Table Talks: Matthew 1:21

Table Talks on the Synoptic Gospels 1

Jesus Christ, the Great Liberator

Matthew 1:21

The Old Testament leaves us with a certain emptiness. We wonder:  What next? Something more surely needs to be said.

Promises to Abraham:  “In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12:3), and:  “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 22:18), remain unfulfilled.

So also of God’s promise to David that his kingdom would be established for ever; that it would not be taken from the house of David as it was from Saul (2 Sam. 7:11–16).  But David’s throne was cast down and a psalmist wondered how long such conditions would last (Psalm 89).  The prophets reassured believers that God had not forgotten his promise (Isaiah 9:6–7; 55:3–4). But the Old Testament closes with the throne vacant and promises unfulfilled.

But the first New Testament book proclaims the fulfillment of Old Testament hope. Matthew 1:1 identifies Jesus Christ as “the son of David, the son of Abraham,” and the first page of the New Testament establishes the heir both to the covenant with David and the promise to Abraham (Matt. 1:1–17).

But if Jews expected a king like David to reign on an earthly throne and lead an army against the Roman overlord, Matthew would quickly disillusion them. Early on, an angel appears to Joseph in a dream, explaining that he must not fear to take his betrothed and pregnant bride Mary. She had not been unfaithful to him, but had conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. “And she shall bring forth a son; and you shall call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:20–21).

Jesus is the New Testament equivalent of the Old Testament name Joshua, meaning “Jehovah is salvation.” But the angel’s explanation puts the reader on notice that the liberation to be accomplished was not political, but spiritual.  “He shall save his people from their sins.”  Bondage to Rome was not their problem. It was nothing compared to the bondage to sin. And the deliverance to be accomplished by their Savior was not a liberation from Rome, but from sin. It could not be accomplished by an army, but required the death of the Savior.

Faith Without Works (James 2:14–26)

Faith Without Works

James 2:14–26

L. A. Mott (lamottjax@comcast.net

or www.thinkingthrough.com

Through most of 2011 I have been reading and refining a manuscript on James. It took me a while to realize that James 2:26 does not just repeat verse 14. I will return to this point at the end.

James is not answering or even complementing Paul. He wrote earlier, when the church was mostly if not altogether Jewish, and before the influx of Gentiles became the occasion of Paul’s controversy with Judaizers over justification by works of law. James deals with the same problem addressed by Jesus, the failure to apply profession to life (e. g. Matt. 7:21–23, 23:1–4, and Luke 6:46). James first addressed the problem in Chapter One. He returns to it in James 2:14–26.

Consider the power that is felt when we study verses in context rather than treating them as isolated statements.

Issue Raised (14)

The question raised is:  What is the use of a faith that does not have the works that faith would seem to call for? In particular:  Can that faith save him? Faith in the question is preceded by the definite article. So the question is not whether there is a faith that can save him, but whether the particular faith described here can save.

Faith Without Works Powerless to Save (15–17)

James’ first response is a hypothetical illustration of something that is entirely useless, wishing a needy person well, but without doing anything to supply his need. Such behavior is useless. And so it is with faith that is not matched by appropriate behavior. It cannot save. It is dead, and so entirely without power. Verse 26 returns to the thought and illuminates the meaning of “dead,” as if to say: I meant what I said.

The Existence of Faith Not Demonstrable Without Works (18)

Commentaries have introduced unnecessary difficulty by debating the identity of the two persons. James’ point is: The man who claims to have faith, but who does not manifest the behavior consistent with what he believes cannot even prove he has faith. He is vulnerable to a challenge from anyone who demands that he prove his claim.  He cannot. He appears like someone who makes empty claims without substance.

The Faith of Demons (19)

James is willing to credit the man’s claim.  You have faith. Great! But if faith does not affect the way one lives his life, it is no more than the faith of demons. It certainly has no power to save.

Works Necessary to Justification as Proved by the Case of Abraham (20–24)

“But wilt thou know?” James asks. Are you willing to learn that faith without works is useless? If so, James can help him, and does so by pointing to the example of Abraham. He clearly was justified by works, as Genesis 22 proves (esp. vv. 12 and 15–18). His was a faith that cooperated with works, and so was rendered complete by works, “lacking in nothing” (1:4). Without the obedience faith  would have been missing something, incomplete. The conclusion is plain to see:  “You see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith” (24). 

In fact, even without Genesis 22, the context of Genesis 15:6 proves that Abraham’s faith required action. Abraham certainly would not have descendants like the stars, or even one, without taking action.

Rahab Also Justified by Works (25–26)

After adding the confirming example of Rahab, James concludes the argument the way it began (v. 17), but with an additional clause that leaves no room for doubt about the meaning of “dead.” Faith without works is like a body without the spirit. Dead means dead!

