Original Meaning

THE FIRST CENTURY knew of many different kinds of letters.1 In recent years scholars have spoken of two major categories: literary letters (those written with an eye to posterity and in general marked by a concern for style) and documentary or nonliterary letters.2 Of course, a single letter might bear evidence of many “types” of letter writing.

In spite of this variety, the practice of letter writing was quite conservative, for conventions changed little over time.3 Most letters from antiquity, and indeed most of the letters in the New Testament, can generally be seen as of a common type between individuals.4 These follow an established formal pattern: first, the name of the sender; then the name of the recipient; a word of greeting, usually a blessing or the expression of a desire for good health; the body of the letter; and finally the closing. The usual practice in Greek was to employ the term charein (“greetings”) as the word of greeting.5 The typical form in Hebrew was shalom (“peace”), although among Greek-speaking Jews charein was common.6

The book of James is also a letter, but of somewhat different character. It possesses a homiletical quality and reads much like a tract or a didactic essay. This is true for at least two reasons: (1) The letter begins an exposition of its themes almost immediately, with little or no evidence of personal sentiment; and (2) the audience is essentially undetermined. Like other examples in the New Testament, James has altered the standard formula by adding theologically important terms and by including in his opening a précís of the main themes of the letter.

The letter begins with a claim to be written by James. As we have seen,7 there is no viable reason to doubt that James the brother of Jesus is the source for this letter. The author wishes to emphasize several points: While he does bear authority, in character this authority is that of service, and loyalty to Jesus Christ does not in any way diminish loyalty to God.

Servant. James refers to himself as a “servant” (doulos). There is little agreement among the commentators as to his intended meaning. Some8 argue that James wants to distance himself from his readers by assuming the mantle of authority. Others9 claim that James is interested in presenting himself as one among many brothers, with the emphasis on his authority colored by humility. Perhaps it is best to explore the full range of possibilities before determining the meaning of James’s use of doulos.

(1) Slavery. Doulos was the common Greek term for “slave,” although it could also be used for “servant.”10 Our understanding of this term is heavily and unfortunately colored by the American experience, a model that bears almost no resemblance to slavery in the Roman empire. This is true for at least two reasons. (a) Roman slavery had little if anything to do with race.

(b) Roman slavery was far more complex than its modern manifestations, having four major types. (i) The most egregious form was slavery in the mines, normally reserved for criminals or others judged to be enemies of the Roman state. Life expectancy was low, although in spite of this we do know of cases of Christian communities providing care for Christians condemned to the mines.11 (ii) Next was rural slavery. The agricultural manuals of Columella, Cato, and Varro describe unenviable conditions: Work could be performed in chain gangs,12 family life existed at the whim of the owner, and rations could be cut to the bare minimum for slaves when they fell ill.13 (iii) The type of slavery that the New Testament has most often in view is urban household slavery. Here conditions also varied, but we do know of cases where persons sold themselves into slavery,14 counting on rewards of personal benefit. The new master provided food, shelter, and training in a skill. Many scholars believe that urban household slaves could expect manumission (a word referring to the process by which a slave was legally set free) after only a few years of service,15 and some argue that it was nearly automatic at the age of thirty.16 Manumission could be rendered under a variety of conditions, including the awarding of a sum of money to the freed person or even adoption by the master. This helps inform New Testament injunctions to slaves to “please” their masters,17 and perhaps even to masters to “provide your slaves with what is right and fair.”18 (iv) The final type of slavery was imperial slavery—slaves in the household of the emperor. Some of these held positions of power and wealth second only to the emperor himself.19

(2) Old Testament. In the Old Testament the word “servant” (‘ebed) is sometimes used of Israel’s great heroes of the faith, and as such it is a designation of honor. Solomon concluded his prayer of dedication for the temple by referring to Moses in this way: “For you singled them [Israel] out from all the nations of the world to be your own inheritance, just as you declared through your servant Moses” (1 Kings 8:53). Second Samuel 7 is a key chapter that recounts the promise of God to establish an everlasting Davidic dynasty. The chapter describes how the Lord came to Nathan and said, “Go and tell my servant David” (2 Sam. 7:5). In a similar fashion God describes his prophets as “my servants” (Jer. 7:25).

Such passages demonstrate that in the Old Testament the term servant is often used of persons who are placed in positions of authority because they combine loyalty to God with humility before him. This is especially true of the “servant songs” of Isaiah 42–53.20 In summary, the Old Testament often describes a person or persons selected by God to bear authority as “servants.” This designation indicates a humble willingness to be at God’s disposal and to live according to his principles.

