COMMAS AND THE CHRISTOLOGY

OF

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES ^[1]

J. Julius Scott, Jr,

Wheaton College Graduate School

Wheaton,. IL 60187

Reformation assessments of the Epistle of James by Erasmus, Luther, and Calvin mirror the ways it has been treated by students ancient and modern.  Erasmus focused on "critical" and textual matters with virtually no attention to the content. ^[2] Luther's comment that James is "a right straw epistle" ^[3] was based on his evaluation of its emphasis upon works.  Calvin concentrated upon the text itself, seeking its meaning as a document whose teaching is not unworthy of an apostle.

Questions abound around such issues as the identity of the author, its good Hellenistic literary features, the date of its composition, its place in the early church and the NT canon, numerous other "introductory" questions, and its theology.  Recent studies have dealt at length with these matters with a variety of conclusions. ^[4]   Detailed involvement in these issues would take us far afield from the purpose of the present investigation.  But, there are three items upon which I must comment.  First, the epistle springs from a Jewish setting and mind set.  Its Hellenistic literary features from a Jewish native of Galilee should surprise no one.  “Galilee of the Gentiles@ was the area through which passed the via maria, the “Way of the Sea,@ one of the major trade routes of the ancient world.  Its inhabitants knew well the presence and influence of Hellenistic culture and had to find ways to make accommodations, including linguistic ones, with it. ^[5]   Yet, the epistle also betrays the mind-set of a Hebraic writer.  This is evident from his concern for orthopraxy, his almost subconscious reference to the shema (2:19), his designation of God as “Lord Sabaoth,” ^[6] the reference to the gathered body of believers as Asynagogue@ (2:2), to his foundational concern for piety, justice, and prayer.  But others, especially Ralph Martin, ^[7] have, convincingly to my mind, made the case for the a distinctively Jewish Christian setting for both the author and the document.  My final comment is to call attention to my previously stated view that by the middle of the first century the Church of Jerusalem consisted of three parties or groups: the Jewish Christian Hellenists, the Moderate Hebrew Christians, and the Pharisaic Hebrew Christians and that both the person and epistle of James belong in that middle group. ^[8]

This study is limited to a single feature of the epistle, that of Christology.  This is not an incidental concern.  The more radical assessments of the epistle conclude it is really a pre-Christian Jewish document to which a few references to Jesus have been added. ^[9]   In this paper I will set forth some observations which, it seems to me, indicate just the opposite.  The Christological references, I believe, indicate underlying convictions about the person, nature, and status of Jesus.  At times they may be unspoken assumptions but they are nonetheless present.  In short, the outlook and teachings of the whole epistle flow from the author=s view of Jesus.

Unfortunately, here we will have time to deal with only one aspect of the Christology of James and the implication of it for its Christology in general.  This element is the meaning and significance of the names and titles of Jesus in the epistle.  Yet, let it be clearly understood that I believe these and the underlying Chistology they reveal have significant practical as well as theological implications.  When the document is read with some appreciation of even glimpses of its Christology it appears as a powerful statement, from a Jewish Christian perspective, which speaks clearly and pointedly to the issues faced by the writer=s addressees.

Jesus is mentioned directly only twice and in four or five other passages by implication: the author identifies himself as a "slave of the Lord Jesus Christ@ (theou kai kuriou Iesou Christou doulou, 1:1).  Chapter 2:1 presents issues with which we will have to deal at some length.  The RSV renders the key phrase, (t_s dox_s pistin tou kuriou h_m_n I_sou Xristou t_s dox_s) Aour Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory.@   Christians are called by "the good/honorable name" (to kalon onoma) in 2:7.  James 5:6 appears to assume Jesus to be, "the Righteous/Just One (ho dikaios) ^[10] , the one condemned and murdered.  Readers are enjoined to be patient “until the appearing of the Lord” (he_s t_s parousa tou kuriou, 5:7), to be patient and to make their hearts resolute Abecause the coming of the Lord has drawn near@ (hote h_ parousia tou kuriou, 5:8).    Chapter 5:9 enjoins vigilance because the "Judge stands before the doors" (ho krit_s pro t_n thur_n hest_ken).

