With obedience.

With doing the Word.

With the coming of the Lord.

And now with the profit of a professed faith that produces no corresponding action.

One word deserves particular attention:

“say.”

James does not merely tell us:

A man has faith.

He says:

“though a man say he hath faith.”

A claim is being made.

A profession is being examined.

And James immediately gives us an illustration:

“If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?”

— James 2:15–16

Notice again:

“say.”

Someone says:

“be ye warmed and filled.”

The words sound good.

But the hungry person remains hungry.

The naked person remains unclothed.

James asks:

“what doth it profit?”

Words that produce no corresponding action accomplish nothing for the person in need.

Then James applies his illustration:

“Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”

— James 2:17

James is confronting a profession of faith that produces nothing.

That is why he continues:

“Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.”

— James 2:18

The issue is something that can be:

shown.

Faith itself is invisible.

James says, in effect:

Show it to me.

How?

“I will shew thee my faith by my works.”

Works make faith visible.

They demonstrate what a man actually believes.

And that prepares us for Abraham.

ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD

James writes:

“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?”

— James 2:21

Paul writes:

“For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.”

— Romans 4:2–3

There is no benefit in pretending those statements do not create a difficulty.

James says:

“justified by works.”

Paul says:

“if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.”

But before declaring contradiction, we should ask a simple question:

When did these things happen?

Paul reaches back to Genesis 15:

“And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.”

— Genesis 15:6

Abraham believed God.

God counted righteousness to him.

James, however, points to another event:

“when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar.”

That is Genesis 22.

These events are separated by years.

Abraham did not first believe God when he raised the knife over Isaac.

He had already believed God.

Righteousness had already been counted to him.

And James himself knows it.

Indeed, James quotes the very same Scripture Paul quotes.

But notice how James describes its relationship to Abraham’s later work:

“And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness…”

— James 2:23

That word deserves our attention:

fulfilled.

James does not say that Abraham’s offering of Isaac caused Genesis 15:6 finally to become true.

Genesis 15:6 was already true.

Abraham had believed God.

Righteousness had been imputed to him.

Years later Abraham acted upon his confidence in what God had said.

James explains:

“Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?”

— James 2:22

Notice the relationship.

James does not say:

works replaced faith.

He says:

“faith wrought with his works.”

The faith worked.

And:

“by works was faith made perfect.”

The word perfect fits James’s argument from the beginning of the epistle:

“But let patience have her perfect work…”

— James 1:4

The idea is completion, maturity, something brought to its intended expression.

Abraham’s faith did not remain merely a confession.

It acted.

Genesis 22 demonstrated in action the confidence Abraham had already placed in what God had said.

WHAT DID ABRAHAM BELIEVE?

This becomes even more significant when we remember what God had promised Abraham.

Isaac was not incidental.

God had said:

“for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.”

— Genesis 21:12

Yet God subsequently commanded Abraham to offer Isaac.

Abraham’s obedience therefore required him to act upon his confidence that God’s word concerning Isaac could not fail.

Hebrews explains Abraham’s reasoning:

“Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead…”

— Hebrews 11:19

Abraham acted because Abraham believed God.

His work did not substitute for faith.

His work expressed faith.

That is precisely what James has been arguing:

“I will shew thee my faith by my works.”

FAITH WAS NOT ABRAHAM’S WORK

James does not oppose faith and works as though Abraham could choose one means of acceptance or the other.

He joins them:

“faith wrought with his works.”

The works proceeded from the faith.

That matters when we compare James with Paul.

Paul writes:

“Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”

— Romans 4:4–5

Paul is answering a particular question:

Upon what basis can God justify the ungodly?

The answer cannot be human works.

If righteousness is earned, it becomes:

“debt.”

James is addressing a different problem:

What value does a professed faith have if the person will not act upon what God has said?

Those are not identical questions.

Consequently, we should not demand identical answers.

EVEN THE DEVILS BELIEVE

James presses the point:

“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.”

— James 2:19

This verse is sometimes treated as though James were saying:

Faith cannot save because even devils have saving faith.

But that is not what James says.

The devils know something true:

there is one God.

They do not dispute His existence.

Indeed:

“they tremble.”

But intellectual acknowledgment of a fact is not the same thing as faithful confidence in what God has said.

Abraham believed God sufficiently to act upon God’s word.

The devils’ acknowledgment produces no faithful obedience to Him.

Again, James is testing the character of a professed faith.

Is it merely something said?

Or does the person actually act upon what he claims to believe?

RAHAB MAKES THE SAME POINT

James’s second example is Rahab:

“Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?”

— James 2:25

Why did Rahab receive the spies?

Joshua records her confession:

“I know that the LORD hath given you the land…”

— Joshua 2:9

And:

“for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.”

— Joshua 2:11

Rahab had heard what God was doing.

She believed what she had heard concerning Israel’s God and Israel’s coming possession of the land.

Then she acted accordingly.

Think of the alternative.

Suppose Rahab had said:

I believe the LORD has given Israel this land.

And then immediately delivered Israel’s spies to the king of Jericho.

Her actions would have contradicted her profession.

Instead, her actions demonstrated that she actually believed what she had confessed.

Again:

faith acted upon what God had said.

Her works did not create the truth.

Her works demonstrated her confidence in it.

WHAT, THEN, DOES JAMES MEAN BY “JUSTIFIED”?

We should allow James to use the word within his own argument.

James is not writing an exposition of Paul’s gospel.

He is not discussing an ungodly Gentile asking:

How can I receive the righteousness of God apart from the law?

That question is central to Paul’s argument in Romans.

James is writing to the twelve tribes in a setting characterized by trial, endurance, kingdom expectation, and the approaching coming of the Lord.

He confronts people who say they have faith.

He asks:

“what doth it profit?”

He challenges:

“shew me thy faith.”

He points to Abraham, whose obedience:

“fulfilled”

the Scripture which had already declared:

“Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.”

James is concerned with faith demonstrated—faith brought to completion in action.

Paul is concerned with the basis upon which the ungodly can be declared righteous before God.

The distinction allows both writers to say exactly what they say.

We do not need to rewrite either one.

BUT JAMES IS NOT PAUL

Here we need the same care that was necessary when considering Peter and Paul.

Recognizing harmony does not require us to eliminate distinction.

James is not writing Romans.

His audience is:

“the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad.”

His readers stand within Israel’s expectation.

His epistle prepares them for trial, endurance, and the coming of the Lord.

His language concerning faith, works, salvation, and endurance must first be understood within that setting.

Paul’s distinctive apostleship and the revelation committed to him should not simply be read backward into James.

James does not give us Paul’s developed explanation of justification in Romans 3–5.

He does not develop our identification with Christ as Paul does in Romans 6.

He does not explain the one Body as Paul does in Ephesians.

He does not unfold the believer’s heavenly position in Christ.

And we should not require James to teach revelation God entrusted particularly to Paul.

But neither does that require us to conclude that James teaches sinful men can accumulate works sufficient to place God in their debt for righteousness.

James can be different from Paul without being contrary to Paul.

James does not have to be Paul in order not to contradict Paul.

JAMES AND THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL

There is another piece of evidence that should not be ignored.

In Acts 15, the apostles and elders gathered at Jerusalem over the controversy concerning Gentiles, circumcision, and the law.

Peter stood and said:

“Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.”

— Acts 15:10–11

That is an extraordinary statement.

Peter does not say merely that Gentiles can somehow be fitted into Israel’s existing arrangement.

He says:

“we shall be saved, even as they.”

And the basis he names is:

“the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Then Barnabas and Paul speak.

And afterward:

“James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles…”

— Acts 15:13–14

James heard Peter’s declaration.

He heard the testimony of Barnabas and Paul.

And James did not rise to correct Peter’s statement concerning salvation through:

“the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Instead, he accepts Peter’s testimony and proceeds to give his judgment concerning the Gentiles.

That does not make James a Pauline apostle.

It does not make his epistle Pauline.

It does not erase the distinction between Israel’s kingdom program and the revelation committed to Paul.

But neither can James’s words in chapter 2 legitimately be made to mean that faith was insufficient and that works had to be added to faith in order for God to impute righteousness.

James himself has already told us otherwise.

Abraham:

“believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.”

That imputation occurred in Genesis 15.

The work to which James appeals occurred years later in Genesis 22.

James does not say that the later work completed an otherwise insufficient imputation of righteousness.

He says:

“the scripture was fulfilled.”

Abraham’s work demonstrated and brought to expression the faith already present when righteousness was imputed to him.

And at Jerusalem James heard Peter declare that salvation was:

“through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

He did not contradict him.

James’s insistence upon works must therefore be allowed to serve the purpose James himself gives them: not as an addition to faith required to obtain imputed righteousness from God, but as the necessary expression of a faith that acts upon what God has said.

James teaches a faith that works. He does not teach faith plus works as the means by which righteousness is imputed.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO “CAME FROM JAMES”?

That still leaves an uncomfortable incident.

Paul tells us concerning Peter:

“For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.”

— Galatians 2:12

Why were men “from James” associated with an incident in which Peter separated himself from Gentiles?

First, we should be precise about what Paul actually says.

He does not say that Peter feared James.

He says Peter was:

“fearing them which were of the circumcision.”

Neither does Paul tell us that James had instructed these men to require Peter to separate from the Gentiles.

They:

“came from James.”

We should not make that statement say more than it says.

But neither should we minimize the tension.

Peter had been eating with Gentiles.

When these men arrived, he withdrew.

And Paul tells us that Peter knew better.

Paul calls his behavior:

“dissimulation.”

Indeed, Barnabas himself:

“also was carried away with their dissimulation.”

— Galatians 2:13

That word is significant.

This was not simply a theological disagreement in which Peter sincerely believed one doctrine and Paul another.

Peter’s conduct ceased to correspond with what he already knew.

The incident therefore demonstrates something important about this transitional period.

Doctrinal understanding did not instantly erase deeply rooted Jewish distinctions, customs, social pressures, or sensitivities surrounding fellowship with Gentiles.

James remained at the center of a strongly Jewish believing community in Jerusalem.

Peter had been compelled by God Himself to cross a boundary he initially resisted crossing.

Paul had been commissioned as the apostle of the Gentiles.

Those realities could produce genuine tension without requiring three contradictory doctrines of justification.

That is why we must distinguish between:

how righteousness is imputed

and:

how believing Israel was expected to live and respond within her kingdom program.

Confusing those questions creates much of the apparent contradiction.

HARMONY WITHOUT IDENTICALITY

We therefore need not choose between two unnecessary alternatives.

We do not have to say:

James and Paul are saying exactly the same thing.

And we do not have to say:

James and Paul contradict one another.

James writes within his own audience, context, and purpose.

Paul writes within his.

Paul tells us:

“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”

— Romans 4:5

James tells us:

“shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.”

— James 2:18

Both statements should be allowed to stand.

Paul excludes works as the ground upon which the ungodly are justified before God.

James insists upon works as the expression of a faith that acts upon what God has said.

Paul takes us to Abraham in Genesis 15:

“Abraham believed God.”

James takes us years later to Abraham in Genesis 22 and says that through his obedience:

“the scripture was fulfilled.”

One does not cancel the other.

One need not be made identical to the other.

Abraham believed God.

Righteousness was imputed.

Then Abraham acted upon what God had said.

The harmony is real.

The distinction is equally real.

WORDS MEAN THINGS

Perhaps the difficulty with James teaches us something larger about reading Scripture.

Words mean things.

But words do not exist in isolation.

They must be understood according to their:

content,

context,

and:

intent.

We have already seen this with the word save.

To see:

“save your souls”

in James 1:21 and automatically substitute Paul’s doctrine of justification is to allow familiar theological usage to override James’s context.

The same care is required with:

faith.

works.

justify.

The word justify cannot simply be lifted from James, placed beside the same word in Romans, and required to carry every shade of meaning and theological purpose Paul develops there.

Nor can the word works automatically be assumed to address precisely the same issue every time it appears.

We must ask:

Who is speaking?

To whom?

About what?

Under what circumstances?

For what purpose?

And what argument is actually being made?

When we do that, the apparent contradiction begins to disappear without diminishing either writer.

James can say:

“by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

Paul can say:

“a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

And Scripture need not be embarrassed by either statement.

The problem arises when we demand that two different writers, addressing different audiences and different questions within distinguishable dispensational settings, must use theological vocabulary in precisely the same way.

LET JAMES BE JAMES

Perhaps that is ultimately the safest conclusion.

Let James be James.

Let Peter be Peter.

Let Paul be Paul.

Do not make James a premature Pauline apostle.

Do not make Paul merely a later commentator on James.

Do not erase their audiences.

Do not erase their expectations.

Do not erase the progress of revelation.

And do not take salvation language belonging naturally to Israel’s Tribulation and kingdom expectation and automatically redefine it according to Paul’s later explanation of justification.

But neither should we manufacture contradiction where Scripture does not require it.

James knew that God had:

“begat…us with the word of truth.”

James knew that Abraham:

“believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.”

James knew that Abraham’s later obedience:

“fulfilled”

that declaration.

James heard Peter confess salvation:

“through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

And James insisted that a faith merely professed with the lips but never acted upon was:

“dead, being alone.”

James could remain devoted to Israel’s kingdom expectation and insist upon the obedience appropriate to that expectation without believing that those works purchased righteousness from God.

That distinction allows us to take James seriously without turning him into Paul.

There is distinction.

There is context.

There is development.

And there is harmony.

As with Peter and Paul:

Difference does not require contradiction.

Harmony does not require identicality.

And sometimes the best way to demonstrate the harmony of Scripture is simply to allow each writer to say exactly what God gave him to say.

Faith, Works, and Justification in the Epistle of James

BUT WHAT ABOUT JAMES?

This article grew out of a thoughtful response to our earlier consideration of Peter and Paul.

The question was essentially this:

What about James?

If Peter had come to understand that salvation rested upon the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, what did James understand?

The question becomes especially interesting because Acts presents an intriguing picture.

Peter had been prominent throughout the opening chapters of Acts. He preached at Pentecost. He confronted Israel concerning the rejection of her Messiah. He healed the lame man. He stood before Israel’s rulers. And when God determined to send him to the Gentile Cornelius, Peter required a vision repeated three times before he would go.

Peter was unmistakably identified with Israel and her prophetic expectation.

Yet by Acts 15 something appears to have changed.

Peter gives crucial testimony:

“But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.”

— Acts 15:11

But Peter does not render the concluding judgment of the Jerusalem council.

James does.

“Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:”

— Acts 15:19

James’s prominence at Jerusalem is also evident elsewhere. Paul later speaks of men who:

“came from James”

— Galatians 2:12

And when Paul returns to Jerusalem in Acts 21:

“Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.”

— Acts 21:18

Something has clearly developed in the leadership at Jerusalem.

We need not speculate beyond what Scripture tells us about precisely why that development occurred. But we should recognize that Peter and James need not have occupied identical positions within this changing situation.

Peter had personally been brought through a remarkable progression: from his proclamation of Israel’s prophetic hope in Acts 2 and 3, through the divine intervention that sent him to Cornelius, to his declaration at Jerusalem that:

“through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.”

James, meanwhile, remained prominently identified with Jerusalem, the circumcision, and Israel’s continuing kingdom expectation.

Those different responsibilities may help explain their differing emphases without requiring us to conclude that they held contradictory views of righteousness before God.

James could remain intensely occupied with Israel’s responsibility under her kingdom expectation while fully recognizing that righteousness itself was never something Israel could earn from God.

That distinction is important.

James does not have to become Paul in order to understand grace.

Neither does James have to abandon his responsibility toward Israel merely because God is revealing and accomplishing something different among the Gentiles through Paul.

This raises the question we really need to answer.

Did James believe that works had to be added to faith in order for righteousness to be imputed?

If not, what did he mean when he wrote:

“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

— James 2:24

Few statements appear more difficult to reconcile with Paul:

“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

— Romans 3:28

Paul says:

“justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

James says:

“by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

What are we to do with that?

One solution is simply to make James say what Paul says. James, we are told, really means precisely the same thing as Paul, only expressed differently.

Another solution is to push the distinction so far that James and Paul are allowed to contradict one another—as though righteousness before God could be earned by works in one setting but received by faith in another.

Neither solution is necessary.

As we observed when considering Peter and Paul:

Difference does not require contradiction. Harmony does not require identicality.

