Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
There are a couple of reasons in the Bible for viewing James with less than sanguinary eyes. First, John writes in chapter 7 of his gospel that "Even his brothers did not believe into Him". When John was writing the gospel, the brothers/family of Jesus had risen into prominence. John is telling the believers that the brothers/family had missed the whole earthly ministry of Jesus Christ. They weren't there. The only time they show up in the narrative is to argue with their brother.
Now, some have told me that this was just to show that Jesus trod the lonely path, and wasn't an indictment against His brothers' later prominince. But I read it as, John is looking at the "leaders of the church" and pointedly reminding everyone that they weren't even there. They missed the boat in the gospels. Why are they now in charge?
Secondly, is Paul's remark in Galatians: "Some came from James" and Peter shrunk back from the Gentiles. Paul could have said, "Some came from Jerusalem" or something like that. But he said "some came from James".
Thirdly, when discussing the resurrection of Jesus, Paul says, "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ ... appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me."
(1 Corinthians 15:3-8 ESV)
Again, James is late on the scene. Why, then, did the Desposyni (the family) end up running the show? Because they were family, not because they knew what was going on. Blood trumped revelation. Eusebius tells us (approvingly) in HE 7.9.1 that they had their own special chair, "the throne of James", that was kept by the desposyni as a revered keepsake.
All of which doesn't mean I agree with Lee, nor his reasoning. I don't. I just wanted to point out why some folks might hold James with less regard than others.
|
This is not logical. According to the verse in ICorinthians 15 Paul is saying that the Lord appeared to James before he appeared to Paul. So if we accept that Paul's vision and ministry is part of the New Testament on what basis would the appearance of the Lord to James have? He appeared to James after the apostles, but he appeared to Paul after the apostles too.
Second, isn't this verse a testimony from the Apostle Paul that the Lord had appeared to James? Doesn't that contradict the idea that James didn't have the vision? Again, this verse seems to destroy this theory.
The verse in Galatians does, in my opinion shine a light on James and give him responsibility for the pressure on the Christians to be separate from the Gentiles. However, Paul was there when Stephen was stoned. Does that mean he didn't have the vision? Peter denied the Lord, does that mean he didn't have the vision. Peter and Paul make mistakes, but they have the vision. James might have made a mistake (the verses in Galatians only give responsibility to James, they don't actually say he did the deed) so therefore he doesn't have the vision?
As for the verses in John 7 it appears they are far more general than just an indictment on James lack of faith. Besides, James having a lack of faith prior to Peter's denial of the Lord, or Paul's participation in the persecution of Christians merely provides background prior to the Lord appearing to him.
The book of James should be judged based on the book. I don't judge Paul's books based on his persecution of Christians. I don't judge Peter's letters based on his denial of the Lord.
Witness Lee said:
"However,
to call these believers in Christ the twelve tribes, as God’s chosen people in His Old Testament economy, may also indicate the lack of a clear view concerning the distinction between Christians and Jews, between God’s New Testament economy and the Old Testament dispensation, that God in the New Testament has delivered and separated the Jewish believers in Christ from the Jewish nation, which was then considered by God as a “perverse generation” (Acts 2:40)."
I disagree. You call someone by their name, we have no evidence that James "named" them the "twelve tribes in the dispersion". If Jewish believers were referring to themselves in this way it does indicate that they were not clear, the fact that James wrote to them only indicates he had a burden for them.