The Literature and History of New Testament Times

by J. Gresham Machen

(2) James and Christian Doctrine.—In the second place, moreover, the Christianity of James is religious as well as ethical. Of course it could not be like the teaching of Jesus if it were merely ethical; for everything that Jesus taught even about the simplest matters of human conduct was determined by the thought of the heavenly Father and by the significance of his own person. But by the religious character of the Epistle of James even more than this is meant. Like all the writers of the New Testament James was well aware of the saving significance of Jesus' death and resurrection. For him as well as for the others, Jesus was Lord, ch. 1:1, and a Lord who was possessed of a heavenly glory. Ch. 2:1. James, as well as the others, was waiting for the second coming of Christ. Ch. 5:8. He does not directly refer to the saving events that form the substance of Christian faith; but he takes them everywhere for granted. The word of truth through which the disciples have been formed by God, ch. 1:18, the implanted word, v. 21, that needs ever to be received anew, can hardly be anything else than the apostolic gospel as it was proclaimed in the earliest speeches of Peter which are recorded in The Acts, and as it found its rich unfolding in the teaching of Paul. Just because that gospel in our epistle is presupposed, it does not need to be expounded in detail. The men to whom James was writing were not lacking in orthodoxy. If they had been, he would have set them right, and we should have had another exposition of the gospel. As a matter of fact their fault was in practice, not in theory; and it is in the sphere of practice that they are met by James. The epistle would be insufficient if it stood alone. It does not lay the foundation of Christian faith. But it shows how, upon that foundation, may be built not the wood, hay and stubble of a wordy orthodoxy, but the gold and silver and precious stones of an honest Christian life.

This epistle, then, might be misleading if taken by itself; but it becomes salutary if it is understood in its historical connections. Far from disparaging Christian doctrine—as the modern Church is tempted to suppose—it builds upon doctrine. In that it agrees with the whole of the Bible. Christianity, as has been finely said, is a life only because it is a doctrine. Only the great saving events of the gospel have rendered possible a life like that which is described in the Epistle of James. And where the gospel is really accepted with heart as well as mind, that life of love will always follow.

2. DATE AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE

The view which will be held about the date of the Epistle of James will depend very largely upon the interpretation of the passage about faith and works. James 2:14-26. In that passage, some of the same terms appear as are prominent in connection with the great Judaistic controversy in which Paul was engaged from the time of the Apostolic Council to the time of the third missionary journey. Three views have been held with regard to the date of the Epistle of James. The epistle may be regarded as written (1) before the Judaistic controversy arose, (2) during that controversy or while it was still fresh in men's minds, or (3) long after the controversy had been settled.

(1) The Intermediate Date.—The second of these three views may be eliminated first. This intermediate view has the advantage of placing the epistle within the lifetime of James. It can treat the epistle as authentic. It has furthermore the advantage of explaining the coincidences between James 2:14-26 and Rom., ch. 4. For if the epistle was written at the very close of the lifetime of James—say about A. D. 62, or, following Hegesippus, A. D. 66—the author may have become acquainted with the Epistle to the Romans.

But the difficulties of this view far overbalance the advantages. If James was writing with Galatians and Romans before him, then apparently in ch. 2:24 he intends to contradict those epistles. As a matter of fact, however, as is shown in the Student's Text Book, he does not really contradict them, but is in perfect harmony with them. He has therefore gone out of his way in order to introduce a formal contradiction of the great apostle to the Gentiles although there is no real contradiction of meaning at all! What could he possibly gain by such useless trouble-making? If James really wanted to combat Paul's doctrine of justification by faith, he would have done so very differently; and if he did not want to combat it, he would certainly not have uselessly created the appearance of doing so.

Perhaps, however, James 2:14-26 is a refutation not of Paul but of a misunderstanding of Paul. This also is very improbable. If the passage was a refutation not of Paul but of a misunderstanding of Paul, why did James not say so? Why did he not distinguish Paul clearly from his misinterpreters? Instead he has indulged uselessly in a formal contradiction of Paul, and has in refutation of a misunderstanding of Paul not even used the abundant materials which Paul himself could offer! And where was such a misunderstanding of Paul possible in Jewish Christian circles of A. D. 62?

What makes every form of this intermediate dating impossible is the total absence from the epistle of any reference to the question of the conditions upon which Gentiles were to be received into the Church. In A. D. 62 this question had recently been the subject of bitter controversy. At that time no one could have touched upon the closely related topic of faith and works as James does and yet have ignored so completely the controversial question.

Evidently, therefore, the epistle was written either before the Judaistic controversy arose or else long after it was over.