Dr. Theodore H. Mann
It is occasionally claimed that the epistle of James is deficient in certain respects, especially when compared to the letters of Paul and other writers of the New Testament. The charge is that unlike Paul, James did not have an adequate view of God’s New Covenant concept of grace—salvation through faith apart from works— but was legalistic in his approach to salvation and Christian behavior. It is proposed that this alleged lack of understanding regarding God’s redemptive plan produced a letter which, although beneficial in terms of the behavioral aspects of the Christian life, nevertheless contains elements of contradiction (especially when compared to Paul’s writings), and is not altogether consistent with the higher expressions of God’s truth. In short, James was a legalist.
Though no one to my knowledge goes so far as to actually say so, the implication is that the epistle is not entirely inspired (2 Tim.3:16), but includes much that is only of James.
In an effort to bolster support for this view by associating it with someone of historic importance and respectability, reference is usually made to Martin Luther’s famous remark about James’ letter being an epistle of straw; although it is not usually mentioned that Luther also had little use for other New Testament documents (Hebrews, Jude and Revelation1). If that were better known, perhaps the weight of his influence might not be summoned quite so readily. In any case, in spite of his misgivings, Luther nevertheless included the entire complement of New Testament documents in his famous translation of the Bible.
The purpose of this paper is to suggest that the above charge against James is not only unjustified, but that those who make this assertion unwittingly attack one of the foundation-stones of Christianity—the inspiration of Scripture.
I begin by trying to logically demonstrate that the letter of James (or any other biblical document) cannot contain a mixture of human deficiency and divine revelation, providing certain premises are accepted.
1. We read in 2 Timothy 3:16 that all (pa=sa: not some or most) Scripture is God-breathed (Qeo/pneustoj). Among Bible-believing Christians, this is universally understood to mean that God breathed into the human authors the words He wanted them to write.
2. Question 1: Does the letter of James qualify as Scripture? Answer: yes. If James is not Scripture we are in the position of saying that some of the Bible is not Scripture.
3. Question 2: Is the entire letter of James Scripture, or only parts of it? Answer: All of it is Scripture. Otherwise, as stated above, not all the Bible is Scripture.
4. Conclusion 1: Therefore, since all Scripture is God-breathed, and all of James is Scripture, all of James is God-breathed.
5. Question 3: Does God breathe contradiction or error? Answer: no.
6. Conclusion 2: Therefore there can be no contradictions or deficiencies in James. If there are, either all or part of the letter of James is not Scripture or God breathes contradiction and error.
7. The same conclusion applies to the term, "inspiration." If there are contradictions or deficiencies in James, then it follows that God inspires contradiction and error.
If the above line of reasoning is valid, even without examining any of the passages in James we must conclude that there are no errors or contradictions in his letter. If we read James and locate passages which seem to contradict the writings of Paul or other NT writers, we are mistaken, however convinced we may be that we are not mistaken. Even if we have no alternative explanations for these passages, they still contain no contradictions. (The fact that we cannot explain something does not mean that no explanation exists.)
An excerpt from the introductory notes to the letter of James, from the English Standard Version2 of the Bible, is worth noting:
Many have claimed that James and the apostle Paul differed on the question of faith versus works,but in reality the spiritual fruit that James talks about—the picture of what faith looks like practically—demonstrates the true faith of which Paul wrote. Their writings are complementary rather than contradictory.
Whenever a biblical document is examined, attention must be given to the nature and condition of those to whom it is addressed. The spiritual level attained by the recipients, their relative capacity to grasp varying degrees of revelation, and the particular problems and prejudices they share, are a few of the dimensions that must be taken into consideration. We need to have some sense of these matters if we are to understand why God caused the authors of the New Testament to write as they did to the various individuals and churches in the first century, and by historical extension, to us.
Paul was aware of this when he wrote3 “…to the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law.. that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the sake of the gospel..” (1 Cor.9:20-23).
Paul knew what every good teacher knows: if you wish to instruct people, you must approach them at their level of attainment, and work with whatever understanding they bring to the issue at hand.
This is underscored in 1 Cor. 2:6, where Paul says, “Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom… “ The implication here is that successful communication of the higher things of God is proportional to the maturity of the believer. For those who are not ready for a more profound degree of insight, less profound means must be employed.
Consider the apostle Paul’s remarks in 1 Cor.3:1,2: “And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to babes in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able.”
Consider also Hebrews 5:12—14: “Concerning him [Melchizedek] we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For… you have need again for some one to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For every one who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.”
These two excerpts will serve to demonstrate the point. Paul was capable of presenting a higher revelation to the Corinthians than he actually did, but he knew they could not grasp it. Likewise, the writer to the Hebrews (whether Paul or someone else) recognized their spiritual limitations, and wrote accordingly. What this means is that, to some extent, neither 1 Corinthians nor Hebrews represent in all respects the highest possible views of their authors. In the former instance, Paul understood more about spiritual matters than he was able to relate to the Corinthians; in the latter (Hebrews), the author at least found it difficult to do so. The writers had to take the spiritual limitations of their readers into consideration.