@Jesus Christ@ occurs in two references (1:1 and 2:1).  In much of the NT literature this, and variants of it, should be treated as a proper name.  “Jesus” is indeed a proper name, a common one in his place and time.  It is the Greek form of the Hebrew ‘Yeshua’, Moses’ successor and Israel’s leader during the conquest of the land.  It was the name the angel announced to his mother before his birth (Matt 1:21). ^[11]

The NRSV, when compared with the RSV=s treatment of Christos, offers an interesting option.  In the Gospels and parts of Acts the NRSV translates ho Christos (Athe Christ@), with the article, as a title, “the Anointed One” or “the Messiah.@ In Matthew, Luke, John and Acts Christos, without the article, is sometimes rendered AMessiah@ or Athe Messiah.@ ^[12]   The basis on which it was decided to so translate the anarthrous form is unclear.  But, it seems to me, there are also other contexts throughout the NT where translating the Christos, without the article, as Athe Messiah@ could also be justified.  There are, it appears, grammatical grounds, especially in the case of a name or title, for making such a judgment. ^[13]   I would hazard the guess that the NRSV rendered Christos (without the article) as AMessiah@ or Athe Messiah@ when the translators felt that there was a Jewish context which so demanded.

If there was ever a NT book for which the case for a Jewish background, either Hebraic or Hellenistic, could be made it is the Epistle of James.   There is, therefore, good reason to postulate that when James identifies Jesus as Christos he meant Athe Messiah.@   Furthermore, the claims of the Messiah, as presented by the epistle, rest on "this fulfillment of the OT ideals and the soul-satisfying supremacy of his ethical affirmation” ^[14] as well other features we will note below.

References to “Lord” in James may be either to God or to Jesus, if the writer really had such a distinction in mind.  Jesus is certainly the “Lord” of the parousia in 5:7-8.  Hence, the phrase, “Judge standing before the doors” in 5:9, is a clear eschatological allusion, ^[15] and complements the previously mentioned admonition for patience, endurance, and resoluteness.  Thus, Jesus as “Lord” is also the Judge who comes from heaven.

Christians are called by the "good or honorable name" (2:7).  This probably signifies that Jesus is their "master" or "­ lord" ^[16] as well as their heavenly, divine Lord.  The phrase “in the name of the Lord” occurs twice (5:10, 14) and brings together two terms or titles used above.  The former reference,”As an example of suffering and patience, brethren, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord,” may refers to God, unless we assume that Jesus believed it was the pre-incarnate Jesus who spoke througth the prophets.  The latter use of “Lord” must certainly assume that James directs that prayer for healing should be made in Jesus’ name.

We must begin our study with two passages, 1:1, where the writer calls himself "a slave of the Lord Jesus Christ" and 2:1, where common translations are either  "our glorious Lord Jesus Christ.@  (NASB, NIV, NRSV) or Athe Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory@ (KJV, RSV, TEV).  Both passages pose a common question.  What is the grammatical relationship of ‘Lord (kurios)’ to the two following words?  Is it a part of the name-title? or is it a title which stands in apposition to AJesus Christ,@ so that these words precisely specify which Alord@ is intended?

It is well known that "lord" (kurios), has a wide variety of meaning ^[17] C a form of polite address, the designation of the owner of possessions including of slaves, or it may carry such connotations as Ayour honor@ or Ayour majesty.@ Kurios be the form of address for a deity for  pegan deities as well as deified rulers were called Alord.@

Equally without question is the fact that the early disciples and believers addressed Jesus as ALord.@  In at least some contexts the term was the ultimate confession of faith C Paul cries, AGod ...highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name ... every tongue should confess, AJesus Christ is Lord@ (Phil 2:9-11, my translation); Thomas recognized the risen Jesus as, AMy Lord and My God@ (John 20:28).

Claims of significance of counts of words and phrases in Biblical portions are always suspect.  When they involve names and titles of Jesus, text criticial problems rise like mountain peaks. ^[18]   Word counts as part of a Biblical study are of value only for making general comparisons.  Limiting our survey to Acts through Jude in the RSV ^[19] it is interesting to note that the phrase ALord Jesus” occurs thirty times, ALord Christ@ twice, ^[20] and ALord Jesus Christ@ sixty three times. ^[21]    The spread of  occurrences is noteworthy, including a variety of Biblical books and use by differing writers.  ALord Jesus Christ@ appears in all books except 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, and the three Johannine epistles, but ALord Jesus@ is found in Hebrews, in the liturgical benediction of 13:26.  It is obvious that to address Jesus as ALord@ in combination with the proper name AJesus@ and/or the name-title AChrist@ was a common practice among early Christians C the terms usually seem to flow naturally from the pens of Luke (in Acts), Paul, Peter, Jude, and the writer to the Hebrews.

