The question was raised last week as to why Martin Luther would refer to the book of James as "a right strawy epistle"…a probable reference to its lack of substance from Luther’s point of view, certainly not carrying the weight of his favorites, Galatians and Romans.

I suspect that Luther, like many of us today, fell into the trap of interpreting Scripture in light of the circumstances of his day instead of the circumstances of the day when the passage was penned. In Luther’s day, the church was enduring one of its periodic cycles of corruption where the pattern of biblical truth was perverted. A playboy pope, Leo X of the house of Medici, had succeeded to the papal chair and was selling the offices of the church to whomever could pay well for the privilege. The archbishop of Mainz, the primate of Germany, having borrowed the money to buy his office, was allowed to issue indulgences to recoup his expenses. These indulgences promised the complete and perfect remission of all sins to those (or their dead relatives or friends) who subscribed to the building of Saint Peter’s Cathedral in Rome (though only one half the money went for this purpose, the rest repaying the archbishop’s loan). A popular jingle of the time phrased the promise well:

Luther had recently discovered for himself the tremendous truth that salvation, a person’s right-standing before God, is a free gift received through faith in Jesus Christ. He realized that the Gospel then consists of what God, in Christ, has done for human beings. No one could ever buy salvation! Thus Luther and the other Reformers were drawn to those books of the Bible that stress the meaning of Christ’s cross. James, with its ethical and practical emphasis on man’s response to God’s initiative, found little favor. In their situation, James even seemed at times to support the other side!

Those of us who were raised in a performance oriented or even legalistic church may well identify with Luther’s concerns about James. Regrettably, many Christians continue to believe that Paul’s emphasis was on what Christ has done for us (saving grace) and that James’ emphasis was on the believer’s response to the gift of salvation and that both are required (faith and works), without ever understanding that it is Christ who saved us by the cross (saving grace) and that the ideal response is to allow Christ to express Himself in and through our lives every moment of every day (living grace). Without this understanding, the focus will almost always center on us instead of on Jesus.

Now, let’s look at the first three verses of the Epistle of James:

James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad: Greetings. Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. (James 1:1-3 NASB95)

James begins by identifying himself as the author and then addressing the readers. The New Testament mentions at least four men named James: (1) the son of Zebedee and brother of John (Mark 1:19), (2) the son of Alphaeus (Mark 3:18), (3) the father of Judas (not Iscariot; Luke 6:16), and (4) the half brother of the Lord (Gal. 1:19).

Although there is no direct identification, the strongest evidence for the authorship of the Epistle of James clearly favors the half brother of Christ. James, the son of Zebedee, could not be the author since he suffered martyrdom under Herod Agrippa I before this epistle was written (Acts 12:2). Both James, the son of Alphaeus and James, the father of Judas (not Iscariot), did not play significant roles in the early church and could hardly be seen as the author. James, the half brother of Jesus, was well known as the leader of the church at Jerusalem and is the most logical candidate for authorship. The fact that the author simply uses his name without any defense of "who he is" suggests that he was well known and had the authority to write to the "twelve tribes scattered abroad."

For himself, James uses the simple designation a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is, of course, is an honorable title in that Moses is repeatedly designated the ‘servant of the Lord ’ in the Books of Joshua and Revelation, as is Joshua himself in Book of Judges. But it is at the same time a simple title, one that any Christian could use. James goes beyond the Old Testament usage in adding and of the Lord Jesus Christ to servant of God. This shows the movement in the early church to recognize the equality of Christ with God.

The NASB95 uses the word bondservant that is the Greek word doulos (doo ·los). This word appears 125 times in the New Testament and is translated servant 118 times, the other seven times it is translated bond or bondman. It is understood to describe one who gives himself up to another’s will; those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing His cause among men. The instruction of God to the Israelites with regard to releasing a Hebrew slave who had served six years, provides a beautiful picture of one who has been freed, but chooses to stay on in the service of the Master (Deut. 15:12-17).