It is probably beyond the range of certitude to say that James meant doulos only as a mark of authority over his readers, or only as a mark of solidarity with them. A sober judgment is that he meant something like the early church intended when, in its wisdom, it used the Latin phrase nolo episcopari as the requirement for church office: “I do not wish to be a bishop.” Only those who did not desire personal power could be trusted with authority within the church. Of course, this should not be confused with a strong sense of call. The issue here is integrity and purity of motive. James is a leader because God has placed him in that role, and he has recognized and accepted it; he is not a leader because he desires personal power. James, then, speaks as one with authority, but as one with the mind of Christ, the servant of all.

Lord and God. In this first verse James describes himself as a “servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.” This is an odd construction, found only here in the New Testament. Nor is it as clear as it might first appear. Some commentators have offered the following reading: “Servant of Jesus Christ, who is Lord and God.” This is an intriguing hypothesis, one supported by a variety of admittedly tenuous points. Divine titles are linked elsewhere in James (1:27; 3:9). Moreover, this construction in Latin (dominus et deus) was accepted by Emperor Domitian (A.D. 81–96), a development even the Romans found both extraordinary and unsettling. They were used to granting divine status only upon the death of the emperor.21 Domitian was no friend to the Christians, as he allowed fierce persecution of the early church. In Christian tradition he stands with Nero as a type of anti-Christ, and seems to be so held in the view of the writer of Revelation. Certainly his apparent claim to divine status reminded readers of the “man of lawlessness” in 2 Thessalonians 2.

The apotheosis (elevation to divine status) of the state in the person of the emperor disturbed both Jews and Christians, who together believed that only God deserved such unwavering loyalty. Both were labeled “atheists” by the Romans because they believed in only one God, not the many of Mediterranean paganism. Perhaps James used this formula to designate the one who truly is Lord and God.

Against this position, many hold that the theology of James is too simple to have been written as late as the reign of Domitian.22 In any event it is still possible that James used this construction as a way of countering the claims of the Roman state. In sum, while “Jesus Christ, who is Lord and God” is a grammatical possibility, it is less likely than the traditional reading.

James’s intent here is most likely the same as in Titus 1:1—to demonstrate that loyalty to Jesus Christ does not undermine loyalty to God; that, in fact, they are one and the same.23 Balancing the divinity of Jesus Christ with monotheism was no small problem for early Christianity,24 and the formula James uses constitutes a portion of his answer to this dilemma.

The twelve tribes. James addresses his letter to “the twelve tribes scattered among the nations.” This construction is also unusual. The only parallel in the New Testament is 1 Peter 1:1. There are two main lines of interpretation available: The “twelve tribes” means Jews and/or Jewish Christians, or it refers to the multiracial church.

Those who posit the former view point out the following:

• This is an obvious way of referring to the Jewish nation (e.g., Acts 25:7).

• Parallels in Qumran literature and Haggadah intend ethnic distinctions.

• Phyle (“tribe”), when unmodified, must refer to historic Israel.25

• While the New Testament does use the term in reference to the church, it can use it to refer to ethnic Israel (e.g., Rev. 21:12).

• While a symbolic interpretation of the “twelve tribes” is possible, the addition “scattered among the nations” necessarily limits the referent to Jews, and probably to Jewish Christians,26 although it is possible that James hopes that his letter will have success in attracting Jews to the new faith.

Against this is the view that the phrase in question should be viewed symbolically.

• If the “twelve tribes” must refer to ethnic Israel, then it is unclear how it can refer only to Jews who happen to be Christians. Logic demands that we either understand the term as referring only to all Jews, or else we understand the term symbolically.

• Others argue that while “the twelve tribes” clearly indicates ethnic/geographic Israel, the addition of “scattered among the nations” opens the possibility of a symbolic meaning,27 since after the fall of the northern kingdom the ten tribes were “lost.” The reconstitution of the twelve tribes of Israel belonged to the messianic hope, and the further parallel of these tribes understood as the pilgrimage people of God so closely parallels New Testament usage concerning the church that it is likely James has the multiracial church in view.

• “Twelve tribes” stands for the unity and integrity of the nation of Israel/people of God. The church, in the universal view of the New Testament, is the successor to Judaism in this regard. In the LXX and other Jewish literature, the phrase usually carries a genitive, the genitive of nearer definition, such as the “twelve tribes of Israel” (Ex. 24:4) or “the tribes of Jacob” (Sirach 48:10). The absence of a genitive of nearer definition here does open the way for a symbolic interpretation, especially since the New Testament ascribes to the church all of the ideal attributes of Judaism in relation to God

• The fact that Greek-speaking Jews in Jerusalem could employ a formula that approximated the traditional Hebrew greeting tends to imply an ethnically mixed audience as the intended recipients of the letter of James.28

What can be said by way of summary? James writes in the knowledge that he has been given authority in the church. But he also knows that this authority has the character and tenor of service: service to God and service to others. For this reason he calls the recipients of this letter “brothers.” James addresses his letter to the multiracial church, but the native thought world of the letter is Judaism, the multiform Judaism of the first century, and more particularly messianic Judaism. Finally, James writes with a sensitivity to Jewish monotheism, but desires to make the case that loyalty is due to Jesus Christ, and that this loyalty does not endanger loyalty to God.

