Was Martin Luther right when he said that James is an “epistle full of straw”? What significance does this epistle have for you?
James, God's Timeless Message for Me in My Time
James 1:1
Pastor Kerry Kinchen, Bridgeway Bible Church
Please turn to the epistle of James. This morning we are starting the fascinating letter of James. In so doing, I want us to really become familiar with some of the basic considerations of scholars, theologians, and historians concerning James. I want us to become acquainted with some of the issues revolving around its acceptance into the Canon of Scripture. This morning, we will read verse 1, then I will go into some of the issues I am referring to. Please read James 1:1 with me at this time,
"1 James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad: Greetings."
Please prepare yourself to go into this letter with me. Be keeping in mind the theme. The theme of the sermon this morning is:
"James, God's Timeless Message for Me in My Time" [prayer]
As we dig into the epistle of James, I want to start out by bringing our attention to some of the major controversies concerning it. I think the words of the great protestant reformer, Martin Luther, set the stage, so to speak, concerning what I am talking about. You see, Martin Luther was not particularly fond of the epistle of James. In fact, Luther did not think that it should be a part of the Biblical Canon. In Luther's preface to the first edition of his translation of the New Testament, in 1522, Luther wrote,
"In sum: the Gospel and the First Epistle of John, St Paul's Epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians and Ephesians: and St Peter's first Epistle, are the books which show Christ to you. They teach everything you need to know for your salvation, even if you were never to see or hear any other teaching. In comparison with these the Epistle of James is an epistle full of straw, because it contains nothing evangelical."
In later editions, Luther edited out these comments. Evidently Luther did not think it was a good idea to continue to publicly state his own value judgment upon certain books of the Bible in the introduction of his translations. Nevertheless, part of what led Luther to think so negatively toward James, had to do with the fact that Luther did not see that the epistle held Christ in prominence. Luther said,
"The true touchstone for testing any book is to discover whether it emphasizes the prominence of Christ or not."
Because of Luther's own evaluation, he concluded,
"I therefore refuse him [speaking of James] a place among the writers of the true Canon of my Bible."
This does not mean that Luther did not see some value in James. Later, he stated that he saw merit in the epistle. He said,
"I think highly of the epistle of James, and regard it as valuable although it was rejected in early days. It does not expound human doctrines, but lays much emphasis on God's law. Yet to give my own opinion, without prejudice to that of anyone else, I do not hold it to be of apostolic authorship." Luther
Notice that Luther references that the epistle was rejected in the early days. This is another part of the controversy. Though it might be a surprising revelation for some of us, it is matter of historic fact, that in the early church, there was a lot of dispute as to whether James should be accepted as part of the Canon of Scripture. Eusebius, the great Church historian of the 300's, investigated the status of the books that the church used. As a result, he categorized them as those which were universally accepted, and those which had some dispute. James was listed among the disputed books. Eusebius wrote,
"It is to be observed that it [James] is disputed; at least, not many of the ancients have mentioned it." Eusebius
Jerome, who lived in the 400's, and who was responsible for the Latin translation of the Bible, in his brief biography of James, wrote:
"James wrote a single Letter ... and even this is claimed by some to have been published by someone else under his name, and gradually, as time went on, to have gained authority" Jerome
Later, the humanist scholar responsible for the texts that the King James Bible came from, Desiderius Erasmus, also doubted that James should be in the Canon. Nevertheless, most leaders in the early church recognized James to be God's preserved word. In fact, Athenasius, who was a contemporary of Eusebius, specified that James was traditional Canonical scripture. Athenasius said of James in his list of the Biblical Canon,
"These [Bible books, including James] are the springs of salvation, in order that he who is thirsty may fully refresh himself with the words contained in them. In them alone is the doctrine of piety proclaimed. Let no one add anything to them or take anything away from them ..." Athenasius
It is important to note that a century before Eusebius said that James was a disputed book, Origen had recorded James as being in the Canon, though he also put it in the category of books that some had disputed. Finally, it is important to recognize that Irenaeus, who was born around 120, and who was regarded as a disciple of the apostles themselves, quoted the epistle of James twice in his writings. Irenaeus said that he regarded James as God's inspired word. Irenaeus quoted James 2:23, word for word in his famous apologetic work, Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 16, verse 2. And he quotes James 1:18, and 1:22, in Book 5, chapter 1, verse 1. Keeping this in mind, we recognize that early church fathers clearly thought that James was part of the Canon.
