Joseph Prince & many Pastors got exegesis of James 2:8-13 wrong – By Rev George Ong (Dated 29 Feb 2024)
More Bad Fruits from Joseph Prince’s Ministry:
Not too long ago,
I noticed one of Joseph Prince’s Pastors,
who regularly appeared in the worship services as MC,
leading the Holy Communion and receiving of offerings,
was suddenly and permanently taken off the stage.
I realized that something was wrong.
(You must remember
I listen to Joseph Prince’ sermon every Sunday.)
It was then that I heard from the grapevine
that he may be divorced or in the process of it.
Now, it is confirmed
that this Pastor of Joseph Prince is divorced.
Why am I highlighting this?
Because Joseph Prince is a high-end deceiver.
He keeps getting the plenty of so-called positive testimonies
to be highlighted almost every Sunday in the worship services,
with the key aim of proving that he is preaching the right doctrine.
But Joseph Prince would personally ensure that bad fruits,
such as the divorce of his Pastor,
is kept under wraps and away from the public eye.
But Joseph Prince cannot hide this anymore.
You have to ask Joseph Prince
whether this divorced Pastor is still employed as a Pastor
in New Creation Church.
Don’t be deceived
by the endless testimonies
that Joseph Prince anxiously churns out every Sunday.
Even the so-called good fruits that Joseph Prince
highlighted in the testimonies
may eventually all turn out to be rotten ones.
A case in point is the Founder of Hyflux.
If a divorce can happen to one of Joseph Prince’s Pastor,
a key and high-profile leader in the church,
one who regularly appeared in the worship services,
what really goes on in the church members’ life
is anybody’s guess.
Friends, such moral lapses in New Creation Church are many.
Please read what Rev Derek Hong wrote (see below)
Senior Pastor of Good Gifts City Church, Singapore, wrote:
“I can now see that this is a no-guilt, no-repentance,
no-commitment, no-sacrifice philosophy.
It dulls the conscience of its believers
and desensitises people from sin and character faults.
Attempts to grow in righteousness and holiness
are deemed as “works” and dismissed as legalism.
That’s why people always say
they feel good coming out of their services.
A guy who’s divorced because of adultery says he joined
because he’s already been forgiven
without any repentance or honest examination
of how he might have contributed
to the breakdown of his marriage in the first place.
He continues to live with girl-friends merrily
while attending the church
and gets upset when friends confront him
about his ungodly practices.
A pastor friend running a family counselling centre
told me that a counselee from New Creation Church
stomped off a session,
accusing him of condemning her
when he warned her
not to continue in an unhealthy relationship with another man
while complaining about the unfaithfulness of her husband.
I can narrate a few more stories of people
from New Creation Church
who would react angrily
when informed that certain behaviours
are contrary to Christ’s teachings.”
This is an important topic – the interpretation of James 2:8-13
that many, even Pastors, got it wrong:
Please understand that
I am not trying to be one-up against Pastors.
Previously, I was like many Pastors,
who is pretty ‘hazy’ over the interpretation of James 2:8-13.
Only when I did a study of the text,
because I was confronted with Joseph Prince’s heresies,
did I realise the correct interpretation of it.
Note that my interpretation of James 2:13b,
“Mercy triumphs over judgment.”
at the end of this YouTube video,
is further qualified by some important comments
in my article on my website.
YouTube Comment:
@siewkong0107:
“Why is the National Council of Churches of Singapore
not doing anything?
At least they should make a statement
about the false teachings of Joseph Prince
and disseminate to all churches
including the board members of New Creation Church
to warn church members.
Shouldn’t they follow Matthew 18
to chastise Joseph Prince?”
(This article was also sent to Rev Dr Ngoei Foong Nghian, General Secretary, National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) office, and for the attention of the Executive Committee Members.)
Note: the verbatim notes of George Ong’s teaching in the video
are given in the Appendix.
Part 1: Interpretation of James 2:8-13.
Let me start by discussing
what Joseph Prince wrote regarding James 2,
“And if they failed in just one law,
they were guilty of breaking all the laws!” (Jas 2:10)
To his own rhetorical question,
“Who can keep the Ten Commandments completely
both inwardly and outwardly?’
Joseph Prince gave his reply,
“That is exactly right, my friend.
No man could or can!
The law is an impossible standard…”
Do you know what Joseph Prince is saying?
He is saying that if we just break one law,
we are breaking all laws.
Hence, it is impossible for us to obey the laws,
and we shouldn’t even try.
Joseph Prince, could you please tell this to Bible Joseph
who was tempted to commit adultery with Potiphar’s wife
in Genesis 39:6-10,
“Bible Joseph,
don’t try too hard
about not committing adultery with Potiphar’s wife,
as even if you don’t break this adultery law,
you will still break another law.
