1:1 “James” is the English equivalent of the Hebrew name “Jacob,” and the texts have “Yakobos” as the Greek version of the same name. Legend has it that the author of this letter was none other than James, the brother of Jesus himself. But modern scholarship discounts this view, without rejecting it totally. Jacob was a very common name in the early Christian era, and even if it is the author’s true name, it is entirely possible that this Jacob/James is an obscure Christian, otherwise unknown to us. Arguing against the tradition of the author being the brother of Jesus, is the fact that none of Jesus’s brothers were known to have followed him during his life. See, for example, John 7:5 (“For not even his brothers were believing in him.”), as well as Mark 3:21 and 6:1-4. Various factors “favor the thesis that the letter was written after James’ lifetime by one who respected that figure’s authority.” (Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, p.741.) Even in the early church, the letter attributed to James was not universally accepted as part of the New Testament canon, and it continued to be disputed and debated until well into the early modern era. Luther, in the 16th century, considered James to be inferior to the other books of the New Testament, in part because of its emphasis on works versus faith as the means of salvation. (Brown, op. cit., pp.743-744.) For further discussion of the authorship question, see The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol.3, p.622.
The author calls himself simply a “slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,” unlike Paul who would introduce himself as a slave of Jesus Christ only. (Philippians 1:1; Romans 1:1; Galatians 1:10) (The letter to Titus does open with “Paul, a slave of God,” but was almost certainly written by someone else, under Paul’s name.)
The “twelve tribes in the dispersion” would indicate a Jewish audience for the letter. There is no support in the text for the Christian claim that the author is addressing Gentile Christians as “the new Israel.”
1:3 Compare Romans 5:3-4, where Paul celebrates suffering as the path to endurance, character and hope.
1:5-6 A prayer for wisdom will be granted by God, provided that it is made with unwavering faith. This does not mean that we will be given everything that we ask for, and 4:3 makes it clear that prayers arising from selfish passions will not be granted. This limitation in James 4:3 conflicts with Jesus’s teaching in Matthew 21:22 and Mark 11:24, where he teaches his disciples that whatever they ask for in prayer, they will receive.
1:9-11 The author’s condemnation of the rich man is scathing. But it is echoed by Jesus’s own words throughout the gospels. See Matthew 6:24; 19:24; Mark 10:23-25; Luke 1:53; 6:24; 12:21; 14:33. The anti-rich theme recurs later in the letter of James – as in 2:5-7 and in 5:1-6, where the author seems to hold out no hope at all that the rich can be redeemed.
1:13-15 God tempts no one. Why then does Jesus tell his followers to pray that God not lead them into temptation? (Matthew 6:13) Does Jesus imply that God might lead us into temptation if we do not pray to the contrary?
The ideas in this brief discourse on sin and temptation are not specifically Christian. “While the teaching of this section would undoubtedly represent common-sense Christianity, it would equally represent common-sense Judaism; there is no reason to think of it as a Christian creation.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.12, p.28.)
1:17 1 Timothy 4:4 goes even farther than this passage from James by saying that “Everything created by God is good.” But it is not only the “good” and the “perfect” things that come from God above. In Isaiah 44:24 we read that God has made “all things.” And this includes the wicked, according to Proverbs 16:4.
The author also claims that with God there is no change or variation. But there are many passages in the Bible showing that God sometimes changes his mind. For example, Genesis 6:6 (“It repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth.”), Exodus 32:14 (“And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.”), 1 Samuel 15:35 (“And the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.”). Abraham was able to bargain with God to spare the city of Sodom if only ten righteous people could be found there, having negotiated the figure down from fifty. (Genesis 18:22-33) And in perhaps the most bizarre example of God changing his mind, God orders Ezekiel to bake a cake over human dung. When Ezekiel protests, God allows him to substitute cow dung. (Ezekiel 4:12-15)
1:20 The anger of man may not contribute to the righteousness of God, but the anger of God seems to be a more desirable commodity. The references to God’s anger are too numerous to mention, but they include Exodus 4:14; 32:10; Numbers 22:22; Deuteronomy 9:20; Judges 10:7, etc. Even Jesus himself was not immune to this human emotion, as we see in Mark 3:5. And although God may be called the almighty, “he who is slow to anger is better than the mighty.” (Proverbs 16:32)
1:22-27 With these verses we are starting to get a hint of the faith vs. works argument which is to come. It is not clear whether the “word” and the “law” are to be understood as Mosaic law, but it is clear that some kind of action is required, and that merely hearing or assenting to the law are not enough to constitute a pure and undefiled religion. It follows then that faith, too, is insufficient, as the author will state explicitly in chapter 2. Despite his other differences with the ideas of James, Paul expresses a similar idea in Romans 2:13 with reference to the doers of the law versus those who merely hear it.
