B. James and “Theology”

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 lawfree 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.

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.