And when you break another law,
you will have broken every law and still be guilty
because you are not perfect
and it is impossible to do it.
So, what’s the point of not breaking the adultery law,
as you will break another law anyway,
and hence, you will still be guilty of breaking every law?
So, relax, take it easy, Bible Joseph,
because it is just impossible to obey the laws of God,
including the law against adultery.
Even if you fail and commit adultery with Potiphar’s wife,
God will understand.
And by the way, Bible Joseph,
you mustn’t forget
what I have been teaching you
day in and day out
that your sins, past, present and future
have all been forgiven.
Even if you should ever commit the sin of adultery
with Potiphar’s wife,
don’t panic
and don’t ever start
to confess your adulterous sin with Potiphar’s wife to God,
because if you do, you are insulting God
as all your present and future sins,
including this sin with Potiphar’s wife,
have been forgiven.
So, there is no need to confess your sins at all,
instead, you must confess you are righteous,
after you have committed the adulterous sin with Potiphar’s wife.
Please be assured too
that if you should ever commit the greater sin of rape or murder,
the same principle applies
– no need to confess your sin of rape or murder
as every single future sin,
including the most heinous sins and crimes
that you can and will ever commit,
are already forgiven at the cross of Christ.
You just need to confess you are righteous
after you have committed those sins of rape or murder.”
Let’s pause and think.
What kind of sick and utterly revolting theology
is Joseph Prince promoting?
What I’ve just described to you
is not an exaggeration
but what Joseph Prince teaches.
And to be consistent with his Grace Theology,
that’s how Joseph Prince would have to advise Bible Joseph.
But was that how Bible Joseph responded
when he was tempted by Potiphar’s wife?
Thank God that Bible Joseph
didn’t do all that nonsense that Joseph Prince is teaching.
Thank God that Bible Joseph
didn’t break the adultery law
because he knew it would be a wicked thing to do
and a sin against God.
Thank God that Joseph Prince
wasn’t living at the time of Bible Joseph,
as Joseph Prince might have influenced Bible Joseph
with all his sickening doctrines
and cause him to sin against God.
Next, Joseph Prince made the ‘blasphemous’ statement,
“You see, God did not give the law for us to keep.”
This is ‘blasphemous’ as by his totally reckless statement,
Joseph Prince is literally going against many scriptures,
both in the Old and New Testaments that state the opposite.
Both Old Covenant and New Covenant people are under the law.
The Old Covenant people were under the Law of Moses
while the New Covenant people are under the Law of Christ.
Besides, according to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles,
and every Church Father
throughout the centuries of Christianity,
the moral law in the Ten Commandments
are still binding on New Covenant believers
not for justification but sanctification.
There are many New Testament scriptures
that clearly state that
we are to obey the commandments
or the laws of God and Christ
not to be saved but because we are saved.
In view of that,
Joseph Prince is directly calling God a liar,
by stating that,
“You see, God did not give the law for us to keep.”
This is because it is God’s intention
that we are to keep His laws
not to get saved but after we are saved.
Let’s say there is one person in Joseph Prince’s church,
named John, who is, in general, a law-abiding person.
But there was only one occasion John got himself a bit drunk,
but he unwisely chose to drive his car back home.
On the way, John’s car hit and killed someone,
and John had to go to jail over that accident.
To be consistent with what Joseph Prince is propounding,
Joseph Prince would have to say to John and us,
“You see, in John’s case,
doesn’t this prove my point
that all of us cannot keep all the laws of the nation?
We are surely going to break one of these laws of the nation
one of these days.
So, John, please don’t feel bad about what you have done
as we are not expected to keep all the laws of the nation
simply because it is humanly impossible to do it.”
Isn’t it preposterous for Joseph Prince to say that?
To be consistent with his theology of the law,
he has to say that.
But no right-minded person would ever say that.
Rather, any sensible person would say to John
after John’s release from prison:
“John, thank God that you have learned a painful lesson
from this episode
– that you shouldn’t drive
when you have too much alcohol.
This is a lesson to remind you
that you have to obey every law of the nation
because if you break just another one, say stealing,
you have committed a crime
and you can go to jail over that crime.
Just breaking one law of stealing
would mean you have become a criminal.
So, John, you must try your level best
not to break any law from today, Okay?”
Does it make sense to you?
I’m sure it does.
Just as everyone is expected to be responsible citizens
to obey every law of the nation and not to break them,
why should there be a difference
when it comes to the laws of God?
But does that mean that there is no hope
if we break any laws of the nation and of God?
Of course not.
It all means that we must quickly learn lessons from it
and be determined from thence onwards
not to break any more laws.
