The Letter of James by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

The Letter of James

The Pillar New Testament Commentary General Editor

D. A. CARSON

The Letter of James Second Edition

Douglas J. Moo

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company Grand Rapids, Michigan

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 4035 Park East Court SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546 www.eerdmans.com © 2000, 2021 Douglas J. Moo All rights reserved First edition 2000 Second edition 2021 Printed in the United States of America 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ISBN 978-0-8028-7666-9 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Moo, Douglas J., author. Title: The Letter of James / Douglas J. Moo. Description: Second edition. | Grand Rapids, Michigan : William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2021. | Series: The Pillar New Testament commentary | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “The second edition of a commentary on the letter of James that provides a verse-by-verse exposition of the text and practical insights for applying its meaning in the church today”—Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2020054728 | ISBN 9780802876669 (hardcover) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. James—Commentaries. Classification: LCC BS2785.53 .M65 2021 | DDC 227/.9107—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020054728

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www. zondervan.com. The “NIV” and “New International Version” are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™

To Jenny, co-worker in the Lord

Contents

Series Preface

Preface to the Second Edition

xiii

Preface to the First Edition

Texts and Translations

xvii

Abbreviations

xix

Bibliography

xxiii

INTRODUCTION I. The Letter in the Church

II. Nature and Genre

III. Author

A. The Case for James of Jerusalem as the Author

B. The Challenge to the Traditional View

C. Final Assessment

IV. Occasion and Date

A. The Readers and Their Situation

B. Date

V. Context of Thought and Theology

A. Cognitive Environment

B. James and “Theology”

vii

Contents

viii C. God

D. Eschatology

E. The Law / the Word of God

F. Wisdom

G. Poverty and Wealth

H. The Christian Life

I. Faith, Works, and Justification

VI. Structure and Theme

COMMENTARY OUTLINE OF JAMES

COMMENTARY ON JAMES

I. Letter Opening: Overview of Pastoral Concerns (1:1–27)

A. Address and Greeting (1:1)

B. The Pursuit of Spiritual Wholeness (1:2–18)

1. Trials and Spiritual Wholeness (1:2–4) 72 2. Wisdom, Faith, and Spiritual Wholeness (1:5–8)

3. Encouraging the Poor, Challenging the Rich (1:9–11) 84 4. Reward for Enduring Trials (1:12)

5. Trials and Temptations (1:13–15)

6. God’s Good and Consistent Giving (1:16–18)

100

C. Characteristics of Spiritual Wholeness (1:19–27)

106

1. Warning about Hasty Speech and Anger (1:19–20)

107

2. The Right Response to God’s Word (1:21–25)

112

3. Marks of Pure and Faultless Religion (1:26–27)

125

II. Letter Body: Development of Pastoral Concerns (2:1–5:11) A. Discrimination against the Poor and the “Royal Law” (2:1–13)

128 128

ix Contents 1. Rebuke for Discriminating against the Poor (2:1–7) 128 2. Discrimination and the Kingdom Law of Love (2:8–13)

141

B. The Faith That Saves (2:14–26)

151

C. Spiritual Wholeness, Speech, and Community Harmony (3:1–4:12)

180

1. The Harmful Effects of the Uncontrolled Tongue (3:1–12)

182

2. The Fruit of True Wisdom: Peace (3:13–4:3)

208

3. A Summons to Spiritual Wholeness (4:4–10)

232

4. A Final Rebuke of Sinful Speech (4:11–12)

248

D. Arrogance, the Abuse of Wealth, and the Christian Response (4:13–5:11)

252

1. Rebuke of Arrogant Planning (4:13–17)

253

2. Rebuke of the Abuse of Wealth (5:1–6)

264

3. Patient Endurance in Light of the Lord’s Return (5:7–11)

278

III. Letter Closing: Final Pastoral Concerns (5:12–20)

293

A. Oaths and Truthfulness (5:12)

294

B. Prayer and Healing (5:13–18)

297

C. A Concluding Summons to Action (5:19–20)

316

INDEXES Index of Subjects

321

Index of Authors

324

Index of Scripture References

328

Index of Early Extrabiblical Literature

344

Series Preface

Commentaries have specific aims, and this series is no exception. Designed for serious pastors and teachers of the Bible, the Pillar commentaries seek above all to make clear the text of Scripture as we have it. The scholars writing these volumes interact with the most important informed contemporary debate but avoid getting mired in undue technical detail. Their ideal is a blend of rigorous exegesis and exposition, with an eye alert both to biblical theology and to the contemporary relevance of the Bible, without confusing the commentary and the sermon. The rationale for this approach is that the vision of “objective scholarship” (a vain chimera) may actually be profane. God stands over against us; we do not stand in judgment of him. When God speaks to us through his word, those who profess to know him must respond in an appropriate way, which is certainly different from a stance in which the scholar projects an image of autonomous distance. Yet this is no surreptitious appeal for uncontrolled subjectivity. The writers of this series aim for an evenhanded openness to the text that is the best kind of “objectivity” of all. If the text is God’s word, it is appropriate that we respond with reverence, a certain fear, a holy joy, a questing obedience. These values should be reflected in the way Christians write. With these values in place, the Pillar commentaries will be warmly welcomed not only by pastors, teachers, and students, but by general readers as well. *

At first glance some might think it rather surprising that the author of one of this century’s major commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans should turn his hand to write a sympathetic commentary on James. But that is what Douglas Moo has achieved. More than an enlargement of his well-received little commentary on James in the TNTC series, this volume is a fresh and xi

xii

Series Preface

detailed work that displays, in particular, two great strengths. The first is a deceptive simplicity. Even when he is handling remarkably complex exegetical points, Dr. Moo argues his case with an economy and simplicity of style altogether enviable and sure to be appreciated by every reader. The second is a gentle tone of thoughtful application. Without forgetting that this book is a commentary and not a homily, Dr. Moo expounds the text not only with the cool objectivity of the seasoned scholar but with the warm reflection of the pastor. It is an enormous privilege to work with him as a colleague in the institution both of us serve. D. A. Carson

Preface to the Second Edition

I am grateful that Eerdmans Publishing Company has given me the opportunity to revise this commentary on James, first published in 2000. The revision is a substantial one. Important commentaries, monographs, and articles have been written in the past twenty years, and I have tried to interact with a good range of these publications (without eliminating or ignoring older works). I have rewritten a number of passages, hoping that the revised form will communicate my ideas more clearly. These revisions have meant a lengthening of the volume (by about 30 percent)—a lengthening, I should note, requested by the publisher. Many people have helped shape my thinking on James, not least students at Wheaton College and at other institutions and churches. Their questions and interaction have significantly affected what I have written in this volume. I am especially grateful to Michael Kibbe and Grant Flynn, who pointed me to important sources and suggested both substantive revisions and helped polish the writing. As always, however, I express special appreciation to my wife, Jenny. She read the entire manuscript, suggested innumerable changes in wording to clarify the argument, and compiled the indexes. She is, indeed, in the full sense of the word, my co-worker.

xiii

Preface to the First Edition

I am very grateful to Don Carson, general editor of the Pillar New Testament Commentary, and to the Eerdmans Publishing Company for the opportunity to write this commentary on the Letter of James. As many readers of this commentary will know, fifteen years ago I wrote a commentary on James for the Tyndale series (The Letter of James [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans/ Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1985]). The opportunity to revisit this letter has proved to be very profitable for me and, I hope, for students of James. The Pillar series has enabled me almost to double the space I could devote to commentary on the letter. I have therefore been able to pursue issues of background and theology at greater length. I am more impressed than ever by James’s creative use of Hellenistic Jewish traditions in his exposition of practical Christianity. And I remain convinced that the heart of the letter is a call to wholehearted commitment to Christ. James’s call for consistent and uncompromising Christian living is much needed. Our churches are filled with believers who are only halfhearted in their faith and, as a result, leave large areas of their lives virtually untouched by genuine Christian values. Nor am I immune to such problems. As I quite unexpectedly find myself in my “middle age” years, I have discovered a tendency to back off in my fervor for the Lord and his work. My reimmersion in James has challenged me sharply at just this point. I pray that it might have the same effect on all readers of the commentary. In addition to series editor Don Carson and Eerdmans editor Milton Essenburg, I have several others to thank for their help with this volume. My research assistant at Trinity, Stephen Pegler, helped compile bibliography and edit the manuscript. My office assistant, Leigh Swain, keyed my earlier commentary into WordPerfect as a source for this work. She and Trinity doctoral fellow Pierce Yates also helped with the indexes. But most of all I want to thank my wife Jenny, to whom I dedicate this book. She also helped with the indexes; but, more than that, she encouraged me in the work when my self-confidence was at a low ebb. Douglas J. Moo xv

Texts and Translations

The commentary is based on the New International Version of the Bible (NIV) 2011. The text of this version is quoted at the beginning of every commentary section, with paragraphing and spacing kept intact. All quotations from the English Bible are also from the NIV, unless otherwise indicated. Quotations from the Greek New Testament are from the Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle-Aland, 28th ed.), and quotations from the Hebrew/ Aramaic Old Testament are from Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Quotations of the Apocrypha are taken from NRSV; of the Pseudepigrapha from The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols., ed. J. H. Charlesworth [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983, 1985]); of the Dead Sea Scrolls from The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader (6 vols., ed. D. W. Parry and E. Tov [Leiden: Brill, 2004–2005]); and of Philo from the Loeb Classical Library.

xvii

Abbreviations

AB ABD ABR AD ANRW BBRSup BC BDAG

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary Australian Biblical Review in the year of our Lord Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt Bulletin for Biblical Research, Supplements before Christ Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek- English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. BDF Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Bib Biblica BK Bibel und Kirche BN Biblische Notizen BSac Bibliotheca Sacra BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin BTNT Biblical Theology of the New Testament BZ Biblische Zeitschrift ca. circa CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CCSL Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina. Turnhout: Brepols, 1953–. CEB Common English Bible CEV Contemporary English Version ch(s). chapter(s) CSB Christian Standard Bible

xix

Abbreviations

CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum CTR Criswell Theological Review CurBR Currents in Biblical Research diss. dissertation DLNT Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Edited by R. P. Martin and P. H. Davids. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997. esp. especially ESV English Standard Version EvQ Evangelical Quarterly ExpTim Expository Times FC Fathers of the Church Gk. Greek HBT Horizons in Biblical Theology Heb. Hebrew HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament HThKNT Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament HTR Harvard Theological Review ICC International Critical Commentary ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by G. W. Bromiley. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979–1988. JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JR Journal of Religion JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series JTISup Journal for Theological Interpretation, Supplements JTS Journal for Theological Studies KD Kerygma und Dogma KJV King James Version LB Linguistica Biblica LNTS The Library of New Testament Studies L&N Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. Edited by J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida. 2nd ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989. LSJ Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, and H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. LW Luther’s Works

xxi Abbreviations LXX Septuagint MS(S) manuscript(s) MT Masoretic Text NA28 Novum Testamentum Graece. Edited by B. Aland, K. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C. M. Martini, and B. M. Metzger. In cooperation with the Institute for New Testament Textual Research. 28th rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012. NAB New American Bible NASB New American Standard Bible NET New English Translation NICNT The New International Commentary on the New Testament NIDNTT New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Edited by C. Brown. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975–1978. NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary NIV New International Version NJB New Jerusalem Bible NKJV New King James Version NLT New Living Translation NovT Novum Testamentum NovTSup Supplements to Novum Testamentum n.p. no page number NRSV New Revised Standard Version NSBT New Studies in Biblical Theology NT New Testament NTS New Testament Studies OT Old Testament para. paragraph par(r). parallel(s) PG Patrologia Graeca. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1857– 1886. Phillips The New Testament in Modern English by J. B. Phillips PNTC Pillar New Testament Commentary p(p.) page(s) Presb Presbyterion REB Revised English Bible ResQ Restoration Quarterly RHR Revue de l’histoire des religions RSV Revised Standard Version SBL Studies in Biblical Literature

xxii SJT SNTSMS SP ST StPB TDNT

Abbreviations

Scottish Journal of Theology Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Sacra Pagina Studia Theologica Studia Post-biblica Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. TEV Today’s English Version TJ Trinity Journal TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentaries TynBul Tyndale Bulletin Tyndale House The Greek New Testament. Edited by D. Jongkind. Cambridge: University Press, 2017. UBS5 The Greek New Testament. Edited by B. Aland, K. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C. M. Martini, and B. M. Metzger. In cooperation with the Institute for New Testament Textual Research. 5th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014. vol. volume WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament WTJ Westminster Theological Journal WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament ZECNT Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

Introduction

The Epistle of James has had a checkered history. Its place in the canon was contested by some early Christians. The reformer Martin Luther called it an “epistle of straw” and relegated it to a secondary status within the NT. And modern theologians sometimes dismiss the letter as a holdover from Judaism that does not truly express the essence of the Christian faith. Yet quite in contrast to the neglect and even somewhat negative view of the letter among academics and theologians is the status of James among ordinary believers. Few books of the NT are better known or more often quoted than James. It is probably one of the two or three most popular NT books in the church. We will investigate in the sections that follow in the introduction just why some theologians have had difficulties with James. But why is James so popular among believers generally? Three characteristics of the letter seem to provide the answer. First, James is intensely practical, and believers looking for specific guidance in the Christian life naturally appreciate such an emphasis. Typical of the letter is 1:22, arguably the most famous command in the NT: “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.” James is filled with similar clear and direct commands. In fact, the letter contains a higher frequency of imperative verbs than any other NT book. James’s purpose is clearly not so much to inform as to chastise, exhort, and encourage. It is not, as we will show, that James is unconcerned with theology or that he does not have solid theological basis for his commands. It is, rather, that he touches only briefly and allusively on the theology while concentrating on the practical outworking of the theology. A second factor making James so attractive to believers is his conciseness. He rarely develops the points he makes at any length, being content to make his point and to move quickly on. This rapid-fire treatment of issues (at least in some parts of the letter) has posed a challenge to interpreters trying to 1

Introduction

discover the logical flow of James’s argument. But what troubles interpreters is a virtue for many readers, who can immediately appreciate the point that James is trying to make. Indeed, James in this respect is somewhat similar to OT and Jewish wisdom books, such as Proverbs, and Christians appreciate these books for similar reasons. Third, James’s lavish use of metaphors and illustrations makes his teaching easy to understand and to remember. The billowing sea, the withered flower, the image of a face in a mirror, the bit in the horse’s mouth, the rudder of the ship, the destructive forest fire, the pure spring of water, the arrogant businessman, the corroded metal, and moth-eaten clothes—all are images of virtually universal appeal. Nevertheless, without denying that James’s teaching often makes very direct and obvious points, his letter was written during circumstances far removed from ours. To appreciate fully what James wants to communicate to the church of our day, we need to understand these circumstances as best we can. In the sections of the introduction that follow, we will take up the various facets of James’s situation so that we might gain as accurate and detailed a picture as possible of the context in which God used James to communicate his word for his people.

I. THE LETTER IN THE CHURCH The Letter of James is addressed not to a single church but to “the twelve tribes scattered among the nations” (1:1). This general address led early Christians to categorize James, along with the similarly vaguely addressed 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, and Jude, as a “general” or “catholic” (in the sense of “universal”) letter. Perhaps because the letters did not find a home in any single church, each of them had something of a struggle to find general acceptance as canonical books. James was not finally recognized by both the Eastern and Western parts of the church until the fourth century. The Letter of James was, of course, known and used by many Christians long before then. The letter is first mentioned by name early in the third century. But ancient Christians were in the habit of quoting from books and using their content without naming them. So determining how early James was used in the early church depends on identifying places in early Christian literature where the teaching of James is cited or referred to. But such an identification is not always easy, since much of what James teaches is traditional. What might

3 The Letter in the Church seem to be a reference to James could simply be a reference to a widespread teaching that James shares with many other Jews and early Christians. J. B. Mayor, in his classic commentary on James, takes a maximal approach, identifying allusions to James in many NT books and early Christian writings.1 But many of these allusions prove to be no more than similarities in rather common language or ideas. A more sober and realistic estimate comes from Luke Timothy Johnson. He thinks a good case can be made that two Christian books from the late first and early second century depend on James: 1 Clement, a letter written in Rome about AD 95, and the Shepherd of Hermas, a series of homilies from the early or middle second century.2 This latter book has an especially significant number of parallels to James. In the section of that book called the “Mandates,” several of James’s characteristic themes are found: the encouragement to pray with faith and without “double-mindedness” in Mandate 9 is particularly close in wording and emphasis to Jas 1:6–8.3 An early Christian writer, Cassiodorus, claims that Clement, head of the catechetical school in Alexandria, wrote a commentary on James. But it has never been discovered, and Clement does not show dependence on James in his other writings.4 Clement’s successor in Alexandria, Origen, is the first to cite James by name. He attributes the letter to James “the apostle” (Commentary on the Gospel of John frag. 126) and cites the letter as Scripture (Selections in Psalms 30:6).5 In the Latin translation of Origen’s works, the author is more explicitly identified as “the brother of the Lord,” but the reliability of this addition is doubted. Several other third-century Christian writings allude to James, and the letter is quoted as scriptural in the Pseudo-Clementine tractate The 1. See esp. pp. lxix–lxxi, lxxxviii–cix. 2. Johnson, 68–80. He provides a good overview of the reception of James in the church on pp. 39–100. 3. In light of these parallels, Allison (13–24) admits possible influence of James on Shepherd of Hermas. But he finally doubts that this book, or any other pre-150 Christian document, makes clear reference to James. See also D. R. Nienhuis, Not by Paul Alone: The Formation of the Catholic Epistle Collection and the Christian Canon (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007), 102–6. 4. B. F. Westcott speculated that “Jude” should be read in place of “James” in Cassiodorus’s statement (A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, 6th ed. [London: Macmillan, 1889]), 357–58. 5. In Commentary on the Gospel of John 19.6 (PG 14:569), Origen quotes from Jas 2 and asserts that the words are found in tē pheromenē Iakōbou epistolē (“the epistle bearing [the name of] James”). The word pheromenē (“bear, carry”) has been taken as an indication of Origen’s doubts about the epistle’s origins, but the word simply means “current” and does not qualify Origen’s acceptance of the letter (see Ropes, 93; Mußner, 39).

