Tyndale New Testament Commentaries

Volume 16

Series Editor: Eckhard J. Schnabel
Consulting Editor: Nicholas Perrin

James

An Introduction and Commentary

Douglas J. Moo

© 2015 by Douglas J. Moo

Douglas J. Moo has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work.

All rights reserved. This eBook is licenced to the individual who purchased it and may not be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, or otherwise, except for the sole, and exclusive use of the licensee, without prior permission of the publisher or the Copyright Licensing Agency.

Unless otherwise indicated Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright © 1979, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

First edition 1985

Second edition 2015

ISBN: 9781783593378

Series design: Sally Ormesher

Illustration: Kev Jones

INTER-VARSITY PRESS

Norton Street, Nottingham NG7 3HR, England

Email: ivp@ivpbooks.com

Website: www.ivpbooks.com

Inter-Varsity Press publishes Christian books that are true to the Bible and that communicate the gospel, develop discipleship and strengthen the church for its mission in the world.

Inter-Varsity Press is closely linked with the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship, a student movement connecting Christian Unions in universities and colleges throughout Great Britain, and a member movement of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students. Website: www.uccf.org.uk

GENERAL PREFACE

The Tyndale Commentaries have been a flagship series for evangelical readers of the Bible for over sixty years. The original New Testament volumes (1956–1974) as well as the new commentaries (1983–2003) rightly established themselves as a point of first reference for those who wanted more than is usually offered in a one-volume Bible commentary, without requiring the technical skills in Greek and in Jewish and Greco-Roman studies of the more detailed series, and with the advantage of being shorter than the volumes of intermediate commentary series. The appearance of new popular commentary series demonstrates that there is a continuing demand for commentaries that appeal to Bible study leaders in churches and at universities. The publisher, editors and authors of the Tyndale Commentaries believe that the series continues to meet an important need in the Christian community, not least in what we call today the Global South, with its immense growth of churches and the corresponding need for a thorough understanding of the Bible by Christian believers.

In the light of new knowledge, new critical questions, new revisions of Bible translations, and the need to provide specific guidance on the literary context and the theological emphases of the individual passage, it was time to publish new commentaries in the series. Four authors will revise their commentary that appeared in the second series. The original aim remains. The new commentaries are neither too short nor unduly long. They are exegetical and thus root the interpretation of the text in its historical context. They do not aim to solve all critical questions, but they are written with an awareness of major scholarly debates which may be treated in the Introduction, in Additional Notes or in the commentary itself. While not specifically homiletic in aim, they want to help readers to understand the passage under consideration in such a way that they begin to see points of relevance and application, even though the commentary does not explicitly offer these. The authors base their exegesis on the Greek text, but they write for readers who do not know Greek; Hebrew and Greek terms that are discussed are transliterated. The English translation used for the first series was the Authorized (King James) Version, while the volumes of the second series mostly used the Revised Standard Version; the volumes of the third series use either the New International Version (2011) or the New Revised Standard Version as primary versions, unless otherwise indicated by the author.

An immense debt of gratitude for the first and second series of the Tyndale Commentaries was owed to R. V. G. Tasker and L. Morris, who each wrote four of the commentaries themselves. The recruitment of new authors for the third series proved to be effortless, as colleagues responded enthusiastically to be involved in this project, a testimony both to the larger number of New Testament scholars capable and willing to write commentaries, to the wider ethnic identity of contributors, and to the role that the Tyndale Commentaries have played in the church worldwide. It continues to be the hope of all those concerned with this series that God will graciously use the new commentaries to help readers understand as fully and clearly as possible the meaning of the New Testament.

Eckhard J. Schnabel, Series Editor

Nicholas Perrin, Consulting Editor

AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

My first sermon, delivered to a long-suffering professor and four fellow novice preachers, was on James 1:22–25. I thought that James’ emphasis on the need to do the word was important in a seminary context, where all too easily the Scripture becomes a book to be analysed rather than a message to be obeyed. That the message was needed then is certain; that it is still urgently required is equally certain – and not only in seminaries. All across the world, people are awakening to biblical Christianity. Third World churches are burgeoning, American ‘evangelicalism’ continues to attract much attention, and European Christians are seeing renewal and a new evangelistic concern. Yet the personal and social transformations that should accompany such revival are, very often, sadly lacking. Why is this? Surely one of the main reasons is that the simple plea of James – ‘do the word’ – is not being heeded. The Bible is being translated, commented on, read, studied, preached and analysed as never before. But it is questionable whether it is being obeyed to a comparable degree.

All this suggests that the message of James is one that we all need to hear – and obey. No profound theologian, James’ genius lies in his profound moral earnestness; in his powerfully simple call for repentance, for action, for a consistent Christian lifestyle. His words need to thrust through our theological debates, our personal preconceptions, our spiritual malaise, and set us back on the road to a biblical, invigorating, transforming Christianity.

I owe thanks to many people who helped in making this commentary possible. Dr Leon Morris has been an encouraging yet eagle-eyed editor. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, where I teach, has graciously provided secretarial time – and Luann Kuehl has had the perplexing (and sometimes amusing) job of deciphering my handwriting. Students here at Trinity and in several churches have, with their papers, questions and comments, greatly influenced my understanding of the letter. My five children have been a source of diversion (not always wanted!), personal renewal and joy. Most of all, my wife Jenny has both encouraged me in the work and, by commenting on the whole manuscript carefully, immeasurably improved both its style and its content. It is to her I dedicate the book.

Douglas J. Moo

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

I am grateful for the opportunity to return, after almost thirty years, to the first book I wrote and to bring it up to date for a new generation of believers. Differences from the older edition consist in the addition of some of the important books and articles on James published since 1985, improvement in style, and a few tweaks in my interpretive conclusions. I appreciate the editing assistance of my colleague Nick Perrin and former colleague Eckhard Schnabel. And two of my PhD students at Wheaton, Mike Kibbe and Ben Dally, have provided very valuable bibliographic and editing assistance.

As was the case in the first edition, I dedicate this new version to my wife, Jenny.

CHIEF ABBREVIATIONS

AB | Anchor Bible
ANRW | Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ed. W. Haase and H. Temporini (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972–)
Ant. | Josephus, Antiquities
AusBibRev | Australian Biblical Review
BDAG | A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed. W. Bauer, F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000)
BDF | A Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed. F. Blass, A. Debrunner and R. W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961; reprint 1982)
BECNT | Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
Bib | Biblica
BNTC | Black’s New Testament Commentaries
BSac | Bibliotheca Sacra
BZ | Biblische Zeitschrift
CBQ | Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CBR | Currents in Biblical Research
DLNTD | Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, ed. P. H. Davids and R. P. Martin (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press; Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1997)
EQ | Evangelical Quarterly
ExpT | Expository Times
H.E. | Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica
Her | Hermeneia
HTKNT | Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
HTR | Harvard Theological Review
HUT | Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie
ICC | International Critical Commentary
IRM | International Review of Mission
ISBE | The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979–1988)
JBL | Journal of Biblical Literature
JR | Journal of Religion
JSNTSup | Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement series
JTS | Journal of Theological Studies
LW | Luther’s Works, ed. J. Pelikan and H. T. Lehmann, 55 vols. (St Louis: Concordia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1955–1986)
LXX | Septuagint; English translations of LXX passages are taken from Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)
MM | The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources, ed. J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930 = 1982)
NAC | New American Commentary
NICNT | New International Commentary on the New Testament
NIDNTT | The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. C. Brown (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975–1978)
NIGTC | New International Greek Testament Commentary
NIVAC | New International Version Application Commentary
NovT | Novum Testamentum
NTS | New Testament Studies
OTNT | Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament
Phillips J. B. Phillips, | The New Testament in Modern English (1958)
PNTC | Pillar New Testament Commentary
RHPR | Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses
SNTSMS | Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
TDNT | Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976)
TNTC | Tyndale New Testament Commentary
TrinJ | Trinity Journal
TynBul | Tyndale Bulletin
WBC | Word Biblical Commentary
WTJ | Westminster Theological Journal
WUNT | Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
ZECNT | Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
ZNW | Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

Bible Versions

CEB | Common English Bible (2010)
ESV | English Standard Version (2007)
GNB | Good News Bible (1990; Today’s English Version)
HCSB | Holman Christian Standard Bible (2010)
KJV | King James Version
NAB | New American Bible (2011)
NASB | New American Standard Bible (1995)
NEB | New English Bible (Old Testament, 1970; New Testament2, 1970)
NET | New English Translation (2006)
NIV | New International Version (2011)
NJB | New Jerusalem Bible (1985)
NLT | New Living Translation (1996)
NRSV | New Revised Standard Version (1989)
REB | Revised English Bible (1989)
RSV | Revised Standard Version (1971 New Testament Second Edition)

Quotations from Philo are taken from the Loeb Classical Library edition of the Works of Philo. The Apocrypha is cited from the NRSV translation. The Pseudepigrapha is cited from the translation edited by J. H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985).

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Commentaries on James

Adam, A. K. M. (2013), James: A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco: Baylor University Press).

Adamson, J. B. (1976), The Epistle of James, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Allison, D. C., Jr. (2013), A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of James, ICC (London: Bloomsbury T. & T. Clark).

Beasley-Murray, G. R. (1965), The General Epistles: James, 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter (New York: Abingdon).

Bengel, J. A. (1860), Gnomon of the New Testament, 5 vols., 3rd edn (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).

Blomberg, C. L., and M. J. Kamell (2008), James, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

Brosend, W. F., II (2004), James and Jude, The New Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Burdick, D. W. (1981), ‘James’, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 12 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

Calvin, J. (1855), Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, trans. J. Owen, repr. 1948 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Cantinat, J. (1973), Les Épîtres de Saint Jacques et de Saint Jude (Paris: Gabalda).

Chaine, J. (1927), L’Épître de Saint Jacques (Paris: Gabalda).

Davids, P. (1982), The Epistle of James, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Dibelius, M. (1976), A Commentary on the Epistle of James, rev. edn by H. Greeven (Philadelphia: Fortress).

Doriani, D. M. (2007), James, Reformed Expository Commentary (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed).

Frankemölle, H. (1994), Der Brief des Jakobus, OTNT (Gütersloh: Gütersloher).

Hiebert, D. E. (1992), James, rev. edn (Chicago: Moody).

Hort, F. J. A. (1909), The Epistle of St. James (London: Macmillan).

Huther, J. E. (1887), Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the General Epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude (New York: Funk & Wagnalls).

Johnson, L. T. (1995), The Letter of James, AB 37a (Garden City: Doubleday).

Knowling, R. J. (1910), The Epistle of St. James (London: Methuen).

Laws, S. (1980), A Commentary on the Epistle of James, BNTC (New York: Harper & Row).

Martin, R. P. (1988), James, WBC 48 (Waco: Word, 1988).

Mayor, J. B. (1913), The Epistle of St. James, 2nd edn (London: Macmillan).

McCartney, D. G. (2009), James, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker).

McKnight, S. (2011), The Letter of James, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Mitton, C. L. (1966), The Epistle of James (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Moffat, J. (1928), The General Epistles of James, Peter and Jude (London: Hodder & Stoughton).

Moo, D. J. (1985), The Letter of James, TNTC (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press).

(2000), The Letter of James, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Mußner, F. (1981), Der Jakobusbrief, 4th edn, HTKNT (Freiburg: Herder).

Nystrom, D. P. (1997), James, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

Reicke, B. (1964), The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude, AB 37 (Garden City: Doubleday).

Richardson, K. A. (1997), James, NAC 36 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman).

Ropes, J. H. (1916), A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).

Ross, A. (1954), The Epistles of James and John (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott).

Schlatter, A. (1956), Der Brief des Jakobus (Stuttgart: Calwer).

Tasker, R. V. G. (1956), The General Epistle of James, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Varner, W. (2010), The Book of James: A New Perspective (Woodlands: Kress Biblical Resources [accessed through Logos Bible Software]).

Vlachos, C. A. (2013), James, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (Nashville: Broadman & Holman).

Vouga, F. (1984), L’Épître de Saint Jacques (Geneva: Labor et Fides).

Windisch, H. (1951), Die katholischen Briefe (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

Other works

Amerding, C. (1938), ‘Is Any Among You Afflicted: A Study of James 5:13–20’, BSac 95, pp. 195–201.

Amphoux, C. B. (1970), ‘À propos de Jacques 1,17’, RHPR 50, pp. 127–136.

—— (1978), ‘Une relecture du chapitre 1 de Jacques’, Biblica 59, pp. 554–561.

Baasland, E. (1988), ‘Literarische Form, Thematik und geschichtliche Einordnung des Jakobusbriefes’, ANRW II.25.5, pp. 3646–3684.

Baker, W. R. (1985), Personal Speech-Ethics in the Epistle of James, WUNT 2/68 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

(2008), ‘Searching for the Holy Spirit in the Epistle of James: Is “Wisdom” Equivalent?’ TynBul 59, pp. 293–315.

Baly, D. (1974), The Geography of the Bible (New York: Harper & Row).

Barclay, W. (1976), The Letters of James and Peter (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox).

Bauckham, R. (1990), Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).

(1999), James: Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage (London: Routledge).

(2004), ‘The Spirit of God in Us Loathes Envy’, in G. N. Stanton, B. W. Longenecker and S. C. Barton (eds.), The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), pp. 270–281.

(2008), Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Beale, G. K. (2011), New Testament Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker).

Berkhof, H. (1979), Christian Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Blomberg, C. L. (1999), Neither Poverty Nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Material Possessions, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Leicester: Apollos).

(2013), Christians in an Age of Wealth: A Biblical Theology of Stewardship (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

Brown, R. E. (1997), An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday).

Bruce, F. F. (1979), Peter, Stephen, James and John: Studies in Non-Pauline Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Burkitt, F. C. (1924), Christian Beginnings (London: University of London).

Cadoux, A. T. (1944), The Thought of St. James (London: James Clarke).

Calvin, J. (1960), The Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Westminster).

Cargal, T. (1993), Restoring the Diaspora: Discursive Structure and Purpose in the Epistle of James (Atlanta: Scholars).

Carpenter, C. B. (2001), ‘James 4.5 Reconsidered’, NTS 47, pp. 189–205.

Carson, D. A. (2007), ‘James’, in G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker).

and D. J. Moo (2005), An Introduction to the New Testament, rev. edn (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

Chester, A. and R. Martin (1994), The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Crotty, R. B. (1992), ‘The Literary Structure of the Letter of James’, AusBibRev 40, pp. 47–48.

Deppe, D. B. (1990), ‘The Sayings of Jesus in the Paraenesis of James: A PDF Revision of the Doctoral Dissertation “The Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James” ’ (University of Amsterdam) (http://www.oldinthenew.org/pdf/deppe_the.sayings.of.jesus.in.the.paranaesis.of.james.pdf).

Donelson, L. R. (1986), Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles, HUT 22 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

Donker, C. (1981), ‘Der Verfasser des Jakobus und sein Gegner’, ZNW 72, pp. 227–240.

Dunn, J. D. G. (1977), Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress).

(1998), The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Eichholz, G. (1961), Glaube und Werk bei Paulus und Jakobus (Munich: Kaiser).

Elliott-Bins, L. (1955), ‘The Meaning of ’YLH in James III.5’, NTS 2, pp. 48–50.

Francis, F. O. (1970), ‘The Form and Function of the Opening and Closing Paragraphs of James and 1 John’, ZNW 6, pp. 110–126.

Geyser, A. S. (1975), ‘The Letter of James and the Social Condition of His Addressees’, Neotestamentica 9, pp. 25–33.

Goppelt, L. (1975, 1976), Theology of the New Testament, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Gunter, J. J. (1974), ‘The Family of Jesus’, EQ 46, pp. 25–41.

Guthrie, D. (1990), New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press).

Hadidian, D. Y. (1951–52), ‘Palestinian Pictures in the Epistle of James’, ExpT 63, pp. 227–228.

Hagner, D. A. (2012), The New Testament: A Historical and Theological Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker).

Harland, P. A. (2002), ‘The Economy of First-Century Palestine: State of the Scholarly Discussion’, in J. Blasi, P.-T. André Turcotte and J. Duhaime (eds.), Handbook of Early Christianity: Social Science Approaches (Walnut Creek, Calif.: Alta Mira Press), pp. 511–527.

Hartin, P. J. (1991), James and the Q Sayings of Jesus, JSNTSup 47 (Sheffield: JSOT).

Hayden, D. R. (1981), ‘Calling the Elders to Pray’, BSac 138, pp. 258–286.

Hengel, M. (1974), Judaism and Hellenism, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress).

Hodges, Z. (1963), ‘Light on James Two from Textual Criticism’, BSac 120, pp. 341–350.

Hoppe, R. (1977), Der theologische Hintergrund des Jakobusbriefes (Würzburg: Echter).

Hunter, A. M. (1972), Introducing the New Testament (Louisville: Westminster John Knox).

Johnson, L. T. (1982), ‘The Use of Leviticus 19 in the Letter of James’, JBL 101, pp. 391–401.

(1983), ‘James 3:13 – 4:10 and the Topos ΠΕΡΙ ΦΘΟΝΟΥ’, NovT 25, pp. 327–347.

(2004), Brother of Jesus, Friend of God: Studies in the Letter of James (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

(2010), The Writings of the New Testament, 3rd edn (Minneapolis: Fortress).

Judge, E. A. (1980), ‘The Social Identity of the First Christians: A Question of Method in Religious History’, Journal of Religious History 11, pp. 201–217.

Kidner, D. (1985), The Wisdom of Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press).

Kirk, J. A. (1969), ‘The Meaning of Wisdom in James: Examination of a Hypothesis’, NTS 16, pp. 24–38.

Kittel, G. (1942), ‘Der geschichtliche Ort des Jacobusbriefes’, ZNW 41, pp. 71–105.

Klein, M. (1995), ‘Ein vollkommenes Werk.’ Vollkommenheit, Gesetz und Gericht als theologische Themen des Jakobusbriefes (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer).

Kümmel, W. G. (1975), Introduction to the New Testament, rev. edn (Nashville: Abingdon).

Laato, T. (1997), ‘Justification According to James: A Comparison with Paul’, TrinJ 18, pp. 47–61.

(2003), Rechtfertigung bei Jakobus: Ein Vergleich mit Paulus (Saarijärvi: Gummerus Kirjapaino).

Ladd, G. E. (1993), A Theology of the New Testament, rev. edn by D. A. Hagner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Laws, S. (1974), ‘Does Scripture Speak in Vain? A Reconsideration of James IV.5’, NTS 30, pp. 210–215.

Lightfoot, J. B. (1881), Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians: A Revised Text with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations (London: Macmillan).

MacDonald, L. M. and S. E. Porter (2000), Early Christianity and Its Sacred Literature (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson).

MacMullen, R. (1974), Roman Social Relations: 50 B.C. to A.D. 284 (New Haven: Yale University Press).

Marshall, I. H. (1978), The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

(2004), New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press).

Martin, R. P. (1978), ‘The Life-Setting of the Epistle of James in the Light of Jewish History’, in G. Tuttle (ed.), Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of Sanford LaSor (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), pp. 97–103.

Massebieau, L. (1895), ‘L’Épître de Jacques – est-elle l’oeuvre d’un Chrétien?’, Revue de l’histoire des religions 32, pp. 249–283.

Maynard-Reid, P. W. (1987), Poverty and Wealth in James (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis).

Mayordomo-Marin, M. (1992), ‘Jak 5,2.3a: Zukünftiges Gericht oder gegenwärtiger Zustand?’, ZNW 83, pp. 132–137.

Meade, D. G. (1986), Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation into the Relationship of Authorship and Authority in Jewish and Earliest Christian Tradition, WUNT 2/39 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

Meinertz, M. (1932), ‘Die Krankensalbung Jak. 5.14f.’, BZ 20, pp. 23–36.

Metzger, B. M. (1998), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd rev. edn (New York: United Bible Societies).

Meyer, A. (1930), Das Rätsel des Jacobusbriefes (Berlin: Töpelmann).

Moo, D. J. (1988), ‘Divine Healing in the Health and Wealth Gospel’, TrinJ 9, pp. 191–209.

(2013a), Galatians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker).

(2013b), ‘Genesis 15:6 in the New Testament’, in D. M. Gurtner and B. L. Gladd (eds.), From Creation to New Creation: Biblical Theology and Exegesis. Essays in Honor of G. K. Beale (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson), pp. 147–162.

Moule, C. F. D. (1971), An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Ng, E. Y. L. (2003), ‘Father-God Language and Old Testament Allusions in James’, TynBul 54, pp. 41–54.

Nienhuis, D. R. (2007), Not By Paul Alone: The Formation of the Catholic Epistle Collection and the Christian Canon (Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press).

Penner, T. C. (1976), The Epistle of James and Eschatology: Re-Reading an Ancient Christian Letter (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).

Perdue, L. J. (1981), ‘Paraenesis and the Epistle of James’, ZNW 72, pp. 241–256.

Pickar, C. (1945), ‘Is Anyone Sick Among You?’, CBQ 7, pp. 165–174.

Poirier, J. C. (2006), ‘Symbols of Wisdom in James 1:17’, JTS 57, pp. 57–75.

Popkes, W. (1986), Addressaten, Situation und Form des Jakobusbriefes (Stuttgart: Katholischer).

Porter, S. E. (1989), Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (New York: Peter Lang).

(1990), ‘Is dipsychos ( James 1:8; 4:8) a “Christian” Word?’, Bib 71, pp. 469–498.

Przybylski, B. (1981), Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought, SNTSMS 41 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Rendall, G. H. (1927), The Epistle of St. James and Judaistic Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Robert, A. and A. Feuillet (1965), Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Desclee).

Robertson, A. T. (1934), A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman).

Robinson, J., (ed.) (1977), The Nag Hammadi Library (New York: Harper & Row).

Schrage, W. (1982), Ethik des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

Sevenster, J. N. (1968), Do You Know Greek? How Much Greek Could the First Jewish Christians Have Known?, NovTSup 19 (Leiden: Brill).

Shogren, G. (1989), ‘Will God Heal Us? A Re-examination of James 5:14–16a’, EQ 61, pp. 99–108.

Spitta, F. (1896), ‘Der Brief des Jakobus’, in Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Urchristentums, Vol. 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), pp. 1–239.

Stoutenberg, D. (1982), ‘Martin Luther’s Exegetical Use of the Epistle of St. James’ (M.A. thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL).

Tamez, E. (1990), The Scandalous Message of James: Faith Without Works Is Dead (New York: Crossroad).

Taylor, M. E. (2004), ‘Recent Scholarship on the Structure of James’, CBR 3, pp. 86–115.

Thielman, F. (2011), Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

Turner, N. (1963), Syntax, Vol. 3 of J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).

(1976), Style, Vol. 4 of J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).

Verseput, D. J. (1998), ‘Wisdom, 4Q185, and the Epistle of James’, JBL 117, pp. 691–707.

Via, D. O. (1969), ‘The Right Strawy Epistle Reconsidered: A Study in Biblical Ethics and Hermeneutic’, JR 49, pp. 253–267.

Wall, R. W. (1997), ‘James, the Letter of ’, DLNTD, pp. 545–561.

Ward, R. B. (1968), ‘The Works of Abraham: James 2:14–26’, HTR 61, pp. 283–290.

(1969), ‘Partiality in the Assembly’, HTR 62, pp. 87–97.

(1992), ‘James of Jerusalem in the First Two Centuries’, ANRW 2.26.1, pp. 799–810.

Warfield, B. B. (1918), Counterfeit Miracles (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons).

Warrington, K. (2004), ‘James 5:14–18: Healing Then and Now’, IRM 93, pp. 346–367.

Wenham, J. W. (1975), ‘The Relatives of Jesus’, EQ 47, pp. 6–15.

Wesley, J. (1826), The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, 10 vols. (New York: Harper).

Westcott, B. F. (1896), A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (New York: Macmillan).

Wilder, T. L. (2004), Pseudonymity, the New Testament and Deception: An Inquiry into Intention and Reception (Lanham: University Press of America).

Wilkinson, J. (1981), Health and Healing: Studies in New Testament Principles (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press).

Witherington, B. (1994), Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom (Minneapolis: Fortress).

Wright, N. T. (1986), The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon, TNTC (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press).

