sign in sign up
<<
Home , James 1, James 4, James the Less, Joses

Introduction to James

The Author

To apprehend who the author of this book would seem on the surface to be a simple process. Like all of the , save for the book of Hebrews, the name of the person writing the letter is mentioned. With this book, however, the name alone does not point exactly to the author.

In the there are at least two and most think three James’ mentioned. There is James the brother of John the sons of who were apostles of the Lord (Matt. 4:21, Mk 1:19; 3:17, Lk 5:10; 6:14, Acts 1:13 et.al). Their mother was (Matt. 27:56, :40). There is also another James that is an apostle the son of Alpheus (Matt 10:3, Mk 3:18). His mother was named Mary and he had a brother named Judas or Jude (also Labbeus or Thaddeus) who was also an apostle (Mark 15:40, 47; 16:1, Lk 6:13-16, Acts 1:13). Then there’s a third that most believe is distinct from the other two, namely James “the Lord’s brother” (Gal. 1:19, Matt. 13:55).

It seems very evident that James the son of Zebedee did not write this book for he suffered martyrdom very early in the history of the church (Acts 12:1-2). However, there have been scholar’s that have ascribed unto him the authorship of this book. I tend to not believe he is the writer for three reasons:

1) The recipients of this book were the “twelve tribes scattered abroad”. At the time of James’ beheading the was mainly confined to Palestine. Although persecution had certainly already begun it would seem incredible that so many Christians resided outside of Palestine and were in the habit of assembling (:2) that a letter could be written to them.

2) The disciples were commonly called Christians (James 2:7) because James alludes to the profane speaking against this name. The term Christian began in Antioch in Acts 11:26 and “about this time” is when James the brother of John was beheaded (Acts 12:1-2).

3) There seems to have already begun a perverted view of justification by that James addresses in this letter that would not seem to fit within the time constraints of James the brother of John being the author.

The argument that the letter was written by (Mark 15:40) the Apostle, the son of Alpheus, boils down to the theory that the second Apostle named James, James the less, was the “Lord’s brother” of Galatians 1:19. Here is how that argument is developed:

The brothers of mentioned in Matt. 13:55 are actually cousins. Thus reckoning the word “brethren” in its loosest sense in the Greek, as is done in the Hebrew (Gen.13:8), of near kinsmen. James was the son of Mary (Mark 15:40). Mary is accounted then to be the sister of Mary the mother of our Lord via John 19: 25 “There stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of , and .” In seemingly parallel passages, Mary the mother of James is called out in lieu of “Mary the wife of Clopas”. Matt. 27:56 “ Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and , and the mother of Zebedee’s children.” Mark 15:40 “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;”

The term “Mary the wife of Clopas” is then attributed to being the mother of James the less and Joses. However, the says that the apostle James was the son of Alpheus (Matt. 10:3, Mk 3:18). Most who hold this theory point to the fact that Alpheus and Cleopheus (Clopas) are derived from the same Hebrew name Hhalphi and that this is the same man.

The arguments against this theory are as follows:

1. Mary’s sister’s name was Mary. How unusual would this be? Names are used to distinguish one person from another and this seems highly unlikely.

2. It is charged that this theory has its roots from the Roman and was thus created to foster their theory of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

3. That the derivation of Alpheus and Clopheus (Clopas) is too vague.

4. The word “adelphos” means “brother” and a brother is one of the same parent. And that there is a Greek word for cousin “anepsios,” used in Col. 4:10, that could have been used if these four men were Jesus’ cousins.

5. In John 7:5 it states that “ For neither did his brethren believe on him” . This would seemingly cause a problem with James and Jude being brethren to Jesus since the two were apostles.

Many of the commentators, including those written by our brethren, conclude that this letter was written by James “the Lord’s brother.” This theory by necessity states that the writers of James and Jude were physical brothers (sons of Mary and ), not the apostles (Acts 1:13). In Matt. 13:55 four brothers are listed “James, Joses (Joseph), Simon, and Judas (Jude)”. (The first and last being the authors of the books that have their name.)

