James 1
January 4th 2015
Meat
Welcome
Prayer
Music
Silence
Well here we go – “the General Epistle” of James, so called the General Epistle because it is believed that it was written to a general audience and not to a specific church or people group of a certain geographical area – like the believers at Corinth.
Eusebius, one of the earliest church historians said that this epistle was
“generally read in the churches with the other catholic (or universally applied) epistles.”
“History of Ecclesiasticus, page 53”
Interestingly enough the epistles written by Peter, John, and Jude were also deemed, “catholic” (lower case c) from the Greek “kayolikh,” a compound word that means to the w-h-o-l-e,”
An early church Greek Commentator in 991 AD (by the name of OEcumenius) says:
“These epistles are called catholic, universal, or circular, because they were not written to one nation or city, but to believers everywhere.”
So this is the standard take on the epistle of James and is accepted by most Christians today.
But when we get to Martin Luther there are some problems.
Now, I am going to get to the general contents of the book in a minute but if there was a general stance James is known for it is the stance that we are justified by our works.
I realize that we explain this apparent contradiction to Paul’s teachings away today through a number of methods but Luther never attempted such twists.
He simply said that James taught in direct opposition to Paul. Period.
Instead of summarizing the problems Luther had with James for you I am going to instead read to you what Luther actually said.
The four books that Luther did not believe were part of the true canon were Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation and he never numbered them in with the other 23 books of the New Testament.
It is also really interesting (to me) that Luther included what are called the Deuterocononical Books in his Bible translation.
To put it simply these are books not contained in the Hebrew Old Testament – which are known as the Protocanonical standards.
These Deuterocanonical Books that Luther included in his bible include:
The book of Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24)[26]
Wisdom (or Wisdom of Solomon)
Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira (or Sirach or Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint)[27]
Additions to Daniel:
Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90)
Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13, Septuagint prologue)
Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14, Septuagint epilogue)
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Fascinating, huh?
So I am going to read from Luther’s Works, vol. 35. pages 395-398 which cover his preface to James and Jude and where he also gives some thoughts on Hebrews.
Prior to the 1530 editions of his Bible Luther said some things which were later changed in the post 1530 versions. I’ll try and note those things that were removed in the post 1530 editions.
LUTHER SAYS:
“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons follow.
In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works (2:24).
It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac (2:20); Though in Romans 4:22-22 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6.
Although it would be possible to “save” the epistle by a gloss giving a correct explanation of justification here ascribed to works, it is impossible to deny that it does refer to Moses’ words in Genesis 15 (which speaks not of Abraham’s works but of his faith, just as Paul makes plain in Romans 4) to Abraham’s works. This fault proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.
In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ.
He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15[:27], “You shall bear witness to me.?
All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [_treiben_] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ.
For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3[:21]; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2[:2].
Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching.
Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it.” (__ibid__).
But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and its works.
Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper.
Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching.
He calls the law a “law of liberty” [1:25], though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin. (I take acception to Luther’s understanding of this – which we’ll get to in the weeks to come).
Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter [in 5:20]; Love covers a multitude of sins” [1 Pet. 4:8], and again [in 4:10], “Humble yourselves under he had of God” [1 Pet. 5:6] also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5[:17], “The Spirit lusteth against envy.”
And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod [Acts 12:2] in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that [this author] came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.
(This too is an interesting presupposition by Luther.)
(He continues) “In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. (that last line was removed in the post 1530 translation)
He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.
Therefore I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.
One man is no man in worldly things; how then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all Scripture.
Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter’s second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them [Jude 17] and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures [Jude 9, 14].
This moved the ancient Fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures.
Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek.
Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith.
I have to admit several reactions to this opinion of Martin Luther.
First, it honestly troubles me. Why? Prior to knowing Luther had this opinion of James I was a tremendous fan of the book.
I think EVEN Luther missed a few keys to comprehending it (which sounds extremely arrogant of someone to say) but I am not offended by its contents as it relates to Paul.
I do think that a key to understanding James is to remember who he was writing to – the scattered believers that came from the House of Israel.
I will make the argument that they were under a different agreement and expectation than the Gentiles and this is one reason God called one man to the Gentiles (Paul) and eleven others to the House of Israel – the approach – even the demands placed upon each respective group are different.