Wuellner, W. H. (1978–79), ‘Der Jakobusbrief im Licht der Rhetorik und Textpragmatic’, Linguistica Biblica 44, pp. 5–66.

Zahn, T. (1909), Introduction to the New Testament, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).

Ziesler, J. A. (1972), The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Enquiry, SNTSMS 20 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

INTRODUCTION

1. The letter in the church

The epistle of James has had a controversial history. Along with 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, it belongs to that category of New Testament epistles called ‘general’ or ‘catholic’ (in the sense of universal). This designation was given to these seven letters early in the history of the church because each appears to be addressed to the church at large rather than to a single congregation. These letters also shared an uncertain status in many areas of the early church. Along with Hebrews and Revelation, several of them were the last to achieve generally recognized canonical status. In the case of James, it was not until the end of the fourth century that both eastern and western Christendom acknowledged it as Scripture.

The first mention of the epistle of James by name comes early in the third century. But since ancient authors did not always cite their sources, it is possible that earlier writings made use of James without acknowledgment. Mayor discerned allusions to James in most of the New Testament epistles and in many late first and early second century non-canonical Christian writings.1 On the other hand, Allison doubts that clear evidence of the use of James can be found before the second part of the second century.2 The truth lies between these extremes. Many of Mayor’s alleged allusions are doubtful because they involve fairly common language. Very often, then, the relationship between James and these other books is indirect: both have made use of traditional teaching. This is almost certainly the case for the two New Testament books that have the most in common with James – Matthew and 1 Peter. However, a good case can be made that the letter of James was known and being used early in the first century. The Shepherd of Hermas (early or middle second century) has a significant number of parallels to James. In the section of that book called the ‘Mandates’, several of James’ characteristic themes are found; the encouragement to pray with faith and without double-mindedness in Mandate 9 is particularly close in wording and emphasis to James 1:6–8. Probably this section of Hermas is dependent on James. It is also possible that 1 Clement (AD 95) and the Epistle of Barnabas (written sometime between AD 70 and 132) show dependence on James, but this is less certain.3

Clement, head of the important catechetical school in Alexandria, is said to have written a commentary on James, but no such commentary has ever been discovered, and Clement never shows dependence on James in his extant writings.4 Clement’s successor in Alexandria, Origen, is the first to refer to the letter of James by name. He cites the letter as Scripture (Select. in Ps. 30:6) and attributes the letter to James the apostle (Commentary on John, frag. 126).5 The Latin translation of Origen’s works, made by Rufinus, explicitly identifies the author of the letter as the brother of the Lord, but the reliability of Rufinus’ work is open to question.

Other third-century writings show acquaintance with James, and the pseudo-Clementine tractate Ad Virgines seems to quote James as Scripture. Eusebius (d. AD 339) uses James frequently in his writings and apparently accords it canonical status. However, he also includes it among the ‘disputed books’ (antilegomena), signifying that he was aware of some Christians who questioned its scriptural authority (H.E. 3.25.3; 2.23.25). Probably he has in mind the Syrian church, where many of the general epistles had a difficult time finding acceptance – Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. AD 428) rejected all the general epistles. James was, however, included in the fifth-century Syriac translation, the Peshitta, and is quoted approvingly by Chrysostom (d. AD 407) and Theodoret (d. AD 458). With some exceptions, then, the eastern church readily accepted James as a canonical book.

The situation in the west was similar, although acceptance of James came a bit later there. Neither the Muratorian canon (late second century) nor the Mommsen catalogue (giving the African canon, c. AD 360) mentions James.6 The earliest clear references to James in the west come in the middle of the fourth century, when Hilary of Poitiers (writing in AD 356–8) and Ambrosiaster (d. AD 382) each quote James once. Jerome’s influence was important in leading to the final acceptance of James in the western church. He included the epistle in his Latin translation, the Vulgate, and cited it often in his writings. And, in an argument which was to have considerable importance, Jerome identified the author as the brother of the Lord mentioned in Galatians 1:19. At about the same time, Augustine added his weight of authority, and no questions about James were again raised in the western church until the Reformation.

Thus James came to be recognized as canonical in all segments of the early church – and this without the benefit of a single authority imposing a decision. To be sure, James’ status was not immediately recognized. But it is important to stress that James was not rejected, but neglected. How may this neglect be explained? One factor may have been uncertainty about the apostolic origin of the book, since the author identifies himself only by name and James was a common name in the ancient world. Another factor could have been the traditional character of much of James’ teaching – the letter contains little fuel for the fiery theological debates in the early church.7 More important, perhaps, was the nature and destination of the epistle. The letter betrays a strong Jewish orientation and was probably written to Jewish churches in Palestine or Syria. The early demise of the Jewish church in Palestine as a result of the Jewish revolts of AD 66–70 and 132–5 may have resulted in a serious slow-down in the circulation of the letter. It may be significant in this regard that Origen makes reference to James only after coming into contact with the church in Palestine.8

It was at the time of the Reformation that doubts about James were again expressed. Erasmus, impressed by the good quality of James’ Greek, questioned the traditional view that the letter was written by the Lord’s brother. Luther, too, questioned the apostolic authorship of James, but his criticism went much deeper than Erasmus’s. For Luther, the sticking-point was the theological tension that he perceived between James and the ‘chief ’ New Testament books over the matter of justification by faith. James, said Luther, ‘mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture’ (LW 35:397), and he characterized the letter as ‘an epistle of straw’ (LW 35:362). Along with Jude, Hebrews and Revelation, therefore, Luther consigned James to the end of his German translation of the New Testament. But, while Luther obviously had difficulties with James and came close to giving the letter a secondary status, his criticism should not be overdrawn. He did not exclude James from the canon and, it has been estimated, cites over half the verses of James as authoritative in his writings.9 Even the ‘epistle of straw’ reference must be understood in its context: Luther is not dismissing James as worthless, but contrasting it unfavourably with the ‘chief books’ (John’s Gospel, 1 John, Paul’s epistles [especially Romans, Galatians and Ephesians] and 1 Peter), ‘which show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salutary for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine’. Therefore, Luther says of James elsewhere, ‘I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him’ (LW 35:397).

Few of the other reformers followed Luther in his criticism of James. Calvin, for instance, while admitting that James ‘seems more sparing in proclaiming the grace of Christ than it behooved an Apostle to be’, notes that ‘it is not surely required of all to handle the same arguments’.10 He accepted the apostolic authority of James and argued for a harmonization between James and Paul on the issue of justification. Calvin’s approach is surely the correct one. In hindsight, we can see that Luther’s excitement over his discovery of the doctrine of justification by faith and his polemical context prevented him from taking a balanced approach to James and some other New Testament books. With greater knowledge of the Jewish background of James, and at a distance of several centuries from the battles Luther was fighting, we can appreciate the way James and Paul complement one another. Their opponents are different, and their arguments accordingly different, but each makes an important contribution to our understanding of our faith.

2. Authorship

The author of the letter identifies himself simply as ‘James’ (Greek Iakōbos). Who is this individual? The New Testament knows of at least four different men named James:

1. James the son of Zebedee. Called to be a follower of Jesus early in the ministry (Mark 1:19), James, along with his brother John and Peter, became one of the apostles closest to Jesus (cf. Mark 5:37; 9:2; 10:35; 14:33).

2. James the son of Alphaeus. Also one of the twelve, he is mentioned only in the lists of the apostles and (possibly) in Mark 15:40 as ‘James the younger’, or ‘lesser’ (simply ‘James’ in the parallel, Matt. 27:56).11

3. James the father12 of Judas. This Judas, who is distinguished from Judas Iscariot (see John 14:22), is identified as one of the twelve in Luke 6:16 (and see Acts 1:13) and is probably to be identified with Thaddaeus in Matthew 10:3 and Mark 3:18.

4. James ‘the Lord’s brother’ (Gal. 1:19). Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him during his earthly ministry (John 7:5; cf. Mark 6:3), but James quickly attained a position of prominence in the Jerusalem church (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; Gal. 2:9).

The James of the epistle need not, of course, be identified with a James mentioned in the New Testament. But the use of the name by itself in a letter written with such authority implies that the author was a well-known figure, and it is improbable that such an individual would have gone unmentioned in the New Testament. Of the four New Testament Jameses, only the son of Zebedee and the Lord’s brother stand out as prominent. James the son of Zebedee, however, died a martyr’s death in AD 44 (Acts 12:2) and it is unlikely that the epistle was written as early as this. We are left, therefore, with James the Lord’s brother as the most likely author of the epistle.

This James became a popular and respected figure in the early church, especially among Jewish Christians. He was venerated as the first ‘bishop’ of Jerusalem and was given the title ‘the righteous’ or ‘the just’ because of his faithfulness to the law and constancy in prayer. Much of our information about James comes from Hegesippus’s account of James’ death as recorded by Eusebius (H.E. 2.23). He tells us that James was stoned by the scribes and Pharisees for refusing to renounce his commitment to Jesus. This account of James’ death is independently confirmed by Josephus (Ant. 20.9.1), who also enables us to date it in AD 62. However, much of the rest of Hegesippus’s account, which portrays James as a zealot for the law, is legendary.13 It may be that Hegesippus derived his information from a strict sect of Jewish Christians called Ebionites, who regarded Paul with considerable disfavour and extolled James as the true heir to Jesus’ teaching.14 Therefore, while all our sources agree that James was a pious, devoted Jewish Christian, anxious to maintain good relationships with Judaism, the picture of a legalistic, anti-Paul James must be rejected as a tendentious caricature.15

James has figured importantly in church history on another score also. As ascetic tendencies became ever more influential in the early church, the description of James, along with others, as a ‘brother of the Lord’ became a controversial issue. For, taken straightforwardly, this designation contradicts the notion that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. Jerome popularized the view (often called the Hieronymian view, after that church father) that James and the other brothers of Jesus were in fact his cousins. He identified Mary of Clopas, a sister of Mary (John 19:25), with the Mary who is said to be the mother of James and Joses (Mark 15:40), both of whom are identified as ‘brothers’ of Jesus (Mark 6:3). Thus James and Joses would be cousins, not brothers, of Jesus. The interpretation of the relationship among the different individuals named Mary and James mentioned in these texts is a vexing question that we will not pursue further here;16 suffice it to say that Jerome’s interpretation is by no means the only one. Most damaging to the Hieronymian position is the fact that adelphos always means ‘brother’ when blood relationship is denoted in the New Testament. James, then, must either be an older brother of Jesus, born to Joseph by a wife before Mary (the ‘Ephiphanian’ view),17 or a younger brother of Jesus, borne to Joseph and Mary (the ‘Helvidian’ view). Of these, the Helvidian better explains the close association suggested in the New Testament between Mary the mother of Jesus and the brothers of Jesus (cf. Mark 3:32; 6:3).18

It is this James, then, a younger brother of Jesus and respected leader of the Jewish-Christian church in Jerusalem, who is most naturally identified as the author of the letter bearing his name. Is there other evidence to confirm this identification? The testimony of the ancient church, as we have seen, is in agreement with this conclusion. This testimony, though not very early, is consistent in maintaining that James the Lord’s brother wrote this epistle. It was only very late, and then rarely, that the epistle was assigned to James the son of Zebedee or to James the son of Alphaeus.19

The Greek of the epistle contains some striking similarities to the Greek of the brief speech attributed to James the Lord’s brother in Acts 15:13–21, and to the letter sent under his authority, recorded in Acts 15:23–29. The epistolary ‘Greetings’ (chairein) occurs in James 1:1 and Acts 15:23, but only one other time in the New Testament; the use of ‘name’ (onoma) as the subject of the passive verb ‘call’ (kaleō) is peculiar, yet occurs both in James 2:7 and Acts 15:17; the appeal ‘listen, my brothers’ is found in both James 2:5 and Acts 15:13; and there are other slight similarities.20 These parallels are certainly not numerous enough to provide proof of common origin, yet they are suggestive when taken in conjunction with the first two points.

Finally, there are several features of the letter that do not point directly to James the Lord’s brother, but would be quite in keeping with his authorship. The Jewish atmosphere of the book is very marked: Old Testament and Jewish teachings are frequently alluded to; the style reflects in places both the proverbial nature of Jewish wisdom traditions and the denunciatory preaching of the prophets; the meeting-place of the church is called a synagogue (2:2); and a central Jewish tenet, the oneness of God, is specifically mentioned (2:19). On the other hand, the epistle shows little evidence of a developed or self-consciously Christian theology. All this suggests an author who was writing at an early date, in a Jewish context, and who sought to maintain good relationships with Judaism. The way in which the teaching of Jesus thoroughly permeates the letter, without being directly cited, would also be entirely natural for someone with James’ background. And, finally, James’ position as the leader of the mother church of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem would eminently qualify him to address an authoritative admonition to ‘the twelve tribes scattered among the nations’ (1:1).

These considerations together give us excellent reason to adopt the traditional view that James the brother of the Lord wrote this letter. But many scholars have felt otherwise, and a number of alternative theories of authorship have been propounded. One of the more extreme views denies that the bulk of James is a Christian book. According to this proposal, James was originally a Jewish tractate that was christianized with a couple of references to Jesus (see 1:1 and 2:1).21 This theory has many weaknesses, but the decisive objection to it is the degree to which the letter is permeated with references to the teaching of Jesus.22 A few scholars have attributed the book to an unknown James.23 But the view that has attained the most popularity assigns the epistle to an unknown Christian leader. The name James in 1:1 – which is usually taken to refer to the Lord’s brother – was either added at a later date (so that the book was originally anonymous) or was used by the author himself in order to lend greater authority to the book (in which case the book is pseudonymous). Advocates of these alternative theories are convinced that the letter itself contains features incompatible with authorship by the Lord’s brother. Four such features are most often cited. We will examine each in turn.

1. First, some argue that it would be inconceivable to think that a brother of the Lord could have written such a document without some reference to his special relationship to the Lord, or to the resurrection appearance which may well have led to his conversion (cf. 1 Cor. 15:7).24 However, special interest in physical ties to Jesus emerged only after the time of James’ death; therefore the author’s failure to include the title ‘brother of the Lord’ stands against pseudonymity and in favour of authenticity.25 Moreover, James’ physical relationship to Jesus did not spill over into a spiritual relationship. He remained estranged from Jesus and his true family – those who do the will of God (Mark 3:35) – until after the resurrection. If, then, being a brother of the Lord gave James no special insight into the person and mission of Jesus and carried with it no special status, his failure to mention the relationship should occasion no surprise.26 Nor should it occasion surprise that James does not describe his special confrontation with the resurrected Christ. Paul, whose vision of the resurrected Christ decisively changed the course of his life, refers to it in only two of his thirteen letters. Tasker has pointed out the capriciousness of this sort of argument by noting that 2 Peter is often considered pseudonymous because its author does emphasize his relationship to Jesus.27 In fact, without considerably more information about the circumstances in which New Testament letters were written, and the degree of intimacy between the author and his readers, arguments based on what a particular individual was likely to have written or not are of little value.

2. A second factor which is said to weigh heavily against the traditional view of authorship is the language and the cultural background of the letter. James is written in idiomatic Hellenistic Greek, with some literary flourishes (cf. the incomplete hexameter in 1:17), and occasionally employs language derived from Greek philosophy and religion (e.g. ‘the course of human existence’ [NET] in 3:6). This Greek, it is alleged, can hardly be attributed to the son of a Galilean carpenter who was known in tradition as a conservative Jewish Christian and who, as far as we know, never left the confines of Palestine. Three responses may be made to this argument.

First, while the Greek of James is undeniably more polished and closer to literary Greek than most New Testament Greek, its quality should not be exaggerated. While exhibiting some literary skill, the author does not use long words and elaborate grammatical structures. As Ropes says, ‘ . . . there is nothing to suggest acquaintance with the higher styles of Greek literature’.28

Second, the degree to which any particular Palestinian Jew could have written idiomatic Greek is impossible to determine. Certainly Greek was widely used in Palestine (particularly in Galilee) and many Palestinians, even from poor families, would grow up with fluency in the language.29 The real question is: would James have been exposed to the kinds of influences that would have enabled him to write the semi-literary Greek of this letter? Without knowing the details of James’ education, the extent of his travels or the people with whom he associated, this question is impossible to answer. We may certainly suspect that a man elevated to the head of the Jerusalem church had the capacity to learn Greek well; and the Hellenistic element of that church (cf. Acts 6:1) would have given him both the opportunity and perhaps the motivation to acquire facility in the language. J. N. Sevenster, who uses James as a test case in his investigation of the use of Greek in Palestine, concludes that the Lord’s brother could have written this letter.30 This, of course, does not prove that he did; but the language is no obstacle to the view.

Third, the philosophical and religious concepts that are found in James are all in the nature of popular concepts that would have been familiar to decently educated people in Palestine, where Hellenistic ideas were very widespread.31 It is quite arbitrary to argue that James could not have been familiar with them. One may as well argue that a man in the street has a degree in philosophy because he uses the word ‘existentialism’.

3. The approach to the Old Testament law exhibited in the epistle is the third reason why many critics think James ‘the Just’ could not have written it. The author characterizes the law (nomos: the Jewish torah) as ‘the law that gives freedom’ (1:25; 2:12) and ‘the royal law’ (2:8) and focuses exclusively on moral commandments (2:11), ignoring the ritual law (see the silence in 1:27). This liberal approach to the law, it is claimed, is in complete contrast to what we know of the attitude of James, who sought to impose the ritual law on Paul in Acts (21:20–25) and who is known in both Jewish and Christian tradition as an exemplar of ‘torah-piety’.32

However, the picture of James as ‘an advocate of hidebound Jewish-Christian piety’33 requires considerable modification. As we have seen, much of the evidence for this picture comes from Hegesippus, whose historical veracity is more than a little questionable. The New Testament certainly portrays James as one who was concerned to maintain the best possible relationships between Jews and Christians and who accordingly advocated the legitimacy of Jewish tradition and customs for Jewish Christians (Acts 21:20–25; perhaps Gal. 2:12). But it also makes clear that he opposed the attempt to impose the Mosaic law on Gentile Christians (Acts 15:13–21); and nowhere does he argue that Christians, Jewish or not, must continue observing the ritual law. The point is, then, that the ritually legalistic James, with whom the author of the epistle is sometimes contrasted, is little more than an unhistorical fabrication. We must also keep in mind that an author’s silence about an issue does not necessarily indicate his lack of concern about it. Thus, if James is writing to a group of Christians among whom the observance of the ritual law is not an issue, there may be no reason for him to mention it.34 We will say more about James’ attitude towards the law in our summary of his theology and in our comments on the relevant verses. Suffice it to say here that the attitude towards the law found in the epistle is by no means incompatible with the view which James of Jerusalem is likely to have held.

4. The fourth main reason for denying that James the Lord’s brother could have written this epistle involves the vexing problem of the relationship between James and Paul in their teaching on justification. As is well known, James’ insistence that works are taken into account in justification (2:14–26) is often seen as a direct contradiction of Paul’s proclamation of justification by faith alone. Most scholars now agree, however, that the two are not in direct contradiction on this issue. Their use of key terms with different meanings and the different problems with which they are concerned result in their arguments passing each other’s by, like ships in the night.35 Either each is unaware of what the other is saying, or one of them is responding to a misunderstood form of the other’s teaching. While the former view is certainly possible, most scholars think the distinctive language of ‘justification by faith’ points to some contact with the teaching of Paul.36 On this basis, then, it is claimed that the letter of James could not have been written by James of Jerusalem, because this James must have been very well acquainted with the teaching of Paul – the two were key participants in the first council of the church (Acts 15), and met at a later date also, when some of these basic theological issues must have been discussed (Acts 21:18–25). The letter of James must have been written late in the first century, when Paul’s theology was no longer understood in its proper context. Kümmel gives succinct expression to this argument: ‘The debate in 2:14ff. with a misunderstood secondary stage of Pauline theology not only presupposes a considerable chronological distance from Paul – whereas James died in the year 62 – but also betrays a complete ignorance of the polemical intent of Pauline theology, which lapse can scarcely be attributed to James, who as late as 55/56 met with Paul in Jerusalem (Acts 21:18ff.).’37

The issue touched on here is one of the most difficult in the epistle of James. We shall devote a full discussion to it in the section on James’ theology and in the commentary on 2:14–26. For the present, however, it is sufficient to point out that the situation we have described – assuming, for the moment, its accuracy – is capable of a very different explanation. Could it not be that the perverted form of Paul’s teaching contested in James 2 is very early and that James is not yet aware of Paul’s true intent because they have not had time to understand one another’s teaching? Paul undoubtedly began preaching very shortly after his conversion (to be dated about AD 33). How soon Paul seized on and proclaimed his distinctive emphasis on justification ‘apart from the works of the law’ is impossible to know for certain; but the earliest Pauline letters presume the full development of the concept. We know also that already during Paul’s ministry his preaching on justification by faith was being misunderstood (cf. Rom. 3:5–8). It is not at all improbable, then, that some Christians who had been exposed to Paul’s preaching may have – intentionally or not – perverted Paul’s doctrine into an excuse for spiritual passivity. James’ attack on this perversion would then betray ‘a complete ignorance of the polemical intent of Pauline theology’ because James was not yet well acquainted with Paul’s teaching.38 Indeed, it is perhaps more probable that a ‘complete ignorance’ of the thrust of Paul’s teaching would exist before his letters were widely circulated than long afterwards. The possibility we suggest would imply an early date for James; we hope to show in the next section that an early date has much to commend it. At least we can conclude that an early date is as capable of explaining James 2 as a late one. This means, then, that the argument of James 2 presents no difficulty in ascribing the letter to James the Lord’s brother.

We conclude, therefore, that the epistle contains nothing that James the Lord’s brother could not have written. The way is then open to accept the epistle’s own apparent claim that James was the author. Still, there are some who, while accepting this claim, are impressed by one or more of the arguments just examined. These scholars suggest some sort of compromise solution, according to which someone besides James had a hand in the composition of the letter. Some attempt to explain the quality of the Greek by supposing that a scribe was responsible for the actual composition.39 This hypothesis cannot a priori be ruled out, for we know that scribes (or amanuenses, as they were called) were frequently used in the drafting of ancient letters. In the case of James, however, the exact wording is so often crucial to the flow of the letter (see e.g. the wordplays: chairein, ‘greetings’, 1:1/charan, ‘joy’, 1:2; leipomenoi, ‘lacking’, 1:4/leipetai, ‘lacks’, 1:5) that the final compositor must almost be identified as the author.40 A second suggestion is that our epistle is a free translation of an Aramaic discourse or series of sermons originally given by James.41 It cannot be argued against this view that James’ Greek does not betray evidence of translation from a Semitic language. For, if the translation is good enough, little evidence of the original language will be present (would it be obvious to the uninformed reader that J. B. Phillips’ paraphrase is based on Greek?). But while, in the nature of the case, it is impossible to disprove the theory, there remains little in favour of it.

A third compromise position is ably defended by P. Davids. He is impressed by some of the apparent anomalies of the letter – good Greek alongside Semitisms, curious divergences in vocabulary, disjointedness in the treatment of various topics – and concludes that these are best explained if we posit a two-stage process of origin for the letter. The first stage would have consisted of a series of Jewish-Christian homilies (some translated from Aramaic, others original Greek compositions); the second stage, the redactional process by which these were moulded into a single composition. Davids allows that James may have been the author of the first stage, or of both stages.42 Again, this theory is difficult to prove or disprove. But in so far as it rests on anomalies in James, we may question whether it is necessary. The inconsistencies that Davids cites are not of a type that require the hypothesis of two different stages of composition. An author who was fluent in both Aramaic and Greek would naturally betray some influence from Aramaic when writing in Greek. And while Semitic ways of putting things can often be discerned in James, the Greek, as Dibelius says, is ‘relatively homogenous’.43 Similarly, the disjointedness of topics seems to be a product of the genre in which the letter is written; and would not an editor, as much as an author, seek to smooth out the composition? That James may have utilized his own sermons in writing the letter is not improbable in itself. But evidence for an earlier literary stage is not compelling.

While none of these compromise positions can be definitely ruled out, they are, in the end, unnecessary. It is more natural to take the reference to James as an indicator of the epistle’s sole author.