Introduction

Virgins. In the early fourth century, the historian Eusebius both cites James and regards the letter as canonical. However, he also relegates it to the status of a “disputed book” in his survey of the state of the canon in his day (Ecclesiastical History 3.25.3, 2.23.25). This category encompasses books that were accepted by many Christians as scriptural but rejected by others. The doubts about James probably came from the Syrian church, where the general letters were often rejected. Theodore of Mopsuestia, one of the most influential Syrian theologians, for instance, refused to accept into the canon any of the general letters. Nevertheless, James was included in the fifth-century Syriac translation of the NT, and it is quoted with approval by two other giants of the Eastern church: Chrysostom and Theodoret. While dissenting voices are found, therefore, the Eastern church as a whole generally accepted James as a scriptural document. A similar pattern emerges in the Western church, although James was slower to gain acceptance there. Neither the Muratorian Canon (late second century) nor the Mommsen catalog (listing the African canon of ca. 360) includes James.6 In fact, the earliest undisputed reference to James in the Western church comes only in the middle of the fourth century (Hilary of Poitiers and Ambrosiaster). Decisive, perhaps, for James’s eventual place in the canon of the Western church, was the endorsement of the major figure Jerome. He included James in his Latin translation and cited it frequently. Moreover, he explicitly identified the author as the brother of the Lord. Augustine followed suit, and James landed a secure place in the canon of the Christian church. How should we evaluate the rather slow and hesitant adoption of James into the early Christian canon? Some scholars think that the doubts expressed by some early Christians about James should raise doubts in our minds about the authenticity or authority of the letter for the church. But two factors suggest that this conclusion is unwarranted. First, the evidence we possess suggests that James was not so much rejected as neglected. While evidence for the use and authoritative status of James is not as early or widespread as we might wish, very few early Christians, knowing the letter, dismissed it. Second, the neglect that James experienced might have something to do with the tendency in the early church to link Scripture with apostles. James was a fairly common name; as we will see below, at least two prominent NT Christians bore the name. This not only engendered confusion about the author but 6. The absence of James in the Muratorian Canon may be accidental, since the text is mutilated; see Westcott, History of the Canon, 219–20, and, for a contrasting interpretation, Mußner, 41.

5 The Letter in the Church also rendered quite uncertain any connection between James and apostolicity. Moreover, James is filled with rather traditional and quite practical admonitions: not the kind of book that would figure prominently in early Christian theological debates.7 At the same time, some early Jewish-Christian groups misrepresented some of the teaching of James in support of their own heretical agendas. Orthodox Christians, seeing this appeal to James by heretics, may well have looked with some suspicion on James.8 And, finally, the destination of the letter may also account for its relative neglect. The letter was probably written to Jewish Christians living in Palestine and Syria. These churches, partly as a result of the disastrous revolts against Rome in 66–70 and 132–135, disappeared at an early date; and letters written to them may similarly have disappeared for a time.9 The canonical status of James came under scrutiny again at the time of the Reformation. The humanist scholar Erasmus raised doubts about the letter’s apostolic origin, questioning whether a brother of Jesus could have written a letter composed in such good Greek. Luther also doubted the apostolic status of the letter, but his criticism of James went much further. His objections to James were primarily theological. Luther’s quest for peace with God ended with his discovery of Paul’s teaching about justification by faith alone. Justification by faith became for him and his followers, as later Lutheran theologians put it, “the doctrine on which the church stands or falls.” It was because Luther gave to justification by faith central importance in defining NT theology that he had difficulties with letters like James that were silent about, or even appeared to be critical of, this doctrine. Hence Luther claimed that James “mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture” (LW 35.397). James was “an epistle of straw” (LW 35.362), to be relegated to the end of the NT along with Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation. Clearly, then, Luther had doubts about whether James should be regarded with the same respect and authority as the more “central” NT documents.10 But we should be careful not 7. Dibelius, 53–54; D. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 726. 8. Martin, lxi. 9. It may be significant in this regard that Origen cites James only after his move from Alexandria to Palestine; see Laws, 24. 10. A modern scholar who has picked up the torch of Luther is P. Stuhlmacher (Biblical Theology of the New Testament, trans. D. P. Bailey [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018]), who views James’s view of justification as “directed against [Paul]” (498); James “completely misses the teaching and intention of Paul” (500); therefore, “it is impossible to place the Letter of James on equal footing in the canon next to the Pauline doctrinal letters.”

Introduction

to overemphasize the strength of his critique. He did not exclude James from the canon and quotes the letter rather frequently in his writings.11 A balanced assessment of Luther’s view of James is summed up well by Luther himself: “I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him” (LW 35.397). The other reformers did not share Luther’s negative view of James. Calvin, for instance, while admitting that James “seems more sparing in proclaiming the grace of Christ than it behooved an Apostle to be,” also rightly noted that “it is not surely required for all to handle the same arguments.”12 He accepted the full apostolic authority of the letter and argued that Paul’s and James’s perspectives on justification could be harmonized so as to maintain the unity of Scripture. Calvin’s approach to James is standard among the community of believers. And it is surely the right one. With a better appreciation of the Jewish background against which James is writing and the benefit of distance from the battles Luther was fighting, we can both value the distinctive message of James and see how that message can be harmonized with the message of Paul. James has his own contribution to make to our understanding of Christian theology and practice. That contribution, as I will argue later, provides an important counterweight to a potential imbalance from reading Paul (or certain of Paul’s letters) alone. The early Christians who, under the providential guidance of God, accorded to James canonical status recognized the inherent value of James in this regard. We can be grateful for the opportunity to read, appropriate, and live out the distinctive emphases of this important NT letter. This is not to say that the acceptance of James as authoritative Scripture is unquestioned since Calvin’s time. Two challenges in particular need to be addressed. First, the academic community has raised several questions about the origin of James that have the real or potential effect of seriously undermining the letter’s authority. We will deal with these matters in the sections that follow. Second, even when the letter is acknowledged to be fully canonical and authoritative for the church, Christians can effectively avoid the contribution of the letter to theology and practice by simply ignoring it or by failing to interpret the letter on its own terms. We can almost unconsciously operate with a “canon within the canon” that fails to do justice to the full scope of the revelation God has given us. 11. See D. Stoutenberg, “Martin Luther’s Exegetical Use of the Epistle of St. James” (MA thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1982). 12. Calvin, 277.

7 Nature and Genre

II. NATURE AND GENRE Several facets of the book of James need to be considered as we think about the kind of book that we have before us.13 First, the book’s opening words make clear that what James writes was sent by him to a particular audience in the form of a letter. The letter was a very broad literary category in the ancient world, encompassing everything from brief notes of information and request to long argumentative discourses. In addition, the particular content of a letter could take many different forms. The writer of a letter could take almost any kind of content, add to it an appropriate opening and/or closing, and send it off in the form of a letter to a particular audience. Two NT books illustrate the point very well. The ending of Hebrews reveals that the book was sent as a letter. Yet, as most scholars agree, the actual “form” of the book is a sermon. Similarly, the opening of Revelation shows that the material that follows was sent in the form of a letter. Yet that material itself takes the form of an apocalypse. James, then, is obviously a letter. But to identify the actual form of the contents of this letter requires a more careful examination of those contents. To begin, negatively, James does not include references to specific people or situations; all the issues he tackles are generic, the kinds of situations that could have arisen almost anywhere. At the same time, the ending of the book omits greetings, references to fellow workers, or travel plans—content that often marks NT (especially Pauline) letters. Also missing are references to specific people, places, or situations in the body of the letter. As we noted above, it was for these reasons that early Christians classified James as a “general” letter: one written to the church at large rather than to a specific church or group of churches.14 We will look at this question of audience further below. However, it seems relatively clear, both from the address of the letter—“the twelve tribes scattered among the nations”—and its content, that James writes to a large audience, probably including at least several assemblies of believers. The Letter of James therefore differs from Paul’s letters to individuals (Philemon, Timothy, Titus) and to specific churches (Rome, Corinth, etc.) and resembles most 13. For a survey of options on the genre of James, see L. L. Cheung, The Genre, Composition and Hermeneutics of James, Paternoster Biblical Monographs (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2006), 5–52. 14. A few modern scholars agree; see, e.g., M. Klein, “Ein vollkommenes Werk”: Voll kommenheit, Gesetz und Gericht als theologische Themen des Jakobusbriefes (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1995), 185–87; Vouga, 24–25. See also the discussion of the “diaspora letter” hypothesis below (p. 28).

Introduction

closely 1 Peter and 1 John, both of which are also directed to wide audiences. James is therefore more a “literary” than a personal letter; the closest parallel to it in the NT is perhaps 1 John.15 Turning to the positive, then, four key features of James need to be considered when identifying its form and nature. First and most prominent (as we noted above) is the strong tone of pastoral exhortation. His purpose is clearly not so much to inform as to command, exhort, and encourage. Yet James issues his commands, for the most part, in a tone of tender pastoral concern, addressing his readers fifteen times as “my brothers and sisters” or “my beloved brothers and sisters.” A second well-known feature of James is the looseness of its structure. The author moves quickly from topic to topic, and the logical relationship of the topics is often not at all clear. Recent scholarship, influenced by modern literary techniques and insights, has reopened the question of structure with a vengeance, and we will consider this matter more carefully later. But the very number of suggestions for the outline of the letter betrays the point we are making here: the letter has no obvious structure, nor even a clearly defined theme. Moral exhortations follow closely upon one another without connections and without much logical relationship. James’s extensive use of metaphors and illustrations is another feature that arrests the attention of the reader (see, again, above). These images are universal in their appeal and go a long way toward accounting for the popularity of James among ordinary readers. A final striking feature of James is the degree to which it borrows from traditional teaching.16 James depends more than any other NT author on the teaching of Jesus.17 It is not that James directly quotes Jesus—although Jas 5:12 is virtually a quotation of Jesus’s teaching about oaths in Matt 5:33–37. It is, rather, that he weaves Jesus’s teaching into the very fabric of his own instruction. Again and again, the closest parallels to James’s wording are found in the teaching of Jesus—especially as recorded in the Gospel of Matthew.18 And the topics he addresses as well as the particular slant that he takes 15. See esp. F. O. Francis, “The Form and Function of the Opening and Closing Paragraphs of James and 1 John,” ZNW 61 (1970): 110–26; P. H. Davids, “The Epistle of James in Modern Discussion,” ANRW 2.25.5 (1988): 3628–29. 16. For surveys and discussion, see Johnson, 34–46; R. Bauckham, James: Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage (London: Routledge: 1999), 74–111; Painter and deSilva, 34–39. 17. See esp. D. B. Deppe, “The Sayings of Jesus in the Paraenesis of James” (PhD diss., University of Amsterdam, 1990). 18. Allison, 59–61, thinks that there is a real possibility that James has used Matthew; however, if I am right about the date of James (see below), that is impossible.

9 Nature and Genre on these topics mimic Jesus’s own emphasis. The author of the letter seems to have been so soaked in the atmosphere and specifics of Jesus’s teaching that he can reflect them almost unconsciously. As Richard Bauckham puts it, “[James] does not repeat it; he is inspired by it.”19 The OT also figures prominently in James. To be sure, he does not often formally quote the OT (only in 2:8 [Lev 19:18]; 2:23 [Gen 15:6]; and 4:5 [a summary of OT teaching]). But his language is thoroughly permeated with OT ways of speaking, and he regularly appeals to OT people and stories (e.g., the history of Abraham [2:21–24]; Rahab [2:25]; Job [5:11]).20 The letter also betrays a striking number of similarities with the words and emphases of a certain segment of Hellenistic Judaism, represented to some extent by the Alexandrian philosopher Philo, but especially by the apocryphal book Sirach and the pseudepigraphical book Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.21 Taking these features, and others, into account, scholars have sought to give a specific classification to the material in James. James Hardy Ropes, writing at the beginning of the nineteenth century, argued that James was a diatribe, a colloquial genre used to instruct general audiences and which featured short sentences, rhetorical questions, conditional sentences, and repetition of material.22 However, while James certainly uses some of the techniques of diatribe, the letter as a whole cannot be classified as a diatribe. In the mid-nineteenth century, Martin Dibelius proposed a genre identification that became more widely accepted: paraenesis. This genre, Dibelius argued, features exactly some of those features that characterize James: references to traditional material, strung together without much structure, used to exhort a general audience. Paraenesis can be found in a wide variety of ancient sources, including some NT epistles (cf. Rom 12–13; Heb 13).23 This genre identification has problems, however. For one thing, scholars since Dibelius have generally seen much more logical structure in the letter than he did. Some parts of James do indeed 19. Bauckham, James, 82; see his discussion on 81–111. 20. The legal stipulations in Lev 19 appear to have been especially influential. See my comments on several passages and the summary in Cheung, Genre, Composition and Hermeneutics, 101–4. 21. For a survey of literature in the Greco-Roman world that has parallels with James, see J. R. Strange, The Moral World of James: Setting the Epistle in Its Greco-Roman and Judaic Environments, SBL 136 (New York: Lang, 2010). 22. Ropes, 10–16. 23. Dibelius, 5–11. L. J. Perdue suggests a slightly different list of characteristics of paraenesis; “Paraenesis and the Epistle of James,” ZNW 72 (1981): 241–56. Failure to agree on the characteristics of paraenesis suggests that we may not be dealing with a well-defined genre.

Introduction

move rapidly from one topic to another (e.g., 1:1–18); others, however, develop a single topic at some length (e.g., 2:1–13, 14–26; 3:1–11). Moreover, paraenesis is itself so broad that it could apply to an extraordinary variety of material and therefore loses much of its helpfulness as a classification.24 More fundamentally, as is the case with diatribe, paraenesis may be more accurately termed a form or style that an author uses rather than a genre.25 Perhaps the most popular recent option for the genre of James is wisdom.26 James refers directly to wisdom in a central passage (3:13–18; cf. 1:5), and the brief, direct, and practical admonitions found at many places in the letter resemble the style of wisdom books from the OT (e.g., Proverbs) and the intertestamental period (e.g., Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon). At the same time, the practical ethical focus of James is similar to wisdom literature, and some of the themes of that literature are also prominent in James (e.g., speech, dissension, wealth, and poverty). This is not, however, to dismiss paraenesis; it could be viewed as a style within the wisdom genre.27 However, it is difficult to make “wisdom” the central concept of the letter. This, of course, does not mean we have to dismiss wisdom as the genre of the letter: genre has more to do with style than with substance. Even here, however, there are problems with viewing James as a wisdom book. As we noted above, while the letter at places resembles the series of short, pithy sayings we find in books such as Proverbs, it elsewhere develops topics at some length. Moreover, the style of some passages (e.g., 4:4–10; 5:1–6) is much more similar to the prophets than to wisdom authors. It is better, then, to characterize wisdom as a style James uses in his letter rather than the genre of the letter.28 24. E.g., F. Hahn attributes “paraenesis” to James but defines it very broadly: it presupposes baptism/conversion, it is directed to believers, and it embodies a central concern for the love command. Die Vielfalt des Neuen Testaments, vol. 1 of Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 3rd ed. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 395–96. 25. E.g., Perdue, “Paraenesis”; W. H. Wachob, The Voice of Jesus in the Social Rhetoric of James, SNTSMS 106 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 36–52. 26. See, e.g., Frankemölle, 80–88; W. R. Baker, Personal Speech-Ethics in the Epistle of James, WUNT 2/68 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck), 7–12; B. Witherington, Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 238–47; D. A. Hagner, The New Testament: A Historical and Theological Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 671–76; Bauckham, James, 29–60; Cheung, Genre, Composition and Hermeneutics, 5–52. 27. J. G. Gammie, “Paraenetic Literature: Toward the Morphology of a Secondary Genre,” Semeia 50 (1990): 43–51; Hartin, 21–80; D. R. Lockett, Purity and Worldview in the Epistle of James, LNTS 36 (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 76–92. 28. See, e.g., K. H. Jobes, Letters to the Church: A Survey of Hebrews and the General Epistles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 162.

11 Author Several other specific genre identifications have been suggested by scholars, but none have gained much acceptance. Perhaps the closest we can get to anything specific is to think of James as a sermon or homily.29 The author, separated from his readers by distance, cannot exhort them in person or at length. James is best understood, then, as a brief, perhaps condensed, sermon or homily, or extraction drawn from a series of sermons, sent to James’s dispersed parishioners in the form of a letter.

III. AUTHOR A. The Case for James of Jerusalem as the Author The writer of the letter identifies himself simply as “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1:1). The English name comes from the Latin Jacomus via old French Gemmes. The Greek name it translates, Iakōbos, occurs forty-two times in the NT and refers to at least four men. Three of them are mentioned in one verse, Acts 1:13: “When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” James the father of Judas is mentioned only here and in Luke 6:16 in the NT. His name occurs only because there is need to distinguish this particular Judas from the better known Judas Iscariot. James the son of Alphaeus is rather obscure, mentioned only in lists of apostles such as this one (see also Mark 3:18; Matt 10:3; Luke 6:15) and perhaps in Mark 15:40 (“James the younger”) and Matt 27:56.30 He was probably not well-known enough to have written an authoritative letter to Christians under his own name. But James the son of Zebedee is one of the most prominent apostles in the gospel narratives. Along with Peter and John, he belonged to the “inner circle” of the Twelve and was therefore privileged to witness, for instance, the resurrection of Jairus’s daughter (Mark 5:37 and parr.) and the transfiguration (Mark 9:2 and parr.; see also Mark 10:35, 41; 13:3). But 29. See esp. W. Wessel, “The Epistle of James,” ISBE 2:959–66 (on 962, reflecting the conclusions of his doctoral dissertation); and also G. H. Rendall, The Epistle of St. James and Judaistic Christianity (Cambridge: University Press, 1927), 35; Davids, 23; Johnson, 17–24. 30. A few scholars (e.g., W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, rev. ed. [Nashville: Abingdon, 1975], 411) surmise that this James might be an entirely different person.