2:2 “Assembly” here is actually sunagogei, the Greek equivalent of “synagogue.” The author of James uses this term instead of ekklesia, which is usually translated “church,” and which is the term most often used in Paul’s letters to designate a Christian congregation. This disapproval of the deference shown to the rich visitor is thus not necessarily a Christian point of view, but could just as easily have been directed toward the members of Jewish synagogue. And in fact, there are those who would see in the letter of James a purely Jewish tract, which was recast as a Christian document by the addition of a few specifically Christian phrases.
2:5 The author never directly appeals to the sayings of Jesus as such, but numerous passages throughout the letter recall Jesus’s teaching as described in the gospels. This verse echoes the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus declares “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:3) In contrast to Paul, who displays very little familiarity with Jesus’s teachings, the letter of James has many parallels with Jesus’s words, especially as presented in the gospel of Matthew. Other examples are the parallels between James 2:13, 5:2-3, and 5:12 with Matthew 5:7, 6:19-20, and 5:34-37 respectively. See Brown, op. cit. for a longer list.
2:6 The early Christians were disproportionately from the poorer classes, but here the author seems to be addressing the poor exclusively, as the victims of oppression by the rich. Even Jesus’s own comments about the rich do not rise to this level of class warfare. (See the comment to 1:9-11.) And in Paul’s letters, such invective against the rich is entirely absent.
2:8 To love one’s neighbor as oneself is cited by Jesus as the second greatest of all the commandments. (Matthew 22:39) It is originally from Leviticus 19:18. Paul takes it one step further than Jesus, and names this commandment as the summing up of the entire law. (Romans 13:8-9; Galatians 5:14)
2:9 Showing partiality to the rich is a sin. Even if you love your neighbor as yourself, treating the rich differently from the poor is a specific violation of Leviticus 19:15 (“You shall not be partial to the poor nor deferential to the great.”)
2:10-11 In this passage, we see that the conflict between James and Paul is not limited to the question of faith vs. works. For the author of James, all points of the law are equally important and must be fulfilled. There is no partial credit for fulling some or most of the law. And you cannot pick which commandments you want to follow. Paul’s claim that loving one’s neighbor is equivalent to fulfilling the entire law (Galatians 5:14) is thus utterly rejected by the author of James.
2:13 Recalling Jesus’s words in Matthew 6:15 and Mark 11:26 (“But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your trespasses.”)
2:14-26 Faith vs. works. Having established that individuals are responsible for following and fulfilling the entire body of the law, the author now turns to the question of whether a person is saved by faith or works. His presentation is so pointed and well-structured, that one gets the distinct impression that he is not merely making a general case, but is responding to some other point of view which he is aware of and is rebutting. The obvious candidate for this opponent’s identity would be Paul, whose position on faith and works is just the opposite of that expressed here in the letter of James. Between the two we have a major contradiction on an issue of great theological significance. Christians have attempted to reconcile the contradiction in a number of ways, all of which fail, because they either misunderstand the focal point of the contradiction, or fail to consider the full context of the argument in James. Our commentary will consider the entire argument as a whole, rather than each verse individually, so that the full context and integrity of the argument is preserved.
The contradiction arises from the following passages:
Paul: “A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 2:16)
“A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” (Romans 3:28)
James: “By works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” (2:24)
“Faith without works is dead.” (2:26)
There can be no sharper contradiction between two viewpoints than that expressed by these contrasting verses. So how can Christians claim to reconcile them? The usual approach is to show that both James and Paul agree that Christians’ behavior should be consistent with their belief. They both exhort their readers to behave morally, and so the apparent contradiction is just a question of emphasis. A corollary to this argument is to say that true Christian faith naturally leads to good works, because a person who has real faith will naturally manifest that faith in his or her daily life, and that this is what James was referring to. But this entire train of thought is a distraction, and not germane to the point of contention.
