In
Psalm 103:17-18 (Concordant Literal Old Testament), we read, “Yet the benignity of Yahweh is from eon unto eon over those
fearing Him, and His righteousness continues for the sons of sons, to those keeping His covenant and to those
remembering His precepts, to do them.”
What
“precepts” was the Psalmist referring to in v. 18? Answer: the precepts of the
law that God gave to Israel through Moses. In Exodus 19:4-8, the prelude to the
giving of Israel’s law reads as follows:
“You yourselves have seen
what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and
brought you to myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my
voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all
peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests
and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the people
of Israel.” So Moses came and called the elders of
the people and set before them all these words that Yahweh had commanded him. All the people answered
together and said, “All that Yahweh has spoken we will do.” And Moses
reported the words of the people to Yahweh.
It
was this covenant which placed the nation of Israel under the obligation to keep the law given to her, or else suffer the
consequences threatened by God. But is this covenant still in effect today? The
most commonly-held position among Christians seems to be that this covenant
ended when Christ died. In fact, one believer once assured me that the author
of the letter to the Hebrews “emphatically declared that the old covenant had
been done away with.” However, the author of Hebrews declared no such thing
(despite the fact that he easily could
have said this, had he thought it to have been the case). Rather than
saying that the old covenant had been “done away with,” the author instead
wrote the following concerning it: “In saying ‘new,’ [God] has made the former old. Now that which is growing old and decrepit is near its disappearance” (Heb 8:13).
To say
something is “growing old and
decrepit” and is “near its
disappearance” is not the same as saying that it has, in fact, ended or been abolished. And since that which the
author wrote was true at the time when he
wrote his letter (which was likely more than 30 years after the death and resurrection of Christ), it would mean that
Christ’s death and resurrection did not end the old covenant.
Some
believe that the events of 70 AD (which involved the Roman siege of Jerusalem,
the destruction of the temple and the exile of the Jewish people from their
land) should be understood as implying that the Mosaic covenant ended at this
time as well. However, this was neither the first time that the temple in
Jerusalem had been destroyed, nor the first time that the Jewish people had
been exiled from their land. The same thing happened in 587 BC under king
Nebuchadnezzar. And we know that this
event didn’t involve the end of the old covenant. On the contrary, that which
took place at this time was in accord
with the Mosaic covenant (which threatened Israel with curses for disobedience;
see, for example, Lev. 26:14-39 and Deut. 28:15-68). As such, both the events
of 587 BC and of 70 AD can be understood as proof that the Mosaic covenant was
in effect at that time.
But how
could the disappearance of the old covenant (and the implied implementation of
the new covenant) be referred to as something that was “near” at the time when
the author of Hebrews wrote? The “nearness” of the disappearance of the old
covenant (and the implementation of the new covenant) is consistent with the
motif of “imminence” that runs throughout the Greek scriptures. In Hebrews 1:2
the author referred to the era in which he wrote as “the last of these days”
(cf. Acts 2:16-18; 1 Pet. 1:20), and in Heb. 10:25 he referred to the future
day of the Lord as “drawing near” (cf. verses 26-31). James wrote that the
“presence of the Lord is near” and “the Judge stands before the doors.” Peter
wrote in his first letter, “Now the consummation of all is near.” Insofar as
the nearness of Christ’s return was true when the author of Hebrews wrote, the
disappearance of the old covenant could be said to have been “near” as well,
since it is at the consummation referred to by Peter (when the “Chief Shepherd
is manifested”) that the old covenant will disappear, and the new covenant will
go into effect.
But
if the old covenant is still in effect, does this mean that Israel is still
under a covenant-based obligation to keep the law given to her by God? Yes, it
does. In fact, even when the old covenant is replaced by the new covenant at
Christ’s return, Israel’s law (as well as her obligation to keep it) will remain.
Although it’s commonly believed that the old covenant and the law of Moses are
identical, I think it would be more accurate to say that the old covenant is
the arrangement that involves blessings to Israel for keeping the law of Moses,
and curses for breaking it. Rather than resulting in the disappearance or
abolishing of the law given to Israel, the implementing of the new covenant
will involve the supernatural empowerment of Israel to keep the law, so that the
nation will never again come under the curses with which God threatened Israel
under the old covenant.
