To tiais type of Jewish Christianity corresponds generally the religious standpoint of the Epistle which is ascribed to St. James. The letter shows so little of a distinctively Christian character, that Spitta has in all seriousness hazarded the theory of its being in reality a Jewish work in which the name of Jesus has been inserted here and there. As a matter of fact, however, the writer shows clearly that he is a Christian, not merely in his reference to Jesus Christ in his address (P; cf. 2'), but also in his giving expres- sion to specifically Christian ideas, as e.g. when he speaks of the regeneration of his readers by the word of truth (P**) and of the saving word as implanted in their hearts (1^'). He betrays his Jewish Christian mode of thought, however, when, in enjoining his readers to be doers, and not merely hearers, of the word (P^j^ jjg presently replaces *word' by 'law,' although 'the perfect law of liberty' means the law as given to, or as fulfilled in, human freedom. He thus shows that for him the central element in Christianity consists in ful- filment of the Law (cf. I-2-28 with 2^^). It is true that St. James's conception of the substance of the Law likewise shows the influence of Jesus, as he ranks the law of love to one's neighbour above the others (2*), and, generally, urges the pre-eminence of the commandments enjoining love and mercy (21-18. i5f. i26f. 411^ etc.), just as he specially de- nounces such sins as judging one's neighbour (cf. Mt V) and swearing (cf. Mt 5**'*''), and condemns hatred as murder (.Ja 4^). His commendation of the practice of mercy and of keeping oneself un- spotted from the world as the true worship of God (1-*) is also wholly in the spirit of Jesus (cf. e.g. Mt 9'8 12''), while he is silent regarding all out- ward service and ceremony. It is quite unneces- sary to follow modern criticism in regarding this spiritual and ethical conception of the Law as
pointing to a post-apostolic date of composition, any more than the attack upon the doctrine of justification through faith alone (2"-^'^) need be re- garded as post-Pauline. St. James's view of the Law, in fact, coincides on the whole with the view urged by Jesus : in substance the new Law does not difl'er from that of the OT, and in 2^'^'^ he finds his examples in the latter (the Decalogue and Dt P'') ; while there is no difficulty in seeing why he never makes the slightest reference to the cere- monial Law — for readers such as his it was quite unnecessary to insist upon that side of the old religion, nor, for that matter, did Jesus Himself lay any emphasis upon it. Further, if the Epistle was addressed to Jewish Christians who had not as yet broken oft" relations with the Synagogue (cf. e.g. 2^^-), it may be confidently assumed that they were not neglectful of the ceremonial Law. What they required rather was to be reminded of the ethical aspect of the Law, and above all, to be warned against the common Jewish delusion that hearing and speaking the word could take the place of do- ing it. In 2'* the reference is not to ' the works of the Law,' but solely to works in the ethical sense. Moreover, as the theologians of the Synagogue had already turned their minds to the passage Gn 15« (cf. A. Schlatter, Der Glmibe im NT\ Calw and Stuttgart, 1896, pp. 29 ft". 45 ff. ), the antithesis of faith and works, and the contrast between a justification by faith and a justification by works, may quite well have been formulated in an age prior to St. Paul.
3. The view of St. Peter. — Besides St. James, the most outstanding representative of the Jewish Christian position in the primitive Church was St. Peter. But just as, according to Ac 10, he had been led by a Divine revelation to enter the house of an uncircumcised man, and to eat with the Gentiles (cf. IP), we may infer also, from his speech in the Apostolic Council, and especially from his behaviour in the Gentile Christian com- munity at Antioch, that he had a much clearer view than St. James of the merely relative obligation of the Law even for Jewish Christians. In certain circumstances he thought himself justified, for the sake of brotherly intercourse with Gentile Chris- tians, in disregarding the rigour of the Law, since, after all, salvation did not depend upon the Law, whose yoke, indeed, neither the fathers nor the Jews then living were able to bear, but Jew and Gentile alike could look for salvation only to the grace of Jesus Christ, and to faith in Him (cf. Ac 157-'i, Gal 2'2a). Hence St. Paul takes for gianted that the subsequent vacillation of St. Peter at Antioch (Gal 2'^^) was nothing but dissimulation, as it was due, not to any change of conviction, but simply to fear of the Jews. In principle St. Peter recognized the religious freedom of the Jewish Christians, not merely as regards the more general intercourse with their Gentile brethren sanctioned by the Apostolic Decree, but also as regards the closer intimacy involved in eating with them (cf. the Agapte). In other words, he had, according to St. Paul, actually acknowledged that the Jewish Christians had the right to accommodate themselves to the freedom of the Gentiles. Only we must bear in mind that St. Peter was, in a much greater degree than St. Paul, a man of moods, and was therefore not always so consistent in his thinking.