The majority of us have heard Luther’s famous quote that the biblical book of James is nothing more than an Epistle of straw.  When originally written by Luther, the quote was set in contrast to his affirmations of the Gospel of John, the first Epistle of John, St. Paul’s Epistles and St. Peter’s Epistles.  Of the latter group, Luther is quoted as saying, “[these] are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and good for you to know, even though you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine.” (Works of Martin Luther, Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1932, copyrighted by the United Lutheran Church in America, vol. 6. pp. 443-444).  In contrast, Luther thought James had nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.  These remarks appear in his 1522 preface to the New Testament, but were dropped in his 1545 revision.  It seems Luther either had a change of heart or received so much flack about these comments he felt the need to remove them in his later revision.  But why did Luther hold such extreme negative attitudes about this canonical book?

Recent scholarship on biblical James has noted a concentric structure in the book, in which the author presents the topics to be covered in the first chapter and develops them in opposite order in the remainder of the text.  Thus, according to Conti, James is a nicely organized chiasm, with the central focal point landing on chapter 2:1-13.  These first thirteen verses of chapter 2 proclaim that making distinctions between the poor and the rich is a transgression of the law (Conti, “James,” Global Bible Commentary, 539-544).  The book of James is the only work of Wisdom literature in the New Testament.  Its author is concerned about social justice, ethics, practical issues of the Christian life, the poor, the marginalized and the powerless–just as Jesus was.  The structure of the book not only points to these concerns as the main thesis of the writing, but emphasizes the same through the use of repetition.

Luther is also known for having made harsh statements against the poor as is evidenced by his response to the German Peasant’s War (1524-1525).  The war was inspired in part by the overall tone and environment created by the great reformation led by Luther himself.  Also of significance was the availability of the Bible in the vernacular for the first time.  While many peasants could not read, a few were literate and examined the Bible for reference to the feudal system.  The famous quote that came from the rebelling peasants was “when Adam dug and Eve spun, where was then the nobleman?” The peasants issued legitimate complaints against tax burdens, unjust treatments as well as demands for free preaching and the right for parishioners to elect their own pastors.  When Luther was asked about the situation he clearly spoke against the “murderous peasants,” condemning their rebellion by proclaiming for the first time the doctrine of the unlimited power of the ruler over the subject as well as the command for unquestioning submission to authority.  The masses were to be laden down with burdens and the poor man was to be “forced and driven as we force and drive pigs or wild cattle.” (http//www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm).  Luther openly sided with the authorities against the peasants, and in return, the authorities granted him free hand in the implementation of the Reformation (http://www.zum.de/whkmla/military/16cen/gerpeaswar15241525.htiml).  Given his commitments to sustain the feudal system and his support from authorities to assist in the reformation, is it any wonder Luther disliked the biblical book of James?

Several hundred years later, Walter Rauschenbusch, in his 1917, A Theology for the Social Gospel, noted “To one whose memories run back . . . to Moody’s time, the methods now used by some evangelists seem calculated to produce skin-deep changes.  Things have simmered down to signing a card, shaking hands, or being introduced to an evangelist. . .It is time to overhaul our understanding of the kind of change we hope to produce by personal conversion and regeneration.” (Rauschenbusch, A Theology for the Social Gospel, Nashville: Abingdon, 1987, p 97).  He goes on to emphasize that conversion ought to be understood not only as a break from our sinful past, but also from our sinful past of a social group (p. 99).  On the topic of conversion and regeneration Rauschenbusch ultimately concluded, the evidence of pure Christianity is a religious passionate love for humankind that excludes none, marked by an emotional consciousness that parallels that of Jesus when he said “I am the hungry, the naked, the lonely.” (Ibid., p 108-109).

It seems the church has been struggling since the first century with issues of class.  Even at the time of Luther’s great reformation, the poor were not recognized as equals in the fight.  In the early twentieth century Rauschenbusch wrote his theology of the social gospel also addressing the need for the church to recognize issues of class (among other things) as one of the fundamental mandates of the gospel message.  Yet, today we still find Sunday morning is the time of the great divide.  Our nation is filled with homogenous churches, but not just in terms of race.  Class divisions are as prevalent as racial divisions, and in some communities more so.  The call to the Christian life is not an easy one.  Not simply because we must, so to speak, give up the desires of the flesh, that is our worldly desires to engage in illicit recreational activities, gain material possessions, seek personal comforts and enjoyments above all else.  We are not simply called to give up, but also to give of–we are called to give of ourselves to one another.  This means we must put away every type of -ism.  We must treat our fellow human being, no matter who they are, as our neighbor, and we must love our neighbor as ourselves (this constitutes more than throwing money at the problem).  This very simple and all too familiar biblical command is the profound essence of the gospel.  According to James, being Christian requires far more than praying the sinner’s prayer and shaking the evangelist’s hand.