Bridging Contexts

JAMES 1:1 HAS several important issues for us to consider in bridging contexts. The first two concern the fashion in which we rightfully can render words employed in Scripture into our modern context. The third deals with the idea of service, a key idea in this verse. How can we faithfully bridge the gap between the cultural and theological content of that idea in the first century with our own definition of the term?

Slave, servant, and authority. We argued above that the word “slave” (doulos) needs to be understood not according to its contemporary English definition, but rather in light of the varieties of slave conditions within the Roman empire. But we also argued that in this particular case there is insufficient evidence to claim that James has only one particular image in mind. This may have seemed a cavalier and unwarranted conclusion. But we must remember that biblical writers thought in terms of concepts, to which any number of terms might point. They did not usually think in terms of words with static meanings. The idea of the selfless love of God, for instance, is deeply lodged in Scripture. Writers such and Anders Nygren29 and C. S. Lewis30 have pointed out that this notion is linked to the Greek verb agapao. But as James Barr has shown, both the LXX and the New Testament use the Greek verb phileo, usually understood as intending the idea of “brotherly love,” interchangeably with agapao to convey the same idea.31

In a similar manner, a single word or expression can imply a variety of different meanings. Jesus, for example, filled the word kyrios (“Lord”) with new meaning, so that in the New Testament it can imply either oppressor or servant-leader. In short, biblical terms are far more flexible than we often construe.

Furthermore, while we know a great deal about the ancient world, what we do know is far outweighed by what we do not. Sobriety, probity, and humility ought to characterize our conclusions.32

The twelve tribes. We also argued above that the phrase “the twelve tribes” most likely refers not to ethnic Israel, but to the new Israel, the multiracial church. There are certainly reputable scholars who have taken the opposite position. What is particularly important here is not so much the conclusion one comes to on this issue, but a principle of theological interpretation that can be of great help in creating a bridge to span the distance from the text to our own world. Some point out that the original meaning of “the twelve tribes” was restricted to ethnic Israel. This argument, that when we uncover the original meaning of a term, we uncover its meaning in a text, is called the etymological argument. It is widely held to be a sure route to truth, but it is often false. We should not be swayed uncritically by the siren song of original meaning.

While discovering the original meaning of a term may be satisfying and ultimately helpful, there is no necessary guarantee that in doing so we have discerned the meaning the author intended the term to bear in a particular text. Examples from Scripture abound. In the Old Testament the term ger (“stranger”) was originally used as a self-reference by the Patriarchs (see Gen. 21:23; 23:4), because they wandered in a land not their own. Even the name Moses gave to his son, Gershom, reflects this idea. Once firmly established in the land, however, ger came to refer to non-Jews. The point is that a term means exactly what the author wishes it to mean, neither more nor less. Etymological concerns may be of service, but we should never allow them unthinkingly to govern our interpretation.

Authority and service. A major theme of this passage is the balance of authority with service. A stock component of the Roman mythos was precisely this. The Romans believed that their conquests were laid upon them by fate, that they had a civilizing mission to exert on the rest of the world.33 Virgil put it well when he noted that it was the task of the Romans to “submit the whole world to the rule of law” (totum sub leges mitteret orbem).34 The Romans believed that it was for the good of other peoples that they conquered. By some measures they were accurate. At times and in some places Rome could be a beneficent and generous master.35 But the vast majority of those living under Roman rule did not know this experience. Most knew authority figures, rulers, and masters, whether Romans or provincial elites, only as oppressors.36 Similarly, most slaves experienced their relationship with authority figures as less than desirable. Nor was the condition of urban household slavery a guarantee of well-being. Pliny tells us that some were severely mistreated.37 In fact, the vast bulk of the population, women and men, slaves, peasants, and poor urbanites, who together composed more than 90 percent of the population, perceived authority as generally callous, indifferent, and demeaning.

Our world is not too dissimilar. We experience authority in a negative way, as it seems to us basically self-interested. The growing problem of violent, illegal, and misdirected anti-government groups is only one expression of this perception. In more mild forms we experience this dissociation every day. The evidence is there, from voter apathy to fear of the police to jokes about the Internal Revenue Service.

