On a message board where I sometimes interact there has been a discussion regarding the canonical status of the Epistle of James. This lead to the oft debated topic of whether or not there was a rivalry between the Apostle Paul and James the Just, or at least strong disagreement. It has inspired me to put down some of my most basic thoughts on the matter.
Did a rivalry exist between the Apostle Paul and James the Just?
I think “rivalry” is too strong a word, but there does seem to have been some tension. When Paul mentions Peter, John, and James as those “reported to be pillars” in Gal. 2.9 it is possible that they were part of Paul’s struggle with Jerusalem over Gentiles in the church. In v. 12 he doesn’t deny that the men who came from Jerusalem, who scared Peter away from table-fellowship with Gentiles, were actually “from James” (ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου). In fact, he seems to assume that they came with his support.
It is very curious that James would spend so much time arguing that we are not justified by faith alone, but rather by works (2.14-26). It is a very strong statement to emphasize that we are not justified by “faith only” (οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον), which is why Martin Luther didn’t like this epistle since he interpreted Paul as arguing for salvation by “faith alone”. Likewise, we should note that James is very, very concerned that people may use the concept of “justification by faith” to justify their abuse of the poor, the orphan, the widow, and the misuse of the tongue intrigues me. When Paul tells the Galatians that he received approval from Jerusalem he mentions that they had one major concern: “They only asked us to remember the poor–the very thing I was also eager to do.” (2.10)
Why was this a concern? I think it is possible that people who knew of Paul’s teaching used it to abuse the oppressed. James saw this and he snapped back at a teaching he may have thought was from Paul. Once Paul clarified matters, once he showed he had no intention of avoiding the second commandment of importance to care for one’s neighbor, the Jerusalem church approved him (at that time).
We know that people did misinterpret Paul (2 Pet. 3.14-16). Paul says so himself indicating some people took his message to mean that we should go on sinning. He says that some have “slanderously reported” that Paul taught that we should do evil so good may come from it (Rom. 3.8). If someone took Paul to say this, and then told James that this was Paul’s message, we should expect a reaction like we find in James’ epistle.
Did they disagree over the doctrine of justification by faith?
I don’t see a disagreement between James and Paul on this matter. I see a disagreement between James’ understanding of Paul and James’ own teaching. I am sure there was likely tension between James and Paul because James is known as being a law adhering, temple visiting Jew. When Josephus recounts James’ martyrdom he says that a Sadducee names Ananus had James put to death for being a law breaker, yet many reacted negatively to this since they understood Ananus’ act to be “unjustified” (Antiquities XX.9.1). If James would have been anything like Paul in his relationship to the Law and the temple there would have been a different response (see Acts 21.27-22.30).
I think people who see a “contradiction” between these two read Paul like a misguided Protestant. Paul never said anything against good works. He critiqued works of the Law coming from the flesh, but everywhere he writes imperatives based on the idea that Christians are called to Spirit-inspired works of faith. Likewise, James does not camp out on whether or not Christians should obey the Sabbath, or eat seafood, or wear clothing made of two types of material. Rather, he challenges the idea that anyone can be justified without being obedient toward God and he uses examples such as caring for the poor, the orphan, and the widow, watching one’s tongue, and not causing division. Paul would affirm all these things.
Whether there was a long standing disagreement between Paul and James that was not resolved is beyond the data available. The author of the Book of Acts seems of the persuasion that the two eventually came to see things eye-to-eye (15.13-35). If the event in Gal. 2.11-14 happened after the council it is intentionally ignored.
Thoughts? Do you see a rivalry between Paul and James? If so, how intense and long lasting do you think it was?
the archives near Emmaus 
I think when Galatians was written would be pivotal in this discussion. I also don’t think some of the wording in James 2 can be easily explained away with what has been posited.
Also, did they ever see eye to eye on some of the “requirements” James established, when he apparently resorted to Noahide law, in Acts 15. I speak of some of the dietary requirements, specifically … food offered to idols and meat of strangled animals?