God is a merciful and forgiving God
and He would not turn away anyone
who comes to Him in true repentance.
But no believer should ever follow
the nonsensical advice of Joseph Prince
– that since by breaking one law
means you have broken all laws,
it is humanly impossible to obey the laws,
so don’t even try.
What would happen if people really listened to Joseph Prince?
They would go on to break more laws of the nation,
and they would go on to break more laws of God
and destroy themselves in the process.
We would have to ask Joseph Prince
if he agrees that every citizen is expected
and should try their level best
not to break any laws of the nation.
I’m sure he would.
If he agrees that we shouldn’t be breaking the laws of the nation,
is he telling us that when it comes to God’s laws,
all hell breaks loose?
Is Joseph Prince telling us
that since it is impossible to obey every law of God,
there is no need to be concerned
about the spiritual dirt that goes into our hearts
– and even if we break it,
we can’t really help it
as it is impossible for us to obey every law.
And one who is that dumb enough
to listen to Joseph Prince may say,
“The number one reason
that I’m not bothered about keeping or breaking God’s laws
is that I’ve been convinced by Joseph Prince’s teaching that,
“God did not give the law for us to keep.”
Does Joseph Prince dare to make a statement
to every national government that it is impossible
to obey all the laws of a nation?
Does Joseph Prince
dare to convince the national leaders of every government
to excuse their citizens if they break them
because it is humanly impossible for them
to obey every law of the nation?
If he dares not and chickens out on my challenge,
why is he doing that to the laws of God?
Part 2: Interpretation of James 2:8-13
The summary of what Joseph Prince has written in his books
is that he is abusing James 2:10
to prove his point that if we break one law,
we are breaking the whole law,
it is, therefore, impossible for us to obey the law,
and we shouldn’t even try.
Let’s take a look at the entire context of James 2:1-13,
which James 2:10 is located.
By interpreting James 2:10 in the context of James 2: 1-13,
Joseph Prince’s ploy of using James 2:10,
which is totally out of context,
in order to prove his false doctrine
that we don’t have to obey any laws
for New Covenant believers,
would be clearly uncovered.
Joseph Prince is abusing what James 2:10 is teaching.
It is not teaching that if I break just one law,
I am guilty of breaking the whole law
and that since the breaking of one law
will pronounce me guilty of breaking every law,
who could do it?
So, don’t even try!
Joseph Prince teaches that God wants us to realise
it is impossible for us to obey His laws,
and so, we should stop obeying any law
as God did not give the law for us to keep.
Joseph Prince is lifting James 2:10 out of its context.
When I first read what he wrote,
I inherently knew what he said was wrong.
So, I went to take a closer look at James 2:1-13
and discovered that’s not what James is saying.
What James is saying is that
we should obey the law
of loving our neighbours as ourselves in James 2:8.
But the readers were breaking this law in James 2:8,
as they were giving better treatment to the rich
as compared to the poor,
and showing favouritism to the rich
vis-a-vis the poor in James 2:1-7.
That certainly is not loving their neighbours – the poor.
In that sense, the readers have broken the law
of not loving their neighbours as themselves in James 2:8.
James 2:9 clearly states that showing favouritism
is a sin because a law has been broken.
James 2:9,
“But if you show favoritism,
you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.”
Then James goes on to make the point in James 2:10 that,
“For whoever keeps the whole law
and yet stumbles at just one point
is guilty of breaking all of it.”
In context, James is warning them
that even if they were to keep the whole law,
but if they break just one
– that of showing favouritism to the rich
and hence not loving the poor as neighbours as themselves,
they are breaking the whole law.
James is not saying that
to give them the permission to break more laws
or to excuse them for breaking any law
as Joseph Prince is falsely posturing.
James is saying to them
that they must not break the one law
of not loving their neighbours as themselves in verse 8,
and show favouritism to the rich vis-a-vis the poor in verse 9,
because if they did,
they would have broken all other laws in verse 10.
Then James rightly went on to give the illustration in James 2:11,
that even if one doesn’t commit adultery,
but if he murders someone,
he would still be a lawbreaker.
Isn’t that a down-to-earth and common-sense counsel by James?
If your friend is boasting about the fact
that he did not commit adultery,
even though he had murdered someone,
what would you say to him?
You would say to him that
even though he has obeyed one law against adultery,
if he has broken another law against murder,
he is still a lawbreaker in the eyes of the law.
And what’s wrong with that?
Isn’t it natural that we need to constantly tell people
that they need to keep every single law of the nation all the time
because if they were to break just one law, say, stealing,
they have become a lawbreaker and may be sent to jail.
James then made the statement in James 2:12,
“Speak and act as those
who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom.”