I also think that something is missed when we read James and misinterpret the terms work with works of the Law.
This too will be discussed in the coming weeks and months.
Additionally, it can be disconcerting to read that a person would say, “this book shouldn’t be in the Bible and this book should.”
This certainly troubles us today (who, as Christians essentially embrace the protestant idea of sola scriptura which says the Bible has supreme authority over all matters).
I mean, if the Bible is our sole authority and we can suggest that certain books shouldn’t be included in it we find ourselves standing on some pretty shaky ground when we think of it.
So before reading one word from James I suppose we need to address the protestant concept of Sola Scriptura.
Now, the concept does not mean that outside governing forces cannot have influence over us or impact our lives. Sola Scriptura simple states that all other concepts are subordinated to scripture.
So to the point at hand, if Luther could say that James and Jude (and later he added Hebrews, some books of Peter and 2nd and 3rd John and Revelation to the mix) what are we to think?
Add in that Luther included his deuterocanonical books in the Old Testament and we have some extreme variance in what could be called “biblical” from Luther’s point of view, what could be called biblical from the Catholics point of view, and what could be called scriptural from the LDS point of view, etc.
Then what about individual views – do they not matter in what is called Sola Scriptura?
For a number of reasons I personally believe the Book of Revelation has no business in our Bibles today. I read it. I will even teach it. But can I be considered a believing Christian while maintaining this opinion?
Some would emphatically say no – and show their constant disapproval for such opinions through public and private assassinations.
Go figure. The very founder of the protestant Reformation agreed but I suppose that sinful man had more of a right to controversial opinion than this one.
Anyway, those are some of the problems we step into in our open honest study of James.
My stance going forward is this: The Book of James is here and God is in control. I think it is of tremendous value but LIKE ALL BOOKS OF THE BIBLE has to be seen in the light that it was delivered (meaning the who, what, where, when, and why’s of the book).
I could not be more convinced as I have made a study of the Bible part of my daily life for several decades, that the book be approached FIRST with the “W’s” truly understood BEFORE we try and use it to say what we want it to mean.
To do the latter, in my opinion, contributes to a sort of zealotry and misapplication that, in the end, serves to divide and destroy and even take peoples lives rather than move us to love.
So on to the epistle of James.
Of course James is not a Hebrew name but is the anglicanized name of the Hebrew name, “ee-yako-bos (or Jacobus) which is a derivative name from eyakob (Jacob).
Like the book of Hebrews, the General Epistle of James was written to the converts to Christianity who came from Judaism.
But before we get into the audience and specific points James presents let’s first try and figure out who (or which) James this epistle was written by.
Let’s begin by discussing the various James in scripture.
The first James is James the son of Zebedee and Salome. His older brother was John the Beloved who wrote the Gospel of John, the Epistles of John and Revelation.
Obviously this James was one of the twelve apostles. He was by trade a fisherman and apparently a fishing partner with none other than Peter.
I find this little fact interesting because we know that there was a healthy competition between Peter, who was the eldest of the Apostles and John, who was James older brother.
With James and Peter being in the fishing business together there could have been some competition between these elder men for the attention of James.
Just a thought.
We know that this James was sort of part of the inner circle of those apostles Jesus tended to include in certain events.
For example this James was with John (his brother) and Peter (his fishing partner) at the transfiguration (Matthew 17:1), and when Jesus raised Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37-43), and in the garden with our Lord (Mark 14:33).
For some reason, and it could have been because of John and James boldness they were called, “Boanerges,” which means, “sons of thunder.”
Of all the apostles this James was apparently the first to be martyred. Acts 12:1-2 tells us that he was beheaded by King Herod Agrippa and the year seems to be around A.D. 44., or about nine years after Jesus ascended into the clouds.
Because of this recorded death most scholars reject the idea that this epistle was written by this James, the brother of John, the fishing partner of Peter.
This was one of the arguments used by Luther to prove the epistle was not apostolic.
In mentioning one of the reasons Jerusalem fell in 70 AD Josephus wrote that it was the result of the death of James.
Whether he was writing of this first James who was the first martyred of the Apostles in Jerusalem or the next James is unclear.
Now, in Galatians 1 (verse 18-19) Paul, in describing his activities as an apostle in the early years, says:
Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
This is the second James to consider, a James whom Paul calls, “the Lord’s brother.”
