Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassidy
"All you have really proved is that at one point in James life he was confused, and that at the time he wrote his epistle he was now burdened for others that were confused. You have not provided any evidence that the epistle itself is a mixture.
Should I disparage the epistles of Peter because he denied the Lord? Should I shun the epistles of Paul because he persecuted the church? People get burdens because they themselves were in the very same situation. Paul said that once we overcome we can comfort others with the very same comfort that we received."
Before, I say what I am about to say I feel a need to reiterate something. There are many attributes and qualities about James that are not only admirable but truly stellar. In the RCV footnotes in the book of James, Witness Lee writes a very glowing description of this precious brother and apostle.
ZNP,
You argument about considering Peter's mistakes in the gospels, and then not rejecting his epistle's because of those mistakes is a reasonable. No, we should not reject Peter's epistle's because he denied the Lord in the gospels.
Same for Saul who persecuted the church. We should not reject Paul's epistles written after his conversion just because he persecuted the church at one point before his conversion. I agree with you 100%.
As I indicated in my opening to this note, I also do not totally disregard the book of James and neither did Witness Lee.
However, in applying your reasonable argument to James we encounter an issue. And it is not insignificant. The epistle of James was written before Acts 21 which says that thousands among the Jews believed and they were "all are zealous for the law". So rather than, as in the case of Peter and Paul, a progression away from early errors we find James is not only the elder in a city where all are zealous for the law but James then proposes that Paul sponsors some new converts to observe a law ritual. The purpose of sponsoring the ritual is so that everyone will know that Paul was not teaching "apostasy from Moses", (such as not needing to circumcise their children). Since these events occurred after his epistle was written we cannot apply the same logic as we did for Peter and Paul.
The confusion James held about the Jewish believers needing to observe the OT law was being held and promoted by him even after his epistle was written.
|
Not only so but it is very likely that Galatians was written after the book of James, though perhaps within a couple of years of this book.
I have already said that Acts is a valid reason to question the book. But without something in the book itself you don't have evidence, only a suspicion.
It seems to me, (and this is merely my take on the NT, I am quite open to critique) that if Paul rebukes Peter to his face that is the kind of thing that is going to travel very quickly through the churches. (Imagine that BP rebukes Max R directly to his face when some from the LSM office come and visit. Do you honestly think that news would not go straight back to WL?)
If Paul's rebuke is directly related to James then I would expect James would hear it and consider it carefully. We know that Peter received the rebuke and I see no reason at all to think that James didn't also receive it. Also, the book of Galatians relates accounts and stories that happened prior to Paul writing the book. That seems quite obvious.
Now according to the book of Acts the period of time from Peter feeling that he could not eat with the gentiles to the time he realized that the Lord had shown him that is what he wanted to do, to the time he actually baptized them, to the time he met with James to defend these actions was a matter of days, perhaps a week or two. The fact that "all were zealous for the law" indicates that there is a real need to do something. Who better to repent than James? Who better to speak than James? There is no reason to think his repentance and then letter was years in the making. It could have been a month.
So, the account in Acts 21 shows that at the time that the book of James was written "all were zealous for the law". Seems like a compelling reason for why James was burdened to write. According to the account in Galatians and Acts we can surmise that much of this zealousness for the law was due to James himself. Again, seems like a compelling reason why he would repent and why he would be burdened to do something about it.
So once again, there are two very reasonable ways to look at this.
1. James had a mixed view, it caused everyone following him to also have a mixed view (those who came from James) and we can see this in his epistle. (However, to support this thesis you have to show direct quotes from his epistle which point to his error.)
2. James had a mixed view. It caused others to also be led astray. He was rebuked for this and repented, receiving a revelation (the Lord appeared to him) partly as a result of hearing of Paul's rebuke of Peter. After the Lord appeared to him he wrote the book of James to address the "double minded" situation described in Acts 21 and also in Galatians. (To support this thesis the book would have to be written to those who are confused "to the 12 tribes in the dispersion", it would have to very clearly state that Jesus is Lord and we are no longer in the OT "James a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ". It would have to explain this transition from the OT to the NT "the trying of faith worketh patience, but let patience have her perfect work" (the NT is a perfect work and is an example of how patient God is).
The point is you have to support your theory with what James actually wrote. Was his burden to teach Christians to be zealous for the Law or was his burden for those who were confused and trying to help them make the transition to the NT.
Now if I was Paul I would not be quick to write the account in Galatians. You need to give Peter and James an opportunity to digest it. However, once Peter and James have received the word and repented I would feel much better about sharing my side of the story. So the act of writing Galatians seems to me to indicate that yes, Paul rebuked them but they received the rebuke and repented. Otherwise, the fact that they rejected his rebuke should also be mentioned in Galatians to explain what caused the schism. We know that Paul was not shy about explaining why there was a schism with him and Mark.