From: A Torah
Commentary on James 1-2 Return to Home
By Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2014
A Torah Commentary on James,
Chapters 1-2:
Interpreting the Text in Light of
Its Old Testament Roots
by
Roland
H. Worth, Jr.
Richmond, Virginia
© 2014
Reproduction of
this book for non-profit circulation by any electronic or print media means is
hereby freely granted at no cost—provided the text is not altered in any
manner.
If accompanied by
additional, supplemental material—in agreement or disagreement—it must be
clearly and visibly distinguishable from the original text.
Introduction 1:
Preface and Survey of
Introductory Issues
My two favorite New Testament epistles
are an odd match. First there is the
book of Jude because it is, well--odd.
The strange and unexpected references to noncanonical writings leaves
one wondering just what was going on in the mind of the very consciously and
passionately “orthodox” writer of that short epistle.
More conventional and
down to earth is the book of James. It
describes people who are not particularly disturbed by any abstract doctrinal
issues nor besieged by one type of heresy or another. Just John Q. and Sally Q. Christian,
attempting to live out their lives and finding themselves challenged by their
own personal weaknesses and those of their fellow believers: anger, self-advancement, bias (either giving
or receiving), and social ill-treatment by the powerful of the weak. James has no political ideological axe to
grind; he simply wants to assure that his listeners survive the pressures of
life that can warp their faith and their attitudes. He knows those pressures exist and no amount
of fantasizing will remove them. Not
even the fact that many of those pressures come not from the external world but
from within the fellowship of fellow Christians.
Hence James’ message is one that
never loses its relevance. Indeed, one
finds it impossible to even exist without encountering the difficulties
he describes. It is an epistle for all
ages and all times.
It is incredibly paradoxical that a
book written so conspicuously without overt doctrinal concerns should become
the center of the storm of the Reformation debate of faith versus works. One does not require a vivid imagination to
picture James as indignant in the afterlife:
he wished to unify faith and its works into a unity, while later generations
sought to separate them. James viewed
them as properly functioning as a synthesis; later theorists thought it fare to
abstractly elevate one to the exclusion of the other. In some very abstract, ultra-intellectualized
form perhaps one can do so. But [Page
3] James was concerned not with
theorizing for intellectuals but over what faith meant and required in everyday
behavior.
It is this practical element of
James that so appeals to me. I suppose
my many years of preaching in the earlier part of my life encouraged that
attitude as well. When it comes to
sermonizing there are hardly better texts!
Yet James wasn’t written to provide the “pulpiteer” with appropriate
fodder either, though it lends itself quite naturally to that usage. Indeed, James provides vigorous warnings to
individuals who would exercise that role in the church assembly (chapter 3) for
he recognizes that they are just as human and subject to failure as everyone
else.
To James no one escapes caution,
admonition, and even warning. Perhaps
that is also why the book so appeals to me.
It teaches me that I have just as much to learn as those I would
teach. That I can fall into the very
same traps and commit the very same mistakes and transgressions. That I have no more reason for pride and
arrogance than they. A tad scary for
those whose specialty is Biblical exegesis.
But painfully true.
* * *
The original of this book was
written perhaps about 1998 and intended as the next volume after my two
exhaustive analyses of the seven churches of Asia in their historical and
social setting. The editor was unable to
consider the volume because he had already committed himself to another major
commentary on the subject.
This led to the first two versions (or was it three?) of my Torah
Commentary on First Corinthians. At
that time it was a “mere” three volumes and far shorter than what is [Page
4] now available online. Unfortunately by when it was completed and it
seemed to meet what the publisher was interested in, he felt compelled to make
the (quite legitimate) decision that I simply lacked sufficient name
recognition to gain buyers for such a lengthy work. An effort to reduce the material to one
volume—by leaving the bulk of it out—simply did seem adequate to the subject
even in my own eyes so I laid it aside indefinitely.
Hence, chronologically, this work was originally completed before that
of 1 Corinthians. However I returned to
the latter first and the greatly expanded version of that is already available.
Now, in 2012 to early 2014, I have
returned to revise, update, and expand the original James commentary. The original draft contained only a very
modest “Theme Development” section in comparison with the Corinthians
material. Hence this new draft of James
encompasses a vastly expanded analysis of this theme to provide it a similar
in-depth treatment.
In Corinthians I utilized a large
number of comparative translations and since that seemed to work well in that
context, I decided to introduce it here, expanding greatly a far more limited
original selection. Both the Old
Testament precedents section and the “Difficult Text” sections have also been
expanded with new material not found in the first version of the work. Hopefully this will further upgrade the
usefulness of this to the users.
The Purpose of the “Torah
Commentaries”
[Page 5] The
New Testament represents such “well plowed ground” that it is difficult to
imagine a new approach to writing commentaries on the books it contains. There are “critical,” Greek linguistic
studies, edificationary presentations, detailed explanations of each word or
phrase, summary analyses and such like.
Rather than go any of these routes,
I believe it would be useful to shift the perspective of this commentary: Rather than studying the New Testament as an
object standing by itself, I would like to set it within the religious
perspective and background of the earliest disciples. That was the Old Testament. To understand the New Testament anywhere
close to how those individuals understood it, it must be from such a
standpoint. Even books that are clearly
Gentile-orientated utilize those texts and make repeated use of them. Hence the usefulness of a series of “Torah
Commentaries” on the New Testament writings.
Of course, this is verbal
short-hand. Literally, the “Torah”
consists merely of the Pentateuch of Genesis through Deuteronomy . For verbal conciseness, however, it conveys
the underlying intent very well. In my
textual studies through several decades, I had never come across a volume that
undertook the task from this perspective.
The closest was an interesting rabbinic-centered approach to the gospels
I came across a few years before the unexpanded version of the current work. The most one could hope for were a handful of
quotations (usually very few) or a listing of selected Old Testament texts. Nowadays, though, the topic is finally
beginning to get some of the attention it deserves.
This volume is typical of how I
believe a commentary could be most usefully composed when approached from the
direction of fully incorporating the data from the Torah, Prophets, and
Writings. First comes an “Introduction”
summarizing the central themes of the book and dealing with such issues as key
doctrines and such other matters as the authorship, date, and destination. In this case we have a separate introductory [Page
6] chapter for the much contested issue
of authorship and another examining the degree of conceptual reliance of the
author on the teachings of Jesus. In the
latter we find the conclusion of just about everyone that the only real
question is the degree of it and not its existence.
Then come the chapter by chapter
discussions. Each has three major
divisions:
(1) Themes developed—“in which the
argument is summarized and a few brief commentary/expository type remarks [presented]
to develop the theme.” That is how I
originally wrote it, but in the shaping of the 1 Corinthians material into
final draft form, the goal was considerably expanded. Now each “theme” section functions as a
useful “introduction / commentary” in and of itself--for those who are most
interested in the broad flow of the argument and far less so in regard to
interpretive detail.
The “themes” section is reminiscent of short “survey” summaries / commentaries
that have periodically appeared.
Although a detailed word by word commentary is certainly useful, for
most people most of the time this “broad paint brush approach” is quite
adequate. Assuming a moderate knowledge
of the scriptural text, the typical individual can grasp the central points
being made without having them pounded at dissertation length.
He (or she) is not concerned so much with making sure the “i’s” are
dotted correctly or the “t’s” are crossed neatly. Not that is unimportant, but that if one has
missed the central points, one has missed the intent for which the text was
written. Understanding those points, one
can proceed to the details as time and interest permit.
You may find the “themes” section quite adequate for the bulk of your
needs. The other two sections then
function as supplementary data that you can look over quickly and concentrate
on those parts you wish to pay more attention to. Parts of each [Page 7] of these is highly likely to develop the
subject in ways you had not anticipated.
But you need use only those parts that are of personal interest to
you. The last thing you need
to do (beyond scanning it) is reading every single word when it fails your
“personal interest test.”
In other words, this book is designed to give you more than you
probably need. On the other hand, if you
find a particular subject especially fascinating, the material is there for you
to have in-depth treatments readily available.
Some people need certain types of information and others different data. This commentary attempts to provide access to
a wide cross-section of those things that might be of special interest and
value to the reader—not to all readers, necessarily, but to enough to
justify the inclusion of each part of the work.
(2) Old Testament precedent--in which
the precedents are developed, as presented under the headings of explicit
quotations, conceptual borrowings and allusions, and historical references. As I got into the Corinthian volumes I found
a great deal beyond what I had anticipated.
In contrast, James is a book where the Jewish roots “jump out at you.” (At least if you take time to search them
out.) So the material covered here
obviously requires a great deal of space.
Again, those subsections that are of
most use, will vary from reader to reader.
In some cases they constitute texts that a good cross-reference Bible
would have taken you to; in other cases they deal with other ways of making the
same point that such sources might easily overlook. Choose the references that are most useful and
feel free to utilize them in your teaching and preaching efforts.
[Page 8] Note
carefully that concepts and arguments that could easily appear to be New
Testament innovations are revealed to be firmly rooted in the Torah and
prophets that preceded it. This is a major
step toward bestowing upon those earlier works the respect they are due and
which is easily lost when the New Testament is studied in isolation.
Furthermore, when it comes to an individual teaching a class on this
New Testament epistle, these passages provide a useful collection of citations
that can be used to illustrate, explain, and elaborate upon what the epistle is
driving at. Although certain of these
passages may be listed in some commentaries, it is far more useful if
the reader has the actual text of many of them. This saves valuable time “flipping through
the pages” and allows one to better separate the most useful ones from those of
only marginal interest.
How much analysis is provided of
specific Old Testament texts will vary.
When we are dealing with explicit quotations, the germaneness will
sometimes be so obvious that only a brief comment is required. In other cases, a more detailed analysis will
be required as to original intent and setting.
Dealing with the Old Testament roots
of the New Testament--in both First Corinthians and James--there is just so
much available! Hence we have felt
free to go into great detail on a wide variety of precedents. And yet we have also tried to draw a “mental
line in the sand.” Relevant or not,
there does come a point when enough is enough and “overload” time has been
reached. The last trap we want to fall
into is being more tedious than enlightening--the very opposite of our
goal. Yet whether brief or detailed, the
discussion will always be sufficient to provide the reader with material that [Page
9] will likely be overlooked in other
sources.
(3) Problem texts--in which specific
verses posing especially difficult translation or interpretive problems are
analyzed. Sometimes they are “classics”
that any commentary will discuss.
Many others, though, are ones likely to get short shrift and minimal (if
any discussion).
If the apparent difficulty
does not immediately jump into one’s own mind, it is likely to be brought to
one’s attention when the text is discussed with others. Hence a guide to a cross-section of the
issues involved as well as various means of dealing with them is essential to a
work attempting to provide the information a careful reader needs.
They may not provide you with “the”
answer—though I will try to—but they should provide a sufficient array of
thought provoking material to help you reach your own conclusion. As I told my daughters when they were young,
“The good Lord gave you a brain; He expects you to use it.” Merely using what others say leaves
you at the mercy of their perceptiveness.
Often it was good, indeed, but none is perfect. And even the best of commentators will
occasionally miss an idea or a thought that would have turned his approach upside
down.
To sum up all we have said, this
volume undertakes several complementary goals:
Moderation in actual commentary
text length, problem-solving of difficult and controversial passages,
increasing respect for the Torah roots of the New Testament while providing
ready access to parallel concepts useful to the teacher.
There are several fine translations
currently available. I have selected the
New King James Version (NKJV) as my primary text because it is the one I
continue to feel [Page 10] most
comfortable with. (I notice a few cases
where I, somehow, utilized the New American Standard Bible in the initial
version years ago and apologize if I missed correcting any of these.)
In order to hold down the use of
copyrighted translations, I have not quoted the text segments in front of each “theme”
section, but have left the reader to utilize whatever is his or her favorite
translation as their “base text,” jumping off point for the discussion. An Alternative Translation and Paraphrase of
mine is included in its place in conformity with the earlier Torah Commentaries
on First Corinthians. It needs to be
stressed that these include a paraphrase element so do not expect “word for
word” exactness, but hopefully it will have a certain appeal to those who
prefer the latter, as I do.
