Community of the Wise: The Letter of James (The New Testament in Context)

Community of the Wise

T H E N E W TESTAMENT IN C O N T E X T Friendship and Finances in Philippi THE LETTER O F PAUL T O THE PHILIPPIANS

Ben Witherington III Walking in the Truth: Perseverers and Deserters THE FIRST, SECOND, A N D THIRD LETTERS O F J O H N

Gerard S. Sloyan Church and Community in Crisis THE GOSPEL A C C O R D I N G T O MATTHEW

J. Andrew Overman Letters to Paul's Delegates 1 TIMOTHY, 2 TIMOTHY, TITUS

Luke Timothy Johnson Embassy of Onesimus THE LETTER O F PAUL T O PHILEMON

Allen Dwight Callahan Community of the Wise THE LETTER O F JAMES

Robert W. Wall

Community of the Wise T H E LETTER O F JAMES

Robert W . Wall

THE NEW TESTAMENT IN CONTEXT Howard Clark Kee and J. Andrew Overman, editors

TRINITY PRESS INTERNATIONAL Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Appendix A was excerpted from "Reading the New Testament in Canon­ ical Context," in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation, ed. J. B. Green (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995), 3 7 0 - 9 3 . An earlier version of Appendix B was published in R. W. Wall and E. E. Lemcio, The New Testament as Canon: A Reader in Canonical Criticism, JSNTSup 76 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 2 5 0 - 7 1 .

Copyright © 1997 by Robert W. Wall All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher. Trinity Press International P.O. Box 851, Valley Forge, PA 1 9 4 8 2 - 0 8 5 1 Trinity Press International is a division of the Morehouse Publishing Group Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Wall, Robert W. Community of the wise : the letter of James / Robert W. Wall. p. cm. - (The New Testament in context) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-56338-143-5 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Bible. N.T. Luke - Commentaries. I. Title. II. Series. BS2785.3.W35 1997 227'.91077 - d c 2 1 97-1709 CIP Printed in the United States of America 97

98

99

00

01

02

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

For Alida and Ted Palmatier, Kathy and Dan Russ

Contents

Preface

xi

Introduction Pedagogy and the Book of James The Author(s) of James The Audience(s) of James The Literature of James A Canonical Approach to James The Gospel according to James The Argument of James

1 2 5 11 18 23 27 34

1. James 1:1: Greeting The Author of James The Audience of James

39 40 41

2. James 1:2-11: First Thesis Statement James 1:2-4: The Testing of Faith James 1:5-8: The Wisdom of God James 1:9-11: The Great Reversal

44 47 50 53

3. James 1:12-21: Second Thesis Statement James 1:12-15: The Testing of Faith James 1:16-18: The Gift of Heavenly Wisdom James 1:19-21: The Great Reversal Summary of James 1:2-21

58 59 62 68 73

4. James 1:22-2:26: The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear" James 1:22-27: Commentary on "Quick Hearing" Excursus: "The Perfect Law of Liberty" (James 1:25) James 2:1-7: The Test of Class Conflict Excursus: The Faith of Jesus (James 2:1) vii

75 76 83 102 109

viii

Contents

Excursus: Story and Election (James 2:5) James 2:8-13: Implications of "Quick Hearing" for Life James 2:14-26: A "Footnote" on Faith and Works Excursus: The Interlocutor's Compromise (James 2:18-20) Excursus: "The Example of Rahab" (James 2:25) Summary of James 1:22-2:26: Walk, Not Talk

119 121 129 138 154 157

5. James 3:1-18: The Wisdom of "Slow to Speak" James 3:1-8: A Commentary on "Slow to Speak" James 3:9-12: The Crisis of Slanderous Speech James 3:13-18: Implications of "Slow Speaking" for Life Summary of James 3:1-18: Talk the Walk

159 161 173

6. James 4:1-5:6: The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger" James 4:1-3: A Commentary on "Slow to Anger" James 4:4-10: The Crisis of Materialism James 4:11-5:6: Implications of "Slowing Anger" for Life Excursus: The Relationship between James 4:13-17 and 5:1-6 Excursus: Toward a New Testament Theology of the Poor Summary of James 4:1-5:6: God not Mammon

192 193 199

234 247

7. James 5:7-12: The First Concluding Statement James 5:7-8: Exhortation to Endure James 5:9-11: The Example of Job James 5:12: Confirmation of Wisdom

248 250 254 259

8. James 5:13-20: The Second Concluding Statement James 5:13-16a: Exhortation to Endure James 5:16b-18: The Example of Elijah James 5:19-20: Confirmation of Wisdom Summary of James 5:7-20

261 262 267 271 273

Appendix A: Reading the New Testament in Canonical Context Introduction The Methodological Interests of Canonical Criticism

275 275 279

179 191

210 214

Contents

ix

Appendix B: James and Paul in Pre-Canonical Context Introduction The Christian James The Canonical James

289 289 293 299

Abbreviations

307

Notes

311

General Bibliography

337

Index of Scripture

343

Index of Modern Authors

353

Preface

I wish to thank first the many students at Seattle Pacific Univer­ sity who have contributed to my understanding of the Book of James. Our classes together, gathered around these provocative texts to debate their first and current meanings, have enriched me as a person and challenged me as a scholar. I am profoundly indebted to the many conversations over lunch with my colleagues in the Department of Religion at Seattle Pacific; they too have stretched me in so many ways by their deep learning and firm dedication in service of God. This commentary often moves in directions learned around that table of friendship. I am also the beneficiary of insight from a wider circle of colleagues who have participated with me in the Soci­ ety of Biblical Literature's program unit, "Hebrews, General and Pastoral Epistles, and the Apocalypse," which was my privilege to chair for many years. No one is more important to my work as a teaching scholar and to my formation as a believer than my wife, Carla. We have discussed and debated much of the Book of James together, most often in good cheer; she has taken much of its advice to heart — more so than I — and remains for me an exemplary member of the community of the wise. Finally, this book is dedicated to my sisters and their hus­ bands, Alida and Ted Palmatier, and Kathy and Dan Russ, in humble gratitude for their constant love, ready forgiveness, and unconditional support of me, Carla, and our children.

xi

Introduction

This commentary cannot stand alone — a self-evaluation that is no doubt prompted by the Zeitgeist of a postcritical period in biblical studies whose sociology is more communal and whose various tasks and methodological interests are viewed as comple­ mentary. Few interpreters still search for a meaning of scripture in isolation from one's particular faith tradition or scholarly guild where one learns the core convictions and interpretive strategies that help shape "meaning." In my view, the fullest possible understanding of scripture is approximated only when this community of interpretation is also a community in con­ versation, fully engaged with the biblical text from its diverse perspectives shaped by its pluriform interpretive methods and social cultures. In this commentary series dedicated to reading scripture within specified contexts, my work seeks to expose a layer of meaning by mining the text of James within the context of scripture itself — a canonical Sitz im Leben. Other commen­ taries, monographs, and journal articles on the Book of James necessarily fill the gaps found in this commentary. Other in­ terpreters are more interested in reconstructing the historical background behind James and sources for its literary craft and theological perspicuity (see the bibliography). Yet I trust this commentary, which focuses more narrowly on the literary tex­ ture and theological subject matter of the canonical James than on the ancient social and literary environs that produced it, will make a modest contribution to the work of an entire community of interpretation, whose collective task is to provide the fullest possible meaning of the Book of James in order to nurture and guide its current readership.

1

Introduction

2

Pedagogy and the Book of James With this qualification, let me admit that my approach to scrip­ ture is deeply rooted in my experience with the text itself. In particular, my reading of James has been influenced by teach­ ing at a church-related college. Unlike many other biblical books that I teach, I have found the distance between the text of James and the context of my students rather "short": not much prompt­ ing or additional information about the text is required before the students begin to make sense of what it says. Especially after prior weeks spent struggling to understand the more complex letters of Paul, they often express relief in finding a biblical let­ ter that seems so "down to earth." For this reason they rarely leave the text in doubt of its practical implications or its rele­ vance in guiding how they should live their lives before God and neighbor. No matter one's hermeneutical talent or spiritual maturity, most who closely read what James says are able to locate them­ selves in its literary and moral worlds. As a result, my students sometimes locate themselves among the rich and powerful who disregard the powerless; they often confess themselves to be the very believers who substitute facile confession for an embodied devotion to God, or use malicious words to gain an advantage over a rival—all important contours of James's concern. For the North American middle-class white, which includes myself and most of my students, the words of James sound a prophetic note, sharply critical of business-as-usual values and often inviting our repentance. An interpretation of James should search out those meanings that allow the text to have a prophetic effect on its current readers and their context; indeed, this is one canoni­ cal role that any biblical book performs, James more so than others. More essentially, however, readers of every culture often rec­ ognize themselves as the very believers James addresses, whose heartbreaks and hardships test their faith in God. What every good teacher knows best about the ordinary mess and muck of human life is that ordinary believers require a "way of wisdom" that will lead them out of their daily trials and toward Chris­ tian maturity. James well considers the struggles of our common experience and supplies us with a necessary wisdom for a more robust spiritual journey; therefore, it seems apropos for the inter­ preter to approach James for its more pastoral meanings that aid

Introduction

3

in interpreting human life; resisted is any reading that views this particular text as an inspired depository of Christian doctrine, read with other biblical texts to define what it means to believe as orthodox Christians. The inviting nature of James inspires us all to rethink in concrete and immediate terms how we should live our lives in concert with God's humane interests. Naturally, I trust that a more nuanced understanding of the text and the­ ology of James will yield in students an even more profound regard for its advice and readiness for its application. Yet, this trust always seems more certain with a book like James, when its practical relevance to the current readership is so apparent and unambiguous. While the effective teacher is always alert to the practical effect an interpretation has on one's students, I remain con­ vinced that teaching the Book of James is an important task also because of its distinctive theological conception, which of­ ten expands the horizons of a thoughtful readership: it makes an important contribution to a holistic biblical theology. For this reason, I have long puzzled over the relative neglect of this book among teaching scholars and Protestant clergy, al­ though this may be one case of Luther's well-known and still trenchant criticisms about the canonicity of James which con­ tinue to influence and inhibit Protestant interpretation to this day. Actually, the role of James within the Christian scriptures is easily apparent and raises important theological questions that this commentary will frequently consider. The striking sounds and lyrics of its canonical voice, different from those sounded by the Pauline corpus of the New Testament, suggest that the biblical word of God is hardly monotone. Scripture's witness to God is at the very least inclusive of Paul and James, and is made more robust because of their theological and tonal diversity (a point developed more fully in Appendix B, "James and Paul in Pre-Canonical Context"). A study of James naturally forces the important question about the limits of theological diversity, set by the pluriformed biblical canon and reflected by the pluriformed faith of the church catholic. This point was nicely made by a Lutheran pastor in response to a study of James that I led at Holden Village, a Lu­ theran retreat in the glorious Cascade Mountains of Washington State. I had asked the question hoping to stimulate discussion: "What kind of Christian faith would take shape if Luther had his wish and our New Testament excluded the Book of James?"

4

Introduction

The pastor's wry retort was simply, "Lutheran!" Quite so! Prot­ estant students, shaped by a religious culture dominated by the Pauline gospel, are often made to feel rather uncomfortable by the gospel according to James. The keen accent of their faith is expressed best by that slogan of the magisterial Reformation, "justification by faith in Christ alone." In response, the more conservative believers want to preserve the canonicity of the biblical James by harmonizing its inspired teaching with that of the equally inspired Paul of scripture. Still others want to pre­ serve their Protestant tradition and so de-canonize James with Luther. Yet, the critical teaching of James, which distinguishes and ap­ preciates his contribution to biblical theology in contrast to the Pauline, forces a more collaborative approach. By simply includ­ ing James within the province of our theological understanding, we are encouraged to relate its teaching to other biblical the­ ologies in creative dialogue, where the persuasive power of its distinctive voice is more fully realized only in relationship with the others. In one sense, the persistent presence of James within the bounds of scripture makes it impossible for Christianity to be exclusively Pauline (i.e., Protestant!). This commentary in­ tends to explore the limits of scripture's witness to God by considering the distinctive contribution of James in relationship with other canonical witnesses, especially Pauline. Although I do not want to exaggerate the differences between James and Paul, neither do I want to make light of them. For example, it is a crucial element of biblical theology that James extends the messianic significance of Jesus to his exem­ plary obedience of God's law —a point made all the more clear by remaining silent on the significance of Jesus' messianic death, which Paul underscores. The theological accents of James of­ ten challenge the commitments of those believers who suppose that "normative" Christianity is Pauline Christianity, sometimes with sufficient power to redraw their theological and social boundaries in a way that fashions a more biblical faith. This commentary will attempt to explore theological tensions be­ tween James and other biblical witnesses as opportunities—gifts of God in due season! — which provide context for re-imagining a more inclusive understanding of "normative" Christianity. In this sense, here I try to provide an alternative reading of James from those that have dominated in the Protestant biblical tradition.

Introduction

5

The Author(s) of James The present commentary is more interested in the composition of James than in the identity of its historic author, since canon­ ical interpretation is located in the final form of the biblical text itself rather than in earlier ur-texts or in the mind of its author, his first readers, and their first-century world. If any­ thing, the determination of the text's meaning shifts from the act of composition to the current act of interpretation—that is, from ancient author to contemporary interpreter. Nevertheless, the identities of a book's author and his first audience are im­ portant considerations for any interpreter interested in a wide range of historical issues, which in turn are important means to a fuller understanding of the biblical text itself. For instance, it is more difficult to locate a composition in its original world, to know something of what occasioned its writing and when, and how it functioned among its first readers, without good ideas of who wrote it and why. The opening verse directly claims authorship for "James, ser­ vant of God and of Jesus Christ" (1:1). Yet, the author's identity remains a contested issue of modern scholarship. Two critical issues are at stake in this continuing debate: who is the histori­ cal James referred to in the book's address, and is he its actual author? The historical evidence that may settle this issue with a measure of certainty, however, is lacking: we have no other writing from this James by which to compare literary style and subject matter; nor do we have a reliable contemporary of the author who confirms the author's identity. Further, even if one agrees that the book's superscription identifies its "real" author, there are still several Christian lead­ ers named James to choose from, including the six mentioned in the New Testament. Some scholars have even added an "un­ known James" to this list (e.g., Moffatt), although by sheer conjecture. Among those mentioned in scripture are two apos­ tles, making them especially attractive candidates because of the close connection between canonicity and apostolicity — a point embraced for a time in the West, where some Fathers thought the book was written by the Apostle James, son of Alphaeus (cf. Mark 3:18, Acts 1:13). Yet, the historical memories and biblical markers of his apostolic ministry are lacking; his case is there­ fore indeterminate. In any case, the apostolic credential does not seem required for a biblical author; nor does the book's ad-

Introduction

6

dress even appeal to his apostolic office. Rather, the author refers only to his more modest relationship to God and the Lord Jesus as their "servant." Perhaps this led both Origen and Jerome to opine that no apostle could have written James, which disagrees so thoroughly with Pauline thought — a point followed later by Luther, although for different reasons. Most scholars suppose the only viable candidate remains "James the Just," the brother of Jesus — a verdict that enjoys the support of the ancient church. While he was not an apostle, the biblical portrait of James commends him as a significant leader in earliest Jewish Christianity. According to an early Christian tradition, Jesus even singled his brother out following the resur­ rection (1 Cor. 15:7), apparently for an important ministry (cf. Gospel of the Hebrews 7). It is not surprising, then, that Acts in­ troduces James as Peter's successor in Jerusalem (Acts 12:17), whose pastoral leadership over the Jerusalem church becomes increasingly strategic, first at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1321), and then during his relations with Paul (Acts 21:17-26). Paul himself names James as the first of three "pillars" of the Jewish church (Gal. 2:9), whose continuing observance of cir­ cumcision and standard laws of ritual purity threatens his gospel and gentile mission in Antioch (Gal. 2:11-15). In fact, fairly robust memories of James the Just were pre­ served well into the third century by Nazarene Christianity, which viewed him as the model disciple. Eusebius even cites Hegesippus, a second-century Jewish believer from Jerusalem, as describing in some detail the moral and religious superiority of James. Indeed, a substantial body of apocryphal (largely gnos­ tic) Christian writings, written by pseudepigraphers during the second and third centuries in James's name (I and 2 Apocalypse of fames; Apocryphon of fames; Protevangelium of fames; also, Gospel of the Hebrews, Epistle of Peter), promote an exemplary if not leg­ endary James, whose vital piety and ascetic lifestyle corrected a church that had become too secular and middle class for the taste of its more conservative Jewish and gnostic constituencies. Given this cumulative case, no doubt the canonizing church envisaged this historical James as the inscripturated "James." His close connection to Jesus and the religious authority he exer­ cised within earliest Christianity, singular among the possible candidates, justify the canonical status accorded this compo­ sition. Thus, Kummel fairly concludes, "Without doubt James claims to be written by [the brother of Jesus], and even if the 1

2

3

4

5

Introduction

7

letter is not authentic, it appeals to this famous James and the weight of his person as authority for its content." But Kummel's historical conclusion begs the historical criti­ cal question: Did "this famous James" actually write the book under his name? In fact, a majority of modern scholars think not, favoring both a postapostolic date and pseudonymity. Most suppose the composition's superior Koine Greek and literary art­ istry, as well as the author's substantial knowledge of current Hellenistic philosophy, lie beyond the ability and provenance of this working-class Jew from Galilee (Reicke, Laws). Some suggest the historical James may have employed a trusted and well-educated amanuensis (or secretary) to write his book — a common practice in the ancient world. Such servants knew Greek well and could easily have transcribed James's pastoral convictions into a more suitable idiom and literary form for a wider Greek-speaking audience (Mitton), while retaining their original Semitic flavor and theological content (Mussner). Yet, this compromise solution is hardly necessary. One need only appeal to the mounting evidence that demonstrates a fairly active social intercourse between Hellenistic and Palestinian cul­ tures during the late Second Temple period. Religious Jews, especially in the northern province of Galilee, may well have been anti-Hellenistic during the days immediately before and af­ ter the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.; however, in actual practice Jew and Greek routinely intermingled, even in Galilee — if a bit uneasily! Thus, Acts describes a Jerusalem congregation that in­ cludes Greek-speaking Jews, led by pastor James, who cites from a Greek translation (LXX) of scripture (Acts 15:17-18; cf. James 4:6). Sharply put, the author grew up in a Hellenized Jewish cul­ ture, where Greek was used and perhaps learned well enough to write this book. Those who contend that this "James" could not be the brother of Jesus sometimes appeal to his biblical portrait, which values aspects of the Jewish law that finally disagree with the thrust of the Letter (Kummel). This objection, too, has little merit. A growing number of scholars think that the Jewish-Christian theological cast and pastoral intentions of the Letter mirror those same commitments of the Bible's portrait of James. For example, his concerns for religious purity (Acts 21) and for the public performance of the biblical Torah (Galatians 2) are central concerns of this book (James 1:22-27, 2:8-26); and his com­ mitment to the poor, which Paul mentions in Gal. 2:10, also 6

7

Introduction

8

reflects an important theme of the book (James 1:9-11, 2:1-7, 5:1-6). Even the conciliatory James of Acts 15 seems consis­ tent with the spirit that undergirds this letter. Likewise, the traditions used by Luke to narrate the speech of James to the Jerusalem Council, and the subsequent letter to Antioch (Acts 15:13-21, 23-29), reveal a remarkable similarity in both sub­ stance and vocabulary with the Letter of James. Finally, the many apocalyptic images and themes found throughout James fashion a sociology of suffering and vindication similar to the Jerusalem community James pastored, according to Acts and the social world of first-century Judaism. Noteworthy also are the many allusions to targumic and midrashic materials found in James, which follow his speech in Acts where James settles a crucial intramural conflict by a midrash on the biblical Amos (Acts 15:17-21). The agreement between this James and the subject matter of the Letter is also secured by more implicit evidence. Many sup­ pose that dates of compositions can be calculated by the images and ideas of Jesus found therein. According to this calculus, the more full-bodied or developed a Christology, the later its com­ positional date. The scant references to Jesus in James (1:1, 2:1), which do not include an allusion to his death or resurrection, make more sense if written in the middle of the first century. Perhaps the most important consideration in this entire mat­ ter, however, is whether the author responds to controversial elements of Paul's teaching — for example, the relationship between "faith and works" or "law and liberty." Since these com­ binations are found neither in Jewish sources nor in the earliest Christian traditions of the New Testament, some scholars assume the author is responding to ideas found in Paul's writings, and only after their publication toward the end of the first century, when they came into a wider circulation (Holtzmann, Dibelius, Laws, Aland). Since according to tradition, James was executed in 62 by the Sadducean high priest Ananus II, these same scholars presume that James the Just could not have written the Letter of James several years later! Yet, many are reluctant to find in favor of the author's de­ pendence upon the writings of Paul. Some suppose it impossible that any Christian reader of Paul's writings would criticize him so openly, especially at the close of the first century or the be­ ginning of the second when his writings already were being recognized as "scripture" (so 2 Pet. 3:15-16). Still others find 8

Introduction

9

the issue of literary dependency indeterminate (Mayor, Davids, Martin). Even if James and Paul mean the same thing by "faith and works" or by "law and liberty," which remains contested among scholars, Paul could as easily have been responding to the kerygma of Jerusalem Christianity (Spitta, Meyer), especially in his Romans and Galatians where numerous parallels with James are found. In support, one may appeal to the well-known con­ tention of G. Bornkamm that Paul wrote Romans as his "last will and testament" in order to recall and respond to the con­ troversies generated by his missionary work, particularly among believers in Jerusalem. While the ideas and precise argument of James may not predate Paul's gentile mission and his corpus of New Testament writings, their status in earliest Christianity may be more current and certain than is often supposed. In short, I find no compelling reason to argue against the traditional posi­ tion, which supposes a pre-Pauline date for this book and James the Just as its author (however, see "A Canonical Approach to James," below). Perhaps the persistent indeterminacy of this problem, how­ ever, commends another solution, which considers and inte­ grates a wider field of available evidence. In this case, J. Cantinat, more recently and cautiously followed by P. Davids, has sug­ gested that the biblical form of James actually evolved in two discrete stages of composition. According to this hypothesis, James the Just is responsible for most of the book's raw material, delivered first as homilies and preserved by a Jewish Christian Diaspora (James 1:1; cf. Acts 8:4, 11:19). This may help explain the Letter's "primitive" theological content. These precious memories of James were then edited and writ­ ten down by another, probably (although not necessarily) after James's death under the pressures of the educational mission of an expanding and still pluralistic church. The editor, who actu­ ally wrote James from a Hellenistic frame of reference, may have done so without a religious agenda of his own: his intent was simply to compile and preserve the most enduring "sayings of James" for future readerships, especially those whose faith was nurtured within the wider Jewish church. In my experience, however, editors are rarely this objec­ tive and disengaged. Even editors who try hard not to overlay their own theological perspective upon another still must se­ lect their material from available traditions when composing a fresh work —an interpretive act. Further, even the reworking of 9

10

10

Introduction

sacred tradition is occasioned by the new literary requirements and theological crises of a different readership. In fact, the care­ ful literary design and theological coherence of James seem to reflect this very sort of editorial reworking and decision making: this composition hardly results from an arbitrary compilation of sayings, as some have suggested in the past (see "The Literature of James," below), nor, on the other hand, is it the exact copy of some former speech faithfully recalled. Indeed, if a two-stage composition is followed, one should probably assume that the editor had specific theological, sociological, and literary inten­ tions, which are then reflected by the Letter's final shape and subject matter. For instance, the editor's arrangement of earlier traditions to combine Pauline catchwords (2:12-26), to make strategic allu­ sions to Jesus' ministry among the poor (2:1-5), and the clever pairing of cited/alluded scripture from Torah and wisdom (1:1927) and from the prophets and wisdom (4:6-10; 4:13-5:6) all intend to create a far richer context within which his audi­ ence could better hear and interpret the authoritative witness of James to the gospel. New audiences are addressed by a writ­ ten composition unlike any sermon preached by James, and in a fresh way that more effectively presents an inspired solution to their particular spiritual crisis. Even though the editor followed the core convictions of the historical James, his literary design accented certain theological convictions that were apropos for the new contingencies of his late first-century church, which oc­ cupied a very different geographical, linguistic, and cultural turf than it did during the old days in Jerusalem. For these reasons, the interpreter who decides in favor of the two-stage hypothesis of composition should consider the editor as the "real" author of the Letter of James, and the late first century as its "true" date of composition. The present commentary sponsors another solution to the question of authorship, which moves us away from a purely historical frame of reference and considers the name "James" as the metaphor of a theological tradition and its continuing authority in forming the faith of its "canonical audience." In this case, the particular issues of authorship and first readership are replaced by the more universal and theological concerns of Christian formation: the biblical James is authorized to form our understanding of God. Of course, the conclusion that James was written by a pseudepigrapher must be based upon historical evi-

Introduction

11

dences; however, any verdict for a book's authorship carries with it a cache of substantial theological issues. D. Meade has recently shown that disciples of an important teacher continued to write and instruct tradents in their mas­ ter's name in order to continue his authoritative "voice" into the period after his death. Thus, the name of a great leader or teacher was often superscribed to religious literature to indicate to their readers that the word of God is not static, heard in a distant place and past time, but is revelatory for the immedi­ ate moment. In this case, the attribution of Jacobean authorship may be regarded as an assertion of an authoritative theological tradition. 11

The Audience(s) of James The letters of the New Testament are occasional literature, most often written to defend or nurture the tentative faith of im­ mature believers. While the author's advice only rarely takes a narrative form, every letter tells a story, however implicit, of its audience's struggle to strengthen its faith. In the case of James, the story is plotted by the suffering of believers whose devotion to the Lord and to one another is tested by various kinds of con­ flicts, both spiritual and social. God's promise of salvation to the elect community is currently realized through internal conflict provoked by their suffering — a promise ultimately realized in the coming triumph of God at the end of the age. The wisdom of God, transmitted through the community's scriptures, sup­ plies a critical resource that guides the community through its present spiritual testing and prepares them for the coming of the new age. In a word, the intended readership of James constitutes a "community of the wise." The precise identity of the authorial audience of James is inde­ terminate and opinion remains divided. Lacking specific details of the readers' (or auditors') identity, most exegetes are content to locate them in two places, either in the post-Pauline Diaspora or in prewar Northern Palestine/Syria during the first century C.E. All do agree, however, that the proper place to begin this dis­ cussion is the Letter's opening verse, which greets the audience as "the twelve tribes in the Diaspora." This enigmatic phrase, however finally understood, might then be employed to inter12

12

Introduction

pret subsequent references to the readership (= auditorship) in the Letter itself, resulting in a more detailed and focused picture. If this opening phrase is taken at face value, the readers are probably Jewish believers (= "twelve tribes"), with an address in some Roman territory outside of Palestine (="in the Dias­ pora"), perhaps Rome (Laws), Alexandria (Schneider), or Corinth (Syreeni) toward the end of Domitian's turbulent reign (Reicke). If, however, the phrase is taken metaphorically, the scope of pos­ sible meaning and setting is significantly widened. On this basis, some have created complex settings of social and spiritual con­ flict, which are then confirmed by the images of hostility found throughout the book. In fact, a metaphorical reading of "the twelve tribes" cer­ tainly agrees with its use by other biblical writers. The biblical prophets, for instance, use the phrase (par. "tribes of Israel") as a reference to a future, restored Israel (Ezek. 47:13, 22; Isa. 49:6; Zech. 9:1). Paul contends that the "Israel of God" is a "spiritual" rather than ethnic people (cf. Romans 9-11; Galatians 3-6), who belong to Christ (Rom. 9:1-18) and are the true heirs of the bibli­ cal promise of salvation (Gal. 3:21-4:7; cf. James 2:5). In a similar way, the audience of James may be addressed as those whose pri­ mary identity is religious and eschatological rather than ethnic and national: they constitute a "spiritual" congregation whose life is guided by God's word and whose destiny is the realization of God's promised blessing. This metaphorical use of "Diaspora" is also attested in Jew­ ish literature as a reference to believers, even those living in Palestine, who are cut off from social and religious support systems (Overman, Maynard-Reid). In this case, a reference to diasporic Israel need not place them in a geographical location but rather in a social "world." In fact, diasporic Jews were sometimes driven from their homeland for political (e.g., the "revolution­ ary") and economic (e.g., unemployed workers or tax-debtors) reasons: they were "aliens" both at home and abroad. Further, in Palestine the "homeland" was typically in the hands of wealthy landowners (5:1) who controlled both the economic (5:4-6) and religious lives (2:2-7) of their poor workers, sometimes in venal and vicious ways (see below). In this sense, many members of the Palestinian working-class poor—including the first readers of James—were "homeless," in the homeland but without a home. Scripture speaks of the "Diaspora" to accent this very kind of experience (cf. 1 Pet. 1:1; Isa. 49:6), where a people's present

Introduction

13

pain results from their separation from the plentiful land of di­ vine blessing (whether eretz Israel or heaven). In a religious sense, present suffering discloses one's status as "alien and stranger," but more significantly the absence of promised salvation which is still in the future. Indeed, this theological understanding of "place" adds another layer of meaning to "the twelve tribes," whose future inheritance of the kingdom's blessings explains the trials and tribulations of their present exile. The haunting ambivalence between the audience's present suffering "in the Diaspora" and their future restoration as the "twelve tribes" underscores the spiritual crisis that has occa­ sioned the writing and first reading of this composition. Its thesis neatly follows: Even though belonging to the redeemed and restored Israel, these believers continue to face the hard­ ships and heartaches of the "Diaspora" which test their devotion to God (1:2-3). Their possible spiritual failure carries a future consequence—the forfeiture of promised blessing (1:12-15). On the other hand, the passing of their spiritual test, enabled by the divine word or wisdom, ensures the community's future salva­ tion (1:16-21). The community's joyful consideration of present suffering (1:2), then, has in mind the prospect of a future resto­ ration, when all is made complete and perfect and when nothing is lacking (1:4). Of course, this orientation toward life represents one of the most important and powerful visions during the Second Temple period of Judaism. The title of this commentary, "Community of the Wise," recognizes that the subject matter of James is fash­ ioned within a Jewish culture that came to value its particular orientation toward human relations — that is, its "wisdom" — to be rooted in teaching that was divinely given to them and there­ fore held the promise of reordering their chaotic and difficult lives according to the good purposes of the Creator. References to the first readers of this Letter, however vague and even opaque, supply several details about the nature of the conflict that may help us tell their unrecorded story. Clearly, they are believers (1:2), who are members of a Jewish Chris­ tian congregation (2:1-2) made wise in the things of God by the "word of truth." This word, implanted (1:21) by their teachersages (3:1), encourages them to be "rich in faith" as heirs of the promised kingdom (2:5). Yet, the pious are also a poor people. A certain measure of their current suffering (1:2) is due to their poverty: they are a

Introduction

14

congregation of "humble" means (1:9-11; cf. 4:6-10), composed of members from the working-class poor (5:1-6) and from other social groups who are most neglected (1:27; cf. Acts 6:1-6), most oppressed (2:1-7; cf. Gal. 2:9-10), and most poor (2:14-17). Their enemies are the landed rich (5:1) and merchant middleclass (4:13), who are perhaps members of a local synagogue (2:2-4; cf. 1:9) but who nevertheless exploit the poor. Their abid­ ing greed and maliciousness, which so fundamentally offend the moral essentials of their own biblical tradition (2:6-11), fortify the author's polemic against them: the rich and powerful are ac­ tually foolish to look in the "mirror" (= divine word) and then turn away from it (1:22-24) without any further reflection of their own frailty (and their riches, 5:1-3) or finitude (4:14-15) by the light of God's eternal will (4:14-17) and the imminent coming of God's judgment (5:4-6, 7-9). Indeed, the rich have become "outsiders" (2:6-7) to God's reign (2:5). They no longer belong to "the twelve tribes" and cannot look forward in joy to their complete restoration. In demonstration of their outsider status, they oppress the impov­ erished members of the Christian congregation (2:2), even using their political clout to exploit the working-class poor (5:1-6) and to demand favorable verdicts against them from the law-court (2:6-7) and the synagogue-court (2:3-4). These outside pressures have in turn created tensions inside the congregation that threaten its present unity and eschatological survival. The conflict that rages between believers is pluriform: some disregard their own poor in favor of the rich and powerful outsiders (1:22-2:26); abusive speech between rival teachers undermines their teaching ministry and the con­ gregation's spiritual formation (3:1-18); and hostility between believers (4:1-2) and finally toward God (4:7-10) has its source in their frustration of not having the material goods they pas­ sionately desire (4:3-6). Perhaps more troubling than this class conflict between rich and poor, which threatens the social solidarity of the congrega­ tion, is the spiritual or psychological conflict, which threatens the believer's relationship with God. The "double-mindedness" that James repeatedly warns against (1:8, 4:8; cf. 3:10) envisages an internal struggle between two competing impulses, one that seeks "friendship with God" by observing God's will, and the other, more "animalistic" impulse, which seeks "friendship with the world" by pursuing physical pleasure. Thus, the same trials 13

Introduction

15

also occasion doubt about God's generosity (1:5-8), or even the self-destructive deception that God is to blame for the bad news of human life (1:13-16). Perhaps anxiety for personal safety prompts the believer to suppose that glib confessions of ortho­ dox faith are sufficient for God's approval (1:22-27, 2:14-20), substituting them for a morally rigorous life that responds in mercy to the poor and powerless when they are exploited by the rich and influential (2:1-13, 21-26). The pious poor struggle with their passions for lacking plea­ sures (4:1-2), which threatens their relationships with God (4:6-12) and neighbor (4:3-5). Spiritual failure results from theological deception, when a faulty view of the word of God yields bad decisions and ultimately prevents participation in the new order (1:17-21, 2:12-13, 3:14-16, 4:11-12). James tells a timeless story, which doubtless accounts for its inclusion in the biblical canon; however, to locate it in the firstcentury world, whether Hellenistic or Palestinian, is extremely difficult to do with any precision. For this reason, some con­ tinue to follow Dibelius's lead and contend that this form of literature (paraenesis) resists any reference to a particular histor­ ical contingency that may have occasioned the writing and first reading of this composition. One can speak perhaps of a "moral" culture that this literature helps to shape by its advice, which fixes the community's socioreligious borders within any hos­ tile environment (Perdue, Elliott). Perhaps even the apocalyptic images found throughout this composition perform the same social role-images that anticipate a new cultural order which promises an alternative, more hospitable "homeland" for a poor and powerless people. Nevertheless, some continue to investigate James for a par­ ticular historical Sitz im Leben ("life setting"). The traditional position locates both the author and his audience in prewar Palestine; and, indeed, the details gathered from the Letter fit this setting well. Of course, no one who accepts a literal "di­ aspora" would subscribe to this provenance. Further, while the images and metaphors of nature are brought to sharper focus against a Palestinian backdrop (Hadidian), Laws for one remains unconvinced by this evidence and counters by pointing to Greek literature for similar images, even as Mussner points to scripture for the same. However, if the diasporic setting is viewed as a metaphor of spiritual location, the references to class strife between rich and 14

15

Introduction

16

poor proffer a more convincing line of evidence for a Pales­ tinian provenance (Maynard-Reid). In Palestine, as throughout the Roman world, rural land and wealth were concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy farmers (5:1). Middle-class mer­ chants (4:13) could but dream of a future when they too could take their place among the landed gentry and share their life of luxury. Toward that end the merchant worked together with the large landowners to control the agrarian marketplace, which only made the workers more dependent upon the landowner and the independent farmer's situation more difficult to endure. In fact, very little upward mobility was enjoyed between these classes, since Rome maintained a stratified society as a means of managing the masses. While the continuing exploitation of the poor by the merchant-farmer coalition was not encouraged by Rome for fear of a worker strike, it was tolerated in order to maintain the fragile prosperity of the region. Especially during times of famine (cf. 5:17-18; Acts 11:27-30), the economic pres­ sures of field hands and harvesters became more intense and their economic well-being more precarious as landowners tried to maximize their profits (4:4-6). The result is that some lacked even the basic requirements of a humane existence (cf. 2:15-16). The great majority of the Palestinian population was thus con­ fined to working-class ghettos, living a hand-to-mouth existence without any hope of an improved life. Such historical determin­ ism either gave rise to social rage and the potential of peasant rebellion, or to religious sentiment deeply rooted in a "piety of poverty" and apocalyptic hope. In addition, Martin contends that James was written for a community of poor people and their religious leaders who were suffering under Sadducean rule. His argument recognizes Josephus's historical record that James was executed in 62 C.E. by Ananus II, a Sadducean priest, at the height of tensions with the Jerusalem church; James might be read as another kind of record of that episode. But his contention makes considerable sense not only of the economic conflict mentioned in James (5:1-6, 2:6-7), since the landed aristocracy was essentially Sadducean if even re­ ligious, but also of the book's theological cast, since Sadducees were also Torah observant (1:22-25, 2:8-13) and deeply fearful of any apocalyptic-messianic movement — to which the readers of James belonged (2:1). However, unlike the Zealots, whose apocalypticism the Sadducees feared most of all, James takes his readers in a more spiritual and less violent direction, so that the 16

Introduction

17

struggles of the poor against the rich are internalized as a spir­ itual warfare with that profound desire for more "pleasure" in their present life (4:1-5). Those who posit the audience within a Hellenistic culture tend to describe the audience's struggle in ideological rather than in sociological terms. The most interesting suggestion places the audience in a Roman (Laws, Deppe) or perhaps Co­ rinthian (Syreeni) Christian church, where the tensions are theological and between Jewish and gentile congregations. Com­ mon themes shared by the whole church, such as "law and liberty," "faith and works," "perfection and wisdom," are theo­ logical abstractions now explored by James to distinguish more carefully between the two different Christian missions and their kerygmata (cf. Acts 15:1-21; Gal. 2:7; Rom. 16:3-4). For example, in Paul the "faith in and of Jesus Christ" is redemptive (Rom. 3:22; Gal. 3:22) whenever confessed (Rom. 10:9-10), whereas for James the "faith of Jesus Christ" asserts an ethical principle (2:1) — do not favor the rich over the poor (2:2-11) — which is redemptive when practiced (2:12-13, 14-26). The conflict between "rich" (= outsider) and "poor" (= insider), then, symbolizes the conflict between competing ideologies. The poor (=Jewish believers) are true heirs of the promised kingdom (2:5) while the salvation of the wealthy (= gentile believers) is less certain, which seems to retain but reverse the sense of Paul's commentary on the same conflict in 1 Corinthians 8 10/Romans 14 (Theissen). There are social and even economic results of this theological battle, which Paul notes. For exam­ ple, his warning about settling intramural conflicts in civil court (1 Cor. 6:1-6) is vaguely similar to James 2:6-7. Yet, the intense tones of this conflict found in James 5:1-6 are not easily explained by this Sitz im Leben. Even if such a setting fails to explain the data, however, the thematic paral­ lels between James and Paul, and the dialogic manner by which they are related together, may well provide the raw material for a more robust theological reflection (see "A Canonical Approach to James," below). T. Cargal's linguistic approach to James has called attention to the interplay between the book's opening address to those "in the Diaspora" and its concluding exhortation to those who "wander from the truth" (5:19-20). He proposes that the ar­ chitecture of James is that of an inverted parallelism, with 1:1 and 5:19-20 providing the outside boundaries for the exhorta17

Introduction

18

tions found within. (Unfortunately, Cargal's discourse analysis requires us to take 1:2-4 as introducing a competing theological point that James is written to correct, which seems impossi­ ble to sustain upon a close reading of the entire composition.) In this sense, then, the "Diaspora" is located wherever imma­ ture believers are found "scattered" from the truth; and the exhortations are to encourage their repentance and restoration in order to guide them back into the "homeland," which is the eschatological reign of God. According to this approach to James, the ultimate importance of its address is not to identify the geographical location of the audience but rather to give shape to its theological location. In­ deed, the intended readers of this book include all those who find themselves pushed, pulled, and shoved away from the truth as Christian faith defines it. They have been marginalized and alienated from the cultural order because of their piety, and now question whether this "testing of faith" is worth their de­ votion to God. This book supplies a "way of wisdom" by which "scattered" believers are led back into the Faith.

The Literature of James Most scholars accept with some qualification Dibelius's impor­ tant form-critical conclusion that James is a paraenesis—a. genre of ancient moral literature characterized by various collections of moral sayings and essays, and loosely held together by com­ mon themes and linking catchwords but without literary rhyme, theological reason, or specific social location. The dominant mood of paraenesis is imperative; the primary exhortation is to live a virtuous life. Readers are often reminded of moral truth that all should accept (e.g., 1:19, 3:1-8, 4:3-4) and of heroic exemplars (e.g., Jesus, Abraham, Rahab, Job, Elijah) whom all should imitate. Even if one allows that James exhibits the conventions of paraenetic literature, its final shape frames a carefully scored witness to God that compels a faithful (and Christian) response to its claims. Since Dibelius, several have demonstrated that the composition develops along the lines of a specific rhetorical strategy (Wuellner, Cargal, Johnson [1995], Watson) that argues for a specific theological point (Mussner, Hoppe [1989]). John­ son, who contends that James must be approached as an oral

Introduction

19

presentation, argues for a thematic and literary coherence that is organized by two competing worldviews between "friendship with the world" and "friendship with God." James may also be studied as epistolary literature (Francis). Even though omitting many features of the Pauline (or Hel­ lenistic) epistolary form, the structure of James is still vaguely parallel to other New Testament letters: it opens with an ad­ dress (1:1), followed by a thesis statement (1:2-21) that both clarifies the letter's occasion and introduces the author's advice, and then concludes with various exhortations and oaths that promote Christian piety (5:7-8, 9-11, 12, 13-18) before finally stating the "real" purpose for writing (5:19-20). Sandwiched between the opening thesis statements and concluding exhorta­ tions is the Letter's "main body" (1:22-5:6), comprised of three extended essays on the wisdom of "quick to hear" (1:22-2:26), "slow to speak" (3:1-18), and "slow to anger" (4:1-5:6), which communicate more fully its pastoral message to an embattled readership. Clearly the literary form of the main body of James differs in convention and substance when compared with the Pauline letters. However, its function is precisely the same: to provide its readers with a commentary on their present spiritual crisis and to offer them a practical solution that encourages their future salvation (see "A Canonical Approach to James," below). The question of sources remains a thorny one: from whence cometh this book's understanding of wisdom? In my view, wis­ dom is the orienting concern of this book by which all else is understood: after all, James refers to wisdom as the divine "word of truth," which is graciously provided to a faithful people to make sense of their trials and to guide them through those tri­ als in order to insure their future destiny of a perfected human existence. A strong case has been made that James shares in the moral world of the Greco-Roman world (Laws, Kee): the virtue of the community of the wise is aptly demonstrated during personal testing, when the actions of the wise result in personal and divine blessing. The well-known contrast be­ tween professions of trust and an embodied faith may be less a response to Pauline teaching and more a reflection of the con­ trast between eloquent speech and moral action found among certain Hellenistic moralists such as Epictetus. The character­ istics of a virtuous life, concentrated by the catalog found in 3:17 and complemented by the book's accent on a life of pa18

19

20

20

Introduction

tience, perfection, consistency, and self-control, are common themes among current moral philosophies (esp. Stoicism and Cynicism). Yet, the present commentary will seek to understand this same moral calculus and its various topoi under the light of Jew­ ish wisdom literature. The theological subject matter of James is profoundly biblical; and the Greco-Roman literary patterns and moral topoi found in this composition are subsumed by the author's biblical vision. Morality according to James is concen­ trated by a believer's faith in God. It is not a virtue ethic, then, whose failure is vice and self-destruction. Rather it is a theo­ logical ethic, since the lack of wisdom threatens the believer's relations with God and imperils the prospect of future bless­ ing in God's coming reign on earth. For this reason, James fits much more comfortably in scripture than in an anthology of Hellenistic moral philosophy! Of course, these two sources, Hellenistic and biblical, are not dissimilar in either form or content, and are found integrated in Jewish intertestamental writings such as Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon, which no doubt formed a part of the wisdom tra­ dition this author inherited. There are frequent parallels to the writings of Philo. James is a traditional wisdom, but its sensibili­ ties are Jewish more than Greco-Roman. In passage after passage, the crucial subtexts of this composition are not Greco-Roman but biblical — a perspective recently defended in L. T. Johnson's superb commentary on James. For this reason, the interpreter seeks after the relationship be­ tween James and its principal subtexts in scripture rather than in the writings of Greco-Roman moralists and philosophy: James offers one tradent's reading of a biblical wisdom (1:19; see "The Argument of James," below). The overarching interpretive strat­ egy of James is "sapiential" in that nonwisdom and extrabiblical traditions are strained through the filter of Jewish wisdom. In this sense, then, the testing addressed by James is spiritual and not personal; and this "way of wisdom" promises eschatological blessing (1:12) for those who live and act under the light of the Lord's coming triumph (2:5, 5:7-9). James is midrashic literature. While several exegetes have dis­ covered fragments of existing Jewish midrashim employed by James (e.g., Ward [1968], Johnson [1982]), few go as far as M. Gertner, who claims that the whole of James is a midrash on Psalm 12. More modest is the suggestion of L. T. Johnson, who

Introduction

21

finds examples of a halachic midrash on Leviticus 19 throughout James that both anchors and warrants its moral vision. Contemporary literary theory uses "midrash" as a metaphor of a literary text's reflexive interplay with another, earlier text. That is, a literary text is "midrashic" insofar as it interprets an earlier text as part of its own redaction and argumentation for a new audience and their particular situation. In this sense, the primary indicator of biblical midrash is not a certain form of literature (e.g., "halachic") that is produced by following cer­ tain rabbinical rules for commenting upon scripture. Rather, the primary indicator is a text's "intertextuality," when the reader of a biblical text recognizes its citation, allusion, or echo of another, earlier biblical text which then completes and com­ mends its meaning. In my reading of the intertextuality of midrash, biblical texts echo other biblical texts as literary cues that point us to those stories, topoi, persons or places in order to construct a fuller biblical context within which the strong in­ terpreter reflects upon the theological meaning of the passage under analysis. With this understanding of midrash in mind, then, similar words and ideas found in different parts of scripture are cited, alluded to, and echoed in James and add a rich subtexture to its message — a message that is more fully framed by a reflex­ ive, mutually enriching conversation between James and these other biblical voices. Sometimes a meaningful contour is added to James by what is lacking from a biblical allusion. For example, the carefully worded reference to Rahab in James 2:25 presumes by what it omits that the reader knows the details of her story as told in Joshua 2. In this way, James need not even mention Rahab's faith since her biblical story asserts that the works of her hospitality are the real "stuff" of true religion. Thus, I have come to read James as the literary product of an author whose "canon consciousness" first elevates the status of his Bible as the central symbol of his religious life and then routinely appeals to it, sometimes in subtle ways, to justify the moral authority of what he advises his readership to be and do. The dynamic quality of an intertextual reading of James is en­ visaged even when the exegete narrows one's frame of reference to the "intratextuality" of the book of James itself. Following the lead of G. Lindbeck, the meaning of James is deepened when a text is analyzed within ("intra-") the literary and theological context of the composition, when the composition itself serves 21

Introduction

22

as the privileged medium of its own interpretation. In this sense, the Book of James is approached as an autonomous text, which supplies its own special "grammar" that makes sense of its own "text-constituted world." From this "intratextual" perspective, then, a fuller meaning of its most important catchwords can be discerned by their repetition in different locations of the argument (for example, see the commentary's word study of "perfect" [1:4, 17, 25; 2:22; 3:2; cf. 2:8; 5:11]). These words ac­ quire new and enlarged meanings by their repeated use, while at the same time their prior uses alert the interpreter to possi­ ble meanings that may well be obscured by their new literary and linguistic context. This literary feature of James is especially important, since it provides a kind of literary coherence that otherwise has seemed lacking to some. Both features of the literary art of James mentioned above are also important features of persuasive speech in the GrecoRoman literary culture, which also contributed to the shaping of this composition's main body (Watson). Clearly, the repe­ tition of key words and ideas in a composition was one such feature of ancient rhetorical writing and speaking. By repeating catchwords throughout a composition or speech, for example, an author like the writer of James could both organize and relate different sections of a composition for his auditors. Especially important in this regard, in my view, is the reflexive character of repetition, so that subsequent uses of a word or phrase would naturally expand and clarify how an auditor or reader should understand an important thematic interest of the composition as a whole. The use of prophetic exemplars in James also follows ancient rhetorical practice. In the case of James, references to familiar biblical personages (Abraham, Rahab, Job, Elijah) not only pro­ vided authoritative examples in support of the thesis — these were those who passed their spiritual tests; but they provided role models for an eschatological community—these were those who received promised blessings from God. In my view, the use of these exemplars in James is more than rhetorical, since each calls attention to a biblical story that provides the primary subtext that in turn deepens the point James scores. The author's possible knowledge and use of New Testament traditions (specifically those found in the synoptic gospels and in the Pauline and Petrine letters) remains debated. While there are significant linguistic and thematic parallels between James 22

Introduction

23

and the major letters of Paul (Syreeni) and 1 Peter (Davids) — more numerous and certain than most scholars care to ad­ mit—the question of literary dependence remains indeterminate (see "The Author[s] of James/' above). The same can be said of the possible appropriation by James of Jesus sayings found in Q (Hartin) and then in Luke (Davids) and especially Matthew (Shepherd). In fact, the parallels between James and Matthew's Sermon on the Mount (par. Luke and Q) are remarkably close. However, Deppe recently argues against a presynoptic source by contending that the parallel sayings in James evince an even more primitive source and have in any case a different liter­ ary form and function than they do for Q and the synoptic evangelists. In any case, B. Witherington correctly contends that James exhibits a more conventional, less "prophetic" theological conception than found on the lips of the synoptic Jesus. 23

24

A Canonical Approach to James The "canonical approach" to biblical interpretation is interested in reading the whole of scripture as the church's authoritative (or "canonical") witness to God and so formative and normative of the church's understanding of God (see Appendix A, "Reading the New Testament in Canonical Context"). The interpreter rec­ ognizes this theological role more clearly when reflecting upon scripture within its biblical and ecclesiastical contexts rather than exclusively in terms of the conventions of its "original" historical or literary environments. While historical and literary reconstructions of the "original" James have some value in de­ termining the full meaning of a biblical text, to presume that critical historical investigation determines its normative mean­ ing is mistaken. The principal property of the biblical text is neither historical nor literary but theological. For the exegete to locate this composition within its first-century milieu and to fix its meaning there is to mistake the true referent of the bibli­ cal witness, who is God. If the interpreter's orienting concern is scripture's authorized roles within the church, then all the various tasks of exegesis and interpretation will seek to under­ stand a biblical writing as a resource for theological reflection and understanding. By "canonical approach," then, I do not pre­ sume that this commentary sponsors a new interpretive strategy, because it does not. I do suspect, however, that my interest in

24

Introduction

the Book of James as a canonical writing leads me to privilege exegetical strategies that supply the raw material of theological reflection for Christian faith today. Within its particular biblical Sitz im Leben, the Book of James supplies a distinctive and complementary witness to God, so that it functions neither as the single articulation of God's bibli­ cal word nor as an atonal voice that must be excluded from the chorus of voices that together harmonize on the word of God. In this sense. Christian faith is distorted by not taking seriously the witness of James, which functions to bring balance to the whole. The special significance of this book's particular witness to God, then, is best understood in relationship to the witnesses of other biblical books and collections, precisely because each understands God in different although complementary ways and forms, if finally by "mutual criticism," a more objective and discriminating faith. Besides this overarching perspective on the study of scripture, important guidance is provided the interpreter by the title that introduces a book within its discrete canonical collection; by the placement or arrangement of canonical writings within the Canon as a whole; by the final literary form of a composition that best articulates that variety of God's word; by the author's use of his scripture as a decisive clue to how the canonical audi­ ence should read his book as scripture; and by the history of its interpretation, whenever a biblical writing "becomes canonical" as faithful interpreters pick it up again and again to "comfort the afflicted" or "afflict the comfortable." Titles are indicators of a theological tradition and a practi­ cal role that continue to have authority in forming the faith and witness of current readerships. Even if one is not con­ vinced that James should be read as a literary letter, the ancient church recognized its divine inspiration precisely when using it as a "letter." Thus, the inscription Iakobou Epistole ("The Letter of James") is added to this nonletter (or at least a literary let­ ter different from those written by the Pauline school) to fit it into a wider collection of epistolary writings, all of which share a similar role in nurturing the faith of believers: that is, letters function as pastoral vehicles of instruction and exhorta­ tion, written for believers whose worship of God is threatened by personal hardship or theological confusion. The canonical audience orients itself to James from this perspective to read it as Christian scripture.

Introduction

25

The importance of authorship statements in the address of a biblical letter is not exclusively historical; rather, names found in titles and greetings locate compositions in particular theolog­ ical traditions, each of which provides an authoritative witness to God's saving activity in Christ Jesus. Not only does this par­ ticular title locate the composition of James in a particular genre of literature to underscore its practical role in forming Christian faith, it also places the theological subject matter of James in a particular theological tradition—that belonging to James of Jeru­ salem, the brother of Jesus. In turn, then, the name of "James," found in both its biblical title and epistolary address, assigns this writing to the revelation tradition founded by James — that is, a conservative variety of Jewish Christianity. The placement of James among the letters of the New Testa­ ment is suggestive of the role it continues to perform as part of the biblical canon. James is placed within a second collection of New Testament letters. While the relations among the four New Testament Gospels have long been a topic of scholarly investi­ gation, few have considered the relationship between the two collections of New Testament letters as significant: what possi­ ble relationship do the non-Pauline letters have with the Pauline in forming our theological understanding (the intended role of scripture) and how might this consideration aid the interpreter in discerning the special role James might perform within the Christian Bible? Especially within Protestantism, primary attention has been concentrated upon the Pauline collection, to investigate not only the meaning of individual letters but also the relationship be­ tween them. Partial justification for this keen interest in Paul's witness to the gospel is claimed by the ordering of the letters, since the Pauline corpus comes first. Yet, this very Pauline pri­ ority has also led to a Pauline reductionism in the study of the second, non-Pauline collection of letters. For example, James is typically viewed as envisaging either a Pauline faith, although in different words, or an anti-Pauline faith. In either case, the more complementary character of the intercanonical relationship be­ tween James and Paul is seriously distorted, as is their integral witness to God's gospel. Accordingly, one may suggest that a critical role performed by the second collection of (non-Pauline) letters is to enhance our understanding of the first (Pauline) by provision of an appa­ ratus of checks and balances that prevent distortion of the full

Introduction

26 25

gospel. In light of the history of its interpretation, the inter­ preter is especially prepared to listen to James for a different voice than heard when reading Paul (see Appendix B, "James and Paul in Pre-Canonical Context"). However, it is neither the voice of a ventriloquist nor that of an adversary, but the voice of a colleague whose new perspective adds and even supplies a nec­ essary balance to what has already been read and accepted from Paul (see "The Gospel according to James," below). A canonical approach is less interested in understanding the authorial audience and more interested in investigating how the present canonical audience might hear the word of God carried by the Book of James. In pursuing this interest, James is first heard within its own biblical environment in order to gain a keener recognition of its distinctive contribution to the theolog­ ical formation of those who read James as canonical literature. Even though the constituency of this audience is constantly changing, biblical letters possess an inherent quality of ambi­ guity that allows for the continual adaptation of their practical message to every generation of believers. There is no guarantee that the current readers of James participate in any of the an­ cient worlds occupied by its first readers; nor should we expect to recover the full meaning of the words that James originally scored. Precisely because James is canonical scripture, readers must not interpret its meaning as belonging to a distant past. From this perspective, a canonical audience must not ignore what this particular book claims as the word of God, or im­ pose other biblical theologies (e.g., Pauline) upon it. Further, the interpreter approaches James with the expectation that it will have something meaningful to say about today's spiritual crises: the spiritual crisis addressed by James is roughly analogous to the spiritual crisis addressed by members of the current canon­ ical audience. In this respect, not only does its grand theme of spiritual testing seem pertinent, but readers often number them­ selves among the rich and powerful who disregard the powerless, or among the powerless who require God's support against the powerful. James sometimes exposes the foolishness of believ­ ers who substitute facile confession for an embodied devotion to God, or use malicious words to gain an advantage over a ri­ val—all important topics of James. The wise words of James may sound a prophetic tone, sharply critical of business as usual and often inviting our repentance, or a pastoral tone for those in need of the gospel's assurance.

Introduction

27

In her recent commentary on James, P. Perkins contends that the authorial audience is male-oriented, if not exclusively male. Even though her argument fails to convince me, the problem she raises for many present readers is important and relevant: can a book written for a male audience be read and used by all believers today? Again, James addresses its canonical audience differently than its authorial audience. Read as scripture, the more particular occasion of James has now been universalized; its general readership now includes believers from every time and place. As Perkins herself notes, "The exhortation in the letter can be applied to both men and women. The inclusive render­ ing of James facilitates its application to Christians today." The Book of James has found a place in the Christian Bible not only because it provides the believer with the trustworthy contours of a Christian understanding of God, but because it illumines the believer's walk before God, especially when considered an integral part of an inspired whole. 26

The Gospel according to James The old critical conclusion that James is not a theological writ­ ing has waned in recent years. At the very least, most scholars now acknowledge the importance of theological images and themes in communicating the message of this book. The prob­ lem remains how to render its theological subject matter in the most comprehensive and coherent form possible. Recent biblical scholarship has shown interest in the narra­ tive aspect of scripture's theology. Not without its problems, the practical importance of this line of inquiry for biblical theol­ ogy is twofold. First, it supplies interpreters with a framework for presenting scripture's theological subject matter that coheres around those "saving events" most believers confess to be essen­ tial for the faith. Second, "master stories" function to facilitate a more personal and immediate identification between the bibli­ cal narrative and its contemporary audience. The result is a more effective coupling of the coherence and relevance of the biblical message. One fruitful effort in the field of Pauline theology has been harvested by R. Hays, who contends that the substructure of Pauline theology is narrative in cast. Paul's various letters are occasional adaptations of this narrative theology to the more 27

28

Introduction

28

29

particular theological crisis facing the authorial audiences. According to this model, Paul's core theological convictions comprise a sequence of events, beginning with God's promise of blessing to Abraham and concluding with the Lord's second coming. Between are those episodes that constitute the "Christ event," climaxed by Jesus' messianic death and triumphant res­ urrection and its results for the faith community "in him." While Paul's understanding of these saving events is distinctive within the New Testament, a similar narrative theology sup­ plies the subtext of other contributors to the biblical canon as well. Thus, for example, E. Lemcio has isolated similar events as constituting the "unifying kerygma" of every canonical unit (i.e.. Gospels, Acts, Letters, Apocalypse) of the New Testament canon. Yet, the sparse christological content of James remains an enigma and forces the interpreter to construct an even more minimal storyline than that proffered by Lemcio or Hays. Let me propose the following "pattern of salvation," vaguely covenantal in substance and narrative in shape, which supplies a theolog­ ical subtext for the entire composition: (1) the sovereign God (2:19), who is able to save and to destroy (4:12), (2) sends forth the "word of truth" (1:18), (3) which saves those who humbly receive it (1:21), (4) at the coming triumph of God's reign (1:12, 2:5, 5:7-9). The sequence and interplay of these four themes, developed below, provide the reader with a frame of reference — a "Gospel according to James" — that may well fa­ cilitate a more coherent interpretation for those whose aim is theological understanding. 1. The God of James is the only true God (2:19). God is the Creator who has made every person in God's own likeness (3:9; cf. 1:17-18). God is therefore personal, to whom the believer turns when lacking in wisdom needed to pass daily spiritual tests (1:5). God is heavenly Father (1:17, 27; 3:9), from whom the wise humbly receive (1:21) good and perfect gifts (1:17) which are generously provided by God, in every case (1:17) and without discrimination (1:5). Therefore, this generous God sends forth the "word of truth" to reveal the Creator's perfect plan of sal­ vation in order to guide the redeemed humanity into the age to come (1:18), which is a restored creation, made complete, perfect and lacking in nothing (1:4). In particular, God has chosen those out of this broken and corrupted world who are its last, least, lost, and lame to be en30

Introduction

29

riched by their love for God (2:5): as scripture teaches, "God gives grace to the humble" (4:6b). Thus, not only are the sick healed and the sinner forgiven by the Lord in the present age (5:14-16), their worship of God (5:13) will be vindicated at God's coming triumph when those who oppress them will be de­ stroyed (5:5-6) and their own material fortunes will be reversed (1:9-11). Indeed, God promises future blessing, "the crown of life," to all those who love God (1:12). To love God is to do God's will, for life is granted to those who do God's will (4:15). In that God is also our Judge (4:1112, 5:9), with the authority to save and destroy (4:12), humanity is obliged to do God's will. A concrete record of God's will is transmitted by the gift of the biblical Torah, which is the rule of faith for the faith community (2:8-13). God will save those who obey the law (1:25, 2:13) and will destroy those who live fool­ ishly and disobey the law of God. As scripture also teaches, "God resists the arrogant" (4:6a). The apocalypse of God's triumph over God's enemies (the deceived, the slanderous teacher, the ar­ rogant rich, the impatient complainer, the sinner and apostate) is imminent (5:7-8), at which moment creation will be purified and restored (1:4; cf. 5:17-18), the reign of God will be secured on earth (2:5), and blessing will be dispensed therein to all those who evince by their wise responses to their spiritual tests a ro­ bust love for God (1:12, 2:5) — such as Abraham, who is called a "friend of God" (2:23). 2. God sends forth "the word of truth" into the world (1:1718) to fulfill the promise of blessing (1:12) and to save God's people (1:21) from the result of their deception and sin (1:1316), which is death (5:19-20). This "word" from God reveals the plan and purposes of God's promised salvation (1:18) and as such is a "good and perfect gift" (1:17). The word comes down from heaven as a revelation of divine wisdom (1:5, 3:17) and is especially apropos for believers during a season of spiritual test­ ing (1:2-3). As with every article of divine revelation, this word of divine wisdom is trustworthy (1:18) and effective (1:21) in passing the spiritual test because it accords with God's promise and plan of salvation (1:18; cf. 1:12). As such, the way of wisdom is a "word on target" that points humanity toward the complete restoration of human existence so that it lacks nothing (1:4). To­ ward this end, then, the word is the instrument by which God creates an eschatological community which will be recipient of God's promised blessing in the age to come (1:18; cf. 1:12, 2:5).

30

Introduction

This heavenly word is "implanted" within the faith commu­ nity (1:21) by the word of its faithful teachers (3:1), who are "wise and understanding" (3:13). Only within this community of the wise is the divine word "received" by believers who are both "receptive" to it (1:21, 5:12) and "pure" (i.e., spiritually ma­ ture; 1:21; cf. 1:27). They promptly do what the word requires (1:22-24) and are saved as a result (1:21), ultimately receiving the blessing promised to those who love God (1:12, 25; 3:18). The subject matter of the word is summarized in 1:19 as "quick to hear" (i.e., obey the biblical Torah; cf. 1:22-2:26), "slow to speak" (i.e., use "purifying" language toward/about others; cf. 3:1-18), and "slow to anger" (i.e., resist one's innate passion for pleasure; cf. 4:1-5:6). To refuse this wisdom because of duplicity (1:6-8, 3:9-12) or deception (1:16, 22), and then to substitute a false wisdom (3:15), will only result in spiritual failure and social chaos (3:16), personal evil (1:13-15), and ulti­ mately death (5:19, 1:15). On the other hand, to apply divine wisdom to our spiritual tests results in life (1:12, 3:18, 4:15, 5:20). Of this the community's sacred tradition supplies many notable exemplars such as Jesus (2:1), Abraham (2:21-24), Rahab (2:25), Noah (4:4-5), Job (5:9-11) and Elijah (5:16b-18). In particular, Jesus received divine approval as the "glorious Lord Jesus Christ" (2:1) because of his obedience to the "royal law" (2:8): Jesus loved his poor neighbors, who are the chosen of God (2:5), and resisted their discrimination by the rich (2:1-4). Thus, he "did well" (cf. 2:8). Indeed, as is also true for Abraham (2:21-24) and Rahab (2:25), Jesus' obedience to God's will is ex­ emplary of an observed wisdom that is quick to act upon the wisdom of "the perfect law of liberty" (1:22-25, 2:12), and espe­ cially its "royal [= "kingly"] law" (2:8) —the rule of God's coming kingdom (2:5). In this light, the realization of God's promised blessing (1:25) in the coming kingdom extends to all those who "hold to the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ" (2:1) by caring for the marginal poor and resisting worldly evils (1:27). But this narrative of God's redemptive agent differs from the Pauline witness and is largely responsible for the disquiet James evokes among its Protestant interpreters. According to Paul's storyline, God sends forth a christological rather than a sapiential word, which discloses and inaugurates the promised "righteousness of God." Under the weight of Paul's christologi­ cal monotheism and his gentile mission, this christological word is kerygmatic in subject matter — a proclaimed "word of faith"

Introduction

31

(Rom. 8:6-8) that draws near to people in order to evoke their profession of faith that "Jesus is Lord" for their salvation (Rom. 10:9). The test of faith for Paul, then, is not an observed wisdom (cf. Rom. 8:5) but rather an obedient faith in the trustworthiness of his proclaimed gospel (Rom. 1:5, 16:26). Further, Paul teaches that the "faith of Jesus" (Rom. 3:22; Gal. 2:20, 3:22), which is revealed on the Cross, resulted in his exal­ tation as glorious Lord (Phil. 2:5-11; cf. Acts 2:36) and blessing for those whom he loved (Gal. 2:20). However, Paul's christolog­ ical monotheism is concentrated on Jesus' messianic death and not his ministry among the poor: salvation is the pluriformed re­ sult of Jesus' death. This conception of the messianic mission put Paul at odds with his Jewish tradition, requiring him to rethink scripture's story about God's salvation: for him, Christ is divine wisdom (1 Cor. 1:30) and the "end of the law" (Rom. 10:4). 3. The community of the wise is created anew by this "word of truth" (1:18). According to God's will, the community is con­ stituted by the "poor of the world" who are chosen to be "rich in faith" (2:5); and those pious poor who persist in their love for God will ultimately be blessed (1:12) and vindicated (5:4-6) at the coming triumph of God's reign (2:5, 5:7-11). Members of this congregation are displaced within the world order (1:1) and face many trials as a result (1:2). A life of constant hardship and heartbreak, perhaps the result of their poverty and displacement, tests their love for God (1:3). Indeed, some of the members have failed their test and have "wan­ dered from the truth" in sin and error; and the prospect of their eternal life is imperiled (5:19-20). The trials that threaten the community's relationship with God come from a variety of places (1:2). The principal loca­ tion is within each person, where a spiritual struggle rages. The evil "spirit of envy" (4:5), fashioned by the Creator but directed by the Evil One (4:7), inclines even the believer toward "friend­ ship with the world" and hostility toward the purposes of God (4:4). Interpersonal strife, leading even to murder, results from an inward "passion for pleasure" (4:1-2), which corrupts the petitioner's address to God (4:3) and understanding of God's will (4:13-17). As such, the believer's desires for an easy life or vile thoughts of a rival give birth to sin and so death (1:14-15, 3:14-16) rather than to wisdom and life (3:17-18). Without spiritual maturity, the community also falls prey to "deception" about the nature of a "true and approved religion"

Introduction

32

(1:16, 22, 26; cf. 1:27), a deception rooted in a faulty under­ standing of God and of God's requirements for God's people. Thus, for example, a congregation may come to believe that God approves of religious orthodoxy (2:19; cf. 2:8), which is merely confessed but never embodied (1:26, 2:14-17). But the require­ ments of God's covenant partner are more morally demanding and active than this (2:21-26). Clearly, the congregation is the object of hostile forces out­ side of itself. Not only are there rich and powerful outsiders who undermine the community's faith (2:6-7) in order to exploit poor members for their own advantage (2:2-4, 5:1-6), the con­ gregation is "surrounded" by a "world," which is God's enemy (4:4). Living within an anti-God society leads naturally to the accommodation of its "impurity," which threatens to contami­ nate the congregation's life together (1:27), specifically its caring treatment of the poor, whom friends of the "world" neglect and exploit (2:2-4, 6-7; 5:3-6); its language about one another (3:6); and the resigned contentment with one's lot in life (4:4-6, 1 4 15), which is necessary to resist a concern for mammon and serve the interests of God (4:7-10). Whether besieged by the forces of evil found within the individual believer or outside the believing community, the ex­ hortation is the same: know God's spiritual/inward and social/ external requirements and be wise in response to spiritual test­ ing. Christian formation is directed by the "wise and under­ standing" teachers (3:13; see "elders" in 5:14), by whom the revelatory word is "implanted" and from whom it is humbly "received" (1:21). They are summoned by the sick to admin­ ister healing "prayer in faith" (5:15) in expectation of God's imminent healing of all creation (1:4) in accordance with the Creator's ultimate purposes (1:18). Let me only add the following note to the preceding portrait of the community, which according to James is covenanted with God for eternal life. The sources for the idea of wisdom in James remain contested among scholars; however, they clearly include the topoi and rhetorical patterns of Hellenistic moral culture (Johnson, Watson). In keeping with this intellectual tradition, the wisdom that guides the faith community through its spiri­ tual testing is applied to an internal moral world that calls the believer to accountability for wise or foolish actions. Yet, the overarching conception of this "way of wisdom" remains largely biblical. Thus, with scripture, James pairs wisdom with Torah 31

Introduction

33

(1:22-25, 2:8-10): doing the law of God (essentially moral rather than cultic) is the wise thing to do because it not only results in purity but in God's blessing for the coming age. The test of faith, then, is an observed wisdom, exemplified by Jesus and Job, Abra­ ham and Rahab. It is a way of wisdom that fairly summarizes the biblical proverbs to love the poor neighbor (2:1-8), to speak well of others (3:17), and to resist coveting worldly pleasures that the mature believer can ill afford (4:1-5). The character of this community for James is unrelated to its cultural or cultic identity as Jewish believers. Rather, the theo­ logical crisis is whether their poverty and powerlessness, and the spiritual test it naturally provokes, inclines them toward a more pious devotion to God (1:2-3). The status of their election (2:5) and their historic relationship to Abraham (2:21-24) are not pri­ marily ethnic but are sociological and moral in emphasis: they are the marginal heirs of Abraham's promise (1:12, 2:5), who are friends of God (2:23) rather than of the world (4:4) because they perform merciful works like those of exemplary Abraham (2:24). In this sense, the sort of Christianity that is approved by God is an ethical religion; its witness to God is measured by the purity of its collective and personal life (1:27, 2:14-26). That is, God's eschatological requirement is for an embodied wisdom that com­ mends the community characterized by its merciful treatment of its own poor (1:22-2:26), the purity of speech among its wordbrokers (3:1-18), and the denial of worldly affections among its aspiring middle class (4:1-5:6). How would Paul respond to this article of the "Gospel ac­ cording to St. James"? The historical contingencies of the gentile mission forced a different accent from Paul. While he, too, re­ jects a definition of divine election that claims Israel's special destiny and prerogatives on sociocultural grounds, his concern in drafting a "spiritual Israel" is missiological: to include gen­ tile converts, who are not also Jewish proselytes, within the Christian community. Thus, God's promise to Abraham and elec­ tion of his gentile children are deduced by the presence of the Spirit and the gospel among gentile converts (Galatians 3-4). The mark of their membership within the covenant commu­ nity is not ethical but christological: whether they have faith in Christ. 4. The community's hope is concentrated by the event that concludes the story—the coming triumph of the Lord at the end of this age (5:7-9). At this climatic and cosmic "any moment,"

Introduction

34

the eschatological community will be confirmed and vindicated, even as their enemies are judged and destroyed (5:4-6); God will judge the foolish and bless the wise (1:12, 2:12-13, 4:11-12, 5:5-11). On the ultimate import of this final event, James and Paul substantially agree. Both assent that divine judgment and bless­ ing are finally creational activities, which bring about the new order of things (1:4, 18; 3:18; 5:17-18). Both agree that the Lord's parousia is imminent, so that the convictions of christo­ logical monotheism and the demands of public witness are made more urgent and embodied more readily. The time for repen­ tance is short because the time of judgment is at hand (5:7-9, 19-20).

The Argument of James Two Introductory Statements (James 1:1-11, 12-21) James is written to a community whose faith in God is threat­ ened by a daily struggle with hardship and heartbreak (1:2-4). This "testing of faith" is provoked by a variety of "trials." Yet, more importantly, every test occasions a theological crisis, when the believer is more easily deceived or confused about who God is and how God acts (vv. 5-8). Within a crucible of theological reflection, largely internal and spiritual (vv. 13-15), a decision is called for which ultimately measures the believer's "true" devo­ tion to God, whether one is fit to participate in God's coming reign (v. 12). To remain faithful to God in the present is to receive promised blessings from God in the future. The community's decision for or against God is rooted in a sense of moral freedom. What form will this freedom take? On the one hand, the wise believer loves God and trusts that God is a consistently loyal Father who generously supplies the faith community with the "word of truth" that will guide the be­ liever's pilgrimage on earth through the "wilderness" of trials and into the "promised land" of eternal life (vv. 16-18). The anticipated result of receiving this word, whose subject matter is biblical wisdom (vv. 19-20), is an increased capacity to re­ main faithful to God during the testing of this age until the Lord comes in triumph over sin and death. The wise and faithful be­ liever will enter into the coming age where all that is lacking is 32

Introduction

35

reversed and made perfect by the Creator, who alone completes humanity's material (vv. 9-11) and spiritual existence (v. 21). On the other hand, the foolish believer assumes that God is disloyal to the promise of new life, and actually is responsible for the community's hardships (vv. 13-16). The fool supposes that God is responsible for humanity's hardship and intends one's death; however, this deception results in refusing the merits of God's advice (cf. v. 21). Such doubt gives birth to spiritual failure when facing present hardships; and the eschatological result of present spiritual failure is the forfeiture of the "crown of life" that is the blessing of all those who endure (v. 12). An Essay on the Wisdom of "Quick to Hear" (James 1:22-2:26) In this first section of the main body of James, the wisdom of "quick hearing" is paired with biblical Torah: to "hear" is to "do the work" of Torah (1:22-25). More specifically, the wisdom of quick hearing means to obey the levitical laws pertaining to the merciful treatment of the neighbor (vv. 26-27). This portion of the Torah is defined as the wise thing to do in order to ad­ dress a situation in which the material needs of the poorest and most marginal members of the faith community are being ne­ glected. The occasion for this neglect is the favored treatment of rich and powerful outsiders in the legal proceedings of both the synagogue-court (2:2-4) and law-court (vv. 6-7). In this sit­ uation, the biblical Torah demands jubilary justice in order to liberate the poor and powerless from their oppression (vv. 8-13). The decision to favor these rich outsiders over poor insid­ ers, even though perhaps a matter of short-term survival, fails the community's "test of faith" because God has in fact chosen the pious poor of the world to receive blessing (2:5). Further, favoritism of this sort envisages a compromise to the evils of the world order. Such is the nature of a theological failure that imperils the community's future salvation, which requires con­ crete works of mercy toward the poor (the social "diaspora"). In fact, Jesus was approved by God as "glorious Lord" (2:1) be­ cause he loved his poor and powerless neighbor according to the "royal law" (2:8). His example of divine mercy, which followed in the way of both Patriarch Abraham (2:21-24) and Prostitute Rahab (2:25), charts the way of wisdom for all which leads into eternal life.

36

Introduction

Indeed, the wise community is quick to hear and act upon what the Torah commands, knowing that it articulates God's will according to which all people will be either blessed or judged at the coming triumph of God's reign (2:12-13). If the Torah is cen­ tered in the command to love the neighbor, especially those who are like the "widow and orphan in distress," then it is foolish to favor the rich over the poor when the result is eternal retribu­ tion. According to Torah, faith in God is embodied by works of mercy: true religion is an ethical religion, not confessional or­ thodoxy (2:14-26). Thus, to profess devotion to God without a complement of merciful works is simply foolish (2:20) since such religion is worthless for either heralding or entering the age to come (2:17, 26). An Essay on the Wisdom of "Slow to Speak" (James 3:1-18) James's commentary on the wisdom of "slow speaking" is espe­ cially suited for the "wilderness" (3:11-12), when the spiritual journey is most unstable (vv. 3 -6a), when the guidance of "wise and understanding" teachers (v. 13) is most critical, but when harsh things are more easily said. The peril of speech is made even more pointed by the inherent difficulty of controlling what is said (vv. 7-8). Every social crisis embodies a theological crisis as well, that is, a crisis of faith in God as Creator (3:9-10). Slanderous speech, which curses the neighbor who should be loved (2:8), offends the good intentions of the Creator, who made people in God's image. The deeper logic of a creation theology is that God built certain patterns in the created order (3:11-12); in this sense, pro­ fane speech will not yield spiritual results (vv. 15-16), whereas pure speech will (vv. 17-18). That is, the result of speech that substitutes "earthly" wisdom (v. 15) for "heavenly" wisdom (v. 17) is "chaos" (v. 16), which is opposite of the Creator's intentions for a restored creation (cf. Gen. 1:2). Demonizing speech destroys human relationships and prevents the sort of spiritual nurture that empowers the commu­ nity's journey through present trials toward the future promise of a new order. On the other hand, the harvest of "pure and merciful" speech (v. 17), which conforms to heavenly wisdom, is the blessing of peace for those "perfect" teachers (vv. 1-2) who practice it (v. 18).

Introduction

37

An Essay on the Wisdom of "Slow to Anger" (James 4:1-5:6) James 4:1-5:6 interprets the meaning of the exhortation for be­ lievers to be "slow to anger." According to James, the source of the community's anger (4:1) is an inward passion over the lack of material pleasures (vv. 2-3). The trial that imperils the com­ munity's participation in God's coming triumph stems from an inability to be content with one's humble conditions, coveting rather the material goods of others (vv. 4-5). This passion for things tests the community's dependence upon God, who resists the arrogant and exalts those of humble means (4:6; cf. 2:5). The wise community humbles itself before God (vv. 7-10), who alone establishes the criteria for judgment and salvation (vv. 11-12). On the other hand, the foolish continue to indulge in selfcentered passion for material profit without consideration of God's will for human existence (4:13-17). Indeed, those who choose mammon over God will also choose mammon over people and treat their poor neighbor with inequity (5:4) and hostility (5:6). Ironically, the misery of mistreated workers fore­ shadows the misery of the rich in the last days, when they will lose their wealth (5:1-2) and their lives (5:4) to an angry God. Two Concluding Statements (James 5:7-12, 13-20) James concludes as it opens, with a pair of integral statements. By recalling important catchwords and phrases from the open­ ing statements, the author forms an inclusio with his thesis that frames the commentary on wisdom found in between. More than a retrospective on the way of wisdom according to James, this conclusion also supplies the principal motivation for following its advice: the coming of the Lord is near (5:7-9). The concluding exhortations to endure the testing of faith, implicit throughout James, are made more urgent by the au­ thor's pointed assertions that the parousia is imminent. The community is encouraged to exercise patience (5:7-8), like Job (vv. 10-12) rather than his complaining friends (v. 9); and to be vigilant in prayers for healing (vv. 13-16), like Elijah (vv. 1718), in order to insure participation in the coming triumph of God's reign. The final verses (19-20) form a commission that calls the readers to a special mission for those foolish believers who have

38

Introduction

been deceived by falsehood and have departed from the "word of truth" that defines the way of wisdom. Their spiritual healing will result in salvation rather than condemnation at the end of the age. To be the church is to be wise when tested in know­ ing that the present trial of faith determines the future entrance into the age to come.

Chapter

One

James 1:1: Greeting

Epistolary greetings are extraordinarily important in discerning the meaning of an epistle, and none more so than this one. Simply put, a book's address makes introductions in a way that prepares readers for the composition that follows. What au­ thors say about themselves in greeting their readers defines their rhetorical relationship, which in turn delimits the way by which a reader should understand an author's advice. However, what deepens the interpreter's interest in James's address is the literary problem it envisages: in this case, the greeting, which generally anticipates a literary letter, introduces a composition whose genre has been identified since Dibelius as a paraenesis — a composition of traditional ethical teaching whose purpose is to nurture a community's ethos rather than to address a particular moral crisis. The oddity of finding a greet­ ing at the beginning of a nonletter has the immediate effect of extending the role of a moral exhortation to include the situa­ tion and intention of a letter. That is, rather than a composition that imparts universal advice to no one in particular, James is now read like other letters as a brief occasioned by a specific crisis, whose advice then is more practical and pastoral. Read­ ing James as a letter demands that our interpretations specify what are those threats to Christian faith that James identifies, and what possible solutions to those threats does James provide the reader? Epistolary solutions are as didactic as they are pas­ toral, designed to teach readers rather than to tell them stories (as with the Gospels and Acts) or describe visions (as with the Apocalypse). Perhaps the biblical form of James is the work of an editor, who added the greeting to fit James more easily into a collec39

James 1:1

40

tion of other letters. The effect in this case is to create a family resemblance between James and other Christian letters with sim­ ilar greetings, ultimately to facilitate the reading of James within a Christian context. The literary intention of the letter is not set aside within this ecclesial setting nor in its subsequent canoni­ cal setting: the continuing purpose of New Testament letters is to impart advice in order to settle spiritual crises. In this latter case, however, the letter's more specific role is refocused by the role it now plays within the biblical canon, whose intent is to nurture Christian identity in every age: what does it mean to believe as a Christian (drawing theological borders) and what does it mean to behave as Christians ought (drawing moral borders)? The church's confidence in canonizing the New Testament letters maintains that the spiritual crises facing the first readers were roughly the same crises that face Christian readers in every age; the advice occasioned by the original sit­ uation, then, continues to be adaptable to the life and faith of current readers. In some additional sense, then, the greeting of James invites the interpreter to help a contemporary readership locate itself somewhere within the world this New Testament let­ ter constructs, and to do so while maintaining the integrity of both the voice of James and the faith of its current readers (see the introduction).

The Author of James James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the Twelve Tribes in the Diaspora: Greetings! The author of this apparent clipboard of moral exhortations identifies himself as "James." Yet this claim does not settle very much (see the introduction). From a more theological frame of reference, this opening claim of authorship posits the en­ tire composition within a particular revelation tradition, which bears normative witness to God's activity in Christ Jesus. That is, fames locates this composition within the Jacobean tradition of (Jewish) Christianity, asserting that its voice is the authorized voice of James, who bore witness to the truth and grace of God incarnate in the life and teaching, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus. In its fuller canonical context, this reference to James looks

Greeting

41

back to the portrait of James found in Acts, which introduces the New Testament reader to James, his kerygma, and his faith community. While the Lukan Jakobusbild of Acts is sketchy, it does suggest that this James represents the Jewish mission of earliest Christianity, even as Paul represents the gentile mission. The tensions between the two missions (Acts 15, 21), which are narrated in muted tones in Acts, are envisaged in the Book of James more sharply, especially when compared with the Pauline corpus of letters within the New Testament. In Acts, the reader of the New Testament comes to anticipate the disagreements between these two canonical witnesses, James and Paul, even though under the catholicizing spirit of the Jerusalem Synod, which suggests that any differences between James and Paul may actually complement one another when considered by the whole church. The importance of the author's credentials as a servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ (rather than attributing to him a title of authoritative office) remains best understood by the LXX ref­ erence to ebed YHWH —one whose active ministry demonstrates his full membership in the faith community. I suspect, too, that this phrase echoes scripture's reference to Jacob (=James), who is called God's servant in Isaiah. A significant layer of meaning is added by this prophetic echo. The servanthood of James is like the servanthood of Isaiah's Jacob, who is there an agent of salvation and transmitter of covenantal promises. Especially im­ portant is a passage like Isa. 49:5-6, where the eschatological Jacob serves the interests of God by gathering together the scat­ tered sheep of Israel (cf. Sir. 36:13); and Isa. 50:10, where God's promised salvation is conditioned upon this Jacob's obedience to the Servant's teaching. If this is a subtext of the epistolary James, then, the address is an invocative, gathering his dispersed readers together to hear of a promised salvation from a latterday Servant. The author of James writes, then, as a tradent of an authoritative revelation tradition, but also as an agent of God's salvation, whose vocation is to teach the word of the Lord for salvation.

