In this series of posts, we attempt to offer a rich and appreciative reading of James chapter 1 and 2 with an eye to James鈥 theology of human redemption鈥攁 Jacobian soteriology. In the previous post, we considered James 1:18 and 21 and concluded that this 鈥渨ord of truth鈥 and 鈥渋mplanted word鈥 thus is a new character, a new heart鈥檚 disposition created in us. It must be received (1:21) and, as the 鈥渓aw of freedom鈥 it must be obeyed (1:22-25). Mercy must, it appears, be enacted in order to be efficacious. And thus the answer to the third question regarding this proverbial statement appears to be 鈥測es,鈥 mercy is a 鈥渨ork鈥 required for salvation. But that is a misleading way to understand James. It is better perhaps to call the mercy that triumphs an appropriation of the divine concern (2:5, 8), proof of the reality of the 鈥渂irth鈥 (1:18) and the 鈥渋mplanted word鈥 (1:21), and an accurate understanding of 鈥渇aith鈥 (2:14). This question of what constitutes 鈥済ood works鈥 will be explored now in this final post.
In this series of posts, we attempt to offer a rich and appreciative reading of James chapter 1 and 2 with an eye to James鈥 theology of human redemption鈥攁 Jacobian soteriology. In the previous post, we considered the function of the 鈥渨ord鈥 and the 鈥渓aw鈥 as God鈥檚 gracious gifts for salvation. Here we specifically looked at James 1:18 and 21 and concluded that this 鈥渨ord of truth鈥 and 鈥渋mplanted word鈥 thus is a new character, a new heart鈥檚 disposition created in us. It must be received (1:21) and, as the 鈥渓aw of freedom鈥 it must be obeyed (1:22-25). Thus, the 鈥渨ord/law鈥 in James is God鈥檚 instrument for salvation鈥攊t is both gift and responsibility. In this second post we will focus on James 2:12-13 where 鈥渕ercy鈥 triumphs over judgment.
I suspect for many readers of the New Testament that the Letter of James is something like the odd uncle at a family Christmas party who unfortunately suffers from chronic halitosis. Someone you rather not talk with, but in the end you are related鈥攁nd thus might owe the obligatory yearly conversation. Well, if this does not accurately describe the church鈥檚 reception of James, it certainly represents the attitude of many scholars. For example, Andrew Chester notes 鈥淛ames presents a unique problem within the New Testament ...
At the end of September I had the honor of speaking at the installation of my good friend, Mickey Klink, as head pastor of Hope Evangelical Free Church in Rosco, Illinois. The following is the text of my talk and I thought I would share it in this venue as it might possibly serve as encouragement for others who are about to embark on the journey of pastoral ministry. (I鈥檝e shared this with Mickey鈥檚 permission) ...
The Letters of James, Peter, John, and Jude constitute one of the final frontiers in New Testament studies. Whereas the four Gospels and Paul鈥檚 letters have received copious attention, these seven letters, in comparison, constitute the distant shores of a largely unknown world. It is not uncommon to search in vain for substantive treatment of any one of these letters in the standard introductions or theologies of the New Testament. While one can find a handful of introductory texts focusing on 鈥渢he latter New Testament鈥 or 鈥淗ebrews through Revelation,鈥 there are precious few devoted specifically to the Letters of James, Peter, John, and Jude, and almost all fail to consider the possibility of interpreting the Catholic Epistles as a discrete collection.[1] Though considering the canonical collections of the 鈥淕ospels鈥 and the 鈥淧auline Epistles,鈥 even the groundbreaking Dictionary for the Theological Interpretation of the Bible (2005) fails to supply an entry for the Catholic Epistles ...
After thirty-five years of service, James Adamson鈥檚 NICNT commentary on the Epistle of James has received a much-needed update by Scot McKnight. McKnight鈥檚 contribution to the series significantly expands on its predecessor volume鈥攂eing more than twice its size鈥攚hich is due, in part, to the mounting scholarship on James appearing since its 1976 publication date.
When we read the Bible, how do we get to theology? Should we read the Bible as the word of God for the church, as an artifact of history, or as the material for systematic theology? The term biblical theology has been used to describe all of these perspectives. So, what is biblical theology? Some would describe it is a theology that is biblical, theology that is grounded in Christian Scripture. Others might insist that biblical theology is only the theology contained in the Bible, that is, descriptively the theology of the Bible itself. In Mark Elliott鈥檚 The Heart of Biblical Theology, reading the Bible theologically demands both notions of biblical theology above. Elliott鈥檚 book argues for the undervalued role of providence in understanding how biblical theology must be both constructive theology grounded in Scripture and rigorously descriptive of the theology of the Bible itself.
Over the past three years I have had the privilege of serving as a part-time pastor in a local church here in Southern California. Though I鈥檝e been in ministry for several years and have even spent significant time in ministry overseas, these past few years have constituted a re-education in the gospel. Here is what I mean: 鈥淭he gospel鈥 is a phrase that Christians often use without fully understanding its significance. We speak the language of the gospel, but we rarely apply the gospel to every aspect of our lives. Yet this is exactly what God wants for us. The gospel is nothing less than 鈥渢he power of God鈥 (Rom. 1:16). In Colossians 1:6, the apostle Paul commends the Colossian church because the gospel has been 鈥渂earing fruit and growing...among [them] since the day [they] heard it.鈥 The apostle Peter teaches that a lack of ongoing transformation in our lives comes from forgetting what God has done for us in the gospel (2 Peter 1:3鈥9). If we are to grow into maturity in Christ, we must deepen and enlarge our understanding of the gospel as the way God transforms us.
今日黑料
