Faith vs. Works vs. Chaos Monsters  🔗 **Source:** [Faith vs. Works vs. Chaos Monsters](https://share.snipd.com/episode/6339f9f3-7a49-4c19-bb36-2f52788861f4) ## Highlights - **James Was Originally Called Jacob** - The Greek title of James is Jacob, showing the book's name morphed through languages into 'James'. - Dan Beecher notes the original reads Jacobu Epistoli, explaining why 'Jacobian' appears in historical labels like Jacobian Shakespeare. Transcript: Dan Beecher But first thing I want to point out is when you look in the Greek, it actually doesn't say James. Do you recall what it says? No. Dan McClellan I don't read it in Greek. Well, okay, sorry. You may have told me at some point. Yeah, Jacob. Oh, yeah, okay. There you go. Yes. Dan Beecher So when you open up this book in Greek, the title is Jacobu Epistoli. This is the epistle of Jacob, which has become James through its various iterations in a bunch of different languages. Dan McClellan Shakespeare from schools as a kid. And at one point, a vice principal decided to really show off his knowledge and said, do you know the difference? Tell me about the difference between Elizabethan ([Time 0:05:30](https://share.snipd.com/snip/abbecf1e-623c-4be5-b22a-3150812994e1)) - **Scholars Doubt James's First Century Authorship** - Most scholars judge James pseudepigraphic because clear references only appear in the mid-3rd century, not the early church writings. - Dan Beecher connects late explicit citation (Origen ~3rd century) and James's asserted authorship to the probability of a later writer using James' name. Transcript: Dan Beecher One of the ones that I thought was, the first time I found out about this, I was like, huh, that's surprising. Can you guess who the first person—you've heard the names of a variety of different early Christians on this show for a while now. Can you guess who the first person to ever explicitly refer to the epistle of James is in early Christianity? Oh. No, I cannot. Because we already have references to New Testament texts, either quotations or explicit references, starting at the beginning of the 2nd century CE, and maybe even the end of the 1st century CE. But we don't get a clear and explicit reference to the epistle of James until the 3rd century And it is Origen writing closer to the middle of the third century CE, who is the first person To actually explicitly refer to the epistle of James. And there are folks who have argued that, well, the shepherd of Hermas has some, there are some resonances and points of contact, and so maybe Hermas knew about James, or maybe James Knew about Hermas, or maybe they both were kind of swimming in the same waters. There are possible illusions in 1st Clement, which is probably end of 1st century, beginning of 2nd century. There are possible allusions in Irenaeus at the end of the 2nd century, and Clement of Alexandria at the end of the 2nd century. But nobody clearly refers to or quotes from the Epistle of James until like the second quarter of the 3rd century CE. Wow. And this raises an interesting question. When the heck was this text written? Because if this was written in the early to mid-first century CE, as some scholars have argued, why didn't nobody talk about it when they were talking about all the other texts that were Written by other prominent Christians. James, like James, Peter, and Paul were like three of the most prominent Christians after the death of Jesus. They were the ones who basically led communities in Jerusalem and elsewhere. So it's a head-scratcher. And for this reason, there are a lot of scholars who think that it was not actually written by James. It is pseudepigraphic. It's a false writing. And this has to do with when we think it was written. Because if it was actually written by James, the brother of Jesus, it was obviously written in the middle of the first century CE. Yeah, I think we ([Time 0:09:19](https://share.snipd.com/snip/785f6fae-2349-403d-9aa1-47acb816d3f1)) - **James Responds To A Pauline Reading** - James appears to be arguing against a reading of Paul's doctrine on justification by faith, especially Romans 4. - Dan Beecher suggests James responds to a circulating interpretation of Paul that emphasized faith apart from works. Transcript: Dan Beecher Awful lot like James is disagreeing with Paul. And this is something that's been argued in the scholarship for a while. Is James contradicting Paul when it comes to salvation by faith? Because the second chapter goes off on a bit of a rant about the relationship of faith and works, and cites the same examples that Paul cites in arguing for salvation by faith. And so I and many other scholars would say that he's responding to Paul, or at least the way Paul is being represented in the time period in which the letter was written. And because there are scholars who are going to be like, ah, that's not actually what Paul's argument was. But it's certainly not clear to me that the author of the epistle of James was not allowed to misread Paul. I think the author is disagreeing with a reading of what's going on, specifically in Romans, which is pretty late in Paul's career and probably would have precluded the actual James, The brother of Jesus, from writing this. But there are other scholars who would say that Paul was actually riffing on James if this was written