Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

The Letter of James is arguably one of the most Jewish sounding works of the NT.

Martin Luther’s disdain for James is especially significant. Luther writes in his Preface to the NT that James is an “epistle of straw”[1] because the author rejected the Pauline doctrine of “justification by faith” that is at the heart of Pauline Christianity.[2] By referring to James’ value as “straw,” Luther wished to convey the idea that the Letter of James has no value to a Christian. Luther even argued for its removal from the NT canon because of its “Judaic” overtones.

Traditional Judaism has long stressed that actions speak louder than platitudes about faith. In fact, a person’s faith even says much about that person’s true beliefs and values. That being said, in deference to Luther, Christian scholars have been historically debating about the inclusion of James into the NT canon for nearly 1700 years!

Except for the opening line of James–an obvious interpolation–the rest of James focuses good old fashion Jewish ethics. To the chagrin of Luther, there is no mention about Pauline Christianity anywhere in the book. I suspect this book may have been a favorite among the ancient Jewish-Christian sect known as the Ebionites (the “poor ones”) who regarded Paul the Apostle as a heretic.

The book of James reads much the famous rabbinical work, Pirke Avoth (the “Ethics of the Fathers” which is a short tractate of wisdom aphorisms derived from rabbinical tradition).

Here are some of my favorite passages in James:

• Anyone who listens to the Word, but takes no action is like someone who looks at his own features in a mirror—once he has seen what he looks like, he promptly forgets what he looked like. But the one who peers into the perfect law of freedom and perseveres, and is not a hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, such a one shall be blessed by what he does (NT James 1: 23-25).

James writes in the second chapter:

• So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the Devil believes that and trembles. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?

^{Commentary: Who do you think is the “ignoramus” James is referring to? Obviously he is speaking about anyone who would be foolish enough to follow Paul’s “justification by faith” doctrine that subsequent Christianity accepted, hook, line and sinker. James appears to have held a position similar to the Ebionites, who categorically rejected Paul’s doctrine of the Virgin Birth, as well as his metaphysical belief in the “divinity” of Jesus. The Ebionites regarded the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew as the only true record of Jesus’ teachings, and they also followed all the traditions and laws of traditional Judaism. Most important, the Ebionites rejected the supersessionist claim that Christianity “replaced Judaism,” thereby completely eliminating the Torah’s distinction between Gentile and Jew.}

Here’s another great passage:

• Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.” See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?For just as a body without a spirit is dead; so too, is faith without works also dead” (NT James 2:17-26).

^{Commentary: I would argue Abraham shows more faith by not sacrificing his son! Moreover, this position is more consistent with ethos of James.}

The relationship between Paul and James is very interesting. The NT bears witness to several meetings that took place between these two men. Paul meets James for the first time in Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18-24). What exactly took place, we only know from Paul’s perspective, but it is clear that James and Paul had some serious differences between the two. One suspects that James found many of Paul’s new ideas about Jesus strange and perhaps even outlandish.

They meet again according to Gal. 2:11-14, and it appears that James did not feel like interfering with Paul’s outreach to the Gentile community. Like a good Jew, James was concerned with the survival of Judaism. Interestingly, Paul acknowledges that James had a vision of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:3), but intimates that his revelation was qualitatively superior to that of James and the other original Apostles.

People who read the Bible-whether it be the Tanakh or the NT-tend to eliminate the idea that dialectical and emotional tension plays a significant part of the drama. We tend to read the texts with reverential silence; as readers we fail to sense or add tonality to the words we are reading. This point is especially true when reading either the Talmud or the autobiographical story of Paul. If you read in between the lines, and adopt a “hermeneutic of suspicion,” one may gather from the not-so-humble disclosure of Paul, that there was definitely some bad blood between him and James. I suspect James felt glad that Paul decided to go after the Gentiles and leave the Jewish community alone! Anyone reading Paul’s writings can easily see that James’s role in early Christianity has been downplayed in the tradition(s), and Paul’s version of Christianity-due to his immensely superior marketing skills-won the day.

For those Christian readers who truly admire Paul, I must apologize, but James strikes this reader as the more likeable of the two. When you read James, it is clear he is attacking Paul and the “new” metaphysical Christ that he has invented. James must have felt that his brother Jesus would have been horrified at the way Paul was distorting his ethical message. In the words of James, we discover a man who felt he had a responsibility to clarify what his brother Jesus really taught. It is amazing the designers of the Christian canon decided to keep this subversive little book, because James undermines the message of Paul.

Thoughts on Martin Luther and James . . .

How are we to understand Martin Luther’s negative attitude about James? Despite Luther’s disdain for James, in some ways, Luther would have made James quite proud of him—at least in the beginning of his career. Think back . . . Wasn’t it Luther who opposed the medieval practice of purchasing credit (the first “Buy now, sin later . . .” campaign in Christian history) with God through indulgences and opposed it with his cry of “faith alone”?

Yep, he sure did! Why did he so radically change? Maybe because the book of James reminded him too much of Judaism. Friends, that is one very important reason why Jews ought to study James!

Like Mohammed before him who befriended the Jews only to turn his back against the Jews, Luther also turned his back against the Jews after failing to convert them to his new faith. Just take a took at Mohammed’s ruthless jihad on the Jews of Mecca and Medina.

Although Luther wasn’t as violent as Mohammed, he nevertheless knew how to fan the fire of religious bigotry just like Mohammed. Anti-Semites always seem to follow the same playbook; some are more benign, while others are just plain malignant.

Luther made some Nazi-esque comments about the Jews that goes completely against the ethics that is spelled out in James. In 1543, Luther’s animus probably reached its zenith in a scathing pamphlet, Concerning the Jews and Their Lies, in which he urged the authorities to act against Jews with the utmost severity.

For example:

• Set fire to their synagogues or schools,” Martin Luther recommended in On the Jews and Their Lies. Jewish houses should “be razed and destroyed,” and Jewish “prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, should be taken from them.” In addition, “their rabbis should be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb.” Still, this wasn’t enough.

Luther also urged that “safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews,” and that “all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them.” What Jews could do was to have “a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade” put into their hands so “young, strong Jews and Jewesses” could “earn their bread in the sweat of their brow.”

Is it any wonder why Luther has often been called, “one of the Church Fathers of anti-Semitism”? On November 9–10, 1938, the Nazis decided to actualize Luther’s hatred of the Jew by honoring his memory with Kristallnacht.

You know, the Christian world could have created a much better world by following James’ practical ethics that triumphs good deeds over faith. Jewish tradition would invert Luther’s remarks about James: any faith that is without good deeds, ethics, and nobility of action is about as valuable as an “epistle of straw.”

In Jewish tradition, we find a similar attitude that parallels James’ theology of action.

• R. Ḥanina b. Dosa said, “Every one whose fear of sin precedes his wisdom, his wisdom endures; and every one whose wisdom precedes his fear of sin, his wisdom does not endure.” He also said, “Every one whose deeds are more than his wisdom, his wisdom endures. And every one whose wisdom is more than his deeds, his wisdom does not endure.”[3]

Simply put: Actions will always speak louder than the platitudes of faith.

And now you know, the rest of the story.

Notes:

[1] M.S. and J.L. Miller, Harper’s Bible Dictionary, (New York: Harper and Row Publishers,1973), 301.

[2] Paul taught, “For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Romans 3:28).

[3] Mishnah, Avoth 3:12.