It is seldom noticed by those who compare James unfavorably with Paul that while Paul was eminently capable of expressing profound spiritual insight into the Christian’s interaction with God, he could, when required, also be quite rules-directed when dealing with the specific problems of the various churches to whom he wrote.
I have been referring to 1 Corinthians because it is a particularly good example of this. In this letter I am unable to locate a clear instance where Paul told the Corinthians to deal with any specific spiritual difficulty or practical problem by walking in the Spirit or tapping into the transforming power of God, or the like. Rather, he lists their questions and problems one after the other, often criticizing them for their shortcomings, and then tells them what to do or what not to do, or what practical guidelines to follow. The letter is replete with commands, reprimands and legalese.
To cite just one example, I refer the reader to 1 Cor. 7. A better illustration of rabbinical instruction would be difficult to find. Paul details some of the pros and cons of marriage and various aspects of the marriage relationship; he discusses divorce, the believer’s responsibility toward an unbelieving mate, whether or not one’s position in life should change as a result of becoming a believer, whether or not an unmarried person should marry, or if a father should arrange a marriage for his daughter, and he does this in the finest tradition of Jewish teaching. One can almost envision a rabbi instructing his charges on the steps of the temple.
I won’t take space here to list other examples. They’re easy enough to find. Instead, I suggest the reader examine 1 Corinthians, and notice, especially beginning with chapter 5, the litany of criticisms, judgments, guidelines, commands, rules and regulations Paul lays before this gifted but troubled congregation. In dealing with the actual day-to-day problems of the Corinthians, there is very little (if any) of what we might call lofty spiritual solutions offered by Paul.
And why? Not because he was unacquainted with high spiritual matters, but probably because he knew the Corinthians were unable to grasp those kinds of answers (3:1,2). They might take orders very well, but they were unlikely to seek the leading of the Spirit. This, in spite of the compliments he paid them in Chapter 1.
In other words, Paul approached the issues facing the people to whom he wrote by taking into consideration the spiritual perceptions of those he was attempting to instruct. And those who have accepted the responsibility for guiding the spiritual insights of people who have been placed under their care have always taken such matters into consideration. Often, in the process of such guidance, they give the impression that they themselves have less understanding of profound spiritual matters than they actually have. What would be our assessment of Paul, do you think, if the only letter by which we were able to judge him was 1 Corinthians?
This also was the problem facing James when he wrote his letter to the “twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad… .” But, unlike Paul, he was writing to Messianic Jews, not Gentile believers, and had to approach his task from a different perspective, and apply different measures. But his approach was basically the same as Paul’s; he took the spiritual condition of his readers into account.
As Ellicott notes4 concerning early Christians who were converted from Judaism:
With them the adherence to outward forms, the stickling for the letter of the Law, and other like barren principles, played itself in new shapes, corresponding with their altered state of religion. “Wherever,” it has been well said, “Christianity did not effect a complete change in the heart, the old Jewish spirit naturally manifested itself in the professed converts.” It was what our Puritan divines quaintly, but correctly, termed “the popery of the human heart.” The souls that had trusted wholly and entirely in sacrifice as a bare substitution of victims, and deliverance from an indiscriminate vengeance, now clung to faith as a passive thing instead.
Not all Jewish converts clung so tenaciously to legal forms (along with their faith in Christ), and some, like Paul, seemed able to become divested of any significant adherence to the Law. But most early Jewish Christians did not find it so easy to cast a lifetime of legalism aside. They were saved, but their daily practice merged faith with certain aspects of the Law, particularly the rite of circumcision. Most early Jewish converts to Christ faced this difficulty, including those to whom God wrote by the hand of James. And James masterfully took this into consideration.
* * *
A good example of having to deal with people at a level they could understand is to be found in Acts 21:17—26, especially since it involved James.
(17) After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. (18) And now the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. (19) And after he [Paul] had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. (20) And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; (21) and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. (22) What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. (23) Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; (24) take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses in order that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. (25) But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.” (26) Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple, giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.
The view, held by some, that Paul came under the spell of James and other Jewish believers, and was drawn into their web to perform this act of legalism, seems highly improbable. This council in Jerusalem took place at the conclusion of Paul’s last missionary journey, following extensive experience with Jewish legalists and ascetic Gnostics. He had already written his epistles to the Romans and Galatians, as well as other letters, and was at the very peak of his spiritual power and insight. No one could have written Romans and Galatians without fully understanding the depths and subtleties of God’s interaction with those in whom He dwells, and the dangers of embracing legalism. It is very unlikely that Paul could have been intimidated by anyone, at this point in his ministry, let alone by a group of Messianic Jews.
It is more likely that Paul simply felt that his testimony as an apostle of Christ would fall on hostile and therefore unresponsive ears if he antagonized the Jews in Jerusalem. If avoiding this confrontation meant performing a few meaningless legal practices, so what? The ploy nearly worked, too, since there were apparently no problems during most of the days of purification (vs.27). Unfortunately, Jews from Asia stirred up trouble toward the end of the purification period (Acts 21:27f).