before Paul. But I think that's going to prove to be a minority view. ([Time 0:13:36](https://share.snipd.com/snip/a1fac8a2-4457-4ced-ba94-39a48417401e)) - **Mercy Triumphs Over Judgment In James** - James contrasts the 'law of the Moses' with a 'law of liberty' and asserts 'mercy triumphs over judgment.' - Dan Beecher explains chesed as doing above-and-beyond acts not demanded by law, aligning mercy with social justice. Transcript: Dan Beecher Because it says, so speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy. And one of my favorite passages in the New Testament, mercy triumphs over judgment. Dan McClellan Yeah, I loved that too. That is an awesome, powerful statement that really goes against a lot of what we're hearing right now in the sort of far-right extremist Christianity, where it's like, the Lord, God's Going to judge you, and you know, this person in this group and these LGBTQ whatever people are evil, and they've got demons in them, and it's just like, it's all judgment and exactly Zero mercy. Dan Beecher Yes, and this is one of my concerns with the way people talk about the difference between judgments slash justice and mercy. We tend to think of, and particularly within the Latter-day Saint tradition, but in a lot of different Christian traditions, there's this notion that justice and mercy are kind of A standing tension where justice is the demands of the law. And then mercy is overcoming the demands of the law. And the idea is, oh, we got to maintain both. And I think this is a misunderstanding of what justice is. One, when we look in the Hebrew and we look at what mishpat is and what tzedakah is and things like that, it's not isometric with our contemporary concept of justice as basically the proper And right and prescribed consequences of the law. It really, in the Hebrew Bible, it has to do with just generating the proper relationships, the proper outcomes, the proper equilibrium. It's kind of making sure society is just rather than making sure the people who do things wrong are punished. But I love that James just says, nah, mercy triumphs over judgment. ([Time 0:24:31](https://share.snipd.com/snip/99d9d353-1285-4e0b-9c56-3661dce6e14c)) - **James Says Faith Requires Works** - James insists 'faith without works is dead' and uses Abraham and Rahab to argue justification involves active deeds. - Dan Beecher highlights James quoting Abraham's offering of Isaac to claim works complete faith, directly challenging 'faith alone.' Transcript: Dan Beecher What I think is one of the best little diatribes in the New Testament, starting in verse 14 where James goes, What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but Does not have works? Surely that faith cannot save, can it? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, Go in peace, keep warm, and eat your fill, and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of That? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. Yeah, that's a big deal. Dan McClellan In one of the prominent debates of Christianity, that's a pretty big deal nail in a coffin. Dan Beecher Well, yeah, it certainly seems like it. Although what the interpretation of this passage that I hear most commonly from Christians who want to understand James as in perfect alignment with Paul when it comes to the relationship Of works to salvation, what they will argue is that the works are just the downstream outcome of a saving faith. So James seems to be saying you must construct your faith by your works and demonstrate your faith by your works, and what they get from that is, no, you've got to have the faith, and then The works are just this magical thing that happens because your faith is saved. Are And it is the next couple of verses that actually supply their proof text for that, because it says, but someone will say, you have faith and I have works. Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you faith. Right. And so the idea is, see, see, the works are just to show other people your faith. And I think this is pretty presuppositional because it's basically you're renegotiating what's going on in James so that you can make James align with Paul. As I've said many, many times, you approach the text, you figure out which texts agree with the presuppositions you've brought to it, and then you reinterpret all the other texts to Bring them into alignment with the texts that agree with your presuppositions. So I think that's what's going on there. But also, I think it's funny that it turns faith into something that you are required to display to others so that they can accept you. It really does make it more of a social club. It's not that the faith is there, you know, is all about this vertical relationship with God. No, your faith is so I can judge you whether you are good enough, whether your faith is adequate for me to consider you part of the group. So I think it kind of, it shows that they're wearing on their sleeve the approach to faith as an identity marker and as a bit of costly signaling, as a way to put on display to others that Your faith is good enough. Right. Dan McClellan As opposed to what I would interpret this to say, which is just that the important thing here, like faith aside, the important thing is are you doing good things and are you treating your Brothers and sisters kindly? And I must