For a detailed discussion of the principles behind the ATP, see the in
depth discussion in the first volume on First Corinthians. Here only a few remarks need to be made. Since the “gender neutral” translation mode
is unfortunately now dominant, I have chosen to replace “brethren” when used of
all Christians not with “brothers and sisters,” but with a gender neutral term
that—like “brethren”—has historically encompassed both genders but where the
use of it in a “male” gender context is also firmly established. Thanks to the fall of international Communism
“comrades” has now become available and that, indeed, seems a satisfactory
replacement for our purposes here.
Likewise I have tried to render the rest of the ATP in a similar
manner. One of the more appalling things
I have found is that such efforts tend to read unnaturally—it just doesn’t
sound right to the ears, at least to one of my generation. Hopefully the approach I take here will be
less open to criticism on that score.
[Page 11] Strangely before the 1970s
every reader knew there were times when “man” meant male and other times when
it was intended as inclusive of the entire human race. Only in my own life time has it been decreed
that this “can’t” be any longer and therefore won’t be. To me, the use of “man” to cover both genders
testified to what we all share in common as human beings; the grim
determination to rule that out of order would seem to more likely encourage inter-gender
contempt than the mutual respect feminists insist they seek.
A wide variety of translations have
been utilized and the contractions utilized for them are listed below:
NKJV = New
King James Version. Primary text
utilized here,
usually
without any designation.
CEV = Contemporary English Version
ESV = English Standard Version (2001)
GW/
God’s Word = God’s
Word Translation (1995)
Holman = Holman’s
Christian Standard Bible
ISV = International Standard Version (2008)
NAB = New American Bible [Roman Catholic]
NASB = New
American Standard Bible (1995)
NIV = New International Version (1984)
NRSV = New
Revised Standard Version
RSV = Revised Standard Version
TEV = Today’s English Version
[Page 12]
Non-copyrighted
ASV = American Standard Version
BBE = Bible in Basic English
KJV = King James Version
Rotherham = Rotherham
WEB = World
English Bible (a/k/a the Web Bible)
Weymouth = Weymouth’s
New Testament
Young = Young’s
Literal Translation
Introductory Issues: An Overview
In approaching many of the New
Testament writings, the theological assumptions of the critique and the
conclusions they reach are intertwined in the proverbial chicken-and-egg
question: which came first? Did the conclusions as to the date,
authorship, and such like, lead to the espousing of a set of assumptions to
apply where the evidence is less clear?
Or did the assumptions determine (many/all of) the conclusions that
would be reached in the first place? (In
other words, does the evidence create our conclusions or do our pre-existing
assumptions determine them? Or are the
two so intermixed that we can’t really tell where one ends and the other
begins?)
[Page 13] James, though, stands apart from such
controversies in its own special way—it is a book where the divisions are
profound even within similar theological perspectives. As one scholar summed it up, “Critics of
conservative and liberal persuasion disagree among themselves on such matters
as authorship, date, setting, first readers, and literary character.”[1]
1. The Theme(s) of the
Epistle
The book of James was not written to
prove Catholic theology right or Protestant convictions wrong (though it sets
in judgment on the excesses of both); rather, it was written to provide
practical, down to earth moral guidelines for daily life. It is the purpose of the current work to
examine the basic themes of this book so we can accurately interpret its
original intent and its relevance to our own lives.
In doing this, we divide the individual
chapters into major theses and then subdivide it into the supporting arguments
invoked to develop each. This is done so
we can grasp the development of the author’s argument and his reasoning behind
it.
But what of the letter as an
entirety; what are the core themes he is driving at when we approach the
subject from that standpoint? The
epistle we know as “James” is often looked upon as disorganized, as a treatise
that drives the person to distraction who wants to lay out a logical
development of the text from one subject to another. This is true.[2] Some explain the phenomena on the grounds
that James consists of the text of an actual oral sermon or is a written sermon
that may or may not have been delivered orally.[3] Others explain the disjointedness on the
grounds that, in effect, they are “a collection of sermon notes.”[4] Another approach is to not be concerned at
all with the explanation, but to look at the results. Looked at this way, James constitutes
virtually “a new book of proverbs.”[5]
[Page 14] I
would suggest that James does such things within an intended interpretive context
or structure that can be found in the first chapter. Rather than use a strictly analytical method
of presentation, he lays down three broad themes in that chapter and then
develops the application of these to contemporary church problems in the
chapters that follow. As Norman Perrin
rightly suggests, James “has no discernible structure. It simply moves from theme to theme as the
mind of the homilist takes him, on the principle of association of ideas or
sometimes merely on catchwords.”[6] Yet even so, these broad themes rise time and
again--not as part of some rigid outline, but as concepts and ideas that are so
important to his mind that he refers to them repeatedly as these relate to
different issues and actions.
Oddly enough, the author never
explicitly claims the problems he discusses have reached the level of a
crisis. He usually speaks in a low key
“tone of voice,” without anathemas or intense vehemence. Only in the concluding chapter five--where clear
anger emerges in the description of the injustice of the wealthy--do we begin
to find the fire and vigorous intensity of Paul.
Yet the situations he so calmly describes carry with them inevitable
tensions, if not outright conflict--potentially as explosive as those described
in First Corinthians. Indeed, the
situations could not have existed without creating the abiding potential for such. Hence, in his own manner, James is dealing
with the contemporary church problems of his day--either immediately pressing
ones or latent ones that could mushroom under the right set of circumstances.
As noted, in the first chapter, he lays the groundwork for these
discussions that follow. The first
theme James develops (1:2-4) is the need to endure “trials” (1:2), a term he
equates with the “testing of your faith” (1:3) The person who lacks “wisdom” to understand
this fact is to pray to God for the gift and it will be freely granted
(1:5-8). This naturally flows into a
topic on which “wisdom” might well be needed:
the fact that [Page 15] the
lower class coreligionist will ultimately receive an “exaltation” while the
rich (so far as this life goes at least) “will pass away” (1:9-11)
The second broad theme is that
one must successfully enduring trial/testing because the temptations we face do
not come from God but from within (1:12-15). In reality, only good and desirable gifts
come from God (1:16-18).
The third theme is that the
believer must manifest faith by a life of restraint in word and conduct, shunning
the destructive and cultivating that which produces positive good (1:19-27).
These themes are developed in the
chapters that follow, in such ways as these.
(Since there are only so many ways to avoid boredom in referring to
“theme one” etc. on a repeated basis, we will simply use the contraction #1,
#2, #3 in most cases.) Chapter two
begins with the practical intra-church trial of discrimination along class
lines: the wealthy visitor will be
given a good place to sit and received with respect while the poor person will
only be grudgingly permitted (2:1-7). To
the visiting Christian this double standard of behavior will result in
attempted puffery in one case and embarrassment in the other. From the standpoint of the Christians
receiving them it will be ego-massage versus respect for all.
To avoid this, requires conscious
restraint (#3), when one endures it, one needs to be aware that this trial is
not originating with anything in God’s plan (#2), and that this is one of the
tests one must endure (#3). From the
standpoint of the Christians guilty of receiving others in such a
discriminatory fashion, it is a test of their wisdom (#1) and since it is “the
way of the world” to act in such a manner, it constitutes a test of their
self-control (#3) and ability to overcome the temptation to act in this manner
(#1 again).
Chapter two then develops specific
reasons to avoid such discrimination: It
violates the law of love (2:8-9) and the violation of one part of God’s law is
just as self-condemnatory as the violation of some other part (2:10-13). Wisdom is certainly required to admit this
(#1) because there is a virtually inherent part of our acquired [Page 16] human nature that wants us to establish a
list of “shalts” and “shalt nots” far shorter in length than that presented in
scripture and with a built in ranking of relative priorities as to which may be
most safely neglected. The person on the
receiving end of someone exercising such a selective moral code often finds him
or herself on the receiving end of some type of trial (#1), which may be felt
as even more injurious because it comes from someone who shares our faith.
The final section of the chapter
(2:14-25) deals with the importance of having an active faith that actually carries
out the commitments one knows intellectually.
The discussion is illustrated by the example of the hungry and
badly-clad brother or sister who needs “daily food” and all one does is wish
them best wishes for the future (2:14-16).
This is a trial or testing (#1) to the well-wisher since it is a chronic
temptation to look down on the unfortunate and assume that if they just try
harder things will quickly work out. It
is a testing to the one on the receiving end also since immediate assistance is
needed and not empty best wishes.
It provides the individual denied
such necessities a real temptation to blame God for the problem (theme two)
when it is really the blindness/lack of wisdom of one’s fellow mortal. It would be easy to strike out verbally--perhaps
physically--to express one’s annoyance rather than to exercise the needed
self-restraint (#3). From the standpoint
of the speaker it manifests an amazing lack of wisdom (#1) and a needless
putting of a fellow disciple in the way of temptation and provoking them to
needlessly violate their obligations of always doing good and of restraint
under provocation (#1 and #3).
Chapter three develops the need for
self-control in how we use our tongue in teaching others and illustrates this
from the general theme of the difficulty we have in controlling what comes out
of our mouths (3:1-12). The subject of
restraint in word (#3)--with a vengeance.
The very stress on how dangerous “fires” can be started (verse 5) and
how even “hell” is set on fire by it (verse 6) implies an ease in creating
hostile situations that will provide trails for others to endure (the flip side
of theme one).
[Page 17] The
chapter then turns to the kind of conduct that should be avoided, as well as
that which is to be encouraged (3:13-18).
Again we have the idea of restraint (#3) and it is explicitly tied in
with the demand that we live a life manifesting “wisdom” (3:13, alluding to a
subject developed in #1).
This matter of restraint (#1) is
developed at length in chapter four, where the author discusses the origin of
conflict among coreligionists and how it can lead to verbally abusing each
other (4:1-12). Since certain of the
actions discussed (verse 11 for example) are specifically condemned by
scripture, we are faced with the temptation to do wrong (#1) because of our own
lack of self-control.
The remainder of the chapter
(4:13-17) involves the confident businessperson who has laid travel plans out
for the next few years and is certain of the profits it will bring him. Here we are concerned with internal restraint
(the inward expression of #1). When the
plans fail to work out one may well be tempted to do wrong (#2) and, at the
very least, will have to endure heartache and turmoil (#1).
The final chapter of the book begins
(5:1-6) with an indictment of the unjust rich who had cheated their workers out
of their wages and, in some sense, “killed the righteous man” (5:6). They had certainly not exhibited restraint
(violating #3)! It is in this context
that restraint (#3) is urged upon those who would endure such things
(5:7-12). Again this was a temptation
that might be attributed to God, but as in the underlying second theme of the
book, it would not be the case. It would
be their difficult, but necessary, responsibility to endure such stress (#1).
A positive response (restraint
again, #3) is urged consisting of prayer and singing as representative examples
(5:13-18). Yet the door is left open
that those who had caused such needless trials might be brought to repentance
(5:19-20).
James’ “poverty
agenda” in perspective
[Page 18] James
is not writing a political treatise, though some at both ends of the political
spectrum take him as if that were the case.
Right-wingers have been known, in extreme cases, to take James to be a
“leveler,” putting everyone on the same level; left-wingers take it as a given. One scholar provides an example of how,
during Pinochet’s Chilean dictatorship half the congregation left one
prosperous congregation in annoyance during the reading of the epistle.[7]
One would be more than mildly
interested in what the text was being used to prove, however. For to bend James into a political manifesto
is to twist the letter into a totally different purpose than its original intent. And we have the full right to be angry at
such a twisted usage of Scripture. Its
purpose is not to tell governments they should be socialists or even the rich
that they should be ashamed of their wealth—assuming it was honorably earned and
used.
It was actually aimed at something
threatening to all points of the political spectrum: the obligation to treat the poorer with
respect, decency, and helpfulness. Not
the government. Me. You.
(In New Testament terms, think of the story of the Good Samaritan.)
