The Theology of James

William Varner
Professor of Biblical Studies
The Master’s College

It appears that scholarship on the Letter of James has finally escaped the enormous shadow cast

over the book by the four hundred year influence of the Germans Martin Luther and Martin

Dibelius. Most writers today believe that James is far more important than the infamous “straw”

of Luther and more organized than the disjointed “paranesis” of Dibelius. But have we moved

closer to correctly analyzing the beliefs of James, and can we now even dare to describe the

theological truths that drove his writing?

It is probably better to speak about a “theology of the Letter from James” rather than a

“theology of James,” since we have only one short writing from the man not including his brief

speech in Acts 15. Even then there have been a number of writers who are skeptical about

discerning any distinct Jacobean theology in the letter. Its stress on upright living has led some to

think that the writer had little theological interest. Dibelius (again) puts it bluntly: “First, Jas has

no theology.”1 Others prefer the expression, “leading ideas,” rather than a “theology” of the

book.2 James desires us, however, to live out our Christian profession, and not just to “be moral”

without any foundation from which to construct that morality. The letter exhibits acquaintance

with a number of OT books, possibly some extra-biblical writings, and clearly a number of the

the teachings of Jesus. His practical matters proceed from a firm theological substructure, but

1
Martin Dibelius, Commentary on James, trans. Michael Williams, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976)
21.
2
Dale C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of James (ICC; New York: Bloomsbury,
2013) 88-94.
one that is often more implied than expressed. Douglas Moo has remarked perceptively about the

book’s supposed lack of theology:

So if by “theology” one means a system of beliefs explicitly built on the person of Christ,
then, indeed, the letter of James lacks a “theology.” But such a definition of theology is
much too narrow. If we expand the definition to include teaching grounded in an
understanding of God and his purposes in the world, then James is thoroughly
“theological.”3
Even when we recognize that James’ theology is sometimes more implicit than explicit, there

are still a number of distinct theological emphases that emerge in the book.4

God

Theology for James is not abstract but always relevant to life. While He is a firm monotheist

(2:19), the God of James is the One who is quite active in His creation. When we pray for

wisdom, God gives it generously (1:5). He has “chosen the poor in this world to be rich in faith”

(2:5). We are made in God’s likeness, a truth implying that we should not curse anyone (3:9).

Because God is righteous and expects righteousness from His people, He is not tempted by evil

things and also entices no one to sin (1:13). God is the Giver of good gifts only (1:16–18). His

sovereign control of the heavenly lights is a special mark of His power. God is the generous

giver of every perfect gift, and His constant goodness is in contrast with the changing lights of

the sun and the stars in their journeys through the sky.

God’s righteousness demands that we be slow to anger (1:19–20) and that we care for others

(1:27). Rather than the cultic purity so important to observant Jews, James stresses ethical purity

3
D. J. Moo, The Letter of James (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985) 27.
4
For treatments of the theology of James, see the appropriate sections in the various New Testament biblical
theologies. For individual treatments, see A. Chester and R.P. Martin (eds.), The Theology of the Letters of James,
Peter, and Jude (Cambridge: CUP, 1994); C.E.B Cranfield, “The Message of James,” SJT 18 (1965) 192–93, 338–
45; P. Davids, “Theological Perspectives on the Epistle of James,” JETS 23 (1980) 97–103; and S. Laws, “The
Doctrinal Basis for the Ethics of James,” SE 7 (1982) 299–305. The most thorough treatment of the theology of the
epistle is J.B. Adamson, James: the Man and his Message (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989) 259–471.
that is unstained by the world (1:27). The world is in such binary opposition to God that someone

friendly to the world actually becomes His enemy (4:4). Because God resists proud people but

gives grace to the humble ones (4:7), we should, therefore, be submissive to Him (4:7). When we

draw near in this way, He graciously returns the favor (4:8). This is exemplified by Abraham

who was called His friend (2:23). While there is nothing like “theology proper” in James’

thinking and any theological abstraction is absent, his dynamic faith in God is actively displayed

by obedience to Him.