The question is not how we can make James sound like Paul.

The question is:

What is James actually saying?

And the place to begin is not James 2:24.

It is James 1:1.

TO WHOM DOES JAMES WRITE?

James identifies his audience immediately:

“James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.”

— James 1:1

That statement should be allowed to mean what it says.

James writes to:

“the twelve tribes.”

His audience is Jewish, and his epistle belongs naturally within Israel’s kingdom expectation.

That setting appears throughout the book.

He speaks of:

“your assembly”

in James 2:2—the underlying word being synagogue.

He speaks of:

“the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him”

— James 2:5

He calls Abraham:

“our father”

— James 2:21

He invokes:

“the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord”

— James 5:10

And the expectation throughout the latter portion of the epistle is unmistakable:

“Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord.”

— James 5:7

And:

“Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.”

— James 5:8

That context matters.

James is not writing Romans before Paul writes Romans.

He is not explaining the Body of Christ.

He is not setting forth Paul’s gospel of the grace of God.

And we should not import Paul’s later and distinctive revelation into James merely because James uses words that also appear in Paul’s epistles.

Content, context, and intent matter.

James must first be allowed to speak within James’s own audience, expectation, and purpose.

A PEOPLE PREPARING FOR TRIAL

James begins his epistle with trial:

“My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;

Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.”

— James 1:2–3

The subject is not incidental.

James is preparing his readers to endure.

“But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.”

— James 1:4

Again:

“Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life…”

— James 1:12

And by the end of the epistle James has returned to the same theme:

“Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job…”

— James 5:11

This is an epistle concerned with faith under pressure.

That observation becomes important when James speaks of salvation.

He writes:

“Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.”

— James 1:21

It would be easy for a reader accustomed to Paul’s terminology to see the word save and immediately hear:

justification from sin by grace through faith.

But James’s context gives us good reason not to make that assumption.

At the conclusion of the epistle James writes:

“Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;

Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.”

— James 5:19–20

Notice that James is addressing:

“Brethren.”

And the soul is explicitly saved:

“from death.”

Within an epistle concerned with trial, endurance, the coming of the Lord, and deliverance, salvation language need not automatically mean Pauline justification.

The language also fits naturally alongside the Lord’s teaching to Israel concerning endurance:

“But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.”

— Matthew 24:13

And:

“In your patience possess ye your souls.”

— Luke 21:19

We should therefore be careful not to enlist James 1:21 as though James were explaining Romans 3–5.

James’s salvation language must be understood within James’s own context.

And that context includes the coming Tribulation and the necessity of faithful endurance in anticipation of the Lord’s return.

ALREADY BEGOTTEN BY THE WORD OF TRUTH

Immediately before James 1:21, however, James has said something important about the people to whom he writes:

“Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.”

— James 1:18

Whatever further deliverance James anticipates for them, he describes these people as already:

“begat…with the word of truth.”

And then he exhorts them:

“But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.”

— James 1:22

That is the point important to our discussion.

James is not addressing pagans who know nothing of God and telling them to perform works so that God might finally make them righteous.

He is addressing people who have received the word of truth and are now being tested concerning whether they will do what they have heard.

That prepares us much better for James 2.

James is deeply concerned with works.

But he is concerned with works in the life of those who profess to believe what God has said.

The question becomes:

Will their faith act?

“THOUGH A MAN SAY HE HATH FAITH”

James asks:

“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?”

— James 2:14

Again, we should resist the temptation to hear Paul’s question merely because James uses the words faith and save.

James has already established his setting.

He is concerned with endurance.

With obedience.

With doing the Word.

With the coming of the Lord.

And now with the profit of a professed faith that produces no corresponding action.

One word deserves particular attention:

“say.”

James does not merely tell us:

A man has faith.

He says:

“though a man say he hath faith.”

A claim is being made.

A profession is being examined.

And James immediately gives us an illustration:

“If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?”

— James 2:15–16

Notice again:

“say.”

Someone says:

“be ye warmed and filled.”

The words sound good.

But the hungry person remains hungry.

The naked person remains unclothed.

James asks:

“what doth it profit?”

Words that produce no corresponding action accomplish nothing for the person in need.

Then James applies his illustration:

“Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”

— James 2:17

James is confronting a profession of faith that produces nothing.

That is why he continues:

“Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.”

— James 2:18

The issue is something that can be:

shown.

Faith itself is invisible.

James says, in effect:

Show it to me.

How?

“I will shew thee my faith by my works.”

Works make faith visible.

They demonstrate what a man actually believes.

And that prepares us for Abraham.

ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD

James writes:

“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?”

— James 2:21

Paul writes:

“For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.”

— Romans 4:2–3

There is no benefit in pretending those statements do not create a difficulty.

James says:

“justified by works.”

Paul says:

“if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.”

But before declaring contradiction, we should ask a simple question:

When did these things happen?

Paul reaches back to Genesis 15:

“And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.”

— Genesis 15:6

Abraham believed God.

God counted righteousness to him.

James, however, points to another event:

“when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar.”

That is Genesis 22.

These events are separated by years.

Abraham did not first believe God when he raised the knife over Isaac.

He had already believed God.

Righteousness had already been counted to him.

And James himself knows it.

Indeed, James quotes the very same Scripture Paul quotes.

But notice how James describes its relationship to Abraham’s later work:

“And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness…”

— James 2:23

That word deserves our attention:

fulfilled.

James does not say that Abraham’s offering of Isaac caused Genesis 15:6 finally to become true.

Genesis 15:6 was already true.

Abraham had believed God.

Righteousness had been imputed to him.

Years later Abraham acted upon his confidence in what God had said.

James explains:

“Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?”

— James 2:22

Notice the relationship.

James does not say:

works replaced faith.

He says:

“faith wrought with his works.”

The faith worked.

And:

“by works was faith made perfect.”

The word perfect fits James’s argument from the beginning of the epistle:

“But let patience have her perfect work…”

— James 1:4

The idea is completion, maturity, something brought to its intended expression.

Abraham’s faith did not remain merely a confession.

It acted.

Genesis 22 demonstrated in action the confidence Abraham had already placed in what God had said.

WHAT DID ABRAHAM BELIEVE?

This becomes even more significant when we remember what God had promised Abraham.

Isaac was not incidental.

God had said:

“for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.”

— Genesis 21:12

Yet God subsequently commanded Abraham to offer Isaac.

Abraham’s obedience therefore required him to act upon his confidence that God’s word concerning Isaac could not fail.

Hebrews explains Abraham’s reasoning:

“Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead…”

— Hebrews 11:19

Abraham acted because Abraham believed God.

His work did not substitute for faith.

His work expressed faith.

That is precisely what James has been arguing:

“I will shew thee my faith by my works.”

FAITH WAS NOT ABRAHAM’S WORK

James does not oppose faith and works as though Abraham could choose one means of acceptance or the other.

He joins them:

“faith wrought with his works.”

The works proceeded from the faith.

That matters when we compare James with Paul.

Paul writes:

“Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”

— Romans 4:4–5

Paul is answering a particular question:

Upon what basis can God justify the ungodly?

The answer cannot be human works.

If righteousness is earned, it becomes:

“debt.”

James is addressing a different problem:

What value does a professed faith have if the person will not act upon what God has said?

Those are not identical questions.

Consequently, we should not demand identical answers.

EVEN THE DEVILS BELIEVE

James presses the point:

“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.”

— James 2:19

This verse is sometimes treated as though James were saying:

Faith cannot save because even devils have saving faith.

But that is not what James says.

The devils know something true:

there is one God.

They do not dispute His existence.

Indeed:

“they tremble.”

But intellectual acknowledgment of a fact is not the same thing as faithful confidence in what God has said.

Abraham believed God sufficiently to act upon God’s word.

The devils’ acknowledgment produces no faithful obedience to Him.

Again, James is testing the character of a professed faith.

Is it merely something said?

Or does the person actually act upon what he claims to believe?

RAHAB MAKES THE SAME POINT

James’s second example is Rahab:

“Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?”

— James 2:25

Why did Rahab receive the spies?

Joshua records her confession:

“I know that the LORD hath given you the land…”

— Joshua 2:9

And:

“for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.”

— Joshua 2:11

Rahab had heard what God was doing.

She believed what she had heard concerning Israel’s God and Israel’s coming possession of the land.

Then she acted accordingly.

Think of the alternative.

Suppose Rahab had said:

I believe the LORD has given Israel this land.

And then immediately delivered Israel’s spies to the king of Jericho.

Her actions would have contradicted her profession.

Instead, her actions demonstrated that she actually believed what she had confessed.

Again:

faith acted upon what God had said.

Her works did not create the truth.

Her works demonstrated her confidence in it.

WHAT, THEN, DOES JAMES MEAN BY “JUSTIFIED”?

We should allow James to use the word within his own argument.

James is not writing an exposition of Paul’s gospel.

He is not discussing an ungodly Gentile asking:

How can I receive the righteousness of God apart from the law?

That question is central to Paul’s argument in Romans.

James is writing to the twelve tribes in a setting characterized by trial, endurance, kingdom expectation, and the approaching coming of the Lord.

He confronts people who say they have faith.

He asks:

“what doth it profit?”

He challenges:

“shew me thy faith.”

He points to Abraham, whose obedience:

“fulfilled”

the Scripture which had already declared:

“Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.”

James is concerned with faith demonstrated—faith brought to completion in action.

Paul is concerned with the basis upon which the ungodly can be declared righteous before God.

The distinction allows both writers to say exactly what they say.

We do not need to rewrite either one.

BUT JAMES IS NOT PAUL

Here we need the same care that was necessary when considering Peter and Paul.

Recognizing harmony does not require us to eliminate distinction.

James is not writing Romans.

His audience is:

“the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad.”

His readers stand within Israel’s expectation.

His epistle prepares them for trial, endurance, and the coming of the Lord.

His language concerning faith, works, salvation, and endurance must first be understood within that setting.

Paul’s distinctive apostleship and the revelation committed to him should not simply be read backward into James.

James does not give us Paul’s developed explanation of justification in Romans 3–5.

He does not develop our identification with Christ as Paul does in Romans 6.

He does not explain the one Body as Paul does in Ephesians.

He does not unfold the believer’s heavenly position in Christ.

And we should not require James to teach revelation God entrusted particularly to Paul.

But neither does that require us to conclude that James teaches sinful men can accumulate works sufficient to place God in their debt for righteousness.

James can be different from Paul without being contrary to Paul.

James does not have to be Paul in order not to contradict Paul.

JAMES AND THE JERUSALEM COUNCIL

There is another piece of evidence that should not be ignored.

In Acts 15, the apostles and elders gathered at Jerusalem over the controversy concerning Gentiles, circumcision, and the law.

Peter stood and said:

“Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.”

— Acts 15:10–11

That is an extraordinary statement.

Peter does not say merely that Gentiles can somehow be fitted into Israel’s existing arrangement.

He says:

“we shall be saved, even as they.”

And the basis he names is:

“the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Then Barnabas and Paul speak.

And afterward:

“James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles…”

— Acts 15:13–14

James heard Peter’s declaration.

He heard the testimony of Barnabas and Paul.

And James did not rise to correct Peter’s statement concerning salvation through:

“the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Instead, he accepts Peter’s testimony and proceeds to give his judgment concerning the Gentiles.

That does not make James a Pauline apostle.

It does not make his epistle Pauline.

It does not erase the distinction between Israel’s kingdom program and the revelation committed to Paul.

But neither can James’s words in chapter 2 legitimately be made to mean that faith was insufficient and that works had to be added to faith in order for God to impute righteousness.

James himself has already told us otherwise.

Abraham:

“believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.”

That imputation occurred in Genesis 15.

The work to which James appeals occurred years later in Genesis 22.

James does not say that the later work completed an otherwise insufficient imputation of righteousness.

He says:

“the scripture was fulfilled.”

Abraham’s work demonstrated and brought to expression the faith already present when righteousness was imputed to him.

And at Jerusalem James heard Peter declare that salvation was:

“through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

He did not contradict him.

James’s insistence upon works must therefore be allowed to serve the purpose James himself gives them: not as an addition to faith required to obtain imputed righteousness from God, but as the necessary expression of a faith that acts upon what God has said.

James teaches a faith that works. He does not teach faith plus works as the means by which righteousness is imputed.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO “CAME FROM JAMES”?

That still leaves an uncomfortable incident.

Paul tells us concerning Peter:

“For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.”

— Galatians 2:12

Why were men “from James” associated with an incident in which Peter separated himself from Gentiles?

First, we should be precise about what Paul actually says.

He does not say that Peter feared James.

He says Peter was:

“fearing them which were of the circumcision.”

Neither does Paul tell us that James had instructed these men to require Peter to separate from the Gentiles.

They:

“came from James.”

We should not make that statement say more than it says.

But neither should we minimize the tension.

Peter had been eating with Gentiles.

When these men arrived, he withdrew.

And Paul tells us that Peter knew better.

Paul calls his behavior:

“dissimulation.”

Indeed, Barnabas himself:

“also was carried away with their dissimulation.”

— Galatians 2:13

That word is significant.

This was not simply a theological disagreement in which Peter sincerely believed one doctrine and Paul another.

Peter’s conduct ceased to correspond with what he already knew.

The incident therefore demonstrates something important about this transitional period.

Doctrinal understanding did not instantly erase deeply rooted Jewish distinctions, customs, social pressures, or sensitivities surrounding fellowship with Gentiles.

James remained at the center of a strongly Jewish believing community in Jerusalem.

Peter had been compelled by God Himself to cross a boundary he initially resisted crossing.

Paul had been commissioned as the apostle of the Gentiles.

Those realities could produce genuine tension without requiring three contradictory doctrines of justification.

That is why we must distinguish between:

how righteousness is imputed

and:

how believing Israel was expected to live and respond within her kingdom program.

Confusing those questions creates much of the apparent contradiction.

HARMONY WITHOUT IDENTICALITY

We therefore need not choose between two unnecessary alternatives.

We do not have to say:

James and Paul are saying exactly the same thing.

And we do not have to say:

James and Paul contradict one another.

James writes within his own audience, context, and purpose.

Paul writes within his.

Paul tells us:

“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”

— Romans 4:5

James tells us:

“shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.”

— James 2:18

Both statements should be allowed to stand.

Paul excludes works as the ground upon which the ungodly are justified before God.

James insists upon works as the expression of a faith that acts upon what God has said.

Paul takes us to Abraham in Genesis 15:

“Abraham believed God.”

James takes us years later to Abraham in Genesis 22 and says that through his obedience:

“the scripture was fulfilled.”

One does not cancel the other.

One need not be made identical to the other.

Abraham believed God.

Righteousness was imputed.

Then Abraham acted upon what God had said.

The harmony is real.

The distinction is equally real.

WORDS MEAN THINGS

Perhaps the difficulty with James teaches us something larger about reading Scripture.

Words mean things.

But words do not exist in isolation.

They must be understood according to their:

content,

context,

and:

intent.

We have already seen this with the word save.

To see:

“save your souls”

in James 1:21 and automatically substitute Paul’s doctrine of justification is to allow familiar theological usage to override James’s context.

The same care is required with:

faith.

works.

justify.

The word justify cannot simply be lifted from James, placed beside the same word in Romans, and required to carry every shade of meaning and theological purpose Paul develops there.

Nor can the word works automatically be assumed to address precisely the same issue every time it appears.

We must ask:

Who is speaking?

To whom?

About what?

Under what circumstances?

For what purpose?

And what argument is actually being made?

When we do that, the apparent contradiction begins to disappear without diminishing either writer.

James can say:

“by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

Paul can say:

“a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

And Scripture need not be embarrassed by either statement.

The problem arises when we demand that two different writers, addressing different audiences and different questions within distinguishable dispensational settings, must use theological vocabulary in precisely the same way.

LET JAMES BE JAMES

Perhaps that is ultimately the safest conclusion.

Let James be James.

Let Peter be Peter.

Let Paul be Paul.

Do not make James a premature Pauline apostle.

Do not make Paul merely a later commentator on James.

Do not erase their audiences.

Do not erase their expectations.

Do not erase the progress of revelation.

And do not take salvation language belonging naturally to Israel’s Tribulation and kingdom expectation and automatically redefine it according to Paul’s later explanation of justification.

But neither should we manufacture contradiction where Scripture does not require it.