Punctuation, such as that which appears in our modern Greek texts and translations, is, of course, of recent vintage.  Hence, it is legitimate to ask if the authors, and much of early Christendom with them, may have assumed some relation between the terms other than that suggested by the lack of commas in our contemporary texts.  May they have intended ALord, Jesus Christ,@ ALord Jesus, Christ (= [the] Messiah=@), or ALord, Jesus, Christ (= [the] Messiah)@?

Paul gives us a glimpse into his world when he says,

For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth C as indeed there are many  Agods” and many Alords@ C yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist (1 Cor 8:5-6).

It is interesting that in this context the RSV editors (but not those of the Nestle-Aland 26 th edition of the Greek NT) insert a comma between ALord@ and AJesus Christ,@ thus placing AJesus Christ@ in apposition to ALord@ and defining which of the many lords is the intended reference.  Why, I ask, is specificity needed only here?  The situation to which Paul refers was rampant throughout the world of the NT.  There is, I suggest, evidence of just such an attempt for preciseness in the NT text itself.  Again, working from statistics gleaned from the RSV, six (17%) of the occurrences of >Lord Jesus@ are prefaced with the  pronoun Aour,@ @our” precedes one of the two occurrences of ALord Christ,@ and the possessive pronoun is found forty one times (or 65%) of the sixty three appearances of ALord Jesus Christ;@ the writers want to make clear that they refer solely to the Christian=s lord, Aour Lord, [comma!] Jesus Christ.@ Note that our statistical survey did not include such phrases with built-in specificity as AChrist Jesus our Lord@ (Rom 8:39; Eph 3:11; 2 Tim 1:2), AJesus Christ our Lord: (Rom 1:3), AJesus our Lord@ (Rom 4:24), AChrist Jesus my Lord@ (Phil 3:8), or AChrist Jesus the Lord@ (Col 2:6).

Virtually all of the occurrences of Aour Lord@ are evidences of early, pre-punctuation precision in the Christian affirmation of belief that, in a world claiming Amany lords,@ it is none other than Jesus who is Lord.  Hence, I believe, the comma should follow kurios/lord in most cases where that title is followed by Jesus, Christ, or Jesus Christ; for the NT writers there was only one Lord (cf., Eph 4:5)!  A more accurate modern English translation would usually be Aour Lord, [comma] Jesus Christ.@ 

Against this background we return to the Epistle of James.  In the first verse we are confronted with the statement, AJames, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ@ (1:1, RSV).  Is it not legitimate, indeed mandatory, that we consider translating these words, AJames, slave ^[22] of God and of the Lord, Jesus, the Messiah@  Such a rendering immediately transports us into a very different world than that often assumed for the epistle.  It is a world of slaves and lords.  And, for Christians, there is no Lord other than Jesus.  In this Semitic world the Greek Christos is not merely part of a proper name but a reverential title, AThe Anointed One.@ Hence, James conveys the same affirmation as did Peter at Pentecost, “Jesus himself is both the Lord and Messiah” (Acts 2:36). 

Although we have preferred to translate "servant" (doulos)  "slave," it is noteworthy that Ralph Martin, rejecting a sociological sense, insists on "servant."  This, he notes, was a designation of honor and authority for such leaders as Moses, David, and the prophets.  It may carry overtones of Phil 2:11 where the humiliated one received honor and glory. ^[23]

This introduction in 1:1 sets the stage for the epistle with phrases which, in a Jewish Christian setting, assume a high Christology.  It erects the framework within which the epistle is to be understood.

The climax of our consideration of the effect of commas in the Christology of James comes in 2:1. The alternate translations given above serve as warnings of potential grammatical problems.  The phrase “the glory," along with the accompanying words in the phrase, is in the genitive case.  Questions arise as to how the genitive functions here and which word it modifies.  A survey of commentaries yields something like the following five alternatives.  "The glory" may be:

1.   a qualitative adjective, modifying the preceding noun, "Lord," hence "faith in our glorious Lord" or "faith in our Lord of glory, Jesus Christ.”

