The Wandering Heretic

My last few theological posts had to do with the doctrine of supersessionism. Since the content of this doctrine, to be understood fully, uses the imagery of the grafted on olive tree, Romans 11 needs to be discussed in some detail. Also, many commentators interpret Romans 11 as a prediction of a future “restoration of the Jews.” Therefore, my concept that the Church has permanently replaced national Israel has to take this passage into account. I have decided to take a major but necessary excurses from my exploration of the meaning of baptism to discuss Romans 11.

Curiously, my starting point will not be the letter to the Romans, but the letter from James. So in essence I am taking an excurses from my excurses of Romans 11 to discuss the Letter from James. I do this because I believe the letter from James sets up some of the cultural background that will be needed to understand the motive behind Paul’s letter to the Romans.

The critical issue is the authorship of the letter from James. The letter just identifies the author as “James, a slave of God and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Just which James is it? Was it the Apostle James, one of the triumvirate of Jesus’ closest Apostles? Was it James the less, one of the less known apostles? Or was it James, the “brother of the Lord.” The majority opinion is the latter, that the brother of the Lord, who took over control of the Jerusalem Church (Acts 15), was the James of the letter. This would make this letter one of the later writings of the New Testament.

I think the majority opinion is wrong. I believe many internal factors in the letter itself point not only to the founding Apostle James, but also to the historical circumstances behind its composition. If I am right, then this would make James’ letter the earliest New Testament document written, predating even the letters of Paul and especially the book of Romans.

First, my assumptions: first, I believe the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke is a reliable account on the history of the early church. Second, I believe the letter is the work of a single individual and not a composite work written by several individuals using the name of James.

There are several themes in the book that at least point to James the Apostle, one of the three closest associates of Christ (the others being Peter and John). The letter takes many of its teachings almost directly from those of Christ himself. Even if not directly quoted, the exact words of Christ certainly appear to be behind the emphasis of the letter. For example:

• 2:8 references Jesus emphasis on the Law to “love your neighbor”

• 2:13 appears to parallel Jesus’ teaching behind the parable of the unjust steward (Matt 8:23-35) among others.
• 4:11-12’s admonition not to judge or speak evil against a brother parallels Jesus’ same admonition in the beatitudes (Matt 7:1, Lk 6:37).
• 5:12 has the unique teaching of Jesus not to swear oaths at all (Matt 5:33-37; 23:16-23).

This content indicates a personal contact with the teachings of Christ woven into the letter. It must be remembered that James the Brother of the Lord had no such contact with Jesus’ teachings during his public ministry (Mark 3:3-35; Matt 12:44-50; Luke 8:19-21). According to tradition, Jesus’ brother did not believe until after the resurrection. Though not a deal-breaker for the brother, since he could be referencing what others passed on to him, it is an indicator awaiting further verification.

Second, the letter indicates an early date of writing. First of all, the letter has a decidedly Jewish emphasis, as all commentators agree. It is written explicitly to “the twelve tribes of the Dispersion.” The Dispersion was a Jewish term for Jews who did not return to Jerusalem or Judea but remained living in Gentile lands (more on that later). The letter emphasizes the Law and expounding the meaning of the Law through the words of Christ (2:8-13, 4:11-12). Finally, most significantly of all, the recipients of the letter reside in a synagogue (2:2) rather than a church. In my mind, this strongly indicates that the church/synagogue split had yet to occur.

Further indications of an early date are the nature of the conflicts discussed in the letter. There certainly does not appear to be any outside persecution of the church members as Christians. Though trials are mentioned (1:2-4, 12), all of the detail points to internal conflicts among the members of the synagogue rather than with those outside. In terms of outside the community, it appears to be “business as usual” (4:13-14)

Even of more consequence, there does not appear to be a Jewish/Gentile conflict in the letter as would be the case if the letter were written at a later point. These were to Christian Jews living in Gentile lands. Had the message of Paul reached these lands, it would be likely to be referenced in this letter. It is not. Instead, the conflict is between those in the synagogue who were rich and those who were poor (1:9-11; 2:1-7). James for the most part is on the side of the poor members (5:1-6).

Some point to James’ discourse on works and faith (2:14-26) as indicators of a later church conflict, specifically with the teachings of Paul. However, this does not have to be the case. John the Baptist (Matt 3:9; and Jesus (Lk 3:8) himself mention the common belief among the Jews that just the fact that they possessed the Law (Jn 8:33, 39) as children of Abraham secured their “chosen” status. It was this possession of the Law that they “trusted” rather than their obedience to that possession. James could be making his points that such a trust was useless without obedience. In essence, this still could be an entirely Jewish level of discourse.

To be continued

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 21st, 2007 at 2:42 pm and is filed under Biblical Studies, Theology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.