Introduction

this James was put to death by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:2), probably in about AD 44. And we probably should not date the Letter of James quite this early. This leaves us with the other prominent James in the NT: James the brother of the Lord. He is mentioned in the gospels (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3) but became a follower of Jesus only after the resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15:7 and John 7:5). He attained a position of leadership in the early church (Acts 12:17), where we find him dialoging with Paul about the nature and sphere of the gospel ministry (Acts 15:13; 21:18; Gal 1:19; 2:9, 12). None of the other Jameses mentioned in the NT lived long enough or were prominent enough to write the letter we have before us without identifying themselves any further than the author does. Of course, it is always possible that a James not mentioned in the NT was the author of the letter. But we would have expected that so important a person would have left traces of himself in early Christian tradition. The case for authorship to this point is inferential: a well-known James must have written the letter, and the brother of the Lord is the only James we know of who fits the profile. While we have exhausted the NT evidence about this James, we should note the early Christian tradition about James. James became a popular and respected figure in the early church, especially among Jewish Christians.31 He was venerated as the first “bishop” of Jerusalem and was given the title “the righteous” or “the just” because of his faithfulness to the law and constancy in prayer. Much of our information about James comes from Hegesippus’s account of James’s death as recorded by Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 2.23). He tells us that James was stoned by the scribes and Pharisees for refusing to renounce his commitment to Jesus. This account of James’s death is independently confirmed by Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 20.200–201), who also enables us to date it in AD 62. However, much of the rest of Hegesippus’s account, which portrays James as a zealot for the law, is legendary.32 It may be that Hegesippus derived his information from a strict sect of Jewish Christians, called Ebionites, who regarded Paul with considerable disfavor and extolled James as the true heir to Jesus’s teaching.33 Therefore, 31. J. Painter provides a good overall survey of the life of James: “Who Was James? Footprints as a Means of Identification,” in The Brother of Jesus: James the Just and His Mission, ed. B. Chilton and J. Neusner (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 10–65. 32. See J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians: A Revised Text with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations, 7th ed. (London: Macmillan, 1881), 366; Ropes, 66; R. B. Ward, “James of Jerusalem in the First Two Centuries,” ANRW 2.26.1 (1992): 799–810. 33. In the Pseudo-Clementines, Epistle of Clement 1:1, James is designated the “bishop of bishops”; according to the Gospel of the Hebrews (quoted in Jerome, On Illustrious Men 2), the Lord appears first to James after his resurrection; in the Gospel of Thomas, logion 12, the

13 Author while all our sources agree that James was a pious, devoted Jewish Christian, anxious to maintain good relationships with Judaism, the picture of a legalistic, anti-Paul James must be rejected as a tendentious caricature. Moreover, the language of James, together with his frequent inclusion of themes found in a spectrum of Hellenistic Jewish works, indicates that he was located within this broader sphere of early Judaism.34 James has figured importantly in church history on another score. As ascetic tendencies became ever more influential in the early church, the description of James, along with others, as a “brother of the Lord” became a controversial issue. For, taken straightforwardly, this designation contradicts the notion that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. Jerome popularized the view (often called the Hieronymian view, after that church father) that James and the other “brothers” of Jesus were in fact his cousins. He identified Mary of Clopas, a sister of Mary (John 19:25), with the Mary who is said to be the mother of James and Joseph (Mark 15:40), both of whom are identified as “brothers” of Jesus (Mark 6:3). Thus James and Joseph would be cousins, not brothers of Jesus. The interpretation of the relationship among the different individuals named Mary and James mentioned in these texts is a vexing question that we will not pursue further here;35 suffice it to say that Jerome’s interpretation is by no means the only one. Most damaging to the Hieronymian position is the fact that adelphos always means “brother” when blood relationship is denoted in the NT. James, then, must either be an older brother of Jesus, born to Joseph by a wife before Mary (the “Ephiphanian” view),36 or a younger brother of Jesus, born to Joseph and Mary (the “Helviddisciples ask Jesus, “Who is to be our leader?” and Jesus replies, “Wherever you are you are to go to James the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being” (J. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library, 3rd ed. [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988], 119). Mußner (4–7) cites much of the literature and provides a helpful discussion. 34. Hahn, Die Vielfalt des Neuen Testaments, 397. 35. See esp. the debate between J. J. Gunter, “The Family of Jesus,” EvQ 46 (1974): 25–41, and J. Wenham, “The Relatives of Jesus,” EvQ 47 (1975): 6–15. 36. This view is defended at length by Lightfoot in his excursus on “The Brethren of the Lord” in his Galatians (252–91) and is slightly preferred in the latest full investigation of the matter (R. Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004], 19–32). Lightfoot claims that this view offers the best explanation for the authority Jesus’s brothers have over him (John 7:1–5), and for Jesus’s committing the care of his mother to a disciple rather than to one of his brothers (John 19:25–27). But it is not clear that Jesus’s brothers have any more authority over him than any relative might possess, and his brothers’ opposition to his message suffices to explain his passing them over as caretakers of his mother.

Introduction

ian” view). Of these, the Helvidian better explains the close association suggested in the NT between Mary the mother of Jesus and the brothers of Jesus (Mark 3:32; 6:3).37 It is this James, then, a younger brother of Jesus, and respected leader of the Jewish-Christian church in Jerusalem, who is most naturally identified as the author of the letter bearing his name. Is there other evidence to confirm this identification? The testimony of the ancient church, as we have seen, is in agreement with this conclusion. This testimony, though not very early, is consistent in maintaining that James, the Lord’s brother, wrote this epistle. It was only very late, and then rarely, that the epistle was assigned to James the son of Zebedee or to James the son of Alphaeus.38 Proof is, given the nature of the case, unavailable. But several circumstances about the letter at least corroborate this conclusion. First, the letter has a few suggestive similarities to the wording of the speech given by James of Jerusalem, the brother of the Lord, at the Apostolic Council (Acts 15:13–21) and to the letter subsequently sent out by him to gentiles in northern Syria and southern Asia Minor (Acts 15:23–29). The epistolary “greeting” (chairein) occurs in Jas 1:1 and Acts 15:23, but in only one other place in the NT; the use of “name” (onoma) as the subject of the passive form of the verb “call” (kaleō) is peculiar, yet is found in both Jas 2:7 and Acts 15:17; the appeal “listen, my brothers” occurs in both Jas 2:5 and Acts 15:13; and several other, less striking, similarities are also found.39 None of the similarities prove common authorship, but they are suggestive.40 Second, the circumstances reflected in the letter fit the date and situation in which James of Jerusalem would be writing. The Jewish atmosphere of the book is very marked: OT and Jewish teachings are frequently alluded to; the style reflects in places both the proverbial nature of Jewish wisdom traditions and the denunciatory preaching of the prophets; the meeting place of the church is called a synagogue (2:2); and a central Jewish tenet, the oneness of 37. For an extended defense of the Helvidian position, see esp. Mayor, 6–55. 38. Some Spanish writers, from the seventh century on, claimed that their patron, the son of Zebedee, was the author; the tenth-century Corbey MS makes the same ascription. Calvin (277) suggests that James the son of Alphaeus may be the author. 39. See esp. Mayor, iii–iv. 40. To be sure, scholars differ in their estimate of these parallels. Allison (10–11), e.g., is not convinced they suggest common authorship, while McKnight (24–25) calls them “noteworthy.” J. Painter (Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition [Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1997], 234–48) uses these similarities and several other factors to argue that Luke was the editor of the letter that we now have in the NT.

15 Author God, is specifically mentioned (2:19). On the other hand, the epistle shows little evidence of a developed or self-consciously Christian theology. James alludes to only rather basic Christian conceptions: Jesus as Lord (1:1; 2:1) and coming judge (5:7, 9); the tension between the “already” of salvation accomplished (1:18) and “not yet” culminated (1:21; 2:14; 5:20); and “elders” functioning as spiritual leaders in the local church (5:14). All this suggests an author who was writing at an early date, in a Jewish context, and who sought to maintain good relationships with Judaism. The way in which the teaching of Jesus thoroughly permeates the letter, without being directly cited, would also be entirely natural for someone with James’s background. And, finally, James’s position as the leader of the “mother” church of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem would eminently qualify him to address an authoritative admonition to “the twelve tribes scattered among the nations.”

B. The Challenge to the Traditional View For seventeen centuries, Christians, with only a few exceptions, accepted that the Letter of James was written by the Lord’s brother of that name, known from the pages of the NT. But in the last two centuries, a growing number of scholars have challenged this tradition. Before we investigate this challenge, it is worth asking why we should bother to debate the point. It is certainly not worth spending a lot of time to validate or overthrow the tradition as such. The point might be of interest to church historians but would have little import for those of us interested in reading and understanding the letter. But more than tradition is involved. The letter makes a claim about authorship: “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to . . .” Identifying the James who wrote the letter may enable us to set the letter more accurately into its historical and canonical context. And by doing so, our interpretation of the letter and its contribution to the teaching of Scripture generally will be enhanced. An obvious case in point with respect to James is the teaching of ch. 2 on justification. But the matter of authorship is important for another reason. Precisely because the letter makes a claim about the author, the truthfulness of the letter as a whole is ultimately at stake. Of course, the letter makes no claim about which James wrote the letter; and so no question about the truthfulness of the letter is raised if we decide, with Calvin for instance, that James the son of Alphaeus wrote the letter. But if, as many contemporary scholars maintain, the person who wrote the letter was not a person named James but someone writing in the name of the famous brother of the Lord, then new

Introduction

questions arise. Is the author trying to deceive us about the origin of the letter and thereby claim apostolic authority for a letter that does not deserve it? Or is the author simply utilizing a well-known ancient literary device whereby a famous person’s teaching could be “reapplied” to a new situation? Our answer to these questions inevitably will affect the authority that we attribute to this letter. And so the issue needs careful investigation. Three general theories of authorship need to be considered, although the first two can be quickly disposed of.41 In what is now to be regarded as nothing more than a curiosity in the history of scholarship, a few scholars suggested that the letter, in its essence, is not a Christian book at all. They argued that an original Jewish document had been “Christianized” with a couple of superficial references to Jesus (1:1; 2:1).42 The decisive blow to this extreme view is the degree to which the letter is permeated with references to the teaching of Jesus.43 A few others have suggested that the letter might have been written by another man named James: either the member of the Twelve by that name—James the son of Alphaeus (Calvin)—or an unknown James (Erasmus, Luther).44 But these views have none of the strengths and all of the weaknesses of the more usual identification with James the brother of the Lord. By far the most usual alternative to the traditional view of authorship holds that the writer of the letter was an unknown Christian. The name “James” in 1:1 may then have been added at a later date, in which case the letter in its original form would have been anonymous. Or it may have been added by the author himself to lend greater authority to the book and, perhaps, because the teaching of the letter had some relationship to James the brother of the Lord. In this case, the letter would be pseudepigraphical. This latter theory now dominates

41. We will not bother with some of the more imaginative (to put it kindly) theories, such as that the author was the Teacher of Righteousness known from the Qumran literature (R. Eisenman, “Eschatological ‘Rain’ Imagery in the War Scroll from Qumran and in the Letter of James,” JNES 49 [1990]: 173–84; for a brief response, see Painter, Just James, 230–34, 277–88). 42. L. Massebieau, “L’épître de Jacques—est-elle l’oeuvre d’un Chrétien?,” RHR 32 (1895): 249–83; F. Spitta, “Der Brief des Jakobus,” in Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Urchristentums, vol. 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896), 1–239. A. Meyer (Der Rätsel des Jacobusbriefes [Berlin: Töpelmann, 1930]) suggested that this original Jewish document was based on the “testament” of Jacob to his twelve sons (Gen 49). Among modern commentators, Allison has revived this view in modified form. 43. G. Kittel, “Der geschichtliche Ort des Jacobusbriefes,” ZNW 41 (1942): 84–91. 44. See also A. M. Hunter, Introducing the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1957), 164–65 (although he is more cautious in the 3rd ed. [1972], 168–69); Moffatt, 2.

17 Author modern scholarship on James.45 Why is this so? Mainly, because scholars are convinced that the letter contains features incompatible with authorship by James the brother of the Lord. Four such features are most often cited. We will examine each in turn. 1. If the letter had really been written by a brother of the Lord Jesus, the author would surely have mentioned that special relationship at some point in the letter. We might also have expected him to allude to the resurrection appearance that was perhaps instrumental in his conversion (cf. 1 Cor 15:7).46 This is obviously an argument from silence and boils down to the question, how important was James’s physical relationship to Jesus for his status in the early church? That his relationship to Jesus was known and could serve, if nothing more, as a mark of identification is clear from Gal 1:19. But we have little reason to think that James’s physical relationship to Jesus was important for the position he held in the early community.47 In Acts, where James figures prominently as a leader of the Jerusalem church, his relationship to Jesus is never mentioned. Physical ties to Jesus became important only after the time of James’s death. If anything, therefore, the author’s failure to mention the relationship is an argument against the pseudepigraphical view. Moreover, James’s physical relationship to Jesus never spilled over into a spiritual relationship. From what we can tell from the Gospels, James and the other brothers of Jesus remained estranged from him throughout the time of Jesus’s earthly ministry (see Matt 12:46; John 7:5). When Jesus’s mother and brothers came to see him, he contrasted them with his “true family”—those who do the will of God (Mark 3:31–34 and parr.). So the fact that James was Jesus’s brother did not bring him spiritual insight; nor was it the basis for his position and authority in the early church. His failure to mention the relationship is not, therefore, surprising. Nor is it surprising that James, if he wrote the letter, makes no reference to the resurrection appearance. Paul, whose vision of the resurrected Christ led to his conversion and constituted his call to apostolic service, mentions the appearance in only two of his thirteen letters. R. V. G. Tasker has pointed out the capriciousness of this sort of argument: James must be pseudepigraphical because the author does not mention his encounter 45. A good recent statement of this view is found in Allison, 3–28. 46. E.g., Laws, 40. Others, however, doubt that the resurrection appearance was the instrument of James’s conversion; they point out that, apparently, none of the other appearances recorded in 1 Cor 15:5–7 have this effect (e.g., Bauckham, James, 106–9; Painter, “Who Was James?,” 29). However, the appearance to Paul (v. 8) did have this effect, so we cannot rule it out for James also. 47. See esp. Bauckham, Jude, 125–30.

Introduction

with the resurrected Christ; 2 Peter must be pseudepigraphical because the author brings up his encounter with the transfigured Christ.48 Indeed, the occasional nature of our NT letters renders any argument from what is included or not included in the letter quite tenuous. So many factors—the author’s circumstances, his relationship to his readers, the purpose of the letter, the issues in the community—affect the content of the letter that it is precarious in the extreme to draw wide-ranging conclusions from the failure to mention a particular topic. 2. A second feature of the letter that leads many scholars to doubt that James of Jerusalem could have written it is the nature of its Greek and its cultural background. The Greek of the letter is idiomatic and even contains some literary flourishes (e.g., an incomplete hexameter in 1:17). The author frequently alludes to Jewish writings typical of Hellenistic diaspora (Sirach, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Philo). Moreover, the author employs some words and phrases derived from Greek philosophy and religion (e.g., “the cycle of nature,” as could be translated, in 3:6). Such Greek, critics argue, could not have been written by the son of a Galilean carpenter who, as far as we know, never left Palestine. But this objection can be easily met. First, we must not exaggerate the quality of James’s Greek. While more polished and closer to the “higher koinē” than most NT Greek, the Greek of James is far from literary Greek. Absent are the elaborate sentences found, for instance, in Hebrews. As Ropes concludes, “There is nothing to suggest acquaintance with the higher styles of Greek literature.”49 Second, the alleged technical philosophical and religious terminology in the letter proves, on closer examination, to involve words and phrases that seem to have found a place in the mainstream of the language. They are the kinds of words that an ordinary educated person, familiar with the Hellenistic world, would have known. One does not need a college degree in philosophy, for instance, in our day to use words and phrases like “existentialist” or “language game.” And Martin Hengel’s classic study documented the degree to which Palestine had been penetrated by Hellenistic language and ideas.50 James must have had some education to be elevated to the position in the church that he held. To claim that he could not have known and used these kinds of words is to assume far more about James’s background than any of our sources reveal. 48. Tasker, 20. Dibelius, who thinks that James is pseudepigraphical, also notes the subjectivity of this argument (17). 49. Ropes, 25. T. Zahn, on the other hand, is probably too critical of the quality of James’s Greek: Introduction to the New Testament, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1909), 1:112. 50. M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974).

19 Author Essentially the same point can be made with respect to the general level of Greek in the letter. Hengel’s work, mentioned in the last paragraph, was part of a larger reassessment of the alleged division between “Judaism” and “Hellenism” that dominated much early- and mid-twentieth-century scholarship. Current scholarship recognizes that any such antithesis must at least be nuanced. Judaism was rather thoroughly penetrated by Hellenistic language and ideas, and there was undoubtedly a spectrum of acquaintance with Hellenism among Jews both in Palestine and in the diaspora. Particularly relevant to the current issue is research that shows that many Palestinians, especially in Galilee and even from poor families, would have grown up with fluency in Greek.51 So the question is, could James have been exposed to the kind of influences that would have enabled him to write the semi-literary Greek we find in the letter? Without knowing the details of James’s education, the extent of his travels, the books that he read, or the people he conversed with, this question is impossible to answer. We could guess that a person recognized as the leader of the Jerusalem church (containing, at least at some point, both “Hebraists” and “Hellenists” [Acts 6:1]) would have been capable of learning Greek quite well. J. N. Sevenster, who uses James as a test case for his investigation of the use of Greek in Palestine, concludes that James of Jerusalem could have written this letter.52 This does not, of course, prove that James did write it. But it does mean that the Greek of the letter constitutes no obstacle to the ascription of the letter to James. 3. The letter’s approach to torah is a third reason that scholars cite for concluding that James of Jerusalem could not have written it. The letter assumes what might be called a rather “liberal” understanding of torah. Phrases like “the law of liberty” (1:25, lit. trans.) and “the royal law” (2:8) suggest the kind of perspective that grew up among Jews who were seeking to accommodate the torah to the general Hellenistic world. Such an approach downplayed the ritual elements of the law in favor of its ethical demands. The failure of the letter ever to mention issues of the ritual law and its concentration exclusively on ethical issues may suggest that the author writes from this perspective. Yet such an approach to torah stands in stark contrast to the picture of James that 51. See esp. J. N. Sevenster, Do You Know Greek? How Much Greek Could the First Jewish Christians Have Known?, NovTSup 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1968). See also the series of essays in S. E. Porter, ed., The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays, JSNTSup 60 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991). 52. Sevenster, Do You Know Greek?, 191. See also N. Turner, Style, vol. 4 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, W. F. Howard, and N. Turner (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1976), 114.

Introduction

we get from the NT and from early Christian tradition. It is “certain men . . . from James” who come to Antioch insisting that Jewish Christians observe kosher food laws and stop eating with gentiles (Gal 2:11–13). And it is James who requests that Paul demonstrate his loyalty to Judaism by undertaking to pay for and participate in purification rites in the Jerusalem temple (Acts 21:20–25). And in Christian tradition James is famous for his loyalty to Judaism, being pictured as an example of “torah piety” (see above, pp. 12–13). However, while several scholars think this point is virtually conclusive,53 it in fact rests on a serious overinterpretation of James, a questionable inference from the NT, and an uncritical acceptance of early Christian tradition. As we noted above, the early Christian picture of James as a strict adherent of the torah in a traditional sense is more caricature than reality.54 These early Christian sources agree that James was a devout Jewish Christian, anxious to maintain good relationships with Judaism,55 but the picture of James as “an advocate of hidebound Jewish-Christian piety”56 is a legend with little basis. The NT paints a similar picture. James was certainly aligned with the Jewish-Christian wing of the early Christian community. And along with many Jewish-Christians, he may well have assumed that Jews who recognized in Jesus of Nazareth their Messiah would continue to obey all the commandments of torah. In fact, the “incident” at Antioch may suggest that, at least at that date (around AD 46–47?), James was concerned to enforce torah observance on Jewish Christians. But the whole episode that Paul describes in Gal 2 is riddled with historical and theological issues. Among them is the question of relationship between the “Judaizers” who came from Jerusalem and James himself. Did James himself send these people with his blessing? Or were they simply claiming to represent James without his authority?57 Most interpreters think it is the former, and if so, the text makes clear that James thought that Jewish Christians should continue to observe torah, even in the context of a mixed Christian community. He may have been especially concerned that news of gentiles and Jews eating together would make evangelism of Jews in

53. Dibelius, 18, claims that this is the decisive argument against the traditional view of authorship. See also Laws, 40–41. 54. See pp. 12–13; and see, e.g., McCartney, 10–11. 55. Painter (Just James, 102) argues that James was particularly worried that Paul’s gentile mission might lead to an abandonment of the mission to the Jews. 56. The phrase is Dibelius’s (17). 57. See the discussion in D. J. Moo, Galatians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 147.