In part one, Ezekiel 36:24-31 was quoted in support of the position that, when the new
covenant goes into effect, Israel will be dwelling in the land God promised
them. Because of its relevance to Israel’s covenant-based obligation, I’d like
to bring the reader’s attention to this passage once more. This time, however,
the emphasis will be on the fact that Israel will be faithfully keeping God’s
law while they’re dwelling in the land God promised to them:
“For I will take
you from among the nations, and gather you out of all the countries, and will
bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall
be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
I will also give you a new heart, and I
will put a new spirit within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of
your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within
you, and cause you to walk in My
statutes, and you shall keep My ordinances, and do them. You shall dwell in
the land that I gave to your fathers; and you shall be My people, and I will be
your God. I will save you from all your uncleanness: and I will call for the
grain, and will multiply it, and lay no famine on you. I will multiply the
fruit of the tree, and the increase of the field, that you may receive no more
the reproach of famine among the nations. Then you shall remember your evil
ways, and your doings that were not good; and you shall loathe yourselves in
your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations.”
From this passage it’s
clear that, when the new covenant is in effect, Israel will be caused by God to
keep the statutes and ordinances that he gave to Israel. God will ensure that
Israel will never again become guilty of breaking his law, and Israel will
never again become deserving of the curses that were threatened in the old
covenant.
God’s covenant people during Christ’s earthly
ministry
The importance of Israel’s keeping the law in fulfillment of her
covenant-based obligations – even up to (and into) the coming day of the Lord –
is evident from one of the final statements found in the Hebrew Scriptures. In Malachi 4:4, God exhorts Israel
as follows: “Remember the law of my servant Moses, the
decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel.” In accord with this exhortation from Malachi, we read that
Zechariah and Elizabeth were “both just in
front of God, going in all the precepts and just statutes of the Lord,
blameless” (Luke 1:5-6). From this verse
it’s evident that there was an inseparable connection between an Israelite’s
righteous standing before God and their faithful, law-keeping conduct. For
believing Israelites such as Zechariah and Elizabeth, faith in God and his
promises to Israel was expressed through (and was inseparable from) the keeping
of “the precepts and just statutes” that God had given to Israel through Moses.
No one with a covenant-based
obligation to keep God’s law could, without repudiating their covenant status
as a member of God’s covenant people, simply choose not to keep it. And as members of God’s covenant
people, Zechariah and Elizabeth had a covenant-based obligation to keep this
law.
Of course, we need not believe that Zechariah and Elizabeth were
sinless, and had kept the law of Moses perfectly their entire lives (in fact,
within the law itself there was provision made for violations of it). However,
despite the failings that Zechariah and Elizabeth undoubtedly had with regards
to their attempt to obey God perfectly, their faith-based conduct was such that
they could be counted among those who qualified to be raised at the
“resurrection of the just,” to enjoy eonian life in the kingdom of God (Luke
14:14; 20:35).[1]
Now, when
we fast-forward to the start of Jesus’ earthly ministry, it’s evident that the
words of Malachi 4:4 remained just as applicable and authoritative as they were
when they were first written. Concerning the importance and continuance of the
law, Christ himself declared the following to his disciples during his “sermon
on the mount”:
"You should
not infer that I came to demolish the law or the prophets. I came not to
demolish, but to fulfill. For verily, I am saying to you, Till heaven and earth
should be passing by, one iota or one serif may by no means be passing by from
the law till all should be occurring. Whosoever, then, should be annulling one
of the least of these precepts, and should be teaching men thus, the least in
the kingdom of the heavens shall he be called. Yet whoever should be doing and
teaching them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens. For I am
saying to you that, if ever your righteousness should not be superabounding
more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, by no means may you be entering
into the kingdom of the heavens.” Matthew 5:17-20
To
“demolish” the law and the prophets would’ve been to put an end to them, and to
make them no longer applicable to (or authoritative for) Israel. This is the very
thing that Christ declared he did not
come to do. Instead, he came to “fulfill” them. There seems to be quite a bit
of confusion among Christians concerning what, exactly, the word translated
“fulfill” (pleroo) means here. Many
Christians interpret the word to mean “bring an end to.” However, such an
interpretation is clearly illogical and absurd, as it would essentially have
Christ declaring that he didn’t come to put an end to the law or the prophets,
but to put an end to them!