The point here, however, is that Paul’s actions were undoubtedly not the result of having been seduced by legalizers into thinking that obedience to Moses was required by God, but rather an effort to pacify the Jewish believers so that he might function under less stressful conditions.
Another reason it is unlikely that Paul was deceived by Jewish believers lies in a confrontation he had with Peter on an earlier occasion. He describes this in his letter to the Galatians:
Galatians 2:11—16:
(11) But when Cephas came to Antioch, I [Paul] opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. (12) For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. (13) And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. (14) But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (15) We are Jews by nature, and not sinners from among the Gentiles; (16) nevertheless, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.
Bearing in mind that the above excerpt from Galatians, concerning Peter’s lapse, was written well before the council in Jerusalem (Acts 21:17-26, cited above), can we seriously entertain the notion, as some do, that Paul was hoodwinked into legalism by James at the Jerusalem council? After all, was he likely to fall into the same trap he had so vigorously criticized Peter for embracing? Paul did what he is described as doing at Jerusalem because he believed that, under those particular circumstances, it was the wisest thing to do. He dealt with these less-than-mature Messianic saints at a level they could appreciate, and in a way he hoped would resolve the problem at hand. That it did not turn out as expected in no way diminishes his intentions.
Also, regarding the Galatians excerpt, the fact that these brothers came from James [2:12] does not necessarily mean that James condoned the influence they had on Peter, Barnabas and the others. Indeed, it is not even clear that they tried to influence them. But if they did, it must be remembered that these were the very same kinds of people to whom James wrote his letter.
A similar situation existed with regard to Timothy, whom Paul circumcised “because of the Jews who were in those parts” (Acts 16:3). The circumcision of Timothy was a matter of reasonable expediency, not because Paul felt it was necessary in order to avoid offending God, or for some other less than adequate reason. According to F. F. Bruce5:
It was Timothy’s mixed parentage that made Paul decide to circumcise him before taking him along as a travel-companion. In the eyes of Jews, Timothy was a Gentile because he was the uncircumcised son of a Greek. In Gentile eyes, however, he was practically a Jew, having been brought up in his mother’s religion. Paul therefore regularized his status (and, in Jewish eyes, legitimized him) by circumcising him. ...Timothy had been brought up to observe the Jewish law; it was simple expediency that suggested the circumcising of one who was already a half-Jew with a view to his greater usefulness in the ministry of the gospel.
Another act of accommodation in order to benefit the gospel is described in Acts 15, which depicts an even earlier meeting than the one in Acts 21, above. This conference was between Paul, Barnabas and the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, and dealt with the charge by the believing sect of Pharisees that Gentile believers should be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses (vs5).
James appears to have had the responsibility for making the final decision (vs13,19). His proposal was the one that prevailed (vs19—29), and it is clear from his comments that he was not excessively concerned with legal issues. He dropped the matter of circumcision altogether, even though that was the primary concern of the judaizers who wanted the Gentiles circumcised as a requirement for salvation (vs1). For the purpose of mollifying the Jews in the various cities (vs21), James ultimately decided that the Gentiles should fulfill a few minimal requirements, and this decision was agreed to (please note) by the Holy Spirit (vs28), all of the apostles, elders and the entire church, including Paul (vs22).
Did James fool everyone, including the Holy Spirit? Here, again, we have an example of God guiding the church leaders to make a decision based on the exigencies of the situation, and the spiritual condition of the people involved, rather than on the highest possible application of God’s provision.
Quoting F.F. Bruce again6:
“… we may say that two types of “necessary” questions were raised at the Jerusalem Council. The first had to do with the theological necessity of circumcision and the Jewish law for salvation, and that was rejected. The second had to do with the practical necessity of Gentile Christians abstaining from certain practices for the sake of Jewish-Gentile fellowhip with the church and for the sake of the Jewish Christian mission throughout the Diaspora, and that was approved.
This goes a long way toward explaining the nature of James’ epistle. Much of this document met Messianic believers at a level with which they were familiar and with terms and concepts they could understand; and it is hoped that they were eventually able to function at a higher level. But it is not true that those terms and concepts contradict higher New Testament revelation. They simply present the truth on a more basic or fundamental plane.
It has to be understood that the Bible deals with different people in different ways, depending on the spiritual perceptions of those being instructed. Some may be completely capable of understanding the higher things of God, while others require some other approach. For those who are unable to grasp the higher teachings of God regarding the attainment of proper Christian conduct, there are ample New Testament passages that approach that issue on a more elementary level, and Paul himself contributed many of them.
New Testament letters written to people who required spiritual pabulum (sic) should not be used to judge the maturity of the writers themselves, any more than classroom material presented by a kindergarten teacher should be used to determine the full intelligence of the teacher. The teaching of James is not to be understood as representing his highest personal view of God’s economy7, but only as an effort to deal with the Christian Jews of the dispersion within the limitations of their Christian experience.