James knew that God had:

“begat…us with the word of truth.”

James knew that Abraham:

“believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.”

James knew that Abraham’s later obedience:

“fulfilled”

that declaration.

James heard Peter confess salvation:

“through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

And James insisted that a faith merely professed with the lips but never acted upon was:

“dead, being alone.”

James could remain devoted to Israel’s kingdom expectation and insist upon the obedience appropriate to that expectation without believing that those works purchased righteousness from God.

That distinction allows us to take James seriously without turning him into Paul.

There is distinction.

There is context.

There is development.

And there is harmony.

As with Peter and Paul:

Difference does not require contradiction.

Harmony does not require identicality.

And sometimes the best way to demonstrate the harmony of Scripture is simply to allow each writer to say exactly what God gave him to say.

Today, whether you are married with kids or just have a busy schedule with many responsibilities, reading the Word can be challenging. First, make it a priority to have study time with prayer and think about how to apply what you learn. Next, consider reading verses about the importance of the Scripture, like Heb. 4:12, II Tim. 2:15, I Thess. 2:13, and Rom. 10:17. Put it to prayer to begin this new habit, allowing God to work the doctrine within you by the Spirit and think about how to put it into practice. As you pray, remember: “And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men.” (Colossians 3:23)

When you are ready, assess your day and what works best for you, mornings, evenings, or during the day. It may work best to make study time early in the morning before the distractions of the day envelop you into the affairs of this life. When I homeschooled young ones, I got up before my family to find quiet, uninterrupted time. I ended up being able to have personal time, but also self-care (like exercising), straightening, cleaning, and organizing school with minimal distractions.

2. How can I encourage my spouse to read and study the Word with me?

In my experience this can be done best by example, setting quiet time for yourself with God first. Periodically, share what you’re reading, ask him a question to gain insight into his thinking, which provides opportunity for him to function as your spiritual head: “… the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” (I Cor. 11:3) Difficult or too many questions can intimidate, therefore in love, make them reasonable for him to know or find out. He can study it, ask a friend, or consult a teacher or resource. This can motivate and encourage him to see that you need him in this role. Slowly over time, tell him how you feel, being gentle without pressure. Relay that you would joy to study with him as you appreciate his insights and spending time with him.

Sometimes beginning a new habit can be hard, so be careful with expectations. Begin with once a month for a short time, 5–15-minute sessions to see how it goes. Expand or reduce it as needed. Be sure not to talk too much or take the role of his teacher or corrector. Start by reading together and discussing passages. In time you may want to add prayer. Enjoy the process. His perception of it as pleasurable rather than pressure will affect the outcome. Pray for grace. Prepare yourself as this may be a long process before having consistent time together. Be genuinely thankful for every positive effort, but also be in regular prayer for him and yourself. Purpose to have a love attitude in grace to avoid legalism.

3. I have a hard time keeping my house clean. Any suggestions?

a) Re-eval: As an older Mom homeschooling two young ones, I recall being challenged in this area, especially with a history of wanting everything just so, being hyper-clean. My expectations definitely changed. I had to let many things go and accept my new situation. Be sure to do this, re-evaluating regularly.

b) Schedule and pair tasks with your routine: Initially, take 3-5 minutes to tidy-up key rooms or zones. Start with one area, then two, and the rest. Personalize this idea to meet your needs: Bedroom: Once you get up, make the bed, replace pillows, pick up dirty clothes, etc. Bathroom: Get up, use the facilities, then wipe the counters, sink, mirror, and toilet before you leave the room. Kitchen: Make your tea or coffee, and while it’s brewing, wipe the counters, sink, and clean or put away dishes. Family Room: Once you finish your Bible-Prayer time, straighten the living area: pillows, papers, toys, etc.

c) Set regular days at a set time, associated with another activity, to do a deep clean various parts of the house. i.e. Have your kids work with you, like Sunday assign the kids to strip the beds and put it in the washer as soon as they get up. After Church do the laundry. Monday after lunch, thoroughly clean bathrooms; have the kids clean the sinks. Wednesdays after breakfast do a thorough cleaning of the kitchen. Involve the children to develop a chart with pictures for weekly jobs that will teach but also help you keep the home clean. Reinforce good work.

4. What are some self-care suggestions for a very busy wife who works?

As a coach, I have observed how hard it is to do self-care; it is often seen as selfish and self-indulgent. However, God highly values each of us, dying in our place to pay for all sin. We are instructed, “That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour. (I Thess. 4:4) If you are over-tired, depleted of resources, not having time in the Word nor communion with the Father, what will the quality of your attitude, work, and interactions look like? They will be significantly off from your best.

Your biggest ministry is your immediate family and all our labor is to be unto the Lord: “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.” (Col. 3:17) Make time each morning to address your spiritual needs: reflect on the day, how you’re doing, pray, and read His Word. We also have physical needs, like rest, exercise, time alone with our husbands and friends or away to get a break. Plan these into your schedule, asking your husband for help.

Peter, Paul, Faith, Works, and the Importance of Right Division

The following is adapted from a chapter in a book project I am presently developing on the distinctive apostleship and gospel committed to Paul. One of the purposes of that project is to examine not only where Paul’s message differs from what preceded it, but also where Scripture requires us to recognize continuity. Distinction should never be manufactured merely for the sake of making Paul different.

The confrontation between Peter and Paul in Galatians 2 provides a particularly revealing test case. It raises a question I believe deserves more attention than it commonly receives:

What did the man who preached Acts 2:38 know about justification?

Few doctrines stand nearer the heart of Paul’s gospel than justification.

“Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:”

— Romans 5:1

Yet precisely because justification occupies such a prominent place in Paul’s writings, it is tempting to assume that justification by faith itself must have originated with Paul’s revelation.

That conclusion goes farther than Scripture allows.

Paul unquestionably reveals dimensions of justification inseparably connected with the gospel committed to him. He explains the Cross as the righteous ground upon which God justifies the ungodly. He declares justification to be freely by God’s grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. He connects Christ’s resurrection with our justification and unfolds the believer’s standing in Christ apart from the works of the Law.

But Paul did not introduce faith into God’s dealings with man.

Nor did he reveal for the first time that human works possess no merit by which a sinner can establish righteousness before God.

That distinction is essential.

What is distinctive about Paul’s gospel must be determined by revelation, not by our need to make Paul different.

And perhaps no passage demonstrates that principle more clearly than a confrontation between two apostles in Antioch.

WHEN PAUL WITHSTOOD PETER

Galatians 2 records one of the most remarkable confrontations in the New Testament.

Paul writes:

“But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.”

— Galatians 2:11

Peter had been eating with Gentiles.

That fact itself is significant.

He was not living in complete separation from them according to the traditional Jewish pattern. Something had changed in Peter’s understanding and practice.

But when certain men came from James:

“he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.”

— Galatians 2:12

Peter’s actions affected others:

“And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.”

— Galatians 2:13

Paul recognized that considerably more was at stake than where Peter chose to eat.

“But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel...”

— Galatians 2:14

Peter’s conduct was communicating something contrary to the truth of the gospel.

Paul therefore confronted him publicly:

“If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”

— Galatians 2:14

Then Paul says something extraordinarily important:

“We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ...”

— Galatians 2:15–16

Notice the language.

“We.”

And:

“Knowing.”

Paul does not say:

Peter, I am about to reveal something you could never previously have known.

He appeals to something they know.

“We who are Jews by nature...”

“Knowing...”

Peter’s conduct was inconsistent with Paul’s gospel, but Paul’s rebuke appeals to a principle concerning justification that Peter already understood.

That observation deserves considerable weight.

Peter knew the Law.

Peter knew circumcision.

Peter knew Israel’s covenant requirements.

Peter had preached repentance.

Peter had preached water baptism.

Yet Paul could address that same Peter and say:

“We...knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law.”

This raises an important question.

WHAT DID THE MAN WHO PREACHED ACTS 2:38 KNOW ABOUT JUSTIFICATION?

Peter had stood before Israel on the day of Pentecost and declared:

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...”

— Acts 2:38

Whatever interpretation we give those words, we must permit them to say what they say.

Peter required repentance.

Peter required baptism.

He connected that response with remission of sins and the promised gift of the Holy Ghost.

We should not weaken Peter’s words merely because they differ from the terminology of Paul’s later ministry.

But neither should we interpret Peter’s requirements in a manner that forces Peter to believe something Scripture tells us he knew was false.

The Peter who preached Acts 2:38 is the Peter to whom Paul could say:

“We...knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law.”

Galatians 2 therefore provides an important interpretive control.

It does not rewrite Acts 2.

It does not turn Peter’s message into Paul’s gospel.

It does not make water baptism optional within Peter’s proclamation.

Rather, it establishes a boundary around what we may reasonably conclude Peter believed about the relationship between works and justification.

A later passage need not change the meaning of an earlier passage in order to place boundaries around interpretations of that earlier passage.

And here the connection is particularly compelling because we are dealing with the same man.

Acts 2 tells us what Peter preached.

Galatians 2 tells us something about what the man who preached it knew concerning justification.

That distinction protects us from two opposite errors.

We need not make Peter’s gospel Paul’s gospel.

And we need not make Peter a preacher of meritorious justification in order to preserve the distinctiveness of Paul.

The answer is not to make Peter’s message Pauline, nor to make Peter’s justification meritorious. It is to understand Peter’s requirements within the purpose and administration in which God gave them.

AN INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE WITHIN A NATIONAL APPEAL

Acts 2:38 does not occur in a vacuum.

Peter’s audience is identified repeatedly.

“Ye men of Judaea...”

— Acts 2:14

“Ye men of Israel, hear these words...”

— Acts 2:22

His indictment concerns Israel’s rejection of her Messiah:

“Jesus of Nazareth...ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.”

— Acts 2:22–23

Peter then connects Christ’s resurrection with the Davidic promise:

“Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins...he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ...”

— Acts 2:30–31

Then Peter brings the indictment home:

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

— Acts 2:36

Only then comes the question:

“Men and brethren, what shall we do?”

— Acts 2:37

Peter’s answer must be understood in relation to the question.

Israel had rejected her Messiah.

God had raised Him from the dead.

The resurrection vindicated the very Christ whom the nation had crucified.

What were believing Israelites now to do?

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you...”

The appeal is national in its setting, but personal in its response.

That distinction matters.

A national message can demand an individual response without becoming merely an individual message.

Peter says:

“every one of you.”

Individual Israelites had to respond.

But the fact that individuals responded does not erase the corporate context from which the appeal arose.

Peter continues:

“And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.”

— Acts 2:40

The believing Israelite was called to separate himself from the unbelieving generation that had rejected Messiah.

Acts 3 confirms the same framework.

Peter again addresses:

“Ye men of Israel...”

— Acts 3:12

Again he rehearses their rejection:

“But ye denied the Holy One and the Just...”

— Acts 3:14

And:

“And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead...”

— Acts 3:15

Then comes the appeal:

“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out...”

— Acts 3:19

The passage immediately proceeds into the times of refreshing, the return of Christ, “the restitution of all things,” the prophets, Abraham, and finally:

“Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers...”

— Acts 3:25

The setting is unmistakable.

Peter’s message belongs to Israel’s prophetic and covenantal expectation.

Individuals must respond, but they respond within a national program.

REQUIRED DOES NOT MEAN MERITORIOUS

This distinction helps us understand the place of works and obedience in Israel’s program.

God gave Israel real requirements.

Circumcision was required.

The Law contained real commandments.

John’s baptism was not presented as an optional ceremony.

Peter’s command to repent and be baptized was not merely a suggestion.

Faithful interpretation must allow those requirements to retain their force.

But a requirement is not necessarily a merit.

A work can be required without being meritorious.

That distinction is easily lost.

When God commanded an Israelite to do something, obedience mattered. Israel’s covenant life contained genuine conditions concerning blessing, chastisement, deliverance, possession, restoration, and participation in the promises made to the nation.

The Old Testament repeatedly contains the language of condition:

If...then.

That conditional structure was real.

But it does not follow that every required act supplied some portion of the righteousness by which an individual sinner was justified before God.

The distinction between requirement and merit must be maintained.

Neither should we say that the requirements were unimportant because “faith was all that mattered.”

That would create another error.

Faith believes what God says.

If God commands a particular response within the revelation He has given, faith cannot dismiss that response while claiming to believe Him.

Thus:

Because faith responds to revelation, the required expression of faith may differ as revelation and administration differ; but the expression of faith must never be confused with the meritorious ground of justification.

This allows the dispensational differences to remain genuine without transforming earlier administrations into systems in which sinners earned righteousness.

ISRAEL’S NATIONAL SALVATION

Luke’s account of Zacharias provides an excellent example of the national dimension of Israel’s salvation.

Filled with the Holy Ghost, Zacharias prophesied:

“Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,

And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;”

— Luke 1:68–69

What salvation does he anticipate?

“That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;

To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;

The oath which he sware to our father Abraham...”

— Luke 1:71–73

This is plainly more than an abstract statement concerning the individual sinner’s justification.

Israel’s redemption included national deliverance.

It involved enemies.

It involved covenant.

It involved promises to the fathers.

It involved the house of David.

It involved the nation serving God:

“In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.”

— Luke 1:75

Israel therefore encountered salvation language in a context where personal faith, covenant obedience, national blessing, deliverance, and prophetic expectation stood together.

If those categories are indiscriminately collapsed, works associated with Israel’s covenantal program can easily be mistaken for the meritorious basis of personal justification.

Paul helps us separate them.

And remarkably, he does so by returning to men who lived long before his apostleship.

ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD

Paul asks:

“For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.”

— Romans 4:3

Abraham did many things in obedience to God.

He left his homeland.

He received circumcision.

He offered Isaac.

His life was marked by acts of obedience arising from faith.

Yet when Paul asks how righteousness was counted to Abraham, his answer is not:

Abraham earned it.

It is:

“Abraham believed God.”

Paul immediately draws the distinction:

“Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.”

— Romans 4:4

If righteousness were earned, God would owe it.

That is precisely what Paul denies.

Then:

“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”

— Romans 4:5

Abraham’s works were real.

His obedience was real.

But his works were not the meritorious basis upon which God counted him righteous.

And Abraham is especially useful because he lived before the Law.

But Paul does not stop with Abraham.

DAVID UNDER THE LAW

Paul next turns to David:

“Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.”

— Romans 4:6–8

David lived under the Law.

Yet Paul deliberately uses David to describe:

“the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.”

The significance is difficult to avoid.

Abraham lived before the Law.

David lived under the Law.

Peter ministered within Israel’s prophetic and covenantal program.

And Paul can appeal across these administrations without suggesting that human works supplied the meritorious ground of personal justification.

This does not mean that Abraham, David, Peter, and Paul all preached the same gospel.

They did not.

It means that the principle of faith must not be confused with the content of the gospel being believed.

FAITH IS NOT THE GOSPEL

This distinction is fundamental.

Faith is not the gospel. Faith is man’s response to the revelation of God.

The content presented to faith may change as revelation progresses; the necessity of believing God does not.

Galatians provides an especially clear example.

Paul writes:

“And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.”

— Galatians 3:8

Scripture explicitly calls something preached to Abraham “the gospel.”

And Scripture tells us its content:

“In thee shall all nations be blessed.”

Abraham was not told:

“Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures...and...rose again the third day.”

He could not believe revelation God had not yet given.

He believed what God revealed to him.

And God counted his faith for righteousness.

Thus two truths stand together without contradiction:

Abraham was justified through faith.

Abraham did not believe Paul’s gospel.

The unifying principle is not that God preached one identical gospel message in every dispensation.

The unifying principle is faith in what God revealed.

Different gospels do not require different principles of justification.

And the same principle of justification does not require identical gospels.

Difference does not require contradiction. Harmony does not require identicality.

PETER AND PAUL: HARMONY AND DISTINCTION

We can now return to Antioch with greater clarity.

Peter and Paul harmonize concerning the insufficiency of works as the meritorious basis of justification.

Paul can say:

“We...knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law...”

But that harmony does not erase their distinct ministries or messages.

Peter had proclaimed Israel’s Messiah to Israel.

His appeal arose from the nation’s rejection of Christ.

He called Israelites to repent.

He required baptism.

He promised the Holy Ghost.

He called believing Israelites to separate themselves from an untoward generation.