The
literal meaning of the word pleroo
means to “make full,” and – like many words – can convey different ideas
depending on the context in which it’s used. In this context, it’s clearly used
in contrast with the words translated
“demolish” (or “destroy”) and “annul.” So however the word pleroo is to be understood in v. 17, it can’t be understood in such a way that it expresses the same idea
conveyed through the words “demolish” and “annul.” The key to its meaning here
is, I believe, found in the fact that it’s connected with both “the law” and “the
prophets.” When a certain prophecy is “fulfilled,” that which was written or
spoken is not “ended” or “terminated.” Rather, that which was prophesied actually occurs or is brought about. It
is, in other words, carried out, or carried into effect. For a prophecy to
be “fulfilled” (or “made full”), then, is for it to be carried out, or carried
into effect.
The same
meaning of pleroo is found in Matt.
3:15, where Christ declared that it was “becoming for us [himself and John] to fulfill all righteousness.” Christ
didn’t mean, of course, that it was becoming for them to bring an end to all righteousness. Rather, he meant it was becoming
for them to carry it out fully, or put it into effect. In the same way, Christ
wasn’t talking about putting an end to the law or the prophets. He was talking
about carrying out, or fully implementing,
what was written in the law and the prophets. Christ then went on to declare, “For verily, I am saying to you, Till
heaven and earth should be passing by, one iota or one serif may by no means be
passing by from the law till all should be occurring.”
Why did
Christ begin by saying, “Till heaven and earth should be passing by?” Well, we
know that heaven and earth were said by God to be the two witnesses to the
giving of the law to Israel: “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and
evil, in that I command you today to love Yahweh your God, to walk in his ways,
and to keep his commandments, his statutes, and his judgments, that you may
live and multiply; and Yahweh your God will bless you in the land which you go
to possess…I call heaven and earth as
witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death,
blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants
may live” (Deut. 30:15-19).
This is
why “heaven and earth” must pass away before the law will. Christ knew that, as
long as heaven and earth remained, the law would remain as well. But what did
Christ mean by “till all should be occurring?” Based on the immediate context,
the “all” that Christ said “should be occurring” is likely a reference to everything
written in the law and the prophets (which Christ declared he came to fulfill).
In other words, the law given by God to Israel will not be passing away till
everything written in the law and the prophets occurs. And since we know from
the prophets that the law given to Israel will continue to be in effect during
the eon to come (e.g., Isaiah 2:3; 66:22-23; Jer. 31:33; Ezekiel 36:27; 37:24;
44:15-17, 24; 45:21, 25; Micah 4:1-2; Zech. 14:16-18; etc.), it follows that
the passing of the law cannot occur before the end of the eon to come.
Thus,
God’s covenant people were no less obligated to keep the law during the days of
Christ’s earthly ministry than they were when Moses first spoke the words of
Deut. 30:15-19. Thus, we read the following in Matt. 23:1-3: Then Jesus speaks to the throngs and to
His disciples, saying, “On Moses’ seat are seated the scribes and the
Pharisees. All, then, whatever they
should be saying to you, do and keep it. Yet according to their acts do not
be doing, for they are saying and not
doing.”
When we
keep in mind that those to whom Christ spoke were members of God’s covenant
people, Israel (and thus had a covenant-based obligation to keep the law), this
exhortation from Christ makes perfect sense. Keeping the law was never just a
matter of “cultural preference” for Israelites. It was a matter of covenantal
obligation. And with the coming of Christ, their covenantal obligation to keep
the law did not cease; rather, what changed was that faith in Jesus – i.e.,
faith that he is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:13-17) –
became just as necessary to their salvation as faith in Yahweh, the one God of
Israel.
The
necessity of faith in Christ as an additional requirement for salvation is made
especially evident in John’s Gospel Account, where one of the central themes of
the book is that faith in Jesus as the Christ and Son of God is essential to
having eonian life (John 20:30-31). So it's clear that one of the ways in which
Christ believed his disciples did the will of his Father was by believing the
truth concerning his Messianic identity (cf. 1 John 3:23). However, despite the
emphasis in this book on believing that Jesus is the Messiah/Son of God, it
would be a mistake to think that “faith without works” was sufficient for an
Israelite’s doing the will of God and being worthy of an allotment in the
kingdom during the eon to come. The new requirement of faith in Jesus for
salvation – i.e., faith in his Messianic identity - did not replace the need for faithful, obedient
conduct. “Doing the will of God” was, for Christ’s disciples, inseparable from
their conduct.
