Letter of James (Part Four)

Part Four of the New Testament Survey Series

Khen Lim




Image source: traditionalcatholicnetwork.com

From his letter’s traditional introduction of addressees (1:1), we know that it is an outreach to the twelve tribes of Israel that were, by then, scattered abroad. For them, James offered instructions as to their code of conduct in anticipation of the return of the Messiah (5:7-8). As such, the letter has a strong moralistic tone as James exhorts his readers to behave piously and uprightly.

Yet as well, this letter has no closing that we have come to expect from someone like Paul who would have had requests for prayers, additional greetings or disclosure of intended travels or even a benediction. Since none of these were present, some view James’ letter as one with a formal complexion, written with the intention of reaching a wider readership, which makes a lot of sense because the Diaspora would have been quite a geographically distant proposition even by then.

The striking feature in James’ letter is his coverage on justification and works (2:17-18, 20-26). To that end, some modern biblical scholars view it not only as a problem for those who subscribe to Paul’s teaching on faith alone (Eph 2:8-9) but one that is extreme to the extent that the label ‘anti-nomianism’ has been used to describe the letter. Even though it is unlikely to be James’ intention, even Martin Luther unfortunately mislabelled his work as ‘an epistle of straw.’ It is clear that James’ letter was not only misconstrued but many modern biblical scholars have been incapable of recognising it for what it is really worth.

In actuality, the real worth of James’ teaching is that it is actually complementary to Paul’s theology. To reconcile the both as one and the same, we must accept that James (emphasises role of works in justification) and Paul (focuses on justification by faith alone) have actually reached the same conclusion but from different perspectives.

We may argue that because of this misconstrued controversy, history bore witness to the cause and rise of the Reformation and as a result, this issue between James and Paul could well become one of the most crucial questions in Christian theology today and a topic that cannot be underestimated because of how the modern biblical scholars are angling for.

Yet there can only be one solitary position in Christian theology no matter how we view the reality of such a comparison. Just as no one can claim to have faith without producing any good works, James is actually saying that when a person is truly justified by faith, he will naturally have the tendency to produce good works in his life simply because genuine faith will inherently open many ways for him to do so to God’s glory (2:20-26). By no measure if James saying that justification is by faith plus works but rather that the works will naturally materialise specifically because of one’s true faith (2:14, 17, 20, 26).

If only modern biblical scholars were to look a little deeper, that will come to see that Paul also has the same interpretation as well. In his letter to the Ephesians (Eph 2:10), he does say that we are all created to do good works and by the good fruit we produce, our lives are listed (Gal 5:22-23).

That is the same as saying that a person renewed by his faith in Christ cannot ever not produce any good works (2 Cor 5:17). From this alone, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to actually work out that James and Paul concur on the issue of justification and faith; yet we still have to contend with needless controversies.

As Paul focuses on our justification with God, James emphasises on the works that shape this very same justification. To achieve that end, James targeted Jewish Christians, encouraging them to mature in their newfound Christian faith (1:2-18) and hence, find true meaning and purpose in their suffering (1:2-4) and pray in faith for wisdom (1:5-8).

The Book of James is a letter that deals with the walk of faith through genuine religion (1:1-27), genuine faith (2:1-3:12) and genuine wisdom (3:13-5:20). Remarkably, there is a semblance to Jesus’ own Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5-7) in which the first three chapters talk about the characteristics of the walk of faith, social justice and faith in action. Because of this, James’ work covers the common view concerning the relationship between faith and works but his letter also effectively deals with the following:

-         Community dissensions (3:1-4:12)

-         Danger of a thoughtless tongue (3:1-12)

-         Incorrect wisdom (3:13-18)

-         Frustrated desires (4:1-3)

In his letter, James also encourages his readers to include God in all their plans (4:13-17) while at the same time, discourages Jewish Christians from taking oaths (5:12) but instead to pray for physical healing (5:13-18) and to be mutually caring about one another’s spiritual wellbeing (5:19-20).

As some of us have come to suspect, authorship authenticity for the Book of James is again contested by modern biblical scholars who claim that it is not the James who is the brother of Jesus (Mt 13:55, Mk 6:3) but in fact someone else who happens to share the same first name. While such counterclaims may never go away, there is neither sufficient opposition nor evidence to support them.

What is, on the other hand, very worth noting is that despite James being a brother to Jesus, he was initially not a believer (Jn 7:3-5) at least not until Jesus was resurrected (Acts 1:14, 1 Cor 15:7, Gal 1:19). Thereafter James was transformed, eventually becoming the head of the Jerusalem church whereupon he was often mentioned as a “pillar of the church” (Gal 2:9).

Jerusalem Council (harvestcenterchurch.net)

If it is true that James’ letter was written around 46AD-48AD (just before the Jerusalem Council came into session in 49AD-50AD, cf. Acts 15), then that makes it the oldest book in the New Testament. However there are some who believe the letter was written earlier and they point to James’ lack of reference to the issue of Gentile circumcision including his use of the Greek term for ‘synagogue,’ the former of which was a key topic at the Jerusalem Council. You would be correct to think that all of these issues have distinctive Jewish overtones.