The main problem that existed among those church fathers who considered James to be a disputed book was because of two things:
1) that they questioned its lack of widespread usage, and
2) they questioned its authorship.
But there was another problem. It was a problem that was more theological in nature. It is the other reason why Luther had a problem with James. Luther thought he saw a disparity between James and Paul on the question of justification by faith alone, apart from works. In chapter 2 James, says that merely claimed faith, without any works isn't faith at all, but is only a claimed faith. He calls this kind of merely claimed faith, a "dead faith." On the hand, James explains that to show actual faith by your deeds, is the clear way to demonstrate to anyone that your confessed faith is, in fact, real, in James 2:18; meaning it is live faith. Then James goes on to explain that Abraham was justified by the works that demonstrated his live faith when he offered up Isaac in 2:21-22; James says,
"You see, that faith was active along with his works, and faith was perfected by his works;" James 2:22
Luther saw this to be a contradiction of Paul in Romans 4,
"1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to Him as righteousness.' 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness," Romans 4:1-5
The fact of the matter is that James and Paul are not at odds at all. Paul is stating that faith alone is what justifies. James is saying that real faith alone is demonstrated in the fact that it is not merely a claimed faith. Real faith has positive evidence when the testing comes. Luther's friend, who was another great theologian, Melanchton, tried to convince Luther that there was no problem, but Luther stuck by his position. We here at Bridgeway, and virtually all Christians today believe, like we should, that there is no problem. We recognize that God inspired James to write these things in the same manner that God inspired Paul to write what he wrote, and God did it to bring greater depth and clarity to the whole doctrine. Melanchton was correct, and unfortunately Martin Luther, who was so consumed by his Tower Experience, where he discovered the great doctrine of justification by faith apart from works meant to earn merit with God, in Romans, was wrong about James. Unfortunately, there are some people today who stick by Luther's same position concerning James being in the Canon of Scripture. I remember almost swerving off the road and having an accident after I heard a pastor in New Braunfels, state during a sermon, over the radio, that James' should not be in the Canon. My advice to all of us here, and any would be theologians, is that we would all do well to not try and redefine what the New Covenant Canon of Scripture is, which is the Canon that includes the epistle of James.
This leads us to consider how much the epistle of James was used by church fathers in the early centuries. Even though there was some dispute about James, this does not mean that James was not being used by prominent, early church authorities. It simply means that not everyone quoted from it. Now, this is a major crux of the issue. Critics point out that James was not quoted very much by early church fathers, as if that really means anything. But we must recognize that there is more than one way to look at this. We could look at this through an undue lens of skepticism, or we can look at this another way. The other way is through the lens of considering the logical reasons why James was not quoted very much, without jumping to the conclusion that it was rejected. For, example, there are many reasons that can be given for this that do not presume that the letter is not authentically God's word. One of the most obvious was that James is clearly recognized to be a huge exhortation sermon. It is bombastic. It is filled with Hebrew idioms that are used to make a series of highly ethical exhortations. Such intense tone and content drives the letter as the overall emphasis. Keeping this in mind, we must also recognize that there is not as much theological depth in James as other epistles of the New Covenant Canon, and so there is not much in James that is typically used to support doctrinal points, or to use to prove various theological assertions. We find this same trend today. When you read books on theology, or you read daily devotionals, the epistles of Paul and Peter, along with John, and the gospels, are quoted far much more than James. Often times, James is never quoted. Paul is quoted more often than any other. What this means is that there simply would not have been much interest in James as there would have been in the other epistles, Acts, and the Gospels, and so logically there would not be much ambition to quote it, copy it, or even circulate it in the early decades, as there was among other Bible manuscripts.