According
to Christ, if an Israelite wanted to be saved and enter into the kingdom of God
– which, as we’ve seen, is the kingdom that is to be restored to Israel - their
righteousness had to “super-abound” more than that of the scribes and Pharisees
(Matt. 5:20), and it’s clear from the immediate context that this involved
keeping the precepts of the law given by God to Israel (vv. 17-19). Although
the righteousness that made an Israelite worthy of entering into life in the
eon to come undoubtedly involved the heart rather than the external conduct
only (we find this point emphasized throughout Christ’s teaching), it’s also
clear that an Israelite’s conduct (i.e., keeping God’s precepts) was
inseparable from their being worthy of entering the kingdom that is to be
restored to Israel. According to Christ, it was not “workers of lawlessness”
but rather those who were “doing the will of [his Father] in the heavens” who
would “be entering into the kingdom of the heavens” (Matt. 7:16-23; cf. vv.
24-27). Notice that Christ contrasted doing the will of God with “lawlessness”
(see 1 John 3:4). “Lawlessness” is, of course, the opposite of keeping God's
law/commandments.
When
asked by a young man what one needed to be doing in order to have life eonian
in the kingdom of God, Christ replied, “If you are
wanting to be entering into life, keep the precepts” (Matt. 19:16-17).
In other words, keeping the precepts of the law was not an option for God’s
covenant people if they wanted to “be entering into life.” It was a
requirement. Christ went on to list five of the “Ten Commandments,” as well as
what he considered the second of the two “greatest precepts” given to Israel:
“You shall be loving your associate as yourself” (vv. 18-19; cf. Mark
12:29-34), which is from Leviticus 19:18 (the other greatest precept being from
Deut. 6:5). It is impossible for an Israelite to keep what Christ referred to
as the “greatest precepts” while, at the same time, living in violation of the
very precepts which God himself inscribed in stone and - through Moses -
delivered to Israel (Ex. 24:12; 31:18).
In addition to affirming the essential involvement of the heart
in keeping God’s precepts (Matt. 5:27-28), Christ also warned his disciples
against being “snared” by the temptation to break one of the precepts given to
Israel with the following exhortation:“Now, if your right eye is snaring you,
wrench it out and cast it from you, for it is expedient for you that one of
your members should perish and not your whole body be cast into Gehenna [i.e., the
Valley of Hinnom]. And if your hand should ever be snaring you, strike it off and
cast it from you, for it is expedient for you that one of your members should
perish and not your whole body pass away into Gehenna…It is ideal for you to be
entering life maimed, rather than having two hands, to be cast into Gehenna…” (Matt.
5:27-30; Mark 9:42-48). Clearly, Christ did not understand the keeping of God’s
precepts as a mere option for his
disciples. Again, a failure to keep God’s precepts constituted “lawlessness,”
and it was the “workers of lawlessness” whom Christ declared would not be entering
the kingdom of God (Matt. 7:22-23).
In contrast with those who would not be entering the kingdom of
God, Christ referred to those among God’s covenant people whom the Father would
be giving the kingdom as the “little flock” (Luke 12:32). Those constituting
the “little flock” that will be receiving the kingdom are those who not only
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, but who also – as an
expression of their faith in God and Christ - do whatever Christ said needed to
be done in order to be entering life (such as keeping the precepts of the law given
to Israel).
God’s covenant people during the final years of
this eon
According to Christ in his Olivet Discourse, all believing
Israelites who will be alive during the time of “great affliction” must remain
“vigilant” (Luke 21:36), “watchful” (Matt. 24:42; 25:13), and “faithful”
(25:21-23). They must avoid being “snared” and “deceived” (Matt. 24:4), and
must “endure to the consummation” in order to be “saved” (Matt. 24:13). We know
that the “consummation” Christ had in view in this verse refers to his coming
in power and glory at the end of the eon, and that being “saved” involves being
worthy to stand before Christ at this time and to enter into life in the
kingdom (Luke 21:28-31). And based on John’s words in Rev. 14:12, it can also
be reasonably inferred that the “enduring” Christ had in mind entailed “keeping the
precepts of God and the faith of Jesus.” See also Rev. 12:17, where we’re told that the
dragon went away to do battle with the seed of the “woman” (the believing
Jewish remnant of Judea), who are “keeping the
precepts of God and who have the testimony of Jesus.”