2.   an objective genitive modifying "faith," yielding something like “our glorious faith in our Lord Jesus Christ" or "our faith in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." ^[24]

3.   an objective genitive of definition or qualification modifying Lord Jesus Christ, thus "faith in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."

4.      a genitive of quality or characteristics could be translated "our glorious Lord Jesus Christ" or "our Lord Jesus Christ, [the Lord of] glory." ^[25]

5.      in apposition and therefore a title, "our Lord Jesus Christ, the Glory." ^[26]

Peter Davids, recognizes that "glory" is the LXX translation of the Hebrew k_b_d defines it as,

the luminous manifestation of God's person...a term of exaltation, revelation, and eschatological salvation...The idea in James is probably related to ...the exalted Christ and his return to judge (e.g. 5:7ff)." [27]

 This suggestion recognizes the important special implication and use of "glory" in the OT and Second Temple Judaism.  Yet Davids stops short of the fifth of the above options.

Apparently to take "the Glory" as an apposition was first suggested by J. A. Bengel [28] and more recently championed by Sophie Laws. ^[29]   Certainly the phrase "our Lord Jesus Christ, the Glory" would not have sounded as strange to first century Jewish Christian ears as it does to ours.

The evidence takes us even further than Davids’ recognition of the special sense of  "glory" in the pre-Christian Jewish world.  In referring to God "glory" appears fifty seven times in the OT, more than forty of these in the phrase "the glory of the Lord."  At times the appearance of thunder, lightning, fire, and cloud are sensory indications or accompaniments of "glory."  In Ex 38:18-22 Moses’ request, "show me your glory," is clearly an expression of his desire to see God himself.  Earlier cloud and other phenomena  at Sinai ^[30] were clearly indications of nothing less than the actual presence of God.  So also when the cloud came upon the tabernacle ^[31] and temple ^[32] at their dedication and when it left Jerusalem before its destruction (Ezek 11:23).  As von Rad says, of “glory,” "In relation to man it denotes that which makes him impressive and demands recognition¼in relation to God it implies that which makes God impressive to man, the force of his self-manifestation." ^[33]   In Second Temple Judaism, as indicated in the LXX, the word has virtually this same meaning. ^[34]

Later Rabbinic writings use the term Shekinah to refer to  the concept of "the glory" as a part of the OT appearances of God. ^[35]   In this latter thought "The Glory" (Shekinah) is not merely a reflection or emanation of the divine radiance but the actual embodiment of the outshining of God in the visible world. ^[36]  

Parallels to this concept of God and/or Jesus being represented as "The Glory" are found elsewhere in the NT --  the accounts of the transfiguration (Mk 9:2-8 = Matt 17:1-13; Luke 9:28-36),  in John's prologue, "The Word became flesh ... we have beheld his [God’s] glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father" (1:14, RSV), and Titus 2:13. [we are] "awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (RSV), or, as the alternate punctuation has it “¼the appearing of the glory, our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”  The definition of the later Shekinah concept, "The actual embodiment of the outshining of God in the visible world," is also a good definition of apaugasma in Heb 1:3 which is frequently  inadequately rendered in many English translations -- the RSV reads, "He reflects the glory of God [apaugasma] and bears the very stamp of his nature". ^[37]

James 2:1 probably implies that "Jesus is the presence of God manifest with His people just as the Shekinah was the divine presence dwelling in the midst of Israel in earlier days." ^[38]   If so, in a Jewish environment it would be difficult to find a more clear and forceful statement of full deity.

So natural is it for James to think this way that almost casually he affirms that Jesus is Lord, Messiah, and the Glory, the divine presence, in a context dealing with discrimination ^[39] on the basis of social and economic status within the Christian assembly (or synagogue, so 2:2).  In so doing he reveals the almost subconscious way in which he thought of Jesus.   Here too we have an example of how Christology could be brought to bear when dealing with very human day-to-day problems of Christian living.

Other less direct Christological affirmations in James, could appear almost anti-climatic after those of 2:1.  Yet, when these remaining are integrated with the two already considered, each has its own contribution to make in portraying the Christology assumed in the epistle.

We must entertain possible Christological implications of the word “name” (onama) in two passages.  In 2:7 the “good” or “honorable name” is said to be blasphemed by “the rich.”  In 5:14, where the sick one is told to “call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.”