@Daniel: Yes, if Paul wrote to Galatia after the Jerusalem Council this could be evidence that even the council didn’t resolve the difference. The language of James’ decision is interesting because all those elements can be associated with idolatry: things sacrificed to idols, consuming of the blood of those things, and fornication with temple prostitutes. So Acts 15.28-29 could be saying, in essence, “worship the true God.”
If this is so, then Paul doesn’t seem to have departed from the council’s decision. If not, then Paul added his own additional nuance that this is only so if it will offend another sibling in Christ. Of course, we may guess that this could include a warning to avoid these things when Christians from Jerusalem, or those influenced by Jerusalem, are present.
Brian, I have to lean towards the view that Galatians was written after the Council of Jerusalem. In looking at the latter half of chapter 1 and then the beginning … I count at least 3 trips to Jerusalem …
The last speaks of those who wanted poor Titus’s foreskin … when he visited with Barnabas.
Galatians, Chapter 2 reads:
1 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.
This fits with the gripe that propels the meeting discussed in Acts 15.
Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question
Paul doesn’t spare any words in calling the foreskin grubbin’ judaizers — “false brethren”. The tone of Galatians also seems to tell me that his antagonism towards those with such leanings had fermented since the Acts 15 encounter.
It is possible that it addresses a post-council scenario, but again, this doesn’t mean that the Epistle of James is against the Pauline gospel. It seems to me that he wrote against a misunderstanding of Paul’s preaching that seemed anti-nomian. Yet there could very well be an aspect of justification by faith that is still debated: Whether or not Gentiles are full members as Gentiles. Another possible disagreement is whether Jewish Christians should adhere to the Law, even if Gentiles are not asked to do much more than avoid practices associated with idolatry. Acts 21.20-25 seems to hint at this position.
So to be clear: There does seem to be remaining differences between Paul and James, but whether or not Paul is immoral has been clarified. There seems to be some agreement on what to do with Gentile Christians in the Gentile world, but less over whether or not a Jew should remain Jewish, as James understood it, now that the New Covenant has been inaugurated.
It does seem that the tone of Paul’s address toward the Judaizers is slightly elevated compared to his struggle with James/Peter. He challenges those two, but he never called them false brothers. While these people coming from James may have had his support, it appears they may have taken things further than James intended. Otherwise, I think Paul would have had harsher words.
There does seem to be some sort of disconnect between Paul and James, and have often thought it would be nice to know the specific timing of the various epistles, etc. I guess some day we’ll know – if we care at that point. I do like your suggestion that James may have misunderstood Paul’s teaching (of course, if one hold an inerrancy position, this could be problematic). But, I’ve never found James to really disagree with Paul; his point that real faith is evidenced by works would seem to fit well with Paul’s own teaching.
@Alden: I agree, it seems that Paul would have not had any trouble with the way James addresses the matter.
Almost every thing Paul is a deviation from the the teaching Yeshua. Yeshua never deviated from the teaching of the Torah and never considered himself anything other than the fulfillment the prophecies of old. If you read the psudeo-Clementine writtings or other related works yo see that Paul was very antagonistic to the early church. How does an enemy of Rome, Christians, live under house arrest as compared to the interment of James.
