E. The Law / the Word of God

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.

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).

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.

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.”