In other words,
everyone cannot avoid being judged by the law
as we will be judged by whatever we say or do.
Did James say,
as Joseph Prince has said,
“God did not give the law for us to keep.”?
Did James say, as Joseph Prince is teaching,
“All the laws have become obsolete
since the cross of Christ,
so don’t ever listen to people like George Ong
who keeps bringing people under the bondage with these laws.”
Is that what James is saying?
If that is what James is saying,
he would be teaching against the law
and promoting lawlessness
as Joseph Prince does.
But James in James 2:12 says,
“Speak and act as those
who are going to be judged by the law
that gives freedom.”
James is saying you have to obey the law
because you will be judged by it
– on what you say and what you do.
But is obeying the law something that oppresses and condemns us
as Joseph Prince would quickly retort?
No way!
It is obeying the law
that really sets a person free:
James 2:12 says,
“Speak and act as those
who are going to be judged by the law
that gives freedom.”
Gives freedom.
Did you get that?
Obeying the law
is to free you from bondage, sin and eternal punishment.
It is Joseph Prince’s false teaching of not obeying the law
that will bring you into sinful bondage
and eternal punishment.
“It is only within the limits of the law can freedom be truly experienced.” (George Ong)
“A freedom that is enjoyed without the limits of the law will eventually kill.” (George Ong)
Do we obey the law for the reason of justification
to earn our salvation
as Joseph Prince has always accused us with.
Of course not, as no one can be saved by the law.
We obey the law because we are justified
and as part of our sanctification.
If anyone claims to be justified
and yet, does not believe in the relevance of the law
and disobey the law,
he would still be damned
simply because he is not justified in the first place.
One is justified not because he obeys the law,
but after one is justified, he has to obey the law.
Did you realise that James, a New Testament writer,
is still talking about God’s laws,
and he is clearly saying that for New Covenant believers,
it is still a sin to break God’s laws
because if you break one, you break all, James 2:8-13?
James had written the letter of James
well after the death and the cross of Christ.
Joseph Prince has always been teaching
that everything that comes after the cross
applies to New Covenant people,
and everything that comes before the cross
is under the Old Covenant
and is irrelevant to New Covenant believers.
If that is true,
Why, then did James, a New Testament writer
who wrote his letter after the cross,
still talk about the law
and apply it to New Covenant believers?
This only proves that Joseph Prince is a liar
– telling people there are no more laws to obey
after the cross for New Covenant believers.
James quoted Old Covenant commandments,
namely two of the Ten Commandments
about murder and adultery in James 2:11.
And he quoted the third
– the one that Jesus said was the second greatest commandment,
about loving your neighbour as yourself in James 2:8.
All these three Old Covenant commandments were quoted by James
as if they are binding on New Covenant believers.
James believed Jesus,
who declared in the Sermon on the Mount that He
“did not come to abolish
but to fulfill” the Law
and the Prophets in Matthew 5:17.
He also affirms that obeying the Old Covenant commandment,
“to love your neighbor as yourself”
is the right thing to do in James 2:8.
James teaches that as New Covenant believers,
we should live as people
who will be judged by that law in James 2:12.
What law?
– The law that we should ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ in James 2:8.
Although this Old Covenant law
that we should ‘love your neighbour as yourself’
is mentioned once in the Old Testament,
it is quoted eight times in the New Testament.
Jesus said ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ in James 2:8
is the second most important commandment in Mark 12:31.
Paul wrote that this one commandment
summarizes the whole Law in Romans 13:9 and Galatians 5:14.
How can Joseph Prince miss this Old Covenant law
when it is mentioned eight times in the New Testament
and is still relevant to New Covenant believers?
Is he really blind, or is he playing dumb?
If this Old Covenant law
is not binding on New Covenant believers
as Joseph Prince falsely teaches,
why is it mentioned so many times in the New Testament?
Part 3: Interpretation of James 2:8-13
In Part 3, I wish to highlight how Joseph Prince
went about reading into and twisting God’s word in James 2:1-13.
Specifically, this has to do with James 2:13,
“…Mercy triumphs over judgment.”
He used the phrase,
“…Mercy triumphs over judgment,”
to build his case
that this has to do with the mercy seat of Christ.
This is another lie.
While some parts of what Joseph Prince said in his quote
are right, other parts are wrong.
But this is not my focus.
My point is that Joseph Prince
has again used another text or idea in another passage
to interpret the text in question,
namely James 2:1-13 and specifically, James 2:13.
I’ve said so many times that that is the wrong way to do it.
Unless there are good reasons,
the text in question must first be exegeted exhaustively
before one can be ‘permitted’ to use another text to interpret it.