Perhaps this was what drove
out those church members: It was written
by a church leader to church members telling church members to
treat each other right. It might have
been far easier if the epistle had been instructing the government to
act right. That doesn’t affect you and
me a fraction of what James is actually talking about, our individual human
obligation to treat others rightly.
Hence it flies in the face of our own arrogant exaggeration of
our rights, privileges, and prerogatives.
[Page 19] The right winger such as
myself often falls into the trap of “rugged independence”—which works for many
but not all—and wishes to forget about others not so fortunate. The left winger wants all kinds of things to
be done for such people. But by the
government, not themselves. By
many, these folks are disparagingly called “limousine liberals:” they are quite happy to spend every last cent
of your tax money to provide the help.
Not when it comes out of their own pocket, however.
And James is not concerned with the
poor as an abstract entity, either. Rather with the poor we actually come in
contact with—especially church members (chapter 2) and those who work for us
(chapter 5). We don’t come in contact
with the bulk of the poorer, but it is the ones we do have association
with that is at the heart of his concern.
If there were more alertness on that score, there would be far
less argument in regard to the broader category of poor since what we can
do we would already be doing.
Nor is James solely writing
on this theme. He lays before his
readers a strong case for the cultivation of the Christian potential for moral
excellence—in how we act, in what we say, in how we behave. His goal is, indeed, revolutionary, but an
inner, personal revolution rather than a political one.
But, paradoxically, this was nothing
new to many—perhaps most—of his readers.
As we shall see in the Old Testament Roots studies, these were pleas
firmly rooted in the teachings of the Torah and the Prophets. And perhaps this is the reason James did not
feel the need to insert a lengthy plea not to abandon the gospel in reaction to
his words--because they already knew they were supposed to act this way. The Old Testament had demanded that of
them.
The words they had heard read in the days they were traditionalist Jews
demanded the same kind of behavior James was enjoining. Their challenge lay not in learning something
new, but in practicing teaching that was very old indeed. The same challenge lies with us today.
[Page 20]
2. Date of Composition
There are no internal allusions that
require a specific dating for the work.
“There are no references to datable contemporary individuals, events or
cultural features (especially people, events or items that passed in[to]
obscurity after a given date), partly because we are not dealing with
narratives.”[8] Within that basic reality, individuals have still
found enough suggestive evidence to argue for a pre-Jerusalem
destruction date (sometimes going decades earlier) and yet also for one that
occurred significantly later.
Late Date
Indicators
(Post fall of
Jerusalem in A.D. 70)
Pseudonymity. If one
assumes pseudonymity and a polished Greek style beyond the likely skills of a
first century provincial Jew, then one is naturally attracted to a late date
for the epistle.[9] Such a date could be at any point from the
closing decades of the first to the middle of the second century.
Two factors come into play here in
regard to language skills, however:
(1) an insistence that Greek this
fluent was simply not found in first century Palestine and (2) even if
it could be found, it was totally unlikely to come from the probable
socioeconomic background of the writer.[10] The more extreme forms of the first assertion
have suffered severe blows at the hands of later researchers.[11]
[Page 21] Answering
the second objection typically involves invoking the reality of Palestine being
a region where one was certain to run into copious amounts of Greek and
Aramaic, not to mention Hebrew in the synagogue—and perhaps in religious
discourse outside it as well (the Hebrew of the Talmud certainly argues for its
widespread use independently of preserving the ancient manuscripts).
It is hard to imagine any education
that was received as a child not including at least some Greek since it
was an international language they would inevitably come in contact with in
business affairs and, even more so, if they were expected to do any significant
traveling inside or outside the region.
This would be enhanced by practical experience speaking it in business
matters. As W. Wueliner has cynically
summed up the real life situation:
“there is more rhetoric to be experienced in one hour in the marketplace
(or even in the nursery) than in one day in the academy.”[12]
Assuming that this “James” came from
Nazareth—whether he was the physical brother of Jesus or someone who shared the
same name--their shared living in Nazareth made them specially susceptible to a
greater contact with Greek speakers than many others. Nazareth was only five miles from
Sepphoris—the second largest city in Galilee and once its capital. It was undergoing a major building boom in
the 20s and it takes no great feat of imagination to picture both men regularly
working in the city and discoursing with its people.[13] Not a “literary” education in Greek, but a
quite practical immersion in how the language was used in everyday speech.
In light of the heavy number of
Gentiles in Galilee, one would expect Jews to have to learn their
language as a matter of everyday survival and business. Whether it was a Gentile majority throughout
the region or only in certain cities,[14] the
end result [Page 22] would have been
much the same: To get by on a long-term
basis, you needed a working knowledge of Greek.
The argument that a religious
epistle to Christians could not have been written from geographic
Palestine before the destruction of Jerusalem seems a lost cause. Are we to seriously believe that the leading
figures were totally without written (and verbal) communication throughout the
region and into the surrounding world?
Are we really to believe that they abandoned them to the “wolves” by
having no communication with them?
The inter-related problem, however, is the quality and skill of the
writing. In all candor, whichever
“James” we attach the epistle to, we simply do not know enough of his specific
background to prove that he had such a literary capacity. The reverse, however, is also true: we do not
have enough specific background data to prove (or give probability) that it
would have been beyond his capacity
either. We are working with
extremely skimpy data.
We do have one indirect
evidence however. There are repeated and
varied indications of the kind of “Semitic intrusions” one would expect from
someone who has a Jewish background but is working in a different
language. In other words, he has a
bicultural backround and the primary one is not Hellenistic.
To avoid this conclusion some have
argued that our “James” is a translation of an Aramaic original by a person
well grounded in a Hellenistic (but still Jewish) background. In some variants, this involves the
assumption that the translator has added a polished “coat” to the rhetoric that
it simply lacked in the original.[15]
[Page 23] This
really does sound like a case of Occam’s razor needing to be invoked: don’t multiply hypotheses needlessly. Especially since, for the scenario to work,
the translator essentially reworked the language so drastically that it now has
the kind of word play that one would expect in a composition originally
composed in Greek.[16] This would not be translation; it would be
like gutting a car and rebuilding it entirely.
Anointing elders. The reference to the work of elders in
anointing the sick could be read as an indication that “elders” had become a
very formal position in the church with superior authority and prerogatives
unique due to their “clerical” status. However,
the text of James points out that the confession a penitent believer should
make could be made to any person and not just to them (5:16). Furthermore, the position of elder is
documented in Acts in the very early church (Acts 11:30; Acts 15:2) and an
anointing with oil had been carried out at least by the apostles during Jesus’
life time (Mark 6:13). These firm
precedents existed in the very early years.[17] Nor is there any attempt by this “James” to
assert a position of superior authority;[18]
none of his arguments hinge upon such a self-conception.
Hence their existence and actions could just as easily fit an early
date for the epistle. Nothing requires
them to be evidence for a post-Jerusalem dating. Indeed, nothing actually even encourages
them to be.
Doctrine of faith. If the
doctrine of faith assailed by James is that of Paul,[19] then
a Pauline era (or post-Pauline era) date is natural. Yet when we read the actual text of James 2,
the argument centers not on the essentiality or even centrality of faith to
salvation, but upon the folly of resting it on that alone. It is not that faith is not vital or central
to redemption, it is that it must be manifested in everyday life through our
behavior and conduct. Paul might well
have worded the concept differently, but it is hard [Page 24] to see how he would have had difficulty with
the root concept. Hence an early Pauline
or even pre-Pauline date is quite reasonable
The Pauline doctrine objection is
developed by some with the addendum that the question of the relationship of
works and faith is simply not “understandable from Jewish presuppositions
alone.”[20] On the other hand John the Baptist is
described as facing individuals who came to him to be baptized who lacked any
desire to set their lives right. He
threw at them the rebuke that being children of Abraham alone was inadequate;
God could create more of those from the stones of the desert if He wished
(Matthew 3:7-9).
The rebuked thought that only the proper action was all that was
required; John stressed that it had to come out of the right motive as
well. So the relationship between
internal conviction and external behavior was not one alien to the
Jewish mind, at least not to John as he is pictured in the New Testament.
Number of congregational faults.
The variety and number of faults specified in the epistle has led to the
speculation that, “If the Christian congregations in any part of the empire
answered to the description [found here], an early date for the epistle is
scarcely possible.”[21] James does not assert that all of these
faults were found in any one place. At
the most, he knew they existed somewhere among those groups he wrote
to. Lumping them all together allowed
him to denounce a wide variety of evils rather than limiting himself to the
difficulties in one particular location. And if anyone really believes that even a
modest number of congregations couldn’t accumulate all these problems within
their number, they are a hopeless (and unrealistic) optimist.
Indicators that
Could Point in Either Direction
[Page 25] Their
religious name. If the “name” they
were called was Christians (James 2:7), that was already in use by the time of
Paul’s conversion (Acts 11:26).[22] One does not have to venture very far into
the history of the early church to account for the phenomena.
Their own meeting place. The
fact that the assemblies the Christians met in were distinctly their own rather
than the traditional Jewish synagogue (chapter 2) has been argued as implying a
later rather than earlier date.[23] Of course there is the question whether at a
later date they would even have called it a “synagogue” rather than some
other label.
That they would have wanted and sought their own meeting
places when the level of tension reached a certain level with traditionalist
Jews would have been an inevitable human response to the situation—removing
oneself from where the problem is. Hence
their use of a place rented by or through a member on behalf of the group—or
even owned by such a person—seems both a natural and early development.
If we know that “specialized” synagogues existed—in Jerusalem we read
of “the Synagogue of the Freedmen (Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and those from
Cilicia and Asia)” (Acts 6:9)—does it seem all that improbable that tensions
with traditionalists would eventually (and at a comparatively early date) result
in “synagogues of the Christians” (or a conceptual equivalent) popping up in
the Diaspora as opportunity and finance permitted?
Or de facto “synagogues,” at least, in that rented or loaned facilities
were utilized? A step above “house
congregations” and below a congregationally owned facility in the fully
developed sense. Think “warehouse space”
perhaps. Falling out of the third
floor window at Troas argues for such a location since it would be
extraordinary to find a private home with three stories (Acts 20:7-12).
Furthermore since the distinctively Christian day of worship was Sunday
(Acts 20:7) and traditionalist synagogues were hardly likely to wish to “loan”
their facilities for such a purpose(!), the development of locations of their
own would have had to occur at a [Page 26] fairly early date when and where private
homes could no longer meet the space requirements of the group.
Of course one could argue for such an extremely early date that
this sense of alienation—on both sides—had not yet developed or been generally
recognized among the synagogues. Especially
among those outside of Judaea and Jerusalem in particular. (See Point 2 under “Early Date Indicators,”
below.) But that itself would constitute
further evidence against any proposed late date.
Persecution. Some have
read the text as reflecting a climate of persecution.[24] There is nothing in the text clearly pointing to them
suffering per se for their faith, however. (The one possible exception is 2:7.) There was suffering, certainly, but it was—at
least primarily--the abuse of the powerless by the powerful (chapter 5). If faith enters the picture at all, it
probably was as balm to the souls of the guilty who rationalized away their
conduct on the grounds that not only did such lowly creatures “deserve” their
treatment but they were believers in Jesus as well.
Furthermore persecution was hardly
post-70 in origin. Indeed, due to their
presence in Jerusalem prior to the Jewish Revolt, the Christian community would
have been a tempting target for anger that would be dangerous to expose to the
Romans. In other words, they would have
served as ideal scapegoats. And there
is, of course, the early persecution specifically targeting them (Acts 8:1-4).
Before moving from late date to
early date indicators, we should note the effort to weave both together through
a scenario of multi-stage composition.
In this view, the contents were written in the forties and were
circulated for an unknown period of time when an editor wove together from the
various writings what we have today as the book of James.[25]
[Page 27] James is not that long a
book to begin with (a modest five chapters).
