Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassidy
The book of James is like other books, some more, some less, in that it contains things that are God's speaking and things that are not. One can argue about specifics but there are some things which are obviously not God's speaking such as Peter's speaking, Satan's speaking in Gen 3, Job's friends. Another example is the quoting of the uninspired as Holy Writ book of Enoch in Jude.
The things that are not considered God's speaking in the book of James are very specific and they have to do with keeping the law. James apparently held a view that Christians must keep the law. That is a mixture for we know very clearly from Paul's writing that keeping the law is not in a believer's remit. That mixture about the law is recorded there for good reason and we can see the negative results in the book of Acts and Galatians and the problems that mixture created.
To regard the book of James as somehow exempt from the same considerations as other books in the Bible, that is, having parts that are not God's speaking is not rational or logical.
|
Witness Lee, Life Study of James, Chapter 10 Sect 3
To say, “If the Lord wills,” is rather objective and is quite much according to the tone of the Old Testament. But to be led of the Spirit, to walk in the Spirit, and to do what our spirit constrains us to do are subjective and are much more according to the New Testament.
"I certainly have no intention of belittling James or his Epistle. However, I must truthfully point out that after many years studying this book, I have learned that this Epistle is very Jewish and has a strong color, tone, taste, and atmosphere of the Old Testament. If we did not have the fourteen Epistles of Paul, we might be influenced by the book of James to go back to Judaism. Although we appreciate and need James’ emphasis on practical Christian perfection, we still need to be very clear that much of his Epistle has the tone, color, and atmosphere of the Old Testament."
This is WL's take on the expression "If the Lord wills" in the book of James, chapter 4. It is a good example of how WL belittles the book. The burden of James is clearly for those having trouble making the transition from the OT to the NT (it is written "to the 12 tribes in the dispersion"). So the governing principle here might be Paul's word in
1Cor
9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
This is clearly a lesson that WL did not learn. He feels that it "belittles" the book that the book is "Jewish" and has the taste of the Old Testament.
So then the next question is "who understood Paul better, Witness Lee or James?"
Perhaps one reason the book of James is in the Bible is because people may think they understand Paul when they really don't.
Perhaps, instead of "not intending to belittle James" it might have been better if he had "intended to learn from James". The arrogance of this "Bible teacher" is repulsive.