Click here to
|
James and the "Law"
Ethics in the Christian Life
Douglas Ward
Introduction
The Book of James has long been considered one of the shakiest books of
the New Testament in terms of its acceptance into the canon. Due to a
perceived conflict with Paul’s letters, and the early disfavor of Martin
Luther, its status as a canonical book was disputed as late as the
Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. Even throughout much of the
modern era James has been viewed with suspicion. It would be fair to say
that the scholarly consensus viewed James as one of the later and most
unimportant of all the New Testament texts. It has been viewed as a
Jewish, Palestinian text that was later Christianized and incorporated
into the canon. Some even went so far as to say about James, "the entire
document lacks continuity in thought." -1- Even those
who found some continuity within its words had little use for James. Its
strong emphasis on moral conduct and words of praise for the necessity
of good deeds led Martin Luther to call it "an epistle of straw," and
allowed him and others to deem it somehow lacking against the standard
of other New Testament texts.
Yet, James is enjoying a recent revival in interest among New Testament
scholars as this consensus concerning the book is now being called into
question. Some recent study is demonstrating that instead of being one
of the later books of the New Testament, James is one of the earlier
books. The manner in which James recalls the words of Jesus is
strikingly similar to what is found in the first three gospels,
especially the gospel of Matthew. This similarity leads some to place
the writing of James about AD 65-75, which would make it contemporary
with Matthew and Luke.
At the same time, the Jewish character of James is also being called
into question. If James were originally a Jewish, Palestinian text that
had been Christianized, then one would expect a rough Greek translation
of an earlier Aramaic or Hebrew text. Yet that is not what is present in
James. Recent study argues that the Greek of James is intricate and
complex, and bears the marks of an original work. It is also important
to note that when the author of James quotes Scripture it is the second
century BC Greek translation (the Septuagint) that is cited, not a
Hebrew or Aramaic version. All of these traits point toward an original,
Christian text written in a competent Greek style. -2-
The Law, Paul, and James
One cannot approach the topic of the "law" in James without first
dispatching some of the common misconceptions about the book that much
of the Protestant church has believed through most of its history. These
misconceptions spring abundantly from a perceived tension between James
and Paul that date to the birth of Protestant thought with Martin Luther
and John Calvin.
Admittedly a surface reading of the text demonstrates the potential for
such a tension to exist. Paul asserts in Galatians 3:6 (quoting Genesis
15:6) that "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as
righteousness." This seems to contrast with James 2:18, "was not our
father Abraham justified by works?" In addition, while Paul confidently
asserts that "a man is justified not by the works of the law, but
through faith in/the faith of Jesus Christ" (Gal
2:16), James -3- seemingly counters with "a person is
justified by what he does and not by faith alone" (James 2:24).
Also, a common misunderstanding of the Old Testament concept of "law"
that has persisted since the time of Augustine in the fourth century AD
contributes to the misconceptions. Augustine, trained in Roman law,
assumed that the Old Testament idea of torah (Heb: "instruction")
was identical to the Roman concept of law. This seemed to be supported
by the fact that the Greek writers of the New Testament translated the
Hebrew torah, "instruction," with the Greek term nomos,
"law." Against this background, "law" became the governing paradigm for
doing Christian theology, both in rejecting the supposed legalism of the
Old Testament as well as seeing the activity of God in Christ in legal
terms (payment of penalty, etc.).
This perspective was basically adopted by the Reformers, especially
Martin Luther and John Calvin. In fact, this misconception of the Old
Testament understanding of Torah partly contributed to the difficulty
that the Reformers had in distinguishing between their own struggle with
16th century legalistic "works righteousness" and the biblical
perspective of torah as faithful response to God’s grace (see Torah as Holiness: Old Testament "law" as
Response to Divine Grace). It was easy for them to see in the New
Testament the struggle between Old Testament legalism and New Testament
grace with the primary issue salvation by works or salvation by faith,
because that was the struggle they were waging in their own historical
context. Therefore, it was easy for Luther, for example, to see and
emphasize not only the differences between the Old Testament (law) and
the New Testament (grace), but also between Paul’s perspective seen in
terms of grace and James’ views seen in terms of legal requirement.