admit, from the first moment I heard the faith versus works debate and like which what gets you into heaven what's the real one is it faith or is it works i just thought like the First time i actually heard it two two guys going at each other over faith versus works and i was like you guys are saying the exact same thing like what is happening right now yeah and it Seems so weird to me to even have a debate because, yeah, it seems to me that the theology should be faith is vital and doing kindnesses to others is vital. Yeah. And you don't get away without having either. You have to have both. Yeah. Dan Beecher I think James's point is if your faith does not generate good works, it is not saving faith. It is not adequate. Not in the sense of faith alone is the soteriological principle, and then the works are just how you prove to other people that your faith is good enough. But in the sense of, hey, the point is to make a better world. And so faith is not an end in and of itself. Faith is just a component that contributes to creating a better world. He goes on to say, go ahead. Dan McClellan And if it doesn't have works, it's dead. It's literally dead faith. What good is dead faith? Dan Beecher Yeah. And so I don't think it's perfectly aligned with Paul. In fact, I think James is going to go on to disagree with Paul in a couple of verses down. Okay. But he says, you believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe and shudder. Or shudder, excuse me. Shudder, yeah. They shudder the windows. Yes, they close their windows. I don't know why I decided to remember that as S-H That's okay. But the idea being that, hey, demons are not going to get saved, but they believe in God and they believe that God is one. So you can see that just believing God in and of itself is not enough. Insufficient, yeah. Yeah, So I think the idea is faith minus works equals dead. Faith plus works equals salvation, and not faith equals salvation, and the works are just there to prove to the online apologist that you get to be called a Christian. It goes on, do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is worthless? Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and by works, faith was brought to completion. And here I want to point out, James pretty clearly saying that the faith was contingent on the works, not the other way around. The works are what put in the reps for the faith so the faith could get stronger. ([Time 0:29:50](https://share.snipd.com/snip/6f098dee-eea8-49a6-b1d3-975e987a5e9d)) - **Luther Called James An Epistle Of Straw** - Martin Luther famously dismissed James as an 'epistle of straw' because it seemed to contradict sola fide. - Dan Beecher recounts Luther's reaction and how Luther initially reordered certain books in his translation due to theological discomfort. Transcript: Dan Beecher And I think this is, by the way, why Martin Luther called this an epistle of straw. Because for Martin Luther, this was rejecting Paul's grace alone salvation or faith alone salvation. And so for Martin Luther, this was something up with which he could not put. So he called this an epistle of straw, and this along with a number of other texts like Revelation, like Hebrews, like the Apocrypha. Martin Luther, in the first edition of the new translation of the Bible that he published, moved them into a different section of the Bible. And the only thing that stuck from that was moving the Apocrypha into a separate section. Everybody else was like, no, we're bringing these other things back. We're going to bring these other ones back. Dan McClellan He was having a bad day that day, and I think he just got a little too grumpy. ([Time 0:38:32](https://share.snipd.com/snip/98aa7167-18be-46f2-ae10-2ae565f615d9)) - **Leviathan Comes From Older Ugaritic Traditions** - Isaiah 27's Leviathan echoes an older Ugaritic chaos-serpent tradition where a storm god defeats Lotan/Leviathan. - Dan Beecher traces identical epithets and imagery to Ugaritic Baal cycle, showing Israelite texts repurposed regional chaos-monster tropes. Transcript: Dan Beecher Okay, I'll allow it this one time. Okay, I appreciate it. And here we have the beginning of a story of Israel's redemption. And it says in the, this is the NRSVUE, on that day, the Lord, with his cruel and great and strong sword, will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and He will kill the dragon that is in the sea. So a couple things to point out about this. This is eschatological. This is looking forward to some day off in the future where God is going to take a sword and kill a dragon that lives in the sea, not in a pineapple, not under the sea, but in the sea. We don't know about the pineapple. Dan McClellan It does not mention pineapple or no pineapple. What's ancient Hebrew for pineapple? I don't think they even know that. Oh, gosh. Dan Beecher I don't think we have that until we get the two different variations on it, the piña or the pineapple variation. Anyway, and what is fascinating about this is that this text was probably written somewhere in the late 8th century BCE or maybe a little after that. We have an almost identical statement in a Ugaritic text that comes from about 500 years earlier. Dan McClellan Oh, wow. Yes. That is an early predate right there. Yes. Dan Beecher Yeah. So we're talking 500 years ago was