The Audience of James In a similar way, the greeting's identification of the letter's recip­ ients as the "twelve tribes" combines historical and theological

42

James 1:1

meanings (see the introduction). On the one hand, "twelve tribes" is an idiom for Israel — in which case the first readers of James were members of a Jewish congregation. A few scholars have even argued, without much success, that the references to Jesus here and in 2:1 were added by a later Christian editor to a non-Christian Jewish writing. It must be said that within the New Testament similar idioms are used of Christians who com­ prise a spiritual rather than a national Israel (cf. Romans 9, Gal. 6:16), even though sometimes including ethnic Jews (cf. Matt. 19:28/Luke 22:30; Rev. 7:4-8). This latter use follows its primary meaning in Old Testament and inter testament al literature. On the other hand, its relationship to the prior name, "Lord Jesus Christ," which asserts Jesus' messianic office, acquires a mes­ sianic overtone: the Jewish recipients are addressed as messianic or "true" Israel and heirs of the biblical promise of salvation. More interesting to me is the qualifying phrase "in the Di­ aspora," which more specifically identifies the readership with those believers living outside of Palestine. Within the New Tes­ tament, the Jewish Christian Diaspora mentioned in James is introduced by Acts 8:1-4 (cf. diaspeirein in Acts 8:1, 4; 11:19). One could even speculate, against the background of Acts, that the readers of James are members of the Antiochene church founded in Syria after Stephen's death and the persecution of Hellenistic Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. The connection to James is therefore explained by this congregation's apparent loy­ alty to Jerusalem through Barnabas (cf. Acts 15:36-41) rather than to Ephesus (cf. Acts 20:17-38) or Rome (cf. Acts 28:17-31) through Paul, which may also match the theological disagree­ ments with Paulinism enshrined within this composition. Yet, in biblical context the word "Diaspora" calls attention to the suffering of a people cut off from social and religious sup­ port systems. The LXX uses the word to locate God's people in a world of conflict for their spiritual testing and refinement. The Diaspora is a symbol of conflict, of trials, of spiritual testing, where the community's faith in God is threatened and where salvation is imperiled as a result (esp. Jeremiah's references), but where faith is also proven and even matured and salvation is as­ sured. It is there that God proves God to be faithful and true to a promise made: that if the community remains faithful, God will act faithfully to fulfill the covenantal promise first made to Abraham. In fact, the "Diaspora" can refer to the sociopolitical expe1

2

Greeting

43

riences of the faith community rather than to its geographical setting. In this sense, "Diaspora" addresses readers in a social world characterized by feelings of alienation and powerlessness (cf. 1 Pet. 1:1-2). Their sense of homelessness is ahistorical, cos­ mic, and dualistic (cf. Hebrews 11-12, Rev. 14:1-3): no matter where their life is lived, their true "home" is heavenly and eschatological since on earth their religious sentiments have marginalized them from the mainstream of the sociopolitical order. As a result, the perception of trials is radicalized: suffering is an ordinary feature of this life rather than of the next (James 1:13-18). In fact, suffering occasions joy since trials test faith (1:2-3) and since persistent faith results in life from a gracious God rather than death (1:12). This, then, is the theological calculus of the Diaspora. While the present world is a place of conflict, trials, and tribulation, where human faith is tested, God's faithfulness is also expe­ rienced in anticipation of the world to come. In similar light, T. Cargal utilizes Greimasian structural semiotics to identify those who have "wandered from the truth" (5:19-20) with the "twelve tribes of the Diaspora." He proposes that the rhetor­ ical architecture of James is an inverted parallelism, with 1:1 and 5:19-20 providing the outside boundaries of a religio-moral system described within. In this sense, then, the audience ad­ dressed by James consists of every immature believer who has "scattered" from the truth; the following exhortations supply an authoritative guide back into the "homeland," which is the eschatological reign of God (see the introduction). 3

Chapter Two

James 1:2-11: First Thesis Statement

James is a carefully crafted rhetorical writing that seeks to per­ suade an audience to embrace its moral and theological vision. The intended result of reading James is a fresh reordering of out­ look that accords with the Creator's best intentions for life on earth, and is therefore the best preparation for the life to come. Implicit in this theological calculus, of course, is the promise of good things to come: no matter how fragmented and difficult life seems and no matter how demanding the current spiritual tests are, the Creator's intentions are altogether good for those who follow God's will. As literature written to have this religious result, James presumes to know this design with little ambiguity. Thus, James calls for specific responses to settle specific trials, the result of which is a perfected human existence in a new order of things. I am inclined to follow the lead of F. Francis that the present passage borrows from the opening section of a kind of Hellenis­ tic letter that introduces and then reintroduces the composi­ tion's main themes for emphasis and nuance. There is here, however, a greater theological coherence than is found by Fran­ cis and others. The themes of James are more fully integrated to proffer a framework by which readers can better explain God's purpose for their trials. This theological vision is introduced by the book's opening statements, which consist of paired triads, the first in 1:2-11, whose main points are then repeated in 1:12-21. Further, this triadic architecture extends to each triad, which describes (1) a particular element of the present crisis, (2) the advised response, and (3) a potential peril appropriate to that response. This 1

44

First Thesis Statement

45

fully triadic pattern produces a greater sense of integrity and wholeness in the argument of James. The rhetorical purpose of James's "double opening" does not merely set out the book's main themes for emphasis, even though James will repeat these same ideas to expand their "first" meanings. A secondary purpose of these opening triads is to provide a solid literary foundation, perhaps even indicating its universal application — since the number 3 sometimes sym­ bolizes such. That is, these triads are programmatic not only because they introduce the main themes of the composition but because they formulate an integral calculus by which the composition's insight is more coherent and better understood. Under this light, then, James first introduces the theme of spiritual testing, which is provoked by human suffering, along with its anticipated benefit (1:2-4; par. 1:12-15). Suffering prompts a profound awareness that we live in a world that falls short of the Creator's desire to "complete" human life (cf. 1:4b-5a). While this conception echoes current Greco-Roman philosophy (esp. Stoicism), as many commentators have shown, the perfection of human existence for James is finally the work of the Creator, who gives "good and perfect gifts" (1:17) to those who lack the "stuff" of eternal life. The proper response to the daily experience of bad news, then, is to petition the God of good news for wisdom, whose effect is to fill up what is lacking and reverse what is imper­ iled by faithless and foolish duplicity (1:5-8; par. 1:16-18). The incentive to resist such "double-mindedness" is the prospect of socioeconomic and spiritual reversal in the coming age (1:9-11; par. 1:19-21). The promise of future blessing belongs to the cov­ enant community, whose membership includes the economic "humble" (1:9) and the spiritual "humble" (1:21). The faith com­ munity does not live in a world organized by a natural matrix of causes and corresponding effects, as Greco-Roman philosophers would have it; rather, believers live within a theocentric world of Jewish beliefs and hope for the perfection and completion of human life as the anticipated result of their faithfulness to God's laws. The spiritual crisis facing the faith community is introduced here from two different, although complementary, perspectives. The first triad views the community's test of faith from the perspective of social class. That is, faith in God is especially threatened among the rich (1:9-11), whose lack of hardship fos-

46

James 1:2-11

ters the very duplicity (1:6-8) that fails to nurture a dependency upon God. The second triad defines the crisis in a more theolog­ ical fashion: faith in God is undermined by our foolish attempts to blame God for hardship (1:13-15), which are the result of false conceptions of God (1:16-18). Sharply put, James is writ­ ten to a community whose faith in God is threatened by a daily struggle with hardship. This "testing of faith" brought out by a variety of external and historical circumstances provokes a theo­ logical crisis that is essentially internal and spiritual: whether or not to remain faithful to God in the present in order to receive promised blessings from God in the future. The community's decision for or against God is rooted in a sense of moral freedom. What form will this freedom take? On the one hand, the mature community loves God and trusts that God is a consistently loyal Father who generously supplies the covenant community with wisdom to guide its pilgrimage through the "wilderness" of trials into the "promised land" of eternal life. The anticipated result of depending upon divine wis­ dom when facing human trials is an increased moral capacity to remain faithful to God until the Lord finally triumphs over sin and death. Then, at the Lord's parousia (i.e.. Second Coming), the faithful will enter into a realm of perfected existence where all is re-created complete by the Creator and where nothing is lacked either materially or spiritually. On the other hand, the immature community believes that God is disloyal to the covenant promise of a new life, and ac­ tually is responsible for the community's hardships: how can a powerful and empowering God allow the suffering of God's people? But to suppose that God is responsible for humanity's hardship is a foolish deception and inevitably results in doubt­ ing the merits of God's advice. Such doubt gives birth to spiritual failure when facing present hardships; and the eschatological re­ sult of present spiritual failure is the forfeiture of the "crown of [eternal] life" which is the promised blessing of all those whose love for God endures (1:12). Finally, the vocation of God's people is to herald the coming triumph of God's reign on earth (2:5). This reign is constituted by a new order of relationships among all people who follow the "glorious Lord Jesus Christ" (2:1). Spiritual testing also threatens the believer's relationship with others—by class discrimination, by abusive speech, by hostile quarreling. The failure to live to­ gether in a more just and loving community is the immediate

First Thesis Statement

47

effect of neglecting the divine wisdom so graciously granted; the eschatological effect, on the other hand, is the forfeiture of divine blessing, promised but not yet realized. The pastoral pur­ pose of James, therefore, is to insure that a Christian community takes shape which not only bears witness to a new order of cre­ ation (1:4) but which guarantees the community's participation in it when it arrives at the coming of the Lord (5:7-9).

James 1:2-4: The Testing of Faith 2

M y sisters and brothers, whenever various trials befall you, consider each with joy, knowing that the testing of faith pro­ duces patience. Further, let patience result in a perfect work in order that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. 3

4

Human trials are a universal experience. We all face trials of various sorts, and we all "fall" into adversities without trying or wanting to. Suffering of some sort is the mark of human life within a world where conflicts occur as a natural matter of course. James's addressees, however, are believers; they are insiders to the Christian faith. For this community, the univer­ sal experience of trial and tribulation constitutes a theological crisis as well, simply because adversity provokes responses with profound consequences for the believer's spiritual formation. Ac­ cording to James, the believer can consider trials either as a test of faith in God or as a temptation to sin. The point is more forcefully scored by the creative repetition of peirasmos/peirazd, which refers to "trials" in its nominative form (1:2, 12) but then to the "temptation" to sin in its verbal form (1:13). Diffi­ cult circumstances facing the believer require wisdom precisely because external "trials" occasion internal "temptation." James will consider this choice more fully in the second opening state­ ment (1:13-16), which describes the response of the fool, whose lack of wisdom makes him more vulnerable to the deception of thinking that God is involved in something evil. The conse­ quences are also eschatological, since on this moral basis God will determine the quality of the community's faith. Only the wise community is fit to participate in the joy of God's coming triumph. James uses the word for "trials" in two different ways. In this

48

James 1:2-11

passage, "trials" refer to the daily adversities of the human con­ dition. However, in 1:13 the same root (peirasmos) is used for temptations, which are exploited by evil intentions for evil ends. The source of trials, then, is not so neutral; rather, trials are provoked by malicious intent and demonstrate the fallenness of the world order. Moreover, "various" (poikilois) corresponds with "all" (pasa), which qualifies a joyful consideration of every trial. That is, the variety of human trials has its corresponding response in a pervasive joy. But what is the nature of this joy that is occasioned by suf­ fering? Hardly a call to a masochistic fanaticism, which pursues suffering in order to be blessed! Rather, this positive construal of human adversity considers trials in joyful anticipation of their end in the coming age. In this sense, "joy" is an eschatologi­ cal catchword, not an emotion: joy is a theological perception of trials, which considers their complete demise by a God who promises a new day. Coupled with two verbal ideas of the in­ ward life, hegeomai ("consider") and ginosko ("know"), James uses "joy" to indicate the intellectual orientation of believers toward their trials as merely the evidence of an evil that is passing away. According to Davids, the participial use of ginoskontes indicates a catechetical setting for this exhortation; joy is something learned rather than instinctive. For James, as for Stoics, external suffering is a state of mind. The presumption is that the sub­ ject matter of such an intellectual consideration or knowledge of this truth about trials is theological. In this sense, suffering occasions a "test of faith" in God. Testing is a familiar biblical motif exploited to full benefit in James. Later references to Jesus (2:1-8), Abraham and Rahab (2:21-26), and Job (5:10-11) are appeals to model believers who exemplify the passing of difficult tests of faith. These exemplars of piety under pressure are also in some sense "prophetic" (cf. 5:10), since their lives indicate a particular response to trials that will ultimately secure God's blessing as a result. Jesus tradition and scripture are well known to James and his readers, and sup­ ply a rich biographical meaning to the phrase "testing of your faith." Whatever the trial, the faith community is asked to fol­ low the lead of Jesus, Abraham and Rahab, Job and Elijah, who all maintained their faith in God even though finding themselves in difficulty. If joy is the proper perspective toward trials, then patience is its vital product. On the one hand, patience is here a spiritual 2

First Thesis Statement

49

competency, a virtue whose habits can only be formed under trial. Jesus says that patience enables the believer to make it to the end (Matt. 24:13); thus, it is an eschatological competency that complements joy in aiding the believer to pass the testing of faith. Yet, in this setting, patience also connotes an active work: patience is produced by particular responses to trials, and must be given the opportunity to do its whole work. Johnson notes, 'The ideal of 'endurance' is not attractive to hedonism, for it assumes an understanding of human character based on something more profound than pleasure, possession or power." Indeed, this variety of patience proves less the community's moral fiber than it does their robust faith in God. In particu­ lar, patience fastens a people of enduring faith upon the coming age when, according to the biblical prophets, the triumph of God's reign will result in a pervasive peace (shalom) throughout a restored creation. Interestingly, James makes patient endurance both the prod­ uct and character of a passed test: faith works itself out as patience as well as the condition of this eschatological triumph, and produces what is necessary to participate in God's eternal reign. The verbal idea, expressed by katergazomai from the family of "working" (erg-) words, indicates that patience is not a passive or private attribute but is an activity or "work" that processes through history. Further, patience during testing is the "perfect" (teleion) work because it results in a blessing that is "perfect [teleioi] and com­ plete, lacking in nothing." The use of "perfect" in James has attracted the attention of many scholars. Clearly, its repetition indicates its importance to the book's theological vision. In this initial (and thus programmatic) use of perfection language in James (cf. 1:17, 25; 3:2; see also 2:8 [teleo]; 2:22 [teleiod]), the pairing of "perfect work" and "perfect" (teleion/teleioi) indicates that James defines human perfection in terms of the dynamic interplay of the Creator's promised restoration or perfection of all things and the present experience of human imperfection: the one occasions the prospect of the other. In this sense, hu­ manity's promised perfection is neither a moral virtue nor an experience of personal perfection: James does not use "perfec­ tion" language as a rubric of spiritual formation or personal virtue. While human experience tells us that maturity is a possible result of testing, James uses "perfection" in an eschatological 3

4

5

6

50

James 1:2-11

setting that defines blessing as eternal life (1:12) and salvation as the believer's participation in a new creation (1:18). The "perfect" yield of enduring faith, then, is the "perfection" and "wholeness" of human existence in a new (and future) order of creation, made free of those very trials that also lead to sin and death (1:13-15). The suffering and spiritual conflict experi­ enced by those caught between present and future ages is only one precipitate of that ancient conflict between competing cos­ mic principalities and powers. While the ambiguity inherent in this tension only intensifies the difficulty of perseverance, the test of faith in part is to believe that the real objective of present trials is the future triumph of God over those very evil powers causing them. This coupling of the believer's faithful response to God and perfection stands at the epicenter of James's theological vision, the significance of which will be expanded within subsequent compositional units. This process of humanity's restoration is collaborative, joining the grace of God with the obedience of God's people. In this sense, the requirements of patient en­ durance are not met by God as gifts that somehow make us competent by spiritual osmosis. Patience is the hard work of maintaining faith in hard times in collaboration with a God who supplies those gifts necessary for our salvation (1:17-18). Martin makes a keen point in calling attention to the con­ junction (de) which relates verses 3 and 4 and typically suggests a mild contrast between competing ideas. The work of patience (v. 3) can become so dogged and intense that the primacy of eschatological joy is lost. James's moral vision focuses on the product (perfection), not the process (spiritual tests)! 7

8

James 1:5-8: The Wisdom of God 5

Now, if anyone lacks wisdom, ask God who gives generously and without reproach and it will be given. But when one asks in faith, there can be no doubting; for doubting is like a sea wave, tossed and driven by wind. D o not suppose that such a person will receive anything from the Lord: he is doubleminded, unsettled in everything he does. 6

7

8

The way that leads suffering humanity toward its future resto­ ration is wisdom. This seems reasonable since the moral vision

51

First Thesis Statement

advanced by this book roots an "ethics of doing" in a particu­ lar "way of seeing": that is, daily trials must first be "considered" and "known" by the believer (so 1:2-3) before one is capable of acting in a manner that is pleasing to God (so 1:4). Accord­ ing to this formula, then, spiritual survival and future blessing depend upon a certain perspective toward the bad stuff of life. The subject matter of this orientation is supplied by a "wisdom" that comes from God in response to a believer's faithful prayer. If present reality, which is characterized by its imperfection and the lack of wholeness, is to be reordered into conformity with God, whose countervailing plan of perfection and wholeness constitutes a much larger and future reality, then the believer must turn toward God, who alone can provide this wisdom. This reading of human suffering finds its closest parallel to Jewish teaching, most clearly articulated in the intertestamental writ­ ing 4 Maccabees, where heavenly wisdom is a revelation from God that guides the true believer toward future perfection. To receive humbly this gift of wisdom is the test of enduring faith (1:21). Thus, the double-minded, who doubt the merits of divine wisdom (see below), remain lacking in the knowledge that wisely "considers" trials from a perspective of eschatological joy; they choose poorly. The opening conditional phrase, which introduces the idea of wisdom, is obviously linked to the previous passage by the common verb "lack" (leipomenoi/leipetai). That is, the realis­ tic response to the promise of "lacking nothing" (en medeni leipomenoi, 1:4), especially when life seems to be lacking every­ thing, is to admit that one "lacks [leipetai] wisdom" and so acquire it. The ei de conditional, which introduces verse 5, pre­ sumes the readers are lacking in divine wisdom. The peril of "lacking wisdom" is obvious from the preceding pericope. Dibelius thinks the two pericopae are unrelated; but the use of a linking word is typical in James and intends to combine two discrete and sometimes very different pericopae as conceptually entwined. The two, when read together, contend that without wisdom there is an inadequate perception of trials which will lead to a failure of the test of faith. The content of revealed wis­ dom, then, consists of those patterns of human response to life's problems that are in accord with the Creator's plans for a good creation; to follow wisdom is to pass the testing of faith. But the spiritual dilemma is therefore immediately intensi­ fied since this real deficit — this lack of wisdom — imperils the 9

10

52

James 1:2-11

eschatological prospect of "lacking nothing." In this initial com­ ment on wisdom, however, James is less interested in the subject matter of divine wisdom (cf. 1:19-20) and more interested in its source (God) and how to acquire it (prayer). It is significant that God is introduced into the book in con­ nection with prayers for wisdom, for it is prayer that provides an important perspective on the believer's faith in God during spiritual testing. Actually, James is interested in God's charac­ ter, which is described in a compressed and comprehensive way here and will overshadow all other references to God in James. Indeed, the confidence James posits in passing the test has less to do with the human capacity to endure suffering and more to do with goodness of God from whom come both present aid and future blessing. (1) God is personal and so is addressed by prayer; (2) God is gracious, and so is ready to answer prayer (the participle didontas denotes that God's giving is constant); (3) God's providence is inclusive (cf. 2:1) and so gives wisdom to any who asks; (4) God gives to all without measure or strings attached. The adverb haplos, which is often translated as "gen­ erously," actually defines the quality of God's giving rather than the measure of the wisdom provided. I side with Davids, who supplies a "secondary meaning" to the word, meaning "with an undivided mind." This nicely contrasts God who gives "without mental reservation" with the immature believer who asks for wisdom but with a divided mind (1:7-8). James pairs this adverb with another, "without reproach" (pneidizo), which also proba­ bly means "singular in purpose, without guile"; the image is of God who gives wisdom in undivided loyalty to God's people. Surely James intends an additional contrast between God and immature believers who may doubt the practical merits of di­ vine wisdom (1:6). Finally, then, (5) God gives to the one who, recognizing what is lacking, prays for wisdom. What exactly prompts a prayer for wisdom? The reader may suppose that the prayer for wisdom is occasioned by actual circumstances. In this sense, both the prayer and the wisdom supplied are "trial specific." This observation will become less tentative and important during our analysis of the main body of James, where wisdom is applied to the specific trials facing the audience. Moreover, faith seems to be both condition and incen­ tive for prayer. Presumably, the fool is inclined against asking God for wisdom he lacks, because he lacks faith; to lack in faith is to lack in wisdom. 11

12

First Thesis Statement

53

The subsequent text defines faith negatively (i.e., as its peril), with no doubting. The generosity of God is forfeited and so the lacking wisdom is not disclosed to the believer who does not ask for it in faith. The word for "doubting" (diakrino) is the first from the extensive -krino ("judgment") vocabulary em­ ployed by James. Although in this context it perhaps describes the hypocrisy of prayer during difficulty when the petitioner lacks faith in God, its essential meaning qualifies every subse­ quent use. That is, the "judge" or his act of "judgment" is a form of functional atheism, which denies faith in God's gifts and reign: the immature may "say" that he believes in God, but then live as though God does not exist. The indictment of the doubter is deepened by the additional image of an unstable sea, a metaphor of the double-minded (lit. "two-souled") person. Although perhaps rooted in the wider traditions of both Greco-Roman and Jewish worlds, which were replete with theories of spiritual and intellectual division, S. E. Porter has argued that this is a distinctively Christian (perhaps idiomatic) expression for "doubt." Rather than an inherent as­ pect of a person's psychology as in Greco-Roman thought, which naturally inclines one to "weigh the alternatives," James calls for an end to duplicity and for a response to God that recip­ rocates God's faithful response to Israel. Significantly, James subsequently characterizes this same duplicitous believer as one who "claims to have faith, but does not act like it" (cf. 1:26, 2:14-26). If we interpret the repetition of dipsuchos in James reflexively, then this "double-minded" petitioner may be defined as one who seeks wisdom from God to pass spiritual testing and to receive future blessing, but without the single-minded de­ votion and loyalty found in the spiritually mature person. The warning is clear: the believer who "lacks" the evidence of a ro­ bust devotion to God is unable to pass the present spiritual test and therefore forfeits any prospect of future blessing. 13

14

James 1:9-11: The Great Reversal 9

10

Rather let the humble believer boast in exaltation and the rich boast in humiliation. For the flower of grass will disappear; when the sun rises with a scorching wind the grass withers, the flower falls off, and its beautiful appearance perishes. So also will the rich pass away in the midst of its pursuits. 1 1

54

James 1:2-11

What does the author mean when he speaks of the "humble" and the "rich"? Why does the author introduce his running polemic against wealth (or perhaps even the wealthy) at this early point in the composition? These questions cannot be set­ tled until this passage is fit into and explained by the concerns of the opening thesis statement. Of course, the old form critics, with Dibelius, argue that there is no logical relationship be­ tween this unit and those on either side of it in James; rather, the theme of rich and poor is one important theme among many, but is introduced early on in order to prioritize it. This con­ clusion has been generally discredited for failing to take into account the overarching rhetorical purpose and integral char­ acter of James's introduction. As I have already noted, this text is an example of a triadic formulation of the thesis statement, which introduces strategic themes and constructs a compelling and coherent model of faith for difficult times. In this sense, the rich/poor theme combines with others to map the community's course through testing. The opening de, then, is transitional (cf. 1:5, 9, 19, 22), an editorial device employed to integrate one subsection of the in­ troduction with others. Significantly, James appeals here to the believer, thereby recalling the community of "believers" whose faith is tested by its "various trials" (1:2-3). The present passage expands our understanding of this community: they are a com­ munity of the poor, who are nevertheless exalted by God (cf. 2:5). Moreover, the certain implication is that their struggles as a poor and powerless congregation test their devotion to God. The preceding comparison between the faithful and double-minded is implied here as well: the humble are exalted because they in­ cline toward faithfulness, while the rich pass away because they incline toward double-mindedness, desiring to serve both God and mammon. The most important catchword of this exhortation is "boast" (kauchastho), not only because of its significant use in Jewish wisdom literature but because it is an idiom of Paul's polemic against the "works of the law" (see the introduction). In the Pauline letters, "boasting" often corrects a version of Christian religion that is marked out by ethical or cultic performance rather than by faith in Christ as the means of gaining divine favor (Rom. 3:27, 4:1, 5:1-11). Paul does boast in his own mis­ sionary exploits (2 Corinthians), but ironically so, since it is God's grace that empowers his evangelistic preaching and its 15

First Thesis Statement

55

fruit. For Paul, "boasting" is self-confidence in the accomplish­ ment of God in Christ; thus, our singular boast is in God rather than in our own spiritual success. The subtext of James, however, is not Pauline but rather the Old Testament, where the "boasting" of being rich or wise is a divine rather than human prerogative (esp. Jer. 9:23 -24; also Pss. 49:6 [48:7]; 73 [72]:1-21). If their conceptual similarity links Jer. 9:23-24 as the subtext of James 1:9, then the irony of James's exhortation is deepened. Jer. 9:23 pairs the topics/ideologies of wealth and wisdom, as does James, in order to demythologize the conventional wisdom that personal piety creates personal wealth (Jer. 9:24). Rather than boasting in one's wisdom and wealth as the concrete marks of personal piety, the truly pious should boast in God and delight in "love, justice, and holiness." James also pairs wisdom (1:5-8) with wealth (1:9-11); however, his point is not to correct the foolish boasts of the rich and fa­ mous but rather to clarify the wisdom of the poor and pious. The real mark of piety for those living in "humble" circum­ stances is their undivided confidence in a God "who acts with loyal love, justice, and holiness on the earth" (Jer. 9:24). Finally, the unmistakable "reversal of status" motif of the apocalyptic tradition supplies an eschatological contour to this exhortation: the act of boasting in God's love, when poor and powerless on the earth, anticipates the believer's exaltation in the age to come (cf. 4:6-10). No theme is more universal in scope and complexity than the ongoing struggle between wealth and poverty, whether in social or spiritual conflict. The word used for "poor" (tapeinos) is quite fluid, identifying those who face economic hardship and are politically powerless. The word combines both mean­ ings because they are logically related. Much human suffering results from the inequities of goods and the injustices of greed. According to Jesus, how the religious person settles personal decisions about property gauges one's public relationship with God and neighbor. More than the mere love of money, it is the entanglements of wealth and the protocol of the wealthy that make it difficult for the rich to enter into and stay under the reign of God. Against this backdrop of human experience and divine revelation, it seems apropos that James would cor­ rect those materialistic values that prevent the salvation-creating grace of God from having its full effect in transforming social and spiritual relations. For the poor especially, the seductions of 16

James 1:2-11

56

worldly wealth produce a longing for things that finally oppose God's will. The community that enjoys God's favor consists of the pious poor, who are drawn to God and to the Lord's coming reign in part because there is nothing for them in the present age. In sub­ sequent references to the pious poor, whether they are counted among the indigent poor (2:15) or working-class poor (5:1-6), they are believers who live among the politically powerless and socially marginal. They are introduced into James as the "hum­ ble believer" who looks forward to his future exaltation, when his poverty will be replaced by prosperity and her powerlessness by privilege. In part, the eschatological orientation of the pious poor is deeply rooted in the wisdom that the flower "falls off" and beauty "perishes"; so also will the rich "pass away." The ex­ pectation of a future reversal of fortune effectively responds to any misfortune resulting from a "lack" of wealth. Significantly, a low social class characterizes the community with whom God has chosen to covenant for salvation (2:5; cf. 4:6): to belong to the socioeconomic class of poor is interpreted as belonging to God's Elect. Of course, this theme is found throughout scripture; often in the New Testament there is a cri­ tique of such a doctrine of election that would assign certain social classes to God's people only then to exclude others (e.g., Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11). Evidently, the moral traditions James uti­ lizes in shaping this theme come from a tradition of messianic Judaism where the doctrine of election is construed along socio­ economic lines and linked to a "community of the poor" (cf. Luke 4:16 - 3 0 ) . But the question remains: who are the rich? Clearly, they are the polar opposite of the poor: they have money and power, and they apparently misuse both in exploitation of the poor (2:2-7, 5:1-6). Yet, this is so because the rich belong to a different com­ munity: they are outsiders (2:6-7), whose very presence within the faith community contaminates its life before God (1:27). They act with impunity (cf. 4:13-17), even though wisdom sug­ gests they "boast" in what they lack: wisdom (1:5). The foolish self-confidence of the rich cuts two ways: earthly wealth ends at death, while heavenly wealth begins at death. In this sense, with­ ering and raising up are eschatological idioms and envision the results of one's response to God. Unlike the world of James, many Christians today are "rich" and belong to a class with power and wealth. What word from 17

First Thesis Statement

57

God does James have for us? Are we destined to be outsiders at the end of the age, reversing our present status in the world order? Perhaps. However, the interpreter of James finds different meanings and purposes for its teaching within different contexts to serve different theological ends. For example, clearly James was written first to readers who lived a hand-to-mouth existence with most of their contemporaries. Life was hard and then you died. James is a "pastoral" exhortation to encourage those living in trials that poverty provokes. The fatalism of James envis­ ages a view of the present that fixed people in particular classes without hope of upward mobility. The author's apocalyptic eschatology nurtures an orientation toward the world that locates the prospect of social transformation outside of history and at history's end. Indeed, the present order of suffering and spiritual testing is passing away and God's certain triumph is coming; but gradually. Have courage and patience for the present, then, for God's favorable verdict and blessing await the pious poor in the future. There is, however, embodied in the exhortation of this pas­ tor a "prophet's" rebuke as well: be fully aware of the traps of wealth, which use power to exploit the poor and which engender God's disapproval. Jesus' commentary on the rich ruler's failure is the observation of the sage: The rich enter God's reign with greater difficulty than the camel passes through the needle's eye. James's commentary on the trials of the pious poor or on the failures of the arrogant rich functions also as an invitation for the rich to repent and to exchange the corrupting values of the cultural order for those of God's reign.

Chapter

Three

James 1:12-21: Second Thesis Statement

In restating the thesis, James repeats familiar ideas but with added meaning. According to literary design, important themes unfold as they are repeated so that their full meaning is dis­ cerned by intertextual analysis. While a new linguistic envi­ ronment changes the meaning of old ideas, their prior meanings are retained and made "stronger." They thereby acquire enlarged meanings by their repeated usage. At the same time, their prior uses alert the interpreter to possible meanings that may well be obscured by their new literary and linguistic context. This rhetorical device of repetition is especially important for reading James, since it provides a literary coherence for a composition that otherwise seems to many to be rather disjointed. The orienting concerns of James, introduced in the first state­ ment, define the ordinary experience of spiritual formation under difficult circumstances. How believers respond to God in the face of their trials discloses their true devotion to the faith and determines their status in the eschatological community. Wisdom from God is a necessary resource to guide believers through their testing — a resource that is offered by a gracious God but sometimes refused by the duplicitous fool at his own peril. The hope of the eschatological community is placed in the coming triumph of God's reign, when the present conditions of a fallen and fragmented world will be reversed and those who have passed their test will be rewarded. Not only are the thematic interests similar to the first thesis statement, the literary structure of the second is triadic as well and follows the same sequence of themes found in the opening passage. In this way 1:12-15 parallels and expands upon 1:24, together calling for patience during times of testing. In fact, 1

58

Second Thesis Statement

59

1:12 merely rearranges the stock vocabulary of the earlier exhor­ tation (hypomen, dokimos, peirasmos) into a promise-fulfillment formula: thus, the promised reward given to those who en­ dure trials because of their devotion to God is the "crown of life." By this interplay of common exhortations, James posits the inevitability of present hardship and heartbreak within a framework of hopeful vindication. Yet, the interplay between parallel passages is self-glossing: the futurism of the subsequent statement (1:12-15) suggests that the first statement (1:2-4) might include a more eschatological meaning. In this respect, James does not use "Christian perfec­ tion" language as an idiom of character formation; rather, James seems more interested in the formation of an eschatological community, which looks toward its future in the coming age as a sufficient motive to endure its current trials.

James 1:12-15: The Testing of Faith 12

Blessed is the person who endures testing: the one who is proven will receive the crown of life the Lord has promised to those who love God. When tested no one should say, "I am tested by God!" For God is not tested by evil and God in turn tests no one. But each person is tested by self-centered desires, which bait and seduce and then conceive, giving birth to sin; and sin when fully formed yields death. 13

14

15

The opening phrase "Blessed is the person" (makarios aner) recalls the phrase of Psalm 118:26, where divine blessing is dis­ pensed to "those who love God" (cf. Exod. 20:5-6). In this new setting, the blessing of God is realized in the future and is given only to those who endure suffering with their devotion to God intact. It is the thesis of James that the believer's fidelity to God is best demonstrated under hardship, when the experience of powerlessness tests one's devotion to a powerful God. Trials are not only an everyday experience, then, but also the ready occa­ sion of a tested faith that may (or may not) validate a believer's devotion to God for the age to come. The metaphor of future blessing here is the "crown of life." While all commentators regard this phrase as a conventional idiom of future reward, often referring to eternal life (cf. Rev.

60

James 1:12-21

2:10), it also glosses the "perfect and complete" life of 1:4. When these two passages are read reflexively, the promise of eternal life envisages a quality (rather than quantity) of a whole life that "lacks in nothing." In clarifying the prospective blessing of those who pass the testing of their faith in God, James explores the potential peril of human suffering: hardship occasions an equal opportunity to sin. Spiritual tests can be failed, too! Davids has pointed out the importance of linking "trial" (peirasmos; 1:12) and "being tested" (peirazomenos; 1:13) as integral parts of a more robust under­ standing of spiritual testing according to James. The objection introduced in 1:13 is clear enough: people are prone to blame God for their trials. James condemns this response for two rea­ sons. First, James intends to form an understanding of God that prevents spiritual failure. Second, James is interested in a faith journey that locates the real test within the believer and not in outside agents, whether divine or human. James encourages a rather healthy sense of self-criticism and personal responsibility. Indeed, biblical theology is never a disembodied set of ab­ stract ideas. Religious beliefs and experiences shape how we think about and respond to the situations we address in life. James, which is a book of biblical wisdom, understands that the­ ology is always cashed out in human actions, especially when faith in God is tested by hardship. The images of an empow­ ering God in James are deliberately cast to form a theology that supplies a viable resource for a powerless people. These are the issues of theodicy. James raises the pastoral issues tied to this difficult problem: who is the God who stands with us in our trials and can we trust God to help us in the time of our need? The repetition of a formula — in this case "no one should say" — introduces a (probably imagined) interlocutor and its countervailing vision into James (1:13; 2:3[?], 14, 18; 4:13, 15[?]) and is an important rhetorical feature of this book. The contrast between the interlocutor's quotes and the resulting response from James makes more clear and incisive those responses called for during seasons of spiritual testing. For example, the theolog­ ical deception indicated by the interlocutor's complaint, "I am tested by God!" supposes that God is a foe, not a friend. Such a perception hardly draws one to God for aid during hardship. It is the very sort of fatalism that refuses grace in those very condi­ tions when it is most needed. The more important point implied 2

Second Thesis Statement

61

in this complaint, however, is that testing provokes a theological crisis: does the currency of the believer's understanding of and trust in God support him through his trials? In response to the interlocutor's complaint, James produces two objections that expose its faulty foundation. These ob­ jections are sharply stated and are in marked contrast to the unequivocally generous God introduced in 1:5. In response to these objections, James contends that (1) God is not tested by evil and (2) God in turn tests no one. While the precise mean­ ing of this response is contested, the plain meaning is not: God, who is known to be generous, does not provoke human hardship to occasion a test of faith. This complaint is certainly foolish and no doubt the result of spiritual immaturity (1:7-8). In fact, the real source of spiritual failure is not God but "selfcentered desires" (tes idias epithumias; 1:14), which "bait and seduce" (exelkomenos kai deleazomenos) the immature believer away from God. According to James, these inward desires form part of a spiritual realm that influences people to make certain decisions or perform certain acts. Clearly, a "self-centered de­ sire" influences people to side with evil against good, foolishness against wisdom. This anthropology accords with contemporary Jewish thought, which interpreted the believer's spiritual strug­ gle between devotion and desire as the internal precipitate of external competing cosmic powers, the good and evil y sarim (inward affections or "spirits"). Testing is a universal experience, and human appetites naturally participate in this experience. For those believers, whose prayers for wisdom are answered, the good "spirit" wins out; in the fool's case, however, the evil "spirit" wins out, drawing one away from the way of wisdom and trapping the fool in a life of self-destruction. In making a similar point, S. E. Porter contends that the phrase, "Lead us not into temptation," found in Matthew's "Lord's Prayer" does not ask God to cease from testing the believer but rather asks for spiri­ tual gain sufficient to pass the spiritual test that we often bring upon ourselves. The sequence of images employed by James in 1:15, then, forms the fool's biography: "Desire conceives and gives birth to sin, and sin when fully formed yields death." The genesis of spir­ itual failure occurs even before temptation, when the passions of human life are baited and seduced by evil impulse. Trials merely set the trap, providing the occasion for evil to gain its advantage. The triumph of evil is disclosed publicly in present disobedience e

3

James 1:12-21

62

and future death. In this context, "death" surely refers to God's judgment at the end of the age and is the opposite of the "crown of life" (1:12). This intent is confirmed by the redundant use of apoteled ("fully formed") which is unnecessary with apokued ("yields"). In this tacit way, however, James links the perfection of sin ([apo-]teled) with teleios (1:4), which predicts a perfect re­ sult for those who pass the testing of their faith. This passage, then, nicely establishes James's moral calculus: trials occasion testing, whose genesis is internal and spiritual but whose result is external and eschatological. Those who love God and receive wisdom acquire a discernment that enables them to interpret their trials properly so to survive them. Those who blame God and refuse wisdom are easily seduced by evil to fail their testing. There are possible subtexts that may deepen our understand­ ing of these images of sin's progress toward eternal death. Most clearly, these texts reverberate with loud echoes of the wisdom tradition, which makes clearer its connection with the neglect of wisdom found in 1:5-8. Specifically, the combination of evil's "baiting and seducing" the fool (cf. Prov. 7:22-23), leading him to conceive a worthless progeny, captures well the prostitute's ef­ forts to undermine "lady wisdom" in Proverbs 5 -7. In this case, the double-minded is more likely to neglect wisdom and so allow himself to be "baited and seduced" by the folly of blaming God for his bad luck. Less likely in this regard is F. Spitta's suggestion that this passage is a gnosticized allusion to Eve's story, espe­ cially in the metaphors of evil's (= Satan's) seduction and sin's birth (= humanity's fall). 4

5

James 1:16-18: The Gift of Heavenly Wisdom 1 6

D o not be deceived, my beloved brothers and sisters. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights who does not change like shifting shadows. According to plan, God gives us birth by the word of truth to be a first fruit among his creatures. 17

18

The next two subunits, 1:16-18 and 1:19-21, supply the last two members of the second triadic formulation of the thesis statement. Each supplies an important ingredient in construct­ ing the theological universe within which the main body of this paraenesis unfolds. There is a sense that these two passages are

Second Thesis Statement

63

combined to clarify both the source and the subject matter of heavenly wisdom that empowers a proper perspective toward spiritual test. Each passage is linked by the common invocative "my beloved brothers and sisters" (adelphoi mou agapetoi), to which is joined an imperative that directs the community through its trials. When combined, the wise believer is "not deceived," but rather "knows this" about God's purposes. Both passages are further integrated by a vague parallelism. In the case of the first ex­ hortation, "Do not be deceived" (A: 1:16), theological senti­ ment follows: "Every good and perfect [teleios; cf. 1:4] gift is from...the Father of lights" (B: 1:17). This "gift" is then as­ serted to be "the word of truth" (C: 1:18a), whose redemptive result is to "give birth" (apokeu; cf. 1:15) to a new creation of "first fruit" (D: 1:18b). Likewise, the second exhortation, "know this" (A': 1:19a), is followed by the same pairing of a theologi­ cal sentiment, "human anger does not accomplish [ergazomai; cf. katergazomai, 1:3] the righteousness of God" (B': 1:20) with "the implanted word" ( C : 1:21), which yields the "salvation of your souls" (D': 1:21). The interplay of these parallel exhortations helps the reader keep in mind a particular formula of spiritual formation in con­ trast to the spiritual failure formulated in the preceding passage. Accordingly, the wise community is not deceived but knows that a generous God gives a redemptive "word of truth," which has already been implanted in their common life to harvest the "first fruits" of a new creation — one that is "perfect and complete, lacking in nothing" (cf. 1:4). When filtered through the keen eschatological commitments of James, the reader is motivated to pass the spiritual test to herald the coming reign of God in which the believer hopes to participate. Yet, the question remains: what is the subject matter of this "word of truth" which produces such profound results in the life of the faith community? Again, the rhetorical structure of this passage provides the reader with a decisive clue: what James has bracketed in 1:19, between the parallel exhortations "to know," is the subject matter of the redemptive "word of truth" — "be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger." In my view, the main body of James provides a commentary on each member of this triad, clarifying what each means in the context of the community's testing. In consideration of the present passage, the interpreter must

64

James 1:12-21

recall that the opening thesis views God as a generous benefac­ tor (1:5), to whom the faithful can confidently make petition for the gift of heavenly wisdom (1:6). This passage restates that point and so proffers an implicit warning against a theology that questions God's generosity or redemptive initiative. By compari­ son, Pauline paraenesis posits warnings against moral deception which results from christological error (1 Cor. 6:11, 15:20-28; Gal. 6:2). According to Pauline Christology, an immoral life marks out those who live outside of Christ, who have not par­ ticipated in the results of his death and resurrection. Likewise, according to Paul, the eschatological "gift" that is given the be­ liever by God is salvation-creating grace through Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:15-17). In both Paul and James, then, God is the gen­ erous giver of a new life; in both, gifts are provided the believer through which the promise of new life is realized. Likewise, the fundamental theological deception for both is to question God's motives. James, however, does not define God's redemptive gift in christological terms, but as a word of wisdom. The exhortation "Do not be deceived" is found with its con­ trasting partner, "know this," in the Pauline "kingdom of God" paraenesis in 1 Cor. 6:9-10. In this case, deception and knowl­ edge are linked together in a catalogue of vices agreeing with the wisdom tradition, which also links deception and knowledge together with lust (Wis. 2:17, 21; 15:2-4; Sir. 31[34]:7-10; also Wis. 4:12; Sir. 2:3-4, where lust corrupts the mind so what is known is contaminated.) In these wisdom texts, the ability to follow the Creator's patterns for living is undermined by a fool­ ish deception; thus, the knowledge of God's will entails a list of moral deviations that the community of the wise will avoid. The deception envisaged by the exhortation "Do not be de­ ceived" is more theological. It seems that faulty ideas about God would have more to do with whether or not the believer passes his spiritual test than whether he knows what tempta­ tions to avoid. According to James, it is the fool who claims that "I am tested by God" (1:13). The fool's primary problem, then, is theological; errors of theology have substantial spiritual and moral consequences as will be made quite clear in the main body of James. The word for "deceived" (planad) is used with some regular­ ity as a convention of both paraenetic (1 Cor. 6:9, 15:33; Gal. 6:7; 1 John 3:7) and apocalyptic literature (Matt. 24:4-5, 11, 24; Rev. 2:20, 12:9), to warn readers of the eternal consequences of

Second Thesis Statement

65

persistent sin and erroneous teaching. Even though this precise form of the imperative is not found in the LXX (however, see Prov. 1:10 LXX), wisdom writers use it to warn of foolish actions that may redirect one onto the "way of the wicked," which leads to self-destruction (e.g., Prov. 12:26). Against this backdrop, this warning is made more urgent: the foolishness of blaming God for one's tribulation imperils salvation. James provides a correct understanding of both divine action (1:17a) and divine attribute (1:17b). In terms of God's activi­ ties on behalf of the faith community, James claims that "every good gift and every perfect gift comes down from above." Ac­ tually, this couplet hangs together on the alliteration of similar words for "gift" -dosis (NRSV: "act of giving"; cf. Phil. 4:15; Sir. 18:15-18, 35:9-10) and dorema (cf. Rom. 5:16). More important than either the accent or subtle nuances in meaning of these two nouns for "gift" are their adjectives. Especially important is "per­ fect" (teleios; see the introduction) because of its prior use in the opening programmatic passage of James (cf. 1:4). The repetition of a word or idea engages its earlier uses in a reflexive conver­ sation, so that earlier meanings inform subsequent meanings. In its first use, James contends that spiritual testing forms patience in the faithful, who will participate in the "perfection" of the coming age. Glossed by this prior meaning, then, God's "per­ fect gift" serves this same eschatological result. Moreover, in this context, the "perfect gift" must refer to the "word of truth" — the heavenly wisdom that directs the faithful through its spir­ itual testing to divine blessing. To confirm this point, James subsequently combines "good" ("good fruits"; karpon agathon) with "from above" (andthen) in 3:17 as two features of divine wisdom, with future blessing as a result (see 3:18). God, who gives the "perfect gift" to enable the "perfect work," is referred to as the "Father of lights." This entire verse, and the thought it enshrines, is unusual, found only here in the New Testament; indeed, its textual corruption may well envisage the confusion it caused even for scribes. Its first phrase is typi­ cally understood as a reference to God's creation of stars (Gen. 1:14-18; cf. Ps. 136:7; Jer. 4:23) and so is used as a metaphor of natural theology whose core conviction is of a good Creator. This reading of the phrase agrees with the critical implications of the next phrase, "who does not change like shifting shadows," and the next verse as well. If indeed the purposes of a good Creator are reflected by the astral order, if this is ordered by cer6

66

James 1 : 1 2 - 2 1

tain inviolate laws so that these "lights" (and the shadows they cast) do not move from their orbits, and if this astral order is "fixed" by its Creator, then we can say something about the very character of that Creator: like the stars, God does not waver. Yet, the author's point seems rather more focused than a gen­ eral claim for divine immutability. James uses this metaphor to define the quality of the Creator's gifts rather than the quality of the Creator's being: God does not give what yields death (which is the claim of the fool). Sharply put, God gives gifts that bring forth the life of a new creation. The next verse makes this point. God gives only "good and perfect gifts" that are the means to fulfill the promise of a restored creation. The image of God's shadow may also echo the familiar Ps. 90:1 LXX, where those who place trust in God (90:2) are said to abide under the "shadow of the God of heaven" (en skep tou theou tou ouranou) — here used as a vivid metaphor of divine faithfulness (90:14-16). This same mutuality of covenant loyal­ ties is implicit in James, where the "good and perfect gift" of wisdom comes from above to those believers who first seek after God in faith (1:6). God's good gift is given generously but not unconditionally; the gift of heavenly wisdom has no good result in those who fail the test of faith (1:7-8, 13-15). The "good and perfect" gift refers to the wisdom that our generous God gives to those who ask (1:5). This divine wis­ dom "gives us birth...to be a first fruit among his creatures." James uses apokued for "give birth" (instead of the more familiar gennao) to recall its use in 1:15, where it spells out the terrible consequences of entering into a test of faith with foolish notions of God. In that case, sin is conceived and "gives birth" to death. A wise perspective on testing, on the other hand, requires a con­ viction that God is generous and good, and gives only those gifts that "give birth" to a new order of creation. This idea of being reborn by new birth into a new sort of person is found throughout the New Testament (cf. John 3:3-5; 1 Pet. 1:3; Col. 1:10, 3:9-10; Tit. 3:5), in part because the idea was current in the wider Greco-Roman setting of its first readers. I doubt, however, that James envisages either a sacramental or an evangelistic perspective on the "new birth." James's present concern is not with Christian initiation into the coming age through paraenetic instruction; rather, the primary concern is to call the community to repent of bad theology that may well distort the occasion and purpose of spiritual testing. 7

8

Second Thesis Statement

67

To "humbly receive" heavenly wisdom, then, is to acknowledge that its sole source is the Creator whose purposes are invariably life-giving. Under this light, I take "word of truth" to be an idiom of wisdom: even as creation came by the "word of God" so also does the new creation come by agency of wisdom. Elsewhere in the New Testament, this same phrase refers to the gospel (Col. 1:5-6). In the Old Testament, it refers to Torah (Ps. 119:43, 142), wisdom (cf. Prov. 8:7, 30:5; Eccl. 12:10; Sir. 12:12) and the prophetic "word of the Lord" (cf. Isa. 45:19). The common theo­ logical confession that stands behind these diverse biblical texts is that the actions of God are completely consistent with the word of God. What results from the embodiment of the word of God must bear witness to its truth. Since God is known as gen­ erous and without duplicity, the believer who is regenerated by the "word of truth" bears witness to the purpose of God, which is always redemptive. The eschatological role that the "word of truth" performs is clearly indicated by the conjunction "so that" (eis to einai): the word is the community's midwife, by which "we" (an emphatic hemas) are reborn to harvest a "first fruit among his creatures." James does not provide details, although surely this important phrase anticipates the coming triumph of God, when those his­ torical circumstances and spiritual impulses that threaten to destroy God's creation are removed and replaced by a purified creation (cf. Rev. 21:1-5). "Creatures" (ktisma) is used in both Jewish literature (cf. Wis. 14:11; Sir. 36:20, 38:34; 3 Mace. 5:11) and the New Testament (1 Tim. 4:4; Rev. 5:13, 8:9) of God's creation. In this text, where ktisma is a metaphor of God's re­ demption, it refers to a new creation in which the Creator's intentions for all things are perfectly realized (cf. 1:4). The importance of "first fruit" (aparche) as another metaphor of this new order is deepened when listening to its New Tes­ tament (1 Cor. 15:20) and Old Testament echoes. According to prophetic midrash on God's promise to Israel in Exod. 19:6, re­ stored Israel would come to serve God as priests and rule with God as a kingdom (so Isa. 61:6). Apocalyptic Christianity under­ stood this promise as fulfilled in Christ, and through Christ in the ongoing life of his followers (1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 5:10). Both of these aspects of a restored Israel, priestly and royal, are picked up by different Old Testament traditions and provide a subtexture of meaning to "first fruit" as a metaphor of the new 9

68

James 1:12-21

creation. For example, the levitical laws of holiness, which per­ form a pivotal role in connecting wisdom to the Torah in James, prescribe the offering of "first fruits" (Lev. 23:9-14) in celebra­ tion of God's gift of land (Lev. 23:10) and as condition for God's acceptance of those who dwell on it (Lev. 23:11). Since they were without land in an agrarian economy, priests were also given "first fruits" from the current harvest in honor of their service to God (Num. 18:8-20; Deut. 18:4; cf. Sir. 7:31). In this sense, the offering of "first fruits" to God and to God's priestly ser­ vants is characteristic of a priestly culture. While the protocol of this priestly culture as prescribed by the biblical Torah is no longer followed, its theological sensibility continues to shape the cult of eschatological Israel (cf. Ezek. 44:30, 45:6-17, 48:8-22). In the context of James, then, the "word of truth" nurtures be­ lievers, whose service to God under testing heralds the coming kingdom in which they are made "priests to our God" (Rev. 5:10; cf. Rom. 12:1). The phrase is also an Old Testament metaphor for divine elec­ tion (Jer. 2:3) and related in this regard to the "firstborn" of God (Exod. 4:22). In this regard, "first fruit" might indicate some­ thing of the eschatological community's preferential status in the reign of God (so 1 Cor. 15:20-28), a point of considerable rhetorical importance if the readers are among society's least. and last. In this sense, the "word of truth" has the capacity to transform a poor people within the old order into a privi­ leged people within the new, beloved by its Ruler as though a firstborn child.

James 1:19-21: The Great Reversal 19

Know this, my beloved brothers and sisters: let everyone be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger, since human anger does not accomplish the righteousness of God. ^There­ fore, get rid of every moral vice and every trace of spiritual impurity, and receive with meekness the implanted word which enables the salvation of your souls. 20

To this point the Book of James has concentrated on the divine source of the wisdom that guides and even empowers the com­ munity's eschatological performance. This organizing text now summarizes its subject matter: divine wisdom teaches the com-

Second Thesis Statement

69

munity to respond to its daily trials in a manner that is "quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger." Clearly, the horizon of the way of wisdom according to James is not christological but the wisdom tradition of the biblical Torah found in Proverbs, Job, Qoheleth, Sirach, and Wisdom. Significantly, this programmatic text is paired with a princi­ pal motif of eschatological hope ("the salvation of your souls"; 1:21) which has already been introduced into James by 1:9-11: namely, the end-time reversal of bad fortunes for faithful Is­ rael. However, the earlier text cast the prospect of reversal in essentially social and economic terms: the pious poor will be prosperous in the coming age. The present passage expands the scope of this salvation by consideration of a spiritual reversal (see Mark 8:35): the faithful community anticipates "the sal­ vation of your souls" in the coming age. The implications of belonging to this new order of creation, which is "perfect and complete," are holistic, justifying a hopeful perspective that not only presumes the end of present suffering but that endurance to the end of suffering will result in a very different experience for those who pass their spiritual test. The second of two integral exhortations (cf. 1:16), "know this!" introduces a cogent summary of traditional wisdom: "be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger." The verbal mood of "know this!" (iste) is unclear. Because I take this exhortation to be parallel with the earlier imperative, "Do not be deceived" (1:16; me planasthe), I take this iste to be imperative rather than indicative in mood. The structure of 1:16-21, which frames this triadic proverb, indicates its importance for James. The reader is made aware that the test of faith is a test of wisdom, so that a faithful Israel is identified by the performance of these three wise practices "whenever various trials befall you" (1:2). Left in its current form, however, the proverb dispenses sound but general advice; it remains impractical advice unless adapted to the particular situation of a particular readership. James is a hermeneutical writing precisely because its main body comprises an interpretation of this proverb's meaning, which clarifies its practical significance for its readers. Thus, each of the three exhortations that make up the proverb supplies the thematic interest or orienting concern for each of three succes­ sive units that make up the composition's main body: "quick to hear" is explained in 1:22-2:26, "slow to speak" in 3:1-18, and "slow to anger" in 4:1-5:6. In each case, James more carefully 10

11

12

13

70

James 1:12-21

defines the meaning of the proverbial wisdom and describes a particular trial to which that wisdom applies before drawing out its eschatological implications. James expands the theme of "great reversal" by first ad­ dressing another theological deception: "Human anger does not accomplish the righteousness of God." The statement is joined to the preceding proverb by the conjunction "for" (gar). In one sense, it offers parenthetical support to the importance of slow­ ing anger and prepares the reader for the elaboration of this point in the third unit of the book, James 4:1-5:6. In another sense, "anger" is a synecdoche: what is true of anger is also true of humanity's inability to slow down illicit speech or speed up effective listening. Taken in this latter, more metaphorical sense, the statement stands as a species of theological deception which supposes that God is not very demanding and that God's ap­ proval comes rather easily, whether to those who glibly confess orthodox faith (cf. 2:14-26) or to those who suppose that merely knowing what the Torah teaches is all that God requires (cf. 1:22-25). In fact, wisdom is always embodied in the believer's active response to spiritual testing. A closer examination of the terms used by James strength­ ens the force of this claim. Specifically, the use of "accomplish" (ergazetai) recalls similar verbal ideas for "work" (erg-) in 1:34, where the test of faith "produces" (katergazetai) that which supports a "perfect work" (ergon teleion). The reflexive nature of repetition in James suggests that the verbal idea found here, "accomplish," is glossed by these prior references to "work," but now with the added force of a warning: God requires a wise rather than an "angry" response to our trials in order to "accomplish" the "perfect work" that promises blessing in the coming age. The second phrase, "the righteousness of God," adds still an­ other layer of meaning. The phrase not only echoes the biblical prophets (esp. Isaiah) and Psalter, but also Jesus (Matt. 6:33) and Paul (Rom. 1:17; 3:5, 21-22; 2 Cor. 5:21), even though every biblical voice articulates different dimensions of its whole meaning. In every case, however, one of two possible convictions is heard. First, the "righteousness of God," which characterizes who God is, establishes the community's rule of faith. Thus, the integrity of the believer's confession and life is measured by God's character. This seems to be the primary meaning of

Second Thesis Statement

71

the Psalter's use of "righteousness," followed by Matthew's Jesus, and may be implicit in wisdom's use of dikaiosune as a human virtue. In this sense, the wise live a "righteous" (=wise) life as a requirement for membership within faithful Israel. Second, the "righteousness of God" is a verbal noun (in this case, "God" is a subjective genitive rather than a genitive of content as before), which characterizes how God acts within history to restore Is­ rael. This seems to be the primary meaning of its prophetic use, followed then by Paul in the New Testament. Because the phrase is used in James to qualify the importance of a wise response to trials, I suspect the first use is primary here: wise conduct marks out God's people. Foolishness is the failure to live up to God's standard — not to live a righteous life — which imperils one's standing within eschatological Israel (Wis. 5:2). This possible meaning prepares the reader for the point that James will make in 1:22-25: it is the "doing" of wisdom, like the doing of the Law, that defines a faithful Israel and secures its blessing in the coming age. "Therefore" (1:21) introduces a concluding statement that makes clear the importance of following this advice. Accord­ ing to James, the spiritual failure occasioned by one's suffering is deeply rooted in theological deception. Appropriately, then, the "reversal" that heralds the triumph of God's reign includes a religious as well as economic aspect. This point is made in the final reference to the "salvation of your souls" (sosai tas psuchas hymon). But what does this enigmatic phrase mean? The most obvious subtext that may well support and inform this phrase in James (and in 1 Pet. 1:9) is the discipleship logion of Jesus tradition: "Whoever would save his life [ten psuchen autou sosai] will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it" (Matt. 16:25). The promise of salvation for those who deny themselves is especially apropos in developing the theme of testing, when the presumption is that short-term sac­ rifice in devotion to God results in heavenly blessing (Matt. 6:19-21). In light of this thematic interest in spiritual testing, James would have in mind the believer's denial of those inward passions that "conceive" sin and in turn spiritual death (1:1415) as a condition for future blessing. (By "soul," James refers to the salvation of the entire self from sin and death [par. Jesus and his LXX] and not only to its inward affections. The spirituality of James is not platonistic!) In strengthening this point, James adds a contrast ("get rid"/ 14

72

James 1:12-21

"receive") common to the moral fundamental of every age: "get rid of evil" in order to "receive the truth." The earlier claim of the parallel text (1:18) that the divine word issues in divine redemption is qualified here. While God's intention is to "give us birth by the word of truth," this "word" (=the triadic prov­ erb of 1:19) must be "received" (i.e., followed) for redemption to have its full result. Salvation is a collaborative enterprise be­ tween a gracious God and an obedient humanity, where mutual obligations must be met in order for promised blessings to be dispensed. The character of the obedient response to God's word is en­ visaged by the vocabulary of this verse. First, "every moral vice and every trace of spiritual impurity" must be "put away" (apotithemi; cf. Rom. 13:12; Eph. 4:22, 25; Col. 3:8; 1 Pet. 2:1) as a prior condition of obedience. James does not make Paul's point that this repentance of a sinful life results from faith in Christ; rather, for James repentance is a decisive act of the will to trust in God's provision rather than in one's own (cf. 1:5-8). I suspect this meaning lies behind the phrase "receive with meek­ ness," although the precise meaning of "meekness" (prautes) is difficult to determine. Its positive use in Greek literature pro­ motes civility as a social virtue, but this is hardly equivalent to the biblical virtues of charity, self-sacrifice, and humility. As a quality of one's relationship with God, it underscores at the very least the importance of the believer's humble dependence upon God. Yet, James seems to use it to qualify one's unqualified ac­ ceptance of the divine word. In this sense, the phrase used here warns against duplicity: to accept the word's teaching without debating its merits is to accept it with "meekness." But what is an "implanted" (emphyton) word? How does this adjective, used only here in the New Testament, nuance the reader's understanding of the "word of truth"? Different schol­ ars have offered different interpretations. Because I doubt the principal subtexts of James are those of Greco-Roman philoso­ phy, I also doubt that the act of implantation borrows from the idea of natural revelation and points to an innate aware­ ness of divine truth within every person (cf. Rom. 2:12-16). This does not make much sense of the idea of wisdom in James, which we "lack" and therefore ask God for in prayer (1:5-6a) and then "receive with meekness" (1:21). Nor should the reader attempt to remake James in Paul's image, seeing here a parallel to his argument in Romans 10-11. In this case, the "implanted 15

16

Second Thesis Statement

73

word" is the apostolic "word," which is "brought near" to Gen­ tiles through missionary preaching (Rom. 10:8-10), and which results in the "engrafting" of believing Gentiles into the true Is­ rael of God (Rom. 11:17-19). Nor should the reader hear an early "Christian" echo, so that the "word" here refers to Christian tra­ dition or, more specifically, to the Christian gospel or even to the indwelling Christ, the Word incarnate. Rather, in James the content of this word is wisdom, given and received from God and summarized in 1:19. It is by following the way of this wis­ dom that the believer is delivered from sin and death (so 1:15; cf. Prov. 2:12). In this Jacobean sense, "implanted" plays with the other agrar­ ian images, where wisdom yields a harvest of "fruit" (3:17-18). Taken together, then, wisdom from God (i.e., "word" [1:21]= "word of truth" [1:18]) "plants" (em-phytos=phyteuo) an escha­ tological crop that is then harvested at the coming of God's reign as the "salvation of your souls" (par. "first fruits of God's creation"). Additionally, there may also be an implicit connection be­ tween the act of "receiving" and the act of "implanting" the divine word, since the text does combine them (dexasthe ton emphyton logon). In this case, the act of "receiving" the "word" of wisdom may well denote a traditioning process during which a community is enculturated into their knowledge of "the word" — whether through divine revelation or by human instruc­ tion. Given James's subsequent concerns about the community's teachers (3:1-18), the latter possibility seems more likely; thus, the "word" of wisdom is "implanted" by the instruction of teachers, who are "wise and understanding" (cf. 3:13). Because their salvation depends upon their humble reception of the word, the sharp warnings of James are certainly justified. 17

Summary of James 1:2-21 My understanding of the structure of James follows the lead of others who have argued that the composition's theological cal­ culus is introduced in two integral opening statements. Having worked through these statements, I am prepared to offer a brief summary of their subject matter. James is written to a com­ munity whose faith in God is threatened by a daily struggle with hardship. This "testing of faith" is provoked by a variety

74

James 1:12-21

of external and historical circumstances or "trials." Yet, more importantly; every test occasions a theological crisis, when the believer is more easily deceived or confused about who God is and how God acts. Within a crucible of theological reflection, largely internal and spiritual, a decision is called forth that ulti­ mately measures the believer's "true" devotion to God, whether one is fit to participate in God's coming reign. To remain faith­ ful to God in the present is to receive promised blessings from God in the future. The community's decision for or against God is rooted in a sense of moral freedom. What form will this freedom take? On the one hand, the wise believer loves God and trusts that God is a consistently loyal Father who generously supplies the faith community with the "word of truth" that will guide the be­ liever's pilgrimage on earth through the "wilderness" of trials and into the "promised land" of eternal life. The anticipated re­ sult of receiving this word is the increased capacity to remain faithful to God during spiritual testing. The community of the wise will enter into the coming age where all that is lacking is reversed and made perfect by the Creator, who alone completes humanity's material and spiritual existence. On the other hand, the foolish believer thinks that God is disloyal to the promise of new life, and actually is responsible for the community's hardships. The fool supposes that God is responsible for humanity's hardship and intends one's death; however, this deception results in refusing the merits of God's advice. Such doubt gives birth to spiritual failure when facing present hardships; and the eschatological result of present spir­ itual failure is the forfeiture of the "crown of life" that is the blessing of all those who endure.

Chapter

Four

James 1:22-2:26: The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

The main body of James (1:22-5:6) is a commentary on the "wis­ dom from above/' which James summarizes in 1:19 as "quick to hear, slow to speak, [and] slow to anger." The first member of this triadic proverb, "quick to hear," is the topic of the first es­ say, 1:22-2:26. As a salient feature of midrash-like writing, the author seeks to interpret the meaning of biblical wisdom to help resolve the spiritual crisis that threatens the faith of his readers. In a sense, his commentary on the wisdom of "quick hearing" re­ sponds to a crisis of authority when biblical wisdom has lost its power to influence the audience that no longer can make theo­ logical sense of their suffering. Such commentary is called for to revitalize tradition's role as a conduit through which the living word of God can address and guide a people under siege. With­ out this sacred compass, this people will surely fail to respond properly to God. As a result, their eschatological salvation will be imperiled. In this first section of the main body of James, the prover­ bial wisdom of "quick hearing" is interpreted as a command to obey the biblical Torah (1:22-27) - the "perfect law of lib­ erty" —which is the condition of eschatological blessing (1:25). This particular understanding of the wisdom of "quick hearing" is then applied to a situation in which the economic needs of the most marginal members of the faith community (1:27) are neglected (2:2-7). The occasion for the neglect of these believ­ ers is the favored treatment of rich and powerful outsiders by both the synagogue-court and law-court, whose demands for fa­ vored treatment are apparently met at the expense of the poor and powerless members of the Jewish Christian community. The decision to favor these rich outsiders over poor in«iH75

James 1:22-2:26

76

ers, even if a matter of short-term survival, marks a failure of spiritual testing since "God has chosen those who are poor to be heirs of the kingdom" (2:5). Further, favoritism of this sort fails to follow the example of the "glorious Lord Jesus Christ" (2:1), whose approval by God is based in part on his obedi­ ence to the "royal law" that requires love of neighbor (2:8). In James, spiritual failure carries eschatological implications, too, since disobedience of the biblical Torah imperils the prospects of divine blessing (2:12-13). The community of the wise observes what the Torah com­ mands, knowing that it discloses God's will by which all are either blessed or judged. If the biblical Torah demands a pref­ erential treatment of the "orphans and widows in distress" (1:27), then it is sheer foolishness to pay lip service to the poor and powerless (1:26, 2:15-16) while actually favoring the rich bankers (2:2-4) who are foes (2:6-7) rather than friends of God (cf. 2:21-26). Devotion to God is embodied in works of mercy to­ ward the poor and powerless; true religion is an ethical religion of merciful deeds, not of useless slogans and pious confessions of faith (1:26-27, 2:14-20).

James 1:22-27: Commentary on "Quick Hearing" 22

B e doers of the word, and not mere listeners who deceive themselves. For anyone who is a listener but not a doer of the word is like those who observe themselves in a mir­ ror a n d depart after observing themselves, quickly forgetting what they look like. B u t those who look into the perfect law of liberty and remain there are not forgetful listeners but do­ ers of work, who will be blessed because of what they do. For any who consider themselves religious without bridling their tongues, rather deceive their hearts: this sort of religion is worthless. T h e sort of religion that is pure and undefiled before Father God is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep itself uncorrupted by the world. 23

24

25

26

27

James 1:22-27 is a carefully crafted unit, which begins with an exhortation (1:22) that repeats the first member of the organiz­ ing proverb (1:19) to expand and clarify its practical importance for the audience undergoing spiritual testing: James now under­ stands that "to be quick to hear" (akousai) actually means to

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear''

77

become "doers of the word" (1:22). Therefore, the wise com­ munity that passes the testing of its faith and is "blessed" by God (1:25; cf. 1:12) is not comprised of "listeners only" (monon akroatai) but of those who are "doers of the word" (poietai logou). This understanding of wisdom alludes to and brings balance to the more conventional interpretation of "quick hearing" re­ flected in the teaching of Ben Sirach (Sir. 3:29): "The mind of the intelligent appreciates [dianoeo; cf. 1:23, katanoeo] proverbs, and an attentive ear [akroates; cf. 1:22] is the desire [epithumia, cf. 1:14] of the wise [sophia; cf. 1:5]." In fact, James repeats the same collocation of catchwords, but to frame this caveat: it is the foolish community that merely "desires" to maintain the rou­ tines of learning biblical wisdom without then going the next step of following its teaching. In this case, desire conceives "sin" and "death" (cf. 1:14-15) instead of "blessing" (1:25; cf. 1:12). In this same sense, James will later contend that to have only faith (pisteos monon; 2:24), without also "doing the word," falls short of God's standard. The opening exhortation is followed by two integral illustra­ tions, which clarify James's essential point that "quick hearing" really means a prompt doing of the word. Both illustrations taken together, the first personal and the second corporate, pro­ vide a comprehensive argument that deception or distortion in the meaning of "quick hearing" undermines the eschatological prospects of those undergoing the testing of faith. Each illustration is structured in a similar way: 1. l:23-25=ef tis A estin kai ou B, houtos C (which contrasts the foolish and wise believer). 2. 1:26 -27=ei tis A einai (kai) me B, toutou C (which contrasts the wise and foolish religion). The first illustration suggests that devotion to God consists merely of knowing what the "word of truth" says, without then being required to obey it; on this basis, the deceived believer rests assured of God's blessing. Perhaps James has in mind the kind of Jewish sophistry against which the author of Colossians contends (cf. paralogizomai; Col. 2:4). Although their theological commitments and pastoral concerns are quite different, both au­ thors agree that the results of salvation are threatened by those more concerned with knowing the details of orthodox com­ mitment than with the "fruit of the gospel" (cf. Col. 1:5b-6).

78

James 1:22-2:26

Ultimately, such a calculus yields a variety of heretical religion that lacks interest in the performance of God's will as a witness to God's reign. The second illustration is similar to the first, addressing the same deception when embodied in corporate life. In this case, a "vain" understanding of "quick hearing" (1:26-27) defines religious sentiment by verbal recitals of orthodox creeds and confessions (cf. 2:19a), or perhaps by its well-meaning petitions and benedictions for peace (cf. 2:16). By contrast, the com­ munity that embodies true religion actively obeys the word's exhortation to care for the most marginal membership and its injunction to remain separated from anything profane. Indeed, these are the true marks of the eschatological community, which is "pure and undefiled before God." James 1:22-25 The first illustration (1:23-25) personalizes the general claim made in the opening exhortation. The rhetorical effect of this pattern is typical of midrash: the wisdom of "quick hearing" acquires its meaning by application to a concrete case study. The organizing principle of the author's understanding of "quick listening" is that true "hearing" is "doing the word." By implica­ tion, further interpretation seems necessary to overturn a more literal rendering of wisdom's axiom, which may encourage the mere study or "hearing" of wisdom's advice as a legitimate sub­ stitute for its performance. Yet, this more passive interpretation of the proverb only sponsors foolish self-deception, and imperils the community's entrance into the reign of God. The present tense of the opening imperative, "Be!" (ginesthe, rather than the more common "to be" verb, este), envisages a work in progress: that is, "Continue to be a doer of the word!" Most scholars rightly identify the idiomatic "the doer" (poietes) with the observant believer, who obeys the demands of the bib­ lical law to prove devotion to God (see excursus, "The Perfect Law of Liberty," below). In fact, this entire section of James em­ ploys several members of the poieo family (poieo in 2:8, 12-13, 19; poiesis in 1:25; poietes in 1:22, 23, 25; 4:11) to create the impression that passing the testing of faith requires an active response to God's will. In this sense, the verbs of Torah obser­ vance are joined with the advice of wisdom to create an ecology of Christian faith whose witness to God is embodied less in

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear''

79

religious formulae about God and more in responsible actions toward others. True religion is a religion of results, not ritual, so that obedience to God's will measures devotion for God. The observed "word" recalls the previous parallelism between the eschatological "word of truth" (1:18) and "implanted word" (1:21), which is able to harvest the "first fruit" of a new creation (1:18) - that is, "save the souls" (1:21). The subject matter of this redemptive word is divine wisdom (1:5-6a), summarized by the triadic proverb of 1:19b. The point James makes is consistent with traditional Jewish teaching: the divine word articulates pat­ terns of right responses to spiritual testing that will secure God's favorable verdict at the end of the age, but only if performed. Only the fool thinks otherwise. The word for "deceive" (paralogizomai) differs from its syn­ onym planad, which James used earlier to warn against a foolish interpretation of testing that implicates God in one's spiritual failure (1:16; cf. 5:19). Yet, the meaning of the earlier idea car­ ries over here and informs its definition of deception: in both cases, deception results from a wrong-headed view of God. In this case the foolish deception is to suppose that divine blessing results from merely "hearing" the word rather than also "doing" it —that is, to "trust" the subject matter without performing its work. Interestingly, this same word is used in Colossians (2:4) to indicate the opposite deception: the deception that the work of moral religion is performed without being the natural fruit of christological religion. In fact, these two biblical voices taken to­ gether, James and Pauline, form a self-correcting witness to the whole truth: deception may err on either side by emphasizing either "hearing" the word or "doing" the word to the exclusion of the other. The first illustration of the wisdom that "hearing" means "do­ ing" (1:23-25) is of a routine exercise: looking at one's face reflected in the mirror. The repetition of "listener" accords with the literary strategy of James, linking together exhortation and example. In this case, the first exemplar is actually the fool who is deceived in supposing that nothing beyond the observation of his reflected image in the mirror is required. Those who quickly observe also quickly forget. Likewise, those who merely "hear" the word of truth without also "doing" it will fail the test of wisdom. The act of "observing" (katanoed) usually refers to the scru­ tiny of something important rather than the casual glance of

James 1:22-2:26

80

one's reflection in a mirror, soon forgotten. Perhaps James is ironical, intending to create an impression of personal vanity that then parallels the "vain religion" of the second illustration (1:26). In this case, then, false religion is vain religion, character­ ized by the facile devotion of one who knows God's will without also acting upon it. L. T. Johnson argues that this "mirror" metaphor is central to the entire passage. Drawing upon the considerable use of the "mirror" image in Hellenistic literature, Johnson contends that its use here infers that the value of scripture is to supply the believer with various models of imitation ("doing"), recalled and reapplied for a new situation. In the case of James, these biblical exemplars are subsequently identified: Abraham and Ra­ hab, Job and Elijah. To merely "glance" at the mirror, then, fails to remember and imitate the exemplars of piety found in the "word." Significantly, this same verb (katanoed) is coupled with the biblical Torah in the great Torah Psalm (119:15-18). But when James speaks of the law, the verbal idea is rather "look" (parakypto) instead of the expected "observe": the wise "observe" Torah rather than themselves in a mirror! The reader might find more consistent that one "looks" in a mirror rather than the law, and "observes" the law rather than the mirror's image. Why this reversal in James? If the objects of the two verbs are intentionally reversed, per­ haps James has in mind a close relationship between them; that is, the mirror, which is observed, may be a metaphor of the law, which is looked at. In this case, the observation of an image in the mirror, which is then "quickly forgotten," is compara­ ble to the observation of Torah's teaching of human existence ("image of God"), which is then not taken to heart: the word is meant to be obeyed, without which eschatological blessing is impossible. The "mirror" is also a metaphor of wisdom; accordingly, the way of wisdom is "like the mirror's image" (Sir. 14:23, 21:23). In this case, the purpose of this illustration is to pair wisdom and Torah as in the Old Testament — significantly in the story of Solomon in 1 Kings, where royal wisdom is conditioned upon obedience of Torah. The deception in view, then, is clarified: if the way of wisdom is the law of God, then the fool is one who knows the law but does not observe it. The elevated status of the law in James as the central symbol 1

2

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

81

of true religion elevates the authority of those traditions that are paired with the law, including both wisdom (1:19-20) and Jesus (2:1-5). In this case, then, the wisdom of "quick hearing" is both justified and given its subject matter by the biblical Torah: to "see" the way of wisdom is to "observe" the Torah (see excursus, "The Perfect Law of Liberty," below). James introduces this understanding of the wisdom of "quick hearing" with a collocation of important catchwords in 1:25, which both repeat and gloss the opening thesis statement. Ear­ lier references to "perfect" (teleios, 1:4, 17), "work" (ergos, 1:3-4), and "blessed" (makarios, 1:12) are repeated here in order to deepen their collective significance when speaking about the wisdom of "hearing" (= doing) the Torah. Although the low volume of this possible echo may well ex­ clude it from the reader's consideration, the participial form of "remain" (para-mene), used here of the one who does the law, may recall the "patience" from 1:4 where it describes those who pass their spiritual tests. That crucial catchword from the open­ ing statement of James combines the same verbal root, mend, with a different prefix, hupo. This linguistic connection between "patience," when considered with the other catchwords from 1:2-4 repeated here in 1:25, may well resignify their collective meaning under the aegis of the biblical Torah. In this sense, the theological calculus introduced in 1:2-4, which contends that the eschatological "work" of testing is "patience," is now under­ stood in terms of Torah observance: the eschatological "work" of the believer is to "remain" in "the perfect law of liberty." This is the very mark of "patience." "Perfect" (teleios) is first used as an eschatological idiom, where it marks out both the "perfect work" that passes the spiritual test and also its result in the "perfection" of human existence within the new order of creation. Further, the sub­ sequent meaning of "every perfect [teleios] gift" (1:17) indicates that God's provision of wisdom occasions the believer's spiritual triumph and ensures blessings in the coming age. Given these prior valences, the "perfection" of the law does not point to the quality of its words or its performance. Rather, the use of teleios with nomos in this context reminds the reader that the law is God's perfect gift (cf. 1:17) for those undergoing testing (cf. 1:3-4). At the same time, it warns the reader not to respond foolishly by merely glancing at what it says: the biblical Torah discloses God's eschatological requirement, which must be 3

82

James 1:22-2:26

obeyed and not merely heard if the community is to partici­ pate in God's coming salvation (cf. 1:4, 18). The reader is made more aware of the strategic pairing of wisdom with law by not­ ing here the repetition of teleios and holo (-kleroi), first combined in 1:4 to introduce the thematic of wisdom in 1:5. In this case, teleios and holos are repeated to define the biblical law —a com­ bination found again in 2:10-13, where the "whole" law (2:10) constitutes the eschatological "law of liberty" (2:12). The "work" in view, which refers to the law's performance in the faith community, heralds the coming triumph of God's reign. In this sense, the ergon teleion of heroic patience during trials (1:3-4) or the work that "accomplishes" (ergazomai) the "righteousness of God" (1:20) carries eschatological freight. In a similar way, "works" that God approves according to 2:14-26 ensure God's favorable verdict at the end of the age (2:12-13). I suspect James has in mind an Old Testament understanding of "the work of the law" that envisages a faith community meeting its covenant obligations, prescribed by the law, in the present age in order to secure promised blessings for the age to come. Fur­ ther, there is very little sense that James agrees with Paul on this point, even though the subject matter of the Pauline notion of good works (= Pauline paraenesis) does not disagree in the slight­ est with the Book of James. What is different between the two is the moral logic: the performance of the law according to Paul is the natural or necessary result of "being in Christ" by faith in his death and resurrection. Thus, understood this way, the believer is repaid in the coming age according to the works one does (Rom. 2:6). Conversely, those who still adhere to a "covenantal nomism," where "works of the law" are observed to maintain one's membership in the eschatological community, are judged guilty of subverting the redemptive merits of Jesus' messianic death. Here James does not ask for faith in Christ, whose result is the good deeds, but for obedience to the law as a matter of the human will. The eschatological dimension of this "work" is made explicit by its connection with "blessing" (makarios). The use of makarios with the future estai would seem sufficient to indicate that this blessing awaits the future, when God will dispense the "crown of life" to those who love God. In 1:12, it is the wise believer, who endures the testing of faith and demonstrates devotion to God, who receives eschatological blessing. This new setting re­ tains the future orientation of divine blessing, but assigns it to

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

83

the Torah-observant rather than to the wise believer. But this is precisely the point: wisdom and Torah are joined here by James because both direct God's people toward a common telos and blessing. The full meaning of these three catchwords, so pregnant in meaning for James, is finally brought to focus by their refer­ ence to the "law of liberty." In the following excursus, I will propose that this phrase alludes to the levitical "law" pertaining to the year of Jubilee (= "liberty"). The meaning of this phrase will frame James's strong rebuke of prejudice and class conflict in the following text, 2:1-13. Excursus: "The Perfect Law of Liberty" (James 1:25) James introduces the law motif by the phrase "the perfect law of liberty" (nomon teleion ton tes eleutherias; 1:25), and later in the same section (1:22-2:26) encourages obedience to the "royal law" (2:8), which stands at the center of the "whole law" (2:10). In my view, all three uses of law are metaphors of the biblical Torah, and are pregnant Stichworter that nevertheless perplex interpreters to this day. The purpose of this excursus is to reprise the issue of law in James by attending to the meaning of the "perfect law of liberty," the first and most significant reference to law in this composition. The primary interpretive problem considered by the present study is a theological one: what is the meaning of the law's "perfection" in James and in what sense does the law "liberate," whom and from what? The problem of theological definition is made more difficult when the full context is extended to include the entire field of New Testament literature. Within this setting, the biblical James is found alongside the biblical Paul, who is clearly ambivalent about the law's continuing role in guiding the community's life. The significance of their apparent dis­ agreements over the law is intensified when considered by the current faith community that reads both James and Paul as parts of its canonical scriptures. This seems especially true within the Protestant church, for whom the Pauline writings provide its principal theological justification and subject matter. For many Protestant interpreters, it is its positive view of the law that "has made James most famous." 4

5

6

7

84

James 1:22-2:26

Law and the New Testament Jakobusbild R. Martin appeals to this phrase as an important reason not to accept direct association of this letter with the historical James. According to Martin, the characterization of the law as free­ ing the believer to serve God's will does not square with James whose "attitudes recorded in Acts and Galatians suggest a more legalistic frame of mind." Martin seems reluctant to find in this expression a polemic against Paul in support of nomistic Chris­ tianity and actually champions a Pauline interpretation. In my view, the meaning of this phrase agrees with the portraits of James in Acts and Galatians and suggests a contrary (although perhaps complementary) understanding of the biblical Torah than that of Paul. Three narratives about James in the New Testament anticipate the idea of law found in James. The first two are narrated by Luke in Acts, which functions as the New Testament's own "au­ thorized" introduction to the New Testament letters and their "apostolic" writers. The Evangelist's narrative of the Jerusalem Synod in Acts 15:13-21 introduces the reader to the biblical James as the second-generation leader of Palestinian Christianity (cf. 12:17). His midrash on Amos 9:11-12 supplies the neces­ sary compromise that settles the conflict between the church's law-observant Jewish and law-free gentile missions. While the intentions of James's midrash and resulting decree remain con­ tested, what seems clear is that he retains a pharisaical concern for table fellowship, including obedience to the "law of un­ clean foods." Later in Acts 21:15-26, these same concerns are extended to include ritual purity. In this second episode, Paul takes a nazirite vow of purification to allay the suspicions of those belonging to James, who were "zealous for the law." The third narrative is found in Gal. 2:11-18, where Paul de­ scribes his response to James, a so-called pillar of the Jewish church. In particular, Paul tells of his disagreements with Peter who was persuaded to oppose Paul's teaching in Antioch by those "who came from James" (2:12). In the context of his nar­ rative apologia, Paul identifies James with those who define the "Israel of God" (6:16; cf. 2:15) in terms of the "works of the law" rather than by the "faith of Jesus Christ" alone (2:16; cf. 6:12-16). I am inclined to agree with J. D. G. Dunn's construction of the original Sitz im Leben of this passage as well as his defini8

9

10

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

85 11

tion of the catchphrase "works of the law." According to Dunn, Paul's protest is against those Jewish believers who draw social boundaries around their community's life in ways that dem­ onstrate their continuing loyalty to ancestral religion. In this setting, then, the "works of the law" include those religious rites and public practices that preserve a community's social iden­ tity rather than its salvation. In addition to Torah's instructions concerning personal and interpersonal conduct, with which Paul would certainly agree (cf. Rom. 2:6-10, 7:7-12; 1 Cor. 7:17-24), these "works" prescribed by Torah include those more public rituals (dietary and cultic) and rites of passage (circumcision), which are distinctively Jewish and aim at nationalistic identity and cultic purity in keeping with the current requirements of mainstream messianic Judaism. Thus, according to Dunn, Paul is neither disparaging the "doing of the law" nor advocating the complete and radical separation from Judaism. Rather, he is advocating a new social marker which is the community's confession that Jesus from Nazareth is the Christ of God. Certainly, Dunn's interpretation would seem to posit the Pauline Paul against the more Jewish Paulusbild of Acts currently being advanced by J. Jervell and others. Paul's theological in­ terest in Galatians seems rather to define Christian faith by his theocentric and christological convictions rather than in terms of Judaism's nationalistic and cultic practices. Yet, I disagree with Dunn's suggestion that Paul's protest against those who practice the "works of the law" on gentile turf is not motivated by his soteriological commitments. On this score, I tend toward the side of E. P. Sanders, who finds in Galatians and Romans a Pauline polemic against a Judaic "covenantal nomism," where the catchphrase "works of the law" represents a discrete pattern of salvation. In this case, Torah observance forms a Jewish iden­ tity that bears public witness to its covenant with God. While the Reformation may have been incorrect in defining "works of the law" as the "good works of self-achievement," to use Bultmann's phrase, or in understanding that in Galatians Paul describes two mutually exclusive kinds of justification, one by faith in Christ alone and the other by good works, surely the Reformation is right to suppose that the plain meaning of Paul's polemic is against a via salutis that requires in some sense the community's obedience to the law. On this issue, the biblical Paul apparently disagrees with the biblical James. This brief discussion prepares the reader for two important as12

86

James 1:22-2:26

pects of the idea of the law in James, especially when considered within the context of the whole New Testament. First, both Acts and Galatians reflect disagreements, however edited by their authors, between apostolic traditions over the role the biblical Torah continues to play in defining what it means to be the true Israel and to do what the true Israel ought. Second, the narra­ tives of Acts and Galatians, whose central characters are Paul and James, depict James in conflict with Paul over issues related to the role of the law in Christian faith. James contends (if only for certain Jewish believers) that Torah observance is necessary for covenant membership and for blessings to come. If "covenantal nomism" supplies James with a critical aspect of its organizing calculus, then the reader is prepared to engage a writing whose theological conception is quite different from that found within the Pauline writings. 13

14

The Idea of Law in James Thematic studies of biblical texts are artificial if they fail to take into account the substantial hermeneutical issues raised by the texts themselves. Every literary text is created by certain compositional strategies according to which its most important themes unfold and are ultimately understood by the interpreter. Even so, the more facile dimensions of James's understanding of law —apparent by observing its use in three key passages (1:2227, 2:8-13, 4:11-12) — agree with the antecedent narratives of James in the New Testament. The Torah is valid today. Unlike the Pauline description of law, there is no ambivalence in James about the importance or permanence of the biblical Torah. The mirror metaphor (1:2324) reproves those who do not continue to stand before the law; that is, the law has not been removed from the present dispensa­ tion of salvation's history. In fact, the "whole" of biblical Torah is valid (2:10). It is given by God and enshrines God's will (4:1112). There is no sense in James, as in Paul, that the law has ended or its demand already satisfied by Christ for those who are "in him." Rather, Jesus is portrayed in 2:1-4 as a prophetic exemplar of its performance. Ironically, the reference to Jesus in 2:1 is combined with a plea to preclude favoritism, since Jesus exemplifies "impartial" treatment of rich and poor alike. Yet, in Rom. 2:10, the same word (prosopolempsia) is used of divine judgment as preface to 15

