James 1.1 and 2.1.

[Ken Olson]

Ben

How do you understand these two verses from James?

1.25 But those who look into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and persevere, being not hearers who forget but doers who act—they will be blessed in their doing.

2.12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.

Is the perfect (or completed) law, the law of liberty (a seeming oxymoron), different from the law given by Moses? If so, when was the law perfected and what is the law of liberty? On my reading, it would seem that the law has now been completed or perfected as the law of liberty, and, under the law of liberty, people are free from something by which they would otherwise have been bound.

I think we have a good context for understanding this in Paul. In Gal. 3.23-26 and many other passages, Paul explains that the law has been superseded (in this case by means of Jesus Christ through faith):

23 Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. (Gal 3.23-26).

Liberty or freedom (eleutheria) is not an especially common word in the NT, being found in the two quoted verses in James, seven times in Paul (four in Galatians alone) and once each in 1 and 2 Peter. When Paul uses it, he seems to mean especially freedom from the Mosaic law, for example in his account of the Antioch incident, in which the “circumcision faction” apparently discovered that Jews were eating with uncircumcised Gentiles at the church in Antioch:

2.44 But because of false brethren secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage

Paul insists that Christians are no longer in bondage to circumcision and the rest of the law, but in a state of freedom or liberty:

Gal. 5.1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.2 Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law.

Yet in the same chapter, Paul argues that this freedom is not an unqualified freedom:

3 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

This qualified freedom that Christians receive from Christ is later called the law of Christ:

Gal 6.1: Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Look to yourself, lest you too be tempted. 2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

The ins and outs of Paul’s view of freedom can result in some complex passages. Though Paul is free, he made himself a slave, and while he is not under the (presumably Jewish) law he is under the law of Christ:

1 Cor. 9.19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law—though not being myself under the law—that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law—not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ—that I might win those outside the law. 22

Paul’s position that Christians are free from having to observe Jewish law (see Rom. 14.1-9 on dietary laws and holy days) yet need to keep away from sin (see Rom 6.1-15) can lead to some complex reasoning. But the point seems to be that freedom from the law under faith and grace does not make one free to sin (i.e., one is not free from the ethical rules).

I would suggest that the oxymoronic law of liberty in James 1.25 and 2.12 (actually 2.8-12) is a simplified, more user-friendly version of Paul’s “freedom in Christ” and “law of Christ,” under which Christians do not have to follow the Jewish law but do have to follow the moral law exemplified in “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

[John2]

Ben wrote:

I think for that variant to work the text would have to have something about the name. Otherwise it comes across as: "You have heard it said, 'Do not swear falsely,' but lo, I say unto you, 'Do not swear falsely.'" There is no contrast.

The "falsely" looks to me like a clear case of (clumsily) disposing of the absolute prohibition. The saying went beyond the Torah, and the variant brought it back closer to the Torah.

The name is in the underlying Lev. 19:12 and/or Num. 30:2:

Do not swear falsely by my name and so profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.

When a man makes a vow to the Lord or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said.

I reckon that Jesus' hearers would have understood this even though he doesn't completely cite the verse(s).

Mt. 5:33:

Again, you have heard that it was said to the ancients, You shall not swear falsely, but you shall keep your oaths to the Lord.

So what Jesus is saying (by Gordon's reckoning) is to not swear falsely at all:

Mt. 5:34-36:

But I tell you not to swear [Heb: falsely] at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is His footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor should you swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black.

That the variant brings it closer to the Torah makes sense, since Jesus had just said in Mt. 5:17-20:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

I suppose we could quibble about "to fulfill them" and "until everything is accomplished," but whatever that may mean, he says that the entire Torah down to the smallest letter and stroke will not disappear "until heaven and earth disappear" and that anyone who sets aside any of it "will be called least in the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus was simply stricter about the Torah than the Pharisees, like he is with divorce and adultery, i.e., he doesn't forbid divorce, he tightens the requirements for it. The Pharisees allowed it more or less "any reason" in Mt. 19:3:

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

Mt. 19:9:

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

And this is his position in Mt. 5:32 too:

But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

This is simply his interpretation of Dt. 24:1, which was stricter than that of the Pharisees.

When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house,

Same goes for adultery.

