James, the Lord's Brother

Stephen Terry

 

Commentary for the October 4, 2014 Sabbath School Lesson

 

“But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.” 1 Peter 2:9-10, NIV

The authorship of the Epistle of James is not entirely clear. The author of the lesson study has asserted that it is James, the brother of Jesus who wrote the missive. However, the reasoning may be flawed.

There are four James’s mentioned by the author as possible candidates: James, the father of Judas; James, the son of Zebedee and brother of John; James, son of Alphaeus and possibly the brother of Matthew; and James, the brother or cousin of Jesus. The first one we can probably discount as not being any more likely than Zebedee or Alphaeus, two other apostolic fathers, to be authors of epistles.

The author discounts the next two based on the supposed earliness of their martyrdom. However, we have an approximate date only for the demise of James, John’s brother. For James, the son of Alphaeus, I know of only the tradition that he was slain in Lower Egypt at Ostrakine with no date to tell us when.[i] Although we might wish to credit the lesson author’s veracity, without citation there is no way to evaluate the source of the assertion that this James died too early to write to the churches.

There is a much stronger case to be made for James, the Lord’s brother as author based on his position as the first “bishop” of Jerusalem. The Bible makes no mention of his being granted this title, but it is often assumed based on his position of prominence at the First Jerusalem Council.[ii] Such a position, as well as the influence of the elders at Jerusalem over the affairs of the church as evidenced by that same council, could argue strongly for this James to be accustomed to writing to the church that had dispersed from Jerusalem after the stoning of Stephen.[iii] Further evidence, though not conclusive, may be found in the similar greeting used in the decree of that first council[iv] and in the later epistle.[v]

Contrary to the emphasis on sola fide or “faith only” approach to salvation found especially in Paul’s epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, James’ epistle appears to focus on a stewpot of faith plus works. Some today may see this as James’ attempt to deal with what might be considered a heretical extremism that challenged the true faith by advocating that no matter what one did, they could still be saved by faith and just keep on wallowing in sin and law-breaking without worry. There is no evidence to support this interpretation of the reason for James writing this epistle. This may simply be a fiction manufactured out of whole cloth based on modern conservative attitudes toward the idea of sola fide.

Interestingly, the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have historically held a similar anti-faith-alone position. This was in large part the impetus of the Protestant reformation against the teachings of these churches, a revolt against the idea that we are save in any part by our works. For all the theses nailed on church doors and religious wars fought, perhaps some have now come full circle to believe once again that faith alone is not enough. But these struggles were far in the future at the time this epistle was written. It may be that they played no significant role in the reasons for the letter.

A far more likely reason may be found in the historical context of the early church of the First Century. At that time, Christians may not have seen themselves as anything but Jews. Jesus was a Jew. The Apostles were all Jews. The sect was headquartered in Jerusalem, the capitol of the Jews. The leaders of the church even continued to participate in the sacrificial system at the temple, post crucifixion.[vi] They apparently did not see anything in Jesus’ death and resurrection that obviated the need for those temple services. This was a system that was very much predicated on the suzerainty of the Law and therefore obedience driven.

However, a new apostle, Paul, a relative latecomer to the message, had been presenting the Law in a new light. He saw the Law as only having a role in bringing us to Christ,[vii] and that once someone came to Christ, any condemnation under the Law was set aside.[viii] The Jews, who used to gather annually to have their sins cleansed, could now do so at any time through Jesus. Since the entire Jewish economy was based on the necessity of the temple and its sacrifices, this may have been seen as a threat to all that was Judaism. Some saw this threat early on and perhaps this is what precipitated the crisis over the issue of circumcision that created the necessity for that First Jerusalem Council. Thanks to Peter’s earlier vision at Joppa,[ix] the council was swayed to Paul’s position. The vision apparently served to convince the council that this was God’s intent and not simply Paul being Paul.