The Josephus school of thought, on the other hand, puts James’ letter at a time just before he was martyred in 62AD, citing his response to Paul’s letters. He suggested that the Pauline letters would have taken some time to become sufficiently well known to James for the contents to be made known. As a counter-response, perhaps James was merely responding to how people viewed Paul’s theology rather than looking for a direct riposte to Paul. In that sense, maybe James had actually written his letter before he could read any of Paul’s.

Perhaps also James wrote it while Paul was writing his treatise on justification by faith. And if that is the case, then it wouldn’t have been possible for Paul to have held any dialogue on such a matter with James particularly before the Jerusalem Council could meet (Acts 15).

Acts 8:1 leads us to believe that James could have written the letter from Jerusalem to Jewish Christians who had already scattered abroad since 1AD. These are God’s Chosen People who had gone on to form the Diaspora and therefore, could well be those from the Northern (Israel) rather than the Southern Kingdom (Judah). These are the ones for whom the letter would have been meant (1:25, 2:2, 8-13) who are likely to have inhabited within Gentile communities outside of Palestine to its north and east.

To the modern reader, James’ letter could be a composite of multiple sermons stitched to flow quite quickly but fluently from one topic to another. We can already see the instructional nature of the letter with numerous commands but we also see it as a form of pastoral admonition as well.

Is James Jesus’ Brother?

Image source: thedivulgers.com

If there ever is a flashpoint between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants, this is one of many. The Roman Catholics have a high degree of sensitivity about Jesus having not one but any number of siblings and the defence is naturally understandable because for Christ to have brothers and sisters would have had negated the alleged perpetual virginity of Mary.

If that were to happen, a substantial part of the papal theology would have collapsed. Who knows what could happen to Roman Catholicism if that occurs. But let’s look at some of the Roman Catholic views of James being Jesus’ brother. Here are four:

Firstly, Roman Catholics like to go on the use of the word ‘brother’ as being contextual. In Greek (the language that the New Testament is founded on), the word ‘adelphos’ (adelfos) has a literal meaning and that is, ‘brother.’ Although the word is at times interchangeable with other forms of relatives, this is the literal – and normal – meaning. If the relationship is expressly one of cousins, then there is a different and specific word for that and it is not adelfos.

Furthermore, if they – including James – were actually Jesus’ cousins, why would they be so often described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? Nothing in Scripture opens vagaries as to the context of Jesus’ mother and His brothers coming to see Him. Nothing of any specificity hints of anything but His literal, blooded half-brothers.

Secondly, Roman Catholics want us to accept that James, like other brothers and sisters of Jesus are offspring from Joseph’s earlier marriage. Delving into this particular form of argument reveals a completely invented gamut of storytelling the likes of which is not corroborated by the Bible. It has been said by Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, a contemporary of fourth-century Jerome, that not only was Joseph married before he met Mary, he was widowed and had multiple children of whom James was one.

The deeply troubling nature of this claim is that the Bible does not mention any of it. Furthermore, it does not add up because if Joseph already had children before his marriage to Mary, then where were they went the young couple made their way to Bethlehem (Lk 2:4-7)? What about their trip to Egypt (Mt 2:13-15) or the one back to Nazareth? (Mt 2:20-23)

Thirdly the recorded argument – in fact, the first of its kind between Jerome and another fourth-century theologian by the name of Helvidius – was based on this controversy. While Helvidius wrote that Mary had other children with her husband, Joseph after the virgin birth of Jesus, Jerome was vociferous in defending Mary as a virgin for all the days of her life thereafter, claiming that those other children were those of Mary of Clopas who was Jesus’ aunt (and his mother’s sister). This would make them cousins, which is probably where the other Roman Catholic explanations could have derived from.

On the other hand, Jesus’ siblings – essentially his brothers – are specifically mentioned and named in not one but several verses in Scripture such as Mt 12:46, Lk 8:19 and Mk 3:31, all of whom records Jesus’ mother and brothers coming to see Him. Mt 13:55 names them as James, Joseph, Simon and Jude (or Judas).

Jesus also had sisters but they remain unknown in name and number (Mt 13:56). While Jn 7:1-10 and Acts 1:14 offer more details to the activities and goings-on of Jesus’ brothers and mother, Gal 1:19 does reveal that James was unreservedly Jesus’ actual and real brother.

So here are some Q&As that could help you to further establish your understanding:

Q. If Jesus had siblings, wouldn’t common sense tell us that as descendants from Jesus’ mother, they would be proud of their relationship with their famous brother? Furthermore wouldn’t they be claiming their rightful place as Mary’s descendants? Yet none of this happened!

A: That may be because Jesus’ own brothers might not have accepted that He was the Son of God. Remember that James was an unbeliever until Jesus was resurrected. Just because they were siblings does not mean they all buy the same argument. That is what we all call sibling rivalry.