One wonders why sections--to be blunt, sections little more than mere fragments--would
enjoy a separate existence for decades before being woven together into a
composite work. Why would they continue
to be reproduced, without format or pattern, during the earlier period? And if regarded as satisfactory in that form,
one would anticipate some major external event motivating the compilation of it
all into one work--of which there is no obvious or compelling hint in the book.
Early Date
Indicators
(Pre-fall of
Jerusalem in A.D. 70)
In
contrast to the failure of the “late date” indicators, there is significant
internal evidence that points toward an early date.
(1) The description of the recipients as members
of “the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad” (1:1). If there were significant number of Gentile
(or even Samaritan converts) at this time, the ethnic reference would be
improbable.[26] One would anticipate either the description
of the readers as “beloved,” “called,” “believers” or some similar term that
would encompass both Greek and Gentile.
Alternatively one would expect a geographic location as to the
designated recipients. To take the
expression as only meaning the total community of Christians worldwide[27] surely
strips the expression of the ethnic element inherent in the expression.
Although considering the church the
new Israel is not without New Testament precedent (Romans 2:25-29; possibly,
Galatians 6:16), a “tribal” division of believers is unknown in such
texts. Likewise, what would the
Christian “dispersion” consist of? To
speak in terms of the expression meaning “the hostile world in which they live”[28]
would be true only if the term means the entire world. The expression had traditionally carried [Page
28] the element of contrast between
where they had been (geographic Palestine) versus where they now
were (scattered everywhere else). If
this approach is to be taken, it would be better to make the contrast one
between their currently diverse homes in this world and their true, ultimate
“heavenly homeland.”[29]
First Peter (1:1) is written to the
“pilgrims,” the same Greek word rendered “scattered abroad” in James. This is used to justify interpreting the
Diaspora in James as equivalent to believers.
On the other hand, Peter goes on to make this a dispersal among “Pontus,
Galatia” and three other provinces (1 Peter 1:1). Unlike James 1:1, he does not use it as an
all encompassing term but in the sense of believers in a very specific area. Nor is there any allusion to a tribal
division.[30] Even in Peter, there is nothing to preclude a
literal dispersion due to local persecution, scattering Christians into
a wider section of the area then they otherwise would have gone.
The marking of early Christians to
protect them from destruction is described in Revelation 7:4-8 as occurring to
the twelve tribes and this has been cited as proof that the image can be
applied to Christians in general.[31] In Revelation, however, the tribes
conspicuously do not match the traditional list of tribal
identifications. In addition not all of
the tribes but only a certain number from each tribe, i.e., the
Christian minority of the ethnically Jewish population. Hence we are again forced to blend the ideas
of ethnicity and Christian faith.
Furthermore, the emphasis on the strictly Jewish roots of the
Christians argues for an earlier date for the Apocalypse than is often
given. To the extent that Revelation 7
can be introduced at all, it would provide further evidence that at the time
James wrote Christians were exclusively—or overwhelmingly—still of Jewish
ethnicity. The mushrooming of Gentile
converts had not yet occurred.
[Page 29] (2) The description of the meeting place of
believers as a “synagogue” (“assembly,” in the NKJV of 2:2). This may easily argue for a period when
Christians were still so close to Judaism in their mental outlook that they
voluntarily (instinctively?) adopted the vocabulary of the place of worship to
their own usage.[32] The breach with traditional Judaism had not
reached the point where the use of the conventional Jewish term did not seem
incongruous.
Alternatively (and pointing toward
an even earlier date), the language could reasonably point to groups of Jesus
believers still meeting in Jewish synagogues.[33] This is not as incongruous as it might
sound: since the Christians worshipped
on the first day of the week (Sunday) (Acts 20:17; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4) rather
than the seventh day (Sabbath/Saturday) in the early years they might well be
permitted in certain places to utilize the facility on their own special
day. Just as we read in Acts of
Christians utilizing the facilities of the temple for years after their
conversion. In Jerusalem alone there
were three hundred or more synagogues at the time of the destruction in AD 70.[34]
The larger the number of synagogues in a given community, the more
likely for a limited period of time in which such was acceptable
procedure. Especially the further away
from Jerusalem you got. But can we
realistically expect such generosity to have gone on for more than five or ten
years after Jesus’ death or for it to have been so general a practice that
James considered “your synagogue” as applicable language to all
Christian places of worship as he apparently does? Could that many possibly been
friendly?
The argument that the incident being
described in chapter two represents an illustration from contemporary
traditional synagogue practice[35]
does not fit with the description “your
synagogue” (2:2). Furthermore, it is
introduced by a warning not to “hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the
Lord of glory, with partiality” (2:1).
This also makes us anticipate a discussion of something that would
happen in the meeting of believers in Jesus.
Nor is the situation improved by
claiming that the term “synagogue” is used ironically: You are acting like people in the synagogue
do and you know full well such behavior should not characterize believers in
Jesus.[36] Yet the very wording of the verses [Page
30] that follow seems to argue that
they took such behavior for granted; they were not aware that it
was irreconcilable with their faith in Christ.
Nor that their Jewish roots should have prohibited it.
(3) The lack of any reference to the problems of
Gentile believers and their relationship to the Jewish law and traditions. Since this only became a problem as the result
of the successes of Paul’s ministry, we would naturally seek a date prior to
that, when all Christians were of Jewish ethnicity or were Gentile proselytes
to Judaism.[37] Some would find an answer to this in a
reversal of the chronology: James was
written so much later than the Judaizing controversies that it was no
longer relevant and hence not mentioned.[38] If so, then James presupposes Paul’s doctrine
of faith--since it had been delivered decades in the past--and one seems forced
to consider chapter two a reaction to (rejection of?) it. Would such an epistle be expected to overcome
Paul’s doctrine after it had been so long established? For that matter is it likely there would have
remained a sufficiently strong traditionalist Jewish presence in the church
universal to make it a rational goal at such a date?
These factors point to the epistle
being written within the first decade or two of Christianity’s existence. This commentator’s opinion--and by its nature
the issue can not be conclusively proved--a date within about the first ten
years after Jesus’ death best fits the subject matter that is included as well
as the themes that are omitted. If
written by James the apostle, then one must take a date no later than spring of
44 (see our discussion of authorship in the next chapter).
Authorship as determining dating. If we assume the author was James the brother
of Jesus, then we must seek a date no later than AD 62 or 63, since Josephus
indicates that he was killed at that time.[39] Yet the total absence of Gentile issues
argues [Page 31] that the epistle was
written prior to the Jerusalem Council meeting of AD 48 or 49 that discussed in
detail the question of the relationship of Gentile believers to the Jewish law.[40] On the other hand, if we are pushed by this
chain of reasoning into the Forties, why should there be any a priori
difficulty with the epistle being written, say, only five or six years earlier,
which would enable it to have an apostolic authorship?[41]
If one dates the epistle early,
there is the tendency to date it very early. For example, “about the year 45 A.D.”[42]
James B. Adamson goes beyond this and insists that the work is
“unequivocally . . . the oldest extant
uninterpolated document of early first-century Christianity.”[43] He believes it could date back into the 30s[44] and
must be dated prior to Paul’s first missionary journey from Antioch which he
dates as 44 A.D.—the controversy over Gentiles only began during/after that
missionary tour and the book of James has absolutely no mention of it.[45] He argues that the Diaspora that he wrote to
was that created by Paul’s persecution in Acts 8:1.[46]
Although we normally take the introductory words of James 1:1—“to the
twelve tribes which are scattered abroad”—as a reference to the entire
civilized world, it doesn’t explicitly say that (the counter argument,
of course, being that was the normal usage and assumes it). In all fairness, however, it should be noted
that Acts speaks in terms of a more limited
Diaspora as well: “a great persecution
arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered
throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles” (8:1) and
“therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word”
(8:4).
[Page 32] A persecution that was this
intense could easily result in the kind of economic suppression described. What better reason to cheat a person of wages
than because of them following that “heretical Nazarene”? This allowed “secular” aims (wealth
accumulation) to be accomplished under a “religious” pretext.
Furthermore in such a context would not the “death [of] the righteous
man” (James 5:6) be no less than the execution of the martyr Stephen whose characterization as “righteous” would surely
fit a man who, in death, could cry out, “Lord, do not charge them with this
sin” (Acts 8:59).
Adamson
does not give an estimate for the date of the “scattering abroad” in Acts 8
which was, it seems, in the short term after Stephen’s murder. Most estimates appear to place it in 35 or 36
A.D. Would this not suggest a date of
37 or 38 for the epistle if James has this limited Diaspora in mind?
At the other end of the range for
James’ life (and just beyond it), it should be noted that economic suppression
of the poorer citizens mushroomed in the early 60s prior to the outbreak of the
Great Revolt in 66 A.D.[47] Josephus refers to how the procurator Albinus
(62-64 A.D.) “in his official capacity [stole] and plunder[ed] private property
and burden[ed] the whole nation with extraordinary taxes.”[48] “The crimes of Albinus were, for the most
part, perpetrated in secret and with dissimulation,” writes Josephus.[49] But when his successor took over (Gessius
Florus, 64-66 A.D.), virtually anything was permitted so long as the procurator
got his share of the proceedings.[50]
Oppression of the unprotected laborers would be rampant in such a
social setting and would fit that described by James. Of course, this “class” would be easy targets
for such even under the best of circumstances.
The lawless attitude of the procurators would have simply encouraged the
intensification of an existing societal problem. In other words, the depicted abuse of power
by the powerful would fit any time from the 30s through the 60s.
[Page 33]
3. Destination of the
Epistle
Ethnicity
Ethnically, the intended audience
consists either exclusively or overwhelmingly of Jews: “the twelve tribes which are scattered
abroad” (1:1). This was the traditional
description of the Jewish Diaspora whether the bulk of Jews still lived in
geographic Palestine or not.[51]
Furthermore, even if one refuses to embrace this as the author’s
intention, there was a first century event the expression could allude to: the literal dispersion of Christians referred
to in Acts 8:1, which is the only time we read of them being
involuntarily dispersed.[52] Nor should it be forgotten the even earlier
Diaspora of Jewish Christians: The
initial converts, according to Acts 2:9-11, came from a wide range of locations
so the faithful would have been voluntarily dispersed in the months
and--at most--few years afterwards as these individuals returned to their
homelands.[53]
Interpreting the “dispersed” in either the universal traditional
(and most probable) sense of the term or by the meaning that might be arrived
at from Acts 2 or 8, provides powerful evidence
to an extremely early date for the epistle.
Indeed, if former members of the Jerusalem church, it would be especially
appealing for James to wish to steer them in the right direction even after
they had set down roots in other communities.[54] And if not such members, his sense of
spiritual obligation would surely have still motivated him to ground them
further in proper Christian behavior.
[Page 34] Either
way, some challenge the Jewish Christians as the (primary or exclusive)
designated readers by going to 1 Peter 1:1’s use of the term. That text provides us with a geographic
location attached to the label, “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the
pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.”
It is commonly argued[55]
that this was written to at least predominantly Gentile congregations. The difference between James and Peter’s
“diaspora,” it is argued, is that in the latter’s letter we have clear cut and
precise information of such being present.
We should, if you will, “carry over” the assumption that a similar
broadness of usage is intended when we find it in James.
On the other hand, since we lack such evidence in James, isn’t
the reverse argument the better one--that the utter silence makes it
very improbable that James is writing to anyone but predominantly or
exclusively Jewish followers of Jesus? [56] Furthermore is it good argumentation to reverse
the normal usage of Diaspora to make the term refer to
overwhelmingly/exclusively Gentile instead of Jewish
congregations? Aren’t we guilty of reversing
normal usage in order to prove our point?
A quick scan through the book shows
that there are three texts in 1 Peter that seem to provide potential backing
for including Gentiles in the Diaspora or to make them the core allusion
in the usage of the term. The first one is
found in 1:14, “as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former
lusts, as in your ignorance” and that certainly does sound more like a
description made of Gentiles rather than Jews though no concrete ethnicity is
expressed.