Messiah

Jesus is referred to by name in the letter only twice, but each reference stresses His messianic

person and function (1:1; 2:1). Because of its thoroughly Jewish context, those two references in

English Bibles to his title of “Christ” should legitimately be rendered as “Messiah.” This

translation conveys Jesus as the “anointed one” (Hebrew mashiach) sent by the Father in

fulfillment of a number of Messianic promises. Even if we recognize His Messianic character in

these two verses, this definitely does not exhaust the book’s discussion of Jesus. Allusions not

only to Jesus’ person but also to His teaching are so many that it is not exaggerating to call

James the most Jesus-soaked book in the NT after the Gospels.5 Jesus’ Lordship is affirmed and

it carries a clear implication of His deity. In 2:1 He is associated with “glory,” which assumes

His ascension and session at His father’s throne. In addition there are a number of the references

to “Lord” which must refer to Jesus, particularly to His parousia (5:7–8). The references to

“Lord” in 1:7, 3:9, and 5:4, however, could be references to God the Father, although dogmatism

is cautioned in either direction. In any case, James probably did not think in the finely tuned

5
For a thorough discussion of both certain and probable allusions to the logia of Jesus in James, see Dean B. Deppe,
The Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James (Chelsea, MI: Bookcrafters, 1989).
ontological categories as theologians do. Because of the numerous verbal allusions to the logia

of Jesus, references to the Lord’s compassion and mercy (5:11) probably also refer to Jesus, as

does His readiness to heal the sick who have been anointed “in the name of the Lord” (5:14–15).

These references are not intended to construct a formal Christology, but to convey a practical and

pastoral message about the graciousness of the Lord Jesus and His being ready to hear and

respond to the needs of His followers.6

Holy Spirit

Apart from a disputed interpretation of “spirit” in 4:6, James has no explicit reference to the

Holy Spirit. This has prompted some, and this author is also among them, to suggest that for

James “wisdom” effectively functions as the Holy Spirit does as it does in other σT writings. A

simple comparison of the characteristics of wisdom “from above” in 3:17–18 with the Pauline

fruit of the spirit in Galatians 5:22–23 illustrates this possible identity of wisdom with the Spirit.

The writer who has explored this proposal most thoroughly is Professor J. A. Kirk in an

article that has been neglected by many recent commentators.7 Kirk not only cites the above

description of wisdom in 3:17–18 but also other references where language that James uses about

the gift of wisdom (1:5–8) is paralleled by references to the gift of the Spirit in Paul (1 Cor 12:4–

11; Eph 1:17; Rom 8:9–11, 14–15; Col 1:28). He then traces references to God’s Spirit and

Wisdom in the OT and in Second Temple Period Literature, including the writings from Qumran.

He concludes that there are a limited but significant number of passages in which wisdom and

Spirit are directly identified or have the same functions, and that wisdom is the supreme gift of

For a more critical approach to this subject of Messiah in James, see M. Jackson-McCabe, “The Messiah Jesus in
6

the Mythic World of James,” JBL 122 (2003) 701–730.

There is the clearly ethical connotation given to wisdom (3:13–18) plus the fact that wisdom is a

moral force to help overcome testing and temptation (1:5–8), ministries all related to the Spirit

elsewhere.

While Kirk’s argument may not be as clearly persuasive to all, it can be firmly asserted that

we are not left with a writing that oddly omits the third person of the Trinity. Furthermore, we

should also recognize that James may not have been familiar with the exact terminology with

which later theologians would have referred to the divine Spirit.

Faith

James does not take long to address the subject of faith (πί ις), a noun that he uses sixteen times

while using the verb (πι εύω) twice.8 At the beginning and at the end of the letter he declares

that effectual prayer must be offered in faith (1:6; 5:15). It is that type of prayer that will enable

his readers to maturely handle the “testing of your faith” (1:3).

No treatment of James 2 can avoid the controversial subject of the relationship between faith

and works in the epistle and how his teaching relates to Paul’s celebrated teaching on the same

subject(s).9 The problem for many can be stated by asking how the Reformation distinctive of

sola fide, which is derived primarily from Paul, can be squared with James 2:24: “You see that a

person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” By framing the problem within a later

Reformation context, or even in a Pauline context, we may be wrongly approaching this so-

called problem. Readings of the letter that do not regard it as a foil for Pauline theology are rare.

8
Indeed one evangelical Lutheran commentator (unlike Luther!) refers to James as “the Apostle of Faith.” See
David Scaer, James the Apostle of Faith (St. Louis: Concordia, 1993).
9
We omit the reference to “faith” (πί ιν) in 2:1 because of the disagreement over whether it means “faith” in Jesus
or Jesus’ “faithfulness.”
 An effort will be made to do just that in the subsequent analysis of James 2. Although an

adequate treatment of this issue can only arise from a full exegesis of 2:14–26, the following

should provide a context in which the issues can be explored by a more in-depth analysis.