August 30, 2009

James 1:17-27

There is much debate in the commentaries as to whether the book of James has wealth and poverty as a central theme, or as one of many themes.  Some find 1:1-8 to be connected to 1:9-11 and suggest the entire section is focused on the antithesis between the poor and the rich.  In this understanding the poor are equal to those who must endure trials and the testing of the faith and are thus being instructed to ask for wisdom in faith never doubting.  Others, suggest verse 9-11 introduce an entirely new topic, so that James 1:1-9 is an amalgamation of several topics.  Regardless of one’s conclusion, it is clear James has much to say about the rich and the poor.

Similarly, commentaries debate the significance of the use of the terms rich and poor, not just in James, but throughout the Bible, especially in the gospels.  Does the term poor refer to a socio-economic condition or a spiritual condition?  The debate occurs must often when interpreting the sermon-on-the-mount as found in Matthew 5-7.  Who are the poor in spirit mentioned in 5:3?  Is Matthew suggesting the financially poor will inherit the kingdom of God?  Or, is Matthew referring to something of a spiritual nature?  Likewise in Luke 6:17-49, the “Sermon on the Plain,” Luke quotes Jesus as saying “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.”  Is Luke referring to physical socio-economic status?  Is it possible Luke is suggesting the poor are automatically in the kingdom?  Conversely, in Luke 6:24-26, Luke quotes Jesus’ fourfold statements of woe against the rich.   Do Matthew and Luke agree on this point?  Or, are we encountering different uses of the terms rich and poor?  These are probing questions and significant for our study of James, the New Testament, the Greco-Roman socio-economic culture as well as early Judaic-Christian understandings of poverty and wealth.  I have clearly raised more questions than this short article can address, however, these are questions of tremendous import for this topic and discussion and am hopeful the conscientious preacher will pursue them further before concluding his/her study for a series on the book of James.

Having pursued these questions myself, I am writing this article on the basis of the following conclusions.  First, the book of James has as a primary emphasis (if not the primary emphasis) a focus on Christian praxis that requires equity and equality for the poor.  Second, the terms poor and rich are used primarily in the book of James to refer to those who are of a particular socio-economical status.  Third, James was probably written at the close of the first century, or at the turn of the century.  Fourth, in the first century the Christian church, while not devoid of wealthy people, was in its majority a population made up of the poor.  Fifth, the stratification of society in terms of wealth and class was very different in first century Rome than in our own culture today.  There were fewer rich, more people in poverty and a very small, if any, middle class.  Thus, one should think about degrees of poverty when reading the New Testament.  Many were poor, but some became so destitute they had to sell family members, and even themselves into slavery to survive, or resort to begging or prostitution.  The New Testament uses several Greek words to refer to the poor.  Of the possible options, James uses only one, ptōchos, when he refers to the poor–a word that refers to a continuous state of being destitute.   Finally, the Jewish and Christian scriptures, the Old Testament and the New Testament, contain an emphasis on equity and justice for the poor (e.g., Deut 10:18; 26:12; Job 31:18; Psalms 68:5; Isaiah 1:17; Mtt 5:3; Luke 6:20).

Having said all of this we now turn to the pericope for September 3, 2006–James 1:17-27.  The passage begins and ends with the idea of giving.  First, in 1:17 we are told that every generous act of giving is from God.  While this statement will certainly include the things that God gives to us, it seems it also is suggesting that the Christian who gives and acts generously is motivated by God.  The pericope goes on to emphasize the need to be meek, which is seemingly defined as one who is quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger, and devoid of any sordidness and wickedness. When read through the lens of poverty and wealth these images pop out as the distinction between the rich and the poor, or the powerful and the weak.  Given the conclusion that James refers to the rich and the poor as socio-economic standings, such references are rich with meaning.  For it is a sure conclusion that the rich are powerful, by virtue of their station in life, and, consequently, susceptible to haughtiness and brash behaviors, especially towards those, who they deem to be under them, economically speaking.

Immediately following this teaching James kicks into his famous “do not be merely hearers of the word, but also doers. . . .”  Should this be understood as a new topic, or merely a continuation of the former?  If it is a continuation, then James is saying that “meek” behavior (as defined above) is likened unto being a doer and such a one should focus on the perfect law, the law of liberty.  What is the law of liberty?  A better translation might be the law of freedom.  This law certainly includes the Decalogue, but the term “perfect law” in the context of James most likely includes/emphasizes the law of love for one’s neighbor (cf., James 2:8).  Paul refers to this statement as the fulfillment of the whole law (Rom 13:10; Gal 5:14) and Jesus is quoted as equating it to the “love of God” (Matt 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27).