The real issue is not a question of how Christians ought to behave, but what they must do in order to be saved, or “justified” before God. Both James and Paul agree on how Christians ought to behave, but they disagree on the fundamental theological question of what is absolutely necessary in order to get right with God. Paul is absolutely clear that faith alone is sufficient, even though he then proceeds to urge his followers to behave themselves. (E.g., 1 Corinthians 10:6-13) James is equally clear that faith alone is not sufficient. So the contradiction is real.
To deal with two common Christian objections: It is not the case that James is primarily concerned with consistency between belief and action, as some apologists have suggested. He is concerned with salvation, as 2:14 shows. And it is not the case that James’ argument is based on a misunderstanding of Paul’s teaching received second-hand from unreliable sources, because the contradiction remains when we take Paul’s very own writing as our source for his doctrine. Some apologists counter that James was responding to an inaccurate and distorted caricature of Paul’s actual teaching and was not familiar with the full range and depth of Paul’s thought. But James and Paul are both accepted by the church as canonical authors, supposedly inspired by the same holy spirit. So how could one of them be unaware of the other’s true thinking?
Nor can the Christians claim that James is talking about general good deeds as opposed to the specific requirements of Jewish law, because the verses (vv. 8-13) leading up to this section have to do specifically with the keeping of God’s commandments as laid down in the Hebrew scriptures.
The context of James’ statements further establishes the inconsistency between him and Paul. Consider v.19: “You believe that God is one. You do well. But even the demons believe – and shudder.” This is a classic reductio ad absurdum, which the author invokes to show how ridiculous his opponent’s (i.e., Paul’s) position is. In its full form, the argument would be presented thus:
1) Belief alone is sufficient for salvation. (premise)
2) Demons believe in the one God and in Jesus Christ.
3) Therefore, demons will be saved.
4) But demons cannot possibly be saved – they are evil and are the enemies of God.
5) Therefore, the initial premise, that belief alone is sufficient for salvation, is false, since it leads to an absurd result.
It is clear from the tone of James’ rhetoric that he himself feels that he is disagreeing with someone, and is going to great lengths to refute the position of that someone and to demonstrate the validity of a different point of view. The second chapter of this letter is one of the most sustained and tightly-reasoned arguments in the Bible. There would be no point in presenting such a sustained argument if his position did not contradict that of his opponent.
The claim of contradiction between James and Paul does not rest on a few isolated verses taken out of context. As with many Bible contradictions, consideration of the context brings out the contrasts between these opposing viewpoints even more vividly.
3:1 The verb here is imperative: “Do not become teachers,” rather than subjunctive, which would be translated, “May you not become teachers.” The imperative indicates that the choice of whether to become a teacher is up to the individual, but Paul wrote that teachers are appointed by God, not self-selected. (1 Corinthians 12:28)
In the second part of this verse, the author asserts that those who teach will be judged more strictly. Since Jesus himself was a teacher (Mark 4:38; 9:38; Matthew 9:11, etc.) we should expect his actions to be judged strictly as well. Did he live up to the commandments? See “The Sins of Jesus” in Mike Davis, The Atheist’s Introduction to the New Testament, pp.127-134.
3:6 The author portrays the power of the tongue to spew forth wicked words and lead the whole body into unrighteousness. The tongue is a fire, and it is set on fire by “hell.” The word translated as “hell” is gehenna. It originally referred to a valley in Palestine where those sacrificed to the Canaanite gods were burned. In later times it took on the meaning, perhaps metaphorical, of a place of fiery judgment. This occurrence in the letter of James is the only New Testament reference to gehenna outside the sayings of Jesus. (Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol.2, p.927.)
Jesus expresses a similar thought in Matthew 15:18, when he says that the things which proceed out of a person’s mouth can defile a person. Once again we have a parallel between the words of James and those of Jesus, but these types of correspondences are rarely found in the letters of Paul.
3:8 If no one can tame the tongue, and the tongue is a fire that leads the whole body into unrighteousness, then it follows that no one is righteous, and everyone is a sinner. In this respect, the author of James is of the same mind as Paul, when he says that “all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) However, Paul seems to have a different type of bodily member in mind in Romans 7:23, when he bemoans his inability to control his bodily desires. The evil that he unwillingly practices, alluded to in Romans 7:18-19, is most likely not referring to the uncontrolled utterances of a loose tongue.
