VI. Structure and Theme

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 strungtogether 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.

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.

James 1 Topic James 2–5 2–4, 12–15 Testing/temptation 5:7–11 5 Wisdom 3:13–4:3 6–8 Prayer/faith 5:13–18 (2:14–26) 9–11 Rich and poor 2:1–8; 4:13–17; 5:1–6 16–18 God’s giving/new birth --through the word 19–20, 26 Speech 3:1–11; 4:11–12; 5:12 21–25 Doing the word 2:8–13, 14–26 27 Concern for 2:1–8 downtrodden 27 Avoiding worldliness 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.

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 op-

161. Johnson, 84, agrees: “the thematic center for the composition as a whole.”

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”).