Mt. 5:27-28:

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Jesus isn't doing away with any of the Torah, he is only interpreting it more strictly than the Pharisees and scribes. This is why he says in Mt. 5:20:

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

[John2]

Ben wrote:

I imagine you will find my interpretation of "brother of the Lord" difficult, and that you will want to interpret Mark as standing, through Peter, closer to the original tradition than this theory would imply. Is that correct?

Yes.

This scenario would explain why, in your words, Luke "chose not to mention" that James was Jesus' brother: Luke was either not aware or not convinced that he was. Either his copy of Galatians lacked 1.18 (like some ancient copies apparently did) or Luke interpreted that line in the same way that my tentative reconstruction does; and it would be easy to assume that Jesus' brother James in Mark was a different James, since that was a pretty common name, especially given that Mark 15.40 calls him "James the Less" instead of something uniquely designating James of Jerusalem (James the Just or what have you).

Doesn't "James the less" simply mean "James the younger," i.e., that he was Jesus' younger brother (if it is referring to James the Just), like the "little ones" in Mk. 9:42? And at this point in time James wasn't the leader of the church or even a believer and didn't necessarily have the title "the Just" yet, right? And why would he be called "of Jerusalem"? If he was Jesus' brother I assume they would have come from the same place (i.e., presumably not Jerusalem).

I suppose it's possible that Luke had a variant Galatians (or understood "brother of the Lord" not literally) and/or might not have recognized that the James in Mk. 6:3 was James the Just. But I have a hard time accepting the idea that the original Hebrew Matthew (which pre-dated Papias, including even translations of it) and Hegesippus (the earliest Christian historian) made up the brother relationship. Maybe if there is another example of something like this happening to someone else I might give it more consideration. Otherwise it just seems unlikely to me (not to say it would be impossible, it just seems convoluted to me).

And I've been thinking about why James doesn't mention his relationship to Jesus in his letter (assuming for the moment that it is or purports to be James the Just). I can't think, offhand, of any instance where James himself says he is Jesus' brother, even in Hegesippus. The very idea seems weird anyway. Let's take James 1:1 and 2:1 for examples (assuming that they aren't interpolations).

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, [my brother].

My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ [my brother], must not show favoritism.

And Hegesippus in EH 2.23.13:

And he answered with a loud voice, 'Why do you ask me concerning Jesus, the Son of Man, [my brother]? He himself sits in heaven at the right hand of the great Power, and is about to come upon the clouds of heaven.'

That seems weird to me. And it seems to go against what James is preaching, to not show favoritism and to "Humble yourselves before the Lord, and He will exalt you" (James 4:10). Maybe James is just walking it like he talks it. But it seems less weird for someone to say they are a brother of James, since James was just a regular guy and not (in my view) God (or Daniel's "son of man").

[Ben C. Smith]

Doesn't "James the less" simply mean "James the younger," i.e., that he was Jesus' younger brother (if it is referring to James the Just), like the "little ones" in Mk. 9:42?

I would think that the epithet was meant to distinguish this James from other men of the same name, like most epithets do. If it were meant with relation to Jesus himself, it would probably be "James (the brother of) Jesus."

And why would he be called "of Jerusalem"?

Because place names also served as epithets.

But I have a hard time accepting the idea that the original Hebrew Matthew (which pre-dated Papias, including even translations of it) and Hegesippus (the earliest Christian historian) made up the brother relationship. Maybe if there is another example of something like this happening to someone else I might give it more consideration. Otherwise it just seems unlikely to me (not to say it would be impossible, it just seems convoluted to me).

Well, Eastern tradition turned the disciple Thomas into Jesus' twin brother. Tradition also turned Salome into the wife of Zebedee and mother of James and John, and also turned her into the cousin of Mary, thus making Jesus and the brothers Boanerges first cousins twice removed. This sort of thing happened quite a lot, really, which is one of the reasons I am suggesting it may have happened in this case.

And I've been thinking about why James doesn't mention his relationship to Jesus in his letter (assuming for the moment that it is or purports to be James the Just).

The failure to identify James as the brother of Jesus in the epistle is just another datum alongside many to me; it means little on its own. I am more concerned, for example and if anything, with why Jude is identified by James and not by Jesus.