16

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

87

Paul's criticism of the law-observant Jew (Rom. 2:17-29). Surely the status of law in Jacobean Christianity is different, since di­ vine approval (2:8) and judgment (2:12-13) are conditioned upon observance of the law. The Torah must be performed. The teaching of the whole law is observed (2:10-11). While it is true that James does not repeat the Pauline polemical phrase, "works of the law/' the vocabu­ lary of "doing" and "works" is placed in close connection with law and underscores the requirements of a Torah-observant faith (1:25, 27). Unlike Paul, James mentions neither the Spirit's leading in doing God's will nor the spiritually debilitating ef­ fect of performing the law on one's own. God's will, articulated by the biblical Torah, is performed as an act of the human will devoted to God and enabled by God's word (1:18, 21, 22-23). Even though perhaps implicit in the language of a "whole" law, there is no mention in James of circumcision or of sab­ bath and food laws; the letter's exhortation keeps to the moral essentials that both Jewish and gentile believers could accept in principle. Especially important to James is the social role of the law, which draws moral boundaries around the faith community to keep it pure from outside contaminants (1:27), especially those that afflict the wealthy outsiders (2:1-7). The biblical Torah also provides the community's social boundaries, to facilitate acts of mercy toward its poor and powerless mem­ bership. When paired with wisdom, the Torah gives shape to a psychology that passes the testing of faith by resisting those passions that might prevent an active piety. The Torah of James is defined by the levitical laws of holi­ ness. James does not specify any laws of ritual purity (however, see above). Neither does James prescribe a code of specific commands (in which case entole would be used, as in Pauline writings). Yet, clearly James does have a precise definition of law in mind (2:8-13, 4:11-12). According to L. T. Johnson, the idea of law in James is concentrated by a halachic midrash on Lev. 19:12-18. In fact, the comparison in James 1:26-27 between religious practice (v. 26) and ethical conduct (v. 27), requiring social responsibility and moral purity, may well allude to the levitical idea of holiness. It is by this levitical rule (or select sec­ tions of it) that God determines a "pure and undefiled religion" (1:27). "Doing Torah" is an eschatological idiom. If God's will is disclosed in the biblical Torah, then God's future judgment is 17

18

88

James 1:22-2:26

determined by whether one complies with its stipulations (4:1112). While the doer of the law is blessed by God (1:25) and is granted the promised "crown of life" (1:12), God reserves a mer­ ciless judgment for those who have failed the law's precept of mercy (2:13). Significantly, the connection between 1:25 and 1:12 that is fashioned by their common use of the important catchwords "blessing" and "endurance" (hypo-mend/para-mend) suggests that Torah's performance demonstrates a community's love of God, which in turn leads to the fulfillment of the bibli­ cal promise of life according to both Torah (Exod. 20:4-6; Deut. 5:29, 6:1-9, 7:9, 12:28; cf. Isa. 51:6, 60:21; Ezek. 43:7) and James (1:12). The various prophetic exemplars mentioned by James — Jesus (2:1-4), Abraham (2:21-24), Rahab (2:25), Job (5:9-11), and Eli­ jah (5:16b-18) — all commend a pious life of faithfulness to God, according to which God will determine the believer's fit­ ness to participate in God's coming reign. Jesus, Abraham, and Rahab are all "approved" by God on the basis of their merciful treatment of others — that is, because they observed the "royal Torah" (2:8). Torah is paired with wisdom. James continues scripture's own depiction of wisdom as interdependent upon Torah, espe­ cially exemplified by the biblical Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 2:1-9, 3:10-14) and later, more pervasively, in Sirach: the way of wisdom is both justified and explicated by its relationship to Torah. The interchange of verbs in 1:23-25, where the wise man "observes" (1:23; katanoeo) wisdom rather than Torah (cf. Ps. 119:15, 18) and "sees" (1:25; parakypto) Torah rather than wisdom (cf. Sir. 14:23, 21:23), suggests that Torah and wisdom are paired in some strategic way. In fact, the very word that bids the believer to "quick hearing" (1:19) actually points to the Torah as its subject matter: the wise quickly "hear" and therefore "do" the teaching of Torah. It is no doubt true that this initial pairing of two biblical tra­ ditions, Torah and wisdom, envisages the author's own "canon consciousness." That is, James is written by and for believers, similar to those addressed by Sirach, who have maintained the status of the biblical Torah as the essential rule of faith for their religious life. The author's interpretation and application of wisdom, then, are made more persuasive when paired with Torah. 19

20

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

89

The "Perfect Law" in James The Intertextuality of the "Perfect Law" The entire composition is only one part of the text's full lit­ erary context, which also includes its various subtexts. The interpreter realizes that most biblical texts are composed under a theological light cast by biblical traditions recalled by their writ­ ers. The profoundly biblical environment of these writers shaped texts that must be read with other biblical texts in mind. As a re­ sult, the Bible in its final form, despite its rich diversity, can be read as a "self-glossing" book. Common or synonymous words found in different parts of the biblical canon draw these texts together and into a reflexive conversation. In this sense, as is characteristic of all midrashic literature, I understand James to be an intertext, whose meaning is substantially "thickened" by the dialogue between the text and its various (but especially biblical) subtexts. The programmatic meaning of law for James is introduced in 1:25, where a cluster of important words signifies the bibli­ cal Torah's abiding importance. Of these various words, pride of place goes to teleios, which stands in predicate relationship to law to assert its perfection. This phrase has been variously understood; yet most scholars recognize the importance of its Old Testament roots, particularly in the Torah Psalm 18:7 (19:7) (cf. Psalms 1, 119) where it is used as an idiom of praise for the Mosaic revelation of God's will. In this setting, the perfection of the Torah is clearly disclosed by the spiritual benefits it yields within the observant community. The importance of the intertext is clarified when consid­ ering the entire frame of Ps. 18:7's (19:7) commendation of Torah's perfection: ho nomos tou kyriou amomos episterephon psychas ("the law of the Lord is perfect, converting souls"). The Psalmist's celebration of the law because it "converts souls" re­ calls the theological calculus of James 1:21, which claims that the "implanted word" (i.e., wisdom) is able "to save your souls" (sosai tas psychas hymori). This passage anticipates James 5:20, where the same phrase is used with epistrephd. In continuity with the psalm, James is concerned with the conversion of the soul; indeed, the full meaning of the exhortation to listen to and act upon the "perfect Torah" no doubt includes those who are at present spiritually disaffected and are in need of conversion. 21

22

23

24

90

James 1:22-2:26

The Intratextuality of the "Perfect Law" Discrete layers of a thickened meaning are mined by the in­ terpreter who is sensitive to how a particular word or idea unfolds within its entire compositional field. In this sense, the full context of a word is discerned at an intratextual level, where important catchwords are repeated but in different composi­ tional contexts. While a new linguistic environment changes the meaning of words, old meanings are retained. The result is that words acquire an ever-enlarging meaning by their sub­ sequent usage, while at the same time their prior uses alert the interpreter to possible meanings that may well be obscured by their new literary and linguistic context. In my view, this literary characteristic of James is especially important since its intratextuality provides a kind of compositional coherence within a paraenesis that seems rather disjointed to many read­ ers. In this sense, the meaning of law in James unfolds in an intratextual fashion. That is, the meaning of law in its first use in 1:22-27 carries over to its second use in 2:813, both explaining and expanding the meaning of law found there. This expanded meaning of law in turn prepares the reader for its final use in 4:11-12, and helps to explain its re­ lationship to the paraenetic traditions to which it is joined in 4:l-5:6. Suffice it to say that scholars have assigned different mean­ ings to "perfect law," either to indicate the Torah's ethical value or its salvation-historical role. Davids, following Davies, even suggests that the word carries a messianic freight, so that the "perfect law" refers to Jesus' messianic interpretation of his bib­ lical Torah. In this meaning of the phrase, Jesus' teaching ministry fashions a "new Torah" that defines the life of "sur­ passing righteousness" (Matt. 5:20), which is lived to perfection (cf. Matt. 5:48) and which Jesus himself perfectly performed and embodied. Yet, what is often overlooked in interpreting this phrase is the prior use of teleios in 1:2-21. In fact, according to 1:4, teleios is a critical ingredient of the author's restatement of his thesis. The eschatological requirement for passing the test of faith is termed an ergon teleion—a "perfect work" that is claimed for the believer's patience during various trials. In turn, the eschatolog­ ical result of this perfect work is teleios, which is coupled with "completion" (holo-kleros; cf. the phrase holon ton nomon in 2:10) 25

26

27

28

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

91

to describe the realization of a restored creation where nothing lacks for those who dwell therein. This eschatological meaning of perfection is next imported into the phrase "every perfect [teleios] gift/' used in 1:17 as a critical feature of the author's restatement of the opening thesis. Here James corrects the foolish deception that God is respon­ sible for our difficult trials (1:13-16). In fact, the Creator's will is for a restored creation (1:18), and toward that end God provides the perfect gift of wisdom (1:17, 19-20), which empowers the community's patience and ensures the prospect of a perfected existence at the triumph of the Creator's reign (1:21). It is this unfolding idea of teleios within the thesis statement of James that is then posited with nomos in 1:25: like wisdom, Torah is also a "perfect gift of God" and it, too, guides the com­ munity through its trials and toward the telos of God's reign. Before, the fool was deceived about God's goodness (1:13-16); in this new setting, the fool is deceived in reducing the wisdom of "quick hearing" (cf. 1:19) into a simple matter of merely lis­ tening to its sage advice without then following it (1:22). Such a deception is readily exposed by pairing wisdom with Torah, which must be both observed and performed. Under the light of a Torah interpretation of the wisdom tradition, one's eschato­ logical blessing (teleios) results from quickly obeying the divine word: in this sense, the way of wisdom must be the same as the way of Torah, which must be obeyed. More basic than the skills of knowing wisdom is its performance. Like the perfect Torah, the perfect gift of wisdom envisages the pattern of eschatolog­ ical religion, which must be followed in order to receive God's promised blessing. The point of asserting that Torah is "perfect," then, is not to indicate the divine quality of its revealed words or the moral outcome of its observance. Rather, the use of teleios with nomos within this compositional context reminds the reader that Torah is God's perfect gift (cf. 1:17) for those undergoing testing (cf. 1:3-4). At the same time, it warns the reader not to re­ spond foolishly by merely glancing at what it says: the biblical Torah discloses God's eschatological requirement, which must be obeyed and not merely heard if the community is to participate in God's coming salvation (cf. 1:4, 18). 29

30

James 1:22-2:26

92 The "Law of Liberty" in James The Intertextuality of the "Law of Liberty"

With its intertextuality in mind, let me explore the meaning of the second and more difficult adjective, "liberty" (eleutheria), whose attributive relation to nomos points us to its subject matter. I am aware of the substantial source-critical problems pertaining to the preliterary history of James in general and this word in particular. While the Torah's perfection is known from Jewish literature (see above), the Torah's "liberty" is not, and we can only speculate about its possible sources. Three possible interpretations of "liberty" have been pro­ posed. (1) The law's liberating effect may well be paradoxical. Following Jewish and Jesus tradition (cf. Matt. 11:29-30), the "yoke of the law" may actually liberate the observant to serve the interests of God. R. Fabris contends that Jewish tradition would understand this liberation in terms of a spiritual and inward experience rather than one that is eschatological and cosmic. While James is certainly concerned about inward strug­ gle, the pairing of "law of liberty" with human blessing in 1:25 would seem to argue against understanding liberty in this way. (2) Many scholars appeal to contemporary Hellenis­ tic philosophy, especially Stoic, to define "liberty" as the present experience of the wise person's efforts in maintaining personal control over destiny. The pairing of law and proverbial wisdom in this passage makes this an attractive interpretation. (3) Still others find here a Christian reference to the "new Torah" of Jesus' messianic reign, which is certainly concerned — as James is — with the moral essentials of Christian community (Matthew 5). Paul's spiritualizing of the law in Rom. 8:2 seems less likely here, especially in light of Rom. 6:15-23; where the moral di­ mension of the Christian life is possible only in liberty from the enslaving power of the law. The strange sound of combining "law" and "liberty" is muted somewhat for readers who recognize the same combination in Paul. However, another problem immediately arises when readers realize that the Pauline relationship between law and freedom is a negative one: faith in Christ liberates the believer from the law (Rom. 6:15-23, 7:6-8:2; Gal. 2:4; 4:21-31; 5:1, 13), while only the Spirit empowers compliance with God's will. Thus, while the sound of this phrase is not strange, it is disso­ nant: according to James, "true religion" (1:27) does not result 31

32

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

93

from being "liberated from the Torah" but rather from being liberated by the Torah. There is a Jewish slant to the notion of law in James that would surely unsettle the Pauline Christian. Because of the notable disagreements between the biblical James and Paul, some scholars suppose the Jacobean "law of liberty" is a catchphrase from a Jewish polemic against Paulinizing "sola fideism." In this case, the Torah's "liberty" refers to its spir­ itual effect: Torah observance actually frees the believer from sin to enjoy a more profitable relationship with God (cf. Matt. 5:17-20). Yet, the interpreter may be able to recover a more textured meaning of "liberty" from its subtextual layer. In light of this methodological interest, I suggest that "liberty" functions in this difficult phrase as a metaphor of the levitical Jubilee (Leviticus 25). The text of James does not cite any of the legal or pro­ phetic idioms for the Jubilee year; however, the phrase "law of liberty" may well facilitate a "free association" with a cluster of themes and concerns found within the levitical ordinance of the Jubilee year (Leviticus 25; cf. Deut. 15:1-11). Especially the prophetic references to an eschatological Jubilee (e.g., Isa. 61:12) were well known to messianic Jews of the Second Temple period, which no doubt included the author and first auditors of James. Even so, when the current "canonical audience" con­ siders the trials of the community's poor according to James 1:26-2:11, bracketed as it is by James's double reference to the "law of liberty" (cf. 1:25, 2:12), it would recognize an allusion to the biblical Jubilee when "liberty" is granted to the oppressed and indigent poor. The "law of liberty" associates with (perhaps even with the "volume" of an allusion) the levitical ordinance of Jubilee, which demands a socioeconomic expression of holi­ ness that is embodied in the treatment of the poor and powerless neighbor. Sharply put, the "law of liberty" refers to the bibli­ cal Torah injunctions for the year of Jubilee, specifically for the justice of the oppressed. The crucial word used in the jubilary code is actually aphesis rather than eleutheria. Nevertheless both words are conceptually similar: aphesis is the priestly equivalent of eleutheria. Further, they are used in similar settings within scripture. For example, eleutheria is used in Lev. 19:20 — part of James's "torah within the Torah" —with lutros ("redemption") in speaking of clemency for the slave. In a parallel text within the jubilary code dealing with slaves (25:39-46), lutros is paired with aphesis in specifying their 33

34

35

36

37

94

James 1:22-2:26

freedom from oppression. In this case, the concepts of "free­ dom" and "forgiveness" envisage a similar "redemption" from oppression that results from observing the Torah's demand. In addition, the levitical passage expresses concern for the poor "brother" (cf. adelphos; Lev. 25:39) as does James (2:5, 15) - for believers, who in both contexts have need for liberation from the oppression of those in power (cf. the "rich" in James 2:2-7; par. Lev. 25:46). The pairing of eleutheros (instead of aphesis) and lutros is also used in the Deuteronomic legislation of the sabbatical year, again for "freeing" slaves (Deut. 15:12-13, 18; cf. Exod. 21:2-6), in a text that is parallel to the levitical ordinance for sabbath/ jubilary years. In fact, these two traditions are typically held to­ gether in the literature of the Second Temple period. Given their biblical use, then, the word association between eleutheros and aphesis seems a logical one for James to create, and is especially apropos if the author has Paul's eleutheros in mind to counteract a de-Judaizing (and perhaps even decanonizing) Pauline Tendenz within his community (see above). Finally, James's understanding of Jubilee is more prophetic and typological of the sociology of God's coming reign (cf. Isa. 61:1-2; Juh. 1:21-15; Luke 4:14-30, 6:20-38, 11:2-4). In fact, the use of Jubilee as a prophetic typology of the coming kingdom would have been sufficiently familiar to the author and first au­ ditors of James so that a clearer allusion or even citation of the Jubilee year would not have been necessary. In this prophetic sense, then, the "law of liberty" prescribes a jubilary justice that liberates the oppressed neighbors from their economic woes as faithful witness to the coming era of prosperity and social jus­ tice. The sort of material detachment envisaged by James's piety of poverty motif (2:5, 4:1-17) is a matter of expectant faith in the coming reversal of fortune ( 1 : 9 - l l ) . In my reading, the conceptual similarity and plausible lin­ guistic links between the "preferential option for the poor" of Jubilee and the setting of this particular crisis in James (cf. James 5:1-6; par. Lev. 25:39-46) are highly suggestive of a jubilary sub­ text in defining the fuller meaning of the phrase "the law of liberty." To be sure, the subject matter of the law is clarified by what follows in James 1:26-2:12; however, what follows does not point to the fulfillment of Jeremiah's "law written on the human heart" nor even to Jesus' interpretation of Jewish law in a way that transformed it into Christian "gospel." Rather, 38

39

40

41

42

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

95

"liberty" in this rhetorical setting is a catchword that gathers to itself the images of neighborly love for poor and oppressed believers found in the levitical laws of holiness, and especially within the Jubilee ordinance. The Intratextuality of the "Law of Liberty" The repetition of the phrase "law of liberty" in 2:12 brackets off 1:26-2:11, which in turn contemporizes the meaning of the phrase. When the reader comes to the phrase again, additional points have been scored since the first reference, which supply important ingredients of a hermeneutical environment that en­ able the reader to better understand its significance for James. A close reading of this material lies outside the purview of this essay; however, a set of three brief observations will suffice to clarify my point. 1. While the story behind 2:1-7 is impossible to construct with any precision, it would seem to tell of class strife between rich outsiders and poor insiders, evinced both in a synagoguecourt (2:2-4) and in a law-court (2:6-7), where justice is ex­ pected but not found. Almost certainly, the form of partiality is more material than granting rich guests preferential seating in the assembly (2:3); in fact, such seating may have biased the proceeding in favor of the rich. The description of the wealth in this passage suggests they are bankers whose disagreements with the poor are financial. The prejudicial seating of these wealthy bankers, then, hints at a negative verdict for the poor, who no doubt remain poor or worse. The community's partiality toward the rich at the expense of the poor is condemned as "evil" in the text's apodosis (2:4) for the two reasons given in 2:5-7. First, a preferential option for wealthy financiers fails the testing of the community's faith in God (cf. 1:3), who favors the poor and promises them a portion of the coming kingdom (2:5). The reader is well aware from ear­ lier material in James (cf. 1:13-15) that such theological failures are rather foolish because they exchange the pragmatism of a quick fix for an eschatological blessing that endures (cf. 2:13). Second, foolish still, their preferential option for the wealthy ex­ poses the contradiction of taking the side of those who harass them in law-courts (2:6) (perhaps even as an instrument for ex­ torting them of money dedicated to their poor) and who seek to impugn Jesus' reputation (and so their own) within this Jew43

44

96

James 1:22-2:26

ish context (2:7). This terrible irony only deepens the sense of injustice. If this construction approximates the story behind the text, then the application of jubilary justice is explicable. In this set­ ting, it is the 'Taw of liberty" rather than the synagogue-court or law-court which discloses God's choice of the poor and defends the poor against the rich. 2. Significantly, the author not only pairs Torah with wisdom but also with Jesus tradition in 2:1. At the very least, the al­ lusions to the biblical Torah in 2:1-4 and the citation from it in 2:8 envisage the author's "canon consciousness," and give authority and additional substance to his memories of a precanonical Jesus. Further, these biblical allusions and citations are from a discrete portion of the biblical Torah (the levitical laws of holiness) by which Jesus tradition is interpreted. In this sense, a particular portion of Torah is normative for the author's interpretation of Jesus Christ, whose exalted status as "glorious Lord" is justified by his observance of the Torah's commitment to the poor. Again, I do not suppose that James's appeal to Jesus' faith in 2:1 is as authoritative interpreter of wisdom or a new Torah. Rather, the reference to "the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ" in 2:1 cues up the memory of his ministry among the poor (cf. James 2:2-4 par. Luke 14:7-14; James 2:5 par. Luke 6:20[-36]) alluded to in the following passage, a ministry that demonstrates his exemplary obedience to the "royal Torah" of love (2:8). In fact, the "impartiality" of Jesus' faith must be viewed in this context as ironical, since the rich are nonChristians and rejected, while the poor comprise God's "true" Israel and are loved. 3. Finally, the meaning of the anarthrous nomon basilikon ("royal law"), which is "fulfilled" (teleite; cf. 1:25) by observ­ ing Lev. 19:18 (cf. 2:8), is clarified in relationship to the "law of liberty." Virtually all commentators understand that both nomon basilikon and the levitical "love command" are coexten­ sive with the poor, and that their combined use here intends to condemn the community's preferential option for the rich (2:9; cf. Lev. 19:15). However, the precise meaning of basilikos to define the biblical Torah remains obscure. The critical ma­ jority seems to assign four aspects to the adjective's meaning: (1) it is a euphemism for God, (2) whose will is disclosed in Old Testament law, and (3) then interpreted for Christians in the 45

46

47

48

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

97

teachings of the synoptic Jesus, (4) whose epitome is the "love command." Davids contends that the teaching of Jesus which figures into this phrase is not ethical but theological, pertaining to "the sovereign rule of God's kingdom." I do not find this calculus entirely convincing. While Jesus does include the poor within God's reign, his own midrash on the levitical love com­ mand focuses on those outside of the faith community, on the poor and sinful "enemy" of the rich and righteous "neighbor." In my view, James's midrash on the levitical law is more tradi­ tional and less prophetic than Jesus': James is more concerned to love the insider. Let me return to a point scored by the critical consensus with which I do agree: "law of liberty" and "royal law" are mutually glossing phrases, especially within a common com­ positional environment where the latter phrase concentrates material bracketed off and interpreted by the former. If "lib­ erty" is a metaphor of jubilary justice and heralds the coming sociology of God's reign, then perhaps "royal" carries a simi­ lar freight: the nomos basilikos discloses the rule of the coming basileia theou. In turn, the eschatological force of the conditional teleite becomes apparent: only if the community orders its life by the rule of the coming kingdom {nomos basilikos) will it receive a favorable verdict when dia nomou eleutherias krinesthai ("judged by the law of liberty"; see 2:12-13). 49

50

51

Conclusion According to the theology of James, wisdom is the revelation of God's truth that enables the believer to know how to pass the testing of faith; and it is wisdom's way to lead the believer through such testing and ultimately into God's future blessing. In James 1:25, the wisdom of "quick to hear" (1:19) is held together with the biblical Torah, which supplies both its justifi­ cation project as well as its content. According to this text, then, the Torah tradition actually defines the way of wisdom: wisdom "heard" is the whole Torah observed. The importance of a Torah-observant wisdom is introduced in 1:25 by two adjectives, each of which is an important theolog­ ical catchword, together clarifying core convictions about the Torah's role within the Christian community. First, the Torah is "perfect"; that is, it purposes an eschatological and redemp­ tive effect for those who obey its command. Second, Torah's

98

James 1:22-2:26

more specific demand is defined by the second adjective, "lib­ erty," which is not an article from some Jacobean anti-Pauline polemic but rather privileges the ordinance of the Jubilee year found in the levitical laws of holiness, which funded an impor­ tant prophetic typology of the coming age. In anticipation of its participation in the coming triumph of God's reign, then, the congregation must address the financial trials of its op­ pressed poor by nurturing a Jubilee-like social world in which all prejudice and the harsh treatment of its poor and powerless "neighbors" end. James 1:26-27 The social implications drawn from the author's commentary on "quick hearing" are now illustrated by James. Again, James em­ ploys the rhetorical convention of contrast to make a keen and clear distinction between foolish and wise responses to God, and between insiders and outsiders of eschatological religion. On the one hand, foolish religion is characterized by a failure to con­ trol what it says; on the other hand, wise religion cares for its most powerless members and resists the evils of the surrounding social order. J. H. Elliott has rightly pointed out that this distinction be­ tween purity and pollution reinforces a social ethos that is committed to cooperation within the community and to sectar­ ian nonconformity with those outside the community. Only in maintaining this sort of social holiness can Christian faith sur­ vive the testing of the present evil age with hope of blessing in the age to come. According to Elliott, whose interpreta­ tion depends upon the work of anthropologist Mary Douglas, teleios (and related terms for human wholeness) is a social ideal pertaining to those arrangements between insiders or with out­ siders that will result in a sense of belonging and well-being. Pollutants within this social ecology are those behaviors that create discord and disorder within the community, lessening the sense of communal solidarity and in turn the ideal of be­ longing and well-being. The various social crises described by James, whether discrimination between social classes (2:1-26), slanderous speech between teachers (3:1-18), or self-centered materialism (4:1-10), are caused by environmental pollutants that create chaos in those arrangements that are necessary in maintaining personal and corporate well-being. 52

53

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

99

In any case, the specific contrast between the unclean and pure religions is not apparent from James 1:26-27: what has the unclean tongue of the one to do with caring for the wid­ ows and orphans in the other? This passage does not begin in earnest James's polemic against the unedifying speech of certain teachers in Chapter 3 , however important this theme is for the author (cf. 3:1-18). The importance of this particular con­ trast between empty speech and active compassion is developed later in this section, when James contrasts spoken and enacted faith (2:14-26). In this case, believers who profess their faith (v. 14) but dismiss the poor (v. 15), even with sincere bene­ diction (v. 16), fail to meet God's eschatological requirement of merciful work (v. 17; cf. v. 13). Again, the believer who confesses orthodoxy to secure God's favorable verdict (v. 19a) is no better than the demon whose destiny is destruction (v. 19b). In wider compositional context, then, the "tongue" that "says" the slo­ gans of pious religion as though that is all that God requires is deceived and therefore unable to pass the testing of faith. In this first comment on human speech, James continues a concern for theological deception within the believer: "for any who consider [dokeo] themselves religious [threskos]... deceive [apatad] their hearts [kardias]." The shape of the believer's in­ terior life is of decisive importance in matters of spiritual testing (cf. 1:5-8, 13-15). What a person thinks and knows about God and self determines the decisions made during trials. Thus, the fool is deceived first in the heart, where according to ancient psy­ chology truth is considered and decisions made. Yet for James, every deception, as with every test, is theological in nature (cf. 1:16, 22). In this case, the theological crisis is theodicy: the fool miscalculates God's sense of justice. If threskos focuses on religious performance, the fool supposes that an offering of pi­ ous slogans rather than of merciful work satisfies God, whose primary concern is that justice is executed for the widow and or­ phan in distress (1:27). This is especially true when shibboleths are substituted for relief by complacent believers (2:16). Of course, passing the test of faith has everything to do with the way one "thinks" (hegeomai; 1:2) and what one "knows" (ginosko; 1:3): an "ethics of doing" is grounded in an "ethics of seeing." Therefore, if one is mistaken about God's role in human suffering (1:13-15), one's performance of religious sentiment is "worthless" (mataios) to God. Coupled with the phrase "bridling the tongue," a "worthless" religion is one in which what is said 54

55

100

James 1:22-2:26

replaces what is done, where talk is substituted for walk, where liturgy rather than lifestyle expresses the community's devotion to God. But in what sense is this species of religion "worthless"? Clearly, this species of religion fails to receive God's blessing simply because it fails to bear witness to God by deed and is therefore worthless. More importantly, however, this religion contributes no social benefaction; it is also worthless to the poor who constitute God's people (2:5). This criticism of confessing religion is nuanced by a possible echo of the prophetic use of mataios as an idiom of Israel's apos­ tasy. Faithless Israel pursues "worthless" idols rather than God (Jer. 2:5, 8:19, 10:15; Isa. 1:13), or its own pleasure rather than piety (Jer. 4:30; Hos. 5:11). The impression is that faithless Israel is indicted by the biblical prophets not only for idolatry but for its arrogant pretension that is finally self-corrupting. Against the backdrop of this biblical meaning, the use of mataios in James condemns more than self-deception; rather, it sounds a warn­ ing against the self-corrupting influence of religious sentiment which supposes that the kingdom of God consists of triumphalistic talk rather than humble mercy. Christianity according to James will not survive a constituency of eloquent although inactive communicants (so also Paul's criticism of Corinthian Christianity in 1 Cor. 4:19-20). In contrast to these deceptions of worthless religion, "religion that is pure and undefiled" cares for the distressed and keeps the profane at bay. The striking and unusual use of "religion" (threskeia/threskos), which brings to focus this powerful contrast of congregational life in 1:26-27, probably draws upon Jewish wisdom literature of the Greco-Roman period (Wis. 14:18, 27; 4 Mace. 5:6, 13, 31). In this case, whether contrasted with pagan idolatry (Wisdom) or philosophical reason (4 Maccabees), active devotion for God is the concrete mark of true religion. In keep­ ing with this literature, most commentators take "religion" as a comprehensive term for the community's ethical performance rather than its cultic practice. This makes sense of James if the normative role of the biblical Torah is to guide the performance of the sacred community within a profane world. In this case, rtrue "religion" is measured by the community's care for its powerless members whose lives are in distress within an anti-God world that fails to nurture a "love for neighbor." "Orphans and widows" represent the poorest of the poor and are especially vulnerable to outside exploitation because they

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

101

have no family to support and defend them. Their welfare by necessity becomes the community's responsibility. Further, the community's strength is measured by the care provided their weakest members. Even conventional social wisdom instructs that a group is as viable as its weakest member (cf. Matt. 18:614; Acts 6:1-10). For this reason, the biblical Torah is especially concerned that the least and last members of the community are not abused but cared for (Exod. 22:22; Deut. 24:17-21; cf. Ps. 146:9; Isa. 1:17; et al.), since God is their champion (Deut. 10:18). The additional image of "distress" (thlipsis) may very well be an eschatological marker (so Matt. 24:9, 21, 29, par.; cf. John 16:33; Rev. 7:14). In this case, the community's practice of car­ ing for the poor and powerless anticipates the inevitable reversal of their fortunes in the coming Jubilee. The phrase "keep uncorrupted [aspilos] by the wprld" inter­ plays with the first, "pure and undefiled" religion. Aspilos is not found in the LXX, which has led some scholars to assume that this entire conception of purity is borrowed from GrecoRoman moralists even though for a distinctively Christian use (see 1 Tim. 6:14). Yet, it is the moral world of Torah and not of Greco-Roman moralists which shapes this sense of purity — not in a cultic sense, where Torah guides the ritual and routine of religious practice, but in scripture's nurturing of the commu­ nity's understanding of God's will. Thus, this second marker of "pure and undefiled" religion is informed by the moral teaching of God's law: the faith community, whose moral boundaries are set by the instruction of Torah, is made resistant to any influ­ ence from the surrounding world order that no longer conforms with its Creator's intentions. Some later scribes even rendered this phrase in the plural, "keep them uncorrupted by the world" (aspilous eautous tereite), suggesting that the community's care of the widows and orphans extends beyond material care to moral and spiritual care as well. There is a sectarian asceticism championed here that charac­ terizes a form of congregational purity not unlike conservative religion during the modern period — a "world-denying" Chris­ tianity that insulates and protects the faithful from any moral or ideological contaminant. Conservative religion maintains pu­ rity of doctrine and conduct by means of a dualistic worldview, which posits true religion against the "world." The "world" order is viewed as a corrupted and corrupting creation in rebellion against the Creator's sacred purposes and currently under evil's 56

57

58

James 1:22-2:26

102

control. The "world" is also that evil place out of which God calls the poor into faith and devotion (2:5); it is the source of their every trial that tempts them to lust and sin. Significantly, this corrupting "world" is wisdom's opponent in every subsection of James's interpretation and application of the triadic proverb which organizes the subject matter of this writing. Thus, not only is the wisdom of "quickly hearing" and responding to Torah's demand to care for the powerless sub­ verted by the profane world, but the wisdom of "slow speaking" is also undermined by the tongue that is a "world of unrigh­ teousness" (3:6) as is the wisdom of "slow to anger" by those whose "friendship with the world" (4:4) indicates loyalties dif­ ferent than those who, like Abraham, are "friends of God" (2:23). Their hope is that the "world" will pass away and be re­ placed by a restored creation at the triumph of God's reign (cf. 1:4). To this end of eschatological religion, "Father God" gives "perfect and good gifts" (1:17-18). James has provided the canonical audience with two illustra­ tions of the wisdom of "quick hearing." The first focuses on the Torah-observant community whose good works result in escha­ tological blessing. The second illustration then specifies what the works of Torah are: to care for those in material distress and to keep believers from the influence of profane contaminants that belong to the present, passing age. With this interpretation of wisdom as background, the readers are now prepared to under­ stand how to respond wisely to the specific spiritual test that concerns James in Chapter 2.

James 2:1-7: The Test of Class Conflict brothers and sisters, show no favoritism but hold to the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ. For if a person enters your synagogue with a gold ring and in splendid clothes, but then a poor person in filthy clothes also enters and you at­ tend to the one wearing splendid clothes and say: "Sit here in a good place," and to the poor person you say, "Stand over there or sit under my footstool," have you not discriminated between yourselves and become judges who make evil de­ cisions? Hear me, my beloved brothers and sisters! Did not God choose the poor who are in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom promised to those who love God? 2

3

4

5

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

103

6

But you insulted the poor person! Is it not the rich who op­ press you? Do they not drag you into law-court? Do they not defame the good name by which you have been called? 7

Every biblical text tells a story. Even though not a narrative, James is occasional literature whose writing first and always seeks to address the real problems of real people. James is also midrash-like literature whose very intertextuality echoes earlier sacred texts in a way that adds meaning that is appropriate for its new literary and theological setting. To this point in the compo­ sition, a doublet of opening statements has introduced a variety of important themes (1:1-21), which now are employed in be­ ginning to construct a way of wisdom for the readers (1:22-27). Even though stated with the measured urgency of an imperative, the opening chapter of James has an axiomatic quality, without the force of specific application. That will now change with the present passage: James responds to a crisis that tests faith in a God who has elected the poor to be heirs of the coming kingdom (2:5). Here it spells out in vivid detail that contrast just made be­ tween a "religion of the mouth" (1:26) and a "pure religion" (1:27) that cares for its poorer members. In rendering this passage, I will take a different approach than Dibelius and others who claim that paraenetic literature is not occasioned by some historical contingency or crisis; rather, for them James specializes in moral lessons of a more general kind for no one particular audience. In my opinion, the select details of conflict in 2:1-7 suggest an actual incident, a real crisis famil­ iar to ancient and modern readers alike: those who have money and power oppress those without money and power, threaten­ ing to divide the community along socioeconomic lines. There is a measure of subtlety since the powerful could abuse the powerless under the protection of the law, whether religious or civil. Let me suggest two possible scenarios. In the first, a rich banker (v. 2), who is Jewish but not a Christian (vv. 6-7), ap­ parently holds an outstanding debt (perhaps rent due) against a poor person (v. 3), who is a Christian and whose "filthy clothes" suggest he cannot pay his debt. When the poor believer fails to pay his bills, the banker asks that justice is executed against his debtor. In a Jewish world, he has two options. He might appeal to the law-court (v. 6b), whose verdict would be based upon Roman laws; or he might appeal to believers gathered as a 59

60

James 1:22-2:26

104

"synagogue-court" (vv. 2-4), whose verdict would be based upon Jewish laws. The latter is possible only if the debtor and banker are both religious Jews and therefore more inclined to accept the congregation's verdict. In this case, however, the banker has first taken the debtor before the local magistrate. The severity of the rhetoric (v. 6b) would seem to indicate harsh penalties have been exacted by the law-court in retribution for nonpayment. Yet, this very incident has occurred because the poor person is unable to meet his financial obligations. In this case, the clever banker has implicated the Christian faith of the poor person as a reason for his nonpayment (v. 7): if this individual cannot pay his bills, perhaps his Christian friends can. Therefore, he im­ pugns the reputation of the entire Christian congregation and the name of its "glorious Lord Jesus Christ" (v. 1). Their very witness within the wider community is at stake. In effect, the rich banker demands that the Christian synagogue to which the poor debtor belongs pay his entire bill in order to prove the "blasphemous" charge wrong — a kind of extortion payment, as it were. The scene therefore shifts to the assembly (v. 2) — a gathering of believers ("our synagogue") — whose purpose is to dispense justice (v. 4), perhaps under the scrutiny of the entire Jewish community. How will their elders handle this nasty political sit­ uation? Will they snuggle up to the rich banker, a non-Christian, and meet his "extortion" demands as the expedient thing to do? Or will they resist the short-term benefits of this course of action and defend their poor brother? In any case, the biblical Torah demands that jubilary justice be done in witness to the reign of God, who stands on the side of the poor (v. 5). This might in­ clude the congregation's payment of the outstanding debt as a favor to the oppressed poor; or, if the banker is an observant Jew, he might even listen to the more radical petition of jubilary justice and cancel the debt. A second scenario roughly follows the first, except that in this case it is the poor worker who brings suit against the rich man, perhaps for withholding due wages or for some other mistreat­ ment (cf. 5:1-6). Not finding justice in the law-court (cf. Luke 18:1-8), the poor believer, knowing his employer is a religious man, turns to the judicial assembly (or "synagogue") for jus­ tice. In either scenario, the elders of the Christian congregation fail their spiritual test (v. 4) by siding with the rich outsider for some short-term benefit (e.g., a momentary lull in harassment 61

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

105

and litigation) but at the expense of their poor brother's needs (vv. 2-3). The implied peril of their actions is the forfeiture of eschatological blessing (v. 5). The psychology of fear that shapes this act of discrimina­ tion is all too familiar. Ironically, those marginal groups whose prospects of survival are least likely are also those most accom­ modating or acquiescent to society's oppressors. The failure to act in accord with God's will is a failure of nerve, of spirit, of wisdom. And so goes the conflict plotted by every implied story that James narrates. James 2:1 The relevant testing of faith is introduced in the opening imper­ ative (rather than a diatribal interrogative as some suggest): "My brothers and sisters, show no favoritism." The exhortation draws from a familiar pool of Old Testament prohibitions that con­ demned discrimination (esp. Lev. 19:15; Prov. 18:5). The critical word is "favoritism," prosopolempsia, which renders two words found together in the LXX (Mai. 1:8; Sir. 4:22-31; cf. Luke 20:21; Gal. 2:6), prosopon ("face") and lamband ("lift up"). According to Martin, the LXX usage envisages an evolution of meaning from a more positive bias of those institutions and leaders approved by God into a more negative preferential treatment of the rich and famous at the expense of the poor and powerless. Johnson notes that it is important to understand two characteristics of en prosopolempsia: (1) As a prepositional phrase this favoritism "suggests not simply a general attitude but specific and repeated acts." That is, the division within the community stems from the persistent practice of favoritism based upon social class rather than the spiritual or legal merits of the case. (2) The phrase "in­ vokes the world of Torah" and is "unintelligible" apart from its "deliberate" echo of Lev. 19:15. The following illustration of favoritism concludes with a harsh rebuke (2:4) that to re­ spect powerful persons to the disadvantage of poor persons, even if only in appearance (by the preferential seating of the rich), disobeys God. In the New Testament, however, the words are compounded in Christian thought to express a core conviction about univer­ sal salvation, formulated for the gentile mission: God does not play favorites, since all are judged (Rom. 2:11; 1 Pet. 1:17) and saved (Acts 10:34) by the same criteria. In the final stage of its 62

63

64

106

James 1:22-2:26

scriptural development, the salvific values of prosopolempsia were reapplied to Christian households (Col. 3:25; Eph. 6:9), not so much as moral values but in witness to Christ's lordship over human relations (cf. Col. 3:17; Eph. 5:21). Protestant interpretation, under the pressures of Pauline the­ ology, mistakenly takes the concern of James for impartial treatment as a category of God's inclusive grace: rich and poor are equal recipients of redemption in Christ (so Gal. 3:28). The further tendency is to spiritualize the class distinctions between rich and poor so they pertain to relations with God. In this judicial setting, however, prosopolempsia expresses concern for the just treatment of poor persons in agreement with God's de­ sire for an inclusive justice that accords with Torah. That is, James is against even the appearance of discrimination based on social class. ' Johnson hears an echo to Lev. 19:15, where discrimination against the poor in favor of the rich is condemned, which makes perfect sense of its placement within the composition, sand­ wiched as it is between a definition of "true" religion, which cares for the most marginal members of the community (1:27), and an example of class conflict, which apparently pits rich bankers/patrons against their poor debtors/clients within this congregation (2:2-4). The form of partiality rejected certainly is one that favors rich over poor, and outsider over insider (see also excursus, "The Perfect Law of Liberty," above). In addition to social conflict, this sort of discrimination against certain believers occasions the testing of the commu­ nity's faith in God. First, the allusion to the biblical law is linked to the preceding commentary on the wisdom to be "quick to hear" during a season of spiritual testing. Recall that James pairs this article of proverbial wisdom with biblical Torah, with the resulting meaning that "quick hearing" actually means to observe the Torah. Moreover, Torah observance defines eschato­ logical religion, so that the work of Torah satisfies the condition for future divine blessing (1:25). The reader is already aware that doing the "work of Torah" includes taking care of "orphans and widows in distress" (1:27; cf. Exod. 22:22); indeed, a "law of lib­ erty" requires Jubilee justice and even the preferential treatment of the poor. Logically, then, James now alludes to the levitical law that defines the sacred community as one that does not fa­ vor rich over poor (Lev. 19:15). Under the light of this wisdom interpretation, then, to pass the testing of faith a community 65

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

107

must not prefer the options of the rich over those of the poor: to do so disobeys the Torah's demand and thereby imperils the prospect of eschatological blessing, which promises to reverse the fortunes of the pious poor (cf. 1:9-11). A second, more explicit reason is given why the community should resist the practice of discrimination: to do so fails to "hold to the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ." Against those who seek to remove this phrase from a composition al­ together too Jewish to contain an overtly Christian sentiment, neither its language and grammar nor its textual history suggests a later "Christian" addition to the book. In fact, the imper­ ative "hold the faith" (echein ten pistin) is repeated in both 2:14-17 and 2:18-20, but ironically by the author's opponent. Perhaps the negation (me) of this opening imperative, "do not hold to the faith," prepares the reader for this negative exam­ ple: "Cease holding to the faith of our opponents, who value the profession of Christian faith over its hard work, and be more like Jesus Christ." In a more constructive way, James has already encouraged believers undergoing testing to "hold to pa­ tience" (he hypomone echeto) as a "perfect [i.e., eschatological] work" (1:4). The point is that James supports an ethical religion that embodies a public faith that does not discriminate between people. Moreover, while the articular form of "the faith" (ten pistin) is a well-known formula of Christian origin, its use here is consis­ tent with James more than with Paul. James does not posit faith "in" Jesus' messianic death (as does Paul); nor does this passage have in view the believer's act of "faith in Christ" as the entrance requirement for membership in a true Israel. While the articular form may well refer to the more public marks of institutional­ ized religion (i.e., "the Christian faith") and may even agree in this sense with the deutero-Pauline meaning, the phrase in James envisages a different Christology than does the Pauline witness: here the faith refers to the life of Jesus, which embodies the wis­ dom of responding promptly to the "perfect law of liberty." This reference to "the faith of Jesus Christ" makes a definitive as­ sessment about the significance of Jesus' personal faithfulness to God's law, which is (for James) centered by levitical laws of justice and followed by Jesus as a vital aspect of his messianic ministry (see "The Faith of Jesus," below). More specifically, James's reference to "our glorious Lord Jesus Christ" envisages him as an exemplar of impartial treat-

James 1:22-2:26

108

merit. This phrase (in its various translations) has long been a storm center for the critical study of James (see Appendix B, "James and Paul in Pre-Canonical Context"). The grammatical is­ sue at stake is whether "faith" followed by a proper noun in the genitive case (Lord Jesus Christ) should be understood as "faith in the Lord Jesus Christ" (objective genitive) or "faith of the Lord Jesus Christ" (subjective genitive). In my reading, the genitive phrase is subjective in force and identifies the Lord Jesus Christ as the exemplar of impartial religion. In line with its wider New Testament meaning, the title of "Lord" indicates God's approval of his messiahship, manifest at his resurrection. In a compositional context where divine bless­ ing is dispensed to those who promptly do the "work of Torah," the status of the risen Jesus as "glorious Lord" is granted by God because of his obedience to God (cf. Phil. 2:8-11). That is, God approves Jesus' messiahship because he obeys the "royal law" and loves his poor and powerless neighbor: in this sense, Jesus "does right" (2:8). Perhaps the implied meaning of this reference to Jesus, as with all other prophetic exemplars used in James, is that God's exaltation of Jesus as "Lord" establishes a pattern for eschatological Israel, who also must obey this same "royal law" in order to be exalted by God for the coming age (2:13). The second genitive, "glorious" (tes doxes), reads like "an ap­ pendage without any clear connection with what precedes it." A. F. Segal offers the intriguing suggestion that doxa in 2:1 is an idiom for the kabod of the Lord, recalled from Ezekiel's vi­ sion of a human figure who is called "the Glory of God" (Ezek. 1:28), and expresses God's human appearance. Laws agrees that the adjective might be a hypostasis, suggesting that "perhaps the underlying thinking might be that faith in Christ is a faith in the Christ who provides a revelation of God, the God whose opposition to discrimination is well known." Within the es­ chatological framework of James, "glory" may even be an idiom of those values of God's coming reign, which were perfectly exemplified in the faith of Christ. The simplest solution is to take it as an attribution of quality, "the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ," perhaps referring to his exalted reputation before God who has made him "Lord and Christ" (cf. Acts 2:36). In this context, "glorious" refers to God's exaltation of Jesus as "Lord," which here confirms him as a "prophetic exemplar" whose life fulfills the promise of salva­ tion and supplies the criterion by which all others will be judged 66

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

109

by God. Rather than a reference to his teaching ministry as sage or prophet (as in Matthew's gospel), the reference here to "the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ" cues up the memory of his life with the poor and powerless of his world. For James, Jesus' refusal to stand with the rich against the poor is his prin­ cipal witness to the coming reign of God, which will favor the pious poor (2:5). The following description of conflict within the faith community reflects this witness of Jesus (cf. James 2:2-4 par. Luke 14:7-14, 18:1-8; James 2:5 par. Luke 6:20[-36]). In fact, the impartiality of Jesus' faith stands as the focal point of this entire passage. Excursus: The Faith of Jesus (James 2:1) Most Protestant interpreters of the phrase "the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ," pistin tou kyriou emon Iesou Christou, com­ pare it with Paul's similar phrases in Gal. 3:22, ek pisteos Iesou Christou, and Rom. 3:22, dia pisteos Iesou Christou. Both phrases are variously translated, depending how the genitive in each is understood. Especially since the publication by R. B. Hays's in­ fluential monograph on the Pauline formula, more scholars are inclined to take the Pauline genitive as subjective in reference to the faithfulness of Jesus to the redemptive will of God. Of course, the faithfulness of Jesus within Pauline thought supports the singular significance of his martyrdom as a messianic death. God's salvation-creating power is publicly disclosed in the death of Jesus, whose "act of obedient self-giving on the cross became the means by which 'the promise' of God was fulfilled." The object of Jesus' obedient faith is placed in a faithful God who promised to bring forth life from death. James's use of the "faith of Jesus" formula shares a common ground with the Pauline witness. Both envisage the obedience of Jesus; the faithfulness of Christ is understood in close connec­ tion to the God who calls forth a people out of the world and into a faith community where the promise of life will be real­ ized in the coming age. Both claim him as Lord; both claim that his faithfulness is exemplary for the community belonging to him. Yet James uses it for a different reason and with a different meaning. Most significantly, the nature of Christ's faithfulness serves a moral rather than a soteriological interest for James. Thus, Jesus is messianic exemplar of faithfulness to God's law (specifically 67

68

110

James 1:22-2:26

levitical), which prohibits playing rich favorites and promises life to those who care for the poor neighbor. Neither is there a messianic death in James; rather the life of Jesus bears witness to God's coming triumph and to the ultimate vindication of true and pure religion by a life that cares for the needs of those in distress (1:27). These two different ways of understanding the "faith of Jesus Christ" formula reflect different gospels within earliest Chris­ tianity, which are now transmitted by the New Testament. Given an interest in the complementary character of the relationship between Pauline and Jacobean theologies, I am inclined to ask about the possible significance of their different interpretations of the "faith of Jesus Christ" formula when considered together. At the very least, one is compelled by James to consider the significance of the exemplary life (and not only of the atoning death) of Jesus, and particularly his treatment of the poor, as having messianic value. (The balance between life and passion that results brings the New Testament letters into greater congruity with the New Testament gospels, whose biographies of Jesus all make this same point.) This emphasis on the life of Jesus, which is utterly faithful to the doing of God's will, cor­ rects a tendency of Pauline hermeneutics to concentrate on the death and resurrection of Christ as singular in importance. Fur­ ther, the profoundly ethical matter of Jesus' faithfulness helps to form an ethical Christianity that is not only made more aware of social injustice but compels a rejection of it as a requirement of eschatological religion. On the other hand, the tendency of ethical Christianity is to deny the necessity of divine grace — a power that is external to human effort or merit — as that which both purifies the faith community and empowers its obedient and worshipful response to God. Again what is lost is the essentially collaborative char­ acter of biblical faith, which joins God's response of grace with humanity's response of obedience for the work of salvation. In this case, the "faith alone" of Pauline religion is replaced by the "works alone" of James. A Christology that bears witness to both the biblical Paul and James as two discrete yet com­ plementary parts of a whole looks to Christ as prototypical of the faith and faithfulness that should characterize the Christian religion.

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

111

James 2:2-4 The grammar of this text requires us to consider it as illustra­ tive of the preceding prohibition against partiality. The opening "for i f (ean gar) introduces a conditional statement, typical of supporting illustrations, which is then concluded in 2:4. The illustration invites the reader to join a congregation, which ob­ serves that "a person enters your synagogue with a gold ring and in splendid clothes," who clearly represents the rich and power­ ful crowd. At the same time, the congregation observes that "a poor person in filthy clothes" joins them. While the setting may be unusual, the congregation's response is all too familiar: the rich and important are privileged over the poor and marginal. While James is responding to a specific situation, the purpose of this illustration is to contribute to a more general point about the testing of the believer's faith in God that is sometimes oc­ casioned by class conflict. For James, the slighting of the poor, however minor or egregious, participates in a larger cultural order that values powerful patrons over their poor and power­ less clients. This is the favoritism that opposes "the faith of Jesus Christ." The curious reference to "your synagogue" (synagoge hymon) occurs only here in the New Testament as a reference to a Christian gathering. Other scholars have commented on the various meanings of "synagogue," whether as a place for Jew­ ish Christian worship or as a congregational meeting for a nonreligious (i.e., judicial) activity. Kee demonstrates that we can no longer assume that this refers to a specific meeting place, whose congregation practices institutionalized religion. Most likely, this reference is to an assembly of believers, who have gathered to hear the pros and cons of a controversial case involving one of their own members against his wealthy patron. The importance of the congregational meeting is indicated by the two people who enter it. Even though I have tried to reconstruct the "real" story behind this passage, the reader is actually not told very much. James's telling is sparse in order to draw more sharply the theological crisis their encounter pro­ vokes within the assembly. We are left to speculate whether they are occasional visitors or even new converts, since both are di­ rected to their seats by ushers (2:3). We are left to speculate about the nature of their relationship, whether one (the poor) 69

70

James 1:22-2:26

112

is a believer and the other (rich) not, or whether the rich is the poor man's banker or Roman patron. Nor is the reader told the purpose of the meeting. If both rich and poor are viewed as the litigants in a synagogue-court who have come before the congregation to present their respective cases, I suspect the seating of the rich and poor in the court­ room is a clear indicator of the community's favoritism of the rich. The conflict is not between believers over issues of lifestyle but between rich and poor over issues of justice. In fact, in light of the bias against the rich in favor of the poor introduced by 1:27 and 1:9-11, the reader of James presumes this rich person to be an outsider — a perception confirmed by the hostilities of the rich against the pious poor according to 2:6-7. The first person who grabs the congregation's interest enters wearing a "gold ring" and "splendid clothes," two outstand­ ing features of his presumed wealth and social status, if not also of his pretension. Maynard-Reid contends that because the dispute in view is likely over money (debts, rents, wages) and takes place in Palestine, these are probably social markers of the village banker. By contrast, the second person who enters is "poor" (ptochos) and wears "filthy clothes." The reader's con­ sideration of the prior reference to the conflict between rich and poor in 1:9-11 is necessary and possibly significant. Accord­ ing to 1:9-11 (and the first thesis statement in which it stands), the "humble" are exalted because they are inclined toward the wisdom of God, while the "rich fade away" because they are inclined toward double-mindedness, foolishly desiring to serve their material ambitions rather than the will of the eternal God (cf. 4:13-17). These theological dispositions, which reflect the convictions of a Jewish "piety of poverty" tradition, are to be understood in connection with the book's thematics of spiri­ tual testing and the prospect of divine blessing at the end of the age: the pious poor, armed with divine wisdom, will pass the testing of faith and receive blessing from God (reversal of their earthly fortunes) in the age to come. The rich will likely fail their testing and pass away with the rest of the present evil age. In my view, these theological points carry over and inform, if only at a subtextual level, the meaning of "rich and poor" in the present passage. At the textual level, this passage addresses the community's preferential option for the rich; at the subtex­ tual level, however, the strong reader recognizes more clearly the eschatological peril of this foolishness. 71

72

73

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

113

My point is underscored by the interplay between the "filthy clothes" (hryparos) of the poor person and the earlier exhor­ tation to "put away all filthiness [hryparia]" and follow the "implanted word" of proverbial wisdom (1:21). To rid the con­ gregation of all filthiness would include those "filthy clothes" that symbolize the oppression of poor. In this case, the proverb of "quick hearing" means to obey the Torah's injunction against discrimination to insure that justice reverses injustice as the will of a merciful God. Perhaps this kind of reversal, which antici­ pates the "great reversal" of the eternal Jubilee, is prefigured by the images of rich and poor clothing. In this case, the "splen­ did" clothes of the current rich will fade away (cf. 5:2) and even provide evidence of eschatological judgment (cf. 5:3), whereas the "filthy" clothes of the pious poor will also fade away and provide evidence of their salvation. However, the crisis is more than granting rich outsiders pref­ erential seating in an assembly of believers. The wealthy person is seated in a "good place" — in a place of honor—while the poor is seated "under my footstool" — a place of scorn where enemies are sometimes found (v. 3; so Ps. 110:1). In this sense, seating is yet another metaphor of social status, already evident by the clothes each wears to the meeting. However, if this assembly serves a judicial purpose, then preferential seating may well indi­ cate a judicial bias in favor of the rich: favorable seating suggests a favorable verdict for the rich; while the poor, who is seated as a congregational enemy, will not receive justice and will remain poor and broken. The community's partiality toward the rich nonbeliever at the expense of the poor believer is condemned by the two rhetorical questions asked in the concluding verse (2:4), both requiring af­ firmative (and self-condemning!) responses. The first, "Have you not discriminated between yourselves?" simply confirms what we already know: that discrimination exists between believers and fails to "hold to the faith of Jesus Christ" (2:1). The sec­ ond, "[Have you not] become judges who make evil decisions?" condemns their preferential treatment of the rich patron as sim­ ilar to the "judges who make evil decisions" (lit. "judges of evil thoughts") — a text that clearly alludes to the levitical laws (Lev. 19:15), which chastise rich judges who oppress the poor. In fact, the community's purity has been so corrupted by this per­ verse social order (1:27) that its solidarity is undermined and its prospect of eschatological reward imperiled (1:25). 74

114

James 1:22-2:26

These references to "judges" (krites) and to the act of "judg­ ing" (diakrind/krind) introduce the "judgment" thematic into James. James builds an important relationship between the fool­ ish decisions that result in moral chaos and the eschatological judgment of God. James has already used diakrind in 1:6 of the unstable person, whose spiritual failure during testing is to doubt the wisdom of God rather than to embrace it with sin­ gular faith. Not to do so imperils the prospect of a reversal of fortunes at the end of the age (1:9-11). This earlier, negative meaning of diakrind carries over to this passage, where the com­ munity foolishly discriminates against the poor insiders in favor of rich outsiders. Their foolishness has the same quality of the double-minded person (1:8), who fails to embrace God's truth. As before, the full effect of an "evil judgment" is found out only at the end of the age, where believers who discriminate against poor believers receive God's "merciless judgment" (2:12-13). 75

James 2:5-6a The opening of this pivotal passage combines the invocatory, "my beloved brothers and sisters," with the imperative, "Hear me." This pattern is used elsewhere in James to grab the reader's attention and then to make an important point (cf. 1:16, 19). Moreover, James again confronts the audience with a rhetorical question that anticipates their affirmative response (cf. 2:4). In fact, the similar rhetorical pattern of the preceding conditional statement (2:2-4) would seem to indicate that this text applies directly to the crisis envisaged by the preceding illustration. Since this new point James wishes to make concerns the Jewish teaching of election (see excursus, "Story and Election," below), the reader may well presume that passing the test of faith in God occasioned by discrimination requires a proper understanding of who it is that God calls into the true Israel. The verbal idea of "choosing" (eklegomai) is cast in the middle voice. In the New Testament, the middle voice "calls attention to the whole subject being concerned in the action": on this ba­ sis, the reader supposes the divine Elector is vitally concerned with the act of election. But why? The rhetorical question it­ self supplies the answer: God chooses "the poor who are in the world." That is, God stands on the side of those the powerful of this world exploit and the people of God ignore; the very act of choosing the poor conjugates the impartial character of God's 76

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

115

coming reign. In the wider field of James, this same God is the Creator of a new order (1:18), where the first shall be last and the last first (cf. 1:21). The elect "last" of this world are heirs of the coming age, where their newly found prosperity will dem­ onstrate a "perfect and complete" creation. The act of divine election presumes the responsibility of those elected: the moral obligation of the faith community is to herald this coming age by elevating their status in the present age. The meaning of "poor" (ptochous) in this passage is contested. Especially those who find allusions to Matthew's gospel tradi­ tion in James tend to spiritualize this passage in Matthean terms: God's people consists of those "poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:3). Clearly those in view, however, lack economic wealth and are politically powerless as a result. On the other hand, the interpreter should resist the glib ro­ manticism that renounces wealth for poverty as a condition of membership within the elect community. The language of pov­ erty in this text reflects a fully biblical theology of the poor, which (1) considers God a champion of the poor (esp. Psalter), (2) condemns the oppression or exploitation of the poor (esp. Torah and prophets), and (3) envisages the poor to be the re­ sponsibility of the rich in maintaining a strong corporate life (esp. Wisdom; cf. Sir. 10:22-24; Tob. 4:7; Testament of fob 9-13). In fact, Israel's identity as an elect people presumes the Torah's narrative that God chose and found them at their worst, when they were poor and powerless (esp. Deuteronomy 24). Against the backdrop of this biblical topos the poor of James are those without financial security, who have come to depend upon God with their future. In fact, the triumphalism engendered by an election the­ ology, which came to exclude certain classes of poor people, is a primary point of Jesus' social criticism. Jesus repeatedly spoke against the perils of wealth for discipleship, while revers­ ing an interpretation of election that would exclude the poor and marginal from the reign of God. Echoes of Jesus' ministry among the poor, especially found in Luke's gospel, are an impor­ tant element of this passage's texture. Where the Lukan echoes are loudest the reader clearly hears the anticipated reversal of fortunes for the poor (cf. Luke 1:51-53) and Jesus' prophetic criticism of Israel's theology of election, nurtured especially by their Deuteronomistic history. Jesus' own interpretation of covenant blessings and curses challenges this theology: God's t

77

78

116

James 1:22-2:26

chosen people are not marked out by social class or material wealth; nor are the poor outsiders because of their lack of ma­ terial "blessing." The purpose of these parables is to reverse an exclusivity forged by an election of the rich and famous by a more robust notion of God's universal mercy. In this regard, James's description of the preferential seating of the rich (2:2-3) echoes Luke 14:7-14. Luke's use of eklegomai in 14:7 indicates that this is the first in a triad of parables about election (14:7-24). A community's "seating chart" is theologi­ cally laden as a metaphor of value: people are seated according to their expected placement within God's reign. Luke 14:7-14 makes a point similar to James 2:1-6a: those who do not favor their favorites and instead include the least, the last, the lost, the lame will be blessed by God. The textured meaning supplied by this echo of the ministry of Luke's Jesus among the poor is extended by drawing an ad­ ditional link between the biting conclusion already drawn by James 2:4 and Jesus' parable of the oppressed widow (cf. James 1:27) and the unjust judge in Luke 18:1-8. There are certain sim­ ilarities between the parable's poor widow and judge, "who did not fear God nor respect people," and the slighting of the poor and their judges, "who make evil decisions," according to James. Even more important to our reading of James 2:5, the lesson that Jesus draws from the parable in Luke 18:7 speaks of God's eschatological vindication of the "chosen ones" (eklektoi), who obviously include the poor widow in distress. The reflexive relationship of these biblical texts may help to clarify the obscure additions the Evangelist makes to interpret this parable, both in introducing it with an exhortation to pray (18:1) and concluding it with a Son of Man saying about the im­ portance of faith (18:8b). Already in James, this same connection of prayer and faith is introduced in 1:5-8, whose exhortation is to petition God for heavenly wisdom as a necessary resource in passing spiritual tests. According to this gospel gloss, then, the Lukan widow becomes an exemplar for the pious poor of James, whose persistent prayers of faith supply the "lacking wisdom" in dealing with the "distinctions" made by their "judges with evil thoughts" (2:4). Ironically, of course, these "judges" are con­ stituted by the faith community itself; humbly receiving such wisdom from God, then, would necessarily lead the congrega­ tion into repentance. In the words of Pogo's famous epigram: "We have found the enemy and he is us!"

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

117

The final and most crucial echo of Luke's Jesus pairs James 2:5 with Luke 6:20, where "poor" and "kingdom" are joined in a promise: "Blessed are you who are poor [ptochous], for yours [hymetera] is the kingdom [basileia] of God." In the wider Lukan context, the emphatic "yours" of the beatitude refers the reader back to the eklegomai of 6:13 (cf. Acts 1:2), where the twelve apostles are "chosen." In Lukan context, their poverty, the re­ sult of active mercy toward others in need, is a social marker of their divine election. The parallel Lukan "woe" against wealth (6:24; cf. James 5:1) restates in different words the eschatologi­ cal reversal of fortune that Mary earlier predicted for the coming messianic ^eign (Luke 1:51-53; cf. Luke 7:22). If this gospel tra­ dition provides an additional layer of meaning for James, then the phrase "to be rich [plousios; cf. Luke 6:24] in faith" is iron­ ical and points ahead to the end of the age when those rich in power but impoverished in faith are replaced by those poor in power but rich in faith. The concluding phrase, which promises God's kingdom to "those who love God," recalls the earlier promise of the "crown of life" to "those who love God" (1:12). The promised blessing of the "crown of life" is made to those who endure: those who "love God" do so not with pious slogans but by obedience to the word. This prior meaning in James is repeated in this new field, where the faithful poor are those who love God even as they are discriminated against within the congregation. Of course, the purpose of this final rhetorical question is to convict a com­ munity that has favored the rich outsider over the poor insider. The peril of this discrimination is clearly sounded: those who ex­ clude the poor, who are included by God, run the risk of being excluded from the coming age themselves. Glossed by the earlier promise in James 1:12, perhaps this same warning also intends to encourage the pious poor to endure their trials as the condition of their future inheritance. That the community's eschatological blessing is imperiled be­ cause of class discrimination is made more clear by the harsh indictment, "But you insulted the poor person!" (2:6a), which concludes the previous three rhetorical questions and sharply contrasts (hymeis de) the promised inheritance of God's king­ dom. A congregation's apparent preference for the wealthy patron dishonors God's clients (cf. 1:3) — the poor who are rich in faith. The reader is well aware from earlier material in James (cf. 1:13-15) that such theological blunders substitute the prag-

118

James 1:22-2:26

matism of the "quick fix" for the eternal blessings of God's kingdom. To do so is blatant foolishness. James 2:6b -7 Foolish still is the congregation's apparent preference for those who harass them in law-courts (2:6b) and impugn Jesus' repu­ tation (and so their own) within the wider (probably Jewish) community (2:7). It is this terrible irony that only deepens the sense of injustice for James. The specific charges brought against the rich are three: (1) the "rich oppress you"; (2) they "drag you into the law-court"; and (3) "they defame the good name." The picture that is drawn by the first two charges is of oppressive power that insists on legal rights or privileges to exact payment of debt or rescission of a wage. Implied here is the unwitting cooperation of the congre­ gation itself, which is now constituted by "judges who makes evil decisions" (2:4). That is, the (unexpected) injustice envisaged by the seating protocol of the synagogue-court is similar to the (ex­ pected) injustice of the law-court. The irony of this situation is forcefully indicated by the third charge, since it is religious and not economic in nature: the rich patron "defames [blasphemed] the good name." We are not told whose "good name" is slan­ dered, whether the believer's or God's; however, I suspect this phrase echoes Ps. 134:3 LXX where praise is due the Lord's name, "for it is good" (hoti kalon; cf. 2:8). In this case, Jesus is the "glo­ rious Lord Christ" (2:1), which may indicate some anti-Christian activity on the part of the rich. Although clipped, this charge seems to suggest that the public ridicule of a weaker foe for his religious beliefs is an effort to further weaken his influence with the local magistrates, and only underscores the evil character of the rich in view. The rhetorical effect is to make more outrageous the congregation's slighting of the poor neighbor in favor of the rich outsider. It is this final charge, which indicates that the op­ pression of the poor in the law-courts is religiously motivated, that most clearly indicates the congregation's spiritual failure. Indeed, to neglect the poor in favor of the rich is an evil roughly the same as blasphemy against the Lord Jesus! Moreover, the foolishness of joining the rich blasphemer against those whom God has chosen is underscored by the phrase "by which you have been called" (epikaled) — a familiar Old Testament idiom of divine election (Deut. 28:10; Jer. 14:9;

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

119

Amos 9:12 [=Acts 15:17]). If God has "called" the poor into the congregation as heirs of the coming kingdom, then their oppres­ sion not only undermines God's special relationship with them but also runs the risk of God's final judgment (so 2:13). Excursus: Story and Election (James 2:5) In this brief excursus, I reflect on the phrase that asks whether "God chose the poor who are in the world." Clearly, this com­ ment on God's special relationship with the poor and powerless is important for determining the theological crisis facing its audience. In understanding this phrase, I would suggest that the reader construe the theological subject matter of James in terms of the gospel. That is, the very substructure (= subtexts) of this compo­ sition is the story of God's salvation. While each New Testament writer interprets this story differently, depending on theological interest and social location, there remains a stable sequence of events that forms its more essential common ground (see also "The Gospel according to James," in the introduction): 1. God elected a people, calling them out of the world and into a covenant relationship with God for salvation (2:5). 2. God then called forth the "word of truth" to reveal the Creator's intention to reclaim and restore a fallen and frag­ mented creation (1:17-18). 3. Jesus Christ followed God's redemptive intentions in com­ pleting his messianic vocation, fulfilling thereby God's promise of salvation. The "faith of Jesus Christ" is the critical messianic event, whether that is publicly disclosed on his cross (Rom. 3:22) or by his exemplary lifestyle (2:1). 4. God exalted the Risen Christ as "glorious Lord" in recogni­ tion of the eschatological importance of his messianic work. In the case of James, Jesus is approved by God because he obeyed the "royal law" and provided a normative example for others to follow (2:1-7). The lordship of Jesus indicates that his exemplary life of love is a prolepsis of God's eschatological requirement. That is, the exaltation of the Christian community at the end of the age is conditioned on its obedience to the same "royal law" that guided the Messiah's life (1:12, 25; 2:8-13). 5. In absence of the now exalted Lord Jesus Christ, the com­ munity's membership must continue to bear witness to the coming triumph of God's reign. In fact, the reign of God has al-

120

James 1:22-2:26

ready triumphed, but only in heaven and not yet fully on earth. Therefore, the inevitable passing away of the present evil age on earth will occur sometime in the indefinite future, while the faithfulness of the current generation of God's people is tested by ever-increasing trials and tribulations (1:2-4). 6. Salvation's history will be consummated at the Lord's parousia, when outsiders will be judged while those who pass the testing of faith and remain members of the eschatological community will be blessed (5:7-9). The first and arguably the most important event of the bibli­ cal story is divine election—all else salvific is determined by the nature of God's relations with those whom God has called into Israel. Not surprisingly, then, the theological confusion to which New Testament writers respond typically issues from a myopic misunderstanding of those whom God has chosen for salvation. Even issues of theodicy attend this concern, since what is dis­ closed about God's justice extends from God's act of electing — or including — a particular people for salvation. In the case of the Pauline witness, the crisis provoked by the gentile mission is Paul's contention that God has called Gentiles out of the world and into eschatological Israel, inclusive of its rights and privi­ leges without first converting to Judaism (Romans 9-11). God's election is not ethnocentric, then, nor is it marked out by the cultic formulae of ancestral religion; rather, God's salvation is universal. While the principal theological crisis for James remains di­ vine election, the issues surrounding Israel's identity are socio­ economic rather than missiological; and the issue of divine justice is rather envisaged by the injustices of class conflict rather than of religious conversion. Thus, the impartiality of God de­ mands justice for those unjustly oppressed, who are God's elect. The "gospel according to James" (as witnessed to by the Book of James) is also less evangelistic and more pastoral in intent; that is, its message is to confirm the faith of our marginal faith­ ful rather than to call forth the faith of those who are lost (however, 5:19-20). Moreover, the public markers of the elect community are socioeconomic (1:27), although in agreement with Torah. Yet, the message of James begins and concludes with the same events as do all other New Testament kerygmata, in­ cluding Pauline: God's election of Israel and the history of a promised salvation that it inaugurates; and the Lord's parousia and the consummation of a realized salvation that it concludes.

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

121

James 2:8-13: Implications of "Quick Hearing" for Life 8

lf you actually fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "you will love your neighbor as yourself/' then you do right. But if you show favoritism, then you commit a sin, having been indicted by the Torah as law-breakers. For whoever ob­ serves the complete Torah, yet stumbles over a single rule, is completely guilty. The Torah says, "Do not commit adultery," and also says, "Do not murder"; therefore, if you murder, even though you do not commit adultery, then you have become a law-breaker. So talk and walk as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be merciless to the one who has been merciless; whereas mercy will triumph over such a judgment.

9

10

1l

12

13

To this point, the main body of James has proffered a commen­ tary on the traditional wisdom of "quick to hear" (1:19) that has encouraged the believer to do the work of justice demanded by Torah (1:22-27) and exemplified by "the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ" (2:1). The spiritual test that has occasioned this particular discussion in James is the congregation's apparent discrimination against its own poor believers in favor of a rich patron (2:2-4) — oddly so, since this same rich outsider also ha­ rasses them and even discredits their faith before the law-court (2:6-7). According to this wisdom commentary, any injustice against the poor fails the test of faith in a God who has called the poor into faithful Israel to be heirs of the coming kingdom (2:5). The present passage concentrates upon a particular teaching of the law to define both its positive performance as the "royal law" (2:8) and its negative performance in the practice of dis­ crimination (2:9). In doing so, James restates and expands his exhortation that the wise community obey "the perfect law of liberty" to pass the test of faith and to secure the promised bless­ ing from God in the coming age. The contrasting conditionals here between love, which "does right" (2:8), and discrimination, which convicts the transgressor as a "law-breaker" (2:9), continue to define the current spiritual test within the congregation. Specifically, this passage clarifies the Torah's work, which demands consistent and complete compliance to its demand (2:10-11) before the righteous Judge (4:12) who also has re­ vealed the Torah (4:11) and whose eschatological verdict is

122

James 1:22-2:26

determined by such (2:12-13). The peril of discrimination is no­ where more clearly stated than here: spiritual failure results in merciless judgment, which can only mean for James the loss of the "crown of life." James 2:8-9 The repetition of "law" (nomos), "fulfill" (teleo, cf. teleios, "per­ fect," in 1:25), and "do" (poieo) brings this critical cache of words into clearer light by the reader's knowledge of the cri­ sis at hand, where the congregation's discrimination favors rich outsiders at the expense of poor believers. The principal contribution of this text is the citation of Lev. 19:18, which deepens our understanding of both the crisis (dis­ crimination; cf. Lev. 19:15) and the wisdom of doing the Torah's work. Th^t is, the problem of partiality is that the bigot disobeys the "royal law," "you will love your neighbor as yourself," when it is this very law that the wise congregation must observe in hope of receiving God's promised blessing. To actually fulfill this law is to perform its demand by following the example of Jesus in resisting discrimination against the poor. The royal law (nomon basilikon) stands at the epicenter of the levitical laws of holiness, which function in whole as useful so­ cial markers of a purified people that belongs to a holy God: they constitute a law given by God and observed by God's people to maintain good relations between their different groups. So that in this application, the neighbor is the poor person who is dis­ criminated against, while the neighborhood is constituted of all of those who, like "widows and orphans," are in distress be­ cause of their marginal and powerless position within the world order (see 1:27). The meaning of "royal" as a predicate of the anarthrous "law" remains unclear. Virtually all commentators understand that both the "royal law" and the levitical "love command" are coex­ tensive with the poor, and that their combined use here intends to condemn the community's preference for the rich (2:9; cf. Lev. 19:15). That is, while its scope includes all persons, in this particular application to "love the neighbor" is not to discrimi­ nate against the poor. In this light, perhaps "royal" is a metaphor that implies the singular significance of this single law for any situation where discrimination exists and where it imperils the eschatological salvation of a community. 79

80

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

123

The intent of James's appeal to scripture is also unclear. On the one hand, it seems entirely too "Protestant" to think it a metaphor of scripture's authority: that is, James cites this particular "scripture" from Leviticus to authorize a particular construal of the crisis at hand. The reference to scripture is not part of an introductory formula that then introduces the citation of Lev. 19:18. Nor is some ranking of various rules in­ ferred. Better is the clue found in the Pauline writings, where this same text summarizes the Old Testament moral code. Ac­ cording to Christian tradition, rooted perhaps in the memory of Jesus' interpretation of Torah, this law is the essential precept that interprets the will of the Creator and so underscores the im­ portance of the law of love. Like Paul and Jesus, James perhaps follows the rabbinical rule of Kelal uperat uperat ukelal (lit. "gen­ eral for particular") in appealing to a general commandment as summary of all the particular commandments. However, I share Laws's misgivings of this interpretation. Perhaps the meaning of "royal law" is extended by noting its relationship both to the preceding reference to God's "king­ dom" (2:5; basileia=basilikos) and to the subsequent repetition of "law of liberty" (2:12; par. nomos). Johnson agrees that the "law of liberty" and "royal law" refer to the same biblical ma­ terial (Lev. 19:12-18); however, rather than mere equivalents, they serve different although complementary roles. On the one hand, the "law of liberty" judges believers, whereas the "royal law" guides the ethical conduct of these same believers. Fur­ ther, when viewed as complements, the "law of liberty" and "royal law" are mutually glossing phrases, especially if the "law of liberty" brackets off (1:25, 2:12) a passage that defines the wis­ dom of obeying God's law. If "liberty" is a metaphor for levitical justice (see "The Perfect Law of Liberty," above), then the "law of love" is embodied by the congregation that resists the peril of discrimination and defends/cares for its poor and powerless members. Yet, obedience to the basilikos ("royal") rule over God's people also obtains to the coming basileia ("reign") of God in two senses: (1) doing the work of the "royal law" ends class discrim­ ination in witness to and anticipation of the sociology of the coming kingdom; and (2) by this same "royal law" an eschatolog­ ical people then will be judged as belonging to God (2:12) and therefore will participate in the coming kingdom. The phrase "you do right" (kalos poieite), which James adds to the citation 81

82

83

84

85

124

James 1:22-2:26

of the "royal law/' seems to confirm this second sense. The prior use of poieite in 1:25 suggests that this refrain scores an eschato­ logical and not a moral point. That is, the future result of doing what is "right" is divine "blessing," the "crown of life" (1:12). Of course, it is also "right" to obey the royal law because it ac­ cords with God's will; and a preferential option for the poor is certainly "right" because it accords with God's election. When James repeats this phrase in 2:19 as a thematic of theological de­ ception, the contrast of the two species of religions introduced in 1:26-27 is clarified: God will not approve a confessing congrega­ tion whose life is characterized by its mistreatment of the pious poor (2:20). In this same sense, the phrase here refers to God's favorable verdict at the end of the age for those who distribute justice to the poor and powerless (2:13). The importance of the law's demand for the future is un­ derscored by the formulaic "fulfill" (teleo), which is an escha­ tological catchword elsewhere in James. That is, hidden within the "royal law" is the promise of future salvation, which will be realized in the coming age for those who obey its law of love. This point will be more fully developed in 2:12-13, where God's verdict is based upon the believer's obedience to Torah — specifically in those situations where the poor and powerless are discriminated against. In fact, if the believer "does right" when defending the poor neighbor, then to "show favoritism" (the verbal idea of prosopolempsia of 2:1) is to "commit a sin." James simply repeats 2:8 for emphasis, but in its negative form warns the readers that discrimination (in this case, against the poor) is "doing wrong" and will result in a negative verdict from God at the end of the age (so 2:13). The use of ergazomai ("commit") iron­ ically recalls ergon from 1:25 (cf. 1:4), where the "work of the law" secures eternal blessing; and perhaps also katergazetai ("pro­ duced") and ergon teleion ("perfect work") of 1:3-4 which results in future blessing. The repetition of these important ideas, given the reflexive character of James, commends a more eschatologi­ cal meaning of this passage, with the added force of a warning: God requires the "work" of the "royal law," since not to "pro­ duce" this work is to break the law, to sin, and therefore to forfeit the hope of participating in the coming triumph of God (2:5, 1:12). Back to Jesus (2:1). It is New Testament teaching that Jesus' Lordship is granted by God because Jesus served God's inter-

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

125

ests (cf. Acts 2:36; Phil. 2:9-11): he "did right." In this context, Jesus "did right" precisely because he observed the "royal law": he loved his poor neighbors simply because God called the pi­ ous poor out of the world to be rich in faith. This norm of the messianic age, which leads faithful Israel into God's reign, is therefore defined by the memories of Jesus' love of the poor neighbor. James 2:10-11 The connecting phrase, "For whoever" (hostis gar), introduces a tautology that illustrates the point made by the two condition­ als of 2:8-9: the believer who "observes the complete Torah, yet stumbles over a single rule, is completely guilty." The dra­ matic repetition of "law-breaker" (parabates; cf. 2:9) at the end of 2:11 brackets this passage as the legal brief on the act of "lawbreaking," making even more clear the importance of following the "royal law" of love in all relations with the poor. The interpreter's initial task is to resolve the tension between "the complete Torah" and its "single rule": in what sense does "stumbling" over a single commandment (=Lev. 19:18) break the entire Torah? This seems altogether too harsh for a God who has written a law of love! Some understand "complete Torah" as a more immediate reference to the "royal law" rather than to the entire biblical code. In this case, then, the "single rule" refers not to a specific rule of the law code but to a specific appli­ cation of its "royal law." Most scholars, however, suppose the "royal law" is the antecedent of "the single rule": that is, if the believer transgresses the "royal law," then he is condemned a "law-breaker." Davids, for instance, appeals to rabbinic tradition, which condemns the mistreatment of the poor as one of three "cardinal sins" that effectively sum up the law code: the failure to love one's neighbor is to disobey the "spirit" of the entire Torah. Unless this phrase intends to make an ironical point, this understanding of doing the whole law differs from Paul. Even though Paul makes a similar point in Galatians (5:14) — when arguing against those missionaries sent by James — he finally maintains that the whole Torah cannot be obeyed (Gal. 3:1014, 5:3). The deeper logic of this conviction is that the whole Torah is invalidated as a condition of justification: the believer is saved by God by trusting solely upon the merit of Jesus' mes86

87

88

126

James 1:22-2:26

sianic death. By comparing James against this core conviction of Pauline thought, the Jewishness of these sentiments is made more keen. For James, Christianity is an ethical religion; the believer's devotion to God is demonstrated by observing the whole law. Since the monotheism of James presumes that the simul­ taneity of scripture and its different parts comprise an integral whole, each of the various parts of Torah carries equal moral force as divine revelation. To disobey "a single rule" of the "com­ plete Torah" is to disobey every part of a single whole since every part envisages the will of one God. Jesus among other rabbis did not tolerate a distinction between the greater and lesser commandments (Matt. 5:19; cf. Deut. 27:26), since every commandment is a critical disclosure of God's will. And true de­ votion demanded obedience to the whole will (or law) of God. Further, monotheistic faith would seem to demand a unitive notion of the law. The believer must not distinguish between parts of the law even as one cannot divide God up into parts of a divine whole. Having said this, however, James may intend to draw a tacit comparison between the obvious prohibitions listed (against "adultery" and "murder") with the less obvious "royal law." If so, an implicit use of Qal wa-homer (lit. "less and more" important) is employed here: if Torah's specific prohibi­ tions against adultery and murder must be obeyed, which even the pagans observe, how much more important is it for believ­ ers to observe the "royal" rule? The wisdom of doing the work of the whole law and not just any one part of it may finally un­ derscore the importance of obeying this "single rule" to which James appeals as most relevant to the spiritual crisis at hand. The natural tension this idea creates is nicely focused within James by the juxtaposition of "observes" (tered; cf. 1:27b) and "stumbles" (ptaid; cf. 3:2), two words that almost always carry a moral if not also legal force in scripture. But if the reflexive character of tered retains its meaning from 1:27, then its use here adds a social dimension to this disobedience: the believer who favors the rich against the poor "stumbles" and fails to "ob­ serve" the whole Torah because he is influenced by the evils of the surrounding social order. The author's selection of these two prohibitions against adul­ tery and murder is an intriguing one. I suggested earlier that these two evils are obvious choices since they are not contested even by pagans. Moreover, according to Matthew's Sermon on

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

127

the Mount (Matt. 5:21-26, 27-30), these two prohibitions are the first used to illustrate the messianic reinterpretation of the law of God —indeed, in a controversial manner since Jesus' interpreta­ tion extends the range of God's law to include the thoughts and intentions at the very "heart" of the matter. Even more strategi­ cally than this Jesus tradition, however, James repeats "murder" in 4:2 and 5:6 as a metaphor of the rich man's greed that exploits the poor unjustly. James rebukes such greed as evidence of the spiritual "adulteress" (4:4), whose friendship is with the "world" rather than with God. There is a close connection within James, then, between Torah's prohibitions against "murder" and "adul­ tery" and the present indictment of discrimination within the faith community. In fact, this subsequent repetition of "murder" and "adultery" within James may well suggest to its reader that these great evils, which even pagans abhor, are embodied in acts of discrimination against the poor and powerless. James 2:12-13 The opening "So" (houtos) draws a conclusion from the pre­ ceding statements about the Torah to draw attention to its eschatological role. The structure of this text is similar to 2:1011 and binds the two together rhetorically: the essential point is again introduced (v. 12) followed by an explanatory illustra­ tion that is introduced by the particle "for" (gar). The passage envisages the familiar moral topos of saying one thing but do­ ing its opposite, already introduced in 1:26-27 and expanded on in what follows in 2:14-26. Recall that the programmatic state­ ment of this contrast between walking and talking is focused by the catchphrase "perfect law of liberty" (1:25). In this use, "lib­ erty" functioned as a metaphor of the law's demand rather than its result: that is, the subject matter of Torah's teaching — espe­ cially according to the levitical domain where the "royal law" is found — concerns itself with justice for the poor (see "The Per­ fect Law of Liberty," above). In the present passage, the meaning of "law of liberty" construes its eschatological role and liberat­ ing result as a barometer of the community's devotion to God: in this case, the "law of liberty" is the community's rule of faith which measures and approves (or disapproves) its fitness for the kingdom of God. Elsewhere in the New Testament, especially in the Pauline cor­ pus, the pairing of "liberty" (eleutherias) and "to pass judgment"

128

James 1:22-2:26

(krino) is more negative (cf. 1 Cor. 10:29). Within this canoni­ cal context, then, one is inclined to ask how God's judgment, based upon the law, can actually achieve a "liberating" result? Might one conceive of a law that liberates only by placing it in the hands of an utterly impartial judge, like God? In this sec­ tion of James, where "liberty" is a metaphor for a Jubilee-like justice, one can imagine that the poor person is "liberated" by the egalitarianism of a community intent on heralding the soci­ ology of the coming age. Moreover, unlike those "evil-minded" judges (2:4) who discriminate against the poor (2:6-7), God's es­ chatological "yes" to the pious poor and "no" to the oppressive rich are based upon whether they have obeyed the law of ju­ bilary justice. In this second sense, the "law of liberty" is the criterion by which God will recognize a true Israel occupying the kingdom. Obedience results in a favorable verdict at the end of the age, liberty from death, and an existence freed of trials and testing. With respect to this last point, the use of "judge" and "judg­ ment" recalls the courtroom language of 2:6 (kriteriori) and the shocking reference to evil "judges" (krites) in 2:4. Against these earlier references to legalized injustice, God's eschatolog­ ical courtroom promises a fair trial to every person: the rule of faith is Torah, which clearly and perfectly stipulates God's will. Since love of one's neighbor is the rule of God's coming king­ dom, it seems theo-logical that "mercy" is given by God to those who "show mercy" — that is, who love their (poor) neighbors — while divine "judgment" (krisis) is reserved for "the one who has been merciless" (lit. "has not done [poieo] mercy). The justice of God and of Torah can be perceived in two ways: if one merely hears or speaks knowingly of the whole of Torah but is not a "doer" of its various parts and most especially of its royal rule, then God's justice and Torah's revelation of it warrant the nondoer's condemnation. If, however, the believer is a doer of Torah, then God's sense of justice will confirm one's salvation, without partiality of social status. The introduction of "merciless"/"mercy" into James is impor­ tant in qualifying what is meant by divine judgment. James again creates tension in the reader, similar to the juxtaposing of free­ dom and law, by bringing together mercy and judgment and by even claiming that God's mercy will overwhelm God's judgment in the case of those who have shown mercy toward others. Here, divine judgment is not conceived of as "fair" but as "merciful"

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

129

or "unmerciful" (the negation of mercy). That is, God does not punish or withhold punishment on the basis of whether a com­ munity is wise in matters of salvation. This perception of God as Judge, then, is not wholly negative; indeed, God is perceived of as Judge who dispenses judgments based upon a common law for all people. Yet, that disposition that finally guides God's discernment of justice is mercy and not punishment. In this sense, perhaps James intends a further contrast with secular judges (2:6-7), whose judgments are harsh punishments—char­ acterized as oppressive, abusive, blasphemous. While certainly the God of James will judge some negatively because they are fools—not wise in obeying Torah's demand—God's judgment is characterized here as "merciless" (an-eleos) since God's principal disposition toward people is merciful rather than brutish. The present indicative "will triumph" (katakauchatai) is fu­ turistic, which continues the air of immediacy and certainty envisaged by the verbal aspect of 2:12. The use of this partic­ ular verb recalls James's earlier use of "boasting" (kauchaomai) in 1:9, where the contrast between rich and poor is introduced into the composition. This earlier use of "boasting" characterizes the pious poor, whose undivided confidence in God's love while enduring the hardships of a "humble" existence anticipates their prosperity in the age to come. Armed with this prior meaning, the interpreter understands the concluding promise, "mercy will triumph" (or "boast"), as an implied reference to the coming age when God's benefaction will be experienced by the elect poor (2:5) and by their "judges" (= faith community; 2:4) who treat them justly even though pressured by more malevolent pow­ ers (2:2-3, 6-7). In this compositional setting, the future warns against the unjust discrimination of the poor in the present and helps to cash out an account of justice, whose proper motivation is theocentric.