But Joseph Prince is fearful of exegeting James 2:1-13
because it will straightaway expose his false teachings.
If you have followed all my preceding arguments
about how I have interpreted James 2:8-12
in Part 2, you will know what I mean.
So, under the pretext of interpreting James 2:13,
Joseph Prince used another passage and read it into the text.
But first, his interpretation of mercy in James 2:13
is off-tangent.
Second, the mercy that is reflected in James 2:13
has absolutely nothing to do with the mercy seat of Christ.
What the passage really means is that
if you did not break the law
of showing favouritism to the rich
against the poor in James 2:9;
and if you did not break the law
of loving your neighbours as yourself in James 2:8
by being kind to the poor
instead of treating them with prejudice,
you are showing mercy to them in James 2:13b.
But those who don’t show mercy to others,
you will have James 2:13a NCV to contend with,
“God will not show mercy to you when he judges you.”
As for those who show mercy to others
– and because of the mercy you have shown to others
by not breaking God’s laws,
you “can stand without fear at the judgment”
in James 2:13b NCV.
And because of that,
“mercy triumphs over judgement” James 2:13b NIV.
So, the “mercy triumphs over judgement”
that James is talking about
is not the mercy of Christ
but the mercy that believers
have shown to other believers.
Because they have shown mercy to others,
they will never fear at the judgement
– hence, the phrase
– “mercy triumphs over judgement” in James 2:13.
So, James 2:13 has nothing to do
with the mercy seat of Christ.
Conversely, those who break God’s laws
by not showing mercy to others,
God will not show mercy to them
when He judges them, James 2:13.
Think with me
– when we all stand before Christ and Father God on Judgement Day,
it is far too late for God to show mercy.
The mercy of God is shown before Judgement Day
so that we may repent and make amends
of what we ought to be doing or not be doing.
There can be no more mercy on Judgement Day.
Whether one goes to heaven or hell would be decided on
Judgement Day, and cannot be changed.
Whether one gets a reward to oversee ten cities or five
would also be decided by God on Judgement Day.
So bear in mind that the mercies of God
are aplenty and never-ending,
but only while we are still alive
and before Judgement Day.
But it is too late for God to show mercy on Judgement Day
unless we believe in the doctrine of purgatory,
which evangelical Christians don’t.
Next, “Mercy triumphs over judgement” in James 2:13
cannot be referring to the bestowment of the mercy of God
in His judgement of us
as what Joseph Prince would have us believe,
as that would put the entire James 2:13 into a contradiction.
This is because the first part of James 2:13
already states that there will be no mercy
to be shown to anyone who is unmerciful,
James 2:13a
“because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone
who has not been merciful.”
So, if God has decided that no mercy is to be shown
in the first part of James 2:13 on Judgement Day,
how can God show mercy in the second part of the verse
on the same Judgement Day?
Even if one argues that James 2:13
isn’t referring to Judgement Day,
to interpret that “Mercy triumphs over judgement”
as referring to the bestowment of the mercy of Father God
and Christ in His judgement of us,
still puts James 2:13 into the same contradiction.
How can God, who has already decided
that no mercy is to be shown to those who are unmerciful
– the first part of James 2:13,
be merciful to those who are unmerciful in His judgement
– the second part of James 2:13?
So, the word ‘mercy’ in the phrase,
“Mercy triumphs over judgement”,
is referring to our mercy
and not God’s mercy
or the mercy seat of Christ
that Joseph Prince tries to deceive us with.
Because if we are merciful to love others, especially the poor,
we do not fear the judgement of God,
as He will be merciful to us
because we have been merciful to others.
With that being said,
we can and must still attribute it finally to the mercy of God
who shows His mercy to the merciful,
as no one,
not even those who are merciful to others
deserve God’s mercy.
But merciful God, out of His matchless mercies,
has chosen to be merciful and reward the merciful:
James 2:13 NLT
13 There will be no mercy
for those who have not shown mercy to others.
But if you have been merciful,
God will be merciful when he judges you.
James 2:13 TLB
13 for there will be no mercy to those
who have shown no mercy.
But if you have been merciful,
then God’s mercy toward you
will win out over his judgment against you.
As for the unmerciful,
the verdict remains that God will not show mercy to them
– with the proviso that they repent before they die.
And if they truly repent on this side of eternity,
God with His boundless mercies
will receive them into His loving arms again.
What Joseph Prince has done again
is the use of the half-truth strategy to deceive.
Did you notice that Joseph Prince
only quotes the second half of James 2:13,
“Mercy triumphs over judgment?”
But Joseph Prince never quotes the entire James 2:13
by ‘hiding’ from you the first part of verse 13,
“because judgment without mercy
will be shown to anyone
who has not been merciful.”