There are some other considerations for a lack of widespread interest to copy, quote, and refer to James. Of premiere importance was the fact that James was sent to Israelites to begin with. As the Gentile church grew, the other epistles written to Gentiles with Paul's revelation of the body of Christ, where Gentiles are adopted as people of God in Christ, would be the primary epistles that would be naturally focused upon, quoted, and studied among the Gentile dominant congregations. The message expressed in the other epistles, most readily spoke to the contextual needs of Gentiles. Along this line, James was not the kind of document that could be used to battle all the various doctrinal problems of arising gnostic heresy, or of the proliferation of the Law orientation of Judaizers. In fact, the epistle of James, if misused, and misquoted, could have very easily been used to bolster the mindset of certain Judaizers of the time. Finally, there is always the consideration that some of the early Christians, who lacked further discipleship, could have been mistaken concerning James' point about works and faith, just like Luther was, and so the epistle may have confused them, or they may have thought that the epistle would confuse other people concerning the doctrines of grace that Paul taught so well. It is logical, then, to think that avoiding any predicted confusion that James and Paul were at odds would certainly be a good motivation to use the other writings more than using James. All these reasons make just as much, if not more, sense than the knee jerk theories of higher critics. The reasons that critics suggest, are those which undermine the Holy Spirit inspired importance, and integrity of James as God's sovereignly breathed Scripture for His glory and our edification. Accordingly, we believe that God used the epistle of James, where God wanted to at the time, in the way God wanted to at the time, and God has done so throughout the rest of history, including right now, right here, where we are learning from it in this sermon series.
Now, at this point, I think this naturally leads us to consider the man, James; the half brother of Jesus. He is the one who is the actual author. According to the earliest ancient church tradition, the author has been asserted to be James, the half brother of Jesus we find in Mark 6:3. Hegesippus in the 100's assigned the writing of James to "James the just'--the half brother of Jesus. Origen, asserted that James was written by James, the half brother of Jesus. Eusebius also asserted that James was written by James, the half brother of Jesus. Jerome also asserted that James was written by James, the half brother of Jesus. With this in mind, I think it is important to point out that there are some who have suggested that this James could be someone else.
One attempt has been made in suggesting that this James is James the father of the disciple named Judas (not Judas Iscariot). We find him mentioned in Luke 6:16. This particular man was not very well known, and the only association to authority he may have had was in relation to an obscure pre-cross apostle named Judas, so such a suggestion would be highly unlikely to begin with, but further, there really is no reason to suggest this James over the traditional one asserted by Hegesippus, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome.
The next James that is suggested, is James the son of Alphaeus mentioned in Matthew 10:3, who is also called James the younger in Luke 6:15 and Acts 1:13. He would also have been an unlikely author because he was also an obscure man, being mentioned only in passing. He did not have the attribute of renowned fame and respect among the leaders of the early church, to address an epistle the way James is addressed, and then expect everyone to know who he was, and then listen to what he had to say. Further, there really is no reason to suggest this James over the traditional one asserted by Hegesippus, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome.
Then there has also been the suggestion that the author was James, the son of Zebedee, who was also the brother of John, mentioned in Matthew 4:21. This James was martyred before the Spring of AD 44, as we find in Acts 12:2, where he was martyred under Herod Agrippa the first. His early martyrdom should already cancel him out as a serious consideration of critics. Further, scholars suspect that Herod's persecution that began with James, the son of Zebedee, serves as the backdrop for this letter, which would negate James, the son of Zebedee, as the author. Additionally, just like the other two wrong James suggestions, this James is not indicated in the Bible as having the weight to write a letter that was expected to be passed around to the twelve tribes without explaining who he actually is in the introduction. Finally again, there really is no reason to suggest this James over the traditional one asserted by Hegesippus, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome.
So, from the earliest church tradition, as seen in Hegesippus, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, we recognize that it has always been asserted that James, the Lord's half brother is the author, and that is who we believe the author is. Everything we know of this particular James easily bears this out. He is mentioned in Galatians, Acts, 1 Corinthians, and is mentioned in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. After Pentecost, he gains importance among the Jerusalem church, and its leadership. In fact he became the leader of the Jerusalem church sometime before AD 44. So, keeping these things in mind, we see that the half brother of James meets the qualifications as being the James of renown authority as a mover and shaker in the early Israelite focus of the church, who would be easily expected to write such a letter with full expectation that he would be recognized and respected by the scattered Israelite audience he addresses. Along with these facts, scholars recognize that there are uncanny similarities in James' speech in Acts 15 that parallel the language of the epistle of James.