James 2:14-26: A "Footnote" on Faith and Works 14

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone says "I have faith," but has no works? Can "faith" save? lf a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, " G o in peace; keep warm and be filled!" without pro­ viding them their material needs, what good is it? S o faith, if it has no works, is dead. lndeed someone will say, "You have 15

16

17

18

James 1:22-2:26

130

faith and I have works. Show me your faith by your works and I will show you by my works, my faith. You believe that God is one; you do right." Yet the demons believe and shudder! Do you understand, foolish fellow, that faith without works is bar­ ren? Was not Abraham our Father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith worked with his works, so that faith was perfected by works. And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham trusted God and he was considered righteous." And he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. Likewise, was not even Rahab the Prosti­ tute justified by works, when she entertained the messengers and sent them by a different route? For as the body is dead without the spirit, so also is faith dead without works. 19

20

2 1

22

23

24

25

26

In his landmark "Letter from Birmingham City Jail," Martin Luther King Jr. argued against the foolishness of white church leaders who tolerated racist acts against black Americans. King wrote: In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churches stand on the sidelines and merely mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivi­ alities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard so many min­ isters say, "These are social issues with which the Gospel has no real concern." 89

The present passage from James, which concludes an essay on the wisdom of "quick hearing," reacts in a similar way to a similar problem and reflects a concern, common among moral philosophers of the day, that verbal professions of trust must be embodied in moral behavior to be legitimate. The failure of so­ cial religion is the hypocrisy of paying lip service to a God who "desires mercy and not sacrifice" (Hos. 6:6; cf. Matt. 12:7). In keeping with the triadic architecture of James, this pas­ sage is a collocation of three pericopae (2:14-17, 18-20, 21-26) that together illustrate and clarify the point just scored in 2:1213: believers who prefer the "rich and famous" outsider at the expense of their poor and powerless neighbors are judged "law­ breakers" because they disobey the "royal law" and will be excluded by God from the blessings of the coming age. A harsh judgment indeed! With gathering emphasis, then, each member

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

131

of this illustrative triad confirms God's verdict that any variety of Christian faith that lacks mercy will be judged "dead" (v. 17), "barren" (v. 20), and "dead" (v. 26) — a merciless faith fails the "test of faith." Put negatively a "dead" faith results in a "death" sentence at the end of the age — a subtext that runs through this book (see 5:20), making its exhortation to care for the poor all the more urgent to heed. In this passage, "faith" publicly professes the central truth of religious life (2:19a) but is never embodied in merciful behav­ ior. The failure of the legal system to secure justice for the poor, whether in the synagogue (2:2-3) or the law-court (2:6-7), en­ visages a more generic problem of spiritual compromise that is sometimes excused by pious-sounding slogans, which some even think are effective substitutes for loving and just deeds. Thus, in addition to the positive examples of true religion supplied by Pa­ triarch Abraham and Prostitute Rahab (2:21-26), James offers his readers additional examples of theological deception for them to guard against (2:14-20). This contrast between walking and talking the faith reprises the programmatic definitions of "worthless" and "pure" reli­ gion in 1:26-27. Recall that the point of that earlier contrast was to define eschatological religion in terms of things done rather than things merely said or heard (1:22-25). Sharply put, then, the repeated refrain that faith without works is "dead" and "barren" provides additional commentary on a Christian faith that depends solely upon public professions of orthodox faith as evidence of a community's devotion to God. A subtext of the present commentary on this passage is the historic Protestant opinion, following Luther's lead, which sup­ poses that this passage assaults the "sola fide" (faith alone) plank of the magisterial reformation. This impression is confirmed by the study of M. Lautenschlager, whose analysis of pistis leads him to conclude that the pattern of salvation in James is what E. P. Sanders has called "covenantal nomism," according to which membership in eschatological Israel depends upon obeying the biblical Torah. Lautenschlager contends that such a view cannot be easily harmonized with the Pauline notion of faith in Christ: sharply put, each tradition enshrines different soteriologies. Those who depend upon "faith alone" are those who likely fail the test of their faith. But what does "faith alone" refer to in this passage? And does "justification by works" mean the same thing in James as it does 90

132

James 1:22-2:26

in Paul? In my view, "faith alone" in James refers to a particu­ lar religious expression, when the community's core convictions about God are publicly confessed as true, whether by pious bene­ diction (2:16) or creedal profession (2:19a). I take it that such confessions of faith are sincerely made and are important in the performance of true religion; however, according to James they are an insufficient or "incomplete" response to God's demand on the congregation of believers. Thus, "works" are necessary complements to these professions of faith (2:22) — to round faith off in a way that passes the believer's spiritual test. Clearly, James does not indicate that God's justifying grace is conditioned upon "works alone," but that "works" justify the believer in the sense of supplying God with the hard evidence of an embodied or "mature" faith. In this same sense, "works" are those acts that conform to the biblical Torah as delimited by this passage—that is, rules that in­ sure that the poor and powerless members of the congregation are defended and treated mercifully. Frankly, the community's "rule of neighborly love" is not exactly the "works of the Law" which Paul found contrary to his gospel; however, neither do the "works" of James envisage an essentially different reality than the Pauline "works of the Law." Clearly, the "works" of James are works of the Torah (2:8-11), which the community must perform in order to receive God's promised blessing (1:25, 2:12-13). While Paul argues against the necessity of observing "purity" (kosher, sabbath) laws to maintain membership within the covenant community, it seems to me that the congregation's purity is an important result of observing the "law of liberty" for James (see 1:27). Even more disturbing for Protestant inter­ preters is the rather pointed claim, which James repeats (2:21, 24, 25), that God justifies the believer because of these "works," which reverses Paul's claim in Rom. 4:2. This commentary presumes that James and Paul are on the same page when speaking of "faith and works": both traditions seek to define humanity's response to God's saving grace, which results in their salvation. In the case of the Pauline tradition, God justifies the believer who makes public profession that the risen Jesus is Lord (Rom. 10:8-13); in the case of James, however, such public professions are an inadequate response to God since even God's enemies can do that (2:19b). Rather, performance of the "law of liberty" is required by God, so that God justi­ fies those believers whose sincere devotion is expressed by works

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

133

of mercy, especially toward the poor and powerless members of their own congregation. When the theological vision of James is either decanonized in favor of Paul or harmonized with Paul, the compelling power of scripture's whole counsel is compromised. In fact, one of scripture's most persuasive "checks" that brings balance to the Reformation's "faith alone" theology is lost. James 2:14-17 The first example that illustrates the theology of 2:12-13 is framed by a series of three rhetorical questions, the first and last of which ask, "What good is it?" Sandwiched between the repeti­ tion of this organizing question is the foolish contention of the believer who claims, "I have faith," but whose life exhibits an unresponsive regard for his destitute neighbors. The intended re­ sponse to this question, then, is that his profession of faith is not "good" because it is not redemptive — either to "save" the poor from poverty or the believer from God's judgment. Given what James has already argued, only the fool would fail to find this a reasonable answer: a believer's professed "faith" in God is "dead" when it "has no works" (erga), since it is active and responsible obedience to God's law that saves. The reflexive meaning of erga in James confirms and deep­ ens the logic of this first example. In two prior texts (1:4, 25), the thematic of "work" supplies a certain evidence of devotion for God and thereby warrants the practitioner's anticipation of eschatological blessing. The implied meaning of its use here sim­ ply reserves this redemptive logic: a works-less faith fails the test of that faith which heralds the believer's salvation in the coming age. Because of the structural importance of the question, "What good [ophelos] is it?" the interpreter should ask what is the shape of the "good" here? If this passage illustrates the point scored in 2:12-13, then the definition of "good" derives from the per­ spective of God's coming judgment. That is, James asks whether a verbal profession of Christian faith, which is unaccompanied by works of mercy (= obedience of the "law of liberty"), is ac­ tually "good" enough to receive God's blessing of eternal life (cf. 1:12). The expected response is negative: James has already claimed that a worthless religion is constituted by those who "consider themselves religious without bridling their tongues." Thus, spiritual failure in this sense is the hypocrisy of "talking"

134

James 1:22-2:26

(lege tis) the faith without the responsibility of "walking" it. A "religion of the mouth" will surely fail the eschatological test of faith. To argue that James sides with Paul here in defending a view that good works are an essential expression or natural yield of Christian faith is simply mistaken. Equally wrong-headed is the claim that "faith" used in this book is a different species of "faith" than used in the Pauline writings — they are the "apples and oranges" of a New Testament theology of faith and should not be compared or contrasted. No comparison, no problem. While I admit to a measure of truth in both positions, the bogus "faith" that James condemns is the "professed faith" that Paul claims saves (Rom. 10:9-13). Christianity according to James is not anti-Pauline Christianity, but it lays claim to an ethical religion that "holds to the faith [echete ten pistin] of our glo­ rious Lord Jesus Christ" (2:1), whose friendship with God was exemplified by his obedience of Torah (cf. 2:14; echein ergo). Accordingly, the one who only says, "I have faith," defines a Christian's faith by sympathetic benediction (2:15) or pious con­ fession (cf. 2:19) rather than by specific acts of mercy to those in need. James condemns this as "dead" faith not because it is grounded in cynical motive but because it fails to convince God at the end of the age. These are the slogans of an orthodox and pious commitment to God. Surely God is pleased to hear confes­ sions of such faith from God's people. Nor is it wrong to trust that God who promises us shalom in the scriptures will grant it to those who require it. The familiar benediction "Go in peace" is deeply rooted in a theology of grace, and I suspect is offered to the needy "brother or sister" in anticipation of its realization in their lives. So the deception in this case is not found in what is said, nor even in its motivation. The deception is in thinking that God will judge the person of faith merely on the basis of what is said, whether in confessions of faith about God or by well-meaning platitudes to one's neighbor. God measures true devotion by the book, and that book requires action. While the imaginary believer has faith, he has no works; on balance, this kind of Christianity is "dead" (nekros). Earlier, James speaks of the es­ chatological results of spiritual testing in terms of either "death" (1:15) or the "crown of life" (1:12). The contrast between a bo­ gus faith and merciful deeds envisages these same results: those whose confidence rests on routine professions of faith in God 91

92

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

135

but whose lives do not embody the mercy of God are destined for "death" instead of "life" at day's end (cf. 5:19-20). While the incident narrated in 2:15-16 is invented for rhetor­ ical purposes, it does recall the situation described in 2:1-7, where the congregation discriminates against the poor in favor of the rich. To offer the destitute only nice-sounding benedic­ tions of personal concern participates in this same social reality where the conditions of poverty are maintained. The poor can­ not eat shalom or wear it when its promise exists only in words professed but never in actions. This is yet another form of dis­ crimination because it evinces the refusal to show mercy to the poor when they enter the community (cf. 2:2-3) with such an obvious need for mercy. The condition of the poor neighbor, who "lacks" (leipd) in ba­ sic human requirements, also recalls 1:4-5. In this earlier text, the meaning of leipd links together the promise of eternal life (cf. 1:12) that "lacks in nothing" (1:4) with the need for a "lacking" wisdom (1:5) that will navigate the community's way through its present trials into the coming age. This initial use of leipd adds a layer of ironic meaning to the opponent's foolish response here. By not acting mercifully to alleviate what the poor "lacks" in daily food and clothing, the believer exposes his own "lack" of an embodied wisdom that is required to pass the testing of faith. The implied consequence is a merciless judgment from God (so 2:13). According to this illustration of a faith that fails the eschato­ logical test of faith, then, James argues that merciless religion results from a lack of wisdom; it simply has lost its way and therefore responds unwisely to the poor. This practical foolish­ ness again is the yield of a theological deception that God will honor words instead of works. In the next example, James will take this deception to a disturbing end. James 2:18-20 Although very difficult to translate because of the textual prob­ lems (see "The Interlocutor's Compromise," below), this passage is a nice example of the diatribe—a rhetorical pattern in which the author invents an imaginary opponent ("someone will say"), whose speech offers the reader a competing argument, which in turn allows the author to clarify his position. The debate between the author and his imaginary opponent does not in-

James 1:22-2:26

136

tend to present different alternatives in an objective manner or that even reflect the actual situation. Rather, the author's pur­ pose is to persuade the readers to his point of view by using his opponent as a "straw man," whose argument is seriously flawed and clearly inferior. In this case, the opponent seems to espouse the same position as the believer who says, "I have faith" (2:14), only then to offer pious words rather than active mercy to the poor brother or sister (2:15-16). In that case, his lack of "works" exposes his faith as "dead" because it cannot save him (2:17). This second illustration underscores the foolishness of this position by placing his opponent in the same company with demons, whose orthodoxy quite obviously does not save them from destruction. The structure of this example is generally similar to the first: the opponent introduces his understanding of God's eschatologi­ cal judgment (2:18-19a), which is then followed by the author's rebuttal of the position as foolish (2:19b-20). In this case, the opponent begins reasonably enough, "You have faith and I have works." Commentators, however, have been confused, not know­ ing the identity of either the "you" or the "I." Since all agree these are the opponent's first words, one would expect the "you" to refer to James. Yet, the position linked to the "you" is the very "faith alone" interpretation of the gospel that James has just criticized as "dead." Moreover, the opponent's "I" seems to support the "works" position of James. Dibelius points out that in diatribe the identity of the interlocutor's referents is actually unimportant; they intend to introduce two different points of view rather than two proponents of them. In this sense, then, neither the "you" nor the "I" refers to a party but rather to a theological position. The second surprising tactic of this opponent is his reluctance in taking on James's works position in defense of his own "faith alone" position, which one might expect. His argument imag­ ines a more subtle option as a kind of logical synthesis: "Show me your faith by your works and I will show you by my works, my faith." In effect, this compromise contends that there are two distinct starting points within Christianity, either of which is approved by God. On the one hand, there is a version of Christianity that begins with (and so is concentrated upon) a profession of orthodox faith; yet, on the other hand, there is another account of Christianity that begins with (and so is con­ centrated upon) good works. The opponent's clever claim, then. 93

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

137

is that God approves both the doer (so 2:8c) and confessor (so 2:19a) of true religion—there are no losers here! This is how I take the refrain, "you do right" (kalds poieis), which follows the believer's profession of monotheistic faith as the conclusion and climax of the opponent's argument. This refrain echoes the earlier refrain of 2:8 (kalds poieite), which ren­ ders God's favorable verdict in observing the "royal law." In effect, the opponent now claims the same verdict follows for those who profess orthodox religion. There remains no qual­ itative (or eschatological) difference between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. The role of this refrain in the diatribe, then, is not ironic; the purpose is rather to propose a theological pluriformity that James will not tolerate among its readers. In this compositional setting, spiritual tests are not passed also by good words but by good works alone. In this regard, the response found in James 2:19b-20 to this clever compromise is compelling and arresting. James uses the case study of "demons," who also profess christological mono­ theism as true (Mark 1:24; Acts 16:17), and by this rule of faith are therefore "orthodox." This is a brilliant move rhetorically, because no orthodox reader would deny the ultimate damnation of demons. By light of James, mere orthodoxy alone does not save; the demons know this (after all, they are orthodox!) and "shudder" (phrisso). The meaning of phrisso here seems important but difficult to determine. It is used in Greek literature of the sick or terri­ fied person's involuntary shaking. Laws argues that the image of shuddering demons intends to defend the theological calcu­ lus that faith effects action. In the case of demons, however, their faith in God results incorrectly in terror rather than love. Given the immediate context, I rather suspect that phrisso is an eschatological idiom, used here to maintain the importance of active mercy for the future reward of eternal life. Thus, any be­ liever who professes faith in God without doing God's "royal law" shares the same destiny with professing demons. Both should "shudder" since both share a destiny that concludes with God's merciless judgment (2:13). James offers readers the expected conclusion to this second illustration: the believer who substitutes profession alone for faith-in-action is a "foolish fellow," because this position sup­ poses that God finds pleasure in an inactive faith, when "faith without works is barren." The word "barren" (argos) has an in94

95

96

138

James 1:22-2:26

teresting use elsewhere in the New Testament. In Matt. 12:36 "barren" is used of careless words: words can either save or condemn the disciple. It is also used as a metaphor for the spir­ itually immature believers, who include "idle" (lit. "barren") gossips (1 Tim. 5:13) and morally "lax" (lit. "barren") prophets (Titus 1:12). In some sense, these metaphors associate argos with uninspired speech, which detects personal immaturity and its spiritually deadening results. This usage agrees with James. While the content of what the opponent or demons say is true is actually true, the real problem is that such professions have become the exclusive criterion for measuring true religion: that is, the congregation is "doing well" with God if its professions of faith are orthodox. This is theological deception and actu­ ally imperils the community's end-time salvation if the ultimate importance of an observant faith is denied as a result. Perhaps James intends a word-play between argos and ergos — two words that sound alike to auditors. If so, another contrast between faith and works layers the importance of this illustra­ tion: "barren" is any faith that fails to embody the "work" that accords with the law of God — the central point of this com­ mentary on the wisdom of "quick hearing." In fact, I suspect the "barren" language interacts reflexively with the birth images used earlier to chart spiritual failure as the "conception" of sin (1:14) that "brings forth" death (1:15) rather than life (1:12). In this sense, then, "faith without works" is "barren" simply because it fails to bring forth that new life which heralds the Creator's future restoration of all things (so 1:18). Excursus: The Interlocutor's Compromise (James 2:18-20) If there is any consensus about the exegesis of James 2:18-20, it is that this text is among the most difficult in the New Tes­ tament to translate, much less to understand. Its difficulty is reflected by ancient scribes, who after struggling for understand­ ing and insight found it necessary to emend the difficulties away. Their uncertainty has left us with a severely corrupted text that still raises at least four problems: (1) constructing the most likely "critical text" from all available variants (the textual problem), (2) reading the critical text as an imaginary debate be­ tween the author and his opponent (or "interlocutor"), called a "diatribe" (the form-critical problem), (3) interpreting the dia­ tribe within the context of James (the redactional problem), and 97

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

139

(4) interpreting James within the whole of the New Testament (the canonical problem, which I have already addressed in the introduction). The Textual Problem Regarding the textual difficulties of this passage, Adamson ad­ mits that "it is possible to give up in despair on the grounds that the text has suffered and that something is missing/' There is clearly room for conjecture regarding the preferred reading, given the textual history of the passage itself. Some will want to assume the superiority of the current critical text based upon their preference for the theories that undergird the decisions that form it. Naturally, textual decisions ought to attend to all the evidence, including the literary and theological contexts. For example, my own text-critical decisions follow in part from the form- and redaction-critical analyses summarized below. Thus, if it is more natural to read the interlocutor's quote as commenc­ ing with verse 18 and ending no earlier than 19b, and if it is more natural to read his words as an objection, however friendly, then certain textual decisions seem to logically follow. The crux of the issue, however, is 18b. On the one hand, the critical text reads, deixon moi ten pistin sou choris ton ergon, kago soi deixo ek ton ergon mou ten pistin. An important (al­ though later) "majority" reading replaces choris ton ergon with ek ton ergon sou, while keeping the second phrase intact. Against this reading, the critical text seems designed to remove the am­ biguity of repeating the ek ton ergon on either side of kago, and therefore breaks a cardinal rule in textual analysis which prefers the more awkward reading. In fact, the critical reading of the textual evidence wishes to make the theological calculus of James even more clear. In this case, the opening objection merely observes that two positions, faith and works, coexist within the community. James then responds, wishing to posi­ tion the primacy of a "working faith" over a "faith without works." But to bring the author in at this point disrupts the natural lay of the literary land, and fails to consider the impor­ tance of the verbal confession of monotheistic faith in 2:19a. The majority reading actually continues the interlocutor's point to this logical and disturbing end: a tradition grounded in a "faith alone" gospel thinks that professions of orthodoxy are the eschatological equal of merciful works. 98

140

James 1:22-2:26

My preference for the so-called majority variant of this text is brought to focus by the ordering of the next part of the sen­ tence: "Show me your faith by your works and I will show you by my works my faith." The reversal of the position of ek ton ergon and ten pistin in the second half of the sentence seeks to clarify the interlocutor's opening comment. That is, the two positions, faith and works, are the beginning points of two distinct ver­ sions of Christian faith and have no real connection with each other. Thus, a person could start from faith or from works and achieve the same end result, which is the final approval from God for "doing right." Hence, my translation of the interlocu­ tor's proposal reads: "You have faith and I have works. Show me your faith by your works and I will show you by my works, my faith. You believe that God is one; you do right" (2:18-19). The interlocutor's position is that one's denominational af­ filiation, whether with a faith tradition that is oriented around faith or around works, really does not matter before God. There­ fore, by this theo-logic, if the believer obeys the "royal law," she "does right" (kalds poieis; 2:8) in God's eyes; or if the believer professes the Shema of orthodox religion, she also "does right" (kalds poieis; 2:19a) in God's eyes. In my view, these textual de­ cisions in favor of the majority reading make better sense of the opponent's suggestion of a faith position that "feels strongly both ways." The Form-Critical Problem The form-critical issue is twofold: the identification of the di­ atribe's interlocutor and the extent of his quote. Dibelius has established the boundaries of these concerns: First, the open­ ing phrase of verse 18, all' epei tis, is a formula that properly introduces the reader to an objection. It could be that the interlocutor's objection is lodged against the previous speaker (2:14, 16) and is really an ally of James, who is making an "Aunt Sally suggestion." Both Ropes and Dibelius dismiss this possibility since diatribal rhetoric never uses this opening for­ mula in support of the author's position. Other objections are based largely upon the textual assumption (not necessarily cor­ rect) that the more difficult variant is preferred here (see above); thus, the argument that the point made by an ally would not disappear so quickly from the scene should be discounted until other textual evidence is considered. Further, it is not at all clear 99

100

101

102

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

141 103

from the passage that the interlocutor is hostile; he very well could be "neutral" in the faith-works debate and may only in­ tend to make a "point-of-order" interjection that could lead to greater clarity or workable compromise in the present impasse (cf. 1 Cor. 15:35). In my opinion, the interlocutor is indeed sug­ gesting a compromise in the faith-works debate, which is really a third option: that either faith or works satisfy God's sense of justice and God will grant life to the follower of either (see my commentary on this passage). In this sense, the imagined oppo­ sition to James's commentary on the wisdom of "quick hearing" is against the kind of fundamentalism that tolerates one way of salvation — the author's way! A second more difficult issue seeks to determine the terminus ad quern of the interlocutor's quote. Perhaps this can be decided only after the textual problems are solved. Most translations con­ clude the interlocutor's objection at 18b, "You have faith and I have works," with James then responding in 18b-20. I admit that this translation makes sense if one assumes the accuracy of the critical reading. Even so, as Dibelius confesses, the only clear indication in the text of a transition from the interlocutor's voice to James occurs with the opening invective in 2:20. I find it plausible that the antecedent of "you believe that God is one" is the earlier "you" that exemplifies the sola fideist position: this makes perfect sense of the author's argument. On this rhetorical ground, then, I am compelled to bring the author back into the debate no later than verse 20, but no earlier than 19b. Because the meaning of 2:19b is better understood as introducing the subsequent invective than concluding the preceding confession, I bring the author in at that point. 104

105

106

The Redactional Problem Commentators have long recognized that this example intends to fit into the larger contrast between faith and works described in 2:14-26. Not all, however, are yet convinced that this unit fol­ lows from the preceding passage. Following Dibelius's lead they claim that "a connection between this treatise and the preceding one cannot be established." Laws is another who is willing to admit only that the previous contrast between mercy and judg­ ment yields a contrast between faith and works, but she offers us little to clarify whether this is a logical move. I have ar­ gued that 1:22-2:26 is a sustained argument for merciful works. 107

108

James 1:22-2:26

142

Those who are beneficiaries of mercy are liberated from poverty and oppression, while their benefactors will be blessed in the age to come. James 2:14-20 clarifies this thesis by illustrating those alter­ natives that undermine it. Dyrness is right in recognizing that verse 13 with its eschatological perspective links together 2:1426 with the preceding argument. To get straight on the nature of works is to be prepared for the day of judgment. It seems best here to interpret James as being less concerned about the char­ acter of faith than about the nature of saving works. Indeed, the point of this "footnote" to 2:13 is to clarify whether profession of a creed of monotheistic faith or obedience to the "royal law" of God constitutes the community's rule of faith. A person who professes to "hold to the faith of Jesus" (2:1; cf. 2:14) but then fails to live by his example is simply deceived. A routine re­ ligiosity, which follows the prescribed protocols of institutional faith, is insufficient to save. Finally, this point is made even clearer by recalling that the profession found in 2:19 is framed by the biblical injunction to "Hear, O Israel, that God is one" (Deut. 6:4). Within his larger commentary on the wisdom of "quick hearing," the author ex­ poses the fallacy of thinking that to "hear" the Shema has the same value as doing "the perfect law of Jubilee." In this sense, "hearing" and "doing" are not two separate paths that lead to God, as the interlocutor might suggest; rather, they are the same reality, so that to hear is to do, just as faith is embodied by a life of merciful deeds. 109

110

James 2:21-26: Two Examples of Justification by Works The final and most famous member of this illustrative triad com­ bines the precious memories of Abraham (2:21-24) and Rahab (2:25) to repeat the critical conclusion that professions of Chris­ tian faith are "dead" (2:26; cf. 2:17) and fail the eschatological test (2:13) without a complement of merciful works. Abraham and Rahab are prophetic exemplars, whose hospitable treatment of their "neighbors" demonstrates the way of wisdom, where "quick hearing" means to "love your neighbor as yourself" (2:8). The meaning of "works" in the critical formula "justified by works," which connects these two exemplars (2:21,25), pre­ sumes the influence of prior references to "work" in James, especially in 1:25 where those "blessed" by God are "doers" of

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

143

"the perfect law of liberty" (cf. 2:12). The justice demanded by the law takes its most concrete form as mercy for poor believ­ ers, who require defending against those rich who would exploit them. Like Jesus (2:1), Abraham and then Rahab are "doers" of those "works" that care for the stranger to the community, and the least and last, the poor and powerless within the faith com­ munity. Their eternal blessing results from their performance of the royal law of love and is deemed "right" by God (2:8); the worker of love is whom God "justifies" (2:24-25). Likewise, the meaning of "faith" in the example of Abraham also presumes its prior use in James, and especially here in this illustrative triad where religious sentiment is characterized by those who merely say they have faith (2:14) but without a com­ plement of merciful works. That is, "faith" refers to the verbal profession of faith in God, which, while orthodox (2:19) and even sincere (2:16), if not enacted is condemned as "dead" (2:17) and "barren" (2:20). In James, then, "faith alone" is the idiom of a bogus religion whose "spirit" is divorced from its "body" (2:26) — the Gestalt of an orthodox but disembodied Christian­ ity. Indeed, no exegete can seriously contend that James argues from silence and with equal conviction that "a person is justified by faith and not by works alone." In fact, James need not even mention Rahab's faith (2:25), since her works of hospitality are the real "stuff" of true religion (see 1:27). The combination of a patriarch, Abraham, with a prostitute, Rahab, is not as strange as it first may seem. In the traditions of Hellenistic Judaism, the two are often found together as ex­ amples of gentile proselytes, who are brought near to God by their conversion to Judaism. This is especially true of Rahab, a Canaanite zonah, whose repentance and subsequent righteous­ ness demonstrate that no person is beyond God's reach. In , keeping with tradition, James uses Abraham and Rahab as topoi of eschatological Israel. However, in this case, their salvation is the happy result of hospitable deeds proffered at considerable cost to their needy neighbors. Such acts of courageous and gen­ erous mercy draw God's attention and result in the justification of their faith and realization of God's promise to return mercy for mercy (so James 2:13). This promise constitutes a core theological position of the Book of James, made more persuasive by this powerful use of social opposites, Abraham and Rahab — a merism (or metaphor of inclusion) which makes equal the most extreme members of

144

James 1:22-2:26

a whole and therefore all the other members who fall in be­ tween. In this passage, a patriarch and a prostitute are paired as members of the same congregation whose rule of faith is "justification by works." Indeed, both exemplify this rule of faith for every tradent who claims membership in such a faith community. In this sense, the merism envisages a truism: the community favored by God is constituted by hospitable believ­ ers, forging as a result a sociology of compassion. One last observation in this regard — the congregation rep­ resented by Abraham and Rahab, patriarch and prostitute, con­ centrates the reader on the same social contrast introduced in 2:2-4 between rich and poor. In James, of course, these two social classes are in constant conflict. Although the rich are typ­ ically outsiders in James, they are favored over the pious poor. In the present text, Rahab represents the impoverished "widows and orphans in distress" (1:27), many of whom became pros­ titutes in the biblical world in order to survive. Moreover, her characterization as a secular zonah in the biblical narrative marks her as unclean and therefore unfit for God's Israel — hardly an exemplar of one who is "unstained by the world" (1:27)! Her very presence among God's people threatens the laws of pu­ rity and stability of God's people. Within this textual field, however, the tensions created by this reference to "Rahab the Prostitute" help to form an irony that carries this prophetic edge: discrimination against the marginal poor (= Rahab), rather than resulting in stability and purity within the congregation, will finally bring about the very chaos and moral impurity that imperils friendship with God. 111

112

fames 2:21-24 According to P. Davids, "Jewish exegesis frequently joined Gen. 15:6 to the Abraham tradition as a type of timeless sentence written over the life of Abraham." This timeless tradition is repeated in James 2:23 to interpret the timeless spiritual test where a congregation fails to exact justice from their rich and powerful patrons for their own poor (2:2-7); and where glib pro­ fessions of faith (1:26; 2:14-17, 18-20) are substituted instead by members of the faith community when courageous compliance to Torah's demand to care for its impoverished membership is the wise thing to do (1:27). Much is at stake. The fulfillment language of the introduc113

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

145

tory formula, "And the Scripture was fulfilled which says" (2:23), confers eschatological importance on the cited text: Abraham's faith somehow illustrates the measure of God's future judgment, which according to 2:13 will be merciless toward those who show no mercy to others. But what does Abraham's faith in one God — the first to do so according to rabbinic legend — have to do with the performance of the so-called law of liberty (2:12; cf. 1:25)? The deeper logic of the entire essay on "quick listen­ ing" compels James to interpret faith in terms of merciful works. In fact, James makes two key points that frame the theological context within which the meaning of Gen. 15:6 is discerned: (1) Abraham was justified by works (2:21, 24) in the sense that (2) his works "completed" his faith (2:22), since friendship with God cannot be decided by faith alone (2:24). Recall that the variety of religion that James attacks here sup­ poses that verbal professions of faith are sufficient to secure divine approval (see 2:19a); the theological error in which spiri­ tual failure is rooted supposes that God justifies the believer on the basis of public professions of orthodox faith — that is, "by faith alone" (2:24). Clearly, this is mistaken according to James since true religion observes the "perfect law of liberty" (see 1:25, 27) and well understands from the wisdom of Torah that the be­ liever's works of mercy are a necessary complement of professed faith (see 2:22 below). Regarding Abraham's works, James refers only to the Akedah — Abraham's binding of "his son Isaac upon the altar" — a wellknown story of great importance and difficulty for Jewish inter­ preters. But here the careful reader of James is rightly puzzled for two reasons. (1) James mentions that Abraham was justified by God for performing multiple "works" but here only one is cited. If this reference to Abraham's "works" is an allusion to still other works, the implication is that Abraham's justification required more than his offering of Isaac. The reader is led to ask, then, what other "works" did Abraham perform that God recognized and justified as the acceptable complement of his professed faith? (2) The reader is puzzled all the more by the particular example cited by James: how is Abraham's offering of his compliant son the sort of merciful "works" that comple­ ment and prove the species of faith championed by James? The reader's puzzlement is only deepened by the recollection that the biblical story of Abraham's offering of Isaac in Genesis 22 is prefaced by the explanatory phrase that "God tested Abraham" 114

146

James 1:22-2:26

(Gen. 22:1 LXX: ho theos epeirase ton Abraam) — an important de­ tail no doubt known to the audience. Yet, an earlier text in James claims that "God tests no one" (1:13; peirazei de autos [theos] oudena); in fact, anyone who supposes that God (rather than the Devil) tests them is deceived (1:16) and runs the risk of refusing God's gift of wisdom (1:17-18), which will surely lead to spiri­ tual failure (1:6-8, 14-15) and forfeiture of the future "crown of life" (1:12; cf. 2:13). R. B. Ward, now followed by other interpreters (Davids, John­ son), has argued that the use of the plural "works" refers to all of Abraham's faithful responses to God during a series of ten spiritual tests, of which his offering of Isaac is the final exam (cf. Jubilees 19). In fact, the literary role of this reference to the bind­ ing of Isaac is much like a synecdoche, where the one example cited is but a short hand reference to all ten of Abraham's spir­ itual tests. While I agree that interpretive emphasis must be placed on Abraham's multiple "works," the "problem" with the one "work" cited provokes the critical question whether there is among Abraham's other "works" another which stands out as more apropos for this setting. Because of various thematic and linguistic links, summarized below, the author may well intend his reader to recall the story of Abraham's hospitality toward three strangers, told in Genesis 18, which occasions the prom­ ise of Isaac's birth (18:9-15) and where is iterated God's promise of a "great and mighty nation" (18:16-18). The deeper logic of this Genesis narrative, which connects it more directly to the Akedah, is that the promises of Isaac and the great nation are not merely occasioned but finally conditioned upon Abraham's merciful treatment of the strangers. Jewish re­ flection on Genesis 22 confirms that not only is the promised Isaac the happy result of Abraham's hospitable treatment of the three strangers, but that God's substitute sacrifice for Isaac is also in response to this same act of mercy (Ward): after all, the offering of Isaac requires first his birth! These two stories about Abraham's works are linked even more closely in the interpretive tradition by the repetition of God's promise of a great nation by which all nations shall be blessed (18:18, 22:18). In my opinion, it is this alluded story from Genesis 18, which is "vastly am­ plified in the course of tradition and unquestionably known to the readers," and not the cited story of Isaac's sacrifice, which forms the biblical backdrop against which a fuller understanding of the critical phrase, "justified by works," is now possible. 115

116

117

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

147

The text's allusion to the story of Abraham's hospitable treat­ ment of the three strangers in Genesis 18 is clear for the following reasons: (1) There is an obvious thematic parallel between Gen. 18:122 and James 2: both texts concern a particular species of spiritual testing — the treatment of one's neighbor — and both texts indicate that God posits high value on the performance of mercy toward those neighbors. In fact, God's recognition of the righteous one and God's future blessing of Israel are both condi­ tioned upon hospitable behavior—a theological point scored by both texts and by the wider tradition (cf. Matt. 25:31-46). (2) According to the Genesis text (Gen. 18:19), the confir­ mation of God's prior blessing of Abraham recognizes that he does what a righteous person should do. No surprise here. How­ ever, the Old Testament text adds that God also took note of Abraham's "judgment" (Gen. 18:19; LXX: poiein dikaiosunen kai krisin) — that is, his capacity to make sound judgments that conform to the way of the Lord. This thematic is also found in James, where both judges and judgments that discriminate against the poor are condemned (cf. 2:4). The result of this intertext is a fuller sense of the obligations of friendship with God, exemplified by Abraham. The reader now understands that God requires more than a "righteous" life but also the capac­ ity to make sound choices, different in kind than those made by believers who discriminate against the congregation's poor. Indeed, such discernment is the very foundation for the sort of mercy that James illustrates in the present text. (3) Another more subtle resonance from Genesis 18 is heard in the subsequent appeal to Rahab (2:25), which claims that she "entertained the messengers" (hypodexamene tous aggelous) and "sent them by a different route." I will return to this pregnant phrase when considering the example of Rahab below. But let me say here that the word choice of the first phrase is indeed striking: James does not say in agreement with Rahab's biblical story that Rahab "safeguarded spies"; rather, the text says that she "entertained the aggeloi" — a word that is typically translated "messengers" in James 2:25 but is also the standard LXX/New Testament word for "angels" (cf. Heb. 13:2). Could it be that this striking phrase about Rahab, which envisages a "work" different than found in her biblical story, cues the reader to the earlier allusion to Abraham, who "entertained angels unawares" accord­ ing to Genesis 18? Further, the reference to Rahab's "sending" 118

148

James 1:22-2:26

(ekballo) the messengers/angels by a different route may very well pick up on Gen. 18:16 in the Hebrew Bible where the same verbal root is used for Abraham's dismissal of the three heavenly messengers (leshalham) and for Rahab's dismissal of the spies (wateshalhem; Josh. 2:21). Midrashists like the author of James are inclined to connect originally unconnected events that seem to meet their theological requirements. In this case, both Abra­ ham and Rahab showed their estranged neighbors mercy before sending them away and received God's blessing as a result. fames 2:22 Sandwiched between the repeated refrains that Abraham is "jus­ tified by works" (2:21, 24) and that "faith without works is dead" (2:17, 26), the strategic value of 2:22 for understanding the symbiosis of the book's combination of faith and works has long been apparent to all commentators: "You see that faith worked with his works, so that faith was perfected by works." Sharply put, James reads "works" into Gen. 15:6, implying that Abraham's (and so the reader's) spiritual tests are not then con­ centrated by his legendary profession of monotheistic religion but by his performance of the law of love. Abraham's mercy to­ ward the strangers is the necessary complement ("worked with") to his public confession of orthodox faith, without which his faith would not have been complete ("was perfected"). Abra­ ham's professed faith cannot stand alone; in fact, whenever "faith alone" is mentioned, it clearly opposes the will of God. Rather, true devotion to God is given its most authentic expres­ sion by merciful works. Thus, James contends that faith "works with" and is "perfected by" works. This is always the case of ethical religion, where a "working faith" rather than a pro­ fessed faith is the very subject matter of the wise community's devotion to God. Critical to an exegesis of this verse is the recognition that it repeats key words from the book's opening thesis statement, 1:3-4. The reflexive interplay between these two texts adds yet another layer of meaning to this midrash on the Abraham tradi­ tion and helps to clarify its larger polemic against a "faith alone" theology. Both aorist passive verbs "worked with" (synerged; cf. katergazomai; 1:3) and "was perfected" (eteleidthe; cf. teleios; 1:4) were introduced into James with the thesis statement and func­ tion here to remind the reader of its implied promise: those who 119

120

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

149

follow Abraham's example will also "produce" (katergazomai) a "perfect work" (ergon teleion) and can anticipate God's blessing at the end of the age (1:4; cf. 1:12). In this setting, the "per­ fect work" is mercy toward the estranged neighbor. Moreover, the "perfection" (teleios) thematic in James is a crucial topos of the coming kingdom (cf. 1:4, 17, 25): thus, this "perfect work" heralds the coming kingdom whose heirs are those "friends of God" who love their neighbors. Glossed by the programmatic meaning of the opening thesis statement, then, these same verbs that connect Abraham's "works" with his "faith" imply the very theological freight carried by 2:12-13: God's favorable judgment of Abraham's faith is based upon his "works" of the "law of lib­ erty" — a "perfect work" indeed which characterizes heirs of the coming kingdom. "Faith and Works" in Paul and James: A Brief Footnote to a Long-Standing Debate Paul and James use the same language in addressing the same theological question: what does God require of the community covenanted with God for salvation? The history of interpreta­ tion has naturally supposed that the different combinations of "faith and works" found in Pauline writings (esp. Galatians and Romans) and James 2:21-25 reflect an intramural conflict within earliest Christianity: James's "justification by works" is a direct response to Paul's "justification by faith," or perhaps the reverse is true. But this historical reconstruction is hardly self-evident, since these same terms appear in the literature of Second Tem­ ple Judaism (and specifically at Qumran). Moreover, the "real" issue at stake is canonical and not historical: that is, even if James and Paul are not responding to a core conviction of the other's faith tradition, the disturbing conflict over the terms of divine justification remains within scripture for its canonical au­ dience: how are the different combinations of "faith and works" found in the Pauline and Jacobean traditions related together as two discrete (and I contend complementary) parts of a biblical witness to divine justification? From the perspective of the New Testament itself, the Book of Acts performs a decisive role, not only in introducing its readers to the letter writers but also to the theological orien­ tation by which these readers approach their canonical writings as "word of God." According to Acts, the various controversies 121

150

James 1:22-2:26

that swirled around both the Jewish and gentile missions of the church are all concentrated by the central claim of their gospels: membership within the reconstituted Israel is by faith in the risen Jesus of Nazareth, who is made Lord and Christ by the God of Israel. Both James and Paul, who represent differ­ ent missions within the church, are different responses to this same theological crisis: what, then, does "faith in and of Jesus" mean? Sharply put, for Paul "faith" means to trust in the trust­ worthy "work" of Messiah Jesus which has already disclosed the salvation-creating grace of God within history; for James, "faith" must be embodied in the merciful "works" toward the neighbor. In illustrating this fundamental distinction, both Paul (in Ro­ mans 4 and Galatians 3) and James appeal to Abraham as the "founding father" of their particular theological programs, and cite Gen. 15:6 to authorize their essential definition of human­ ity's proper response to God's saving grace. Their intercanonical conversation over the meaning of this text places emphasis on different halves of the verse both cite: James appears drawn to the second half of Gen. 15:6, which asserts that "God considered Abraham righteous," while Paul seems drawn to its first half, which asserts that "Abraham believed God." On the one hand, then, Abraham is an exemplar of the righteous life (James), while on the other hand, he is an exemplar of faith in God (Paul). But even as Gen. 15:6 combines the two, so also does scrip­ ture bring these two partners together, the one checking and bringing balance to the other. Yet, the complementarity of these two biblical traditions re­ quires the reader to maintain their individual distinctiveness. The critical reductionism that interprets the "faith alone" rubric in James as a pseudo- or folk Paulinism that does not reflect a genuinely Pauline witness is simply wrong-headed. The op­ ponents of James, for whom the verbal profession of orthodox faith is the mark of true religion, follow a rule of faith simi­ lar to the missionary logic of the Pauline tradition. The Pauline kerygma (Rom. 10:8), whose subject matter is neatly summarized in Rom. 10:9-10 and authorized by scripture in Rom. 10:1113, defines the true Israel as constituted by those who "confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord." Of course, Paul assumes that the true convert then is baptized "into Christ" or is partnered "with Christ" for the experience of salvation. In this sense, the believer's passage into the realm of Christ is also a passage out of sin and death and into newness of life, where good works

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

151

are naturally performed as one result of participation in Christ's death and resurrection. Certainly Paul does not forbid the per­ formance of good works! Rather the essential mark of belonging to God is the singular trust of the believer in the prior faithful­ ness of the crucified Christ (Rom. 3:22) — alone. What disturbs James is a species of Christianity that is defined exclusively by the orthodoxy of public profession rather than by the practical activism of merciful works — frankly, a frequent feature of those faith traditions that maintain a Pauline rule of faith. What dis­ turbs Paul is very different—namely, a doctrine of election that defines Israel in ethnic or political terms and therefore limits the promise and experience of salvation to the "physical" children of Abraham. Nor can one rule out the contrast between the "works" (ex ergon), which James champions, and "works of the law" (ergon nomou), which Paul rejects, because one's terminology does not square precisely with the other. The claim that "James would be careful to adopt Paul's specific vocabulary" presumes that he would know Paul well enough and would be anti-Paul at that; but this, too, is hardly self-evident. What is clear is that both phrases are metaphors of ethical religion, whose rule of faith is the performance of Torah which maintains a redemptive relationship with God. While there is not much difference in actual content be­ tween the merciful "works" of James and the "good works" of Pauline paraenesis, the real difference is theo-logical: for Paul, conformity to God's law is the natural result of the believer's participation in Christ's death and resurrection. For James, how­ ever, the community's obedience to God's demand is the wise response of those who believe. I find no indication in James that the believer's obedience to Torah is a christological result enabled by divine grace rather than an act of moral fortitude in active response to God's redemptive will. While I agree that Paul and James speak out of different backgrounds, the "canoni­ cal" result is that two different kerygmata form two discrete yet integral parts of a biblical whole. For this reason, the most pressing issues of this long and sometimes heated debate over the means of justification be­ tween interpretations of the biblical Paul and James should be cast in hermeneutical rather than historical terms. Their different conceptions of justification, when heard as different al­ though complementary voices, actually form a coherent whole. 122

123

152

James 1:22-2:26

Briefly, for Paul, the profession of faith in the gospel of truth gets one into that community in whose life and history the powers and experiences of the coming age have dawned in partnership with Christ under the aegis of his Spirit. Merciful deeds are the result of God's justifying mercies. For James, merciful deeds re­ sult in God's justifying mercies because they are the very subject matter of true religion. Clearly the redemptive calculus of James raises the moral stakes of Christian discipleship to a redemptive level and provides a critical incentive for the believer's perform­ ance of God's will. What does James then mean that "a person is justified by works and not by faith alone"? Quite simply that God will recognize the devotion of those whose public profes­ sions of monotheistic faith are embodied in public works of mercy toward neighbor. These are the Lord's true friends and, with Abraham and Rahab, will constitute the neighborhood of the coming kingdom. James 2:25 James recalls the biblical story of Rahab (Josh. 2:1-22 LXX) with the same rhetorical question — "Was not even Rahab the Pros­ titute justified by works?" — that earlier introduced the story of Abraham (2:21). In fact, the opening "Likewise" (homoids de kai) tells the reader that the condition of her justification is precisely the same as for Abraham: God recognizes the devotion of each by the hospitality each shows to the stranger rather than by the faith each publicly professes for God. In this case, Rahab's hos­ pitality toward strangers, when she "entertained the messengers and set them by a different route" justifies her profession of faith in God and results in God's blessing of her. As mentioned earlier, the connection between these two ex­ emplars of "justification by works" is made by the use of a surprising catchword (aggeloi) as the object of what Rahab did: she entertained "messengers," which is also the primary word for "angels" in the LXX/New Testament. At the very least the use of aggeloi here instead of "spies" suggests the author is fa­ miliar with the story of "spying out the promised land" told in Numbers 13, where the spies are sent out as God's messengers (so Num. 13:1) rather than as Joshua's scouts (so Josh. 2:1). Per­ haps the author also knows Exod. 23:20, 23 (32:34, 33:2), where the Lord promises Moses to send an "angel" (angelos) before him into the promised land. In this sense, then, Rahab's positive re-

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

153

sponse to these strangers is, in effect, an affirmative response to God's plan of salvation, which is typically monitored by agency of angelic messengers. Here in James, however, I sense a gloss, where the alluded story of Abraham and the angels found in Genesis 18 rereads the second story of Rahab and the "messengers" she enter­ tained found in Joshua. According to this intertext, the Jewish scouts served the very same role in Rahab's case as the angelic strangers did in Abraham's case: to test and confirm her mem­ bership within the "true" Israel of God. Indeed, it might be the case that James actually spiritualizes the old story about the spies and now interprets them as angels in disguise, even as those strangers in Sodom were first known as "men" (Gen. 18:2, 19:10-12) before their true identity became clear (Gen. 19:1, 16 [LXX]). In this newly expanded sense, the mission of the spies sent from God was not to spy out a future eretz Israel but a future spiritual Israel, with Rahab the Prostitute its unlikely exemplar. Even though Rahab was celebrated as an exemplar of gen­ erous hospitality within Judaism, I find this verbal idea, "to entertain," significant as well. According to her biblical story in Joshua 2, Rahab kept the spies a secret from Jericho's king in col­ laboration with Joshua's intent (Josh. 2:1): she hid, but did not entertain, them. Reading this phrase of James within its biblical context provokes the question, "In what sense is Rahab's role in hiding the spies and helping them to escape by a different route, a form of 'entertainment'"? There are two plausible responses. (1) In using this verb (hypodechomai, from dechomai), James in­ tends to link what Rahab did for the spies in Jericho with what Abraham did when he treated the three strangers in Sodom hos­ pitably. In this second example, the strong reader assumes the alluded story of Abraham is also true of Rahab: both are blessed by God because they did not neglect the needs of the strangers in their midst. The role of this verb, then, is understood rhetor­ ically: both Abraham and Rahab are prophetic exemplars whose hospitality toward imperiled neighbors — "entertaining angels unaware" — results in divine blessing. (2) More critically, in my view, this verb, "to entertain," echoes the earlier use of its verbal root (dechomai) in James 1:21, where the "salvation of the soul" is promised to those who "re­ ceive" the word of truth. Within this particular composition, where thematics unfold by repetition of their catchwords, the 124

125

126

127

James 1:22-2:26

154

full significance of Rahab's cited action is made more clear to the reader: her response to the spies in sending them out "by a differ­ ent route" supplies the evidence that she has in fact "received" and understood the word of truth; thus, according to James 1:21, her soul is saved. This fuller meaning of the intertext, "en­ tertained the messengers," supports the theological calculus of James's present argument that a person's love for God, which re­ sults in eschatological blessing, is tested by whether the person who professes faith—which Rahab also did—performs concrete actions of mercy toward her neighbor. Excursus: "The Example of Rahab" (fames 2:25) Commentators on James have long neglected the example of Rahab in favor of Abraham. Dibelius even wonders why the au­ thor mentions Rahab at all, and in mentioning her why he fails to add "appropriate" details to her story. Dibelius finally con­ cludes that her story is "superfluous" to the book's argument. This criticism, which seems logical given the obvious impor­ tance of Abraham for James, presumes incorrectly that Rahab's example simply repeats the terms of Abraham's justification for rhetorical emphasis. In fact, the creative handling of the Rahab tradition in James 2:25 amplifies the point under consideration, not only by what is said but by what is left unsaid in recalling her biblical story. The interpreter who assumes the texture of James's appeal to Rahab is layered and thickened by its intertextuality also real­ izes that very little else need be said about her. The canonical audience knows her biblical story well and is expected to sup­ ply pertinent details to fill in the gaps left in James 2:25. For example, it is well known from Joshua 2 that Rahab was neither a Jew nor a person of respectable character; she was a Canaanite zonah. More critically, it is known that she was a strategic par­ ticipant in Israel's conquest of Jericho and an eventual convert to God (Josh. 2:11) and occupant of the promised land (Josh. 6:25). During the Second Temple period, especially in the Di­ aspora, Rahab even came to symbolize the God-fearing outsider who is beneficiary of God's mercy and even allowed member­ ship in the congregation of God's people (cf. Josh. 6:25) —a point scored by Christian tradition as well (Matt. 1:5; Heb. 11:31; cf. 1 Clem. 12:1). There is then a remarkable consistency in this his­ tory of Rahab criticism within Judaism and early Christianity: 128

129

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

155

she represents the least, last, and lost among us all, whose newly found devotion bears witness to the hospitable God who seeks and finds the outsider to save. Even so, the telling of her story in James departs from other versions of her story in early Chris­ tianity, forged in this particular interpreter's world, which only illustrates (again!) the adaptability of biblical traditions. Missing from James's appeal to Rahab is any reference to her renowned faith. Rather, she is introduced only as one who is "justified by works" (ex ergon edikaiothe). This is a different em­ phasis than found in Heb. 11:31, which mentions only her faith as significant, and more in line with most contemporary Jewish commentators (e.g., Josephus) who even try to rehabilitate her character, denying that she is a prostitute at all but actually a hospitable innkeeper and the courageous ancestress of the great prophets Hulda and Jeremiah, and in Christian circles of Messiah himself (cf. Matt. 1:5). But even here James presents a different, even unexpected contour of Rahab criticism. Arguably the feature of her story that has most impressed its interpreters is her dramatic conversion and remarkable confes­ sion of faith in God (Josh. 2:9-11) — the only biblical recital of God's saving works that echoes the magisterial confession of Moses in Deut. 4:39: "The Lord your God is God in heaven above and on the earth below" (Josh. 2:11). Good words and good company indeed! Yet, in a literary setting where glib professions of faith substitute for the hard virtues of a courageous mercy, the present text naturally resists any conception of true reli­ gion that is secured by the false assurance that divine approval is conditioned on any profession of faith, however compelling and orthodox. The biblical tradition is therefore telescoped in James to view only what Rahab did to illustrate that true reli­ gion is contretemps to any faith community where orthodoxy is valued over orthopraxy, where even orthodox demons are qual­ ified for membership (2:19). In order to make more emphatic a definition of justification that values what the believer does over professions of faith alone, James edits out any explicit ref­ erence to Rahab's faith. Moreover, in my view, the deeper logic of this book's theological conception resists the hearing of any loud echo of her professed faith from Joshua 2. Rather, the lack­ ing detail of Rahab's story reminds the reader that her faith is evinced by her actions that "sent the messengers out another way" (cf. Josh. 2:14-21). But if this reference to Rahab in James is gapped, the reader

156

James 1:22-2:26

will naturally recall another feature of Rahab's story that is more apropos for this setting. In my view the reader will round off the written text with the memory not of Rahab's profession of faith but her subsequent appeal for merciful treatment found in Josh. 2:12-13. There, she solicits a pledge from the spies that be­ cause she acted mercifully toward them (poio hyrnin eleos), they (and by implication of her preceding confession, God) should act mercifully toward her and her family (poiesate kai hymeis eleos) in order to "rescue my soul from death" (exeleisthe ten psychen mou ek thanatou). According to the biblical narrative, Joshua honors Rahab's appeal during the siege of Jericho (Josh. 6:22-25). Let's look at the textual and thematic evidence in support of this inter textual reading of the example of Rahab in James. (1) The themes and vocabulary of Rahab's appeal for mercy are loudly echoed in this section of James. Both texts are pri­ marily concerned with the reciprocal relationship between a person's "mercy" and God's "mercy." According to Joshua 2, Rahab's life is at risk and she is saved because of what she did for the spies, whom we now realize were really messengers sent by God to spy out a spiritual Israel. According to James, the examples of both Abraham and Rahab illustrate the conclusion reached in 2:13: that God will withhold mercy from those "who have shown no mercy" (to me poinsanti eleos). It is this gapped example of Rahab that supplies for James the normative illustra­ tion of a bartered salvation, where human mercy is exchanged for divine mercy. (2) There are linguistic parallels between Rahab's concluding words in LXX Joshua, where she describes the outcome of God's mercy as the "rescue of my soul from death" (Josh. 2:13: ex­ eleisthe ten psychen mou ek thanatou), and James 1:21 and 5:20, which speak of the soul's salvation from death (James 5:20: sosei psychen autou ek thanatou). According to James, this "salvation of the soul" results from employing the community's wisdom (1:21) during spiritual testing and when retrieving lost souls from their "spiritual" diaspora (5:19-20; cf. 1:1). Recall that Ra­ hab's act of mercy leads to her own salvation and also to the salvation of others from death—in her case, her extended family from Jericho's destruction (Josh. 6:23, 25). She becomes then an exemplar of a practical wisdom, whose vocation is to bring back those who wander in the spiritual diaspora, and whose souls are now rescued from eschatological death by merciful deeds. (3) Finally, there is a sense in which her story works better for

The Wisdom of "Quick to Hear"

157

the readers of James, whose social status is closer to Rahab than to Abraham. Even from a position of political powerlessness and social alienation, a prostitute uses her actions to bargain for a lasting salvation. Indeed, one should take note of the narrator's aside in Josh. 6:25 that Rahab's family is spared God's retribu­ tion against Jericho, and "has lived in Israel ever since." Likewise, the readers of James, poor and powerless though they are, can use their acts of hospitality to justify their love for God and so secure for themselves the "crown of [eternal] life" (1:12). Conclusion Repeated (2:26) I doubt that the grammar of "For" (hosper gar) looks back only to the preceding midrash on the Rahab tradition. Rather the phrase introduces what the reader might conclude from the ex­ amples of Abraham and Rahab — in language that repeats and forms an inclusio with the first example of the believer who pro­ fesses faith but does not enact it (cf. 2:17). The concluding point of this entire passage is now brought to sharpest focus: even as the body cannot be separated from its spirit, since they form a physiological/psychological whole, one cannot separate the faith from those works that both anticipate and confirm the bless­ ings of the coming age. To do so in either case is death. That's the point. I would agree with those who recommend against pressing the body-spirit metaphor too far. Its purpose here is rhetorical—to repeat and add some color to the author's essen­ tial clarification of 2:13: God's final judgment will be without mercy for those whose orthodox faith is without merciful works. Summary of James 1:22-2:26: Walk, Not Talk Recall that James is written to a community whose faith in God is threatened by the daily struggle with hardship. This "testing of faith," the result of a variety of external and historical circum­ stances, provokes in turn a theological crisis that is essentially internal and spiritual: whether to remain faithful to God in the present age in order to receive promised blessings from God in the age to come. In this first section of the main body of James, the wisdom of "quick hearing" is paired with biblical Torah: to "hear" is to "do the work" of Torah. More specifically, the wisdom of quick hear­ ing means to obey the levitical laws pertaining to the merciful

158

James 1:22-2:26

treatment of the neighbor. This portion of the Torah is defined as the wise thing to do in order to address a situation in which the material needs of the poorest and most marginal members of the faith community are neglected. The occasion for this neglect is the favored treatment of rich and powerful outsiders in the le­ gal proceedings of both the synagogue- and law-courts. In this situation, the biblical Torah demands jubilary justice in order to liberate the poor and powerless from their oppression. The decision to favor these rich outsiders over poor insiders, even though perhaps a matter of short-term survival, fails the community's "test of faith" because God has in fact chosen the pious poor of the world to receive blessing. Further, favoritism of this sort envisages a compromise to the evils of the world order. Such is the nature of a theological failure that imperils the community's future salvation: a merciful God requires con­ crete works of mercy toward the poor (the social "diaspora"). In fact, Jesus was approved by God as "glorious Lord" because he loved his poor and powerless neighbor according to the "royal law." His example of divine mercy, which followed in the way of both Abraham and Rahab (cf. Matt. 1:2-5), charts the way of wisdom that leads into eternal life. Indeed, the wise community is quick to hear and act upon what the Torah commands, knowing that it articulates God's will according to which all people will be either blessed or judged at the coming triumph of God's reign. If the Torah is centered by the command to love the neighbor, especially those who are like the "widow and orphan in distress," then it is foolish to favor the rich over the poor when the result is eternal retribution. Ac­ cording to Torah, faith in God is embodied by works of mercy and not merely in pious professions of orthodox faith; true re­ ligion is an ethical religion. Thus, to profess devotion to God without a complement of merciful works is simply foolish since such religion is worthless for either heralding or entering the age to come.

Chapter

Five

James 3:1-18: The Wisdom of "Slow to Speak"

I have argued that the main body of James is a commentary on the wisdom of Jewish scripture, which the author has summa­ rized in 1:19 as "quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger." According to the book's opening statement, the intended audi­ ence is undergoing spiritual testing provoked by various trials. Whether their test is passed or failed depends upon whether di­ vine wisdom, petitioned for and generously provided by God, is then received or rejected. If the way of wisdom is followed, spiritual testing is passed and divine blessing is awarded. How­ ever, these same trials occasion theological deception as well, which seduces the foolish believer and results in spiritual failure and eschatological judgment. The purpose of James, then, is to clarify the theological issues at stake in spiritual testing and the value of divine wisdom for the community's spiritual formation. The second member of the organizing proverb, "slow to speak," is the topos of this chapter of James. The author has al­ ready expressed concern about what is said by believers (cf. 1:26, 2:14-20). In this earlier setting, James contrasts two kinds of re­ ligion — one whose primary concern is with verbal professions of orthodox faith and another whose primary concern is with works of mercy, especially toward poor and powerless believers. According to James, God measures devotion by the perform­ ance of the biblical Torah (2:8) rather than by mere profession of orthodox faith (2:19). Indeed, one might even recall the fa­ miliar slogan of Christian pietism to frame James's exhortation: believers should "walk the talk." In the present chapter, however, James underscores the vital importance of what is said as though to contend that believers should "talk the walk" as well. By "slow to speak," the author 159

160

James 3:1-18

is not interested in providing his readers with lessons in elo­ cution or diction; rather, the importance of human speech is interpreted in terms of the teacher's formative role within the congregation (3:1-2). This role and the prospects of the con­ gregation's salvation are imperiled in a situation where rival teachers use slanderous speech to gain an advantage over one an­ other (3:9-12). This is a test of teachers and congregation alike, requiring both to control what is said about God and to one an­ other (3:3-8); to fail the test imperils their salvation (3:1, 6). In fact, as with other trials considered by James, this one envis­ ages an eschatological result (3:2), whether the words of teachers guide the congregation to chaos (3:15-16) or peace (3:18). In this sense, the wisdom of "slow speaking" means that the speech pattern of the "wise and understanding" teacher is first pure and then full of mercy (3:17). D. Watson, who views 3:1-12 as a rhetorical unit, contends that the author has utilized classical patterns of deliberative rhet­ oric to advise and persuade the readership onto a specific course of action in selecting its teaching staff: the effective teacher is able to control the destructive potential of speech. In effect, James interprets the wisdom of "slow speaking" in terms of con­ trolling what is said (3:1-8). The author then describes how the community's faith is tested by slanderous and duplicitous speech (3:9-12), before finally applying his interpretation of proverbial wisdom to the crisis at hand (3:13-18). As with his earlier com­ mentary on "quick hearing," the author's adaptation of wisdom to life is primarily concerned with the eschatological results of wise or foolish actions. Even as it is wise to obey the law of love, since God will return mercy for mercy at the end of the age (2:13), so it is also wise to speak well of one another, since on this basis God will harvest the righteous for the coming age (3:17-18). A close reading of the passage discloses how nicely this theological point is scored by vivid composition and careful argumentation. The author frames his entire essay by the escha­ tological idioms of "perfection" (3:2) and "righteousness" and "peace" (3:18). Sandwiched between are illustrations that con­ trast the perils of unwise speech (3:3-8, 14-16) with the virtues of pure speech (3:17), all of which are centered by a theologi­ cal lesson on the hypocrisy of duplicitous speech (3:9-12). Once again, the themes and language of this essay are at home among Greco-Roman moralists, who were well aware of the power of 1

The Wisdom of "Slow to Speak"

161

language to persuade or provoke. Yet the author's interpretation is theological and fully explicable only against the horizon of biblical wisdom. 2

James 3:1-8: A Commentary on "Slow to Speak" ^et not many of you become teachers, my brothers and sis­ ters, for you know that we will be judged by a stricter standard; for we all stumble in many respects. If one does not stumble in teaching, this is indeed a perfect person who is capable of bridling the entire body. Now if we place bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we guide their entire body as well. Also take note of ships —although large and driven by strong winds, they are guided by a small rudder according to the pilot's plan. This is also true of the tongue, which is small and yet boasts of great things; take note that a small spark ig­ nites a great forest! lndeed, the tongue is a spark, a world of unrighteousness; the tongue, itself inflamed by Gehenna, is put in charge of our body parts, corrupting the entire body and inflaming its created course. For every beast and bird of na­ ture, every reptile and fish is tamed or has been tamed by the human race; however, no person is able to tame the tongue. It is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

This commentary on the wisdom of "slow speaking" begins with a statement of its essential meaning (3:1-2; cf. 1:22) which is then supported by a series of vivid illustrations (3:3-8; cf. 1:23-27). James interprets "slow speaking" as the wise teacher's capacity to control the material and manner of what is taught, so that no one under his care stumbles and the entire congregation is guided into the blessings of the age to come. The illustrations issue a warning to the readers, especially their teachers, both of the difficulty of controlling what is said (3:3-4) as well as the potential evil that may result if speech is out of control (3:5-8). By heeding this warning the prospect for peace, both presently and in the age to come, is assured. James 3:1-2: Slow Speaking Is Edifying Teaching The standard address, "my brothers and sisters," serves again to mark the beginning of a new section. Rather than intending a

162

James 3:1-18

more general application of the wisdom of "slow speaking/' the author directs his remarks to the congregation's teachers (3:1). This seems reasonable since their words—more than the words of others — are crucial to the spiritual formation of the faith community. While this high regard for the teacher is typically Jewish and continues in early Christianity (cf. 1-2 Timothy), it is congruent with the values of the larger Greco-Roman world where wisdom cults gathered around its great teachers. In part this feature of the ancient social world explains why there might be "many" in the congregation who would want the job: it was an office of some power and privilege. Yet, these are the very positions that tend to attract overly ambitious people, who do not easily tolerate rivals. This potential peril seems realized for the first readers of James, among whom this very sort of rivalry among their teachers threatens the faith of the entire congregation. And, again, James seems more interested in per­ sonal character than in professional competency. What finally decides the value of the teacher's faith is whether he is "wise and understanding" rather than merely orthodox. As before when introducing his commentary on proverbial wisdom (cf. 1:22), James uses the imperative "become" (ginomai), recycling as well the verbal catchwords "know" (cf. 1:19; 4:4) and "judge" (cf. 2:13). The initial use of both "become" and "know" in James was to introduce the reader to the subject matter of wisdom, while the use of "judge" in 2:13 underscored the eschatological consequences of its present performance. This matrix of meanings creates the expectation that what follows in James will not only clarify the wise thing to do, especially during a season of spiritual testing, but will also relate its results to the end of time. I do not think this reference to God's judgment of teachers envisages a more severe sentence given to heretical or disruptive teachers (cf. 1 Cor. 3:17). Rather, James is merely mak­ ing the point that God will scrutinize more closely the teacher's performance with words, since the spiritual well-being of the entire community is at stake. Already, the difficulty of their task is indicated by the warn­ ing, "Let not many of you become teachers," and its subsequent justification, "for we all stumble in many respects." This pes­ simistic sentiment agrees with contemporary moralists, followed by Sirach, who typically viewed the power of eloquent speech in negative terms. In fact, to speak "slowly" might very well mean in a Greco-Roman setting to make it "short and sweet"! 3

The Wisdom of "Slow to Speak"

163

In any case, the shift from second to first person locates the au­ thor within the community's cadre of teachers, perhaps to give additional authority to his essay on pure speech; he, too, is a wordsmith. The repetition of "many" (polloi) brings to sharp focus the peril of the pedagogue: there ought not be "many" teachers be­ cause we all fail "many" times. The wisdom of this exhortation is underscored by the additional use of two synonyms: meizon, in reference to the stricter criterion used by God to judge teach­ ers, and hapas, in asserting that we all fail. The tension James has created in joining these separate truths is palpable and serves to impress the wisdom of his warning upon his readers. Perhaps the tension insures the useful emphasis on the human need for divine wisdom (cf. 3:14-17). God's eschatological verdict depends upon the appropriation of wisdom. In the first section of his commentary, James paired wisdom and Torah, so that God's verdict will be determined by whether one "stumbles" (ptaid) by disobeying the "royal law" (2:10). Here, the conventional truth that "we all stumble" re­ calls the prior meaning of ptaid but with added emphasis on the teacher. In this new compositional setting, the "stumbling block" is the teacher's word (en logo) rather than the "royal law." Further, James repeats "entire" (holon) to create an even more ro­ bust analogy: even as the "entire" Torah is observed, including its "royal law," so also the "entire" body is "bridled," including its tongue. Even as it is true that to stumble over "one part" (i.e, the "royal law") of the entire Torah results in a "guilty" verdict (so 2:10), so also it is true that to stumble over "one part" (i.e, the "tongue") of the entire body also results in a guilty verdict. The implied meaning is therefore made more certain: the wise teacher, who "speaks slowly" (= under control), does not stum­ ble in what is said. The subject matter, manner, and results of what is said are clarified by the rest of the chapter. However, James anticipates this development by the curious phrase, en logo, which I translate "in teaching." The phrase aptly calls at­ tention to what is said by teachers, thus to their teaching in amplifying the power and importance of their speech. "If one does not stumble in teaching... bridling the entire body" is a first-class condition and therefore asserts a gener­ ally accepted truth; and the use of the grammatical formula "one/person" (tis/aner) is elsewhere used in James to refer to all members of the congregation. On this basis, most commentators

164

James 3:1-18

contend that James is speaking hypothetically about everyday and every person's speech. However, better sense is made of the relationship between 3:l-2a and 3:2b if we take the author's warning to be directed in particular to those who teach. If this is the case, then this statement is not hypothetical but a descrip­ tion of the author's own experience of testing as a teacher (hence the shift to the first person in 3:lb-2a). More importantly, the implication of his interpretation of "slow speaking" is for a con­ gregation whose faith is indirectly tested by its lack of wise and understanding teachers (cf. 3:9-12). Significance is added to this statement by the combination of "perfect" (teleios) with "entire" (holos), which recalls the earlier description of a restored creation that is "perfect [teleios] and complete [holos], lacking in nothing" (1:4). In subsequent uses in James, "perfect" is employed as an eschatological catchword that underscores the "work" (1:4), "gift" (1:17), and "law" (1:25) that guide the congregation through its spiritual testing and into the promised reign of God. The anticipated result of these "perfect" resources is in kind, an "entirely perfect" existence (cf. 1:4). This eschatological dimension of teleios supplies an additional layer of meaning to the idea of the "perfect" teacher, whose ability to control what he says brings to perfection his "entire" body (= human existence that is "perfect and complete"; 1:4). Further, the teaching of the perfect teacher is yet another resource pro­ vided for the congregation to render it eschatologically fit. Here then is the essence of what James means by "slow speaking": The teacher who is "slow to speak" can guide the eschatologi­ cal community into the coming age. We will soon find that by "slow" James is not interested in the quantity or timing of what is spoken, but in its present quality and future result. Before moving on to the supporting illustrations that James provides, let me return again to the first use of teleios/holos in James 1:4 to consider yet another dimension of its meaning re­ tained in the present passage. The programmatic use of teleios/ holos helped to define the testing of the congregation's faith, so that their future participation in the promised "perfected/ completed" order is conditioned upon passing the testing of their faith. The role of the teacher within the congregation is always qualified by this crisis; wise and understanding teaching always addresses the crisis at hand. The "perfect" teacher, then, provides spiritual resources for a congregation that is undergo­ ing the testing of faith. The responsibility of the teacher's task

The Wisdom of "Slow to Speak"

165

and the urgency of the teacher's testing is thereby heightened if the destiny of the congregation, whether Gehenna or God's kingdom, depends upon its magisterium. Reicke suggests that James has in mind the Pauline use of "body" as a metaphor for the congregation; yet, this is clearly not the meaning of "body" in James 2:16, 26, and is therefore doubtfully the meaning intended here. Only if the interpreter wants to press for scripture's simultaneity could the Pauline use of the "body" motif supply an additional layer of meaning here. However, I do not think this necessary. The repeated pairing of teleios/holos in this book makes it clear that the author has in mind the testing of the congregation's faith and the critical role the teacher's tongue performs in guiding the congregation through spiritual crisis. 4

James 3:3-4: The Importance of Controlling What Is Taught The passage begins with a textual problem. Metzger thinks that copyists were confused between "Now if" (ei de) and "Look" (ide), which would form a natural parallelism with the second illustration that is introduced by "Behold" (idou) in 3:4. Either way, the intent is made clear by the author's use of "bit" (chalinos), the nominal form of the previous "bridling" (chalinagogeo; 3:2), which links the essay's main point with its examples. The illustrations of the horse (3:3), the ship (3:4), and the careless spark (3:5), well known among ancient readers, illustrate the col­ lective importance for the teacher to control what is said about God and one another. The first illustration is concentrated by the purpose clause "to make them obey us"; indeed, it is for this reason that the rider places the bit in the horse's mouth. The verbal idea is pro­ vided by "obey" (peitho), which is used elsewhere in the New Testament of wisdom's (1 Cor. 2:4) and the gospel's (Luke-Acts) persuasiveness. The word generally envisages following the ad­ vice or appeal of a teacher or evangelist. James selects a word, then, to speak of a horse's obedience to his rider's instructions, passed through the bit and bridle, that illustrates the persuasive power of the teacher's logos. The congregation will typically fol­ low what its teacher says. Herein lies another reason, then, why the teacher's judgment is by a "stricter standard" (3:1): theirs is a responsibility for the salvation of others. People will fol­ low what their teachers say, sometimes blindly and foolishly.