In conclusion, one further consideration on the question of authorship must be considered. Proponents of the pseudepigraphical hypothesis often portray it in terms of a ‘transparent literary device’. The person writing in the name of James would have been claiming some kind of continuity with the teaching of James but would not be intending to deceive anyone about authorship.44 Viewed in this light, the claim that James is pseudepigraphical would pose no challenge to the full truthfulness of the letter. The connection of the letter with James established in 1:1 is not intended to be, and would not have been understood to be, a claim about who wrote the letter. It is, rather, a claim about the theological tradition in which the letter stands. Of course, we possess many pseudepigraphical books from the world of James’ day (e.g. Jewish apocalypses). It is hard to know what kind of claim is being made when these books claim to be written by Adam, Moses or Abraham. However, the issue of genre plays a significant role here. Expectations about the meaning of a claim such as ‘James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations’ are determined by genre. James is clearly a letter; yet we have no evidence from the early church that claims to authorship in letters were treated as a ‘transparent literary device’. If the claim about authorship was determined to be true, the letter was accorded a certain authority; if it was proven false, the letter was rejected. The very fact that James was accepted as a canonical book, then, presumes that the early Christians who made this decision were sure that James wrote it. Those who did not think that James wrote it barred it from the canon for this reason. This means that we have to choose between 1) viewing James as a forgery, intended perhaps to claim an authority that the author did not really have – and therefore omit it from the canon; and 2) viewing James as an authentic letter from James. The ‘have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too’ theory of canonical pseudepigraphon does not seem to be an alternative.45

3. Circumstances of the letter

From the content of the letter itself we are able to learn something about the people to whom it was written. First, it is almost certain that the readers were Jews. The letter is thoroughly imbued with the spirit and imagery of the Old Testament and Judaism – so thoroughly that it likely reflects the readers’ background as well as the author’s. For instance, James’ use of the feminine ‘adulteresses’ (moichalides) in 4:4 would make no sense to anyone who was not well acquainted with the Old Testament tradition comparing the Lord’s covenant with his people to a marriage relationship. Similarly, the simple and unexplained way in which James refers to the ‘law’ presumes that his readers are familiar with this law and have no questions about its relevance to them. Also indicative of a Jewish audience is the use of the monotheistic confession to summarize doctrine (2:19) and the use of the word synagōgē in 2:2. The implied Jewish audience of the letter is in keeping with the New Testament and early Christian portrayal of James as one who ministered among ‘the circumcised’ (Gal. 2:9).

The letter implies that these Jewish believers were mainly poor people who were caught in a situation of considerable social tension. Oppressed and taken advantage of by wealthy landlords (5:4–6), hauled into court by rich people (2:6) who also scorn their Christian faith (2:7), the readers are exhorted to be patient and reminded that the coming of their Lord, the judge and deliverer, is at hand (5:7–11). In the meantime, the trials they are suffering are to be met with steadfast endurance, so that their Christian character might reach full maturity and their reward, ‘the crown of life’, be secured (1:2–4, 12).

But while the situation of the church in the world provides the background for the letter, James’ concern is with the world getting into the church. He warns his readers that ‘friendship with the world means enmity against God’ (4:4) and highlights one key ingredient of ‘religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless’ as keeping ‘oneself from being polluted by the world’ (1:27). Worldliness in the church has manifested itself in a number of ways: a fawning deference to the rich and callous indifference towards the poor (2:1–4); uncontrolled, critical speech (3:1–12; 4:11–12; 5:9); ‘earthly, unspiritual, demonic’ wisdom with its envy and selfish ambition that in turn produce dissensions and violent quarrels (3:13 – 4:3); arrogance (4:13–17); and, most of all, an essential ‘double-mindedness’ with respect to God that short-circuits the effectiveness of prayer (1:5–8) and manifests itself in a failure to put faith into practice (1:22–27; 2:14–26). James calls on his readers to repent from this worldliness, to humble themselves before the Lord so that he might exalt them (4:7–10), and to work diligently to bring other sinners back from the error of their ways (5:19–20).

Described in these terms, the circumstances of the readers do not help us a great deal in narrowing down the specific audience. Unfortunately, the address of the letter does not get us much farther. ‘The twelve tribes scattered among the nations’ is a rather ambiguous designation. After the exile of many Jews to Assyria and Babylonia, Israel’s historical twelve tribes no longer existed in a physical sense. ‘Twelve tribes’ then became a popular way of describing the regathered and spiritually renewed Israel that would be brought into being in the last days (Isa. 49:6; Ezek. 47:13, 21–23; 48:29; Sirach 36:11; 2 Esdras 13:39–40). Given this background, James may have chosen the designation ‘twelve tribes’ in order to signify his intention to address the Jewish people as a whole, non-Christians as well as Christians. Had James envisaged such a broad readership, we could understand why he has so few references to specifically Christian doctrines.46 But one would surely have expected more of an evangelistic thrust if non-Christian Jews had been among the intended readers. Moreover, the title ‘twelve tribes’ was used by Jews only in an eschatological context, to describe the regathered people of the last days47 – and it is unlikely that James would apply this language to all Jews.

Almost certainly, then, James uses ‘the twelve tribes’ to describe Christians. Again, the background of the phrase may suggest that James has only Jewish Christians in mind.48 But the New Testament shows that the phrase could be applied broadly to believers in general as the new people of God, the fulfilment of the Old Testament and Jewish expectation of a regathered and renewed Israel (Matt. 19:28; Rev. 7:4–8; 21:12; cf. Gal. 6:16). Thus, while the content and tone of the letter strongly imply that the readers are Jewish Christians, the designation ‘twelve tribes’ in itself does not require this restriction.

The second element of the address, ‘scattered among the nations’, translates a single Greek word, diaspora (‘dispersion’). This word also is given several interpretations. Taken from the Greek verb that means ‘to scatter’ or ‘disperse’, the word was used to describe Jews who were living outside Palestine among Gentiles (Ps. 147:2; Isa. 49:6; John 7:35; 2 Maccabees 1:27) and, by extension, the place where those who had been dispersed lived. If James uses the word with this literal sense, then he would be designating his readers as Jews or Jewish Christians who lived outside Palestine.49 As with ‘twelve tribes’, however, the New Testament sometimes uses diaspora with a metaphorical meaning, to characterize Christians as those who live, on this earth, away from their true heavenly ‘homeland’ (see 1 Pet. 1:1). Thus the term may give us little help in locating James’ readers. But it may be that we can be more specific. Tasker makes the attractive suggestion that Acts 11:19 may provide the specific background against which we should understand James’ use of diaspora. Here Luke tells us that, as a result of the persecution connected with the stoning of Stephen, many Jewish Christians were ‘scattered’ (diaspeirō, the verb used here, is cognate to diaspora) and travelled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, where they preached the gospel ‘only among Jews’. We can imagine James, the leader of the Jerusalem church, sending a pastoral admonition to these believers from his home church who had been scattered abroad because of persecution.50 This theory cannot be proven, but it does fit remarkably well with the nature and circumstances of the letter, as well as with the date we will suggest for it.

Date

Scholars who think that James is pseudepigraphical usually date the letter sometime in the late first or early second century.51 If James the brother of the Lord wrote the letter, as we have argued, it must be dated sometime before AD 62, when James was martyred. Some scholars argue for a date close to 62 on the grounds that James shows many similarities to 1 Peter. But James contains parallels with many writings dating all the way from 100 BC to AD 150, so this is hardly significant. Others claim that the ‘settled’ condition of the churches addressed in James, with the typical ‘second generation’ problem of worldliness, favours a date around 60.52 But worldliness is no monopoly of the second generation (see 1 Corinthians) and the letter does not enable us to say whether the churches had been in existence for ten or fifty years.

On the other hand, two indications favour an earlier date, around 45–47. First, and most important, is the most likely relationship between James 2 and the preaching of Paul. As we argued in the section on authorship, James 2 implies awareness of Paul’s slogan ‘justification by faith’, but also shows that Paul’s teaching was not understood correctly. This state of affairs was likely to have existed only in the early days of Paul’s preaching, before James had had an opportunity to learn from Paul himself just what he meant by ‘justification by faith’. This makes a date after the Jerusalem Council (AD 48 or 49) very difficult.53 We can surmise that Paul’s preaching in Antioch, beginning around 45 (Acts 11:25–26), was heard and misunderstood by some Jewish Chris-tians in the same area (see Acts 11:19). Since these Jewish Christians may well have looked on the Jerusalem church as their ‘home’ church, it is entirely feasible that the head of that church, James, would have got wind of this perverted form of Paul’s teaching and responded accordingly.

A second indication of an early date is the absence of any reference to the controversy between Jews and Gentiles, particularly with respect to the ‘ritual law’. Again, it was shortly before the Jerusalem Council that this issue first surfaced forcibly in the early church. ‘Certain people . . . from Judea’ had come to the Christians in Antioch, teaching that Gentile Christians had to be circumcised and take on themselves ‘the yoke of the law’ (Acts 15:1). James himself, of course, was instrumental in preventing these restrictions from being applied to Gentile converts. But the point here is that it is difficult to think that James could have written to Jewish Christians, some of whom probably lived in or near Antioch, without making any allusion to the problem or the decision of the Council.

These two considerations point to a date in the middle to late forties (45–47) for the writing of James.54 This period witnessed some severe economic disturbances (there was a famine in Judea in about 46; cf. Acts 11:28) and the beginning of the serious social-political-religious upheavals that would culminate in the Jewish war of 66–70. Both circumstances fit the background implied in James.

Place of writing

The conclusions we have reached on the authorship and dating of the letter virtually determine the place of writing. James lived in Jerusalem during this period and his readers are probably to be found in the regions just outside Palestine along the coastline to the north, in Syria and perhaps southern Asia Minor. Several allusions in the letter, most notably the reference to the ‘autumn and spring rains’ (5:7), seem to confirm this location; for only along the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea do the rains come in this sequence.55 Some scholars prefer Rome as the place of writing, partly because writings with a Roman provenance are some of the first to reflect the language of James.56 But this argument is not strong enough to overturn the evidence for a Palestinian provenance.

The general social conditions in the Near East in the middle of the first century also correspond with the situation presupposed in James. The merchants who ranged far and wide in search of profits (4:13–17) and the wealthy, often ‘absentee’, landlords who exploited an increasingly large and impoverished labour force (5:1–6) were familiar figures. Familiar also were the heated and often violent religious debates that seem to have infected the churches under James’ care (see 3:13 – 4:3). The Zealot movement, which sought to win freedom for Israel by violent means, was becoming more and more influential. Some scholars, in fact, think that James 4:2 – ‘You desire but do not have, so you kill’ – may refer to Zealot partisans who had brought their violent ideology into the church.57 Whether this is so or not, the social conditions of first-century Palestine and Syria certainly provide an appropriate backdrop for the letter of James.

4. The nature of the letter

In form, James is a ‘literary’ letter. The book begins with a typical epistolary introduction – identification of the author, address and greeting – but lacks the personal reminiscences, references to specific problems and situations, and closing remarks that characterize ‘real’ letters. Adopting the form of the Jewish ‘diaspora letter’, James has used the epistolary form to bring spiritual exhortations and comfort to Christians living in a broad area.58 The letter of James therefore differs from Paul’s letters both to individuals (Philemon, Timothy, Titus) and to specific churches (Rome, Corinth, etc.), and resembles most closely 1 Peter and 1 John, both of which are also directed to wide audiences.59

When we look more closely at the specific nature of the material in James, four outstanding features emerge. First and most prominent is the strong tone of pastoral exhortation. James has a greater frequency of imperatives than any other New Testament book. His purpose is clearly not so much to inform, but to command, exhort and encourage. Yet James issues his commands, for the most part, in a tone of tender pastoral concern, addressing his readers fourteen times as ‘my brothers and sisters’ or ‘my dear brothers and sisters’. A second well-known feature of James is the looseness of its structure. Several apparently independent sayings or brief passages are interspersed throughout the letter (e.g. 1:18–20; 3:17; 4:11–12, 17; 5:12). And when James does develop an argument at greater length, finding a logical progression from one argument to another is difficult.

James’ extensive use of metaphors and illustrations is a third feature that arrests the attention of the reader. These images – the billowing sea, the withered flower, the mirror, the horse, the ship, the brush fire, the taming of animals, the water spring, the arrogant business person, the corroded metal and moth-eaten clothes, the patient farmer – are universal in their appeal and go a long way towards accounting for the popularity of James among ordinary readers. A fourth feature of the letter is not so evident to the modern reader, although the original recipients would undoubtedly have been struck by it: James’ penchant for borrowing from other sources. We have already commented on the extent to which James is permeated with allusions to the teaching of Jesus. James occasionally appears virtually to ‘quote’ from Jesus’ teaching (see esp. 5:12), but many other passages are permeated with language and concepts drawn from it.60 The Old Testament also figures prominently in James. To be sure, he does not often formally quote the Old Testament (only in 2:8 [Lev. 19:18]; 2:23 [Gen. 15:6]; and 4:5 [a summary of OT teaching]). But his language is thoroughly permeated with Old Testament ways of speaking, and he regularly appeals to Old Testament people and stories. Also striking is the number of parallels between James and several early Jewish and Christian books. Language and concepts in James often find parallels in 1 Peter, Sirach, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, The Shepherd of Hermas (particularly the ‘Mandates’ section) and 1 Clement (significant, but fewer, parallels are found with Wisdom of Solomon, Philo, the Didache, and the letters of Ignatius). In most cases, these parallels involve language or motifs that are found in more than one of these works, and direct dependence of one book on another is almost impossible to prove. It would appear that these books use a widespread tradition of ethical teaching, probably Hellenistic-Jewish in origin. James shows familiarity with this tradition and appropriates some elements from it to exhort his readers.

Taking these features, and others, into account, scholars have sought to give a specific classification to the material in James. Ropes argued that James was a diatribe, a colloquial genre used to instruct general audiences and which featured short sentences, rhetorical questions, conditional sentences and repetition of material.61 However, while some sections of James could perhaps be classified as diatribe, the letter as a whole resists the designation. Much more popular has been the suggestion that James is paraenesis (exhortation). Martin Dibelius thought that several key characteristics of James signalled its classification as paraenesis (e.g. its use of traditional material and the unstructured stringing together of moral exhortations). Such paraenesis, it is argued, can be found in a wide variety of ancient sources, including many New Testament epistles (cf. Rom. 12 – 13; Heb. 13).62 However, scholars since Dibelius have generally seen much more logical structure in the letter than he did; and ‘paraenesis’ is itself so broad that it could apply to an extraordinary variety of material and loses much of its helpfulness as a classification. Another popular classification of James focuses on wisdom.63 James refers directly to wisdom in a central passage (3:13–18; cf. also 1:5), and the brief, direct and practical admonitions found at many places in the letter resemble the style of wisdom books from the Old Testament (e.g. Proverbs) and the intertestamental period (e.g. Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon). At the same time, the practical, ethical focus of James is similar to wisdom literature; and some of the themes of that literature are also prominent in James (e.g. speech, dissension, wealth and poverty). Resemblances between James and the wisdom literature are clear; but we are not convinced that they are pervasive enough to justify labelling James as a ‘wisdom’ book. Much depends on how broadly we understand ‘wisdom’; some contemporary scholars have a tendency to subsume a great deal under that rubric. Only a very broad definition of ‘wisdom’ would enable us to categorize James as a whole as wisdom; and we are not convinced that so broad a definition is justified.

A better option that fits the circumstances of the letter as we have outlined them is the early Christian sermon or homily. Many of the features of James can be paralleled in the Jewish synagogue homily, and it would be perfectly natural for James to have adopted this form for use in the church. And what would be more natural than for James to summarize his preaching to his flock in Jerusalem in a letter sent to those who could not be there to hear it in person?64 James is best understood, then, as a brief, perhaps condensed, sermon or homily, or extraction drawn from a series of sermons, sent to James’ dispersed parishioners in the form of a letter.

Structure

Luther accused the author of James of ‘throwing things together . . . chaotically’.65 But most scholars are now inclined to find more logical structure in James. Unfortunately, there is little agreement about this structure. Davids applies to James the epistolary structure identified by F. O. Francis.66 He discerns a carefully constructed literary structure, divided into three basic parts: ‘double opening statement’ (1:2–27), the body (2:1 – 5:6) and the ‘closing statement’ (5:7–20). He further identifies three basic themes that surface throughout the letter: testing, wisdom/pure speech, and poverty/wealth.67 Davids’ identification of these specific themes is open to challenge (e.g. he fits 2:14–26 under the theme of poverty/wealth, suggesting its theme to be ‘generosity’). In reacting against the extreme atomizing approach of Dibelius, Davids and others have found more structure than the diverse material in James can justify. His various exhortations cannot be categorized into a few topics or put into a coherent, logically developed structure without imposing artificial and sometimes misleading headings on the material.

Other scholars, then, while backing off from some of the specifics of Davids’ scheme, find his identification of a basic three-part structure to make good sense.68 However, we are not convinced that 1:2–27 functions as an opening statement that introduces the key issues of the letter. We think it more likely that James should be viewed as a homily in which the author takes up one subject after another, sometimes relating it to the previous one, sometimes picking up an idea or theme mentioned earlier in the letter, sometimes abruptly introducing a wholly new topic. Several key motifs continually crop up, like musical motifs in a symphony or opera, but these are not dominant enough to serve as organizing heads.69

James’ exhortations can be grouped into five general sections. The first and last are little more than miscellaneous collections of material, but the middle three display more unity around a common theme. Chapter 1:2–18, the opening statement, introduces several basic concerns of James: the need for endurance in testing, the importance of unwavering faith, and the problems of poverty and wealth. The second section, 1:19 – 2:26, has as its theme the need to put the word of God into practice. Christians are to ‘do what [the word] says’, for ‘true religion’ involves practical obedience, such as showing love to the poor by not discriminating against them. A faith that has no works is a gross parody of true Christian faith. Community strife and its antidote is the general topic of the third main section, 3:1 – 4:12. ‘Wisdom from below’, with its envy and selfishness, leads to harsh, critical speech and is the root of the quarrels plaguing the church. These sins can be overcome through humble repentance before God. The fourth section, 4:13 – 5:11, deals with the kinds of attitudes and behaviour that should characterize life ‘in the last days’. Because life is so uncertain, human arrogance is to be renounced; and believers should look patiently to the Lord’s return as they struggle with the oppression brought on them by wealthy persecutors. The final section (5:12–20) takes up the issues of oaths and prayer and concludes with an encouragement to bring sinners to repentance.

5. Theological emphases of the letter

It is a commonplace to claim that James has no theology. The truth or falsity of that claim depends entirely on what is meant by ‘theology’. On the one hand, it is obvious that James says little about many basic Christian doctrines. We find nothing in his letter about the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the theological significance of the church, the fulfilment of the Old Testament in Christ, the atoning death of Christ, or the resurrection. These are significant omissions. Moreover, James fails to orient his teaching around the person of Christ. Jesus Christ is named only twice (1:1; 2:1), only once is he made the object of belief (2:1), and the ethical appeals of the letter are not explicitly based on the work or significance of Christ. If by ‘theology’, then, one means a system of beliefs that explicitly refers to the person and work of Christ as a major focal point, then the letter of James does indeed lack a theology.

On the other hand, however, it is grossly unfair to accuse James of being ‘un-theological’. What we must remember is that James’ purposes in the letter dictated the amount of explicit theological teaching that he included. He was writing to believers who were already well acquainted with fundamental Christian teachings; and, especially if his readers were former parishioners, there was little reason for him to rehearse these teachings again. ‘James does not develop theories but reminds readers of accepted truths; it does not expound theology but exhorts to virtue.’70 His readers were not perplexed over any major doctrinal issues (with the possible exception of the place of works in salvation). Their problem was a failure to put their faith into practice. Naturally, therefore, it is here, at the level of practical daily living, that James concentrates.

His letter is a practical homily, designed to encourage believers to show the reality of their theological commitment in practice. The purpose of the letter, then, explains why James does not include a great deal of theological teaching. As G. E. Ladd says, ‘It is impossible to conclude from the contents of the epistle that he was not interested in theology; a theologian can write practical homilies.’71 Furthermore, while the letter may not feature much explicit doctrinal teaching, we must not assume that it lacks theological underpinnings. Indeed, numerous references in the letter reveal the existence of this theological foundation.72 For example, in dealing with the problem created for his readers by evil rich people, James assumes that the ‘last days’ have begun (5:3, 5), yet also looks to the future for the judgment associated with the coming of the Lord (5:7–9). These references reveal that James is building his exhortation on the characteristically Christian view of eschatology according to which the Messianic Age had broken into history without immediately bringing the consummation of history also.

Finally, in addition to these theological assumptions, we should not overlook the specific theological teaching that is found in James. His letter makes an important contribution to our understanding of faith and works, prayer, the nature of God, the origin of sin, and wisdom. True, these are all given in a ‘practical’ context, but it will be a sad day for the church when such ‘practical divinity’ is not considered ‘theology’. Therefore, while the occasional and homiletical nature of the letter prevents us from sketching ‘a theology of James’, we are able to survey James’ contribution to several important areas of theology.

God

If we use ‘theology’ in its strictest sense – the doctrine of God – then James has a lot of theology. For he is very concerned to relate the kind of conduct he expects of his readers to the nature of God. Christians, James implies, are to live and act in full consciousness of the character of the God they serve. It is because God gives ‘generously to all without finding fault’ that Christians should not hesitate to ask him for wisdom (1:5). James’ invitation is similar to, and perhaps dependent on, Jesus’ encouragement of his disciples to ask God for what they needed – an encouragement that is also anchored in the nature of God the Father, who gives his children good things (Matt. 7:7–11). The goodness of God’s gifts is emphasized in 1:17 also, where James in addition stresses the invariability of God’s character. This emphasis is needed as a counter to those who would attribute to God the evil of temptation. Not only does God give everything that is perfect, James asserts, but he is not even capable of being enticed by evil. How foolish, then, to think that God could be the author of temptation (1:13). He may test his servants for their own good, but he must never be associated with the enticement to evil that is a product of people’s own sinfulness (1:14–15). Never can we excuse sin by trying to shift the blame on to God.

Theology proper is also at the heart of one of the key texts in the letter, 4:4–10. This passage contains a stinging indictment of the readers for their worldliness, along with a strongly worded summons to repentance. Both the indictment and the invitation are based on God’s character. Verse 5 is a difficult verse to interpret, but we prefer to think that it reminds the readers of the ‘holy jealousy’ of God for his people (see further, the commentary in loc.). As such, it provides the perfect foundation for James’ accusation that his readers are spiritual ‘adulterers’ who are tarnishing their relationship with God through entanglement with the world (4:4). But, James reminds his readers, God’s grace is able to meet fully the demands of his jealous holiness. Only those who humbly submit to God will experience that grace, however (4:6). Thus the gracious character of God becomes the basis for James’ earnest plea to his readers to humble themselves before the Lord (4:7–10).

That James is a monotheist goes without saying, but the emphasis he places on this point is interesting. We have not only the confession of the oneness of God used for illustrative purposes (2:19), but also the reminder that ‘there is only one Lawgiver and Judge’ (4:12). Although not strictly related to monotheism, James’ interest in the idea of ‘oneness’ may also be seen in the description of God as giving ‘generously’ (haplōs, 1:5), since the word may have the connotation of ‘simple’, ‘undivided’. The oneness of God also underlines James’ reminder that all the commandments must be obeyed (2:11). The question may well be raised about the relationship between these statements and what James says about Jesus. How does James’ emphasis on the ‘one Judge’ square with the plain implication of 5:7–9 that Christ, the coming one, is the ‘Judge . . . standing at the door’? And while James uses ‘Lord’ as a designation of Jesus in three verses (2:1; 5:7–8), the other seven occurrences of the title (3:9; 4:10, 15; 5:4, 10–11, 15) all pretty clearly refer to God the Father. Thus the traditional Old Testament title ‘Lord’ no longer refers unambiguously to Yahweh. These texts imply (in a very early and unformed manner) what Bauckham has labelled ‘christological monotheism’: there is indeed one God and one Judge; yet Christ somehow shares in this divine identity.73

Eschatology

While many of James’ ethical admonitions are similar to those found in Jewish and even pagan Greek literature, the eschatological context in which he sets them gives them a new and different focus.74 The coming judgment receives great emphasis. ‘The Judge is standing at the door,’ James reminds his readers (5:9). The fact and basis of this judgment function repeatedly as a means of motivating believers to holy living, pleasing to the Lord (1:10–11; 2:12–13; 3:1; 5:1–6, 9, 12). On the other hand, James also reminds his readers of the reward to be bestowed on those who have proved faithful and fruitful in service (1:12; 2:5; 4:10; 5:20). James is convinced that this climactic time of judgment and salvation is imminent: ‘the Lord’s coming is near’; ‘the Judge is standing at the door’ (5:8–9). Many scholars have interpreted these statements to mean that James was sure the Lord would return immediately, in his own lifetime. But James’ language need not mean that at all. He is clearly convinced that the Lord could return within a very short time, but nothing he says suggests that he was sure that the Lord would return within a specific period of time.