21 Author Jerusalem all the more difficult.58 James’s request to Paul in Acts 21 reflects a similar concern. Situated in Jerusalem as he was, and with a growing radical Jewish movement (the Zealots) to contend with, James was anxious to show that Jews who recognized Jesus as their Messiah were not traitors to the Jewish tradition or to the Jewish people. Torah observance and worship of Jesus the Messiah could exist together. To this extent, the NT confirms what seems to be the authentic element in the traditions about James: he was personally loyal to torah and sought in every way possible to maintain ties between the emerging early Christian movement and the Judaism in which he had been nurtured and in which he ministered. But the key question is this: Could a person with this kind of torah loyalty have written the letter we have before us? I think the clear answer to this question is yes. The letter, with its concern with the ethical dimensions of torah, stands squarely in a widespread tradition among Hellenistic-oriented Jews, a tradition reflected, in some ways, in the teaching of Jesus. But the critical point is this: neither the tradition nor Jesus emphasized the ethical aspects of torah so as to dismiss the ritual elements of torah. Jesus criticized the scribes and Pharisees for concentrating so much on tithing that they had neglected “justice, mercy and faithfulness” (Matt 23:23). And so he calls them to practice these key ethical demands of torah. But he makes clear also that, in practicing these, they were not to “neglect” the other elements of the law. James also, following the lead of Jesus, focuses on the importance of obeying the royal law of love (2:8). And the fact that he illustrates the importance of every commandment of the law with reference to the prohibitions of adultery and murder (2:11) shows that he was concentrating at this point almost exclusively on the ethical aspect of the law. But it would be an act of overinterpretation to conclude that the Letter of James assumes or advocates the abandonment of the ritual law. He is simply silent about it—presumably because it was not an issue in the communities he was addressing.59 So, in the end, we are faced with an argument from silence: the James who was so concerned about torah observance in Gal 2 and Acts 21 could not have written a letter in which this point is absent. But the argument is fallacious because it ignores the occasional nature of the letter. James introduces only topics that were matters of concern for the people to whom he was writing. If they were, as I think, Jewish-Christians who had fled Jerusalem but who had not yet mixed with gentiles in worship, then 58. See, e.g., F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 129–30. 59. D. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 738–39.

Introduction

observance of torah may not even have come up as an issue. What had come up was a failure to live out the basic ethical emphasis of torah—and James, much like Jesus in his day, focuses naturally on this matter. 4. The fourth reason for denying that James of Jerusalem could have written this letter involves the famous problem of the relationship between James and Paul, especially with respect to their teaching on justification. The letter insists that works are required for justification: “a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone” (2:24, my translation). Paul, on the other hand, teaches that a person is justified by faith and not by “works of the law” (e.g., Rom 3:28). The relationship of these two teachings is one of the biggest theological issues in the letter and, indeed, one of the most significant theological tensions within the NT. We will address the matter later in the introduction (in the section on theology) and in the commentary proper. For now, however, we should note that, while the two seem to be in direct contradiction when the statements of each are taken on their own, a careful study of the vocabulary of each, and of the respective contexts in which they are speaking, mitigates the tension significantly. In fact, most scholars now recognize that, like ships passing in the night, James’s teaching does not really come to grips with what Paul was saying.60 Many scholars think this circumstance suggests that James and Paul were not responding in any way to each other: points of commonality in their teaching are present because each is independently reflecting common early Jewish teaching.61 However, the focus on the issue of “faith alone” in Jas 2 makes some relationship with Paul’s teaching likely.62 How, then, to explain James’s apparent misinterpretation of Paul? Most scholars think that James is reacting to a misunderstood Paulinism. For this reason, then, it is argued that the letter could not have been written by James of Jerusalem, because this James had ample opportunity to learn the authentic Pauline view 60. See, e.g., Martin, xxxiii–xli; Johnson, 111–16; U. Schnelle, Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 624–25. Contra, e.g., Klein, “Ein vollkommenes Werk,” 197–204; M. Hengel, “Der Jakobusbrief als antipaulinische Polemik,” in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in Honor of E. Earle Ellis for His 60th Birthday, ed. G. F. Hawthorne and O. Betz (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 253–63; Hahn, Die Vielfalt des Neuen Testaments, 403; Stuhlmacher, Biblical Theology, 500–501. 61. R. Heiligenthal, Werke als Zeichen: Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung der menschlichen Taten im Frühjudentum, Neuen Testament und Frühchristentum, WUNT 2/9 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), 49–52; Davids, 20–21; P. H. Davids, A Theology of James, Peter, and Jude: Living in the Light of the Coming King, BTNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 39; Blomberg and Kamell, 30; Bauckham, James, 125–31; McKnight, 53–56. 62. See esp. Allison, 445–57, for a convincing argument that James knows of Paul’s distinctive theological emphases.

23 Author of justification. The two were key participants in the Jerusalem Council, where issues very much relating to Paul’s teaching on justification were debated (Acts 15) and met later when Paul came to Jerusalem for a final time (Acts 21:18–25). And, in any case, the Letter of James must have been written no earlier than the end of the first century, when Paul’s theology was no longer understood in its proper context. W. G. Kümmel gives succinct expression to this argument: “The debate in 2:14ff. with a misunderstood secondary stage of Pauline theology not only presupposes a considerable chronological distance from Paul—whereas James died in the year 62—but also betrays a complete ignorance of the polemical intent of Pauline theology, which lapse can scarcely be attributed to James, who as late as 55/56 met with Paul in Jerusalem (Acts 21:18ff.).”63 Adequate evaluation of this argument can come only after careful consideration of Jas 2:14–26 as it relates to Paul’s teaching on justification. For now, however, we can point out that the situation described in the last paragraph is capable of a very different explanation. If indeed Jas 2 fails to come to grips with the real point of Paul’s teaching and the letter is written after AD 48 or so, when James and Paul met at the Jerusalem Council, then indeed it might be difficult to attribute the letter to James of Jerusalem. But suppose the letter was written before AD 48. James would not yet have had direct contact with Paul. All he would know about Paul’s “justification by faith alone” would come to him indirectly—and perhaps perverted by those who had heard Paul and misunderstood what he was saying. Paul probably began preaching almost immediately after his conversion (in AD 33?). How soon Paul came to understand and proclaim his distinctive justification message is impossible to know. But what might be the earliest Pauline letter, Galatians (perhaps AD 47–48), already presents a fully developed doctrine of justification. Christians living in the area possibly addressed by James (Syria) would have had ample opportunity to hear Paul as he preached in Tarsus and, later, in Antioch. On this scenario, James betrays a “complete ignorance of the polemical intent of Pauline theology” because he did not yet have direct knowledge of Paul’s teaching.64 Indeed, it is more likely that a “complete ignorance” of the thrust of Paul’s teaching existed before his letters were written or widely circulated 63. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, 413. 64. Some form of this view can be found as early as Augustine (see Enarrations on the Psalms 31.2.2–3; CCSL 38:225–27); see P. Bergauer, Der Jakobusbrief bei Augustinus und die damit verbundenen Probleme der Rechtfertigungslehre (Vienna: Herder, 1962), 51–52. See esp. Kittel, “Jacobusbriefes,” 96–97; Wessel, “Epistle of James,” 965. McKnight (259–63) also thinks that James might be opposing a misunderstood version of Paul’s theology before Paul’s letters had been written.

Introduction

than long afterward. Many interpreters, for a number of reasons, reject almost out of hand an early date for the letter. But I hope to show below that a date as early as the scenario I have just sketched requires—the middle 40s—has much to be said for it.

C. Final Assessment None of the four major objections to attributing the letter to James of Jerusalem is conclusive. But, to go on the offensive for a moment, a serious objection to the currently popular view of pseudepigraphical authorship needs to be mentioned. Proponents of the pseudepigraphical hypothesis often portray it in terms of a “transparent literary device.” The person writing in the name of James would not have been seeking to deceive anyone. He would simply have utilized a popular literary convention of the time, according to which one could claim continuity with a particular religious figure by writing in that person’s name.65 Viewed in this light, the claim that James is pseudepigraphical would pose no challenge to the full truthfulness of the letter. The connection of the letter with James established in 1:1 is not intended to be, and would not have been understood to be, a claim about who wrote the letter. It is, rather, a claim about the theological tradition in which the letter stands. Of course, we possess many pseudepigraphical books from the world of James’s day (e.g., Jewish apocalypses). It is hard to know what kind of claim is being made when these books claim to be written by Adam, or Moses, or Abraham. However, the issue of genre plays a significant role here. Expectations about a claim such as “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations” are determined by genre. James is clearly a letter—yet we have no evidence from the early church that claims to authorship in letters were treated as a “transparent literary device.” If the claim about authorship was determined to be true, the letter was accorded a certain authority; if it was proven false, the letter was rejected.66 The 65. See esp. D. G. Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation into the Relationship of Authorship and Authority in Jewish and Earliest Christian Tradition, WUNT 2/39 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986). 66. A. D. Baum claims, “A statement is not viewed as inauthentic if its wording is not from the author but will be ascribed to him; it is viewed however as false, if one can not trace its content back to the person whose name it bears” (emphasis original; Pseudepigraphie und literarische Falschung im Frühen Christentum, WUNT 2/138 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001], 92; see also Baum, “Content and Form: Authorship Attribution and Pseudonymity in Ancient Speeches, Letters, Lectures, and Translations—A Rejoinder to Bart Ehrman,”

25 Author very fact that James was accepted as a canonical book, then, presumes that the early Christians who made this decision were sure that James wrote it. Those who did not think that James wrote it barred it from the canon for this reason. This means that we have to choose between (1) viewing James as a forgery, intended perhaps to claim an authority that the author did not really have—and therefore omit it from the canon—and (2) viewing James as an authentic letter from James. The have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too theory of canonical pseudepigraphon does not seem to be an alternative. A few scholars, sensitive to this problem yet convinced by one or more of the objections to James’s authorship examined above, have proposed compromise solutions, according to which James of Jerusalem, while not the final composer of the letter, had some connection with it. Those who have a problem thinking that James of Jerusalem could have written the Greek of the letter propose that he may have used an amanuensis.67 We have solid evidence from extrabiblical literature and from the NT itself (see Rom 16:22) that such amanuenses were regularly used. And James may well have done the same. Another compromise view on authorship holds that the letter is a free translation of a discourse or series of homilies originally given by James in Aramaic.68 It cannot be argued against this view that James’s Greek does not betray evidence of translation from a Semitic language. For, if the translation is good enough, little evidence of the original language will be present (would it be obvious to the uninformed reader that J. B. Phillips’s paraphrase is based on Greek?). But while, in the nature of the case, it is impossible to disprove the theory, there remains little in favor of it. Peter Davids has provided the clearest and best-worked-out defense of this kind of approach. Impressed with certain anomalies in the letter—good Greek alongside Semitisms, a curious unevenness in vocabulary, some disjointedness in flow—he suggests that a redactor has edited and expanded a series of Jewish-Christian homilies, given originally in Aramaic and Greek. James of Jerusalem may have been responJBL 136 [2017]: 381–403). See also esp. T. L. Wilder, Pseudonymity, the New Testament and Deception: An Inquiry into Intention and Reception (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2004); L. M. MacDonald and S. E. Porter, Early Christianity and Its Sacred Literature (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000), 388–93; D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 337–50. 67. See, e.g., A. Robert and A. Feuillet, Introduction to the New Testament (Paris: Desclée, 1965), 364; see also Mußner, 8. 68. F. C. Burkitt, Christian Beginnings (London: University of London, 1924), 65–71; see also F. F. Bruce, Peter, Stephen, James and John: Studies in Non-Pauline Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 113.

Introduction

sible for the first stage or even for both stages.69 We have no way of proving or disproving this kind of proposal. But I question whether it is necessary. The Greek betrays no more inconsistencies than would be typical of a person writing in Greek whose native language is Aramaic; indeed, Dibelius claims that the Greek of the letter is “relatively homogenous.”70 The “disjointedness” of the letter is a product of its genre and purpose; and would not an editor, as much as an author, seek to smooth out any rough spots? James may certainly have used some of his own sermons in writing the letter, but evidence for an earlier literary stage is not compelling. When all the data are considered, I think that the simplest solution is to accept the verdict of early Christians: the letter was written by James of Jerusalem, “the Lord’s brother.” Nothing in the letter is inconsistent with this conclusion, and several, albeit minor and indecisive, points favor it.71

IV. OCCASION AND DATE We turn now from the question of the letter’s literary features and form to the issue of its historical situation. What does the letter suggest about the situation of the readers? And what can we infer from that situation about the letter’s place and time of origin?

A. The Readers and Their Situation The letter reveals quite a lot about the people to whom it was written. First, they were almost certainly Jews. This conclusion, which is the scholarly consensus,72 is suggested by references to distinctive Jewish institutions and beliefs. 69. Davids, 12–13; see also Davids, Theology of James, 36–41. See also Hartin, 16–25, and, in modified form and cautiously, R. W. Wall, “James, Letter of,” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, ed. R. P. Martin and P. H. Davids (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 547–48. 70. Dibelius, 34. 71. Johnson concludes that the letter could well have been written by James of Jerusalem (see 121). See also T. C. Penner, The Epistle of James and Eschatology: Re-reading an Ancient Christian Letter (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 35–103; Hengel, “Jakobusbrief,” 252; Bauckham, James, 11–25; McKnight, 13–38; Blomberg and Kamell, 27–35; McCartney, 8–32. 72. There are, however, exceptions: scholars who think that “twelve tribes” must stand

27 Occasion and Date The believers James addresses meet in a “synagogue” (2:2; translated “meeting” in NIV); they share with the author the assumption that monotheism is a foundational belief (2:19) and that the law is central to God’s dealings with his people (1:21, 24–25; 2:8–13; 4:11–12); and they understand the OT imagery of the marriage relationship to indicate the nature of the relationship between God and his people (4:4). Many scholars would also cite the letter’s address as evidence that the readers were Jewish. “The twelve tribes scattered among the nations” (1:1) certainly appears at first sight to be a reference to Jewish people. Jews in the Second Temple period used the language of “the twelve tribes” to express their hope that God would reunite the scattered tribes of Israel in the last days (see the notes on 1:1). The simple, unqualified “to the twelve tribes” might suggest that James addresses, at least in principle, the Jewish people as a whole. James, as a key leader in the center of the Jewish world, writes to the people of Israel living outside Palestine (diaspora).73 After all, James is writing at a time when the “parting of the ways” between Judaism and Christianity has not yet occurred. Dale Allison argues, similarly, that James “emerged from a Christ-oriented Judaism, from a group that still attended synagogue and wished to maintain irenic relations with those who did not share their belief that Jesus was the Messiah.”74 However, the assumptions about distinctive Christian beliefs that are expressed in the letter—Jesus Christ as Lord, especially (1:1; 2:1)—suggest that James is implicitly addressing a specific subset of Israel: those Jews who have come to faith in Jesus as their Messiah. Calling them “the twelve tribes,” then, suggests that he views these Jewish Christians as the true eschatological remnant of Israel.75 Nor is it clear that “twelve tribes” must refer to Jewish Christians generally. James may well use the language to characterize a particular group of Jewish Christians that he addresses in the letter. And, finally, we should note that it is even possible that “twelve tribes” may include reference to for the entire people of God and, thus, all Christians (e.g., Klein, “Ein vollkommenes Werk,” 185–90; cf. Vouga, 24–26; E. Baasland, “Literarische Form, Thematik und geschichtliche Einordnung des Jakobusbriefes,” ANRW 2.25.5 [1988]: 3676–77). J. B. Adamson, on the other hand, suggests that James might have in view both Christian and non-Christian Jews: James: The Man and His Message (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 11–12. 73. Bauckham, James, 14–15. 74. Allison, 43; see 32–50. 75. U. Wilckens, Die Briefe des Urchristentums: Paul und seine Schüler, Theologen aus dem Bereich judenchristilichen Heidenmission, part 3 of vol. 2, Geschichte der urchristenlichen Theologie, vol. 1 of Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 3rd ed. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2014), 357.

Introduction

gentile as well as Jewish Christians.76 The early Christians came to understand that God’s eschatological people included both gentiles and Jews. James, then, may have “transferred” the term from its original Jewish roots and applied it broadly to the church of his day. However, given the other indications of audience in the letter, a reference to Jewish Christians is more likely. In this view, James would be addressing these Jewish Christians as the nucleus of a restored and renewed Israel.77 The location of these Jewish Christians is suggested by James’s claim that they live in the diaspora (“diaspora” is a transliteration of the Greek word that NIV translates “scattered among the nations”). The word refers to those places outside Israel where Jews had been “scattered” (see again the notes on 1:1). However, again, there is some indication that this word might also have been given a transferred sense, being applied to this world in general, as the “diaspora” where God’s people now live (many interpret 1 Pet 1:1 in this sense).78 Nevertheless, the Jewish atmosphere of James, along with the probable early date of the letter, makes it more likely that the reference is more literal. Like other Jewish authors before him, James sends consolation and exhortation to the dispersed covenant people of God.79 The fact that the readers have been “dispersed,” forced to live away from their home country, helps explain a major characteristic of the readers of the letter: their poverty and oppressed condition.80 Wealthy landowners take advantage of them (5:4–6); rich people haul them into court (2:6) and scorn their faith (2:7). One of the key purposes of the author is to encourage these suffering Christians in the midst of these difficulties, reminding them of the righteous judgment of God that is coming (5:7–11) and exhorting them to maintain their piety in the midst of their trials (1:2–4, 12). Some scholars find the key to the letter at just this point. Liberation theologians find in the letter a clear antithesis between wealth and unrighteousness on the one hand and 76. See, e.g., J. Marcus, “‘The Twelve Tribes in the Diaspora’ (James 1.1),” NTS 60 (2014): 433–47. 77. Cheung, Genre, Composition and Hermeneutics, 240–45. 78. To be sure, Bauckham questions whether this kind of transfer would have taken place (James, 14–15), joining others in asserting that diaspora in Jas 1:1 must have a physical and Jewish meaning. However, as Bauckham admits, diaspora in 1 Pet 1:1 refers to gentile Christians who are “exiles” in this world. So a transferred sense, I think, is at least possible. 79. See D. J. Verseput, “Wisdom, 4Q185, and the Epistle of James,” JBL 117 (1998): 700– 703; Bauckham, James, 14–16. 80. E. Tamez (The Scandalous Message of James: Faith without Works Is Dead [New York: Crossroad, 1990], 23–24) and Vouga (24–25) emphasize the sociological dimension of the address in 1:1.