[Page 35] On the other hand, was
desire-preference-self-centered driven behavior really all that uncommon
among Jews? Does it not impose upon Jews
the inherent assumption of greater morality than the community often actually
had? (As witnessed by the indictment of
everyday behavior in the Old Testament prophets!)
1 Peter 2:12 speaks of the
recipients as “having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they
speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they
observe, glorify God in the day of visitation.”
The language could either be distinguishing them from the
Gentiles (i.e., they are Jews) or encouraging Gentile believers that
they will ultimately gain the overdue respect they have earned.
If they were mainly/exclusively Gentile, would not the expected
language not have been an ethnic style reference to “Gentiles” but a
broader description along the lines of “among those you live and work”? An ethnic reference makes better sense if the
described group is of different “racial” stock.
Finally there are two verses in
chapter 3, “(3) For we have spent enough of our
past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles—when we walked in lewdness,
lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries. (4) In regard
to these, they think it strange that you do not run with them in the same flood
of dissipation, speaking evil of you.”
This sounds like Gentiles who
have changed their lifestyle drastically being reminded of the unpleasant fact
that “they [the majority of Gentiles] think it strange” that they have
done so. Alternatively, the wording is
compatible with the subject matter being Jews who had once been living
like Gentiles and who are now scorned for living how they (as Jews)
should have been living in the first place.
Furthermore the writer speaks
of how “we have spent enough of our past lifetime [Page 36] in doing the will of the Gentiles:” the “we” would normally suggest an author of
the same ethnicity as those being described since the author includes himself as
being within the group. (Of course we
can opt for it being merely a rhetorical “we” and that is the most likely
probability.)
Although not hostile to there being a
predominantly Gentile readership for First Peter, the evidence seems to fall short
of conclusive--more into the “very intriguing” than “obligatory” category. Even if interpreted as conclusively verifying
the presence of Gentiles, the very absence of even the hint of such in
James surely argues--at least equally strongly--against them being a major
element in those congregations.
Nor should we overlook the fact that James writes to the Diaspora period
while 1 Peter is written to the part of it in the specific areas he
mentions at the beginning of the epistle.
It is not impossible that these Christians had been “scattered
about/dispersed” in their own mini-Diaspora due to regional persecution
or adversity, making the language relevant on that ground.
Once again we return to the use of
the expression “your synagogue” (James 2:2), which argues that we are
dealing with individuals who would normally be expected to meet in a synagogue,
i.e., Jews.[57] When Abraham is described as “our father”
(5:21), the most natural interpretation is that the readers were, ethnically,
his descendants; again, Jews.[58]
Unlike 1 Peter we have a clear-cut lack of language that
provides apparent reference to a Gentile component. Hence, even if we concede that “Diaspora” includes
Gentiles in 1 Peter (due to the texts that make it a reasonable proposition),
would we not be compelled to argue that the absence of any such distinguishing
language requires a Jewish—overwhelmingly or exclusively—audience in James?
[Page 37]
Physical Location
of the Recipients
Geographically, there are no
significant hints. The broadness of the
wording of the epistle argues that its use was anticipated in more than one
location. Indeed, this has led some to
believe that it was literally a “general” epistle, i.e., for all places where
there were Christians.[59]
Others think it was especially for those in the Eastern part of the Roman
Empire[60] or,
in a slightly more restricted compass, those “scattered throughout the area
east of the Mediterranean Sea.”[61]
Some expect a primarily Syrian
audience though conceding a possible intended readership in Babylonia as well.[62] Some suggest the possibility of Syrian
Christians in non-urban congregations in particular.[63] Syria would certainly be near-enough to
geographic Palestine to postulate an early epistle since it would be the most
immediate area of probable Christian expansion.
Specifying “non-urban communit[ies]”[64]
seems overly specific without clearer data in the epistle itself to fuel the
speculation. The reference to the farmer
and the rain (5:7) is an allusion clear to urban as well as rural audiences
and, therefore, provides no significant evidence toward the latter as the recipients
of the epistle.[65] A Syrian destination has been argued against
on the grounds that the earliest known Syrian canon did not embrace the book of
James until the Peshitta version appeared.[66]
The city of Antioch has been
suggested as the primary destination.[67] To others, the city of Caesarea has been
termed “as a good a guess as any.”[68] On the other hand, one wonders what would
point one toward that specific a location or, for that matter, any single
city destination.
The scarcity of explicitly
“Christian” references--in the sense that they are found in epistles from other
New Testament authors--has led to attempts to partly remove the [Page 38] work from roots in Christianity. One theory has been that it was originally
written to non-Christians but was slightly modified for a audience that
believed in Jesus.[69] On that scenario, one wonders why the
adaptations were neither more numerous nor more explicit.
Others have thought in terms of an
epistle written to Jews and Christianized Jews.[70] Although that would certainly explain the way
the explicitly “Christian” teaching usually seems to be lying just below the
surface or just over the horizon, one wonders what type of situation would have
allowed one to anticipate that significant number of both groups would
be receptive to the document. The only way
this writer can imagine it is one that places it within a handful of years (or
less) after Jesus’ death, which does not seem to provide enough time for the
amount of gospel spread assumed by the broad description of its designated
readers—the Diaspora. That would seem to
require at least a few more years than this “mixed” readership approach
permits. Fast as the gospel spread, we
still must leave enough time for it to occur on a geographically widespread
basis.
It has been argued, however, that
even “as late as AD 80/90 in Palestine it was necessary to take special steps
to bar believing Jews from the synagogues.”[71] Even so, the later one dates it after
the resurrection, the less inherent probability of having any significant
Jewish traditionalist audience as its targeted readers.
4. Place of Writing
Assuming an early date or an
authorship by a kinsman of Jesus or an apostle, then one would suspect it was
written in geographic Palestine.
Jerusalem would be the most obvious probability.[72] If one assumes pseudonymity on the basis of
the skill in Greek of the author, then one would be more likely to have found
it written in a more cosmopolitan center, with a far greater influence of
Hellenism upon its inhabitants.[73]
[Page 39] Regardless
of authorship, a considerable number of allusions to phenomena that are common
in geographic Palestine (though admittedly in other areas of the region as well),
point to an origin either in that country or somewhere else in the Roman East,[74]
The author’s native land
was situated not far from the sea (1:6; 3:4);
and was blessed with valuable productions, such as figs, oil, and wine
(3:12).
The land was much exposed to drought; and there was often scarcity of
[agricultural] products for want of rain (5:17-18). Sudden devastations of
the vegetative kingdom were occasioned by a fiery wind (1:11). The early
and latter rains were familiar (5:7).
The reference to early and latter
rains--a phrase often found in the Old Testament--is perhaps the strongest
argument explicitly pointing to either Palestine or the southern section of
adjoining Syria.[75] As noted, if written from geographic
Palestine, the automatic assumption would be from Jerusalem.[76]
The Antioch option.
Antioch has been suggested due to the belief that James indicates
knowledge of materials utilized by the gospel of Matthew:[77] quite a few Matthewean allusions have been
pointed to.[78] And that gospel in particular is often
associated with Antioch.
The Roman option. Rome is
proposed based on the book’s alleged usage in 1 Peter and by First Clement. The latter (possibly the former as well) came
from that city.[79] The alleged use of Shepherd of Hermas,
also of Roman origin, has been regarded by some as particularly credible since
both use an uncommon Greek term and do so in the same context, that of prayer.[80] Hermas is sometimes dated in the 90s or,
seemingly more [Page 40] commonly, in
the 140s. First Clement is usually
placed in the mid-90s, though a minority view opts for the 60s. Regardless of exact dating, such usage at the
heart of the Roman Empire would have further encouraged the use and acceptance
of James by others.
Neither the epistle’s usage of the Septuagint nor its unusually good
Greek require a non-Judaean site at all, however,[81] especially
since there is significant evidence that the language was widely used in both
Jerusalem and the broader country.[82]
If the author is James of Jerusalem spoken of in Acts, then this is a
man who had to work with Greek speaking Jews from early on--the “Hellenists”
who are distinguished from the Hebrews in Acts 6:1. He was part of a church leadership in that
city that could write about circumcision “to the brethren who are of the Gentiles”
in Greek (Acts 15:23).
Furthermore, as a native of a region with so many Gentiles that the
area could be called “Galilee of the Gentiles” (Matthew 4:15), it is
hard to imagine him being raised without a workable and probably in
depth knowledge of the language.
If Jerusalem was his normal residence from early after the
resurrection—as is typically assumed—then by the late 40s he already had “up to
twenty years experience in a bilingual movement.”[83] And, to the extent that he was deeply
involved in it, that would have required regular usage of the language. Furthermore, during this period “his literary
style would have improved with his frequent need to teach and preach before a
variety of groups.”[84]
Assuming a variety of intellectual and skill levels within the
Hellenist Jewish Christian community—as within the native Hebrew / Aramaic
speakers for that matter—one would have been startled if the movement lacked
several or more speakers of Greek [Page 41]
who used it with unusually great capability. What he learned from their example could
hardly have avoided markedly increasing his own knowledge and skill level[85] and
prepared him for writing this work.
Assuming that he used an amanuensis because of his personal limitations—and
it is only that, an assumption—one would have expected a trusted helper
like this to work out any places where the original text lacked the maximum
impact due to it being written by someone more comfortable in a different
language.[86] So a quite “presentable” Greek epistle would
make full sense from either approach.
The Egyptian option. Other
alternatives that have been suggested include Alexandria, Egypt--due to
similarities between the writings of the Jewish philosopher-theologian Philo
and the book of James.[87] However, analysts have been known to flat
deny the validity of that claim, arguing that any similarities are too superficial
to be significant.[88]
There is also the fact that three pseudo-James works are preserved at
Nag Hammadi, an indication of keen interest in the church leader in Egypt.[89] However connecting the Biblical author James
with Egypt by this means works best with the assumption that, like with the
other documents, the attribution to the historic James is a mere literary
fiction.
Assuming the work is genuine, however, the evidence would more properly
be read as an indication why those in the region would have a special interest
in preserving material attributed to that figure, i.e., they had a pre-existing
interest in him. Which would also explain
the misattribution of these other works to him in the first place. (You don’t attribute a work to Paul, for
example, if you hate his guts. But you
might if you [Page 42] regarded him as
authoritative and admirable and regarded such fictions as merely being “the
kind of things he would have written.”)
For your general historical information, it should be remembered
that—writing location aside--there was certainly a strong religious tie between
geographic Palestine and Egypt. Jerome
spent over three decades in one or both places and Origen also spent a large
chunk of his life divided between the two. [90] These were Gentiles, but in regard to Jews
such a “pull” would also exist.
When things became especially uncomfortable for Palestinian Jews—after
the Second Jewish Revolt Jerusalem was stripped of its name and made a Gentile
community with the name Aelia Capitolina—many would feel the pull of Alexandria
with its huge Jewish population.
Especially with the Gentile segment becoming ever more dominant in a
church that began as exclusively “theirs.”
Hence any work that originated among Palestinian Christians would find
Alexandria a very natural site for it to be preserved in.[91] Which is a significantly different matter
than being the place it was written.
5. Reason for Writing
James does not refer to any specific
incident as motivating his letter. On
the other hand, the way he describes the internal bickering of wealthy against
poor (chapter two) and over-weening self-confidence of Christian businesspeople
(chapter five) argues that he was seeing a pattern developing that
alarmed him. It wasn’t, therefore, so
much any one controversy or any one location that called forth his plea for a
re-examination of their behavior, but the fear that their fundamental attitudes
were improper and desperately needed correction.[92]
[Page 43]
6. Canonicity
The earliest list of New Testament
books--the Muratorian Canon--does not include James on its list;[93] c.
180 A.D. is the usual dating.[94] Similarly the Old Latin translation of the
New Testament lacks the work.[95]
Eusebius spoke of it being among the
books whose place in the canon had been questioned, yet quotes as authoritative
scripture the words of James 4:11.[96] In the eyes of his contemporaries, the major
problem was that few earlier writers had quoted its contents.[97]
Yet the lack of as many citations or
quotations of its arguments as would be desirable is not necessarily
unexpected. After all, it is a practical
book of conduct and not “doctrinally” orientated in the sense that Paul is so
often. Tools in the fight against
various “heretical” movements were sought.
