Salvation in James: Gift and Responsibility[1]

Part 1 of 3

I suspect for many readers of the New Testament that the Letter of James is something like the odd uncle at a family Christmas party who unfortunately suffers from chronic halitosis. Someone you rather not talk with, but in the end you are related鈥攁nd thus might owe the obligatory yearly conversation.

Well, if this does not accurately describe the church鈥檚 reception of James, it certainly represents the attitude of many scholars. For example, Andrew Chester notes 鈥淛ames presents a unique problem within the New Testament. The questions that loom over it are whether it has any theology at all, and whether it should have any place in Christian scripture.鈥[2] James has been described as 鈥渢he 鈥楳elchizedek鈥 of the Christian canon鈥,[3] and even less charitably James has been called 鈥溾榡unk mail鈥 of the Second Testament.鈥[4] Martin Dibelius, one of James鈥 most influential interpreters of the first half of the twentieth century, concluded that the disconnected sayings of James are so incoherent that the letter 鈥has not theology.鈥[5] Furthermore, Martin Luther showed little regard for this writing when he characterized James as a 鈥渟trawy epistle鈥 (German: strohern Epistel) in comparison to the works of Paul, Peter, and the Gospel of John, which 鈥渟how thee Christ.鈥[6] These sentiments, both of modern scholarship and Luther鈥檚, openly express what many more have suspected, namely that James, in Mariam Kamell Kovalishyn鈥檚 words, is 鈥淕od-lite and human-heavy.鈥[7]

In light of these negative assessments of James, it should come as no surprise that the interpretation of James has been dominated by the question of how James is related to Paul. The problem with this, simply put, is that when James is read in light of Paul, James 2:14-26 becomes the center of gravity for James. In essence, the entire letter is reduced to one phrase in James 2:24: 鈥渁 man is justified by works and not by faith alone.鈥 When viewed merely in the shadow of Paul, the vast majority of James鈥 message is eclipsed.

Let me put a fine point on this tension鈥攆or Paul, justification comes through faith alone and not by works (Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16); however, for James, justification is inextricably linked with works (2:14鈥26, especially 2:24). Faced with this apparent contradiction, reading James usually becomes an attempt to harmonize James鈥 notion of salvation with the correct notion in Paul.

Now, we could rehearse all the possible ways scholars harmonize Paul and James, or we could look at those scholars who think they are in hopeless contradiction. Yet, I don鈥檛 think this is a helpful way to hear James鈥 particular contribution to soteriology. Rather than approaching James through Paul, we should first attempt to hear James on his own terms. Taking James on his own terms reveals a bit of a different picture鈥攖hat is, rather than James 2:14-26 standing as the center of gravity for James, one would take the controlling themes introduced in the opening verses (1:2-4) as a starting point for understanding the text.

So, rather than reducing James鈥 syllabus to merely 鈥渁 man is justified by works and not by faith alone鈥 (2:24), we should rather also include, and even start with: 鈥淐onsider it a great joy, my brothers, whenever you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing [approving] of your faith produces endurance. But let endurance have its perfect [teleion] work, so that you may be perfect [teleioi] and complete, lacking nothing鈥 (1:2-4).

The Overarching Plan

In three separate posts, we will work through three sections in what follows. First, we will consider the function of the 鈥渨ord鈥 and the 鈥渓aw鈥 as God鈥檚 gracious gifts for salvation. Here we will specifically look at James 1:18 and 1:21. The second section focuses on James 2:12-13 where 鈥渕ercy鈥 triumphs over judgment. Finally, we will think through the section of James that is always in contrast with Paul鈥擩ames 2:14-26, but we will attempt to understand James鈥 discussion of 鈥渇aith鈥 and 鈥渨orks鈥 in light of what James himself has argued about salvation in chapters 1 and 2.

So in this first of three posts, let鈥檚 start with logos and nomos鈥攖hat is 鈥渨ord鈥 and 鈥渓aw鈥濃攁nd how these gifts of God function in salvation.

Word and Law: James 1:18; 21 (22-25)

Look at James 1:16-18: 鈥淒on鈥檛 be deceived, my beloved brothers. Every generous giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or the slightest hint of change. In fulfillment of his own purpose he gave us birth by the logos of truth, that we would be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.鈥

As we enter this first passage, we must note James clearly speaks to those who already have faith (1:3)鈥攖hat is the letter is addressed to readers who already have faith in Jesus Christ. And in 1:12, James has pronounced a blessing on those who 鈥渆ndure鈥濃攖hey 鈥渨ill receive the crown of life鈥 (that is, they will receive the crown, which is life!).