Next James equates being religious, in part, with bridling one’s tongue (v 26), and suggests that one who does not do so deceives his/her own heart, and he concludes their religion is worthless.  In this verse doing and being are so entwined they cannot be separated.  James is basically saying that one who cannot/does not bridle his/her tongue, has an impure heart condition.  Conversely, if one does not speak out in a haughty fashion against his/her neighbor then we know s/he has a pure heart and his/her faith is real.

Again, is James jumping from topic to topic, or is he following a systematic line of thinking?  It seems to me we must agree with the latter.  James is connecting all of these things together, being meek → being a doer of the word → looking into the perfect law of liberty → bridling one’s tongue, which all leads to a culminating moment with a definition of religion that is pure and undefiled (v 27); to care for orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unstained by the world.  For James, pure and undefiled religion is not ritualistic, but ethical.  We have been set up for his famous verse in chapter 2 “faith without works is dead.”

The pericope for this Sunday opens and closes with an emphasis on giving.  We are to give generously as we are motivated by God to do so, and we are to take care of the widows and orphans.  The latter is one of the core commands to be found in the Old Testament.  Israel was to care for the widow, the orphan and the foreigner.  These were the three groups of people who could not care for themselves due to lack of properties and income.  Consequently, to be a good Israelite, to be a faithful worshiper of God, they must (it was not optional) care for these three groups, which constituted the poor and destitute in their time and culture.  James is using a familiar phrase and idea–true religion/faith, true worship of God = taking care of the poor.  This is the way it was from the beginning, and (according to James) ever more shall be.  Into the final statement, “keep oneself unstained by the world,” fall all the remaining commands.  The fact that James has singled out the poor and lumped the remaining requirements into one overarching statement ought to be a sign as to his emphasis and purpose for the book.

Sunday, September 6, 2009

James 2:1-10, (11-13), 14-17

In chapter 1 James has set his audience up for his sermon, and in chapter 2 he brings it on home.  His opening sentence is the clincher “. . . do you with your acts of favoritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ?”  Wow!  James does not fool around.  His opening sentence is pointed–intended to hit the mark.  James is questioning his audiences’ faith commitment based upon observed deferential treatment for the rich and the poor.  This is not to suggest this is the only sin that one could raise, but it is clearly the focus of this book.  Preacher that he is, James proceeds to give every day examples of this deference.  When the finely dressed enter the assembly they are graciously escorted to a seat; meanwhile the poor are given a place to stand, or worse yet, told to “sit under my footstool” (v 3).  The Greek here (hypo) means literally under the footstool. This, of course, has to be hyperbole, for it is doubtful anyone, rich or poor, could sit under someone’s footstool.  But, James is making his point with ironic sarcasm; not only do you give preferential treatment, but you demean the poor as if they were your lowly servants, on whom you would rest your feet.

James continues to build his case by alluding to the status of the poor in the eyes of God.  They have been chosen to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom (v 5).  But, his audience has dishonored the poor, even though the rich treat them poorly.  James continues with his ironic sarcasm, the rich oppress the Christians, drag them into court and blaspheme the name of their God; yet it is to this group that they give deferential treatment.  I can just see James shaking his head in disbelief and disgust.   He concludes his sermon with reference to the law, this time the “royal law” (v 8), which he states for us lest we not understand “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”  If one fails to keep but one part of the Law, then s/he is responsible for the whole thing.  To emphasize the point James kicks into the “big” sins, adultery and murder (v 11).  If one is able to follow the first, but not the second, then s/he is a transgressor.  His final statement in this pericope is an attempt to level out this inappropriate hierarchical list of sins.  To fail to love your neighbor as yourself is to fail to follow the law and this will lead to the same judgment that one would experience if s/he were an adulterer or murderer.  In the end James equates this with a lack of mercy and concludes that mercy triumphs over judgment.  This, of course, is the essence of the gospel wrapped up in one simple phrase.  If it had not been for the mercy of God we would all suffer God’s judgment; similarly, we are to be merciful to our neighbor.

Now James returns to his famous faith and works dialogue.  Christians have been stumbling over these verses for centuries, as they clearly were at the time of this writing.  For me the strongest example for this teaching is found in verse 19–“. . .the demons believe–and shudder.”  This example cuts to the core.  It simply is not enough to believe, one must also exhibit right behavior in accordance with his/her belief, otherwise s/he is no better than the demons.