That the salvation program according to which Israelites could
be saved during Christ’s earthly ministry did not terminate with Christ’s death
and resurrection is evident from the post-ascension words of Christ himself. In
the 2nd and 3rd chapters of the book of Revelation, we find Christ delivering
messages to the “messengers” of seven different churches in Asia. Although I
believe these ecclesias will all exist at a future time (and were not in
existence at the time John wrote Revelation), it should be noted that a
fulfilled, “historical” interpretation of Revelation 2-3 (which views these ecclesias
as contemporaneous with John at the time he wrote) is equally consistent with
the position being advanced in this article.
Regardless of whether these seven ecclesias existed in John’s
day or will exist at some future time, the point that needs to be emphasized is
that Christ’s messages to them all presuppose the same view of salvation as
that found in the Gospel accounts – i.e., one’s being worthy of life during the
eons of Christ’s reign is dependent on both faith and faithful, precept-keeping
conduct. From the perspective of those to whom Christ delivered the words in
these chapters, their future salvation is not something that will come to pass
irrespective of what they do and how they live; rather, to be worthy of having
life in the kingdom during the eons of Christ’s reign will require continued
obedience, diligence and faithfulness:
“I am aware of your acts, and your toil, and your endurance…But I
have against you that you leave your first love. Remember, then, whence you
have fallen, and repent, and do the former acts. Yet if not, I will come to you
and remove your lampstand from its place, if ever you should not be repenting…To the one who is conquering, I will be
granting to be eating of the tree of life which is in the center of the
paradise of God” (Rev. 2:2-7).
“Become faithful until
death, and I shall be giving you the wreath of life…the one who is conquering
will not be injured by the second death” (Rev. 2:10).
“I will give to each of you
as your works deserve…the one who is conquering and who is keeping my acts until
the consummation, to him will I be giving authority over the nations” (Rev. 2:23,
26-28).
“I am aware of your acts, that you have a name that you are living,
and are dead. Become watchful, and establish the rest who were about to be
dying; for I have not found your acts
completed in the sight of my God…Yet you have a few names in Sardis who
have not soiled their clothes. They will
walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy. The one who is conquering will be clothed thus in white garments, and under no circumstances will I be
erasing his name from the scroll of life. I will confess his name before my
Father and before his messengers.” (Rev. 3:1-5)
Notice that, in the above passages, Christ wasn’t merely talking
about receiving something
beyond salvation, as an “added bonus”
for faithfulness. He was talking about having eonian life itself during the
last and greatest eon (that which pertains to the “new heaven and new earth”).
Having access to the “tree of life,” receiving the “wreath of life” (and
avoiding the “second death”) and not being erased from “the scroll of life” are
undoubtedly about being saved rather than unsaved. And as was the case before
and during Christ’s earthly ministry, both faith and faithful conduct will be
necessary for God’s covenant people to be worthy of eonian life in the
kingdom.
God’s covenant people during the apostolic era
In
Acts 21:17-22 (Concordant Literal New Testament) we read the following:
Now at our coming
to be in Jerusalem, the brethren welcome us with gratification. Now by the
ensuing day, Paul had been in, together with us, to James. Besides, all the
elders came along. And, greeting them, he unfolded, one by one, each of the
things which God does among the nations through his dispensation. Now those who
hear glorified God. Besides, they said to him, “You are beholding, brother, how
many tens of thousands there are among the Jews who have believed, and all are
inherently zealous for the law? Now they were instructed concerning you that
you teach all the Jews among the nations apostasy from Moses, telling them not
to be circumcising their children, nor yet to be walking in the customs. What
is it, then?”
Paul
arrived in Jerusalem around 59 AD. This means that, approximately 30 years after the death, resurrection and
ascension of Christ, there were “tens of thousands” of believing Jews in the
land of Israel that were “all inherently zealous for the law.” These believing
Jews - among whom James and the other Jewish elders would’ve undoubtedly
counted themselves - also believed that it would’ve been wrong for any of them
to apostatize from Moses (which would’ve involved no longer circumcising their
children or “walking in the customs” of the Mosaic law), and that anyone who
taught otherwise was wrong (Acts 21:18-22). It was these believing Jews who
comprised (or who comprised part of) what Paul referred to as the “ecclesias of
God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus” (1 Thess. 2:14). Among these believers
were also the “poor of the saints who are in Jerusalem” to whom the saints in
the body of Christ were making financial contributions (Rom. 15:25-27), in
accord with the agreement that we find referred to by Paul in Gal. 2:9-10.