Several commentators contend that "the twelve tribes" is a metaphorical description of the Christian Church…I suppose they take that position to give James application to all Christians, not just Jewish Christians. I agree with the commentators who see that as a gratuitous and unwarranted interpretation. In Scripture, that phrase "the twelve tribes," has always been understood as referring to the nation of Israel…nothing in this text warrants any other interpretation. The letter is definitely to a Jewish constituency. Though the letter demonstrates careful Greek diction, as in the salutation: Greetings; it is nonetheless filled with extensive Hebrew symbolism. The book has the substance and authority of the Prophets and the style and beauty of the Psalms. Does the Epistle of James have application to the Christian Church as a whole? I think it does, but only when it is understood in its original context. Failing to do that will result in unintended application and false ideas.

The Epistle of James was written during a time of transition. The church we see portrayed in the early chapters of Acts was both typical of what the church is to be, and yet different. At first the Jewish people viewed Christianity as a sect, as much an expression of Judaism as Sadduceeism, Phariseeism, or the withdrawn Essenes. Recognized and named "the Way," the Christian community took part in the life and culture of Judea, worshiped at the temple as did the others, and maintained the lifelong patterns of obedience to the Law.

It is in this context that the first of our New Testament letters was penned. Later sharp distinctions would occur between Christians and Jewish doctrine and practice. Later would come the exploration of the meaning of a faith that reaches out to encompass the Gentile as well as the Jews. But none of this is found in the Book of James. Instead of emphasizing salvation by faith, James presupposed the apostolic teaching we see in Acts 2 and 3 where Peter proclaimed Jesus as the Messiah and called for his hearers to believe, repent and be baptized. What James emphasized is the life of faith, which followers of "the Way" are encouraged to live.

The fact that we can "read into" James the truth of the Christ life is a strong evidence of Divine Inspiration…nothing I can find gives any evidence that James understood the Christ life approach to living as a believer, yet there are glimpses of this truth in his writing. I have to believe that reveals the "hand of God" guiding the hand of James as he called Jewish Christians to live a life that reflects their faith.

After a very brief introduction, James immediately confronted his readers with a number of practical, personal implications of a living faith.

Since the word "faith" and the word "grace" are not the same thing, I believe there is a real difference. What we find in James is a clear call to "live by faith"…a faith that is evidenced by the life we live. "Living grace" is also a life of faith, but it’s not our faith and there are works that others can see, but they are not our works…it is Christ who lives in us and the faith and works are His. I don’t think James understood that fully anymore than he understood that Christ died for the Gentiles as much as for the Jews…that’s why he addressed his letter "to the twelve tribes scattered abroad" instead of to all believers.

It seems to me that there are three possible responses when trials come into our lives:

1. See the situation as hopeless and be defeated by the trial.
2. See the trial as an opportunity to be "an over-comer;" put a smile on your face and marshal your personal resources to accomplish that, looking beyond the present to the victory.
3. See yourself as you really are, "an over-comer" in Jesus. The victory has already been won by Him…this trial is just a test to see if you will "rest in Him" or try to handle it on your own.

It’s important to differentiate between "joyful" and "happy." Happiness depends on circumstances, joy comes from knowing that Jesus is your life…only He can give you joy and you can have it regardless of the circumstances!

Webster says it is the ability to withstand hardship or adversity; especially: the ability to sustain a prolonged stressful effort or activity (a marathon runner’s endurance).

I don’t see Jesus anywhere in Webster’s definition because it’s an egocentric approach to facing hardship or adversity…but it’s not the only possible approach. As a result of our supernatural "new birth," we now have a choice…we can face hardship or adversity either in the flesh (using our own resources) or in the Spirit (allowing Jesus to be Jesus in us, uniquely and individually).

A test is usually given to see if you will pass or pass out! In the Christian life, we pass out when we don’t allow Jesus to be Jesus in us. There is an endurance that comes from practice, persistence and dogged determination, but the endurance that lasts comes from putting our trust in Jesus to do in and through us what we could never do ourselves.

Click Here to Go Back