Arguments made for this theory are as follows:

1) Paul distinguishes James as “the Lord’s brother” in Galatians 1:19. Why would Paul use such an appellation if he wasn’t literally a brother? Why not just say “James” if he was the apostle James?

2) Paul does seem to differentiate between apostles and the Lord’s brethren. I Cor. 9:5 “ Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” Acts 1:14 “And these all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus and with his brethren.”

The negatives to this theory are multiple as well:

1) The scripture says in John 7:5 “ For neither did his brethren believe on him.” When did this change? If this James is someone other than James the apostle then he became a convert after Jesus’ death. Who converted him and when?

2) James has a tremendous amount of influence in the early church, in so much as he is leading the discussion with the Apostles and actually draws the meeting to its final conclusion (Acts 15:13-21). Could a new convert have been, even one who is supposedly related to Jesus, able to wield such command and influence?

3) If Jesus has or was going to have a faithful fleshly brother, why did Jesus command her to go unto John the son of Zebedee’s care from henceforth (John 19:26-27)?

4) The fact that Paul separates “the Lord’s brethren” from the “other Apostles” in I Corinthians 9:5 does not necessarily infer that his brethren, James and Jude, could not be the apostles listed in Acts 1:13, for Cephas (Peter) is also separated from the “other Apostles.”

Conclusion: Well who is it? I don’t think anyone can say for sure. The bottom line is that it was written by a brother named James and he was inspired by God to write these things down (II Timothy 3:16-17)

If I had to make a stand, I would tenuously stand on the author being James the apostle and that he was a cousin to Jesus. As I explain my reasoning I want the reader to completely understand that much of my reasoning is just that, my reasoning. Here goes:

That there appears to be a fleshly brother that comes of such influence out for Galatians 1:19 just doesn’t sit well with me. No where in consistent secular church history do I find any credible evidence that Jesus had fleshly brothers that became Christians and then began to be leaders of the early church on par with the Apostles.

In Matthew 13:55 the bible clearly states the “brethren” (brothers), of the Lord were “James, Joses, Simon and Judas” The following just seems too coincidental to me:

1) That two of the Lord’s apostles were named James and Judas (Jude) (Matt. 10:3, Mk 3:18, Lk 6:13-16, Acts 1:13)

2) That their (The apostles) mother’s name is Mary (Matt 27:56, Mk 15:40), and that she has sons named James, Judas and Joses (Matt 27:56, Mk 15:40, 47). It would appear to me that this Mary had three son’s named exactly the same name as the Mother of our Lord if Matt. 13:55 lists actually fleshly brothers. Impossible? No. However it seems to me to be an awful big coincidence in light of other evidence.

In John 19:25 some would argue that Jesus’ mother Mary is now added and only two other ladies are mentioned and in the parallel accounts (Matt 27:56, Mk 15:40) there are three ladies mentioned without Mary the Lord’s mother being mentioned. This, they conclude, means that there were four women present and that “his mother’s sister” is actually a fourth woman mentioned but not named. There are a couple of problems with this theory. First, grammatically “his mother’s sister” certainly modifies Mary the wife of Clopas. Secondly, the lady missing in this verse that the critics are searching for is Salome the author’s mother. The fact that John would not include her in his account is consistent with his leaving any reference directly to himself throughout his book. If “his mother’s sister” is a separate individual, then there are five women present. This is a fact that the parallel passages do not support.

Regarding other objections of the author being James the Apostle the Lord’s cousin:

1) Mary’s sister could not be named Mary. At first blush this seems to be a very strong argument against; however, this is not an unheard of phenomenon. Even today this is practiced. George Foreman has named all of his sons George. Peggy and I are acquainted with a family in Orleans that have named all three of their sons John. So as unusual as this seems, it certainly doesn’t definitively rule this theory out.

2) The fact that the Roman Catholic church would hold this view certainly does not disqualify this theory as the truth. Some would argue that if James is the not a fleshly brother of Jesus then we cannot refute the Catholic’s doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. To this I would say that this doctrine, regarding Mary, is made out of whole cloth and I do not need scriptures to refute such. Where is the scripture that supports it? The Catholic church venerates the mother of Jesus to almost deity status, a position the scriptures do not support. Any doctrine regarding the mother of Jesus other than that she was the mother of Jesus has no scriptural support. It seems to me as I study the authorship of the book of James, the commentators, especially the protestant writers, are vehemently opposed to any suggestion that James is not the fleshly brother of Jesus for the specific purpose of refuting this one Catholic doctrine.