But why
were all of these believing Jews “inherently zealous” for the law? In light of
what’s already been said in this study, the answer should be obvious to the
reader: as members of God’s covenant nation, Israel, these “tens of thousands”
of believing Jews had a covenant-based obligation to keep the law. Thus, their
status as a people in covenant with God required
the sort of zeal for the law that we’re told by James that they all had. We
have absolutely no evidence that any of these believing Jews had been informed
by any of Christ’s apostles that Israel no longer had a covenantal obligation
to keep the law given by God to the nation, or that keeping the law had
suddenly become “optional” for God’s covenant people. Rather, the
divinely-woven thread of Israel’s covenantal obligation continues unbroken
through the Hebrew Scriptures, the four Gospel Accounts and the book of Acts.
The following words of Psalm
103:17-18 were just as true for Israel when the book of Acts was written as
they were when the Psalm itself was written: “Yet the
benignity of Yahweh is from eon unto eon over those fearing Him, and His righteousness continues for the
sons of sons, to those keeping His
covenant and to those remembering His precepts, to do them.”
This view
is confirmed by what James wrote in his letter. In reading this letter, it must
be kept in mind that those to whom James addressed his letter were “the twelve tribes in the dispersion.” James was, in
other words, writing to those who self-identified as individuals belonging to
one of the tribes of Israel. If James had been writing to members of the body
of Christ – a company of saints in which ethnic and fleshly distinctions are
irrelevant – why would he reinforce the idea of fleshly, ethnic distinctions by
addressing the recipients of his letter as such? Why write an entire letter to
only Jewish members of a company of
saints in which we’re told that there is neither Greek nor Jew, nor
circumcision or uncircumcision (Col. 3:11)? The very fact that James addressed
his letter to the twelve tribes of Israel is, in itself, evidence that there
were, in his day, Israelites who, although believing that Jesus is the Christ,
were not members of the body of Christ.
This is
further confirmed from what James went on to write. Although James clearly
believed that faith was essential to the salvation of those
to whom he wrote, he also believed that works were no less essential. Consider,
for example, the following excerpts from chapter two of James’ letter (which
was written anywhere between 20-30 years after
the death and resurrection of Christ):
“What is the benefit, my brethren, if
anyone should be saying he has faith, yet may have no works? That faith cannot
save him.”
In the context, the salvation that James had in view
is clearly that which is the result of being justified, and involves receiving
eonian life. James is saying that one who has faith but no works is not
justified, and will thus not be saved.
“Thus also, is faith, if it should not
have works: it is dead by itself.”
According to James, it is not faith alone that
saves. Faith without works is a “dead” faith; faith must be “perfected” by
works in order to be a “living” faith that saves. This is evident from the next
three quotations:
“Abraham, our father, was he not
justified by works when offering up his son Isaac on the altar? You are
observing that faith worked together with his works, and by works was faith
perfected. And fulfilled was the scripture which is saying, Now ‘Abraham
believes God, and it is reckoned to him for righteousness,’ and he was called
‘the friend of God.’”
“You see that by works a man is being
justified, and not by faith only.”
“For even as the body apart from spirit
is dead, thus also faith apart from works is dead.”
As should
be clear to the reader, the sort of justification that James had in mind was
based on faith and works. According to James, works were just
as essential to the justification of the Israelites and proselytes to whom he
wrote as was faith; faith was understood as “working together” with a
person’s works, and as thus “perfecting” one’s faith. This is in accord
with what Christ taught during his earthly ministry. According to Christ, both
faith and obedient, precept-keeping conduct were necessary in order for an
Israelite to be saved and to enter the kingdom of God. This is because – as
we’ve seen – God’s covenant people have a covenant-based obligation to keep the
law, and their salvation as members of
God’s covenant people requires not just faith but a faith that expresses
itself in faithful and obedient conduct.