It is very sad that people will not take the time to understand the culture of 1st century judaism. The Pharasee’s had control of the synagogues where people came to learn about the law,prophets and writings of the OT. They appointed themselves to sit in Moses seat to teach the Torah which is where the name came from. Yahshua said to do as they bid you when they read the law, prophets and writings but do not do as they do. They put burdens upon people by interpreting and adding to the Commandments, added traditions are requirements to be a part of the promises given to the fathers. Yahshua spent more time trying to combat these false traditions then anything else during his ministry. In Acts 15 the problem wasnt that one had to become a jew to receive salvation it was one had to become a jew to even hear about salvation. Even at the Temple there was always an outer court for the uncircumcised to hear about and worship the Elohim .The Judaizers were putting requirements upon the gentiles that were contrary to the law of Moses. can you imagine asking a grown man to be circumcised to just come in hear about the Elohim’s words. Copies of the OT were very scarce and very expensive , you could’nt just go to the book store . The requirements where a compromise so a jew and a gentile could hear Moses preached every Sabbath and has nothing to do with Noah because everyone of them are found in the law of Moses. Yes Paul was despised by the Judaizers because he was once a teacher of the Oral Law and spent sermon after sermon showing that these extra traditions concerning the Sabbath,festivals , food laws and etc were manmade. The True law of Moses was preached every Sabbath so Paul’ s true concern was to remove man made traditions that turned people away from hearing the WORD.Paul never teaches contrary to the Law, prophets and writings of the OT , he only fought against the oral law and it effects on people coming to the teachings of OT and of Yahshua . So to say Paul was ever at odds with James or viceversa is the lack of understanding of the culture of the 1st century
James seems, at this point, to almost completely misunderstand Pauls message–which paul got directly from the risen Christ. He was brought up to heaven–called to be Gods voice to the gentiles–that No One added to his message–YET people who lack faith use a book clearly to the jews, that was disputed, to correct Paul?
Its almost laughable how logically unstable this approach is. Faithis equated to demons knowing God is one? That is Alien to Paul.
Look, this has to be James reacting to a message he does not yet understand. Its strict inerrancy that causes people to try and harmonize it.
One thing is certain….james doesnt get to correct or even clarify Pauls plain teaching on faith apart from works. When people do this it is because of self righteousnes, lack of faith in Christs work, or they just cant accept that God will save them without them trying to earn salvation. To teach he is clarifying paul is to say Gods chosen voice to us gentiles cant explain the gospel in 14 letters but James can clarify in one sentence.
John
James preached the Gospel of the Covenants first and foremost while Paul preached the Gospel of Grace first and foremost but both preached both.
Entering a Covenant Relationship with the Elohim requires obedience to the Words of the Covenants while Grace is a gift which can not be earned or have ANY requirements for keeping it. Grace is the one way promise that you will be raised for judgement on matters of the heart ,given a mediator to plead your case . Everyone will be judged even those of the first resurrection who received a prolong live by the Covenants in the land promised to Abraham
on their teaching .james teached about faith and works while paul teached about justification by faith.on which should need to be understood is james wrotte this letter to the chrirtians whose where already christians but paul this letter was to the Romans whose were not yet christians so their teachings was the same although both they talked about faith.
I agree with your assesment. I do not see Paul and James really disagreeing. I think it more likely that both Paul and James MAY have fought over those who may have wanted a scizm in the church and misrepresented the teachings of each man to try and achieve it.
If you believe that Paul taught that the Words of the Covenants( moral and judicial ) were nailed to the tree then yes they were at odds but if you believe the laws for righteousness ( prescriptions for atonement ) which the mediation of the Aaronic covenant provided was superceded by a better covenant that provided a better sacrifice and mediator then you might recognize Paul only taught against the rabbinical interpretations which placed enormous regulations on the Words of the Covenants plus taught against those who continued to seek justification through the Aaronic priesthood which was faulty and not able to make a person perfect
The recently released book “Zaelot” goes into this in great detail.
Brian & friends,
Having followed your blog, we feel strongly that you will find great interest in our film A Polite Bribe. While we might not agree on every aspect, Writer Director Robert Orlando has created a compelling story that shows the Apostle Paul’s early conflicts that needed to be overcome before the Christian movement would blossom.
If you would like to review or interview Orlando please let us know. We are at theaters and private screenings starting Oct 31st through Jan 31st. You can visit the site for a trailer and some of the reviews.
See you in the Movies!
http://www.apolitebribe.com
TD
Ted Deutsch
Associate Producer
A Polite Bribe
609 430 8286