His preaching looked toward the times of refreshing, the return of Christ, the restitution spoken by the prophets, and the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises to the fathers.

Paul’s gospel does not simply reproduce that proclamation.

Paul declares:

“Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:”

— Romans 3:24

There is no appeal here for Israel nationally to reverse her rejection of Messiah.

There is no call to separate from an unbelieving generation of Israel through water baptism.

There is no covenantal restoration of the nation attached to the offer.

Instead Paul unfolds the meaning of the finished work of Christ as the ground upon which God justifies the ungodly.

The harmony is real.

The distinction is equally real.

And both must be allowed to stand.

Right division requires us to distinguish things that differ, but it never gives us permission to make biblical persons believe contradictory propositions merely because they ministered under distinguishable administrations.

Galatians 2 demonstrates both principles at once.

Peter knew that works of the Law could not justify.

Yet Peter’s conduct was not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel entrusted to Paul.

Distinctive revelation to Paul did not require Peter to have been wrong about everything before Paul received it.

Nor did Peter’s recognition of truth revealed through Paul make their apostleships identical.

Scripture gives us something more precise than either extreme.

BUT BY THE FAITH OF JESUS CHRIST

Paul’s words to Peter deserve further attention:

“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ...”

— Galatians 2:16

The wording should not be casually flattened.

Paul says:

“the faith of Jesus Christ”

and then:

“we have believed in Jesus Christ.”

Whatever else we say about the expression, Paul plainly distinguishes Christ’s faith from the believer’s act of believing within the sentence itself.

Our faith is not a meritorious substitute for works.

Faith does not become the one human contribution that finally earns God’s righteousness.

The saving merit resides in Christ.

Paul similarly writes:

“But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe...”

— Romans 3:21–22

Again we encounter both:

“faith of Jesus Christ”

and:

“them that believe.”

The believer receives.

Christ provides.

Faith does not purchase righteousness.

Grace provides what faith could never earn.

And now we approach something particularly distinctive in Paul’s explanation of justification.

THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD REVEALED

Paul writes:

“But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;”

— Romans 3:21

Notice again the harmony and distinction.

“But now...manifested.”

There is revelation appropriate to the present.

Yet it is:

“witnessed by the law and the prophets.”

Paul does not need to choose between continuity and new revelation.

Neither should we.

He continues:

“Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;”

— Romans 3:22–23

Here Paul’s proclamation moves beyond Israel’s national distinctions.

There is:

“no difference.”

Jew and Gentile stand together as sinners.

The question is no longer Israel’s covenant standing among the nations.

The question is man’s universal guilt before God.

And Paul’s answer is magnificent:

“Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:”

— Romans 3:24

Justified.

Freely.

By His grace.

Through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

This is not righteousness earned by obedience.

It is not righteousness supplied partly by God and partly by man.

It is not Israel fulfilling covenant conditions so that national blessing may follow.

God justifies freely by His grace.

But grace does not mean God simply ignores sin.

The Cross explains how a righteous God can justify the ungodly.

JUST AND THE JUSTIFIER

Paul continues:

“Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.”

— Romans 3:25–26

Here we reach one of the great heights of Paul’s gospel.

The question is not merely:

How can a sinner be forgiven?

It is:

How can God justify the ungodly and remain perfectly righteous in doing so?

The answer is Christ.

His blood.

His redemption.

His propitiatory sacrifice.

God does not compromise righteousness in order to exercise grace.

The Cross declares His righteousness.

God remains:

“just.”

And at the same time He becomes:

“the justifier.”

Grace is not divine leniency.

Grace rests upon the finished work of Christ.

This is where Paul’s revelation concerning justification reaches beyond merely stating that a man must believe God.

Paul unfolds the accomplishment of Christ as the righteous basis upon which God can justify the believer freely.

The principle of faith is ancient.

The full significance of the Cross upon which present justification rests is part of the revelation now manifested.

DELIVERED FOR OUR OFFENCES

Romans 4 began with Abraham.

It ends with Christ.

Paul speaks of Abraham’s faith:

“Who against hope believed in hope...”

— Romans 4:18

Then:

“And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.”

— Romans 4:22

But Paul immediately adds:

“Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;

But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.”

— Romans 4:23–25

Here harmony and distinction meet again.

Abraham believed God.

We believe God.

Righteousness was imputed to Abraham through faith.

Righteousness is imputed to us through faith.

But Abraham did not possess the revelation contained in Romans 4:25.

Christ has now been delivered for our offences.

Christ has now been raised again for our justification.

The historical accomplishment has occurred.

Its significance has been revealed.

Thus the principle is continuous while the content of revelation has advanced enormously.

Christ’s resurrection is not merely proof that He survived death.

He:

“was raised again for our justification.”

The risen Christ is at the heart of the righteous standing Paul proclaims.

REDEMPTION THAT IS IN CHRIST

Paul describes justification as coming:

“through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”

Redemption was not a new word.

Israel knew redemption.

God had redeemed Israel from Egypt.

Zacharias could declare concerning Israel:

“he hath visited and redeemed his people.”

But once again, harmony does not require identicality.

Israel’s prophetic redemption included national deliverance, covenant fulfillment, restoration, and freedom from her enemies.

Paul reveals redemption centered in the blood of Christ and the believer’s position in Him.

“In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;”

— Ephesians 1:7

And:

“In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:”

— Colossians 1:14

The believer does not await national deliverance before possessing redemption.

“We have redemption.”

It is ours in Christ.

It is through His blood.

It includes the forgiveness of sins.

And Paul carries redemption even to its bodily conclusion:

“waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.”

— Romans 8:23

Paul’s doctrine of redemption therefore reaches from guilt all the way to glory.

The sinner is justified.

The believer possesses redemption.

Sin is forgiven.

The believer is identified with Christ.

And ultimately the mortal body itself will be redeemed from corruption and death.

NO DIFFERENCE

One further distinction must not be overlooked.

Peter’s Pentecostal message addressed Israel within her national and covenantal setting.

Paul declares:

“For there is no difference:

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;”

— Romans 3:22–23

The former distinction between Israel and the nations supplied no advantage at the bar of God’s righteousness.

Paul makes the point again:

“For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.”

— Romans 10:12

This does not mean that Israel’s former distinctions were imaginary.

They were established by God.

But in the present proclamation of grace, they provide no privileged avenue of justification.

The Jew is not justified because he possesses the Law.

The Gentile is not excluded because he stood outside Israel’s covenants.

Both stand as sinners.

Both require God’s righteousness.

And that righteousness is found in Christ.

The distinction between Peter and Paul therefore cannot be reduced merely to two different ways of getting individuals saved.

Their ministries operate within different revealed administrations.

Peter addresses Israel’s prophetic and covenantal crisis.

Paul proclaims God’s righteousness to a world in which the former national distinction provides no basis of acceptance.

Yet beneath those differences stands the same fundamental truth:

No sinner has ever possessed sufficient righteousness of his own to place God in his debt.

FAITH AND THE WORD OF GOD

The principle that runs through the dispensations is therefore neither works nor one unchanging gospel formula.

It is faith.

“Without faith it is impossible to please him...”

— Hebrews 11:6

Faith takes God at His Word.

Abraham believed what God revealed to Abraham.

David trusted the God whose mercy could forgive sin.

Believing Israel responded to what God revealed concerning her Messiah.

And today the sinner is called to believe the gospel committed through Paul concerning what Christ has accomplished through His death and resurrection.

The messages must not be indiscriminately merged.

Neither should the common principle of faith be denied simply to make the dispensations appear more different.

Faith is not the gospel.

Faith believes the gospel God has revealed.

And when revelation changes, faith believes what God has now made known.

This allows us to recognize genuine progressive and dispensational revelation without making God’s righteousness change its character from one age to another.

God has never owed righteousness to sinful man.

Man has never placed God in his debt through human achievement.

God has always been the source of righteousness.

Faith receives what God reveals and provides.

THE GLORY OF PAUL’S GOSPEL

None of this diminishes Paul’s distinctive apostleship.

It clarifies it.

If we insist that everything associated with Paul must have originated with Paul, we eventually call things mysteries that Scripture plainly reveals beforehand.

Faith existed before Paul.

Justification through faith existed before Paul.

Imputed righteousness existed before Paul.

Forgiveness existed before Paul.

Redemption existed before Paul.

The promise of resurrection existed before Paul.

Paul himself appeals to these truths.

His distinctiveness does not depend upon denying them.

What is distinctive about Paul’s gospel must be determined by revelation, not by our need to make Paul different.

And when we permit Scripture to make that determination, Paul’s gospel loses nothing.

It gains clarity.

The risen Christ reveals through Paul the meaning of His finished work in dimensions previously unrevealed.

Christ was delivered for our offences.

He was raised again for our justification.

God justifies freely by His grace.

Redemption is in Christ Jesus.

His blood declares God’s righteousness.

God can therefore remain just while becoming the justifier of the believer.

Jew and Gentile stand without difference in their need.

And the believer possesses a standing in Christ independent of Israel’s covenantal status or national restoration.

That is not a small distinction.

It is magnificent.

We do not magnify Paul’s gospel by making Peter wrong about justification.

We magnify Paul’s gospel by allowing the revelation entrusted to Paul to tell us precisely what God has now made known.

PEACE WITH GOD

Romans 4 closes with Christ:

“Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.”

Then Romans 5 opens with the consequence:

“Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:”

— Romans 5:1

That is where the argument finally rests.

Not in man’s performance.

Not in national privilege.

Not in covenantal identity.

Not in religious achievement.

Not even in faith regarded as a meritorious work.

Through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Faith receives what grace has provided.

And because the basis of justification is Christ rather than ourselves, the result is not uncertainty.

It is:

peace with God.

Peter and Paul need not be made identical for Scripture to harmonize.

Nor must they be made contradictory in order for Paul to be distinctive.

Peter could preach Acts 2:38 within Israel’s national and prophetic program and still know that the works of the Law did not supply the righteousness by which a sinner was justified.

Paul could appeal to that shared understanding while simultaneously holding Peter accountable to the truth of the gospel uniquely entrusted to him.

Abraham could believe one gospel.

Peter could proclaim another.

Paul could receive another by revelation of Jesus Christ.

Yet in every case faith takes God at His Word.

Different revelation.

Different administrations.

Different gospel content.

But never a righteous God obligated by the merit of sinful man.

Right division requires us to distinguish those differences.

It also requires us to believe everything Scripture says about their harmony.

Difference does not require contradiction. Harmony does not require identicality.

And nowhere is that more beautifully demonstrated than in justification—where the sinner contributes no righteousness of his own, God provides everything in Christ, and faith simply rests upon what God has revealed.

“Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

This article is adapted from a chapter of a work in progress exploring Paul’s Gospel—its distinctiveness, its relationship to the prophetic Scriptures, and its place within the harmonious unfolding of God’s eternal purpose in Christ.

Last Sunday for the main service, we were considering Eph, 5:21, which says, “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.”

By saying, “Submitting yourselves,” Paul means “to arrange under” or “to place oneself under.” Notice that Paul doesn’t say, “Force everyone else to submit to you!” He says, “Submitting yourselves.” This is everyone submitting to each other voluntarily.

Man, woman, or child – doesn’t matter. Every single soul is called by God to submit to all the other saints. This is an act voluntary humility to serve others.

Even leadership is a role of service. This is your disposition, as a spiritual leader, to place the interests of all the others above yourself. The great cross-reference would have to be Php 2:3, “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.” With “lowliness of mind,” he means the mindset of a true servant. You know who you are in Christ, already victorious over death, freed from sin, and empowered by His grace, but you have chosen the path of humble servitude like Christ. You’re naturally elevating the needs of others above yourself. This is not poor self-esteem. This is meekness – strength under control with humility.

Then Paul says to esteem other, which means “to consider, count, reckon, or regard.” We are to make reasoned decisions about how we evaluate others. And what did Paul say about how we view others? As better. Better than ourselves. This doesn’t mean they have more value as a person. This means to simply hold them above our own interests.

This is to be our way of life as saints in the Body of Christ.

Yet, Paul will still teach that husbands lead wives, parents lead children, masters oversee servants, and elders oversee local churches.

So how does everyone submit to each other while at the same time function in this framework of structured authority with leaders?

One of my favorite aspects about submission is that it totally forces you to take a deep dive at the Trinity (1 John 5:7), or the triune Godhead, and to really understand this relationship between power structures vs. equal submission.

I love how no one in the Godhead competes for authority or glory or recognition. Instead, they each live to continually honor and exalt the other members.

Let’s start with Christ. He said repeatedly, “I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me” (John 5:30), and He said, “for my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). Greater in authority, not a greater divine person.

But the also Father exalts the Son: The Father gives all authority to Christ (“This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him”—Matt. 17:5). He bestows on Him “a name which is above every name” (Phil. 2:9).

And then you have the Spirit exalting both the Father and Son. A great example of this for me would be those verses in John 16:13-14. The Lord was explaining to the disciples how they’re going to speak the words of God at Pentecost. He said the Spirit “will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak... He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” He’s explaining the process of how Peter will be speaking the words of God at Pentecost. The Spirit will share what He hears in Heaven – the voice of one glorifying Christ. That’s not Christ Himself. That’s the Father. But, you see, the Spirit loves to serve and glorify the Father and Son without asserting Himself.

As a result the Father and Son, both exalt the Spirit. The Father sends the Spirit as the primary Agent of our spiritual renewal when we get saved, and the Spirit’s inspired Word is also magnified above His name (Psalm 138:2).

So we have this beautiful absence of competition in the Trinity. They’re all elevating the others above themselves.

1. The Father points to the Son.

2. The Son glorifies the Father.

3. The Spirit glorifies the Son and the Father.

4. The Father magnifies the Spirit’s work above His name.

5. The Son sends the Spirit into all of us to seal us.

Yet, within the Trinity, there is structure and order.

I’ve always called God the Father “the executive branch of the Godhead.” He’s the one basically in charge, isn’t He? Ephesians 1! But that doesn’t mean He is “more God” than the Son or the Spirit. He is simply the one who was designated to be the divine fountainhead of everything. Plus, everything in this age of grace was by the Father’s design according to all the grace that is in His nature.

As I like to say about the Godhead, “Everything is of the Father, by Jesus Christ, through the Spirit.” They are three who operate as one unit, one God.

Thus, the Father is, basically, in charge of everything. There is structure and order within the Godhead, and there is also at the same time willing, voluntary, happy submission by all the members of the Godhead out of love.

Power structure and authority establishes order - that’s it. It doesn’t establish worth of the person who is in charge. Remember how Paul says in 1 Cor. 15, “when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him” (v. 28). And what is the final result? “that God may be all in all.” In the eternal state, Paul tells us the Son willingly subjects Himself to the Father and His eternal purpose for all of us. And the result is that God will be all in all – He’ll be in us and we’ll be in Him.

Even though the Father is in this position of penultimate authority and the Son is subject to the Father, that doesn’t erase their equality as divine beings. It simply means that both Father and Son have accepted this established hierarchy for the sake of keeping order in the kingdom of God.

Equality does not demand equal authority. Christ doesn’t see authority as defining His worth. For Christ, worth has nothing to do with position of authority. “He humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Phil. 2:8) Then: “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name.” (v. 9)

There’s both equal submission and a power structure in the Trinity. The Son obeys. The Father exalts. Both are submitting. Both are elevating the others above themselves. What does the Father do with His authority? He uses it to exalt the Son. He also uses it to exalt the work of the Spirit and magnifies His Word above His name. And what does the Son do in His submission? He uses His role to exalt and glorify the Father. It’s not like there is equal submission, which means there’s no need for authority. The beauty of the Trinity is the absence of selfishness and the elevation of others within their established power structure and authority.

Not everybody submits to everybody else in the same way. The Father does not submit to the Son in the same way that the Son submits to the Father. Mutual love and submission does not mean identical roles. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit share the exact same divine nature, power, and glory, but they each occupy unique roles and submit and exalt the others in their own way within those roles.

The Son obeyed the Father. He did everything the Father told Him to do. But the Father exalted the Son and entrusted Him with all authority “The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand” (John 3:35). The Father does not obey the Son in the way the Son obeys the Father. Yet the Father continually submits Himself by serving His Son, elevating His Son, from His position of authority. The Spirit has that same kind of relationship.