Joseph Prince has also not expounded
on the entire context in James 2:1-13,
in which the second half of James 2:13,
“Mercy triumphs over judgment” is located.
He plainly uses one sentence,
“Mercy triumphs over judgment?”
and takes it out of context
to build his false doctrine to deceive the unsuspecting.
By now, you should know the reason
why Joseph Prince is not showing you the first half of James 2:13
and not expounding on the overall context of James 2:1-13
– as that would straightaway expose all his false arguments and evil intentions.
My final point is this
– Joseph Prince often argues
that because he often uses the name of Christ
and frequently mentions Christ
all over the place in his sermons,
he is Christ-centred.
That’s the picture that most who loved him
and his preaching have of him,
and, hence, they would say to me,
“George, how dare you say
that Pastor Joseph Prince is not Christ-centred
when he calls out the name of Christ so often
in every sermon and he sees Christ in every passage.
George, don’t you know that Joseph Prince
is so Christ-centred
that he sees Christ again in James 2:13,
when he teaches that the phrase,
“Mercy triumphs over judgment?”
is referring to the ‘mercy seat of Christ’.”
I do not have problems with Joseph Prince
preaching Christ in the passages that talk about Him,
but only if he doesn’t twist the scriptures
to artificially and dishonestly fit Christ
into the many texts as he often does.
And he does it yet again
by ‘smuggling’ and reading the ‘mercy seat of Christ’
into James 2:13.
The argument that a preacher is Christ-centred
just because he sees Christ
in most of every passage in the scriptures
that he can even be allowed to twist
and read into the text to artificially fit Christ in
– that, to me, is sick logic.
Instead of making Christ happy,
that will make Him angry
because His name has been abused and misused.
Joseph Prince needs to know
that Christ doesn’t need his help
to promote Him in that artificial and dishonest manner.
The real truth is Joseph Prince
is more Me-centred than Christ-centred
as he is abusing and misusing the name of Christ,
not to promote Christ
but to promote himself
and his Pseudo-grace and Super-grace doctrine.
Rev George Ong
Appendix
Verbatim Notes of George Ong’s Teaching:
In a teaching session on James 2:8-13, George Ong said;
Please click here to view the 13-minute video:
“In ‘Unmerited Favor’, Page 127, Joseph Prince wrote,
“For instance, if any man looked at any woman apart from his wife with lust
or if anyone got angry with his neighbor,
God judged them as having committed the sins of adultery and murder.
And if they failed in just one law,
they were guilty of breaking all the laws! (Jas 2:10)
God’s standards are much higher than man’s standards.
Man may judge based on outward appearances,
but God was not interested merely in outward adherence to His laws.
He demanded adherence to the law
in their hearts and thoughts as well!
‘But Pastor Prince, isn’t that a little bit harsh?
Who can keep the Ten Commandments completely
both inwardly and outwardly?’
That is exactly right, my friend.
No man could or can!
The law is an impossible standard…”
In ‘Destined To Reign’, Page 123, Joseph Prince wrote,
“The Bible says that if you want to keep the law,
you have to keep all of it,
and if you break one law, you break them all (Jas 2:10).”
“You see, God did not give the law for us to keep.
He gave the law to bring man to the end of himself,
so that he would see his need for a Savior.”
Now we come to this text.
Now he based on verse 10,
“For whoever keeps the whole law
and yet stumbles at just one point
is guilty of breaking all of it.” (Jas 2:10)
To say that you break one law, you break all laws.
So difficult, who can make it?
God didn’t give us the law to keep.
How do you explain from this text for or against his position?
It seems to be true, right.
You break one law, you break all laws.
So, who can make it?
And God did not give us the law (for us to keep).
But actually, if you read the whole passage,
it’s arguing against him.
“If you really keep the royal law found in scripture,
“Love your neighbour as yourself,”
you are doing right.” (Jas 2:8)
So, it’s already start,
you have to keep (the law),
you are doing right.
You must keep the law.
If you do, you are doing right.
He didn’t say you don’t have to keep the law.
So this royal law is “Love your neighbour as yourself.”
So, first fact.
Second fact;
“But if you show favouritism,
you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.” (Jas 2:9)
So, it’s very clear,
verse 9 says, “If you show favourtitism.”
All of you probably know the context,
from verse 1 to verse 7
that the people that James was writing to,
they were committing the sin of favouritism
because they were favouring the rich
and looking down on the poor.
Maybe, Bill Gates, come on.
Bill Gates, sit, this is important, sit here.
Beggarly looking people, sorry, you queue up.
They were committing the sin of favouritism
and when they did it, they sin, very clear.