There would be limited use of James in such a religio-social context.
Furthermore the fact that the Apocryphon
of James and The Gospel of Thomas advocates were appealing to James
of Jerusalem as one of the sources for their “secret teaching” may well have
created a certain reserve--among some—even toward anything genuinely
originating with him.[98] In other words “guilt by association” though
the very dramatic disparity between his genuine work in the epistle and
these exotic speculations should have been adequate to use as a hammer against
any theory that such a plain spoken man would, for a moment, have countenanced
such a form of teaching.
[Page 44] Furthermore,
as a “special” place for Mary began to gain ground, even James as “brother of
the Lord” became an embarrassment for those who thought that her special sexual
“purity” must have been preserved throughout her marriage to Joseph.[99] To reconcile “perpetual virginity” and
“brothers” took some agile intellectual foot work and not having to deal with
it at all by considering the epistle non-canonical eliminated much of the need
to explain the situation.
(Alternatively, “that James was a different James than this one”
produced the same result.)
Origen notes the mixed feelings that
existed on the canonicity, yet quotes the text of the epistle as well.[100] Indeed, Origen cites it as by “the brother of
the Lord”[101]
and cites James 4:7 as from “James the apostle.”[102] The latter would seemingly guarantee
canonicity if the attribution is accepted as accurate. The apparent conflation of “the apostle” and
“the brother” would naturally make it possible to argue that his “confusion” as
to which it actually was means the canonicity deduction should be taken with an
equal grain of salt as well.
But since the brothers became disciples at some point, where is
the proper a priori objection to that James’ inspiration as well? It might be challenged as uncertain (unlike
an apostles’) but surely not excluded.
(The tension between the two statements would also be removed if one
considers the physical “brother of the Lord” to be identical with the
James that was an apostle.)
The surviving writings of Clement of Alexandria contain no quotations
from the book, yet Eusebius tells us that this Clement thought sufficiently
highly of it to have written a commentary interpreting it.[103] Furthermore there is the oddity that when
Clement discusses Jesus’ prohibition of oaths, he utilizes the formulation as
found in James rather than the gospel account.
As Ben Witherington notes,[104]
[Page 45]
James 5:12 has a definite article before
the first occurrence of both nai (“yes”) and ou (“no”), and this
form of the saying recurs in Justin’s First Apology 16.5 and Clement of
Alexandria’s Stromateis 5.99.1; 6.67.5.
That these later Christian writers follow the form of the saying in
James rather than in either Matthew or Paul suggests perhaps that James
preserved the earliest form of the saying or that the homily of James had more
widespread influence in the early church than is sometimes thought.
Verbal similarities in the writings of Clement of Rome and Ignatius, as
well as other writings of the early centuries, have been introduced as evidence
that the epistle had enjoyed a considerable readership and impact[105]
regardless of whether any specific endorsement of its canonicity is made. Of course, in this kind of situation the book
is at least being endorsed as reliable, if not inspired.
First Clement is especially
interesting—whether dating it in the late first century or the early second:[106]
1.
First Clement 23:3: “2 So let us
not be double-minded; neither let our soul be lifted up on account of
His exceedingly great and glorious gifts.
4 Far from us be that which is written, ‘Wretched are they who are of a double
mind, and of a doubting heart; who say, These things we have heard
even in the times of our fathers; but, behold, we have grown old, and none of
them has happened to us.’ ” Note that
what is quoted is “that which is written,” typical euphemism for
Scripture. Applying it to James at this
early a day would be especially significant.
[Page 46] Compare
James 1: “5 If any of you lacks wisdom,
let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it
will be given to him. 6 But let him ask in
faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea
driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For let not
that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all
his ways.”
2.
First Clement 30:2 quotes Proverbs 3:34 in the same way as 1 Peter 5:5
and James 4:6: “For God," says [the
Scripture], "resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”
James
4:6: “But He gives more grace. Therefore
He says: ‘God resists the proud, but gives grace to
the humble.’ ”
3.
First Clement 38:2: “Let the wise
man display his wisdom, not by [mere] words, but through good deeds.”
James
3:13: “Who is wise and understanding
among you? Let him show by good conduct
that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom.”
The allusion/quotation of James
seems reinforced by the very preceding words of First Clement: “Let the rich man provide for the wants of
the poor [cf. James 1:27]; and let the poor man bless God [cf. James 3:9],
because He has given him one by whom his need may be supplied.”
If we move forward in time a bit to
the Shepherd of Hermas we find a document most likely no later than about the
middle of the second century. Allowing
time for his work to become popular, he must be around that time at the
latest: (1) Irenaeus refers to him and he is dated c.
175.[107] (2) Similarly the Muratorian Fragment does as
well (dated c. 180).[108]
[Page 47] Hermas utilizes a Greek word
that is found no earlier in Greek literature than James’ epistle and finds a
use for it no less than three times in his own work[109]—something
that is extraordinarily hard to dismiss as mere coincidence. The usage surely implies at least reliability
and probably inspiration as well for James.
In Hermas’[110] Mandates
3.1 (cf. his Similitudes 5.6.5) he refers to “Love truth, and let
nothing but truth proceed out of thy mouth, that the Spirit which God made
to dwell in this flesh, may be found true in the sight of all men; and thus
shall the Lord, Who dwelleth in thee, be glorified; for the Lord is true in
every word, and with Him there is no falsehood.”
That Divinely given spirit/Spirit
is an expression that easily brings to mind James 4:5, “Or do you think that
the Scripture says in vain, ‘The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously’?”
In Mandates 2:3 he gives the
instruction that, “Slander is evil; it is a restless demon, never at
peace, but always having its home among factions. Refrain from it therefore, and thou shalt have
success at all times with all men.”
The
evil nature of such tales brings to mind that James 4:11 enjoins, “Do not speak
evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his
brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer
of the law but a judge.”
Of
the instability (“restless” nature) of slander (i.e., that it is likely to
throw, literally, any charge that may damage) consider James 3:8, “But no man
can tame the tongue. It is an unruly
evil, full of deadly poison.” Instead of
“unruly,” “restless” has [Page 48] been
substituted by certain translations (ESV, NASB, NIV, for instance) and both
convey that image of instability. Since
it is referred to as being “set on fire by hell” (3:6) the demonic imagery of
Hermas would be a quite logical development.
In the Mandates 5.2.3 Hermas
speaks of how, “Now this patience dwells with those who have complete
faith.” James 1:4 easily comes to mind, “But let patience have its perfect
work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing.”
Mandates 8:2 speaks of
how, “If you hold back from doing good, you do a great sin.” James
speaks similarly of how, “to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to
him it is sin.”
Mandates 9:1-6 includes the
warning, “If you are doubtful in your heart, you will certainly receive none of
your requests, for those who are doubtful toward God are double-minded, and
they never get their requests.”
It
is hard to read this without immediately recalling James 1:6-8, “5 If any of
you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without
reproach, and it will be given to him. 6 But let
him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea
driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For let not
that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his
ways.”
Referring to the Devil, Mandates
12.5.2 speaks of how, “If you therefore resist him, he will, being conquered,
flee from you.” This “being conquered” certainly sounds like a verbal allusion and a
fascinating interpretive gloss on James 4:7, “Therefore submit to God. Resist
the devil and he will flee from you.”
[Page 49] Hermas utilizes reasoning similar to
James as well. He speaks (Mandates
5.2.4) of how one evil “evolves” out of another, making one ever worse;
James speaks (3:17; cf. 1:14-15) of how one good “evolves” out of
another, making one morally better.
Factors Potentially
Limiting
the Widespread
Usage of the Book
It has been reasonably speculated that the strictly Judeo-Christian
targeted audience for the epistle and the lack of reference to those concerns
that primarily occupied the mind of the converted Gentiles, resulted in this
book being primarily preserved in the first centuries among those of a Jewish
ethnicity.[111] This certainly makes inherent sense: a book is most likely to be explicitly
appealed to if what it has to say has relevance to some contemporary
controversy you are personally interested in.
The lack of such relevance would encourage the omission of reference to
the book in the first century or so after its origin,[112]
and once that pattern was established, it would not be unnatural for it to continue.
But this need not be read as opposition to the work. Its orientation toward matters of everyday
living would tend to cause it to be neglected rather than opposed.[113]
If we date the book as in the later 30s or early 40s and, perhaps, as
a result of the dispersion of the Jerusalem Christians in Acts[114]--and
that they were its targeted recipients--we have a further reason for the
slowness of its spread as acceptable religious literature: it was not even written to all Jewish
Christians, it was written for the much smaller group involved in that first
persecution. From them, it would
naturally spread among, primarily, other Jewish Christians in the same
region. The “seed” of this
manuscript had simply not been widely spread enough to gain it as quick a
recognition as other works.
[Page 50] Much
the same result would occur if we consider the matter from the standpoint of an
early date independent of any linkage with the scattering in Acts. The most likely place for predominantly
Jewish Christian congregations to be were throughout Roman Palestine and
Syria. Hence these would be the first to
receive copies of the message and other
congregations in the same region would be the most probable to receive early
copies that were forwarded. Hence the dominant
place for surviving copies of the epistle would be Palestine-Syria for many
years.
With the Roman backlash after both
the First Jewish Revolt (66-70 A.D.) and the often overlooked Second Jewish
Revolt in the following century
(132-135), many of the congregations in the region surely disintegrated as the
members either perished or, more often, fled to more distant and safer
regions. With the scattering, many
copies surely perished in the chaos and the surviving congregations left a
significantly smaller “pool” within which to preserve the work.[115]
Personally I would regard the book as written at an early date to first
century Jewish Christians but of the traditional Diaspora, i.e.,
scattered throughout at least the Roman Empire.
However even that would still tend to bestow a special “of Jewish
interest” flavor to the work, especially when compared to Paul who so typically
orientated his letters toward a predominantly Gentile gospel work. It would result in not so much opposition to
the epistle, but a neglect of it among the growing Gentile majority.
A hint—but no more—of a disproportionate number of manuscripts
existing in the Palestine-Syrian region may be suggested by our knowledge of
the work of Origen. While living in
Alexandria, no mention is made of the book; only after his move there do we
find mention of it.[116]
[Page 51] Another
factor that may well have weighed against the book’s acceptance was the
questioning of its apostolic origin.[117] However appealing an origin with a physical kinsman
of Jesus might seem to us, that would typically be read as an admission that
the author was originally an unbeliever and remained such until after Jesus’
resurrection. Hence, however prestigious
a respect he gained in the Jerusalem church, he could never be counted among
the “original” disciples. Furthermore,
even if a belief in his inspiration required respect for his writing, that
would not remove the fact that those specifically authorized to bind and loose
for Jesus were neither inspired men and women in general nor the kinsfolk of
Jesus--but the apostles in particular (Matthew 18:18).
(The possible evidence that the
“unbelief” of the physical kinsmen may not have been quite what is
usually considered will be examined in the authorship chapter.)
Certainly there is nothing in the contents
(with the possible exception of chapter two) that would have made it
objectionable or its orthodoxy questioned.
And even chapter two’s supposed “contradiction” to Paul’s doctrine of
salvation by faith is far, far more the result of the Reformation
interpretation of Paul’s doctrine than anything James or Paul actually wrote
for themselves.
George K. Hasselhoff throws out an
idea that “other [unidentified] scholars have argued”—that the real cause of
hesitation lay in the books hefty criticism of undue veneration for
wealth: “Does its radical critique of
wealth—which ought to be opposed by true faith expressed by ethically good
behavior—explain the limits of its reception?
The question remains open for further study.”[118]
[Page 52] It
is hard to imagine this coming into play for the first century or even two
after Jesus died. Whatever varieties of
economic levels existed in the church, there would surely have been a severe
tilt to moderate status and income ones.
