Theology Thursday - Dispensationalists on the Law & the Christian

Tyler, regarding:

How do you get a past-tense flavor with no ongoing consequences from the perfect tense-form of this verb?

A perfect tense does not indicate how those effects continue. There are still “ongoing consequences,” namely:

1. IF someone murdered (v.11b), the Law still condemns (that is the function of the Law).
2. IF (or better, ‘when’) someone breaks any one point of the Law, under Law one is still condemned by that Law as if the whole had been broken (because breaking one part breaks the whole, v.10).
3. IF (‘when’) someone breaks the Law, which is righteous (Paul is more explicit on this in Rom 7:12, but James is assuming the righteousness of it to judge), they are still shown to be unrighteous, worthy of condemnation by the Law.

So there are at least those three effects that are ongoing.

How those effects actually apply will vary depending upon faith. (I’m going to mix some Pauline revelation in here, as I do not follow the crowd that sees Paul and James as being opposing to each other; rather, I see them as complementary.) The Law should convict one that righteousness cannot come by it (per Gal 3:24), it should cause one not to use the Law to work for righteousness (Rom 4:4; Phil 3:9).

For those that have come to righteousness by faith, the law has ended any purpose of proving righteousness (Rom 10:4). Rather, righteousness should flow from the liberty one has in faith. I think this is likely what “judged by the law of liberty” is referring to; God will judge the works of believers not for purposes of condemning (as the Law would), for they are already set at liberty—set free (Rom 6:18; 1 Pet 2:15-16)—but rather for purposes of rewarding those that rightly use that freedom (1 Cor 3:13-15; Rev 22:12). And this same idea I believe is the point of James’s discussion of the relation of faith and works. James clearly ties faith to righteousness (James 2:23[a] ), as Paul did (Rom 4:3), but James makes the further statement related to that, for after having faith, Abraham showed himself to be of such faith that he is “called the friend of God” (James 2:23[b] ). This friendship is why Abraham was even willing to sacrifice Isaac for God—so for James, “justified by works” (James 2:21, 24) is not referring to the accounting of righteousness, which was clearly by faith even for him, but rather indicating that true faith manifests itself evidentially in good works (James 2:18; without that evidence, there is only a dead faith that has no salvific effect, James 2:14, 17, 20, 26). This evidence of true faith is the justifying foundation for God rewarding such faithful works, for such works show the intended completion God’s purpose for faith and salvation (James 2:22; Eph 2:8-10).

So back to the passage in question, these believers should be evidencing their faith by not showing partiality for rich over poor (James 2:1-4), for wealth is not a measure of one’s faith or good works (James 2:5-7). This was opposite the Old Covenant promise of Deuteronomy 28:1-6, 8, 11-12, where one who did the Law, followed all, was promised wealth. It was a promise the Jewish believers James was writing to would be all too familiar with. But they were not under the Old Covenant, neither its Law or its potential blessings and curses, any more. They were again operating under liberty from that Law, fully under the promise of God by faith as Abraham had, and so were expected to manifest that faith not in obedience to Law for reward, but in love for God and Christ’s work for them.

Tyler, you state (my numbers in brackets to comment on below):

I disagree that wealth was promised to everybody who followed the Law. The context you cited are the covenant blessings and cursings. These are general statements to the entire community, general warnings of punishment for disobedience and blessings for obedience [1]. The law had rules protecting and providing for the poor built into it, and Jesus Himself acknowledged that poor believers will always exist [2]. I don’t think an Old Covenant believer automatically expected wealth to flow to him in a great river if he obeyed the law. This presupposes this OC believer thought the law saved him [3]. I thought we agreed a believer, from any time period, always obeyed God because He loved Him [4]!?

1. I agree with you about the context of “covenant blessings and cursings” and that the statements are “general statements to the entire community.” But if a general statement to bless and curse is not a promise to the individuals of that community, then who? Especially given that Israel at this time is not under a king who would consolidate the wealth to himself (1 Sam 8:14-15, 17)? The following blessings of children, land, and cattle increasing (Dt 28:4), food for a family (Dt 28:5), and storehouses of more (Dt 28:8), that is, all the blessings that deal more with the family wealth aspects (Dt 28:11), had to have an individual component behind the fulfillment of them. And further, while the statement was “general” in the sense that it was applicable to anyone who obeyed, it was very specific in the nature of blessings promised by God. So I cannot dismiss those points as not meaning what they say and that they have application to individuals. But I also understand there is a national aspect to these, so…
2. God knew the people, the individuals, would not obey as they should, that the people would fall instead into the curses (Dt 30:1; 31:16-18; after all, there is none righteous, Ps 14:1–3; 53:1–3; Eccl 7:20; Rom 3:10). So that prosperity would not come as it could have if all had obeyed. For the sin of individuals in a community, especial a community in covenant with God, affects the community (e.g., Josh 7:1). And in particular as James is noting, the rich, sinful man oppresses (James 2:6; e.g. 1 Kg 12:13-14). A wicked, rich man might keep a godly, poor man from receiving the blessings of God as the poor man ought to have because of the community aspect. So yes, rules were in place for the poor within the Law, for God knew the Law would not be obeyed in total as it should, by the people in total as they should, and some protections were in place to help insulate those who are most vulnerable to sinful man’s oppression (which also further condemned the sinful oppressors who would also likely not be following that part of the Law).
3. That Old Covenant followers (whether believers or not) expected wealth for obedience seems quite evident to me, and even that salvation was linked to that. Such was evident within the time of Jesus, and I believe therefore the primary thought among the Diaspora who James was writing to:
   • The Pharisees were a wealthy lot, and believed it to be because of their obedience (Lk 18:11-12), deriding Christ’s downplay of money (Lk 16:13-15). But Christ revealed they were oppressors (Mt 23:14) with misguided priorities on money (Mt 23:16-17).
   • The disciples could not grasp under their Old Covenant understanding that a wealthy, law abiding man (Mt 19:18-22) would not be saved (Mt 19:23-25).
   • The disciples also had to be taught that riches and storehouses for such were pointless without a proper heart (Lk 12:16-21; 16:19-23).
4. With obedience, even under the Old Covenant, there was to be a proper heart (Dt 30:15-17), for not having such they would fail (Dt 28:47-48). But even believers who did then (or now do) love God still fail to obey at times (both then and now, under Law or free from Law) because of our sinful nature. And being a believer does not guarantee that one is only obeying out of love; that should be the motivation, but may not always be the motivation.

