One of the strange things about James’ letter is that Jesus doesn’t seem to be particularly prominent in the epistle. It is perhaps this, as much as discomfort with his take on faith and works which has tended to make it one of the less popular books of the Bible to study or to preach through in church.
Jesus is mentioned by name just twice. In 1:1, James introduces himself as “the servant of our God and our Lord Jesus Christ” whilst in 2:1 he talks about us holding to “the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.” Apart from that, at first appearance, it would seem that Jesus takes a back seat. There is no specific reference to his death and resurrection, to “The Gospel” or even to his life, ministry and miracles. Some people have even suggested that the majority of the letter should be dated pre Christ to one of the many Jewish sects associated with Second Temple Judaism, perhaps with 1:1 and 2:1 added to give it a more Christian flavour.
So, what are we meant to do with a book like this? Should it even be in the New Testament? I want to suggest first of all, that in this regards, James seems to bear a similarity to Old Testament books like Ruth, Song and Songs and Esther. In those books, the Lord is rarely mentioned and certainly neither words or actions are attributed to him at all. In fact, God is not named or mentioned at all in Esther. However, we recognise that those books, each in their own way belong in the canon of Scripture because, implicitly God is involved. He is very much present. It is faith in the God of Israel which draws Ruth to follow Naomi and she ends up an ancestor of Christ. Song of Songs points to the love and intimacy that there is between Christ and his bride. Esther may not mention the Lord but it is very clearly he who raises up Esther “for such a time as this” and delivers the people from genocide.
In the same way, whilst James may not talk much explicitly about Jesus by name or in terms of the Gospel and atonement, I want to suggest that Christ is very much present on every page. First, because when James talks about “faith”, we know from 2:1 exactly what he means by this, he is talking about faith in Jesus and therefore in the Cross and salvation.
Secondly, as you read through the book, you will frequently be thinking “where have I heard this kind of thing before?” And of course, the answer is on the lips of Jesus. James is very close to his brother when he urges love and concern for the poor. Indeed, Jesus would insist that when the believers neglected the poor man in order to heap honour on the rich or when they said “goodbye” and “bless you” without offering practical help then it was Christ, represented by the poor man, who they were failing to love, honour and care for. Jesus would of curse frequently insist that we must be both hearers and doers of his word.
Thirdly, think about those two uses of Jesus’ know. In both cases, James demonstrated a high Christology of the kind that is often associated with much later literature. Jesus is Lord, with all that entails. In fact, he is “Lord of all glory.” James associates service to Christ closely, perhaps inseparably even with serving God. This high view of who Jesus is should be seen as over shadowing, shaping even the content of the letter.
Fourthly, if James does not explicitly mention The Son so much, he does refer to God as Father in 1:17, 1:27 and 3:9. It is only through the revelation of the Son that we come to know God as Father as we are adopted into his family.
It is perhaps worth observing that James also makes little, if any mention of the Spirit. There are two uses of the word at 2:26 and 4:5, in the first and possibly in both verses, the reference is to the human spirit rather than the Holy Spirit.
I want to suggest that the reason why both Jesus and the Holy Spirit seem to be so understated in James is because the letter was written early after the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ and after the coming of the Holy Spirit. This is wise, practical advice to churches who would have been familiar with those truths from recent personal experience. They don’t need to the connections drawn so explicitly because the words of Jesus and events of his life were still familiar with them. James’ aim is to quickly remind them of what they already knew.
What does this mean for us? Well, I think that first, we do need to employ some of the methods we use when applying OT literature or even applying the Gospel texts. We apply James through Christ and the Gospel. Jesus is the one who fulfils God’s royal law perfectly in his love for the vulnerable. Jesus is the one who is not double minded and does not waver in doubt. We read James knowing that because Christ has fulfilled all of these things that we are justified as his obedience, his deeds are imputed to his. We believe in him and it is credited to us as righteousness. We read James knowing that it is only because Christ has died and risen for us, giving us new life, through the Holy Spirit that we can live out our faith as James insists.
Secondly, we need to read James in context, as part of the New Testament canon. If we just follow this kind of teaching, not just by only reading James but by essentially picking out the similar types of teaching through the New Testament, such as classically, the Sermon on the Mount, then we will distort and misunderstand those passages leaving us with an assumed Gospel which leads to legalism and eventually the abandonment of the Gospel all together.
So read James in context, apply the book through Christ and the Gospel, and grasp the significance of those carefully employed references to the names and titles of Jesus and our relationship to him.
Faithroots 