29 Occasion and Date poverty and righteousness on the other. The true people of God, James is suggesting, are the poor.81 Ralph Martin, on the other hand, suggests a more historically based scenario. On his view, a major thrust of the letter is a call to Jews, influenced by the Zealot movement, to renounce violence in the face of oppression.82 Without denying the importance of the socioeconomic situation of the readers in understanding the letter’s purpose, two considerations suggest that we should not give it a controlling role in understanding the letter. First, a plausible interpretation of 1:10 suggests that some wealthy believers were also to be found in the community that James addresses (see the notes on that verse). This conclusion is reinforced by the admonitions to traveling merchants in 4:13–17. Careful reading of the letter prevents us from simply identifying the readers with the poor and their oppressors with the rich. A second problem with the narrowly socioeconomic approach is the considerable amount of material in the letter that cannot be subsumed under this rubric. The situation of the church in the world provides one important context for the letter—and it is no doubt true that Christian interpretation has sometimes suffered from a kind of gnostic spiritualizing that downplays the significance of this world. But the letter ultimately has much more to say about the problem of the world getting into the church. In arguably the thematic center of the letter, the author warns his readers that “friendship with the world means enmity against God” (4:4). One component of “pure and faultless” religion is “to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (1:27). The worldliness of the church takes many forms: a fawning deference to the rich and callous indifference to the poor (2:1–4); uncontrolled, critical speech (3:9–10; 4:11–12; 5:9); wisdom that is “earthly, unspiritual, demonic” (3:15), leading to violent quarrels (4:1–3); arrogance (4:13–17); and, most basically, “double-mindedness” (1:8; 4:8), a spiritual schizophrenia that interferes with prayer (1:5–8) and leads to a failure to put into practice what one professes to believe (1:21–27; 2:14–26). James’s overall message is a call to repent from such compromising spirituality (4:4–10) and to intervene in the lives of those people who are straying down so dangerous a path (5:19–20). The point here, then, is simply this: while the social and historical situation of the readers may help us understand the problems they are dealing with, those problems are ultimately both more general and more basic than the immediate situation. James clearly addresses the earthly challenges that the 81. See, e.g., Tamez, Scandalous Message of James. 82. Martin, lxvii–lxix.

Introduction

readers face. But it is finally the spiritual issues that are brought to the surface in these challenges that James focuses on particularly. The book of Acts may provide indirect evidence for the specific situation that James addresses. Tasker makes the attractive suggestion that Acts 11:19 may provide the specific background against which we should understand James’s use of diaspora. Here Luke tells us that, as a result of the persecution connected with the stoning of Stephen, many Jewish Christians were “scattered” (diaspeirō, the verb used here, is cognate to diaspora) and “traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, spreading the word only among Jews.” We can imagine James, the leader of the Jerusalem church, sending a pastoral admonition to these believers from his “home” church who had been scattered abroad because of persecution.83 This theory cannot be proven, but it does fit remarkably well with the nature and circumstances of the letter, as well as with the date I will suggest for the letter.

B. Date Scholars who think that James is pseudepigraphical usually date the letter sometime in the late first or early second century.84 If James the brother of the Lord wrote the letter, as I have argued, it must be dated sometime before AD 62, when James was martyred. Most scholars think that the letter was probably written very close to this date.85 They note the many similarities between James and 1 Peter and think that the problem of worldliness that surfaces repeatedly in the letter reflects a “settled” situation in the churches. But the letter contains parallels with many Jewish and Christian books, dated all the way from 100 BC to AD 150. As noted earlier, these parallels usually involve traditional teaching that was common stock among early Christians. The parallels with 1 Peter are all of this nature. Furthermore, it is not clear that the Christians to whom James writes have been settled in their faith for a long time. None of the problems that arise in the letter are unusual among fairly young Christians. Temptations to compromise one’s faith with the world afflict the believer almost immediately after conversion, and this is especially true 83. Tasker, 39; see also Burdick, 162–63. Bauckham (James, 16–23) is among many who argue for a Jerusalem provenance for the letter. See, for a contrary view, Allison, 9. 84. E.g., the last third of the first century (R. E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament [New York: Doubleday, 1997], 741–42); or AD 100–120 (Allison, 28–32). 85. E.g., Tasker, 31–32; see also Hengel, “Jakobusbrief,” 252.

31 Occasion and Date when the convert has been taken out of his or her original nurturing context, as the readers of this letter have been. Two indications suggest that, in fact, James might have been written at a fairly early date, sometime in the middle 40s. First, and most important, is the probable relationship between James’s teaching on justification in ch. 2 and Paul’s teaching on the same topic. As I have argued above in the section on authorship, James shows awareness of Paul’s distinctive emphasis on “justification by faith alone” but does not really come to grips with what Paul meant by this doctrine. Such a misunderstanding of Paul’s teaching was unlikely after the two had met and hashed out a consensus on the requirements to be imposed on gentiles for entry into the people of God at the Apostolic Council in AD 48 or 49 (Acts 15).86 The historical scenario I suggest is that Paul’s preaching in Tarsus from circa 36 (Acts 9:30; Gal 1:21) and Antioch from circa 45 (Acts 11:25–26) on had been misunderstood by some who heard him. They were apparently using the slogan “justification by faith alone” as an excuse for neglecting a commitment to discipleship and practical Christian living. It is this “perverted Paulinism” that James attacks in ch. 2. James might not even have known that Paul’s teaching was the jumping-off point for the view he is opposing. He would have attacked such a perversion, of course, at any date. But had he known what Paul truly preached (as he would have after AD 48), he would have put matters differently than he did. A second indication of a relatively early date for the letter is the relatively undeveloped nature of the theology suggested by the letter.87 The early stage of theological reflection is revealed especially in James’s way of referring to the law without any indication of the debate over torah that erupted in the early church as a result of the gentile mission. Again, it was in about AD 47–48 that this issue first came to the forefront in the early church. “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’” (Acts 15:1). Gentiles, of course, had been admitted to the church before this time (Cornelius in Acts 10), and the Jerusalem apostles had discussed the matter (Acts 11:1–18). But it is clear from what transpires in Acts 15 that the crucial issue of the basis on which gentiles should be admitted to the church 86. According to Gal 1:19, Paul had met James some years earlier; but the visit was probably brief and did not extend to theological discussion. 87. McCartney, 8. The nature of James’s use of the Jesus tradition and his dependence on Jewish sources could also point to an early date; see Penner, Epistle of James, 264–77; Hartin, 148–64.

Introduction

had not been decided. The Apostolic Council sits to decide this matter, and James was the leader of that assembly. So from this time on James would have been well aware of the question of torah as it related to gentiles. Again, of course, James is not writing to gentiles, and so we might conclude that the absence of any reference to this issue is not surprising at any date. But James’s casual references to torah in the letter (1:24–25; 2:8–13) make more sense if this issue had not yet arisen. For these reasons, I tentatively suggest that James was written in the mid40s, perhaps just before the Apostolic Council.88 This period witnessed some severe economic crises (there was a famine in Judea in AD 46 [Acts 11:28]) and the beginning of the serious social-political-religious upheavals that would culminate in the Jewish war of rebellion in 66–70. Both circumstances fit the situation implied in the letter.

V. CONTEXT OF THOUGHT AND THEOLOGY A. Cognitive Environment The “critical” issues we have just analyzed—author, occasion, date—might be considered the kind of issues that scholars obsess about but which don’t make much difference for actually reading and applying the message of James. But this is not the case. Our “locating” of the letter has significant bearing on our interpretation of many specific words, phrases, and concepts in the letter. In the case of James, what makes a significant difference is where we locate the letter on the spectrum between Judaism on the one hand and full-fledged, theologically developed Christianity on the other. And this spectrum is not itself single or straightforward, since there were various iterations of Judaism in this period as well as, ultimately, varied expressions of Christianity. But it is important at least that we recognize a spectrum rather than, for instance, working with a binary contrast between “Judaism” and “Christianity.” Our NT books were all written in a kind of transitional period, as early believers in Messiah Jesus worked to figure out just what their new messianic beliefs meant for beliefs shaped by the 88. Kittel provides a particularly strong case for this dating (“Jacobusbriefes,” 71–102). See also Zahn, Introduction, 1:125–28; Rendall, Epistle of St. James, 78; Mayor, cxliv–clxxvi; Knowling, xxxiv–xxxviii; D. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 749–53; Hiebert, 41; Burdick, 162–63; Wessel, “Epistle of James,” 965; Blomberg and Kamell, 30; G. Guthrie, 201–2; Varner, 12–13. McKnight (13–38) puts the letter in the 50s.

33 Context of Thought and Theology OT-based Judaism many of them came from. And, of course, this issue became especially urgent when gentiles began joining this messianic movement. Most of our NT books engage this issue in one way or another and to one degree or another. James is no exception. As I have argued, James is probably written to an exclusively Jewish audience and at an early date. Our survey of his theology below will note how few distinctive “Christian” convictions are explicitly found in the letter. James, in other words, is clearly situated toward the “Judaism” end of the spectrum. But how far? To what degree should we assume that James’s “conceptual environment” is oriented to traditional Judaism as opposed to new ways of thinking that emerged in the early Christian movement? What James means by “law” is a particularly clear example of the importance of this issue. The trend in recent scholarship, represented quite clearly in the major commentary of Dale Allison, is to locate James pretty far to the “Jewish” end of the spectrum we have described. This insistence on the Jewish environment of James is often asserted against what is claimed to be a neglect of James, or a misreading of James, by forcing his teaching into a mold formed by the dominant voice of Paul.89 I fully acknowledge that (1) James has indeed been neglected and misinterpreted by reading him in the shadow cast by the apostle Paul, and (2) James has, partly as a consequence of this first point, been wrested out of his own early Jewish-Christian context. However, I also think that some recent interpretations of James have failed to recognize the degree to which his thinking has been transformed by his messianic convictions. We touch here on what has been a major issue in recent study of NT theology as a whole. The “parting of the ways” between what we can fairly label “Christianity” on the one hand and “Judaism” on the other took place, it is now usually claimed, beyond the period when James and the letters of Paul were written. We need to think in terms of various degrees of “Jewishness,” as the developing appreciation of the impact of the Christ event reconfigured, and eventually broke the bounds of, Judaism. I again acknowledge that the Jewish orientation of many NT books has been neglected, as they are read in light of developed second- or third-century Christianity rather than in their own environment. But I also think that a more significant “parting of the ways” is being reflected already in fairly early NT writings.90 To bring all this back to the theology of James, I agree, on the one hand, 89. A representative comment comes from McKnight: James is “more Jewish Christian versus the Western re-expression of the gospel that we find in Paul, Hebrews, John, and perhaps Peter” (35). In just what sense these NT authors could be considered “Western” is problematic. 90. See D. J. Moo, A Theology of Paul and His Letters (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, forthcoming).

Introduction

that interpreters have too often thrust James into the mold of developed Christianity; however, on the other hand, I also think that some recent interpreters have pushed James too far toward the Jewish end of the spectrum. About the only authentic information about James’s viewpoint comes from the book of Acts. Here he is, to be sure, presented as an early leader keen to commend the Jesus movement to his Jewish compatriots (e.g., Acts 21:17– 25). But he is also presented as clashing with the Jewish authorities over the preaching of Jesus as Messiah (Acts 5:17–42?91) and as acknowledging the law- free evangelism of gentiles (Acts 11:1–18; 15:12–21). Of course, these texts say nothing about the status of the law among Jewish converts, nor do they give us much basis to construct James’s general theological outlook. Ultimately, then, it is the letter itself that must shape our overall view of James’s theology. Here, however, we enter into a bit of a circle: the specific wording of James must be used to construct his cognitive environment; but it is the cognitive environment that will often dictate how we interpret the specific wording. My own reading of James suggests that his thinking has been more significantly shifted from his original Jewish perspective toward certain distinctive Christian viewpoints than some recent interpreters think. Readers will have to see if we are able to make a case for this overall reading in the course of the comments below.92

B. James and “Theology” The stark assertion of Martin Dibelius has been echoed by many other scholars: “James has no theology.”93 The validity of this claim depends entirely on what 91. The reference in this passage to “the apostles” (vv. 18, 21, 26, 27, 29, 40, 41) indicates a wider group than in ch. 4, where Peter and John are singled out. We cannot be sure whether James the brother of the Lord was at this point included among the apostles. Luke first mentions him by name in Acts 12:17 (the commentators generally agree that this “James” is the brother of the Lord; see E. Schnabel, Acts, ZECNT [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012], 540). 92. In a brief survey, Craig Evans concludes that we find in the first century three types of Judaism. While having much in common, they also have distinct foci: like circles that overlap, but with different centers. “The Judaism of Qumran is focused on the renewal of the covenant, with great emphasis on cultic reform. The Judaism of the Rabbis is focused on studying and obeying the Torah, the key to life in this world and in the world to come. The Judaism of James is focused on faith and piety centered on Messiah Jesus” (“Comparing Judaisms: Qumranic, Rabbinic, and Jacobean Judaisms Compared,” in Chilton and Neusner, Brother of Jesus, 161–83 [182]). 93. Dibelius, 21.

35 Context of Thought and Theology we mean by “theology.” It is certainly true that James says little or nothing about many basic Christian doctrines. Jesus is mentioned and identified as the Lord (1:1; 2:1) whose coming is expected (5:7–8). But James does not develop any kind of Christology, nor does he even mention Jesus’s death or resurrection. He never refers to the Holy Spirit or to the fulfillment of the OT in Christ. But this kind of argument from silence (as noted elsewhere in this introduction) does not carry much weight. James, like all the other letters of the NT, is occasional, written in a specific situation and addressing specific problems. Failure to mention even some basic Christian doctrines is therefore not only not surprising but expected—and is paralleled by other NT letters. James, I have suggested, is writing to former parishioners to rebuke and exhort them about certain specific problems in their Christian practice. He knows they are acquainted with the basic doctrines of the church and does not need to go over them again. So if by “theology” one means a clear expression of a system of beliefs explicitly built on the person of Christ, then, indeed, James “has no theology.” However, if we ask whether James grounds his exhortations in basic early Christian theological convictions, then we must at least say that James presupposes a theology. As George Eldon Ladd says, “It is impossible to conclude from the contents of the epistle that he was not interested in theology; a theologian can write practical homilies.”94 Appeal to God’s person, the values taught in his word, and his purposes in history undergird virtually everything in the letter. To be sure, many of these theological presuppositions are not distinctly Christian, involving, rather, traditional OT and Jewish teaching. James, for instance, mentions Jesus explicitly only twice (1:1; 2:1) and does not build his exhortations on early Christian teaching about Christ or the Spirit. However, as we will see in our survey below, James assumes more distinctly Christian teaching than many acknowledge. Moreover, we must be careful not to draw such a line between Judaism and Christianity that we obscure the commonalities between them. Much Jewish teaching was based squarely on the OT, and early Christians obviously assumed and carried over much of this teaching. Writing at an early date and with a concern to maintain as many connections with Judaism as he could, James naturally appealed to many of these common teachings. His “location” in the early church and rhetorical concerns were very different from, for instance, Paul’s. Criticizing James for lack of theology has too often revealed a bias toward Paul, making him the standard of early Christian theology. A practical pastor, James, we might surmise, does not have 94. G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed. by D. A. Hagner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 636.

Introduction

the theological genius and broad theological interests of Paul. James’s letter “does not develop theories but reminds readers of accepted truths; it does not expound theology but exhorts to virtue.”95 In that sense, James is of course less “theological” than Paul. Moreover, Paul himself, at certain points and for specific purposes, can write much like James does. The closest parallel to the style of James in the NT is found in Rom 12:9–21, where Paul quickly touches on key components of the “sincere love” that believers are to exhibit. For the purposes he has at that point, Paul does not need to allude directly to the great doctrines that are taught elsewhere in Romans. This is the style that pervades all of James. And so the judgment of Johnson, while perhaps an overreaction in the other direction, is worth noting: “It is not far wrong to consider James one of the most ‘theological’ writings in the NT.”96 Furthermore, we must not minimize the contributions that James does make to certain specific topics of Christian theology. In addition to the obvious importance of his teaching about faith and works in their relationship to the believer’s final salvation, James also contributes significantly to our understanding of God, temptation, prayer, the law, wisdom, and eschatology. To be sure, all these arise in a practical context. But it will be a sad day for the church when such “practical divinity” is not considered “theology.” Therefore, while the brevity and specific purposes of the letter prevent us from sketching a “theology of James,” we are able to note briefly the contributions James makes to certain specific theological topics.

C. God If we use “theology” in its strictest sense—the doctrine of God—then James has a lot of theology. For he is very concerned to relate the kind of conduct he expects of his readers to the nature of God. Christians, James implies, are to live and act in full consciousness of the character of the God they serve. Hubert Frankemölle is not far off when he claims that the overarching theme of the letter is the nature of God and that James closely ties all his key concepts back to his understanding of God.97 95. L. T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010), 452. 96. Johnson, 85. 97. H. Frankemölle, “Das semantische Netz des Jakobusbriefes: Zur Einheit eines umstrittenen Briefes,” BZ 34 (1990): esp. 190–93.

