Romans 8

by confused and lost 32 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  JosephMalik

  You said that the book of James (or as I am understanding you) is a reversal by James. Where do you get that impression from James? I could most definitely see the book of Hebrews, but James?

  Ex-icoc,

  Yes, I can understand that very well. The WT wrote a little brown book on James some time ago and got it all wrong as well. This is why I said he was a proud man and this letter was difficult for him. It does not state this problem outright or his involvement in it but if you were a Jew that knew James background and what he did to Paul as was shown earlier in Acts 21 then his words could mean nothing else. We are talking about a long time over 20 years or more with thousands of Jewish Christians involved on his side. I commented on this in other posts but let me see what I can bring up.

  1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

  This letter was intended for a very select audience (Paul’s territories) where the problem mainly existed for Paul. James could take care of things locally himself. After cooling them down a bit he said:

  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. 26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. 27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

  You see James is not supporting the Law anymore. They were guilty of not bridling their tongue, forcing circumcision upon believers being critical of them, feeling superior through their genealogy but now they should be found as decent people doing good things. You know what he did to Paul and taught before regarding vows and the temple but now you do not see him teaching it anymore. This is why most do not see what is going on. And it gets better.

  2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors 10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

  He respected the Law as you see here, but he no longer supported it for salvation. He showed its shortcomings including the 10 commandments but now opted for the law of liberty which does not judge us by such rules. And it goes on and on like this so I will leave it for you to analyze like this. By knowing what they did and how they acted before by law and custom, you can see his rebuttal and change. Now they should be known to everyone (Gentile) as decent human beings instead. This is not some doctrine I am pushing but what I can see in the text that will help others to enjoy this law of liberty offered in scripture to them as well especially if they were once enslaved by men like James themselves.

  Joseph
• 

  Doug Mason

  When Romans 4:13 writes “not through law” it is not saying “not through the law”.

  We cannot ignore the use of an anarthrous noun simply because it does not suit. We cannot give the excuse that the scribe might possible have misheard Paul, and thus ignore the meaning of a perfectly legitimate grammatical construct in NT Greek.

  If we could ignore the anarthrous construct, we would be able to say that John made the same mistake when he used it at the opening of his gospel, when he used it to show that The Word self-possessed the essential attributes of deity. (In opposition to those who were saying that Jesus Christ must have been an apparition.)

  It is not possible for Abraham to have obeyed “the law”, because he lived a long, long time before “the law” existed. Depending on the immediate context, the meaning of the term “the law” includes the Mosaic system, the Pentateuch, or the whole of the Hebraic scriptures. Abraham lived well before any of these were in place. Indeed, the Jews did not formally canonize their Scriptures until after the book of Romans and every other part of the Greek Scriptures were written.

  “The law” as constituted through Moses, with its hereditary priesthood, animal sacrifices, Jewish ceremonies, and the like, has no direct application to Christians. It has been supplanted by the one it prefigured.

  In Romans 4:13 Paul is saying that justification does not come through any form of works (“law”). Justification (“just-as-if I’d never sinned”) is followed by sanctification and ultimately by glorification. Paul is contrasting “law” (righteousness through works) against “faith” (righteousness that comes as a gift from God).

  “It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.” (Romans 4:13, NIV)

  Doug
• 

  JosephMalik

  Doug Mason,

  This was considered already and it is now up to other readers to make up their own mind. They see your views and they see mine. This should be a good exercise for them.

  Joseph