We also
know from the context that the sort of works that James had in mind as being
essential to the justification of those to whom he wrote were works that were
done when “discharging the royal law” (James
2:8-13). What is this “royal law” to which James was
referring (and which James referred to in 1:22-25 as “the perfect law, that of
freedom”)? Answer: it is the same law for which the “tens of thousands” of
believing Jews in Jerusalem were, according to James himself, all “inherently
zealous” – i.e., the law given by God to
Israel. This is, I believe, evident from several considerations:
1. This “royal law” was a law to which those among
the twelve tribes to whom he wrote would’ve been regularly listening in their
synagogues (1:22-25; cf. 2:2).
2. It was a law to which “the
scripture, ‘You shall be loving your associate as yourself’” belonged.
And where is this “scripture” to which James was referring found? Answer: James
was quoting from Leviticus 19:18. By showing partiality, those to whom James
wrote were “working sin” and “being exposed by the law as transgressors.”
3. The law which exposed them as transgressors is
obviously the same “royal law” to which James just referred, and that can be
none other than the law of Moses (significantly, Lev. 19:15 condemns the sin of
partiality, which is the very sin to which James is responding in chapter 2 of
his letter).
4. James immediately went on to refer to two of the
ten precepts constituting the Decalogue (or “Ten Commandments”), which is, of
course, the most well-known part of the Law of Moses.
James went on to exhort the recipients of his
letter to be speaking and doing as those “about to be judged by a law of
freedom,” which he said would be “merciless to him who does not exercise
mercy.” Most Christians would undoubtedly scoff at the idea
of the law of Moses being referred to as either “perfect” or as being a “law of
freedom,” but this just shows how vastly different the attitude of most
Christians is from the attitude that James and those to whom he wrote would’ve
had concerning the law that God gave to Israel. A believing member of God’s
covenant people (such as James) would’ve had the same attitude toward the law as
that which was expressed by David in Psalm 19:7-11: ”The law of
Yahweh is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of
Yahweh is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of Yahweh are right, rejoicing the
heart; the commandment of Yahweh is pure, enlightening the eyes; the fear of Yahweh is clean, enduring
forever; the rules of Yahweh are true, and righteous altogether. More to be
desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than
honey and drippings of the honeycomb. Moreover, by them is your servant warned;
in keeping them there is great reward” (see also Psalm 119,
much of which extols the virtues of the law).
To a believing Israelite like James, the law was “a law of
freedom” because, by discharging it (as an expression of one’s faith in Christ
and God), one was obeying God. And a life of faith-based obedience to God meant
not being a slave to sin and corruption (cf. John 8:34-36; 2 Pet. 2:18-29).
Since Christ himself taught that his disciples must keep the precepts of the
law in order to enter into life (Matthew 5:17-20; 19:16-17; 23:1-3; etc.), a
believing Israelite could not be said to remain in Christ’s word (and thus be
his disciple) without keeping the precepts of the law. Failing to “endure
trial” by transgressing the law that James had in mind (and thus “working sin”)
jeopardized the future salvation of those to whom James wrote, and disqualified
them from obtaining the “wreath of life” (which, as seen from Christ’s words in
Revelation, means qualifying for eonian life rather than having one’s name
erased from the “scroll of life,” and being among those who will be “injured by
the second death”).[2]
[1] It must be noted
that, for God’s covenant people, faith has always
been essential to being “just” before God. The words of Habakkuk 2:4 (“the just
shall live by faith”) and Hebrews 11:6-7 (“apart from faith it is impossible to
be well pleasing, for he who is coming to God must believe that He is, and is
becoming a Rewarder of those who are seeking Him out”) have always been true
for God’s covenant people. However, it would be wrong (as well as illogical) to
conclude that, because an Israelite’s righteous
standing before God has always required faith (and has never been based solely
on law-keeping), it follows that an Israelite’s conduct is completely unrelated
to their righteous standing before God. For those who have a covenant-based
obligation to keep the law given to Israel, their faith has always had to find
expression in their attempt to keep
the law.
[2] Unlike those in the
body of Christ, the justification of those to whom James wrote was not “through
the faith of Christ.” If it was, those to whom he wrote would’ve been in no
danger of losing or forfeiting the “wreath of life,” or of being erased from
the “scroll of life.” Their receiving eonian life would be just as secure as
the life that Christ is enjoying right now (since the basis for their deserving
it would’ve been Christ’s own faith and obedience to God, rather than their own).
No comments:
Post a Comment