If the prospect of judgment or deliverance at the future coming of the Lord is an important motivating factor in James, the present eschatological dimension of Christian existence is not neglected: Christians are already chosen ‘to inherit the kingdom’ (2:5), a kingdom that, James implies, has already been inaugurated (2:8); they are ‘a kind of firstfruits of all he created’ by virtue of spiritual rebirth (1:18). Chapter 5:3 probably attests to James’ conviction that ‘the last days’ had already dawned (translating ‘in the last days’ [NIV] rather than ‘for the last days’; see the note on that verse). In other words, James gives evidence of holding to the same kind of ‘inaugurated eschatology’ that is found in the teaching of Jesus, in Paul and throughout the New Testament: the days when God’s promises are to be fulfilled have begun, but a climax to that period is still expected. It is in the eschatological tension of that ‘already . . . not yet’ that James’ ethics are to be understood.75

Faith, works and justification

The most famous, controversial and important contribution of James to theology comes in his teaching about the relationship of faith, works and justification in 2:14–26. Indeed, many theologies mention James only for the negative purpose of showing that his argument in this section is not irreconcilable with the Pauline teaching on justification. But James has his own point to make, and we should give positive appreciation to this point. He is resolutely opposing any form of Christianity that drifts into a sterile, action-less ‘orthodoxy’. As important and necessary as is right belief, it is much less than true Christian belief if it is not accompanied by works. That this is James’ overriding concern in this section cannot be mistaken, for he states the point three times (2:17, 20, 26). Some of his readers, apparently through a misunderstanding of Paul, were confining ‘faith’ to a verbal profession (2:19) and empty, insincere good wishes (vv. 15–16). This ‘faith’ that a person may claim to have (v. 14) is ‘dead’ (vv. 17, 26) and ‘useless’ (v. 20) and will be of no avail in the day of judgment (v. 14).

It is important to recognize that this ‘faith’ of which James speaks, the faith that a person ‘claims’ to have (v. 14), does not correspond to James’ own understanding of faith. He sees faith as a firm, unwavering commitment to God and Christ (see 2:1) that is tested and refined in trial (1:2, 4), and grasps hold of the blessings of God in prayer (1:5–8; 5:14–18). These texts demonstrate how wrong it is to accuse James of having a ‘sub-Christian’ or ‘sub-Pauline’ conception of faith. On this point, James and Paul are in complete agreement. As Paul says in Galatians 5:6, it is ‘faith expressing itself through love’ that counts before God; so James: ‘faith without deeds is dead.’

On another point, however, it is frequently claimed that James and Paul do represent contrasting positions. This point has to do with the place of works in justification. Paul, as is well known, strongly emphasized the complete sufficiency of faith as the basis for justification: ‘We maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law’ (Rom. 3:28). James, on the other hand, claims that ‘a person is considered righteous [or ‘justified’] by what they do [‘works’] and not by faith alone’ (2:24). Furthermore, each cites Abraham to illustrate his own point, Paul arguing that God’s pronouncement of Abraham’s righteousness (Gen. 15:6) came solely on the basis of faith, before he was circumcised (Rom. 4:1–12), and James claiming that Abraham’s justification came as a result of his obedience in being willing to sacrifice Isaac and that in this act Genesis 15:6 was ‘fulfilled’. These viewpoints are often singled out as representative of two different, even conflicting, tendencies in the early church: the law-free Gentile mission (Paul) and law-affirming Jewish Christianity (James).76 If this were true, we would be faced with a disturbing situation. On an issue as vital as the question ‘What must I do to be saved?’ the New Testament would seem to speak with two different voices.

Resolution between Paul and James is not necessarily easy – even with all the sympathy in the world. The history of Christian theology is littered with the debris left over from intense theological debates on precisely this point.77 The suggestions that follow, therefore, must be viewed as a very modest contribution to an ongoing theological agenda.

The first thing to be noticed is that Paul and James are combating opposite problems. In Paul’s statements about justification in Galatians and Romans, he is countering a Jewish tendency to rely on obedience to the law (‘works of the law’) for salvation. Against an overemphasis on works, Paul highlights faith as the sole instrument of justification. James, on the other hand, is combating an underemphasis on works, a quietistic attitude that turned faith into mere doctrinal orthodoxy. Against this perversion of faith, James is forced to assert the importance of works.

The second point to be mentioned is the need to reckon with the possibility that James and Paul are giving different meanings to some of the key vocabulary. Three words need to be considered: works (or ‘deeds’), justify, and the preposition ek, usually translated ‘by’.

In the quotation of Romans 3:28 above, it will be noted that Paul refers not to ‘works’ but to ‘works of the law’. Here, it is argued, may lie the clue to a reconciliation of James and Paul. In keeping with an approach to Paul’s theology that has been very influential in the last few decades, ‘works of the law’ is interpreted as referring to obedience to the Jewish law that is focused especially on maintaining the distinctive privileges of the Jewish people.78 These works, because they are tied to an outmoded covenant, cannot justify. But James refers to ‘works’ in general, focusing on matters such as acts of charity that fulfil the law of love. Thus Paul excludes only certain kinds of ‘works’ from justification; and there is no contradiction with James’ claim that ‘works’ (of another kind) are instrumental in justification.

There is, however, reason to question this specific view of Paul’s ‘works of the law’. On the one hand, Paul’s concept of ‘works’ is much broader than this interpretation would suggest. Romans 9:10–12 is the closest we get in Pauline literature to a definition of ‘works’: ‘Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad – in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls – she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” ’ In these verses, it is clear that ‘works’ includes anything that is done, ‘good or bad’. In Romans 4, the ‘works’ of Abraham, in which he could not boast, must clearly be ‘good works’. And yet Romans 4 is closely tied to the argument in 3:20–28, where ‘works of the law’ is used. Paul does, then, refer to a specific class of ‘works’: those that are done in obedience to the Mosaic law. Yet, as the texts noted above make clear, these particular works stand in for ‘works’ in general: Paul intends to exclude all works – not just certain works or works done in a certain spirit – as a basis for justification.79

On the other side of the fence, it is not clear that we can confine James’ ‘works’ to acts of charity. To be sure, he has just been speaking about activities that fulfil the law of love and cites as an illustration acts of charity in 2:15–16. But his specific examples, drawn from the lives of Abraham and Rahab (vv. 21–25), do not clearly involve acts of charity. Particularly in Abraham’s case, the focus is on his obedience to God per se, with no inkling of any charity shown to others. Thus it would seem that both Paul and James are operating with an understanding of ‘works’ that is basically similar: anything done that is in obedience to God and in the service of God. The difference between Paul and James consists in the sequence of works and conversion: Paul denies any efficacy to pre-conversion works, but James is pleading for the absolute necessity of post-conversion works.

A second key word to consider is dikaioō, ‘justify’ or ‘consider righteous’. Paul uses this verb to denote the divine declaration that a sinful human being is, because of Christ and through his or her faith, ‘in the right’ before God. A respectable line of scholars and theologians claim that James, on the other hand, is using the verb to mean ‘demonstrate to be right’. The verb can have this sense, as Matthew 11:19 reveals: ‘But wisdom is proved right [edikaiōthē, ‘justified’] by her deeds.’ If James is using the verb with this sense, then, he would be referring to the demonstration of righteousness while Paul is referring to the declaration of righteousness. However, as we point out in the detailed notes on 2:21, this is unlikely to be the meaning of the verb in James. Both he and Paul appear to use it in the general sense, well attested in the Old Testament and Judaism, of a divine declaration of ‘right’ status, a being ‘vindicated’. To be sure, Paul invests the word with a great deal more significance than does James, tying it to some of his key theological themes in a web of meaning that shifts its ultimate theological sense a bit. Paul, for instance, in contrast to Judaism (and to James), often insists that a person can be justified before God the moment that he or she believes. James, on the other hand, focuses on what we might call ‘final’ justification, God’s vindication of a person on the day of judgment.80 But these differences in nuance and focus between Paul and James are not great enough to explain the tension between them.

Finally, third, we consider a small word, the preposition ek. Both Paul and James use this preposition when they refer to justification in terms of works. We suggest that a resolution of the apparent contradiction between James and Paul lies in giving this preposition a different sense in the two authors. It must be admitted that this difference cannot be established clearly from the texts themselves. We suggest the difference, rather, as the best option to resolve a theological tension. And we take this option, frankly, because we are convinced that God is the ultimate speaker behind both Paul and James, and it makes excellent sense, then, to find ways to avoid a contradiction in God’s address to us. As Protestant theologians have argued for many years, Paul uses the preposition ek in the relevant texts to indicate the instrument of justification: we are justified before God through our faith and not through our works. James, we suggest, is using the preposition in a looser sense, to say that works are necessarily involved in, or related to, God’s justifying verdict. To put it in another way: Paul teaches a monergistic view of justification and salvation: God provides it on the basis of the work of Christ; we appropriate it by faith. What James says in chapter 2, we think, can be squared with the monergistic approach. The answer to the problem, we would suggest, lies in reading James’ teaching about ‘works’ in light of Paul’s teaching that Christian works are themselves the product of God’s work of grace through the indwelling Holy Spirit. What appears on the surface to be synergism in James can, without contradiction with anything James says, be read in light of the monergism of Paul. While not explicitly taught by James, a monergistic interpretation fits well into the emphasis in chapter 2 on true faith. James, it will be remembered, is not arguing that a Christian must ‘add’ works to faith; he insists that true saving faith will ‘work’. It is but a short step from this insight to attributing the motive power of faith to the work of God. And, as T. Laato has shown, James gives evidence of a monergistic view of salvation in his emphasis on the creative power of the new birth in 1:18.81 At the theological level, then, we think that Paul and James are complementary rather than contradictory. Faith alone brings one into relationship with God in Christ – but true faith inevitably generates the works that God will take into account in his final decision about the fate of men and women.

It is true that ‘Paul and James move in this matter in different circles of thought, and the attempt to superimpose one circle on the other in order to determine their agreement or disagreement in detail is futile’.82 But what can be done is to understand the point each is making from within his own sphere of thought and word usage, and then to bring them together. When this is done, a unified, theologically coherent picture emerges. Paul fervently maintains that faith is the only human condition for the transfer of the sinner into the sphere of God’s grace. James says little about this initial transfer – although we should not overlook his statement that Christians have been ‘[given] . . . birth through the word of truth’ and that this process is due to the will of God (1:18). What James is concerned about is the attempt to eliminate works from having any role in the verdict rendered over our lives. While our union with Christ by faith is the sole basis for justification in God’s sight, the works necessarily produced as a result of that union are taken into account in God’s ultimate judgment over us.83

The law

Discussions about the relationship between James and Paul usually focus on the matter of justification, but another issue, the function of the law in the Christian life, presents its own problem. Indeed, Cadoux maintains that James and Paul are farther apart over this question than over justification.84 Luther’s critique of James made mention of this issue also; in his preface to James and Jude, he notes that James ‘calls the law a “law of liberty” though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin’. The difficulty touched on here by Luther is that Paul appears to absolve Christians from any obligation to the law; they have ‘died to the law’ (Rom. 7:4), are no longer ‘under the law’ (Rom. 6:14–15), but are ‘led by the Spirit’ (Gal. 5:18). James, however, implies that Christians must still be ‘keeping’ the law (4:11) and insists that ‘the whole law’ will be the standard of judgment (2:9–12). Without exploring here the question as to whether Paul completely eliminates the law as an authority for Christians – and passages such as 1 Corinthians 14:34, Ephesians 6:2–3 and Romans 8:7 should give us pause at this point – James’ perspective deserves further attention.

First, it is evident that James does not include the ceremonial commandments in his conception of the law. Never does he mention this aspect of the law, even when it would be natural for him to do so. Thus, in 2:10–11, where he argues that failure to obey ‘one point’ of the law is to be guilty of all of it, he cites as examples two commandments from the Decalogue, where the typical Jewish argument would have mentioned a minor ritual commandment to highlight the need to obey even seemingly inconsequential commands. We see already, then, that James is very far from a conservative Jewish attitude towards the law, for the ritual commandments were an inseparable and important part of the law in Judaism.

Second, the way James qualifies the law in three places is significant. He calls the law in 2:12 ‘the law that gives freedom’, in 1:25 ‘the perfect law that gives freedom’ and in 2:8, citing Leviticus 19:18, the ‘royal law’.85 Calling the law ‘perfect’ was customary among Jews, and descriptions of the liberating effect of law were common among both pagans and Jews.86 But the context in which James uses the description suggests that he intends more than this. Crucial here is the fact that ‘the perfect law’ in 1:25 seems to be equivalent to ‘the word of truth’ by which Christians are given ‘birth’ (1:18), the ‘word planted in you’ that brings salvation (1:21). Since this ‘word’ is clearly the gospel, ‘the law that gives freedom’ must have some relationship to the gospel also. The description of the law as ‘royal’ (basilikos) in 2:8 suggests something similar; for while, again, the Old Testament law could be described by Jews as ‘royal’ (Philo, Posterity of Cain 102), the word here must be seen in the light of James’ mention of the kingdom of God in 2:5. Thus the law is ‘royal’ because it pertains to those in the kingdom, or perhaps because it was promulgated by the King. Since it is the ‘love command’ of Leviticus 19:18, the command which Jesus singled out as the summary of the law, that is quoted here, there is probably some allusion to Jesus’ own teaching.

We find, then, that James’ use of the word ‘law’ (nomos) cannot be separated from the gospel associated with Jesus. Many scholars, in fact, would suggest that James identifies law and gospel; that, in a manner similar to some of the early fathers (see Barnabas 2:6), he views Jesus’ teaching as a ‘new law’.87 But while there is much evidence to suggest that James puts Jesus’ teaching on a par with the Old Testament law, it is impossible to eliminate the Old Testament law from James’ conception of nomos (see 2:9–11). Mitton helpfully suggests a relationship between James’ ‘word planted in you’ (1:21) and the law that Jeremiah predicted would be written on the heart in the administration of the new covenant (Jer. 31:31–34).88

What this suggests is that James upholds the authority of the Old Testament law, but only as it has been ‘fulfilled’ in Jesus’ teaching and work. He does not consciously separate the teaching of Jesus from the Old Testament law, because these have become intermingled under the authority of Jesus, the inaugurator of the kingdom of God.

Viewed in this light, the alleged conflict between Paul and James over the law vanishes. For, as was the case with justification, the two are using the crucial term differently. Paul uses ‘law’, nomos, to denote the law given through Moses and contests the continuing validity of that law as part of the Mosaic covenant. But even he can speak of a ‘law of Christ’ (Gal. 6:2; cf. 1 Cor. 9:21) to which Christians are subject. James’ ‘royal law’ may have more focus on the Old Testament than does Paul’s ‘law of Christ’ (the point is debated), but the two are not far from each other.

The Christian life

It is in this area that James makes his most important contribution; ‘no other book of the New Testament concentrates so exclusively on ethical questions’.89 A full treatment of this subject would accordingly demand virtually a repetition of the commentary itself, but a few general topics deserve consideration here.

As we emphasized earlier, it is important that James’ ethics be seen in the context of his eschatology. His advice, while often having the quality of timeless ‘wisdom’ teaching, is nevertheless always oriented to the ‘saved but not yet glorified’ situation of his readers. Accordingly, he recognizes that his readers will not be able to escape entirely from their tendency to sin (‘we all stumble in many ways’, 3:2), but he encourages them to work strenuously towards the goal of ‘perfection’ or ‘completeness’ (teleios, 1:4). It is the condition of ‘doubleness’, the human condition of being divided between loyalty to God and the attractive lure of the world, that bothers James more than anything. He condemns his readers as ‘double-souled’ people (dipsychos, 4:8), and uses the same term to describe the doubter, who is like ‘a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind’ (1:6). This divided condition manifests itself in speech, as when the same tongue both blesses God and curses other people (3:9–10), and, in a different way, when people fail to live out their faith in practice (the theme of 1:19 – 2:26). James’ earnest desire, that Christians leave behind this unstable and inconsistent halfway faith and progress towards a wholehearted, unvarying commitment to God in thought, word and deed, is at the heart of his homily.90 John Wesley’s description of Christian perfection captures it very well: ‘In one view it is purity of intention, dedicating all the life to God. It is the giving God all our heart; it is one desire and design ruling all our tempers. It is the devoting, not a part, but all our soul, body, and substance to God.’91

James’ insistence that Christians do, not just listen to, the word of God, and his demand for works as integral to faith, are part and parcel of this emphasis. Obedience to the ‘law that gives freedom’ – that is, the demand of God brought to its climax by Jesus – must be heartfelt and consistent. And this obedience has an important social aspect. The command to ‘love our neighbours as ourselves’ is ‘the royal law’ (2:8). James is insistent that ‘religion that . . . [is] pure and faultless’ must manifest itself in concern for the underprivileged and disadvantaged (‘look after orphans and widows in their distress’, 1:27) and in a meek and unselfish attitude towards others (3:13–18). Favouritism towards the rich violates this ‘royal law’ (2:1–7), as does speaking evil of others (4:11–12).

Prayer is another part of the Christian life that James illuminates for us. As we have seen, he encourages prayer by reminding us that God generously and without reproach gives good gifts to those who ask him. But James is especially concerned to ensure that prayers be offered in the right spirit. Faith, an unvarying, wholehearted commitment of ourselves to God, is the basic requirement (1:6–8); it is ‘the prayer of faith’ that will bring deliverance from physical disease (5:15). If faith is the condition for God’s response to us, selfishness is that attitude which will often frustrate the effectiveness of our prayers: ‘When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures’ (4:3). It is the ‘righteous person’ who experiences the full power of prayer; for that person, prayer ‘is powerful and effective’ (5:16).

Wisdom

James mentions ‘wisdom’ in two passages: 1:5 and 3:13–18. In the former, James encourages his readers to ask God for wisdom if they lack it. It may be that James mentions wisdom here because it is the quality needed if his readers are going to persevere in their trials (vv. 2–4); or, alternatively, because wisdom is what is needed to bring about ‘perfection’. In 3:13–18 James castigates some jealous, divisive people in the church who were apparently claiming to be wise by contrasting the kind of wisdom they possess – ‘earthly, unspiritual, demonic’ – with the true wisdom that ‘comes from heaven’. The latter is characterized by good deeds and a humble attitude and produces virtues that are conducive to harmonious relations with others. James’ use of the term is very much in keeping with the Old Testament emphasis, where wisdom is said to be the gift of God (Prov. 2:6) and is prized so highly because it helps its possessor to understand the will of the Lord and, more importantly, to obey it.

In Jewish writings, wisdom was sometimes identified with the law, the Torah, and took on more metaphysical connotations. James shows no contact with this background.92 More interesting is the possible connection between James’ wisdom and the Spirit. A close relationship between these two is suggested in the Old Testament (Isa. 11:2), and James’ description of the virtues produced by wisdom (3:17) has some resemblance to Paul’s description of the ‘fruit of the Spirit’ (Gal. 5:22–23). ‘Wisdom in James’, suggests Davids, ‘functions as the Spirit does in Paul.’93 This may be true, but James has not given us enough material to enable us to decide whether he himself intended the parallel. And, in general, it cannot be said that wisdom has a prominent role in James; he uses it in only two texts and does not seek to develop the idea beyond what was already well established in the tradition.94

Poverty and wealth

‘There is hardly a single element of the OT-late Jewish piety–poverty tradition which is not also encountered in the letter of James.’95 This being so, it is necessary to know something of this tradition in order to understand James’ important contribution.

In the Old Testament, this tradition can be summarized in four points. First, God has a particular concern for the poor, the downtrodden, the outcasts. God is ‘a father to the fatherless, a defender of widows’ (Ps. 68:5); ‘he defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing’ (Deut. 10:18). Accordingly, second, God’s people must manifest a similar concern for helpless people. The Deuteronomy passage continues, ‘And you are to love those who are foreigners’, and one of the most frequent denunciations that the prophets brought against Israel was that they failed to care for the poor (cf. Amos 2:6–7). A third Old Testament tradition, particularly prominent in the Psalms, is the tendency to identify ‘the poor’ (ānî) with the pious, the righteous (see esp. Pss 10; 37:8–17; 72:2, 4; Isa. 29:19). Here there is a mingling of social and religious concepts that is the source of much confusion. Economic lack and social persecution become closely related to religious piety. In their oppression, ‘the poor’ put forth their oppressed condition as a basis for their plea to God for deliverance: ‘But as for me, I am poor and needy; may the Lord think of me. You are my help and my deliverer; you are my God, do not delay’ (Ps. 40:17). In the situation in which these psalms were written, it is clear that many of the righteous were also suffering oppression at the hands of the wealthy. This leads to the fourth aspect of the tradition, more prominent in later Jewish writings than in the Old Testament: wealthy and powerful people tend to become identified with the wicked.96

The teaching of Jesus is strongly influenced by this background, and James undoubtedly draws from that teaching as well as from the Old Testament. He reminds his readers that ‘God [has] chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith’ (2:5), where we are reminded of our Lord’s beatitude, ‘Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God’ (Luke 6:20). Picking up directly the Old Testament theme, James sets forth care of the orphan and widow as a basic part of true religion (1:27). In a text that closely resembles the prophets’ denunciations, James pronounces judgment on the rich (5:1–6). And like the ‘poor’ in the Psalms, James’ readers need to look to the Lord with patience and endurance for deliverance (5:7–11). Neither James nor the prophets, however, condemn the wealthy just because they are wealthy. James, for instance, enumerates the specific sins for which ‘the rich’ will be judged: selfish hoarding of money (5:2–3), senseless luxury (5:5), defrauding the worker (5:4) and persecuting the righteous (5:6). That James does not condemn the rich as such is probably also demonstrated from 1:10–11, where ‘the rich’ may be Christians (see the commentary). Nevertheless, it is clear that most of James’ readers were poor, and that many were experiencing oppression from wealthy and powerful people. In this situation, the rich biblical tradition we have described provides James with a fruitful source of imagery and content.97

ANALYSIS

ADDRESS AND SALUTATION (1:1)

TRIALS AND CHRISTIAN MATURITY (1:2–18)

Letting trials accomplish their purpose (1:2–4)

Wisdom, prayer and faith (1:5–8)

Poverty and wealth (1:9–11)

The reward for persevering in trials (1:12)

Trials and temptations (1:13–18)

TRUE CHRISTIANITY SEEN IN ITS WORKS (1:19 – 2:26)

An exhortation regarding speech and anger (1:19–20)

‘Do’ the word (1:21–27)

Impartiality and the law of love (2:1–13)

The faith that saves (2:14–26)

DISSENSIONS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY (3:1 – 4:12)

The harmful effects of the uncontrolled tongue (3:1–12)

Overcoming dissensions through true wisdom (3:13 – 4:3)

A summons to repentance (4:4–10)

A prohibition of critical speech (4:11–12)

IMPLICATIONS OF A CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW (4:13 – 5:11)

A condemnation of arrogance (4:13–17)

A condemnation of those who misuse wealth (5:1–6)

An encouragement to endure patiently (5:7–11)

CONCLUDING EXHORTATIONS (5:12–20)

Oaths (5:12)

Prayer and healing (5:13–18)

A closing summons to action (5:19–20)

COMMENTARY

1. ADDRESS AND SALUTATION (1:1)

The first verse of James follows the usual ancient epistolary form used to introduce a letter. These letters typically began with an identification of the sender, a reference to the recipients and a greeting: e.g. ‘Antiochus to Julius, greetings’. New Testament letters expand this simple opening by elaborating each of these elements, sometimes at considerable length. In his letter to the Romans, for instance, Paul takes six verses to explain who he is before getting round to acknowledging his readers and greeting them. James’ expansions are much briefer. He adds only a brief title to his own name. Instead of identifying the recipients of his letter by name or place of residence, he describes them with a loaded, though ambiguous, theological phrase. And he retains the simple ‘greetings’ of most ancient letters.