166

James 3:1-18

Given the eschatological contour of this exhortation, believers are sometimes deceived by their blind and foolish teachers who lead them away from promised perfection. God will blame the teacher (cf. 1 Cor. 3:5-17). As a transition into the second example about ships, James adds the appositional phrase, "we guide their entire body as well." Both examples are linked together by their common use of "guide" (metago) to illustrate a common practice: even as the horse is "guided" by a small bit so also are ships "guided by a small rudder," in this case "according to the pilot's plan." That is, the pilot (= teacher) must control the ship's rudder (= body's tongue), knowing that the ship (= congregation) is guided safely only by the pilot's plan (= teacher's word). However, certain details have been added to the second illus­ tration which have upped the stakes considerably. First are the "strong winds" (anemos) that "drive" and imperil large ships. Although a different vocabulary is used here, no doubt reflect­ ing its pre-James form, the image has already been used in 1:6. There the image of "driving winds" (anemizo) is part of an ex­ tended metaphor of the immature believer who foolishly doubts the perspicacity of divine wisdom. In that case, the believer's capacity to endure spiritual testing is imperiled, with the poten­ tial loss of divine blessing. The reader might suppose that James re-imagines this same meaning here as part of the illustration of a ship's safe passage: even as its safety is endangered by the strong and driving winds, so also is the community's redemp­ tion endangered by the duplicity of its teachers. However, we must await James's articulation of the particular trial, in 3:9-12, before this implied danger is spelled out a bit more. On the other hand, in the present passage, where the ship is roughly analo­ gous to the congregation, the "strong winds" that endanger the ship may imply something about the congregation's immaturity in following after a teacher who is not wise and understand­ ing. Notice that the question posed in 3:13, which asks, "Who is wise and understanding among you?" is addressed to the con­ gregation. While the teacher will no doubt be harshly judged, the victimized congregation will also be judged by God. Second is the added emphasis placed upon the pilot whose "plan" (boulomai) determines the ship's safe passage. I have tried to translate the awkward phrase hopou he horme tou euthunontos bouletai (lit. "wherever the inclination of the one piloting plans") by "according to the pilot's plan." The "pilot's plan"

The Wisdom of "Slow to Speak"

167

brings together two words. The first, horme ("inclination"), is used in the New Testament as a psychological term for "hunch" (cf. Acts 14:5), and may be added to the other words found in James which describe the believer's interior life. James places a great deal of importance upon the internal life of the believer, so that how one responds outwardly to spiritual testing is ex­ plained by what sort of person one is internally; "doing" is the certain result of "being." The second word is the verb boulomai ("plans"), which is strategically used in James 1:18 (cf. 4:4) of God's plan for human existence. In this programmatic use, God's plan for the community (= a new creation) is realized by the gift of wisdom, "the word of truth." In a similar manner, the teacher participates in the unfolding of God's plan only if the teacher's logos (3:2a) corresponds to God's (1:18). In this second example, then, the pilot's plan is the result of some "inclina­ tion" or foresight; it is not an arbitrary or haphazard plan, so that the safety of the ship is determined by the careful deci­ sion the pilot makes. If the "pilot" is a metaphor of the teacher, then this additional intratext underscores the sort of "control" the teacher must exercise over the tongue: his word must agree with God's word. James 3:5-6: The Destructiveness of Speech "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me." We all know from experience that this children's chant is rubbish; words do have the power to offend us and even destroy what matters most to us. In a final illustration, then, James draws this same devastating conclusion about the destructive powers of human speech. To this point in his commentary on the wisdom of "slow speaking," the author has been content to illustrate the impor­ tance of controlling what is said. Still in mind is the previ­ ous contrast between a "large" (telikoutos) ship and its "small" (elachistos) rudder, whose relative importance is reversed when­ ever the skilled pilot steers a large ship to safety by controlling its small rudder. The transitional phrase, "This is also true" (houtos kai), now applies this maritime principle to what is said: "The tongue is small and yet boasts of great things." By personi­ fying the tongue (who can boast!) and by employing alliteration ("small" [mikron] tongue and "great" [megala] things), James makes even more vivid the present problem: a small tongue does

168

James 3:1-18

indeed have great power in determining the outcome of weighty matters. The stark pessimism by which James considers this problem is indicated by his choice of verb: the tongue "boasts" (aucheo) of great things. The principal synonym of "boast" (kauchad/omai) is typically used in the New Testament negatively, and especially in Pauline literature of humanity's self-centered disposition that opposes God's purposes (cf. James 4:16). In this sense and con­ text, the arrogant boasting of the teacher may presume to speak for God even when self-interest motivates and captivates him. Destruction will surely follow in the wake of such a tongue. Already in James 1:9-10a, however, kauchaomai is used iron­ ically of boasting in God, who delights in love, justice, and holiness rather than in personal wealth and on this basis will de­ termine one's status in the coming kingdom. Such boasts, which anticipate a reversal of fortunes in God's coming reign, are characteristic of the pious poor but impossible for the doubleminded (1:6-8), whose materialism subverts faith in God (cf. 4:16). In this sense, then, the immature teacher may well boast of "great things" for the Creator (3:9), but his cursing of another rival teacher exposes his duplicity (3:10). In this illustration of the tongue's mischief, James clearly has a negative meaning for "boasting" in mind. That is, "boasting" characterizes the teacher whose tongue is out of control and wreaks havoc within the community of faith. In this light, James draws the analogy of a forest fire: the "small tongue" is compa­ rable to a small spark and "great things" to a great forest. So when the tongue "boasts" of great things, it is similar to the "small spark" that ignites the "great forest" and destroys it. In this way, the author moves the reader from an appreciation for the tongue's importance in guiding the community into God's coming kingdom to a recognition of the importance of control­ ling what is said, and to a clear warning of its potential peril if human speech is not "slowed" by divine wisdom (3:17). "Spark" (lit. "small fire") is here used as another metaphor of human speech: "the tongue is a spark." The image of a forest fire provokes the sense of great danger, especially in a world without equipment to fight it. The "Smokey the Bear" wisdom behind the proverb is that if a spark is not controlled at the point of its ori­ gin, then there is no stopping its devastating spread. At another level, fire is a well-known biblical metaphor of divine judgment. Taken together, then, the peril of uncontrolled speech is that

The Wisdom of "Slow to Speak"

169

there is no stopping its devastation. Like the spark that ignites the forest, human speech can enflame the entire congregation and set it on a course that inevitably ends in spiritual failure. While this seems to be the essential point of the "fire" illus­ tration, it is made by "one of the more perplexing structures of the epistle." My translation of 3:6 embodies several difficult exegetical decisions. There is no textual evidence that 3:6 is cor­ rupted; my translation attempts to make sense of the critical text. In fact, the grammar is awkward and the metaphors are mixed, but its message vivid and clear. The phrase "a world of unrighteousness" is appositional to the preceding phrase, "the tongue is a spark," and expands its in­ tended meaning. That is, speech is dangerous like a destructive fire not only because it is capable of self-centered and duplicitous boasting, but also because it is capable of unrighteousness. Its capacity to engage in sinful acts is shaped within a sinful world that inclines it in that direction. According to 1:27, the "world" is where anti-God values and sentiments are found, which contaminate life purified by obedience to "the perfect law of liberty" and ultimately undermine the prospect of divine blessing in the age to come. It is out of this evil world order that God calls the pious poor to be rich in faith and heirs of the promised kingdom (2:5). These prior meanings of "world" are retained here. The evils of the tongue are in kind with the evils found within the anti-God world; the peril of human speech is that it can verbalize and mobilize all that opposes God in the world. Clearly from 2:5, the world is antithetical to God's reign and will have no part in its coming triumph (cf. Matt. 5:20). By implication, then, speech patterned after the proto­ cols and perquisites of the world order shape a people who live contrary to God's will. In Mayor's pertinent phrase, "the tongue represents or constitutes the unrighteous world." Not only can the tongue articulate the evils of the world order, it is "inflamed by Gehenna" While these are the conclud­ ing words of the verse and are often placed last in translation, they posit a second source of the tongue's evil, parallel and inte­ gral to the "world," and therefore should be considered next. Gehenna is the Hellenized name for the Valley of Hinnom on the south side of Jerusalem, where garbage was dumped and burned. According to apocalyptic imagination, Gehenna became an important metaphor for evil and finally for the Devil whose home is also there. For this reason, the final battle between the 5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

170

James 3:1-18

forces of good and evil will be waged in this valley (according to rabbinical midrashim on Isa. 66:23-24), since it is there that evil powers determine the very human misfortune and sin over which God's reign will finally triumph. Logically, the Gospels use it as a place for punishment (Matt. 5:22, 29-30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15; Mark 9:43-47; Luke 12:5). In this sense, then, "the world of unrighteousness" is presently fashioned and controlled by the Devil from his headquarters in Gehenna; and it is the Devil that "inflames" the teacher's tongue. Martin contends that according to apocalyptic tradition idolaters are dumped and burned there by the "power of Azazel's tongue" — an appropriate image in a passage concerned with the teacher whose duplicitous tongue causes spiritual carnage. James further asserts that the teacher's tongue, now inflamed by the Evil One from Gehenna, "is put in charge of our body parts, corrupting the entire body." The meaning of the verb kathistemi, which I translate "put in charge," remains contested. Ironically, its meaning is largely based upon how the exegete takes the preceding phrase, "world of unrighteousness." If as a predicate complement, as most do, then kathistemi is translated "is placed among" (NRSV) and functions as the principal predi­ cate of tongue: "The tongue is placed among our body parts as a world of unrighteousness." However, James is making yet another claim about the tongue's maliciousness, and kathistemi stands as the predicate of this claim rather than of the earlier one. The middle voice of kathistemi (cf. kathistan) is causal in sense: to place in order; to set up or erect in proper form. My translation, "put in charge," suggests that the tongue performs a principal leadership role within the human body — certainly, a Hellenistic sensibility: we verbalize what we are and identify who we are. Taking both claims as discrete but integral, James can better envisage the invasive and pervasive nature of the tongue's potential evil. Not only does the tongue take its primary cues from the world order, which is itself "inflamed" by the Evil One, but then each member of the body takes in turn its primary cues from the tongue. Given its evil sources and the critical role it performs in de­ termining the destiny of human life, the following results are to be expected: the tongue (1) corrupts the entire body and (2) inflames its created course. The first result is envisaged by the "corrupting" (spiloo) powers of the tongue. The reference 13

14

The Wisdom of "Slow to Speak"

171

to the "entire body" recalls the same phrase used in the prov­ erb of the "perfect person" in 3:2. There it is a reference to the teacher whose words nurtured the congregation for salva­ tion. Here again the phrase has the teacher in mind, but in a very different context when words do not nurture but "cor­ rupt." The opposite idea of being "uncorrupted" (a-spiloo) is used in 1:27 as a characteristic of eschatological religion. There, the Christian congregation's refusal to accommodate the antiGod values of the world order (i.e., discrimination against the poor and powerless) secures a favorable verdict from God at the end of the age. In this present case, however, James has the congregation's teacher in mind, whose speech is informed by the "world of unrighteousness" and as a result contami­ nates his relationship with God as well as imperils any prospect of future reward, since teachers will be judged by a "stricter standard" (3:1). The second result is more difficult to understand. Again, the plain sense of this entire example indicates that James has the teacher rather than the entire congregation in view. The teacher's tongue determines the teacher's destiny (3:12), although there are certain implications that follow about the destiny of the congregation shattered and deceived by the teacher (see above). The repeated use of the verb "inflames" (phlogizo) links Gehenna and teacher together: evil returns to evil. Moreover, there is a certain logic which allows that a tongue, "inflamed" by the Evil One, will in turn "inflame" and destroy whatever else it touches, including the "created course" (lit. "the cycle of nature") of one's life. The meaning of this phrase in James remains obscure and debated. This reference to a "created course" draws upon ideas in current Greek phi­ losophy: it denotes human existence in the context of a natural order where all things are constantly recycled. "The point of the image in James is that the tongue is not only influenced by cosmic evil but affects all of life." The meaning of this enigmatic phrase becomes clearer under the light of the following discussion of the teacher's erroneous "theology of creation" (3:9-12). The reader is pointed ahead by the genitive noun "created" (tes geneseds), which echoes the bib­ lical story of creation in the Book of Genesis (LXX). Put sharply, the "created course" of James is the pattern of human existence that accords with the Creator's intentions. Thus, the teacher's tongue that is out of control is one that defines human life in a 15

16

17

18

172

James 3:1-18

way that is contrary to the Creator's intentions for human life; and the results are self-destructive (cf. 1:13-15, 5:19-20). James 3:7-8: The Difficulty of Taming the Tongue James's interpretation of the proverbial wisdom to be "slow to speak" concludes with a loud bang rather than with a muted whimper. The connecting "For" (gar) indicates that 3:6-8, a sin­ gle sentence in the Greek, continues the theme of 3:6, providing even more details to support its main idea: human speech can be hazardous to the teacher's eschatological health. The zoo of domesticated animals described in 3:7 contrasts with the undomesticated tongue in 3:8, which is "an unruly evil, full of deadly poison." Thus, this commentary, which begins in mea­ sured tones by underscoring the importance of controlling what is said (3:2b), here concludes in pessimism, claiming that "no person is able to tame the tongue." The wisdom according to James intends to "slow down" this very movement of the tongue from great potential to great peril; yet the hyperbole of this text suggests that the teacher's prospect for doing so is a hard possibility. The use of dynamai ("is able") in James (cf. 1:21; 2:14; 3:8; 4:2, 12), while a convention of paraenetic literature, strikes me as sig­ nificant. The believer's "ability" to respond to spiritual testing in ways that are pleasing to God is conditioned by the believer's de­ pendence upon divine wisdom. Thus, only by application of this "word" is the believer "enabled" to be saved (1:21); conversely, no believer is "able" to be saved by God (4:12) when divine wisdom goes unheeded (2:14, 3:8, 4:2). Implicit in this contrast between tamed animals and untamed tongues, then, is another contrast between the wise and foolish believer. The teacher who is "wise and understanding" depends upon God to "enable" the taming of the tongue. The division of tamed animals into "every beast and bird of nature, every reptile and fish" follows the creation story (Gen. 1:26, 28-30; 2:19-20; cf. Gen. 9:2; Ps. 8:6-8) and envisages the "proper" order of creation: the Creator gives to human creation the responsibility of "taming" the nonhuman creation. The accusation of an apparent lack of control, since "no person is able to tame the tongue," is further indication of a fallen cre­ ation in need of restoration. These allusions to a broken creation contribute a layer of meaning to this essay on "slow speaking." 19

The Wisdom of "Slow to Speak"

173

Hidden in the proverb of the "perfect" teacher, who controls the tongue and so the "entire" body, is the promise of a restored creation (see discussion of 3:2); indeed, the teacher is an agent of a new order of human relations. Yet, the teacher's uncon­ trolled speech, which is "unruly" and "full of deadly poison," is contrary to the Creator's "created course" for human life (3:7); such speech does not herald the coming triumph of God and even undermines the community's prospects for divine blessing. In the next passage, this creation topos is developed as James describes in more detail the duplicity of rival teachers, who teach about the Creator while slandering those creatures made in God's image. It therefore seems apropos that James would include an image that echoes the great "reptile" of Eden's do­ main: the Serpent was a teacher also, whose deceiving word to Eve about God led to creation's chaos and humanity's death. 20

James 3:9-12: The Crisis of Slanderous Speech 9

W e bless the Lord and Father with the tongue, and with it we curse people who have been created in the image of God; from the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My broth­ ers and sisters, this ought not be so. Does a well bring forth fresh and salty water from the same opening? M y brothers and sisters, is a fig tree able to produce olives or a grapevine figs? Neither can salt water yield fresh. 10

1 1

12

The shift away from metaphor to a more discursive rhetoric, stated in the first person, signals a more personal aspect of James's thematic development, where the author moves from his interpretation of wisdom (3:1-8) to a more specific incident which has occasioned his pastoral concern. While the story of the incident is again difficult to retell without more specific de­ tails, James supplies enough information to indicate the nature of the crisis in view. Moreover, the reader may well infer from the preceding interpretation of "slow speaking" that the partic­ ular trial that has occasioned James's interest focuses on teachers and on what they have to say to their congregations. The problem of erroneous teaching of the immature teacher concerns many biblical writers. In James, it would seem that pri­ mary emphasis is placed upon the teacher's duplicity (3:9-10) — a characteristic of spiritual immaturity that undermines the way 21

174

James 3:1-18

of wisdom (cf. the "double-minded" of 1:5-8). In this case, the words of the immature teacher are used in contradictory ways, both to bless the Creator and to curse those made in the Cre­ ator's image. The practical issue for James, then, is not whether the teacher's words carry orthodox freight, or even whether the cursing of a rival is warranted. Both the blessing of God and the cursing of the sinner are justified according to the scriptures. We already know that the opponents profess an orthodox faith (2:19) but still offend the sensibilities of God by what they do (discriminate) or not do (merciful works). Similarly, this objec­ tion of James is not of heretical teaching. Rather, the teacher in view is guilty of disingenuous speech that at once blesses God and curses God's creation. That is, the teacher's duplicity is not that both blessing and cursing are done by the same tongue, but that the teacher's blessing of God is an element of the cursing of neighbor. This speech is "unruly and full of deadly poison" because it constitutes the most malicious kind of ad hominem which, behind the guise of worship, celebrates the Creator's good intentions as "Lord and Father" in order to justify the de­ struction of another's reputation. This kind of sanctimonious "double-speak" employs rhetoric for personal advantage and is blasphemous. Can we imagine such a situation? I suspect that James is re­ sponding to the kind of congregational crisis that pits one rival teacher over another in a struggle for power among the mem­ bership. At day's end, however, the reader understands the real crisis is theological: such trials within the faith community pro­ voke a testing of faith in God. In the case of the immature teacher, the untamed tongue profanes the creature while bless­ ing the Creator. Such "double-speak" fails to understand that the patterns of God's good creation are ordered by laws of consistency; the tongue's duplicity violates the Creator's rule and causes chaos within the creation (cf. 3:15-16). More in­ sidious still is that such duplicity is prompted by the teacher's Faustian ambition, which exchanges the sacred for the profane (cf. 3:14). The results for both teacher and congregation are devastating. James 3:9-10: The Teacher's "Double-Speak" The teacher's untamed tongue of 3:8 remains the central image of this passage. Thus, even though James describes two legiti-

The Wisdom of "Slow to Speak"

175

mate roles the teacher performs, the reader has been made alert to their potential abuse. In fact, the Old Testament often uses the language of "bless"/"blessing" (euloged/eulogia) and "curse"/ "cursing" (kataraomai/katara) together with reference to reli­ gious activities that are authorized by God (cf. Gen. 27:12-13; Num. 23:11, 25; Deut. 11:26-29; 23:5; 30:1, 19; Job 9:2; Neh. 13:2; Ps. 108 [109]:17-18; Sir. 3:8-9; Zech. 8:13; Mai. 2:2). The act of blessing God is a common biblical motif, here perhaps referring to its liturgical use by teachers as an oft-repeated re­ frain during a worship service they are leading. And the act of cursing another is also a familiar biblical injunction, al­ though encouraged with greater caution than is praise. It again seems apropos for the elder to curse another whenever spir­ itual impurity jeopardizes the congregation's well-being. The evil, therefore, is not self-evident when considered in isolation from a compositional context that presumes that the teacher's tongue is "unruly and full of deadly poison." The question is, then, when are the acts of blessing and curs­ ing wrong? Clearly James addresses an occasion when this is the case as indicated by the sharp rebuke, "My brothers and sisters, this ought not be so." The passage itself yields three integral clues. 1. The phrase "Lord and Father" is the object of the teacher's public blessing and worship; because it is not found in either Jewish or Christian literature the interpreter should presume its distinctive importance in indicating when there is a prob­ lem in blessing God. Although careful not to posit too much significance on titles in James, some general observations are allowed. While the use of "Lord" is surprising here, the title is used in James to import eschatological meaning into an ex­ hortation (cf. 1:12; 4:10; 5:4, 7-9, 14-15; see also discussion of 2:1). For example, God is named "Lord of hosts" (5:4) who will judge the oppressors; God is also called "Lord of promise" (1:12) who grants blessings to those who pass the testing of faith. The title "Father" is also used in connection with the promise of fu­ ture blessing (see discussion of 1:17 and 1:27). Perhaps this title is used here ironically, then, to define the theological immatu­ rity of a teacher who professes God in public worship as the One who will grant future blessing as their "Lord and Father," yet whose personal life bears little resemblance to the life re­ quired by God on that future Day (cf. 2:12-13, 4:11-12, 5:5-6). In truth, such duplicity has little hope to receive blessings from 22

23

24

James 3:1 - 1 8

176

the very God from whom, these same teachers claim, will flow their future reward. 2. The added phrase "created in the image of God" clearly al­ ludes to the creation narrative (Gen. 1:27). The implied point for teachers is also clear: their "word" (3:2) must bear witness to God's creative and saving word—a vocation they fail to heed when cursing another creature. Within the biblical context, there is an ambivalence regard­ ing the cursing of another. On the one hand, the cursing of another is forbidden by Jesus (Matt. 5:44 par. Luke 6:28), yet he will curse his enemies at the end of the age (Matt. 25:41; cf. Mark 11:21). Paul follows Jewish paraenesis in forbidding cursing even of the outsider (Rom. 12:14), but no one is harsher than Paul on his opponents, even those within the church. Yet, when the untamed tongue of the immature teacher curses another, it is of­ ten abusive and can even constitute an act of verbal terrorism. When joined with "blessing" as part of public worship, theo­ logical confusion results with considerable damage done to the community's spiritual formation. Therefore, characteristic of the wise teacher is consistency between what is said about God and neighbor; likewise, immature teachers, who are absorbed with self rather than with God, ought not to curse anyone simply because they do not possess the capacity to know right from wrong. In this light, the phrase "created in the image of God" reminds the congregation that there exists an essential equal­ ity between people, since all are made by the one Creator (cf. 2:19) and each in the Creator's image. This profoundly bibli­ cal sensibility recommends that only the most mature teacher should risk a rebuke of another. I do not suppose that the embar­ rassment caused by this text among Christian interpreters is its Jewishness (as Dibelius contends) but rather its frequent abuse even by those who claim to be transformed by divine grace. 3. The summary statement "from the same mouth come blessing and cursing" concentrates on the duplicity of the untamed tongue. This statement is also ironical since "blessingcursing" recalls biblical covenant language and specifically God's eschatological verdict whether to "bless" those who main­ tain their obligations within the covenant community or to "curse" those who do not. The phrase echoes and is interpreted by 2:13, where God's eschatological verdict responds in kind to the believer's actions: the duplicitous tongue that curses the neighbor will be cursed by God at the end of the age. 25

The Wisdom of "Slow to Speak"

177

Several commentators have noted the significance of the shift of focus here from "tongue" to "mouth." Perhaps the switch to "mouth" (stoma) might cue another cache of biblical tradition, which understands a person's speech as a barometer of spiritu­ ality — a point that picks up Old Testament wisdom teaching (cf. Proverbs, Job, Sirach). The use of stoma as a catchword of prophetic authority is especially important in Lukan redac­ tion (Luke 1:70, 4:22, 21:15; Acts 3:18, 8:35, 10:34, et al.) - a point that reflects Old Testament prophetic teaching (cf. Isaiah, Jeremiah). What is said by the "mouth" measures the spiri­ tual maturity and authority of those who desire to teach the congregation of God. In Christianity according to James any form of duplicity, including "double-speak," is the mark of spiritual failure (cf. diglossia, esp. in Sirach). Moreover, a believer's duplicity exposes theological deception (cf. commentary of 1:5-8) which makes following the way of wisdom impossible during spiritual test­ ing. In this particular case, the teacher's "double-speak" exposes (at the very least) a faulty theology of creation, which supposes there is no connection between a good Creator and the creatures of a good creation. Such deception is powerless to constrain what comes from the mouth of the fool. 26

James 3:11-12: The Creator's Consistency Typical of the rhetoric of James, a triad of questions is asked which expect a negative answer; the purpose of each question is to illustrate by contrast the truth of the point just scored in 3:910. In this case, the illustrations are from nature (spring, plant, water) and convey a self-evident principle of God's creation: a single source produces a single yield. I suspect that for the reader of James this observation of nature embodies the deeper logic of monotheistic faith (cf. 2:19): it is necessarily the case that the One Creator produces a creation that operates in a consistent manner. What would happen in a world where a fresh-water well also brought forth salty water? Chaos, since the salty would pol­ lute the fresh, making it unfit to use. What would happen in a vineyard planted to harvest grapes which then produced figs, or fig trees which then produced olives? Chaos, since they pro­ duce what they are not planted to harvest. In other words, the observable phenomena of the natural order envisage the will of its Creator, who is against vacillation which only pollutes, and

178

James 3:1-18

for consistency which nurtures. If the inherent orderliness of the natural order discloses the consistency of its Creator, then there must be a similar consistency between what the mouth says about God and neighbor. If God is blessed, then neighbor is blessed as well (with an end to the self-destructive rivalry implied). If the neighbor is cursed, then God is cursed as well (which exposes the one who curses as being unfit to teach the congregation). The final illustration is not cast as a rhetorical question but as an assertion; the switch should cue the reader to its importance as a concluding statement. Later copyists added houtos before the oute halykon and then expanded the text still again to read houtos oudemia pege halykon kai. Especially this late expansion reflects the interpretation that 3:12 merely repeats 3:11. This conclu­ sion, which views the present passage as the mere repetition of the familiar example of a pollutant mixture of fresh and salty waters, seems mistaken to me — as does Dibelius's verdict that it is an "insipid" statement! Rather, the full meaning of this phrase derives from its Old Testament subtext. The combination of "salt"- (halykos/hals) and "fresh- [glykus] water" (hydor) echoes three significant biblical texts. (1) The pri­ mary Old Testament text is Exod. 15:23-25. At the beginning of Israel's wilderness sojourn, they come to Marah (Merrha) thirsty only to find the waters there "bitter" (pikros; Exod. 15:23). Af­ ter complaining to Moses, and Moses to God, the "water became sweet" (eglykanthe hydor; Exod. 15:25). Significantly, this miracle of nature's healing is followed by God's promise that the natural order would never again be polluted if Israel would obey God's law (Exod. 15:25-26). In this first case, "bitter water" is a topos of God's judgment of a broken and fallen creation, while "fresh water" is a topos of God's salvation. (2) In the narrative of 2 Kings 2:19-22, Elisha, who has since received the prophetic authority once belonging to Elijah (with whom James is familiar; cf. 5:16-18), mixes salt with fresh wa­ ter in order to reverse certain abnormalities of nature (abortions and other deaths caused by drinking polluted water). These first two narratives are held together by the common use of tree bark (symbolic of "tree of life" in creation?) to "heal" the bitter waters. (3) Finally, in Ezek. 47:7-11, the same combination is found in the prophet's vision of the eschatological Temple. Again, 27

28

The Wisdom of "Slow to Speak"

179

death is reversed and "everything will live where the river [a flow of stagnant water made fresh] goes." Within this wider biblical context, the pairing of salt and fresh waters in 3:12 recalls an Old Testament topos of God's salvation by which the transformation of salt into fresh water symbolizes the "great reversal" of God's coming triumph and Israel's (and creation's) coming restoration. In this light, the reader, who is familiar with these biblical stories, is able to hear James's illustration as a warning: the teacher's untamed tongue imperils the future of the community, whose fortunes will not be reversed at the end of the age if guided by an immature sage. It is apropos, then, that the next exhortation is addressed to the congregation to seek after the "wise and understanding" teacher since their future depends upon it. A final point about the importance of consistency: both the natural, and spiritual orders of human existence, as creations of God, are similar in that both are subject to the law of "cause and effect." There are no mutations or variations in either creation; both are made by a good "Father" who does not cast a shift­ ing shadow (cf. 1:17). Even as God creates fig trees to yield figs and not olives or a fresh-water spring to yield fresh water and not salty water, so also the tongue must be used to bless God or curse neighbor in accord with the way of wisdom. To be "slow to speak" is to speak in consistent and constructive ways about God and neighbor.

James 3:13-18: Implications of "Slow Speaking" for Life 13

Who is wise and understanding among you? Let this person exemplify the works of good conduct, with the meekness of wisdom. But if you harbor bitter jealousy in your heart to­ ward a rival, do not boast and lie in defiance of the truth. This is not the wisdom that comes from above but is rather earthly, natural and demonic. Wherever jealousy and rivalry exist, there is chaos and every vile practice. But the wisdom that comes from above is first of all pure, then peaceable, gentle, and reasonable; full of mercy, then of good fruit, im­ partial, and sincere. A fruit of righteousness will be harvested in peace for those who make peace. 14

15

16

17

18

180

James 3:1 -18

Dibelius argued that this passage has no connection with the preceding, other than the possible use of the catchword "bitter" in 3:11 and 3:14. Even this vague connection is easily dis­ missed by most who follow Dibelius's lead since elsewhere James connects paraenetical sayings or groups of sayings/topoi together by catchwords without apparent rhetorical intent. Although he disagrees with Dibelius's form-critical conclusions, Johnson ties the present passage to the thematic interests of the following pericope (4:1-10) rather than to those that precede it in James. I remain convinced, however, that 3:13-18 is better understood as the third part of James's essay on the wisdom of "slow speak­ ing," and rounds off its full meaning and practical significance for the readers. The well-defined rhetorical (triadic) pattern, followed elsewhere in the main body of James, here concludes with a discussion of the eschatological implications of "slow speaking" (cf. 2:8-13, 4:13-5:6). In this light, then, the devel­ opment of the wisdom topos concerning the "slow speaking" of teachers climaxes in 3:18 with its implied promise that the "perfect" teacher (3:1-2), whose tongue is "tamed" by heavenly wisdom (3:17), will harvest for himself and others a "fruit of righteousness." The author's rhetorical skills are displayed by the effective use of contrast. Notably, in this text he returns to his essential duality, rooted in the symbols of his apocalyptical world, be­ tween two wisdoms, one heavenly/divine and the other earthly/ demonic, and their contrasting "fruit." This contrasting wisdom follows naturally from the guiding question (3:13a) that asks the congregation to seek and find the "wise and understanding" teacher who has the spiritual authority to lead the congrega­ tion into the reign of God. In fact, this overarching dualism of two wisdoms is introduced in 3:13b-14 by an inverted par­ allelism, which defines the wise teacher as one who performs good works (A) and is meek (B) rather than jealous (B'), known for his boasting words (A'): 29

30

31

A: Let this person exemplify the works of good conduct, B: with the meekness of wisdom. B': But if you harbor bitter jealousy in your heart toward a rival, A': do not boast and lie in defiance of the truth.

The Wisdom of "Slow to Speak"

181

Thus, the second contrast in 3:15-18 explains the first: the one who does not perform the works of wisdom and understanding is informed by an "earthly" wisdom (3:15) that results in chaos and evil (3:16), whereas the effective sage is informed by a wis­ dom "from above" (3:17) that results in righteousness and peace (3:18). James 3:13a: The Search Committee's Candidate James begins to discuss the eschatological result of "slow speak­ ing" with a question: "Who is wise and understanding among you?" The intent of the question is to lead the entire congre­ gation in its search for an effective teacher — an intent made clear by the phrase kalon to hrema ho elalesas poiesai (Deut. 1:13) — whose main purpose during the wilderness journey was to "secure the possession of the land that you will see" (Deut. 3:28). Against this biblical backdrop, then, the present respon­ sibility of the teacher during this present season of spiritual testing (= wilderness) is made clearer: as with the leaders of old Israel, the real mark of the teacher's wisdom and understand­ ing is whether the teacher can guide true Israel into the future realization of God's redemptive promise. The reference to sophos also recalls sophia from 1:5, where the faithful believer asks God and waits upon divine wisdom. Before the Jubilee of God where "nothing is lacking," the test­ ing of faith exposes a "lack" of and need for wisdom. Perhaps this opening statement about wisdom is recalled here to sup­ ply a fuller meaning of the teacher's expected wisdom: it is God who supplies the lacking wisdom through the agency of a wise teacher. Central to the theological vision of James is a wisdom from God that empowers the believer's imagination to think rightly about reality, both to understand the nature of everyday trials and to understand God's will so to endure through them to the end for its reward. James 3:13b-14: The Wise and Understanding Teacher The response is also anticipated from the statement: "Let this person exemplify the works of good conduct." Throughout James a question is followed by an exhortation that embodies the proper answer. But this rhetorical pattern provides an implied element of the answer itself: truth is found in its actual perform-

182

James 3:1-18

ance. James is very suspicious of speech, which is often glib and self-serving. In this regard, the verbal idea which I translate "ex­ emplify" (deiknumi) recalls the vocabulary of the interlocutor in 2:18 who poses two kinds of religion: religion is exempli­ fied either by verbal confessions of orthodox faith (e.g., 2:19) or by the merciful works of the "royal law" (e.g., 2:8). Unlike his imaginary opponent, of course, James does not feel strongly both ways: professed faith without works does not work. With this same pattern in mind, James asserts that the true teacher, like "true religion," is an exemplar of good works. Further, the word "works" (ta ergd) is used in James of actions that accord with God's will. My translation of "the works [ta erga autou] of good conduct [ek tes kales anastrophesY combines two phrases in the Greek. A translation of a text also interprets its meaning. In this case, I assign to the phrase ek tes kales anastrophes the role of an attributive genitive. That is, the "works" of wise and understanding teachers define the substance of their "good conduct." Their works conform to the will of God, the eschatological yield of which is "perfection and completion" (1:3-4; see discussion of 3:2). In this case, God's will is disclosed in the patterns of consistency found within the natural order (3:11-12); likewise, God's pattern of conduct for the teacher is to speak the truth without duplicity. Sharply put, the "works of good conduct" are those acts of human speech that conform to the virtues of "pure speech" (see 3:17); their anticipated reward is an eschatological "fruit of righteousness" (see 3:18). Significantly, the author recalls "meekness" (prautes) from his second thesis statement (1:21) and pairs it once again with wis­ dom (see discussion of "implanted word" in 1:21) to characterize the effective teacher. As is so often the case in James, the in­ tent of the genitive construction, "the meekness of wisdom," is difficult to determine. It is another "Semitic-influenced genitive construction" that resists normal classifications. In my view, it approximates the role and meaning of an objective genitive within this sentence. That is, "wisdom" is the recipient of the prior work of "meekness." The earlier meaning of "meekness" went beyond the Hellenistic notion of civility to infer some­ thing about the believer's unqualified acceptance of wisdom and implies a warning against the "double-minded" believer: the community of the wise accepts wisdom's instruction without de­ bating its merits, because it is requisite for the "salvation of your souls" (see discussion of 1:21). The "strong" reader/congregation 32

The Wisdom of "Slow to Speak"

183

brings this prior meaning of "meekness" into this new composi­ tional setting in order to refine further the identity of the wise and understanding teacher. In fact, the reader should realize that without meekness wisdom cannot be "received," without which the pedagogical "works of good conduct" are impossible to per­ form, without which the prospects of eschatological blessing are dimmed. Typically, James follows a statement of principle with a di­ rect address. In this case, the familiar "But if" (ei de; cf. 1:5, 2:9, 3:3, 4:11) introduces the contrasting characteristics of the wise and understanding teacher as a statement of rational fact. That is, 3:14 is a first-class conditional that describes a matter of fact. In wisdom, such statements have achieved a kind of ax­ iomatic quality by universal experience. This negative example is pointed at the current readership and expands the author's understanding of their trial of the teacher's untamed tongue (continuing, then, 3:9-10) which tests their faith in God. And his point is quite clear: if a teacher is not characterized by good works and meekness (3:13) but rather by "bitter jealousy" (cf. 3:11-12) toward a "rival" (i.e., those dispositions "of the heart" that lead one to slander another); and by a tongue that "boasts" and "lies in defiance of the truth" about God, then such teachers should be disqualified from teaching the congregation of believ­ ers. The deeper logic of the wisdom tradition is that the one who is motivated by self-interest and sees others as rivals for power should not be trusted as sage of God's wisdom. The message and messenger are inextricably entwined in James. Although the outward results of offensive speech are typi­ cally antisocial, the true source of the problem is internal and spiritual. James indicates this by a vocabulary that notes the teacher's vice is the "bitter jealousy" of a rival's power and po­ sition, and locates it "in your heart." The "heart" is the seat of moral intent and spiritual affections according to biblical psychology; spiritual leadership requires spiritual leaders. The failure of the teacher, who replaces "wisdom and understand­ ing" with jealousy and falsehood, is not his antisocial behavior but his spiritual immaturity. The reference to a "rival" (epitheia; lit. "rivalry") has political connotations. Its meaning in Aristotle was of illegal or immoral pursuit of political office. The term in James suggests a sim­ ilar meaning. Envisaged is a power struggle for a public office between rival teachers. At stake is not the good of the public, 33

James 3:1-18

184

however, but the good of the office holder, who is "jealous" of another. One can even imagine with Davids that rival teachers have formed theological factions within the same congregation and have withdrawn from the rest of the church. If so, the zeal of sectarian religion has forged a "bitter" split within the con­ gregation that now threatens the witness if not also the viability of Christian faith. How many times in the history of Christian­ ity has intolerant sectarianism resulted in the loss of Christian faith? Its tragic beginnings are very early indeed! This text also displays another literary pattern common in James which pairs contrasting images for rhetorical effect. In this case, the "boast" and "lie" are paired with the truth in the sen­ tence's apodosis. Modern commentators suggest that this pair is informed by the Jewish teaching of competing "spirits" or im­ pulses (y sarim), one that inclines one toward envy (cf. 4:5) and a corruption of the created order, while another inclines the same one toward peace and a restoration of the created order. The wise find in every creature of the created order material evidence of this same spiritual struggle for power between good and evil. In­ deed, this seems also true of the community's teachers in whom the spirit of righteousness causes some to bless God and curse the evil-doer, but in whom the spirit of perversion causes others to blaspheme God and curse the righteous. The false teacher "lies in defiance of the truth" — a vivid phrase suggesting an arrogant use of truth-claims to promote a selfish end. "Truth" characterizes the content of the "word" that issues in a new order of creation (cf. 1:18). By this light, the communication of the wise teacher's "word" (3:2), which im­ parts "truth" to the congregation, is an activity that intends to restore the broken and fallen order. The teacher who lies about the truth subverts the "created course" (cf. 3:6) and makes it impossible for God's good intentions to be realized within the life of the community. In this particular case, the false teacher is "jealous" of a "rival" rather than the Creator's redemptive purposes. Motivated by self-centered imperatives, this teacher "blesses God" but to advance himself over another. By boast­ ing in self rather than in God (cf. Rom. 5:1-11), the immature teacher fails to form the congregational habits of "meekness," which prevents in turn the reception of wisdom (cf. 1:21). The consequences are spiritual failure and self-destruction. In fact, that the false teacher "boasts" may well suggest that prompting a course that leads to self-destruction is a self-deception that pre34

e

35

The Wisdom of "Slow to Speak"

185

sumes a teacher is indeed "wise and understanding" when he is not. This last point may well be highlighted by the full texture of the reference to the immature teacher's "boasting" in defiance of the truth. Earlier in James, God's merciful verdict of the doer of Torah "boasts over" judgment at the end of the age (see 2:13). The interplay between these two acts of "boasting" — one divine and the other human — is at the very least ironic: the teacher's "boasting," which promotes falsehood over truth, is destined for severe judgment (cf. 3:1) when the "word of truth" will triumph (cf. 1:18). This implied conclusion will be developed in the fol­ lowing contrast by which the consequences of true and false wisdom are expounded. James 3:15-16: Foolish Talk Brings Destruction James employs a second contrast (3:15-18) to build upon and clarify the first. This contrast is framed by a rough parallelism between false (3:15-16) and true (3:17-18) wisdom, which ar­ ticulates the character (3:15 vs. 3:17) and consequence (3:16 vs. 3:18) of each. Whatever the structure, the positive point is clear: the speech-acts of "wise and understanding" teachers are "pure" and result in "peace." The emphatic rejection of the unwise is first of all indicated by the placement of the negative "Not" (ouk) in this sentence, which comes first in the opening phrase, "This is not the wis­ dom from above." The negative is followed by the catchword, "from above" (andthen): the contrast is between wisdom that is emphatically not "from above" (so 3:15-16) and that which is (so 3:17-18). A certain depth to andthen's meaning is added by its earlier use in 1:17-18, where it is coupled with katabainon rather than with katerchomene: wisdom is a gift from God, a "word of truth" that empowers the community's end-time salva­ tion (see commentary on 3:2 and 3:14). Wisdom and the virtue it produces are not of human origin, nor are they found in sec­ ular culture. Rather the source is andthen—horn a nonhistorical place (i.e., heaven) and nonhuman source (i.e., God), given by God to guide the faith community through its spiritual testing and into the promised land of God's salvation. The reverse produces the opposite effect: when a teacher's wisdom does not come "from above" (i.e., from heaven, from God), it does not have the capacity to "perfect" a community

186

James 3:1-18

for the end of time. In fact, the untamed tongue of the false teacher is "inflamed by Gehenna/' a mythic netherworld where every vicious evil resides under the reign of the Evil One and in opposition to the Creator's purposes (see discussion of 3:6, above). This contrast is continued by the strong adversative "but rather" (alia), which introduces a triad of sources that produce false wisdom. (1) In a spatial sense, falsehood derives from what is "earthly"; it is not "from above" and excludes that which is (i.e., God's gift of true wisdom). Likewise, (2) a "natural" (lit. "not spiritual") source cannot yield spiritual benefaction (cf. 1:21!); nor is (3) a "demonic" source capable of doing God's will. Earlier, James speaks of "demons" as exemplars of those who pro­ fess to know God but fail to do God's law (see 2:19; cf. 4:7). As with the natural order, the spiritual order is patterned by the law of consistency (see discussion of 3:11-12); therefore, a teacher whose words do not bear witness to what is "from above" will not nourish the faith community. This unholy triad's cumulative effect in James is mostly impressional and rhetorical. That is, the author is mostly in­ terested in condemning those self-appointed teachers who lead rival factions within the congregation; his point is that they only divide and threaten its spiritual well-being and are sim­ ply not to be entrusted with leadership. Their lack of wisdom and understanding is manifest in words that are earthly, not heavenly; natural, not spiritual; demonic, not divine. James's description of false wisdom continues in accordance with the moral calculus that bad ideas are embodied in antiso­ cial actions: garbage in, garbage out. If the words of an unwise teacher, who lacks understanding of the word of God, are fueled and formed by "jealousy and rivalry," then "chaos and every vile practice" will surely result among those who follow his lead. The believer's moral performance is commensurate with true devotion to God. "Vile" (phaulos) is used for "evil" (kakon; 1:13; 3:8; cf. kakia in 1:21) in characterizing the immoral result of verbal acts of slan­ der and blasphemy (cf. phaulos in John 3:20, 5:29; Rom. 9:11; 2 Cor. 5:10). Yet, James seems more concerned about the socio­ logical effects of false teaching: the crisis at hand is the "chaos" (akatastasia) within the congregation caused by rival teachers. In support of this pastoral concern is the tacit connection between the "demonic" and social chaos in Jewish teaching. Already in 36

37

The Wisdom of "Slow to Speak"

187

James, the adjectival form of "chaos" conjoins the duplicitous person (1:8) and duplicitous tongue (3:8). Each results in spiri­ tual anarchy; each characterizes the spiritually immature; each prevents wisdom from having its intended result; each imper­ ils eschatological blessing. In this case, then, the implied social effect of the teacher's untamed tongue is equally devastating. Moreover, Johnson points out that "practice" (pragma) is some­ times used for a lawsuit, and may be one kind of "vile practice" inferred from 2:6. That is, the malicious speech of an insider has the same deleterious effect upon the community's life as that provoked by the rich outsider who hauls the poor believer before the law-court in order to shame those who follow Christ. 38

39

James 3:17-18: Slow Speaking Is Wise Speaking The second half of the contrast between false and true wisdom begins by repeating the phrase "the wisdom that comes from above" (see 3:15). What immediately follows is a catalogue of well-known virtues that describes the characteristics of speech formed by divine wisdom. Greco-Roman philosophy was precise in describing that manner of virtuous life chosen and embodied in the sage. Indeed, that wisdom is virtuous, and foolishness a vice, stands at the center of Hellenistic ethical thought. To this extent, James participates in this same moral world. However, the dualisms of heaven and earth, divine and demonic, which frame this dissection of vice and virtue, are theological and es­ chatological: not only are wisdom and understanding from a divine rather than humanistic source; but speech characterized by virtue bears witness to a teacher's devotion to God's word. Two questions about this catalogue of virtues remain con­ tested. First, following the general debate over the role of New Testament paraenesis, has the author created this catalogue of virtues to define a species of wisdom that better responds to and is relevant for this particular audience and its spiritual crisis? Second, has the author-rhetor edited this catalogue to form a particular literary pattern to illustrate the nature or outcome of truth (= wisdom)? In response to the first question, Dibelius contends that these virtues characterize a traditional morality, typical of paraenesis, and intend an international application. However, because of its placement in an essay on the wisdom of "slow speaking," I understand this catalogue to include those characteristics of 40

James 3:1-18

188

edifying speech — the principal work of the "wise and under­ standing" teacher. The pattern of this list also suggests a carefully worked-out plan. The virtues are arranged into two groups of epsilon-words and alpha-words, thereby taking advantage of assonance. Each group is triadic and each follows one of two organizing char­ acteristics of wise speech. Thus, "pure" (hagnos) leads the first triad of epsilon-virtues, including "peaceable" (eirenikos), "gen­ tle" (epieikes), and "reasonable" (eupeithes). Speech that is "full of mercy" (eleos) is more fully characterized by the following alpha-virtues: "good fruit" (karpoi agathon), "impartial" (adiakritos), and "sincere" (anupokritos). The integral nature of these two triads of virtues is "mercy," which introduces the second triad and is an epsilon-word linked also to the first. Speech that is "first of all pure" concentrates on the meaning of "pure." James uses a different word for "pure" (hagnos) than is used in 1:27, where "purity" (kathara) also defines true religion. This word echoes the biblical tradition where wisdom is "pure" (Sir. 21:8) or the word of the Lord is "pure" (Ps. 11:6 [LXX]: "The words of the Lord are pure [Ta logia kyriou, logia hagnd\"). Of im­ portance is the wider context where the Psalmist confesses the purity of the Lord's words in contrast to "the misery of the poor" (Ps. 11:5; cf. James 5:1-6); and because they promise to "pro­ tect and preserve us [i.e., the poor] from this generation and for the eternal age" (Ps. 11:7; cf. James 2:2-5). The Torah Psalm 18 (LXX) speaks of the Torah as "pure" and of the one who observes it as rewarded (Ps. 18:7-11). The wise teacher speaks words that conform to the words of the Lord, written down in the biblical Torah and expressed in those actions that conform to God's own redemptive interests. This substantial concern for the "purity" of human speech also echoes these references from the Prov­ erbs: (1) Prov. 15:26, which suggests God's positive verdict will be given to those who speak pure words in contrast to unrigh­ teous thoughts (cf. James 3:18); (2) Prov. 20:9, where "boasting" of a "pure heart" (cf. James 3:14) or "purity" (however, katharos) from sin (cf. James 1:27) marks the foolish child; (3) Prov. 21:8, where the Lord's "works" are characterized as "pure and right" (cf. James 3:13). In brief, the ethical (rather than cultic) idea of purity commends the same sort of consistency between "talk" and "walk" that James has argued for in his commentary on "slow speaking." More than mere moral goodness, "purity" is understood in practical terms of those words that have good and 41

The Wisdom of "Slow to Speak"

189

productive results. This is characteristic of words that are incom­ patible with the untamed tongue that is an "unruly evil, full of deadly poison." J. A. Kirk has argued that the ideas of wisdom in James and the Spirit in Paul are parallel. His thesis is most easily observed here where wisdom and Spirit produce the same sort of virtue (cf. Gal. 5:22-23), even as flesh and false wisdom produce the same sort of vice (cf. Gal. 5:19-21). That James emphasizes "pu­ rity" while Paul emphasizes "love" reflects their own particular accommodations to different audiences and arguments. Hence, James speaks of the "purity" of heavenly wisdom because he is mostly interested in defining the character of human speech. In this setting, since the "words of the Lord" are pure, the species of wisdom that informs the words of the wise teacher must also be pure. While the function of this catalogue is primarily rhetori­ cal and impressional, the first triad functions as a commentary on the "purity" of the teacher's words. The three predicates, "peaceable," "gentle," and "reasonable," are associated with the exercise of justice and obedience as their proper motives. The point is that the words of the ambitious and self-centered teacher (so 3:14) neither conform to nor express God's interests in the well-being of others. The wise person does not attack a ri­ val, nor seek to persuade others to follow a path that leads away from God, whose words and purposes are "pure." The second triad, which also defines wise speech, consists of attributes that are "full of mercy" — a virtue "close to the au­ thor's heart." Earlier in James, "mercy" characterizes works (not words) that conform to the biblical Torah (see discussion of 2:14-26). Whether a believer "does" mercy will ultimately measure one's devotion to God and determine God's eschatolog­ ical verdict of the believer (2:13). This eschatological meaning is retained in this new setting where eleos defines edifying words rather than merciful works (cf. 3:13b): God will be "merciful" toward those whose words are merciful. In this sense, words and works of mercy are pieces of a whole cloth, not only because they sponsor the congregation's spiritual formation but because they are the basis of God's future blessing (so 3:18). The following three predicates, "good fruit," "impartial," and "sincere," constitute merciful speech and envisage a wisdom that is "nonpartisan." More crucial is that they echo previous concerns in James. For example, "good fruit" recalls the "first 42

43

44

45

46

James 3:1-18

190

fruit" of God's new creation in 1:18. There, the "word of truth" (= wisdom) is the gift from God that yields a "perfect" order. In a similar way, the teacher's "word" (see discussion of 3:2), if wise, can be used by God to harvest a new order (cf. 3:18). The next word, "impartial" (a-diakritos; cf. diakritos in 2:4), recalls the prior discussion of merciful works, which challenged those who discriminated against the poor and powerless. In that case, the needs of the needy were neglected and mercy was called for as a corrective. In an analogous way, words that are "full of mercy" correct the verbal abuse that discriminates against and dimin­ ishes the well-being of poor and powerless people. The final word "sincere" (an-upokritos; cf. 5:12) continues James's standing concern with duplicity, already explicated in the prior passage. Words that are "full of mercy" are consistent with the merciful God; they are words of a tamed tongue which have the power to edify and guide a congregation to wholeness. In the fashion of this author, a common linking word is em­ ployed, in this case "fruit" (karpos), to combine two sentences in making an integral point: if 3:17 catalogues the characteristics of wise speech, then 3:18 describes its consequence or "fruit." Actually, the use of "fruit of righteousness" here is more than literary. In recalling the prior, eschatological meaning of "first fruit" in 1:18 (see above), James orients the reader to the future outcome of wise speech. In the Old Testament, both "peace" (Isa. 39:8, 54:10, 55:12; Ezek. 37:26) and "righteousness" (Isa. 45:8, 61:11) are prophetic and pregnant idioms of future bless­ ing. In Isa. 32:17 (cf. 60:17), the prophet says that "the effect of righteousness will be peace." In this case, "righteousness" is epexegetical of wisdom; the wise speech of 3:17 is actually es­ chatological speech since the fruit it produces is fully disclosed at the coming triumph of God. The eschatological "fruit" of wise speech is the very shalom (in this case a reference to the new cre­ ation; cf. 1:18) that the prophets promised and now is fulfilled, in part because of the words of the wise teacher. The principal grammatical problem of this text is whether the phrase, which I translate "for those who make peace" (tots poiousin eirenen), is a dative of agency ("by those who make peace") or a dative of advantage ("for those who make peace"). Is the scope of the eschatological blessing of a new order of human life (= "peace"), the "fruit" of wise speech, inclusive of the entire congregation (dat. of agency) or exclusive of its wise teachers (dat. of advantage)? Without denying the implicit meaning for 47

48

The Wisdom of "Slow to Speak"

191

the entire congregation, who is beneficiary of the wise teacher's words, I prefer to understand this text as forming an inclusio with 3:1-2 and providing a fitting conclusion to this commen­ tary on "slow speaking." Thus, this text expresses a promise of blessing for the "perfect teacher" (3:2) whose speech conforms to the "wisdom from above" (3:17) and whose "judgment" (3:1) therefore is favorable.

Summary of James 3:1-18: Talk the Walk James's essay on the wisdom of "slow speaking" is especially suited for the "wilderness" (3:11-12), when the spiritual jour­ ney is most unstable (3:3-6a), when the guidance of "wise and understanding" teachers (3:13) is most critical, when harsh things are more easily said. The peril of hasty speech is made even more pointed by the inherent difficulty of controlling what is said (3:7-8). Given the theological world within which antisocial behavior is considered by James, every trial of the tongue embodies a spir­ itual crisis as well—in this case, a crisis of faith in God as Creator of every creature (3:9-10). Slanderous speech, which curses the neighbor—the rival—who should be loved (2:8) rather than en­ vied (3:14), offends the good intentions of the Creator in whose image the neighbor is made. The deeper logic of this creation theology is that God built certain patterns in the created order (3:11-12); in this sense, profane speech will not yield spiritual results (3:15-16), whereas pure speech will (3:17-18). The result of speech that substitutes "earthly" wisdom (3:15) for "heavenly" wisdom (3:17) is "chaos" (3:16), which is op­ posite of the Creator's intentions for a restored creation (cf. Gen. 1:2). Demonizing speech destroys human relationships and prevents the sort of spiritual nurture that empowers the commu­ nity's journey through present trials toward the future promise of a new order. On the other hand, the harvest of "pure and merciful" speech (3:17), which conforms to heavenly wisdom, is the blessing of peace for those "perfect" teachers (3:1-2) who practice it (3:18).

Chapter Six

James 4:1-5:6: The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

The main body of James comprises a series of three essays on biblical wisdom, which the author earlier summarizes as "quick to hear, slow to speak, [and] slow to anger" (1:19). The third member of this triadic proverb, "slow to anger," is the topic of this final essay. James has expressed repeated concern about the community's poor (1:27; 2:1-7, 14-17) and the corrupting power of speech, whether religious (1:26, 2:18-20) or abusive (3:1-12, 14-16). These moral problems continue to imperil the congregation's relations with God and neighbor. James reconsid­ ers these same two themes in commenting upon the wisdom of "slow to anger." Whether social or verbal, morality according to James understands anger expressed in a variety of contexts (e.g., in social relations, in speech) to be a mark of personal immatu­ rity and spiritual failure (see 1:20). For good reason, then, James concludes its commentary on biblical wisdom by addressing in a measured way the principal source of this hostility: anger re­ sults when a love for things is substituted for a love of God, and when petitions for lacking pleasures replace petitions for lacking wisdom. Yet, this is a poor congregation, whose desire to escape pov­ erty remains an inward passion for things envied yet not owned (4:1-3). They live in a world where poverty and powerlessness are real and persistent. Theirs is a hand-to-mouth existence, with very little hope of "upward mobility." Most are held captive to an awful life that holds no promise for them or their children. They are held captive ever more firmly by a devilish "spirit" that entices the believer away from friendship with God and toward friendship with the world (4:4-5). Their difficult experiences of poverty, then, test their allegiance to God, who neverthe192

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

193

less promises to exalt the "humble" poor (4:6-10) and resist the "arrogant" rich (4:11-5:6). Shaped by the experiences of a hard and hopeless life, these believers perhaps dreamed of a better tomorrow, and envied those who experienced present pleasure. But who can blame them? Is this not the case for all of us? Is it not true that the terrible experience of powerlessness and poverty shapes within us a profound desire for that which we lack? Is not the pressing sorrow of lacking pleasure, which envy surely is, a universal ex­ perience, afflicting every social class? The challenge of James for the canonical audience of every generation is to exchange those desires for "material" things, which do not last very long, for that longing after the eternal things of God.

James 4:1-3: A Commentary on "Slow to Anger" ^ h e r e do the quarrels and disputes among you come from? Do they not come from a passion for pleasure within you? You desire but do not have; you murder and are jealous but are unable to obtain; so you dispute and quarrel. You have nothing, because you ask for nothing; you ask and do not receive, because you ask wickedly intending to squander what you receive on your pleasures. 2

3

This passage proffers a succinct commentary on the wisdom of "slow to anger" (cf. 1:19) and its essential meaning is clear enough: human anger results from a singular desire for lacking pleasures. Therefore, the meaning of "slow to anger" is to end the acquisitive impulse that desires "worldly" things that are lacked but coveted. This is a carefully crafted text, formed with a pair of in­ verted parallelisms. The intent of the first parallelism is to link together more carefully the "quarrels and disputes" within the congregation with their spiritual source deep within the angry person: A: Where do the quarrels and disputes among you come from? B:

Do they not come from a passion for pleasure within you?

B': You desire but do not have; A': you murder and are jealous but are unable to obtain; so you dispute and quarrel.

194

James 4:1 -5:6

With sharp clarity the believer's anger is equated with an inabil­ ity to control an inward longing for the life of pleasure. The true source of human anger is spiritual and internal, not social and external. The similar structure of the second parallelism ties it with the first. In this case, James contends that the internal, spiri­ tual problem of the believer is exposed by his prayer life which petitions God for pleasure rather than for wisdom: A: You have nothing, B: because you ask for nothing; B': you ask and do not receive, A': [because] you ask wickedly intending to squander what you receive on your pleasures. The point, of course, is made clear by this parallelism: you have nothing // you ask... [for] pleasures. This moral calculus is consistent with James's wider vision of spiritual testing, which links social (or antisocial) behavior with heavenly wisdom that empowers a particular way of "seeing" things. In this case, to know the spiritual source of one's anger is the most crucial step in slowing it down. Thus, if the believer is unable to win the "war within" by appropriation of the divine word, the result is antisocial actions — a point frequently scored by Greco-Roman moralists. One should note, however, that Christianity accord­ ing to James vests this ethical vision with theological meaning: when God is petitioned with self-centered motive, the power and purpose of God's gift of wisdom are undermined and made ineffective. 1

James 4:1-2b: The Internal Source of Anger The form of the opening question recalls the earlier question raised in 3:13, which requests the congregation to seek out the "wise and understanding" sage from "among you" (en hymin). Even though the thematic center of this essay now shifts from human speech to anger, in accordance with the organizing prov­ erb of James (1:19), the repetition of the phrase "among you" may well suggest that the author has retained something here of his prior interest in the congregation's discernment of the competent teacher (3:1-2, 13-18). Additional intertextual sup­ port might be supplied by the repetition of "jealous(y)" (zelosl-6)

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

195

in 3:16 and 4:2: the envy that prompts unwise speech or stems from a desire for self-centered pleasure disqualifies one as the community's sage. In this case, the second phrase of this par­ allelism, "within you" (en tois melesin hymon; lit. "within your members"), may refer to actual "members" within the congre­ gation for whom this is a problem, rather than serving as a metaphor for the psychological or physiological makeup of every angry person. Even though James is undeniably concerned for the spiritual health of the entire community and its teachers, I consider this meaning unlikely here where clearly the source of antisocial behavior is spiritual and internal. Considered as the first half of an inverted parallelism, then, the first rhetorical question (A), "Where do the quarrels and disputes among you come from?" asks after the source of present hostilities, while the second question (B), "Do they not come from a passion for pleasure within you?" responds by positing the source of anger in sensual "pleasure" (hedone). The vocabulary of anger (polemos; mache) used by James is militaristic: a spiritual war is being fought for the very soul of the community of faith. Sides are taken, battles are waged, lives are lost. The results within the congregation are no doubt devastating. More critical is the substitution of hedone for epithumia in the first half of this parallelism, which James used in 1:14-15 and will use again in its verbal form in the second half of the parallelism (4:2). The two words no doubt form a common spiritual reality. According to James, human desire is not neutral but naturally par­ ticipates in an evil realm that influences the spiritual apparatus within people in producing external evil results. This judgment accords with both the humanism of Greco-Roman moralists and the theology of rabbis who interpreted the believer's spiritual struggle between devotion and desire as the internal expression of competing cosmic powers, the good and evil y sanm ("spirits" or "impulses"). Testing is a universal experience; and human appetites naturally participate in this experience sometimes for good and often for ill (see discussion of 1:13-15). I suspect that James prefers hedone over epithumia in order to draw more nar­ rowly the kind of "lust" that results in angry outbursts between poor believers. Quite simply, this is a passion for pleasure that inclines the "hedonist" away from God and toward the world. For those whose life is "hand to mouth," the desire for creature comforts is a powerful seduction. 2

e

196

James 4:1-5:6

The same two themes of 4:1, anger (A) and pleasure (B), are repeated in reverse order in 4:2a to emphasize their integral importance in understanding the problem of anger between be­ lievers. In inverted parallelism, as in a chiastic (A-B-C-B'-A') literary pattern, the intended focus of meaning is at the "ver­ tex" where the common items of the parallelism crisscross. In this case, the author's accent is placed on those internal desires that cause angry, even violent exchanges between people. Again, emphasis is placed on the spiritual source of anger as a particular interpretation of antisocial actions. In repeating the meaning of hedone, the author returns to epithumia: "You desire [epithumed] but do not have [B']." James ear­ lier uses epithumia (in 1:14-15) to locate sin; it is the place where daily trials are erroneously perceived as tests of God. According to this negative view, human desires prompt those wrong-headed perceptions that eventually conceive sin and give birth to death (see commentary on 1:13-15). In this new setting in James, how­ ever, the believer's spiritual immaturity is indicated by anger toward another: "You murder and are jealous... you dispute and quarrel [A']." Nevertheless, the act of "murdering" another con­ tends that the work of such evil passion is, again, "death." But what else does the problematic reference to "murder" mean in this text? Should the exegete take "murder" (phoneud) literally or metaphorically? Erasmus's famous conjecture proposes the simplest solution: phoneuete should be replaced by phthoneite, "envy," which is then paired with a synonym, zeloute ("jeal­ ous"), in the very next phrase for emphasis. However, there is no textual support for this solution. Moreover, there are substantial reasons to retain "murder" in this passage, beyond its principal use as a vivid metaphor for anger. Most critically, it forms with the phoneud of 5:6 an inclusio within which James's commentary on "slow to anger" is fashioned. This is an important observation for more than liter­ ary reasons. Murder represents the ultimate expression of anger and, in this interpretation, the final result of a passion for plea­ sure. As this essay on anger unfolds, however, James interprets the desire for things and its murderous result as ingredients of class strife between rich and poor. That is, the rich oppress (i.e., "murder") the poor (so 5:6) because of their passion for pleasure. The pairing of "murder" with "jealousy" suggests an intertextual layer of meaning that deepens this point. In the biblical 3

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

197

tradition, the two are linked in the telling and retelling of the Cain-Abel story. Here, death-by-murder envisages the ulti­ mate consequence of the fall, beyond even spiritual and physical death, which is the death of a relationship with the "other." In this wider setting, then, "murder" is a metaphor of the absence of community brought about by human sin and selfishness. This, then, is the real peril of anger caused by a passion for pleasure: it portends the loss of the congregation to sin as the perversion of Christian faith and life. In using "jealous" here, James recalls its nominative use in 3:16, where is identified the ambitious teacher whose untamed tongue resulted from his jealousy of rival teachers. Instead of a raw ambition for power, here "jealousy" expresses the frustra­ tion of wanting what one is unable to "obtain" (epitygchand). Yet, the result is a person who is in some sense "out of control," whether in abusive speech or in murderous rage. Further, the character of a jealous person or action is shaped by the pursuit of something other than the will of God. The rarely used epi­ tygchand envisages the pursuit of something in order to obtain it; in this negative case, the acquisitive person is single-minded or "jealous" in pursuit of something other than God, so that uncontrolled frustration surfaces when things desired are not obtained. In rounding off the first part of the wisdom com­ mentary on "slowing anger," James repeats in verbal form the opening reference to "quarrels and disputes." 4

James 4:2c-3: The Unanswered Prayer The second part of this opening passage on anger is about prayer. What does prayer have to do with anger? According to James 1:5-8, whatever wisdom is required to pass the spiritual test is graciously given by God in response to faithful petitions for it. The prayers of the duplicitous (= spiritually immature) go unanswered. Likewise, the prayers of the angry (= spiritually im­ mature) go unanswered, perhaps even intensifying their outrage or their sense of theodicy. The motive of materialism, especially among the poor and powerless, is the experience of lacking what is profoundly desired. The anger expressed represents the frustration that class struggle fosters, not a personal anger, but an anger that someone else has what you should also possess. The "race riots" of the inner city are more about social class than about ethnic bias, and express the frustrations of the poor

198

James 4:1 -5:6

against rich (or less poor). Among believers, this anger may be intensified by the experience of God's perceived absence, when goods are asked for ("Give us today our daily bread") but not provided. This point is nicely captured by the apparent contradic­ tion between "you ask for nothing" and "you ask and do not receive." Several commentators have proposed extravagant solu­ tions. However, the most straightforward explanation is to view the second phrase as an epexegetical qualification of the first: "It only seems as though you ask for nothing, when in fact you do ask for something and never receive it." Even this qualifi­ cation, however, is "gapped"; the reader still must answer the implied question, "But why do we pray and not receive what we ask?" especially since the biblical tradition promises that God answers prayer. Yet, God answers only those prayers that ac­ cord with God's will (cf. 1:6b-8). The implied answer, then, is that unanswered prayer is prayer motivated by evil desires rather than God's will. Indeed, it is as if "you ask for nothing" because "you ask wickedly" (kakos). A good and gracious God (cf. 1:5, 17) simply does not respond to petitions motivated by self-centered commitments; such prayer is idolatrous, even blasphemous, be­ cause it renders God as mere provider of pleasure rather than as sovereign covenant partner. Both aiteisthai and lamband are recycled here with consid­ erable irony. In James 1:5-8 these verbs help to describe the congregation's prayerful request for wisdom: "ask" God and you will "receive" wisdom. This programmatic formula of James carries over to the present setting but is reversed: if God is pe­ titioned for "wicked" reasons (i.e., for lacking pleasures rather than for wisdom), the petitioner's "real" lack (i.e., for wisdom) will not be satisfied. The meaning of "squander" (dapanao) in wider biblical setting is to spend money wastefully (cf. Luke 15:14). In Hellenistic literature, dapanao is used as a metaphor of one who "wastes away" because s/he is consumed with un­ satisfied passions. That is, the persistent rage of the unsatisfied spendthrift will consume his entire being—especially when that anger is kindled by a foolish perception that God's will is for lacking pleasure rather than for lacking wisdom. Quite simply, the meaning of "slow to anger" is to end envy by reducing acquisitiveness. 5

6

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

199

James 4:4-10: The Crisis of Materialism 4

Adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes oneself an enemy of God. Or do you think Scripture says foolish things? Does the spirit that God made to dwell within us incline us intensely towards envy? But God gives even more grace; therefore, Scripture says, "God resists the arrogant but gives grace to the humble." Submit therefore to God! Resist the devil and he will flee from you! Draw near to God and God will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, sinners! Purify your hearts, doubleminded! Lament, mourn, and weep; let your laughter turn into mourning, your joy into dejection. Humble yourselves before the Lord and he will exalt you. 5

6

7

8

9

10

In the preceding commentary on the wisdom of "slow to anger," James explains that anger is controlled by "slowing down" one's longing for pleasure, which can easily dominate and damage re­ lationships with others (4:1-3). In the present passage, James defines the spiritual test that faces the reader in this setting: the desire for lacking pleasures tests the believer's true loyal­ ties, whether one is a friend of God or a "friendship] of the world" (4:4). This spiritual test is keenly felt among the pious poor (4:5), whose desire for the niceties of middle-class life may imperil God's fulfillment of promised blessing for those "rich in faith" (4:6; cf. 2:5). James calls the faith community to repent of its failure to live with contentment in humble conditions and with devotion to God (4:7-9). According to the Christianity of James, exaltation (and reversal of fortune) awaits those in the coming age who are able to pass the testing of the present age (4:6, 10). James 4:4-5: Friendship with the World For L. T. Johnson, James 4:4 is the thematic compass for the en­ tire composition. Against the background of Hellenistic moral philosophy, Johnson argues that here James is attacking actions that flow from envy, which is "a kind of sorrow that is experi­ enced simply because another has something." The world of the envious person is a closed system opposed to God and concen­ trated upon self, where even the believer forgets that everything 7

200

James 4:1-5:6

good comes from God. Such is the seduction of financial woes, when a passion for lacking pleasures manipulates everything and everyone, including God; when only a "friendship with the world" satisfies one's deepest desires. Two vivid expressions, unique in the New Testament, are em­ ployed by James in justifying the urgent need to repent of this "passion for pleasure." The first is the emphatic vocative, "Adul­ teresses!" (moichalis). The syntactical role of the vocative within James is to mark off a new exhortation — in this case to bid the reader to take to heart the meaning of "slow to anger" and to repent of any intent or action that seeks to serve both God and mammon. The rhetorical role of this term, so striking and abrupt, is to grab the audience's attention in order to make this point decisive for their spiritual formation. But what is the theological meaning of this idiom? The plu­ ral feminine form of "adulterers" is used in scripture only in Ezek. 23:45, which supplies a clearer Old Testament allusion than Mai. 3:5 as a topos of Israel's infidelity to God. Ezekiel 23 tells the story of two sisters, Oholah and Oholibah, who became well-known prostitutes in Egypt (Ezek. 23:1-21). Their increasing perversion led their current and former lovers to dis­ credit and disfigure them (Ezek. 23:22-27) and ultimately to destroy them, their children, and their possessions with fire (Ezek. 23:28-47). Their symbolic value to the prophet is to envis­ age Israel's own spiritual infidelity and the national destruction that results (Ezek. 45:48-49). Within the Christian apocalyptic tradition in which James also stands, this same story is loudly echoed in the Apocalypse's description of the Great Prostitute's destruction, where the seduced turn upon their seducer with vengeance (Rev. 17:15-18). Against this same backdrop, I would argue that the intertextual meaning carried by Ezekiel's use of "adulteresses" is twofold. First and most clearly, the abrupt use of this sharp ad­ dress readily recalls Israel's unfaithfulness to its covenant with God. In this setting, it condemns materialism (not apostasy), which does not serve the interests of God and reproduces idol­ atry of mammon, justifying God's harsh verdict and judgment. Second, the address also indicates the foolishness of "wicked" petitions for things coveted rather than for divine wisdom (4:3): a passion for pleasure turns upon itself and results in the mur­ der of the "other" and finally in self-destruction. According to the biblical witness, the irrationality of choosing mammon over 8

9

10

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

201

God is exactly this: the one results in death, while the other in life. This Old Testament layer of meaning is fortified in James by consideration of its earlier reference in 2:11, where to "commit adultery" (moicheud) illustrates Torah's rule over all of life: to transgress one part of the whole law is to transgress the whole (2:10), resulting in God's negative verdict at the end of time (2:12-13). Fundamental in the theological vision of James is a kind of covenantal nomism, where fidelity to God's will is ex­ pected and demanded — the very point made also by the echo from Ezekiel 23. The meaning of "adultery" within James, then, emphasizes the negative consequences of doing (or praying for) "wicked things," and may also explain the curious addition of 4:11-12 to this passage: an "adulteress" is a law-breaker and has no chance of a gracious verdict from the "only law-giver who is able to save and destroy" (see discussion of 4:11-12). The second critical expression is "friendship with the world" (philia tou kosmou); in this passage it functions as a catchphrase for those beliefs and values that oppose a believer's friendship with God. But this is a phrase not found in either biblical or Hel­ lenistic literature. "World" and "friend(s)" are found together in 2 Esdras 6 -7 as an apocalyptic idiom of the end-time judg­ ment of the ungodly. In that intertestamental setting, friends turn against friends in anger as the mark of their unfaithfulness to God, justifying divine judgment. Of more importance to the interpreter is how James uses the discrete terms "world" and "friend" prior to their com­ bined use here. For example, the reader immediately recalls the nearly opposite phrase from 2:23, where Abraham is called "friend of God" (philos theou) in a setting that champions the courageous performance of Torah's "royal law." In this case, Abraham is God's friend because his merciful treatment of the angelic strangers in Sodom (Genesis 18) embodies God's will. As prophetic exemplar, Abraham is founder of a faithful Israel con­ stituted by all of God's friends. By contrast, then, an enemy of God lives a life in opposition to God's will; indeed, God's enemy fails the test of wisdom, and his foolishness forfeits the prospect of divine blessing in the age to come. This point is extended by the fuller meaning of "world" gleaned from its prior settings in James (1:27, 2:5, 3:6). Signifi­ cantly, its first use (1:27) implies that the "world" is the location of the profane, where the needs of the community's most vul-

202

James 4:1-5:6

nerable members are neglected. It is out of this profane "world" that God calls the poor and powerless into the covenant com­ munity as heirs of the coming kingdom. Rendered by these earlier uses, the "world's friend" denies both the values and ul­ timate triumph of God's reign. In this sense, he is an enemy of God, lives at enmity with God, and forfeits the prospect of life over death. The reflexive voice of the verbal idea, "makes oneself" (kathistatai), seems to indicate that one's status as God's "enemy" is self-determined. Yet, this spiritual failure is problematic for James because it addresses the poor, who are otherwise God's elect (2:5) and objects of the concern and compassion of God's friends. Nevertheless, James recognizes that the envy of wealth is a trial of the poor as well as the rich. In fact, the envy of the poor constitutes a tacit denial of divine mercy, which has specif­ ically called them out of the world in order to be rich in faith and heirs of God's kingdom. It seems ironic, then, that the "en­ emy of God" in this case is the poor believer, who desires the passing niceties of middle-class life over the eternal blessings of God's kingdom. In this context, then, the anger of the poor be­ liever expresses a rejection of divine election and so of Israel's most sacred and critical identification. To clarify his harsh rebuke, James asks two rhetorical ques­ tions: "Or do you think Scripture says foolish things? Does the spirit that God made to dwell within us incline us intensely towards envy?" This is a prickly passage, which is translated and understood in a variety of ways. This translation and punc­ tuation, and the commentary that follows, recognize that the verse contains two distinct even though integral issues. In the first place, James appeals to scripture's authority: scripture is a vehicle of wisdom, not deception. Even as it is foolishness to suppose that God's will is for our spiritual failure (so 1:1316), it also is foolishness to think that God's word encourages "foolish" choices that only lead to spiritual failure. In context, this claim is transitional both in support of James's prior re­ buke (4:4) and ahead to the citation from Proverbs (4:6). That is, the author's understanding of the wisdom of "slow to anger" and its implications for his readers is nurtured within a biblical world. In arguing for this reading of the first part of 4:5,1 do not understand the second half of the verse as a citation from some unknown scripture; its punctuation, then, should not include quote markings around it.

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

203

The second rhetorical question turns the reader in a dif­ ferent, yet integral direction. No longer is James speaking of scripture but of humanity's spiritual apparatus. Unfortunately, difficult verses are sometimes made more difficult to under­ stand by scribal corruption, which intend to make the text easier for its readers to understand. In this case, two different verbal ideas are found in the textual tradition. According to the TR (which reflects most minuscules and all versions), the intransi­ tive katdkesen should be used with demonic overtone: "The spirit which dwells in us." The earliest readings support the causative katdkisen: "The spirit which [God] has made to dwell in us." This second reading is also the more difficult theologically, which scribes were more prone to "correct": how can the good Cre­ ator place a spirit of envy within us, especially when it threatens our "friendship" with God? If the implied subject is God, which seems certain, then does the "spirit" refer to the Holy Spirit? Almost certainly not, since the source of "envy" is never divine according to scripture, and the Greco-Roman moralists, which James seems to follow else­ where, never posit "envy" in the divine realm. To what "spirit," then, does James refer? The best context seems to be a particular aspect of Jewish cre­ ation theology that viewed human freedom to be an ordinance of creation and internal conflict, the result of two competing "spirits" (or y sarim), one evil and the other good, thereby con­ stituting the universal human spirit. Here, then, a "spirit of evil" is envisaged, which inclines the community to "eyeball" worldly pleasure rather than God (Sir. 14:10). This is a difficult internal impulse to curb (Gen. 6:6; cf. 8:21); according to wisdom, the envious spirit is especially compulsive and ruthless. How then to control the evil spirit that "inclines us intensely towards envy"? L. J. Prockter suggests that this text summarizes a well-known wisdom midrash of Noah's story told by Genesis 6 - 9 . Even though Prockter fails to note direct linguistic links between James 4:5 and Genesis 6-9, the conceptual similarity is striking. Noah is referred to as a "righteous" (dikaios) and "blameless" (teleios) person (Gen. 6:9), which relates well to the pious "exem­ plar" of James. Within the wisdom tradition, Noah exemplifies the wise person in a wicked world who is able to subdue his im­ pulse toward envy by following the law of God (cf. Gen. 6:23) — another idea close to the epicenter of James's moral vision. Noah subdued his evil "spirit" by submitting to God (cf. James 4:7) 11

12

e

13

204

James 4:1-5:6

and became a noteworthy enemy of the "wicked world" (cf. Gen. 6:9-10). Noah's story, as one episode of scripture's creation nar­ rative, would suggest that the evil impulse within the human spirit, which guarantees one's freedom of choice, has its origin in the creation itself (cf. Gen. 6:5): the Creator constituted human life with both evil and good inclinations (cf. Sir. 15:11-20). By the light of this theological convention, Noah becomes another example of a "friend of God" who resisted his evil "spirit" and followed his good. Even though he does not translate the verse as I do, Prockter does commend an implied response to this sec­ ond rhetorical question: "Follow the example of Noah and resist this spirit of envy." Finally, both rhetorical questions, when considered together and in context, nicely frame the overarching theme of spiritual testing in James. The lack of "pleasure" in one's life, how­ ever that may be defined by the current reader, is yet another trial the poor must endure. Their anger toward others, whose source lies deep within them, is provoked by an evil inclina­ tion toward envy. Self-destructive anger is spiritual failure, and is the historical and interpersonal precipitate of the ongoing cos­ mic struggle between the demonic and divine worlds. In this sense, friendship with God against the world, when contentment guards against envy, heralds God's coming triumph over mam­ mon and marks out those who will experience the blessings of the coming age. James 4:6-10: The Call to Humility In contrast (="But" [de]) to this "spirit" of envy, which compels the believer to crave pleasure rather than God, James claims that "God gives even more grace" (4:6-10). "Grace" is mentioned only here in James, and its use is strategic in this essay on "slow to anger." God's grace promises to overcome and overwhelm the effects of the "spirit of envy" within the believer; that is, anger is ultimately slowed by the gift of grace. For James to say that God gives "more" (meizon) grace is to anticipate the triumph of God's grace over the nasty effects of envy within the congregation. While the author's conceptual world is dualistic —friends of the world against friends of God, God against the Devil — it is not a dualism of equals engaged in an eternal struggle. One power, which is "grace," is "even more" than the other; and divine grace will triumph over demonic envy (cf. 2:13).

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

205

At this point in the essay, James is not interested in defining what form this grace takes in human life. Yet, James itself pro­ vides a context in which a tacit definition of grace follows from the images of a God who is a gracious dispenser of enabling gifts — for example, God "gives" (didomi), specifically, the gift of wisdom (1:5), and, generally, "every good and perfect gift" (1:17-18). Since scripture does not say foolish things (4:5), James appeals to its wisdom in support of his assertion: "God resists the ar­ rogant but gives [didomi] grace to the humble." This text from Prov. 3:34 (LXX) is also cited by 1 Pet. 5:5, although in support of a different claim, which indicates its wide currency in earliest Christianity. Here its use is epexegetical of the opening prom­ ise that "God gives even more grace," since the promise begs the question: to whom and on what basis? Scripture responds: God gives "even more grace" to the "humble" than to the "ar­ rogant." What follows in James 4:7-10, then, is a midrash on scripture's own verdict that God gives "even more grace" to the "humble," presumably enough to overcome and overwhelm the believer's internal "spirit of envy" and thus "slow" down one's anger toward others. James will then turn to comment on and illustrate the negative verdict that "God resists the arrogant" in 4:11-5:6. 14

James 4:6 and 4:10 The brackets of this passage focus its theme: James 4:6 cites Prov. 3:34, "God resists the arrogant but gives grace to the humble," and James 4:10, "Humble yourselves before the Lord and he will exalt you," echoes Prov. 3:35 ("The wise will inherit glory, but the ungodly have exalted dishonor"). Taken together, the theme of James 4:6-10 repeats the positive claim of Prov. 3:3435: the "humble" (tapeinos; 4:6), who "humble" (tapeinoo; 4:10) themselves before God will be exalted by the Lord. In this set­ ting, "humble" is used in an economic sense of those living in "humble circumstances" (so 1:9), rather than in a moral sense of those who deny themselves. These are poor people who are now encouraged to be content with their simple lives. The intertext of James 4:10 and Prov. 3:35 is important to note, because the biblical proverb gathers together a number of thematic interests of James: "The wise [sophoi; see 1:5, 3:1317] will inherit [kleronomesousin; see 2:5) glory [doxan; see 2:1],

206

James 4:1-5:6

but the ungodly have exalted [hypsdsan; see 1:9, 4:10] dishonor [atimian; see 2:6]." Read reflexively as an intertext, Prov. 3:35 contributes two meanings to the exhortation to "humble your­ selves" (4:10). (1) The "wise" who "inherit glory" according to the proverb are those who "humble [them]selves before the Lord." In this setting, the wisdom of "slow to anger" is now defined by the acts of repentance and submission to God. (2) Ac­ cording to the proverb, the "ungodly exalt dishonor." James reverses this result by stating a more positive result: even as the "ungodly" exalt dishonor, so "God will exalt the humble." If Prov. 3:34-35 forms the biblical background for the present passage, then the reader should take note that it is an in­ verted parallelism of contrasting loyalties whose meaning is made more transparent by its antithetic balance: "The Lord re­ sists the arrogant / the ungodly exalt dishonor; the Lord gives grace to the humble / the wise inherit glory." In the wider con­ text of Proverbs, the first is "cursed" by God, while the second is "blessed" by God. In James, the immediate concern is to in­ terpret God's blessing of the "humble" (4:7-10) before turning to the second claim that God "resists the arrogant" (4:13-5:6), which concludes in 5:6 with an ironic use of the verb "resist" (antitassomai). In this latter case, God "resists the arrogant" be­ cause they oppress those (i.e., the "humble") who do not "resist" them (see discussion of 5:1-6). This same contrast is retained by James here, but within a different compositional setting. The stakes are greater in James than in Proverbs because "arrogance" and "humility" now take on eschatological import: the congregation's present response to its humble circumstance determines God's blessing in the coming age. Let me return to the reference to the tapeinoi, the "hum­ ble," in 4:6. Without too much argument, the "humble" of Prov. 3:34 are those devoted to God: its meaning is moral and de­ scribes the personal character of those who follow God's will. In James 1:9, however, the "humble" refers to those faithful be­ lievers without wealth, who live in "humble conditions." This social meaning of "humble" is subsequently deepened in the au­ thor's essay on the wisdom of "quick to hear" (1:22-2:26), where the poor and powerless are considered God's elect and "heirs of the kingdom promised to those who love God" (2:5). This shift in defining "humble" along socioeconomic lines should not be overstated. James seems to resist much separation of the social 15

16

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

207

and spiritual worlds since spiritual renewal or moral rigor has its social consequence. The thickened meaning of "humble / humble yourselves" not only nuances the meaning of this passage but is decisive for relating its thematic to the other parts of this essay on the wis­ dom of "slow to anger." Recall that the "spirit of envy" has seduced and captured the passions of the poor, transforming neighbors into bitter rivals and making them more friendly with the "world" than with God. Prov. 3:34 interprets this material­ istic rage as "arrogance," which finally prefers mammon over God. Such idolatry despises God and is despised by God to the peril of the "arrogant." How does one repent and become "humble"? Significantly, James 4:10 substitutes "humble" for the proverbial reference to the "wise" (cf. Prov. 3:35); that is, one be­ comes "humble" by being "wise." Wisdom in this case is "slow to anger"; and the wise slow down their anger by being con­ tent with the "humble" conditions of one's poverty, substituting instead a wealth of "faith toward God." fames 4:7-8a The use of Prov. 3:34-35 to frame the catena of powerful ex­ hortations found in James 4:7-9 has a twofold rhetorical effect. (1) These exhortations must now be related to the future tri­ umph of divine grace for those who are "humble." (2) Of course, the reader's presumption must surely be that these exhortations orchestrate some liturgy of humiliation that results in the divine gift of "more grace." Indeed, the "therefore" of 4:7 calls atten­ tion to the logical relationship between 4:6 and what follows. In effect, the present text is a midrash on the meaning of the "hum­ ble" in Prov. 3:34-35. In this setting, the "humble" are those who have renounced their dreams of wealth and pleasure and remain content in the richness of their faith in God and their hope for blessing in the coming kingdom (cf. 2:5). This expanded meaning of "humble," then, clarifies the im­ portance of 4:7-8a, which lists the relevant conditions for mem­ bership in a congregation of the exalted "humble": submit to God (A), resist the Devil (B), and draw near to God (A'). The chiastic pattern of these responses draws the reader's attention to the claim made at its vertex —to the "Devil," who will flee at that moment when God draws near to the repentant believer. The chiastic pattern of this exhortation intends to draw the

208

James 4:1 -5:6

reader toward the exhortation to "resist the Devil," which stands between the other parallel exhortations that bid the reader to "submit" and "draw near" to God. This image of a fleeing Devil is found only here in biblical literature. Elsewhere in the New Testament, pheugo is used in exhortations to "flee" (typically sex­ ual) immorality. In Eph. 6:11-12 and 1 Pet. 5:8-9, which draw upon paraenetic traditions similar to James, "flee" is employed in settings that describe spiritual warfare. In James, the exhor­ tation to "resist" the Devil envisages a weakened foe in retreat when God draws nigh with "even more grace." Perhaps James has the earlier reference to the evil "spirit of worldliness" (4:5) in view: when the congregation "submits / draws near" to God in worship, the powerful impulse of worldliness (envy, passion for pleasure) will be made impotent. When the Devil "flees" (pheugo), the wicked "spirit of envy" no longer controls human desire. fames 4:8b-9 While the preceding text clarified the spiritual dynamic and re­ sult of effective worship, the present passage envisages in a more particular way what constitutes the worshiping congregation's humble submission to God. In effect, it is the liturgy of a hum­ ble people whose life is imbued by the grace of God, who are made capable to resist the spirit of envy and to slow their anger as a result. The text contains a catalogue of verbal imperatives, cou­ pled with their appropriate subjects, which describe in concrete terms the act of humiliation in "submitting / drawing near to God" and in "resisting the Devil." The impression is of a call to repentance and devotion to God. Johnson hears echoes of the Exodus narrative of Israel's approach to God on Mount Sinai. These exhortations purify a people and make them ready to enter into "the symbolic world of Torah," where a people are cleansed of immorality and apostasy. In this sense, the passage is a call to conversion. The appeal to the sinner to "cleanse your hands" and to the double-minded to "purify your hearts" is a call to repent of those loyalties and behaviors that are contrary to God's reign. These are the imperatives of a spiritual journey toward a sa­ cred place. Submission to God requires the material and spiritual separation from the comforts that secured old patterns of living 17

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

209

and thinking—the worldly values that have provoked the anger and hostility between believers. The wisdom of Torah calls the congregation out of the world order and into another world of existence, whose theocentric symbols purify and empower a new and radical dependence upon divine grace. The destiny of this spiritual journey is the kingdom where "God gives even more grace" to those who are humble (4:6). In this essay on the wis­ dom of "slow to anger," the reader finally understands that to turn one's "laughter" into "mourning" or one's "joy" into "de­ jection" is not an exhortation to a drab and dreary sobriety that transforms one's extroverted party-hopper into an introverted party-stopper! In this setting, "laughter" and "joy" are marks of the secular person, whose happiness is derived from possessions of this life rather than from possessions hoped for in the life to come. It is to interpret this kind of a spiritual pilgrimage from mam­ mon to God, from seeking pleasure to seeking wisdom, from anger to making peace, that James recalls "joy" from James 1:2 to conclude (and concentrate) this litany of imperatives. In its programmatic use, "joy" is a positive construal of human adver­ sity which "considers" trials in joyful anticipation of their end. In this sense, joy is an eschatological catchword, not an emotion; joy is a theological perception of trials which considers their ter­ mination at the end of the age (see discussion of 1:2). In this sense, a joyful response to one's poverty would not be to envy the material wealth of others but to be rich in faith toward God and content with one's lot in life. However, the present use of "joy" is an ironic play on this earlier meaning. Here, the joy­ ful anticipation of the future is reversed into "dejection," even as "laughter turns into mourning." This reversal of meaning is rhetorically striking. In one sense, the programmatic meaning of "joy" is assumed: joy anticipates the future triumph of God's reign and the exaltation of the humble as a feature of it. In this compositional setting, joy is not a theological orientation to present trials but rather the experience of "friendship with the world." True repentance replaces this sort of joy with the kind called for in James 1:2 as the mark of a humble people. The second crucial catchword that James recycles is "doubleminded," which brings to focus the subject of these verbal imperatives. In its programmatic setting (1:8; cf. 1:21), the "double-minded" foolishly doubts the efficacy of heavenly wis­ dom (see discussion of 1:5-8). Rather, the believer undergoing

James 4:1-5:6

210

spiritual testing must respond to God the way that God responds to him, in single-minded devotion and loyalty. Not to do so results in spiritual failure and imperils the prospect of escha­ tological blessing. James recalls these two catchwords from the opening thesis statement, "joy" and "double-minded," to repeat the calculus of spiritual testing. The grace that God gives is the wisdom that passes the testing of faith and issues in the real­ ization of God's promised blessing. The implied connection of the "double-minded" and the fool, who rejects or at least doubts the eschatological importance of divine wisdom, is true also of the "friend of the world," who exchanges the promise of eter­ nal shalom for the passing pleasures of the present age. These are imperatives for the believers who lack wealth and yearn after it; their humiliation is nothing less than the rejection of the fic­ tion that equates "laughter" and "joy" with financial rather than with spiritual wealth. We ar£ in a position now to understand the implied audience of James's interpretation of the wisdom of "slow to anger." They are those believers who are poor but envy (and desire to be­ come) the rich. Anger is the mark of their idolatry of "things," the triumph of the wicked "spirit of envy" within them. Indeed, their faith is tested by the suffering that stems from poverty and a sense of powerlessness. James interprets the proverbial notion of the "humble" to call his readers to repent of their materialism in order to be content with the "humble" circumstances in life. Only then will God's saving grace be able to lead them into the way of wisdom, which leads the "humble" (= pious poor) into eternal life.

James 4:11-5:6: Implications of "Slowing Anger" for Life 1 1

Do not slander another, brothers and sisters. Whoever slan­ ders or judges another slanders and judges the law. If you judge the law, then you are not its "doer" but its judge. There is but one law-giver and judge who is able to save and to destroy. Who you are, then, to judge your neighbor? C o m e now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow, we will go to this or that town and spend a year there. We will do business and make money." Y o u do not know "tomorrow"! 12

13

14

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

211

For what is the meaning of your life? You are like a mist, which appears for a little while and then disappears. lnstead you should say, "If the Lord wills, then we will live and do this or that." But now you boast out of arrogance! All such boasting is evil. Therefore, anyone who knows the good thing to do and does not do it, commits sin. Come now, you rich people, weep and wail over your coming miseries. Your riches have rotted, your clothes are moth-eaten, and your gold and silver have rusted. Their cor­ rosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have accumulated your wealth for the end-times. Listen! The wages you have withheld from workers who have mowed your fields cry out; the cries of the fieldhands have reached the ears of the Lord Sabaoth. You have lived off the earth in luxury and pleasure. You have fattened your hearts for a day of slaughter. You have convicted and murdered the pious one, who does not resist you. 15

16

17

5:1

2

3

4

5

6

In this section of his essay on the wisdom of "slow to anger," the author returns to the pivotal Prov. 3:34, cited in 4:6, to comment on why and about whom does the proverb say that "God resists the arrogant." As he does elsewhere (e.g., 2:14-26), the author uses a triad of illustrations to make his point: the first of the believer who slanders his neighbor (4:11-12); a second of the merchant who orders his life by pursuit of wealth rather than God's will (4:13-17); and a final of the rich farmer who exploits the poor to benefit himself (5:1-6). These exemplars of an arro­ gance move the reader progressively to the moment of divine judgment (5:4-5) in order to clarify the ultimate consequences of human anger that springs from an idolatry of wealth; these are illustrations of how wealth is accumulated and the devastat­ ing toll it takes on both spiritual (4:13-17) and material (5:1-6) life. These are negative examples; but then this seems in keep­ ing with the exhortation to repent (4:6-10) of "friendship with the world" (4:4-5). The implied meaning is more positive: to repent of the idolatry of wealth is to end hostility in relation­ ships and to form a community of "humble" believers that will be exalted by the Lord at the end of the age. The practical im­ plication is always eschatological for James: to humble ourselves before God in the present age is to be exalted by God in the age to come. The inclusion of James 4:11-12 in this section is problem-

James 4:1 -5:6

212

atic; indeed, its relationship to its surrounding is "difficult to discern." Three options seem obvious. (1) Since 4:10 clearly ends the previous point and 4:11 begins another, the interpreter could well approach this passage as "self-standing," without any connection to its immediate surrounding in James. But this of­ fends the literary sensibility that James is a carefully crafted and unified composition. (2) The interpreter could approach this text as forming a contrast with 4:10; in this case, 4:11-12 belong with the preceding passage. Although there is no grammar that requires it, James often employs contrasts to make a point more vivid. Yet, it seems preferable to take 4:6-10 as an inclusio that interprets the proverbial promise that "God gives grace to the humble." If there is a contrast to be found here, it is best found in Prov. 3:34 between the "humble" and the "arrogant." In this case, James 4:11-12 looks back to 4:6 in order to introduce the contrasting point that "God resists the arrogant." (3) This leads to a third option: the interpreter could approach this text as a preface, integral to the two more blatant examples of the cor­ rupting power of wealth found in 4:13-5:6. Understood this way, both merchant and farmer supply negative examples of the very lawlessness of which 4:11-12 speaks. In turn, this lawlessness is the essence of "friendship with the world" and of the proverbial arrogance that God resists. 18

James 4:11-12: The Arrogance of Angry Talk This passage, which begins with a condemnation of the be­ liever's "slander" (katalaled) of other believers, continues a the­ matic interest of James. The issues resulting from slander, es­ pecially between rival teachers, form a critical ingredient of James's previous essay on the wisdom of "slow to speak" (James 3). In fact, the whole Book of James is vitally concerned to shape a Christian community as the social context where a new order of relationships is forged —relationships that anticipate the new creation. The pastoral concern about slander, then, is that it represents a pattern of heart and life, deeply rooted in the envy of wealth, that actually destroys community and prevents the reign of God from taking root, both now and in the age of come. At the very least, the prohibition of slander is a refusal to participate in any form of verbal abuse that undermines human relations and a congregation's solidarity in faith and life.

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

213

The implied question raised by the interlocutor is this: what does law-breaking "slander" have to do with the anger that is provoked by the spirit of envy over a lack of "things"? The intratexture of this text may well provide the interpreter with a decisive clue in resolving the problem of fitting 4:11-12 into James. From this orienting perspective, the interpreter recog­ nizes that this text combines several important themes already considered in other settings — "slander," "doing the law," the "neighbor," divine "judgment." Further, the meaning of these themes in this passage is thickened by their previous meanings. That is, the intratextuality of this text commends its reflexive reading. For example, this same cluster of catchwords is used in an earlier compositional setting (2:1-13) where the reader's poor and powerless "neighbor" is discriminated against in favor of the rich outsider. The idiom of the courtroom — "judgment/judge" — is employed negatively, probably as an allusion to the levitical code, to rebuke the congregation's discrimination of the poor neighbor: to discriminate against the poor neighbor is to behave like an "evil judge" who opposes the will of God (2:4). The de­ mand of the "royal law" is to love this poor "neighbor" (2:8); to obey this law of love follows the glorious example of the Lord Jesus Christ (2:1) and results in God's favorable verdict at the end of the age when "mercy will triumph over judgment" (2:13). The theological calculus of this previous setting in turn supplies the conceptual backdrop against which a similar com­ bination of catchwords is repeated in an essay about the wisdom of "slow to anger." In this new setting as in the former setting, the symbolic world of Torah (= "law") is a place where just and merciful treatment of the poor is demanded and where those of humble means are exalted by God. But it is also a place where a passion for pleasure offends the will of God, and where the cor­ ruption of the soul issues from envy of the merchants (4:13) and rich farmers (5:1) of society. Although the conflict between rich and poor in view is spiritual rather than social, the earlier rebuke of 2:1-13 is implicit here: the arrogant whom God resists are those of "humble" means who desire more wealth rather than more faith. Moreover, James contends that to slander one's neighbor is to "judge the law," and the believer who judges the law is "not its doer but its judge." This phrase performs a critical role at this juncture of James's essay on "slow to anger." In this first place.