The author of James is the Lord's half brother, but nevertheless, there has been some more skepticism from the higher criticism crowd. Some have said that the Greek that is used in James is too good for a carpenter's son from Galilee. Scholars typically recognize that the Greek of James is among the most refined Greek found in the New Testament. The problem with the view that the Greek is too good for James, the half brother of Jesus, is that certain unnecessary assumptions must be made beforehand. First, it must be presupposed that Galilee was typically not a place where Greek was learned along with Aramaic, or it is presupposed that Aramaic must have been learned as a first language. Neither presupposition can be proved. In actuality, first century Palestine was more than likely fully bilingual due to being part of the Roman empire for almost 400 years. There had already been centuries of Roman troop occupation, Roman commerce, and Roman travel. Joseph's family was a carpenter's family. Carpenters were contractors that did more than make tables. They did work for all classes of people, including Romans, government officials, land owners, and merchants. This would necessitate a good grasp of Greek, and it would also suggest that James was in constant contact with people who spoke good Greek. Additionally, Aramaic, or Hebrew is actually considered by scholars to have been a secondary language in Galilee, as we find with the Spanish language in San Antonio in respect to our national language of English. In fact, by this time of being part of the Roman empire for close to 400 years, Aramaic is generally considered to have been mainly spoken by the Sadducees and others who inhabited Jerusalem.
Another thing that some have suggested, is that James could not have refined his Greek found in the epistle as well as it is, if he had to learn Greek later as an adult. Such a suggestion is also erroneous. Even if it is possible that James did not learn refined Greek as a boy, he could have learned it as an adult. Actually, Josephus, the great Jewish historian who sided with Rome at the destruction of Jerusalem, did this exact thing, where he, as an adult, started honing his own Greek skills. So, in Josephus, we have a contemporary example of another Israelite of that age that demonstrates this fact.
Nevertheless to continue with their kind of skeptic theorizing, it must be presupposed that James did not use someone who recorded his words for him as he spoke, called an amanuensis copyist. I have mentioned amanuensis secretaries before in other sermons. They were very common in the time of the early church. In fact, scholars agree that an amanuensis secretary was used by the apostolic writers for many of the New Testament epistles. In using an amanuenses as a recorder, the implication is that the well educated amanuensis would write with better Greek so that the dictation would be edited with the speaker's oversight to be better than any lesser grammar that the dictator may have been speaking to get his point across. Of course, emanuenses recorders did not take liberties to write their own ideas. Such a ridiculously unlikely practice would be caught instantly by the author. On the other hand, making suggestions for better style, with the oversight of the God ordained evangelist in control of the whole process, is not a problem at all, and would simply be part of God's method of preserving His Holy Spirit Inspired revelations for generations of Christians. Finally, if all James spoke was Aramaic, this would explain the highly stylized Greek that an educated emanuenses would use to translate what was being dictated. So, in this respect, James would not need to know highly refined Greek as the author of the epistle.
Another thing that must be presupposed, is that the letter somehow must have necessarily been the first draft written in the Greek form that was finally sent out. But, extensive research concerning the literary flow of James by Greek scholars, indicates that James may have, in fact, gone through one, or even a few revisions before it was approved in the official form that was finally sent out to the churches. Further, James may have written the whole manuscript in either Hebrew or Greek, and then had a highly educated amanuensis copy from the manuscript over into Greek, or subsequently, better Greek, with James' oversight.
The point is that all the copying and refining practices I have just mentioned are normative practices for that time period, and so the refined Greek argument of critics is, shallow, silly, and baseless.
Another thing that is suggested by critics to question James, is that James does not actually claim to be the Lord's brother in the epistle. Actually, this is a counter argument from silence, and so it really means nothing. There are a multitude of reasons why James might not have wanted to call himself the half brother of Jesus directly in the letter. One would be out of respect for Jesus as God's true Messiah. Further, Paul said in 2 Corinthians 5:16 that though Jesus was known after the flesh, Jesus is no longer known this way any longer. Finally, James' reference to himself as a bond servant of Jesus Christ would press the point of his own recognition of the true nature of Christ, and show the humbleness and devotion of James to the real cause of Christ, as His Lord and Savior, rather than of James' own, so called, fleshly family tie. This leads us to now consider the alternate theories of authorship that critics have suggested because they can not come to grips with the fact that James is genuine:
The first one is that the epistle is written under a pseudonym kind of pen name that is meant to be associated with James, but is really another author who faked his identity. But, this critic's theory does not take into account that the author would have spent more time wording his greeting in such a way as to assert that he was the Lord's half brother in an attempt to give the intended authority that would be needed for such a deception. James does not do this. He just assumes his authority, and assumes that the 12 dispersed tribes will also recognize his authority, a fact that tradition has preserved in respect to the epistle. Further, there is no plausible motive for faking this epistle. Keeping in mind that the whole epistle is about consequences for sin, anyone who would forge such a thing, would be breaking their own concern by sinning! Finally, there are no groundbreaking assertions about Christ, and there are no amazing doctrinal statements that would come from an agenda, such as would be found in faking an epistle for presenting a false doctrine.