1. The author of the letter introduces himself simply as James, or ‘Jacob’ (Greek Iakōbos; Heb. ya‘ăqōb; our English ‘James’ is derived from the Italian ‘Giacomo’). The simplicity of the identification points to the well-known ‘James the Just’, half-brother of the Lord (Gal. 1:19) and leader of the early Jerusalem church (cf. Acts 12:17; 15:13–21; 21:18–25). James does not claim apostolic authority, although Paul calls him an ‘apostle’ in Galatians 1:19. Rather, James chooses to characterize himself simply as a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. By calling himself servant (doulos, which could also be translated ‘slave’ [e.g. NLT; HCSB]), James shows that he considers his position to be one of humble service to his master, the Lord Jesus. But there is also a certain authority that comes from representing so majestic a master. Similarly, in the Old Testament the titles ‘servant of God’, ‘servant of the LORD’, ‘my servant’, and so on, are applied to authoritative figures, especially Moses (see Deut. 34:5; Dan. 9:11) and David (Jer. 33:21; Ezek. 37:25).

In the New Testament, the title is often given to the apostles and their associates (Acts 16:17; Rom. 1:1; Gal. 1:10; Phil. 1:1; Col. 4:12; Titus 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1; Jude 1). This is the only place in the New Testament where an individual is called a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. Some think that ‘Christ’ is not used as a title here, but is almost a proper name. But it is more likely that James intends both qualifications of Jesus to carry theological weight: Jesus is both the promised Messiah of Israel and the Lord to whom service is due. Interestingly, the only other time James refers to Jesus, he describes him with the same two titles (2:1).

James addresses his letter to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations. The ‘twelve tribes’ no longer existed physically, but the title had become a way of describing the regathered and spiritually renewed Israel that God would create in ‘the last days’ (see Ezek. 47:13–23; Matt. 19:28; Rev. 7:4–8; 21:12). ‘Scattered among the nations’ translates a Greek phrase using the word diaspora. This word was the technical name for the Jewish community that lived dispersed among the nations outside Palestine (see 2 Maccabees 1:27; John 7:35). Whether these terms retain a specifically Jewish orientation, and whether diaspora is to be taken literally or figuratively, is not clear. Certainly 1 Peter, which appears to be directed to Gentiles, uses diaspora in the latter sense: Christians are those who live as ‘exiles’ from their true, heavenly homeland (1:1). The early date, Jewish atmosphere and circumstances of James’ position, however, favour a more literal meaning here. In his view, it is those Jews who have acknowledged Jesus as their Messiah who constitute the ‘Israel’ of his day. James situates his letter squarely in a well-known Jewish genre of ‘diaspora letter’: he writes as a respected Jerusalem leader to the people of Israel living outside the Holy Land. James may be addressing himself to the diaspora in general. But perhaps it is more likely that his intended audience is limited. We can associate James’ address with the reference in Acts 11:19 to those who had been ‘scattered’ (diaspeirō, the verb used here, is cognate to diaspora) by persecution and were preaching the gospel to Jews ‘as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch’. These could well have been former parishioners of James’ whom he now addresses in a pastoral letter.

James’ salutation as such is very brief: Greetings (chairein). This is a typical Greek epistolary greeting (cf. Acts 23:26) and reflects James’ familiarity with Greek style. Besides Acts 23:26 this particular greeting occurs in the New Testament only in James’ letter embodying the Jerusalem Council decision (Acts 15:23) – a parallel that tends to confirm common authorship.

2. TRIALS AND CHRISTIAN MATURITY (1:2–18)

A clear and systematic progression of thought is difficult to find in the letter of James. He prefers to move from topic to topic, sometimes joining them with a loose connection in subject matter, sometimes using a play on words to make the transition. Chapter 1:2–18 contains two of these wordplays. ‘Greetings’ (chairein) in 1:1 is picked up by ‘joy’ (chara) in 1:2, and the verb ‘lack’ (leipō) connects 1:4 and 1:5. Other verbal contacts indicate continuity in subject matter. The words ‘trial’ (peirasmos), ‘test’, ‘testing’ (both using the root dokim-) and ‘perseverance’ (hypomonē ; hypomenō) join 1:12–16 to 1:2–4; the term ‘mature’, ‘perfect’ (teleios), occurs in both 1:4 and 1:17; and the theme of God’s giving occurs in both 1:5 and 1:17.

No single specific theme emerges from this section, but two key motifs bind these verses together. First, James encourages perseverance in the midst of trials. He tackles this issue at the beginning of the passage (vv. 2–4) and again in verse 12. And much of the material in verses 2–18 can be tied to this theme more or less directly. Second, and perhaps even more fundamental, is the motif of spiritual wholeness, or integrity. Perseverance in trials has as its ultimate outcome believers who are ‘mature and complete, not lacking anything’ (v. 4). The opposite of this whole and consistent Christian is the one who doubts, the ‘double-minded’ person, who will not find his or her prayers for wisdom answered (vv. 5–8). James here urges his readers to adopt an attitude towards God that he views as crucial in the Christian life: a consistent and undivided commitment to God in Christ. So broad is this motif that the other issues James raises in verses 2–18 can also be related to it. By recognizing their status before God, both poor and rich Christians will preserve their integrity before the Lord (vv. 9–11). Enduring trials of various kinds (v. 12) is naturally essential to maintaining spiritual wholeness. And trials can be successfully resisted only by remembering that God, while in some sense the source of those trials, never seeks our downfall (vv. 13–15). Quite the contrary, James concludes: God is the source of every good gift we enjoy – including the new birth that makes us the first stage in God’s plan to bring ‘wholeness’ to all of creation (vv. 16–18).

A. Letting trials accomplish their purpose (1:2–4)

Context

After the initial epistolary opening, most New Testament letter-writers express appreciation for their readers in the form of a thanksgiving or offer a blessing to God for his abundant spiritual provision (e.g. Col. 1:3–14; 1 Pet. 1:3–9). James, however, begins immediately to exhort his readers to endure trials. The prominence of this topic suggests that the tough times the believers were facing were a key reason for his writing to them. James’ exhortation to endure trials takes a form very similar to that used also by Paul (Rom. 5:2–4) and Peter (1 Pet. 1:5–7). The difficulties that inevitably afflict believers have the purpose of deepening commitment to God in Christ. But this purpose can be accomplished only if they respond in the right way to their problems. As a first-century Jew, James would have been familiar with the problem of undeserved suffering, an issue that the persecutions endured by Jews during the previous two centuries had put centre stage. ‘Why does God allow the righteous to suffer?’ is, indeed, one of the most perplexing and difficult questions that God’s people can ask. James gives no complete answer. But implicit in what James says is a conviction that the suffering of believers is always under the providential control of a God who wants only the best for his people.

Comment

2. James opens the body of his letter with two very characteristic features. First, he calls his readers my brothers and sisters. The Greek word used here (adelphoi, sometimes translated ‘brothers’) addresses all the believers in the audience, both men and women, as siblings in the family of God. James addresses his readers fourteen times (three times with the qualification ‘my dear’) in this way, often to introduce a new section. This affectionate address sets a strong pastoral tone for the many exhortations of the letter. And, second, he issues a command: consider it pure joy. ‘Pure’ renders a Greek word (pas, sometimes translated ‘all’) that might stress the unmixed quality of joy – ‘count it only joy’ or ‘nothing but joy’ – but probably emphasizes rather the quality of the joy (NLT ‘great joy’). What is remarkable about this command is that it applies to a situation in which a joyful reaction would be most unnatural: whenever you face trials of many kinds. The word translated ‘trial’, peirasmos, has two basic meanings in the New Testament. It can refer to the inner enticement to sin, as in 1 Timothy 6:9: ‘Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction.’ At other times it denotes external afflictions, particularly persecution (cf. 1 Pet. 4:12). In several verses it is possible that both meanings should be included (e.g. Matt. 26:41 and parallels).

In the present verse, the use of face (lit. ‘fall into’) and the replacement of peirasmos by ‘testing’ in verse 3 strongly favour the second meaning. The trials which James mentions probably refer first of all to those challenges that come with professing faith in Christ: hostility from ‘the world’ (see 1:27; 4:4), and being hauled into court, perhaps on trumped-up charges (2:6; see 5:6). See especially 5:10–11, which becomes a kind of bookend in the letter to the concern about suffering mentioned here: ‘Brothers and sisters, as an example of patience in the face of suffering, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. As you know, we count as blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job’s perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.’ However, by emphasizing that he is writing about trials of many kinds, James indicates that he is also referring to difficulties that are common to all people as a result of sin, such as illness (cf. 5:14) and financial reverses (cf. 1:9). Whatever they may be, trials are to be considered by the believer as an occasion for rejoicing.

3. The reason that believers should react with joy when faced with various trials is that these trials are means of testing through which God works to perfect faith. The word translated testing, dokimion, is rare, being found elsewhere in the New Testament only in 1 Peter 1:7, and in the Septuagint in Psalm 11:7 (Eng. Ps. 12:6) and Proverbs 27:21. In 1 Peter this word appears to denote the result of the testing process: ‘the proven genuineness of your faith’. In both Septuagint occurrences, however, the word refers to the process by which silver or gold is refined by fire. This is probably the meaning intended by James: suffering is a means by which faith, tested in the fires of adversity, can be purified of any dross and thereby strengthened. The idea, then, is not that trials determine whether a person has faith or not. Rather they strengthen the faith that is already present.

Perseverance (hypomonē) is the intended outcome of this testing process. This word occurs frequently in the New Testament to indicate the quality required by Christians as they face adversity, temptation and persecution (cf., e.g. Luke 8:15; 2 Thess. 1:4; Rev. 2:2; 13:10). ‘Steadfastness’ (ESV), ‘endurance’ (NLT), ‘staying power’ (Ropes) and ‘heroic endurance’ (Dibelius) are attempts to capture the meaning of the word. N. T. Wright helpfully distinguishes between ‘patience’ (makrothymia), which Christians are to exercise towards people, and hypomonē, with which they are to respond to problems : ‘[endurance] is what faith, hope and love bring to an apparently impossible situation, [patience] what they show to an apparently impossible person.’98 This hypomonē is not a meek, passive submission to circumstances, but a strong, active, challenging response in which the satisfying realities of Christianity are proven in practice.

Believers are asked to respond to trials with joy, then, because they know that they are working to produce a deeper, stronger, more certain faith. The sequence of ideas, and of terminology also, is closely paralleled in two other New Testament passages: Romans 5:3–4 and 1 Peter 1:6–7. In the former, Paul reminds the Romans that suffering (thlipsis) produces endurance (hypomonēn katergazetai) and endurance produces character (dokimēn). Peter speaks of suffering as testing ‘the . . . genuineness [dokimion] of your faith’. Some scholars are convinced that direct borrowing is the only explanation of these similarities in thought and language. But the use of these words to express the process and outcome of the testing of faith through trials is natural and has, as we have seen, some Old Testament precedent (cf. also Sirach 2:1–6). It is probable, then, that all three authors have utilized language from a popular early Jewish and Christian tradition.

4. In the texts mentioned earlier (Rom. 5:3–4; 1 Pet. 1:6–7), Paul and Peter imply an almost ‘automatic’ process by which trials lead to hope and security. James, typically, interrupts the ‘process’ with a command. Believers are to let perseverance finish its work. The NIV, along with most other English translations, views the work as the culmination of perseverance by using the possessive pronoun its. This is probably an accurate interpretation of what James intends here. He claims that believers who bear up faithfully under trials will find that their perseverance attains the end for which it was appointed: it will accomplish its intended effect in the lives of believers. What is this intended effect? The final clause in the verse tells us: believers will be mature and complete, not lacking anything. To be mature and complete is the state that should result from a genuinely Christian response to trials. The words finish and mature in this verse translate the same Greek word, teleios, furnishing an example of the way James likes to use linking words to carry the flow of his argument. This Greek word links the two parts of this verse: the ‘finished’ (teleion) work of perseverance leads to ‘mature’ (teleioi) Christians. The NIV is in line with many other English translations that render teleios here as ‘mature’ (e.g. NRSV; HCSB; CEB). The word can certainly have this sense: Noah, for instance, is called a teleios man par excellence (Gen. 6:9; Sirach 44:17). Most scholars think that Jesus uses the word in this sense when he calls on his disciples to be teleios (Matt. 5:48). But the word could also have the stronger sense ‘perfect’ (e.g. NASB; ESV). James uses this same word three other times, referring to God’s gift (1:17), to the ‘law that gives freedom’ (1:25) and to those who are ‘never at fault in what they say’ (3:2). (James uses the cognate verb in 2:22, ‘His faith was made complete by what he did’; see Jas 2:8 and 5:11, where words related to this one are also used.) The NIV renders ‘perfect’ in each of these three other verses, and ‘perfect’ is probably a better translation here also.99 The ultimate goal of trials that believers meet with fortitude and confidence in the Lord is not simply maturity but perfection. Of course this goal is not one that we will reach in this life: it is ultimately an eschatological gift – something towards which Christians are constantly to strive with all their power, but which will not in fact be attained until the culmination of the new age of salvation. Only then will Christians be not lacking anything in their panoply of virtues. James introduces here a key concern that will surface throughout his letter: perfection, or wholeness. And, as he so often does, James may be here reflecting the teaching of Jesus, who famously called on his disciples to ‘Be perfect . . . as your heavenly Father is perfect’ (Matt. 5:48).

Theology

Jesus warned his followers that they would have ‘trouble’ (John 16:33). Paul likewise told his converts that they would ‘go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God’ (Acts 14:22). So it has always been for the followers of Christ. Trials may be relatively easy (social dislocation, verbal mockery) or very difficult (severe illness, even death) – and the contemporary church around the world is experiencing all these kinds of trials. We can’t avoid trials; but we can make the decision to respond to them with confidence in God’s providence and a determination to glorify God in the midst of those trials (a great theme of 1 Peter). James encourages such perseverance by reminding us of the perfection of Christian character that is God’s goal in our trials.

B. Wisdom, prayer and faith (1:5–8)

Context

After encouraging his readers to embrace trials for the potential they have to spur spiritual growth (vv. 2–4), James exhorts his readers to pray in undivided faith for the wisdom that a gracious God is anxious to give to those who ask (vv. 5–8). As he often does, James uses a verbal link to connect these two brief paragraphs. Believers should be directed towards the goal of perfection, ‘lacking’ nothing (v. 4b); but if they ‘lack’ wisdom, they should pray for it (v. 5a). A sequence in content is not immediately clear. James gives us little help, using the vague Greek conjunction de (a weak ‘but’ or ‘and’) to introduce verse 5. We find more potential help in Jewish wisdom sources, which sometimes bring together some of the topics that James addresses in verses 2–8. Some of these passages connect wisdom with perfection; see, for example, Wisdom of Solomon 9:6: ‘Even if one is perfect among the sons of men, yet without the wisdom that comes from you he will be regarded as nothing.’ See also Proverbs 8:35: ‘those who find me [wisdom] find life and receive favour from the LORD’ (and also, e.g. Sirach 4:17).100 Several other texts suggest that wisdom is that quality needed if God’s people are going to endure trials with fortitude and godliness (see Calvin; Davids). And a few passages even bring together the themes of testing, wisdom and spiritual integrity. Wisdom of Solomon 10:5 claims that it was wisdom that preserved Abraham ‘blameless before God’ when God tested him by requiring him to sacrifice his son Isaac. James regularly alludes to these kinds of Jewish wisdom traditions, so there is good reason to think his train of thought here may reflect these patterns.101 The spiritual perfection that is the goal of trials (vv. 2–4) will only be achieved when divine wisdom is present. And wisdom can be had for the asking – albeit, an asking that is sincere and uncorrupted (vv. 6–8).

Comment

5. One of the most important virtues that a Christian may lack is wisdom. Wisdom (sophia) plays a central role in the Old Testament book of Proverbs, and in many intertestamental books such as The Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach.102 These books, with their terse, hortatory style and practical emphases, have exerted a significant influence on both James’ style and his content. In the tradition found in these works, wisdom is above all a practically oriented virtue that gives direction for the life of the godly person. ‘Insight’ into the will of God and the way it is to be applied in life are both given by wisdom (see Prov. 2:10–19; 3:13–14; 9:1–6, and the section on ‘Wisdom’ in the Introduction, pp. 69–70).

In promising his readers that God will give wisdom to those who ask, James reflects Old Testament teaching (Prov. 2:6a, ‘the LORD gives wisdom’). He probably also has in mind Jesus’ promise: ‘Ask and it will be given to you’ (Matt. 7:7a). And, like Jesus, James bases his confidence in God’s response on the character of God. God, James reminds us, gives generously to all without finding fault. The word translated generously (haplōs) occurs only here in the New Testament. It is from a root whose basic meaning is ‘single’, ‘simple’, a meaning retained in Paul’s use of the noun haplotēs in Ephesians 6:5 (cf. Col. 3:22): ‘Slaves, obey . . . in singleness of heart’ (NRSV). When used to describe giving, the idea of ‘singleness’ suggests the notion of generosity (see 2 Cor. 8:2; 9:11, 13). This meaning is adopted by most translations of James 1:5, and many commentators defend it (see especially the full discussion in Hort). Nevertheless, the idea of ‘singleness’ suggesting God’s undivided, unwavering intent may be closer to James’ meaning.103 The related adjective, haplous, may have this connotation in Luke 11:34 (see Matt. 6:22),104 and we have seen that James is thoroughly familiar with Jesus’ teaching. The Septuagint also tends to use the word in this sense. Proverbs 10:9 is a good example: ‘Whoever walks in integrity [haplōs] walks securely, but whoever takes crooked paths will be found out.’ Wisdom of Solomon 1:1–2, because of the way James echoes several of its themes, is also quite significant: ‘Love righteousness, you rulers of the earth, think of the Lord with uprightness, and seek him with sincerity of heart; because he is found by those who do not put him to the test, and manifests himself to those who do not distrust him.’105 Moreover, the meaning ‘single’, ‘without reservation’, fits well with the immediately following without finding fault and provides a clear, and probably intentional, contrast with the double-minded person of verses 7–8. James’ intent, then, would be to highlight God’s unreserved, uncalculating, unwavering intent to give his gift of wisdom to those who ask.

Not only is God’s giving wholehearted; it is also unmixed with reproach. ‘A fool’s gift’, according to Sirach, ‘will profit you nothing, for he has many eyes instead of one. He gives little and upbraids [oneidizei] much . . . ’ (20:14–15a). In contrast, God gives with ‘one eye’ (‘singly’, ‘simply’) and without finding fault (mē oneidizontos) – he does not reprimand us for past failures or remind us endlessly of the value of the gifts he gives. This verse, like the teaching of Jesus to which it is related (Matt. 7:7–11), encourages us to come boldly with our requests to the unwaveringly gracious God.

6. James turns from the manner in which God gives to the manner in which we are to ask. It is not clear that James is thinking specifically of the request for wisdom in verses 6–8; rather, he attaches to the specific subject of praying for wisdom general teaching about the importance of faith in prayer. God’s meeting of our requests, while not limited arbitrarily to a select number (he gives to all, v. 5), is limited by the manner in which we ask. It is not any request, made however selfishly and foolishly, that God grants, says James (see 4:1–3), but the request that is made when people believe and do not doubt. This same combination of words occurs in Jesus’ teaching about prayer, given in response to the amazement of the disciples when, at his command, the fig-tree had withered before their eyes: ‘Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig-tree, but also you can say to this mountain, “Go, throw yourself into the sea,” and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer’ (Matt. 21:21–22). The key terms, believe, or have faith, and doubt, have similar meanings in the two passages. Faith means more than a belief that God will give what we ask; it also includes confident, unwavering trust in God. Doubt translates a word (diakrinō) that means basically ‘to differentiate’. From this root idea it was extended to include the ideas of ‘judging’ (1 Cor. 14:29) and ‘disputing’ (Acts 11:2), and hence, in the middle voice, ‘to dispute with oneself ’, ‘to waver’, ‘to doubt’. James uses the same word in 2:4 to describe the ‘distinctions’ or ‘divisions’ which an undue attention to rich people can create in a church. The word suggests, then, not so much intellectual doubt as a basic conflict in loyalties – as, for instance, between God and ‘Money’ (Matt. 6:24) or God and ‘the world’ (Jas 4:4).

The because (gar) in the second part of the verse introduces the argument of verses 6b–8 as a whole. These verses provide, by a negative example, the reason why we must ask in faith: the one who lacks faith, the ‘divided person’, receives nothing from the Lord. At the end of verse 6, this person is compared to the motion of the sea. The image is not so much that of the wave rushing shorewards as of the constant, restless surging of a body of water.106 Like the surface of the sea, never having the same appearance from moment to moment, shifting and moving according to the direction and strength of the wind, the divided person has no fixed beliefs and direction. Having no ‘anchor for the soul’ (Heb. 6:19), such people are a prey to every shifting wind of doctrine and contrary storm of opposition and persecution, and their loyalty to God is constantly threatened. They do not possess that unwavering confidence in God, uninfluenced by adversity and diverse opinions, that receives from the Lord what is asked.

7–8. The correct punctuation of these two verses is difficult to determine (most of our earliest New Testament manuscripts had no punctuation). Most English versions place the description of the ‘double-minded’ person in verse 8 in apposition to ‘that person’ of verse 7, as in the NIV: That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do (see also e.g. ESV, NRSV). But the RSV takes the ‘double-minded person’ to be the subject of the verb ‘receive’ in verse 7: ‘For that person must not suppose that a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways, will receive anything from the Lord.’ In the NIV rendering, ‘that person’ is identified with ‘the doubter’ of verse 6b and is criticized for thinking that his or her prayers will be answered. If the RSV punctuation is adopted, however, ‘that person’ is identified with ‘the one asking’ in verse 6a, who is reminded that doubters will not have their requests answered. Probably the first alternative is better, because it is natural to take ‘that person’ as a somewhat derogatory designation of ‘the doubter’ who was just introduced. People characterized by doubt and division must not expect that God will respond to their requests, for they are insincere and inconsistent in their allegiance to God.

The word double-minded (dipsychos) means literally ‘double-souled’, a suggestive indication of the depths of the division within this person. The word is used here for the first time in Greek literature, and some think James himself may have coined it.107 But however new the word may be, the idea is not. The Old Testament characterizes the sinner as having a ‘divided heart’ (Ps. 12:2; Hos. 10:2) and pronounces a blessing on those who pursue God with ‘a whole heart’ (Ps. 119:2). The rabbis captured the essential sinfulness of human beings by depicting them as having two tendencies, good and evil, warring in the soul. And Jesus, when asked by a scribe what was the greatest commandment, quoted Deuteronomy 6:5: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind’ (Matt. 22:37). To have a fundamental cleavage in one’s basic attitude towards God; to be believing now one way, now another – this is the direct opposite of the faith James urges us to exhibit in prayer (v. 6a). Certainly God does not answer prayers uttered in such unbelief.

Theology

The ‘double-mindedness’ that James criticizes here is the antithesis both of that ‘wholeness’ or ‘perfection’ (teleios) which is the goal of Christian living (v. 4) and of God’s ‘single’, ‘wholehearted’ character (v. 5). This desire for singleness and purity of intention is a leading theme in verses 2–8, and occurs throughout the letter (see esp. 4:4–10, where James again uses the word dipsychos [v. 8]).