214

James 4:1-5:6

it recalls that God's eschatological verdict, whether blessing or cursing, will be based upon the doing of God's law (1:25). The "arrogant," whom God will resist (James 4:6), are all those who assume for themselves a role that belongs to God. In monotheis­ tic religion, there can be "but one law-giver and judge." Yet, its role is also rhetorical, reintroducing the idea of "doing the law" as prologue to the repeated use of poie in James 4:13-17 (esp. note 4:15, 17). In this passage, the merchant illustrates the "arro­ gant," whose functional atheism neglects a life fashioned by the Lord's will (4:15) and therefore "commits sin" (4:17). The sin­ gle measurement of one's life, whether "humble" or "arrogant" and whether the recipient of mercy or judgment, is that one is to be a "doer" of the "royal law" which demands love of one's neighbor (see discussion of 4:13-17 below). In summary, the intertextuality of 4:11-12 suggests that James continues to explain and illustrate the cited proverb (4:6), but now turns to the "arrogant," who are "destroyed" (apollumi) by God. They are those who "slander" and "judge" their neigh­ bors rather than care for them; they are those who covet wealth rather than piety; they are those who are friends of the world order rather than doers of God's will. In fact, the harsh verb apollumi is recalled from 1:11 where it is first used of God's judg­ ment against the rich man. Here the author uses it to speak of God's judgment against the poor, whose passion for lacking plea­ sure falls prey to the demonic y ser of envy, then to reject God's calling (2:5) and God's will (2:8), so to imperil the promise of fu­ ture blessing. The "arrogant" whom God "resists" in this case are all those believers of humble means who foolishly forfeit their future with God for the passing niceties of upper-class comfort. This "peril of great price," which tests the believer's devotion to God, will now be illustrated in the following two passages. e

Excursus: The Relationship between James 4:13-17 and 5:1-6 The principal linguistic clue that the interpreter should com­ bine 4:13-17 and 5:1-6 together is indicated by the unusual interjection that introduces each — age nun, "Come now." The impression is that James is gathering both merchants (4:13) and farmers (5:1) together as belonging to a social class of "the arrogant" whom God resists (cf. 4:6). But what do these two groups of entrepreneurs have in common? They are negative ex­ amples of "friendship with the world" (4:4), and are the envy

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

215

of the poor. The implied audience of James is the "poor-butwanna-be-rich" Christians, whose foolishness fails to recognize the anti-God motives (4:13-17) and antihuman results of their materialistic zeal (5:1-6). Perhaps the relationship between 4:13-17 and 5:1-6 is also a dynamic one, envisaging the stages of a blind ambition roughly equivalent to our own "American Dream/' The implied story of James 4:13-5:6 is of material success, beginning with the merchant's single-minded pursuit of profit and concluding with the wealth of the landed gentry — an appropriate goal for the entrepreneur in an agrarian economy. From God's perspective (4:11-12), however, the progress is from the arrogant presump­ tion that causes one to order one's daily/yearly calendar around the practice of business (4:13-17) rather than the practice of worship (4:7-10), to the horrific brutality rooted in greed that causes one to exploit workers and even to murder them (5:1-6). Such evil is worthy of divine execution. That is, taken together, James suggests that the actual violence of class struggle (5:16) always has its roots in the powerful perspective described in 4:13-17. The merchant expresses no visible anger, yet his world has no room for a God whose will is for mercy and peace. If one's orienting concerns are devoid of God, there is no alternative value or truth-claim that can prevent the in­ evitable progression that leads the secular merchant of 4:13-17 to become the violent farmer of 5:1-6. These illustrations of "slow to anger" are more negative than those found in the other two essays that comprise the main body of this book. Yet, if divine judgment (4:12) awaits those who fail to curb their materialistic rage, which compels them to follow the path of the merchant and the rich farmer to destruction, then by implication divine salvation (4:12) awaits those who re­ main content in their humble condition, preferring to submit to God as pilgrims of the faith. Finally, the shift of subject from "we" (4:13) to "you" (4:14) signals James's initial and programmatic response to the aspir­ ing middle class: "What is the meaning of your life? You are like a mist, which appears for a little while and then disappears." Rather than being ironic, James defines the meaning of life sim­ ply as "mist" (atmis). That is, the pious poor, who receive saving grace from God according to the proverb (4:6), have the spiri­ tual capacity to think of their lives as atmis. Against the biblical backdrop supplied by Ecclesiastes (see discussion below), the in19

216

James 4:1-5:6

terpreter of James is better able to understand the foolishness of the merchant (or any middle-class aspirant), whose financial goals (4:13) even if realized will not outlive him (5:1-2). He is further foolish for living life for his moment, without due con­ sideration of God's law (4:11-12, 15) and the poor it protects (2:1-13). Of course, Ecclesiastes is written for the community's rich and famous, and not for its poor and powerless. James, on the other hand, is not written to correct the foolishness of the upper class, who are mostly outsiders and enemies of the faith. James intends to correct the foolishness of the poor, whose envy of the rich is self-destructive. If the intertextuality of James 4:14 invites the reader to read this passage within the context of biblical Ecclesiastes, then an additional observation is perhaps useful. In the liturgical tra­ dition of Judaism, Ecclesiastes was read during the celebration of sukkot — the autumn harvest Feast of Tabernacles. Of course, the central symbol of this celebration is the "tents" that recall the wilderness wandering of Israel, who had received the prom­ ise but who had not yet entered the Land. The "tents" provided necessary shelter and sanctuary for Israel and become in sukkot a metaphor of God's faithfulness for those in the Diaspora and of a future with God when the covenant community will be settled and secured in the Land God has promised them. In this way, sukkot retained the familiar tension between the present and the future. The harvest experience of every genera­ tion of faithful Jews testifies to God's present faithfulness, even though the future might bring either feast or famine. Given the frail and fragile nature of life, the faithful Israel finds its security by depending upon the faithfulness of God rather than upon its financial well-being. The use of Ecclesiastes during sukkot frames part of the con­ text for this passage in James. The intertextuality of James 4:13-17, whose echo of the hebel ("vanity") theme of the biblical Ecclesiastes secures James's definition of life's meaning ("vanity"="mist"), brings easily to mind this harvest setting of sukkot At the same time, the images of the harvest are used vividly in James 5:1-6, binding the destiny of the two — merchant and farmer — together in yet another way. Within a sukkot setting, the warning of the rich farmers is heard as a grisly prospect: the next harvest may be a "day of slaughter" when the Lord judges harshly those whose wealth has been gained at the expense of

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

217

the pious poor. This is the implied verdict of Ecclesiastes, which also names as "sinners" under divine judgment those who gather fame and fortune at the expense of the poor (2:12-23, 8:1017). Ironically, the fame and fortune of the rich will be taken from them by God and given to those who please God (2:26). This eschatological reversal of fortune from rich to poor, already echoed in 1:9-11, is the warning James has in mind. Conversely, the future blessing of the pious poor at the Lord's parousia, al­ ready echoed in 2:5 and again in 4:6, is the implied promise of this passage. James 4:13-17: The Functional Atheism of the Merchant The first illustration is of the merchant, who is dedicated to building a profitable business. One might rightly admire his hard work and dedication; his is the kind of success story that is the envy of those who are not content with a life of more "humble" means. Clearly, however, the successful merchant ex­ emplifies the arrogant whom God resists (4:6): his plans and firm commitments follow his own will rather than God's (cf. 1:14-15). This conclusion is made more clear by the literary pattern of the illustration itself. The text is an inverted parallelism, which introduces the thematic with a saying about the merchant's profit motive (4:13, A). This is subsequently condemned as "ar­ rogant" (4:16, A'). The foolishness of the merchant's ambition is outlined by the middle members of the parallelism, first as a summary of the meaning of life (4:14, B), then by another saying, which corrects the merchant's, that well expresses the mindset of the humble (4:15, B'): A: Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow, we will go to this or that town and spend a year there. We will do business and make money." B:

You do not know "tomorrow"! For what is the meaning of your life? You are like a mist, which appears for a little while and then disappears.

B': Instead you should say, "If the Lord wills, then we will live and do this or that." A': But now you boast out of arrogance! All such boasting is evil.

218

James 4:1-5:6

In this case, the inverted parallelism highlights the contrast between the arrogance of the merchant, who seeks profit for personal security (A/A') rather than the way of wisdom (B/B'); James concludes that this is the essence of "sin" (4:17). fames 4:13-16 The commercial vocabulary of the opening saying suggests a kind of pilgrimage, whose "town" of destiny is where "money" is made rather than where God's will is performed. The time of this place is kept according to a "year" of "doing business." The merchant's pilgrimage, then, is hardly spiritual; it is purely eco­ nomic and contrasts with the pilgrimage of the "humble" who submit to and seek after God (see 4:7-9). The repeated use of "doing" (poieo) in this passage is im­ portant given the word's strategic importance in James. In this illustration, poieo is used three times: in the merchant's testi­ mony (4:13), the author's correction of it (4:15), and in his harsh verdict (4:17). A layer of its fully nuanced meaning in this setting is derived from its prior uses in James. For example, its initial use ("doer"; poietes) in 1:25 (cf. 2:8, 12-13, 19) adds a significant nu­ ance to the characterization of the merchant. According to this meaning, the "doer" of God's law (=will) is blessed by God. In fact, the "doer" of the law "poieite well" (2:8), such as Abraham who is a "friend of God." On the other hand, those who merely verbalize their devotion to God, who foolishly claim to poieis well" (2:19), come under divine judgment. The implication is that "judgment is without mercy for those who fail poiesanti mercifully" (2:13). Pay day, some day. This same cardinal rule of ethical religion provides the deeper logic of the present illustration. Prov. 3:34-35 only confirms what the reader already knows: that God will "resist" the ar­ rogant and "destroy" those who are not "doers" of the law (4:11-12). Therefore, the reader immediately recognizes that the merchant, who "does" his business rather than the Lord's will (4:17), has failed the spiritual test. His is not (yet) the blatant arrogance of the wealthy farmer, whose malicious mistreatment of the poor laborers obviously disobeys God's law of neighborly love; however, in his everyday pursuits of a profitable business, the merchant reveals a worldview that leaves no room for God. Human existence is defined and determined by the careful man­ agement of time and energy, as though the present moment u

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

219

held all of life's meaning. There is nothing in the merchant's world that transcends the marketplace — it is a kind of functional atheism that fails the test of faith. Textual decisions affect the meaning made of the author's re­ sponse to his interlocutor's saying in 4:14—a verse whose trans­ mission has been corrupted in three different places. (1) The phrase to tes aurion (lit. "the reality of tomorrow") is also ren­ dered simply tes aurion ("of tomorrow") and ta tes aurion ("the things of tomorrow"). I accept the critical text, although take it metaphorically. The "reality of tomorrow" does not speak of a literal tomorrow but of the future in general; hence, I use quote marks — "tomorrow" — to indicate its nonliteral, mythic mean­ ing. (2) The critically accepted particle, poia ("What [is]"), is also rendered in the manuscript tradition by the phrases poia gar ("For what [is]") and poia de ("But what [is]"). I prefer the first alternate reading on the basis of better external attestation. The gar is a syntax marker, which indicates a formal break in the author's thought although logically related to what precedes it. The gar begins the rhetorical question, which concentrates this entire illustration: "For what is the meaning of life?" (3) Finally, I agree with the critical reading of the initial phrase that responds to the question, atmis gar este he ("For you are a vapor that... "), which also has the most ancient and broadest manuscript sup­ port. Yet, this phrase is also rendered by atmis gar estai he ("For vapor will be for..."), which does not relate the vapor meta­ phor to the meaning of life question, and by even more marginal readings, os atmis gar estai he; atmis estai he; atmis gar estin he; at­ mis gar este; and finally he, which refers back to "life" and omits the vapor metaphor altogether. For all the verse's troubled syntax and corrupted scribal transmission, the author plainly raises two objections to the mer­ chant's worldview. The first is "You do not know 'tomorrow.'" The myth of one's "tomorrow," which poets and pundits forecast with certainty and impunity, suggests one level of deception: only God knows "tomorrow" with certainty. Thus, for the mer­ chant to forecast a year of "doing business" is a tacit denial of "the Lord's will" and utter foolishness. I am reminded of the Wall Street prognosticators who pronounce in advance which way the winds of fortune will blow, only to explain later where and why they went wrong. Forecasting the marketplace is more magic than science! The second objection is framed by the following question.

220

James 4:1 -5:6

"For what is the meaning of your life?" In a sense, the open­ ing "For" (gar) commends the tacit connection between the merchant's ignorance about his "tomorrow" and his perspec­ tive on the true "meaning of life." This question seems to be asking whether the meaning or meaninglessness of a life can be defined by an economic tomorrow, when such a to­ morrow cannot possibly be known. In my mind, however, the gar introduces a more devastating objection of the merchant's worldview, which defines the meaning of life by the metaphor of "mist," which appears for a little while and then disappears. It is a metaphor that exposes the arrogance of the merchant, whose presumption exposes a self-centered and sovereign con­ trol over his time and place, when in fact such belongs to the eternal Lord. It is intriguing that the metaphor "mist" (atmis) recalls the wisdom of biblical Ecclesiastes, whose organizing motto is "all is vanity" (1:2, 12:8). The Hebrew word for "vanity" is hebel, which the LXX typically translates by mataiotes (cf. James 1:26). How­ ever, in Eccl. 9:9, an important textual family of LXX substitutes atmos (the masculine equivalent of atmis) for mataiotes to trans­ late "vanity" — the verbal substitute in view here. This seems an appropriate substitution to make because the root meaning of hebel is "mist." Indeed, whatever depth of meaning Qoheleth at­ taches to this term in Ecclesiastes, it is rooted in the image of breath's vapor trail on a cold winter morning, which comes and goes as does everything else under the sun. The biblical topos of hebel (= atmis), defined within the con­ text of biblical Ecclesiastes, informs the merchant illustration in James. Ecclesiastes is a commentary on the meaning of life, and its thesis is that human existence is like "mist." Hardly cyn­ ical, Ecclesiastes considers life from a realist point of view. There are no value judgments about work or possession offered there; rather, all the tasks and protocols of human life are "misty" sim­ ply because they lack permanence. "Mist" is employed by James, then, as a metaphor of a particular attitude toward human exis­ tence, where life's accomplishments are brief and unimportant when compared to the durability of God's actions and eternal purposes. According to this wisdom, the merchant's pursuit of economic profit actually bankrupts him in the eternal scheme of things — because wealth does not last beyond a person's life and because its preoccupations prevent one from investing in those things that do. To suppose differently is the essence of ar-

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

221

rogance, when human plans and purposes are substituted for a transcendent and eternal truth. This meaning is thickened if the "appearing/disappearing" id­ iom echoes the "coming Son of Man" tradition found in the Gospels (cf. Matt. 24:27-30). If this echo is sufficiently loud, the "mist" metaphor may suggest that permanence is finally found at the Messiah's "appearing," when existence that is vain and without substance will "disappear." The opening phrase of 4:15, "Instead you ought to say [leg­ em]/' forms an antithetical interplay with the "you [merchants] who say [legontes]" of 4:13 and, in effect, offers a second response to the merchant. The wisdom of "slow to anger" demands the abiding conviction that the Lord (rather than oneself) has con­ trol over life; so that the meaning of life (zoe; 4:14) is that "we shall live" (zad; 4:15) according to the "Lord's will." "If the Lord wills" (ho kyrios thelese) is a third-class condi­ tional that describes a future, probable reality. The point is clear: the future of human existence is ultimately determined by what God wills "for this or that" and not what one plans in "this city" and for "that profit." The simple elegance of this theological conviction is deepened by an echo of 1:18 that rebounds to this conditional statement. In the earlier text, James claims that the Creator has "willed" (boulomai; cf. 3:4, 4:4) a whole new order of human life, which is the yield of the "word of truth" (= wisdom). The content of the Lord's will is this "word of truth" that guides the believer through spiritual testing and toward the coming tri­ umph of God's reign. The implicit warning is that a failure to heed this "word" constitutes a departure from the "way of wis­ dom" and imperils eternal life—a foolish choice. The foolishness of the merchant is that he plans for a life that fails to yield the "first fruit of a new creation." With the disjunctive, "But now" (nun de), James rehearses the merchant's worldview introduced in 4:13: they who plan for "to­ day and tomorrow" are really "arrogant" (in the sense of 4:6) and "evil." This verdict is arrived at in light of James's defi­ nition of life's meaning according to 4:14-15. The intratextual meaning of "boasting" (kauchesis/kauchomai) fortifies the au­ thor's indictment. According to James 1:9, the verbal idea is used to characterize the poor believer's wise response to his "humble" life: that is, "boasting" is the public confession of the pious poor that they anticipate an exalted status before God, a point that the author comes back to in 4:6-10. Here, however, the "boast-

222

James 4:1-5:6

ing" is of the arrogant merchant (not the humble poor), who has failed to "boast" in the future passing of his wealth (see 1:10-11) but rather plans for his life as though God does not exist. This, then, is the "peril of great price," to elevate one's own plans and interests over God's. Such a functional atheism is "evil" (poneros) according to James — an idea introduced into James in 2:4, where it character­ izes the motives that prompt and promote discrimination within the congregation. This same general meaning is retained, where the merchant's economic pursuits prompt him to rebel against the Lord's will. Recall that in response to the evils of discrimina­ tion, James goes on to define election in terms of social class as well: God has called the poor out of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the blessings of the coming age. A reflexive read­ ing of the "rich" motif here implies this same result: God has called the "humble" to be content in their "humble" life; those who are tempted to pursue economic status in this world —like the merchant — rather than blessings in the world to come are condemned as "evil." James 4:17 The concluding maxim (note the change from second to third person, from specific to general terms) is the synthesis of the preceding antithesis (note the opening "Therefore" [oun]). James repeats two important motifs, "knowing" and "doing." The rela­ tionship between the two is introduced in the book's opening statement, where "knowing" wisdom is the precondition for "doing" it (1:19). At the center of every mess of congregational life is the believer who "knows" what to do but then does not "do" it. Both are required, since one who merely knows without then performing it is deceived (1:22) and "commits sin" — which apparently refers to the "evil" (ponera) of the preceding verse. In this case, "sin" (hamartia) is committed when a merchant's pre­ occupation with money and business leads him to neglect God's will and prevents him from doing that which is "the good thing to do." Although James does not define what "the good thing" is that the congregation must do, the reader should presume that it is what conforms to God's will (4:15; cf. Rom. 12:2), the "word of truth" (= wisdom). The meaning of the harsh indictment that "not to do" the Lord's will is "sin" is expanded by the prior use of "sin" in 1:15

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

223

and 2:9. Especially its meaning in 1:15 is critical for this new compositional setting. There "sin" is what "desire" (cf. 4:2) pro­ duces; and "sin" is what results in eschatological death rather than the "crown of [eternal] life" (cf. 1:12). This same eschatology is implied here. In fact, we know that within this particular world the merchant's arrogance will surely result in death (cf. 4:6). Even though James does not speak about death in 4:17, death is implied within this compositional setting. It is this death that awaits the rich farmer (5:1-6), and his divine exe­ cution is the logical consequence of the merchant's atheistic mindset. By ending this illustration on such an ominous note, then, James prepares the reader for the following prophet-like oracle against the rich farmer. James 5:1-6: The Destiny of Wealth The final exemplar of the "arrogant," who are "friends of the world" rather than of God, is the rich farmer: no one manip­ ulates his relations or his land for a self-centered end more blatantly than he. Fraud and violence are blithely used to se­ cure greater wealth and more creature comforts, as though the rich were not accountable to anyone or anything in their worlds. Johnson comments that they accumulate riches "according to the logic of envy, identified with their possessions... building a nest egg for 'their last days.' " With biting irony, then, this "nest egg" is used against the rich during their last days (5:3), which will be for them days of judgment and slaughter (5:5) rather than of security and luxury. The remarkable hostility of James toward the rich in this pas­ sage helps to envisage their hostility toward the working-class poor whom they mistreat in order to maximize their own profit margin. Hartin agrees that this passage expands the meaning of the proverb, cited in James 4:6, that "God will resist the ar­ rogant." The change of tone and use of vivid images in this passage underscore the natural, even tragic progression of mind­ set envisaged first by the merchant's "arrogant" neglect of God's interests and then by the farmer's violent oppression of the poor. James understands this implicit progression from travel­ ing merchant to landed gentry not merely in the cause-effect terms of proverbial wisdom but also in the present-future terms of the prophetic tradition, fully consistent with the conventional wisdom of the Second Temple period of Judaism. The use of 2 0

21

22

224

James 4:1 -5:6

prophetic rhetoric to portray God's judgment of rich outsiders helps to convey a sense of urgency for the "humble" poor to re­ pent of their dreams for a more comfortable life and submit to God (4:7). The judgment topos, already introduced in James (2:12-13, 4:11-12), climaxes in this passage. No place in James is wisdom infused with apocalypticism more vividly than here. As with wisdom, the organizing theological conviction of Jewish and Christian apocalypticism is that God is both Creator and Sav­ ior of all things. But unlike other biblical wisdom, the primary interest of apocalypticism in forwarding the great themes of cre­ ation theology is to "get God off the hook" for all the pollution and suffering that characterizes the created order. The Creator's intention is to restore the natural order; and this intention is re­ alized (in part) on the future day of judgment, when the Creator will purify the created order of its evils in beginning the process of its restoration. Against this theological backdrop, the judgment of the rich envisages the Creator's establishment of a new order (1:18). The present passage is not rendered in the idiom of an anti-money polemic, where God's judgment roasts the rich and toasts their riches as parts of an inherently evil material order. Rather, the rich are judged by God because of their arrogance and hostile actions toward the poor, whom God has chosen to be heirs of the coming kingdom (2:5). Their values and actions reflect an abiding friendship with a fallen and corrupt world, which is des­ tined to end during the "last days" of divine judgment. On that "day of slaughter," God will purify and restore all things to ac­ cord with the Creator's eternal purposes. In effect, the gloomy rhetoric of this prophet-like oracle contends that God's good in­ tentions will triumph over all the friends of the world; on that day, the pious poor will live in a class-free world where rich no longer oppresses poor. Their passion for creature comforts, while perhaps explicable given the drab and dreary existence of their humble existence, only disturbs and distorts their relations with others and God. The final irony of James 5:1-6 is this: those the poor presently envy will be envied no longer! Certain economic features of the first readers/auditors lend support to this reading of James 5:1-6. The social fabric of the agrarian economy of the first-century Palestinian world was thor­ oughly class oriented, with the wealthy farmers holding all the land and most of the money. The oppressed fieldhands were ac-

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

225

tually enslaved to the land owners, without much recourse when mistreated. In the ancient world, the slave class, which consti­ tuted most of the population, had few rights and most had no money to hire lawyers or bribe judges (see 2:6-7); they were largely at the mercy of their owners — that is, the rich farmers presently in view. In Palestine, the biblical Torah would have ex­ ercised some (but only minimal) control over the behavior of the rich; legal rights were determined mostly by the Empire, which gave great power to the wealthy land barons even though most were not Roman citizens. The disturbing portrait of employer-employee relations found in James 5:1-6 is two millennia old, long before collective bar­ gaining and unionized labor. The workforce was made up of slaves, who lived a hand-to-mouth existence and who were vir­ tually powerless, without much recourse for unfair treatment in their world. In that world, their only real hope lay in the future and at the coming triumph of a just and merciful God. fames 5:1 -3b The literary structure of James 5:l-3a is yet another inverted parallelism—a familiar rhetorical feature of this composition: A: Come now, you rich people, weep and wail over your coming miseries. B:

Your riches have rotted, your clothes are moth-eaten,

B': and your gold and silver have rusted. A': Their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. Accordingly, 5:1 exhorts the rich to lament their eschatologi­ cal hardships in store for them (A); 5:2 describes the destruction of their material possessions, the symbols of their wealth (B). 5:3a (B') repeats 5:2 but emphasizes the destruction of their money (rather than clothes) as the more important basis and symbol of wealth, while 5:3b (A') returns to the eschatological hardship facing the rich, whose possessions testify to the des­ tiny of their human "flesh" — it too will be destroyed and in precisely the same way. As with the plagues of Egypt/Revelation, the natural order rebels against itself in catharsis; moths and rust and fire are used to reverse the old to reorder a corrupted world

226

James 4:1-5:6

back into accord with God's plans (see discussion of the "word of truth," 1:18). It is not surprising that James gathers the rich outsiders together for divine execution. The word "rich" (plousios) has al­ ready been used of nonbelievers, who will "fade away" and be humiliated by God at the end of time when their plenty will be reversed into poverty (see 1:9-11). Also included in this group are the "rich" outsiders of 2:6, whose oppression of the poor Christians clarifies the point made in 2:5 that God calls the poor (and not the rich) out of the world for salvation. The implica­ tion is that the "rich" are much too interested in controlling their own worlds to be "rich" in faith toward a transcendent God. With this symbolic meaning already in mind, James now assembles the plousioi for judgment. In near context, however, James recalls the "rich" to center stage in order to clarify the practical (i.e., eschatological) implications of his interpretation of the proverbial wisdom, "slow to anger." Indeed, the foolish desire for wealth fosters not only the arrogance of the merchant but also the abusive violence of the farmer; the present result is enmity with God (4:4) and the future result is destruction (4:12). The striking exhortation for the rich to "weep and wail" (5:1) anticipates their future punishment. Indeed, this is the vocab­ ulary of prophetic laments (esp. Isaiah — 10:10; 13:6; 14:31; 15:2-3; 16:7; 23:1, 6, 14; 24:11; 52:5; 65:14) which expected calamity due the nation — ironically, including poverty! — be­ cause of their apostasy. The prophetic condemnation of the rich, whose wealth derives from unfair business practice, indicates the close connection between social practice and spiritual devotion. The word for "wail," ololuzo, sounds very much like the word used in 4:16 for the merchant's "arrogance," alazoneia. The ver­ bal interplay between these two words suggests a theological interplay as well: those who "wail" in expectation of their pun­ ishment are those whose "arrogant" neglect of the Lord's will is indicted as "sin" (4:17). The pivotal word in this first verse, however, is "miseries" (talaiporia), which envisages the loss of accumulated wealth. The rich "weep and wail" not because they fail to receive the promised blessing of God but because their life's work does not endure. In itself, this is reason for God's harsh verdict: they wail not over the loss of human life (including their own!), but over the loss of "things." An intriguing parallel is found in Rev.

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

227

3:17 in the Apocalypse's vision of Laodicean Christianity. In this setting, theologically similar to James, Christ condemns those whose riches have made them spiritually numb, unable to al­ low the future judgment of God to impinge and determine their present spiritual course. These Christians are called "wretched" (NRSV, talaipdros) in a proleptic sense, since they do not now suffer material hardship; in fact, the opposite is true. Yet, they are spiritually "wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked," and therefore in need of repentance. An awareness of one's "miser­ able" condition evokes lamentation and contrition and seeks to bring the repentant to the altar for spiritual restoration. This connection between anticipated "misery" and the exhortation to lament/repent is found in Isa. 16:4-9 LXX, where "weeping," "wailing," and "misery" are all used in an oracle against the ar­ rogant Moab, and in Zech. 11:2-3 LXX (cf. Matt. 26:14-6), where talaipdria is used to condemn social injustice. The New Testa­ ment interpreter may recall the poignant lamentations of the merchants in Rev. 18:11-17, who weep and wail over the fallen city of Babylon — that "city" where profit is sought (cf. James 4:13) —because there is nothing to sell and no buyers to seduce. They weep because the city that defined their life is gone and the commercial life that they knew has ended. The lament, indeed the hardship itself, arises out of the realization that they have chosen foolishly because they have chosen what does not last. On this basis, two suggested meanings are made of the open­ ing address. (1) The rich are gathered and encouraged to "weep and wail" in lamentation over their anticipated misery, which is God's fair punishment for immoral and spiritually impov­ erished behavior. (2) Their lament may well be over the loss of their personal wealth and social standing, a reversal that results from God's coming triumph over the present evil do­ minion. However, their lament over "coming miseries" may also be a prelude to repentance and restoration. The prophetic idiom of divine indictment/judgment never concludes with God's just "no"; rather, God's "no" is always the means to God's redemp­ tive "yes." While there seems very little reason for the "rich" in James to be optimistic, in biblical context for the congregation of the rich to lament coming punishment may well be an invi­ tation to the one who "wanders from the truth" to be brought back from death to life (cf. 5:19-20). The next two members of the inverted parallelism (B=5:2; B'=5:3a) concentrate upon the future of wealth and the social

228

James 4:1 -5:6

power it secures: "Your riches have rotted // your clothes are moth-eaten / and your gold and silver have rusted." That is, the "coming miseries" of the rich are nothing less than the total and absolute loss of every material thing they have accumulated. The perfect tense of "have rotted // have rusted" creates "a vivid sense of their imminence." This description of immediate and total economic loss only underscores the absurdity of the quest after wealth: if life is measured by those commodities that even­ tually rot and rust, then life has no meaning at all for those that seek after them (see discussion of 4:14). The intratextual echo of James 2:2, where gold and clothing are symbols of social power and influence, helps to deepen the ironic sense of this text and the apparent ease by which such wealth and power are lost. By implication, then, the compelling wisdom that finally slows the anger between believers includes this realistic, even ruthless, assessment of fame and fortune's future. This point may be deepened still further by an intertextual echo of the biblical image of moth-eaten "clothes" from Deut. 29:4-6. At the beginning of his third recital of God's faithful acts in leading Israel from Egypt through the wilderness and toward their "promised land," Moses claims that "your clothes did not grow old" during the forty years in the wilderness (Deut. 29:5). The primary purpose of this miracle was that "you may know that I am the Lord your God" (Deut. 29:6). The durability of clothes, then, is a material symbol of divine faith­ fulness—a symbol Jesus also uses (Matt. 6:19-20; Luke 12:33). In this setting the symbolic value of clothing is reversed, how­ ever, so that their lack of durability is symbolic of failure in the present "wilderness" of spiritual testing. Implicit in this reversal of meaning is that the abusive rich will not inherit the blessing that God has promised the pious poor (cf. 2:5). With the harsh assertion that "their corrosion will be evi­ dence against you and will eat your flesh like fire," James repeats and expands the initial call for the rich to lament in 5:1. Now, certain specifics are provided that justify the lamentation of the rich: not only is their wealth lost, but the personal consequence of their idolatry is revealed. Finally, the disaster of losing all their wealth and power pales when compared to their own destruction (cf. 4:12). The New Testament portrays God's future and final punish­ ment of the wicked in a variety of ways. This passage, along with others similar to it, supports a controversial understand23

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

229

ing of divine punishment: that of "annihilation." According to this view, God simply destroys everything and everyone wicked rather than consigning the wicked to a "hell" of eternal tor­ ment or to a "purgatory" where they serve out their just sentence (or one of still other Christian alternatives). In determining the meaning of this gross image of "flesh-eating fire" to justify a theological conviction, the interpreter should be careful not to press its significance too far: it is poetic and its definition in any case is limited by its use in this parallelism. The most we should say is that "fire" is a metaphor for divine judgment (see 3:6), where one's future existence is determined by one's present pas­ sions (cf. Matt. 6:19-21). For those who presently hunger and thirst after riches rather than righteousness, there are no riches remaining for the kingdom of heaven to come. Yet, it may be that "fire" is used here as a metaphor of purifi­ cation rather than of annihilation. As argued above, the topos of divine judgment expresses a creational activity, which cleanses a fallen and fragmented creation in preparation for a new cre­ ation. The condemnation of the rich for "living off the earth" (5:5a) may well envisage this creational perspective: that is, the rich pollute the earth to satisfy their acquisitive compulsion. That James speaks of "flesh" consumed by "fire," then, is yet an­ other way to say that the old order will be replaced or restored by God. On the day of the Lord's coming (cf. 5:7-9), sinners will cleanse their hands and the double-minded their hearts (4:8b). The present lamentation of the rich, their current mourning and weeping (cf. 5:1 and 4:9a), may very well be an act of humilia­ tion that recognizes the passing of the old and the inevitable coming of the new order. fames 5:3c-5a The second part of this prophetic denunciation of the rich and their pursuits is again cast as an inverted parallelism: A: You have accumulated your wealth for the end-times. B:

Listen! The wages you have withheld from workers who have mowed your fields cry out.

B': The cries of the fieldhands have reached the ears of the Lord Sabaoth. A': You have lived off the earth in luxury and pleasure.

230

James 4:1-5:6

The first (A, 5:3c) and last (A', 5:5a) members of this paral­ lelism make the traditional assertion that "you have accumu­ lated your wealth for the end-times // you have lived off the earth in luxury and pleasure." The verbal ideas, all active indica­ tive aorists — "accumulated wealth" (ethesaurisate; 5:3c), "lived in luxury" (etruphesate; 5:5a), and "lived in pleasure" (espatalesate; 5:5a) —make a factual claim about the social class of rich folks. The middle two members are paired in antithetical relation­ ship to describe the situation of "humble" fieldhands, who are being exploited (perhaps even murdered) by the rich to increase their own wealth: "Listen! The wages you have withheld from workers who have mowed your fields cry out // The cries of the fieldhands have reached the ears of the Lord Sabaoth." This scurrilous result of the farmer's greed is framed by the logical relationship between their insatiable consumption (A/A') and their exploitation of the workers (B/B'). Nothing could be fur­ ther from the will of a merciful God (cf. 4:17, 2:8): if wealth is hoarded and spent on oneself, then it cannot be used for the benefit of the entire community — especially its most marginal members. The rhetoric of this passage is striking and disturbing. For example, James personifies the "wages" of workers, which "cry out" (krazd). What do these wages "say" as though they have a voice of their own and speak on behalf of the workers who earn them? Do they merely confirm the "cries [boe] of the fieldhands"? Or do they condemn, as some jury might, the rich farmers, who are told to "weep" (klaid) in anticipation of their coming judgment? Clearly, the multiformed image of "crying" is a remarkable rhetorical feature of this text, which in any case links together the crying of the farmers (5:1) and the fieldhands/wages (5:4): however differently they are prompted, their weeping is occasioned by the same atrocity. There is no doubt in my mind that this reference to the "wages of the workers" (ho misthos ton ergatdn) alludes to the levitical legislation about fair wages (Lev. 19:13) and, in con­ junction with Lev. 19:18 (cf. James 2:8), recalls the class conflict between rich and poor already condemned in James 2:1-13. Under the light of this earlier passage, the present exploitation of fieldhands transgresses the "royal law" and results in God's judgment at the end of the age (2:12-13). The use of krazd, "shrieking," animates the wages held back by management. The verbal idea recognizes that the "wage" is

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

231

an important symbol of a worker's value. The unfair wage of the exploited worker bears witness in a concrete way both to his lacking value as well as to the self-centered worldview of his em­ ployer. The image of "shrieking wages" may well echo Hab. 2:11 LXX, where the walls and woodwork of a house "cry out" (boe) in witness of the wickedness done by people who profit from vi­ olence (cf. Hab. 2:6-20). Perhaps behind this prophetic text also stands the tradition of the Lord's dramatic query of the murder­ ous Cain, "Is that your brother's blood is crying out [boe] to me from the ground?" (Gen. 4:10). The topos of anger that frames Cain's violent disregard for Abel, and God's subsequent indict­ ment of him, may supply another layer of implicit meaning to this passage's judgment idiom. Finally, in Luke's telling of Palm Sunday (19:40) — in a very different textual setting from these other possible echoes — Jesus promised that the stones would "cry out" (krazo) if the disciples were silent or silenced in con­ fessing him as God's Messiah. Here, the gospel contends that even inanimate objects, like wages, blood, and stones (cf. Rev. 4:3, 21:19-21), participate with all creation in celebration of the Creator's coming triumph over evil. It is the seduction of wealth that presumes a status that excuses the wealthy from their just treatment of others. The exis­ tential tension implicit in the contrast between rich and poor in James is that the rich do not hear the cries of the poor; rather, it is the Lord who hears their cries and who will reverse or correct the abuses of the rich. While this "great reversal" apparently has been delayed (cf. 5:7-9) and the pious poor must continue to endure their experiences of poverty and powerlessness, James interprets such historical ambiguity by the terms of the "spir­ itual test." It is precisely this ambiguity the pious poor must presently endure in order to participate in the future triumph and blessings of God's kingdom (cf. 1:2-4=1:12; 2:5). The cries of the fieldhands have reached the ears of God (cf. Isa. 5:9). God's interest in their situation is understood by the Hebrew title given, "the Lord Sabaoth" (kyrios Sabaoth). Its full meaning is discerned only in conversation with the biblical prophets (esp. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Zechariah) who speak of the Lord as a warrior God, leading to victory "armies" (sabaoth) of faithful Jews over Israel's (= God's) enemies. More importantly, the Lord's coming to do battle against evil marks the close of the present age during which time the rich continue to oppress the poor, often with impunity. The LXX translates "Sabaoth" by 24

232

James 4:1-5:6

the more general pantokrator, "ruler over all things/' which nat­ urally links God's triumph over evil with the establishment of God's reign. In this sense, the coming of "the Lord Sabaoth" is the time of vindication, when God's friends (the "humble" poor) are saved and the world's friends (the "arrogant" rich) are destroyed. The sense is that the cries of the laborers, unfairly treated because of their owners' greed, enter the Lord's ear and stay there to supply evidence for God's legal brief against these rich farmers. James 5:5b-6 The third and concluding part of this passage moves the reader from images of the present order to those of the future tri­ umph of God, then on earth as it already has been realized in heaven (cf. 5:7-9, esp. envisaged by the apocalyptic idiom of the Lord "standing at the doors [of heaven]"). Here, the legal tables are clearly turned, since now James accuses the rich who have been "convicting and murdering the pious one." The terms used envisage a kind of judicial "assault," where the rich use the law-court to their advantage to legitimize the withholding of fair wages from their workers. The primary sense of "murder," then, is not literal but figurative of a judge's verdict in favor of the rich against the "pious" (cf. 2:6-7). However, such decisions could lead to starvation, even to execution of the innocent (and therefore "murder"). The "pious one" is not a reference to a particular person, whether to Jesus or to James himself; rather, the "pious one" represents an entire community of the pious poor. The bibli­ cal reader may well hear an echo of Isaiah's Suffering Servant (Isa. 53:11), not with messianic overtones but only as the Is­ rael of divine favor. This echo may well help to explain God's harsh condemnation of the rich who deprive "God's Servant" of wages and even of life. More likely, the reader of James will re­ call the example of Abraham, who is considered dikaios, a "friend of God," because of his merciful works. If so, then the conflict between the "pious one" and the rich farmer who is guilty of ju­ dicial "murder" embodies the overarching contrast between the "friend of God" (= pious one) and "friends of the world" (4:4) — the very contrast this entire essay examines. The passivity of the abused poor, when they "do not resist" (antitassomai) the rich, may recall either a renewed sense of their 25

26

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

233

political powerlessness because they are unable to afford legal counsel or their innocence. Their legal "execution" by the court system only intensifies the outrage of God at the injustice of this workplace in which rich farmer withholds wages from the working-class poor. In this sense there is an implied contrast be­ tween the innocent and exploited worker and the wicked farmer, who uses the "justice" system to his advantage. The emphatic position of the verbal idea, "resist," in the concluding phrase has led some to frame it as a rhetorical ques­ tion, "Does [God] not resist you?" The expected response is "Yes, God does." In fact, "cries" unheard in the law-court have reached "the ears of the Lord Sabaoth" who now comes and finds the "fattened heart for a day of slaughter" and so exacts a just punishment of the rich for their violent exploitation of innocent people. Further, "resist" recalls its earlier use in 4:6 (Prov. 3:34 LXX), where it describes God's response to the "arrogant." Its use here yields an ironical gloss on the Proverb citation: the pious poor, who are unable to "resist" their "arrogant" oppressors, cry out to the Lord, who is more than able to "resist" the oppres­ sors and does so with vengeance on the eschatological "day of slaughter." That James now identifies the God who "resists the arrogant" as the powerful and regnant "Lord Sabaoth" makes even more fierce and certain the measure of the pious one's vindication. Finally, the intratextuality of 5:5b-6, which speaks of God's vindication of the poor, is striking and important. In effect, it summarizes James's entire essay on the wisdom of "slow to anger." Note the author's working vocabulary: 27

1. "heart" (kardia), recalled from 1:26, 3:14; esp. 4:8; 2. "murder" (phoneu), recalled from 2:11; esp. 4:2; 3. "pious one" (dikaios) recalls its verbal use in 1:20; esp. 2:2125 (both dikaiosune and dikaid); 3:18 (cf. 5:16); and 4. resist (antitassomai), recalled from 4:6 (Prov 3:34 LXX). The fool is deceived first in the "heart," where wisdom is con­ sulted and decisions are made (1:26). Motives that determine action are gathered there (3:14). Thus, spiritual renewal also proceeds from the heart (4:8), where the "humble" are first righted with God in order to do God's bidding. The material­ istic rage that leads the farmer to exploit and even execute his

234

James 4:1 -5:6

innocent worker has its source in a malicious psychology that promotes oneself (3:14) at the expense of others. The image of a "fattened heart" is of a spiritual arteriosclerosis, whose arter­ ies (which connect to God and neighbor) are hardened beyond repair. Death quickly follows. The image of judicial "murder" (phoneu) forms an inclusio with the "murder" of 4:2 to bring into sharper focus the the­ sis of this essay on "slow to anger" and underscores the real problem of one's envy of another's wealth. The inward desire for lacking pleasures — the spiritual test of the pious poor — in­ clines the believer toward envy, which is outwardly expressed in hostile and abusive relationships. When the believer asks for pleasure rather than for wisdom, the word of God is prevented from having its redemptive result; rather, the spiral of abuse and anger moves unchecked to its bitter end: the murderous destruc­ tion of human life and community. This drastic upheaval of the humane intentions of the created order yields an equally dras­ tic consequence — namely, the Creator's revenge at the end of the age. Excursus: Toward a New Testament Theology of the Poor The purpose of this excursus is to explore, if only in a provi­ sional and limited way, the role that biblical theology plays in shaping a Christian's understanding of God's relationship with the poor and powerless. Let me begin with four brief points of qualification. First, Christian community is inclusive. In Christ Jesus all social distinctions between people have passed away. Christian discipleship is one of loving mutuality, and so Chris­ tian theology must help construct a community that nurtures this self-understanding and thereby leaves no room for class strife or for any other hierarchy among God's people. What­ ever meaning is made of scripture's theology, it must interpret and finally support the inclusivity intended by God for the community that bears witness to God. Second, whatever role the interpreter assigns to the church's scriptures within the life of God's church will largely deter­ mine the role biblical theology performs in forming normative judgments about the Christian's life and faith. For example, if the interpreter thinks scripture itself contributes very little to the subject matter of contemporary faith and life, then scrip­ ture's theology would "prescribe" very little to the normative 28

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

235

judgments a contemporary believer would make about God's re­ lationship with the poor and powerless. One might be genuinely interested in what Jesus had to say about money and property, but only in a detached and more "descriptive" way. Or the inter­ preter's methodological interests may locate meaning primarily at the point of origin, in a first-century world very different from our own. The sheer distance of space and time may make it more difficult to find viable analogies in scripture for post­ modern life and faith. Yet, the welcome rapprochement between scripture and theology within the academic guild of scholars has reclaimed if only in a modest way the importance of bibli­ cal theology for theological reflection. This study participates in this reclamation project. My point is this: the interpreter's prior assumptions about the Bible and methodological interests in re­ lating its subject matter to contemporary faith are of decisive importance in determining the normative role biblical theol­ ogy performs. (For a more detailed discussion of this point, see Appendix A.) Third, the volume (and importance) of James's voice in con­ tributing to scripture's discussion of this topic must be turned up, and for two very good reasons. Few New Testament books are as concerned and detailed as James is about the relationship between God and the poor. No New Testament book is as radi­ cal about God's firm commitment to the poor and powerless as James is. Indeed, James lends support to a preferential option for the poor, even calling for the renunciation of wealth as pre­ venting robust relations with God and neighbor. Of course, the subject matter of biblical theology is at the very least the sum of the various biblical theologies contained within the biblical canon. What this conviction affirms, however, is that the par­ ticular perspective and contribution of James to the whole must not be silenced. Finally, the following discussion follows a "hermeneutical model" constructed in light of the particular methodological interests of "canonical criticism" as I understand them (see Ap­ pendix A). Other strategies are necessary to recover the full meaning and significance of scripture's interpretation of God's relations with the poor. I do not come to the reader of this commentary with "hat in hand"; rather, I come with an aware­ ness that this is only one attempt among others to understand a significant biblical motif. 29

236

James 4:1 -5:6

The Canonical Context of fames An interest in the final literary form of the New Testament leads the interpreter to an initial set of hermeneutical clues derived from consideration of both the placement and titles of New Tes­ tament writings, which are properties of their canonization. Quite apart from authorial intentions, the literary design of the biblical canon suggests that particular units of the New Testa­ ment canon (Gospel, Acts, Letter, Apocalypse) have particular roles to perform within the whole. This consideration of the structure of the New Testament orients the interpreter to the subject matter found within each of those canonical units. Of­ ten the title provided each unit by the canonizing community brings to clearer focus what particular contribution each unit makes to a fully Christian faith. In this regard, the sequence of these four units within the New Testament envisages an intentional rhetorical pattern — or "canon-logic" to use A. Outler's apt phrase — that more effec­ tively orients the readership to the New Testament's pluriform witness to God and to God's Christ. By the logic of the final lit­ erary form of the New Testament canon, each unit is assigned a specific role to perform within the whole, which in turn of­ fers another explanation for the rich diversity of theology and language that constitutes scripture's subject matter. Thus, the gospel is placed first within the New Testament because its nar­ rative of the person and work of the Messiah, when taken as a fourfold whole, is theologically and morally foundational for all that follows. Each unit of canonical writings casts its own dis­ tinctive contribution to the Bible's witness to God in a different idiom and with its own role to perform within the Christian scriptures; however, the fourfold narrative of Jesus' messianic life provides the conceptual focus for every New Testament writing, whether or not it did so for their authors. Along with the final placement of writings and collections within the biblical canon, new titles were provided individual compositions, sometimes including the naming of anonymous authors. These properties of the canonizing stage shed additional light on how these compositions and collections, written cen­ turies earlier for congregations and religious crises long since settled, may continue to convey the word of God for a name­ less and future readership. The importance of any one biblical voice for theological understanding or ethical praxis is focused 30

31

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

237

or qualified by its relationship to the other voices which con­ stitute the whole canonical chorus. Extending this metaphor, one may even suppose that these various voices, before heard only individually or in smaller groups, became more impres­ sive, invigorating, and even "canonical" for faith only when combined with other voices to sing counterpoint in the full chorus. The placement of James within the multiple "letter" canon of the New Testament provokes two critical observations that have significance for a canonical reading of James 4:13-5:6. First is the apparent disagreement between the literature of James, a nonletter, and its membership within a New Testament col­ lection of "letters." While some continue to argue that James is really a literary letter of some sort, it clearly is not a "Pauline" letter in form. In fact, most scholars still are inclined to think of James as a paraenesis and not an epistle in either literary form or function. In this light, then, the greeting of James (1:1), a convention of all literary letters, seems odd. However, a canoni­ cal approach to this anomaly might well postulate that the New Testament form of James is the work of a later editor who wanted to press his version of James into service within a collection of other "letters." In this way, James "becomes" a letter with a canonical role to perform. The general lack of literary uniformity between Pauline and non-Pauline letters only underscores the value of titles as prop­ erties of canonical function rather than of literary form. That is, titles designate roles that writings come to perform within the biblical canon (rather than those roles their authors intended for their first readers). While James is clearly not a Pauline letter in genre, then, it does share a common function within the New Testament: James is expected to nurture the faith of the Bible's readers in a manner similar to the Pauline letters. Of course, the literary differences between the Pauline and non-Pauline mem­ bers of the community of biblical letters envisage other kinds of differences as well. Thus, their common canonical designation, "letter," invites the interpreter to find coherence among diverse biblical voices that nevertheless aspire to a common end. This "common end" toward which the canonical letter moves the interpreter is comparable to the primary objective of the literary letter: that is, the role of biblical letters is to provide pastoral solutions for everyday problems, thereby increasing the spiritual well-being of their current readership. The canonical 32

33

238

James 4:1 -5:6

intention of New Testament letters seems to disagree with the impulse of modern scholarship, which seeks to describe the cir­ cumstances and environs of a letter's composition within its original life setting. Canonical criticism rather elevates the im­ portance of a letter's subsequent canonical setting, where the promise of all canonical literature is that the spiritual crisis that occasioned a particular writing in the first place is roughly com­ parable to the spiritual crisis that faces its future readership. It is this sensibility that orients the contemporary reader to James 4:13-5:6 as a normative response to a spiritual crisis that once threatened the faith of first-century Palestinian believers but, in a comparable way, now threatens our own. Second, James is placed within a second collection of New Testament letters. While the multiplicity of Gospels has long been a topic of scholarly investigation and comment, few have considered the relationship between the New Testament's two corpora of letters a matter of hermeneutical value. What possi­ ble relationship does the non-Pauline collection have with the Pauline? How might this consideration aid the interpreter in discerning what special role James has within the New Tes­ tament? Historically, especially within Protestantism, primary attention has been directed toward the compositions within the Pauline collection, not only to investigate the meaning of indi­ vidual letters but the relationship between them. Justification for this keen interest in Paul's witness to the gospel is pro­ vided by the New Testament's ordering of the letters, since the Pauline corpus comes first. Yet, this very Pauline priority has also led to a Pauline reductionism in the study of the second, non-Pauline collection of letters. For example, James is typically viewed as envisaging either a Pauline faith, expressed in other words, or an anti-Pauline faith. In either case, the more com­ plementary character of intercanonical relationships is seriously distorted; that is, James engages Paul in a different although complementary voice. In my view, the canonical role of the second collection of letters, in which James holds membership, is to provide an enhanced context for a reading of the Pauline letters. These writ­ ings, which bear witness to the faith of the "pillars" of the Jewish mission (Gal. 2:7-9), provide an authorized apparatus of vari­ ous checks and balances that prevent distortion of and finally "thicken" the church's understanding of Paul and indeed of the full gospel. In this sense, the interpreter is prepared to listen 34

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

239

to James 4:13-5:6 for a different voice than one hears in reading from the Pauline corpus; however, it is neither the voice of a ven­ triloquist nor the voice of an adversary but that of a colleague whose new perspective adds to what has already been read and owned as Christian. The Canonical Content of James 4:13-5:6 A biblical text, once placed within its distinctive canonical con­ text, acquires a potential for enhanced meaning that should help to guide the interpreter's exegetical task. The placement of James within the "letter" canon of the New Testament shapes a particu­ lar orientation toward its exegesis. Not only does the interpreter of James expect to hear a distinctive voice which adds to the New Testament's witness to God and to God's Christ, but also a voice that provides a balance to and even a check of a more Pauline understanding of Christian faith. In this excursus, I am inter­ ested in how James 4:13-5:6 understands God's relations with the pious poor, which is its special subject matter. I already antic­ ipate that my comments will be more meaningful when reflected upon within a hermeneutical context that considers the Pauline witness along with the witness of a contemporary readership (see "James 4:13-5:6 in Canonical Conversations," below). The canonical approach will elevate the theological impor­ tance of a biblical writing's own hermeneutics, especially the repetition of sacred tradition when contemporized for a new set­ ting (midrash). The exegetical task is alert to the intertextuality of midrash, when writers interpret biblical texts, and the echoes of this earlier tradition provide some of the atmospherics for their composition's hermeneutical environment. The canonical context of a composition and therefore the field of its analysis is therefore extended to include other biblical texts, whose "vol­ ume" has been turned up by the writer and so is heard by his current interpreters. The potential of meaning found in James 4:13-5:6 is only enriched by its own biblical subtexts. These allusions to other biblical texts are supplied to the reader as ele­ ments of a thickened hermeneutical environment within which the meaning of his writing is better discerned. Within the Book of James, 4:13-5:6 concludes an extended commentary on the source of the community's anger (4:1), which is an inward passion for lacking material pleasures (4:2-3). The trial that imperils the community's participation in God's

240

James 4:1-5:6

coming triumph stems from an inability to be content with one's "humble conditions," coveting rather the material goods of others (4:4-5). This passion for things tests the community's dependence upon God, who resists the arrogant and exults those of humble means (4:6; cf. 2:5). The wise community humbles itself before God (4:7-10), who alone establishes the criterion for judgment and salvation (4:11-12). On the other hand, the foolish continue to indulge in self-centered passion for material profit without consideration of God's will for human existence (4:13-17); indeed, the one who chooses mammon over God will also choose mammon over God's people, with the eschatological result of divine judgment rather than blessing (5:1-6). James's interpretation of "slow to anger" is itself a midrash on Prov. 3:34 (LXX), cited in James 4:6. Prov. 3:34 sets in tension two classes of people, "the humble" and "the arrogant." In this compositional setting, "the humble" of the Proverbs text now refers to a social class — the pious poor of James's audience — who must remain content in life's "humble" circumstances if their anger toward other people is to slow (cf. 4:1-5). At the same time, "the humble" also characterize those pious believers who seek and submit to God's wisdom (cf. 4:7-10). James locates God's positive verdict of the pious poor at the Lord's parousia (cf. 5:7-9) when "grace" is dispensed to the "humble," because they choose not to speak evil (i.e., get angry from envy) of others but rather to obey the law of God (4:11-12). The destiny of "the arrogant" is also settled, as is described in James 4:13-5:6. The "arrogant" are a class constituted by those whose desire for wealth results first in a disregard for God's will (4:13-17) and ultimately in hostile actions against the pi­ ous poor (5:6). The reader of James already knows that God's eschatological judgment against those without mercy (2:12-13) is merciless (5:5). (See commentary for a complete exposition of James 4:1-5:6.) James 4:13-5:6 in Canonical Conversations The intended role of the biblical canon is to adapt its an­ cient teaching to contemporary life; this is also the objective of biblical interpretation. The results of the first two tasks are now gathered as the subject matter of two formative and integral "conversations" about the community's life of faith. The first conversation is "intercanonical" (i.e., conversations be-

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

241

tween different biblical traditions/writers) and the second is "intercatholic" (i.e., conversations between the Bible and differ­ ent faith traditions); the first "norms" and guides the second. While a number of metaphors work well to express the Bible's theological plurality coherently and constructively, my preference for the interpreter's practical task is "conversation." Naturally, there are different kinds of conversations between people. A canonical approach to the New Testament's pluriform subject matter envisages a conversation that is more comple­ mentary than adversarial. In one sense, the "intercanonical" conversation is very much like an intramural debate over the precise meaning of things generally agreed to be true and sub­ stantial. The purpose or outcome of debate is not to resolve firmly fixed disagreements between members of the same com­ munity or panel as though a normative synthesis was possible; rather more often, it is the sort of debate that clarifies the con­ tested features of their common ground. Likewise, the biblical canon stabilizes and bears continuing witness to the historic dis­ agreements between the traditions of the church's first apostles, which were often creative and instructive (cf. Acts 15:1-21; Gal. 2:1-15). Not only do these controversies acquire a permanent value within scripture, but scripture in turn commends these same controversies to its current readers who are invited to en­ gage in a similar act of what K. Popper calls "mutual criticism" in order to provide more balance to parochial interests or supply instruction to clarify the theological confession of a particular faith tradition. In fact, the point and counterpoint of this sort of conversation sometimes work better than those that seek agreement, in that they more readily expose the potential weakness of any point made to the exclusion of its counterpoint. In this sense, I pre­ sume that a more objective and functional meaning emerges that is neither the conception of any one biblical writer — a "canon within the Canon" — nor the presumption of any one expositor —a "canon outside of the Canon." Rather the canon­ ical interpreter seeks to relate the different ideas of particular biblical writers and canonical units together in counterpunctal yet complementary ways, to expose the self-correcting (or "prophetic") and mutually informing (or "priestly") whole of New Testament theology. In this way, the diversity of bibli­ cal theologies within the New Testament fashions a canon of "mutual criticism," resulting in a more objective interpreta35

242

James 4:1-5:6

tion of scriptural teaching. A New Testament theology thus envisaged underscores what is at stake in relating together the individual parts, whose total significance is now extended be­ yond their compiled meaning: the New Testament's diverse the­ ologies, reconsidered holistically as complementary witnesses within the whole, actually "thicken" the meaning of each part in turn. The midrashic character of biblical interpretation compels the contemporizing of texts, so that "new" meanings are not the result of textual synthesis but are derived from contex­ tual significance. Thus, by reconstituting these intercanonical disagreements into a hermeneutical apparatus of checks and balances, the interpreter may actually imagine a comparable dialogue that aids the church's awareness of how each part of the New Testament canon is important in delimiting and shaping a truly biblical religion. In fashioning a second con­ versation under the light of the first, therefore, the checks and balances are re-imagined as "intercatholic" conversations that continue to guide the whole church in its various ecumenical conversations. How the intercanonical conversations are arranged and then adapted to a particular faith tradition is largely intuitive and de­ pends a great deal upon the interpreter's talent and location. It goes without saying that my particular adaptation of James 4:13-5:6 depends on who and where I am when coming to this text and its current socio-ecclesial context. So I must try to listen to other interpreters, believing that true objectivity emerges out of a community of subjectivities. Thus informed, a close reading of biblical texts and ecclesial contexts can be more easily linked together, particular communions with particular New Testament theologies. Moreover, the pluralism of biblical theologies supplies an apparatus of checks and balances that delimits the complementary conversations in a way that main­ tains and legitimizes traditional distinctives, on the one hand, with the prospect of correcting a tendency toward triumphal sectarianism on the other. fames 4:13-5:6 and Paul In order for James 4:13-5:6 to function canonically, there­ fore, the interpreter must reflect upon its meaning within the contexts of the biblical canon ("intercanonicity") and its con-

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

243

temporary readership ("intercatholicity"). Within the biblical canon, James's most appropriate conversation partner is Paul, an observation confirmed by the history of interpretation. During the modern period, however, interpreters have tended to view James as Paul's adversary, following Luther's verdict, resulting in the decanonizing of James in favor of a Pauline canon or in the muting of its distinctive theological voice by emphasizing its "practical" value. Especially the more conservative tradents of the magisterial reformation have sought to retain James in their "inspired scripture" by reworking it to sound a Pauline note. At best, once scholars recognize the profound and pervasive dif­ ferences between Paul and James, they seek to explain these differences by their differing Sitze im Leben. In this way, James re­ tains its place within the biblical canon but only as a somewhat marginal member. My contention is that the biblical canon itself envisages a more constructive conversation, where James en­ gages Paul in "mutual criticism," forming a whole greater than the sum of its parts. To facilitate this sort of intercanonical conversation between James and Paul, let me begin with a description of a Pauline the­ ology of the poor for the purpose of entering into conversation with James 4:13-5:6. Unlike James, Paul conceives of the poor and powerless in theological and religious rather than in social and economic terms: the Pauline poor are the spiritually impov­ erished of the world. The issues at stake for him are covenantal and have more to do with a community's relationship with God than with the society (even though the two are fully integral in an eschatological sense for Paul). Moreover, the crisis of the gentile mission (i.e., how Paul understands divine election and gentile conversion) provokes a missionary rather than a socio­ political response from the faith community. Thus, Paul defines the marginal of the world primarily in terms of their spiritual status, whether or not they are "in Christ," rather than in terms of their status within the social order, which is theologically neutral for him (cf. Gal. 3:28). Paul's primary concern is that of a missionary, not a social reformer: God calls the lost, whether rich or poor, out of the world for salvation (Rom. 9:30-10:13; cf. Eph. 2:11-13). In the light of this missiological calculus, which is introduced and illumined by the Paulusbild of Acts, the Pauline preferen­ tial option for the poor can now be more fully articulated. Many of Paul's references to the poor or to their social oppression are 36

James 4:1 -5:6

244

autobiographical and illustrate his own sacrifice of middle-class life to advance his gospel among the Gentiles. Such illustrations (e.g., of his imprisonment or persecution) are rhetorically mo­ tivated and seek to legitimize both his vocation and message as divinely approved. While they may well provide evidence of the social oppression of early Christian witness, images of poverty in Pauline writings are intended to illustrate his commitment to his apostolic calling and invite congregational support for his missionary work. His concern that the Macedonian congregations care for impoverished Jerusalem congregations (2 Corinthians 8-9; cf. Rom. 15:22-33; Gal. 2:10) is an aspect of their witness to an im­ poverished Christ (2 Cor. 8:9), an exhortation made more vivid by Paul's own destitute circumstances. In this context, however, ptocheud is used christologically, as an image of Paul's theologi­ cal interest in Christ's obedience to God on the Cross, and not to describe a feature of the historical Jesus' economic plight. The crucified Jesus' solidarity with the spiritually impoverished is understood against Paul's Adam Christology (cf. Phil. 2:5-11): Jesus' self-sacrificial obedience to God, issuing in reconciliation with God and one another, motivates self-sacrificial generosity toward needy others. Philemon plays a principal if not a countervailing role in a Pauline conception of the poor. Philemon's relationship with his slave, Onesimus, and Paul's mediation in their reconciliation represents an extremely important biblical model of the radical rearranging of the social structures within the faith community. In writing this letter as spiritual patron of both Onesimus and Philemon, Paul asks for Onesimus's manumission for the sake of Christian koinonia, in which the powerful and the powerless are both empowered by Christian compassion. In Philemon, Paul resists the kind of neoplatonistic spiritualizing that reduces the social equality between former master and slave to an exclu­ sively spiritual level. To suppose that master and former slave resume their prior social arrangement, as if their spiritual rear­ rangement as covenant partners has no reciprocal social effect, makes nonsense of Paul's words. In fact, Paul simply does not define justification in forensic, individualistic, and ahistorical terms. For him, spiritual trans­ formation yields the robust transformation of people and their relations with each other. Yet, personal and social transforma­ tion always result from a spiritual conversion, which is the 37

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

245

primary concern of Paul's missionary theology. Accordingly, God gives grace to those who respond favorably to the "word of faith that we proclaim; namely that if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom. 10:8b-9). Given this definition of social transformation, it should come as no surprise that nowhere does Paul renounce wealth or define God's election in terms of the socioeconomically marginal (cf. Col. 3:11-12; 1 Cor. 1:18-31). Nor is there any primary commit­ ment to or identification with the poor as those specially favored by God (cf. James 2:5). As a practical matter of missionary work, believers must take the gospel into the mainstream of the social order and the market squares of the urban centers, where the lost are found. And the lost comprise all classes, rich and poor, male and female, Jews and non-Jew, master and slave, who are all equal in their need for God's salvation which is offered in the proclamation of the gospel to all and received by the faith of any. The tendency of Paul's theology of the poor is to spir­ itualize class conflict. The social results are found in a church that is more and more middle class in ethos, and increasingly paternalistic with the Christian rich taking care of the Christian poor out of a sense of duty (cf. the deutero-Pauline writings of the New Testament). The subject matter for a conversation between canonical Paul and James concerning God's relations with the poor is now established. For Paul, the conflict among people and between people and God is spiritual, the result of suppressing the truth now fully disclosed in the messianic death of Jesus. This con­ flict is resolved by the preaching of the "word of faith," which calls people, regardless of class, out of the world and into the Risen Christ where God's enriching grace is found. According to James 4:13-5:6, the conflict among people and between people and God is economic, the result of seeking after material profit rather than God's will. This conflict is resolved by the "word of truth" (1:18), exemplified by the love of Jesus (2:1-8), which advises that the pious poor slow down their passion for plea­ sure both to prevent hostility toward others and to ensure that God's grace is given to them. For Paul, spiritual reconciliation issues in the end of social strife between believers; whereas for James, class conflict is the constant trial of the pious poor, whose relationship with God is tested by an inward desire for wealth.

246

James 4:1 -5:6

James 4:13-5:6 and the North American Church If James's brand of piety is taken seriously and at face value (without either Paulinizing or platonizing it), a substantial por­ tion of the North American church would become quite un­ comfortable with the ease by which it has accommodated the upward economic mobility of liberal democracy while trying to follow after its downwardly mobile Lord. The theology of the poor in James afflicts the comfortable at the very least by sound­ ing a prophetic note for those interested in becoming rich and famous. This is a book deeply suspicious about the wealthy. Not only are the goals of the upwardly mobile contrary to God's will, so that a desire for wealth replaces a desire for God (4:13-17); but the experience of the poor suspects the abusive power of the rich: they have become rich at our expense (5:1-6). On the other hand, those same texts in James that afflict the comfort­ able also lend comfort to the afflicted poor. In particular, 5:1-6 issues hope in an imminent day of vindication, when divine jus­ tice will finally be executed against the rich who oppress and in favor of the poor. If the middle-class church is to recover a bal­ anced biblical theology of the poor, it will do so by renewing a prophetic interest in the ethics of James. If the oppressed church is to liberate itself from self-pity for God's purposes, it will do so by renewing a pastoral interest in the eschatology of James. It must be admitted that in bringing balance to a Pauline ten­ dency toward a disregard for the socioeconomics of the poor and powerless, the "church of James" has often overreacted by re­ placing personal forms of faith with public forms of asceticism that accord with codes of holy living as the revised "law of lib­ erty." Such commitments to a social praxis sometimes demote God's grace and Christ's cross, which leads to self-righteous le­ galism and theological impoverishment. A religion emptied of its story and defined by society's needs is left open to (and un­ protected from) those sets of ideas that pervert the story itself. This would mean, of course, the end of faith. It is a liability of any religion that is ultimately ethical rather than mythical; it is this tendency that is corrected by the theocentrism of Pauline writings. Indeed, the orthopraxy of James, centered by the re­ nunciation of wealth and solidarity with the poor, must flow from a vital commitment to a gracious God who redeems a sin­ ful world through the redeeming work of God's Christ. Good deeds are crucial; but they must embody good news. Good news

The Wisdom of "Slow to Anger"

247

is central; but receiving it by faith must be extended to and en­ livened by a world desperate for social and spiritual salvation. The self-correcting conversation between Paul and James, then, envisions a balanced, biblical ethic that is rooted in equal and integral parts of divine grace and human responsibility.

Summary of James 4:1-5:6: God Not Mammon James 4:1-5:6 interprets the meaning of the proverbial exhor­ tation for believers to be "slow to anger." According to James, the source of the community's anger (4:1) is an inward passion for lacking material pleasures (4:2-3). The trial that imperils the community's participation in God's coming triumph stems from an inability to be content with one's humble conditions, cov­ eting rather the material goods of others (4:4-5). This passion for things tests the community's dependence upon God, who resists the arrogant and exalts those of humble means (4:6; cf. 2:5). The wise community humbles itself before God (4:7-10), who alone establishes the criterion for judgment and salvation (4:11-12). On the other hand, the foolish continue to indulge in self-centered passion for material profit without considera­ tion of God's will for human existence (4:13-17); indeed, the one who chooses mammon over God will also choose mammon over God's people, with the eschatological result of their divine execution rather than blessing (5:1-6).

Chapter

Seven

James 5:7-12: The First Concluding Statement

James 5:7-20 concludes this composition. The rhetorical role of conclusions is retrospective. Concluding thoughts and exhorta­ tions review, even summarize the material previously read. In this sense, the conclusion to James plays a role similar to bene­ dictions in the letters of Paul. The reader should expect, then, the recycling of familiar themes in a conclusion. Yet, in this new compositional setting, the repetition of pivotal themes also forms the essential motivation for acting upon advice previ­ ously given. In this case, the role of a conclusion is practical: to provide a compelling rationale for why the entire composition offers its readers effective guidelines for faith and life. Additional illustrations and exhortations are provided to make more clear the way of wisdom. Moreover, the themes and structure of the conclusion are vaguely parallel to the composition's introduction (see 1:2-21), forming bookends that provide a frame of reference for the wisdom essays found in between. Like the introduction, the con­ clusion consists of two statements, each constructed as a triad of integral ideas. First, each concluding statement begins with an exhortation to endure the difficult circumstances of life: be patient (5:7-8) and be prayerful (5:13-16a). Second, typical of James's rhetorical strategy, well-known exemplars of Jewish piety are then highlighted to illustrate the sort of endurance that not only passes spiritual testing but secures God's future blessing as well. In this case, James appeals to biblical traditions about Job (5:8-11) and Elijah (5:16b-18) to illustrate the enduring quali­ ties of patience and prayer in addressing the trials of human life. Finally, James concludes each statement by confirming the cen­ tral importance of the way of wisdom, which is able to guide 248

The First Concluding Statement

249

wayward souls back into fellowship with God (cf. 5:19-20). This parting accent is apropos in a wisdom writing, where a decisive "yes" to the "word of truth" and a "no" to falsehood (cf. 5:12) resist the very duplicity that leads to deception and undermines the spiritual formation of the immature believer. Responding to the opening statements of James (1:2-21), these concluding exhortations return the reader to the grand theme of spiritual testing, more aware now of the nature of the test and of the wisdom needed to pass it. Therefore, the same moral vision that introduces James now stands behind these concluding statements. In compositional setting, however, the readership has the composition fully in mind and therefore can better hear the exhortation of James to endure hard times, and better understand the spiritual test that both requires the community's patience to pass and tests God's patience when failed. James returns to the patience topos, which the readers already know performs in specific ways in wise response to specific tri­ als and has its "full effect" in the perfection of the new creation (1:4). According to James, therefore, patience is "quick to hear" within the world shaped by Torah where mercy is demanded in situations of oppression; "slow to speak" slanderous and destruc­ tive words about others; and "slow to anger" when frustrated by a passion for pleasure. Because of the previous essays on wisdom, the readers better understand in what circumstances the faith community should be patient and prayerful like Job and Elijah, and why the way of wisdom is entered into without equivocation in order to pass the spiritual test. But here, too, the stakes are raised by accenting the immi­ nent coming of the Lord (5:7-9). What has been implicit to this point in James is now made dramatically evident and con­ crete: the way of wisdom must be followed because the coming of the Lord is "at hand" and the Judge is "standing at the doors." The author's confidence in the coming triumph of the Lord provides the readership with its most compelling reason to be "quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger"; indeed, to refuse this advice is to miss out on anticipated blessing and face God's judgment instead. The imminency of the Lord's parousia only makes more urgent and necessary the community's wise response to its spiritual testing. Indeed, the hope that God will judge the foolish who practice what is "earthly, natural, and de­ monic" (3:15) and reward the wise who practice righteousness

250

James 5:7-12

during hard times is the central motivation of this book's moral vision. The importance of eschatology for ethics is well established: how we view the future determines in part what we do in the present. For example, if we suppose, as Francis Fukuyama does in his The End of History and the Last Man, that human civilization has realized its consummation in the triumph of liberal democ­ racy (i.e., "the end of history"), then social culture will no longer have reason to progress and will as a result actually regress into self-destruction (i.e., "the last man"). Or if we suppose that social progress as an accomplishment of human invention and indus­ try is a real impossibility, given the intractable nature of human evil, then we must either endure our despair until death or be pa­ tient and await a heavenly Savior who will usher in a new age of peace and perfection. James stands within the apocalyptic world of earliest Christianity whose hope is clearly the latter. Yet, for James the community that patiently awaits the com­ ing of the Lord, who brings with him from heaven the perfec­ tion of all things on earth, has already embraced the "wisdom from above" (1:5-6, 3:15-18), whose "word" brings forth the future fruit of God's salvation (1:17-21). The deeper logic of James's message, then, is that wisdom, if presently practiced, forms the eschatological community that will triumph with the Lord at his parousia. In this sense, James's interpretation of bib­ lical wisdom comports well with the larger Jewish worid, which had come to recognize that wisdom's goal was to direct Israel's future entrance into the Lord God's promised shalom. Sharply put, then, the moral vision of James views compliance to wis­ dom as the condition of end-time salvation. To act wisely in response to its various trials is to pass the test of faith in God and therefore to receive a favorable verdict from the Judge who now "stands at the doors." 1

2

James 5:7-8: Exhortation to Endure therefore, be patient, brothers and sisters, until the coming of the Lord. Take note that the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient until it receives the early and late rains. You must also be patient. Fortify your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand. 8

The First Concluding Statement

251

The final section of James begins with "Therefore/' signaling the author's conclusion. I take it that the author does not in­ tend to draw a conclusion from 5:1-6 alone but for his entire composition. Further, the author's repeated use of "brothers and sisters" (lit. "brothers") turns attention away from the rich outsiders who oppress the poor to the faithful readers of his letter. The primary purpose of this concluding passage within the composition, then, is to explicate the motive or reason for following wisdom. Why should the readers respond to testing in the manner James understands? The short answer is: the "coming {parousia] of the Lord," for a season of eschatological harvesting is near. The referent of "Lord" is unclear in James. The phrase may be an allusion to the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, where the phrase "coming of the Lord" is used three times of God. This would make sense of the following commentary on Job where the "Lord" refers to Job's God (5:10-11), and of the preceding reference to God, who is "Lord of Sabaoth" (5:5), and comes on a "day of slaughter" to punish the abusive and greedy rich. More­ over, from its opening words, James has focused the reader's attention on the coming triumph of God, when God will either judge a foolish people or save a wise people (2:13, 4:11-12). The coming of the Lord marks the moment when the apocalypse of history gives way to the genesis of a new world of peaceful and holy relations. From this reading, the reader may well assume that "Lord" here anticipated the parousia of God's reign; thus, the readers approach their spiritual testing in confidence that they live under the promise of a coming age where the consis­ tent goodness of God's blessing will be poured out upon God's people. However, the noun "coming" is never used of God in the Old Testament LXX, nor is the phrase "coming of the Lord." Further, the predominant New Testament use of the term parousia refers to the Second Coming of Christ, and almost certainly reflects a "virtually technical Christian usage" that refers to Christ's judgment of the nations. The earlier reference in James to the "glorious Lord Jesus Christ" (2:1) employed the "Lord" title of Jesus — a connection the reader would no doubt make. Certainly, the canonical audience will assume that "Lord" here actually refers to the Lord Messiah's return to earth to consummate God's restoration of a new order of creation—in agreement with Christian eschatology. Thus, the end of sin and suffering is in3

4

5

6

7

8

252

James 5:7-12

evitable since God's triumph in the glorious Christ is certain. For the believer, this distinctively Christian idea of the lordship of the coming Christ provides a motive for staying in the way of wisdom which the main body of James has just outlined. The structure of this opening text is typical of paraenetic lit­ erature, where exhortation is joined to theological conviction as two parts of an integral whole. The interplay between patience and parousia is especially typical of New Testament paraenesis. The exhortation to "be patient [makrothymeo], brothers and sis­ ters, until the coming of the Lord" recalls the exhortation of James's initial thesis statement to the "patience" (hypomone) pro­ duced during the season of spiritual testing (see discussion of 1:3). The choice of makrothymeo instead of hypomone is striking, especially since it begins both exhortations about the "coming of the Lord" that comprise this passage. According to James, "patient" endurance during suffering is both the condition and result of wisdom. In 1:2-4, hypomone is an eschatological id­ iom for the human capacity to endure to the end of the age in order to receive God's promised blessing of "perfected and com­ pleted" existence (see discussion of 1:4). According to this line of thinking, the meaning of the present exhortation encourages the formation of character that enables believers to endure their suf­ fering, to pass their spiritual test in order to insure their reward in the age to come. These opening and concluding exhortations to "be patient" form a hortatory inclusio, then, that interprets trials and the wisdom to endure them as providing the occasion to be patient. According to Johnson, however, the shift to makrothymeo in­ tends to nuance the patience topos. In the LXX, hypomone is used of a more passive endurance, while makrothymeo refers to "putting up" with someone (inferior) or something (difficult). In this sense, James may be exhorting the readers to be more than "stoic" toward their hardships in light of the Lord's imminent re­ turn; they should take their suffering head-on as the momentary stuff of a world order that is passing away. This exhortation of long-suffering is justified, then, by the imminency of the Lord's parousia, which will inaugurate the new order of a complete and perfected humanity (cf. 1:4). The use of agrarian images to cast the importance of pa­ tiently waiting for the Lord's return seems entirely apropos in this eschatological context. Since commercial and agricultural metaphors were the stuff of theological discourse in Second 9

10

The First Concluding Statement

253

Temple Judaism and early Christianity, the interpreter would be surprised not to find in James images of financial justice and agrarian reform similar to those found in Torah's sabbath and jubilary laws. Against this biblical background, then, "the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth" is recognized as a pro­ phetic topos of God's fruitful future. The second image, "the early and late rains," is adapted to Christian hope for a second coming of the Lord. The activity of the farmer is a type of ac­ tivity that engages the wise believer (rather than God), and so envisages both ethics and eschatology: he waits patiently, as the Christian must, for the harvesting of the precious fruit of God's salvation. The reader also recognizes that the harvest topos glosses other phrases in James; therefore, the fuller meaning of its use in this passage is discerned only in reflexive relation to those other uses. Especially "fruit" (karpos) is an important catchword in James (cf. 1:18, 3:18), where it stands for the redemptive (and there­ fore precious) yield of wisdom's application in the believer's life. Wisdom's eschatological "fruit" is a new creation of perfected humanity (1:18), where peace and righteousness are harvested for those wise and understanding (3:18). The crop the expectant "farmer" waits for, then, is a type of existence that the hopeful believer longs for. By contrast, the rich farmer who "lives off the earth [epi tes ges] in luxury" (5:5) by exploiting the poor now gives way to the patient farmer, who represents the hope of the pious poor for the coming "fruit of the earth [tes ges]." The two farmers also have contrasting "hearts." The rich farmer's "heart" is "fattened for slaughter" by his malicious greed (5:5), while that of the patient farmer is "fortified" (sterizo) by his patience — a word that creates the image of a fortress preventing evil forces from entering to destroy and slaughter a city's inhabitants. These two farmers are polar opposites. But the reference to kardia recalls more than the heart of the rich farmer. It recalls the substantial use of this term in each sec­ tion of the author's wisdom commentary (see 1:26, 3:14, 4:8), in which "heart" is the vital location of spiritual struggle where one is either deceived by bad theology (1:26, 3:14) or purified by God's grace (4:8). For James, the testing of faith is largely in­ ternal and spiritual. Passing the test is a triumph of the "heart." Thus, the exhortation to "fortify your hearts" by patience is to win the spiritual battle over those various temptations to sin and then to die. 11

12

254

James 5:7-12

The familiar experience of the farmer waiting for a "sec­ ond rain/' required for harvesting a good crop, rings true to the eschatological perspective of this book. Although the inter­ preter could press the importance of this typology too far, I am tempted to think that the unpredictability of rains is a topos of a patient community who rightly hopes for the Lord's parousia. An important element of Christian hope and the patience it pro­ motes is that sense of urgency which springs from an advent of blessing and judgment that can be neither calculated nor caused by human effort. With the unpredictability of rain (or weather in general) in mind, the exhortation to be patient is repeated in 5:8, once again paired with the assertion that the Lord is coming at any moment: "The coming of the Lord is at hand" (cf. Heb. 10:25; 1 Pet. 4:7; Rom. 13:12). In this regard, the additional appeal to the "heart" seems significant to me. What an imminent parousia adds to the com­ munity's patience is the heart-felt sense of certainty: there is coming, suddenly and at any moment, an absolute end to the various evil sources of the various trials that test life and faith. Perhaps also the concrete sense of an "at any moment" parousia makes more urgent the community's compliance to the wisdom set forth in the composition. Indeed, the wordplay between the similar sounding imperative "fortify" (sterixate) and the very next imperative "complain" (stenazete; 5:9) infers the heart's real options in a context of human suffering. The proximity of the Lord's return prompts the decision to follow the first rather than the second response.

James 5:9-11: The Example of job 9

D o not complain about another, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be judged. Note that the Judge is standing at the doors. Brothers and sisters, take as an example of suffering and patience the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. Note that we bless those who endure: you have heard of Job's endurance and have seen the Lord's response, since he is very compassionate and merciful. 10

1 1

The use of personal exemplars i n James is a significant aspect of the author's rhetorical strategy. Well-known figures of Jewish tradition are employed to illustrate crucial points that are under

The First Concluding Statement

255

construction. Their role in the composition serves a theological end: they embody the author's interpretation of the "way of wis­ dom" that leads pilgrims toward (in this age) into (in the age to come) the kingdom of God. These are more than ethical exem­ plars, then, but are "prophetic" exemplars, since they illustrate what manner of faith fulfills the promise of salvation. To the list of these prophetic exemplars, which now includes Jesus (2:1), Abraham (2:21-24), Rahab (2:25), and perhaps Moses (3:11-12) and Noah (4:5), is added the name of fob. He, too, is a prophet who exemplifies the way of wisdom approved by God. But to which "Job" does James refer? The Job of the Hebrew Bible (MT) is hardly an exemplar of patience nor is he usually thought of as one of "the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord." Most scholars today note the profound similarity between the Job of James and the Job of its contemporary Testament of fob. I rather suspect, however, that a case could be made that the Job of James is based on the LXX, on which the Testament of fob is roughly based. The distinction at this point is critical. Spittler points out that at two important places, the Job LXX dis­ agrees with the Job MT—on which most modern translations are based. These very disagreements in turn become the basis for prominent accents in the extrabiblical traditions of Job found in Testament of fob. First, the speech of Job's wife (Sitis in Testament of fob) is only briefly summarized in the MT by those famous words, "Curse God and die" (Job 2:9). In the LXX, however, Sitis's speech is ex­ panded (2:8-9) and then even more so in Testament of fob 24-25 along the same thematic lines found in the LXX. Interestingly, according to Testament of fob 21-26 Sitis represents enslaved and widowed women, for whom Job is their champion. In response to her complaint, then. Job says, "Let us be patient until the Lord, in pity, shows us mercy" (T fob 26:5; cf. Job 2:10), and then accuses his wife of being led by Satan, who stands in the background and uses her to deceive him. Both the vocabulary and the thought world of this material are parallel to James 5:9-11 (see below). Second, the curious epilogue to Job MT celebrates Job's repen­ tance and notes God's twofold restoration of his earthly wealth as a result. This material is significantly expanded in LXX Job, which in turn is the basis of Testament of fob 51-53, where em­ phasis is placed on Job's patience and heavenly restoration. In fact, Testament of fob has much to say about earthly wealth; how13

14

15

256

James 5:7-12

ever, its spiritualizing tendency creates a dualistic orientation by which wealth and its desirability are despised. Virtue is cast in more stoic terms and resists the desire for material things — a point that makes testamental Job a friend of the poor. While Job is an example of one who suffered greatly, it really had little effect on the testamental Job who acted as though he did not suffer — like the Johannine Jesus. In the Job tradition's testamental midrash. Job's death (actu­ ally the rapture of his soul) is lamented by "all the widows and orphans." Their acknowledgment of his renown in the book's fi­ nal phrase (53:8) fulfills the angel's promise to him early on that if he lives a life of patience, to which he is born (1:5), then he will be rewarded with fame (4:6). In a sense, it is fitting that the chorus of lamenters, who announce the fulfillment of the angel's promise, consists of "widows and orphans in distress." Job is their "patron saint" because he so completely embodies the virtue they need to make it through life: patience. Again in Spittler's words, this Job "is the hero of patience." In providing this brief summary of the testamental handling of the Job tradition, I wish to underscore that this Job tradition more adequately interprets the experience of James's readers. The piety and praxis of Job are united by the mercy he consis­ tently shows to the poor. I suspect that implicit in this use of Job is the author's continuing concern for the poor. Not only does patience require Job's special concern for the poor, but his counterexample supports James's critique of the greedy rich. Further, unlike the Job MT, divine blessing is granted Job be­ cause of his patience and faithfulness to God when suffering loss and physical pain. The terms used by James to describe "the Lord's response" allude to "the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ" whose approval by God resulted from his "compassion­ ate and merciful" treatment of his poor and powerless neighbor (see discussion of 2:1-5). Again, implicit in James's handling of the Job tradition is an eschatology that defends the piety of the poor as heralding the coming age and the sorts of divine judgments that will inaugurate it. In this same light, an intertextual reading of Job LXX (par. Tes­ tament of fob) draws attention to the frequent use of "complain" (stenazo) in characterizing Job's friends, who "complained" against Job and whose complaints threatened Job's relation­ ship with God (esp. Job 19:lff., 21:27ff.). That is, the issue is not simply complaining about or to someone else; rather, it is 16

The First Concluding Statement

257

the result of such complaints that undermines a believer's de­ pendence upon or relationship with God during a time of trial. Patience like Job in the face of trials resists the accusatory com­ plaint, which questions the believer's unqualified dependence upon God. Even as Job's friends were subject to divine judg­ ment rather than blessing, so also in this new compositional setting complaining results in judgment (5:9) rather than bless­ ing (5:11). There may also be a conceptual connection to the complaints against God in Israel's wilderness and their condem­ nation here. In the wilderness tradition, the people's complaint signifies the rejection of God's promise of land (salvation) and a desire to retreat back into the creature comforts and material securities of Egypt, which only incited God's indignation. Such is similar in nature to the testing of James's readers. The counter­ vailing exhortation, "do not complain about another," is joined with the idiom of the Lord's parousia as a time of judgment, "the Judge is standing at the doors." Believers are not to complain in order not to be judged. The imminency of the parousia is pictured as the return of a "Judge," who is "standing at the doors." This image is similar to the Lord's "standing at the doors" found in Rev. 3:20, where it suggests the occasion of repentance from spiritual apathy and of subsequent spiritual restoration. Moreover, the Apocalypse casts this occasion in terms of the Lord's hospitality: the "door" at which Jesus stands and knocks as guest opens to a meal that is shared with the supplicant-host. There seem to be similar overtones found in James's use of the same phrase. The meaning of the Lord as "Judge" (krites) is thickened when read in the wider context of James, in reflexive conversation with the earlier references to "judge/judging" (see discussion of 2:4, 6-7, 12-13; 3:1-2; 4:11-12). The consistent point scored by the repeated use of the judgment motif in James is covenantal: God will bless the wise and curse the foolish. In addition, there ap­ pears to be a crescendo of severity in the tone by which the author warns the foolish of divine judgment, ending with the threat of their annihilation in 4:12. This crescendo leads the reader into this clear sounding of the Lord's imminent parou­ sia as the specific occasion for divine execution. Now a certain event is equated with a certain retribution, which makes the eschatological motive more urgent and compelling. Certainly, these earlier references to God as judge (cf. 2:1213 and 4:11-12) are of decisive importance for understanding

258

James 5:7-12

the implied meaning of this concluding reference to judgment. James has already made clear the peril facing those who abuse one another, whether by malicious speech or by favoring the rich. Indeed, at day's end, to "complain about another" reflects the same self-centered worldview as does withholding mercy from the poor (2:1-7), of slandering another teacher (3:9-16), or the exploitation of others in securing wealth for oneself (5:16). These are all foolish acts since they all fail to act in light of God's coming triumph. Against this peril of great price, then, the exhortation to endure bids the community to act patiently toward others rather to complain about them. Finally, a comment on the idea of "endurance" (which is paired in this passage with its synonym, "patience" [makrothumia], see above). James combines the verbal idea "endure" (hypomeno) with its nominative form hypomone. Their use here recalls their use in 1:3-4/1:12 (see discussion of "patience" in 5:7-8). To endure to the end is to be "blessed" (makarizo) — yet another element of the eschatological matrix introduced in James 1:12 and repeated here to conclude the book. According to 1:12, the patient response to suffering is viewed as an act of loving devotion to God. In this setting, however, the emphasis is upon the Lord's response to the faithful congregation rather than the reverse: the Lord comes with compassion and mercy to those who have passed their spiritual tests. The whole point nicely defines the covenantal reciprocity of salvation's history: the promise of salvation, offered and fulfilled by a "compas­ sionate and merciful" God, is realized in that eschatological community that responds in love toward God. This sort of covenantal reciprocity is critical for James and links the example of Job with this book's thesis: endurance is the effective response to spiritual tests, since it discloses loving devo­ tion to God and results in eschatological blessing, the "crown of [eternal] life" (1:12). The dividend of faithfulness to God in the crucible of life's circumstances, when a "compassionate and mer­ ciful" Lord seems at times utterly absent, is the full and concrete demonstration and vindication of divine love at the parousia. I have translated the Semitism to telos kyriou as "the Lord's re­ sponse" to underscore this reciprocity. The meaning of telos in this case is not to indicate the purpose or "goal" of endurance, but to indicate a normative or "final" claim about divine ac­ tion based upon Job's story: even as God responded to Job's endurance with compassion and mercy, blessing him with eter-

The First Concluding Statement

259

nal life (Testament of fob), God will also respond to the faithful congregation's endurance with compassion and mercy, blessing it with eternal life.