Another suggestion that some have attempted to make, is that the epistle of James was originally anonymous as an early epistle, and then later the name James was added. The problem for this theory of critics, is that the early church was intensely scrutinizing fake epistles written by gnostics and other antichrists. James reflects the tone and doctrine that would come from the emerging literary period of the early church--from the 40's. So, to have this epistle among the churches over the next 30 years to the desolation of Jerusalem in AD 70, and then all of a sudden, decades later, to have an arbitrary, uncertain, or fake author show up in the greeting in later copies, would have been caught by the churches.
This leads us now, to consider when James was written. We know that the epistle must have been written by James before 62 AD, because that is when James died. Keeping this in mind, two dates are suggested by scholars; either early before 50 AD, or later, sometime before James died. It is likely that James was written earlier. Let me give you some reasons for thinking this way. As a primary consideration, there is the big Jewish emphasis of the letter. What I mean is that when we read the epistle, we find that there is no mention of the adoption of Gentiles into the church, which, as a move of God, was an amazingly unique revelation for the history, and impact upon Israelites. For God to do such a thing was such a paradigm busting surprise that many Israelites, including Peter, as we see in Acts, and Galatians, had a difficult time with it. When we see that James and the Jerusalem council had to settle some disputes with Judaizers who were disrupting Paul's ministry to the Gentiles in Acts 15, which occurred in 49 BC, it seems likely that James would spend some time encouraging unity among Jews and Gentiles, and the need to hold Judaizing at bay, if this was a later epistle. A date of writing before 49 BC, would not find such matters to be necessary as the issues had not yet become a major concern. That is just one consideration. Another consideration is that James refers to the assembly of Christians as "the synagogue" in his epistle, in James 2:2. This terminology strongly indicates a very early period in the church, before 49 AD when Christianity was primarily an Israelite ingathering. Later, as Christianity grew and became less of an Israelite association, but more of the body of Christ association, the term synagogue for the assemblies was replaced with church. James also has a heavy emphasis upon quoting the Old Testament Tanakh in making his points, as well as following Christ's pattern of teaching in the sermon on the mount. If the epistle had come along later, we would expect to find a much greater similarity to the writings of Paul, which is what we find, for example, in 1 Peter.
Recognizing all of these things, as well as the fact that James is the Lord's half brother, we look at his opening comments:
"1 James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad: Greetings." James 1:1
One of the first things I want to bring to our attention is that James calls himself a bond-servant of God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is an amazing proclamation to make concerning the fact that James is Jesus' half brother. We know that Jesus was God's only begotten Son. Mary was His mother, but God is His Father. Joseph was Jesus' earthly half-father. Jesus had other brothers and sisters who came from Joseph and Mary as we read in the gospel accounts. So, James was Jesus' half brother. Jude was another half brother of Jesus. Jude wrote a short epistle as a follow up to 2 Peter, which Peter wrote shortly before being executed. The epistle of Jude is also Holy Scripture. I am bringing out these points for a couple of reasons. The first is because a lot of people, particularly those from a Roman Catholic background, have a hard time coming to grips with the fact that Joseph and Mary had other children. The reason for this is because of the false doctrine that the Roman Catholic Church invented, where Mary was proclaimed to be a perpetual virgin, and co-redemptress with sinless Christ. But, this proclamation is wrong. Mary had other children. James was one, and Jude was another one which brings me to the main reason why I bring this up at this point. It has to do with what Jude opens his epistle with. Jude writes,
"1 Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, To those who are the called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ:" Jude 1:1
We notice that Jude, another half brother of Jesus, makes the same amazing proclamation. He says that he is a bond servant of Jesus Christ. Paul the apostle makes this same statement about himself in his epistles. But, what I want us to think about is that when James and Jude say this, there is something that should strike us about the proclamation. The word that James uses here, and his brother Jude uses, for bond-servant, is different than the Greek word for a mere slave. A bond servant was a man who gave himself willingly into service to His master. This is beautiful, because James and Jude were both raised with Jesus. James knew Jesus at one time, according to the flesh. So, what James is doing here in his intro, is indicating that in his full recognition and devotion to the true identity of Jesus as the great Messiah of Israel, James is submitting to Him as a bond servant. Neither James, nor Jude were of the inner circle of students. They were not commissioned to be apostolic missionaries along with the other eleven, and Paul. James does not make any claim to fame other than this self diminishing--Christ exalting comment. In self minimizing humbleness, James glorifies Christ, and expresses that he is a willing servant. This is an example of how anyone claiming the name minister should be. This is the way you should be. This is the way I should be. Ask yourself;
Are you diminishing your own fame in ministry so that God will be exalted?
