Letters for the Church

Reading James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, and Jude as Canon

Darian R. Lockett

• Publisher: IVP Academic
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN: 9780830850891
• eBook ISBN: 9780830850907
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

Biblical Foundations Book Awards Finalist

The Catholic Epistles often get short shrift. Tucked into a few pages near the back of our Bibles, these books are sometimes referred to as the "non-Pauline epistles" or "concluding letters," maybe getting lumped together with Hebrews and Revelation. Yet these letters, Darian Lockett argues, are treasures hidden in plain sight, and it's time to give them the attention they deserve.

In Letters for the Church, Lockett reveals how the Catholic Epistles provide a unique window into early Christian theology and practice. Based on evidence from the early church, he contends that the seven letters of James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, and Jude were accepted into the canon as a collection and should be read together. Here Lockett introduces the context and content of the Catholic Epistles while emphasizing how all seven letters are connected. Each chapter outlines the author, audience, and genre of one of the epistles, traces its flow of thought, and explores shared themes with the other Catholic Epistles.

The early church valued the Catholic Epistles for multiple reasons: they defend orthodox faith and morals against the challenges of heretics, make clear that Christianity combines belief with action, and round out the New Testament witness to Christian faith and life. By introducing the coherent vision of these seven epistles, Letters for the Church helps us rediscover these riches.

Chapter One

The Letter of James

THE LETTER OF JAMES is the first of the Catholic Epistles and one of two letters we have from the brothers of Jesus (Jude is the other). James’s placement as the first Catholic Epistle and its connection to Jude within this collection was noted in the ancient church. Eusebius, the church historian, records: “Such is the story of James, whose is said to be the first of the Epistles called Catholic . . . as is also the case with the Epistle called Jude’s, which is itself one of the seven called Catholic” (Hist. eccl. 2.23.24–25). Reflecting on this passage, John Painter concludes, “James and Jude, the brothers of Jesus, form . . . the bookends of this collection.”1

James and Jude show signs of connection both at the beginning and ending of their letters. The letter opening of Jude identifies the author as “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James” (Jude 1). The reference to James not only draws a connection between James and Jude as brothers but also suggests an association between the two letters as well. Also, rather than draw on the family relationship with Jesus to support their authority, both James and Jude call themselves servants of Jesus Christ (Jas 1:1; Jude 1). These connections at the beginning of each letter are accompanied by an interesting connection between the ending of the letters. The final exhortation of James, situated just after a discussion of prayer, brings the letter to an abrupt end and instructs believers to recover a fellow brother or sister from “the error of his way” (Jas 5:20), and the final exhortation of Jude calls for believers to have mercy on those who waver or dispute. Both letters end with a command for restoration. These connections reinforce the relationship between James and Jude, which in turn functions like a bracket defining the boundaries of the Catholic Epistle collection.2

OCCASION AND SETTING

Authorship. Unlike several of the other letters in the New Testament (for example the letters of Paul), James does not contain many concrete hints regarding the letter’s original occasion or historical situation. Looking at the letter itself, the text claims to have been written by “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Jas 1:1). The name “James” (Hebrew, Ya͑ăqōb; Greek, Iakōbos) was a very common name in the first century, and it is likely that a well-known James must be in view because the letter contains no further description of the author’s identity. If this is accurate, two questions arise: First, what well-known individual named James is in view, and, second, after identifying this James, is this individual the actual or historical author of the letter?

Taking up the first question, though in the New Testament there are several individuals named James, only two are clear possibilities who could have authored the letter. First, James the son of Zebedee, who was the brother of John and one of the Twelve (Mk 1:19; 5:37; 9:2; 10:35; 14:33) and acted as a prominent member within the circle of Jesus’ disciples. Yet he was put to death by Herod Agrippa I in AD 44 and thus much too early to author this letter (see Acts 12:2). Second is James, “the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:19). Though he was not one of the twelve disciples or a follower of Jesus during his ministry, James, the Lord’s brother, was well known due to his relationship to Jesus. After Jesus’ resurrection, he became a disciple (Jn 7:5; Acts 1:14) and influential leader of the Jerusalem church (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18), where he served until his death in AD 62. James, the brother of Jesus, was widely known and respected as the leader of the church in Jerusalem and therefore is likely the James referred to in this letter.

