Originally posted by @sonshipA rather interesting question is why was Martin Luther reportedly opposed to the inclusion of James in the Biblical canon.
Does anyone have an opinion on why God had [b]James write one book of the New Testament while having Paul write thirteen?
This is a question for mainly those who regard God's sovereignty over the writing of the New Testament books. I am not interested in an atheistic opinion on this.[/b]
Originally posted by @sonshipI didn't even notice that. I just read "immorality". Good catch, but yeah, it reads like he meant "immorality".I think this could be simply extrapolated to helping others in our neighbourhood who need our help and not getting soiled and sullied by the corruption and immortality of the world around us
I think you mean "immorality of the world around us" rather than immortality.
Originally posted by @sonshipI'm not a Biblical scholar and so I have no opinion on it. I'd be interested in hearing one, though.
Does anyone have an opinion on why God had [b]James write one book of the New Testament while having Paul write thirteen?
This is a question for mainly those who regard God's sovereignty over the writing of the New Testament books. I am not interested in an atheistic opinion on this.[/b]
My favorite bit of James is this:
"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord." - James 1:5-7 KJV
-Removed-Yes, sometimes. But that is not to say the lesser amount has no weight.
We have other indications that the weight of Paul's contribution to the New Testament exceeds that of James.
It was James who held [edited] Paul back from being faithful to the gospel of grace in the incident in Acts 21 in Paul's third journey of ministry. The negative influence of Judaism as seen in Acts 21:18-26 was happening under the watch of James as a leading elder in Jerusalem.
"And on the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
And having greeted them, he related one by one the things which God did among the Gentiles through his ministry.
And when they heard it, they glorified God and said to him, You observe brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews who have believed, and all are zealous for the law." (vs. 18-20)
This reveals the mixture that was in the church in Jerusalem. And they spoke of it as if it was something to be proud of.
And they warned Paul that his ministry would be suspicioned unless he acted like he was subject to this kind of mixture also.
"And they have been informed concerning you that you are teaching all the Jews throughout the nations apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children, nor to walk according to the customs.
What is to be done? They will certianly hear that you have come." (vs.21,22)
The rumors were running wild that Paul was against the Law of Moses which distorted the nature of the gospel of grace. It appears that James and associates boasted of thousands in the church there who were zealous for law keeping. He convinced Paul to quell the rumors by himself participating in an old covenant ritual. (A plan which completely blew up in his face).
There was a mixture in Jerusalem under the influence of the very pious James. And he was a very righteous and dedicated disciple. And being the natural brother of Jesus, it is understandable that they tended to look to James for leadership of the new "movement".
But James had one foot in the old way and one foot in the new way. And the mixture held Paul back. Paul had more clarity as to what God was doing with the new covenant.
So I think along with bulk text we also have other evidences that Paul's contribution to the New Testament is more important than James'. Again, this is not to say that James has not weight.
-Removed-The book of James I regard as the word of God, inspired and profitable as any other book of the New Testament.
But I also regard it as historically significant. It shows the trouble of transition the new covenant church had in growing out of Judiasm. In this very difficult time of the NEW swallowing up the OLD, James was a man in transition with one foot in the old way and one foot in the new.
It is also typical of human nature that early Christians would of course consider the natural brother of Jesus, James, to be a vital successor in the new movement's leadership.
I probably would have thought the same way if I had been alive then - "Of course, to take us on in this new covenant, who else but the flesh brother of Jesus should be looked to for leadershiip?"