In other words, until one starts encountering a major burst in the
upward classes entering the church, where would the bias arise to ignore,
overlook, or suppress acceptance of the book?
Could any of the classes dominating the church in this early period
possibly have read chapter 5, for example, and have the audacity to suggest
that its picture of the rich was anything but what was all too often actually
found in their society? Hence there
seems no good reason to expect the book’s economic teaching had a role in
ultimate decisions to utilize or reject using it.
This could be rebutted, perhaps, by an emphasis on reality versus
theory. Just because its truth could
hardly be questioned, does not mean that its indictment would be welcome. Truth is truth but some truths “are better
known than talked about.” And the
wealthier, as a matter of pure practicality rather than ill will, would surely
have inevitably had a disproportionate influence on the church. Not to mention the desire of many (most?) to
please them and avoid showing anything that might be perceived as open
disrespect.
In such a social context, would the temptation not have been to
“quietly pass over”—rather than repudiate or deny—the economic truths James
refers to? Indeed, the entire epistle of
which it is part.
7. Doctrine of God
[Page 53]
If the importance of Jesus is
conveyed by “Lord” imagery (see below) so is the importance of the Father. He is presented as the answerer of prayer,
one who will answer prayer, and one who has the ability to rescue or
destroy. Some of the rhetoric leaves us
uncertain whether it is Jesus or the Father who is the intended subject of
reference, however.[119] This may well be intentional in light of the
heavy emphasis in the other epistles on Christ’s Deityship.
An author writing to an ethnically Jewish audience at an early date
might well wish to finesse matters in this manner in order to avoid provoking
needless offense. Those writing to a
predominantly Gentile audience or after the breach was clearly irrevocable
would be more likely to write bluntly where a first generation Jew living
within a Jewish environment would tend to “blur the edges,” especially when it
was not essential to the points he wished to make.
Very likely it is God Himself under
discussion in 5:10, where we read of how the prophets “spoke in the name of the
Lord.” The assertion of God as the authority behind the prophetic message is
standard rhetoric throughout the prophets of the Old Testament. In verse 11 this Lord is described as “very
compassionate and merciful.”
The plea to recognize the
uncertainty of life by thinking in terms of “if the Lord wills” (4:15) is
ambiguous. The most likely reference is
to the “one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy” in verse 4:12--and
that could refer to either the Father or Jesus.
In favor of an identification with the Father is the fact that in the
Old Testament the Law is His and He is the ultimate lawgiver (Isaiah
33:22). Though Moses is pictured as
giving the Law, he was simply the human intermediary; it was Yahweh who
provided it to him. In favor of an
identification with Jesus would be the fact that He plays a similar pivotal
role in the New Testament era (Matthew 28:18).
He was the new Lawgiver for the new age.
[Page 54] Less ambiguous is the
promise of “the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love
Him” since earlier in the verse “God” is specifically identified as the person
under consideration (James 2:5).
The reference in 5:4 to the Lord as “Lord of Sabbaoth” most likely
refers to the Father as well. In spite
of Jesus’ Lordship status, when Paul uses the same expression (Romans 9:29) the
preceding verses make plain that it is the Father under consideration (verses
25-28).
James
2:19 is a clear cut reference to the Father and advocacy of monotheism: “You believe that there is one God. You do well.” Note that he then drags the dagger in deep as
if to say that their faith is theoretically sound but empty of real
substance—“Even the devils believe and tremble!”
The promise that the Lord will
answer prayer (2:7) refers back to “God, who gives to all liberally and without
reproach (2:5). Likewise the humility
demanded “in the sight of the Lord” (4:10) almost certainly refers to the need to
“draw near to God and He will draw near to you” (4:8).
Another reference to prayer is found
in 1:5 where the instruction is to “let him ask of God, who gives to all
liberally and without reproach.” The
gift being sought is specifically “wisdom,” which is not so much facts as the
ability/capacity to understand the facts and know how to use what one
knows.
Furthermore, “every good gift and every perfect gift” comes down from
that source, “the Father of lights,” who is unchanging and unchangeable (1:17)—the
“every” surely intended to suggest His generosity.[120] He is similarly identified as “our God and
Father” in 3:9 and His role as Creator suggested by the description in that
verse of how humans “have been made in the similitude of God.”
[Page 55]
8. Christology
No explicit reference to any event of His life is made. On the other hand, a reference to the
judicial murder of Jesus has repeatedly tempted exegetes studying 5:6 (“You
have condemned, you have murdered the just; he does not resist you”).
Jesus is mentioned by name only twice.
In 1:1, James describes himself as “a servant of God and of the Lord
Jesus Christ.” The linkage of “God” and “Jesus Christ” with James equally the
servant of both certainly carries with it an implicit acceptance of Jesus’
unique relationship to “God.”[121] To be so put on a par with God may be
intended to carry the implication of Jesus’ supernaturalness for one would be
hard pressed to conceive of what else would justify the paring.
The second reference to Jesus is found in 2:1, “the faith of our Lord
Jesus Christ.” Chester Andrew and Ralph
P. Martin find the implications of the Lordship spoken of in 2:1 as extremely
tantalizing, but regard it as not quite going beyond that, “The most obvious
Christological feature is the use of kyrios (Lord: 1:1; 2:1; the use of Christ is really as part
of a proper name). The significance of
the use of kyrios in James is not certain, but, since the same term is
used in the letter to denote God, and it is at times not clear who is referred
to, Christ or God, it represents a potentially important usage.”[122]
Unless we consider James to be a
theologically sloppy writer—or someone who simply doesn’t know how to express
his real thoughts--isn’t that impreciseness very likely intended for us to read
supernatural implications into the nature
of His lordship?
This is reinforced by the fact that
in the book we see Jesus in the roles of healer, judge, forgiver of sins,
punisher of evil (implicit) and rewarder of good (explicit). He is referred to as “the Lord of glory” in
a verse that unquestionably refers to Him (2:1). Jesus is also the likely point of reference
when we read how the “Lord” has promised [Page 56] “the crown of life . . . to those who love
Him” (1:12). The bestowal of a crown to
believers is also connected with Jesus by both John (explicitly, Revelation
2:11) and Paul (implicitly, 1 Corinthians 9:19-25; cf.2 Timothy 4:8).
Because of His future judgmental
coming, they were to wait “patiently” as a farmer does for the rain that he
knows ultimately will drop to earth (5:7).
That coming is “at hand” (5:8).
Although the Old Testament utilizes the imagery of Yahweh coming in
judgement upon various nations, peoples, and cities, the New Testament emphasis
is on the resurrected Jesus playing this role.
Hence this is the most likely frame of reference for these two verses.
Furthermore, that Lord can both
raise up the physically sick and forgive sin of those who seek Him through
their prayers (5:15). The ability to
forgive sin and to heal the sick could be an intended allusion to Jesus’
ministry where both actions brought Him in repeated conflict with the religious
authorities (cf. the connection of the two phenomena in the healing of the
paralytic in Matthew 9:1-8 and. the parallel account in Mark 2:1-12). If so, the thought would be that just as
Jesus had not neglected human needs when in the flesh, He did not do so now
after returning to a purely spirit form.
“The fact that direct reference to
Christ is made only twice has misled some to think that there are no
Christological ideas in James;” these various alternate means of discussing
that reality, however, indicate that Jesus plays a central role in his
thinking.[123] It also inflicts major damage on the scenario
that the work began as a strictly Jewish document and was then adopted and
adapted by Christians. The variety of
references to Jesus wrap Him too much into the fabric of the epistle for this
to be probable.
[Page 57] Andrew
and Martin also discuss the possible direct evidence in James 2:1 of
Jesus being identified with the language normally attached to the Father, i.e.,
making the Son enjoy the qualitative nature of the Father Himself. They conclude that there are no suggestions
of such an elevated theology in the remainder of James—the examples above,
however, would suggest James would not have had much or any problem with such a
close identification of Father and Son, however. Indeed, one might wonder whether they presuppose
the concept—or something extremely close to it.
As they note, the proper rendering
of the verse itself is a highly arguable matter and they present their case in
this manner,[124]
The most interesting Christological usage
in James is that at 2:1 and above all the phrase “our Lord Jesus Christ, the
Lord of Glory.” The precise
interpretation of this is difficult. The
problem above all lies in how to interpret tes doxes (the glory), which
comes as a genitive at the end of the phrase; the difficulty is not least that
all the preceding words, following “faith” (pistis) are genitive as
well. It is very improbable that it
governs faith (that is, “glorious faith”).
It could be that tes doxes is in
apposition to the preceding genitives, that is, “our Lord Jesus Christ, the
Glory.” The use of “Glory” as an
attribute of God is already clear in the Old Testament, and subsequently within
Judaism, the Aramaic word for glory, Yaqara, is increasingly used as a
way of describing or speaking of God.
This may be what we have at Luke
22:69. It would certainly be a very
elevated usage, since, although it does not simply identify Jesus with the
Shekinah, it would nevertheless come close to making Jesus identical with
God. But, although this remains a
possible interpretation, the phrase as a whole is too complex and difficult for
there to be any certainty that it is right; and there is no support for such an
elevated Christology anywhere else in James.
The other main possibilities are to take tes
doxes as defining “Christ” (that is, “Christ of Glory”), or to take it as
defining, as a genitive of quality, the phrase as a whole (that is, “our
glorious Lord Jesus Christ”). It is
awkward in either case, but not impossible.
The latter, “our glorious Lord Jesus Christ,” is preferable. The point would then be that Christ is
thought to be sharing in the heavenly glory, or the glorious heavenly world.
[Page 58] Is there that much
conceptual difference with the approach that they reject? The two approaches certainly seem to
come extraordinarily close to representing the same doctrine of full
supernaturalness for Jesus.
9. Doctrine of the Holy
Spirit
The only possible reference to the
Holy Spirit is the enigmatic quotation from “Scripture” in James 4:5, “The
Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously.”
If this is an actual reference to the Holy Spirit, it would be an
attribution of passionate concern and interest on the Spirit’s behalf. For a discussion of this verse, see the
“problem text” section of chapter 4.
10. Doctrine of Church
and Its Leadership
[Page 59] Whatever
position James may officially or unofficially hold, he applies no name to it,
being content with the simple label of “bondservant” (1:1). As to others in the church, the discussion of
“teachers” in chapter three is so broadly worded it would indicate that a function
rather than an office is under consideration. It is a pointed warning to anyone who teaches
in any shape or fashion on spiritual matters, whether holding a recognized
church “position” or not.
Only in chapter five do we find a reference to the existence of “elders
of the church” (verses 14-16) and there the emphasis is not on the fact that
they are the leading office holders but upon the function they play in
the life of the congregation. They are
to attend the sick, upon request, anoint them with oil when sick, and to pray
with and for them upon their confession of sin.
11. Doctrine of Divine
Justice:
Rewards and Punishments--Temporal and Beyond
A vigorous verbal indictment of the
unscrupulous rich carries with it the warning that they have prepared
themselves for “a day of slaughter” (5:5).
A few verses later, in a reference that seems to have a logical
application to this theme--even though the specific matter being discussed has
shifted--is the warning/promise that “the coming of the Lord is at hand” (verse
8). So close is it, that it is as if
“the Judge is standing at the door” (verse 9).
The reference could be to an
approaching temporal catastrophe, such as the fall of Jerusalem that would
burst the hopes and delusions of the unjust rich. If the concept of a final judgement of the
human species is intended (such as in Matthew 25), it is odd that [Page
60] no point is made that the other
moral and spiritual transgressors discussed in the book are similarly facing
that ultimate hour of judgement.
In contrast, a temporal disaster would most brazenly affect the rich
whose wealth had enabled them to escape other earthly difficulties but not the
violence of domestic/foreign unrest. It
had protected them from the worst of the world’s tribulations until now; in
this context, it would make them central targets. Of course the poor would be hurt and
terrified—like always. These folk
weren’t used to being on the receiving end.