If either Paul or James is opposing the other, neither has done a very good job, because

neither addresses the central point of the other’s argument. Paul certainly stresses the importance

of faith with such statements as “A person is justified by faith without works of the law” (Rom

3:28), the verse most often cited as opposing James statement in 2:24 (see above). But we should

not concentrate on isolated statements like these or we may naively conclude that there is an

irreconcilable contradiction. In actuality the two writers are not discussing the same subject and

thus cannot contradict one another.

James never belittles faith, as will be seen—and Paul refers to “good works” far more than

James, and always in commendation, not criticism, of them (Rom 2:6; 2 Cor 9:8; Eph 2:10; Col

1:10; 2 Thess 2:17; 1 Tim 2:10; 5:10, 25; 6:18; Titus 2:7, 14; 3:8, 14). This is an article on

James’ theology, not on Pauline theology. What does James say about faith, and what does he

mean by works? If we can answer those questions, we can better determine what it is about

“works” that Paul negates. James says that the believing poor are “rich in faith” (2:5). As we

have already seen, he links faith with prayer (1:6; 5:15). He refers to faith being demonstrated by

works (2:18). He assumes that faith is vital, and his concern is not “Should a person have faith?”

but rather “When is faith dead and when is it alive?”

The kind of faith James criticizes is a faith similar to the one that demons possess (2:19).

Such faith only causes them to shudder. A faith that does not transform the believer is not faith

as James understands it because it is a dead faith. It is the kind of faith that responds to the needy

by some pious-sounding line but does nothing to meet their needs (2:15–16).
 That James is not teaching salvation by meritorious works is shown by his clear teaching on

universal sinfulness (3:2). Sin is not only an act of wrongdoing; to know to do good and not do it

is also sin (4:17). To fail in one point of the law is to be guilty of all (2:10). An author with this

deep understanding of sin does not expect people to save themselves by doing some sort of

meritorious acts to achieve that salvation. James looks for deliverance through mercy (2:13), and

that mercy originates in that sovereignly divine will that leads to our spiritual birth (1:18). James

is simply insisting that faith must be more than barren intellectualism. Like Paul he expects a

faith that works through love (Gal. 5:6). Both Paul and James agree that salvation comes through

divine action, not human merit, and that it is appropriated by a faith that must be lived out in

obedient lives.

Another solution to the conundrum of their similar language is that when these two speak of

justification, they are describing different stages in the life of the believer. While they both

appeal to Abraham, Paul stresses the statement in Genesis 15:6 about the patriarch’s initial step

of faith that was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom 4:3, 9–10). James speaks of a time years

later when Abraham was willing to offer his son (2:21; Gen 22:2–18). Some authors also stress

that Paul uses justification language that refers to the beginning of the Christian life, while

James, along with Jesus in Matthew, uses the term for final justification, which will be displayed

on judgment day.10

Still another factor to keep in mind is the different ways in which James and Paul use the

word works. To Paul, the expression “works of the law” seems to refer primarily to the badges of

national Jewish identity—namely, circumcision, Sabbath keeping, and ritual purity. James uses

“works” to refer not to those national badges, which often would be worn proudly at the expense

of personal faith, but to the deeds of kindness that must accompany those who say they have
10
Many authors have expressed this idea. Among them is Moo, 114.
faith. This is particularly seen in the lack of love shown to the needy poor in 2:15–17. Paul

would equally have been horrified by such a callous attitude by one who professed to have faith

(Eph 2:8–10). Paul would say, in agreement with James, that we should have “a faith that works

through love” (Gal 5:6).

An often overlooked aspect of the way James and Paul approach their respective subjects is

exactly how they each employ that commonly shared text about Abraham: “And he [Abraham]

believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness” (Gen 15:6; cited by James in

2:23 and by Paul in Rom 4:3 and Gal 4:6). It is important to notice the way in which each writer

applies the text in Genesis 15 by referring to different events after the statement recorded in that

chapter. Paul makes the point that the Genesis 15:6 event took place prior to Abraham’s being

circumcised (Gen 17). To Paul this is evidence that the patriarch was a true believer in his

“Gentile” state before he was circumcised. Thus it is unnecessary for Gentiles to be circumcised

to become true believers. Like Abraham, Gentiles can have faith and a righteous standing before

God. This is exactly the context of the problem faced in Romans and Galatians—namely, can

Gentiles be genuine believers without circumcision? Yes, affirms Paul, because Father Abraham

was just such a believer. James, on the other hand, mentions Abraham’s attempted sacrifice of

Isaac at the command of God Himself (Jas 2:21–22; Gen 22). God tested Abraham’s faith by this

difficult command (Gen 22:1), but Abraham’s faith passed the test and thus the statement in

Genesis 15:6 was “fulfilled” (i.e., “found its full meaning”) in the Akedah, or the “binding” of

Isaac. Thus Abraham showed evidence that his faith was genuine, which is the point James is

making to his readers: faith is evidenced as true by one’s actions.