All three members of the Trinity have completely unique roles. Yet, in those unique roles, they universally submit and elevate the others above themselves.

That is our model.

Ask yourself questions when reading: What was Paul’s heart and specific spiritual desires for the Philippian Church? Would he have had godly objectives for everyone in his life? Do I think this way? Note the sincere affection he had for these saints, sharing his heart through the epistle. For example, just prior to this opening prayer: “Always in every prayer of mine for you all making request with joy…For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ” and in chapter 4: “Therefore, my brethren dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.” (Phil. 1:4,8, 4:1) A godly love heart would generate wanting the best for saints as family, then with the spiritual zeal, purpose to meet those needs.

Application: So as women of faith, think on this and pray for yourself to live this faith to love in this way and be a living sacrifice to minister to others on Christ’s behalf. As Paul is our example, note his heart and how he works this out in his ministry. We can be led by the Spirit in sound doctrine in our personal relationships. As we make time to daily pray for others, this will naturally generate godly love, an awareness of what they need, and how God can use you to show mercy and charity as His ambassador. Begin with one or two individuals, such as your parents, husband, or a dear friend. It takes some thought and a readiness to follow through: “And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.” (Eph.5:2) This kind of service is not fast, instead, it slowly works His Word within us transforming us to be conformed to the image of Christ: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.” (Gal.5:22-23) Find an accountability partner in this endeavor, with a mutual goal to be guided to live this grace doctrine. Review how it is going regularly and evaluate how it can be more effectual. To God be the glory.

Today, there are many Christians who live their lives with the “hope” and belief that God would physically intervene in their physical circumstances here upon the earth. And many would cite bible verses where the power of God was made manifest among the Nation of Israel in “times past.” But is this what God is doing today among the church? We must understand the will of God, and what He is actually doing today with the Church. In the verses below for instance, Exodus 34 shows the covenant God made with Israel alone, and that is, He will do “marvels,” among His Nation and not among any other Nations of this world. So, the question is, does the Church today receive these “marvels” From God? The answer is no; but there are many in Christianity that would say that God continually ‘works a good work’ among them today. But why is this the case? How is it that most Christians believe in some form of ‘signs and wonders,’ and “marvels” being done in their midst? The answer is; since the beginning, mankind desired from God their flesh to be satisfied as a gauge, and ‘proof’ of whether “the LORD is among us, or not.” And with Israel, they saw the marvels, and signs, and wonders, but they expected God to “serve” them! They assumed that the purpose of His power was to ‘place them on high,’ and serve them as a ‘royal people,’ they looked to the other Nations as an example of how they wanted to live in this world and be served by the LORD.

Exo.17:2] Wherefore the people did chide with Moses, and said, Give us water that we may drink. And Moses said unto them, Why chide ye with me? Wherefore do ye tempt the LORD?

[3] And the people thirsted there for water; and the people murmured against Moses, and said, Wherefore is this that thou hast brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?

[4] And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying, What shall I do unto this people? They be almost ready to stone me.

Exo 34:10 And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.

Moreover, Israel looked at the “work” of the LORD as many do today, they take to themselves an attitude of, ‘show me something, and then I will serve you.’ Today’s Preachers teach a prosperity doctrine of, ‘if you sow a seed (give money), you will reap a harvest (more money than you just gave).’ This type of teaching is not scriptural, but is after the lusts of men, man continues to view God’s Word through their ‘carnal lens’ of understanding. In the verses below, Israel tempted the LORD, but when we see ‘what’ they were actually doing, they were worshiping, and sacrificing, and even made a gold calf. In today’s understanding of ‘Church,’ many would look at the details of what Israel did in the wilderness, and wonder, ‘doesn’t God want them to bring forth a calf for a sacrifice?’ ‘They even gave up of their wive’s, and children’s golden jewelry!’ ‘That shows selfless sacrifice!’ This is what it means to worship God in the flesh, God did not tell them to worship Him that “way,” they chose “the way of Cain.”

1^st Cor.11:9] Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

[10] Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.

Furthermore, today’s Church teaches a ‘false hope’ doctrine of God providing health, wealth, relationship, and happiness, in a one-sided relationship with the assumption that God is providing these things for man at man’s own will and demand, and desire, and they expect God to ‘minister to the flesh of men continually,’ this is the “way” of many in today’s Church. And when today’s Church pray unto God for the physical things of this world, they are taught by today’s preacher to ‘wait on God,’ and that they do not know ‘His time,’ and they warn the Church not to ‘go ahead of God’ in their request unto God for these physical earthly things. But what the Preachers of today are doing in this ‘way’ of teaching unto the Church is that they are provoking the Church to wonder; “is the Lord among us, or not.” Notice what Jude speaks about in the last days about these who have gone after the “way of Cain,” and “after” those in the verses below. These all have one thing in common, religion. Notice they are ‘speaking,’ and ‘complaining,’ and “gainsaying,” and those who are mentioned in verse 11 are those who thought they were worshipping God, and serving God, but in fact, they chose their own “way” of worship, and praise, and service. And what Man has done through the ages is that he has viewed the Word of God, and the will of God through the heart and carnal mind of himself. He continues to “change the truth of God into a lie,” by translating God’s Word into his own understanding, and Man’s wisdom and knowledge is not actually after God’s wisdom and knowledge, but truly after Man.

Jud 1:10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

Jud 1:11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

Jud 1:16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.

Finally, Man hears, and sees what the will of God is, and what the Word of God says; but he translates that through the ‘windows of understanding’ of his own flesh. He now views God’s Word, and will after Man’s “imagination,” and after Man’s heart. Man has his own set of ‘likes and dislikes,’ Man desires to love, but these are the things that caters to his flesh and heart’ desires, and Man assumes that God too will love what Man loves, and dislike what Man dislikes. Today’s view of worship and service desires that Man be ‘worshipped’ in the form of placing the Preacher in a status over the Body of Christ. And believing that “gain is godliness,” this understanding would lead those to believe that if someone is without, then God is not “among them.” And today’s Church also desires ‘service,’ but that God would serve them, and this is based upon their faithfulness in their religion to ‘do’ what the Preacher says will bring their heart’s desires unto them by God. And today, Man by his own lusts unwillingly ‘tempts’ God by their ‘lusting’ for the things of the flesh that God never promised unto them. And temping God by attempting to serve God in ways in which He never taught them by His Word, these are the ways in which Man has “changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.”

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Rod Jones

There is a remarkable scene in the fourth chapter of Revelation. John is caught up into heaven, and immediately his attention is drawn to a throne: “and one sat on the throne” (Revelation 4:2). Around that throne is all the majesty and worship of heaven. The four and twenty elders fall before Him. The four beasts continually proclaim His holiness. Yet there is something about the scene that deserves our attention.

Where is the Son?

The Holy Spirit is represented there in “the seven Spirits of God” before the throne (Revelation 4:5). But where is the Lord Jesus Christ?

The answer comes in the next chapter.

John sees “a Lamb as it had been slain” standing in the midst of the throne (Revelation 5:6). A question has gone forth throughout heaven: Who is worthy to open the book and loose its seals? No man in heaven, in earth, or under the earth is found worthy. John weeps.

Then the Lamb appears.

He alone is worthy.

Why?

Because He was slain. Because He is the Redeemer.

The song of heaven declares it:

“Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed…”
— Revelation 5:9

But there is something even larger taking place in these chapters. Revelation 4 takes us back to the purpose of creation itself:

“Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.”
— Revelation 4:11

Everything exists because God chose that it should exist. Creation was His idea. He was under no obligation to make a universe, a world, angels, or mankind. As Creator, He could have created anything He pleased, in any manner He pleased.

That raises an intriguing question: Why create beings with minds and wills of their own?

Why create a world capable of rebellion? What pleasure could God possibly derive from a creation that could become wayward, fallen, sinful, and hostile toward its own Creator?

The answer to those questions is deeply rooted in understanding the mind of the Creator—and particularly the mind of Christ.

The Creator Who Became the Servant

Who is the Creator—the Father or the Son?

The biblical answer is: Yes.

Paul writes in Ephesians 3:9 of “God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.” John says concerning Christ, “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3). Later he writes, “the world was made by him, and the world knew him not” (John 1:10).

Paul says:

“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible… all things were created by him, and for him.”
— Colossians 1:16

First Corinthians 8:6 gives us an important distinction:

“But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”

The Father is the One of whom are all things. The Lord Jesus Christ is the One by whom are all things.

This relationship is important because the Son consistently does the will of His Father. He serves the Father in all things. That truth becomes essential when we come to Philippians 2 and Paul’s command:

“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.”
— Philippians 2:5

There is a mind—a way of thinking—that characterized the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul does not merely want us to admire it. He wants us to recognize it, understand it, and allow that same way of thinking to become ours.

Paul tells the Corinthians, “But we have the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16). That does not mean that God mysteriously replaces our thinking with Christ’s thinking so that we automatically begin thinking as He thinks. We possess the mind of Christ because God has revealed it to us. Through His Word we can know how Christ thinks, what He values, what motivates Him, and what He considers worthy of pursuit.

Then we must choose whether we will think the same way.

It Is Not Beneath Deity to Serve

Before going further, we need to be careful that we do not turn Philippians 2 into something Paul was not trying to write.

Much theological discussion of Philippians 2:5-8 centers on questions concerning the person and nature of Christ: His deity, His humanity, what it means that He “made himself of no reputation,” and the relationship between the two natures in the incarnation. Those are important theological questions, and this passage certainly contributes to our understanding of them.

But they are not Paul’s primary point.

Paul tells us exactly why he introduces Christ:

“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.”
— Philippians 2:5

Paul’s subject is the mind of Christ.

He is not merely telling us what Christ was or what Christ became. He is showing us how Christ thought.

That distinction matters enormously.

Paul has just commanded the Philippians:

“Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.”
— Philippians 2:3-4

Then comes verse 5:

“Let this mind be in you…”

What mind?

The mind that looks upon “the things of others.”

And Paul’s supreme example is Jesus Christ.

Here is what makes the passage so extraordinary. Paul does not begin with Christ in Bethlehem. He begins with Christ “in the form of God.”

Why?

Because Paul wants us to understand just how far Christ was willing to stoop in order to serve another.

The One who humbled Himself was not merely a great man.

He was the Creator.

The One who took “the form of a servant” was the One by whom “all things were created” (Colossians 1:16).

Therefore, one of the great lessons of Philippians 2 is this:

It is not beneath deity to serve the needs of another.

That truth overturns our human conception of greatness.

We tend to associate greatness with being served. The greater the position, the more people attend to us. The more important we become, the less we expect to perform menial tasks.

Christ reverses the entire equation.

His deity did not make service beneath Him.

His greatness did not prevent Him from stooping.

His position did not cause Him to look only upon “his own things.”

The Creator looked upon the things of His creation.

That is Paul’s argument.

Christ did not cease to be who He was in order to serve. Rather, knowing who He was makes His willingness to serve all the more astonishing.

John 13 gives us the picture.

The hands holding the towel were the hands of the Creator.

The One kneeling before those men was the One John said “made” the world.

And He washed their feet.

Later Christ expressed the principle plainly:

“For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.”
— Luke 22:27

There is no question about which One in that room was greatest.

Yet the greatest said:

“I am among you as he that serveth.”

That is the point we must carry back into Philippians 2.

Paul is not asking us to duplicate the incarnation. We cannot.

He is asking us to duplicate the mind that produced Christ’s willingness to humble Himself.

We cannot have the form of God.

We cannot become incarnate.

We cannot redeem mankind.

But we can look “on the things of others.”

We can make ourselves of no reputation.

We can take the servant’s place.

We can humble ourselves.

We can obey God when obedience costs us something.

And we can stop imagining that some act of service is beneath our dignity.

If service was not beneath the Lord Jesus Christ, upon what possible basis could it be beneath us?

This is why Paul’s argument begins with the heights of Christ’s position and carries us downward—to no reputation, to a servant, to humility, to obedience, and finally to the death of the cross.

Paul is showing us the distance that the mind of Christ was willing to travel for the good of another and in obedience to His Father.

And then he says:

“Let this mind be in you.”

Changing the Way We Think

If we want to change our reality, we must begin by changing the way we think.

Our thinking determines our perceptions. It shapes our passions and goals. It affects our choices. Most importantly, it determines how and whom we serve.

This is why Revelation 4 and 5 provide such a striking starting point. They allow us to catch a glimpse of how radically the Lord Jesus Christ changed His own reality.

Think about what He had before creation.

Think about what He became.

Think about what He experienced on earth.

Then think about what He accomplished: glory, honor, redemption, and above all, the pleasure of His Father.

Why would the Lord Jesus Christ exchange His heavenly reality for the reality described in Philippians 2?

He was “in the form of God,” yet He “made himself of no reputation.” He “took upon him the form of a servant.” He “humbled himself,” and ultimately “became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:6-8).

That is the mind Paul tells us to have.

What the Mind of Christ Looks Like

Philippians 2 does more than describe the mind of Christ. The chapter shows us what that mind looks like when reproduced in the lives of others.

First there is Christ Himself in Philippians 2:5-11.

Then there is Paul in verses 12-18. Paul had learned to think as Christ thought, and his life became an example of that mind in action. His principle elsewhere was simple: “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1).

Then Paul points to Timothy in Philippians 2:19-22. Timothy had learned this mind from Paul, who had learned it from Christ. Paul says of Timothy:

“For I have no man likeminded, who will naturally care for your state.”

That word state involves their condition, their walk, their spiritual welfare and edification. Timothy’s attention was not centered upon Timothy. He genuinely cared about what was happening in the lives of others.

Then comes Epaphroditus in Philippians 2:25-30, another man willing to sacrifice himself in service.

Do you see the progression?

From Christ to Paul.

From Paul to Timothy.

From Paul to Epaphroditus.

And now, through the inspired Word, from Paul to us.

Paul transferred this paradigm of thinking to those who served alongside him, and through his epistles he seeks to transfer that same mind to us.

When we examine these examples, an answer begins to emerge to the question: How do we change our reality?

Perhaps the best way to change our reality is to change someone else’s.

That thought lies at the heart of the renewed mind. A life devoted to serving others is a life that begins to experience an entirely different reality.

Seeing the Mind of Christ in His Own Words

This is where I love to go to the Gospel accounts.

Paul tells us what the mind of Christ is. In the Gospels, however, we see that mind expressed in Christ’s own words and actions. Philippians 2 comes alive before our eyes.

In John 4, after speaking with the Samaritan woman, the disciples urge Jesus to eat. His response reveals His priorities:

“My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.”
— John 4:34

That is the mind of Christ.

His satisfaction came from accomplishing the Father’s will.

Then we come to one of the most extraordinary scenes in all the Gospels: John 13.

Jesus rises from supper, lays aside His garments, takes a towel, girds Himself, pours water into a basin, and begins washing His disciples’ feet.

Consider who is holding that towel.

The One who made the world is kneeling before men washing dirt from their feet.

And Judas is there.

Jesus knows what Judas is about to do. He knows the betrayal that is coming. Yet there is no indication that Judas receives different treatment from the others.

Christ washes their feet.

All of them.

The Creator of all things is girded with a towel, performing the work of a servant.

What an exchange!

A crown for a cross—and a dirty towel.

When He finishes, Jesus asks:

“Know ye what I have done to you?”
— John 13:12

Then He explains:

“For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.”
— John 13:15

He is not merely teaching foot washing. He is demonstrating a mind.

A way of thinking.

A way of viewing ourselves and others.

Later, after Judas has departed, Christ tells the remaining eleven that their love for one another will become the identifying mark of their discipleship:

“By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”
— John 13:35

Love expressed through service is the evidence of Christ’s mind at work.

Unfortunately, it is not always the most obvious characteristic of professing Christianity today. One does not have to spend much time on social media to discover that.

The Fellowship of the Father and the Son

In John 17 we hear the Lord Jesus Christ praying shortly before His betrayal and arrest. Here we are allowed to listen to the fellowship between the Father and the Son.

Christ prays that His followers “may be one, as we are” (John 17:11). Later He prays:

“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee…”
— John 17:21

And He concludes:

“That the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.”
— John 17:26

Here we begin to understand something about God’s pleasure in His creation.

There can be genuine fellowship.

There can be love freely given and freely returned.

There can be willing service rather than mechanical obedience.

There can be oneness of purpose.