At the same time, I am not suggesting that James’ view of God’s economy was as high as Paul’s; but neither is it necessary to assume that his personal understanding of that economy is adequately represented by the words of his epistle. Remember, Paul himself wrote less to the Corinthians than he knew about God’s full revelation, and the writer to the Hebrews probably did the same.
To understand the nature of James’ epistle, it is necessary to appreciate the extensive problems of the people to whom he wrote. James, who was the leading figure in the church at Jerusalem, was quite aware of the serious difficulties and needs of his readers, especially since the vast majority of them were probably from that city, having dispersed into other parts of the Roman Empire following severe persecution by Jewish and Roman officials. He knew what issues needed to be addressed, and at what spiritual stratum to address them. He also understood (through the Holy Spirit) the delicacy of his task, which was to speak the truth to them, but in a way that did not drive them even further from the Lord than they already were.
And problems there were! These Jews showed disdain for the poor, and exalted the rich (James 2:1f, 5:1f); they talked a good religion, but their faith did not result in action (2:14f); they were backbiting and slanderous (3:3f, 4:11,12, 5:9); they exhibited jealousy, selfishness, false wisdom, disorder (3:13f); they quarreled, sought pleasure, prayed improperly (4:1f); they were proud (4:10). Were these people even Christians? There have been those who have thought they were not. Is it any wonder that the Holy Spirit had to deal with them through James as He did?
The one thing they shared, however, as did nearly all Messianic Jews of that era, was a respect for the Law, and, while not telling them that following the Law qualified as the highest level of spirituality, James used a rules-directed approach with them, as one might with wayward children, even as Paul did with the Corinthians and others.
Unfortunately, this approach has engendered reproach to James himself, whose own level of spiritual insight has been called into question by those who fail to understand the nature of the people with whom he was dealing.
James, the brother of Jesus and Jude (Gal.1:19/Jude 1), was a notable figure in the early church, as is evident from several references to him in the New Testament.
After Peter’s miraculous deliverance from prison, in Acts 12, Peter is quoted as saying, “Report these things [the story of Peter’s deliverance] to James and the brethren ” (vs17), clearly distinguishing James from the rest of “the brethren.”
Acts 15 relates the history of one of the Jerusalem councils, mentioned above, where James’ decision to impose only minimal legal requirements on the Gentiles prevailed and was approved of by the apostles, elders, the entire church and the Holy Spirit.
At the conclusion of Paul’s third missionary journey (Acts 21:17ff), it was to James that he reported (vs18); the presence of the elders at that meeting is mentioned almost as an afterthought (vs18). James was seen as one of the pillars of the church (Gal.2:9); he was an apostle (Gal.1:19), though not one of the Twelve.
When we consider this and other information about James, it is clear that Scripture presents the picture of a man with considerable stature in the early church, especially in Jerusalem. He knew everyone of note, and everyone ascribed great weight to his insight; he was a leader and decision-maker.
That James was acquainted with the teachings of Paul is evident from the epistle of James itself. Note the similarities between the following combinations of verses: James 1:2,3/Rom.5:3, James 1:4/1Cor.1:7, James 1:6/Eph.4:14, James 1:12/2Tim.4:8, James 1:18/Rom.8:23, James 1:21/Col.4:8, James 1:22/Rom.2:13, James 2:5/1Cor.1:27.
It hardly seems possible, given James’ position in the church, and his association with all the major Christian figures of the first century, that he had little or no appreciation for the high revelation expressed by Paul, Peter and John. Given the number of private and public conversations these men must have had, it is unlikely that they shared none of these matters, or that James read none of the others’ epistles, or heard none of their public speaking. Indeed, one gets the impression that Paul and the others highly esteemed James. The relatively basic level at which James wrote his own letter cannot reasonably be attributed to an especially pronounced legalistic mentality on his part, although it is not being suggested here that he had no affinity for the Law at all.
The letter of James is a “general,” or “catholic” epistle, meaning that it was not addressed to a specific individual or church, but was for general distribution among the very substantial number of Jewish converts throughout (at least part of) the Roman Empire. According to tradition, it was written around A.D. 62.
The following is a thumb-nail sketch of the letter of James, with occasional notes regarding some of the passages.
Chapter 1
1:1 Greetings
1:2—8 Faith under trial produces endurance and ultimate spiritual maturity. Wisdom is called for, and will be given by God if prayer is grounded in faith. Without faith one should not expect to receive anything from God.
1:9—11 The poor should rejoice in their (spiritual) exaltation, and the rich in their humiliation, because life is short.
1:12—18 A crown of life awaits those who love the Lord if they endure trial. God tempts no one, nor can He be tempted by evil. One’s own lust causes temptation, and this results in sin. Sin ultimately leads to death. All good gifts come from God, Who is unchanging. By His will He produced us as first-fruits among His creatures.
1:19—27 Focus on listening but guard what you say. Control anger, because anger does not produce righteousness. Put aside evil, and receive that which saves the soul; that is, the implanted word, the hearing of which should result in action. Those who hear the word only are deluding themselves. If one is a doer of the “perfect law—the law of liberty,” he will be blessed. Pure religion is not just a matter of hearing, but has to do with much more basic matters, such helping others (especially the poor), and abstaining from sin.
