James 1:1 - Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible

Bible Comments

Introduction.

Note here the standard formula for a letter, that is, name of the sender, name of the recipient, and greeting. This was a typical opening to a letter in ancient times.

‘James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.'

The majority evidence points to this as being James, the Lord's brother. Through the death of Jesus he has become the heir to the throne of David, but to him that is as nothing compared with the privilege of being a servant of the Lord, Jesus Christ.

There are two ways of looking at the word ‘servant' here. The first as indicating that he is, in privilege, in the line of the great men and prophets of old, the ‘servants of YHWH'. And the second as indicating a servant in relation to his ‘lord'.

If we see it in terms of the first the term ‘My servant' or ‘The Servant of YHWH' was used in various ways, with various degrees of honour. Only Moses and Joshua were actually given the title of ‘the servant of YHWH', and in both cases it was posthumously. For Moses as the servant of the Lord (YHWH: Greek - Kurios, ‘Lord') see Deuteronomy 34:5 Joshua 1:1 and often; 2Ki 18:12; 2 Chronicles 1:3; 2 Chronicles 24:6. For Joshua (Greek Jesus) as the servant of the Lord (YHWH) see Joshua 24:9; Judges 2:8. Thus we have here the great Lawgiver and the great Deliverer who each had bestowed on them after their death the title ‘the servant of YHWH'. Both were types of the great Servant of YHWH (Isaiah 42:1; Isaiah 49:3; Isaiah 49:5; Isaiah 52:13) of Whom it was said that the coastlands would wait for His Law (Isaiah 42:4), and that He would restore Israel (Isaiah 49:6) and be a light to lighten the Gentiles in bringing them deliverance (Isaiah 42:6-7) taking YHWH's salvation to the ends of the earth (Isaiah 49:6). He was to be both Lawgiver and Deliverer. It is not likely that James had this in mind.

However, Abraham was spoken of by YHWH as ‘My servant' (Genesis 26:24; compare Psalms 105:6; Psalms 105:42) as were Jacob and his ‘descendants' (Isaiah 41:8-9; Isaiah 44:1-2; Isaiah 44:21; Isaiah 45:4; Isaiah 48:20; Jeremiah 30:10; Jeremiah 46:28; Ezekiel 28:25), and Moses (Numbers 12:7-8; Joshua 1:2; Joshua 1:7) and Caleb (Numbers 14:24).

David the king (2 Samuel 3:18; 2 Samuel 7:5; 2 Samuel 7:8; 1 Kings 11:32; 1Ki 11:36; 1 Kings 11:38; 1 Kings 14:8; 2Ki 19:34; 2 Kings 20:6; 1 Chronicles 17:4; 1 Chronicles 17:7; Psalms 89:3; Psalms 89:20; Ezekiel 34:24) and Zerubbabel, the ruler of ‘Israel' after the exile (Haggai 2:23) were also spoken of by YHWH as ‘My servant' and the prophets were described as ‘My servants the prophets' (2 Kings 17:13; Jeremiah 25:4; Jeremiah 25:9; Jeremiah 29:19; Ezekiel 38:17; Zechariah 1:6, compare Daniel 9:10; Amos 3:7). See also the use of ‘My servant' of Job (Job 1:8; Job 2:3; Job 42:8); of Isaiah (Isaiah 20:3); of Eliakim (Isaiah 22:20) and of Nebuchadrezzar, in his case by ‘YHWH' as ‘the God of Israel' (Jeremiah 43:10; Jeremiah 46:26). But the people in general who were true to Him were also called ‘My servants' (Isaiah 43:10; Isaiah 65:8; Isaiah 65:13; compare Psalms 34:22 and often; Isaiah 56:6; Isaiah 65:15; Isaiah 66:14) and ‘the servants of YHWH (Psalms 113:1; Psalms 134:1; Psalms 135:1; Isaiah 54:17). And, of course, Isaiah spoke of the coming great Servant as ‘My Servant' (Isaiah 42:1; Isaiah 49:3; Isaiah 49:5-6; Isaiah 52:13 compare Isaiah 50:10).

It will be noted how many inflections there are to the idea. With Moses and Joshua it was especially a posthumous title of great honour as the potential introducers of the Kingly Rule of God. David was unique in that YHWH paralleled him as His servant with Himself (2 Kings 19:34), He would act ‘for His own Name's sake and for David's sake'. Again the thought is of ensuring the maintenance of the Kingly Rule of God established by David. In other cases it indicated the privilege of serving YHWH, and the intimate concern that YHWH had for His servants. Thus if James had this in mind, and it must surely have been in the back of his mind, he was putting himself in line with all who served YHWH in the Old Testament.

On the other hand it is also probable that, while having this background in mind, it is the humbling emphasis of the title that he was mainly thinking of. He was not by it seeking to exalt himself as some great one (others did that for him). He was seeking to express his heartfelt gratitude to God and the Lord Jesus Christ for ‘His' goodness towards him as his Master, aiming to indicate the seriousness of his purpose. He was writing as the Lord's servant, and indicating what his attitude of mind was to his readers. He was the slave of His God and Lord, Jesus Christ, and all that he wrote had in mind pleasing Him and accomplishing His will among His people.