James here carves out a different picture. In his world and in ours the combination of authority with service, which he conveys by use of the term doulos, is rare. The close juxtaposition of the term doulos with the idea of service is intended to compel us to take notice. Familiarity with the idea and the phrase “servant leadership” may have jaded us. It is a notion as radical and as far reaching as virtually any in Scripture. Jesus calls us to live it out, not merely to pay it lip service. Failure to live it out is a form of double-mindedness.38 The kingdom of God has upside down priorities. The wisdom of God is foolishness to the world, and the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God. Leadership, and especially leadership in the church, is to be undertaken only with a strong and sincere commitment to seek God’s will and the manifestation of that will in the well-being of others. In making his case in this way, James sets out a pattern for church leadership.

Contemporary Significance

THE KEY ISSUES for James in 1:1 are the combination of authority and service and the notion of loyalty to God. What is the shape and texture of these two issues in our contemporary setting?

Servanthood and authority. James, like Paul in Philippians 2, issues a strong call for the basic character of the Christian life to be that of servanthood, after the model of Jesus himself. The witness of the Gospels is that Jesus was a Servant-Messiah.39 The model of servanthood is to be lived out by those in leadership. James makes this clear when he combines images and themes of authority with comradeship and service in his opening salutation. Leadership in the church of Jesus Christ ought to be reserved for those who have no selfish agenda. The goals set and the practice used to achieve them must be marked by a servant attitude.

It is a sacred and terrible thing to be perceived as the agent of God. The potential for such power attracts charlatans. Recent exposés by journalists have catalogued cases in which “evangelists” have used the name of Jesus Christ to fleece the faithful and make themselves rich. I read recently of one case in which the recipient of a prayer letter responded (along with a ten dollar donation) with the request that the evangelist in question “stop exploiting suffering people with his arrogant self-deification.” A week later came the reply. This special prayer request was offered up to God by the “evangelist” in question for three days and nights during a prayer vigil while in his special prayer chamber. He then had the audacity to ask for more money.40

But this power has a less obvious but potent seductive quality. Pastors and other church leaders are human. At times they abuse our trust, whether the matter is sexual sin, inappropriate financial dealings, or simply a tendency to self-importance. When I was in seminary, I knew of many students who said, “I love to preach,” in a fashion that was cavalier or frivolous. As a pastor and professor I cannot say this. While I often feel the presence and the joy of the Lord while preaching, I am also keenly aware of the responsibility that the office and function place on me. No one prepares a lecture on Alexander the Great supposing that those awaiting its delivery hope God will speak to them through the lecture. But a good many saints so anticipate a sermon.

There is another side to this matter. Most do not aspire to positions of Christian leadership wholly out of a desire for power. The vast majority love God and desire to see his kingdom progress in our world. One of the reasons those in leadership get into trouble is that we have set an incredibly high standard for ourselves. We often expect our pastors to preach as well as those we see on television, to counsel as well as a professional therapist, and to administrate as well as a CEO. It is a difficult and often lonely thing to be a pastor.

These high expectations often have two results. (1) Many gifted and godly people choose not to enter the ministry, having witnessed the pain endured by pastors and desiring not to be such obvious targets. (2) In the face of such expectations, many pastors choose the human response of ignoring the obvious. They may pretend that conditions are better than they are, or they refuse to admit that their skills are weak in certain areas. In so doing they gradually become distant from themselves and from others, because they do not feel able to be honest with the church, with themselves, or perhaps even with God. This is the opposite of the New Testament idea of community. The church is supposed to be a place where (in the proper contexts) we can be open and honest with each other, confident that we will receive encouragement, prayer, and even discipline in the proper admixture. Those in the pew bear a responsibility to those whom God has called to lead.

Servant leadership means first to resolve to accomplish what is God’s will in the best interests of others. But it also means to carry out those endeavors in a fashion that relates to others the care and compassion of Jesus. In this way one does know joy—the joy that comes in giving oneself away.

Loyalty to God. A major theme for James in 1:1 is loyalty. But this is not blind loyalty. It is a loyalty that seeks to understand God, to grow into what God intends. In various ways James also makes the point that loyalty to Jesus Christ is not a threat to monotheism, that in fact loyalty to Jesus Christ and loyalty to God amount to the same thing.

This idea also carries with it an implied warning: Be vigilant and introspective concerning your own heart and mind. Loyalty to the government, to a particular political party or philosophy, to a particular religious expression, or to anything else besides God and the concomitant commitment to be humble before God always contains the potential for the seeds of idolatry to germinate and flourish. Many in the evangelical community, especially the “Christian Right,” identify the United States with Christianity. While the United States can at times stand for what is moral and right, often it does not. To confuse loyalty to the state with loyalty to God is idolatry, the same idolatry to which the ancient Israelites fell prey. James here pushes us to consider the ways we unwisely grant elsewhere loyalty that rightfully pertains to God alone.