There is one final observation that may help us to understand that James was not consciously

referring to any Pauline writing about justification in Galatians or Romans. If we are correct in
assigning a date to the Letter of James of around A.D. 46–48, then he could not refer to those

Pauline letters that had not yet been written.11 If someone responds that such dating does not

prevent Paul from criticizing James, a valid response would be that such an attitude of correcting

James is totally unlike the Paul in Acts and Galatians who did what James told him to do on at

least three separate occasions (Acts 16:4; Acts 21:23–26; Gal 2:10).

In light of the above evidence, it is not necessary to see a conflict between these two great

leaders on the subject of faith. They each should be read in their own contexts. Rather than

seeing them as opponents facing each other with drawn swords, it is wiser to see them back-to-

back, each with his drawn sword encountering different opponents. When one sees James and

Paul in this way, their letters then make perfect sense and complement rather than contradict

each other.

Last Things

One of the obvious characteristics of the letter is its emphasis on ethical behavior that is drawn

from heavenly wisdom, much like the wisdom literature of Israel’s scriptures and other Second

Temple literature. What is distinctive about James’ admonitions is the eschatological context in

which they are set. He frequently warns believers about the coming judgment in order to

stimulate them to adopt the right attitudes and behavior (1:10–11; 2:12–13; 3:1; 5:1–6, 9, 12).

Additionally, he reminds them of the reward to which they can look forward if they live

pleasingly for the Lord (1:12; 2:5; 4:10; 5:20). In keeping with early Christianity generally,

James insists that the day of reckoning and reward is imminent: “the Lord’s coming is near”;

“The Judge is standing at the door!” (5:8–9). The sense of nearness that James and the other
11
For a defense of this early date, see Richard Bauckham, James: Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage
(New Testament Readings; London: Routledge, 1999) 11–25; Luke Timothy Johnson, The Letter of James: A New
Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AYB 37A; New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995) 118–20.
early Christians felt stemmed from two convictions: (1) now that the Messiah had come and the

new age had dawned, the end of history was the next event in the divine timetable; and (2) this

culmination of history could happen at any time. James, in other words, motivates his readers to

godly living not by insisting that the Lord would come at any moment but by reminding them

that He could.

Though future eschatology is the dominant perspective in James, the present eschatological

nature of Christian existence is not ignored. The assertion that “God has chosen those who are

poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who

love him” (2:5) leaves uncertain whether the kingdom is to be inherited in the future or is even

now the possession of those who are chosen. But in light of “the royal law,” or “the law of the

kingdom,” in 2:8, the latter is more likely. James also alludes to the “new birth” that ushers

believers into the enjoyment of God’s kingdom blessings (1:18). And the most likely

interpretation of 5:3, reflected in the ESV translation “you have laid up treasure in the last days,”

indicates that James clearly understood that believers were already living in the age of

eschatological consummation. Thus James provides sufficient indication that he holds to the

typical σT pattern of “fulfillment without consummation” that some refer to as a form of

“inaugurated eschatology.” It is within the tension of this “already … not yet” that we must

interpret and apply James’ ethical teaching.12

12
Some recent writers have attempted to draw out the implications of James’ eschatology. P. J. Hartin, “ ‘Who is
wise and understanding among you?’ ” (James 3:13): An Analysis of Wisdom, Eschatology and Apocalypticism in
the Epistle of James,” SBL 1996 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: SBL, 1997) 493–501; T.C. Penner, The Epistle of James
and Eschatology: Re-Reading an Ancient Christian Letter (JSNTSup 121; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1996).
Wisdom

Is the Letter of James to be included in the Jewish wisdom literature found in both the canonical

and the later Jewish writings? Some of this literature was read and enjoyed by James and his

contemporaries. While the literature on this subject is extensive, exact parallels and explanations

differ greatly. The German scholar Ernst Baasland, in an essay translated as “The Letter of James

as σew Testament Wisdom Literature,” has surveyed the different ideas and suggested a solution

to the tension between James’ similarity and differences with traditional Jewish wisdom.13

Baasland calls James the “wisdom writing of the σT which connects the closest to τld

Testament wisdom literature.”14 Although only once does he clearly quote Proverbs (4:6), the

ethos of that wisdom book, along with that of Sirach, has left footprints throughout the book.