before Shakespeare. Yeah. So it is an old and we have a much more robust publishing these days than they did back then. But anyway, there's the Baal cycle, which is not something you do at Little League practice. I was going to say, you're talking about Baal? Baal, if you're nasty, is a storm deity. And there's a fight that happens between Baal and a chaos monster called Lotan. And here I'll remind you Leviathan. The V there is really a Vav in Hebrew, which can be understood as a W or an O. So these are cognate names. In other words, this is the Ugaritic version of the Hebrew name Leviathan. And it says that Paul—Paul. Dan McClellan Ball, excuse me. St. Ball's epistle to the Ugarits. Dan Beecher The Ugarids. The Baal destroyed Leviathan, the fleeing serpent, or Lotan, excuse me. Lotan, the fleeing serpent. Lotan, the twisting serpent. Okay. And the Ugaritic adjectives there are identical. They're cognate to the Hebrew adjectives. And then it says the dragon with seven heads. ([Time 0:45:28](https://share.snipd.com/snip/fa57db19-3ec7-4464-8680-706e373e4404)) - **Defeating Leviathan Symbolizes Creation Order** - Psalm 74 depicts God crushing the many-headed Leviathan, linking the monster's defeat to divine ordering of chaotic waters. - Dan Beecher notes the heads imagery ties to a long regional motif (multi-headed sea-dragon) that reappears through Revelation. Transcript: Dan Beecher I thought we were headed there. Dan McClellan I have been doing my research, so I knew Psalm 74 was coming up because of that head thing. Dan Beecher Yeah. So in Psalm 74, we've got a fairly early psalm, but it's at least incorporating some early traditions. And here we have, yet God my king is from of old working salvation in the earth. So Isaiah 27 was looking forward to some kind of eschatological defeat of the chaos monster. And so in that text, the Leviathan is probably representative of just the general chaos of the world. So God is going to defeat that chaos and bring peace to everybody. Here we have, my God, my King is from of old working salvation in the earth. You divided the sea by your might. You broke the heads of the dragons in the waters. You crushed the heads of Leviathan. You gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness. So here we have a multi-headed Leviathan. And one of the things that I think is interesting is when we look at this, Leviathan is called a dragon in this passage. Leviathan in Isaiah 27.1 is called a fleeing serpent, a twisting serpent, the dragon that is in the sea. There's an interesting thing in the book of Revelation that refers to somebody as a dragon and a serpent. Do you recall who that was? No, wait. Dan McClellan Satan? Okay. Dan Beecher Yes. In Revelation, we have a reference to Satan as that great red serpent and dragon. And people think that that's talking about the serpent in the Garden of Eden. But guess who was there before the Garden of Eden? And guess who was the only one who was actually referred to as both a serpent and a dragon? Leviathan. Dan McClellan Right. Dan Beecher The book of Revelation is about Leviathan as Satan, not the serpent from the Garden of Eden, because that was not identified with Satan. But I digress. In Psalm 74, we have a clear reference to the many heads of Leviathan. Oh, right. Revelation also says that this Satan beast has seven heads. Dan McClellan Right. So, you know. I will just briefly push back a little bit and say that 74 doesn't say many heads. It just says the heads. Plural heads. Dan Beecher We know it's plural. Yes. Could be two. Could 11 probably more than two uh if there were two heads they could have used they were not necessarily required to use but they could have used the dual form right because hebrew has A dual form so uh but revelation probably seven heads because there's a tradition here we have a whole tradition that's a clear tradition that goes all the way down to Revelation. So, you know, jot that down. Anyway, so we have Leviathan as this primordial chaos monster. Psalm 74 is talking about salvation being worked in the earth in the past. And the reference to dividing the seas sounds like the way that creation is sometimes described. ([Time 0:50:08](https://share.snipd.com/snip/cb2055e0-5764-4701-8726-976d7752562d)) - **Rahab Is A Political Chaos Monster** - Rahab is another chaos-monster term used metaphorically for political enemies like Egypt and the sea. - Dan Beecher explains Rahab's root meaning 'proud one' and its flexible use as personified chaos across Isaiah and Psalms. Transcript: Dan Beecher Notice a pattern here? Yeah. Dan McClellan We have— Those are the books that really like the big monsters. Dan Beecher Yeah. Yes, these are pro-monster, at least pro-representation of monsters. You have in Isaiah 51, 9. So this is no longer Isaiah 27. This is no longer 1st Isaiah. This is 2nd Isaiah. We've had 1st Isaiah. What about 2nd Isaiah? Here is 2nd Isaiah. It is much later, by the way. Awake, awake, put on strength. O arm of the Lord, awake as in days of old, the generations of long ago. Verse 1, So here we have, we're bringing the Exodus into play here. We have the parting of the Red Sea. And Rahab is represented as Egypt, as one of these political enemies. So we can have the chaos monster representative of general chaos. We can also have Rahab, another chaos monster who