Category: Paul

A New Perspective on… James?

Forgive me, but I couldn’t help myself on the title. But don’t leave yet! So much debate has gone on through the centuries over the issue of the Christian’s relationship to the law, and the nature of salvation in relation to works and faith. Anyone who has done even a small amount of New Testament study has come across Paul’s wonderful affirmations of the just living by faith, and justification by grace, through faith, not of works, etc. Even easier to find still is the book of James’ affirmation that faith without works is dead, and that justification is by works too and not faith alone. So is this contradictory? Why two seemingly opposite answers to the same question? Now, news flash.. I will not be ending the debate today. But I do wonder if we have our template wrong for understanding this really tough question.

For me, the problem starts with the fact that both authors are appealing to the same Old Testament quotation in their respective treatments; Genesis 15:6, which states, “And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.” This verse refers to Abraham’s trust in God who told him that he would have a son, a true biological one. This quotation in Genesis comes within a broader conversation between God and Abraham about this very promise because, as of yet, God had given Abraham no seed. Abraham questions God, because at that time, Eliezer of Damascus, his servant, was set to be the heir to his estate and this was not a good thing. This of course, precedes the famous smoking oven passage where God ratifies his covenant with Abraham, then specifically mentions the land of promise after telling Abraham what would happen to his progeny. So this I think will do to at least set some context for thinking about the quotations.

I find it so interesting that Paul spends much time in Romans, before he quotes this passage dealing with the righteousness of God. at least 5 times he mentions it. God’s righteousness is “revealed in the gospel” (1:17), it may be shown when men are unrighteous(3:5); it is “now manifested apart from the law”(3:21), given through faith in Jesus(3:22), and it is shown in God’s giving of Jesus to be the propitiation(3:25-26). So God’s righteousness is important in the course of the book so far, and it is in Paul’s interest to defend it and express it. But he also says that the Law and the Prophets attest to this (3:21), and that this faith in what is portraying God’s righteousness in this powerful way, does not overthrow the law, but in fact upholds it! (3:31). So now following Paul’s line of reasoning, it seems fair to say that Abraham gained nothing according to the flesh (4:1) as neither did the Jews to whom Paul was referring to in the previous chapters (3:9-19, 2:12-13, 2:28-29). Paul then relates that Abraham believed in what God told him, and it was counted to him as righteousness. He then will go on to expound how this is applicable now to Gentiles, but this is simple enough.

As for James, this is where it gets tricky because Paul seems to take this passage at face value. Yet, when James quotes this verse, he refers to it as being fulfilled at the time when Abraham offered up Isaac on Mount Moriah which is 7 chapters later in the book. It does seem strange. And this is where I propose we understand James a little differently. If we remember in the beginning of the letter/epistle, James begins it with, “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” (Jam 1:2-4) I wonder if we should understand James’ quotation and his understanding of the Abrahamic story against the backdrop of these verses. That Abraham is seen as the “faithful sufferer” or the “enduring trial-bearer” who, through the binding of Isaac, the test of offering his “beloved son” (Gen 22:2), had his faith made “perfect” or complete(Jam 2:22b). The only correspondent missing is the joyfulness at the trial, but I should think that therein lies the exhortation because of the precedent set before it. And this would fulfill the Scripture in a different way. In the very next chapter, after God’s Angel intervenes and blesses Abraham, reaffirming the covenant made to him, Abraham is able to obtain the very first piece of the land that God had promised to give him in his purchase of the cave of Machpelah which would become the family burial site. And this ties in both of the promises from the original context in a really neat way.

So like I said before, I don’t plan on solving the debate, and I don’t necessarily expect many to agree with me, but it does seem a coherent and different way to harmonize the two apostles. This is especially true given that after Paul’s discourse on Abraham, he slides into some surprisingly similar statements. After he has concluded that we have been justified by faith in Jesus Christ, in verse 3 he says, “Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.” (Rom 5:3-5) Given the joy, suffering, endurance, and shamelessness, I’d say these two are a little more harmonious than they are given credit for.