According to scripture he was the son of Alphaeus (which in Hebrew is Cleopas) and while He is called “the brother” of the Lord he obviously was not a literal brother (or step brother) since Alphaeus was his father.
Brother in scripture often means cousin or even distant relative and so this James was probably one of these to the Lord.
This is also amazing to me because there are some outstanding scholars of old who taught that this second James was the son of Joseph from a first marriage and this is why he was called the Lord’s brother.
But the genealogy clearly teaches that this second James was the Son of Alpheaus (also known as Cleopas) so I’m not sure why this would be the supposition.
This “seond” James is also known as James the Less (or “the Little”) probably because he was short.
The Greek associated with his name comes from the term micron so this is why it is assumed he was a little fella.
He is mentioned along with the other apostles (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18 and Luke 6:15).
Speaking of the Lords resurrection (and to whom He appeared afterward) we read in 1st Corinthians 15:5-7
5 And that he was seen of Cephas (Peter), then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
I think that is interesting that Jesus appeared to this James specifically – why, we don’t know.
According to Acts (12:17,15:13-28:31; and 21:18-24) he appears to have occupied the position of head of the Church at Jerusalem.
Paul says in Galatians 2:9, in reference to the apostolic approval of his work among the Gentles:
“And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.”
From this we see that Paul referred to James Peter and John as pillars (meaning leaders in the church).
Maybe this was why Jesus appeared to him specifically because it was this James who actually made decisions for the church at Jerusalem.
We then read that he presided at the council that was held to consider the case of the Gentiles.
So long story short it is believed that this is the James who authored this general epistle.
Now, we know from his own words that he was writing to Jews who had been dispersed or as he puts it, to “the twelve tribes scattered abroad.”
It is generally agree upon that James wrote from Jerusalem since this was the area he oversaw.
Some suggest the date of the epistle was around 62 AD. But this date is disputed by others. Frankly we don’t know the date of authorship but because of some of the warnings found herein (and the Greek used to present the warnings) it seems like the epistle was written closer to 70 AD than further from it.
It appears James had a number of things he wanted to share with the Jewish converts that were scattered abroad.
We could take one approach he uses and title it:
“James attempts to remind his readers of the practical duties of being a Christian.”
It seems that some of the Jewish vices he was warning them about were:
Formalism (well get into what this means later) (Under this category he speaks often of the nature of true religion in the first chapter and throughout)
Fanaticism
Just being meanness
Falsehoods
Evil speaking (the words believers say are mentioned a number of times in this epistle).
Boasting is addressed (as is oppression of others).
Also, an overriding subject James hits on (over and over again) is patience.
Patience in trials (1:2)
Patience in good works (1:22-25)
Patience when provoked (3:17)
Patience when oppressed (5:7)
Patience when persecuted (5:10)
All under the umbrella of believers patiently waiting on the eminent coming of the Lord who would be appearing quickly (who “draws nigh” James says in the Greek) “to right all wrongs” (5:8)
Finally, and as mentioned already, this specific epistle is most well known for its apparent stance that believers are “justified by works.”
Naturally we will dive head long into this once we get into the contents of chapter 2.
When I read this Epistle I am inspired and my eyes are opened to the ways of the Spirit.
When I read the Deuterocanonical books like Judith or The Bell or Suzanna I am not moved in the same manner.
Why Luther experienced the opposite remains a troubling mystery to me.
Let me also be clear – we don’t know who wrote this book. We can say it was James the Little – but we do not know – similar to the Book of Hebrews.
But I would strongly emphatically suggest without any reservation that whoever the actual author was the record says his name was James, that he was a servant of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ.
In defense of the books inclusion in our Bibles there is a better one than for some of the other books being here.
For example the earliest Syriac translation of the Bible (called the Peshito) which was created in the beginning of the second century for Jews omitted
the Second Epistle of Peter
second and third of John
the Epistle of Jude, and
Revelation
But James found a place in it right along with all the other books that were never called into question.
This is pretty weighty since the epistle was written to converted Jews who would not only be the reader of it but would be better judges of it’s authenticity than converted Gentiles to whom it was not sent.
In fact it is doubtful that converted Gentiles in the early church even knew about James until well after it was composed.