But we need to start here specifically looking at 1:18 because this is the first direct statement in James regarding how individuals are saved. First, we should notice the metaphorical language James has been using from verses 14 through 18. Look in 1:14-15: 鈥淏ut each one is tempted when he is dragged away and enticed by means of his own desire. Then when desire conceives, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is full grown, it gives birth to death.鈥 Then in verse 18, it is by God鈥檚 will that he 鈥済ave us birth.鈥 The verb 鈥済ives birth to鈥 in verse 15 is the same verb used in verse 18 to describe God鈥檚 action. So note, the language of birth is used to describe how 鈥渄esire鈥/鈥渟in鈥 on one hand, and 鈥淕od鈥檚 will鈥 on the other works鈥攖hat is, desire can 鈥渂irth鈥 one unto death or God can 鈥渂irth鈥 one unto life. Though subtle, it seems the author intends this contrast between human 鈥渄esire鈥 and 鈥淕od鈥檚 will.鈥

Birth by 鈥渢he word of truth鈥 in verse 18 is an act of God鈥檚 will, God himself is the precipitating force of 鈥渂irth.鈥 That is, the 鈥渂irth鈥 here is by God鈥檚 choice and through his action鈥攖he participle at the beginning of the verse can be rendered, 鈥淚n fulfillment of his own purpose.鈥 Kamell notes that, 鈥淭his verse does not state only that God was willing, as if he merely acquiesced to such an event, but that God willed the new creation into being 鈥 as if to say that God鈥檚 willingness is the only reason James鈥 addressees had for their communion with God.鈥[8] Again, we see God鈥檚 boule (鈥渨ill鈥) is in contrast with human epithumia (desire).

The life God births in his people is 鈥渁 kind of firstfruits of his creatures.鈥 What does this cryptic phrase mean? 鈥淔irstfruits鈥 recalls the Old Testament idea of offing God the first portion of the harvest, or the firstborn of the flock鈥攂asically the idea of the tithe due to God. In the New Testament, 鈥渇irstfruits鈥 is often used to describe Christians鈥攕pecifically as those who are experiencing now the final redemption all creation will experience in the future, thus firstfruits. Note the imagery of both creation and re-creation standing alongside one another in this verse. God is implicitly the Creator of 鈥渉is creatures,鈥 an idea that also surfaces in 1:17鈥攈ere God is the 鈥淔ather (creator) of lights.鈥 So, the notion that God is the creator of all things is clearly implied here. Yet, also James鈥 audience is called the 鈥渇irstfruits鈥 among these creatures. These readers are the leading edge of God鈥檚 work in the recreating of the world, they are the renewed covenant community, the first portion of what God will finally do in all of creation in the end! Scot McKnight notes that in this phrase 鈥渋s a profound indicator of James鈥檚 inaugurated eschatology鈥︹ as well as an indication that God intends 鈥渢o restore individuals in the context of a community that has a missional focus on the rest of the world.鈥[9]

The means by which (鈥渂y鈥 is instrumental dative) God brings about this birth is 鈥渢he logos of truth.鈥 For Jewish readers, God鈥檚 鈥渨ord of truth,鈥 alongside a reference to creation in the same verse, would automatically connect to God鈥檚 creative word in Genesis 1 where, by the words of his mouth, God called into being the material world. Note again, God鈥檚 action in creation and his action in redemption are both accomplished through 鈥渢he word of truth.鈥 And with the connection between God鈥檚 word as both the agent of creation and the agent of redemption suggests here God鈥檚 restoration of creation. True believers are reborn by the word, bringing in echoes of Nicodemus and his conversation with Jesus (John 3:1-21). So the 鈥渨ord of truth鈥 is God鈥檚 instrument through which he 鈥済ives birth鈥 to a new-creation community.

The salvific 鈥渨ord鈥 of 1:18 is quickly followed by the 鈥渋mplanted word鈥 of 1:21, which is able to 鈥渟ave your souls.鈥 Verse 21 reads: 鈥淪o put away all filth and evil excess, in humility receive the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.鈥 Here again we see that the 鈥渨ord鈥 is a central feature in salvation. Clearly the phrase 鈥渨hich is able to save your souls鈥 refers to final redemption鈥攖o salvation. But the question remains, 鈥淲hat is the 鈥榠mplanted word鈥? And how might it save the soul?鈥

The precise term 峒斘枷喯呄勎肯 (鈥渋mplanted鈥) is not common in the biblical literature, but the Septuagint consistently uses the related compound verb 魏伪蟿伪蠁蠀蟿蔚蠉蠅 for the promise of restoration in the land as God鈥檚 promised people, beginning as early as Exodus 15:17. Particularly important are the prophetic uses, especially Jeremiah 31:27-28:

鈥淭he days are coming,鈥 declares the LORD, 鈥渨hen I will plant (蟽蟺蔚蟻峥; cf. Matt. 13), the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the offspring of men and of animals. Just as I watched over them to uproot and tear down, and to overthrow, destroy and bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant (魏伪蟿伪蠁蠀蟿蔚蠉蔚喂谓),鈥 declares the LORD.