[John2]

Ben wrote:

Well, Eastern tradition turned the disciple Thomas into Jesus' twin brother. Tradition also turned Salome into the wife of Zebedee and mother of James and John, and also turned her into the cousin of Mary, thus making Jesus and the brothers Boanerges first cousins twice removed. This sort of thing happened quite a lot, really, which is one of the reasons I am suggesting it may have happened in this case.

My understanding is that Thomas might be another name for Jesus' brother Jude (and that the name Thomas and Didymus mean "twin"), so maybe Jude really was Jesus' twin brother (not that I've looked into it deeply).

Some have seen in the Acts of Thomas (written in east Syria in the early 3rd century, or perhaps as early as the first half of the 2nd century) an identification of Saint Thomas with the apostle Judas, brother of James, better known in English as Jude. However, the first sentence of the Acts follows the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles in distinguishing the apostle Thomas and the apostle Judas son of James. Others, such as James Tabor, identify him as Judah, the brother of Jesus mentioned by Mark. In the Book of Thomas the Contender, part of the Nag Hammadi, he is alleged to be a twin to Jesus: "Now, since it has been said that you are my twin and true companion, examine yourself…"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Apostle

Didymus (Greek) and Thomas (Aramaic) both mean "twin".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas

Ben wrote:

I would think that the epithet was meant to distinguish this James from other men of the same name, like most epithets do. If it were meant with relation to Jesus himself, it would probably be "James (the brother of) Jesus."

But if it is referring to James the Just, then we would already know that he is Jesus' brother from Mk. 6:3, so wouldn't calling him the younger in 15:40 imply that he is Jesus' younger brother?

Ben wrote:

Because place names also served as epithets.

Well, sure, but as I said, James was presumably not from Jerusalem. I suppose he could have been called "of Galilee" or wherever, just (again, presumably) not Jerusalem, is all.

And Ben wrote:

I am more concerned, for example and if anything, with why Jude is identified by James and not by Jesus.

My guess would be because it would distinguish him from other Judases and perhaps augment his status, and he would not be humbling himself before the Lord (as per James 4:10) if he said he was Jesus' brother. And in James' case it wouldn't necessarily be needed to augment his status to call himself James, brother of Jude; and to not call himself the brother of Jesus (or even the Just) in his letter seems in keeping with 4:10 to "humble yourselves before the Lord" (and which he appears to do in 1:1: "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ").

[John2]

I see that Rousseau, for one, mentions the Thomas-possibly-being-Jesus'-brother-Jude angle along with the "humbling" element I'm suspecting in Jesus and His World: An Archaeological and Cultural Dictionary:

Another Judas, brother of Jesus, appears in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55; the Letter of Jude (Judas) begins with "Judas, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James." Because James was a brother of Jesus and became the first "bishop" of Jerusalem, it is possible that this Judas claimed brotherhood only with James and presented himself as a servant of his oldest brother Jesus out of modesty and reverence for the venerated founder of the new movement.

https://books.google.com/books?id=c-q2Q ... in&f=false

[John2]

Ben wrote:

Tradition also turned Salome into the wife of Zebedee and mother of James and John, and also turned her into the cousin of Mary, thus making Jesus and the brothers Boanerges first cousins twice removed. This sort of thing happened quite a lot, really, which is one of the reasons I am suggesting it may have happened in this case.

This is a new one to me. First off, who is Salome? I've heard somewhere that this is the name of one of Jesus' sisters, but I gather his sisters are unnamed in the NT (Mk. 6:3: "Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?"). I see only two occurrences of this name in the NT (Mk. 15:40 and 16:1).

http://biblehub.com/greek/4539.htm

[John2]

Oh, I see, the Salome in Mk. 15:40 and 16:1 is Jesus' sister if 15:40 also refers to James the Just. Hm.

[John2]

I'm going to have to sort through this one, starting with this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salome_(disciple)

[John2]

So it starts with Mk. 15:40.

Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome.

And Salome may or may not be related to Mary, to judge from this.

Then the parallel in Mt. 27:56 says:

Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.

And she may or may not be related to Mary here too, I'm thinking. So if that's the case, then she hasn't necessarily been "turned into" anyone else, she was always (at least in Matthew's mind) the mother of Zebedee's sons. Is that a fair reading?