If God is pictured repeatedly in the
Old Testament as coming in temporal judgment upon particular cities and
countries, why would it be so odd if Jesus—ruling as King on behalf of His
Father—does the same? Jewish readers
would have understood the language as readily applicable to intervening
judgements without compromising their conviction of His final/second coming at
the time of physical resurrection. (See
chapter 5 for a detailed discussion of the nature of the approaching Divine
intervention and of the nearness language attached to it.)
Notes
[1] C. Milo
Connick, The New Testament: An
Introduction to Its History, Literature, and Thought (Encinco,
California: Dickenson Publishing
Company, Inc., 1972), 355.
[2] Cf. Addison H. Leitch, A Reader’s Introduction to the New Testament (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1971), 137.
[Page 61] [3] John
W. Bowman, The Letter to the Hebrews . . . James . . . Letters of Peter,
in the Layman’s Bible Commentary series (Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press, 1962), 94, and Rea
McDonnell, The Catholic Epistles & Hebrews, in the series Message
of Biblical Spirituality (Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1986), 20.
[4] Quoted
and embraced by James D. Yoder, “James,” in the Asbury Bible Commentary,
ed. Eugene E. Carpenter and Wayne McGown (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 1170.
[5] Title
for Chapter 3 in Earl F. Palmer, The Book that James Wrote (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997),
13. Cf. the somewhat similar comparison
of Paton J. Gloag, Introduction to the Catholic Epistles
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1887),
57. George M. Stulac, James, in
the IVP New Testament Commentary series (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 120-121, raises
the issue in regard to James 3:1-12 where he notes the paradox between the
“proverbial sound” of much of what is said with “the deliberate unity and the
cohesive line of thought” that James incorporates the material within.
[6] Norman
Perrin, The New Testament: An
Introduction--Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1974),
256. On the use of catchwords also see
Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 455.
[Page 62] [7] Alicia
Batten, “Ideological Strategies in the Letter of James,” in Reading James
with New Eyes: Methodological
Reassessments of the Letter of James, edited by Robert L. Webb and John S.
Kloppenborg, in the Library of New Testament Studies / Journal for the Study of
the New Testament Supplement 342 (London:
T&T Clark International, 2007), 7.
[8] Peter H.
Davids, “Palestinian Traditions in the Epistle of James,” in James the Just
and Christian Origins, edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans (Leiden,
Netherlands: Brill, 1999), 35.
[9] Perrin,
256; Pheme Perkins, Reading the New Testament: An Introduction, Second Edition (Mahwah,
New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1988),
297.
[10] Todd C. Penner, The Epistle of James and
Eschatology: Re-reading an Ancient
Christian Letter, in the Journal for the Study of the New Testament
Supplement Series 121 (Sheffield, England:
Sheffield Academic Press, Ltd., 1996), 36-37.
[11] Ibid., 37-38.
[12] As quoted by Ibid., 42
[13] Caig L.
Blomberg, Caig L., and Mariam J. Kamell, James, in the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament series (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Zondervan, 2008), 33.
[Page 63] [14] Dan
G. McCartney, James, in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament series (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Baker Academic, 2009) 28.
[15] For a consideration of Semiticisms and how they are
treated, see Penner, 42-43, and attached lengthy footnotes.
[16] See the brief discussion in Patrick J. Hartin, James,
in the Sacra Pagina series (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press/A Michael Glazier Book,
2003), 22.
[17] Bernhard
Weiss, A Manual of Introduction to the New Testament, translated from
the German by A. J. K. Davidson, Volume Two (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, Publishers, 1889),
105-106.
[18]
Vanderwaal, 24.
[19] As
commonly held, such as by Dibelius, Fresh Approach, 227-228.
[20] Eduard
Lohse, 204.
[21]
McNeile, 205-206.
[23]
Referred to but rejected by Davidson, 322.
[24] J.
Merle Rife, The Nature and Origin of the New Testament (New York: Philosophical Library, 1975), 134.
[25] Arthur
G. Patzia, The Making of the New Testament:
Origin, Collection, Text & Canon (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 96.
[26] Robinson,
122.
[27] Burton
L. Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament?
The Making of the Christian Myth (San Francisco, California: Harper San Francisco: An Imprint of Harper Collins Publishers,
1995), 213; William M. Ramsay, The Layman’s Guide to the New Testament
(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981), 199;
Robert A. Spivey and D. Moody Smith, Anatomy of the New Testament: A Guide to Its Structure and Meaning,
Fourth Edition (New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company, 1989), 390.
[28]
Connick, 357.
[29]
Archibald M. Hunter, Introducing the New Testament, Third Revised
Edition (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1972), 169.
[31] Robert
M. Grant, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1963), 220.
[32] Burdick,
161 (cf. 178.), uses this as one of several arguments to establish a date
between 45 and 50 A.D. In this
commentator’s judgement an even earlier composition is even more likely.
[33] Yoder,
1170.
[34] Gerald
H. Rendall, The Epistle of St. James and Judaic Christianity
(Cambridge: At the University Press,
1927), 26.
[35] Weiss,
note 4, pages 101-102.
[36] Harold
S. Songer, “James,” in General Articles/Hebrews-Revelation; Volume 12 in
the Broadman Bible Commentary series (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1972), 115.
[37] Cf.
Richard Heard, An Introduction to the New Testament (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1950), 167.
[Page 66] [38]
Robert H. Horton, The Growth of the New Testament: A Study of the Books in Order
(Boston: Pilgrim Press, [19--]), 336-337.
[39]
Thiessen, 277. Yoder, 1171, although
attributing the epistle to the brother of Jesus, dates it as “within a few
years after the resurrection.”
[40]
Thiessen, 277.
[41]
Thiessen, 278, dates the epistle “between A.D. 45 and 48” yet, oddly, regards
it as “unlikely” that it could have been written a year or two earlier (page
274), which would permit an apostolic authorship.
[42] Harold
H. Buls, adapted from his Exegetical Notes Epistle Texts, Series B, Sundays
after Pentecost (Fort Wayne, Indiana:
Concordia Seminary Press, 1987).
As reprinted at
http://pericope.org/buls-notes/james/james_3_16_4_6.htm. [July 2012.]
[43] James
B. Adamson, James: The Man & His
Message (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989) viii.
[44] Ibid.,
255.
[45] Ibid.,
253.
[47] David H. Edgar, Has God Not Chosen the Poor? The Social Setting of the Epistle of James,
in the Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 206
(Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic
Press, 2001), 227.
[48] As quoted by Ibid., 228.
[49] As quoted by
Ibid.
[50] Ibid.
[51] For an
extended argument that the Jewish people were no longer “dispersed” and
therefore the term can not be applied in this manner see the older work of Zahn, 74-77.
[52] Stulac,
15, 30, considers this event to be the disporia under discussion.
[53] Gloag,
48.
[54]
Burdick, 163.
[Page 68] [55] “Most
scholars,” notes Brent Kercheville, Brent, “To Whom Was 1 Peter Written?” Part of the Christian Monthly Standard
website. At:
http://www.christianmonthlystandard.com/index.php/to-whom-was-1-peter-written/. [December 2012.]
[56]
Blomberg and Kamell, James, 28.
[57] Reginald H.
Fuller, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament (Letchworth,
Hertfordshire, [Great Britain]: Duckworth,
1971), 152.
[58] Cf.
Burdick, 184; Carson, 567. Also see
Carson’s other evidences that a Jewish audience is assumed (567-568).
[59] John H.
Kerr, An Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament,
Second Edition, Revised (New York: Fleming
H. Revell Company, 1892), 258.
[60]
Thiessen, 276.
[61]
Burdick, 163.
[62] Carson,
569.
[63] Martin,
364.
[65] A. F.
J. Klijn, An Introduction to the New Testament, translated from the
Dutch by Mrs. M. van der Vathorst-Smit, Second, revised edition (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980), 151.
[66]
Connick, 356; Harrison, 360.
[67] Carson,
569.
[68]
Connick, 357.
[69] For a
brief history of such views, see Songer, 103.
[70] Carson,
569.
[71]
Ibid.
[72]
Cartledge, 161; Carson, 569; Leahy, 370.
[73] As to
the latter view see Johnson, 454, and Ernest F. Scott, The Literature of the
New Testament (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1932), 211-212.
[Page 70] [74]
Davidson, 320. With a similar
reservation that the descriptions would be applicable to other nearby countries
also see Eugene C. Caldwell, The Epistle of James (Richmond,
Virginia: Presbyterian Committee of
Publication, 1931), 33-34. For a
detailed examination of the pros and cons of James 1:11 as indicating an
exclusively Palestinian setting see Peter H. Davids, The Epistle of
James: A Commentary on the Greek Text,
in the New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1982), 78. On the early and
latter rains see David’s remarks (183-184), where he is clearly impressed with
the text implying personal knowledge of Palestinian conditions.
[75]
Robinson, 120.
[76]
Plumptre, 43.
[77]
Harrison, 370.
[78] For
nineteen see Guthrie, 743-744.
[79] Ibid.,
370; Edgar J. Goodspeed, An Introduction to the New Testament (Chicago,
Illinois: University of Chicago Press,
1937; 1945 reprinting), 295; T. Henshaw, New Testament Literature in the
Light of Modern Scholarship (London:
George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1952), 357.
[Page 71] [80]
Davids, “Palestinian Traditions,” 37, who rejects the Roman origin approach
though conceding the strength of this particular argument.
[81] Ibid.
[82] Ibid., 42-43.
[83] Ibid., n. 27, page 43.
[84] Ibid.
[88] Davids, 38.
[90] Cf. Ibid.
[93]
Thiessen, 272.
[94] McCartney, 20.
[95]
Burdick, 163.
[96]
Thiessen, 272. Cf. the discussion in
Guthrie, 737.
[97] Ecclesiastical
History 2.23 as cited by Burdick, 163.
[98] McCartney,24.
[101] McCartney, Origen’s commentary on Romans (4:8).
[102] Ibid., specifying Hom. Exodus 3:3 in
particular.
[104] Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for
Jewish Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2007), 541-542.
[Page 73] [105] For
a listing of a number of possible allusions, see Thiessen, 272-273. For a discussion of possible allusions and
also the limits of their usefulness see Sidebottom, 11-13.
[106] The
citations are the one suggested by
McCartney, 21. The text utilized,
however, is the more complete full text rather than his brief quotes: Clement of Rome, First Clement,
Roberts-Donaldson translation. At: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ 1clement-roberts.html. [December 2012.] The verse divisions come from the translation
of Charles Hoole, at the same web site.
The Biblical quotations are from the New King James Version.
[108] Ibid.
[110] For
these and other varied parallels, see McCartney, 21-22. The Biblical quotations come from the NKJV
and those from this McCartney except for Mandates 3:1 and 2:3, which come from
Hermas, Shepherd of Hermas: Visions,
J. B. Lightfoot translation. Part of the
Early Christian Writings website.
At:
http://www.earlychristianwritings. com/text/shepherd.html. [December 2012.].
[111] Weiss,
111.
[112]
Sidebottom, 20.
[113]
Douglas Moo, The Letter of James, in the Pillar New Testament
Commentary series (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 4.
[114] Ibid.,
10-11, is very receptive toward this as a specific date though he notes that
famines and economic problems of the middle-first century would have motivated
yet others to move as well.
[115] In
vaguer terms, see Ibid., 4.
[116] Ibid.
[Page 75] [118]
Gorge K. Hasselhoff, “James 2:2-7 in Early Christian Thought,” in Wealth and
Poverty in Early Church and Society, edited by Susan R. Holman (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008),
55.
[119] Cf.
Johnson, 457; McNeile, 206.
[120] Hartin, 32.
[121] Leon
Morris, 1 Timothy-James, in the Scripture Union Bible Study Books
series (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969), 79.
Cf. Williams, 97.
[122] Chester Andrew and Ralph P. Martin, The Theology
of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 43.
[123] William R. Baker, Personal Speech-Ethics in the
Epistle of James (Tubingen, Germany:
J. C. B. Mohr, 1995), 17, who provides a more concise summary of various
texts.