Notes:
(1) The “implanted word,” as meant here, is the spoken and written word of God which, upon hearing, takes up residence in our spirits, and is meant to affect our actions and transform us into the image of Christ. This transformation cannot happen, however, unless the implanted living Word of God (Christ) resides there first.
(2) The “perfect law” is the “law of liberty.” This refers to liberty from the Law. James was probably walking a tightrope here. He could not overtly tell these Jews that it was unnecessary to follow the Law, lest they dismiss him out of hand, so he includes a small hint, that they might receive something of its meaning. This is a good lesson for all of us. When we speak to believers and unbelievers alike, we must develop a sense of where they are, spiritually, and if justifiable, modify our speaking accordingly, in the hope of taking them from where they are to where they should be.
Both of the above points indicate that James had a much more significant understanding of deeper spiritual truths than he was sharing with the recipients of this letter.
(3) James’ use of the term “religion” (vs.26f) reveals something of his gift at converting accepted Jewish legal perceptions into concepts that serve God’s purposes. The way in which this would have impressed his readers is that there is “religion,” on the one hand, but “pure, undefiled religion,” on the other. Pure religion has nothing to do with keeping laws, as the typical Jew would have supposed, but rather with exhibiting love to one’s fellow man; especially to those of low social status. James does not say this in just so many words, but this is the underlying thought, if only these Messianic believers would carefully consider his words. This is entirely consistent
with such passages as 1 John 3:16-18, except that it is expressed in simpler, more direct terms.
The use of the phrase, “..to keep oneself unstained by the world,” also shows something of James’ subtle use of language. To the Jew, keeping oneself unstained from the world meant obeying the Mosaic Law and having as little to do with the Gentile world as possible. To the Christian, it means abiding so deeply in Christ (having His laws written on the tables of the heart) that there is a natural disinclination to sin. James is able to couch his language in terms that are true from a Christian perspective, but inoffensive to the recipients of his letter.
If modern readers of the epistle of James would approach this document in the light of James’ efforts to communicate truth to those who are on the borderline between Law and grace, and note the subtle way he handles language, the genius of the author (the Holy Spirit, really) becomes evident.
Chapter 2
2:1—13 Do not show favoritism toward the rich in your synagogues, because you dishonor the poor. The rich are the ones who oppress you, and blaspheme Christ. Obey the Royal Law. If you show favoritism, you violate the Law, and are therefore guilty of violating all the Law. Live according to the Law of Liberty.
Notes:
(v2) The fact that these Messianic believers still met in synagogues (or that they at least called their meeting places synagogues) is another indication of their inability to relinquish Jewish religious influences, and it is another reason why James had to approach them in such a gingerly fashion.
(v8) Instead of placing the need to love in more of a Christ-centered context (e.g., 1 Jn. 4:15-21), James places it in a Levitical setting (Lev.19:18), calling it the “royal law.” Again, he is attempting to reach his readers at a level with which they are comfortable.
(v12) James urges them to adopt the “law of liberty,” because “judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy” (v13). To discriminate against the poor is to be merciless. The hope is that they will understand that judgment by the Law of Moses will be severe, but judgment by the “law of liberty” (because it is in Christ) will be merciful. One must learn to do a little reading between the lines with this letter.
2:14—26 The kind of faith God gives is a faith that works. A faith that does not express itself in practical ways is useless.
Notes:
(1)This is one of the more misunderstood passages in James’ letter. James is not teaching that salvation is according to works alone, as some have suggested. He is saying that the test of whether or not a believer has the kind of faith God provides is whether or not that faith manifests itself in observable behavior. A theoretical faith that is not accompanied by action not only has no practical value, but is not the kind of faith God imparts. It cannot function, and is therefore dead and useless. Would there be any reason to conclude that Abraham truly believed God if he had not done what God asked? Action proved Abraham’s salvation, because it evidenced the existence of saving faith. Likewise, would there be any reason to conclude that an individual is a Christian if there are no works? Works save in the sense that they are the natural expression of faith, and substantiate the kind of faith that indwells the believer. To repeat the old adage, “We are not saved by faith and works; we are saved by faith that works.”
The Jews to whom this letter was directed were apparently great talkers, but fell short when it came to translating their faith into action. Considering the role James played in the early church, it is clear that he did not share that weakness, nor did he countenance it in others.
(2) Witness Lee8 is correct when he suggests that the question, “Can that faith save him?,” in verse 14, refers to the judgment of believer’s works, at the Judgment Seat of Christ, and is not in reference to the issue of salvation. James is telling his readers that they will suffer loss of rewards, if their faith produces no practical fruit.
Chapter 3
3:1—12 Teachers will incur a stricter judgment. The recipients of this letter should learn to control their tongues, because a person who can do this is able to control his whole body as well.
3:13—18 Good behavior shows wisdom and understanding. So-called wisdom that includes jealousy and selfishness is not from above, but is evil. Wisdom from above is pure, peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy.