Though scholarship is virtually unanimous in concluding that James, the Lord’s brother, is the James referenced in James 1:1, there is little to no consensus regarding whether he was the actual author of the letter. For much of the modern era scholars have argued that this letter was composed between AD 80 and 120 by an unknown author. Due to its lack of coherence, Martin Dibelius concluded that James must have been drawn together from several sources and could never have been sent as a real letter.3 Further, the letter was relatively slow to receive acceptance into the New Testament canon, and it seems unlikely that the flowing style of the Greek and Hellenistic concepts used in the text could have been produced by a Jewish carpenter in Galilee. These objections have largely been addressed in recent scholarship.4

The first clear reference to James as both authored by the Lord’s brother and fully canonical appears in Origen some time before 253.5 Jerome states that James only gained recognition in the church “little by little” (Jerome [ca. 393], Lives of Illustrious Men 2). In the end, James was fully accepted in the Western church at the Synod of Hippo (ca. 393) and the Third Council of Carthage (ca. 397).

A number of scholars have argued that James, the brother of Jesus, was the actual historical author.6 For these scholars, three factors strengthen this conclusion: first, the similarities in the Greek between the letter and James’s speech in Acts 15:13-21; second, the way in which the author loosely alludes to Jesus’ sayings, which would be less likely after such traditions were written down in the Gospels; and third, lack of any reference to the destruction of the Jewish temple. Rather than appealing to his family relationship with Jesus, the author only mentions his position as a “servant” (doulos, “slave,” Jas 1:1) of God and the Lord Jesus Christ. For some, the author leaving out reference to his familial relationship with Jesus reinforces the authenticity of authorship.7

If James, the brother of Jesus, wrote the letter, the composition date would be roughly between AD 46 and 62. The upper limit is fixed because about the year 62, when the procurator Festus died, the high priest, Ananus II, had James stoned to death—at least according to Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.23.3-17; see also Josephus, Ant. 20.200). Those who argue the letter was produced by an unknown individual writing under the pseudonym of James, however, insist on a date between AD 80 and 120.

Audience. As with the historical author, the letter contains very little information about the identity of the audience. Typically, identifying the audience rests on how one understands the phrase “to the twelve tribes dispersed abroad” (Jas 1:1). There are two prevailing interpretations: first, some argue that the address to the twelve tribes is a metaphorical reference to the Christian church. Rather than indicating anything about the readers’ geography or ethnicity, this reference describes the audience as the “true Israel” who are exiled (on the earth) from their proper home (heaven). There are, however, some difficulties with this view. For example, the New Testament never records an instance where the tribal constitution of Israel (“the twelve tribes”) is used to refer to the church. Though Paul famously refers to the church as the “Israel of God” (Gal 6:16), there are no references to the church as “the twelve tribes.” A second view understands the address to the twelve tribes as a reference to Christians of Jewish heritage. On this view, the title “twelve tribes” alludes to the twelve sons of Jacob, who became the leaders of the twelve tribes of Israel. Likewise, the term diaspora (translated in the CSB as “dispersed abroad”) was used to denote Jews living outside Palestine (see Jn 7:35). More than just a term to convey Jewish exile, diaspora also communicated God’s displeasure and punishment of his people for their sins. In the New Testament, the term diaspora usually does not refer to the church (yet note the prominent exception in 1 Pet 1:1), which might be another indication that the recipients of the letter were Christian Jews living in either Rome or Syria, or perhaps in various locations throughout the Mediterranean world.8

The identification of the recipients as Christian Jews may be further strengthened by several features of the text: the free use and expectation that the readers would understand the Old Testament (Jas 1:25; 2:8-13), the reference to their meeting place as a synagōgē (Jas 2:2), their faith in the Lord Jesus as “Christ” or “Messiah” (Jas 2:1), and the use of Old Testament and Jewish metaphors. Furthermore, there has been a lively discussion as to whether the audience was poor (Jas 1:9-11; 5:1-6) or a mix of rich and poor members. This has been notoriously difficult to determine with confidence, yet one should note that James addresses his readers as neither rich nor poor in James 2:1-13. Regardless of their social and financial standing, it is clear that the audience was experiencing hardships (Jas 1:2-4; 5:7-11) and that such external pressure created tensions within the audience (Jas 4:1-2, 11-12).