An investigation of the significance of the term Aname@ in the NT would be a worthwhile study in itself.  Note of a few occurrences of it from the early chapters of Acts, which reflects the thought of early Jewish Christianity, must suffice here: salvation is offered Ain the name@ (2:21, 38; 4:12); baptism was administered Ain the name@ (2:38; 8:16); healing and other miracles took place Ain the name@ (3:6, 16; 4:10); the disciples were commanded not to preach Ain this name@ (4:18; 5:28. 40); and the believers suffered for Athe name@ (5:41).  It is also useful to note that the ninety three occurrences of the name-titles ALord Jesus@ and ALord Jesus Christ@ discussed above, ten ^[40] have the word Aname@ in the immediate context, indicating which name is intended.

It is in the same setting as that of the name/title just discussed, that of discrimination against the poor, that the term “the name” again appears.  James says of the rich. AIs it not they who blaspheme that honorable name which was invoked over you?" (2:7, RSV).  The precise translation for to kalon onoma, Ahonorable name,@ or to which particular name it refers need not long detain us.  The noun Aname@ could stand for an individual person or a group.  The adjective kalos, when referring to outward appearance means Abeautiful@; when describing a quality Agood,@ Auseful,@ “morally good,@ Anoble,@ Apraiseworthy,@ Ablameless,@ Aexcellent,@ etc. ^[41]   Different English translations reflect one or another of these.  One might argue that Athe honorable name@ is simply “Jesus," AJesus and all for which that name stands,”  or “the group of those who belong to Jesus.@  In any case it is Jesus who conveys honor to the group or is the one who alone deserves the title Ahonorable name.@  The phrase is but another way of talking about him, it is Jesus who is blasphemed when the poor and disadvantaged one are mistreated, even judicially so.

  AThe name@ or Athe honorable name@ may well be a synonym for one of the name-titles, designating his essential being, and an indication of his status.  This is certainly what another Jewish Christian writer meant when comparing Jesus to angels says, Athe name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs@ (Heb 1:4).

It is, as Luke Timothy Johnson observes, significant that prayer for healing(s) arise in the connection with James’ first mention of the “church” as ekklesia.  According to John’s GospeI Jesus instructed the apostles to ask in his name (14:13-14).  We have already noted that Acts (3:6,16; 4:10) records that healings and other miracles took place “in the name;” in so doing the church of Acts was following Jesus’ instructions.  It is precisely for such reasons as these that I suggest that the phrase “in the name of the Lord” in James 5:14 is the equivalent of “in Jesus’ name.”  It appears that in this verse the writer is building on that promise and applying it to specific cases.  Jesus is the one who answers the prayers of his church, specifically he heals within the context of the church.  The gathered body, through its elders, is to request healing “in Jesus’ name.”

In chapter 5 James once again condemns the rich, this time for their preoccupation with material gain and luxury and their oppression of poor laborers.  He concludes with the words  "You have condemned; you murdered the righteous man; and he does not resist you" (vs 6).

The title AThe Righteous@ or AJust One@ (ho dikaios) is another designation or title of Jesus, which appears elsewhere. ^[42]   Although occurrences  of "the Just One" are few in number, when viewed against its OT background, the title is seen as an important way to describe Jesus' role and work.  When the NT texts are examined carefully, several facts emerge which contribute to this study. In all but one (Acts 22:14) of the NT occurrences of  AThe Just One@ is found in contexts of suffering, rejection and/or death.  This is its setting in Isaiah 53:10-11 where AThe Just One@ is equated with the ASuffering Servant, A

Yet it was the will of the LORD to

bruise him;

He has put him to grief;

when he makes himself an offering

For sin,

He shall see his offspring, he shall

Prolong his days;

the will of the LORD will prosper in

his hand;

he shall see the fruit of the travail of

His soul, he shall see light,

 and be satisfied;

by his knowledge shall the righteous

One (or “The Just One”), my servant,

Make many to be accounted right-

eous;

And he shall bear their iniquity. ^[43]

This is precisely the type of context within which C. H. Dodd has taught us to look for a Aplot@ in several OT passages within which the innocent, righteous one suffers rejection, violence, and even death, but in a dramatic reversal is honored by God and may become God=s instrument. ^[44]   This, he says, is the structure within which the early Christians thought of, understood, interpreted the ministry and especially the death, of Jesus.