Notes:
(1) In 3:17, James refers to “the wisdom from above…” This indicates that he was aware of the fact that true wisdom is not of the Law, but must be instilled in us through regeneration and transformation. Wisdom from above must be generated in our spirits.
Chapter 4
4:1—10 The source of conflict between these Jews is their pleasure. Lust leads to murder. [Were there actual examples of this?] Envy leads to quarrels. They do not know how to pray because of improper motives. To be a friend of the world is to be an enemy of God, but God jealously desires the Spirit that indwells us. Submit, therefore, to God, because He gives grace to the humble. The devil flees from those who resist. God responds to those who approach Him. Clean up your lives. Humble yourselves and He will exalt you.
4:11—17 Do not slander one another. To do so is to speak against the Law, and judge the Law. Only One is Lawgiver and Judge, and He can save or destroy. Do not be arrogant by thinking that you control your own lives, when actually whatever happens to you is up to God. When you know to do right, you should do it; otherwise it is sin.
Notes:
(1) James’ reference to the indwelling Spirit, in verse 5, reminds us that he was well aware of the deeper implications of God’s presence within us.
(2) Verse 4: The connection between adultery and friendship with the world is another one of those James-isms that would mean one thing to Jews and something deeper to Christians. To Jews, association with Gentiles—that is, friendship with the world—was thought of as spiritual adultery. But it has a more significant meaning to Christians, because it implies a world system completely under the domain of Satan, and includes his (often successful) efforts to compromise the believer’s day-to-day fellowship with God by means of the Adamic nature.
(3) Verse 5 is one of those inexplicable cases that elude us. The words, “He jealously desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us,” appear nowhere in the Bible in that form. Probably the reference is not to an individual passage, but to the general tone of several passages, such as Deut.6:15 or 32:10, 11. God’s jealousy for His people is often described in the Old Testament.
(4) Verse 6 is another example of James saying less than he knew. Resisting the devil through will-power or self-discipline is useless. We resist him by taking refuge in Christ. It seems impossible that God would have elevated James to the position of leadership he held, and allow him to fellowship with and influence so many other giants of the faith, without James having learned such a basic spiritual truth.
(5) In verses 11 and 12, it must not be assumed that James was suggesting that the readers of his letter keep the Law. They were already trying to do that, and James was telling them that, in fact, they were not keeping the Law. By speaking against each other, they were violating the very Law they held so dear.
We must remember that there is nothing wrong with the Law, so far as it goes. The Law was given by God, and God gives nothing imperfect. The fact that men could not keep the Law, due to the Adamic nature, does not mean that the Law was wrong. James holds the Law in honor, not because it can be kept, but because its source is Jehovah. To speak against the Law, even today, is wrong, because it is to speak against something that was God-breathed. We are still required to be holy, even as our heavenly Father is holy. We, however, cannot possibly meet this requirement. So Christ met it in our stead, and His righteousness has been imputed to us. Even without meeting God’s righteous requirements, He sees us as perfect in His Son. We are now trying to become, in practice, what we already are in fact. This is accomplished, in part, by gradually learning how to walk in the Spirit. Once more we do an injustice to James if we assume he did not know these things.
This is something the Jews to whom James wrote could not grasp, but that does not mean that James himself was unaware of this fact.
Chapter 5
5:1—6 The rich will be severely punished for the misery and the evils they have perpetrated.
5:7—11 The righteous should be patient until the coming of the Lord. To avoid judgment, they should not complain against each other. The prophets and Job are good examples of those who were blessed for their endurance.
5:12 Avoid swearing oaths, but let your yes be yes and your no, no, that you may not be judged. This mirrors the words of Jesus in the Beatitudes.
5:13—18 Sufferers should pray. The cheerful should praise. The ill should call for the elders to receive prayer and annointing, and they will be raised up and their sins will be forgiven. Confess sins to one another so as to be healed. The prayer of a righteous man accomplishes much, and Elijah’s prayers for drought and rain are examples of this.
5:19, 20 If one brother helps a back-slider to return to the Lord, he will save the back-slider’s soul from death, and cover a multitude of sins.
Notes:
(1)The Holy Spirit is not castigating all rich people in verses 1—6, but only the kind that are described here: that is, the kind who do not pay their laborers what they are owed, and have led a life of wanton pleasure, and the like.
When we read the epistle of James, the spiritual condition of the recipients must always be kept in full view, and we must not assume that the teachings in this document represent the highest spiritual insights of James himself. The New Testament paints a picture of James as a highly respected, capable and influential Christian leader; one whose decisions were agreed to by the Holy Spirit Himself (at least on one occasion). And the Holy Spirit also made him wise enough to know how to approach the renegade Jewish Christians with whom he was dealing.
The real danger of asserting that the epistle reveals deficiencies in James’ grasp of God’s economy is the implication that it contains passages which are of James only and not of God, and that there are contradictions between the writing of James and that of other New Testament authors.
