Martin Luther was the great reformer who spoke out against the practices of the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th Century. Luther was an Augustinian friar in Germany but he came to reject many of the teachings and the practices of the Roman Catholic Church. In particular, he was very critical of the practice of indulgences. An indulgence was a way to avoid punishment for a sin which a person had committed and the person had to perform certain actions in order to receive this forgiveness - it might mean saying a particular prayer so many times or visiting a certain place or making a payment to a charity. Luther believed that the Bible was his ultimate authority rather than the body of teachings of the church. He said that redemption was entirely a work of God's grace freely given to us and not dependent on our good works. Luther was challenging the authority of the Pope in Rome and he was excommunicated from the Church.
Luther based his teachings on the writings of the apostle Paul in his epistle to the Romans. Luther was not comfortable with the letter we are currently studying. He described James's Letter as 'an Epistle of straw' and said that it was 'destitute of evangelic character.' It is understandable how Luther could misinterpret this amazing letter in his zeal to reform the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th Century. However, James was not advocating anything like the practice of indulgences nor was any of his teaching contradicting the centrality of faith in Christ alone. What James was clarifying was that someone who has genuine faith will demonstrate that faith in practising a life of good works. He was condemning Jews for their idea that their belief in Yahweh as the One God was, in itself, made them righteous in God's sight.
Here is a quotation from an old commentary which seems to sum up the apparent discrepancy between the writings of Paul (which Luther admired so much) and this letter from James.
"the two apostles, while looking at justification from distinct standpoints, perfectly harmonize and mutually complement the definitions of one another. Faith precedes love and the works of love; but without them it is dead. Paul regards faith in the justification of the sinner before God; James, in the justification of the believer evidently before men." [Jamieson, Fausset and Brown]
I want to spend a short time unpacking the statement which these commentators make - looking at justification from distinct standpoints. I am indebted to another more recent commentary by Scot McKnight for the following points.
James's writing is heavily influenced by the Torah (which primarily referred to the first five books of the Bible but could be used to refer to the entire Hebrew Bible (Old Testament).
His letter is closely aligned to the teachings of Jesus Christ and James declared clearly in the first verse of his letter that he is a 'servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. So his teaching from the Law of Moses is based on Jesus interpretation.
There is little emphasis on the Jewish ritual and he does not follow the teachings of the Pharisees who were in constant conflict with Jesus.
He does not equate good works with slavishly following the burdensome restrictions on which the Pharisees based their 'faith.'
James is well-respected in the mother church at Jerusalem, the first church which was established after the crucifixion and resurrection. James is a principal figure and pillar of that church and he is writing to Jews who would recognise his authority
Paul, on the other hand, bases his teaching on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and his encounter with Him on the road to Damascus.
Paul was also a Jew and had a deep understanding of the Torah and his perspective is that of a Jew who had come to faith in Jesus of Nazareth as the Jewish Messiah.
Paul's ministry was primarily to the Gentiles although he never ceases to be a Jew and to have a deep affection for his own people.
Scot McKnight provides a useful whole Bible perspective and speaks about reading the Bible as Story, 'a macroscopic plot that puts the whole Bible together and that, with proper nuances and differences, animated the ideas of each Biblical author.' [Scot McKnight: The Letter of James (The New International Commentary on the New Testament) page 3 (Kindle Edition)] In the last few years I have critiqued a dispensational approach to the study of the Bible which compartmentalises parts of the Bible instead of seeing the whole message of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation as one 'story' of redemption. Scot McKnight sees James's contribution being to see God's Story as the Story of Israel. James is addressing Jews, the twelve tribes in the Dispersion, who are part of God's covenanted community and nation which had broken this covenant and had suffered divine consequences. However, this breach of God's Covenant is mended in Jesus the Messiah.
"James reads the Bible (intertextually) as Story with a plot that comes with a new chapter in Jesus Christ. Yet, James's reading of the Story is not one of replacement so much as of fulfilment." [Scot McKnight: The Letter of James (The New International Commentary on the New Testament) page 5 (Kindle Edition)]
Comentários