 |  |
While we must remember that James write to the "twelve tribes scattered abroad", he
wrote to them not as Jews, but as believers. He does not "emphasize his physical kinship
with Christ" (as one writer--whose name we withhold--says) but, like Paul, calls
himself, "A servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" (James 1: 1) and speaks of
Christ as "Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory" (James 2: 1). That James addressed
Christian Jews is manifest, for they had been "begotten by the word of truth" (Jas. 1: 18),
and had been called by "that worthy name" (James 2: 7). The same writer who falsely
accused James of "emphasizing his physical kinship with Christ" also says that James
"drags the nation down into the sphere of the flesh, thus preparing the way for their
repudiation by God". We wonder if there is extant a worse example of the effect of
prejudice than this, written, not in ignorance, but as a preparatory note to an examination
or translation of the epistle of James from the original. One would conclude that Paul
had never written such words as: "Faith which worketh by love", or "the obedience of
faith". James says that those who have "respect of persons", who are "partial in
themselves", blaspheme the worthy name by which they are called. Is that a doctrine that
"drags down into the sphere of the flesh"? Does not Paul urge obedience to a master that
the name of God and His doctrine be not blasphemed? (I Tim. 6: 1). Does he not speak
against "partiality"? Does he not speak scathingly of "respect of persons"?
James says:
"If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself, ye do well" (2: 8).
"So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty" (2: 12).
Paul says:
"Brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the
flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this,
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Gal. 5: 13, 14).
Can anyone detect the slightest divergence here? Does one lead up and the other drag
down?
James supports his argument by saying:
"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of
all. For He that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit
no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and
so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty" (James 2: 10-13).
Paul adopts the same method:
"Owe no man anything, but to love one another; for he that loveth another hath
fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt
not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any
other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love
thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the
fulfilling of the law" (Rom. 13: 8-10).