3:9-10 The author bemoans the use of the tongue to both bless God and curse men, noting that these men are made in the likeness of God. (Genesis 1:27) He goes on to say that blessing and cursing should not come from the same mouth. But Paul did not practice this advice, feeling himself free to curse those who did not agree with his teaching. (Galatians 1:8-9; 1 Corinthians 16:22)
3:13 Good works are again praised. Note that these good works are not connected here with belief (faith). They are valued in themselves and are a sign of true wisdom.
3:14-16 Much of this advice would certainly win Paul’s approval as well. As noted earlier, the real contradiction between Paul and James is not in the type of behavior they advocate, but in whether this behavior is necessary for salvation. For Paul, faith alone is sufficient. (See the comment to 2:14-26.)
4:1-2 It is hard to imagine that there were any actual Christian communities where killing and fighting and war were rampant. Even Paul in his most vehement reproaches to the Corinthians did not allege such violent transgressions. The strong words are not to be taken metaphorically, either. They “were meant quite literally.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.12, p.53.) The TIB goes on to explain the language by noting that there is nothing distinctively Christian about these words, and that they very likely were written by a Stoic, and taken over by a Jewish moralist, from which a Christian editor adapted the work to a Christian audience. (ibid.) This fits well with the viewpoint that the letter of James “contains a great deal of pre-Christian Jewish material; that it is most likely an adaptation by a Christian editor of the work of a Jewish author.” (TIB, vol.12, p.19)
4:3 According to Jesus, everyone who asks will receive what he asks for. (Matthew 7:8; Luke 11:10) But this clearly does not happen. People don’t always get what they pray for. So there must be conditions attached. But the conditions vary from one biblical author to another. Here in James 4:3, if we do not receive what we ask for, it is because we ask with wrong motives. Elsewhere we read that we only get what we ask for if we keep God’s commandments. (1 John 3:22) In Matthew 21:22 we are promised that we will receive what we ask if we believe and do not doubt. And the gospel of John requires that we ask in Jesus’s name in order to receive what we ask for. (John 16:23) But if everyone is a sinner (Romans 3:23) and God does not listen to sinners (John 9:31), then no one’s prayers are even heard, much less granted. Thus, the Bible’s pronouncements on the power of prayer are mired in a hopeless muddle of contradiction.
4:4 Friendship with the world means being the enemy of God. Yet God himself made the world and pronounced the entire creation as good. (Genesis 1:31)
4:5 Although this quotation is introduced as “scripture,” it does not appear anywhere in the Old or New Testament, nor in any other known text.
4:6 This quotation is from Proverbs 3:34, quoted as it appears in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, rather than from the Hebrew text.
4:7 Apparently the devil is easy to drive off, if one only resists him. Note that Paul never speaks of the "devil" in any of the genuine Pauline letters, but only of “Satan.” And yet it is not Satan that is the archenemy for Paul, but sin, which is impossible to resist (Romans 7:14-25), unlike the skittish devil mentioned here in James.
4:9-10 It is a depressing prospect. The only way to be accepted by God is to be wretched and turn our laughter into mourning and weeping. There is obviously no place in this religion for people who are happy and satisfied with the world into which they were born.
4:11 The author warns against judging the law itself, but this is exactly what Paul does on numerous occasions. See Galatians 3:11; 3:13; Romans 8:3; 1 Corinthians 15:56 (despite the contradiction in Romans 7:12). According to the standard of James, Paul was not a doer of the law, but a judge, even though Paul described himself as “blameless” before the law. (Philippians 3:6.)
4:12 The one lawgiver and judge is clearly God, and not Christ. Although Jesus said he came into the world for judgment (John 9:39), he does so as a representative of God’s will. (John 5:30)
4:15 The basis for the habit among some religious people of qualifying any expressed intention with the phrase “God willing.” Note Paul’s use of a similar formula in 1 Corinthians 4:19. However, this too is not a specifically Christian or even Jewish formula. Such language was common throughout the Hellenistic world during early Christian and pre-Christian times, when plans might only be carried out “if the gods will.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.12, p.60.)