Sunday September 13, 2009

James 3:1-12

Given this section and the reference to the tongue in 1:26, it seems James finds the taming of the tongue to be one of the keys to loving your neighbor as yourself.  However, we must keep in mind that James is using the tongue in both a literal and metaphorical fashion.  The tongue forms the words the humans speak that deceive the heart (cf., 1:26), but the tongue does not, and in fact cannot, create the ideas and attitudes found in the heart (and mind).  These of course are a significant part of the essence of the individual’s personality.  The tongue is merely the vehicle used to express them.  Thus his examples, the bridle steers the horse, the rudder steers the boat, and the tongue betrays the human heart.

Practically speaking, watch what you say and how you say it.  While no one will deny that the heart condition is important and significant (not even James), James is focused on the outward expression of the person.  The entire book is about expressing one’s faith through doing, which seemingly can include acts of speaking, e.g., preaching, teaching etc.  Yet, he comments in chapter 2, if you say you have faith, but do not meet the needs of the poor then what good is it? (2:15-16), and can such a faith save you? (2:14).  To the physical act(s) of assisting the poor James adds proper speech–in meekness (cf. 1:19-21 see discussion above).  These are the works of saving faith.

Sunday September 20, 2009

James 3:13-4:3, 7-8a

It is in this section that we find the key to James’ double emphasis on works and the use of the tongue.  Those who are wise and understanding exhibit a good life filled with works done out of gentleness.  However, those who have bitterness and selfish ambition in their hearts cannot exhibit such works.  To this second group James commands, “Do not be boastful and false to the truth.”  Speaking out of bitterness and selfish ambition denies the truth of the gospel and James wants none of it.  For such attitudes lead to disorderly and wicked disputes and conflicts between Christians (3:16 and 4:1).

It would seem the community that James is addressing has some serious disagreements and conflicts.  Not only is the community dishonoring the poorest among them, but some are coveting what they do not have and even murdering to get it (4:2).  As a remedy, James lists the characteristics of the wisdom from above: pure, peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without one trace of partiality and hypocrisy (3:17).  James is calling for a righteous peace (3:18), and according to his understanding of the wisdom from above, that peace will come when equity and equality becomes the norm.  If the poor covet and commit illegal acts obtain what they desire, the answer for the people of faith is not violent retaliation, or physical punishment.  The answer, according to James, is selfless service and honor given by the haves to the have nots.  For while James does not ever condone breaking the law (2:10-11), he does encourage mercy in place of judgment (2:13); and according to the wisdom from above, saving faith exhibits such mercy.

Conclusion

Luther is also known for preaching the famous doctrine of justification by faith alone — so how does it all work together?  Did Jesus teach that all we had to do was pray the sinner’s prayer so we could go to heaven?  Or, was there some type of ministry he had in mind?  Is Christianity about nothing more than making it to heaven?  James doesn’t think so–he says unless your faith exhibits an active merciful love for your neighbor, then it isn’t a saving faith.  Christ has overcome evil through his work of suffering love on the cross.  It is impossible to separate this work of suffering love from his merciful self-sacrificing commitment to setting the captive free. One without the other is meaningless.  So is it really, as Luther suggested, all about justification by faith alone?  Since the Christian church has embraced this doctrine wholeheartedly, one more question begs to be asked–how does one define faith?

Select Bibliography

Cargal, Timothy B. Restoring Disapora: Discursive Structure and Purpose in the Epistle of James. SBLDS 144. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993.  Especially helpful for its structural analysis.

Conti, Cristina.  “James.”  Global Bible Commentary. Nashville: Abingdon, 2004, 539-544.  Helpful for its Latin American contextualization on behalf of the poor.  Also the source of this bibliography.

Davids, Peter H.  The epistle of James: A commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.  Also helpful for its structural analysis.

Laws, Sophie.  A Commentary on the Epistle of James. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1980.  Provides help with Greek terms, words and idioms as well as a concise summary of many major commentators as they seek to interpret the same.

Maynard-Reid, Pedrito U.  Poverty and Wealth in James. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1987.

Contains a concise overview of socio-economic stratification in first century Rome as well as a brief overview of perspectives on the rich and the poor in Jewish and Christian literature.

Tamez, Elsa.  The Scandalous Message of James: Faith without Works is Dead. Translated by John Eagleson.  New York: Crossroad, 2002.  A contextualization of James’ emphasis on mercy as a substitute for judgment with regard to the poor.