Washing in the Pool of Siloam: Saul’s conversion

The transformation of the man, Saul of Tarsus, over the span of history is one of the most studied circumstances in all of New Testament and Biblical Studies and I suspect the ink well will not run dry on it any time soon. This curious episode, to me is one of a list of questions I should ask anyone who doubts the validity of the New Testament writings and the Church’s claims. How do you explain him? But to analyze the metaphysical occurrences, or the psychological state of Saul would be beyond my knowledge and frankly, not important to me in this post. But I am wondering if there is another text in Scripture to help us understand what exactly happened to him.

I have in mind already a candidate, but I will save it for suspense. In Acts 9, Saul was breathing threats against the church and his zeal had lead him to go to the high priest directly and obtain letters to the synagogues of Damascus. This would allow him authority to round up those who were Christ’s followers and bring them captive to Jerusalem. But, as we know, this didn’t happen. Saul met the most brilliant of lights, and in that light, met the risen Jesus. Jesus tells him specifically in the first account to go into the city, and find out what he is to do next. Saul, being in this light was blinded, and had to be led by the hand. It was not until the Lord sent Ananias to meet with Saul that he got his sight back. This literal blinding of Saul is what I want to bunker down in.

During Jesus’ ministry, there was a certain mode of operation that was particularly prevalent, and this was the restoration of sight to the blind. This had been foretold in the prophets as one of the signs that the Messiah’s ministry was contingent on.(ISA 35:5, 42:7) But there is one healing in particular that is very striking. It is in John 9, where he puts clay on a blind man’s eyes and tells him to go wash to receive his sight. Then John gives us a detailed story of the town’s reaction to this miracle. This man becomes almost a prototype evangelist. Everyone is astonished because they know him to be the blind guy who is always there begging, but he is not begging now because he is able to see. He tells of what Jesus did to and for him, although at that point he doesn’t know the extent of who Jesus is. He gets into it with the “Jews” and eventually they put him out of the synagogue because he will not let go of the fact that Jesus had done this, and he had respect for him as a prophet. Later, Jesus finds him and reveals himself to him and calls him to believe. The man assents; then Jesus says these words, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.”(JOHN 9:39)And also he says to the Pharisees, “If you were blind, then you would have no guilt; but now that you say ‘We see’, your guilt remains.”(JOHN 9:41)

In the case of Saul, we may be seeing these statements of Jesus playing out in a radical way, both literally and figuratively. On one hand, Paul is a devout Pharisee, no doubt of similar stock to those who Jesus was talking to in John’s gospel. He is a leader of the people and a teacher; his way of viewing the Way, as it was called, was definitely not straddling the fence. He knew without a doubt that this was heresy, and he was determined to root it out! This was him, I perceive, being one who “sees” as it were, and his encounter with the Christ on the road to Damascus left him blind literally. We can see that his “seeing” was his spiritual blindness and now the wild paradox gets super confusing. But can you see where the opposite statuses are taking their effects? All this is to say that if this is correct, then Jesus’ condemnation on those who see, is not a pronouncement of their eternal fate, but an act of chasing after the sinner in whatever state they are in and changing their position so as to cause them to seek him. That those who deem themselves satisfactorily in God’s good graces should have cause to doubt it and to call on His name. Those who know they are not can feel welcomed to call on Him in spite of it.

In conclusion, I think it is stretching it to say that there is some intertextuality at play here, but I think in the least, it is something to consider that Jesus’ statements could play out in this way for at least one disciple, namely Saul. This is the man who wrote in ROM 11:11, “So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.” And ROM 11:30-32, “For just as you were at one time disobedient to God, but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too now have been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.” How fitting for this man, the chief of sinners, to be made blind, so that he could see that “I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life.”(1 TIM 1:16).

Let me know what you think! Criticism is always needed.