Over at David B. Capes’ website, I recently posted this comment as a brief summary of what I believe is the Christology in the the Letter of James:
The letter of James, the brother of Jesus, is a Jewish writing oriented toward wisdom theology. It focuses more on daily living and existential practice than on doctrine and dogma, although the writer’s own theology and theology of the target audience can be adduced by what he writes. This is also the case with the writer’s Christology.
The letter of James draws an ontological distinction between God and Jesus Christ (1:1). God is identified as the Father (1:26) and Jesus Christ is called “Lord” (1:1; 2:1; cp. 3:9) in the opening verses (as discussed below, “Lord” was probably also understood to refer to God). This distinction is also drawn in 1:13-15 where God is said to be the one who does not tempt with evil, nor can he be tempted with evil. Since the target audience would have been well aware of Jesus’ temptations in the wilderness, they would understand him to be someone other than their God – the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. To the writer, the God of Israel and the Father is one and the same. Reference is made to the sovereign truth of the Shema in 2:19 – so much so that not even the demons deny it – which the writer understood to be referring to God, the Father, the same One who befriended Abraham (2:23). The same One – God who is the Father – is the One identified in OT reference as He who “opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (4:6, cp. Prov. 3:34). To submit to God (4:7) and to submit to the Lord (4:10) could either refer to the same Person (cp. 2 Chr. 34:27), or to God and Jesus respectively.
God is to be asked for wisdom (1:5), and the “Lord,” probably the risen Jesus, is understood to be the one from whom what is requested is also received (1:8). The victorious would receive the crown of life (1:12) from the One they love. Some textual variants read “he,” others “the Lord” and yet others “God” from whom the crown would be received. Ultimately all good gifts come from the Source of these – “the Father of lights” – from whom “birth” is given by the word of truth, rendering these newly born “first-fruits” (cp. Ro. 8:23; 1 Cor. 15:20). From an earlier writer, the risen Jesus Christ would be the first among the first-fruits (1 Cor. 15:23).
Reference is also made to God’s righteousness (1:20; cp. Ro. 1:17; 3:21, 22; 10:3; 2 Cor. 5:21) and to His having chosen the poor to be “rich in faith” and be “heirs of the kingdom.” Allusion to Deuteronomy 7:6 and 14:2 is probably made here, as well as to Psalm 33:12, Isaiah 43:10 and 65:15, understood to have been ultimately fulfilled in first-century followers of the Lord Jesus. In these OT texts, the selection as heirs of this kingdom was understood to be made by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God also of Jesus.
Some texts have been used to show a high Christology in their reference to Jesus. The rationale employed is usually the kurios-YHWH relationship in the LXX. Almost by default, then, the kurios title as it refers to Jesus is understood to be YHWH and the conclusion made that Jesus is somehow ontologically identical to YHWH. There are several problems with this favourite interpretation.
Firstly, the title kurios could apply to more than God alone (Matt. 10:24, 27:63; 1 Pet. 3:6). In the case of the Messiah, Jesus was understood to be the human Lord, representative of YHWH, according to Ps. 110:1. This second Lord was never understood to be anything other than a glorious human. Crowned with glory, it is fitting for the writer of the letter of James to call Jesus the Lord of glory (2:1, cp. 1 Sa. 2:8, Ps. 8:5). Elsewhere this divine glory would be attained by humans who would be transformed by the same Spirit which transformed Jesus the Messiah (cp. Ro. 6:4, 8:18, 2 Cor. 3:18, 4:6; 1 Pet. 4:14).
Since the writer understood the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to be the Father, and Jesus to be someone else, possible explanation is required for references, such as “Lord of hosts,” (5:4), “prophets who spoke in the Lord’s name” (5:10) and that the “Lord is full of compassion and mercy.” (5:11; cp. 2 Cor. 1:3). Clearly these references could either apply to YHWH of the OT, or to Jesus who by derived authority acted in YHWH’s behalf. In Jesus, the Messianic King, YHWH would come (5:8), he would judge (5:9, cp. Ac. 17:39), and in His Name the sick would be anointed and raised up (5:14, 15, cp. Ex. 23:21).
While a high Christology can be derived from the Book of James, keeping it within a first-century Jewish Sitz im Leben paints a picture different from the ontologically divine Lord Jesus of later Church councils.[1]
[1] Cp. Maurice Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God, p. 109.
Jaco's Blog 