R. A. Martin (1)

I read the commentary on James. It’s short and doesn’t distinguish itself—not even as a Lutheran commentary on a notoriously un-Lutheran letter. Martin does a respectable job carefully refocusing interpretation of James to align him with Paul. In the end, although his interpretation seems to address the primary question of justification, it fails to address the secondary question: evidence of salvation that gives assurance. Martin’s commentary actually re-enforces an interpretation of James where works are evidence of a Christian’s salvation, seemingly holding in his mind’s eye adult converts as the case study. In so doing, Martin seems oblivious to how the book would be interpreted by those raised in the faith whose works seem to be absent (and therefore have dead faith). On what basis can these commonplace believers claim the grace of God that seemed apparent earlier? James’ answer seems to run against Paul’s, and Martin offers no help.… (mere)