The relationship between the Father and the Son becomes the great pattern.

But that pattern soon leads Christ somewhere terrible.

It leads Him to Gethsemane.

“Shall I Not Drink It?”

Matthew 26 and Luke 22 allow us to see something of Christ’s agony as He approaches the cross. He prays concerning the cup before Him.

He knows what obedience will cost.

Luke tells us of the intensity of His agony. This was not casual obedience. The Lord Jesus Christ was facing suffering with full awareness of what lay ahead.

Then, when the soldiers arrive in John 18, something has changed. The struggle has given way to settled determination.

Peter draws his sword, but Jesus tells him to put it away:

“The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?”
— John 18:11

There is tremendous power in a settled commitment to serve.

Hebrews 5 tells us that Christ, “in the days of his flesh,” offered prayers and supplications “with strong crying and tears.” Though He were a Son, “yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered” (Hebrews 5:7-8).

This is the mind Paul speaks about in Philippians 2.

It is the mind of willing obedience.

It is the mind of service.

It is the mind that considers the Father’s will greater than personal comfort.

And it is this obedience that helps us understand why the Lamb receives such extraordinary glory in Revelation.

Hebrews 12:2 tells us to look unto Jesus:

“Who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.”

The cross was not the end of the story.

There was joy on the other side.

There was the accomplishment of the Father’s purpose. There was redemption. There was resurrection. There was glory.

Philippians 2 therefore continues:

“Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name.”
— Philippians 2:9

The One who humbled Himself is exalted.

The Servant is glorified.

The Lamb who was slain is worthy.

Working With Fear and Trembling

This helps us understand Paul’s words immediately afterward:

“Wherefore, my beloved… work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”
— Philippians 2:12

Why fear and trembling?

Because we have just seen that the mind of Christ can lead us into uncomfortable places.

Our Savior Himself faced His service with agony, strong crying, tears, and yet obedience.

Living according to the mind of Christ can be frightening because genuine service costs something.

Paul knew that personally.

He desired to know Christ, “and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death” (Philippians 3:10).

This was not theory to Paul.

He had experienced weakness and fear. He reminded the Corinthians:

“And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.”
— 1 Corinthians 2:3

Yet that was precisely where the power of God became evident.

The Christian life is not a quest to arrange circumstances so that nothing frightens us, inconveniences us, costs us, or causes us to suffer. The mind of Christ teaches us to see something greater than ourselves and then willingly give ourselves to it.

Paul continues:

“For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.”
— Philippians 2:13

There is that word again: pleasure.

Revelation 4 told us that all things were created for His pleasure.

Philippians 2 tells us that God works in us according to His good pleasure.

And the example immediately before us is Jesus Christ—the Son who humbled Himself, became a servant, obeyed the Father, and gave Himself for others.

Here is where the creature finds fellowship with the Creator.

We learn what pleases Him, and then we willingly participate in it.

The Joy of Changing Someone Else’s Reality

Paul takes the principle one step further:

“Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all. For the same cause also do ye joy, and rejoice with me.”
— Philippians 2:17-18

Notice the paradox.

Paul is being poured out for others—and he rejoices.

This is the renewed mind.

The world tells us that fulfillment comes from arranging life around ourselves: our comfort, our goals, our recognition, our possessions, our experiences, our happiness.

The mind of Christ turns that entire paradigm around.

Fulfillment is discovered in service.

Joy is discovered in giving.

Our reality changes when we begin changing the reality of someone else.

Paul expresses the principle simply in Galatians 6:10:

“As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.”

The opportunities are everywhere.

There are people who need encouragement. People who need help. People who need someone to care about their spiritual condition. People who need someone willing to sacrifice time, convenience, attention, resources, and perhaps even comfort on their behalf.

Martin Luther King Jr. famously described life’s “most persistent and urgent question” this way:

“What are you doing for others?”

That question is worth asking.

But for the believer, there is an even greater reason for asking it. Service is not merely a humanitarian ideal. It reflects the mind of our Savior.

If we ask that question honestly, and then answer it not merely with words but with conviction and action, it can transform our lives. It can transform the lives of those around us. And most importantly, it reflects something that pleases God our Father and honors our Savior.

If we ever lack motivation, perhaps we should return in our minds to that room in Jerusalem.

Look again at the Man kneeling before His disciples.

Remember who He is.

He is the One by whom the worlds were made.

He is the One who was in the beginning with God.

He is the One by whom all things were created, visible and invisible.

He is the express image of God and the brightness of His glory.

And there He is—

wearing a dirty towel.

That is the mind of Christ.

And Paul says:

“Let this mind be in you.”

LOOK, we as saints all go there from time to time and for multiple reasons.

In today’s article this writer wants to point you in the direction of Romans 8 and specifically Romans 8:23-8:241 for a renewing of your mind when DROP-LIP McGEE shows up due to life.

‘And not only [they], but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, [to wit], the redemption of our body. 24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

Let’s have a glimpse at these two wonderful verses in an easy to understand fashion,…the good ol’ bullet point way:

• 8: 23 ‘have the FIRSTFRUIT of the Spirit’ - Just knowing the fact that we have the ‘holy Spirit of promise, Which is the EARNEST of our inheritence until the the redemption of the purchased possession,…’ (Eph 1:13b-1:14a) which is by design to change our experience via our thinking in the ‘nasty now and now’ as it’s said.

  Do you see those words in CAPSLOCK above? Do you see how scripture sheds light on itself? Beautiful hey? Absolutely.

  Just reminding ourselves that we have a ‘deposit’ and the ‘full payment’ coming is worthy of Psalm 150 at full volume.

  Then,

• 8:24 ‘…SAVED by hope:…’ What an uplifting, lip reducing, wonderfully epic phrase that will have DROP-LIP McGEE fleeing! Saved from what exactly you might ask?

  From being bummed out, in despair, down trodden and everything that causes us to be DROP-LIP McGEE in the first place. That’s what.

  Our hope; waiting for the adoption is what saves us. Looking ahead and knowing that our (and using an inter-dispensational phrase from Luke) ‘redemption draweth nigh.’2 My bru, this is just too good!

LAST THOUGHTS

Knowing and understanding Romans 6, 7 & 8 is important to us as members of the Body of Christ. Especially Romans chapter 8.

Moreover as ‘joint-heirs with Christ’3 and as adult sons of God we can send DROP-LIP McGEE packing immediately. Yip, immediately.

Have you sent him packing?4

Grace and peace,

Karl R. Coates.

The Kingdom of God stands at the center of Scripture’s prophetic program, yet its relationship to Paul’s gospel is often misunderstood. Before unfolding the full structure in my larger writing project—Paul’s Gospel: Its Unique Character, Distinct Message, and Harmony with God’s Eternal Purpose—I’m sharing a few developmental paragraphs here to clarify how prophecy and mystery harmonize in God’s plan.

These paragraphs are part of that ongoing work. They’re still in draft form, but I’m posting them here for interaction, refinement, and thoughtful engagement. Your insights are welcome.

“If there is one eternal purpose administered through different agencies, what is the relationship between the Kingdom proclaimed in prophecy and the Kingdom of God described by Paul?”

“Throughout Scripture the expression "Kingdom of God" is viewed from different vantage points. The prophets primarily view its earthly manifestation promised to Israel. Paul views it from the perspective of God's eternal purpose, revealing the heavenly calling of the Body of Christ and the ultimate reconciliation of all things in Christ. These are not competing kingdoms but complementary revelations of one eternal Kingdom under the sovereign reign of God.”

“In Paul's epistles the emphasis is not upon the earthly, Davidic administration of the kingdom anticipated in prophecy, but upon the believer's present participation in the spiritual realm of God's reign and the heavenly calling of the Body of Christ.”

“The distinctions between Israel and the Church, prophecy and mystery, law and grace, or the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel of the Grace of God do not divide God's purpose; they reveal the wisdom of His administration. The God who worked through Israel in time past is the same God who today works through the Church, the Body of Christ. Different agencies serve the same eternal purpose until every aspect of His kingdom is brought to its appointed consummation.”

Wisdom is the application of knowledge, correct? As they say, “Knowledge is information, but wisdom is application.”

So a wise man has to be really good at applying the principles of God to the details of his life, right? For example, God instructs our speech to be alway with grace, seasoned with salt (Col. 4:6). A wise man figures out how to apply this principle to his life. He figures out how to make all his words embody grace, seasoned with salt. That takes time and practice. You don’t become a master craftsman the first time you pick up a chisel. Thus, a wise man is someone who has spent years submitting his instincts to the Holy Spirit, building up spiritual “muscle memory” until applying grace to his speech is second nature.

Perhaps we might define a wise man as one who is experienced and practiced at applying the sound doctrines of grace to the details of his life.

That’s pretty good so far, wouldn’t you say? A “wise man” is a master craftsman of living! He knows how life works under God’s design, and he carries out God’s will with practiced skill (Eph. 5:15-17).

Oh, but wait! Scripture has so much more to say about a wise man.

The Posture of His Heart

Scripture also shows us that great wisdom is fundamentally a posture of the heart. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.” (Prov. 9:10). Before a wise man ever applies a single truth, he has a specific orientation of his heart: he reveres God.

And being in that state of reverence toward God, the wise man has some very radical humility in his heart (Prov. 11:2; 15:33). Plus, there is an openness to learning. He is always teachable. “A wise man will hear and will increase learning...” (Prov. 1:5). Not only that, a wise man is happy to receive correction – “Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser...” (Prov. 9:9). The fool hates correction, but the wise man welcomes it because his life’s goal isn’t about protecting his ego. His life’s goal is to glorify God.

He’s a Man of Restraint

A wise man exercises great mastery over his words, knowing their power to build or destroy. He restrains his words. “In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise” (Proverbs 10:19).

He has self-control over his passions. “A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards” (Proverbs 29:11). And his speech is one of peace. “A soft answer turneth away wrath... The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright” (Proverbs 15:1–2; cf. Proverbs 16:23).

A wise man also surrounds himself with wise people. “He that walketh with wise men shall be wise...” (Prov. 13:20). Wisdom is contagious. So is foolishness. The wise man chooses his companions carefully.

Plus, the Lord Himself was very kind to give us a definition of the wise man in Matt 7:24. He said, “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock.”

Notice the two criteria: Hearing + Doing, which matches how I’ve always viewed wisdom: a wise man hears God and figures out how to do what God says.

Redeeming the Time

Last Sunday, we exegeted Eph 5:15-16. “See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.”

In verse 15, Paul is calling believers to walk circumspectly, that is, to live with careful, deliberate precision, paying close attention to every step in light of the spiritual dangers around them. Because we are already children of light, we are to thoughtfully align our daily lives with our identity in Christ, walking as wise men who skillfully apply the doctrines of grace to the ordinary decisions of life.

In verse 16, redeeming the time isn’t primarily about better time management but about recognizing and seizing the spiritual opportunities that become available to us. Because we live in an evil age where opportunities to minister, encourage, and share the gospel can quickly disappear, wise men keep their eyes open and intentionally take advantage of every opportunity for God’s glory before it passes.

Notice the connection between these two verses. Verse 15 says, “See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise.” Then verse 16 explains what that wise walk looks like. The wise man is always “redeeming the time.” In other words, wisdom isn’t just a person who lives in humble awe of God, and he’s eager to listen to His Word, and apply those instructions to his life. A wise man also takes advantage of spiritual opportunities to minister when they become available.

How can you not think of Prov. 11:30? “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise.“ The wise man is a soul-winner. He’s consistently focused on eternity (Psa. 90:12).

New Definition

Now we can come up with a list of various aspects of the wise man:

· the heart (humble awe of God),

· the ear (hears God’s Word),

· the character (teachable, restrained),

· the walk (applies grace),

· the wisdom (walks circumspectly),

· the mission (redeems opportunities),

· the outcome (glorifies Christ).

I love that! So now we might refine our definition even more:

A wise man is one who lives in humble awe of God, eagerly listens to His Word with a teachable heart, gladly receives correction, exercises loving restraint over his words and passions, skillfully applies the doctrines of grace to every circumstance of life, carefully walks according to God’s revealed will, continually watches for and redeems every spiritual opportunity that becomes available, and through years of faithful obedience, he becomes a master craftsman of living whose life glorifies Christ and points others to Him.

Not bad.

But, wait! There’s one more point!

The Ultimate Personification

Paul reveals that Christ Jesus “is made unto us wisdom” (1 Corinthians 1:30). To be a “wise man” in a complete sense according to all of Scripture is to fully yield oneself to the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16) and allow His life and His Spirit to transform your life into the very image of God and His Son.

Final Definition

Well, now, I have to revise my definition one last time –

A wise man is just like Christ.

Romans 14:16–19 — “Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.”

I recently had an interesting phone conversation with a dear fellow grace believer. He is one of a number of saints I would typically think of as “isolated.” By isolated, I mean that where he lives there is no existing, functioning assembly of believers who identify with what we might call a mid-Acts understanding of Scripture.

That kind of isolation is difficult. It leaves a believer feeling the lack of regular fellowship around shared biblical convictions. Like many in these days, he has reluctantly turned to social media to bridge that gap. By his own account, he has joined several groups labeled as “Grace” in an effort to find positive fellowship and encouragement.

What he encountered shocked him.

I understood.

That conversation brought back a question that has returned to my mind many times over the years: What grace? What movement?

If the grace message does not produce gracious speech, patient correction, and edifying fellowship, then we may preserve the terminology of grace while contradicting the spirit of the doctrine we claim to defend.

Discovering Right Division

Some personal history may be helpful.

I trusted Christ at the age of twelve. My church life during those years was distinctly independent Baptist. To this day, I remain grateful for those early years, because it was there that I first understood the gospel and experienced the support and love of a local church assembly.

Not long after I was saved, I encountered what has often been called the “Grace Movement.” I obtained reading resources that challenged my biblical hermeneutic. I also connected with believers established in a mid-Acts understanding of Scripture who were patient and gentle in helping me grow.

Right division resonated with me immediately, both intellectually and spiritually. Though young, I was already dissatisfied with the doctrinal confusion I had been receiving in a denominational setting. Right division satisfied my thirst to understand God’s word. It brought clarity, and it fostered deep comfort from the Scriptures as many things began to make sense.

Throughout my teenage and young adult years, I continued to grow in my understanding. I developed not only an appreciation for what I was learning, but also a strong desire to invest my life in sharing the wonderful truth of God’s word.

Yet my first baby steps in doing so also brought painful lessons. I learned that the truth of right division is not always received well. Over time, I became accustomed to hostility in denominational circles and eventually had to leave my denomination because of bitter rejection from those with whom I had once enjoyed sweet fellowship.

When Grace Circles Become Ungracious

That is when my experiences with the “Grace Movement” began in earnest: Bible conferences, visits to grace churches in other cities and states, correspondence with brothers and sisters in Christ, and increasing exposure to the movement as a whole.

Eventually, however, I was forced to acknowledge a reality that first disappointed me and later deeply disturbed me. The question formed in my thinking and ultimately became something of a mantra:

What grace? What movement?

Denominationalism has long been marked by sectarian rancor. Other theological circles I encountered could also be sharply contentious, sometimes even predatory or vindictive in their treatment of disagreement. I expected that, rightly or wrongly, from certain quarters.

What surprised me was discovering that much of what I encountered in “grace” circles could be just as severe. In some cases, it seemed even more so.

Really?

Really.

Confrontation or Edification?

1 Corinthians 15:33–34 — “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.”

Is it just and proper for believers to attack other believers over differences in biblical understanding?

To be clear, I am not suggesting that error should never be addressed. Correction is sometimes necessary. There are times when confrontation is justified. Truth matters. Doctrine matters. Right division matters.

But correction must never become an excuse for fleshly conduct.

The real question is not simply, May I confront? The better question is, Am I seeking to edify?

Is the other brother or sister simply weak in the faith and in need of time, patience, and instruction? Where are they in their journey of faith? Have I invested prayer, effort, preparation, and personal care into this person? Am I aiming to restore, or merely to win? Is my desire to help them grow, or to prove that I am right?

Confrontation asks, “How do I expose this error?”

Edification asks, “How do I help this brother or sister grow in truth?”

That distinction matters.

The Problem Is Not Technology

It would be easy to blame social media for the sharp and acerbic atmosphere that often exists in grace circles. I would be delighted if the problem were that simple.