3) Some claim that the derivation of Alpheus and Cleopheus (Clopas) seems strained. There’s a whole lot of that in the bible. It seems hard for me to always see how Labbeus equals Thaddeus equals Judas which equals Jude, but I’m told that it does and the scripture bears this out (Matt. 10:3, Mk 3:18, Luke 6:13-16, Acts 1:13).

4) It is said that there is a Greek word for “cousin” and that it is used in Col. 4:10. It is used in describing ’s relationship to . However, in the the word is translated “sister’s son” which would make Mark Barnabas’ nephew not cousin. There are other seemingly strained translations regarding family ties. The Greek word in I Timothy 5:4 is translated “nephews” in the King James, and “grandchildren” in the ASV. Therefore someone utilizing the Greek in this case to refute this theory again isn’t conclusive.

5) In John 7:5, the statement that “neither did his brethren believe in him” would not exclude the Lord’s cousins from being among his apostles. The majority of the Lord’s family may not have believed in him, but this does not exclude that some did.

Recipient

The letter is addressed to the “twelve tribes scattered abroad,” or “twelve tribes of the dispersion.” This phrase “dispersion” is utilized in I Peter 1:1 where it has reference to spiritual Israel, and again in John 7:35 where it refers to Jews in the flesh. The phrase “twelve tribes” obviously has connotation to the Jewish race and of God’s chosen people Israel. However, today the Lord’s church is described as “God’s Israel” (Gal. 6:16; 3:26- 29, Rom. 9:6) and the Christian today is of the circumcision in a spiritual sense (Rom. 2:28-29, Col. 2:11, Gal. 3:7). Therefore I believe it is best to regard this letter written to the “twelve tribes” in a figurative spiritual sense and was to embrace all Christians scattered abroad whether of Jewish or Gentile descent. This kind of phraseology and the several references throughout the book to the Jewish history would modify the author’s ancestry more than the recipients of the book.

When and Where

As with other background to this book, the date of its writing is hard to ascertain. Most of secular history tells us that James died a martyr’s death (Whether it is James “the brother of the Lord”, or James the apostle, if they be two different people, is of no consequence for there is only one James mentioned in church history) somewhere between 62 and 65 AD. Therefore most conclude that the book was written somewhere between 61 and 64 AD.

Where the book is written seems to be settled in the allusions to nature mentioned by James. The reference to the “early and latter rain” (:7) is a strong indication that it was written around Jerusalem, most generally Palestine. The “early rain” generally came during the period of Oct.-Feb, and following the fall sowing of wheat; the “latter rain” came during March and April, just before the grain ripened for harvest. The land was subject to droughts (James 5:7-8). There were springs that brought forth both bitter and sweet water (3:11); and the land produced wine, figs and oil (3:12). It was located near the sea (3:4; 1:6) and there was a dreaded east wind that came from the deserts that scorched the grass and flowers. These considerations point to Palestine as to the country James lived in, and seeing James in a prominent role in the Jerusalem church further boasters this view (Acts 15:13-21).

Purpose

The letter by James has been called “The Gospel of Common Sense” and the “New Testament Proverbs.” The letter is a wonderful demonstration of the fact that the principles of ’ doctrine will adequately meet the needs of every generation. The letter deals with persecutions and trials, God’s blessings, responsibilities to others, prejudices, faith and works, the tongue, wisdom, fighting’s inside the church, the taking of oaths, humility, the rich of this world, patiently waiting for the Lord, suffering, the sick, the happy, prayer and the sinner. It is like a “Christian Life for Dummies.”

Although very broad in its content, the book discusses several specific areas that without such discussion the New Testament simply would not be complete. It is of such paramount importance to such concepts as whether Salvation is by Faith, by works, or by Faith with Works that without it a complete understanding of such subject would not be possible. Because it is such a counter balance against the doctrine of faith only, many have tried to refute its canonical authority. Among such critics were , who before he died, had to admit that the overwhelming evidence was that it was originally accounted as scripture.