Q. The Roman Catholic Church has unhesitatingly proclaimed that Mary was ever a virgin. If this wasn’t true, why hadn’t any of Jesus’ brothers and sisters publically renounced their mother’s virginity and claim it as a lie? That would be because Mary had no other children apart from Jesus who was immaculately conceived with the Holy Spirit.

A. No, it is because God willed that Mary would have only one virgin birth that delivered Jesus but that did not mean that He would prohibit her or seal up her womb from having her own biological offspring. In other words, yes, Mary had a virgin birth and for all aims and intentions, Jesus’ brothers and sisters would have been aware of this revelation but knew that because they were born of the same mother, she couldn’t possibly be considered a virgin anymore in their view.

Q. If Mary did have other children, Jesus would not have been as popular as He was. We know Jesus was popular because recognisably, He was the promised Messiah who was also the fulfilment of prophecies recorded in the Old Testament. Jesus fleshed out the words as recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, which says, “All this took place to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: ‘Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son and they shall name Him Emmanuel,’ which means, ‘God is with us’” (Mt 1:22-23). Therefore if Mary did have other offspring, that prophecy concerning the virginity of Mary would have remained unfulfilled. And Jesus would not have been recognised as being the Messiah.

A. Again, not true. The writer is confusing Mary’s virgin birth with her other births. God distinguished the two. Of the many children that Mary gave birth to, only the first was by ‘immaculate conception.’ The rest weren’t. The prophecies of the Old Testament clearly applies to the one and first birth by Mary. They do not have to mention anything about the other births because they bore little to no significance to the messianic message, which was exclusively meant for the one named Emmanuel.

Where Matthew 1:22-23 says, “Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son,” it does not tacitly mean that the virginity of Mary would not have been fulfilled unless Jesus was the only birth. It only meant that when that dialogue took place, Mary was still a virgin. One has to be very clear about how the English was structured or from the exegetical perspective, how the original Greek was worded.

5. The Gospel of Luke records how Jesus was conceived, saying, “The angel said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the Child to be born will be holy; He will be called Son of God’” (Lk 1:35). The conception of Jesus had therefore been a result of a union between the Holy Spirit and Mary. It is a union or a marriage blessed by God, which would place Mary in an unassailable position as being one obligated to retain a vow of chastity in order to maintain perpetual virginity after the birth of Jesus. If Mary were to consummate her marriage with Joseph after Jesus was born, that would have been adulterous in God’s eyes.

A. Totally disagree. This aforementioned union is a marriage blessed no less by God and no less different to Christian marriages in the witness of God the Highest today. The union spoken of does not necessarily compel Mary to be confined to a position where she would never be able to give birth to other children with her flesh-and-blood husband, Joseph.

To even remotely suggest that would be cruel on her. Mary’s wedding to Joseph was also a marital union that was blessed by God. God wouldn’t have had it differently because to do so would be to render their marriage illegitimate in the eyes of law at that time. If that were the case, how would Mary’s marriage and life be of glory to God?

Q. Mk 6:3 says, “‘Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon and are not his sisters here with us?’ And they were offence at him.” Notice here that there is only one reference to “the son of Mary,” that being Jesus. The others are not called the sons of Mary but rather the brothers of Jesus. If they would have been the brothers of Jesus, logically, they too would have been referred to as the sons of Mary.

A. This is merely an example of how the English language can be deceptively used, twisted to gain a one-sided (myopic) interpretation. It could have easily gone the other way as well. The reference to “the son of Mary” could have been the person’s specific question (concerning identity) aimed at a specific scenario (a setting of Jesus among his other siblings) about a specific person (Jesus Himself). In a similar question, I could be querying a woman about her one particular son out of her other children and asked in exactly the same manner. And it wouldn’t have made any difference.

Q. Because Jesus had no biological brothers, we can speculate concerning their statuses. They could have been members of Jesus’ religious group. Or they could have been cousins. They could have been adopted by Joseph and Mary after Jesus was born. Alternatively if Joseph had fathered children from his previous marriage and became a widower, then they would be Jesus’ half-brothers. While all of these scenarios are possible, none contradict the fact that Jesus did not have any biological siblings who shared Mary and Joseph as blooded parents. Those who claim otherwise have failed to study the facts found in the Holy Bible.

A. While none of this is even true, it is a very obviously laboured and over-engineered defence of the alleged perpetual virginity of Mary. It doesn’t wash then and it will not wash now. We are all too aware that Roman Catholics are desperate to defend this stand vigorously because if they didn’t, a substantial portion of their theology would have collapsed asunder.

We need to understand it from this perspective and then simply move on. There is no point in perpetuating this argument. What we know comforts us. What we believe in entrenches our theology. We are okay with that. And that is all that matters. Roman Catholics can believe what they want. It’s a free world but there is no need for anyone to become hateful or ugly about it.


Part Five (First and Second Letters of Peter) will be available on January 6 2016