This passage, combining several of the terms for planting, reveals that throughout the Old Testament the metaphor of planting refers to God鈥檚 work of restoration and that this will be worked out in community. Those who have endured in faithfulness will be planted in God鈥檚 time and location, thus ending Israel鈥檚 exile. The shared 蠁蠀- root terms suggest at least a conceptual link between James and Jeremiah 31 as well as to the prophetic tradition of God鈥檚 promise to restore those who faithfully endure (cf. Amos 9:14-15; Ezek. 17:22-23).

Furthermore, the text of Jeremiah 31 famously promises that at the time of the new covenant the law would be written on people鈥檚 hearts, and Jesus picks up on this promise and appropriates it for his own work at the cross. One interpretation of James鈥 鈥渋mplanted word鈥 is that it is a reference to Jeremiah鈥檚 prophecy of this promised internalized Torah planted within the hearts of the people of God.

Doug Moo argues for this view, insisting that here James is alluding to the 鈥渋nternalized instruction鈥 of God in Jeremiah 31. He claims

that James鈥 description of the law as 鈥減lanted in鈥 the believer almost certainly alludes to the famous 鈥渘ew covenant鈥 prophecy of Jer. 31:31-34. According to this prophecy, God would enter into a 鈥渘ew covenant鈥 with his people and would, as part of that new covenant arrangement, write his law on the hearts of his people (v. 33). The law that God had first communicated to his people in written form will now be internalized, undergoing transformation and perhaps modification in the process.[10]

Moo later adds that 鈥淛ames鈥檚 language reminds his readers that they have experienced the fulfillment of that wonderful promise 鈥 God plants [the logos] within his people, making it a permanent, inseparable part of the believer鈥 that will lead to their ultimate salvation. He further notes that 鈥淛ames here portrays salvation as future from the standpoint of the believer,鈥 a customary view in the New Testament, 鈥渨here the verb 鈥榮ave鈥 and the noun 鈥榮alvation鈥 often refer to the believer鈥檚 ultimate deliverance from sin and death.鈥[11]

Now, just as a side note, others have argued emphatically rather than a reference to the internalized Torah of God promised by Jeremiah, the 鈥渋mplanted word鈥 is actually innate reason given at creation by God.[12] Now this has some merit because the word 鈥渋mplanted鈥 can mean 鈥渋nnate鈥 in several contexts, and the Greek word logos is very broad in its semantic range鈥攊t could mean logic, reason, argument, word, etc. At a conference this summer I read an entire monograph arguing that here James actually takes up the Stoic idea that God implanted natural reason in every human being at creation and that James now argues that through this inborn reason individuals are saved. What tells against this understanding of 鈥渋mplanted word鈥 most sharply is the fact that that James鈥 readers are commanded to 鈥渞eceive in meekness鈥 this 鈥渋mplanted word.鈥 Rather than innate reason, this 鈥渋mplanted word鈥 must be humbly received鈥攖hat is, God has done a work in the readers鈥 lives, and they must now respond to this gracious act in humble and active reception.

Along with Moo, Richard Bauckham, argues that the 鈥渋mplanted word鈥 of 1:21 is connected to Jeremiah鈥檚 new covenant. Bauckham notes that the 鈥渋mplanted word鈥 is linked to the 鈥渓aw of freedom鈥 in 1:25 and 2:12, and claims that the 鈥渨ord/law鈥 refers 鈥to role of the law in the new covenant of Jeremiah 31(Septuagint 38): 31-34鈥.鈥[13] If this can be argued as background for James鈥 understanding of 鈥渨ord鈥, it explains both James 1:18 and 1:21.

In 1:18, God (not human desire) gives birth to his people by the 鈥渨ord of truth鈥濃攖he word is God鈥檚 word of creation and redemption. In 1:21, the 鈥渋mplanted word鈥 refers to Jeremiah鈥檚 promise that God would 鈥減ut my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.鈥 Aligning both 1:18 and 1:21 then, the birth language is God鈥檚 action in internalizing this 鈥渨ord鈥 or covenant on his people鈥檚 hearts. This is new birth, salvation by the will of God through the 鈥渨ord of truth.鈥 And these readers are birthed into a new relationship with God as his children, as ones who know him covenantally through the law of the New Covenant now made internal. Ultimately for James, this is God鈥檚 law mediated through the life and death of Christ, where James鈥 readers are the 鈥渇irstfruits鈥 of that future day when all will 鈥渒now God鈥 as Jeremiah had foretold鈥攖he leading edge of God鈥檚 new covenant community.