5:1 Class warfare resumes with another diatribe against the rich. See the comments to 1:9-11 and 2:6. This attitude toward the rich is at odds with other passages in the Bible. Psalm 112 speaks of the righteous God-fearing man for whom “wealth and riches shall be in his house.” (Psalm 112:3) And after the conquest of western Palestine, Joshua ordered the three tribes to return with silver and gold and other riches that they had taken from their conquered enemies. (Joshua 22:8)
5:2-3 We have here another echo of Matthew’s gospel. Matthew 6:19-20 warns: “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust corrupt and where thieves break in and steal.”
5:7-9 The “coming of the Lord” is obviously expected within the lifetime of those reading or hearing this letter. Otherwise, there would be no point in counseling them to be patient. In verse 8 the coming of the Lord is “at hand,” and in verse 9 the judge is standing “at the doors.” (Compare Matthew 24:33.) Clearly, the author believes that the followers of Christ will not have long to wait before he returns. Of course, he was wrong, just as Jesus himself was wrong. See the comment to Matthew 24:34 for a rebuttal of Christian attempts to wriggle out of this embarrassment.
5:12 Again the author of James follows the teaching of Jesus, this time from Matthew 5:34-37. Paul did not adopt this view, as he invoked an oath on two occasions in his second letter to the Corinthians. See the comment to 2 Corinthians 1:18.
5:14-15 Again the power of prayer is invoked. The author does not limit or qualify it in any way, but declares that the sick person will be saved by the prayer of faith. Not only will his physical ailment be cured, but his sins will be forgiven, too. This is a very odd thing for a Christian to say, because if the letter is addressed to a group of Christians, it means that their sins were not already forgiven, and the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ had no effect. And what about those brethren who are not sick and who do not receive a prayer to get well? How can their sins be forgiven? However, this theological confusion can be easily explained by postulating, as we have already suggested, that the letter was originally a Jewish document with a Jewish theological focus, to which various Christian-sounding phrases have been added. It should not surprise us that the Christian editor did not manage to smooth over all the inconsistencies between the Jewish and Christian points of view.
It is also worth pointing out that Jesus himself forgave sins before his crucifixion, showing that his death was not required as a prerequisite to the forgiveness of sins. See, for example, Matthew 9:2 (parallel Mark 2:5) and Luke 7:47.
5:16 The “therefore” in this verse is a non sequitur. It does not follow from anything said hitherto that people should confess their sins in order to be healed. Note also that the confession is not to God, or even to Christ, but to each other.
5:17-18 The author cites a case from the Old Testament to show the power of prayer. However, this type of prayer was not favored by Jesus, who taught that God already knows what we need before we pray, so we should only pray the Lord’s prayer (Matthew 6:8), rather than asking for specific things.
In any case, the Old Testament verse is incorrectly cited. It is not a prayer that Elijah utters, but a prophecy. (1 Kings 17:1) And the drought could not have lasted “three years and six months,” because “in the third year” (1 Kings 18:1) God announced to Elijah that he would send rain upon the earth. Note that Luke 4:25 makes the same error as to the length of the drought.
5:19-20 It is not clear from the text whether the soul that is saved and the multitude of sins which are covered belong to the one who was brought back from error, or to the one who brought him back. The ambiguity recalls the vague pronouncements of pagan oracles, which could be interpreted in any of several different ways to mean whatever the hearer wanted them to mean. If we can save our own soul and receive forgiveness for our own sins by bringing back a person who has strayed from the truth, then that means that salvation depends on good works, and not only on faith. This does not conflict with what the author says elsewhere in the letter, but it is another contradiction with the position of Paul. (See the comment to 2:14-26.)
Most Protestant commentators, therefore, treat both final clauses as referring to the one who is brought back. In this view, bringing back the wayward brother saves his soul from death and covers a multitude of his sins. However, this conflicts with the natural reading of the language, since saving his soul from death would already seem to cover more ground than “a multitude of sins” which then adds nothing to what has already been achieved by saving the wayward brother’s soul from death.
Note that unlike Paul’s letters, this “letter” of “James” ends without any goodbye or even any mention of the addressees, casting doubt on whether it was ever intended as an actual letter to actual readers.