‘Of the God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.' In the Greek the phrase is emphasised by its position in the sentence, and there are no definite articles in it, although we should bear in mind that with such nouns as ‘God' and ‘Lord' the article was often to be assumed. It therefore leaves it open to ambiguity. We can translate in a number of ways. But in which ever way we do it, it is impossible to avoid the fact that James is equating the two titles in such a way that they are seen as parallel. We can compare here Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 8:6, ‘we have one God, the Father -- and one Lord, Jesus Christ'. Given the fact that ‘Lord' is the translation of YHWH's name in the Old Testament, and that in the Greek world it was used in parallel with ‘gods' as describing ‘gods' this is a clear indication of deity. There is no question but that the Rabbis would have seen it as blasphemous.

It could signify:

1) God on the one hand and ‘the Lord, Jesus Christ' on the other, but with an emphasis in the latter case on Lord (the idea of kurios = YHWH would have been one thing in mind to one who read the Scriptures in both Greek and Hebrew).

2) A deliberate contrast between ‘God and Lord' and himself as a servant so that he has over him both One Who is his God, and One Who is his Lord, (and thus is ‘the Lord, Jesus Christ').

3) Jesus Christ as his ‘God and Lord'. This would tie in with the parallel idea in 2Pe 1:1; 2 Peter 1:11, where we have ‘our God and Saviour Jesus Christ' and ‘our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ', where the article before ‘God' and ‘Lord' indicates that the link with Saviour indicates the One person (compare for this usage James 3:9, ‘the Lord and Father).

Whichever way we see it there can be no doubt that taken in its natural meaning this is an indication of deity. James is recognising the great gap between himself and his ‘Lord', and putting his Lord on the divine side of reality. (How then could he also at the same time have said ‘the brother of the Lord'? It would have been incongruous).

We should also note the significance of the other names. ‘Jesus' means YHWH is salvation', and was given because He would ‘save His people from their sins' (Matthew 1:21). Indeed the story of His naming was presumably regularly told in the household of Joseph and Mary, something which would have gained new significance after His death and resurrection. ‘Christ' means literally ‘Messiah'. Thus James is also stressing His Messiahship. These inflections would be obvious to all his readers.

It is sometimes suggested that the letter is somewhat short on references to Jesus Christ who is named only here and in James 2:1. But that is to ignore a number of things. Firstly it is to ignore what we see here. For James often speaks of ‘the Lord', and certainly in James 5:7-8, where we read of ‘the coming of the Lord', that can only mean the Lord Jesus Christ. It is apparent that, to James, God and ‘the Lord', Jesus Christ, can be spoken of almost in the same breath. Thus the letter could be seen as having a number of references to Him (at least James 1:1; James 2:1; James 4:15; James 5:7-8; James 5:14-15). Furthermore he also refers to ‘the worthy/honourable Name by which you are called' (James 2:7). The idea of the Lord, Jesus Christ thus underlies the whole narrative.

James 1:1, ‘To the twelve tribes who are of the Dispersion.'

For a detailed argument indicating that ‘the twelve tribes' means the whole church, including ex-Jews and ex-Gentiles (Galatians 3:28) as in the new ‘Israel' in Christ, the ‘Israel of God' (Galatians 6:16), see the introduction. The phrase is also used in the Shepherd of Hermas to indicate the same, when Hermas (Similitudes 9. 17) explains that the twelve mountains in his vision ‘are the twelve tribes who inhabit the whole world, to whom the Son of God was preached by the apostles'. Hermas had evidently read James. Compare also its use in Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30, for which see our commentaries. There too in our view it means the whole church. James had a strong sense that the church was the true Israel (not what some call the ‘spiritual Israel' in contradistinction to Israel, but the actual continuation of the real Israel, made holy by cutting off and engrafting as had always been the case), founded on Jesus as the new Vine (John 15:1-6), and then on the Apostles (Matthew 16:18; Ephesians 2:20). He saw it as the ‘new nation' of Matthew 21:43, established first in Jerusalem (Acts 1-9) but then spreading outwards to take in the Jews who became Christians, many of whom were then dispersed by persecution (Acts 8:1), which James saw as the new Dispersion, and ‘grafting in' the huge number who turned from being Gentiles to enter the new Israel as followers of the Messiah, who were also dispersed around the world. This was Israel as God had always intended it to be, an Israel throbbing with spirituality and life.

Many scholars see it as indicating all Christian Jews but this is unlikely in view of the fact that the writer, while stressing inter-church behaviour, never deals with the question of how the Gentiles fit in. To have written just to Jews worldwide, and to totally ignore the Gentiles who shared with them the same synagogues and churches, without dealing with that question, would have been to be seriously divisive, and certainly unlike the ever considerate compromiser (in a good sense) James is revealed to be in Acts 15:21. It would have been a separatist letter suggesting a division in the church. Some therefore, recognising this, argue that it is written to the Christian Jews in Judaea, but that is to give a totally new meaning to the term ‘the Dispersion', which in fact regularly indicates Jews outside Palestine. Why not also then give a new meaning to ‘the twelve tribes', one already used by Jesus?

James 1:1, ‘Greeting.'

It is noteworthy that this greeting only occurs elsewhere twice in the New Testament. The first is as used by James, the Lord's brother and the elders in Acts 15:23, in a letter to the churches, and the second is as used in Acts 23:26 of the greeting from the Roman tribune in a letter to the Procurator about Paul. It has been seen as support for the idea that the writer was James, the Lord's brother. On the other hand it might be seen as a common non-Biblical greeting. Either way it is an opening greeting intended to indicate oneness and love/loyalty with those to whom it is written.

James 1:1

1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.