C. Poverty and wealth (1:9–11)

Context

James turns rather abruptly from the issue of prayer to the distinction between rich and poor people. Once again, then, we are left to wonder how James may want us to connect this new topic with the others in this context. James provides no explicit indication of what that relation might be, so the connection can only be determined by analysing the meaning of these verses in light of the surrounding ones. But the meaning of these verses is also quite disputed. The heart of the paragraph is a contrast between ‘believers in humble circumstances’ and ‘the rich’. Both groups are exhorted by James to ‘take pride’ or ‘boast’: the humble Christians in their ‘high position’ and the rich in their ‘humiliation’. James makes quite clear that the humble people are believers; but what of the rich people?108 The trend among modern interpreters has been to identify the rich as non-Christians.109 James would then be using scornful irony in verse 10, as he exhorts the rich to ‘take pride in’ the only thing that will be left to them in the judgment: their condemnation, described in verses 10b–11. On the other hand, the majority of older commentaries, along with some modern ones, think that the rich people are Christians.110 They think that James is encouraging these believers not to take pride in their wealth, but in their identification with Christ – what would appear in the eyes of the world to be ‘humiliation’. Verses 10b–11, then, ground the exhortation to take pride in humiliation by reminding believers that wealth and social status are transitory. A decision between these two very different interpretive options is difficult, and we will note evidence that goes in both directions in what follows. We very tentatively conclude, however, that the rich people of verses 10–11 are Christians.

How, then, does James’ exhortation to these two different kinds of believers fit into this context? Some think that James intended no logical progression of thought and that verses 9–11 begin an essentially separate subject. Other scholars discern a connection to the theme of trials, introduced in verse 2 and taken up again in verse 12: poverty may be the most outstanding and difficult trial facing the readers of the letter (Hort; Mußner; Davids; Allison). Still others suggest that James’ discussion of the ‘double-minded’ person leads him to speak about that area of life that is most often troublesome in creating divided loyalties in our attitude towards God: the conflict between God and mammon (Tasker). While admitting that either of these ideas may have influenced James in his ordering of topics, we must note that James makes neither explicit. It is perhaps better, then, not to tie this section too closely to either of these topics.

Comment

9. The Greek text of verses 9–11 refers to two contrasting individuals. Although the Greek uses singular forms throughout, most modern English versions appropriately use plural forms to avoid the need to use third-person masculine forms which, in modern English, tend to connote males in distinction from females (see e.g. NRSV; NLT; CEB). Hence NIV refers in verse 9 to believers in humble circumstances. This language suggests a Christian who occupies a low position on the socio-economic scale – one who is relatively poor and powerless. This interpretation is warranted because the Greek word James uses here, tapeinos, is used in the Old Testament with this meaning (cf. Pss 10:18; 34:18; 102:17; Isa. 11:4; Amos 2:7). More significant is that James contrasts the person who is tapeinos with one who is plousios, ‘rich’ (v. 10). If James was writing to Jewish Christians in Palestine and Syria, many, if not most, of his readers would have been poor. We know of a famine that struck at about this time, and it is probable that Christians, ostracized by much of the populace, would have suffered particularly severely (see Acts 11:28–29). In the midst of such afflictions, Christians whose position in worldly terms is low indeed are to take pride in their high position. To take pride, or ‘boast’ (ESV), means in this context not the arrogant boasting of the self-important, but the joyous pride possessed by the person who values what God values. The word translated high position (hypsos) is used elsewhere in the New Testament to describe the heavenly realm to which Christ ascended (Eph. 4:8) and from which the Holy Spirit descends (Luke 24:49). By faith believers now belong to that heavenly realm as its citizens (Phil. 3:20) and also await from heaven the Lord Jesus, who will transform our ‘lowly bodies’ to be like his ‘glorious body’ (Phil. 3:21). We may suggest, then, that high position includes believers’ present enjoyment of their exalted spiritual status as well as their hope of participation in the glorious eternal kingdom inaugurated by Christ. It is just this combination of present status and future inheritance that James singles out in a verse that is almost a commentary on the meaning of hypsos (2:5): ‘Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?’

10. Rich people, like poor people, must look beyond their outward physical circumstances to the abiding spiritual values and circumstances of the unseen ‘heavenly realm’. The antithetical contrast between ‘poor’ and ‘rich’ picks up a common biblical theme. This theme developed particularly in the later Old Testament period, when the ‘poor’ (Heb. ‘ānî) became closely identified with the humble, afflicted saints who trusted God for deliverance. Similarly, the ‘rich’ were often linked to godless oppressors who trusted in their wealth for deliverance. God promises to exalt the former group, but to judge the latter. The hope expressed by Mary in the Magnificat is typical of this tradition: ‘He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty’ (Luke 1:52–53; see also the section ‘Poverty and wealth’ in the Introduction, pp. 70–72).

With this tradition in mind, many commentators think that the rich in verse 10 must refer to unbelievers. They point out, further, that ‘rich’ (plousios) is never used of a Christian in James (except in a spiritual sense), that James 5:1–6 pronounces judgment upon the rich generally, and that 1:10b–11 identifies the ‘humiliation’ of the rich person with condemnation in the last judgment. Those who take this view generally suggest that the exhortation to take pride in humiliation is ironic: ‘The rich man has had his day; all he can expect from the future is humiliation; that is the only thing left for him to “boast” about.’111 The use of irony is, however, not plainly indicated, and it would seem to be somewhat out of place. A serious exhortation to take pride fits much better; and in this case, the rich must be believers. This alternative finds support in the syntax, since the key word that governs both verses is adelphos (‘brother’, translated ‘believers’ in NIV). This suggests that the simple adjective plousios (‘rich’) in verse 10 is, like tapeinos (‘humble’) in verse 9, dependent on this key word.112

Rather than taking verses 10b–11 as explanatory of the humiliation, then, we can understand them as providing a reason for rich Christians to take pride in humiliation: the transitory nature of this world renders confidence in riches an undependable prop. Isaiah 40:6–8, to which James clearly alludes in verses 10b–11, makes just this point: ‘all people’ fade away, in contrast to the word of God that stands for ever (and see also the use of this text in 1 Pet. 1:23–25). Psalm 49:16–17 contains a similar warning about wealth: ‘Do not be overawed when others grow rich, when the splendour of their houses increases; for they will take nothing with them when they die, their splendour will not descend with them.’ James draws from this biblical tradition to remind wealthy Christians that riches do not endure and that they must be constantly on guard against placing too much emphasis on what they cannot carry away with them into the next world.

What, then, is the humiliation in which these rich Christians are to boast? Two related ideas may be suggested. First, rich Christians should remember that, however ‘exalted’ they may seem to be in the eyes of the world, their status before God is different. They must consciously maintain this perspective on their true, spiritual position in order to experience the blessings of God’s good pleasure. James may well have in mind the words of Jesus to which he refers in 4:10: ‘those who humble themselves will be exalted’ (Matt. 23:12). A second, related, idea is that humiliation may suggest believers’ own identification with Jesus Christ, who ‘humbled himself ’ (Phil. 2:8) and who was considered of no account in the world.

James, then, exhorts both poor and rich Christians to remember that the sole basis for their confidence is their identification with Jesus Christ. Poor believers, insignificant and of no account in the eyes of the world, are to rejoice in their relationship with the Lord who has been exalted to the highest position in the universe. Rich believers, well off and secure in their possessions, with great status in the eyes of the world, are to remember that their only lasting security comes through their relationship with the ‘man of suffering’, ‘despised and rejected by mankind’. Both types of Christians, in other words, must look at their lives from a heavenly, not an earthly, perspective.

11. This verse continues the allusion to Isaiah 40:6–7, describing in more detail the ‘passing away’ mentioned in verse 10. The NIV, along with most other English versions, translates the four main verbs in the first part of the verse with present tenses, an appropriate rendering in this context.113 The tense may, however, also suggest the suddenness of the action.114 The image of the quickly fading flower would have been a familiar one for Middle Eastern readers who annually saw the early spring flowers wither suddenly under the sun’s merciless heat. The word translated in NIV scorching heat (kausōn) could also be translated ‘scorching wind’, as in NASB; the word occurs several times in the Septuagint to denote the ‘east wind’, the hot desert wind, and is frequent in images of judgment; for example, Hosea 13:15: ‘ . . . even though he [Ephraim] thrives among his brothers. An east wind from the LORD will come, blowing in from the desert; his spring will fail and his well dry up. His storehouse will be plundered of all its treasures.’ The point of the botanical comparison is explicitly summarized in verse 11b: just as the flower, seemingly flourishing one day, is dead the next, so rich people will fade away even while they go about their business. The verb fade away (marainō) clearly connotes death here. Business is a somewhat periphrastic rendering of the Greek word that James uses here (poreia), which means ‘journey’, and, in an extended, metaphorical sense, ‘way of life’. In this context, and in the light of James 4:13, the word may connote the profit-motivated business trip in the midst of which rich Christians are suddenly ‘taken away’.

Theology

If our interpretation of verse 10 is correct, James recognizes the existence of both rich and poor Christians in the communities to which he writes. And, indeed, we will always have people who are comparatively well off and people who are struggling to make ends meet in our churches. God’s people are, of course, called to help those who are in need, a point James will make clear himself (1:26–27; 2:14–17). The kind of loving concern and fellowship to which God calls us will be easier to attain if we listen to James’ advice in this paragraph. Believers must not define themselves by their worldly status but by their spiritual status: at once exalted because we sit with Christ in the heavenlies, and humiliated, because we serve the one whom this world rejects.115

D. The reward for persevering in trials (1:12)

Context

Our usual outline format does not always enable us to do justice to the structures of the biblical text. James 1:2–12, for instance, is a good example of an inclusio – a framing device which uses similar words and concepts at the beginning and at the end of a section. Note the verbal connections between verses 2–4 and verse 12: ‘trial’ (peirasmos) occurs in both verse 2 and verse 12; the verb ‘persevere’ (hypomenō) in verse 12 picks up ‘perseverance’ (hypomonē) in verses 3–4; and ‘test’ (dokimos) in verse 12 matches the ‘testing’ (dokimion) of verse 3. In the earlier passage, James exhorted believers to respond to trials with joy because such testing of their faith would produce perseverance. Now he promises a reward for those who successfully endure trials by remaining firm in the midst of the testing.

Comment

12. James began his letter with an exhortation about enduring trials and with a focus on the ultimate purpose of those trials: whole and consistent Christian commitment (vv. 2–4). The topics he introduces in verses 5–8 and 9–11, while important in their own right, are also related to this issue of trials-that-lead-to-perfection: praying in faith for the wisdom that enables one to endure trials and that itself brings perfection, and the trial of poverty and wealth, which can so easily deflect a person from the road to spiritual wholeness. Now he rounds off this discussion with a final exhortation to persevere in trials. To be sure, the verse takes the form of a blessing rather than an exhortation. But the ultimate intention of the text is clearly to hold out the reward at the end of a life of perseverance as an encouragement to bear up under trials. What James is suggesting, then, is that the Christian must practise ‘steadfastness’ in order to achieve a settled, steadfast character. As the athlete endures bodily stress in order to achieve a high level of physical endurance, so the Christian is to endure the trials of life in order to attain the spiritual endurance that will bring perfection.

A reward is promised to the Christian who successfully meets the test: the crown of life. The word crown (stephanos) sometimes refers to a royal crown, but is more frequently used of the laurel wreath given to the victorious athlete (see 1 Cor. 9:25) and, figuratively, symbolizes glory and honour. It is this last meaning that fits best here. The crown is the emblem of spiritual success, given by the King of the universe to those who keep their faith in the midst of suffering and temptation. Life should be taken as identifying the reward – ‘the reward that is life’. This life is, of course, not physical life, but eternal life, the enjoyment of God’s presence on into eternity. Revelation 2:10, a word of Jesus addressed to suffering Christians, closely parallels the thought here: ‘Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life’ (ESV). Even if enduring a trial might lead to physical death, life is the reward for those who love God. This love for God is demonstrated by, and perfected in, our willingness to suffer for the cause of Christ.

Theology

Some react against the notion of a ‘reward’ for faithful Christian living. And, indeed, service of God that is motivated by a calculated desire for reward is the very antithesis of Christian spirituality. But the New Testament consistently invites Christians to contemplate the inheritance that awaits them. The contemplation of this glorious inheritance can be a powerful source of spiritual strength and sustenance as we realize ‘that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us’ (Rom. 8:18). By fixing their gaze on this inheritance, believers are able to find sustenance and strength in the trial, recognizing that the suffering of this present time is not long. This inheritance cannot be earned and it is unattainable by those who do not serve God from a heart of love and devotion. Moreover, as Mitton aptly says, ‘the rewards are of a kind that only a true Christian would be able to appreciate’.116

E. Trials and temptations (1:13–18)

Context

Verse 12 is the hinge between verses 2–11 and verses 13–18. As we have seen, verse 12 returns to some of the same themes found in verses 2–4. But there is a shift in subject between verses 11 and 12, and verse 12 introduces the ‘test’/‘tempt’ language that dominates the next several verses. The Greek word for ‘test’ in verse 12, peirasmos, is from the same root as the word translated ‘tempt’ (peirazō) in verses 13–14. This language provides the verbal link between verse 12 and the following context. But there is more than a verbal connection. Every trial carries with it a temptation, an inner enticement to sin. God may bring, or allow, trials; but he is not, James insists, the author of temptation (v. 13). Enticement to sin comes from our own sinful natures, not God (vv. 14–15), and must be resisted.

Verses 16–18 are more difficult to fit into the flow of James’ argument. The direct address to the readers – ‘my dear brothers and sisters’ – suggests a new topic, and the English versions place a paragraph break here. But there are possible connections to what has preceded and to what follows. The word ‘Father’ in both verses 17 and 27 might suggest another inclusio.117 And verse 18 introduces what will become a key topic in verses 21–25: the word of God. But connections with the preceding context are closer: the verb ‘give birth’ (apokyeō) (vv. 15 and 18) and the motif of God as a sincere and beneficial giver (vv. 5 and 17).118 Probably, then, after the transitional verse 16, verses 17–18 state the positive side of the case that James has made in verses 13–15. God is not the author of temptation, or of anything evil. He is, rather, one who gives good gifts to his people – preeminently, the gift of the new birth.119

Comment

13. The various hardships and afflictions that meet Christians in the world can produce spiritual perfection (v. 4) and lead to God’s reward (v. 12) if they are endured in faith. However, they can have a harmful effect if met with the wrong attitude. One such wrong attitude, James suggests, is to blame God for the enticement to sin that accompanies trials. The Old Testament makes clear that God does test his people, in the sense that he brings them into situations where their willingness to obey him is tested. ‘God tested Abraham’ when he ordered him to sacrifice his son Isaac (Gen. 22:1), he tested Israel by leaving them surrounded by pagan nations (Judg. 2:22) and he tested King Hezekiah by leaving him to his own devices in his reception of the Babylonian envoys (2 Chr. 32:31; cf. 2 Kgs 20:12–19). But while God may test or prove his servants in order to strengthen their faith, he never seeks to induce sin and destroy their faith. Thus, despite the fact that the same Greek root (peira-) is used for both the outer trial and the inner temptation, it is crucial to distinguish them. It is probably within verse 13 that James makes the transition from one to the other: ‘No one undergoing a trial should say, “I am being tempted by God” ’ (HCSB). The tendency to blame God for temptation, and hence excuse succumbing to it, was a familiar problem for a people who stressed the sovereignty of God – if temptation comes from God, how could one resist it? A century and a half before James, Jesus the son of Sirach was protesting against this tendency: ‘Do not say, “Because of the Lord I left the right way”; for he will not do what he hates. Do not say, “It was he who led me astray”; for he has no need of a sinful man’ (Sirach 15:11–12).

The last part of verse 13 gives two related reasons why one ought not to blame God for temptation. The first relates to the character of God: he cannot be tempted by evil. This rendering, which is paralleled in most other English translations, understands the rare word apeirastos as a passive verbal adjective with the meaning ‘unable to be tempted’. But two other possibilities should be mentioned. Hort compared the word to the similar, and more frequent, word apeiratos, which has the meaning ‘inexperienced’.120 This interpretation is reflected in the NEB: ‘God is untouched by evil.’ Davids, on the other hand, argues for the meaning ‘ought not to be tested’. This, he suggests, makes better sense than the traditional interpretation – for how can God’s inability to be tempted be an argument against thinking that God tempts others? – and would tie in nicely with the Old Testament condemnation of Israel for testing God in the wilderness.121 Neither alternative is preferable to the traditional interpretation. Hort’s suggestion ignores the probable play on the word peirazō (God does not ‘tempt’ because he cannot be ‘tempted’). Davids has a point when he questions the logic involved in the traditional view, but his own interpretation gives to apeiratos a very poorly attested meaning.122 If we adopt the NIV rendering, then, how does the clause contribute to James’ argument? Presumably, it is to be seen as a preliminary observation leading on to the main point: nor does he tempt anyone. ‘What must be understood is that temptation is an impulse to sin, and since God is not susceptible to any such desire for evil he cannot be seen as desiring that it be brought about in man’ (Laws).

14. People facing adversity must not attempt to excuse any failure to resist temptation by blaming that temptation on God. If they want to blame someone, they have only themselves to consider – temptation comes from their own evil desire. Desire (epithymia) does not always have a bad meaning (cf. Luke 22:15; Phil. 1:23), but here, as most often in the New Testament, it refers to fleshly, selfish, illicit desire. While the word often describes specifically sexual passions, the use of the singular here suggests a broader conception. Like the rabbis, who spoke of ‘the evil impulse’ (yeṣer hara) that inhabits every person, James seems to think of a person’s innate tendency towards sin. Temptation springs from this ‘evil impulse’, as a person is dragged away and enticed by it. The former of these verbs (exelkō) connotes a forceful dragging out or away, while the latter (deleazō) suggests the attraction exerted by proffered bait. Both terms were used in a metaphorical sense to describe the attractive force of pleasure or persuasive teachers.123 But the imagery of fishing with which the words were originally associated is probably still present: ‘desire’ is like the hook with its bait that first entices its prey and then drags it away. If the superficial attractiveness of ‘desire’ is not strenuously resisted, a person can become ‘hooked’ on it, unable to escape from its all-powerful lure. James’ omission of Satan as a source of temptation does not mean that he ignores the ultimate ‘tempter’ (cf. 4:7). His purpose here is to highlight individual responsibility for sin. And, as Bengel remarks, ‘Even the suggestions of the devil do not occasion danger, before they are made “our own”.’124

15. Desire, in itself, is not sin. It is only when a person, by an act of the will, assents to its enticement that sin results. James vividly describes this sequence with imagery drawn from childbirth and maturation. Desire is pictured as the mother (epithymia is feminine), who gives birth to sin, her child. And this child, if it is allowed to become full-grown, gives birth in turn to death. The image of ‘desire’ as a seductress luring the believer into an adulterous union that brings death is reminiscent of the role played by the ‘loose woman’ in Proverbs 5 – 9. This figure, who leads her guests into the depths of Sheol (Prov. 9:18), is contrasted with wisdom, who gives life to those who embrace her (Prov. 8:35). Since James has mentioned wisdom in verse 5, it may be that he has this Old Testament imagery in mind as he contrasts the life given to those who endure trials (v. 12) with the death produced in those who allow desire to run its course (v. 15). Such are the serious consequences involved in the Christian’s struggle with trials.

16. This verse serves as a transition between verses 12–15 and 17–18. The attributing to God of evil intent – tempting people – is a serious matter. James wants to make sure that his readers are not deceived about this. Far from enticing to evil, God is the source of every good gift (v. 17), one of the greatest of which is the new birth (v. 18).

17. The general meaning of this verse is clear: God, whose benevolent character is unchanging and unchangeable, is the source of everything that is good. Many of the details are, however, obscure. The NIV conceals the fact that James uses two different Greek words for ‘gift’ here: see RSV, ‘Every good endowment [dosis] and every perfect gift [dōrēma]’. Why these two different words and two different adjectives? Tasker suggests that we understand ‘good’ as a predicate adjective introducing a contrast between the two terms: All giving is good, but every perfect gift comes from God (cf. NEB mg.).125 But, if this were the meaning, we would have expected an adversative conjunction, ‘but’ (alla or de), between the two terms. Varner suggests, based partly on etymology, that the first ‘gift’ (dosis) means ‘act of giving’ while the second (dōrēma) means ‘result of giving’. However, it is doubtful if James intends any distinction; he may repeat them for stylistic effect or he may be quoting from an unknown source.126

A second difficulty is the punctuation of the verse. The NIV, along with most other translations, places a comma after ‘from above’, making the participial phrase ‘coming down . . . ’ an additional, independent description. But the REB joins together ‘from above’ and ‘coming down’: ‘All good giving and every perfect gift comes from above . . . ’ The translation adopted in the NIV is probably better, because the alternative leaves the prepositional phrase (‘from the Father of lights’) hanging somewhat awkwardly.

The description of God as the Father of the heavenly lights is unique in Scripture. The NIV adds ‘heavenly’ to the simple Greek phōtōn (‘lights’) to make clear that the lights are almost certainly to be understood as the heavenly bodies, probably including sun, moon and stars (see Ps. 136:7–9; Jer. 31:35 [38:36 LXX]). Scripture often alludes to the heavenly firmament as evidence of God’s creative handiwork and his continuing exercise of power (see esp. Job 38:4–15, 19–21, 31–33; Ps. 136:4–9; Isa. 40:22, 26; and, in Jewish literature, Sirach 43:1–12). The description of God as Father can also allude to his creative work (cf. LXX Job 38:28).127 Thus James’ intention is to remind us of the benevolent power of God that is manifested in his ‘good’ creation (cf. Gen. 1). At the same time, however, James often refers to God as ‘Father’ when he wants to stress his impartiality (see also 1:27; 3:9).128

Imagery drawn from the heavenly bodies is carried on in the last phrase of the verse. The Greek text is uncertain. The majority of manuscripts read two nominative nouns, parallagē (‘variation’) and aposkiasma (‘shadow’) separated by the particle ē (‘or’) with a genitive noun, tropēs (‘turning’), dependent on shadow. If this reading is adopted, the genitive tropēs must presumably be construed as source or subjective, yielding the ESV translation variation or shadow due to change. But several early and important manuscripts make shadow a genitive (aposkiasmatos). If this reading is adopted, the word ē will probably have to be given a rough breathing, making it a relative pronoun dependent on parallagē. The phrase will then be translated ‘variation that belongs to the turning of the shadow’. The NIV may follow this Greek text: who does not change like shifting shadows. Neither reading makes exceptionally good sense, but the former, with its breadth of support, should probably be accepted. The fact that two of the words used in this phrase (tropē and parallagē) are often used with astronomical meaning, along with the reference to the ‘lights’ in the previous phrase, makes it probable that a reference to some sort of astronomical phenomenon is intended. Variation naturally suggests the periodic movements of the heavenly bodies, but whether ‘shadow due to change’ refers to the phases of the moon, the shadow cast by an eclipse or the constant alternation of night and day is not clear. But James’ language is not exclusively technical, so we may suspect that he intends no more than a general reference to the constant changes observed in creation. This changeableness of creation was frequently used to highlight, by contrast, the unchanging nature of God the Creator (cf. Philo, Allegorical Interpretation, 2.33: ‘Every created thing must necessarily undergo change, for this is its property, even as unchangeableness is the property of God’).

18. As an outstanding example of God’s good gifts, James cites the fact that God chose to give us birth through the word of truth. We should not miss the idea of God’s choice that James highlights in this verse: our new birth is a gift that God decided, in his own free will, to give us. But what ‘birth’ is this? The birth of humankind by the sovereign fiat of God’s word? The birth of Israel, his people (cf. Deut. 32:18)?129 Or the birth of Christians through the word of the gospel? While the first two options have been supported by a few scholars, the third seems pretty clearly to be James’ meaning. First, firstfruits (aparchē) is a customary New Testament designation of Christians (see esp. 2 Thess. 2:13; Rev. 14:4). And the idea of Christians as the firstfruits of a redeemed creation is paralleled in Romans 8:19–23. Second, the verb ‘give birth to’ in verse 18 clearly parallels by contrast its use in verse 15 (these are the only two occurrences in the New Testament). But this favours a reference to spiritual life as a contrast to spiritual death in verse 15. Third, and most decisively, is the overwhelming probability that the word of truth refers to the gospel. The phrase means this in its four other New Testament occurrences (2 Cor. 6:7 [see NASB; NKJV]; Eph. 1:13; Col. 1:5; 2 Tim. 2:15) and is connected in James to the phrase ‘which can save you’ in verse 21.