If not, then you are not being a Biblical minister, which means that you need to learn from what God is teaching you this morning from James. There is something else that we need to see in this. When James says that he is a bond servant of God, and he is a bond servant of Jesus Christ, James is indicating that God and the resurrected Jesus are One and the same being. In other words, this reflects the two simple principles that Jesus stated in earlier teachings, where he said that a servant can not serve two masters, and where Jesus said that He and the Father are One. James does not have two masters. James has One Master. The One Master is the One God, who is fully One God in three persons, known as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This really is so pertinent to the Christian life. Each of us here must recognize that Jesus Christ is God, Jesus is Savior, and Jesus is Lord. As God, we recognize the eternality and supreme existence of Christ as Master of the universe. As Savior, we recognize His obedience to the point of death on a cross to purchase those whom He loves. We recognize that we were saved by grace. As Lord of the church, we recognize the leadership authority of the One who has grace upon us, His people. This leads to another very important question.
Is your Christianity really expressed in serving the risen Lord, as if you are His bondservant who is seeking to please Him in service?
Think about this question. This question has to do with who you are, and who you serve. People who are lost, serve self, which is in bondage to sin, in the domain of darkness, and the deceit of Satan. When Paul wrote to the Thessalonian Christians, he explained the transfer of allegiance, when he said,
"... you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God," 1 Thessalonians 1:9
In Colossians we read,
"23 Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men, 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve." Colossians 3:23-25
The point for us to glean from this, is that you are either serving something in the form of an idol, or you are serving God. To be a bondservant of the Lord, is to continuously seek to learn what is pleasing to God. It is to continuously be about the business of doing his will as the boss of your life. I know that a lot of people do a lot of religious things, and the reason why they are doing them is because the group they are around expects them to do it.
Is this why you do certain things as a Christian?
Are you serving men, or some tradition, and so you are trying to please people because you want to be accepted by them?
God wants you and I to serve Him as His bondservants, where we serve Him by doing what He wants us to do. We need to get that first, and then we serve the rest of the body of Christ because that is what our Lord wants us to do, and He tells us how to do it from His word. But, we have to be saved first to do this. In other words, to truly serve the Lord, you must do it in the Holy Spirit. There are cultist, like Jehovah witnesses, and Mormons, who claim to be serving the Lord, but they are only serving religion. They are serving idols that appear in some counterfeit way to be the real deal of serving Christ. Such people are void of the Holy Spirit, which is demonstrated in the fact that they reject the Biblically defined Jesus as the true Lord and true God, as the only God that there is, and ever will be. Only those who serve Christ in the Holy Spirit, are truly serving Him. Paul indicates this in Romans, where he says,
"17... the kingdom [which is the rule and reign] of God is ... righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men." Romans 14:17-19
This is so key to the Christian life, because James, the Lord's half brother, did not serve the risen Messiah in some kind of natural obedience. James had to do this supernaturally, in the righteousness, peace, and joy that only comes in the life of the Holy Spirit. The point is that you and I have to do this supernaturally. Anything else is just empty, legalistic, religious spinning of wheels. Holy Spirit sealed, anointed, and empowered service, is the only kind of service that you or I can do in our endeavor to live for God that is acceptable to God. Okay, continuing with our verse, James goes on with his address. He says,
"1 ... To the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad: Greetings."