Once it is allowed that the Bible contains even a single contradiction (James’ view of God’s economy vs. Paul’s, for instance), a shadow is immediately cast over all Scripture. Did Paul have a spiritually bad day when he wrote Galatians, but a better one when he wrote Ephesians? If there are weaknesses in James, perhaps there are weaknesses in other biblical documents as well.
Under such conditions, the very concept of the inerrancy of Scripture is undermined. The Bible is either entirely true, completely God-breathed, inerrant, and free of contradictions (even if we think we can find some), or its authority must always be subject to question.
Remember, two individuals may equally understand the deeper things of God, and yet instruct others in different ways, depending on the spiritual status of those being instructed. How they instruct others should not be used as the sole criteria for determining the spiritual maturity of the teachers. It does not follow from James’ letter that he did not personally have a full and complete grasp of the higher things of God.
1 Metzger, Bruce M.: The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1997), pp.11,243.
2 Published by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers: Wheaton, Illinois.
3 NASB used throughout.
4 Ellicott, Charles John: The Epistles to Titus, Philemon, the Hebrews and James, p232 (Zondervan Publishing House, 1957).
5 Bruce, F. F. : The Book of Acts (The New International Commentary on the New Testament: Eerdmans, 1966), p.322.
6 Ibid: p.448
7 Economy (author’s definition): God’s plans for, and administration of all things pertaining to the universe as a whole, with special emphasis on the role and function of His people and their relationship with Him.
8 Witness Lee: “Life Study of James and Peter,” pp54, 55 (Living Stream Ministry: Anaheim, CA.).
Alford, Henry: "James," in The Greek Testament. Vol. 4. Chicago: Moody, 1958.
[BS 2341.2 .A43 1958 v.3,4]
Barclay, William: "The Letters of James and Peter," in The Daily Study Bible. Rev.
ed. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1976. [BS 2783 .B37 1976]
Blackman, E. C.: "The Epistle of James," in The Torch Bible Commentaries. London:
SCM Press, 1957. [BS 2785 .B5]
Bratcher, Robert Galveston: A Translator's Guide to the Letters from James, Peter
and Jude. New York: United Bible Societies, 1984.
Burdick, Donald W: "James,' in The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Vol. 12. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1981. Ref BS 491.2 .E96 v.12]
Carr, Arthur: "The General Epistle of St. James," in The Cambridge Greek Testament.
Cambridge: At the University Press, 1930. [Ref BS 2785 .C3]
Davids, Peter H.: "The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text," in the
New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982,
[BS 2785.3.D38 1982]
Dibelius, Martin: "James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James," in Hermeneia.
Revised by Heinrich Greeven. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1975. [BS 2785 .D513
1981]
Doerksen, Vernon D.: "James," in the Everyman's Bible Commentary. Chicago: Moody
Press, 1983. [Ref BS 2785.3 .D63 1983]
Epp, Theodore H. James: The Epistle of Applied Christianity. Lincoln, Nebraska: Back
to the Bible, 1980. [BS 2785.2 .E66]
Erdman, Charles R.: The General Epistles. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1931.
[BS 2777 .E7]
Evans, Colleen Townsend: Living True. Wheaton Illinois: Victor Books, 1985.
[BS 2785.2 .E93 1985]
Gaebelein, Frank Ely: Practical Epistle of James: Studies in Applied Christianity. Great
Neck, New York: Doniger and Raughley, 1955.
Getz, Gene A.: The Measure of a Christian: Studies in James 1. Ventura, California:
Regal Books, 1983, [BS 2785.2 .G47 1983]
Gutzke, Manford: Plain Talk on James. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969. [BS 2785.4
.G8]
Gwinn, Ralph A.: "The Epistle of James: A Study Manual," in The Shield Bible Study
Series. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967.
Hiebert, David Edmond: The Epistle of James: Tests of a Living Faith. Chicago: Moody
Press, 1979. [BS 2785.3 .H53]
Hort, F. J. A.: "The Epistle of St. James: The Greek Text," in Expository and
Exegetical Studies. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Klock & Klock, 1980. [BS 2341.2
.H67]
Hubbard, David: The Book of James: Wisdom that Works. Waco, Texas: Word Books,
1980. [BS 2785.3 .H8]
Ironside, Henry Allan: Expository Notes on the Epistles of James and Peter. Neptune,
New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1947. [BS 2785 .I7]
Johnstone, Robert: Lectures Exegetical and Practical on the Epistle of James.
Minneapolis, Minnesota: Klock & Klock, 1978. [BS 2785 .J6 1954]
Kelly, Earl. James: A Primer for Christian Living. Nutley, New Jersey: The Craig
Press, 1969. [BS 2785.4 .K44]
King, Guy H.: A Belief that Behaves: An Expositional Study of the Epistle of James.
Fort Washington, Pennsylvania: Christian Literature Crusade, 1970. [BS 2785 .K5
1974]
Kistemaker, Simon J.: "Exposition of the Epistle of James and the Epistles of John,"
in The New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986. [BS 2785.3.
K575]
Knowling, R. J.: "The Epistle of St. James," in The Westminster Commentaries.