We take it, then, that James appeals to the spiritual ‘new birth’ of Christians as a particularly striking illustration of the good things God gives. This new birth is motivated by the sovereign determination of God, whose will, unlike the creation he made, is unvarying. The instrument through which God accomplishes this spiritual birth is the gospel, the word of truth. And the purpose of this birth is that Christians should stand as the ‘first instalment’ (firstfruits) in the universal redemptive plan of God – ‘good gifts’ that he has yet to give.

Theology

In the struggle with temptation, God is on our side. He does not want us to fail and he has provided every possible gift of grace to enable us to stand. Resisting temptation, James suggests, begins with an honest look at ourselves, where ‘desire’ lurks and gives birth to sin. Paul speaks in similar terms about the power of the flesh and of ‘sin’. Changing our central disposition by the work of God’s Spirit is then the way in which we will conquer temptation and find life (v. 12) and avoid death (v. 15).

3. TRUE CHRISTIANITY SEEN IN ITS WORKS (1:19 – 2:26)

The first major section of the letter (1:2–18) has a loose coherence centred on the theme of trials/temptations. The next major section, 1:19 – 2:26, is more closely focused on the command expressed in 1:22: ‘do what [the word] says.’ James leads into this central concern with a transitional section in which he warns about hasty speech and the anger that often stimulates that kind of speech. The focus on the word of God (picked up from 1:18) begins in verse 21 with James’ exhortation to ‘receive with meekness’ that word. James elaborates in verses 22–27, making clear that the word of God that brings new birth (v. 18) and salvation (v. 21) is also a ‘law’ that is to be obeyed. In chapter 2, James takes up a particular issue: discrimination within the community. Yet the theme of doing the word continues, as the basis for James’ practical advice in 2:1–7 is the importance of obeying the whole law, especially as it is concentrated on the love command (2:8–13). Finally, in probably the most famous passage in the letter, James rebukes believers who think that they can be justified or saved by means of a faith that does not manifest itself in consistent works.

Little relationship between this larger section and the first major part of the letter (1:2–18), beyond some verbal connections, is evident at first sight. But at least a general relationship can be discerned. James’ main concern in that first section has been to encourage Christians under the pressure of trials to respond with a steadfast endurance (vv. 3–4, 12) that is rooted in unwavering faith (vv. 6–8). Constancy, consistency and singleness of purpose stand out as key Christian virtues. Such unflinching loyalty to God comes to expression in obedience to God’s word.

A. An exhortation regarding speech and anger (1:19–20)

Context

James concludes his first general exhortation with an allusion to the word of God (v. 18). That ‘word’ will be the focus of verses 21–27, where James calls believers to recognize in God’s word the demand of obedience that comes to all who claim the blessing of the new birth. But before he turns to this topic, James interjects a brief exhortation about speech and anger. Improper speech and the anger that can often cause such speech is a traditional theme of Jewish wisdom literature. James appropriates the tradition because he recognizes that his readers are struggling in just this area – as his repeated attention to ‘the tongue’ and unbridled passions makes clear (see 1:26; 3:1–12; 4:1–3, 11–12; 5:12). Verses 19–20 may, then, be viewed as James’ brief announcement of a motif that is woven like a thread through the fabric of the letter.

Comment

19. James’ brief admonition to avoid hasty speech and uncontrolled anger is introduced with his familiar address, my dear brothers and sisters (adelphoi). Generally in the letter this address signals the transition to a new topic. In this case, however, some interpreters think that James may continue to reflect on the word of God that he mentioned at the end of verse 18. They suggest that the understood object of two of the verbs at the end of verse 19 is this ‘word’: be quick to listen [to the word], slow to speak [about that word] and slow to become angry.130 But, as we noted above, exhortations to listen well and speak only with due deliberation are common in Jewish wisdom literature. Moreover, the prohibition of quick anger does not fit well with this idea. Probably, then, we have here another instance in which James shifts suddenly to a new topic.131

The NIV, as do most other translations, takes the initial word of the verse as an imperative: take note of this. By form, however, the word could also be indicative, as in the NASB: ‘This you know . . . ’ James’ fondness for the imperative, especially when he addresses his readers, favours that form here. Many passages in the wisdom literature focus on the importance of controlling one’s speech (cf. Prov. 10:19; 11:12–13; 13:3; 15:1; 17:27–28; Sirach 5:9 – 6:1). Significantly, looseness in speech is often linked with unrestrained anger. According to Proverbs 17:27, ‘The one who has knowledge uses words with restraint, and whoever has understanding is even-tempered.’ See also the Jewish intertestamental book Sirach: ‘Be quick to hear, and be deliberate in answering. If you have understanding, answer your neighbor; but if not, put your hand on your mouth. Glory and dishonor come from speaking, and a man’s tongue is his downfall’ (5:11–13). All too often, it is uncontrolled anger at someone that leads us to speak too quickly and say too much. While James does not forbid all anger (there is a place for ‘righteous indignation’), he does prohibit the thoughtless, unrestrained temper that often leads to rash, harmful and irretrievable words (cf. also Eccl. 7:9). He will have much more to say on this subject in 3:1–12.

20. The prohibition of unrestrained anger is based on the fact that anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. The NIV translation suggests that righteousness refers to a moral quality of upright behaviour, a quality that meets God’s approval (the genitive theou then perhaps being objective). But there are other options. The phrase may refer to ‘the righteous status that God confers on us’ (taking the genitive theou as subjective). This meaning of righteousness is well attested in Paul’s letters (cf. Phil. 3:9), and James appears to use ‘righteousness’ and the cognate verb ‘justify’ with this general meaning in 2:14–26. Another option is to take the word ‘righteousness’ to mean ‘justice’ (cf. REB), in which case James would be warning his readers against thinking that human anger can somehow be excused because it is a tool of God’s own just judgment (in this case, the genitive theou would presumably have a loose possessive force). This meaning of ‘righteousness’ is well attested in the Septuagint and the phrase ‘work righteousness’ may have this meaning in Hebrews 11:33 (the Greek words are the same as in James; see NKJV; cf. RSV). But the option implied by the NIV (see also NLT) should be adopted.132 The phrase ‘do’ (poieō) or ‘practise’ (ergazomai) righteousness consistently has this meaning in biblical Greek (see with ergazomai, Ps. 15:2; Acts 10:35; Heb. 11:33 may also fit here). This last consideration seems decisive, particularly in view of the fact that James’ only clear use of ‘righteousness’ to refer to status before God (the first alternative above) comes in a quotation (of Gen. 15:6). On this understanding, then, to ‘work righteousness’ would be the antithesis of ‘working sin’ (2:9). Hasty, uncontrolled anger is sin, because it violates the standard of conduct that God demands of his people. Though probably coincidental, it is striking that, in the only place where ‘work’ (ergazomai) and ‘righteousness’ are used together in the Septuagint (Ps. 15:2), the context has to do with sins of speech.

Theology

James’ use of the word ‘righteousness’ in this passage should be compared with his use of the same word in 2:14–26. In the latter text, ‘righteousness’ refers to our standing before God. Here in verse 20, however, it has a practical sense: doing what God requires. These texts illustrate the fact that biblical authors use the same word with different meanings – in this case, both meanings are drawn from the Old Testament. It is a mistake to think that these meanings must overlap: for James, as for biblical authors in general, standing before God should not be confused with our right behaviour. But nor are these ideas separate. James is particularly keen to insist that there can be no ultimate ‘right’ standing before God without ‘right’ behaviour.

B. ‘Do’ the word (1:21–27)

Context

James’ concern in this paragraph is clear: those who have experienced the new birth by means of God’s word (v. 18) must ‘accept’ that word (v. 21) by doing it (vv. 22–27). James’ concern with practical obedience is signalled by his shift from the term ‘word’ (of God) (vv. 21–23) to ‘law’ (v. 25) and by the frequency of the verb ‘do’ (vv. 22–23, 25). The ‘religion’ that counts before God (v. 27) and that is able to save (v. 21) must be lived out in a lifestyle of obedience to the word of God ‘planted’ within each believer (v. 21).

Most English versions and commentaries break the flow of James’ text between verses 21 and 22. Of course, James did not write his letter with headings and paragraph breaks; and we need to be careful about introducing divisions that the biblical author never intended. But, if we are to divide the text, a good case can be made for dividing it between verses 20 and 21.133 The introduction of the topic of the ‘word’ in verse 21 suggests that it belongs with the material following it. The therefore at the beginning of verse 21 would then connect the discussion in verses 21–27 with verse 18 (‘the word of truth’) rather than with verses 19–20. And a close connection between verse 18 and verses 21–27 is also suggested by a similar sequence of ideas in 1 Peter 1:23 – 2:2. In both passages, new birth through the word of God is followed by the command (introduced with ‘therefore’ [dio]) to ‘get rid of ’ evil behaviour and to embrace the word of God.134 Peter is probably writing after James, so there is no question of direct borrowing. But what the two passages suggest is that James and Peter may each, independently, be appropriating a familiar teaching from the early church in which a reminder of the spiritual birth God had graciously given his people through his word was followed by exhortation to shun the kind of behaviour associated with the old life and to begin living by the standard of the word that had saved them.135 Corroborating this possibility is the similarity between James and 1 Peter at a number of other points (see the Introduction).

Comment

21. Before taking up his main concern about response to the word of God, James calls on his readers to get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent. The form of the verb in this command is a participle in Greek (apothemenoi), which might imply that it is subordinate to the main idea that follows (see e.g. HCSB: ‘ridding yourselves of all moral filth and evil, humbly receive . . . ’). But these kinds of participles often introduce independent commands, so the imperative translation found in most English versions is entirely justified. The word filth (rhyparia) is used only here in biblical Greek, but the adjective cognate to this noun, ‘filthy’, is used in 2:2 to describe the clothes of the poor man, and in Zechariah 3:3–4 of the garments that the high priest Joshua has to put off before he can be given a new, rich set of clothes by the angel of the LORD. The clothing imagery suggested by ‘put off ’ (as the Greek can be translated) is thus maintained with this word. The word prevalent (perisseia) in the phrase evil that is so prevalent could mean either ‘surplus’ or ‘abundance’. Tasker argues for the former, in the sense of ‘remainder’. But in Romans 5:17 and 2 Corinthians 8:2, the word appears to mean simply ‘abundance’, so it is preferable to think that the word is added to emphasize the variety and prevalence of the sin that Christians have to fight against.

The ‘getting rid’ of evil is to be accompanied by a ‘receiving’ of something else: the word planted in you. Hort argued that the word translated planted (emphytos) must mean ‘inborn’ (as in Wisdom of Solomon 12:10, the only other occurrence of the word in ‘biblical’ Greek), and that James was referring to the natural, ‘inborn’ capacity of humans to receive God’s revelation – ‘the original capacity involved in the Creation in God’s image which makes it possible for man to apprehend a revelation at all’. But this conception, besides having rather dubious biblical support, is too general for the context, where ‘the word’ is described as having the power to save (v. 21) and to regenerate (v. 18). These references indicate rather plainly that the word planted in you must depict the proclaimed word of God, not an innate quality within humans.

In this case, emphytos must refer to something that has become implanted.136 This striking conception of the word probably picks up the idea found in the famous ‘new covenant’ prophecy in Jeremiah, where God promises: ‘I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts’ (Jer. 31:33; cf. further the reference to ‘the law that gives freedom’ in Jas 1:25 and the section in the Introduction on ‘The law’, pp. 65–67). By describing the word in this way, James reminds believers that the word of God is not done with them after God uses it to bring about new birth. That word becomes a permanent, inseparable part of the Christian, a commanding and guiding presence within. The command to humbly accept the word planted in you, then, is not a command to be converted (‘receive the word’ means this elsewhere in the New Testament), but to accept its precepts as binding and to seek to live by them. Christians who have truly been ‘born again’ (v. 18) demonstrate that the word has transformed them by their humble acceptance of that word as their authority and guide for life. Or, to use the imagery our Lord used to make the same point: believers are to prepare ‘good soil’ in their hearts so that the ‘seed’ of the word that has been planted there might produce much fruit (cf. Mark 4:3–20). In our text, James specifies salvation as the fruit that results from accepting the word. Many Christians automatically think that salvation refers to our conversion. Here, however, James is addressing people who already have become Christians (see v. 18). As is often the case in the New Testament, then, salvation here refers not to the beginning of the Christian life but to its culmination, when believers are glorified and rescued from sin and death definitively (see also e.g. Rom. 5:9–10; 13:11). James uses the language of salvation consistently in this sense in his letter (2:14; 4:12; 5:20; in 5:15, sōzō, ‘save’, applies to physical, not spiritual, deliverance).

22. Lest anyone misconceive what ‘accepting the word’ involves, James spells out what he means in verses 22–27. In doing so, he takes us right to the heart of his pastoral concern. However important may be mental assent to the word, it has not been truly received until it is put into practice. ‘Hearing’ the word is, of course, necessary and important – it would be a fatal misunderstanding to think that James is against listening to the word. But what James strenuously opposes is any hearing of the word that does not lead to doing. With this emphasis James aligns himself with a widespread Jewish belief of his day. ‘Not the expounding [of the law] is the chief thing, but the doing [of it],’ said a second-century rabbi (Simeon b. Gamaliel in Mishnah, Abot. 1:17). Paul reflects this Jewish emphasis when he writes: ‘it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous’ (Rom. 2:13). And James’ concern is once again firmly in line with Jesus’ teaching: ‘Blessed . . . are those who hear the word of God and obey it’ (Luke 11:28). Jesus’ preaching is filled with the overwhelming, amazing wonder of God’s sovereign grace reaching down to sinful human beings in the gospel. But equally prominent is Jesus’ summons to radical obedience – an obedience that is the necessary human response to God’s grace. Both factors, the gracious initiative of God and the grateful response of humans, are part and parcel of the gospel. The word through which we are born into new life (v. 18) and which becomes implanted in us (v. 21) is a word that is to be put into practice.

Those who fail to do the word, who merely listen to the word, are guilty of a dangerous and potentially fatal self-delusion. If the gospel, by nature, contains both saving power and summons to obedience, those who relate to only its saving side have not truly embraced the gospel. That is why James can say that people who only listen to the word are deceiving themselves. They think that they have a relationship with God because they regularly attend church, go to Bible studies or read the Bible. But if their listening is not accompanied by obedience, their true situation before God is far different. ‘Obedience’, Calvin says, ‘is the mother of true knowledge of God.’137

23–25. James elaborates on the contrast between the person who only listens to the word and the one who both hears and obeys it, by means of a simile. The ‘hearer only’ is compared to someone who looks at his face in a mirror, but quickly forgets what he has seen. The doer of the word, on the other hand, looks into the perfect law that gives freedom and continues in it, putting it into practice. What is the point of the comparison? Does it lie in the way one looks, what one looks at, or the result of looking?

First, those who argue that the contrast involves the way one looks note the shift of verbs in James’ Greek: in verses 23 and 24 he uses the verb katanoeō whereas in verse 25 he shifts to parakyptō. James may, then, be suggesting a contrast between the person who glances casually in a mirror and the one who looks carefully into the perfect law (note the NLT, which translates ‘glancing’ in v. 23 and ‘look carefully’ in v. 25). However, the lexical basis for this interpretation is very slim. The verb katanoeō (vv. 23 and 24) does not usually connote a hasty or cursory glance. In fact, the verb regularly connotes thoughtful, attentive consideration (as in Luke 12:27, where Jesus invites us to ‘consider . . . the wild flowers’; and note the ESV translation ‘looks intently’ in Jas 1:23). Indeed, recognizing this, Laws suggests turning the comparison on its head. She thinks James may be contrasting the fleeting impression left by a careful look into a mirror with the lasting effect of even a momentary glance into the ‘perfect law’. However, while looks (parakyptō) in verse 25 can refer to a quick glance, it often reflects its root meaning (para, ‘beside’, and kyptō, ‘bend’) and suggests the physical effort involved in stooping to look at something carefully (see 1 Pet. 1:12). It does not appear, then, that James intends any significant contrast by shifting verbs.138 We shall have to look elsewhere to discern James’ meaning.

Second, then, the contrast James has in view may have to do with the object one looks at: the mirror in verse 23 and the perfect law in verse 25. Many interpreters focus on the way James describes this mirror: in Greek, to prosōpon tēs geneseōs autou; literally, ‘the face of his “genesis” ’. The Greek word genesis often refers to ‘birth’ or ‘creation’. Thus Hort argued that the phrase refers to the face a person was created with, in the sense of ‘the representation of what God made him to be’. Verses 23–25 would then contrast the person who sees what God intended him or her to be but does nothing about it, with the person who sees what God wants him or her to be and strives to attain it. However, it is difficult to think that the invisible image of God in a person is what the person sees in a mirror. Another possibility is that genesis is used, as often in Philo, to connote that which is creaturely and transitory, as opposed to the divine realm of eternity. James then may imply a contrast between the ‘face’ or character that a person actually sees – his or her sinfulness – and the ideal face or character which the ‘perfect law’ reflects.139 This explanation has much to be said for it, but it may be over-subtle. Certainly nothing in verse 25 implies that ‘the ideal character’ is reflected by the perfect law. Probably, then, genesis has the sense ‘natural’ (as in e.g. Wisdom of Solomon 7:5; Judith 12:8) and refers simply to the actual physical face one sees in a mirror.140 Moreover, the mirror was often used with a figurative meaning in ancient philosophy and religion, supporting the possibility that James sees it as generally equivalent to the perfect law.

Therefore, third, the point of the contrast in verses 23–25 is the result of looking. An obvious emphasis is on the contrast between ‘forgetting’ (mentioned in both v. 24 and v. 25) and ‘continuing’ (v. 25). This stress suggests that James may be using the look at the mirror to illustrate the superficial and temporary effect of the word on those who hear it without doing it. They get no more lasting benefit from the word than they do from looking at their faces in a mirror while combing their hair. The doer of the word, on the other hand, ‘remains’, or continues (parameinas). This verb, which has no object in the Greek, may refer to continuing to contemplate the word (cf. NET) but more likely refers to a continual doing of the word that one has heard (CEB: ‘continues to do it’). In either case, the doers of the word are commended for demonstrating in their actions the continuing impact of the word on their lives.

James underlines his concern with the practical doing of God’s word by shifting his vocabulary: the ‘word’ of verse 22 has become in verse 25 the perfect law that gives freedom. The referent of ‘law’ (nomos) in James is not easy to discern (see discussion in the section on ‘The law’ in the Introduction, pp. 65–67). To a Jew like James, nomos would normally mean the Mosaic law. This law was frequently called ‘perfect’ (cf. Ps. 19:7) and to it was sometimes ascribed the power to give true freedom (cf. Mishnah, Abot. 6:2). But the context makes us pause before accepting a simple equation of James’ perfect law with the Old Testament law. Because of the flow of the text, the ‘perfect law’ of verse 25 must at least overlap with the ‘word’ of verse 22; and the ‘word’, in turn, is identified as ‘the word of truth’ that mediates spiritual birth (v. 18) and whose reception leads to salvation (v. 21). The sequence in these verses, then, makes clear that the perfect law is closely related to the gospel. The pervasive influence of the teaching of Jesus on James’ ethics suggests that this ‘law’ may particularly involve Jesus’ ethical demands. James wants to stress to his hearers that the ‘good news’ of salvation brings with it an unavoidable, searching demand for complete obedience. The use of the word ‘law’ to describe this commanding aspect of the Christian ‘word’ is entirely natural for someone in James’ position (and anticipates in some ways the ‘law/gospel’ distinction in later theology). This ‘law’ includes Old Testament commandments, as 2:8–11 makes clear, but James’ characterization of the law as perfect suggests that these commandments must be seen in the light of Jesus’ fulfilment of the Old Testament law (Matt. 5:17). And, while it is still a ‘law’, this summons to obedience nevertheless gives freedom because, in accordance with Jeremiah’s new-covenant prophecy (31:31–34), it has been written on the heart (cf. ‘planted’ in v. 21). With the searching, radical demand of the gospel comes the enabling grace of God. When Jesus called people to ‘come’ to him and to take his ‘yoke’ upon them, he promised that ‘my yoke is easy and my burden is light’ (Matt. 11:28–30).

26. James concludes this important paragraph on the practical implications of true Christianity by singling out some specific ways in which obedience to the word is to be manifested. One of these, which is apparently of great concern to James, is the whole matter of controlling the tongue. He has already counselled his readers to be ‘quick to listen, slow to speak’ (v. 19). In chapter 3 he will develop the issue at some length (vv. 1–12) and he returns to it again in 4:11–12. The tongue, James suggests, is like a wild animal. Properly controlled and directed, it can accomplish great good. But when left on its own, its destructive powers are enormous. People who fail to control their tongues deceive themselves about the reality of their religion. They are mere ‘hearers’ of the word, and by failing to put what they hear into practice, they show that their religion is worthless. The word religion captures well the meaning of the Greek thrēskeia (and the rare adjective thrēskos). The term is used widely in the Greek world to denote the reverencing and worshipping of a god (or gods). It often connotes outward acts of worship. The true test of any religious profession, suggests James, is not the outward ritual of worship, which many go through unthinkingly and with little heart commitment. No, the real litmus test of religion is obedience; without it, religion is worthless : empty, useless and profitless.

27. We must keep in mind that James is not attempting here to summarize all that true worship of God should involve. As Calvin says, ‘he does not define generally what religion is, but reminds us that religion without the things he mentions is nothing.’141 Religious ritual, if done from a reverent heart and in a worshipful spirit, is not wrong – and God’s word cannot be ‘done’ unless it is first ‘heard’. But James is concerned about an overemphasis on the ‘hearing’ to the neglect of the ‘doing’. Two other areas of life that are to reveal evidence of our reverent ‘listening’ to the word are introduced in the verse: social concern and moral purity. Care for orphans and widows is commanded in the Old Testament as a way of imitating God’s own concern for them – he is the ‘father to the fatherless, a defender of widows’ (Ps. 68:5). In a text that bears many similarities to this passage in James, Isaiah announces that God will no longer recognize the worship his people offer him (their ‘religion’); they must ‘wash and make yourselves clean . . . Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow’ (Isa. 1:16–17). The orphan and widow become types of those who find themselves helpless in the world. Christians whose religion is pure and faultless will imitate their Father by intervening to help the helpless. Those who suffer from want in the Two-thirds World, in the inner city; those who are unemployed and penniless; those who are inadequately represented in government or in law – these are the people who should see abundant evidence of Christians’ ‘pure religion’.

Moral purity is another hallmark of pure religion. To keep oneself from being polluted by the world means to avoid thinking and acting in accordance with the value system of the society around us. This society reflects, by and large, beliefs and practices that are unchristian, if not actively anti-Christian. Believers who live ‘in the world’ are in constant danger of having the taint of that system ‘rub off ’ on them. It is important and instructive that James includes this last area, for it penetrates beyond action to the attitudes and beliefs from which action springs. The ‘pure religion’ of the ‘perfect Christian’ (v. 4) combines purity of heart with purity of action.

Theology

James 1:21–27 is the most famous passage in this letter – and rightly so, for it expresses the heart of James’ concern. While not speaking in overtly theological language, James in this passage implicitly develops a robust and vital theology of the word of God. In keeping with a central thrust of the letter, James insists that the believer must relate to the word as a whole. One cannot pick and choose which bits of it to deal with: all of it is to be embraced. The word that graciously and powerfully creates ‘born again’ Christians (v. 18) is also the word that demands deep-rooted and widely expressed obedience. But this obedience is itself also the product of grace: in fulfilment of his prophecy about a new covenant, God plants his word in our hearts, himself providing for the obedience that he demands. God’s provision does not, however, erase the importance of the believer’s response: we must ‘accept’ and ‘do’ that implanted word.