They are already sinning because they break this law
because they did not love their neighbour,
the poor neighbours, particularly.
They love the rich neighbour, so to speak.
Showing favouritism against them
and are convicted by that lawbreaker.
They are lawbreakers. They break the law. They are lawbreakers.
So, it’s very clear (verses) 8 and 9
shows that you are required to obey the law.
And then what does verse 10 trying to tell us?
Verse 10 is not saying you can break any law or it’s okay.
Verse 10 is saying,
Look ah, you must keep the royal law, ah,
you must love your neighbour,
you cannot break the law because if you break the law.
So, verse 10 is trying to say,
then you have to keep this law
because if you break one law, you break all laws.
So, you see, he’s (Joseph Prince) using one verse
to argue his case where you have to keep;
you have to take in context the whole thing.
Now let’s say, practical illustration.
Let’s say your friend committed, break the law of stealing.
He goes to jail.
So, when he comes out, right,
what would be your advice?
Your advice would be that.
“Eh, you remember ah,
you break one law, right, stealing ah,
you go to jail, you lawbreaker, you know.
You break one, you break all laws.
You go to jail.
You come out, ah.
Eh, please ah, don’t break another law again, ah.
You break another law, hammering someone,
you can go to jail, you see.”
Correct. We don’t tell like Joseph Prince,
“Wah, Eh, you break one law of the whole nation, ah,
you can go to jail, or you can become a lawbreaker.
So difficult, ah.
So, it’s impossible to keep every law.”
Tell that to the leaders of the nation
and say that they must excuse every criminal
because so difficult to keep one law.
You break one law, you go to jail.
So, it’s nonsensical argument, right?
Doesn’t mean that we are perfectionist.
No, no, no. We are not.
We know that we will break here and there,
we come to God,
God will embrace us and then help us to move on.
But he (Joseph Prince) is saying differently.
He is saying,
“You see, God did not give the law for us to keep.”
This is blasphemous. The reverse is the truth.
So, God wants us to keep the law.
He’s saying the opposite.
Many New Testament scriptures clearly state
that we are to obey the commandments or the laws of God,
And all these verses are there.
Just now, we are here right.
“For whoever keeps the whole law
and yet stumbles at just one point
is guilty of breaking all of it.”
Then, the author gives another illustration.
“For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,”
also said, “You shall not murder.”
If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder
you have become a lawbreaker.” (Jas 2:11)
You see another illustration,
he’s saying if somebody comes to us and say
he didn’t commit adultery he thinks it’s fine.
But if he commit one law murder, he is a lawbreaker.
So this like reinforces this. Something like that.
But note that the law against adultery,
what is this law?
Under the Ten Commandments.
Correct, under the Ten Commandments.
This is seventh law. And murder, sixth law.
Under the Ten Commandments.
So, the fact that James still quote these 2 laws
in the Ten Commandments in his writings,
and that if you break it, you become a lawbreaker,
it still applies.
But Joseph Prince said no.
It’s very clear.
James was written after the cross.
He (Joseph Prince) always uses the cross to excuse many people.
After the cross, everything No Pakay (cannot use).
But let’s use his argument.
James wrote this after the cross and is a New Testament Book.
And he still say if you break the murder law, adultery law,
you have become a lawbreaker.
“Speak and act as those
who are going to be judged by the law
that gives freedom.” (Jas 2:12)
You see, “Speak and act,”
is a New Testament writer James,
“as those who are going to be judged by the law.”
We can still be judged by the law that gives freedom.
Aha, gives freedom.
Joseph Prince always like to ask,
you try to keep the law,
Wah, you become very burdensome,
you Kena (get) oppressed, condemned.
What did James say?
“Judged by the law that gives freedom.”
You obey the law, it gives you real freedom.
You listen to Joseph Prince
he brings you under bondage.
“Because judgement without mercy will be shown.”
Okay, maybe, let’s continue.
James quoted Old Covenant commandments,
namely two of the Ten Commandments
about murder and adultery, right, I’ve just said.
And he quoted the third
– the one where Jesus said was the second greatest commandment,
about loving your neighbour as yourself in James 2:8.
Although this Old Covenant law
that we should “love your neighbour as yourself”
is mentioned once in the Old Testament,
it’s quoted eight times in the New Testament.
So shows that why is it quoted in the New Testament?
It’s still relevant.
Now, all these 3 commandments Old Covenant commandments
were quoted by James
as if they are binding on New Covenant believers.
James believed Jesus,
who declared in the Sermon on the Mount
that He “did not come to abolish the law
but to fulfil” the law and the prophets in Matthew 5:17.
In ‘Destined To Reign’, Pages 209-211,
Joseph Prince wrote,
“Mercy Triumphs Over Judgment (Jas 2:13)
There’s more.