London: Methen & Co., 1904. [BS 2785 .K73]
Lange, John Peter, and J. J. Van Oosterzee: "The Epistle General of James," in
Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical. Vol 12. John Peter Lange, ed.: Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960. [Ref BS 494 /L313 1978
v.12]
Laws, Sophie: "The Epistle of James," in Harper's New Testament Commentaries. San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1980. [BS 2785.3 .L38 1980]
Lenski, Richard C. H.: The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the
Epistle of James. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1966. [Ref BS 2341 .L46 v.10]
Luck, G. Coleman. James: Christian Faith in Action. Chicago Moody Press, 1954.
[BS 2785.3 .L82]
Manton, Thomas: An Expostion on the Epistle of James. London: Banner of Truth,
1968. [BS 2785.3 .M35]
Martin, R. A.: "James," in The Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament.
Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1982. [BS 2777 .M27 1982]
Mayor, Joseph Bickersteth: The Epistle of St. James. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Klock &
Klock, 1977. [BS 2785.3 .M3 1977]
Mitton, C. Leslie: The Epistle of James. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966.
Moffat, James: "The General Epistles-James, Peter and Judas," in Moffat New
Testament Commentary, London: Hodder & Staughton, 1947. [Microfiche 3036]
Moo, Douglas J.: "The Letter of James," in The Tyndale New Testament Commentary.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. [BS 2785.3 .M65 1986]
Motyer, J. Alec: "The Message of James: The Tests of Faith," in The Bible Speaks
Today. Downer's Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985. [BS 2785.3 .M67
1985]
Neighbour, R. E.: The General Epistle of James. Cleveland, Ohio: Union Gospel Press,
1928. [BS 2785 .N45]
Nieboer, Joseph: Practical Exposition of James. Erie Pennsylvania: Our Daily Walk
Publishers, 1950. [BS 2785 .N5]
Oesterley, W. E.: "The General Epistle of James," in The Expositor's Greek
Testament. Vol 4. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956. [BS 1965 1900 v.4]
Pettingill, William Leroy: Simple Studies in the Epistles of James, First and Second
Peter, First, Second, and Third John and Jude. Findlay, Ohio: Fundlemental Truth
Publishers, n.d. [BS 2777 .P48]
Plummer, Alfred: "The General Epistle of St. James and St. Jude," in The Expositor's
Bible. New York A. C. Armstrong & Son, 1908. [Special BS 491 .E9 vol.24]
Plumptre, E. H.: "The General Epistle of St. James," in the Cambridge Bible for
Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: At the University Press, 1893. [Ref BS 2785
.P58 1893]
Reicke, Bo: "The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude," in The Anchor Bible. vol 37.
Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., 1964. [BS 2777 .R44 1985]
Roberts, Roy R.: Life in the Pressure Cooker: Studies in James. Winona Lake,
Indiana: BMH Books, 1977. [BS 2785.3 .R62]
Robertson, Archibald Thomas: Studies in the Epistle of James. Nashville, Tennessee:
Broadman Press, 1915. [BS 2785 .R6 1959]
Ropes, James Hardy: "A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St.
James," in The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, n.d. [BS 2785 .R66 1978]
Ross, Alexander: "The Epistles of James and John," in The New International
Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954. [BS 2785
.R68]
Sidebottom. E. M.: James, Jude 2 Peter," in The New Century Bible Commentary.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. [BS 2785.3 .S5 1982]
Simmons, Billy: A Functioning Faith: Expositions on the Epistle of James. Waco,
Texas: Word Books, 1967.
Smith, H. Maynard: The Epistle of James: Lectures. Oxford: Blackwell, 1914.
Stevenson, Herbert F.: James Speaks for Today. Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H.
Revell, 1966. [BS 2785.4 .S7 1966]
Stier, Rudolf: The Epistle of St. James. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Klock & Klock, 1982.
[BS 2785.4 .S75 1982]
Strauss, Lehman: James Your Brother: Studies in the Epistle of James. Neptune, New
Jersey: Loiseaux Brothers, 1956. [BS 2785 .S85 1976]
Tasker, R. V. G.: "The General Epistle of James," in The Tyndale New Testament
Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956. [BS 2785 .T3 1974]
Vaughan, Curtis: James: A Study Guide Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969.
[BS 2785.3 .V38 1978]
Wiersbe, Warren W.: Be Mature: An Expository Study of the Epistle of James.
Wheaton, Illinois: Victor books, 1978. [BS 2785.3 .W5]
Williams, Ronald Ralph: The Letters of James and John. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1965. [BS 2805.3 .W5]
Winkler, Edwin T.: "Commentary on the Epistle of James," in An American
Commentary on the New Testament. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication
Society, 1888. [Ref BS]
Wolff, Richard: The General Epistles of James and Jude. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale
House Publishers, 1969. [BS 2785.3 .W6]
Zodhiates, Spiros: The Behavior of Belief: An Exposition of James Based upon the
Original Greek Text. Ridgefield, New Jersey: AMG Press, 1959. [BS 2785.3 .Z6
1966]