But it is not.

This dynamic existed fifty years ago. I had never seen a computer. I had not conceived of a cell phone, much less owned one. No, technology is not the root issue.

The issue was, and still is, character.

Christlike character.

The reality of Romans 6–8 ought to so inhabit the members of the body of Christ that we are known not for contentiousness, but for light.

Philippians 2:14–16 — “Do all things without murmurings and disputings: That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.”

Why is it that believers in Christ so often seem bent on confrontation rather than edification?

What is ambiguous about Paul’s instruction?

Speaking the Truth in Love

Ephesians 4:15–17 — “But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind.”

Is there anything difficult about this model? Is the problem really a lack of comprehension, or is it a refusal to submit our conduct to the doctrine we profess?

Too often, these confrontations quickly descend into character assassination. Rather than assuming that another person may be sincere, even if sincerely mistaken, it has become common to question that person’s motives, sincerity, and character.

Even more troubling, the one doing the confronting often never seriously addresses the doctrinal issue itself. Instead, the assumption seems to be that doctrinal error or disagreement must be evidence of a character flaw.

That is dangerous.

It is also un-Pauline.

Ephesians 4:29–32 — “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.”

Before We Correct

I know the objections.

I know someone may say, “You do not understand what the other person said.” Or, “You do not know what they did.” Or, “You are cherry-picking verses to soften our responsibility to stand for truth.” Or perhaps, “This is not confrontation; this is care-frontation.”

I understand the objections.

But the objections must be weighed against Pauline truth. How we manifest truth matters. How we edify the body matters. How we correct error in speech and conduct matters.

It matters.

It really does.

Before correcting another believer, perhaps we should ask ourselves a few questions:

· Have I understood this person fairly?

· Have I prayed for them?

· Have I considered where they are in their growth?

· Am I trying to restore them or defeat them?

· Is my speech likely to minister grace to the hearer?

· Would I say this the same way if I were sitting across from them in person?

· Am I more concerned with defending my reputation than edifying Christ’s body?

These questions do not weaken our stand for truth. They test whether our stand for truth is being carried out in the Spirit or in the flesh.

An Inconvenient Truth

Romans 14:15–17 — “But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”

1 Corinthians 8:11–12 — “And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.”

Knowledge can be handled sinfully.

Truth can be spoken without charity.

Doctrine can be defended in a manner that harms the very brethren Christ died for.

That should sober every one of us.

The issue is not whether truth matters. Truth matters deeply. Doctrine matters. Right division matters. But the manner in which we contend for truth also matters.

If our speech wounds the brethren, if our knowledge destroys rather than edifies, if our manner contradicts the grace we profess, then we have not defended grace well.

We have contradicted it.

May we be known not merely for precision in doctrine, but for righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. May we follow after the things that make for peace and the things wherewith one may edify another. May isolated saints looking for fellowship find, among grace believers, not only rightly divided truth, but also patience, kindness, humility, and speech that ministers grace to the hearers.

Only then will the question “What grace? What movement?” find an answer worthy of the name.

[18] But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

God desires that the members of the Body of Christ operate upon His Word in all their decision-making day by day. And it is by His Word (Spirit) that the Saints would make proper Godly decisions based upon what is "that good and acceptable and perfect will of God." We have been given "liberty" by our Father to "live" unto Him in all Spiritual things. But this is done by 'utilizing our time' in Christ for godliness sake, not for our own sakes. In the verses above, Paul says, "and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Godly liberty of the Saints would be accomplished by walking by the "Spirit of the Lord" (the Word of the Lord) in the sight of God. And therein lies the key to how the Saints ought to walk and live “the rest of his time” in our “liberty.”

1st Pet.4:2] That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

And our ‘liberty life’ is a life in Christ Jesus that the “natural man” cannot fathom, or discern. He would view this type of life living as foolish, or when the Corinthians Saints judged Paul because of his walk in Christ, they counted him as a fool, but as Paul mentioned, he was a “fool for Christ's sake.” and when those that desire to live Godly in Christ Jesus they too will suffer persecution based upon others being not able to discern the life of the saint, nor the thinking of the saint, nor the doctrine by which the saint is now living in.

Gal.2:4] And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

[5] To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

And by our walking in 'Godly liberty' as sons and daughters by His Word, we are "free" from the bondage of the word, and traditions of men, but are given liberty, and a 'Godly freedom' by our Father to live, and make our decision based upon His Word alone. But oftentimes, the word "liberty" can be mis-used as a 'license to do what you will,' but the liberty that we have been given consists of being entrusted by our Father to make mature 'sonship decisions' as we have been matured by His Word. Israel also was taught that they will walk in the “law of Liberty” as we see in the verses below. The law of Liberty is the “way” that the saint would now live his life in Christ by the word of God and be a “perfect man” in the sight of God. This Liberty “law” that he would now walk in would be by the word of God Alone, and “his time” on the Earth would be spent to a ‘life living’ unto God, and not unto himself.

James 1:25] But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

James 2:12] So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

1st Pet.2:16] As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

Gal.5:1] Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Our 'Godly freedom time' as sons and daughters ought to be spent by walking in the doctrine of His Dear Son, and making our decisions based upon what we have been taught. But this world views "liberty" as freedom to walk according to this ungodly world. And even by some of those who are saved, they oftentimes confuse their liberty as a life to live freely in sin, knowing that they cannot lose their salvation. But this is not how our Father would have us to "think" about our liberty as mature sons and daughters in Christ. But there are many who would say that we have liberty in Christ, but that only spoken about when we are not walking as we ought, but instead our understanding ought to be that the Liberty that we have is a life of being no longer conformed to this world but being transformed by the renewing of our minds. And our lives in this ‘liberty life’ ought to be by ‘reproving” those things that we turn back unto, and 'abstaining from “every appearance of evil,” and desiring to “put on the Lord Jesus Christ,” and walk as lights in the midst of a crooked and perverse Nation, instead of continuing to make excuses for our walk in the works of darkness, and ‘excuse it away’ as our Liberty that we have in Christ.

Rom.6:1] What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

[2] God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

[3] Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Rod Jones

Why did the saints at Pentecost have “all things common?”

Was God endorsing communism?

Uhh, no. God forbid.

Let’s read some key passages:

Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. Act 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Act 2:43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. Act 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common; Act 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. Act 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

A Panoramic Snapshot

So after Peter’s first sermon (Acts 2:14-40), Luke steps back and gives us a broader picture. It’s like he’s zooming out to paint this panoramic snapshot of what’s happening with the converts, the established believers, and the 12 apostles.

Notice a few things here.

One of Peter’s key points was, “This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:16-21). One cannot overstate how important those words were. Peter wasn’t establishing a new church for a new church age. He was saying that the miracles they were all witnessing had already been prophesied by Joel chapter two in the context of the end times. The outpouring of the Spirit was exactly what Joel said would happen… in the last days.

Peter also quoted what Joel wrote about the wonders that will take place in the end times - in heaven above, blood, and fire, vapour of smoke, and how the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come.

In other words, the pouring out of the Holy Spirit is in the context of the end times. This is the prelude to the time of Jacob’s Trouble, or what we call the 7-year tribulation period. It’s as if Peter’s saying, “What you are seeing is precisely what was prophesied by Joel. The pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost is the very event Joel had foretold in his book centuries earlier. This means that we’re headed into the time of Jacob’s Trouble. Time is running out. Judgment is coming in the Tribulation, and oh-by-the-way, God is mad at you for murdering His Son, your Messiah.”

There was no offer of a kingdom being made to Israel. The message was, “The end times is here, evidenced by the pouring of the Spirit prophesied by Joel, and therefore, you better turn or burn, because judgment is coming.”

Naturally, the crowd was deeply convicted. They were pricked in their hearts and asked, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”

Peter called them to repent — to change their minds about Jesus Christ — and to identify with Christ through water baptism as part of Israel’s prophetic kingdom program. Three thousand people gladly received his word and were baptized that very day. Although that was likely a small fraction of the hundreds of thousands of Jews in Jerusalem at the time, this was still an incredible response.

In vs 43, we’re told that they were also terrified. Luke said, “fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.”

Why were they afraid?

Because they believed Peter. The signs and wonders meant the end times was here. They didn’t have the book of Revelation at the time, but there were enough prophecies about the Tribulation in the OT that they knew this would be a devastating time of great judgment (Jer. 30:6–7; Mal. 4:1) They knew the Tribulation was going to be bad. And they felt fear.

All Things Common

And this brings us to Act 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common.

Notice first that it was only the believers who had all things common, not all of Israel. This was not political socialism or communism getting implemented in the nation of Israel. This was a supernatural spiritual practice being performed by believers only (see also Acts 4:32-35).

Why did they have all things common?

They were pooling their resources to survive the Tribulation. Every believer would have access to basic necessities when the judgments start coming.

During His earthly ministry, the Lord was all about His followers giving up all their possessions. He said, in passages like Luke 12:32-33, “Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.”

Why did He instruct His followers to give up all their stuff?

He explains why in vs. 37. “Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching…” This was about being ready for His Second Coming.

In fact, the Lord spends the entire chapter warning them about being ready for the return of the Master, the coming of the thief in the night, and facing division. He commands the “Little Flock” here (the believing remnant) to liquidate specifically to prepare for this tribulation period.

Thus, all things common in Acts 2 & 4 is all about the people doing what the Lord commanded to prepare for the Tribulation and His Second Coming.

The thing about the Gospel of the Kingdom at the time is that if the kingdom is at hand, then inevitably Daniel’s 70^th week, the time of Jacob’s trouble, was also at hand. You cannot have one without the other. John the Baptist from the beginning was telling the people, “he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (Mat 3:11b-12). God had begun purging His floor and separating the wheat from the chaff with John’s baptism. John’s message was, essentially, “Get right with God now or die in judgment in the Tribulation, because He is already purging His floor.”

If the people of Israel didn’t accept Christ by faith and be water baptized (and later filled with the Spirit), they were going to die in judgment in the Tribulation.

It was always a turn or burn message throughout the Gospels.

Therefore, there was no point in holding on to any of their possessions anymore since it’s all going to be destroyed and burned up in the Tribulation.

You might remember how the Lord said in Matt 24:15–16, “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation... Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:” If you owned a house, or a piece of land, you’re kinda tethered to the property. You will hesitate to abandon it. But by liquidating their assets then at Pentecost, the believing remnant would be free to go run into the mountains when it’s time. With the burden of all their possessions gone, they’ll be free to flee at a moment’s notice, especially when the Antichrist defiles the Temple.

Pentecost wasn’t about the apostles inventing some new economic / political system in Israel. This was about them leading the people to obey the instructions the Lord had already given and pooling their resources to survive the Tribulation.

Question: why sell their land if land was never supposed to be permanently sold under the law? Under the Mosaic Law, land was an inalienable inheritance of a tribe. If you fell into poverty and had to sell your land, it had to be returned to your family in the Year of Jubilee (Leviticus 25:23–28). But here at Pentecost with all these people permanently liquidating their land and their homes, the believers were showing that they thought the entire economy of the Earth was going to be wiped out because God’s judgments were coming in the Tribulation.

Holding onto a deed was pointless when the whole system is about to collapse, and the fallout is going to be a brand new kingdom on Earth.

Having all things common would also help those who would be betrayed by their families when the Tribulation came. Micah warned about this (Micah 7:6). The Lord also talked about this. He said in Luke 21:16, “And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.” So believers having all things common were protecting themselves and other saints who will be betrayed by their families. They had formed an interdependent, closed society where they could look out for each other’s well-being during a time of lawlessness.

All things common would also help them in the Tribulation when they are denied goods and services in the marketplaces. Even before the Mark of the Beast, there will be such hatred and persecution for believers that they won’t have any hope of buying or selling anything. The Mark of the Beast merely streamlines what would already be going on for years. By selling their properties early (Acts 2:45) and pooling liquid cash into a single, centralized fund managed by the Apostles, the community built for themselves a kind of insulated economic buffer for when they are denied access to the marketplace.

They brilliantly created this self-sustaining, underground supply chain to feed, clothe, and shelter the remnant when the global economy shuts them out.

There are also parallels here to the days when Israel was wandering in the wilderness. You might remember from the End of the Word Series how we kept making connections between the judgments during the tribulation and the judgments on Egypt in the Exodus. There are more connections.

When the Jews wandered in the wilderness, they had a similar communal system in place before reaching the promised land. Granted, they didn’t give up all their possessions. Everyone kept what little they owned – like their flocks and herds (Exodus 12:38), tents (Numbers 2), and all the plunder of Egypt (Exodus 12:35).

But they traveled light.

They had no major assets.

They owned no land, no buildings, which will be very similar to the believing remnant in the Tribulation. AND there was a Pentecost-style communal system regarding the manna from Heaven. It had to be distributed fairly according to the need. God wasn’t going to tolerate hoarding. If a greedy Israelite tried to gather extra manna to hoard or sell to his neighbor, it bred worms and stunk by morning (Exodus 16:20). In those days, there was this equal communal treatment of God’s supernatural provisions of food, which will happen again in the Tribulation. It’s up there in the mountains hiding in God’s divine protection when the believing remnant will be saying the Lord’s Prayer and asking God for their daily bread. And that food, probably manna, will be distributed equally according to the need.

Plus, there were legal mandates for the Jews in the wilderness about helping each other and helping the sick and the poor. There was the expectation that they’d have to give of themselves to help others survive and this is perfectly realized with the saints began having all things common at Pentecost.

Remember Joseph and the coat of many colors and the famine in Egypt? Joseph famously gathered and centralized Egypt’s grain during the years of plenty so that it could be rationed out during the famine (Gen. 41:34-57, 47:13-26). The Apostles would have been doing the same thing with everything that was all things common. This ensured that when believers are shut out of the market, especially when the Mark of the Beast system arrives, resources were already consolidated under trusted, Spirit-filled leadership to be rationed out to saints.

I’ve also heard it said many times in grace circles that all things common was a dress rehearsal for life in the Kingdom. I used to think that way also, and I said that quite often on the podcast.

I don’t think that way anymore.

There’s a big difference between all things common at Pentecost and life in the millennial kingdom. At Pentecost, they owned nothing. In the kingdom, they’ll own everything. The Lord said in Psa. 2:8, “I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” Uttermost parts of the Earth means that they will possess the entire Earth, from one end of the globe to the other.

Pentecost was characterized by voluntary poverty, voluntary liquidation of all their assets, but the Kingdom is characterized by global ownership of everything, along with immense personal wealth, as part of their inheritance from God. This is a major contrast. This is the difference between liquidation vs. inheritance. When you’re selling all your property, you’re giving up all your assets. With inheritance, you’re gaining new assets.

Summation of All Things Common

1. Only the believers had all things common, not all of Israel.

2. This was about them pooling their resources for the sake of surviving the Tribulation.

3. By permanently liquidating their land and their homes, the believers were showing that they thought the entire economy of the Earth was going to be wiped out because God’s judgments were coming in the Tribulation.

4. Believers were also helping to protect themselves and other saints who will be betrayed by their own families.

5. Plus, this communal all things common system would help them through the period when they are denied goods and services in the marketplaces.

6. There are parallels to the Jews wandering in the wilderness and Joseph preparing for the famine in Egypt.

7. This was not a dress rehearsal for life in the Kingdom. At Pentecost, they owned nothing. In the kingdom, they’ll own everything. What was, in fact, a dress rehearsal for life in the Kingdom was their singleness of heart (Acts 2:46-47; cf Ezek. 11:19-20).

What They Did Not Know

Of course, what Peter and the believing remnant did not know — and could not have known — was that God would soon interrupt that prophetic timetable and do something nobody saw coming. He would put off His judgment onto the world and extend grace to everyone on the planet through the new Gospel of Grace given to the Apostle Paul to tell the world. God would usher in a temporary Dispensation of Grace. God had many times before inserted gaps into prophesy. So God paused the prophetic program, inserted a gap – this dispensation of grace – and then He’ll return to the prophetic program.

[This article is from my notes for my message on All Things Common as part of my new series on the book of Acts.]

Baptism is one of two rites most churches recognize as ordinances of the New Testament church, alongside the Lord’s Table. Few topics generate as much confusion — or as much unnecessary division among believers.