If James, the brother of Jesus, is the author of the letter, it is then likely that he wrote from Jerusalem within the time frame that James was a leader there. The Palestinian setting of the letter’s composition is strengthened by internal factors: merchants seeking profits (Jas 4:13-17), absentee landlords defrauding a poor and landless labor force (Jas 5:1-6), and social and legal repression of the economically disadvantaged (Jas 2:5-7).9

Genre. Many of the historical conclusions regarding James have been profoundly influenced by the work of Martin Dibelius. Dibelius argued that James belongs to a type of writing called paraenesis, a collection of unoriginal maxims or proverbs designed to give moral instruction.

Paraenesis is characterized by a loose collection of moral sayings and essays held together by catchwords (repeated words or related terms that connect otherwise unrelated material). There are clear examples of moral sayings or proverbs (Jas 2:13, 26; 3:12, 18; etc.), essays (Jas 2:1-13, 14-26; 3:1-12; 3:13–4:10), and catchwords (greeting/joy, Jas 1:1-2; lacking/lacking, Jas 1:4-5; etc.) in James. And clearly both paraenesis and James contain many imperatives. Dibelius argued that such literature generally lacks literary coherence, theological content, and social location, yet a majority of scholars have questioned each of these conclusions regarding paraenesis in general and as applied to James specifically.

That the text opens with the form of a letter challenges the conclusion that James lacks any social location. James 1:1 contains a stereotypical form of letter opening, consisting of the formula of parties (“person x to person/group y”) and a salutation (“greetings”) typical of most ancient Greek letters. The other two typical elements of a first-century letter are a letter body and a salutation. James clearly contains a text body (Jas 1:2–5:6, or all the way to Jas 5:20); it does not, however, end with the typical letter salutation. Many have noted that James does not contain any personal greetings, requests, or specific information, some of which would be expected in a typical letter. These conspicuous omissions have led many to deny James as a real letter at all and thus maintain that the loose letter form in James is fictional. Others, notably Richard Bauckham, claim that the crucial point is that the letter opening makes James formally a letter whether it was ever sent or not.10

While James seems to have been a real letter, many have noted that the letter body closely resembles Jewish Wisdom literature. James, like Jewish Wisdom literature, characteristically gives commands, instructions, and specific examples (namely, contrasts between the wise and foolish), all of which direct the readers on the path of discipleship. The letter contains several brief, direct, and practical admonitions and bears a specific concern for wisdom in the lives of the readers (Jas 1:5; 3:13-17). Many have noted that James most closely resembles the Old Testament book of Proverbs and the apocryphal book of Sirach, books that communicate practical insight and instruction in the conduct of life. While the body of James bears all the characteristics of Wisdom literature, the opening frames the text as a letter. Thus, thematically and structurally James belongs to the tradition of Jewish Wisdom literature, though it was fashioned (and probably sent) as a letter.11

Going Deeper: Two Ways in James

Because James sharply contrasts life versus death and the humble versus the proud, the letter has been compared to the “two ways” motif. The two ways was a typical motif that appeared in Jewish Wisdom literature. It uses the imagery of a road or path in order to contrast positive and negative actions, all to illustrate the stark difference between the path of the righteous and the path of the wicked. In Jewish tradition, the two ways motif finds its origins in the blessings and curses associated with the covenant, especially found in the Pentateuch (Lev 26:1-39; Deut 28; 30:15-20) and in Hebrew Wisdom literature (Ps 1). The motif draws on the image of ways, roads, or paths, which in turn are used as metaphors contrasting the life of righteousness or unrighteousness, life or death, or wisdom or foolishness (and, in Greco-Roman literature, virtue or vice).

A typical characteristic of the two ways is that it highlights not only the path or way but also the ultimate end or goal of a particular path or way of living. The fact that at the end of the path is reward or punishment finds illustration in Deuteronomy 30:15: “See, today I have set before you life and prosperity, death and adversity.” Growing out of Jewish wisdom tradition, the two ways motif developed from the blessings and curses derived from a this-worldly covenantal context to a way of talking about eschatological blessing and punishment.

James contains several elements of t...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Dedication Page
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1 The Letter of James
• 2 The Letter of 1 Peter
• 3 The Letter of 2 Peter
• 4 The Letter of 1 John
• 5 The Letters of 2–3 John
• 6 The Letter of Jude
• Conclusion
• Author Index
• Scripture Index
• Notes
• Praise for Letters for the Church
• About the Author
• More Titles from InterVarsity Press
• Copyright