Objections and Controversy

Critics of the book of James claim that his writings flatly contradict the teachings of the Apostle Paul regarding salvation by faith. However, such claims are made by biased minds that wish to hold to a doctrine of faith only. Several of the statements made by James in his letter are remarkably similar to that of the Apostle Paul’s. Below are a few for the reader’s to consider:

James Paul

James 1:2-3 Romans 5:3

James 1:6 Ephesians 4:14

James 1:12 2 Timothy 4:8

James 1:18 Romans 8:23

James 1:21 Colossians 4:8

James 1:22 Romans 2:13

James 2:5 I Corinthians 1:27

Also see James 5:14-26 with Romans 3:20ff, references of and in James 2:21, 25 with Romans 4, and :12 with Romans 2:1&14:4.

For much of the writing of James comports completely with the writings of the Apostle Paul. However, there seems to be differences on the matter of faith and works. It is charged that Paul taught salvation by faith only (Rom. 5:1, Eph. 2:8-10), and James teaches salvation by works (James 2:24).

What is at the heart of the matter is “point of view”. In other words, on the subject of salvation with faith and works from what stand point are the authors discussing? We understand that according to which side you are looking at an object or subject, you may see the same thing from two different perspectives. Not mutually exclusive perspectives but from two complimentary perspectives that allows the viewer or reader to see the whole truth.

For example, one may stand on the east side of our church building and describe the outside of our building. Among the things counted may be the name “church of Christ” on the side, one hollow metal door entrance, and the grounds with bushes and trees. However, one standing on the west side of the building wouldn’t see these things, and from their perspective they would see no sign, two glass entrances and a whole lot of black top. Which is true? Both. It’s all a matter of where you’re standing, and what side you’re trying to describe, and your aim in describing it.

So it is with the discussion of faith and salvation between James and Paul. The object of the Apostle Paul was to show that there is no justification before God, except by faith; that meritorious good works do not enter into the question of justification as a matter of merit, or as a ground for acceptance before God. If it were not for the faith in Christ, it would not be possible for man to be justified. The point which he opposes is that men can be justified by good works, by conformity to the law, by doing its rites and ceremonies or by physical birthright. The aim of Paul is not to demonstrate that good works are not necessary in salvation, but rather that they are not the ground of justification. There are no good works that a man can do apart from the faith in Christ that can save him. Therefore his point of view is before he is converted and with the question, what can a man do to be saved? The answer? Nothing, outside the faith in Christ. Paul said that “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Rom. 10:17. Therefore, Paul’s aim in discussing salvation is to show that salvation can come only through hearing and obeying the words of Christ (Matt. 7:24-27) as opposed to the works of the law or any other “good works” creed devised by men

James on the other hand discusses this subject from another angle. He shows that a man cannot have evidence that he is justified, or that his faith is genuine, unless he is characterized by good works or holy living according to the teachings of Christ. The point of view he contemplates is one who now has heard the words of the Christ and believes. James states emphatically that true faith will demonstrate itself by good works or obedience. “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made complete?” (James 2:21-22). What James wishes to demonstrate in his writings is that mere faith that there is a God or that Jesus is the Christ or a mere assent to certain doctrines without a corresponding life change or obedience to the word by the hearer, cannot justify one before God.

It is a very important to see that Paul and James are complimentary to one another not contradictory as some men charge. Paul shows that man could not be saved by dependence on the works of the law, but that it must be by the work of Christ. James then further explains that a man whose life did not conform to the teachings of God could not depend on any mere assent to the truth of the teachings or any speculative faith. Both of these statements are necessary for the full explanation of Salvation by faith; both are opposed to dangerous errors; and both, therefore are essential in order to have a complete picture of the important subject.

It should be added, as was alluded to in the section entitled “Purpose,” that the of James occupies an important place in the New Testament, and that it could not be withdrawn without materially marring a very important subject of the scheme of salvation that has been revealed. Instead of being regarded as contradictory to any part of the New Testament, it should rather be deemed indispensable in giving us the whole picture of salvation.