37 Context of Thought and Theology It is because God gives “generously to all without finding fault” that Christians should not hesitate to ask him for wisdom (1:5). James’s invitation is similar to, and perhaps dependent on, Jesus’s encouragement of his disciples to ask God for what they needed—an encouragement that is also anchored in the nature of God, the Father who gives his children good things (Matt 7:7–11). The goodness of God’s gifts is emphasized in 1:17 also, where James also stresses the invariability of God’s character. This emphasis is needed as a counter to those who would attribute to God the evil of temptation. Not only does God give everything that is perfect, James asserts, but he is not even capable of being enticed by evil. How foolish, then, to think that God could be the author of temptation (1:13). He may test his servants for their own good, but he must never be associated with the enticement to evil that is a product of humanity’s own sinfulness (1:14–15). Never can we excuse sin by trying to shift the blame onto God. Theology proper is also at the heart of one of the key texts in the letter, 4:4–10. This passage contains a stinging indictment of the readers for their worldliness along with a strongly worded summons to repentance. Both the indictment and the invitation are based on God’s character. Verse 5 is difficult to interpret, but I prefer to think that it reminds the readers of the “holy jealousy” of God for his people (see the notes on this verse). In this way, it provides the perfect foundation for James’s accusation that his readers are spiritual “adulterers” who are tarnishing their relationship with God through entanglement with the world (4:4). But, James reminds his readers, God’s grace is able to meet fully the demands of God’s jealous holiness. Only those who humbly submit to God will experience that grace, however (4:6). Thus the gracious character of God becomes the basis for James’s earnest plea to his readers to humble themselves before the Lord (4:7–10). That James is a monotheist goes without saying, but the emphasis he places on this point is interesting. We have not only the confession of the oneness of God used for illustrative purposes (2:19) but also the reminder that “there is only one Lawgiver and Judge” (4:12). Although not strictly related to monotheism, James’s interest in the idea of “oneness” may also be seen in the description of God as giving “generously” (haplōs, 1:5), since the word may have the connotation of “simple, undivided” (see the notes on this verse). The oneness of God also underlines James’s reminder that all the commandments must be obeyed (2:10). The question may well be raised about the relationship between these statements and what James says about Jesus. How does James’s emphasis on the “one Judge” square with the plain implication of 5:7–9 that Christ, the coming one,

Introduction

is the “Judge . . . standing at the door”? And while James uses “Lord” (kyrios) as a designation of Jesus in four verses (1:1; 2:1; 5:7, 8), the other ten occurrences of the title (1:7; 3:9; 4:10, 15; 5:4, 10, 11 [2x], 14, 15) all pretty clearly refer to God the Father. Thus the traditional OT title “Lord” no longer refers unambiguously to Yahweh. These texts imply (in an early and unformed way) what Richard Bauckham has labeled “christological monotheism”: there is, indeed, one God and one Judge; yet Christ somehow shares in this divine identity.98

D. Eschatology As we mentioned earlier, one of the chief characteristics of the Letter of James is its extensive borrowing from both Jewish and Greek moral teaching. But James gives these admonitions a distinctive focus by placing them in the context of early Christian eschatology.99 Future eschatology is clearly the dominant perspective in James. He frequently warns believers about the coming judgment in order to stimulate them to adopt the right attitudes and behavior (1:10–11; 2:12–13; 3:1; 5:1–6, 9, 12). He also reminds them of the reward they can look forward to if they live pleasingly for the Lord (1:12; 2:5; 4:10; 5:20). In keeping with early Christianity generally, James insists that the day of judgment and reward is imminent: “the Lord’s coming is near”; “the Judge is standing at the door” (5:8, 9). Some think that the early Christians held a view of imminence according to which they were certain that Jesus would return within a few years or decades at the most. But the language need not be taken so strictly. The sense of “nearness” that James and the other early Christians had stemmed from two convictions: (1) now that the Messiah had come and the new age had dawned, the end of history was the next event in the divine timetable; and (2) that culmination of history could happen at any time. James, in other words, motivates his readers to godly living, not by insisting that the Lord would come at any moment, but by reminding them that he could. Though future eschatology is the dominant perspective in James, the present eschatological nature of Christian existence is not ignored. The assertion that “God [has] chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in 98. R. Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008). See also, e.g., Schnelle, Theology, 619. In a similar vein, McKnight (42–43) notes the ambiguity in James’s use of “Lord.” 99. For this theme, see esp. Penner, Epistle of James; T. C. Penner and R. W. Wall, “James as Apocalyptic Paraenesis,” ResQ 32 (1990): 11–22.

39 Context of Thought and Theology faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him” (2:5) leaves it uncertain whether the kingdom is to be inherited in the future or is even now the possession of those who are chosen. But, in light of “the royal law” (i.e., “the law of the kingdom”) in 2:8, the latter is likely. James also alludes to the new birth that ushers believers into the enjoyment of God’s kingdom blessings (1:18). And the most likely interpretation of 5:3, reflected in the NIV translation “you have hoarded wealth in the last days,” indicates that James believed that believers were already living in the age of eschatological consummation. All told, then, James provides sufficient indication that he holds to the typical NT pattern of “fulfillment without consummation” that we call “inaugurated eschatology.”100 It is within the tension of this “already/not yet” that we must interpret and apply James’s ethical teaching.101

E. The Law / the Word of God One of the most debated theological issues in James is his teaching—or, better, assumptions—about the law of Moses, the torah. One of the reasons for the debate is the implicit nature of James’s teaching about the law. The law is not a focus of discussion in the Letter of James. References to it come in the context of exhortations about other issues. Calling for Christians to be doers of the word, James refers to “the perfect law that gives freedom” (1:25). He rebukes partiality in the church by labeling it a clear violation of the “royal law,” the demand that we love our neighbors as ourselves (2:8). In this same context, James goes on to stress the unity of the law (2:10–11) and to warn believers that they will be judged “by the law that gives freedom” (2:12). Finally, James condemns slander because it reveals an underlying criticism of the law itself (4:11). While not providing for us anything like a full theology of the law, these texts do suggest several conclusions about James’s understanding of the law. First, as we noted earlier, James reveals little concern about obedience to the ritual law. Noting this, scholars sometimes conclude that James of Jerusalem, famous in tradition for his allegiance to torah and concern to keep good relationships with Judaism, could never have written the letter we have before us. We noted in our response that (1) the picture of the torah-fanatic James in the tradition is tendential and false, and (2) absence of concern for the ritual 100. Contra, e.g., Wilckens, who argues that James lacks a “salvation-historical horizon” (“heilsgeschichtliche Horizont”) (Die Briefe des Urchristentums, 358). 101. See esp. Mußner, 207–10.

Introduction

elements of the law in the letter does not mean the author was not concerned about it. The problems his readers face demand that James focus on certain key ethical issues. Naturally, therefore, it is to this element of the law that James makes frequent appeal. Second, several of the issues James takes up in the letter appear also in Lev 19. The “love command,” of course, comes in v. 18 of that chapter (see Jas 2:8). But the chapter also rebukes false swearing (v. 12; cf. Jas 5:12), the withholding of wages (v. 13; cf. Jas 5:4), partiality (v. 15; cf. Jas 2:1–7), and slander (v. 16; cf. Jas 4:11–12). Luke Timothy Johnson, noting these parallels, suggests that James read at least this section of Lev 19 as a summary of the basic intent of the law.102 Though we cannot conclude that James would restrict the “Christian” law to these ethical emphases from Lev 19, the chapter is obviously of basic significance in the letter. Third, at critical points James qualifies the law: it is “the perfect law that gives freedom” (1:25); “the royal law” (2:8); “the law that gives freedom” (2:12). Labeling the law “perfect” was, as one might imagine, very common among Jews. And Jews could call the law “royal” (e.g., Philo, On the Posterity of Cain 102). But the context in which James uses these descriptions suggests a distinctively Christian nuance.103 The adjective “royal” in 2:8 (basilikos) must be seen in relationship to James’s reference to the “kingdom” (basileia) in 2:5. The love command cited in 2:8 is therefore “royal” because it was proclaimed by Jesus, the King, or perhaps because it is the chief law for the kingdom he established. James’s reference to the law here is not, then, a straightforward allusion to torah as understood by Jews but includes at least an element of Christian interpretation of that law. An even clearer indication along these same lines comes in James’s reference to “the perfect law that gives freedom” in 1:25. Both pagans (especially the Stoics) and Jews could ascribe a liberating effect to law.104 But James uses the phrase in a context where it replaces the earlier use of the term “word” (1:22–23). This “word” is said to be “planted in” believers (1:21) and is identified in 1:18 as “the word of truth” through which Christians experience the miracle of the new birth.105 James here makes clear 102. L. T. Johnson, “The Use of Leviticus 19 in the Letter of James,” JBL 101 (1982): 391–401; see also Cheung, Genre, Composition and Hermeneutics, 101–4. 103. Hahn, Die Vielfalt des Neuen Testaments, 402–3. 104. For the Stoics, see, e.g., Epictetus, Dissertations 4.1.158; Seneca, De vita beata 15.7; for the Jews, see, e.g., Philo, That Every Good Person Is Free 45; b. Avot 62b. 105. M. A. Jackson-McCabe emphasizes similarities with the implanted reason of Stoicism: Logos and Law in the Letter of James: The Law of Nature, the Law of Moses, and the Law of Freedom (Leiden: Brill, 2001).

41 Context of Thought and Theology that he sees a close relationship to exist between what we often call, in a theological sense, “law” (God’s will for the way we are to live) and “gospel” (God’s gracious promises).106 In this way, James implicitly offers an important perspective on the message, or “word,” of God, as a unified whole that both saves and commands.107 How close is this relationship? Some scholars think that James virtually merges law and gospel. “Law” for him is no longer the OT law, torah; it is the teaching of Jesus, the “law” of the kingdom, which includes both the invitation to salvation and the requirements for life in that kingdom.108 But when we consider James’s frequent allusions to Lev 19 and his situation early in the life of the Jewish-Christian church, elimination of reference to the OT law becomes unlikely. More helpful is the recognition that James’s description of the law as “planted in” the believer almost certainly alludes to the famous “new covenant” prophecy of Jer 31:31–34.109 According to this prophecy, God would enter into a “new covenant” with his people and would, as part of that new-covenant arrangement, write his law on the hearts of his people (v. 33). The law that God had first communicated to his people in written form will now be internalized, undergoing transformation and perhaps modification in the process. It is not clear, then, that for James “the whole law is still valid.”110 Rather, as Ben Witherington III suggests, James, following in the footsteps of Jesus and in parallel with Paul, implies “that some of it [torah] is fulfilled and no longer applicable; some of it is retained and affirmed; some of it is expanded on or radicalized; and some new commandments are offered as well.”111 Ultimately, however, James provides little concrete information about the exact identity and scope of “law.” He is more concerned to make sure that his readers understand that they cannot experience the benefits of God’s word in the gospel without at the same time committing themselves in obedience to God’s word as law. The continuing OT element in the law in James leads directly into the fourth important feature of the law in James: its status as a continuing guide to Christian living. This inference from James’s allusions to the law creates, it is alleged, a theological contradiction with Paul. Indeed, A. T. Cadoux claims that the tension between James and Paul on this issue is more serious than 106. Frankemölle, 202–12. 107. Schnelle (Theology, 619) thus refers to a “word-centered theology” in James. 108. See, e.g., Mayor, 74; W. Gutbrod, TDNT 4:1081–82. 109. See, e.g., Mitton, 72. 110. Allison, 91. 111. Witherington, 445.

Introduction

their divergent views of justification.112 Luther summarizes the objection like this: James “calls the law a ‘law of liberty’ though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin.”113 An adequate resolution of this alleged tension would require an entire monograph. But two quick observations may help at this stage. First, while the subject of a longtime and still unresolved debate, Paul’s view of the use of the OT law in guiding Christian behavior is largely negative. Christians have “died to the law” (Rom 7:4); they are no longer “under it” (Rom 6:14, 15). The law, Paul suggests in Gal 3, belongs to a past epoch in God’s dealings with his people. However, without taking anything away from this salvation-historical judgment, we must note that Paul can also presume some kind of relationship between the Christian and the OT law (e.g., Rom 8:7; 1 Cor 7:19[?]; 9:9; Eph 6:2). This is not the place to pursue the matter of Paul and the law further.114 Suffice to say that James’s perspective is not so clearly incompatible with Paul as some might suggest. More important for our purposes is the possibility that James maintains the continuing authority of the OT law for Christians only insofar as it has been “fulfilled” by Jesus.115 James’s appeal to the “love command” as the royal law forges a direct link with Jesus; and James, of course, alludes to the teaching of Jesus throughout his letter. What this suggests is that he does not explicitly separate the teaching of Jesus from the OT law, because they have for him become intertwined. The exact balance between the two is difficult to discern. We see here more clearly than anywhere the differences in where James is placed on the early Jewish Christianity spectrum (see above). Perhaps most interpreters think the balance is on torah. As Scot McKnight puts it, James advocates “Torah observance in a new key with both wisdom and eschatology in a Jewish-Christian milieu.”116 Others, however, citing the importance of Jesus’s teaching throughout the letter, think the balance has shifted to a more distinctive Christian focus. As W. Wessel puts it, “‘law of 112. A. T. Cadoux, The Thought of St. James (London: James Clarke, 1944), 81. 113. “Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude,” in Word and Sacrament I, vol. 35 of Luther’s Works, ed. E. T. Bachmann and H. T. Lehman (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 397. 114. See, e.g., D. J. Moo, “The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses: A Modified Lutheran View,” in Five Views on Law and Gospel, ed. W. G. Strickland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 319–76. 115. For this general approach, see, e.g., Bauckham, James, 142–51; Davids, Theology of James, 81. 116. McKnight, 3. See also, e.g., 44: “Torah observance through the lens of Jesus for a messianic community.”

43 Context of Thought and Theology freedom’ is a Palestinian Jew’s way of describing the Christian standard of conduct found in the didache.”117 This standard of conduct is still law, because it continues into the new age of salvation the will of God expressed in torah; and it incorporates elements of the law of Moses within it. But it is now a law “that gives freedom” because it comes to us from the one whose “yoke is easy” and “burden is light” (Matt 11:30). James’s “royal law” may have more focus on the OT than does Paul’s “law of Christ” (the point is debated), but the two are not far from each other.

F. Wisdom In our discussion of the genre of James, we noted that James has often been classified as a wisdom document. This classification is based more on the letter’s proverbial style and general moral tone than on actual references to the concept of wisdom. Some interpreters see in James’s appropriation of Jesus’s teaching evidence of a wisdom teacher’s appropriation of tradition.118 But James does refer to wisdom specifically twice. In 1:5 he exhorts his readers to ask God for wisdom—perhaps so that they can understand and respond properly to the trials they are experiencing (see 1:2–4). As in the OT, wisdom here involves insight into God’s purposes and ways, and possessing it leads to spiritual maturity (1:4). Wisdom plays a central role in 3:13–18, where James contrasts “earthly, unspiritual, demonic” wisdom (v. 15) with “the wisdom that comes from heaven” (v. 17). Again, as in the OT, wisdom in this passage is tied to behavior. People with the wrong kind of wisdom are selfish and contentious and become embroiled in “disorder and every evil practice” (v. 16). But those who possess divine wisdom are humble and anxious to perform good deeds (v. 13). For this kind of wisdom, James says, is “first of all pure; then peace- loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere” (v. 17). What James says about wisdom in these passages is reminiscent of the OT teaching found in Proverbs and some of the Jewish books, like Sirach, that continue the OT tradition. Other intertestamental Jewish books reveal signif117. Wessel, “Epistle of James,” 960; see also R. J. Foster, The Significance of Exemplars for the Interpretation of the Letter of James, WUNT 2/376 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 55–57; L. Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975, 1976), 2:203– 6; D. Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1981), 699. 118. E.g., R. Bauckham, “James and Jesus,” in Chilton and Neusner, Brother of Jesus, 100–137.

Introduction

icant development in the concept of wisdom. Some of them implicitly identify wisdom with torah (a development that can be seen already in Sirach). Others take up the personification of wisdom in Proverbs, exploiting especially the metaphysical associations of the concept in Prov 8:22–36. Wisdom in these Jewish authors becomes a mediator between God and human beings and takes on semidivine characteristics. Certain NT writers may utilize some of these Jewish developments in their formulations of Christology (e.g., Col 1:15–20) and other doctrines. But none of these developments are evident in James. On the other hand, the OT (and some Jewish texts) suggest a close relationship between wisdom and the Spirit of God (e.g., Isa 11:2: “The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him— / the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, / the Spirit of counsel and of might, / the Spirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord”). James makes only one possible reference to the Spirit (4:5), but his description of the “fruit” of wisdom (3:17) is very similar to Paul’s famous list of the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal 5:22–23). “Wisdom in James,” concludes Davids, “functions as the Spirit does in Paul.”119 We may grant Davids’s point only if we compare James’s wisdom and Paul’s Spirit on one specific point. For Paul, of course, develops a wide-ranging theology of the Spirit, and none of that development is evident in James. And, while wisdom certainly has its place in James’s theology, it cannot be given the central and integrating role that some scholars have wanted to give it.120 As Don Verseput puts it, while there are similarities with wisdom traditions, the letter “does not present itself to the reader on the whole as a product of wisdom reflection.”121 As we have noted, James only mentions wisdom twice, and in neither text is wisdom his real topic. Wisdom is not, then, prominent in James as a topic. However, as we noted, James and wisdom traditions focus on some of the same issues, and parts of the letter, at least, display a style reminiscent of wisdom.122 Therefore, while it is an exaggeration to call James a wisdom book, the letter 119. Davids, 56; see also J. A. Kirk, “The Meaning of Wisdom in James: Examination of a Hypothesis,” NTS 16 (1969–1970): 24–38. In his later book on James, however, Davids says, “For James, wisdom is a gift, and wisdom brings virtue, but wisdom is not personal. In this sense it is more like a gift of the Spirit than the Spirit himself ” (Theology of James, 75–76). 120. Contra, e.g., R. Hoppe, who considers wisdom to be a powerful theological concept in James, related to the regenerating word of God (1:18) and possessing the power to produce those works needed for Christian living (Die theologische Hintergrund des Jakobusbriefes [Würzburg: Echter, 1977], 51–71). 121. Verseput, “Wisdom,” 706; see also McKnight, 6–7. 122. As Schnelle remarks, then, “The basic thought world of the Letter of James is marked by a theocentric understanding of wisdom” (Theology, 617).

45 Context of Thought and Theology does display similarities to wisdom in subject matter and style. A larger role for wisdom in the letter can only be discovered by arguments from parallel language: what James says is similar to what some OT or Jewish texts say about wisdom; therefore, James must be thinking of wisdom. But rarely are these parallels so distinctive to wisdom contexts to justify such a conclusion.123

G. Poverty and Wealth “There is hardly a single element of the OT/late Jewish tradition about poverty and piety that is not also encountered in the letter of James.”124 This being so, we can best appreciate James’s teaching on this matter if we first have a sense of the OT Jewish tradition. The subject is broad and somewhat controversial, but three elements of the tradition especially relevant to James may be noted.125 First, God has a particular concern for the poor, the downtrodden, the outcasts. God is “a father to the fatherless, a defender of widows” (Ps 68:5); “he defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing” (Deut 10:18). So also James claims that “God [has] chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith” (2:5). Second, God’s people must imitate God by showing a similar concern for the poor and disadvantaged. The Deuteronomy passage quoted above continues, “And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt” (10:19). The prophets regularly denounce Israel for failing to obey this aspect of God’s law (see, e.g., Amos 2:6–7). James likewise makes the care of orphans and widows one of the key elements of pure and faultless religion (1:27). A third strand in the OT tradition, particularly visible in the Psalms, is the association of the “poor” (‘ānî) with the righteous (see, for instance, Pss 10; 37:8–17; 72:2, 4; Isa 29:19). The poor person, helpless and afflicted by the 123. See Johnson, 33–34. 124. Mußner, 80 (my translation). 125. A concern to bring NT teaching to bear on the horrendous contemporary problem of poverty has sparked significant discussion of James’s teaching on this issue. See, e.g., Tamez, Scandalous Message of James; D. H. Edgar, Has God Not Chosen the Poor? The Social Setting of the Epistle of James, JSNTSup 206 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001); N. R. Morales, Poor and Rich in James: A Relevance Theory Approach to James’s Use of the Old Testament, BBRSup 20 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2018). For a broader biblical perspective on the issue, see esp. C. L. Blomberg, Neither Poverty nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Material Possessions, NSBT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).