Yet the reader would be misled if s/he stopped at this point of the
intertextual conversation, for there is a far more impressive list of
similarities between the two texts. Paul and James agree that the
"law" must still be kept in some manner (Gal 5:3, James 2:10). Paul and
James further agree on the need to translate Christian identity into
consistent moral behavior (Eph 2:10, James 1:16), behavior that is
called "law" in James. The oneness of God is prominent in both authors
(James 2:19, Gal 3:28), and in a stunning similarity both authors
specifically claim that being an "heir to the kingdom" is linked with
the promise of God (Gal 3:29, James 2:5). More importantly to this
discussion both authors thoroughly ground the responsibility of
Christians in the words of Jesus quoted from the Torah, Leviticus 19:18,
"love your neighbor as yourself."
In one other interesting note, when each author is forced to respond to
the most pressing issue of their respective communities, both Paul and
James immediately turn to the example of Abraham and Isaac on Moriah
(James 2, Gal 4, Rom 8, referencing Genesis 22). Far from existing in
tension, the vast similarities these authors share suggest a common
approach to the concerns and needs of the young Christian community.
Any perceived differences between James and Paul arise from the manner
in which they refer to Abraham, and the clearly separate issues that
each writer was addressing within their own particular context. Due to
the influence of Luther and early Protestantism, much New Testament
interpretation in modern times has focused on the familiar "faith"
versus "works" argument that was of such concern to Luther in his
own context. However, recent scholarship has definitively shown that
this was not the concern of either Paul or James.
When Paul speaks of the "works of the law" he is not arguing against
people who are trying to earn their way into heaven, or somehow trying
to qualify for eternal life by doing good deeds. For Paul the "works of
the law" (Gal 2:16, 3:2, 5) were boundary markers that defined and
restricted the community of faith. They were those practices that
defined what it meant to be a Jew, and thus a child of God, for example,
circumcision, dietary regulations, Sabbath observance, etc. The concept
of Old Testament torah, expressed as "law" and the "spirit of the
law" (e.g., 2 Cor 3:6, Rom 8:2-4), was thus a positive concept
for Paul, a way to express the ongoing results of being the people of
God and the grace of God that they had experienced. That was the
fundamental concept behind torah
beginning with Sinai. -4-
The problem in Pauline communities was not that there were Jews who
were doing good deeds in order to earn the designation "child of God."
Rather there were Jews and Gentiles who restricted this designation only
to those who submitted to these Jewish practices. In other words, they
would accept as God’s people only those who obeyed all of the provisions
of the Old Testament law narrowly conceived as correct actions apart
from motive. The result was that the blessing given to Abraham, which
was meant for all of humanity, was fundamentally restricted only to the
Jews. This in turn made God a God of Jews only, and not a God of all
creation (Rom 3:28-29). Paul argues against this point. He asserts that
it is not those who observe the rituals and requirements of the law (the
physical descendants of Isaac) who are a part of the community, but all
those who have faith in or the faith of Christ (the spiritual
descendants of Jesus Christ; cf. Rom 9:8-26).
The importance of this cannot be overestimated in interpreting the
scriptures. Paul is arguing about who is allowed into the community,
not against doing good deeds. If it is demonstrated that this
is the main point of Paul, then any conception that James runs counter
to Paul falls flat as well. So instead of a text that somehow argues
against Paul’s letters, James answers a different set of questions than
did Paul. While Paul answers "who is a part of the community of faith?"
James answers, "how then is that faith to be lived?" Like Paul, James
turns to Abraham and the Old Testament torah to answer this basic
question.
Paul uses Abraham to demonstrate
that the promise of God existed prior to the law and circumcision, in
other words prior to the particular Jewish religious expression of the
covenant that was dear to the Pharisees. James
uses Abraham to show that the faith that was rewarded and credited as
righteousness was a faith that exemplified supreme obedience to the
voice of God as it worked out in the actions of living. This obedience
demonstrated by faithful response in life was proof of Abraham’s faith,
and God renewed His covenant with Abraham because of his obedience, as
imperfect as his actions were at times (see Abraham's Faith Journey). With this obedience in
mind, James then recasts the torah, the "law," into the manner in
which a Christian should live, not just in terms of performance but in
terms of the motive of the heart. Just as in the Old Testament, James
saw the torah or the outworking of the "law" of God in obedience
not as a means to earn salvation, but to exemplify and complete their
newfound faith in Christ. The "law" then is not a set of commands that
stand opposed to faith, but the "law" becomes a proper expression of
faith (see Torah as Holiness).
The Letter of James
While James is written in the basic form of a letter, it can better be
described as a type of ancient moral literature called paraenesis. This
type of literature seeks to teach traditional material, encourage
commitment to a specific lifestyle, and affirm imitation of a prescribed
model of good behavior. This good behavior is encouraged through the use
of short directives, "do this / avoid that." While this form is used to
teach established conduct, often it can be directed at a
counter-cultural and marginalized group to challenge the prevailing
opinion of the larger society. This appears to be the case in James and
the instructions are for the newfound believers in Christ.
The clear concern of James is the behavior and actions of the readers.
The author does not wish to discuss the content of scripture or to
debate theology. His concern is the actions of those who possess faith.
This is evident in 1:22 where the readers are urged to become more than
just the hearers but doers of the word as well.
James use of "word" is interesting. This is reminiscent of the call
that went out to the nation of Israel to be faithful to the "word of the
Lord." Only now this "word" is located within the person of Jesus
Christ. While the content of this "word" is called "law" by James, it is
sharply different than any legal understanding of the torah of
the Old Testament.
So it should not surprise the reader to see that the "law" in James has
been transformed from the Pharisees’ narrowly legal interpretation of
the Torah and from the early interpretation of Martin Luther whose
equally legal view saw the Pharisees as adequately representing the Old
Testament perspective. James establishes a standard grounded in the
words of Christ recovering the intention of the Old Testament torah
as a thankful and joyous response to the graciousness of God.
-5- When James first refers to the law, he calls it "the perfect law
that gives freedom" (1:25, 2:12).
Even more tellingly James calls it the "royal law" in 2:8. One should
not miss the importance of this designation in verse eight. This royal
law that is to be kept is found in the torah, Leviticus 19:18,
"love your neighbor as yourself." Yet it is not called the royal law in
Leviticus, so that designation must come from another source. Clearly it
springs from a connection of these words to Jesus. When confronted in
Matthew 22:34-40 with a question concerning the identity of the greatest
commandment, Jesus responded with this text from Leviticus, and the
accompanying citation from Deuteronomy 6:5, both from the heart of the
Torah. Clearly these words were so closely remembered and linked to the
kingdom of Christ, that James can call this the "royal law." Yet in
James the royal law has been pared to the words of Jesus from just
Leviticus 19:18, "love your neighbor as yourself."
At the risk of pushing a point too far, the language of James might
give the reader a clue as to how closely James wishes to link Jesus with
these words. While Leviticus 19:18 is identified as scripture in James
2:8, the author does not implore the readers to keep Scripture, but
instead to keep the "word" in 1:22-25. This language might serve to
point the readers toward stories or collections of the words of Jesus
that were familiar to the ears of these first century Christians. So
this "word" or "royal law" was something different for this community of
faith than it was for Jews who did not follow Christ. A drastic change
had altered the way this community looked at the law from what was
popular among first century Pharisees. It did not bind, as Jesus had
accused the Pharisees of teaching (Matt 23), but was the law of freedom
(James 2:12) and a source of joy, as it had been celebrated in the Old
Testament (Psalm 119). It did not judge those it affected, but provided
mercy (2:13; cf. Psalm 19:7-14). As we will now see this royal law was
tightly connected to the life of Jesus Christ.
To those accustomed to seeing James as a late work, it might be
surprising to note the parallels between James and the words of Jesus
from the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke). It is possible to see a
collection of references to Jesus in James. The contrast of the
treatment of the rich and the poor in James 2:3 parallels Luke 16:19.
The words of James 2:5 spring straight from the Beatitudes in Matthew
5:3. His choosing of the poor to be rich in faith in that same verse
calls to mind the widow’s offering in Luke 21:1-4. This linkage back to
the gospels continues in 2:6 where James warns against the oppression of
the poor by the rich. This theme echoes that of Jesus in Matthew 23:1-7.
This pattern reaches its climax in 2:8-13 with the "royal law" of
Matthew 22. It is important to see how this standard of behavior for the
community is now so closely tied to the life of Christ.
One of the more puzzling aspects of James’ treatment of the law is how
he could link favoritism with murder and adultery in chapter 2. Yet if
we remember the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels this apparent leap is
a natural progression. In Luke 16:14-17 Jesus addresses the Pharisees
concerning adultery immediately before telling the story of the Rich Man
and Lazarus. More important is the story of the Rich Young Ruler in
Matthew 19:16-30. As Jesus lists the commandments that are to be obeyed,
Matthew alone records Jesus adding "love your neighbor as yourself"
following the prohibitions against murder, adultery, and lying. The
young ruler departs Jesus with sadness because of his inability to
handle his wealth properly. This struggle with wealth and the disparity
between the wealthy and the poor seems to be one of the major problems
within the community that James is addressing. It appears that James is
recalling these words of Jesus from the context of commandments which
they are to follow, and includes the problem of favoritism toward the
wealthy his expression of the law. Once again, the "law" is being
reconsidered by the community in the light of the life of Christ and
their own unique situation. In this sense, James is recovering the Old
Testament sense of torah as ethical requirements for living out
being God’s people in the world in response to the transforming work of
God through Jesus.