A common evangelical doctrinal statement frames it this way:

That is the traditional, evangelical, largely Baptist understanding of baptism. Not every church shares it. Some understand baptism quite differently, while still affirming its necessity and importance — a position that can sound confusing at first. What follows aims to do two things: lay out clearly what Scripture actually teaches on the subject, and, to be forthright about it, make the case for it.

Why This Matters

This is not merely an academic question.

Picture a woman who wants to get involved in ministry at her church but doesn’t believe in water baptism the way that church defines it — so she’s barred from serving until she submits to it there. It’s a common story. Picture, too, a man baptized as a young believer in the church he grew up in, who later finds that neither a seminary discount nor membership in a new church is available to him unless he is baptized again, this time by their hands.

Scenarios like these have enormous practical bearing on service and fellowship in the church. Not to mention they can be extemely discouraging. This discouragement can even intensify when those same individuals go to scripture and see none of what some churches or seminaries even do or claim is in God’s Word. Too often it reduces to this: a congregation knows its numbers, knows its members, based on who has been water baptized by its own hands. That is a form of Corinthianism — the very pattern for which the believers at Corinth were corrected. The aim here is to leave the reader instead with what Paul sets forth in Ephesians 4 as the one baptism: to know what it is, to know when it takes place, and to let it be the ground of fellowship between believers — a ground that transcends local church membership and denominational lines. Imagine the local church as it ought to be - believers recognized by that which they profess as faith in Christ, His person, work, and merit - not an ordinance administered by man’s hands.

Paul writes in Ephesians 4:1–6:

I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Paul is addressing unity — how to walk in it, how to forbear one another in love, how to keep it. He grounds that unity in a series of realities: one Spirit, because the Godhead is one; one Lord, the second Person of the Godhead; one God and Father; and one body, since there is one church, not two. But notice also: one baptism.

It is easy to read past that phrase, or to assume it simply means water baptism performed by human hands. Many assume baptism and water are synonymous — that there could be no baptism without water. But Scripture does not support that assumption nearly as firmly as tradition suggests. Water is a real and significant thing in biblical history, but as redemptive history advances, its role becomes increasingly symbolic, and eventually it recedes from the picture of baptism altogether. To see that clearly, it helps to work through Scripture in four stages: define baptism, survey the doctrine of baptisms (plural), trace water baptism as it is progressively revealed and progressively fades, and then arrive at what this one baptism actually is.

1. Defining Baptism

A working definition, gathered from a collection of passages, proves useful here: baptism is a purification or cleansing unto sanctification and a new identification. Some kind of washing takes place — not always by water — that results in a separation from what once was to what now is (sanctification), and issues in a new identity.

Scripture bears this out through numerous washings, not just one. Hebrews 9:7–10 describes the Levitical priesthood:

But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the errors of the people: the Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing... which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

Notice: divers washings — plural — and carnal ordinances, having to do with the flesh, the body, external things. And notice the timing word: until. These washings were time-stamped. There would come a time when they were done away.

The Old Testament confirms this plurality. In Leviticus 15, various uncleannesses — not necessarily sins, but ceremonial impurities — required washing with water before a person was pronounced clean (Leviticus 15:14, 25–27). In Numbers 31:22–23, purification came not only by water but by fire, depending on the material. In Exodus 29:4, Aaron and his sons were washed with water as part of their consecration to the priesthood. Cleansing, in that context, became the doorway to a new identity — the priest was set apart, washed, anointed, and given new standing in relationship to God.

The New Testament likewise identifies more than one agent of cleansing: the blood of Christ (1 John 1:7), the washing of water by the Word (Ephesians 5:26), and the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Titus 3:5). Paul tells the Corinthians plainly: “Ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11). Notice the agent there — the Spirit of God, not human hands, and not literal water.

2. The Doctrine of Baptisms

Hebrews 6:1–2 speaks of “the doctrine of baptisms” — plural — as part of the foundational principles the Hebrew believers were being urged to leave behind in order to go on to maturity. That single phrase should stop us: Scripture itself acknowledges more than one baptism, and instructs believers to move past them, not to keep re-administering them. Now, surely, we recognize in “The Great Commission” the Lord commands the nations to be “baptized” and whoever believes and is baptized is saved (Matt. 28:19; Mar. 16:16) but more on this in point 3.

Consider Matthew 3:11, where John the Baptist says of Christ: “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but he that cometh after me... he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” One verse. Three baptisms. Two baptizers. Water, fire, and the Holy Ghost are not the same element, and John and Christ are not the same baptizer. We learn later in the gospels that Christ didn’t baptize it was his disciples (Jn. 4:1-2).

Consider also 1 Corinthians 10:1–4, where Paul writes that “all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” Israel went through the Red Sea dry-shod — a dry baptism, yet a real one, marking their new identity as a nation separated from Egypt. When the word baptism appears in Scripture, water should not be assumed by default. The text itself will not permit it.

Two chapters later, Paul makes the connection explicit: “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have been all made to drink into one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:13). If the baptism under Moses produced unity, equality, and shared provision among Israel, and if believers’ baptism into one body produces that same equality and fellowship in Christ, why does water baptism so often become a ground of division in the church at large?

That question was not hypothetical for the Corinthians. Paul had to address exactly this in 1 Corinthians 1:10–17, where factions had formed — “I am of Paul,” “I of Apollos,” “I of Cephas” — and Paul asks pointedly, “Were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” He goes on: “I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius, lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name... For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” Here is an apostle, writing after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, thankful he had done little water baptizing — precisely so no one could claim to belong to him by it. Alongside Hebrews 6, which tells believers to leave the doctrine of baptisms behind, and Hebrews 9, which time-stamps the diverse washings, this is not a favorable picture for making water baptism an ongoing church ordinance whether for church membership or not.

3. Water Baptism: Progressively Revealed, Progressively Fading

None of this denies that water baptism was real and significant in its time. But Scripture shows it receding as redemptive history advances.

At Pentecost, believers were water baptized, and shortly after, the Spirit came upon them — matching the pattern of Matthew 3:11. But the pattern is not uniform. In Acts 10, Cornelius and his household believed and received the Spirit before they were water baptized, catching Peter off guard. And in Acts 19:1–6, Paul meets disciples at Ephesus who had only known “John’s baptism.” When they heard about Jesus, “they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” — a text that does not mention water at all (typically the assumption is there was water involved which would mean that he most likely was dunked or sprinkled twice), only that they were baptized “when they heard this.”

From that point forward, water baptism largely disappears from the narrative. Even at the end of Acts, when Paul is under house arrest in Rome and people are believing his message, he is not found administering it. Romans through Revelation — the bulk of the church’s instructional letters — are nearly silent on water baptism. In the pastoral epistles, where Paul gives Timothy detailed instruction for ministry, he never once tells him to administer water baptism to new believers. An argument from silence isn’t the strongest argument, but that silence, set against a document that elsewhere speaks so specifically to church practice, is telling.

Even Peter’s later reference in 1 Peter 3:18–21 confirms the pattern rather than undermining it. Reflecting on Noah’s ark, Peter writes: “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” In the parenthesis there is clarity — almost certainly anticipating that his readers would assume he meant water — and explicitly rules it out. Peter’s parenthetical focus isn’t fleshly filth washing, but conscience filth washing. The baptism that saves is not an outward washing of the flesh; it is the answer of a good conscience toward God, now laid hold of by faith in the risen Christ.

4. The One Baptism

This brings us to Romans 6:3–4: “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?... that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”

This baptism is not performed by human hands. The baptizer is the Spirit of God; the element is the Person of Jesus Christ Himself — His death, burial, and resurrection. It happens the moment a person believes the gospel: that we are sinners, dead in trespasses, under wrath — and that Christ took our place, bore our sin, and rose again. When a person believes that, their relationship to sin changes — not because of an event on a certain day involving water, but because they were, by the Spirit, placed into Christ. There may be no felt emotional experience attached to it. But it happens, and it is settled.

This is the one baptism of Ephesians 4 — the baptism that grounds unity among believers, because every Christian (one that truly believes in Christ and His atoning and redemptive work for them), regardless of church membership or denomination, has been placed by the same Spirit into the same Christ. No one becomes part of the family of God by joining a local church. A person becomes a member of Christ’s body the moment they believe the gospel. A local church, at its best, is simply a local expression of people trying to live in accord with that truth.

A Gentle Appeal

Baptism, then, is not optional — Scripture is emphatic that it is necessary for eternal life. But it is the Spirit’s baptism into Christ, not an ordinance administered by hands, that saves and unites. Many believers hold both the one baptism and water baptism together without seeing any tension between them; the difficulty comes less from believing in water baptism itself than from what churches sometimes build on top of it — restricting service, fellowship, or membership to those baptized by their own hands, in their own name, and often times make the one baptism of none effect by their holding on to a principle Paul thanked He was sent to do, Hebrews says to leave in view of its time stamp, and Peter inserts such baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God by faith in the resurrected Lord.

For those who hold to the traditional view, none of this is meant to condemn, nor is the aim simply to win an argument. It is an invitation to consider these texts prayerfully. And for those who find this case something to study further, please do. For those that find it persuasive, the appeal remains the one Paul makes in Ephesians 4: walk worthy of your calling with lowliness, meekness, longsuffering, forbearing one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Don’t cause practical division by how to communicate truth. Have empathy. Have understanding. Be gentle. Be meek. Where there is opportunity, share this truth — but leave people where they are, and love them regardless. Remember they are not a part of the body of Christ because they believe in water baptism or that it has receded - they are part of the body of Christ because they believed the gospel of Christ and the Spirit baptized them in the same body you are in.

It is not being identified with a particular church, but with Jesus Christ, that makes believers one. That is the wisdom by which fellow believers ought to view one another — remembering what the Spirit of God did, once and for all, the moment each of them believed.

Look Up,

—Josh Strelecki, Pastor-Teacher

Is the grace movement facing a crisis? I think it is.

I see a shrinking pool of grace pastors and a shrinking pool of grace churches across the United States.

I don’t have hard data. This is just based on conversations I’ve had over the last few months. For example, a saint recently told me about two small grace churches in Florida that basically disassembled because the pastors, due to age or illness, couldn’t pastor anymore. There was no one to replace them. And so the assemblies broke up. Fizzled out. Fell apart.

How long has Altoona Bible Church been looking for a pastor? How tough do you think it’s going to be for Grace Life Bible Church to replace Bryan Ross?

I look around and I wonder...

Who’s out there who can step up and meet this spiritual need?

Who’s going to stand in our pulpits years from now?

Who’s going to help bring the message of grace to the next generation?

Who’s going to mentor young believers?

Who’s going to write another generation of grace books?

Who’s going to plant churches in towns desperate for truth?

Over at Easy Believer, managed by Sharon McEntee, we know of roughly 180–190 churches and organized fellowships in the United States. Think about that. We’re talking about less than 200 churches in a nation of over 340 million people.

I’d say that is absolutely a crisis.

The Philippines have 1,000 churches. Our country has less than 200.

And, as far as I can tell, that number is shrinking.

Of course, the grace movement has never had an abundance of laborers. We’ve always been small. Truth has always been a narrow gate (Matt. 7:14). We’ve always depended upon ordinary people who love right division enough to sacrifice their time, their retirement years, and sometimes their careers and financial gain so that people can not only be saved but also know who they are in Christ and be blessed by hearing about the extraordinary riches of God’s grace.

This has always been and will always be the only way our movement can survive.

Not because we have celebrity pastors online. But because we have faithful saints in cities establishing churches.

We need those people now more than ever.

We need all the normal believers out there in the U.S. living normal lives to step out of their comfort zones and do the hard work of establishing fellowships in their local communities. We also need men willing to study and step up and teach.

The Pauline Design

I’m also very concerned that there is a shift in the way people are thinking generally now because of the internet. If a grace church closes, a lot of saints may well think, “Well, I still have Pastor so-and-so and Pastor so-and-so online. So I’ll just watch them.” And then totally forsake fellowshipping with the saints.

This was never the Pauline design.

This is not what’s best for you spiritually.

The Pauline design is for the existence and proliferation of local grace churches. God wants you to have personal fellowship with other saints. The Pauline design is 2 Tim. 2:2 - men in your local assembly being mentored and teaching. They have to be studying for themselves, as good Bereans, and then stepping up and teaching and passing on that grace message to future generations.

I once listened to all of C.R. Stam’s radio programs. People would write in, and tell him, “I don’t have a grace church where I live. What do I do?”

Stam would say, essentially, “You’ve got your work cut out for you.” In other words, you’ve got to get the message of grace out in your local community and do the hard work of establishing a church yourself.

He’s right. Nobody’s going to do it for you. You have to do it yourself.

We have always been and always will be - grassroots.

And right now, the grace movement desperately needs pastors. The grace movement also desperately needs more churches.

People are not truly edified by simply listening to grace pastors online. They are edified by attending a local church in which they see other saints living out the doctrine. They are edified by personal interactions with other saints, developing those loving relationships, and serving each other.

This has always been God’s design for every grace believer.

Don’t believe me? See Rom. 12:4-5, 14:19, 15:14, 1 Cor. 12:12–27, Eph. 4:11–16, Col. 3:16, 1 Thess. 5:14, Titus 2, Phile. 1:2, and 2 Tim. 3:10.

Consumers of Grace

I also can’t help but wonder if many of us in this country have unintentionally become consumers of grace instead of stewards of the doctrines of grace.

We have men teaching online today.

Thousands of hours on YouTube.

Podcasts.

Articles.

Books.

Conferences.

Online schools.

Never in history has it been easier to find and learn the Word rightly divided.

But learning the doctrine was never supposed to be the end game. Grace is supposed to transform your life, and grace should inspire ministry in your own life. Grace is supposed to motivate your service to God.

And you need to make sure the grace message will be passed on to others where you live.

I thank God for livestreams and podcasts (especially ours!). I love interacting with the saints. There is a time and a place for all of this. But online ministry was never meant to replace real, personal, local churches. You can’t mentor someone through a YouTube comment section the same way you can over a cup of coffee and an open Bible. You can’t shepherd a flock with algorithms.

Paul also never portrayed grace churches as spectators sitting comfortably at home, disconnected from each another, while a handful of men carried the entire movement on their shoulders with online videos.

In Paul’s epistles, you don’t see an audience watching ministry — you see a local body engaged in ministry. Every member plays a role. Some teach publicly. Others evangelize. Others encourage. Some host churches in their homes. Others labor in prayer. Others give financially. Others refresh the saints with love.

Paul continually thanked believers for their fellowship in the gospel because they were also partners in the labor, not merely consumers of doctrine (Phil. 1:3-7).

The local church wasn’t designed to function like a theater where a few perform while everyone else watches. It is a family where every member contributes to the spiritual health of everyone else.

The body functions because every joint supplies something.

And when too many people decide someone else should do all the work...

…we’re in trouble.

Not long ago, I was in another conversation about grace churches and the future of the grace movement. A saint wondered, “Will there still be grace churches? Are churches going to die out?”

That’s a legitimate concern.

Although I’d say the better question is...

“Will there still be grace people willing to sacrifice to carry the torch?”

Churches don’t disappear because the truth stops being true. Churches disappear because faithful laborers become too few.

Big Picture

I’ll just highlight a few problems I see in the grace movement now:

· I think we need to do better about mentoring young men in local assemblies, because that is what 2 Tim. 2:2 is all about.

· If you’ve gone through Grace School of the Bible, you really need to be teaching and helping to build-up a local assembly. To go through that school for your own spiritual edification and not be teaching somewhere is total cop-out.

· I can’t help but wonder how many grace believers live in the same city and don’t realize there are other grace believers in that same city. And they’re all watching videos online because there isn’t a church when they could be fellowshipping with each other. If you have just one other person in your city who knows grace, then that person is your new church, and you must meet regularly.

· Just because great teachers exist online, that doesn’t mean you can neglect personal fellowship with other saints in your own city.

· And finally, churches need to be places of encouragement for new teachers. Churches have to be encouraging young men to go into the ministry and learning how to serve this seemingly-perpetually struggling movement.

Maybe the next grace pastor is reading this article right now.

Maybe he’s listening to our podcast while driving to work.

Maybe he’s leading his family in Bible readings every night.

Maybe he’s teaching a Sunday School class.

Maybe he doesn’t even realize how God can work through him and use him in ways he has never imagined.

Maybe it’s you.

We need you.