This understanding also provides the smoothest transition from James 1:18 and 21 to James 1:22-25. In this famous passage, James commands his readers to be 鈥渄oers of the word, and not hearers only.鈥 Being a 鈥渄oer of the word鈥 is further described as 鈥渙ne who looks into the perfect law, the law of freedom鈥 (1:25). This has caused students of James problems for why would there be such an abrupt change from 鈥渨ord鈥 (1:18, 21, 22-23) to 鈥渓aw鈥? But there is good reason to think that 鈥渨ord鈥 and 鈥渓aw鈥 are referring to the same thing.

Richard Bauckham argues:

It is difficult to be sure what James means by the unparalleled term 鈥榣aw of freedom鈥 (1:25; 2:12), but in a context of Jewish thought the reference is presumably to the freedom to serve God, freedom from sin, freedom from the evil inclination which otherwise succumbs to temptation and produces sin and death (1:14-15). In that case, it should probably be related to 鈥榖irth by the word of truth鈥 (1:18; cf. Ezek. 11:19; 36:26; Ps. 51:[50]:10?) and 鈥榯he implanted word鈥 (1:21; cf. Jer. 31:27?), which give the ability to overcome the evil inclination and set one free to serve God in obedience to his law. Behind these ideas would seem to lie Jeremiah鈥檚 prophecy of the new covenant (31[LXX 38]:31-34; cf. Ezek. 11:19-20; 36:26-27). The prophecy is not of a new law, but of the law, God鈥檚 law, put within one and written on one鈥檚 heart (Jer. 31:33).[14]

Thus, the 鈥渨ord鈥 is the means of initial rebirth in v. 18, though implanted by God in v. 21, it must also be received in meekness. In James 1:22-25 it is clear that true believers must know and do 鈥渢he perfect law of freedom.鈥 Ralph Martin argues, 鈥溾榯he perfect law鈥 is none other than the 鈥榳ord implanted鈥 in the hearts of responsive believers. It is the 鈥榣aw鈥 of love to one鈥檚 neighbor as well as the law written on the human heart. Both ideas stem from the eschatological fulfillment of the new covenant prophecy of Jer. 31:31-34.鈥 Furthermore, Martin claims that the 鈥渓aw鈥 in James is that which Jesus taught, which neither equals nor abandons the Torah but 鈥渋ncludes, expands, and deepens the demands of the 鈥榦ld鈥 law.鈥[15]

To summarize so far: this 鈥渨ord/law鈥 gives birth (1:18) and is able to save (1:21). The 鈥渨ord/law鈥 is likely the fulfillment of Jeremiah鈥檚 promise of God鈥檚 law written on the heart. This 鈥渨ord of truth鈥 and 鈥渋mplanted word鈥 thus is a new character, a new heart鈥檚 disposition created in us. It must be received (1:21) and, as the 鈥渓aw of freedom鈥 it must be obeyed (1:22-25). Thus, the 鈥渨ord/law鈥 in James is God鈥檚 instrument for salvation鈥攊t is both gift and responsibility. In the next post we will consider how mercy triumphs over judgment in James chapter 2.


[1] This series is indebted throughout to the careful and thought-provoking work of Mariam Kamell Kovalishyn.

[2] Chester and Martin 1994: 3, emphasis added.

[3] Penner 1999: 257.

[4] Elliott 1993: 71, though not his own opinion.

[5] Dibelius 1976: 21.

[6] Preface to the New Testament, 1522; see also, Luther鈥檚 Works, vol. 35, p. 362.

[7] Mariam J. Kamell, 鈥淚rrevocable Nature of Salvation: Evidence from the Epistle of James,鈥 Testamentum Imperium 2 (2009): 1.

[8] Mariam J. Kamell, 鈥淪oteriology of James in Light of Earlier Jewish Wisdom Literature and the Gospel of Matthew鈥 (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of St. Andrews, 2010), 137.

[9] McKnight, James, 131.

[10] Moo, James, 32, emphasis mine.

[11] Ibid., 87-88.

[12] Jackson-McCabe, Logos and Law.

[13] Bauckham, James, 141.

[14] James, 146.

[15] Martin, James, 51, 67 respectively.听