X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:09:56 EDT
From:         "(Tim King)" <timk@WORLD.STD.COM>
Subject:      Christians and the law.

> About what you called Paul's letter:  Actually, that was a letter from
> James, head of the church in Jerusalem to the believers in Antioch
> insisting they keep certain old Jewish customs.  This was an errant act on
> James' part and Paul refutes every point of that letter save for the part
> about sexual impurity in Romans 14, 1 Cor 8 and Galatians.

Ahem...  You have obviously not done your homework, Dan.  Shame on you!

First of all, the passage to which is being referred is Acts 15:20.  The
injunction was also reiterated in Acts 15:29; 21:25 and other places.
Note that James had the authority to make the decision, and it was wholly
supported by "the apostles and elders, with the whole church." (Acts
15:22) * Paul * carried it out and later supported it.  Note also, James's
motivation:  "that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who
are turning to God." (Acts 15:19)

Similar objections have also been brought against the book of James.  As
its inerrancy has been discussed ad nauseum in history, I will not go into
it in detail.  I instead refer anyone who's interested to the nearest
commentary.  (If you don't have one, ask your pastor or nearest library.)
There you will likely find scores of data and cross-references.

The book of James is likely authentic, despite the doubt of some.  It was
written by James the son of Alphaeus (Acts 1:13), who was a christian
leader in Jerusalem.  (Acts 15:13ff) It cannot be James, the son of
Zebedee, since he was killed earlier, in A.D. 44.  (Acts 12:1-2)

The book's canonicity was unquestioned from as early as Eusebius (4'th
century) until the 16'th century, when Luther hastily rejected it based
upon supposed contradictions with the teachings of Paul.

When the book of James is taken as a whole in its historical and cultural
context, these "contradictions" mysteriously disappear.  James was written
to Christian Jews.  It was probably written early on in the history of the
church, before any sizable following of Gentiles was present.  He
addresses situations that were personal to the Jews, and his comments must
be taken in that light to be understood.


> What law is then incumbent on the Christian?  The law of love...

James agrees!  James 2:5-8.

> The books of Romans and Galatians are Paul's declarations of freedom from
> the OT law.

Note also James 1:25; 2:12.

> Does that mean we can kill and steal?  No,
> for Paul clearly points out that that is not loving behavior and the saint
> will simply not do that.

Amen!  And doesn't James say essentially the same thing?  (James 2:14-17)

> The law of love is not something
> you do, it is what you are if you are Christ's.

"Phileo... [denotes] sentiment or feeling; while [agapao] is wider,
embracing espec. the judgement and the _ deliberate _ assent of the will
as a matter of principle, duty and propriety."  (Strong's Concise
Dictionary of The Words in The Greek Testament, emphasis in original)

See also Mark 12:30-31; John 14:15, 21, 31; Rom 13:9; 1 John 5:1-5.  John,
who is very strongly rooted in a doctrine of love, uses the word "love"
(agapao) more times as a commandment, an injunction, than any other New
Testament writer.


We must remember that the basic authority of scripture is not in what it
says.  We know the scripture to be authroritative because of its
authorship.  When we hastily discard or re-interpret scripture that has
been rigorously tested and approved for many centuries, we are essentially
changing it to say what we want it to.

To conclude, the answer to Dave's question is not as you have described
it, Dan.  However, there _ is _ an answer.  And, Dave, I'd like to
encourage you to keep searching for it in the scriptures.  The answer is
in there.  (John 5:39; 2 Tim 3:13-17)  Don't let all the arguing on
christia over the subject get you down.  The two views _ can _ be
reconciled, and they are _ not _ in contradiction.  In the meantime, keep
your ears open; perhaps some of the more moderate persons on the net have
something constructive to say.

I will also follow-up with a partial answer to your question.

-TimK
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU