Winston Churchill, in one of his well-known quotes, once referred to Russian policy as “a puzzle inside a riddle wrapped in an enigma.” Sometimes I think the same thing about the Book of James because it seems to so directly contradict what the Apostle Paul says:
For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness (Rom 4:2-5).
But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:20-21, 24).
In fact, when my father teasingly said to me a couple of weeks ago — "So, you've left a "cliff-hanger" at the end of one of your posts, just like on the TV shows." — I decided I needed to resolve that and dug into studying the Book of James and reading the different points of view of several commentaries and books. As a result, I’ve found answers to some of my questions, but I’ve also added a few new ones. One thing, though; I am becoming more and more convinced that James couldn't have been merely writing from a different angle than Paul. There are just too many other things going on.
I’m not the only one who’s ever found the Book of James difficult to understand. Martin Luther referred to the book as "an epistle of straw" and stated the following regarding the teachings of Paul and James on the subject of justification:
Many sweat to reconcile St. Paul and St. James, but in vain. ‘Faith justifies’ and ‘faith does not justify’ contradict each other flatly. If anyone can harmonize them I will give him my Doctor’s Hood and let him call me a fool.
It’s easy to see why Luther had a problem with James. When he rediscovered the doctrine that man is justified “by faith” and “not by works,” it so completely transformed his life that he became an ardent defender of this Pauline truth, and rightly so. It’s been correctly said that it's “the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls.” What I believe Luther failed to grasp is that we can’t reconcile what God never meant to be reconciled.
Yet it seems that’s what most of us try to do. In an attempt to reconcile Paul and James we read back Paul’s doctrine into the Book of James, explaining that James emphasizes the practical aspects of Christian conduct, whereas Paul concentrates on theology; or, that James refutes the perversions and abuses that had arisen around Paul’s doctrine. Neither explanation, however, resolves the apparent contradictions between the two.
Let's not forget the cardinal rules for interpreting Scripture; that context is king!, and that looking at the context is more than just looking at the verses immediately surrounding the verse(s) we're studying. We must also ask ourselves: To whom and when was the book written? What were the circumstances, and have things changed since then? Always watch for the progression of Scripture!
To answer these questions: The Book of James is written to the “twelve tribes scattered abroad.” (The scattering was probably a result of the persecution that arose after the stoning of Stephen - Acts 8:1.) James is grouped with what is commonly called the General Epistles. I believe this is somewhat misleading, though, because it implies that these epistles were written to both Jews and Gentiles. Some interpret the phrase "twelve tribes scattered abroad" metaphorically and say it refers to Christians in general, but there’s no reason to interpret it this way, especially since we read in Galatians that James was a minister to the Jews (Gal 2:1-10).
Also, because James makes no mention of the Gentiles or of Paul's ministry among the Gentiles having come to the forefront, it must have been written early on. In fact, it is almost universally agreed that James is the earliest written book in the NT, with many placing its composition around 42 AD, the same year Peter was supernaturally released from prison in Acts 12. The book's many links to the OT and the Sermon on the Mount (e.g., James 1:25, 2:8, 12) also point to a Hebrew audience as well as to an early date, all of which gives the book a decidedly “Jewish flavor.”
What does all this tell us? First, since it’s addressed to the twelve tribes of Israel, we must be careful when reading “other people’s mail.” And second, because of its content and early composition, we can safely assume that James was written before the doctrine of salvation by faith alone through grace alone had been widely revealed and therefore people were still operating under the revelation given up to that point, namely the law with establishing the kingdom in view.
So often we have the tendency to read back newer revelation into what was previously revealed, but James meant what he said to the people he was writing to. And while it’s certainly true that we should interpret the Book of James in light of what Paul taught, this does not mean we should read back Paul’s doctrines into James. Later revelation does not change the meaning of earlier revelation. It may add to or supersede it, but it never changes it — it says what it says!
For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness (Rom 4:2-5).
But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:20-21, 24).
In fact, when my father teasingly said to me a couple of weeks ago — "So, you've left a "cliff-hanger" at the end of one of your posts, just like on the TV shows." — I decided I needed to resolve that and dug into studying the Book of James and reading the different points of view of several commentaries and books. As a result, I’ve found answers to some of my questions, but I’ve also added a few new ones. One thing, though; I am becoming more and more convinced that James couldn't have been merely writing from a different angle than Paul. There are just too many other things going on.
I’m not the only one who’s ever found the Book of James difficult to understand. Martin Luther referred to the book as "an epistle of straw" and stated the following regarding the teachings of Paul and James on the subject of justification:
Many sweat to reconcile St. Paul and St. James, but in vain. ‘Faith justifies’ and ‘faith does not justify’ contradict each other flatly. If anyone can harmonize them I will give him my Doctor’s Hood and let him call me a fool.
It’s easy to see why Luther had a problem with James. When he rediscovered the doctrine that man is justified “by faith” and “not by works,” it so completely transformed his life that he became an ardent defender of this Pauline truth, and rightly so. It’s been correctly said that it's “the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls.” What I believe Luther failed to grasp is that we can’t reconcile what God never meant to be reconciled.
Yet it seems that’s what most of us try to do. In an attempt to reconcile Paul and James we read back Paul’s doctrine into the Book of James, explaining that James emphasizes the practical aspects of Christian conduct, whereas Paul concentrates on theology; or, that James refutes the perversions and abuses that had arisen around Paul’s doctrine. Neither explanation, however, resolves the apparent contradictions between the two.
Let's not forget the cardinal rules for interpreting Scripture; that context is king!, and that looking at the context is more than just looking at the verses immediately surrounding the verse(s) we're studying. We must also ask ourselves: To whom and when was the book written? What were the circumstances, and have things changed since then? Always watch for the progression of Scripture!
To answer these questions: The Book of James is written to the “twelve tribes scattered abroad.” (The scattering was probably a result of the persecution that arose after the stoning of Stephen - Acts 8:1.) James is grouped with what is commonly called the General Epistles. I believe this is somewhat misleading, though, because it implies that these epistles were written to both Jews and Gentiles. Some interpret the phrase "twelve tribes scattered abroad" metaphorically and say it refers to Christians in general, but there’s no reason to interpret it this way, especially since we read in Galatians that James was a minister to the Jews (Gal 2:1-10).
Also, because James makes no mention of the Gentiles or of Paul's ministry among the Gentiles having come to the forefront, it must have been written early on. In fact, it is almost universally agreed that James is the earliest written book in the NT, with many placing its composition around 42 AD, the same year Peter was supernaturally released from prison in Acts 12. The book's many links to the OT and the Sermon on the Mount (e.g., James 1:25, 2:8, 12) also point to a Hebrew audience as well as to an early date, all of which gives the book a decidedly “Jewish flavor.”
What does all this tell us? First, since it’s addressed to the twelve tribes of Israel, we must be careful when reading “other people’s mail.” And second, because of its content and early composition, we can safely assume that James was written before the doctrine of salvation by faith alone through grace alone had been widely revealed and therefore people were still operating under the revelation given up to that point, namely the law with establishing the kingdom in view.
So often we have the tendency to read back newer revelation into what was previously revealed, but James meant what he said to the people he was writing to. And while it’s certainly true that we should interpret the Book of James in light of what Paul taught, this does not mean we should read back Paul’s doctrines into James. Later revelation does not change the meaning of earlier revelation. It may add to or supersede it, but it never changes it — it says what it says!
No comments:
Post a Comment