Christianity Without Bonds

“We Are Of Christ”

So said Paul, when false teachers had moved into Corinth to challenge his credentials.  Paul challenged the Corinthian disciples to consider the obvious facts:  “Look at the things that are before your face.  If any man trusteth to himself that he is Christ’s, let him consider this again with himself, that, even as he is Christ’s, so also are we” (2 Cor. 10:7).  There was more to be said concerning Paul’s authority as an apostle (v. 8).  But Paul was one of the ministers through whom the Corinthians had believed (1 Cor. 3:5).  He knew what a Christian was.  So they could certainly start with that.  “We are of Christ.”

That is not the only time Paul spoke of Christians as those who are “of Christ” (Gal. 3:29), “they that are of Christ Jesus” (Gal. 5:29; cf. 1 Cor. 15:23).

Even in New Testament times people tended to stray from this singleminded commitment to Christ, and to exalt human beings beyond what was due.  At Corinth some said, “I am of Paul”; others, “I of Apollos”; and still others, “I belong to Cephas (= Peter)”; and “I of Christ” (1 Cor. 1:10–13).

“Is Christ divided?” Paul demanded.  They certainly were making it to appear so.  So the implied negative was a rebuke of the whole situation.  Then he had two questions for those who said, “I am of Paul”:  First, “was Paul crucified for you?” and second, “Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?”

The answer, of course, was “No” to both questions; and Paul’s logic is:  Then you have no right to belong to Paul.  It was Christ Jesus who was crucified for them, paying the price to purchase them (1 Cor. 6:19–20; 7:23); and they had been baptized into the name of Christ (cf. Acts 8:16; 19:5).  They belonged to Christ and to no other.

“We are of Christ,” says Paul.  And so we say today.  Christ Jesus was crucified for us, and we have been baptized into the name of Christ.  So we belong to Christ.  We have no sectarian loyalties or denominational affiliations.  We are of Christ, and consider that that is enough to be.  It tells it all.

Jesus wanted his apostles to “make disciples” of the nations (Matt. 28:18–20).  And that is all they did.  Acts 11:26 tells us that “the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.”  Christians!  The word has the same formation as the word Herodian, which identified those who belonged to Herod; they were adherents of Herod.  Christians are people who belong to Christ.

We are disciples (pupils, students, adherents) of Christ, as a people who sit at the feet of the Teacher, learn from him and remain in his word, confident that in his word alone we “shall know the truth” (John 8:31); who endeavor to follow him and to breathe his spirit (John 13:12–15, 34–35); to honor him before everything else and before every human loyalty (Luke 14:22–35).

Even today, men continue to exalt men, human doctrines and human systems.  But we are of Christ.  And we think that is enough to say.  It explains everything about us.  We are determined to maintain the loyalty to Christ before everything else.  We are not of Luther, or Calvin or Wesley.  We have no religious loyalty to any mere man.  Nor are we committed to any sectarian system or denominational organization.  We are of Christ.

That explains everything about us.  It explains why we tell people exactly what Jesus instructed his apostles to tell them about salvation (Acts 2:38; 22:16).  It explains the stand we make on baptism, who is to be baptized (Acts 2:41; 8:12) and how (Rom. 6:3–4).  It explains the way we worship, the life and discipline we advocate, the way the church is organized, our understanding of the church’s mission.  We belong to Christ as the members of a body belong to their head (Rom. 12:3–5; 1 Cor. 6:15; 12:12; Eph. 1:22–23; 5:22–24).  It is not the place of the body to take matters into its own hands, but rather, to be subject to its head.  The head gives direction.  The body listens and then yields to the direction received from its head.

Paul had made his arguments before King Agrippa, and could see that the king was moved.  But the proud king responds with a brush-off.  His words are best translated:  “In little you are making me a Christian.”  Fat chance of making him a member of this sect that was everywhere spoken against (cf. Acts 28:22).  But if the king was taking Paul’s message lightly, Paul himself was as earnest as could be.  He responds to the king:  “I would to God that both in little and in great, not thou only, but also all that hear me this day, might become such as I am, except these bonds” (Acts 26:27–29).  A Christian!  Yes, that is exactly what Paul was trying to make of Agrippa and of all the rest.  He wanted them to become such as he was, “except these bonds.”

A Christian!  But without the bonds.  I know Paul was a prisoner and was speaking of bonds in the most literal sense.  But it strikes me that many people today are trying to be Christians, but with chains that restrict them in their effort to follow Christ.  The bonds of sectarian and denominational loyalties.  The bonds of human doctrinal systems.  Bonds forged by human desire.  Bonds that keep them from being completely free Christians, free to “follow the Lamb wherever he goes” (Rev. 14:4).

Christianity without the bonds!  If that thought touches a chord in your heart, as it does in ours, perhaps you may be ready to visit with one of our folk about how to be a Christian without the bonds.