James 5:12: Confirmation of Wisdom 12

Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath; but let your "Yes" be a yes and your "No" be a no, so that you may not fall under judgment. The final verse of this first concluding statement is notoriously difficult to understand in the context of James. Its proverbial meaning is readily apparent, approximating in both form and meaning Jesus' saying found in Matt. 5:34-37. The proverb encourages a verbal "yes" or "no" in clarifying one's mind in a matter, without then suggesting that such personal commit­ ments have eternal importance or even heavenly support. A person's oath envisages striking up a deal with another and making a firm or even an "eternal" commitment to do it. In essence, the saying condemns the usual dickering and oaths of permanence that sometimes accompany business transactions in ancient and modern marketplaces. Perhaps this point recalls the earlier illustration of the merchant (4:13-17), whose fail­ ure to understand the transitory nature of business transactions brought about the potential of spiritual failure with eternal consequences at the Lord's parousia. The difficulty of this text for scholars is determining its "fit" within the present compositional surrounding. Many have re­ marked that this verse seems to have no relationship whatever with the example of Job before it or with the exhortation to pray after it. What makes this contextual ambiguity more maddening to the interpreter is the importance the author seems to attach to it. The initial phrase, "above all," typically introduces state­ ments that climax preceding arguments or claims. Even more remarkable is the final purpose clause (hind) that this action is taken "so that you may not fall under judgment" (krisis). Evi­ dently the proverb found in between carries significant meaning for the readers. But what is it? Johnson contends that this verse marks "a turn in the final section of the composition." This is accomplished 17

260

James 5:7-12

neither by its meaning nor as a literary convention; rather, James concludes by endorsing those positive modes of speech that form a cohesive community during hard times. Perhaps. In some sense the final exhortations of James seek to build up an embattled community; and this aphorism about oaths says something about endurance. James has already ex­ pressed a considerable concern about the use of glib speech to confess devotion to God without a complement of merciful works (see discussion of 2:14-20). Also accented is a concern for consistency between what is said and believed (see 3:11-12). Both meanings are implied here but extended to support and conclude the preceding exhortation to endure. Rather than in­ voking heaven's cooperation by swearing some oath, which only trivializes God's sovereignty, the community is instructed to fol­ low the prophets' (= biblical Job) example, who "spoke in the name of the Lord" (5:10). The prophets are authorities known to the readers; there is no ambiguity, then, in what must be done in preparation for the Lord's parousia. God demands obedience, not oaths. Thus, the "Yes" confirms the truth and initiates what must be done and the "No" confirms the falsehood and initiates what must be resisted in preparing for the coming triumph of God's reign. The final purpose clause underscores the ultimate consequences of present performance. The repeated use of the catchword "judgment" here recalls that "the Judge is standing at the doors" (5:9). Blessing or cursing is based upon whether or not the believer measures up to the rule of faith. It may well be that this verse is added, with its warning, for rhetorical reasons. Its severe tonality leaves the impression that endurance is not for the "double-minded" who cannot decide whether to follow the way of wisdom or their own ambitions (see 1:6-8). Those who pass the present testing of faith are those with toughness of heart and mind, who know with surety what is wise (="Yes!") and foolish (="No!") and act accordingly in preparation for the Lord's imminent parousia. 18

19

Chapter

Eight

James 5:13-20: The Second Concluding Statement

The triadic structure of this passage is consistent with the ar­ chitecture of the first concluding statement (and of the whole composition). James begins with three paratactic couplets, each joining two clauses in an asyndeton, which together call the con­ gregation to prayer. The sequence of topics and their relationship to each other generally follows that of the first concluding statement (5:7-12). The rhetorical effect is to add nuance and definition to each topic in turn: Job-like patience (5:9-11) is fortified by Elijah-like prayer (5:17-18), with the more certain result being the salvation of the community's "soul." If pa­ tience makes more likely the Lord's compassionate and merciful judgment (5:11), then prayer prepares for repentance (5:19-20). In this passage, the spotlight falls upon effective (or "right­ eous") petition, which is invoked in every verse from 5:13 through 5:18. Even if verbalizing oaths is inappropriate behav­ ior for a Christian community (so 5:12), certainly prayer is its appropriate response to God, especially in those social settings where circumstances of life have made faith in God hard. In this case, the occasion of human suffering is sickness — a topic that scripture treats with somewhat closer attention than the theme of suffering that results from social oppression or eco­ nomic exploitation. The connection of physical sickness/healing with forgiveness is deeply rooted in Christian tradition. Jesus' healing ministry viewed spiritual and physical sickness/healing as an integral whole. Indeed, there is a growing body of medi­ cal evidence that suggests a commonsense wisdom that stress — what goes on inside a person—results in physical illness. James's interpretation of suffering locates the real crisis within the sick 261

James 5:13-20

262

person, where physical sickness has its source as well as the potential to undermine the spiritual fitness of the soul. Of course, the exhortation to pray and the wish for good health combine in a familiar convention of ancient literature. Paul often concluded his letters with similar admonitions (e.g., 1 Thess. 5:17, 25; Phil. 4:6; Col. 4:2; cf. 1 John 5:16). However, the theme of prayer has special significance in this book, which earlier encourages prayer for divine wisdom. According to James 1:5 and 4:2, prayer is the primary means to receive from God what is truly lacking from human existence: wisdom. In both these earlier references to prayer, James envisages an internal and essentially spiritual struggle that is currently being waged for control of the believer's soul. On the negative side, the duplicitous person doubts God (1:6-8) and envies the possessions of others (4:3-5). The subject matter of one's petition is itself a test of faith, whether the believer is truly devoted to God's interests or to one's self-centered preoccupations. These prior meanings of prayer are retained and are implicit in this second concluding statement. That is, the exhortation to pray when suffering sickness involves seeking first of all divine wisdom, which interprets the source and solution of sickness. Recall also from the opening thesis statement that the prayer for wisdom when facing spiritual testing carries eschatological freight (see discussion of 1:2-11). At stake, then, is not merely a theological understanding of suffering or the importance of prayer as an effective "coping strategy" when sick; rather prayer is called for in order to fortify a faithful community for its journey into the coming reign of God. In this case, prayer taps those internal spiritual resources that do battle against the evil within (whatever the form or agency), which is the real source of sickness and suffering. According to James, spiritual healing is requisite for physical healing, even as physical healing heralds the coming triumph of God's reign.

James 5:13-16a: Exhortation to Endure 13

Are any among you suffering? Then pray! Are any cheerful? Then sing songs of praise! Are any among you sick? Then summon the elders of the congregation and have them pray over the sick, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will heal the sick and the Lord will 14

15

The Second Concluding Statement

263

raise them up. If anyone has committed sins, they will be for­ given; therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another so that you may be healed. 16a

The opening triad of questions asks whether there are any who suffer, or who are cheerful or sick. This triad is followed by a complement of three exhortations to pray, sing praises, and bid the worshiping community's elders to pray. Indeed, J. C. Thomas argues persuasively that this passage regards some sick­ ness to be one assured result of sin. Confession of such sin is required, then, for physical healing; and this confession of sin, he contends, must be a continuing element of authentic Christian worship according to scripture. Accordingly, the unitive (= triadic) structure of this passage indicates that the individual's prayer joins with the worshiping community's praise and its elders' prayers in a response of sol­ idarity to the evils of the present age. The elders are called on by the sick person to perform a triad of acts — pray, anoint with oil, and in turn call upon the Lord for healing, which intends a triad of results—heal the sick, raise the sick up, and forgive sins. Here again the union of the community's elders and the com­ ing Lord constructs another layer of solidarity, this one between earth and heaven. The impression of this triadic formulation is that human suffering is overwhelmed by forces more powerful than that which causes it: sick individuals belong to a healing community, which belongs in turn to the Risen Lord by whom the sick will also rise up. This is the basis for the exhortation to endure the present evils of sickness. This passage concludes with a third and final exhortation, which calls the community to confess their sins, and which in turn will produce healthy relations with one another. If the thor­ oughly triadic formulation of this exhortation to pray intends to leave an impression of certainty, since the number 3 symbolizes this as well, then the reader should only suppose that James is pressing for a general truth about enduring present trials: prayer is the wise response to suffering. The opening phrase, "among you" (en hymin), asks the con­ gregation to survey itself (cf. 2:4, 3:13, 4:1). According to James, true religion is congregational and practical more than personal and theologically abstract. The conditions of effective prayer are the community's corporate evaluation of their trials followed by the appropriate congregational response, "Then pray!" Neither 1

2

264

James 5:13-20

retaliate nor acquiesce, which are both self-centered responses, but actively take hardship and heartbreak head-on by praying to the Lord for deliverance. Prayer when rooted in a faith that is as "hard as nails" takes the offensive in redressing the evils of human suffering. The rather encouraging middle member of the triad, in which the presence of "good cheer" (euthymed) invites "songs of praise," seems out of place, sandwiched as it is between two couplets that emphasize misfortune: Yet, the joining of cheerful praise with petitions for help and healing creates a tension that reflects the community's eschatology: the everyday experiences of bad news mingled with good news indicate the passing away of the old order and the coming of the new. Perhaps the role of this invocation here, then, is similar to the opening exhor­ tation of James, where trials and tribulations actually occasion the "joyful" recognition of their imminent passing away (see discussion of 1:2). This seems more likely if euthymed charac­ terizes the inward terrain of human life. And now in the light of the first concluding statement, "good cheer" can be better viewed as the logical response to suffering since its evil source will be soon be defeated at the Lord's parousia. The congregation sings "songs of praise" in the light of the conclusion's central claim: the Lord Judge stands at heaven's doors, waiting to come in triumph over that which makes people sick and suffer and to vindicate the faith of those who prayerfully anticipate life in a new and perfect creation. The first and last members of the triad ask whether believ­ ers are "suffering" (kakopathed) or are "sick" (asthened). The repetition of questions inquiring after hardship would seem to indicate the author's primary concern. While both verbs ask af­ ter any bad news, James certainly has physical sickness in mind and so he concludes his opening triad here. James also continues to elicit a corporate response to individual trials, moving from praise to "summon the elders of the congregation." That elders are summoned suggests that the authorial audience was typically Jewish in governance: elders preside over local congregations, with the recognized responsibility to mediate both justice (cf. James 2:2-4) and compassion on the Lord's behalf. Their me­ diation of compassion would necessarily include spiritual and physical cures for the holistic healing of the community's mem­ bers. Because they were called on to tap the eschatological powers that God had already made available to the community.

The Second Concluding Statement

265

the elder was not "elder" in age but in spiritual competency. Nor does the elder possess the Spirit as an agent of power; rather, the elder of this congregation possesses "wisdom and understanding" (see 3:13). The elders are called by the sick as a group, whose collective authority was in their spiritual "of­ fice" rather than in their personal charisma. Unlike those evil leaders who maintained a favoritism of the rich (2:2-4) or those ambitious teachers whose malicious tongues were uncontrol­ lable (3:1-12), the community's "wise and understanding" elders know well that the proper address during spiritual testing is not self-centered (cf. 3:14-16) but "in the name of the Lord." James tells the readers that elders are summoned to "pray over the sick." Within the wider compositional context, prayer seeks wisdom and results in wisdom (cf. 1:5-8), which saves people (cf. 1:21) from death (cf. 1:14-15). The congregation, recogniz­ ing that their elders are in possession of wisdom, seek prayers of wisdom precisely because wisdom empowers all of life, trans­ forming death (including the suffering leading to it) into life. The posture of the elders "over" (epi) the sick suggests they laid hands upon the sick, "anointing them with oil." The precise wording of this text indicates the elders led the congregation in a liturgy of healing, in which the "laying on of hands" and the ministration of "oil" function as religious symbols of consecra­ tion: the sick person is set apart for healing as a witness to the Lord's special care "over" the entire congregation. The importance of olive oil (elaion) for healing remains a con­ tested feature of this text. Three options seem possible: (1) Oil is purely medicinal, whether as a treatment or as a placebo (cf. Luke 10:34); (2) oil is religious or cultic (cf. Lev. 2:1); or (3) oil is metaphorical of divine blessing (cf. Exod. 40:15). Its messianic meaning is suggested by Mark 6:13, where olive oil mediated Jesus' messianic powers. I suspect the reference to oil in James may very well echo Jesus tradition: the healing powers of the "glorious Lord Jesus Christ" are present in the congregation of his followers. In a passage so concentrated by eschatological im­ port, the service of healing also anticipates the coming reign of God that ends all forms of sickness. Thus, the sick are set apart to herald the new order, when human life is made complete and perfect and suffering will be no more (cf. Rev. 21:4). The promise of effective results to the elders' prayers for heal­ ing is cast in a resurrection idiom. In Acts, the idiom "in the name of the Lord" conveys the sense that Jesus' healing ministry 3

4

5

6

266

James 5:13-20

continues through his apostolic successors even in his absence (cf. Acts 3:6) as a sign of his resurrection (cf. Acts 3:15-16). Throughout Acts this phrase recurs as the power and authoriza­ tion of the community's post-Easter activity. In this sense, the elders pray "in the name of the Lord" not only to invoke God's resurrection power but also to authorize their own ministry of healing as in continuity with the intentions of the Risen Lord. The subsequent use of the "resurrection" verbs "heal" (soso) and "raise up" (egeiro) underscores healing as an experience of God's resurrection power, given now to the community in anticipation of the restoration of the entire created order at the Lord's parousia. The exhortation to endure sickness is properly motivated by the power over death disclosed in the empty tomb, which the elders are authorized to tap through their petitions for healing. In this context, however, the reader is reminded that prayer is offered "in the name of the Lord" in hope that sickness and suffering will end soon at the "coming of the Lord" (so 5:7-9). In the symbolic world of James, as with the Lord Jesus, phys­ ical and spiritual sickness are joined; physical healing indicates spiritual healing as well. James moves naturally, then, from an exhortation to seek physical healing through prayer to the re­ lated exhortation to seek spiritual healing through prayers of confession. While agreeing with this point, Martin hears contin­ uing echoes of Job sounded here without noting that Job's story actually argues against the conventional wisdom that makes this very connection. The exegetical problem is to determine if or how the ex­ hortation to pray for healing from sickness is related to the subsequent exhortation to pray for forgiveness from sin, and whether the language of "healing" sin is metaphorical or literally linked to physical sickness. Some find no connection between the two exhortations; they are simply two independent and un­ related sayings paired here to encourage prayer. In this view, the "healing" from sin is not at all related to "healing" from sick­ ness. Still others may suppose that this exhortation continues the practice of Judaism, for which a liturgy of confession and pardon that results in spiritual purity is required for a liturgy of physical healing. According to this view, with which I con­ cur, the presence of sickness within the community indicates sin; petitions for physical healing presume petitions for forgive­ ness since the one is the "real" source of the other. The healing language may well function as part of the "purity" vocabulary 7

8

9

10

The Second Concluding Statement

267

in James which defines the social boundaries of a community in which divine power is at work. Thus, this second exhortation to pray for forgiveness is related to the first exhortation to pray for healing as its condition: spiritual and moral purity are required for the work of God to continue into the coming age. The grammar of the text does not require the interpreter to suppose that the one who seeks physical healing is a sinner who also seeks spiritual healing through forgiveness. The conditional statement, "if anyone has committed sins," may simply occasion another petition that is logically related to the first but not nec­ essarily as its effect. The sick and the sinner are both in need of healing, which God grants in response to prayer. What is more striking is that in the case of the sinner there is no indication that the prayer of the elders brokers forgiveness, which leads Mussner to reject any relationship between prayers for sickness and for forgiveness: the exhortation that sinners are to "confess your sins to one another" begins an entirely new unit. While the deeper logic of James's exhortation to pray includes both pe­ titions, a mistake is made if the interpreter accents the role of the elder in the church's healing ministry to the exclusion of the robust sense of accountability that the entire congregation must assume according to James. Indeed, another sort of tension is created by James in the recognition that God's healing pow­ ers for the covenant community are mediated through a ruling elite but in response to the spiritual devotion of the whole con­ gregation. The impression left, then, is that prayer evokes God's eschatological powers where there is a complement of "wise and understanding" elders and rank-and-file believers who confess their sins and pray for one another. 11

James 5:16b-18: The Example of Elijah 16b

17

T h e strong petition of the righteous one is effective. Elijah was a person like us, who prayed and prayed that it would not rain. And it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months. Again he prayed, and the heaven gave rain and the earth yielded its fruit. 18

James employs a final prophetic exemplar, Elijah, this time to illustrate both the requirements and results of effective prayer. Again, the purpose of prophetic exemplars is not only to provide

268

James 5:13-20

authoritative models of Christian faith and piety but to point to the way that leads into the coming age, similarly to Job, who models the patient endurance of present trials, Elijah models the community's prayerful endurance through present trials. Both these prophets of God exemplify the manner of life and devo­ tion that yields the fruit of divine blessing at the coming of the Lord. The present passage is the fragment of a common midrash on the Elijah story narrated in 1 Kings 17-18, which reflects popular Jewish belief, found in later Jewish writings, that the prophet's prayers on Mount Carmel produced powerful results. However, the more important conviction in the biblical story is that God controls the rain (Amos 4:7; Zech. 10:1; cf. Rev. 11:6) — indeed everything in heaven —since the prophet's word and the Lord's word are intimately related. Elijah's actions and words publish God's intentions rather than trigger God's power. If current midrashim on 1 Kings 17-18 were known to the au­ thor and first readers of James, then this connection of human prayer and divine power provides the larger theological con­ text for this illustration: it is not a person's fervent prayer that produces powerful results, like magic, but rather it is God who responds to "strong" prayer as the devotion of a righteous people whose prayers accord with God's will. Also significant is that such prayers that agree with God's in­ tentions to send rain and end droughts are similar to prayers that agree with God's will to heal people: in both situations God's will is to heal, whether nature or body. Finally, the use of Elijah here comports nicely with the eschatological message of James's concluding statement, since scripture presents Elijah as the es­ chatological prophet whose words and works will announce the coming of God's reign (Mai. 4:5-6; cf. Matt. 11:7-15). Prayer is an eschatological activity in that it heralds the coming of a new age. According to James, Elijah is first of all a prophetic model of the "righteous" believer, whose "strong petition" is "effec­ tive." The spiritual saying, which introduces the example of Elijah in 5:16b, links prayer with the "righteous" (dikaios), re­ calling scripture's characterization of one who turns to God in worship and prayer (esp. found in the Psalter). Yet, "righteous" repeats James's earlier use of "righteous/ness" in a way that deep­ ens the importance of prayer for the reader (see discussion of "righteous/ness" in 5:6; also 1:20, 2:21-25, 3:18). Note that this 12

The Second Concluding Statement

269

statement continues to explore the role and responsibility of the entire congregation in its spiritual formation, and follows logi­ cally the thought of the previous exhortation to "confess your sins to one another and pray for one another." The "strong peti­ tion" does not belong to the "office" of charismatics, but to all believers whose spiritual discipline has made them "righteous." And it goes without saying that a "strong" prayer is neither loud nor long; rather, it is prayer that produces results that bear witness to the coming reign of God. James uses deesis for prayer rather than the more common ver­ bal noun proseuche which is used then in 5:17. There is very little difference in meaning; the shift in the author's vocabulary of prayer is rhetorically important since by different words James encourages a more full-bodied prayer life, made up of different postures and petitions. More important in describing the robust prayer life of the righteous congregation is the meaning of the participle, "effective" (energoumene, which I take in the middle voice), to define the consequence (not attribute) of "effective" prayer. The plain meaning of the participle is clear enough: the prayer of the righteous congregation has the "effect" of heal­ ing the sick and the sinner. Yet, its meaning is deepened upon recognition that this participle echoes the meanings of all the other erg- ("work") words in James, and especially those used in the opening thesis statements. In general, the Jacobean family of "working" words in James draws attention to those activities that endure spiritual testing and yield future blessing. Of the various "work" words used by James, the volume seems loudest in echoing "accomplish" (ergazomai) in 1:20, since it is paired, as here, with "righteousness" (dikaiousune). The use of a "work­ ing" verb + "righteous" in 1:20 has eschatological meaning but with the added force of a warning: the "righteousness of God" requires a wise response to testing (i.e., "quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger") in order to "accomplish" (i.e., fulfill) the promise of future blessing. This same calculus (with its implicit warning) lies behind the saying found here in the concluding words of James. That is, the "righteous" congregation responds prayerfully to the spiritual testing provoked by sickness and sin, and healing results in prolepsis of future blessing. In this wider compositional setting, two additional meanings of "righteous" are hidden in the implied meaning of this saying, adding to the rhetorical significance of this concluding illustra­ tion for the reader. First, and most clearly, "righteousness" is 13

270

James 5:13-20

from God (see discussion of 1:20) and is found in faithful per­ sons as a sign of God's active favor (see discussions of Abraham's righteousness in 2:23 and of the poor fieldhands in 5:6). In this regard, then, the prayers of the righteous mediate or locate di­ vine favor. Second, "righteous/ness" is the eschatological result of wisdom's performance (see 3:18). Earlier, pure speech yields a future "harvest of righteousness," and the oppressive treatment of the "righteous" fieldhands issues in a future "day of slaugh­ ter" for their rich oppressors (see 5:5-6). The implied meaning of the saying in this new setting, which encourages prayer in preparation for the Lord's parousia, follows: the prayers of right­ eous people have "strong" results, which are eschatological in effect. In fact, the "righteous one" has the capacity to interpret present trials in light of future consequences, and employs heav­ enly wisdom to endure the testing of faith. It is in this way that the "righteous one" prays to prepare for the Lord's parousia. But Elijah is also a "person like us" — an extraordinary correc­ tive to the usual adoration of Elijah within messianic Judaism as the eschatological prophet promised by scripture (see above). The humanizing of this great prophet intends to "reinforce the thought of verse 16 that any human being who is righteous can offer an effective prayer." Yet, to follow Elijah's example the community must "pray and pray." The unusual repetition of noun and verb, proseuche proseuxato, reflects Hebrew syntax, which makes the verb emphatic and thus intensifies both the importance and persistence of healing prayer (cf. Luke 18:1-8; see discussion of allusion to this Lukan text in James 2:1-5). Finally, the time of rain here, "three years and six months" (cf. 1 Kings 18:1), joins the earlier rain illustration (see discussion of 5:7-8) to continue the eschatological idiom in the conclusion to this book. Even though the Old Testament story does not specify a precise chronology, the apocalyptic tradition filled this gap with "three years and six months," which came to symbolize a period of divine judgment when the fallen order is purified of evil and death in preparation for a new creation of worship and eternal life (esp. Rev. 11:2, 12:6, 13:5). In this sense, prayers that heal sickness and sin anticipate the new creation in the coming age. The final phrase of this text, "the earth yielded its fruit," when considered intratextually may well underscore this conclusion. The earlier use of "fruit" (karpos) in James 3:17-18 (also the synonym aparche in 1:18; cf. Rev. 14:4) is especially strategic. There karpos is a catchword used to orient the reader to 14

15

The Second Concluding Statement

271

the future outcome of purifying speech. In a similar way, prayer is "purifying speech": even as sickness and sin are certain indi­ cators of a fallen creation, so also their healing marks out the blessings of that salvation into which Elijah bids us come.

James 5:19-20: Confirmation of Wisdom 19

M y brothers and sisters, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and is turned back by another, know that whoever turns back a sinner from the way of error will save that soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. 20

This concluding exhortation performs two roles within James. Its first and more limited role is to round off the second con­ cluding statement. By repeating the "healing" vocabulary of 5:15 ("save" from "sins"), the exhortation acquires an enlarged meaning within its near context: the congregation "turns back" sinners by prayers for spiritual healing in order to save (i.e., "heal") the sinner's "soul" from physical death. Perhaps pre­ sumed here is the earlier exhortation to "confess your sins to one another... so that you may be healed" (5:16a): that is, a congre­ gation that is committed to a ministry of forgiveness is capable of welcoming sinners home with the promise of their full resto­ ration. The motive of the "strong" petition is now made clear: were it not for prayer, the very lives of the sick and suffering (= sinner) would be imperiled. Of course, I assume from 5:1316a that this exhortation in some sense relates the sinner with the sick as well as promising their salvation with their healing; to "wander from the truth" is therefore to become sick and in need of healing. The exhortation's second role is more dramatic and critical to James: to provide the readership with a "commission" that both defines its future ministry and confirms the wisdom of the entire composition to guide its way. The rhetorical effect is not unlike the biblical Gospels, which also conclude with Jesus' commissioning of his successors to their future ministry. The mission of the readers is not evangelistic; rather, it is more pas­ toral, concerned with the believer who has been deceived and has failed the testing of faith. Of course, the peril of spiritual failure is the loss of promised blessing. In this sense, these words form an inclusio with the words of greeting which address a 16

17

272

James 5:13-20

readership of a spiritual "diaspora" (see discussion of James 1:1), some of whom have lost their "way" by spiritual failure and who must repent (see 4:8-9) in order to participate in the coming triumph of the Lord. These final words of James's concluding statement recall im­ portant catchwords from James's second thesis statement (see 1:12-21), whose programmatic meanings clarify their signifi­ cance here. The reference to "the truth," which illumines the way of wisdom, recalls "the word of truth" (see 1:18), which yields an eschatological "fruit" of divine blessing (cf. 5:18). In retrospect, the reader now understands the content of this "truth," which is the way of wisdom charted by James's com­ mentary on "quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger." To "wander" (planad) from the truth is not only the act of the sinner but also of the fool, who is "deceived" (see use of planad in 1:16) about the goodness of God and the effectiveness of God's gift of wisdom for the work of salvation (see 1:17-18). The vocation of the "user-friendly" church, then, is the resto­ ration of the foolish to the way of wisdom; James claims this ministry "saves that soul from death" (sosei psychen autou ek thanatou). Loudly echoed is the earlier promise of an eschato­ logical "great reversal" found in James 1:21 that is conditioned on the obedience to the "word of truth" and fulfilled in the "salvation of your souls" (sosai tas psychas hymon) from eter­ nal "death" (see 1:15). The subtext alluded to in this phrase is the important discipleship logion of Jesus tradition: "Whoever would save his life [ten psychen autou sosai] will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it" (Matt. 16:25). The promise of salvation for those who deny themselves is es­ pecially apropos in concluding a thesis about spiritual testing, when the presumption is that short-term sacrifice in devotion to God results in heavenly blessing (Matt. 6:19-21). The urgency of the author's exhortation is more keenly felt because of its placement within a conclusion defined by the eschatological situation of the Lord's imminent parousia for judgment and for mercy. The "diaspora" of wandering believers who have lost their way through foolish deception and disobedi­ ence will end with the parousia. There will be no sin or suffering in the coming age; neither will there be deception or disobedi­ ence. Then, God's mercy will have triumphed and a new order of perfection and completion will be established in which the worship of the Creator will be enjoined forever.

The Second Concluding Statement

273

Summary of James 5:7-20 My organizing thesis in working with James is that it is a book written for readers whose faith in God is threatened by a daily struggle with hardship. This "testing of faith" is provoked by a variety of external and historical circumstances or "trials." Yet, more importantly, every test occasions a theological crisis, when the believer is more easily deceived or confused about who God is and how God acts. Within a crucible of theological reflection, largely internal and spiritual, a decision is called forth that ulti­ mately measures the believer's "true" devotion to God, which determines whether one is fit to participate in God's coming reign. To remain faithful to God in the present is to receive promised blessings from God in the future (see "Summary of James 1:2-21," above). James now concludes as it opens, with a pair of integral state­ ments. By recalling important catchwords and phrases from the opening statements, the author forms an inclusio with his the­ sis that frames the commentary on wisdom found in between. More than a retrospective on the way of wisdom according to James, this conclusion also supplies the principal motivation for following its advice: the coming of the Lord is near. The test­ ing of the community's faith in God has certain eschatological implications which are brought to focus here. In this light, the concluding exhortations to endure the test­ ing of faith, implicit throughout James, are made more urgent by the author's pointed assertions that the parousia is imminent. The community is encouraged to exercise patience, like Job, and to be vigilant in prayers for healing, like Elijah, in order to insure participation in the coming triumph of God's reign. Finally, the commission instructs the congregation to have special concern for foolish believers who have been deceived by falsehood and have departed from the "word of truth" that de­ fines the way of wisdom. Their spiritual healing will result in salvation rather than condemnation at the end of the age. To be the church is to be wise when God's people are tested, knowing that the present testing of faith determines the future entrance into the age to come.

Appendix A

Reading the New Testament in Canonical Context

Introduction The dramatic rise of scholarly interest in the canon of the New Testament in recent years has two focal points, historical and hermeneutical. Historians of the biblical canon are primarily in­ terested in its formation within early Christianity, whether as a theological notion or a literary collection. Although the ques­ tions addressed often imply substantial theological problems, sometimes recognized and considered, most of these studies spe­ cialize in the historical features of the Bible's formation or the ideological freight that guided the canonizing process. Thus, for example, the relationship between a book's authorship and its canonization, while theologically interesting, is typically dis­ cussed in terms of how attribution of authorship influenced the reception of a particular book both within the earliest church and then into the biblical canon. Some interpreters of the biblical canon are especially in­ terested in the idea of a biblical canon, which then provides the "orienting concern" of various interpretive strategies. At the center of this orienting concern, whether called "canoni­ cal criticism" or the "canonical approach," lies the conviction that scripture's primary (although not exclusive) property is sa­ cred, and its performance within the faith community serves a theological goal as the authorized resource for the church's theo­ logical formation. I would suggest that such a perspective toward scripture presumes a "precritical" posture that God is scripture's "Author," not in a literal and mechanical way (e.g., dictation, verbal inspiration) but rather as a metaphorical and theologi­ cal sensibility. That is, if the implied "author" of scripture is 275

Appendix A

276

God and its subject matter is Word of God, then its perform­ ance among its readership intends to serve a theological end. It should not be surprising, therefore, that those who share a "ca­ nonical" perspective also harbor deep misgivings about the final results of the modern historical-critical enterprise — although to different degrees and with different concerns. The canonical approach to biblical interpretation is deeply rooted in the postcritical conviction that for all its advances, historical criticism, especially practiced within the university, has diminished the importance of the church's more theological intentions for the Christian Bible. Historical criticism presumes that scripture's primary property is historical, not theological; thus, historical analysis is primarily concerned with the historical circumstances that shaped particular biblical writings at their diverse points of origin, rather than with those theological convictions that subsequently shaped these same writings into the church's Bible. Actually, the idea of a biblical canon includes two integral in­ gredients: the Christian Bible is both a canonical collection of writings and a collection of canonical writings. In the first case, emphasis is placed upon the Bible's final literary form (norma normata) and in the second case, emphasis is placed upon its ongoing religious function (norma normans)} The methodolog­ ical interests of canonical criticism follow along the lines of these two emphases, introduced by the work of Old Testament scholars, Brevard S. Childs and James A. Sanders. Their disagree­ ments over agreed hermeneutical essentials, including different accounts of divine revelation, have charted the territory of canonical criticism for the guild of biblical scholars. In brief, the "canonical approach" of Childs posits hermeneu­ tical value in the Bible's final literary form (norma normata), which supplies the normative written witness to Jesus Christ. According to Childs, every stage of the production of the biblical canon (writing, preservation, transmission, reception, canoniza­ tion) is informed and finally serves a theological purpose: to measure and help to form the church's understanding of God's Word. Indeed, the Bible's continuing role as Christianity's "rule of faith" presumes its trustworthy (or "apostolic") witness to him whose incarnation ultimately "norms" the community's "rule of faith." That is, scripture gets us to that which is objec­ tively true, who is the Risen Christ of Christian confession. Only in this christological sense can one say that scripture supplies both the subject matter for the church's theological reflection t

2

Reading the New Testament in Canonical Context

277

as well as the theological boundaries or context within which Christian theology and ethics take shape. An interpretive em­ phasis on the Bible as a specific and limited body of sacred writings not only values its subject matter for theological reflec­ tion and confession, but also envisages the very ordering of the Bible's subunits as the privileged, permanent expression of an intentioned, dynamic interaction between the faithful and their written rule of faith. The canonical approach to biblical interpretation is less in­ terested in lining up behind the reconstructed historical or linguistic intentions of a precanonical stage in the formation of a particular composition or collection. The "synchronic" interest of Childs is rather posited in a subsequent period during which the Christian scriptures took their final literary shape to serve a theological end (i.e., determination of God's word and will) and at the same time stabilized certain theological convictions as true in a more universal or catholic sense. No one is entirely clear why these various writings and col­ lections, so different in theological conception and sociological origination and so fluid during their early history, eventually stabilized into the Christian Bible. Certainly, one probable rea­ son is aesthetic: over time, different communions of believers came to recognize one particular arrangement of books as more useful for a variety of religious services, even as the number of alternative arrangements (or "canon lists") eventually was narrowed by disuse. In other words, a specific form of bibli­ cal literature triumphed because it facilitates or better serves its intended role within the faith community. Thus, according to Childs, the final shape of the Christian scriptures best combines and relates its subject matter to serve the church as the literary location where theological understanding is well founded and soundly framed. The "canonical criticism" of Sanders posits value in the act of interpretation which enables the Bible to function canonically in shaping the theology and guiding the praxis of the church (norma normans). The methodological interests of Sanders are more intuitive than those of Childs, emphasizing rather the in­ terpretive calculus found at the composition's point of origin, during the canonical process, and throughout the history of in­ terpreting the biblical canon. For Sanders, "canonical process" is not concentrated by a specific historical moment or literary product as it is for Childs; hermeneutics is not synchronic in 3

4

Appendix A

278

this sense. Rather, the canonical approach of Sanders is more "diachronic" and involves the entire history of the Bible's in­ terpretation, whenever the faith community draws upon its scriptures to "norm" its faith and life. Beginning even before biblical texts were written and continuing today, faithful inter­ preters contemporize the meaning of their scriptures so that the faith community might better understand what it means to be and to do as God's people ought. For Sanders, canonical function antedates and explains canon­ ical form, even as final form facilitates those functions the faith community intended for its canon. In my view, Childs has of­ fered no compelling response to the objection that his interest in the Bible's final literary form is too parochial, elevating the final form of the Protestant Bible over the various other biblical canons within the Christian church. On the other hand, by shift­ ing his attention from the Bible as norma normata to the Bible as norma normans, from its literary form to its ecclesial function, Sanders relativizes the hermeneutical importance of the Bible's final form. Since for him canonical function takes precedence over canonical form, the literary shape (or translation) of a par­ ticular community's Bible is subsumed under the interpreter's more important vocation of adapting scripture's meaning to the community's ever-changing life situation. Canonical criticism, then, concentrates on how a biblical text becomes canonical in the act of interpretation, when different interpreters pick up the same text again and again to "comfort the afflicted or afflict the comfortable." In the hands of faith­ ful interpreters, past and present, scripture acquires multiple meanings. Of course the aim of relating the canon to the faith community is to form a people who worship and bear witness to the one true God. Thus, the Christian Bible is more than a canonical collection of sacred writings, shaped by religious intentions and insights into a discrete literary anthology that it­ self envisions patterns of hermeneutical engagement. The Bible is canonical primarily in a functional sense, with an authorized role to provide all the various norms for worship and witness of those who belong to the "One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." Under the light of this perspective toward the Bible, in­ terpreters are led to ask additional questions about the meaning of every biblical text that attend first of all to the "theological shape" of the church's faith (in both confession and conflict) rather than to the literary shape of its biblical canon. 5

6

Reading the New Testament in Canonical Context

279

In this sense Sanders reminds Childs that the history of the Bible's formation did more than settle on the shape of a ca­ nonical collection of sacred writings in order to delimit the church's "official" theology and ethics; it also evinced a species of hermeneutics that contemporizes the theological quotient of biblical teaching to give it an authoritative voice for today's com­ munity whose worship and witness are again undermined by similar theological crises. What was picked up again and again and reread over and over were those same writings that could interpret the present crisis of faith and resolve it in a way that maintained faith and empowered life. In fact, biblical writings were first preserved because they were sufficiently ambiguous in intent for different interpreters to mediate truth to their different audiences. At the same time, other writings were filtered out as being too narrow in sociolog­ ical context or semantic intent to have a life beyond their first readers. According to Sanders, the elevation of a scriptural writ­ ing to canonical status required that it have an inherent capacity to be reinterpreted over and over again in spiritually profitable ways by different interpreters for different situations. This sort of unrecorded hermeneutics envisages the same canonical func­ tion found in the Bible's final literary form: the Bible is formed to inform the community's understanding of God. My own work has sought to combine and extend these in­ sights of Sanders and Childs. In doing so, I recognize the contested nature of canonical criticism within the guild of bibli­ cal scholarship. Nevertheless, the present chapter does not seek to defend the methodological interests of canonical criticism against its main competitors. Nor does it intend to provide crit­ ics with the proper epistemological credentials to lend support to my exegetical conclusions. This important work has already been undertaken by others, so that the methodological inter­ ests of canonical criticism can now be more fully exploited for providing fresh insight into the meaning of scripture for today. 7

8

The Methodological Interests of Canonical Criticism Biblical Exegesis Theological reflection on the Bible integrates two discrete tasks, biblical exegesis and theological interpretation. The founda-

Appendix A

280

tional task of the hermeneutical enterprise is exegetical, which aims at a coherent exposition of scripture's "plain meaning." My use of the catchphrase "plain meaning" is metaphorical, in­ dicating a primary interest in the final form of the biblical canon rather than in the literary or sociological environs at its point of origin, its author, or any of its sub- or pre-texts (however impor­ tant these constructions might be to achieve a holistic meaning). Neither do I view the exegetical task as interested in privileg­ ing one particular meaning as "canonical" for all believers for all time. Moreover, I view the exegetical task in a collaborative way: it is the shared task of a community of interpreters, whose dif­ ferent interests in the biblical text expose its multiple contours in pursuit of a "thickened" or holistic description of meaning. However, a methodological interest in the plain meaning of a particular text is constricted by compositional and canonical contexts Within which specific texts acquire their distinctive lit­ erary and theological meaning. Plain-meaning exegesis aspires to a "standard" meaning, since texts do not gather together an inclusive community of infinite meanings. Common sense and critical attention to words and patterns of words point the exegete to specific meanings. Exegetical strategies are prioritized, then, which are concerned with the meaning and arrangement of words and pericopae as well as the theological content they convey. Of course, scripture has a profoundly intertextual texture, which is exploited in canonical criticism. The careful interpreter is naturally sensitive to the citations, allusions, and even echoes of other "subtexts" heard when reading a biblical text. And the canonical critic is inclined to value these, especially bibli­ cal, subtexts hermeneutically: that is, they provide an implied yet normative context for the writer's own theological reflec­ tion on the events being narrated or the spiritual crisis being resolved. There is a sense in which New Testament writers are viewed as interpreters of their scripture, and their compositions are perceived as commentaries on scripture. More importantly, this exegetical sensitivity to the author's intended meaning, in turn, enhances the exegete's understanding of the text's plain meaning. The scholar's search for the plain meaning of a biblical text or tradition does not mark a return to a fundamentalistic literalism, which denies both the historical process that formed the Chris9

10

Reading the New Testament in Canonical Context

281

tian scriptures as well as the theological diversity found within it. Rather, a concern for plain meaning guards against herme­ neutical supersession. Thus, the community at work on biblical texts pursues meaning with ideological blinders on, without im­ mediate regard for the integral wholeness of scripture: critical exegesis seeks to restore to full volume the voice of every bib­ lical writer so that the whole meaning of scripture can then be vocalized as a chorus of its various parts. To presume the simul­ taneity between every part of the whole, without also adequately discerning the plain meaning of each in turn, undermines the integral nature of scripture and even distorts its full witness to God. Finally, however, the aim of critical exegesis, which has suc­ cessfully exposed the pluriformity of scripture, is "to put the text back together in a way that makes it available in the present and in its [biblical] entirety—not merely in the past and in the form of historically contextualized fragments." That is, if we believe that in some ultimate sense God has "authored" these various biblical writings, then scripture's whole meaning is determinate of Christian faith; and this meaning will correspond to our con­ fession of Jesus Christ, in whom this one God is incarnate. In this sense, then, the plain meaning of individual writings or biblical traditions, although foundational for scriptural interpretation, has value only in relationship to a more holistic end. Even though the search for the plain meaning of scripture concerns itself with stable texts and standard meanings, the ex­ egetical history of every biblical text is actually quite fluid. This limitation is deepened by recognition of the inherent multivalence and intertextuality of texts. Further changes in the text's "plain meaning" result from new evidence and different exegeti­ cal strategies and from interpreters shaped by diverse social and theological locations. In fact, the sort of neutrality toward bib­ lical texts that critical exegesis envisages actually requires such changes to be made. Our experience with texts tells us that the ideal of a "standard" meaning cannot be absolutized, whether as the assured conclusion of the scholarly guild or as some mean­ ing ordained by (and known only to) God. Thus, the fluid nature of exegesis resists the old dichotomy between past and present meanings, and between authorial and textual intentions. As a practical discipline, plain-meaning exegesis clarifies the subject matter of scripture, which supplies the conceptual freight of those theological norms and ethical principles that form Christian faith. Simply put, the straightforward meanings 11

12

282

Appendix A

of the variety of biblical writings, considered holistically, help to delimit the range and determine the substance of the church's current understanding of what it means to believe and behave as it must. Yet, whenever biblical theology is still attempted, it re­ mains (with a few notable exceptions) exclusively an exegetical enterprise, as though a careful description of the Bible's theol­ ogy is sufficient to perform its canonical roles. It is in response to this misconception that I claim exegesis is the means but not the end of the hermeneutical enterprise: the plain meaning of scripture must come to have contemporary meaning for its current readers before it can function as their scripture. Theological Interpretation The interpreter's second task is interpretation, which in my def­ inition aims to give the subject matter of scripture its canonical significance for today. That is, if exegesis locates canonical au­ thority in biblical texts, then interpretation relocates religious authority in the social contexts of the faith community where the Word of God is ultimately heard and embodied. Biblical in­ terpretation, as I understand it, is fully contextual and aims at an imaginative (i.e., analogical) reflection on the subject matter of biblical teaching. The purpose of such reflection is to "recanonize" biblical teaching so that the faith community might know who it is as God's people and how it is to act as God's people within a new situation. While critical exegesis aims to re­ strict the plain meaning of a biblical text to a single standard (at least in theory), the interpretive task seeks an application of that meaning for a people whose faith and life are in constant flux. Of course, the problem to which the act of interpretation re­ sponds is the recognition that biblical writings are all occasional literature, written by particular authors for particular audiences in response to crises of a particular time and place. No biblical writing was composed for the biblical canon or for the universal readership it now enjoys. In fact, the interpretive presumption is that current readers will not draw out the very same meaning from a composition that might have been intended by its author or understood by its first readers. Times and places change the significance of texts for new readerships. Rather than decanonizing certain scrip­ ture as "irrelevant" or imposing a biblical worldview upon a contemporary readership, an interpretive strategy must be em-

Reading the New Testament in Canonical Context

283

ployed that seeks to relate the whole witness of the biblical canon and the whole life of the faith community in fresh and meaningful ways. In this sense, the crisis of biblical authority is the relevance of prior interpretations of scripture — including those of the biblical writer's — for a "new" situation. This is ultimately a theological crisis, since the subject matter of biblical revelation fails to convey God's Word to a particular people with clar­ ity and conviction, either because they cannot understand what scripture says or because they cannot understand its immediate relevance for life and faith. In this case, then, imagination is required by the interpreter to exploit more easily the inherent polyvalence of biblical teaching in order to find new meanings for new worlds. Thus, the interpreter presumes that the agreed-upon plain meaning of a biblical text embodies a community of analogi­ cal meanings, while at the same time recognizing that not all of these meanings hold equal significance either for a partic­ ular interpreter or for the interpreter's faith community. The interpreter's interpretations of scripture seek to clarify and con­ temporize the Bible's subject matter for those who struggle to remain faithful at a particular moment in time and place. In this regard, then, the act of interpretation imagines an analog from a range of possible meanings that renders the text's subject matter meaningful for a people who desire to remain faithful to God within an inhospitable world. 13

The Role of the Interpreter All of what has been said to this point about the exegetical and interpretive tasks implies something about the interpreter's "authority." Perhaps because its pioneers were theologically lo­ cated within Reformed Protestantism, canonical criticism has always emphasized the authority of the Christian Bible. How­ ever, whether an interpretation satisfies the church's intentions for its Bible depends to a significant degree upon the inter­ preter's "individual talent." The talented interpreter has the capacity to make coherent and contemporary meaning of diverse biblical traditions, each and together within the whole, and then to relate the canon to the faith community in ways that facilitate the hearing of God's word. To be sure, the interpreter's talent to facilitate a meaning-

284

Appendix A

ful conversation between canon and community is determined in part by one's vocation, whether "prophetic" or "priestly." On this basis, creative and compelling interpretations of bibli­ cal texts are made that relate the plain meaning of the biblical text to the current social context in ways that actually produce theological understanding (and so a more vital faith in God) and moral clarity (and so more faithful obedience to God's Word). In this sense, the talented interpreter renders scripture in ways that empower the community's worship of and witness to God in the world. Thus, the interpreter imagines what "ana­ logical meaning" can be made of the text's "plain meaning" for the community's formation as God's people, whether to "cor­ rect and rebuke" a distorted faith (prophetic hermeneutic) or to "teach and train" a developing faith (priestly hermeneutic). Further, the interpreter's talent is shaped by time and place. Not only does the interpreter bring a particularized perspective to the biblical text; the interpreter also brings one's own "spe­ cial" texts to the text, to participate in a conversation already under way. A Model for Canonical Interpretation Under the light of these methodological interests, the frame­ work for an interpretive model can now be constructed as a sequence of three discrete although integral parts, "Canonical Context," "Canonical Content," and "Canonical Conversations." What follows is a brief description of the task apropos to each part. Canonical Context An interest in the final literary form of the New Testament leads the interpreter to an initial set of hermeneutical clues derived from consideration of both the placement and titles of New Testament writings, which are properties of their canonization. Quite apart from authorial intentions, the literary design of the biblical canon suggests that particular units of the New Testa­ ment canon (Gospel, Acts, Letter, Apocalypse) have particular roles to perform within the whole. This consideration of the structure of the New Testament orients the interpreter to the subject matter found within each of those canonical units. Of­ ten the title provided each unit by the canonizing community

Reading the New Testament in Canonical Context

285

brings to clearer focus what particular contribution each unit makes to a fully Christian faith. In this regard, the sequence of these four units within the New Testament envisages an intentional rhetorical pattern — or "canon-logic" to use Albert Outler's apt phrase —that more ef­ fectively orients the canonical audience to scripture's pluriform witness to the God who was incarnate in Jesus Christ. By the logic of the final literary form of the New Testament canon, each unit is assigned a specific role to perform within the whole, which in turn offers another explanation for the rich diversity of theology, literature, and language that casts scripture's sub­ ject matter. Thus, the Gospel is placed first within the New Testament because its narrative of the person and work of the Messiah, when taken as a fourfold whole, is theologically and morally foundational for all that follows. Along with the final placement of writings and collections within the biblical canon, new titles were provided for individ­ ual compositions, sometimes including the naming of anony­ mous authors. These properties of the canonizing stage shed additional light on how these compositions and collections, writ­ ten centuries earlier for congregations and religious crises long since settled, may continue to bear witness to God and God's Christ for a nameless and future readership. The importance of any one biblical voice for theological understanding or ethical praxis is focused or qualified by its relationship to the other voices which constitute the whole canonical chorus. Extend­ ing this metaphor, one may even suppose that these various voices, which were earlier heard only individually or in smaller groups, became more impressive, invigorating, and even "canon­ ical" for faith only when combined with other voices to sing their counter punctual harmonies as the full chorus. 14

Canonical Content A biblical text, once placed within its distinctive canonical con­ text, acquires a potential for enhanced meaning that should help to guide the exegetical task. A canonical approach to exe­ gesis is never solely concerned with an "objective" description of the biblical text in isolation from other biblical texts; rather, the analysis of a writer's literary artistry or theological ten­ dencies serves the overall canonical project. The description of the text's plain meaning results from a close and critical anal-

286

Appendix A

ysis of its compositional and theological aspects (see "Biblical Exegesis/' above). In many ways, this part of the canonicalcritical enterprise is the most traditional. Canonical criticism does not sponsor any new exegetical strategy; rather, it sponsors a particular orientation toward the biblical text whose principal methodological interests are its final literary form and canoni­ cal functions. Naturally, the canonical interpreter is first of all drawn to those exegetical strategies that seek to make meaning out of the biblical text itself rather than to limit attention to its prehistory or the historical circumstances that occasioned its writing. Canonical Conversations The intended role of the biblical canon is to adapt its ancient teaching to contemporary life; this is also the primary objec­ tive of biblical interpretation. Under this final rubric, the results of the first two tasks are now gathered together as the subject matter of two formative and integral "conversations" about the community's life of faith. The first conversation is "intercanonical" (i.e., conversations between different biblical traditions/ writers) and the second is "intercatholic" (i.e., conversations between the Bible and different faith traditions). While a number of metaphors work well to express the Bible's theological plurality coherently and constructively, my preference for the interpreter's practical task is "conversation." Naturally, there are different kinds of conversations between people. A canonical approach to the New Testament's pluriform subject matter envisages a conversation that is more comple­ mentary than adversarial. In one sense, the "intercanonical" conversation is very much like an intramural debate over the precise meaning of things generally agreed to be true and sub­ stantial. The purpose or outcome of debate is not to resolve firmly fixed disagreements between members of the same com­ munity or panel as though a normative synthesis were possible; rather more often, it is the sort of debate that clarifies the con­ tested content of their common ground. Likewise, the biblical canon stabilizes and bears continuing witness to the historic disagreements between the traditions of the church's first apos­ tles, which were often creative and instructive (cf. Acts 15:1-21; Gal. 2:1-15). Not only do these controversies embody a perma­ nent value within scripture, but scripture in turn commends

Reading the New Testament in Canonical Context

287

these same controversies to its current readers who are invited to engage in a similar act of what Karl Popper calls "mutual crit­ icism" in order to provide more balance to parochial interests or supply instruction to clarify the theological confession of a particular faith tradition. In fact, the point and counterpoint of this sort of conversa­ tion sometimes works better than those that seek agreement, in that they more readily expose the potential weakness of any point made to the exclusion of its counterpoint. In this sense, I presume that a more objective and functional meaning emerges that is neither the conception of any one biblical writer — a "canon within the Canon" — nor the presumption of any one expositor — a "canon outside of the Canon." Rather the canon­ ical interpreter seeks to relate the different ideas of particular biblical writers and canonical units together in counterpunctual yet complementary ways, to expose the self-correcting (or "prophetic") and mutually informing (or "priestly") whole of New Testament theology. In this way, the diversity of biblical theologies within the New Testament fashions a canon of "mu­ tual criticism," resulting in a more objective interpretation of scriptural teaching. A New Testament theology thus envisaged underscores what is at stake in relating together the individ­ ual parts, whose total significance is now extended beyond their compiled meaning: the New Testament's diverse theolo­ gies, reconsidered holistically as complement witnesses within the whole, actually "thicken" the meaning of each part in turn. The midrashic character of biblical interpretation compels the contemporizing of texts, so that "new" meanings are not the re­ sult of textual synthesis but arise from contextual significance. Thus, by reconstituting these intercanonical disagreements into a hermeneutical apparatus of checks and balances, the inter­ preter may actually imagine a comparable dialogue that aids the church's awareness of how each part of the New Testament canon is important in delimiting and shaping a truly biblical re­ ligion. In fashioning a second conversation illuminated by the first, therefore, the checks and balances are reimagined as "intercatholic" conversations that continue to guide the whole church in its various ecumenical conversations. How the intercanonical conversations are arranged and then adapted to a particular faith tradition is largely intuitive and de­ pends a great deal upon the interpreter's talent and location. It should go without saying that my particular adaptation of James 15

288

Appendix A

4:13-5:6 owes a great deal to who and where I am when coming to this text and its currently perceived socio-ecclesial context. So I must try to listen to other interpreters, believing that true objectivity emerges out of a community of subjectivities. Thus informed, a close reading of biblical texts and ecclesial contexts can be more easily linked together, particular communions with particular New Testament writers, in order to define the norma­ tive checks and balances of a complementary conversation that maintains and legitimizes traditional distinctives while possibly correcting a tendency toward triumphal sectarianism.

Appendix B

James and Paul in Pre-Canonical Context

Introduction No one disagrees any longer with the thesis that Christianity evolved into a pluralistic religious movement with roots in a pluralistic Judaism. Luke's Acts (15:19-21) and Paul's Galatians (2:7-10) suggest a rather simple and too sharp division along ethnic lines for demarcating this movement in its second gen­ eration: the church consisted of Jewish and gentile missions, with different kerygmata for different audiences and distinctive membership requirements for diverse constituencies. Scholars have found it considerably more difficult to reconstruct with any historical precision the extent and nature of that pluralism; in­ deed, one of the storm centers of modern biblical scholarship since F. C. Baur has been to understand the theological and soci­ ological diversity within each constituency, and the relationship between these two groups and their respective apostolates. In particular, recent studies have attempted to reconstruct the diversity within the second-generation and second-century Jewish church, and a general consensus has now emerged. First, the theological and social boundaries of the "Jesus movement" and its first generation were self-consciously drawn in terms of its sectarian relationship within "official" Judaism; Christianity grew up within Judaism in the same way that Judaism sponsored other movements, some of which are reported in Hebrew scrip­ tural and intertestamental writings. Whatever "anti-Judaism" rhetoric is found in the New Testament writings (esp. the four­ fold Gospel), it is similar both in kind and theme to these antecedent debates: they are debates over the meaning of a "true" or eschatological Israel, whose borders are contested be1

2

289

Appendix B

290

tween the various groups that make up all of Israel. In the case of Christianity, the convictions of messianic Jewish faith are adapted to and given "new" meaning by the promised age of God's shalom that his first disciples believed began with the earthly ministry of Jesus. Whenever the memories of earliest Christianity are rehearsed in the New Testament, the theologi­ cal calculus of messianic Judaism is retained. In this sense, then, Jewish Christianity was constituted by religious Jews and was in no way anti-Semitic. What did distinguish this particular mes­ sianic sect from other similar movements within Judaism was the conviction that the Messiah's identity and thus the eschaton were realized in a particular person. Second, when one follows the trajectory of Jewish Chris­ tianity into the second generation and then into the second century, the boundaries are gradually redrawn in terms of its relationship within "official" Christianity. Fraternal differences were ultimately cast in terms of "orthodoxy" and "heresy" — a phenomenon not yet reflected by New Testament writings. Even in Jewish Christianity's conformity to Torah and tradi­ tion, appeals were often made to traditions about Jesus or James for justification rather than to Jewish rabbis or Judaic tradi­ tion. That is, the rhetoric of second-century Jewish Christian writings was unmistakably "Christian" and even on occasion an ^'-Pauline Christian (or more precisely anti-contemporary"folk"-Paulinisms), but was almost never anti-Judaic. Baur's re­ construction of rival factions within the earliest church, Jewish and anti-Pauline versus Gentile and pro-Pauline, transposes the second-century situation upon the first; one cannot transform the biblical James, for example, into a hostile opponent of Paul's mission. Whatever disagreements emerged between the various groups that made up the earliest church, the issues had more to do with drawing the boundaries between Christianity and Judaism. For our purposes, it is noteworthy that the canonizing com­ munity accepted the Lukan/Pauline description of the earliest church, dividing the apostolic writings into two collections: the Pauline writings reflected the "gospel for the uncircumcised" and another collection the "gospel for the circumcised." The superscriptions added to these writings during the canonizing process located them within the Jewish mission of earliest Chris­ tianity. Sandwiched between the anonymous Hebrews and Jude are letters whose alleged authors were the very "pillars" of the 3

4

James and Paul in Pre-Canonical Context

291

Jewish church mentioned by Paul (Gal. 2:1-10) and whose order is indexed by Paul in Gal. 2:9 as "James, Cephas, and John." From a canonical perspective this collection of writings records the range of theological diversity found within the early Jewish mis­ sion in order to delimit, along with the Pauline corpus, the range of diversity found in the apostolic witness to the gospel and therefore the adequate rule of faith for subsequent generations of believers. Because Christianity began as a messianic movement within Second Temple Judaism, its apologia was first focused upon its continuity and contrast with Jewish faith and history. Earliest Christianity's relationship with Judaism remained important in its every effort for religious and societal legitimacy; believers understood themselves to be faithful Jews and members of a Jewish congregation. The contested issues were parochial and intra muros: first-generation believers argued that they belonged to "messianic" Judaism — the "true" eschatological Israel of God — while "official" Judaism constituted the "rest of Israel." Only in this rather limited sense can some New Testament writings be thought of as marking boundaries between Christianity and Judaism. During subsequent centuries, these compositions were among those preserved, collected, and then canonized to establish the distinctive theological and ethical boundaries around the church catholic. Writings once used to mark the boundaries between messianic and nonmessianic Judaism were recycled to evaluate the teachings of sectarian movements within Christian­ ity. Further, during the canonization of the New Testament, the issues at stake were no longer Christianity's continuity or dis­ continuity with Judaism but rather Christianity's continuity or discontinuity with what was remembered as the first apostles' witness to the Christ of God. The New Testament canon taken as a whole, then, is not intended to function as an anti-Judaic document; rather, the church's intent for its biblical canon is to help mark off those boundaries of "one holy catholic and apostolic church" from all other religious traditions (including Judaism) and especially from those "heretical" movements found within the church (i.e., gnosticizing Christianity). Although the New Testament includes documents that many think to be antiJudaic in their first Sitz im Leben (in the sense described above), within their canonical Sitz im Leben their intended meanings are non-Judaic (i.e., "Christian") rather than anti-Judaic. The on-

Appendix B

292

going function of the New Testament is to form a particular faith community rather than to polemicize against another one. To excuse the church's subsequent anti-Semitic use of the New Testament as "anticanonical" would be disingenuous. Our point is simply to locate the crux of the problem more pre­ cisely with the interpretation of certain texts or leit motifs within the New Testament rather than with the ongoing role of the biblical canon itself. Obviously, whenever interpretation is bi­ ased by anti-Semitic ideology, then anti-Semitic meanings will be advanced as "historically valid" or "theologically canonical" when in fact they are neither. On the other hand, we would tend to agree with Langmuir's verdict that whenever racial antiSemitism is found during the modern period, especially when advanced by Christians, it is often logically related to the theo­ logical anti-Judaism found in some New Testament writings. Perhaps one element of this more modern relationship between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism derives from modern methods of biblical interpretation. Biblical criticism is a child of En­ lightenment's positivism; methods of inquiry tend to focus on the ultimate importance of the conversation between a compo­ sition's author and his first readers. In this sense, authorized meaning is the author's intended meaning. In our view, this modern methodological orientation not only obscures the New Testament's canonical role in forming a Christian identity, but it also freezes the "true" meaning of New Testament texts at the point of their origin. And when the first Sitz im Leben includes anti-Judaism polemic, the Tendenz toward anti-Semitism is only enhanced. This caveat is not a "liberal" polemic against the historicist orientation of modern biblical scholarship; nor does it intend to link current anti-Semitic sentiments within the church to criti­ cal methods of biblical interpretation. Rather this opening point underscores the need to interpret and employ biblical texts in terms of the Bible's canonical raison d'dtre: that is, any interpre­ tation of the Bible must aid in forming meaning that continues to testify to the one God of Israel and to God's Christ, Jesus of Nazareth. The first meanings of New Testament writings, when anti-Judaic rhetoric expresses the infant church's relationship to the synagogue, itself in process of taking on formal beliefs and practices, now take on different meanings in a different so­ cial setting, when the catholicizing church struggled with the trauma of separating itself from the secular mainstream. Canon5

6

James and Paul in Pre-Canonical Context

293

ical hermeneutics do not disregard or deny the fundamental importance of historical-critical hermeneutics; however, by con­ centrating the hermeneutical enterprise on how biblical texts continue to function as the church's canon, the locus of mean­ ing shifts from the point of origin and authorial intent to the current relationship between the church and the world in which it exists as an ongoing (or "third") testament to God's Gospel.

The Christian James Attention to the canonical aspect of the problem serves as an appropriate preface to the Book of James. In the history of its interpretation, James has often embarrassed Christian sensitivi­ ties not because of its anti-Judaic content but because it does not seem to be sufficiently "Christian." In fact, James is the most Jewish writing found within the New Testament and it includes no obvious polemic against Judaism. If anything, the threats to the audience's faith are internal and largely fashioned by the economic and political conventions of the Syro-Palestinian world in general. Surely the author's appeals to heavenly wis­ dom to guide his readers toward the eschaton of divine shalom were familiar features in most renewal efforts within early Ju­ daism, whether messianic or not. The ongoing problem with James is how it fits within a Christian canon, and specifically its intracanonical relationship with the writings of the Pauline cor­ pus which predominate in forming mainstream Christian (and especially Protestant) orthodoxy. Indeed, the various references to the figure of James and allusions to "his" book in the gnostic writings from Nag Hammadi (Apocryphon of fames, 1-2 Apocalypse of fames) together with Ebionism's very different use of James in its anti-Pauline polemic provide historical antecedents to the canonical problem. It is too facile to dismiss the anti-Pauline rantings or pro-Jacobian ravings of marginally Christian sects, such as Ebionism, as responses to un-Pauline-like Paulinisms. In fact, Ebionism cor­ rectly detected certain features in a Pauline calculus that would lead the church toward a glib fideism and secularized antinomianism and away from the covenantal nomism of its Judaic roots. To be sure, for some Fathers, the positive and frequent ap­ peal to the memory of James to promote a marginal or even 7

8

9

Appendix B

294

"heretical" Christianity exposed its deficiency in spiritual mat­ ters. Perhaps for this reason, clear allusions to James by the Fathers are infrequent. In fact, Davids considers it remarkable that the first direct and positive citation from the canonical James within mainstream Christianity would appear more than a century after its writing, and not until the fourth century did Hilary do so in the West! Even then, references to James were invariably qualified. For example, Origen refers to James, but considers its contents of marginal merit. No wonder, then, that the canonization of James was contested even into the Reformation. Luther demoted James to subcanonical status on christological and Pauline grounds: although full of practical wisdom, it did not teach about Christ and it opposed Paul's teaching on justification by faith in Christ alone. While the Reformation constituted a different Sitz im Leben, Luther's con­ cerns reflected early Christianity's objections to the Ebionite use of James in the second century: James was anti-Pauline, and in a catholicizing (or re-catholicizing) church in which Pauline Christianity had triumphed, this was tantamount to being antiChristian. James appeared to enshrine an unacceptable version of the gospel. The modern problem, especially as it is conceived by Euro­ pean scholarship, continues the Reformation's concern. James continues to be viewed as a Jewish writing, and not very useful for Christian formation. Both references to Christ (1:1, 2:1) and to James (1:1), and the addition of an epistolary greeting (1:1) common in Christian (i.e., Pauline) circles, it is claimed, were in­ gredients of a later redactor's effort to "Christianize" the rather traditional Jewish halakhah found in James in order to make it palatable for Jewish Christian audiences. Even if one was to accept this critical consensus that 1:1 and 2:1 are later interpo­ lations, baptizing an essentially Jewish writing into a Christian genre of literature (by the superscription of 1:1) and into chris­ tological orthodoxy (by the "in Christ" formula of 2:1), such redactional activity could very well be properties of the church's canonizing of James and thus a testimony to the current use­ fulness of its final (i.e., canonical) form in shaping a Christian identity. Once these features are stripped away, however, and the Jewishness of the "original" work is exposed, most scholars are unwilling to attach much worth to it as canonical literature: a pseudonymous James is simply not Christian enough. The ironical problem that this essay addresses has now been 10

11

12

James and Paul in Pre-Canonical Context

295

framed. The issue at stake is not whether James is anti-Jewish, but whether it is Christian. I will contend that James is a Chris­ tian writing that retains a distinctively Jewish ethos; and that in doing so it functions as an intracanonical "check and bal­ ance" to distorted (including anti-Semitic) interpretations of Pauline preaching that have plagued the church since its found­ ing. There is a sense in which I will side with the second-century Ebionites, who also used the Jewishness of James to correct second-century interpretations of Paul, which had led some seg­ ments of the catholicizing church to embrace a glib fideism and secular antinomianism to suit its own embourgeoisement In fact, the very reasons that slowed James's reception into the Chris­ tian canon may well help us clarify the importance of its biblical relationship to the Pauline corpus and its practical relationship to the faith community that continues to hear its "voice" as canonical. The Christology of James In asking whether James is a Christian book, I presume that the alternative is that it is a Jewish book. Admittedly, a few eru­ dite scholars have argued without much success that at least two conflicts found in James (2:1-7, 4:13-5:6) reflect tensions between the Palestinian church and synagogue during the first century. Their arguments have been turned back in favor of an interpretation that locates these conflicts in the milieu of Pales­ tinian class struggle, where judicial partiality in favor of the rich and against the poor concerned all religious Jews, messianic and apocalyptical or not. James responds with a polemic against the "functional atheism" of materialism that finds parallels in the "piety-poverty tradition" of Jewish literature. Further, the literary expressions of political or economic marginality found throughout James reflect social conventions that belong to the world of Jewish apocalypticism—a source of this author's theological perspective. The single most important evidence that this is a Christian writing is the phrase echete ten pistin tou kyriou emon Iesou Chris­ tou tes doxes (2:1b). Some commentators, however, are quite willing to neutralize the phrase by speculating on grammatical grounds that emon Iesou Christou is a later interpolation—a con­ clusion further justified because it burdens, in Dibelius's words, "the weighty assertion that the entire document is of Jewish ori13

14

Appendix B

296 15

gin." But there is no evidence in the textual history of James to justify this claim, and others have offered acceptable solu­ tions to the various grammatical problems found in this phrase. Moreover, to rule out a text because it does not suit one's hy­ pothesis is, of course, fallacious. The real exegetical problem is to understand this christological formula within the composition of James and the Jewish Christianity it represents. First, the use of the idiom (but not necessarily the idea), "the faith," in this formula is of Christian origin. However, it is not Pauline Christian for two reasons. "Faith" is not cast in James as an existential reality, positing a community's faith "in" or de­ pendency upon Jesus' messianic work for its salvation. Nor is "faith in Christ" the essential mark for James of maintaining membership in eschatological Israel as it is for Paul. The artic­ ular form, ten pistin, suggests a corporate and public expression of faith, different in content from the deutero-Pauline use of the same formula for the "institutional" church. In the immediate context, the mark of the threskeia kathara kai amiantos para to thed (1:27a) is the wisdom the community exercises in respond­ ing to its own powerless members (1:27b, 2:8-26) and to the corrupting powers of the surrounding social order (1:27c, 2:1-7). The mark of membership in "the faith" is mercy (2:12-13), espe­ cially toward the eschatological community's "last and least" — a class whose borders are symbolized by the socioeconomic dis­ tress of "widows and orphans" for whom merciful deeds are most necessary. Second, the use of the name, "Jesus Christ," in this formula envisions his work as a "prophetic exemplar," not unlike two other prophets. Job (5:10-11) and Elijah (5:17-18), whose pa­ tience and prayerfulness also provide the believing community with examples of eschatological fitness. The genitives tou kyriou ... Christou (to qualify ten pistin) and tes doxes (to qualify emon I. Ch.) are notoriously difficult, but crucial for understanding this element of Jacobian Christology. The first genitive identi­ fies the Lord Jesus Christ as exemplar of the kind of religion that is approved by God: the lordship of Jesus indicates divine approval of his messiahship. Commentators typically interpret the formula in "Pauline" terms; that is, they suppose the pas­ sage refers to faith in Jesus' glorious messianic work, by which the community is baptized into a new reality where persons are equal (cf. 1 Corinthians 12; Gal. 3:28). Clearly this is a mistake, unless it is another example of the author's irony that conveys 16

James and Paul In Pre-Canonical Context

297

the worthlessness of mere confessions of "faith in Christ" with­ out a complement of merciful works toward the marginal ones. However, it is more natural to both the genitive and to the larger context of James 1:22-2:26 to view the problematical fa­ voritism toward the rich, and its tacit denial of mercy for the poor, as antithetical to the teaching or love of Christ concerning the powerless and impoverished. The point here is that Christ is the model of mercy for the eschatological community. He ob­ served "the royal law" (2:8) perfectly and was approved by God as Messiah on that basis. The second genitive, tes doxes, is even more difficult, read­ ing like "an appendage without any clear connection with what precedes it." The simplest solution is to take tes doxes as an ad­ jective of quality, "the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ." How this construction makes more precise the exemplary status of the Lord Jesus Christ in the book of James is more difficult for the exegete to determine. Davids reminds us that the term "glory" translates the Hebrew kabod, which is a term for God's eschatological salvation; he then understands its use here in ref­ erence to Christ's eschatological role as "judge" (so 5:7-9). I rather take the reference to Christ's "glorious lordship" in James to refer to his role as "prophetic exemplar," who models the sort of character the eschatological community must embody to re­ ceive God's mercy at the end of time (cf. 2:12-13). Thus, like Job, whose reputation for patience, and Elijah, whose reputation for prayer, provide direction for the community, so also does the Lord Jesus Christ, whose reputation for identifying with the poor points the way to the kingdom of God (cf. 2:5). The Christology enshrined by this formula is "Christian," not because it confesses "faith in Jesus Christ" but because it confirms that Jesus has been made Lord and Christ by an approving God. But the christolog­ ical argot is also "Jewish," because it views Christ as prophetic exemplar for eschatological Israel. 17

18

19

20

21

Additional Jewish Christian Themes Two other texts in James suggest a distinctively Christian devel­ opment of otherwise Jewish themes. In 5:14, James conceives of healing in terms of a gift of an elder's office — an empha­ sis without clear Jewish parallels. Not only does the elder's place of office in the "church" rather than "synagogue" suggest a Christian setting, but in this context, the catchphrase, en to 22

23

Appendix B

298

onomati tou kyriou, probably refers to the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 2:1), whose name parallels healing power in the Jesus tradition and in Acts, even as God's name does in the biblical tradition. The presence of this healing power is maintained in eschatologi­ cal Israel through the mediation of the elders who represent the exalted Messiah by invoking his name. Finally, in 1:17-18, James builds upon Jewish Wisdom tradi­ tion in distinctively Christian ways. Dibelius claims that this passage "can be understood only in terms of the milieu of a Christian faith and life." The critical problem in exegeting this passage is the meaning of the birth typology, employed in verse 18: to what and by what does God give birth? The concep­ tual framework is essentially biblical: according to Genesis, God begets a new creation by the divine word. Within Judaism, these themes were used to construct a cosmology centered on God, or to underscore the cosmic importance of Israel as God's spe­ cial creation. However, within Christianity, the typology took on a soteriological cast: to be given birth by God means to be reborn spiritually, and to become "first fruits" means to be repo­ sitioned in the age to come. Of course, in the Johannine and later Pauline traditions, this calculus was christologized: God begets a new creation, the church, and inaugurates a new age of eternal life through the incarnated Word. However, while James certainly has the eschatological community in view as the con­ crete expression of God's gift of birth, I doubt that the "word of truth" here refers to either the incarnated Word or, as most scholars contend, to the proclaimed word. James's thought world is still too Jewish for this; for him, the word is heav­ enly Wisdom (cf. Prov. 22:21; Eccl. 12:10; Wis. 18:15; Sir. 43:26), which is summarized in 1:19 and then developed in the body of the paraenesis itself in terms of Torah observance (1:22-2:26), pure speech (3:1-18), and poverty-piety (4:l-5:6). Of less importance in testing the Christian quotient of James are the parallels between James and the Jesus tradition (es­ pecially Q and Matthean). Of recent commentators, Davids has mounted the most persuasive case that the Jesus tradition formed the underlying rule for the life of the Jacobean commu­ nity. Yet, the allusions to the Jesus tradition listed by Davids do not include those passages which he himself says contain distinc­ tively Christian interpretation (see above). Further, most alleged allusions to the Jesus tradition are of ethical teaching that both Jesus and James share in common with rabbinic halakhoth. (In 24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

James and Paul in Pre-Canonical Context

299

my view, the same is true of those parallels found in the parae­ nesis of James and 1 Peter.) As Laws reminds us, mere linguistic or even thematic similarity is an insufficient criterion to mea­ sure the dependency of James on Jesus' moral teaching. A more substantial criterion is whether James alludes to teaching that distinguishes Jesus from inchoative rabbinical Judaism. Because of James's important use of teleios, and because Matthew's Jesus uses the same word (5:48) to frame his distinctive teaching that true disciples love even their enemies (5:44), one may suppose that this expression of moral perfection would be alluded to in James. Not only is the "love enemy" precept not found in James, but 2:1-7 comes close to prescribing the response championed by the opponents of Matthew's Jesus (5:43). While one is on firmer ground by arguing that the rule instituted by Jesus (as envisioned, say, by the antitheses of Matt. 5:21-48) and the rule underlying James's community are in continuity with a common eschatological and Jewish "ethos," I do not think the evidence justifies assertions that the particular ethical argot of the Jesus tradition is a primary source for James's paraenesis. 32

Conclusion The concluding point of this discussion is twofold. First, based on the exegetical evidence, however marginal, James must be classified as a Jewish Christian writing. Second, the Christian quotient of James extends existent Jewish teaching. Not even its primitive christological formula in 2:1, or its other Christian em­ bellishments, tacit or otherwise, are in any way provocative; as a whole, this composition's Christian teaching can hardly be con­ strued as anti-Judaic, and it remains the most Jewish document in the New Testament.

The Canonical James This leads me, then, to consider a final and more important question: what is the ongoing role of a Christian James as part of the Christian biblical canon? I have previously written on the importance of the intercanonical relationship between James and Paul, arguing that these two voices establish a selfcorrecting and mutually informing conversation in which the church catholic continues to participate and from which we all

Appendix B

300 33

benefit. This essay gives me the opportunity to continue that commentary. James and Paul in Intercanonical Play The crucial issue at stake from a canonical perspective moves the interpreter beyond a concern for what the historical Paul or James taught, or what their writings meant in their origi­ nal settings. Those are important concerns; however, the more important issue is how the Pauline and Jacobean writings of the New Testament are subsequently used and embodied by those who consider them normative for faith. While concur­ ring with the recent judgments of Jewish and Christian scholars alike, who have exonerated the historical Paul from any antiSemitism, even from anti-Judaism — since his understanding of gentile conversion (and even of Torah and tradition in that con­ text) falls within the limits of early Judaism — I still want to press the point that the tensions and ultimately the separa­ tion between the church and synagogue were in large measure the result of Paul's preaching and his gentile mission. On both sides, Paul's preaching was perceived to be anti-Judaic, so that Luke wrote Acts in part to defend the Jewishness of Paul for the early church. In the period following the death of Paul, the loss of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. turned Judaism in a rabbinic direction, institutionalizing the production of sacred writings through the sixth century that found their way into the Tal­ mud and Mishnah. In this sense, the historical Paul and his first-century writings were not "anti-Judaic" in the least but sim­ ply challenged one of several Jewish options — which is clearly Luke's perspective in Acts. It is a mistake to import the subse­ quent triumph of rabbinic Judaism back into the first century to judge and condemn Paul as "anti-Judaic." Somewhat parallel to this progression toward rabbinic Judaism within the synagogue, however, the Pauline tradition gave way to theological antiJudaism on the margins of the church, especially among some second-century gnosticizing sects and then even among a few of the earliest Fathers. While rejecting the Marcionite heresy in word, catholicizing Christianity too often embraced a "Pauline" fideism with tragic consequences to its understanding and in­ carnation of God's gospel and its fundamental continuities with Judaism and the world of its Torah. In my view, however, we are simply too facile in our judg34

James and Paul in Pre-Canonical Context

301

ments if we dismiss those subsequent folk interpretations of Paul during the second and third centuries as contrary to the deeper logic of the biblical Paul and therefore not to be taken seriously. Rather, these post-Pauline "distortions" of the Pauline tradition provide the modern interpreter with important clues about cer­ tain impulses or tendencies of Pauline preaching that lead the church to the "lunatic fringe" of true and approved religion. In this sense, I want to underscore the importance of Ebionism's appropriation of James to check the perceived dangers of the Pauline tradition; even though its Christian interpretation fi­ nally fell outside the boundaries of apostolic Christianity, its use of James provides us with important clues about the book's role within the New Testament biblical canon. Sharply put, Ebionism's appeal to James intends to re-Judaize Christian faith, and continues to remind us that the church must become more Jewish if it is to become more Christian. Christology 35

In their exaltation of a romanticized, idealized James, their dependency upon the book that bears his name, and their ac­ cusations of moral perversion and theological apostasy leveled against Paul, conservative (and sometimes "heretical") Jewish Christianity sought to correct unprofitable tendencies within catholicizing (and increasingly Pauline) Christianity during the second and third centuries. For our purposes, three emphases of this Jewish Christian apologia, already reflected in the New Tes­ tament (especially Matthew, Luke-Acts, and James) and given full and faithful expression in second-century Ebionism, are notable as markers in determining the prophetic role James continues to play within the New Testament. First is their adoptionist Christology. Without rehearsing all the features of adoptionistic Christology in its various expressions, two christological convictions require emphasis to make the point. Especially in Ebionism, God's exaltation of Jesus to his status as Son of God and Messiah at his baptism resulted from God's recognition of Jesus' virtuous life. Further, Jesus' messianic status resulted from his observance of Torah and Jewish tradition; that is, Ebionism celebrated the Jewishness of Jesus. These are exactly the two con­ victions that stand behind the christological formula in James 2:1 (see above). Jesus is the messianic exemplar for the escha­ tological community of the kind of faith (or religion) that is 36

Appendix B

302

deemed true by God and will be approved by God at the Lord's coming. Jesus' virtue is determined by his compliance to Torah's "royal law" (2:8; cf. 1:22-25), which stipulates the love of needy neighbors as the criterion of divine approval. Because he loved others, he was beloved and approved (or "adopted") by God (2:8b) as Lord and Christ. The eschatological community will be approved by God if it follows Christ's example and shows mercy to the marginal and distressed (1:27, 2:12-13). By locating messianic significance in Jesus' virtuous life, the adoptionism of Jacobean Christianity "checks and balances" Pauline Christology of the Cross in two important ways. Paul interprets the death of Jesus theologically; it is the revelation of a faithful God's forgiving grace for lost humanity. Thus, the "Christ event" reduces Jesus' entire messianic career to a sin­ gle moment, already past with continuing spiritual benefits. The Tendenz is to demote if not to deny altogether the soteriological importance of his life and teaching; Paul himself rarely appealed to Jesus' teaching or personal character in his writings. The exemplary character of the historical Jesus, a remarkable feature of all the non-Pauline letters, serves to "push" Jesus' mes­ sianic significance backward from the Cross into the whole of his messianic mission, beginning with his baptism. For Jacobean Christianity, Jesus exemplifies the eschatological community's wisdom; his virtue — his merciful and active concern for the needy neighbor — marks out the path that leads the wise into the eschaton of God's mercy (James 1:2-8, 17-21). Of course, according to Ebionism, Jesus' virtue (and that of the eschatological community) is formed by observing Torah and Jewish tradition; the character of his virtue is particular to a discrete religious heritage. The intended meaning of the idea of Law and the role of tradition in the writings of Paul continues to be hotly debated. What is more certain is the antinomianism and anti-Judaism within Pauline Christianity that resulted from the interpretation of his teaching about the Torah and Jewish traditions (e.g., food rules, holy days, circumcision). Further, his shift to a more pneumatic law and charismatic ecclesiology shaped a more adaptable, accommodating faith. This orientation, perhaps a function of Paul's missiology as much as of his Christology, certainly removed as central the stabilizing influence of a distinctively Jewish identity, and with it the socio­ political value of maintaining a Jewish heritage to help establish a people's social borders within a secular society's mainstream. 37

James and Paul in Pre-Canonical Context

303

In my view, Ebionism's ownership of Jesus' and James's Jewishness, portrayed by their observance of Torah and holy days, served this sociopolitical function: observance of Torah and tra­ dition shapes a distinctive (even sectarian) community that is less inclined to be absorbed by the secularism (or Hellenism) that the more conservative Jewish believers perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be a characteristic of Pauline Christianity. Theology A second emphasis is the theocentricism of Jacobean preaching. While one should not deny the theocentrism of Paul's preaching and literature or his reluctance to claim deity for Jesus, clearly the trajectory of Pauline Christianity into our own day tends the church toward Christocentrism. The "deeper logic" of Pauline theology inclines one in this direction because of the centrality of the Christ event for him. Ebionism's resistance to speaking of Jesus in deified ways or with titles that presume his divinity is a function of its primary concern to maintain a monotheis­ tic orthodoxy against the pluralizing and syncretistic tendencies of Hellenistic, post-Pauline Christianity. Without venturing off into discussions about the implications of this point for a trinitarian theology or an incarnational Christology, I would contend that the shift from theocentrism to Christocentrism results in distortions of a biblical understanding of God's gospel. Jewish Christianity offers important correctives to these distortions, of which one is worth mentioning as illustrative. On the margins of second-century catholicizing Christianity is found an intriguing contrast between Ebionism and Marcionism. Marcion's Paulinism envisaged a radical anti-Judaism, which is focused by the gnostic doctrine of two antithetical Gods: the hateful God of Israel has been replaced by the loving God of Jesus. Marcion's gnostic theology in turn interprets and con­ taminates his Christian Christology, which he constructed from Paul's Christology of the Cross as well as his christological ar­ guments against his native Judaism — even though H. Jonas can thus speak of Marcion as "the most 'Christian' of all gnostics." According to Marcion, Jesus suddenly appeared not only to re­ veal the true and hitherto unknown Redemptive God — a story that is told in his de-Judaized gospel of Luke — but also to redeem humanity from the spiritual (and self-destructive) conditions of Israel's God. Further, Israel's God has a past in history; according 38

39

40

304

Appendix B

to Marcion, there can be no past in a "grace freely given." In this sense, one begins to understand the Christocentricism of Marcionism. Not only do the gnosis of saving grace and Christianity, its custodian, have their "official" beginning in Jesus rather than in Judaism, but the transcendent God, true and unknowable, does as well. Thus, Marcion not only perceived fundamental dis­ continuity between the Hebrew canon and his Christian canon on soteriological grounds, but between Judaism and Christianity on theological grounds as well. Unlike Marcionism, whose canon included a de-Judaized Luke and an edited collection of Pauline letters, Ebionism's canon included James and a Judaized version of Matthew's gospel in which Christology was interpreted by a Jewish theology. The intent of Ebionism's scriptural rule was exactly the opposite of Marcion: the Ebionite story of Matthew's Jesus is stripped bare of any suggestion of his deity (e.g., virginal conception), emphasizing his Jewishness in order to ensure the continuity between the two testaments to the God of Israel and of Jesus, between Judaism and Christianity, between God's mercy and justice, between God's creation and God's redemption, between monotheistic faith and Torah/tradition observance — a continu­ ity that Ebionism perceived to be the legacy of earliest Jacobean Christianity. In fact, this emphasis of Ebionism aids us in re­ covering those motifs from James that may well balance certain Marcionite interpretations of the Pauline writings that continue to this day. In particular, the theology of James resists the antithetical arrangement of the two biblical testaments to God: according to James, in God there is the perfect (i.e., eschatological) in­ tegration of justice and mercy (2:12-12, 4:11-12, 5:7-9), and it is a profane, earthly wisdom that distinguishes the one true God from God's creation (3:9-12). More importantly, against the fideistic current in gnostic interpretations of Paul, Jacobean soteriology resists a monotheism that disengages "grace freely given" from those works in conformity with the will of Is­ rael's God. According to James 2:14-26, the confession of a monotheistic faith of which God approves (2:19a) is distin­ guished from the monotheistic faith of the evil powers (2:19b) in that authentic monotheistic faith is identified by merciful deeds toward others. In the examples of Abraham and Rahab, James locates the integration of faith and works, orthodoxy and orthopraxy. 41

James and Paul in Pre-Canonical Context

305

Torah and Israel Finally, then, is the requirement of the eschatological commu­ nity to respond faithfully to God. Again, I turn to Ebionism and to its central symbol of a Jewish way of life, the Law. Jesus' messiahship was indicated by his faithfulness to the Torah; his reformation's agenda was to turn Israel back to the true intentions of Moses. Jesus' exalted successor in this Mosaic ref­ ormation of Israel was James, whose writing was authoritative because it continued the teaching of Jesus in this regard. My immediate interest, however, is how Ebionism used the Law in its polemical rhetoric against the antinomian Paulinisms of its day. In my view, the issues were both religious and political. The religious threat was an antinomian distortion of the covenant between God and messianic Israel. Ebionism's use of Matthew centers Jesus' teaching on the relationship between doing the Law and the surpassing righteousness that results in the escha­ tological blessing promised by God to the Law-observant people. Covenantal nomism challenges an overdependency on charisma or prophetic inspiration (Matthew 7), and contends that the covenantal relationship between God and Israel is maintained into the eschaton by Torah observance. J. A. Sanders describes the biblical idea of covenant as an inter­ play between "mythos" — the story of God's redemptive grace — and "ethos" — the demand of Israel's devotion to God in word and deed. The tensions within earliest Christianity resulted when one congregation emphasized one side while another placed primary emphasis on the other. According to Sanders, Pauline preaching was concerned with "mythos" — with clarifying the indicatives that inaugurated the promised new age of God's salva­ tion through the death of God's Christ. Thus, the renewing of God's covenant with Israel is the result of God's gracious initia­ tive in which the faith community boasts and finds its hope. This particular emphasis changed the calculus by which earliest Chris­ tianity understood and embodied its faith in God: its response to God was to depend upon what God had already accomplished through Jesus Christ. To the extent that the community's ethos was constructed by the rigors of Torah observance, Christian­ ity's continuity with Judaism only diminished the centrality of the Christ event for the new age. Moreover, Pauline Christian­ ity became more and more sensitive to, even critical of, other congregations where that same orientation was missing. 42

306

Appendix B

On the other hand, the perception of anti-Judaism in Paul's preaching is more keen in those Jewish Christian congregations whose idea of covenanting with God is centered on "ethos" rather than on "mythos," on sanctification rather than on jus­ tification, on orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy. In these con­ gregations, where the idea of covenant is more nomistic, the real issues have more to do with what is required for maintain­ ing membership within the eschatological community where God's salvation has already dawned because of Christ. Repen­ tance and obedience rather than forgiveness and faith are the catchwords of true religion; "staying in" rather than "getting in" is the measure of eschatological fitness. Ebionism's percep­ tion of anti-Judaism in the second-century trajectory of Pauline fideism stems more from its perception that "mythos" had dis­ placed "ethos" in catholicizing Christianity's covenant with the God of Israel and Jesus. No doubt, Ebionism's "heresy" was a distortion in the other direction — ethos without mythos — resulting in legalism rather than antinomianism and in adoptionism rather than docetism. But the crucial point is this: Ebionism's concerns detect po­ tential distortions inherent in the Pauline kerygma; and they help the interpreter locate in James the New Testament's builtin correctives to bring balance to the church's rule of faith. For James, the eschatological "test of faith" (1:2-4) is a test of wisdom (1:5-8), because wisdom determines those actions that lead to salvation (1:17-21). The wise thing to do is to observe Torah (1:22-27), which guides the conduct of the faith commu­ nity (2:1-11) and insures its salvation (2:12-13, 14-26). The wise thing to do is observe traditional patterns of pure speech (3:118). The wise thing to do is worship God (4:7-12) in order to resist the evil impulses of materialism (4:1-6, 13-17; 5:1-6). For James, the ingredient of true religion is the wise response to every trial that tempts the faith community away from a right relationship with God. God's covenant with Israel is not unilat­ eral and unconditional; as in any relationship, God's covenant with Israel is bilateral and reciprocal. The emphases of Pauline and Jacobean kerygmata, taken together, continue to remind the readers of scripture that God's covenant with Israel constitutes both mythos and ethos in equal measure.