The mercy seat also speaks of the person of Christ…”
“So when Apostle John said that Jesus is our propitiation,
he was saying that Jesus is our mercy seat….”
“In the same way,
for Jesus to take our place and be our mercy seat,
He had to be brutally beaten and scourged,
so that by His stripes, we are healed….”
“Don’t you think that believers today
should be exalting God’s mercy
and His grace above the law?
Notice that the mercy seat is placed over the law.
This tells us that God’s mercy triumphs over judgment (Jas 2:13)!
God’s grace is above God’s law.
God executes judgment
because He is just, but His delight is not in judgment.
His delight is in mercy and grace.
The Bible tells us that God’s anger lasts only for a moment,
but His mercy endures forever.”
So, he (Joseph Prince) is trying to link the mercy seat of Christ
with this phrase,
“Mercy triumphs over judgement.”
Is he right? Is he wrong?
Simon, any idea?
He is trying to link the mercy seat of Christ
with this phrase,
“Mercy triumphs over judgement.”
to say in the end,
God’s mercy will triumph and you won’t be judged.
Is this right? Is this wrong?
How do you argue your case?
You see ah, he has to use the Mercy seat of Christ, you see.
But the Mercy seat of Christ
has nothing to do with this phrase,
“Mercy triumphs over judgment.”
Let me explain.
“Because judgment without mercy
will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful.”
In other words,
if they still insist on breaking the royal law,
still show favouritism,
that means they are showing no mercy.
In other words, this is in context,
they are not merciful to the poor.
Meaning to say if they do it,
judgement will come upon them without mercy.
He (Joseph Prince) never explain verse 13a, you see.
He’s trying to say mercy seat, mercy will triumph over,
and in the end, you won’t be judged,
you will be shown mercy.
This, already shown, he’s wrong.
Because if you are unmerciful,
you show favouritism against the poor,
judgment without mercy will be shown.
Already, very clear.
And them “Mercy triumphs over judgement.”
What is this mercy?
This is not God’s mercy.
This is our mercy in context.
But if we show mercy to the people, especially the poor,
we won’t be judged.
Mercy, our mercy triumphs over judgement.
You see another text that says it clearer.
NCV. In everything you say and do,
remember that you will be judged by the law
that makes people free.
So, you must show mercy to others
or God will not show mercy to you when He judges you.
But the person who shows mercy
can stand without fear at the judgment.
So, the mercy seat of Christ has nothing to do.
Again, he is importing his justification lens into everything.
His grace lens into everything.
My last point is this
Joseph Prince often argues
that because he often uses the name of Christ
and frequently mentions Christ
all over the place in his sermons,
he is Christ-centred.
You get this argument.
George, how come you preach against Joseph Prince?
Joseph Prince is very Christ-centred.
He said, Christ here, Christ there,
Christ everywhere, Christ every week.
How come?
Ah!
That’s the picture that most who loved him
and his preaching have of him,
and they would say to me,
George, how dare you to say
Pastor Joseph Prince is not Christ-centred
when he calls out the name of Christ so often
in every sermon
and he sees Christ in every passage.
George, don’t you think that Joseph Prince
is so Christ-centred
that he sees Christ again in James 2:13,
the ‘Mercy seat of Christ,’
when he teaches that the phrase,
“Mercy triumphs over judgement”
is referring to the ‘Mercy seat of Christ’.”
I’m speaking.
Now, I do not have problems with Joseph Prince
preaching Christ in the passages that talk about Him,
but only if he doesn’t twist the scripture
to artificially and dishonestly
fit Christ into the various texts as he often does.
And he does it yet again
by ‘smuggling’ and reading the ‘Mercy seat of Christ,’
into James 2:13.
The argument that a preacher is Christ-centred
just because he sees Christ
in most of every passage
that he can even be allowed to twist
and read into the text
to artificially fit Christ in
– that to me is sick logic.
He is Christ-centred.
Why is he Christ-centred.
Oh, I see.
He can be twisting and text like James 2:13
And artificially fit Christ in,
that is Christ-centred.
That to me is sick logic.
You preach Christ only if it agrees with the passage.
If it mentions about Christ, fine.
But don’t twist the passage
and fit Christ into every passage.
Instead of making Christ happy,
that will make Him angry
because His name has been abused and misused.
Joseph Prince needs to know
that Christ doesn’t need his help
to promote Him in that artificial and dishonest manner.
The real truth is Joseph Prince
is more Me-centred than Christ-centred
as he is abusing and misusing the name of Christ,
not to promote Christ
but to promote himself
and his Pseudo-grace or Super-grace doctrine.”