Introduction

wealthy and powerful, calls out to God for deliverance. God, in turn, promises to rescue the poor from his or her distress and to judge the wicked oppressor. In these texts, and others like them, the OT writers appear to merge the economic category “poor” with the spiritual category “righteous.” And on the flip side, in a similar way, the “rich” are sometimes associated with the wicked. These verses reflect a specific social-economic-theological context, in which the vast majority of the true people of God are poor and oppressed. James seems to have been written in the same kind of context. In a probable allusion to Jesus’s beatitude “Blessed are you who are poor” (Luke 6:20), he notes how God has singled out for attention the poor (2:5). And Jesus’s corresponding word of judgment, “Woe to you who are rich” (Luke 6:24), is also taken up in James’s strong condemnation of the rich in 5:1–6. The strength of James’s language, along with his obvious dependence on Jesus’s teaching and the OT tradition, has made James one of the favorite biblical books among liberation theologians. James, they assert, draws clear lines between the poor and the righteous on the one hand and the rich and the wicked on the other. The poor are, in effect, God’s people, while the rich and powerful are destined for destruction. But the picture is not so simple. The OT tradition is not nearly as clear-cut as some interpreters have suggested. While the poor are often pictured as the objects of God’s concern and deliverance, they are not often simply identified with the righteous. And rarely, similarly, is the word “rich” a synonym for the wicked (see the notes on 1:10). And the situation in James is complicated by 1:10–11. Commentators are evenly split over the identity of the “rich person” in this passage: Is the person a believer or not? I very tentatively suggest that this person probably is a Christian; and if so, it shows that James does not identify wealth with wickedness nor confine God’s people only to the poor. Moving in the same direction is the way in which James justifies his condemnation of the rich in 5:1–6. Their doom comes because of specific sinful actions: hoarding money at the expense of the poor (vv. 2–3), senseless luxury (v. 5), defrauding workers (v. 4), persecuting the righteous (v. 6). So, using James to claim that poor people, in general, are righteous and rich people are wicked is not justified. Economic status and spiritual status do not exactly correlate.126 Nevertheless, in our appropriate concern to distance James from an extreme “liberation” perspective, we must be careful not to rob his denunciation of the rich of its power. The very possession of wealth when others are going without the basic necessities of life, suggests James, is sinful (see comments 126. See, e.g., Penner, Epistle of James, 270–73.

47 Context of Thought and Theology on 5:2–3). This is a word that the church in the developed countries in our day needs to hear and take seriously. If those suffering oppression are tempted to radicalize James’s message about poverty and wealth, those of us enjoying a comfortable lifestyle are equally prone to explain away that message.

H. The Christian Life James’s most important contribution to NT theology comes in the realm of ethics: “no other book of the New Testament concentrates so exclusively on ethical questions.”127 A full treatment of this topic would therefore demand virtually a repetition of the commentary. But a few general issues deserve mention here. First, as we noted earlier, James’s ethics must be set in the context of his eschatology. His exhortations, while sometimes having the appearance of the timeless, prudential focus of wisdom teaching, are always oriented, at least implicitly, to the “born again” (1:18) but not yet “saved” (1:21; cf. 2:14; 5:20) condition of his readers. He recognizes that his readers will not entirely be able to escape the influence of sin (3:2), but he calls on them to pursue the goal of being “mature and complete” (1:4). Human “dividedness,” the condition James calls dipsychos, “double-minded” or “double-souled,” is the essence of the problem. People tend to be like waves of the sea, tossed and driven one way and another (1:6). This “divided” condition manifests itself in speech, when the same person utters both blessing and cursing (3:9–10) and, in a different way, when the Christian professes orthodox doctrine but does not live an orthodox life (2:14–26). In response to this tendency toward dividedness, James above all calls on his readers to progress toward Christian maturity, toward what Wesley called Christian perfection: “It is purity of intention, dedicating all the life to God. It is the giving God all our heart; it is one desire and design ruling all our tempers. It is the devoting, not a part, but all our soul, body, and substance to God.”128 James’s well-known insistence that believers not just hear but do the word of God (1:22) and his demand for a “faith that works” (2:14–26) reflect the same concern. Obedience to the “law that gives freedom” must be heartfelt and con127. W. Schrage, Ethik des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 226 (my translation); see also Laws, 27. 128. J. Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, para. 27, Wesley Center Online, http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/a-plain-account-of-christian-perfection/.

Introduction

sistent. And God’s law focuses on love for the neighbor (2:8). Therefore, “pure and faultless” religion will manifest itself in loving concern for the helpless in society (1:27), in a meek and unselfish attitude toward others (3:13–18). It will renounce discrimination (2:1–13) and not speak evil of others (4:11–12). Many, if not most, of James’s exhortations involve habits that directly impact the life of the community: welcoming the poor (2:1–13), being careful in speech (3:1–12), having wisdom that is “peaceable” and avoids quarrels (4:1–3). As Bauckham says, then, “James’s way is neither merely the transformation of individuals nor change in the structures of the dominant society . . . but the formation of a counter-cultural community which lives out alternative social and economic relationships in advance of the coming of the Kingdom.”129 Prayer is another component of the Christian life that receives attention in James. He encourages us to approach God by reminding us that he is a Father who gives good gifts (1:17) and who delights to answer the requests of his people (1:5). But James is especially concerned that we understand the condition for receiving our requests from God: faith (1:6–8; 5:14). Selfish asking will not move God to respond to our requests (4:3). Still, God does not make impossible demands on us when we pray; Elijah, a person with all our human frailties, received spectacular answers to his prayers because he was a “righteous person” in relationship with God (5:16–18).

I. Faith, Works, and Justification The most important, and controversial, contribution of James to NT theology comes in his teaching about the importance of works for justification (2:14–26). Indeed, many theologians mention James only because he seems to contradict the critical doctrine of “justification by faith alone” taught by Paul. But this is not fair to James. He has his own point to make, and it must be appreciated for what it is and not shunted aside in a wrongheaded or hasty insistence on theological integration. James condemns any form of Christianity that drifts into a sterile, actionless “orthodoxy.” Faith, not what we do, is fundamental in establishing a relationship with God. But faith, James insists, must be given content. Genuine faith always and inevitably produces evidence of its existence in a life of righteous living. Biblical faith cannot exist apart from acts of obedience to God. This is James’s overriding concern in the passage in question, as he makes clear repeatedly: “faith by itself, if it is not accompanied 129. Bauckham, James, 198.

49 Context of Thought and Theology by action, is dead” (v. 17); “faith without deeds is useless” (v. 20); “faith without deeds is dead” (v. 26). As I have suggested, James makes such a point of this because he has come to realize that some Christians, misunderstanding Paul’s teaching, had come to believe that works of obedience were an optional extra in the Christian life. Some, perhaps, thought that faith involved verbal profession alone (v. 19). Such “faith,” James responds, is not really faith at all. It is an imposter, masquerading as true biblical faith. And, therefore, it can neither justify sinners (v. 24) nor save them at the judgment (v. 14). Because some scholars have given the wrong impression at just this point, we need to stress that this sterile, verbal-only “faith” is not James’s own understanding of faith. He presents faith as a firm, unswerving commitment to God and Christ (2:1) that is tested and refined in trials (1:2, 4) and grasps hold of the promises of God in prayer (1:5–8; 5:14–18). James by no means has a “sub-Christian” or “sub-Pauline” view of faith. In fact, on the meaning and significance of faith, James and Paul appear to be in complete agreement. For Paul also, in the famous words of Gal 5:6, it is “faith expressing itself through love” that secures the inheritance of God. On another point, however, resolution between James and Paul does not seem so easy. Paul insists that “a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law” (Rom 3:28), while James contends that “a person is considered righteous [the verb is dikaioō] by what they do and not by faith alone” (2:24). Furthermore, each cites Abraham to illustrate his point, Paul arguing that God’s pronouncement of Abraham’s righteousness (Gen 15:6) came solely on the basis of faith, before he was circumcised (Rom 4:1–12), and James claiming that Abraham’s justification came as a result of his obedience in being willing to sacrifice Isaac and that in this act Gen 15:6 was “fulfilled.” These viewpoints are often thought to represent two different, even conflicting, tendencies in the early church: the law-free gentile mission (Paul) and the law-affirming Jewish Christianity (James).130 If this were true, we would be faced with a disturbing situation. On an issue as vital as the question “What must I do to be saved?” the NT would speak with conflicting voices. They agree in making faith fundamental to justification; but they disagree on the place of “works.” Resolution between Paul and James is not easy—even with all the sympathy in the world. Luther threw down the gauntlet in his day: “Many sweat to reconcile James with Paul, as for example does Philip [Melanchthon], in the 130. See, e.g., J. D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 251–52. See also A. Chester and R. Martin, The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 20–28, 46–53.

Introduction

Apology, but he cannot be serious. They are contradictory claims: Faith justifies; Faith does not justify. Whoever can put these together, I will put my cap on him and let him call me a fool.”131 Luther’s pessimism has not dissuaded theologians. The history of Christian theology is littered with the debris left over from intense theological debates on precisely this issue.132 One might point here, for example, to the controversy among Anglican theologians in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries or to the 1980s debate between, among others, Zane Hodges and John MacArthur over the relationship between obedience and assurance.133 The suggestions that follow, therefore, must be viewed as a very modest contribution to an ongoing theological agenda. Before I sketch the options and my own view, we must recall two points made earlier: (1) the distinctive language of Jas 2 suggests some contact with Paul’s teaching, but (2) that contact is probably indirect, since what James says does not fairly address Paul’s actual theology. The first thing to be noticed is that Paul and James are combating opposite problems. In Paul’s statements about justification in Galatians and Romans, he is countering a Jewish tendency to rely on obedience to the law (“works of the law”) for salvation. Against an overemphasis on works, Paul highlights faith as the sole instrument of justification. James, on the other hand, is combating an underemphasis on works, a “quietistic” attitude that turned faith into mere doctrinal orthodoxy. As Oliver O’Donovan remarks, Paul’s understanding of faith as a disposition that inevitably leads to works is being challenged, split apart into “believing” and “doing.”134 Against this perversion of faith, James is forced to assert the importance of works. The second point to be mentioned is the need to reckon with the possibility that James and Paul are giving different meanings to some of the key 131. The quotation comes from Luther’s “Table Talk”: original German in Tischreden 3 Weimarer Ausgabe (Weimar: Böhlaus, 1912), 253; English translation from Stuhlmacher, Biblical Theology, 501. 132. For a brief history of interpretation with an outline of key approaches to the problem, see Allison, 426–41. 133. See, e.g., Z. C. Hodges, Dead Faith: What Is It? (Dallas: Redención Viva, 1987); J. F. MacArthur Jr., The Gospel according to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988); Z. C. Hodges, Absolutely Free! (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989); J. F. MacArthur Jr., “Faith according to the Apostle James,” JETS 33 (1990): 13–34. This modern version of an old debate could have profited from greater reliance on viewpoints and considerations hammered out in the course of the earlier controversies. 134. O. O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 110.

51 Context of Thought and Theology vocabulary. Three words need to be considered: works (erga), justify/consider righteous (dikiaoō), and the preposition ek, usually translated “by.” In the quotation of Rom 3:28 above, Paul refers not to “works” (erga) but to “works of the law” (erga nomou). Many interpreters find this difference to be the way to reconcile James and Paul on this point. One of the features of the “new perspective” on Paul is an emphasis on the degree to which Paul is interacting with the Judaism of his day. In his context, it is argued, “works of the law” would have referred to the doing of the torah—especially as it was seen as a way of maintaining Israel’s exclusive privileges.135 These works, because they are tied to an outmoded covenant, cannot justify. James, on the other hand, does not use the phrase “works of the law”; he refers simply to “works”—indeed, perhaps especially to “works of mercy,” as the context might suggest (2:12–13, 15–16). Therefore Paul is not arguing that “works” in general should be excluded from justification, and James’s insistence that the verdict of justification takes works into account would not contradict Paul. However, while this interpretation of “works of the law” is popular, I think it ultimately cannot be sustained. Paul’s polemic cannot be confined only to torah obedience. Romans 9:10–12 is the closest we get in Pauline literature to a definition of “works”: “Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’” In these verses, it is clear that “works” includes anything that is done, “good or bad.” Likewise, the “works of the law” in Rom 3 (vv. 20, 28) give way in Rom 4 to “works”—the two appear to function in Paul’s argument in exactly the same way. When Paul refers to “works of the law,” then, he does indeed refer to works done in obedience to the torah; but these specific works are at the same time a subset of the larger category “works.” Paul intends to exclude all works—not just certain works or works done in a certain spirit—as a basis for justification.136 135. See, among many writings, J. D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 354–66. It should be noted that a restrictive significance to Paul’s “works of the law” has been given to the phrase by a number of theologians throughout church history (e.g., Pelagius [noted by Allison, 430]). See, on the early church’s interpretation of the phrase, M. J. Thomas, Paul’s “Works of the Law” in the Perspective of Second Century Reception, WUNT 2/468 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018). 136. On this issue, see D. J. Moo, “‘Law,’ ‘Works of the Law,’ and Legalism in Paul,” WTJ 43 (1983): 73–100; Moo, The Letter to the Romans, 2nd ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 216–20; Moo, Galatians, 21–31; Moo, Theology of Paul and His Letters.

Introduction

On the other side of the fence, it is not clear that we can confine James’s “works” to acts of charity. To be sure, he has just been speaking about activities that fulfill the law of love and cites as an illustration acts of charity in 2:15–16. But his specific examples, drawn from the lives of Abraham and Rahab (2:21– 25), do not clearly involve acts of charity. Particularly in Abraham’s case, the focus is on his obedience to God per se, with no inkling of any charity shown to others. Thus it would seem that both Paul and James are operating with an understanding of “works” that is basically similar: anything that is done in obedience to God and in the service of God. A second key word to consider is dikaioō, “justify” or “consider righteous.” Paul uses this verb to denote the divine declaration that a sinful human being is, because of Christ and through their faith, “in the right” before God. James, however, it is suggested, uses the verb in a different sense. One option is that he refers to God’s recognition of a person’s “righteousness” in the judgment.137 However, the most popular option is to think that James, in contrast to Paul, uses dikaioō to mean “demonstrate to be right.” Distinguishing between these two meanings of “justify” is probably the most popular approach to reconcile Paul and James on this point. And it certainly has points in its favor. In the context of James’s claims about justification, he taunts his opponent: “Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds” (2:18). The idea of demonstrating one’s relationship with God seems to be the point. Moreover, the verb can certainly have this sense, as Matt 11:19 reveals: “But wisdom is proved right [edikaiōthē, “justified”] by her deeds [erga].” If James is using the verb with this sense, then, he would be referring to the demonstration of righteousness, while Paul is referring to the declaration of righteousness. As attractive as this option is, I am not certain it should be accepted. As I point out in the detailed notes on 2:21, it is unlikely that “demonstrate to be right” is the meaning of this key verb in James. Rather, both he and Paul appear to use it in the general sense, well attested in the OT and Judaism, of a divine declaration of “right” status. To be sure, Paul invests the word with a great deal more significance than does James, tying it to some of his key theological themes in a web of meaning that shifts its ultimate theological sense a bit. Paul, for instance, in contrast to Judaism (and to James), often insists that a person can be justified before God the moment that they believe. James, on the other hand, focuses on what we might call final justification, God’s vindication of a person on the day of judgment.138 But these differences in nuance 137. E.g., Davids, 132. 138. See, e.g., G. K. Beale, New Testament Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 519–22.

53 Context of Thought and Theology and focus between Paul and James are not great enough to explain the tension between them. A third option is to assume that dikaioō has the same meaning in Paul and James but that the two differ over the “moments” of justification. Paul, on this view, refers to what we might call “initial” justification. He insists that people get into relationship with Christ only by faith. James, on the other hand, is using “justify” to refer to the ultimate verdict over people at the time of the judgment—and this ultimate verdict is based not on faith only but also on works.139 Certainly “justify” can have this temporal reference. In a text that might well have influenced James, Matthew, reporting the teaching of Jesus, uses dikaioō this way and relates it to works: “For by your words you will be acquitted [dikaioō], and by your words you will be condemned” (12:37).140 I conclude, reluctantly, that we can’t reconcile James and Paul by appealing to different meanings they might be giving to key words—or can we? I suggest, finally, that we might be able to bring the two authors together on this issue by appeal to the broad semantic range of the preposition ek, usually meaning “out of ” or “from,” but in the key Pauline and James texts having a general instrumental sense, “by.” As I argue in more detail in the comments 139. The idea of “two justifications” was taught by the Reformation-era Roman Catholic theologian Robert Bellarmine, the reformer Martin Bucer, the seventeenth-century divine James Ussher (Sermon XV, XIII, p. 239) (for these, see A. E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 2 vols. [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986, 1987], 2:34–35, 109), and J. Wesley (The Appeals to Men of Reason and Religion and Certain Related Open Letters, ed. G. R. Cragg, vol. 11 of The Works of John Wesley [New York: Oxford University Press, 1975], 105). N. T. Wright is not ultimately clear on this issue, but he does, famously, claim that ultimate justification in Paul is “based on the whole life lived” (e.g., Paul in Fresh Perspective [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005], 111–13; see also Wright, “Justification: Yesterday, Today, and Forever,” JETS 54 [2011]: 60–61). See also the first edition (1985) of my TNTC commentary on James (44–48) as well as, e.g., Blomberg and Kamell, 136. 140. For this general approach, see esp. G. Eichholz, Glaube und Werke bei Paulus und Jakobus (Munich: Kaiser, 1961), esp. 24–37; J. Jeremias, “Paul and James,” ExpTim 66 (1954– 1955): 368–71; T. Laato, “Justification according to James: A Comparison with Paul,” TJ 18 (1997): 43–84. This perspective also has affinities with N. T. Wright’s view of justification. He asserts that people are initially justified by “faith alone” but are ultimately justified by Spirit- infused, faith-generated works of obedience; see, e.g., Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 251. I took this view of the matter in the first edition of my TNTC commentary on James (114–16). See also Blomberg and Kamell, 136. John Wesley cited the difference between “initial” and “final” justification to explain the apparent conflict; see his sermon “On the Wedding Garment” (1790). Another possibility is that James views the crediting of righteousness to Abraham as the approval expressed by God during his lifetime and a consequence of his obedience; see R. T. Rakestraw, “James 2:14–26: Does James Contradict the Pauline Soteriology?,” CTR 1 (1986): 33.