is associated with the sea, representative of specific political enemies. So I think you have it's these stories, I think, make use of a broader kind of conceptual palette that they could for, you know, putting together these compositions for for telling these Stories in a way that's going to invoke specific emotional responses. And if you've got these monsters, it's just a lot more fun. Dan McClellan Well, yeah, and I think it's so interesting. These are very clearly metaphors, and it's sort of explicitly using them metaphorically. And yet there are people out there who want to insist on sort of the inerrancy of the Bible, who want it to be so literal that if it says that there are dragons, then there must have then been Dragons back in biblical times or whatever. Well, didn't you hear? That's the dinosaurs right yes exactly walked with humans we should probably do that uh a dinosaur segment where we just talk about ken ham and ken hovind talking about all the dinosaurs On the ark or whatever and uh but i but but the but it's so funny to me to back yourself into that corner because then it's just then then people are going to say like okay now you have to be Accountable for the the idea of there being dragons yeah on the earth what yeah what are you doing to yourself it's just this is this is an own goal it's an unforced error. Dan Beecher It's not necessary. So Rahab could be a personification of the sea or at least a monsterification of the sea, or it could be another name for Leviathan. But we don't have a ton of details about what precisely where this is coming from. But the word is also used to mean proud one. So we see it used that way, and that might be why it's associated with Egypt. ([Time 0:55:38](https://share.snipd.com/snip/8be04f84-4b59-4d53-83ae-3e90c8fdc6ef)) - **Behemoth Is A Primordial Creatures Image Not A Hippo** - Behemoth in Job reads as a primordial land monster, not a realistic hippo or dinosaur, emphasizing creative display rather than zoology. - Dan Beecher points to parallel body-part wording and likely sexual metaphors (tail/penis) to argue against literal animal IDs. Transcript: Dan Beecher Consider the behemoth of the fields. It says, which I made just as I made you. It eats grass like an ox. Its strength is in its loins and its power in the muscles of its belly. It makes its tail stiff like a cedar. The sinews of its thighs are knit together. Its bones are tubes of bronze, its limbs like bars of iron. It is the first of the great acts of God. Only its maker can approach it with the sword, for the mountains yield food for it where all the wild animals play. Under the lotus plants it lies, in the covert of the reeds and in the marsh. The lotus trees cover it for shade, the willows of the wadi surround it, even if the river is turbulent. It is not frightened, it is confident, though Jordan rushes against its mouth. Can one take it with hooks or pierce its nose with a snare? Dan McClellan Yeah, it's such a weird argument. First of all, talk to me about it being the first thing. So I think the majority— The first of the great acts of God. Dan Beecher Yeah, I think the majority of scholars would probably say that behemoth is not describing a hippopotamus. It's not like this fantastical description of a hippopotamus. I think they would say it is another primordial creature, monster. And so basically this is when God is in their, um, you know, let's see what I can get away with phase and is making fantastical beasts and where to find them. And, uh, is so the first great act of God might just be God is, is stretching the, their creative legs and, and just like, bam, look at that. Look at that thing. Dan McClellan Look at what I did. Yeah. I have to admit that when I was reading the description, I imagined the big buffalo from Avatar, the last airbender. Ah. The six-legged giant buffalo thing. Because unlike Leviathan and Rahab uh this one seems kind of gentle it's just i mean like it's really really strong but it's just chilling under the under the the lotus plants yeah yeah It's just laying in the river um eating uh grass like an ox it just seems nice i i like i like behemoth i i to point out something interesting about, particularly for people who say this Dan Beecher Is some kind of sauropod or something like that. Oh, okay. Versus 16 and 17, its strength is in its loins and its power in the muscles of its belly. It makes its tail stiff like a cedar. The sinews of its thighs are knit together. So we've got four different clauses here and they're all parallel. We got couplets, two repeated couplets. And so we've got a reference to loins, a reference to muscles of the belly, a reference to a tail, and then a reference to thighs. Now we're kind of homed in on a particular part of this animal. But what's funny is the word that is translated in most translations, tail, might not mean tail. It could be used metaphorically to mean penis. Oh. So, which a lot of scholars would say is more appropriate to the context, because we've got loins, belly, penis, thighs. And what does it do with its zanav? It makes it stiff like a cedar. Yeah. So I think what the author of Job is, for whatever reason, kind of affixed on, might be something other than how wiggly and big its tail is. ([Time 1:00:58](https://share.snipd.com/snip/160d3332-c10c-4e8d-92d1-60b36a120cc5))