So I do believe an incorrect understanding of how wealth from obedience would occur, and what wealth meant, plagued Judaism.

Jesus obeyed the Law perfectly, but in this sinful world, He had no great wealth. This was not because He did not deserve it under the Old Covenant (as an individual, He did), but because He too was dealing with many in Israel (i.e., everyone else) not obeying the Law fully, so even faithful individuals in Israel, such as Jesus, would not see the rewards promised, for the sin of the nation was still very great (one might say at its greatest in rejecting the Messiah). But Jesus, from His obedience, will still have that wealth promise fulfilled (along with much more), as will those that are faithful, for “the meek shall inherit the earth” (Mt 5:5) when they inherit the kingdom (Mt 25:34), and blessings will come (Mt 19:29; Rev 21:7). This all comes through Christ’s inheritance of all (Dan 7:14; 1 Cor 15:27-28; Heb 1:2; Rev 11:15). But it will not come until the final fulfillment of the New Covenant promises to Israel at the start of the millennial kingdom, when Israel will be turned fully to Him.

I’m not sure I see the connection you refer to with Lev 19:8, which I think was a typo, and so I assume you meant Lev 19:18 for James’s citation in James 2:8. But whether a “fundamental re-alignment” is intended or not depends on what you mean. I agree that James was pointing to the command of Lev 19:18 as a good thing to follow, but not because it was part of the Law; rather because it reflected the heart of God and the heart a believer under liberty from the Law by faith should have (especially toward other believers, whether poor or rich, in the context of James’s use). This goes back to my original post here, that ethical standards transcend Law, being based in the character of God, even if those standards were also later codified in Law (as here in Lev 19:18).

And I agree that the argument of James 2:8 is in part against a “legalistic, blasphemous” Judaisitic thought among the Diaspora (as the disciples had about views on wealth) who might have once tried to follow Law without the heart and faith behind the obedience. But perhaps we disagree on the fact that because Judaism had corrupted the following of Law does not negate what the Law could have done for blessing Israel (or an individual thereof) had they fulfilled it fully. Nor does the “legalistic, blasphemous” use of the Law mean that the Law itself is wholly contiguous with grace in Christ. That salvation has always been by grace through faith does not mean that those under Law would not have been condemned (temporally) for failure to follow it, even if saved, and they were under restrictions and condemnation of Law that those under the law of liberty in Christ are not under. So there is still a discontinuity between Mosaic Law and grace in Christ, even while eternal salvation has always been by faith in God and obedience always required a heart of faith to have any real worth to it.

Quickly regarding each of Tyler’s questions

• I think OT believers believed God’s promises, so the way the OC was stated, they believed obedience would yield both salvation and wealth. Because of this, the “perverted” view arose that wealth indicated one was being obedient (and therefore would be saved; hence the disciples dismay about the rich not being saved). But there are numerous wealthy unbelievers, so wealth clearly was never intended to be a universal barometer of obedience. And even among Israel (who the promises apply to), for the wealth promises to manifest each individual had to be obedient because one sinful individual among the whole could affect all (I refer again to the Achan incident in Josh 7:1 as an example, but there are many others). So obedience was to be with a heart of love, but that I do not think that means the desire to be blessed by God was not also present in the motivation of believers.
• I think James 2:8 is making a connection between the OC law and the universal principles behind some of those laws (the ethical ones). That is, James is quoting the Law. He is connecting it to the whole of that Law. But he is doing so to point out that if one is obeying because it is Law, one is doing good (by obeying), but is then missing the point that if you transgress elsewhere, you have still failed to obey the Law and are as guilty as if one had broken them all. Rather, it is better to obey because that obedience follows the heart of God, and not be shackled to obedience to appease a Law that will condemn. Under liberty, if one fails, one fails at that point, but will not be judged to have failed fully. But also under liberty, one should be more motivated to obey, because each success counts (unlike under Law, where 1,000,000 successes can be wiped out by 1 failure); it counts in reflecting one’s faith (James 2:18).

Regarding your final question, I’ll go with the safe answer: I think the Sermon on the Mount is applicable to believers today for it is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17).