These parallels with the Synoptic gospels, and especially with Matthew,
are seen throughout James. James 3:18 reminds a reader of Matthew
5:9-10. James 4:11 and its warning against judging others parallels Matt
7:1-2. Even James 4:13 sounds much like Matthew 6:25-34. This is still
unexpected. In this much-doubted book that has often been considered one
of the last books of the Bible written, one sees a vibrant recollection
of the teachings of Jesus. This is far from a book laden with legal
"works righteousness" perspectives that many have slighted through the
centuries. Instead, James can be seen as carefully worked-out theology
that rests on the words of Jesus and in many ways acts as a companion to
the Gospels.
It is this reconsideration of the law that makes James so unique among
the latter part of the New Testament. The author does not describe a
system in which works, or good deeds, enable humanity to come to Christ,
but a lifestyle where obedience affirms and demonstrates the content of
the faith we have. Even though Abraham had faith and believed God, it
was his supreme act of obedience that reaffirmed the covenant that God
had initiated. James 2:20-24 presents this obedient act as an example
for the believers. Now believers can demonstrate the content of their
faith through their behavior. In James believers are to demonstrate
their faith not solely through inner personal piety and proper belief,
but through right relationships within and through the community of
faith. This is summed up in the "royal law" of 2:8: "Love your neighbor
as yourself" (cf. Paul in Rom 13:8). James reminds his community that
the behavior that demonstrates faith is the behavior that is obedient to
God and lifts up others. Likewise, behavior that is obedient to God
(love the Lord your God. . .) and lifts up others (love your neighbor. .
. ) is
behavior that demonstrates the content of a person’s faith.
Just as in Paul’s letters, James does not create a contest where faith
battles against good deeds as a principle for salvation. James uses
Abraham to demonstrate that a faith without deeds does not gain the
approval of God. It is one thing for Abraham to say he believes God, and
then have life continue as before. It is quite another for him to obey
God and take his only son to the top of Moriah. This obedience was
necessary for faith to be effective, complete, and for the covenant to
be affirmed. Because of this act of obedience, in 2:22-23 James reminds
his readers that Abraham was considered God’s friend. The obedience
perpetuates a relationship. The letter of James should be seen as a
description of those behaviors that complete faith, and further a
relationship with God. This behavior does not earn salvation, but is an
example of the law of freedom that seeks community and peace within the
church.
Conclusion
As in the letters of Paul, the "law" is important in James. It somehow
must be kept and is still the standard for human behavior. Yet it is not
the law of Martin Luther that attempted to earn one’s way toward
salvation. Rather, the law in James is the standard of behavior that
best exemplifies faith and makes it complete, a recovery of the Old
Testament concept of torah redefined in light of the new work of
God in Jesus Christ. Far from being solely a standard of individual,
personal piety, this law in James is expressed within and through the
community. Those that possess faith are to treat and act toward each
other in the manner that Jesus described. In this we are doers of the
word, and experience the law that brings freedom.
Footnotes
1. Martin Dibelius, James, (Hermeneia: 1964) 2.
2. For a more detailed examination of this new
perspective on James, see the impressive volume of Luke Timothy Johnson,
The Letter of James, AB 37A (New York: Doubleday; 1995).
3. I use "James" to simply refer to the author of
James, and not to argue that the author is James. For the arguments
concerning the authorship of James, please refer to Luke Timothy
Johnson, The Letter of James, AB 37A (New York: Doubleday; 1995).
4. "The New Testament polemic against the law as a
means of salvation is directed, not against the Old Testament, but
against mistaken interpretations of the law in the first century, also
prevalent today." Terence Fretheim, Exodus,
Interpretation Commentary (John Knox 1991), 223.
5. For a full treatment of what is called "the new
perspective on Paul" see James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the
Apostle, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1998), 354-59.
-Douglas Ward, Copyright ©
2018 , Douglas
Ward and CRI/Voice, Institute
All Rights Reserved See Copyright and User
Information Notice
|
Related pages
Law in Galatians
Torah as Holiness
Biblical Theology
Theology Topics |