As time went on, other issues arose. While the Christians may have continued to worship at the temple, Paul and those with him continued to be expelled from synagogue after synagogue and as this schism between what was becoming a primarily Gentile Christianity and the Jewish diaspora grew, the seeds of conflict may have filtered back to Jerusalem. Perhaps this epistle grew out of a desire to somehow bring back together the two disparate theologies by acknowledging the idea of sola fide in one sense but somehow tying it to obedience to the Law as being equally necessary for salvation, thereby placating the more legalistic Jewish elements within the growing faith community. Ultimately, any need for such reconciliation was eliminated with the revolt of 70 CE and later in the early Second Century. In the first, the temple was destroyed, eliminating the sacrificial system. In the second, Jews were expelled from Jerusalem, leaving the Gentile Christians in charge of the Jerusalem church, although much of the influence within the church had already passed to Antioch.[x] The church that remained in Jerusalem was relatively small and ineffectual[xi] until the Roman emperors began to subsidize its influence in later centuries.

If this is the reasoning behind the writing of the Epistle of James, it could explain why the early church, which had become somewhat anti-Semitic because of these controversies and others of a more political nature (The Christians typically refused to support the Jews in their revolts against Rome.[xii]), rejected the canonicity of James until a relatively late date. Gaius Marius Victorinus, a Roman scholar who converted to Christianity questioned whether or not the Epistle of James was heretical as late as the middle of the 4th Century.[xiii] Some today still question whether or not the Epistle is a genuine letter written by James or simply a compendium of various wisdom pieces brought together in one document and then ascribed to the Apostle to give them enough authority that people would read them. This was not an uncommon practice at the time. Several works that have had such questions raised would include the “Acts of Paul,” the “Shepherd of Hermas,” the “Epistle of Barnabas” and the “Didache,” all of which were excluded from the canon.[xiv]

Whatever the original intent of the book, today it has evolved into a manifesto for those who wish to promote obedience over faith and is often seen as being in opposition to the grace epistles of Romans and Galatians. Since it is difficult to keep harmony in the church in the face of such divisions, many attempts have been made to reconcile the two perspectives. One camp will reinterpret the two Pauline epistles in order to make them harmonize more closely with James. The other camp will do the same in reverse, reinterpreting James in order to make it harmonize with Paul’s writings. This is done perhaps from a perception that God will never do anything that produces a contradiction, but He apparently needs us to explain it all because He didn’t do a very good job when it was written down. How fortunate God is to have us.

Seriously though, the Bible has many contradictions ranging from the numbers of people and items mentioned in comparable texts to acquiescence and even orders to violate commandments, both from the Decalogue and the Levitical Code. Those who wish to harmonize everything feel there are no contradictions and go to great lengths to reinterpret plain statements to make God fit neatly and logically into an anthropocentric universe, as though He were a being hovering above our planet and waiting to prove Himself consistent to us that we might worship Him. Whether this is hubris, ignorance, or something else entirely, it can greatly impact our ability to look at the Bible objectively with all of its warts and blemishes and come away enhanced in our spirituality instead of simply being turned into a bunch of petty spies and judges more concerned with the preservation of that anthropocentric orthodoxy than with the wonder that is God. If two biblical writers can write theology that doesn’t quite mesh, perhaps God can still be God, and those differences can define the inimitable and enhance our wonder rather than destroy it.

 



[i] “James, son of Alphaeus,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_son_of_Alphaeus

[ii] Acts 15:1-21

[iii] Acts 8:1-2

[iv] Acts 15:23

[v] James 1:1

[vi] Acts 21:17-26

[vii] Romans 7:4-6

[viii] Romans 8:1

[ix] Acts 10:1-11:18

[x] Acts 11:19-21

[xi] “Parting in Palestine,” Joan Taylor, “Partings: How Judaism and Christianity Became Two,” Ed. Hershel Shanks, Biblical Archeology Society, 2013.

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] “Epistle of James,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_James

[xiv] “Antilegomena,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilegomena

 

 

This Commentary is a Service of Still Waters Ministry

www.visitstillwaters.com

 

If you wish to receive these weekly commentaries direct to your e-mail inbox for free, simply send an e-mail to:

commentaries-subscribe@visitstillwaters.com

Scripture marked (NIV) taken from the Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica, Inc. All rights reserved worldwide. Used by permission. NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION® and NIV® are registered trademarks of Biblica, Inc. Use of either trademark for the offering of goods or services requires the prior written consent of Biblica US, Inc.

 

 

 

If you want a paperback copy of the current Sabbath School Bible Study Quarterly, you may purchase one by clicking here and typing the word "quarterly" into the search box.