Remember, in the earliest ages of Christ’s physical church there was a constant tension between the Jewish converts and the Gentiles.
It is doubtful that the Jewish converts would have believed a letter addressed and sent to “them” would have even been understood by “the others.”
Why would there have been any problem with the epistle in the first place?
First, the writer does not use the title of an apostle, but calls himself simply James, a servant of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I think that James was hearkening back to when Jesus called them servants and in humility used the terms to describe himself.
2. The gentiles rarely quoted from James (for reasons stated).
3. That the early church writers did not quote from it very much.
4. That there is a first glance opposition in James to the writings of Paul. People like certainty, not difficulty or conflict. Since the Good News is all about justification by faith, the very subject matter of James would have made it not as popular among the Gentiles and maybe even among some of the Jews.
Taking these factors out to a logical (but not necessarily a true) conclusion, by the time Luther was formatting the reformation, I think these factors snowballed in his heart and mind.
To me it seems the revelation of salvation by grace alone that Paul emphasizes so much was SO powerful in the heart and life of Luther (having been a Catholic Monk) he allowed himself to suffer some myopathy and couldn’t see the value and meaning of James words to his Hebrew audience.
To add validity to the words of James perhaps a brief comparative of some of James points to what Peter and Paul wrote in other places would help.
For example:
In 1st Peter 1:3 we read:
“Who hath begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
And James wrote in 1:18:
“Having willed it, he hath begotten us by the word.”
To the Genitles in Roman Paul said in Romans 5:3-4:
“Knowing that affliction worketh out patience; and patience experience.”
To the Jews James said in 1:3:
“Knowing that the proving of your faith worketh out patience.”
Again, Paul wrote in Romans 2:13:
“That the hearers of the law are not just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.”
And James 1:22: “And be ye doers of the law, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves by false reasoning.”
Paul wrote in Romans 7:23:
“I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind.”
Peter said in 1st Peter 2:11:
“Lusts which war against the soul.”
James 4:1: “Come they not hence, even from your lusts, which war
in your members?”
Peter says in 1st Peter 5:8,9: Your adversary the devil; whom resist, steadfast in the faith.
James said in 4:7: “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.”
Peter said in 1st Peter 5:6:
“Be humbled under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you.”
James 4:10: “Be humbled in the presence of God, and he will lift you up.”
Paul said in Romans 14:4:
Who art thou that condemnest another man’s household servant?
James said in 4:12: “Thou, who art thou that condemnest another?”
Peter said in 1st Peter 4:8:
“Love covereth a multitude of sins.”
James said 5:20:
“Will cover a multitude of sins.”
All things considered I personally find no reason to believe James should not be included in the Word.
In fact, I believe his addition to canon is invaluable as it clearly explains a number of points that could use some additional articulation.
Finally, there is also the idea, relative to authorship, that James the Greater (the brother of John) was the author and that he wrote the epistle prior to the Gentiles receiving the Gospel.
Because this would have him writing ONLY to convert Jews AND prior to Paul we might find this emphasis on justification by works which are absent in Pauls writings and which came much later.
In this way the writing style is more like a Jewish prophet than a Christian apostle.
This was part of Luther’s criticism of it as it hardly touches on any subject purely Christian.
Again, Jesus is only mentioned twice in it, neither are His miracles or His teachings, of his death or resurrection, nor of any redemption by him.
In other words, if we removed the two reference to Jesus we would never know it was a Christian epistle.
Because of this maybe we could view the book as a connecting link between Judaism and Christianity, as the ministry of John Baptist was between the old covenant and the new, and Acts is between the Gospels and the Epistles.
Lots to consider – but what ought not be a consideration is to just blanketly believe that the book is accepted by all and has been from the beginning.
Knowing this will help – not hinder – our future analysis of it because armed with this information we will be more inclined (not less) to consider its contents seriously.
James the less was martyred at Jerusalem about A. D. 62: and the epistle is supposed to have been written a short time before his death.
Though I believe it to be the work of an unknown author, not long after the ascension of our Lord, I shall follow the usual chronology, and date it in the year 61; not because I think that to be the true date, but because it is what is generally adopted. And even in my life it can be convenient to embrace tradition.
So next week – James 1:1.
Questions and Answers
Prayer.