Introduction

on 2:24, it is possible that James and Paul may be thinking of different kinds of instrumentality when they use this preposition—and related words and constructions—in their linking of justification or related language with “works” or “faith.” It must be admitted that this difference cannot be established explicitly from the texts themselves. But, as I note below, I think that James’s teaching in his letter overall provides at least some basis to make the distinction we are suggesting.141 However, before we explore this option further, we must back up and set James’s teaching in ch. 2 in its Jewish framework. Contemporary views of first-century Jewish soteriology are strongly marked by the impact of the “new perspective on Judaism” inaugurated in 1977 by E. P. Sanders.142 The label given this new paradigm, “covenantal nomism,” summarizes its main emphases. “Covenant” was basic to Jewish life. Jews viewed themselves as the chosen people, a nation selected by God to be his own and to carry out a mission to the world. Because God freely entered into this covenant with Israel, grace is at the heart of the Jewish view of salvation. Far from being a religion of “works” or “law,” then (as it often has been portrayed), Judaism was a religion of grace. But what, then, do we do with the obvious emphasis among the Jews on doing the law? Here is where the second term in the label, “nomism,” comes into play. As an obvious counter to the typical accusation that Judaism was “legalistic,” “nomism” signifies that Jews obeyed the law as a grateful response to God’s electing grace. They did not think that they needed to do the law to get saved—because they already were saved through the covenant. They did not do the law, then, to “get in” but to “stay in.” In its main lines, covenantal nomism is an accurate and helpful picture of Jewish soteriology in the NT period. But it does require two important adjustments. First, as is the case with many such general “paradigms,” covenantal nomism fails to recognize adequately the diversity of Second Temple Judaism. It may accurately portray the viewpoint of certain Jews and perhaps even the most influential Jewish theologians of the time. But Jews in the NT period differed quite seriously over many rather basic theological issues. Study of the literature Jews wrote during this time shows many quite basic differences over the way in which covenant, grace, and the law were integrated. We must therefore reckon with the strong possibility that many Jews, and perhaps even

141. See Painter and deSilva, 107. 142. The fountainhead for this new paradigm was the monograph by E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).

55 Context of Thought and Theology some major Jewish groups, were more “legalistic” than the generalized picture of covenantal nomism would suggest.143 Second, we must adjust the usual way in which obedience to the law is related to salvation in covenantal nomism. While the distinction between “getting in” and “staying in” may be valid enough when applied to the covenant, we cannot necessarily apply the same distinction to the issue of salvation. For belonging to the covenant (in the sense of being born into the people of Israel) was not a guarantee of salvation. Jews viewed salvation as a decision made by God at the time of the judgment. God’s grace in the covenant provided the sufficient means for salvation, but the individual Jew still had to commit himself or herself to obey the law in order to be saved in the last day. To put it another way, Second Temple Jewish soteriology was synergistic: it required human beings to cooperate with God’s grace through obedience to the law for salvation. Here, then, is the possible point of intersection between Jewish views and Jas 2. For the teaching of James seems to match this synergistic interpretation of salvation. James implies that the Christian life begins through an act of God’s grace: as one of his greatest gifts, he “chose to give us birth through the word of truth” (1:18). Faith in Christ is the foundation for our relationship to God (2:1); like Abraham, Christians believe God and thereby find righteousness (2:22–23). But, James insists, final salvation, deliverance in the judgment of God—the focus of “justification” in Jas 2—takes into account one’s works. Here, we might conclude, we find the basic pattern of covenantal nomism reinterpreted in “new covenant” terms: one “gets into” relationship with God by faith in Christ, but “stays in” that relationship through obedience to the “royal law” (2:8). Many interpreters are content to let matters rest with this conclusion. But anyone who takes seriously the place of James within the canon of the NT must ask further about the relationship of this apparent synergism in James to soteriological viewpoints elsewhere in the NT, especially Paul. To be sure, such an enterprise is frowned on by many modern scholars, who seem to believe that any attempt at theological integration is a betrayal of history and sound exegesis. Everything depends, of course, on one’s view of Scripture as a whole. Taken as a series of relatively independent historical attestations of the development of early Christianity, the NT letters can—indeed, must—be interpreted without reference to one another. Indeed, so resolutely opposed 143. On this point, see esp. D. A. Carson, P. T. O’Brien, and M. A. Seifrid, eds., The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism, vol. 1 of Justification and Variegated Nomism, WUNT 2/140 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001).

Introduction

to any “dogmatic” interpretation of the Bible are some interpreters that they dismiss the kind of application of larger conceptual categories to various documents from the same movement that is typical in the study of other religions. Scholars who adopt this approach often push James and Paul to extremes in their views of soteriology. They conclude that Paul and James present contradictory viewpoints on this matter and that the NT does not therefore teach a single, unified viewpoint on salvation.144 But if the NT is, as it claims to be, a revelation from God, if the NT letters are not just independent writings but part of one larger book with one ultimate author, then the search for a unified view within Scripture is not only appropriate but necessary. This is not the place to outline, let alone defend, such a view of Scripture. But this is the perspective that we adopt in this commentary. One must, of course, pursue integration of the diverse witness of the NT, while maintaining the integrity of each of the passages under discussion. Forced harmonization of Scripture is both bad exegesis and bad theology. But it is not “forced harmonization” to seek underlying theological categories that might enable one to conceptually bring together texts that apparently go in different directions. We now return to the suggestion that different nuances of instrumentality, signaled by the preposition ek, might help reconcile James and Paul on this issue. As Protestant theologians have argued for many years, Paul uses the preposition ek in the relevant texts to indicate the instrument of justification: we are justified before God through our faith and not through our works (see, further, the comments on 2:24). James, I suggest, is using the preposition in a looser sense, to say that works are necessarily involved in, or related to, God’s justifying verdict. In this way, James can be squared with the monergistic perspective on justification in Paul. It is clear, for instance, in ch. 2 that James is not arguing that a Christian must “add” works to faith; rather, he insists that true saving faith will “work.” The reason that faith has these practical effects is not something James discusses. However, we can suppose that James would assume that faith has this power because it is given by and empowered by God and his Spirit. Moreover, as Timo Laato has shown, James suggests a monergistic view of justification/salvation in his emphasis on the creative power of the new birth in 1:18.145 At the theological level, then, I think that Paul and James are com144. See, for instance, Dunn, Unity and Diversity, 251–52. 145. Laato, “Justification according to James,” 47–61; Laato, Rechtfertigung bei Jakobus: Ein Vergleich mit Paulus (Saarijärvi: Gummerus Kirjapaino, 2003). On the other hand, A. Stewart argues that “synergism” in some sense is an appropriate description of James’s soteriology (“James, Soteriology, and Synergism,” TynBul 61 [2010]: 293–310).

57 Context of Thought and Theology plementary rather than contradictory. Faith alone brings one into relationship with God in Christ—but true faith inevitably generates the works that God will take into account in his final decision about the fate of men and women. It is true that “Paul and James move in this matter in different circles of thought, and the attempt to superimpose one circle on the other in order to determine their agreement or disagreement in detail is futile.”146 But what can be done is to understand the point each is making from within his own sphere of thought and word usage, and then to bring them together. When this is done, a unified, theologically coherent picture emerges. Paul fervently maintains that faith is the only human condition for the transfer of the sinner into the sphere of God’s grace. James says little about this initial transfer. What James is concerned about is the attempt to eliminate works from having any role in the verdict rendered over our lives. While our union with Christ by faith is the sole basis for justification in God’s sight, the works necessarily produced as a result of that union are taken into account in God’s ultimate judgment over us.147 Finally, we must keep clearly in view the contrasting rhetorical purposes of Paul and James. Unlike Paul, who was faced in Galatians, and to a lesser extent in Romans, by “Judaizers” insisting on obedience to the law as a condition for salvation, James was facing professing Christians who were dismissing the importance of obedience in the Christian life. As Udo Schnelle puts it, James “is possibly arguing against Christians who practiced a faith without works and who appealed to Paul to justify their practice.”148 Works, claims Paul, are never the basis for our salvation, for a positive verdict in God’s justification/ judgment. Faith, which grasps hold of Christ, the ultimate basis of our righteousness, is “alone” the means of justification. But, if not the basis, works, insists James, do have a role in securing God’s vindication in the judgment. In this way, James is guarding against an “open flank” in Paul’s strong assault on Judaism.149 Paul strikes at legalism; James at quietism. Each message needs to 146. Ropes, 36. 147. See J. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. F. L. Battles, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 3.17.12. John Wesley takes a similar approach in his explanation of the difference between Paul and James. He contends that James is speaking of final justification and that, while works are not the causal basis of this justification, it does take into account the evidence of works (Works 8:277, Q. 14; see also “A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion,” articles 12 and 13 [T. Jackson, ed., Addresses, Essays, Letters, vol. 8 of The Works of John Wesley, 3rd ed. (1872; repr., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958)]). 148. Schnelle, Theology, 625. 149. Wilckens, Die Briefe des Urchristentums, 365.

Introduction

be heard.150 Church history reveals how leaders focused on one message or the other, depending on the issues they were addressing. Luther, faced with forms of Roman Catholic medieval theology that placed great emphasis on works in salvation, naturally focused on Paul in his preaching. Wesley, on the other hand, confronting a church largely indifferent to the moral imperatives of the gospel, appropriated the perspective of James. So in our day as well. Christians need to continue to pay attention to the warning of James that true faith is to be tested by its works and that only a faith that issues in works is a genuinely saving faith. James recognizes that Christians continue to sin (see 3:2), so he clearly does not expect 100 percent conformity to the will of God. But how high must the percentage be? How many works are necessary to validate true, saving faith? James, of course, gives no answer. But what we can say with confidence, on the basis of James’s teaching, is that if someone claims to have faith but is totally unconcerned to lead a life of obedience to God, their claim of saving faith must be questioned.

VI. STRUCTURE AND THEME As we noted in our analysis of the letter’s nature and genre, James consists of several substantial blocks of teaching on specific topics (2:1–13; 2:14–26; 3:1–12; 5:1–6) along with many briefer exhortations that often appear to have little relation to one another (1:2–4, 5–8, 9–11, 12, 13–18, 19, 20–21, 22–25, 26–27; 3:13–18; 4:1–3, 4–10, 11–12, 13–17; 5:7–11, 12, 13–18, 19–20). Many scholars have therefore endorsed the judgment of Luther, who accused the author of “throwing things together . . . chaotically.”151 Dibelius modernizes this basic view in his form-critical approach, treating James as a collection of loosely strung- together paraenetic components. But most scholars are now inclined to find more logical structure in James. James Adamson, for instance, claims that the letter displays a “sustained unity.”152 Unfortunately, there is little agreement about this “sustained unity.” As Donald Hagner comments, “The organization 150. See D. O. Via, “The Right Strawy Epistle Reconsidered: A Study in Biblical Ethics and Hermeneutic,” JR 49 (1969): 253–67. 151. M. Luther, “Preface to the New Testament,” in Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, ed. T. F. Lull (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989). 152. Adamson, 20.

59 Structure and Theme of James has defied analysis.”153 Davids applies to James the epistolary structure identified by F. O. Francis.154 He discerns a carefully constructed literary structure, divided into three basic parts: “double opening statement” (1:2–27), the body (2:1–5:6), and the “closing statement” (5:7–20). He further identifies three basic themes that surface throughout the letter: testing, wisdom/pure speech, and poverty/wealth.155 Davids’s identification of these specific themes is open to challenge (e.g., he fits 2:14–26 under the theme of poverty/wealth, suggesting its theme to be “generosity”). But the insights of Francis and Davids have served as the starting point for more concerted and sophisticated literary analysis of the letter. Specifically, Mark Taylor notes that most interpreters, in the wake of Francis and Davids, identify three points of general consensus: (1) that Dibelius was wrong about paraenesis and its bearing on the structure; (2) that there is a significant degree of literary coherence in the letter; and (3) that ch. 1 serves as a key introductory section.156 We might add one further point of general agreement: reflecting studies of Greco-Roman letters in general, a basic three-part structure should probably be assumed: letter opening, letter body, and letter closing.157 Beyond these points, we find little agreement about the structure of James. And I have no grand, integrated structure to propose; indeed, the variety of suggestions for the specifics of James’s structure may themselves suggest that James did not write with a careful structure in mind. If this is so, it should not bother us—in contrast to some interpreters, who give the impression that a lack of clear organization puts James in a bad light. Structure is tied to genre and purpose. Some kinds of writing, by their very nature, do not have a clear organizing principle or readily identifiable logical progress. This is not necessarily a bad thing; indeed, it may be integral to the writing’s effectiveness. So, if we were to conclude that James does consist of a series of brief, relatively independent exhortations, nothing negative about the letter could be inferred.158 In terms of a macro-structure, I follow most other interpreters in identifying ch. 1 as a place where James introduces many of the key themes of the letter. 153. Hagner, New Testament, 675. McKnight, 50–55, has a useful survey of outlines. 154. Francis, “Form and Function.” 155. Davids, 22–29. 156. M. E. Taylor, A Text-Linguistic Investigation into the Discourse Structure of James, LNTS 311 (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 112. See also M. E. Taylor and G. H. Guthrie, “The Structure of James,” CBQ 68 (2006): 681–705. 157. See, e.g., Bauckham, James, 61–73; Blomberg and Kamell, 23–27; Allison, 77–78. 158. See esp. Bauckham, James, 62–63.

Introduction

60 James 1 2–4, 12–15 5 6–8 9–11 16–18 19–20, 26 21–25 27 27

Topic Testing/temptation Wisdom Prayer/faith Rich and poor God’s giving/new birth through the word Speech Doing the word Concern for downtrodden Avoiding worldliness

James 2–5 5:7–11 3:13–4:3 5:13–18 (2:14–26) 2:1–8; 4:13–17; 5:1–6 --3:1–11; 4:11–12; 5:12 2:8–13, 14–26 2:1–8 4:4–10

While not all these parallels are equally clear, there is an impressive lineup between the topics of ch. 1 and those developed in the rest of the letter. We may, then, view ch. 1 as the “letter opening.”159 A second aspect of the macro-structure is the way James begins and ends the body of the letter with two issues: testing (1:2–4, 12; 5:7–11) and effective praying (5:13–18).160 Testing, then, while perhaps not the topic of the letter, is nevertheless, James suggests, the context in which it must be read. And effective prayer, tied as it is to sincere and unwavering faith (1:8), marks a key recurring motif in the letter. While a variety of other connections in the letter have been discerned, I am not convinced that they are clear enough to serve as structural markers. Identifying particular parts of the letter with the conventional elements of Greco-Roman rhetoric, linking sections via similar vocabulary, imposing on the letter a structure derived from other biblical passages—all of this is to force the letter into a mold that it does not naturally fit. The best we can do beyond our observations above is to identify some of the key motifs that are central in James’s pastoral admonitions. These motifs are often mixed together with other themes in paragraphs that cannot be labeled as neatly as we might like. As I suggested above, 1:2–27 appears to be James’s opening rehearsal of some of the key points in the letter. He then develops these points in the body of the letter: 2:1–5:18, or perhaps 5:11 (see 159. E.g., Taylor, Text-Linguistic Investigation, 99–100; Bauckham, James, 61–73; Foster, Significance of Exemplars, 25–58. 160. See, e.g., Taylor, Text-Linguistic Investigation, 69–70. Some of the other inclusios suggested by Taylor and others are not so clear.

61 Structure and Theme the notes on these texts). This letter body falls into seven (or perhaps six) sections. The first, 2:1–13, rebukes believers for their preferential treatment of the rich, a practice that violates the “royal law” of love for the neighbor. This paragraph, then, combines James’s concern for the poor and needy with his concern that believers do the law. The second section, 2:14–26, develops this last theme, with James famously insisting that people can be saved/justified only when they display a “faith that works.” I suggest that James’s third stage of argument extends all the way from 3:1 to 4:12, his rebuke about false speech in 3:1–12 and 4:11–12 acting as an inclusio around this section. James seems to be especially concerned about believers criticizing one another in their speech, so it is natural that this section includes warnings about quarreling (3:13–4:3). James 4:4–10, while integrated in some ways with the larger section in which it is embedded, stands apart. It is the rhetorical high point of James’s sermon. I group the paragraphs 4:13–17 and 5:1–11 together since both are focused on the arrogance and injustice of rich people. Paul’s warning about taking oaths in 5:12 picks up his general concern about the abuse of speech but is not clearly integrated into its context. While obviously very brief, then, I identify this verse as the sixth section of the letter. As we have hinted at above, the status of 5:12 and 5:13–18 in the letter is not clear. On the one hand, the “Above all” that introduces 5:12 may signal that the letter closing begins here. On the other hand, however, 5:12 and 13–18 could be viewed as the closing of the body, with the final general exhortation in 5:19–20 being the letter closing. What, finally, emerges as the central theme or purpose of these various exhortations? Clearly any theme that can encompass the varied material of the letter must be quite broad. And perhaps we would do better not to speak of “theme” but of a central concern. This, I think, can be discovered in the emotional climax of the letter, 4:4–10.161 Here James abandons his customary address, “brothers and sisters” or “dear brothers and sisters,” to castigate his readers as “adulterous people.” The feminine form (moichalides) reflects the biblical tradition according to which the covenant between God and his people is portrayed as a marriage, with God’s people in the role of bride. James is labeling his readers spiritual adulterers. They are seeking to be “friends with the world” and in the process are turning the Lord, who in his holy jealousy demands complete allegiance from his people, into their enemy (4:4–5; for substantiation of this interpretation, see the commentary). James makes the same point by warning the readers about being “double-minded” (dipsychos; see 1:8 and 4:8). As other interpreters have pointed out, James uses op161. Johnson, 84, agrees: “the thematic center for the composition as a whole.”

Introduction

positions throughout his letter to set before his readers a stark choice: they can decide to remain entirely loyal to the Lord by obeying his word (1:21–25; 2:14–26), following the “wisdom that comes from heaven” (3:17), displaying “pure and faultless” religion (1:27); or they can compromise their loyalty by an inconsistent lifestyle, manifesting the influence of “earthly” wisdom (3:15), and thereby “deceive” themselves about their spiritual status (1:22).162 Basic to all that James says in his letter is his concern that his readers stop compromising with worldly values and behavior and give themselves wholly to the Lord. “James wants to overcome the divided character of Christian existence; he is concerned about the wholeness and perfection of the Christian life.”163 Spiritual “wholeness” is the central concern of the letter.164

162. See esp. Frankemölle, “Das semantische Netz,” 184–87; Johnson, 14. 163. Schnelle, Theology, 632. 164. See also Baker, Personal Speech-Ethics, 20; Bauckham, James, 100–101, 177–85; Lockett, Purity and Worldview, 140 (summary); Lockett, “Wholeness in Intertextual Perspective: James’s Use of Scripture in Developing a Theme,” Midwestern Journal of Theology 15 (2016): 92–106; J. H. Elliot, “The Epistle of James in Rhetorical and Social Scientific Perspective: Holiness-Wholeness and Patterns of Replication,” BTB 23 (1993): 71–81; C. W. Morgan, A Theology of James: Wisdom for God’s People (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2010), 55–63 (“consistency”).

The Letter of James

Articles inside

I. Faith, Works, and Justification

G. Poverty and Wealth

H. The Christian Life

VI. Structure and Theme

F. Wisdom

E. The Law / the Word of God

B. The Challenge to the Traditional View

B. Date

C. God

C. Final Assessment

D. Eschatology

I. The Letter in the Church

B. James and “Theology”

II. Nature and Genre