Dodd=s insight assists in apprehending James= reference to AThe Just One.@  There can be little doubt that James has Jesus in mind.  It is he who was condemned and killed.  It was sin that caused his death.  The sinful behavior of the rich, possibly the believing rich, ^[45] contributed to the death of him who gave his life as a propitiatory sacrifice (hilasmos) Afor the sins of the whole world (cf. 1 John 2:2).

Jesus is the Lord, the Messiah, the Glory, whose is the honorable name with which his followers are identified.  He is the Just One, the Suffering Servant who dies for sin.  Yet here, once again James unites Christology and the need to deal with a specific practical problem in his community.  The conduct of the rich is inconsistent with the Lord whose name they bear.  They are crucifying him afresh and holding him up to contempt (cf. Heb 6:6).

The last two references to Jesus in James combine his present and future roles and status.  He is the Lord for whose coming (parousia) the community waits (5:7-8).  With the possible exception of the resurrection does anything assume divinity more than the expectation of the return of Jesus?  In Titus 2:13 that coming of Jesus is called Athe blessed hope.@  In James 5:7-8 the coming (parousia) of the Lord Ahas already drawn near.” ^[46]   Is anything more distinctively Christian than belief in the parousia, the second coming of Jesus, is “at hand”?   It was this expectation James held of Jesus, the Lord, the Messiah, the Glory!

 Once again there is a didactic and practical side to James’ reference to Jesus.  The fact of the Lord’s coming should result in patience, like the farmer who awaits his crops.  The Lord=s parousia is also the reason (hoti) for being steadfast or established.

Closely connected with the fact and consequence of the parousia is that  "the Judge is standing at the doors" (5:9).  The two concepts are inseparable in the mind of the writer.  Jesus is the coming Lord who is also the Judge.  The coming Lord Ahas already drawn near;@ the Judge has already taken his stand ^[47] Aat the doors.@

James  is in the mainstream with the rest of the NT in alluding to Jesus as Judge. ^[48]   2 Tim. 4:8 speaks of him as Athe Lord, the righteous Judge.@  In presenting the bare elements of the gospel, in the house of Cornelius Peter affirmed that God ordained Jesus Ato be judge of the living and the dead@ (Acts 10:42).   2 Cor. 5:10 affirms that Aall must appear before the judgment seat of Christ.@  Jesus himself said AWhen the Son of man comes in his glory ... he shall sit on his glorious throne@ there to judge as he Aseparates ...the sheep from the goats@ and dispenses the righteous and the unrighteous to their respective places (Matt 25:31-46).  Judging is a divine prerogative. ^[49]   For James, grumbling against one=s brethren in the Lord is not to be tolerated because the divine judge is already present.  James= readers are to live with that fact ever in mind.

  Conclusion

The Epistle of James is not a Jewish document to which a few references to Jesus have been added.  It is a thoroughgoing Christian writing in which the Jewish Christian writer’s faith in and belief about the Lord, Jesus, the Messiah, the Glory is absolutely foundational.  James= purpose is not to present a doctrine of Christ but to apply and build upon his commitment and conviction. ^[50]   In the epistle we are permitted to see some features of James' assumptions about Jesus at points where they pierce through the surface and as he applies them in the situations he addresses.  We do not find here a thoroughgoing organized, logical presentation of the speculative sort by an essayist with a western mind set.  Rather here is the Christology of a practical cast in its expression and intent.

But, is this a study of Christology or ethics?  Both!  For James the two are inseparable.  As he addresses such issues as facing trials, controlling the tongue, poverty and riches, relations between rich and poor, vows, judging, swearing, prayer, and others, for James Christology is the controlling force.  Christian behavior is to be based on the person and nature of Jesus.  James is convinced that faith in Jesus, orthodox though it be, without works is dead (3:26), even demonic (cf., 2:19).   

I suggest that the Epistle of James lies in a Jewish milieu, a Jewish Christian one at that. It must be viewed from that perspective.  Secondly, Christology is the unavoidable foundational commitment behind all the author says.  When properly understood this Christology is just as “high,” if not higher, than any in the NT.  This become clearer if at key points we consider the possiblites offered by reconsidering the usual punctuation.  More specifically I urge we consider the implications of commas and the Christology of James. ^[51]