The Letter of James also has its own uniqueness in this wisdom tradition because of its

evident debt to the wisdom teaching of James’ older brother. In Baasland’s words, “The same

thing that differentiates James from Jewish wisdom writing is what connects James with the

proclamation of Jesus.”15 To James wisdom has received a new center, the starting point of

which is belief in the “glorious Messiah, the Lord Jesus” (2:1), and the manifestation of which is

that the poor will inherit the kingdom (2:5). While there seems to be no dependence on Paul,

neither are they alien, with Paul taking wisdom further into more ontological realms. Baasland

concludes:

The lines of wisdom can be traced back to the wisdom literature of the OT. On the other
hand, we see a line in the NT, which originates in Jesus and stretches over the parts of the
proclamation of Paul (Rom. 2:6, 12; 1 Cor. 1–4, etc.) and which continues over James
and other NT letters up to the Apostolic Fathers (the Clements and Origen).16

13
Ernst Baasland, “Der Jakobusbrief als σeutestamentliche Weisheitsschrift,” ST 36 (1982) 119.
14
Ibid., 120.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid., 139.
 There is an entire paragraph on the subject of wisdom and it is so prominent that it seems to

serve as the thematic peak of the entire book.17 After his initial rhetorical question setting up the

issue of wisdom (“Who is wise and understanding among you,” 3:13a), James calls on his

readers to demonstrate the reality of their wisdom by humility and good behavior (3:13b). In

other words, James is more concerned with describing wisdom from above rather than

theoretically defining it. This description follows closely his emphasis on the two ways, a subject

grounded in OT wisdom literature (Ps 1:1-6; Prov 6-9). It is the stark contrast between these two

kinds of wisdom that dominates the paragraph. The wrong kind, coming from below, is

characterized by envy, selfishness, and disorder (3:14–16)—the opposite of peace. The right kind

of wisdom, coming from above, is above all “peace loving” (the first specific “fruit of wisdom”

listed in 3:17). James then underscores this virtue with his concluding blessing on peacemakers

(3:18). The absence of peace, on the other hand, is obviously the main issue in 4:1–3. The

community is marked by quarrels and arguments, some of them perhaps even violent. And James

traces these disputes to the characteristics of false wisdom that he pointed out in 3:14, namely

envy (4:2) and selfishness (4:3).

Some writers have described the approach of James to wisdom literature as “subverting” the

traditional wisdom tradition and preferring a descriptive title like “apocalyptic wisdom.”18 James

would, however, probably not have viewed his approach to wisdom as being particularly

subversive. He simply approaches the two ways tradition in Hebraic literature as echoed by Jesus

and then applies it to the new kingdom inaugurated by his more famous brother. The poor, for

example, had a definite role in the social message of the Hebrew prophets. Jesus and James

William Varner, “The Main Theme and Structure of James.” TMSJ 22 (Spring 2011) 115–32.
17

For further such reflections on wisdom in James, see also B. R. Halson, “The Epistle of James: Christian
18

Wisdom?” SE 4 (1968) 308–14; Kirk, “Meaning of Wisdom,” 24–38; and J. M. Reese, “The Exegete as Sage:
Hearing the Message of James,” BTB 12 (1982), 82–85.
simply focus their role as being more central to the purposes of God and the Messiah in this

phase of the kingdom plan. This may, therefore, be more accurately described as an extension of

wisdom rather than a subversion of wisdom.

Conclusion

As has often been the case with a number of acerbic comments in Dibelius’ influential

commentary, subsequent writers on James have been able to transcend his blunt statement which

opened this article: “First, Jas has no theology.” Indeed it is difficult to conclude how any writer

who inhabits the symbolic world of Scripture can be without a theology that drives his

conclusions.19 On the other hand, if readers desire to find in James a theology expressed in

“systematic theology” categories, they will be disappointed. But why should we approach any

New Testament book with such expectations? Such definitions of “theology” are simply too

narrow and anachronistic in their expectations. If we expand our definition of the term theology

to include Biblical teaching that is firmly grounded in an understanding of God and his saving

purposes, then James is most certainly and undoubtedly “theological.”20

19
German readers will profit by a recent monograph on Jacobean theology. See S. Wenger, Der wesenhaft gute
Kyrios: Eine Exegetische Studie uber das Gottesbild im Jakobusbrief (Zurich: TVZ, 2011).
20
Some of the concepts in this article have been adapted from the author’s second commentary on James. See
William Varner, James, Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2014).