Abbreviations

AB

Anchor Bible

ABD

Anchor Bible Dictionary

BAR

Biblical Archaeology Review

Bib

Biblica

BTB

Biblical Theology Bulletin

BZAW

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

BZNW

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

CBQ

Catholic Biblical Quarterly

EGT

Expositor's Greek Testament

ExT

Expository Times

FB

Forschung zur Bibel

HNTC

Harper's New Testament Commentary

HorBT

Horizons in Biblical Theology

HTKNT

Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament

HTR

Harvard Theological Review

ICC

International Critical Commentary

Int

Interpretation

Interp.

Interpretation (commentary series)

IVPNTC

InterVarsity Press New Testament Commentary 307

Abbreviations

308 JAAR

Journal of the American Academy of Religion

JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature

JPS

Journal of Pentecostal Studies

JSNT

Journal for the Study of the New Testament

JSNTSup

Journal for the Study of the New Testament — Supplement Series

JTS

Journal of Theological Studies

JTSAfric

Journal of Theological Studies in Africa

LB

Linguistica Biblica

MNTC

Moffatt NT Commentary

NIBC

New International Biblical Commentary

NICNT

New International Commentary on the New Testament

NIGTC

The New International Greek Testament Commentary

NovT

Novum Testamentum

NTD

Das Neue Testament Deutsch

NTS

New Testament Studies

NTT

New Testament Theology (Cambridge)

OTL

Old Testament Library

RivBSup

Rivista Biblica Supplement

RQ

Restoration Quarterly

RSR

Recherche de science religieuse

SB

Sources bibliques

SBL

Society of Biblical Literature

SBLDS

SBL Dissertation Series

SE

Studia Evangelica J, II, III

SFSHJ

South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism

SJLA

Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity

309

Abbreviations

SJT SKKNT

Scottish Journal of Theology Stuttgarter Kleiner Kommentar, Neues Testament

TJT

Toronto Journal of Theology

TLZ

Theologische Literaturzeitung

TNTC

Tyndale New Testament Commentary

TU

Texte und Untersuchungen

WBC

Word Biblical Commentary

WTJ

Westminster Theological Journal

ZNW

Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZTK

Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche

ZWTh

Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaft Theologie

Notes

Introduction 1. Cf. Eusebius, HE 2.23A. 2. R. W. Wall, "Successors to 'the Twelve' according to Acts 1 2 : 1 17/' CBQ 53 (1991): 6 2 8 - 4 3 . 3. R. P. Martin, James, WBC (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1988), xli-lxi. 4. Eusebius, HE 2.23.4. 5. R. W. Wall and E. E. Lemcio, The New Testament as Canon: A Reader in Canonical Criticism, JSNTSup 76 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 250-71. 6. W. G. Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, rev. ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1975), 4 1 2 . 7. For names in parentheses throughout the introduction, please refer to the General Bibliography for a full citation. 8. J . B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, NICNT (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1954), 1 8 - 2 0 ; W. E. Oesterley, The General Epistle of James, EGT (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910). 9. K. Donfried, ed.. The Romans Debate (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977), 17-31. 10. See J . Cantinat, Les Epitres de Saint Jacques et de Saint Jude, SB (Paris: Gabalda, 1973); P. H. Davids, Commentary on James, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982), 1 2 - 1 3 . 11. However, see E. E. Ellis, "Pseudonymity and Canonicity of New Testament Documents," in Worship, Theology, and Ministry in the Early Church, ed. M. J . Wilkins and T. Paige, JSNTSup 87 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 2 1 2 - 2 4 . 12. See H. C. Kee, Who Are the People of God? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 5 5 - 8 7 . 13. See R. B. Ward, "Partiality in the Assembly: James 2:2-4," HTR 62 (1969): 87-97. 14. R. W. Wall, "James as Apocalyptic Paraenesis," Restoration Quar­ terly 3 2 (1990): 11-22. 15. Davids, Commentary on James, 2 8 - 3 4 . 16. Martin, James, lxiv-lxv.

311

312

Notes to Pages 17-43

17. T. B. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora: Discursive Structure and Purpose in the Epistle of fames, SBLDS 144 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993). 18. L. T. Johnson, The Letter of fames, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 1 3 - 1 5 . 19. Cf. Martin, fames, lxxxii-lxxxiv. 20. See Johnson, Letter of fames, 2 7 - 2 9 . 21. L. T. Johnson, "The Use of Leviticus 19 in the Letter of James," JBL 101 (1982): 3 9 1 - 4 0 1 . 22. G. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 136. 23. J . B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. fames (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1954), lxxxii-lxxxiv; F. Mussner, Der fakobusbrief, HTKNT (Freiburg: Herder, 1967), 47-52; M. Shepherd, "The Epistle of James and the Gospel of Matthew," fBL 75 (1956): 4 0 - 5 1 ; cf. P. J . Hartin, fames and the Q Sayings offesus, JSNTSup 47 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991). 24. B. Witherington, Jesus the Sage (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 2 3 6 - 4 7 . 25. Wall and Lemcio, New Testament as Canon, 2 0 8 - 7 1 ; A. Chester and R. P. Martin, The Theology of the Letters of fames, Peter, and fude, NTT (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 4 6 - 5 3 . 26. P. Perkins, First and Second Peter, fames, and fude, Inter p. (Louis­ ville: John Knox, 1995), 8 7 - 8 8 . 27. E.g., A. Chester, Theology of fames, 1 6 - 4 5 ; Johnson, Letter of fames, 8 0 - 8 8 . 28. See B. S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 1 8 - 2 0 . 29. R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ, SBLDS 56 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983); J. M. Bassler, Pauline Theology, vol. 1 (Minneapo­ lis: Fortress Press, 1991), 1 8 1 - 2 6 5 . 30. E. E. Lemcio, "The Unifying Kerygma of the New Testament," JSNT 33 (1988): 3 - 1 7 . 31. S. S. Laws, A Commentary on the Epistle of fames, HNTC (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1980); Kee, Who Are the People of God? 2 9 - 3 9 , 55-87. 32. See Z. C. Hodges, The Epistle of fames (Irving, Tex.: Grace Evan­ gelical Society, 1994), who also organizes the moral teaching of James by 1:19-20.

Chapter 1 / James 1:1 1. Martin, fames, 8 - 9 . 2. Cf. ibid., 10. 3. Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora; cf. Davids who also considers 5 : 1 9 - 2 0 the purpose statement of James (Commentary on fames, 20).

Notes to Pages 4 4 - 5 6

313

Chapter 2 / James 1:2-11 1. F. O. Francis, "The Form and Function of the Opening and Closing Paragraphs of James and 1 John/' ZNW 61 (1970): 1 1 0 - 2 6 . 2. Davids, Commentary on fames, 68. 3. Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of fames, 53. 4. Johnson, Letter of fames, 183. 5. See survey in Martin, fames, lxxix-xi; Davids, Commentary on fames, 6 9 - 7 0 . 6. Contra P. J . Hartin, "Call to Be Perfect through Suffering (James 1:2-4)," unpublished paper presented to the Society of Biblical Literature, Philadelphia, 1995. 7. See Martin, fames, lxxix-lxxxii; Davids, Commentary on fames, 6 9 - 7 0 . James's varied use of "perfect" has attracted much attention and is obviously an important catchword in introducing the thesis. Gener­ ally, one can understand this moral vision as a present possibility (a "realized eschatology") — a moral character free of sin, completed in accord with the moral intentions of Creator God, lacking nothing in moral resources, so capable of doing what God has created humans to do. Some have said that James is perfectionistic in a legalistic, even Stoical sense of knowing what to do and doing it. Similarly, Davids retains the realized and moral aspect of James's use but relocates the emphasis on God so that the faithful are perfected by the work of God, and this is an idiom of grace. I rather agree with Mussner, who generally views James as prescribing a "futuristic eschatological" ethic, and therefore see his use of "perfect" as an eschatological idiom: that is, perfection is achieved at the Lord's coming for those faithful ones who endure to the end. Perfected and completed existence refers not so much to moral existence or competency but to historical and human existence. Religion for James is ethical; eschatology is not. Perfection and completion are Hellenistic idioms of the prophetic ideal of shalom. 8. Martin, fames, 16. 9. See D. E. Gowan, "Wisdom and Endurance in James," HorBT 15 (1993): 1 4 5 - 5 3 . 10. See Davids, Commentary on fames, 71. 11. Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of fames, 5 5 - 5 6 . 12. Davids, Commentary on fames, 72. 13. Ibid., 7 4 - 7 5 . 14. Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of fames, 5 8 - 6 1 ; Martin, fames, 20; S. E. Porter, "Is dipsuchos (James 1,8; 4,8) a 'Christian' Word?" Bib 71 (1990): 4 6 9 - 9 8 . 15. Davids, Commentary on fames, 75. 16. Mussner, Der fakobusbrief, 7 2 - 7 5 , who correctly views the OT texts in an eschatological sense. 17. Cf. Davids, Commentary on fames, 41-47, 7 5 - 7 8 ; J . A. Sanders, "Isaiah 61 and Luke 4," in Christianity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman

Notes to Pages 5 8 - 8 3

314

Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at 60, Part 1: New Testament, ed. Jacob Neusner, SJLA (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 7 5 - 1 0 6 .

Chapter 3 / James 1:12-21 ,

1. See 'The Literature of James/ in the introduction. 2. Davids, Commentary on fames, 8 0 - 8 1 . 3. S. E. Porter, "Mt 6:13 and Lk 11:4: 'Lead us not into tempta­ tion/ " ExT 101 (1990): 3 5 9 - 6 2 . 4. Davids, Commentary on fames, 84. 5. F. Spitta, Der Brief des fakobus untersucht (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1896), 3 5 - 3 9 . 6. Mussner, Der fakobusbrief, 92. 7. Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of fames, 77-7%. 8. See Mussner, Der fakobusbrief, and Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of James. 9. Cf. my treatment of Col. 1 : 1 5 - 2 0 in Colossians and Philemon, IVPNTC (Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 6 1 - 6 6 . 10. Contra R. Hoppe, Der theologische Hintergrund des Jakobusbriefes, FB 2 8 (Wiirzburg: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), followed by others; cf. Johnson, Letter of James. 11. Cf. Davids, Commentary on James, 91. 12. See "The Argument of James," in the introduction. 13. Cf. Hodges, Epistle of James, for another version of this thesis. 14. Cf. Davids, Commentary on James, 93. 15. For example. Stoicism; contra Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of James, 8 3 - 8 4 ; but Davids, Commentary on James, 95. 16. See Martin, James, 4 9 . 17. Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief, 102; Davids, Commentary on James, 95.

Chapter 4 / James 1:22-2:26 1. L. T. Johnson, 'The Mirror of Remembrance (James 1:22-25)," CBQ 5 0 (1988): 6 3 2 - 4 5 . 2. See G. Marconi, "Una nota sullo specchio di Gc 1,23," Bib 70 (1989): 3 9 6 - 4 0 2 . 3. Cf. Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief, 6 6 - 6 7 . 4. The term "biblical Torah" is multivalent and no one techni­ cal use of "law" (nomos) is found in scripture. Moreover, the specific meaning of "law" in James remains contested between scholars. Thus, for example, Davids, following a more conservative line, takes "law" as a Christian reference to the "law of Christ," consisting of his moral teachings like those gathered in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount (Davids, Commentary on James, 50). Especially in light of 2:8 and under

Note to Page 83

315

the pressure of Pauline usage, others are more inclined to take "law" as a vague allusion to the "law of neighborly love" (Martin, fames, 51). I take "law" in James as a metaphor of the "biblical Torah." The primary clue for this reading comes from 2:10-11, where the "whole law" (2:10) is illustrated by references to the Decalogue (2:11). Clearly, James does not take "whole law" literally, as a reference to the 600+ laws that make up the Torah's legal code. Rather, in a way similar to Jesus and other Jewish contemporaries who reduced the extensive rules of right conduct and ritual purity to a few principles, James defines the Torah's moral code in terms of the Decalogue and the "royal law" of neighborly love (2:8); see Johnson, Letter of fames, 3 0 - 3 2 . If consid­ ered within the wider frame of a theology of the "word," with which James identifies the law (1:18, 21, 2 2 - 2 3 ) , the connection between law and scripture is more certain: the "word" in James refers to scripture (Davids, Commentary on fames, 89). Close parallels are found in 1 Pet. 1:23-24, where the "word" is rooted in the writings of the biblical prophets; and in 2 Tim. 2:15, where the content of the institutional­ ized "word of Truth" is scriptural (2 Tim. 2:16). However, I find no evidence in James for narrowing the meaning of the biblical word (and by implication the biblical law) to its christological (so J . H. Ropes, The Epistle of St fames, ICC [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1916], 1 7 8 - 8 0 ) or kerygmatic content. In James, the divine word is summarized by scripture's proverbial wisdom of 1:19 (see commentary), by which the community's "quick hearing" (= doing) of the law is prescribed. 5. The name "James," found in the address, identifies this writing with the person of James and his interpretive Jacobean tradition: that is, this composition envisages the theological interests of the Pales­ tinian Jewish Christianity which came to be associated with James. Further, while I am convinced that much of the raw material for this book comes from a pre-Pauline period, perhaps from memories of James himself, its final canonical shaping took place during the postPauline era and is the work of a redactor who "knew" of Paul and perhaps even of the biblical Paul (see introduction). The use of a com­ mon "Christian" vocabulary suggests that the author of James may have edited his traditions in order to engage the emergent Pauline tradition in a conversation that may be viewed either as prophetic (to correct dangerous distortions to Jewish faith prompted by Pauline preaching) or pastoral (to sharpen the readers' understanding of their own faith which is currently tested by various trials). The approach of this essay to scripture's own theological diversity recognizes that different notes, no matter how dissonant, belong to the same scripture which bears witness to "one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all." This sovereign and living object of scripture's witness demands that the interpreter "put the text back together in a way that makes it available in the present and in its (bib-

316

Notes to Pages 83-88

lical) entirety — not merely in the past and in the form of historically contextualized fragments" (Jon D. Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, The Old Testament, and Historical Criticism [Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993], 79). It is under the light of these methodological interests, then, that the disagreements between Jacobean and Pauline traditions over the Torah will help to form a complementary whole. 6. Cf. R. W. Wall, "Law and Gospel, Church and Canon," in Wall and Lemcio, New Testament as Canon, 2 0 8 - 4 9 ; Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments, 559. 7. Davids, Commentary on fames, 47. 8. Martin, fames, lxx-lxxi. 9. See Appendix A. 10. By "law/Torah-free," I do not mean that Paul denied the per­ tinence of the biblical Torah; clearly he does not. Rather, Paul makes clear the distinction between faith-righteousness and law-righteousness when defining the membership requirement of spiritual Israel. 11. James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990), 1 2 9 - 2 1 4 . 12. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 4 4 7 - 5 2 3 . 13. Although outside the scope of this excursus, the biblical nar­ ratives of James and Paul especially in Acts, yield an important hermeneutical clue for relating their different theologies of Torah together. 14. This perspective on James agrees with second-century Jewish Christianity as enshrined within Ebionism, where Torah observance maintained a Jewish way of life and where James was Jesus' successor in leading a Mosaic reformation of Israel. In this sense, neither Jesus nor James was a sage, but rather a prophet whose way was of Torah and not of wisdom. 15. There is a sense in which my analysis of James shares method­ ological interests with those who believe that the text itself yields its own meaning—rather than its author/editor. Certainly, the interpreter, who is contextualized by and made sensitive to the text's meaning, contributes to (perhaps even collaborates in) its meaning. 16. Wall and Lemcio, New Testament as Canon, 2 5 7 - 6 1 ; cf. Johnson, "Mirror of Remembrance," 6 3 2 - 4 5 . 17. Contra Johnson, Letter of James, 30. 18. Johnson, "Use of Leviticus 19," 3 9 1 - 4 0 1 . 19. The inter dependency of the traditions of biblical Torah and bib­ lical wisdom is defended by Gerald T. Sheppard in a significant body of published work, the most important of which is his Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct, BZAW 151 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980). Sheppard, "The Role of 'Wisdom' in the Interpretation of Scripture,"

Notes to Pages 88-89

317

Acta Universitatis Szegediensis de Attila JozsefNominatae, ed. Tibor Fabiny, vol. 4 (Szeged, 1992), 187-201; Sheppard, 'The Role of the Canonical Context in the Interpretation of the Solomonic Books," in Solomon's Divine Acts: Joseph Hall's Representation of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs (1609), with Introductory Essays, ed. G. T. Sheppard (Boston: Pilgrim Press, 1991), 67-107; Sheppard, 'The Relation of Solomon's Wisdom to Biblical Prayer," TJT 8 (1992): 7-25. Also, Frank A. Spina's unpublished paper, "In but Not of the World: Reflections on Solomonic Wisdom in 1 Kings 1-11" (personal communication). 20. For this use of "canon consciousness," see Sheppard, Wisdom as Hermeneutical Construct, 1 1 0 - 1 9 , who demonstrates that wisdom writ­ ings, while retaining their own vocabulary and sensibility, use biblical traditions of Torah and the prophets to authorize their own "voice" and to supply some its conceptual freight prior to canonization. In Shep­ pard's mind, for example, Ben Sira's "canon consciousness" facilitated the integration of his biblical tradition (i.e., Torah and prophets) with a noncanonical way of thinking of faith and life (i.e., wisdom). 21. S. Talmon calls attention to less-known "exegetical rules of the Sages," which provide important background to the kind of internal textual interpretation suggested by this essay; "Emendation of Bibli­ cal Texts on the Basis of Ugaritic Parallels," in Studies in the Bible, ed. S. Japhet (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1986), 2 7 9 - 3 0 0 . Especially appro­ priate for this excursus is the rule where, according to Talmon, "one verse may help in ascertaining the sense of another" (280). Such texts are linked together by similar phrases or subject matter (so 2 8 1 - 8 7 ) . This strategy, of course, is deeply rooted in the conviction that "di­ verse components of the biblical anthology share a common world view, [where] innumerable strands link together the constitutive units [to form] a literary and ideological entity" (279). 22. Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990), 1-21. Sheppard, Wis­ dom as Hermeneutical Construct, 1 0 0 - 1 0 2 , among others, catalogues the various kinds of linguistic connections between texts as follows: (1) citation (with or without alteration); (2) paraphrase; (3) key words or phrases; (4) allusions; (5) metaphors or biblical images which allow for "free associations." 23. Note that Ps. 18:7 uses the priestly amomos ("blameless") in­ stead of teleios to underscore Torah's spiritual or religious effect. If this verse from the Psalm provides the subtextual meaning of "perfect law," then the substitution of teleios for amomos in James may well in­ tend a somewhat different and expanded (i.e., "Christian") meaning of Torah's perfection than is found in the Psalm, which is best recovered by inter-/intratextual analysis (below). 24. In his Restoring the Diaspora, Timothy B. Cargal utilizes Greimasian semiotics to contend that the purpose of James is best envisaged

318

Notes to Pages 90-91

by relating the opening address to the "diaspora" (1:1) with the con­ cluding exhortation to those who have "wandered from the truth" ( 5 : 1 9 - 2 0 ) . Within these structural "brackets," then, the reader finds ad­ vice for converting a spiritually disaffected Christian diaspora. In light of the composition's own rhetorical structure, the "perfection" of the "word," which is defined in 1:2-21, sets forth the subject matter of a message whose yield is the "salvation of the soul." I would also equate the "word" with the way of Torah; thus, following Cargal's lead, James is here arguing that the spiritual effect of "perfect Torah" is to convert the disaffected Christian. 25. "Intratextuality" is defined differently by different scholars who have different interests in the text itself. In my use, the composition itself is presumed to be a privileged medium of interpretation. The in­ terpreter must make sense of words and ideas that are prized within (i.e., "intra") the "world" created by the text itself. Further, I suspect that the final editor was himself sensitive to how words and ideas de­ veloped within the literary world he had shaped. If he was informed by strategies of rabbinical exegesis as many commentators suspect, then this kind of literary strategy which recalls catchwords for later use and expanded meaning takes its cues from Gezera shawa (i.e., the rule of equivalence) by which one passage is used to interpret another when similar words link the two. Of course, these literary techniques are deeply rooted in theological convictions about the perspicuity and coherence of sacred traditions. 26. The primary references to the biblical Torah in James fall within the section marked off by 1:22-2:26, which is a halachic midrash on "quick to listen," the first member of triadic proverb found in 1:19-20. The hermeneutical environment for interpretation includes the situation of the readers who first read the text. That is, the big ideas of any composition unfold in a way that interprets the faith and life of its first audience. In this case, the crisis that requires James's commen­ tary on "quick listening" is the oppression of the community's poor (2:1-7). 27. Davids, Commentary on fames, 9 9 - 1 0 0 . 28. Following (although modifying) the lead of Fred O. Francis ("Form and Function," 1 1 0 - 2 6 ) , I take James 1:2-21 to be a "dou­ ble opening," pairing 1:2-11 and 1:12-21, whose rhetorical role is to introduce the author's organizing themes (e.g., testing, eschatological blessing, wisdom, jubilary reversal) in a nuanced and more persuasive manner (see introduction). 29. Mussner, Der fakobusbrief, 6 6 - 6 7 . 30. The interpreter is made even more sensitive to the pairing of wisdom and law by noting the repetition of teleios and holo(-kleroi), used together in 1:4 to introduce wisdom in 1:5, and teleios and holos, used to introduce Torah in 1:25 and 2:10.

Notes to Pages 92-94

319

31. Cf. Davids, Commentary on fames, 9 9 - 1 0 0 . Suggested sources include Jewish (par. to wisdom, Qumran, etc.), Jacobean (i.e., some version of Hellenized Jewish Christianity [although still perhaps a Palestinian province]), pre-post-anti-Pauline depending on date/ interpretation), Jesus of Gospel, Jesus of pre-gospel, Jesus of Q, or Jesus of pre-Q. 32. R. Fabris, Legge della liberta in Giacomo, RivBSup 8 (Brescia: Paideia, 1977). 33. Scholars struggling with the apparent conflict between James and Paul over the importance of Torah sometimes claim that whatever anti-Pauline polemics are included in James are focused by a mistaken understanding of Paul's teaching. In any case, James is probably re­ sponding to the "real" (rather than stated) and even logical outcome of Paul's teaching found in Romans 3 - 4 and Galatians 2 - 5 , which continues to form the core convictions of a "folk Paulinism" even to this day. 34. See M. Goulder, A Tale of Two Missions (London: SCM, 1994). 35. So Jack T. Sanders, Schismatics, Sectarians, Dissidents, Deviants (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1993), 2 2 2 - 2 3 . In Pauline thought, the Spirit's in-filling is a liberating event, and in James wis­ dom is on par with Paul's Spirit. In some sense, then, one might suppose that the incursion and joining of wisdom with law liberates the law from its deadly legalism. Wisdom applies the example of Christ to life in a way that accords with God's will. 36. Cf. Sheppard, Wisdom as Hermeneutical Construct, 102. 37. See J . Louw and E. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Tes­ tament Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988), 1:487-89, where aphesis (37.132, "the process of setting free or liberating") and eleutheria (37.133, "the state of being free or liber­ ated") are members of the same subdomain as lexically similar words. 38. The story behind James 2:2-7 remains difficult to tell. In my opinion, the rich of 2 : 2 - 3 and 2:6-7 are able to exploit their legal pow­ ers over the poor and powerless members of this Christian synagogue. Perhaps they are extorting payment in exchange for "protection," and it is this payment to the rich outsider that funded the community's welfare to the poor insider. In this case, the foolishness of not siding with those poor insiders whom God has elected to be rich in faith (2:5) is understood against the wisdom of obeying Torah's command (2:8), since obedience issues in God's favorable verdict at the end of the age (2:13). The allusion to Jubilee "thickens" this calculus: a jubilary con­ cern for the liberation of the poor from those who impoverish them heralds the coming triumph of God and indicates their devotion to God and fitness to participate in the Lord's reign. 39. There are other jubilary themes found in James; Wall, "James as Apocalyptic Paraenesis," 11-22. For example, a jubilary eschatol-

320

Notes to Pages 9 4 - 9 6

ogy might include the cycle of time mentioned in 5:7-18 (cf. G. W. Buchanan, The Book of Revelation [Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen, 1993], 7-14); or the reversal theme in 1:9-11; 5:1-6 (cf. M. Dibelius, fames, rev. by H. Greeven, Hermeneia [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976], 3 9 - 4 5 , 84); emphasis on an active faith in 2 : 1 4 - 2 6 (cf. Robert Sloan, The Favor­ able Year of the Lord [Austin, Tex.: Schola, 1977], 7-27; and the Lord's parousia in 5:7-9. 40. So Martin, fames, 51. 41. Contra Leonard Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982), 2 0 3 - 8 , who is followed by Martin, fames, 51. 42. So Mussner, Der fakobusbrief, 107; also, Davids, Commentary on fames, 100. 43. For the various possibilities, see Pedrito U. Maynard-Reid, Poverty and Wealth in fames (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1987), 4 8 - 6 7 . Whether to consider the references to rich and poor as social cat­ egories of outsider ("rich") and insider ("poor") remains contested, although Roy B. Ward's argument in favor of a Christian setting is con­ vincing (cf. "Partiality in the Assembly," 8 7 - 9 7 ) . However, elsewhere in James, including 2:6-7, the struggle between "rich" and "poor" classes seems to place Christian poor against non-Christian rich. If both be­ long to a common group, then both are Palestinian Jews (but not necessarily Christian) and subject to a common juridical tradition. This solution retains continuity with 2:6-7, where the rich are obviously non-Christians. Paul's advice in 1 Cor. 5:9-6:11 envisages a similar distinction within his gentile mission, where a church-court (cf. James 2:2-3) is called for instead of a pagan law-court (cf. James 2:6-7) to settle differences between believers and "so-called" believers who are actually outsiders to the Christian faith (1 Cor. 5:11-12). 44. Maynard-Reid, Poverty and Wealth, 5 9 - 6 1 , 6 3 - 6 4 . 45. The important phrase, "the faith of Jesus Christ," in 2:1 cues the reader to the pairing of Jesus and Torah. Johnson links the "no partiality" phrase in 2:1 to Lev. 19:15, which James posits at the core of the "faith of Jesus." Johnson does not go on to suggest, how­ ever, that Lev. 19:15 includes the vocabulary of the poor and evil judgment (also 19:18; cf. Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of fames, 9 3 - 9 4 ) which recalls James 2 : 2 - 4 (cf. Davids, Commentary on fames, 110). In this sense, 2:1-4 is a christological midrash on Lev. 19:15. The questions of genre that Johnson raises in his essay are impor­ tant. If James is midrashic literature (rather than Hellenistic paraenesis) and therefore intertextual, then the sources the interpreter attends to when analyzing the text will also shift. That is, if midrashic lit­ erature, then the primary sources are biblical rather than the moral traditions of the Greco-Roman world.The allusions are to tradition pre­ served in Luke's Gospel: James 2 : 2 - 4 alludes to Luke 14:7-14; and

Notes to Pages 9 6 - 9 7

321

James 2:5 to Luke 6:20. The seems apropos since it is Luke, more than any other NT writer, who preserves a jubilary interpretation of Jesus' messiahship. One final point in this regard. Since the date of James remains con­ tested, the identity of these pre-Gospel traditions of Jesus, used in James 2:1-5, remain contested as well. The pairing of Jesus and traditional Jew­ ish wisdom ( 1 : 1 9 - 2 0 ) constructs a different Jesus than is found within Christian Gospel tradition. Especially in Matthew (i.e., Q, QMatt, Matt), Jesus is a prophetic sage who sponsors a messianic reformation of Jewish wisdom. In my mind, the allusions to the Jesus tradition in 2 : 2 - 5 (cf. Luke 14:7-14 par. James 2:2-4; Luke 6:20 par. James 2:5), which define "the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ" (2:1), are rooted in biblical Torah and wisdom. In this sense, the author's understanding of Jesus' faith follows the teaching of biblical Torah and wisdom: he is the glorious exemplar of doing the levitical law of holiness, whose love of his poor and powerless neighbors bears witness to his messiahship. 46. I will argue below that the curious addition of the articular doxa ("the glory") to Jesus' title in 2:1 may refer to God's approval of Jesus' messiahship ("Lord Jesus Christ"), and exaltation to Lord ("Lord Jesus Christ") results from his love of the poor and powerless neighbor (cf. kalds poieite; 2:8b). 47. Paul's own vision of Christ's "impartiality," in response to ques­ tions about theodicy, is more missiological than sociological. Thus, claims of God's impartiality are directed to opponents of his gentile mission: God has called Gentiles as well as Jews out of the world and into Christ's "body" to share equally in the promised blessings of grace (Rom. 15:8-12; cf. 3 : 2 9 - 3 0 ) . Moreover, God's impartiality will be dis­ closed at the Lord's coming triumph, when all will be judged by the same conditions which are met by all through their participation with Christ Jesus (Rom. 2:5-16). 48. Johnson agrees that the "law of liberty" and the "royal law" re­ fer to the same biblical material (in his view. Lev. 19:12-18); however, rather than mere equivalents (pace Martin, fames, 67), they serve dif­ ferent roles: the "law of liberty" judges Christians, whereas the "royal law" guides the conduct of Christians (399). 49. Mussner adds "darum scheint mit dem Ausdruck 'konigliches Gesetz' nur gesagt zu sein, dass das Gebot von Lv 19, 18 koniglichen Rang unter den anderen Geboten hat" (124). 50. Davids, Commentary on fames, 114. 51. I agree with Ben Witherington, who contends that James's ap­ propriation of the Jewish sapiential materials is quite early and more traditional than is found in the Jesus tradition (whether Q or Synop­ tic Gospels); "Wisdom's Legacy: From Q to James," in Jesus the Sage. According to Witherington, the Book of James envisages a community with "carefully controlled boundaries," to serve as "sacred space" for

322

Notes to Pages 9 8 - 1 1 5

believers within a spiritually hostile world. Jesus, on the other hand, reaches out beyond the community in "free association with sinners" to produce a "counter order" with new and different boundaries in wit­ ness to the present in-breaking of God's eschatological reign. It would seem to me that James's interpretation of Torah parallels his handling of biblical wisdom. 52. J . H. Elliott, "The Epistle of James in Rhetorical and Social Scien­ tific Perspective: Holiness-Wholeness and Patterns of Replication," BTB 2 3 (1993): 7 1 - 8 1 . 53. Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger (New York: Praeger, 1966). 54. Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief, 1 0 9 - 1 0 . 55. So Davids, Commentary on James, 101. 56. Cf. Martin, James, 53. 57. See F. Hort, The Epistle of St James (London: Macmillan, 1909). 58. See Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of James. 59. Maynard-Reid, Poverty and Wealth, 4 8 - 6 7 . 60. See Introduction, "The Audience(s) of James." 61. Ward, "Partiality in the Assembly," 87-97. 62. Martin, James, 59. 63. Johnson, Letter of James, 2 2 1 . 64. Ibid., 2 2 8 . 65. E.g., Dibelius, James. 66. Segal, "Conversion and Messianism," 3 3 2 - 3 5 ; Laws, Commen­ tary on the Epistle of James, 94, 97. 67. See Hays, Faith of Jesus Christ, 1 7 0 - 7 4 . However, see Dunn, Romans, 1:166-67, 177-78. 68. Hays, Faith of Jesus Christ, 175. 69. Adamson, Epistle of James, 105; Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief, 117; now confirmed by H. C. Kee, "Defining the First-Century C.E. Syna­ gogue: Problems and Progress," NTS 41 (1995): 4 8 1 - 5 0 0 . 70. Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of James, 9 8 - 1 0 2 ; Martin, James, 57. 71. Adamson, Epistle of James, 105; B. Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude, AB (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964), 27. 72. Ward, "Partiality in the Assembly"; Johnson, Letter of James, 227. 73. Maynard-Reid, Poverty and Wealth, 6 3 - 6 5 . 74. Cf. Lev. 19:15; Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of James, 102; Johnson, "Use of Leviticus 19," 3 9 4 . 75. Martin, James, 63; Johnson, Letter of James, 2 2 9 . 76. C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 2d ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 24. 77. Davids, Commentary on James, 112. 78. J . A. Sanders, "The Ethic of Election in Luke's Great Banquet Parable," in Old Testament Ethics, ed. J . Crenshaw and J . Willis (New York: KTAV, 1974), 2 4 7 - 7 1 .

Notes to Pages 122-141

323

79. Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief, 1 2 3 - 2 4 . 80. Ibid., 124; cf. Davids, Commentary on James, 1 1 4 - 1 5 . 81. Johnson, Letter of James, 2 3 0 . 82. Contra Adamson, Epistle of James, 115. 83. Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of James, 107-8. 84. Pace Martin, 67. 85. Johnson, Letter of James, 2 3 5 - 3 6 . 86. Ibid., 2 3 2 . 87. Davids, Commentary on James, 116. 88. Contra Johnson, Letter of James, 2 3 2 . 89. See The Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King, Jr., ed. J. M. Washington (San Francisco: Harper, 1986), 2 8 9 - 9 0 . 90. M. Lautenschlager, "Der Gegenstand des Glaubens im Jakobus­ brief," ZTK 87 (1990): 1 6 3 - 8 4 . 91. Cf. Davids, Commentary on James, 121. 92. So Martin, James, 8 0 - 8 1 . 93. Dibelius, James, 156; cf. Davids, Commentary on James, 1 2 3 - 2 4 . 94. So Dibelius, James. 95. Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of James, 127-28. 96. Dibelius, James, 160. 97. Adamson, Epistle of James, 1 3 5 - 3 7 . 98. Ibid., 135. 99. Dibelius, James, 1 4 9 - 5 0 . 100. Adamson, Epistle of James, 135. 101. Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of James, 122. 102. Ropes, Epistle of St. James, 2 0 9 - 1 0 ; Dibelius, James, 150. 103. Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of James, 123. 104. Adamson, Epistle of James, 1 3 6 - 3 7 . 105. Dibelius, James, 151. 106. But Ropes calls the majority reading's use of ek "an unfortunate conformation to the following clause, which spoils the sense" (Epistle of St. James, 2 0 9 ) . However, the point is not the parallel use of ek ton ergon, but rather the shift in word order; there is not conformation of order, which is decisive for the interlocutor's argument that two mutually exclusive and unrelated options exist for the community — faith alone and works, orthodoxy and orthopraxy. 107. Dibelius, James, 149. The kai that connects the interlocutor's argument with the author's rejoinder is "adversative" rather than conjunctive; see Moule, Idiom Book, 178. 108. Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of James, 119. D. O. Via also brings 1:19-27 together with 2:14-26, paralleling "hearing and doing" and "faith and works," however, he follows Dibelius by finding no integral relationship between this parallelism and 2:1-13; D. O. Via, "The Right Strawy Epistle Reconsidered: A Study in Biblical Ethics and Hermeneutics," JAAR 4 9 (1969): 2 5 3 - 6 7 .

324

Notes to Pages 142-153

109. W. Durness, "Mercy Triumphs over Justice: James 2:13 and the Theology of Faith and Works," Themelios 6 (1981): 11-16. 110. Reicke, Epistles of fames, Peter, and fude, 32. 111. See J . L. Berquist's enlightening treatment of the Rahab story in Joshua ("Expectations and Repeated Climax in the Rahab Story," unpublished paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion, San Francisco, 1992). 112. G. M. Tucker's treatment of Rahab's story in Joshua proves in­ structive at this point. According to Tucker, spy and conquest traditions are woven together by the final redactor of canonical Joshua, so that Rahab's final salvation and evil Jericho's fall occur together in Josh. 6:22-26; "The Rahab Saga (Joshua 2): Some Form-Critical and TraditioHistorical Observations," in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays (Festschrift for W. F. Stinespring), ed. J. M. Efird (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1972), 6 6 - 8 6 . That is, Rahab's friendship with God, which allows her family "to live in the middle of Israel ever since," requires the end of chaos and evil. 113. Davids, Commentary on fames, 129. 114. Note also that James links together the biblical citation of 2:23 with the earlier commentary on neighborly love in 2:8 by common use of this "fulfillment" (teled/teleiod) idiom. In this sense, observance of the "royal law" of neighborly love fulfills the conditions of God's earlier promise to Abraham. 115. Davids, Commentary on fames, 127; R. B. Ward, "The Works of Abraham: James 2:14-26," HTR 61 (1968): 2 8 3 - 9 0 . 116. So Davids, Commentary on fames, 127. 117. It is not clear to me why James does not cite this incident, unless it is simply a feature of the author's literary art. I suspect it was not nec­ essary for a readership familiar with the story. Perhaps allusions are gen­ erally more evocative, leading readers/auditors to the "self-discovery" of meaning that is less pedantic and rhetorically more powerful. 118. LXX Josh. 2:1-13, 6:21-24 uses neaniskoi and andres, which is followed by the NT reference to her in Heb. 11:31 (kataskopoi; based on the verb kataskopeuein used in the Joshua narrative); however, we note that Joshua sends "messengers" to spy on Achan according to Josh. 7:22. 119. So Mussner, Der fakobusbrief, 141-42; Davids, Commentary on fames, 1 2 8 - 2 9 . 120. Cf. Dibelius, fames, 163; Mussner, Der fakobusbrief, 142. 121. See Johnson, Letter of fames, 2 3 6 - 5 2 . 122. See my essay, "Israel and the Gentile Mission According to Acts and Paul: A Canonical Perspective," in The Book of Acts in First-Century Setting, vol. 6, The Theology of Acts, ed. I. H. Marshall and D. Petersen (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, forthcoming). 123. Martin, fames, 95; Davids, Commentary on fames, 1 3 1 - 3 2 . 124. Contra Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of fames, 138.

Notes to Pages 153-170

325

125. Berquist's narrative analysis of Rahab's story in Joshua follows the "spy story" genre, most fully illustrated by the story found in Num­ bers 13. What is lacking, at least in explicit detail, from the "spy story" in Joshua 2, which then the reader needs to supply, is the discovery of some "item of value." According to Berquist, this "item" is none other than Rahab herself— her saving faith. Further, the other item lacking from Joshua 2 is the presentation of this precious item, which is not supplied until the story's climax in Josh. 6:25, when Rahab lives with her family in Israel. 126. See Johnson, Letter of fames, 245; also M. Abegg, "Paul, 'Works of the Law,' and the MMT," EAR 2 0 (1994): 5 2 - 5 5 . 127. Heb. 13:2 uses the verb xenizo for entertaining, an obvious allusion to Genesis 18 where angels are "foreigners" in Sodom. 128. Dibelius, fames, 1 6 6 - 6 7 . 129. I find it interesting that 1 Clement 1 0 - 1 2 mentions Lot along with Abraham and Rahab as three Old Testament examples of hospital­ ity. Both Lot and Rahab are linked to God's judgment of pagan cities (Genesis 19), and their salvation from those cities is justified by their hospitable treatment of "messengers." These Old Testament images of divine judgment, linked to Rahab's Jericho and perhaps even to Lot's Sodom and Gomorrah, supply yet another allusive meaning to James's mention of Rahab. That is, James contends that even as her merciful deeds liberate Rahab from the judgment of pagan Jericho, so also will merciful deeds liberate all who do them from divine judgment at the end of the age (2:13).

Chapter 5 / James 3:1-18 1. D. F. Watson, "The Rhetoric of James 3:1-12 and a Classical Pattern of Argumentation," NovT 35 (1993): 4 8 - 6 4 . 2. Johnson, Letter of fames, 264. 3. Cf. Davids, Commentary on fames, 136. 4. Reicke, Epistles of fames, Peter, and Jude, 37; so also Davids, Commentary on James, 139. 5. Davids, Commentary on James, 141. 6. See ibid., 1 4 1 - 4 4 ; Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief, 1 6 2 - 6 5 , for history of interpretation. 7. Contra Ropes, Epistle of St. James, 2 3 3 - 3 9 ; cf. Martin, fames, 113-16. 8. Martin, James, 114. 9. Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief, 1 6 2 - 6 3 . 10. Mayor, Epistle of St. James, 115. 11. Cf. Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief, 165. 12. Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of James, 152. 13. Davids, Commentary on James, 143.

326

Notes to Pages 170-195

14. Martin, fames, 116. 15. Contra Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of James, 1 5 0 - 5 1 , et al. 16. See Dibelius, James, 1 9 6 - 9 8 . 17. Martin, James, 1 1 5 - 1 6 . 18. Johnson, Letter of James, 260. 19. Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of James, 1 5 2 - 5 3 . 20. Davids, Commentary on James, 145. 21. Contra Dibelius, James, 201. 22. Martin, James, 118. 23. Contra Dibelius, James, 2 0 3 . 24. See Johnson, Letter of James, 2 6 1 - 6 2 . 25. Dibelius, James, 203. 26. Martin, James, 120. 27. So Davids, Commentary on James, 148; and others. 28. Dibelius, James, 205. 29. Ibid., 207. 30. Johnson, Letter of James, 2 6 8 - 6 9 . 31. Cf. Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief, 1 6 8 - 6 9 . 32. Davids, Commentary on James, 150. 33. W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, trans. W. Arndt and F. Gingrich (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), 309; Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief, 171; cf. Dibelius, James, 2 0 9 - 1 0 . 34. Davids, Commentary on James, 151. 35. Pace Dibelius, James, 2 1 0 - 1 2 . 36. Johnson, Letter of James, 271. 37. Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief, 171-72. 38. Ropes, Epistle of St James, 248. 39. Johnson, Letter of James, 273. 40. Dibelius, James, 208. 41. Cf. Martin, James, 1 3 3 - 3 4 . 42. Cf. Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief, 173. 43. J . A. Kirk, "The Meaning of Wisdom in James," NTS 16 (1969): 24-38. 44. Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of James, 163; Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief, 174. 45. Davids, Commentary on James, 154. 46. Ibid. 47. Cf. Reicke, Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude, 108. 48. Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of James, 1 6 5 - 6 6 .

Chapter 6 / James 4:1-5:6 1. See Johnson, Letter of James, 2 8 8 - 8 9 . 2. Ropes, Epistle of St. James, 253; Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief, 176 77; Martin, James, 144; however, Davids, Commentary on James, 157.

Notes to Pages 196-236

327

3. See Dibelius's discussion in fames, 2 1 6 - 1 8 . 4. Cf. Davids, Commentary on fames, 158. 5. E.g., Dibelius, fames, 2 1 8 - 1 9 . 6. Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon, 170. 7. L. T. Johnson, "Friendship with the World/Friendship with God: A Study of Discipleship in James," in Discipleship in the New Testament, ed. F. F. Segovia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 1 6 6 - 8 3 . 8. Hort, Epistle of St. fames, 92; Davids, Commentary on fames, 160. 9. See R. W. Wall, Revelation, NIBC (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 2 0 8 - 9 . 10. Contra Davids, Commentary on fames, and others. 11. See B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: UBS, 1975), 6 8 3 . 12. So Johnson, Letter of fames, 2 8 1 - 8 2 . 13. L. J. Prockter, "James 4 . 4 - 6 : Midrash on Noah," NTS 35 (1989): 625-27. 14. Davids, Commentary on fames, 165; Dibelius, fames, 2 2 5 - 2 6 . 15. W. McKane, Proverbs, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970), 3 0 0 - 3 0 2 . 16. See Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon, 8 1 1 . 17. Johnson, Letter of fames, 2 8 4 - 8 6 . 18. Davids, Commentary on fames, 168. 19. Cf. Davids, Commentary on fames, 1 7 1 - 8 0 . 20. Johnson, Letter of fames, 308. 21. See Maynard-Reid, Poverty and Wealth, 8 1 - 9 8 . 22. P. J . Hartin, " 'Come now, you rich, weep and wail...' (James 5:1-6)," JTSAfric 84 (1993): 5 7 - 6 3 . 23. Johnson, Letter of James, 2 9 9 . 24. Ibid., 3 0 2 - 3 . 25. Davids, Commentary on James, 179. 26. Dibelius, James, 239; Davids, Commentary on James, 180; Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of James, 206; Johnson, Letter of James, 304. 27. So Johnson, Letter of James, 305; but Martin, James, 172, 1 8 2 - 8 4 . 28. I will try to develop the thesis of this excursus more fully in A New Testament Theology of the Poor (Nashville: Abingdon Press, forthcoming). 29. An earlier, somewhat different version of this excursus is in­ cluded in the chapter, "Reading the New Testament in Canonical Context," in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation, ed. J. B. Green (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995), 3 8 4 - 9 2 . 30. For this, see Appendix A. 31. Albert C. Outler, "The 'Logic' of Canon-Making and the Tasks of Canon-Criticism," in Texts and Testaments: Critical Essays on the Bible and Early Church Fathers, Festschrift for S. Currie, ed. W. E. March (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1980), 2 6 3 - 7 6 .

328

Notes to Pages 237-265

32. Wall and Lemcio, New Testament as Canon, 1 6 1 - 8 3 . 33. See Francis, "Form and Function/' 1 1 0 - 2 6 . 34. See Wall and Lemcio, New Testament as Canon, 2 0 8 - 4 9 . 35. See M. Brett, Biblical Criticism in Crisis? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 1 2 4 - 2 7 . 36. Wall and Lemcio, New Testament as Canon, 1 1 0 - 2 8 , 1 4 2 - 6 0 . 37. R. W. Wall, Colossians and Philemon, IVPNTC (Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 1 7 9 - 9 1 .

Chapter 7 / James 5:7-12 1. Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Free Press, 1992). 2. See Wall, "James as Apocalyptic Paraenesis," 11-22. 3. Contra Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of James, 208; Johnson, Letter of James, 312. 4. Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief, 2 0 1 ; Davids, Commentary on James, 181. 5. Johnson, Letter of James, 3 1 3 . 6. Martin, James, 190. 7. Perkins, First and Second Peter, James, and Jude, 8 8 - 8 9 . 8. Johnson, Letter of James, 314; Davids, Commentary on James, 182. 9. Contra Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of James, 2 0 8 . 10. Johnson, Letter of James, 3 1 2 - 1 3 . 11. Davids, Commentary on James, 183. 12. See Martin, James, 1 9 0 - 9 1 . 13. E.g., Davids, Commentary on James, 187, who maintains this connection "appears certain." 14. R. P. Spittler, "Testament of Job," in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J . H. Charlesworth (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983), 829-68. 15. Ibid., 8 3 6 . 16. Ibid. 17. Davids, Commentary on James, 1 8 9 - 9 0 ; however, Laws, Commen­ tary on the Epistle of James, 2 2 2 - 2 3 . 18. Johnson, Letter of James, 3 2 5 - 2 6 . 19. Contra Davids, Commentary on James, 188; Mussner, Der Jakobus­ brief, 2 1 1 .

Chapter 8 / James 5:13-20 1. However, note Dibelius, James, 2 5 2 . 2. J . C. Thomas, "The Devil, Disease, and Deliverance: James 5 : 1 4 16," JPS 2 (1993): 2 5 - 5 0 . 3. Dibelius, James, 252; cf. 1 Cor. 12:4-11.

Notes to Pages 265-277

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

329

Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of fames, 2 2 7 - 3 2 . Martin, fames, 2 1 0 - 1 1 ; cf. John 9:3. Cf. Reicke, Epistles of fames, Peter, and fude, 59. Martin, fames, 2 1 0 . See Dibelius, fames, 2 5 5 . Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of fames, 2 3 3 . Johnson, Letter of fames, 3 3 4 - 3 5 . Mussner, Der fakobusbrief, 2 2 5 - 2 6 . Contra ibid., 2 2 8 . Cf. Moule, Idiom Book, 26. Martin, fames, 2 1 2 . See Dibelius, fames, 2 5 6 - 5 7 ; Wall, Revelation, 143. Mussner, Der fakobusbrief, 2 3 0 . Cf. Martin, fames, 217-18.

Appendix A / Reading the New Testament in Canonical Context 1. Cf. J . A. Sanders, "The Integrity of Biblical Pluralism," in "Not in Heaven": Coherence and Complexity in Biblical Narrative, ed. Jason P. Rosenblatt and Joseph C. Sitter son Jr. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), 1 5 4 - 5 7 . 2. Without question Childs's most influential work is his In­ troduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979); in my opinion, he has not advanced his discussion of the "canonical approach" since its publication. See, however, Gerald Sheppard's fine essay on "Canonical Criticism," in ABD, 1:861-66. 3. I recognize the contested nature of what "synchronic" interpre­ tation intends to accomplish in biblical and literary analysis; see Brett, Biblical Criticism in Crisis, 1 0 4 - 1 5 . Further, there are multiple defini­ tions of the "canonical process" within the field of canonical criticism. For Childs, the idea of a canonical process is vaguely historical and refers to the final stage in the formation of the biblical canon when the believing community "recognized" its "rule of faith" in the shape and content of a discrete form (i.e., the "final form") of its scripture. I would agree with Childs that this recognition of a biblical canon took place within history and resulted in the "fixing" of a particu­ lar shape of biblical literature; but this final stage in the formation of a discrete scripture was largely guided by impressions of its truth­ fulness or intuitions of its ongoing religious utility rather than the outcome of some positivistic or rational judgment. Nor did some final redactor (or God, according to the fundamentalists) wave an "editorial wand over all the disparate literature," to use Sanders's phrase, to cre­ ate the church's Bible. In fact, the primacy Childs grants to the final stage of the canonical process is really an appeal to a useful metaphor

330

Notes to Pages 277-279

for the primacy he grants to the final form of the canon. Although Brett successfully, in my view, provides Childs with the necessary epistemology to anchor his methodological interests, Sanders's notion of canonical process complements Childs's approach in a different way. Sanders's point is to describe the hermeneutics of the canonical pro­ cess by which we understand more adequately how and why Jewish ("prophetic") and Christian ("apostolic") writings were preserved, col­ lected and canonized into biblical form. First of all, the canonizing process was a "monotheizing process" by which biblical writings be­ came the "Word of God" brought near to God's people in relevant response to their ever changing needs; cf. Sanders's superb summary of his account of canonical criticism in "Integrity." Second, however, biblical writings became God's Word by the act of biblical (i.e., rab­ binical or midrashic) interpretation; so that "what got picked up and read again and again, and was recommended to the children and to other communities nearby, and continued to give value and to give life, was what made it into the canon" (Sanders, "Integrity," 168). For Sanders, the biblical canon "norms" the community's hermeneutics by which biblical texts are re-signified into theologically relevant teach­ ings, which help to form the community's particular identity amidst the ambiguities and vicissitudes of human life and history. 4. This point draws upon Hans-Georg Gadamer's idea of "classical" literature; cf. Truth and Method, 2d ed. (New York: Crossroad, 1989), esp. 2 8 5 - 9 0 . 5. See James A. Sanders, Canon and Community (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984). 6. While Sanders contends that the biblical canon is characterized by its textual "stability" and contextual "adaptability," his principal methodological interest has always been the Bible's adaptability (even as Childs's methodological interest has always been the Bible's stabil­ ity). For Sanders, the fluidity of the biblical canon is a matter of the historical record; yet, it is also the constant experience of faithful in­ terpreters, whose task it is to find new meanings in the same biblical texts for their new situations. It is this experience of interpretation that justifies this interest in scripture's ability to adapt itself to new hearers and readers. 7. See Wall and Lemcio, New Testament as Canon. 8. See especially Brett, Biblical Criticism in Crisis. Brett's work requires supplementation in two ways: (1) to distinguish between a canonical approach to OT and NT studies, where some of the methodological problems Brett raises and responds to are not quite as important (e.g., the duration of the canonical process) but where there are other problems (e.g., the relationship between the two testaments); and (2) to show more carefully and critically how the "canonical approach" of Childs is different from and is complemented by the "ca-

Notes to Pages 280-287

331

nonical criticism" of Sanders. This latter point has been recently taken up in a helpful essay by Mikeal C. Parsons, "Canonical Criticism," in New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, ed. David A. Black and David S. Dockery (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1991), 2 5 3 - 9 4 . 9. My use of the controversial term "plain meaning" is nei­ ther naive nor courageous. It seeks rather to exploit two discussions, one medieval and another modern, the first Jewish and the second Christian. The first source for defining "plain-meaning exegesis" is the medieval rabbinate, whose commentaries on scripture typically distinguished between peshat ("straightforward") and derash ("investi­ gation") as two integral exegetical modes. If the aim of hermeneutical inquiry is peshat, the interpreter is concerned with a closely reasoned description of what the text actually says. In this first mode, the interpreter responds to the hermeneutical crisis of the text's incom­ prehensibility within a congregation of believers for whom that text is canonical. If the aim is derash, the interpreter concerns oneself with an imaginative interpretation of what the text means for its current audience. This second task, while rooted in the first, responds to a different and more important hermeneutical crisis, which is the per­ ception of the text's theological relevance or irrelevance for its current readers. If the biblical canon intends to facilitate theological reflec­ tion, then the ultimate aim of exegesis is not peshat but derash. My second source is the work of Raymond E. Brown, who reintroduced the idea of scripture's sensus plenior into the scholarly debate over bib­ lical hermeneutics ("The History and Development of the Theory of a Sensus Plenior/' CBQ 15 [1953]: 1 4 1 - 6 2 ; The Sensus Plenior of Sacred Scripture [New York: Paulist Press, I960]). According to Brown's more modern (and positive) definition, the sensus plenior or "plenary sense" of a biblical text agrees with the theological aspect of the entire bibli­ cal canon. My use of "plain meaning" includes this sense, so that the single meaning of any text bears witness to the Bible's witness to God. 10. In canonical criticism this exegetical sensitivity takes on a theo­ logical cast when speculating on the relationship between the two testaments of the Christian Bible: the NT is a midrash on the OT, for it bears witness that the salvation promised in the first is fulfilled by the Jesus of the second. 11. Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism, 79. 12. Esp. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments, 719-27. 13. For this point, see Michael Fishbane, The Garments of Torah (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989), 1 6 - 1 8 . 14. Outler, "'Logic' of Canon-Making and the Tasks of CanonCriticism," 2 6 3 - 7 6 . 15. I learned of Popper's helpful categories for determining textual

332

Notes to Pages 289-293

objectivity as good reason for both receiving and preserving literary texts from Brett, Biblical Criticism in Crisis, 1 2 4 - 2 7 .

Appendix B / James and Paul in Pre-Canonical Context 1. Cf. J . D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977). Dunn's conclusion that a uni­ fying paradigm is found outside of the NT and in the great ecumenical creeds of Christendom has recently been challenged by E. E. Lem­ cio, who has recovered a "unifying kerygma" of common themes and grammar in every substratum of the NT; "Unifying Kerygma of the New Testament," 3 - 1 7 . 2. In recent years, initiated by the work of H. J . Schoeps, Jewish Christianity: Factional Disputes in the Early Church (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), various attempts have been made to define "Jewish Chris­ tianity" in order to locate it within the history of earliest Christianity. The most notable efforts are those of J. Danielou, Theology of Jewish Chris­ tianity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984); R. A. Kraft, "In Search of 'Jewish Christianity' and Its Theology,'" RSR 6 0 (1972): 8 1 - 9 2 ; A. F. J . Klijn, "The Study of Jewish Christianity," NTS 2 0 (1974): 4 1 9 - 3 1 ; and R. E. Brown, "Not Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity, but Types of Jewish/Gentile Christianity," CBQ 45 (1983): 7 4 - 7 9 . 3. Cf. Brown, "Not Jewish Christianity," who suggests that these distinctions often made between gentile and Jewish varieties of Chris­ tianity are more appropriate in the second century than the first (75). 4. See L. Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982), 200, 2 0 8 - 1 1 . 5. See G. I. Langmuir, History, Religion, and Antisemitism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 2 7 5 - 3 0 5 . 6. J . A. Sanders has addressed the problem by calling for a change in nomenclature within the Christian biblical canon, from Old and New Testaments to "First and Second" Testaments. While admitting some dif­ ficulties, Sanders contends that this new terminology expresses better the theological continuity between the Hebrew and Christian scriptures; J. A. Sanders, "First Testament and Second," BTB 17 (1987): 4 7 - 4 9 . 7. While biblical scholarship is not divided on this point, it has been articulated in a variety of ways. For example, Spitta (Der Brief des Jakobus untersucht) finds nothing "Christian" in James, while Davids (Commentary on James) finds too much that is "Christian." 8. In this regard, R. E. van Voorst (The Ascents of James: History and Theology of a Jewish-Christian Community, SBLDS 112 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989]) argues that AJ is a Jewish Christian document and one source of the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions. Van Voorst rightly com­ ments that the Pseudo-Clementine literature generally reflects the more generic features of Jewish Christianity (e.g., Jewish definitions of com-

Notes to Pages 293-296

333

munity, promotion of James and demotion of Paul); more intriguing is Van Voorst's contention that the Christology enshrined within this literature is based upon the "Prophet-like-Moses" motif. In that dis­ agreements between various Jewish Christian movements during the second century were mostly christological. Van Voorst's work on a particular Jewish Christian community is important reading. 9. Some gnostic systems would find James appealing in justifying their Tendenz toward an ascetic ethos. The gnostic interest in Paul had more to do with Christology than with ethics. In this sense, the gnostic use of both James and Paul is suggestive of the sort of self-correcting interplay that one finds within the NT canon: James underscores the need for a distinctively Christian ethic on the one hand, while Paul underscores the need for a Christian Christology on the other. 10. Mussner, Der fakobusbrief, 5 6 - 5 9 . 11. However, the more recent work on epistolary genre by Francis ("Form and Function") and on rhetorical structure by Wuellner ("Der Jakobusbrief") moves the composition onto a Hellenistic literary land­ scape and makes it more difficult to argue on literary grounds for the Jewishness of James. 12. For a recent book that challenges this critical posture, see D. G. Meade (Pseudonymity and Canon [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerd­ mans, 1988]). In addition, B. Childs has argued that concerns about authorship within early Judaism and earliest Christianity were less historically and more theologically conditioned: i.e., a composition's canonicity was recognized when its ongoing function corresponded with the ongoing function of its "author" (The New Testament as Canon [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985]). 13. R. Martin argues that the debate was between merchants and all those opposed to their wealth either on ideological (as would be the case of those who equated piety with poverty) or on competitive grounds (as would be the case of those socio-economic classes which deemed themselves "less fortunate" [fames, 1 5 9 - 6 2 ] ) . 14. Esp. Davids, Commentary on fames, 41-47, 1 0 5 - 1 9 , 1 7 1 - 8 0 ; also, L. E. Keck, "The Poor among the Saints in Jewish Christianity and Qumran," ZNW 57 (1966): 5 4 - 7 8 ; Ward, "Partiality in the Assembly," 87-97; Maynard-Reid, Poverty and Wealth, 1987. 15. Dibelius, fames, 127. In claiming 2:1 to be of singular impor­ tance in arguing for James as a Christian document, I am at the same time demoting the importance of 1:1 in this regard. In fact, I am prepared to join the majority of scholars in understanding 1:1 as a later addition, perhaps to fit it more comfortably into a collection of Christian letters. The canonical purpose of the superscription, then, is to locate the writing within a particular theological trajectory of normative value to catholicizing Christianity. 16. The Christology represented by this formula envisions a differ-

334

Notes to Pages 297-298

ent relationship between Christology and paraenesis than is found in Pauline preaching. In Paul, the community's compliance with the de­ mands of Pauline paraenesis is one result of the Christ event; that is, faithfulness to God's moral law is one result of the community's faith in Christ. In James (and in the non-Pauline collection as a whole), paraenesis is supported by an exemplary Christology; that is, compli­ ance to the moral demand of God, which is not the result of Christ's death and resurrection but the result of following his example, is the focal point of God's covenant with the faith community. The con­ sequence of obeying the will of God, as specified by the paraenetic traditions, is the maintenance of the community's covenant with God and issues in its eschatological salvation. In the context of this particu­ lar kind of 'theo-logic,' the Christ event provides the normative models of covenantal nomism, which has been challenged by the various trials of human life in an anti-God world. 17. Cf. C. Burchard, "Zu Jakobus 2 . 1 4 - 2 6 , " ZNW 71 (1980): 2 7 - 3 0 , who regards the phrase as a confession of faith in Christ and views it as parallel to the confession that God is one God in 2:19. 18. This conclusion extends the arguments of L. T. Johnson, who contends that "royal" is a metaphor of authority — the command to love one's neighbors is from (and perhaps authored) by God, which then makes logical James's assertion that compliance to it results in divine approval ("Use of Leviticus 19," 3 9 1 - 4 0 1 ) . Davids further ar­ gues that within a distinctively Christian setting, God's law of love is clarified by the teaching of Jesus (Commentary on fames, 1 1 4 - 1 5 ) . In my view, God's approval of Jesus' messianic mission is indicated not only by Jesus' definitive interpretation of Torah but also by his perfect obedience to it. 19. Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of fames, 94. 20. Davids, Commentary on fames, 106; Martin, fames, 60. 21. Davids, Commentary on fames, 107. 22. Cf. P. Davids, who argues that this passage describes a Christian rite of healing: Commentary on fames, 1 9 2 - 9 4 ; for sources in Judaism, see Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of fames, 2 2 5 - 2 6 . 23. Martin, fames, 2 0 6 - 7 . 24. Mussner, Der fakobusbrief, 2 2 0 - 2 1 . 25. Dunn, Unity and Diversity, 1 0 6 - 9 . 26. Dibelius, fames, 106. 27. Ibid., 1 0 4 - 5 . 28. Martin, fames, 3 9 - 4 1 . 29. Contra, e.g., Dibelius, fames, 105, and others. 30. Wall, "James as Apocalyptic Paraenesis," 11-22. 31. Davids, Commentary on fames, 4 7 - 4 8 ; Mussner, Der fakobusbrief, 47-52; also P. Davids, "James and Jesus," in Gospel Perspectives, vol. 5, ed. D. Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT, 1984), 6 3 - 8 4 .

Notes to Pages 299-305

335

32. Laws, Commentary on the Epistle of fames, 1 3 - 1 4 . 33. Cf. R. W. Wall, "Social Justice," in Church in Response to Human Need, ed. Vinay Samuel and Christopher Sugden (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1988), 1 0 9 - 2 7 ; also Wall, "The Liberated Legalist," Christian Century 100 (September 28, 1983): 8 4 8 - 4 9 . 34. Cf. J . Jervell, Luke and the People of God (Minneapolis: Augs­ burg, 1972), 1 5 3 - 8 3 ; The Unknown Paul (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 5 2 - 7 6 . According to Jervell, Luke recruits James to defend Paul's Jewishness; Luke and the People of God, 1 8 5 - 2 0 7 . 35. Martin, fames, xli-lxi. 36. According to Dunn, their "heresy" is that Jacobean Christianity failed to adapt the beliefs of the first-generation Jerusalem church to a changing situation (Unity and Diversity, 2 4 5 ) . Perhaps the terms of the Pauline kerygma were inherently more adaptable to that situation and led to the triumph of Pauline Christianity within the catholiciz­ ing church. However, the canonizing impulse was "retrospective" and James matched up well with extant memories of the earliest Jewish church. Recently, R. A. Pritz has distinguished between Ebionism and Nazarene Jewish Christianity. According to Pritz, Ebionism is a more conservative strain of Jewish Christianity that resisted the catholiciz­ ing Tendenz of the earliest church and could not perpetuate itself as a result. Nazarene Christianity accommodated itself more especially to the developing Christology of the church and survived at least into the fourth century (Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the End of the NT Period Until Its Disappearance in the Fourth Century [Jerusalem-Leiden: Magnes Press/E. J. Brill, 1988]). 37. I find Davids's reconstruction of Jacobean Christology highly speculative and precisely the opposite of my concern with Baur's formulation of the problem. In my view, second-century Ebionism re­ tains rather faithfully the convictions of Jerusalem Christianity; what changes is the rhetoric, the antagonism toward catholicizing Christian­ ity which was excessively Pauline. That is, the Ebionites had lost the battle for the boundaries around Christianity, and they didn't like it. 38. Cf. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 1 5 4 - 6 0 , who argues that Paul's critique of Judaism is christological as well. 39. Dunn, Unity and Diversity, 5 0 - 5 4 . 40. H. Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, 2d ed. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1958), 137-46. 41. Cf. G. Howard, The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1987), 1 5 5 - 6 0 . 42. J . A. Sanders, "Torah and Paul," in God's Christ and His People, Festschrift for N. Dahl, ed. J . Jervell and W. Meeks (Olso: Universitetsforlatet, 1977), 132-37.

General Bibliography

Commentaries Adamson, J . B. The Epistle of fames. NICNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1954. Cantinat, J . Les Epitres de Saint Jacques et de Saint fude. SB. Paris: Gabalda, 1973. Davids, P. H. Commentary on fames. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982. Dibelius, M. fames. Hermeneia. Revised by H. Greeven. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976. Hodges, Z. C. The Epistle of James. Irving, Tex.: Grace Evangelical Society, 1994. Hoppe, R. Jakobusbrief. SKKNT. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. Hort, F. The Epistle of St. James. London: Macmillan, 1909. Johnson, L. T. The Letter of fames. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1995. Laws, S. S. A Commentary on the Epistle of fames. HNTC. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1980. Martin, R. P. fames. WBC. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1988. Marty, J. LEpitre de Jacques. Paris: Felix Alcan, 1935. Mayor, J . B. The Epistle of St. James. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1954. Mitton, C. L. The Epistle of James. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1966. Moffatt, J . The General Epistles. MNTC. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1928. Moo, D. James. TNTC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1987. Mussner, F. Der Jakobusbrief. HTKNT. Freiburg: Herder, 1967. Oesterley, W. E. The General Epistle of James. EGT. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910. Perkins, P. First and Second Peter, James, and Jude. Interp. Louisville: John Knox, 1995. Reicke, B. The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude. AB. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964. Ropes, J. H. The Epistle of St. James. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1916.

337

General Bibliography

338

Scheider, J . Die Briefe des Jakobus, Petrus, Judas, and Johannes. NTD. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1961. Spitta, F. Der Brief des Jakobus untersucht. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1896. Stulac, G. M. James. IVPNTC. Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Studies Abegg, M. "Paul, 'Works of the Law/ and the MMT." BAR 2 0 (1994): 52-55. Aland, K. "Der Herrnbruder Jakobus und der Jakobusbrief." TLZ 69 (1944): 97-104. Bassler, J. M. Pauline Theology. Vol. 1. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. Bornkamm, G. "The Letter to the Romans as Paul's Last Will and Testament." In The Romans Debate, ed. K. Donfried, 17-31. Boyarin, D. Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990. Brett, M. Biblical Criticism in Crisis? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Bruce, F. F. Peter, Stephen, James, and John: Studies in Early Non-Pauline Christianity. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1979. Burchard, C. "Zu Jakobus 2 . 1 4 - 2 6 . " ZNW 71 (1980): 2 7 - 3 0 . Cargal, T. B. Restoring the Diaspora: Discursive Structure and Purpose in the Epistle of James. SBLDS 144. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Chester, A., and R. P. Martin. The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude. NTT. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Childs, B. S. The New Testament as Canon. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985. . Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. Cranfield, C. E. B. "The Message of James." SJT 18 (1965): 1 8 2 - 9 3 , 338-45. Deppe, D. D. The Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James. Chelsea, Mich.: Bookcrafters, 1989. Donfried, K., ed.. The Romans Debate. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977. Dunn, J. D. G. Romans. 2 vols. WBC. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1988. Dyrness, W. "Mercy Triumphs over Justice: James 2:13 and the Theol­ ogy of Faith and Works." Themelios 6 (1981): 11-16. Elliott, J . H. "The Epistle of James in Rhetorical and Social Scientific Perspective: Holiness-Wholeness and Patterns of Replication." BTB 23 (1993): 7 1 - 8 1 .

General Bibliography

339

Ellis, E. E. "Pseudonymity and Canonicity of New Testament Docu­ ments." In Worship, Theology, and Ministry in the Early Church, ed. M. J . Wilkins and T. Paige, 2 1 2 - 2 4 . JSNTSup 87. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Francis, F. O. "The Form and Function of the Opening and Closing Paragraphs of James and 1 John." ZNW 61 (1970): 1 1 0 - 2 6 . Frei, H. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. Gertner, M. "Midrashic Terms and Techniques in the New Testament: The Epistle of James, a Midrash on a Psalm." SE 3 (=TU 88 [1964]): 4 6 3 . Goulder, M. A Tale of Two Missions. London: SCM, 1994. Gowan, D. E. "Wisdom and Endurance in James." HorBT 15 (1993): 145-53. Hadidian, D. "Palestinian Pictures in the Epistles of James." ExT 63 (1952): 2 2 7 - 2 8 . Hartin, P. J . "Call to Be Perfect through Suffering (James 1:2-4)." Un­ published paper presented to the Society of Biblical Literature, Philadelphia, 1995. . "'Come now, you rich, weep and w a i l . . / (James 5:1-6)." JTSAfric 84 (1993): 5 7 - 6 3 . . James and the Q Sayings of Jesus. JSNTSup 47. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Hays, R. B. The Faith of Jesus Christ. SBLDS 56. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983. Hengel, M. "Der Jakobusbrief als antipaulinische Polemik." In Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament, E. E. Ellis FS, ed. G. F. Hawthorne, and O. Betz, 2 4 8 - 7 8 . Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1987. . Property and Riches in the Early Church. London: SCM, 1974. Holtzmann, H. J . "Die Zeitlage des Jakobusbriefes." ZwissTh 25 (1882): 292-310. Hoppe, R. Der theologische Hintergrund des Jakobusbrief es. FB 28. Wurzburg: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977. Jeremias, J. "Paul and James." ExT 66 ( 1 9 5 4 - 5 5 ) : 3 6 8 - 7 1 . Johnson, L. T. "Friendship with the World/Friendship with God: A Study of Discipleship in James." In Discipleship in the New Tes­ tament, ed. F. F. Segovia, 1 6 6 - 8 3 . Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985. . "The Mirror of Remembrance (James 1:22-25)." CBQ 50 (1988): 632-45. . "The Use of Leviticus 19 in the Letter of James." JBL 101 (1982): 3 9 1 - 4 0 1 . Johnsson, W. G. "The Pilgrimage Motif in the Book of Hebrews." JBL 97 (1978): 2 3 9 - 5 1 .

340

General Bibliography

Kee, H. C. Who Are the People of God? New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Kirk, J. A. "The Meaning of Wisdom in James." NTS 16 (1969): 2 4 - 3 8 . Kittel, G. "Der Jakobusbrief und die apostolischen Vater." ZNW 43 (1950): 5 4 - 1 1 2 . Knox, W. L. "The Epistle of St. James." JTS 4 6 (1945): 10-17. Kummel, W. G. Introduction to the New Testament. Rev. ed. Nashville: Abingdon, 1975. Lautenschlager, M. "Der Gegenstand des Glaubens im Jakobusbrief." ZTK 87 (1990): 1 6 3 - 8 4 . Lemcio, E. E. "The Unifying Kerygma of the New Testament." JSNT 33 (1988): 3 - 1 7 . Lodge, J. G. "James and Paul at Cross Purposes: Jas 2,22." Bib 62 (1981): 195-213. Malina, B. J . "Wealth and Poverty in the New Testament." Int 41 (1987): 3 5 4 - 6 7 . Marconi, G. "Una nota sullo specchio di Gc 1,23." Bib 70 (1989): 3 9 6 402. Maynard-Reid, P. U. Poverty and Wealth in fames. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1987. McKane, W. Proverbs. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970. McKnight, S. "James 2:18a: The Unidentifiable Interlocutor." WTJ 52 (1990): 3 5 5 - 6 4 . Meade, D. G. Pseudonymity and Canon. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1988. Metzger, B. M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. New York: UBS, 1975. Meyer, A. Das Rdtsel des Jakobusbriefes. BZNW 10. Giessen: Telmann, 1930. Overman, J . A. "The Diaspora in the Modern Study of Ancient Ju­ daism." In Diaspora Jews and Judaism, ed. J . A. Overman and R. S. MacLennan, 6 3 - 7 8 . SFSHJ 41. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Perdue, L. "Paraenesis and the Epistle of James." ZNW 72 (1981): 2 4 1 56. Porter, S. E. "Is dipsuchos (James 1,8; 4,8) a 'Christian' Word?" Bib 71 (1990): 4 6 9 - 9 8 . . "Mt 6:13 and Lk 11:4: 'Lead us not into temptation/ " ExT 101 (1990): 3 5 9 - 6 2 . Pritz, R. A. Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the End of the NT Period Until Its Disappearance in the Fourth Century. Jerusalem-Leiden: The Magnes Press/E. J. Brill, 1988. Prockter, L. J. "James 4 . 4 - 6 : Midrash on Noah." NTS 35 (1989): 6 2 5 - 2 7 . Reese, J . M. "The Exegete as Sage: Hearing the Message of James." BTB 12 (1982): 8 2 - 8 5 .

General Bibliography

341

Sanders, J . A. "The Ethic of Election in Luke's Great Banquet Parable." In Old Testament Ethics, ed. J. Crenshaw and J. Willis, 2 4 7 - 7 1 . New York: KTAV, 1974. . God Has a Story, Too. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Segal, A. F. "Conversion and Messianism." In The Messiah, ed. James H. Charlesworth, 3 3 2 - 3 5 . Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. Shepherd, M. "The Epistle of James and the Gospel of Matthew." JBL 75 (1956): 4 0 - 5 1 . Syreeni, K. "James and the Pauline Legacy." Unpublished paper, SBL, Chicago, 1994. Theissen, G. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982. Thomas, J. C. "The Devil, Disease, and Deliverance: James 5:14-16." JPS 2 (1993): 2 5 - 5 0 . Van Voorst, R. E. The Ascents of James: History and Theology of a JewishChristian Community. SBLDS 112. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Wall, R. W. Colossians and Philemon. IVPNTC. Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity Press, 1993. . "James as Apocalyptic Paraenesis." Restoration Quarterly 32 (1990): 1 1 - 2 2 . . Revelation. NIBC. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991. . "Successors to 'the Twelve' according to Acts 12:1-17." CBQ 53 (1991): 6 2 8 - 4 3 . Wall, R. W., and E. E. Lemcio. The New Testament as Canon: A Reader in Canonical Criticism. JSNTSup 76. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Ward, R. B. "Partiality in the Assembly: James 2:2-4." HTR 62 (1969): 87-97. . "The Works of Abraham: James 2 : 1 4 - 2 6 . " HTR 61 (1968): 2 8 3 90. Watson, D. F. "James 2 in Light of Greco-Roman Schemes of Argumen­ tation." NTS 3 9 (1993): 9 4 - 1 2 1 . . "The Rhetoric of James 3:1-12 and a Classical Pattern of Argumentation." NovT 35 (1993): 4 8 - 6 4 . Witherington, B. Jesus the Sage. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994. Wuellner, W. "Der Jakobusbrief im Licht der Rhetorik und Testpragmatik."LE 43 (1978): 5 - 6 5 .

Index of Scripture

Genesis 1:2 1:14-18 1:26 1:27 1:28-30 2:19-20 4:10 6-9 6:5 6:6 6:9-10 6:23 8:21 9:2 15:6 18 18:1-22 18:2 18:6 18:9-15 18:16-18 18:16 18:18 18:19 19:1 19:10-12 19:16 22:1 22:18 27:12-13

P.QR

32:34 33:2 40:15

191 65 172 176 172 172 231 203 204 203 204 203 203 172 144, 145, 148, 150 146, 153, 201 147 153 148 146 146 148 146 147 153 153 153 146 146 175

Leviticus 2:1 19 19:12-18 19:13 19:15 19:18 19:20 25 25:39-46 25:39 25:46

265 21 123, 321 230 96, 105, 106, 122 96, 122, 123, 125, 230 93 93 93, 94 94 94

Numbers 13 13:1 18:8-20 23:11 23:25

152, 325 152 67 175 175

Deuteronomy 1:14 3:28 4:5 4:6 4:39 5:29 6:1-9 6:4 7:9 10:18 11:26-29 12:28 15:1-11 15:12-13 15:18 18:4 23:5 24 24:17-21 27:26

Exodus 4:22 15:23-24 15:25-26 19:6 20:4-6 20:5-6 21:2-6 22:22 23:9-14 23:10 23:11 23:20 23:23

152 152 265

68 178 178 67 88 59 94 101, 106 67 67 67 152 152

343

181 181 228 228 155 88 88 142 88 101 175 88 93 94 94 67 175 115 101 126

Index of Scripture

344 Deuteronomy (cont.) 28:10 29:4-6 30:1 30:19

118 228 175 175

Joshua 2:1-22 2:1-13 2:1 2:9-11 2:11 2:12-13 2:13 2:14-21 2:21 6:21-24 6:22-26 6:22-25 6:23 6:25 7:22

20, 153, 154, 155, 324, 325 152 324 152, 153 155 154, 156 156 156 155 148 324 324 156 156 156, 157, 325 324

1 Kings

80

2:1-9 3:10-14 17-18 18:1

88 88 268 270

2

2 Kings 2:19-22

178

3 Maccabees 5:11

4 Maccabees 5:6 5:13 5:31

67 51,100 100 100 100

Nehemiah 13:2

Job 2:9 2:10 9:2 19:1 21:27 Psalms 1 8:6-8 11:5 11:6 11:7

175 256 255 255 175 256 256 7 89 172 188 188 188

12 18:7-11 18:7 49:6 73:1-21 90:1 90:2 90:14-16 108:17-18 110:1 118:26 119 119:15-18 119:43 119:142 134:3 136:7 146:9

20 188 89, 317 55 55 66 66 66 175 113 59 89 80, 88 67 67 118 65 101

Proverbs

177

1:10 2:12 3:34-35 3:34

65 73 205, 206, 207, 208 205, 206, 207, 211, 212, 233, 240 205, 206, 207 62 62 67 65 188 105 188 188 298 67

3:35 5-7 7:22-23 8:7 12:26 15:26 18:5 20:9 21:8 22:21 30:5

Ecclesiastes 1:2 2:12-23 2:26 8:10-17 9:9 12:8 12:10

215,216, 217, 220 220 217 217 217 220 220 67, 298

Tobit 4:7

Sirach 2:3-4 3:8-9 3:29 4:22-31 7:31 10:22-24 12:12

115

20, 177 64 175 77 104 67 115 67

345

Index of Scripture

14:10 14:23 15:11-20 18:15-18 21:8 21:23 31:7-10 35:7-10 36:20 38:34 43:26

Wisdom 2:17 2:21 4:12 15:2-4 14:11 14:18 14:27 18:15

203 80, 88 204 65 188 80, 88 64 65 67 67 298 20,177 64 64 64 64 67 100 100 298

2 Esdras 6-7

Isaiah 1:13 1:17 5:9 10:10 13:6 14:31 15:2-3 16:4-9 16:7 23:1 23:6 23:14 24:11 39:8 45:8 45:19 49:5-6 49:6 50:10 51:6 52:5 53:11 54:10 55:12 60:17 60:21 61:1-2 61:6 61:11 65:14 66:23-24

201 41,231 100 101 231 226 226 226 226 227 226 226 226 226 226 190 190 67 41 12 41 88 226 232 190 190 190 88 93, 94 67 190 226 170

Jeremiah 2:3 2:5 4:23 4:30 8:19 9:23-24 9:23 9:24 10:15 14:9

42,231 68 100 65 100 100 55 55 55 100 118

Ezekiel 1:29 23 23:1-21 23:22-27 23:28-47 23:45 37:26 43:7 44:30 45:6-17 45:48-49 47:7-11 47:13 47:22 48:8-22

108 200, 201 200 200 200 200 190 88 67 67 200 178 12 12 67

Hosea 5:11 6:6

Amos 4:7 9:11-12 9:12

100 130

8 268 84 119

Habbakkuk 2:6-20 2:11

231 231

Zechariah

231

8:13 9:1 10:1 11:2-3

175 12 268 227

Malachi 1:8 2:2 3:5 4:5-6

105 175 200 268

Index of Scripture

346 Matthew 1:2-5 1:5 5 5:3 5:17-20 5:19 5:20 5:21-48 5:21-26 5:22 5:27-30 5:29-30 5:34-37 5:43 5:44 5:48 6:19-21 6:19-20 6:33 7 10:28 11:7-15 11:29-30 12:7 12:36 16:25 18:6-14 18:9 19:28 23:15 24:4-5 24:9 24:11 24:13 24:21 24:24 24:27-30 24:29 25:31-46 25:41 26:14-16

301

90,

176, 90, 71, 229,

71,

158 154 92 115 93 126 169 299 127 170 127 170 259 299 299 299 272 228 70 305 170 268 92 130 138 272 101 170 42 170 64 101 64 49 101 64 221 101 147 176 227

Mark 1:24 3:18 6:13 9:43-47 11:21

Luke 1:51-53 1:70 4:14-30 4:16-30 4:22 6:20-38 6:20-36

137 5 265 170 176

301 115, 117 177 94 56 177 94 96, 109

6:20 6:24 6:28 7:22 10:34 11:2-4 12:5 12:33 14:7-24 14:7-14 14:7 15:14 18:1-8 18:1 18:7 18:8 19:40 20:21 21:15 22:30

117, 321 117 176 117 265 94 170 228 116 96, 109, 116, 321 116 198 104, 116, 270 116 116 116 231 105 177 42

John 3:3-5 3:20 5:9 16:33

Arts 1:2 1:13 2:36 3:6 3:15-16 3:18 6:1-10 6:1-6 8:1-4 8:1 8:4 8:35 10:34 11:19 11:27-30 12:17 14:5 15 15:1-21 15:13-21 15:17-21 15:17-18 15:19-20 15:23-29 15:36-41 16:17 20:17-38 21 21:15-26

66 186 186 101

R WO; W1 117 5 31, 108, 125 266 266 177 101 14 42 42 9, 42 177 105, 177 9,42 16 6, 84 167 8, 41 17, 241 6, 8, 84 8 7 289 8 42 137 42 7, 41 84

Index of Scripture

21:17-26 28:17-31

347 6 42

Romans 1:5 31 1:17 70 2:5-16 321 2:6-10 85 2:6 82 2:10 86 2:11 105 2:12-16 72 2:17-29 86 3 150 3:5 70 3:21-22 70 3:22 17, 31, 109, 119, 151 3:27 54 3:29-30 321 4:1 54 4:2 132 5:1-11 54, 184 5:15-17 64 5:16 65 6:15-23 92 7:6-8:2 92 7:7-12 85 8:2 92 8:5 31 8:6-8 31 9-11 12, 120, 186 9 42 9:1-18 12 9:30-10:13 243 10-11 72 10:4 31 10:8-13 132 10:8-10 73 10:8-9 245 10:8 150 10:9-13 134 10:9-10 17, 150 10:9 31 10:11-13 150 11:17-19 73 12:1 68 12:2 222 12:14 176 13:12 72, 254 14 17 15:8-12 321 15:22-33 244 16:3-4 17 16:26 31

1 Corinthians 1:18-31 1:30

245 31

2:4 3:5-17 3:17 4:19-20 6:1-6 6:9-10 6:9 6:11 7:11-24 8-10 10:29 12 15:20-28 15:20 15:33 15:35

165 166 162 100 17 64 64 64 8 17 128 296 64, 68 67 64 141

7 Corinthians 5:10 5:21 8-9 8:9