The twelve tribes is a reference to Israelites. All Israelites are descended from Abraham, down through his son Isaac, and down through His son Jacob, whose name was changed by God to Israel. Israel had 12 sons, and from each son came huge tribes of people. Everyone that descended from one of those sons would associate themselves with that particular son. For example, Paul the apostle was from the tribe of Benjamin. Paul was a Benjamite. The Israelite priests were from the tribe of Levi. They were called Levites. James and his brother Jude had their lineage in the tribe of Judah. This is probably why Jude got his name--from being of Judah. With this in mind, I want us to notice that James refers to the twelve tribes as being dispersed abroad. "Abroad" is a geographic designation that James uses for the area outside of Palestine area around Jerusalem where James resided and ministered. Scholars are divided concerning whether the designation to being dispersed is because of an event, or simply because of where the various Jewish people happen to be scattered. The original Israelite dispersion occurred centuries beforehand because of Israel's sin, when 10 tribes were carried into captivity by the Assyrians in 721 BC. A remnant of these tribes returned to the land of Israel in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. The rest of the Israelite tribals that remained scattered, by the time of this epistle, are the people suggested to be who James is talking about. On the other hand, it has also been suggested that the dispersion could be a reference to the great harvest of Jews at the feast of Pentecost at Peter's preaching in Acts 2. This dispersion occurred around 30 AD. Once the festival weeks were over, thousands of saved Israelites (representing the 12 tribes) from across the world, dispersed back to their hometowns. There was also the dispersion of persecuted Christian Jews that occurred a short time later, (around 4 years later in 34 AD), directly after Stephen was martyred in Acts 8:1. This dispersion has been suggested to be what James has in mind. There was another dispersion that occurred because of the persecution of Christians by Agrippa in 44 BC. There was also the later dispersion in AD 70, that occurred with the fall of Jerusalem, but James wrote this epistle before that dispersion, so he is not talking about that one. If we want to get technical, yet be safe, it is probably safest just to say that James is written primarily for the Israelite Christians that are scattered throughout the Roman empire for whatever reason. But we know for sure that James meant this primarily for Christians because of what he says in the letter.
"1 My brothers, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. 2 For if a man comes into your synagogue ..." James 2:1-2
In 5:7-8 James writes,
"7 Therefore be patient, brothers, until the coming of the Lord. ... 8 ... strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near." James 5:7-8
After the introduction, James is intense. The only nicety is found in the introduction, where James says "greetings." After this, there is no thanksgiving for the saints as other Bible writers do. James says greetings, it seems, just to get it out of the way before launching into a hard driving sermon that doesn't mince words. In fact there is no final greeting at the end of the letter, and there is no sweet diplomatic benediction. The letter starts with a bang, where James tells the scattered Christian Israelites to count it all joy when they encounter various trials and testing of their faith, knowing that such testing produces endurance. This sobering slap in the face, sets the tone. The letter ends even more abruptly, and it ends with the same tone, where James finalizes his strong flow of urgings with,
"20 ... he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins." James 5:20
And that is it. James' sermon is over, and one is left simmering in introspection of one's own heart as steam rises from the pages. Now it is time for the Christians to do what they need to do. God gave James a seriousness concerning the lost sheep of the house of Israel being found and saved. The seriousness recognizes that now, after being rescued, the preaching begins. The word of the Lord through this bond servant is for saved Israelites to be getting their acts together as true followers of the Messiah. Now is the time to get serious about what God has done in ushering in His New Covenant. If one had to give an overall theme for the letter, it would be,
Belief Backed By Believer's Behavior
The key verse which clearly expresses this theme is 2:17:
"17... faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself."
This is what we need to glean in the coming weeks.
Belief Backed By Believer's Behavior
"Faith, if it has no works, is dead."
I urge you this morning to be mindful of God's providence in giving us James. Be faithful to the Lord, in Christ, through belief backed by believer's behavior. Be ready to learn some intense truths that God wants you to be equipped with for the Christian life. Be thanking God for James, God's timeless message for me in my time. Let us do that now--prayer
