At this point it is helpful to compare James’ use of the Old Testament with that of the Lord Jesus in Luke 4. By citing the cases of the widow and of Naaman the Lord was indicating that God was about to set the nation of Israel aside and turn to the Gentiles. In referring to these cases the Lord Jesus was bold, and those in the synagogue were offended and wanted to put Him to death. James, by comparison, was trying to please the Judaizers by telling them not that God would set the nation of Israel aside, but that He would first rebuild the nation of Israel and then turn to the Gentiles. If we compare James’ use of the Old Testament with the Lord’s, we shall see that James quotes the Scriptures in a very weak manner.
Like the Lord Jesus, Paul was also bold in his use of the Old Testament. Consider what he did in Acts 13. When the Jews rejected the word of the gospel, Paul said boldly, “It was necessary for the word of God to be spoken to you first; since you thrust it away and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles” (v. 46). Then Paul quotes Isaiah 49:6: “I have set you for a light of the Gentiles, that you should be for salvation unto the remotest part of the earth.” As we have pointed out, this quotation refers to Christ as God’s Servant, whom God makes a light to the Gentiles that His salvation may reach to the end of the earth. Because he was one with Christ in carrying out God’s salvation, Paul applied this word to himself in his ministry of gospel preaching for the turning of the gospel from the Jews, because of their rejection, to the Gentiles. In His ministry on earth the Lord expressed the same thing to the stubborn Jews in Luke 4:24-27. In Acts 13 Paul did not say that they turned to the Gentiles because God had rebuilt the nation of Israel. On the contrary, he declared that they turned to the Gentiles because the Jews had rejected the word of God.
In Acts 15 James’ quotation from the Old Testament was warmly welcomed. If James had been as strong as the Lord Jesus and Paul, quoting the proper portions from the Old Testament concerning God’s setting aside Israel and visiting the Gentiles, the Judaizers would have opposed him strongly.
Our examination of James’ use of the Old Testament should help us learn the proper way to study the Bible. We need to see into the depths of the written word. If we truly know the Bible, we shall rightly criticize James’ quoting of the Old Testament. I really wonder why James didn’t quote the Lord’s clear and emphatic word in Acts 1:8 instead of quoting some indirect word from the Old Testament. This shows he was much more of the Old Testament and not so much of God’s New Testament economy.
In 15:19 and 20 James went on in fellowship to give his judgment: “Wherefore I judge that we do not harass those from the Gentiles who turn to God. But that we write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and fornication and what is strangled and blood.” This word is much inferior to the charge Paul gave to the believers in chapters thirteen and fourteen. Suppose someone said to you, “Dear saints, you know that we are living in a crooked and perverted generation that is full of idol worship and fornication. I charge you to abstain from pollutions of idols, fornication, from anything that has been strangled and from blood.” To be sure, the saints today would not be pleased to hear such an exhortation. Nevertheless, this was James’ fellowship in Acts 15.
In verse 21 James gives the reason for his judgment concerning the matter: “For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who proclaim him in the synagogues, being read every Sabbath.” Here we have the basis for James’ fellowship. He tells us that in solving the problem caused by the heretical Judaizers we need to take care of the fact that the law of Moses is read in the synagogues every Sabbath. This is the reason James gives for charging the Gentiles to abstain from pollutions of idols, fornication, anything strangled, and blood. This solution could not have been satisfactory to Paul, who says in Galatians 2:19, “I through law have died to law that I might live to God.” In contrast to such a word, James’ fellowship causes the New Testament believers to return to considering the law. This indicates that the concluding word given by James was still under the influence of the Mosaic law, due to his heavy Judaic background. As we shall see, the influence of this background still remained even at the time Paul paid his last visit to Jerusalem (Acts 21:20-26).
According to what he says in his Epistle, James must have been very religious. It might have been due to this and his practical Christian perfection that he was reputed along with Peter and John to be a pillar, even the first, in the church at Jerusalem (Gal. 2:9). However, he was not strong in the revelation of God’s New Testament economy in Christ, but was still under the influence of the background of the old Judaic religion—to worship God with ceremonies and live a life in the fear of God. This is proved by Acts 21:20-24 and James 2:2-11.
James 2:8-11 indicates that the Jewish believers at the time of James were still practicing and keeping the Old Testament law. This corresponds to the word in Acts 21:20 spoken by James and the elders in Jerusalem to Paul. James, the elders in Jerusalem, and many thousands of Jewish believers remained in a mixture of the Christian faith and the Mosaic law. They even advised Paul to practice such a semi-Judaic mixture (Acts 21:17-26). They were unaware that the dispensation of law was altogether over and that the dispensation of grace should be fully honored. They were also unaware that any disregard of the distinction between these two dispensations would be against God’s dispensational administration and would be a great damage to God’s economical plan for the building up of the church as the expression of Christ.
I feel very sorry that James’ judgment was altogether based upon his piety, his godly living, as indicated by the items of idol worship, fornication, what has been strangled, and from blood, which he referred to; but not at all based upon the administration of God’s New Testament economy. This shows he was altogether under the cloudy atmosphere of his Judaic background, not under the clear sky of God’s New Testament economy.