C. Impartiality and the law of love (2:1–13)

Context

In this section, James applies many of the key ideas from 1:19–27 to a specific situation: discrimination against poor people within the Christian community. Doing the word (v. 22), ‘the perfect law’ (v. 25), James has argued, includes showing compassion to the helpless (v. 27). By showing favour to the rich and treating the poor with contempt, the believers to whom James writes are acting in direct contradiction to this central demand of God’s law. This paragraph is the first in James that develops a single idea at any length. The prohibition of partiality in verse 1 governs the entire section. Verses 2–4 illustrate the problem James is concerned about, with reference to discrimination against the poor. This discriminatory action is ascribed to ‘evil thoughts’. Two reasons why Christians must shun this sort of favouritism are given in the rest of the paragraph. First, preferential treatment of the rich stands in stark contrast to the attitude of God, who has chosen the poor to be ‘rich in faith’ (vv. 5–7). Second, any manifestation of favouritism is condemned by the ‘royal law’ that demands love of the neighbour (vv. 8–13). Concern with doing the word, interpreted in terms of the law, frames this paragraph (1:25; 2:8–13), suggesting the thematic continuity in subject matter.

The amount of space James devotes to this topic suggests that the problem was a very real one among his readers.142 Apparently the oppression they were experiencing at the hands of the rich (cf. vv. 6–7) had led not to a retaliation in kind, but to an excessive deference towards the rich and powerful that resulted in a slighting and demeaning of poorer people. Such behaviour manifests a failure to ‘do’ the royal law that they have heard (cf. 1:22–25). Just where this problem surfaced is less clear. Most interpreters think James refers to a typical weekly worship gathering of the Christian community. The ‘ushers’, perhaps with tacit approval from the leaders of the assembly, conduct the splendidly dressed person to a fine seat, while contemptuously ordering a poorly dressed person to sit on the floor. But an alternative scenario should also be considered: that James is thinking of a meeting of the Christian assembly to sit in judgment over a dispute between two of its members.143 Advocates of this alternative note that James does not describe the situation with the typical language applied to early Christian worship gatherings (‘church’, ekklēsia) and that he specifically accuses his readers of being ‘judges with evil thoughts’ (v. 4). The details of the situation in verses 2–3 are similar to community judicial settings that the rabbis describe. See, for instance, b. Shebu. 31a: ‘How do we know that, if two come to court, one clothed in rags and the other in fine raiment worth a hundred manehs, they should say to him, “Either dress like him, or dress him like you”?’; and Sifre 4.4 (on Lev. 19:15): ‘You must not let one litigant speak as much as he wants, and then say to the other, “Shorten thy speech”. You must not let one stand and the other sit.’ The lack of specifics in this text make a decision between these alternatives difficult; and, fortunately, James’ main point is not affected by our decision. On the whole, however, the possessive ‘your meeting’ in verse 2 seems to point to a definite, well-known gathering which better fits the worship service than a judicial assembly.

Comment

1. Favouritism translates a Greek word that means, literally, ‘receiving the face’ (prosōlēmpsia). It is first used in the New Testament as a literal rendering of the Old Testament Hebrew language for partiality. To ‘receive the face’ is to make judgments and distinctions based on external considerations, such as physical appearance, social status or race. This God never does, as the Old Testament repeatedly affirms (cf. also Rom. 2:11; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25). And God’s people are to imitate him in this respect. In a passage that is echoed many times in the Old Testament and which touches on many of the same issues James is concerned about in 1:21 – 2:26, Moses reminds the Israelites that ‘the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing’ (Deut. 10:17–18). Even more pertinent may be Leviticus 19:15: ‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favouritism to the great, but judge your neighbour fairly.’ James cites the love command from this same context in verse 8; and concern about ‘judging’ also surfaces in this context (v. 4).144 The requirement laid upon believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ is no different from this basic Old Testament demand.145 A favouritism based on external considerations is inconsistent with faith in the One who came to break down the barriers of nationality, race, class, gender and religion. As Paul says, ‘Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all’ (Col. 3:11).

James 2:1 contains one of the only two explicit references to Jesus in this epistle (cf. also 1:1). We have seen in the Introduction that this circumstance has led some scholars to think that the letter is a Jewish document which has been ‘baptized’ through the addition of these two references. However, while James may not mention Jesus often, his letter, as we have seen, is deeply permeated with the spirit and teaching of Jesus. And while James may not teach a full-blown Christology, his description of Jesus here gives ample evidence of the depths of his Christological beliefs. For James, Jesus is ‘the Christ ’, the Messiah promised to Israel as her deliverer and judge. He is ‘the Lord ’, the one who occupies the supreme position at God’s right hand and who is in the process of bringing into submission all of God’s enemies (cf. Ps. 110:1). Moreover, the title Lord, used of Yahweh (Jehovah) throughout the Greek Old Testament, contains implications of the divine status of Jesus. Not only is Jesus ‘the Lord ’, he is the glorious Lord. The NIV has interpreted the phrase tēs doxēs (‘of glory’) as a descriptive genitive, basically equivalent to an adjective in English (see also HCSB; NLT; NASB; NET; NAB). This translation may convey what James intends here. Paul describes Jesus similarly in 1 Corinthians 2:8, and James is fond of this type of genitive construction. Another possibility, however, is to take tēs doxēs as an independent title of Jesus (an epexegetic genitive): ‘our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the glory’.146 However, the lack of New Testament parallels for the title is against the suggestion. Describing Jesus as our glorious Lord suggests particularly the heavenly sphere to which he has been exalted and from which he will come at the end of history to save and to judge (cf. 5:9). This reminder is particularly appropriate in a situation where Christians are giving too much ‘glory’ to human beings.

2–3. James cites an instance of the ‘favouritism’ he condemns in verse 1. The situation James depicts appears to be hypothetical and may even be exaggerated for effect, but the seriousness with which James speaks of the issue suggests that he is aware that this kind of behaviour is taking place. Certainly in verses 6–7 it is clear that he is dealing with existing circumstances. The illustration pictures two men of very different external appearance coming into your meeting. One bears every mark of wealth: he wears a gold ring, such as members of the upper-class Roman ‘equestrian’ class wore; he is dressed in fine clothes. The other is a poor man, dressed in filthy old clothes. The rich man is singled out for special attention and is conducted politely to his seat. The poor man, on the other hand, is told summarily to ‘Stand there’, or, ‘Sit on the floor by my feet’ (the Greek hypo to hypopodion mou [lit. ‘under my footstool’] most likely means ‘on the floor close to my footstool’ [LXX]). Probably both these men are visitors to the assembly, since they are described by appearance and are conducted to seats. Meeting translates the Greek synagōgē, which elsewhere in the New Testament (with the possible exception of Rev. 2:9 and 3:9) refers to the Jewish place of worship. It is possible that it has this meaning here, since Jews who confessed that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah probably continued to gather with their fellow-Jews. But, if the pattern of Paul’s experience on his missionary journeys is any guide, the synagogues did not always welcome these Christian Jews. And the fact that James addresses believers here as if they had control over conduct in the synagōgē suggests he is referring to a meeting apart from the official Jewish synagogue. Probably, then, we see here a natural application of the traditional language of meeting for prayer and worship to the new Christian assemblies. James is probably thinking of any occasion when Christians would gather and the general populace would be welcome.147

4. In a series of conditional clauses (vv. 2–3: ‘suppose . . . if ’) James has sketched the sort of behaviour he finds incompatible with Christian faith. Now he characterizes and condemns that behaviour in a twofold ‘then’ clause: 1) have you not discriminated among yourselves; and 2) [have you not] become judges with evil thoughts? As the NIV indicates, these clauses are set in the form of questions, but the Greek construction used by James (the particle ou) shows that he expects his readers to agree with the verdict. The first verb in the verse (diakrinō) presents a difficult translation problem. Most translations, with the NIV, interpret it to refer to the activity of discriminating or ‘making distinctions’ (NRSV; ESV). The verb can certainly have this meaning (cf. Acts 11:12; 15:9) and among yourselves is an acceptable translation of en heautois. But James has already used this same verb in 1:6 to mean the divided, conflicting thoughts of the person who lacks faith, and the passive form of the verb used here usually means ‘to be divided’.148 A reference to such inner conflict fits nicely in the present context, since ‘faith’ has been mentioned in verse 1. James, then, may be tracing the sinful behaviour pictured in verses 2–3 back to its sinful motives. The improper ‘division’ being made among visitors to the assembly is nothing more than a reflection of the improper ‘divisions’ harboured in the minds of the believers (en heautois – ‘in each of you’). Consistently Christian conduct comes only from a consistently Christian heart and mind.

Leviticus 19:15, which James probably had in mind as he wrote this passage, condemns partiality in the context of judging. It is perhaps this association that leads James further to characterize those who show partiality as judges with evil thoughts. Not only have they arrogated to themselves the role of judges; worse, they also render their decision according to unchristian, worldly standards.

5. James emphasizes the points he is about to make by calling his readers to listen and addressing them directly (my dear brothers and sisters). The kind of partiality James has described in verses 1–4 is 1) inconsistent with God’s way of viewing things (vv. 5–6a); 2) inconsistent with the way the rich are treating believers (vv. 6b–7); and 3) inconsistent with the claims of the ‘royal law’ (vv. 8–13).

In keeping with the rest of the New Testament, James traces the Christian’s salvation back to the sovereign choice of God. Thus the many poor people who had embraced the gospel could stand as powerful testimony to God’s own attitude. These people, poor in the eyes of the world, were in fact rich in the sight of God. James here echoes the contrast between status in this world and status in God’s kingdom from 1:9–11. Poor Christians, united by faith to the glorious Lord (v. 1), have a rich inheritance to look forward to: the kingdom he [God] promised those who love him. The kingdom of God was the focus of Jesus’ preaching. He presented himself as the one through whom God’s reign was even then being realized (Matt. 12:28; Mark 1:15; Luke 17:21). But the fullness of its power and the riches of its blessings are still future: it is ‘when the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him’, that faithful servants will inherit ‘the kingdom prepared . . . since the creation of the world’ (Matt. 25:31, 34). Christians, however poor in material possessions they may be, possess spiritual wealth presently and anticipate greater blessings in the future. It is from this spiritual vantage point, not the material, that Christians should judge others. Whether believers or unbelievers, people should not be evaluated by Christians according to the standards of the world.

The one who has promised the kingdom – he – is most naturally identified as God, the subject of the sentence. But it is possible that James also has in mind Jesus’ beatitude ‘Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God’ (Luke 6:20; cf. Matt. 5:3). Neither Jesus nor James means that the poor are promised the kingdom simply because they are poor. As we pointed out earlier (see the comments on 1:9–11 and the introductory sketch of James’ theology), ‘the poor’ became almost a technical term designating those who were both economically oppressed and spiritually inclined. It is a generalization and, as such, cannot be understood as including every single poor person, nor as excluding all rich people. While Jesus’ warning about riches being a stumbling-block to discipleship must be taken with utter seriousness (cf. Mark 10:23; Luke 12:34), neither he nor James excludes rich people from the kingdom. James does not say that only poor people are chosen; his point is to remind his readers that many are, and that this fact implicitly condemns Christian discrimination against them. Moreover, it is likely that, while some rich people may have been included in the communities to which James writes, most of his readers are poor.

6–7. In contrast (but) to God’s benevolent regard, you, accuses James, have dishonoured the poor. In addressing his readers so directly, James implies that, however hypothetical the illustration in verses 2–3, some of his readers have been guilty of unjust favouritism. This attitude is all the more surprising in that it is hardly reciprocal. Far from returning kindness for kindness, the Christians are heaping honour precisely on those who are actively engaged in oppressing and persecuting the small community of believers. The oppression involves economic exploitation: katadynasteuō (exploit) occurs frequently in the Septuagint to describe the exploitation of the poor (cf. Amos 4:1), and of orphans and widows (cf. Ezek. 22:7), by the rich. Acting exactly contrary to the demands of ‘pure religion’ (Jas 1:26–27), these rich people are hauling poor Christians into court for economic gain.

Presupposed in this verse is the poverty of most of the believers to whom James writes. This is not surprising. Throughout the early history of the church, those with little to hold them to this world found the spiritual promises of the gospel attractive. ‘Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth,’ Paul reminded the Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:26).149 Palestinian, or at any rate Jerusalem, believers seem to have been particularly afflicted: the Antioch church sent relief to them during a famine in about AD 46, and later Paul collected money from his Gentile churches to send to the ‘poor among the Lord’s people in Jerusalem’ (cf. Rom. 15:26). The strongly marked socio-economic class distinction presupposed in James corresponds closely to what we know of conditions in first-century Palestine. A small group of wealthy landowners and merchants accumulated more and more power, while large numbers of people were forced from their land and grew even poorer. Most of James’ readers probably belonged to this class of poor agricultural labourers.

But James’ readers are not only experiencing economic oppression, as are many of their fellow-Jews; they are also suffering from religious persecution. Probably the two were related – judicial proceedings against Christians on financial grounds may have been motivated by and combined with scorn for their faith. Blaspheming would suggest verbal abuse, as when Paul was opposed and ‘reviled’ (blasphēmountōn) by the Jews in Corinth (Acts 18:6). The verbal slander was directed against the noble (kalon, ‘good’) name (cf. 1 Pet. 4:14) – probably ‘Christ’. The NIV phrase to whom you belong is a sense rendering of a Greek phrase that says, literally, ‘the name that has been called over you’ (to epiklēthen eph’ hymas). The Greek, in turn, is a relatively literal translation of a common Hebrew idiom – an idiom that appears, it is important to note, in James’ quotation of Amos 9:12 in Acts 15:17. The phrase connotes close relationship, even possession, and is frequently found in the Old Testament to describe the relationship between Yahweh and his people. Now Jesus, the Messiah, occupies this place for believers. As those who confess allegiance to him, they bear his name – in a word, they are ‘Christians’. How incongruous that those who blaspheme that ‘noble name’ should be accorded preferential treatment in the church!

8. Verses 8–13 provide a powerful, coherent argument against all forms of partiality. Essentially this argument is that Christians will be judged by a law that includes as one of its most fundamental demands love for all. The precise relationship between verse 8 and the preceding verses is unclear. If the Greek word mentoi that introduces the verse is translated really, as in the NIV (cf. also NRSV; ESV), James would be suggesting that the royal law is fulfilled only when partiality is shunned.150 But in its seven other New Testament occurrences, mentoi means ‘however’, and this translation should be adopted here also (NASB; NAB). Understood in this way, verse 8 introduces a contrast with the previous context, presumably with verse 6a specifically: ‘you do evil in dishonouring the poor . . . however, if you fulfil the royal law you do well.’

What is this royal law? Since ‘law’ in verses 10–11 includes commandments from the Decalogue, the phrase certainly includes the Old Testament law. It may, then, be called royal because it was given by the King of heaven.151 As we have seen, however, James appears to use ‘law’ in a broader sense, incorporating Jesus’ example and teaching as well as the Old Testament (see the comments on 1:25). ‘Law’ for James, who acknowledges Jesus himself as the glorious Lord (2:1), refers to Old Testament law as fulfilled in, and filtered through, Jesus. This being the case, it may be that the designation royal (basilikos) picks up the reference to the kingdom (basileia) in verse 5. In other words, James’ qualification ‘royal’ would connote a new understanding of the content and focus of the law in the light of Jesus’ inauguration of the kingdom. It is possible, indeed, that the royal law is specifically the love command that James quotes later in verse 8 – that command, of course, that Jesus himself insisted was central to the law for his followers (Matt. 22:34–40). However, it is unusual in the New Testament for a single commandment to be designated with nomos (law). Probably, then, the royal law describes the whole body of commandments and exhortations that govern people who belong to God’s kingdom.

James uses the preposition kata (‘according to’) to introduce his quotation of Leviticus 19:18 (NIV paraphrases found in Scripture). This may suggest that James views obedience to the love command as the manner in which the law is to be kept (‘fulfil it by loving others’). But it is more likely that the preposition suggests that the love command specifies the nature of the law – it is a law that has at its heart the demand that Christians love their neighbour. In the Old Testament, the neighbour (rē’a) means particularly the fellow-Israelite, but Jesus expands the application to include everyone that a person might come into contact with, including foreigners (Luke 10:25–37) and enemies (Matt. 5:44). James is in line with that teaching as he argues that love for the neighbour, the heart of the royal law, forbids the church from discriminating against any who might enter its doors.

9. The specific citation of the love commandment enables James to accuse those who ‘play favourites’ of sinning. Discriminating against people, whether on the basis of their dress, nationality, social class or race, is a clear violation of the unbounded love to which Jesus calls us. And since the command to love is at the very heart of the ‘royal law’, we are convicted by the law as law-breakers when we show partiality. Verses 8–9, then, stand in clear antithetical relationship. We are doing right when we obey the law, with its summons to love, but we sin when we transgress that law by showing partiality.

10. Verses 10–11 explain (for, translating gar) the last clause of verse 9, by showing that the breaking of even one commandment incurs guilt for the law as a whole. Thus these verses furnish a chain of reasoning that leads at the end of verse 11 to the same accusation James has already levelled in verse 9 – the person who is showing partiality is a law-breaker. True, such a person is breaking ‘only’ one commandment. But, James answers, the law, the will of God for his people, is an indivisible whole, and to violate one part of it is to be at odds with all of it. The unity of the law, with the corollary that it had to be observed in its entirety, was a widely held notion. In 4 Maccabees, when the pious Eleazar was required to eat meat unlawfully, he refused, replying, ‘Do not suppose that it would be a petty sin if we were to eat defiling food; to transgress the law in matters either small or great is of equal seriousness, for in either case the law is equally despised’ (5:19–21). Jesus made a similar point when he warned that ‘Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven’ (Matt. 5:19; cf. also Gal. 3:10; 5:13). Such warnings were necessary because of the tendency to think that obedience to the ‘heavier’ commandments outweighed any failure to adhere to the ‘lighter’ requirements of the law. But James agrees with the standard view: failure at just one point renders a person guilty. To be sure, the one point in which James’ readers were falling short – the demand for love – could hardly be called a ‘light’ requirement. But the point James is making possesses all the more validity for that reason. Why this is so he explains further in verse 11.

11. This verse explains why the law must be considered a unity. As long as the law is viewed simply as a series of individual commandments, it would be possible to think that disobedience of a particular commandment incurred guilt for that commandment only. But, in fact, the individual commandments are all components of one indivisible whole, because they reflect the will of the one Lawgiver. As Johnson puts it, ‘Critical to the argument is that the commandment is not just a text but “someone speaking”.’152 To violate a commandment is to disobey God himself and render a person guilty before him.

The logic of these verses is thoroughly Jewish. But how ‘Jewish’ does James intend to be here? If his argument is pressed to its logical conclusion, James would appear to be requiring obedience to every single commandment of the law, including the requirements concerning ceremonial observances. Is this what James intends? Nothing in his letter would suggest that he holds so strict a view. And he does give us a hint within verses 10–11 that this is not the case. Generally when Jewish theologians made the point that James makes in verse 11, they cited a ‘light’ commandment beside a ‘heavy’ one. Thus Eleazar, in the 4 Maccabees text quoted above, asserts that eating defiling food (a ‘small’ matter) is equally as serious as disobedience of a ‘great’ commandment. But James cites two Decalogue commandments, of supposedly equal ‘weight’. This suggests that he is thinking only of some parts of the Old Testament law in verses 10–11.153 It is interesting to note in this regard that the love command was closely associated with the ‘fellow-human being’ commandments of the second table of the Decalogue in early Christianity (see Matt. 19:18–19; Rom. 13:8–10). Therefore, while employing logic drawn from the Old Testament and Jewish orthodoxy, James applies it to a new situation. It is not the Old Testament law per se that he urges perfect compliance with, but ‘the royal law’ (v. 8), ‘the law that gives freedom’ (v. 12) – a law that takes up within it the Old Testament law, but as understood through Jesus’ fulfilment of it. This ‘fulfilment’ underlies Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:19 also; his demand that even the ‘least’ of the commandments of the law must be obeyed assumes his ‘fulfilment’ of that law which he has just enunciated in verse 17.

Is it possible that James might have a particular reason for citing the commandment ‘You shall not murder ’ in verse 11? Jesus taught that this prohibition of murder could be extended to include anger (Matt. 5:21–26) and John says bluntly that ‘Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer’ (1 John 3:15). In the light of this teaching, James may be suggesting that the attitude of partiality also can be included within the scope of this commandment. James’ readers should not think that they can plead innocence because they are not violating some commandments, such as the prohibition of adultery; they are violating the prohibition of murder by showing partiality. While this interpretation is plausible and suggestive, we should be cautious about placing too much weight on it. James may cite these two commands simply because they were customarily used to illustrate the demands of God in his law (cf. Matt. 19:18; Rom. 13:9).

12. Verses 10–11 are something of a parenthesis in James’ argument. He is now in a position to draw a conclusion from the main point established in verses 8–9. He has argued that partiality is a sin against the love commandment and that this commandment is a touchstone of the ‘royal law’ that governs those who profess faith in Jesus Christ. As such this law will serve as a standard by which believers’ speech and actions will be judged. James lays particular stress on each of the verbs speak and act by using the correlative adverb houtōs (so) before each of them; over-translating to bring out the point, ‘in this way speak and in this way act’. The verbs are in the present tense, emphasizing that this manner of ‘speaking’ and ‘doing’ is to be a way of life. While this verse applies generally to all conduct, James undoubtedly thinks especially of the need to exhibit love through an impartial attitude towards all.

The emphasis on judgment according to the law in this verse creates difficulties for some. Hort, for example, says: ‘ . . . the sense would seem to be not that the law of liberty [the ‘law that gives freedom’] is the standard or the instrument by which they are to be judged, but that they are to be judged as men who have lived in an atmosphere, as it were, of a law of liberty.’154 But the suggestion that the preposition dia (translated by in the NIV) denotes merely the ‘atmosphere’ of the law of liberty is not acceptable. Dia normally has an instrumental sense and this meaning fits perfectly in this verse: it is by means of the standard set forth in the law of liberty that believers’ behaviour will be assessed (cf. Rom. 2:12 for a close parallel). That Christians will be judged on the basis of conformity to the will of God expressed in the gospel is asserted throughout the New Testament. Jesus warned that he would judge ‘all the nations’ at his return and reward only those who showed compassion to others (Matt. 25:31–46). Paul affirmed that ‘we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due to us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad’ (2 Cor. 5:10). And John says, ‘The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them’ (1 John 3:24). God’s gracious acceptance of us does not end our obligation to obey him; it sets it on a new footing. No longer is God’s law a threatening, confining burden. For the will of God now confronts us as a law that gives freedom (see also 1:25) – an obligation that is discharged in the joyful knowledge that God has both ‘liberated’ us from the penalty of sin and given us, in his Spirit, the power to obey his will. To use James’ own description, this law is ‘planted in’ us and has the power to save us (Jas 1:21).

13. A warning reinforces the commands of verse 12: the person who has not been merciful cannot expect to receive mercy at the judgment. James suggests that ‘showing mercy’ is one particular aspect of the law that gives freedom that is important for his readers to recognize. ‘Showing mercy’ is, in fact, just what the love command requires (v. 8) and what James’ readers are failing to do when they ‘dishonour the poor’. This relationship between mercy and concern for the poor is explicit in Zechariah 7:9–10: ‘This is what the LORD Almighty said: “Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.” ’ If James’ readers continue to discriminate, they place themselves in danger of facing a harsh judgment. The reciprocal relationship between human mercy and God’s is brought out repeatedly by Jesus, most strikingly in the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matt. 18:21–35; cf. also Matt. 6:14–15).

If failure to show mercy receives a severe penalty, the opposite is also true: mercy triumphs over judgment. This can be interpreted as a statement about the relative weight of two attributes of God, the point being that God rejoices in being able to overcome his judgment with his mercy. But it is better to take the mercy as human: our showing mercy triumphs over God’s judgment in that it defends us before God’s judgment seat. As Hort describes the image, ‘κρίσις [judgment] comes so to speak as the accuser before the tribunal of God, and ἐλεος [mercy] stands up fearlessly and as it were defiantly to resist the claim.’155 Believers, in themselves, will always deserve God’s judgment: our conformity to the ‘royal law’ is never perfect, as it must be (vv. 10–11). But our merciful attitude and actions will count as evidence of the presence of Christ within us. And it is on the basis of this union with the One who perfectly fulfilled the law for us that we can have confidence for vindication at the judgment.

Theology

In his typically practical manner, James in this paragraph gives voice to an important Christian value: the equal worth of all people in the sight of God. Worldly culture is marked by distinctions: between one ethnic group and another, men and women, rich and poor, and so on. These distinctions are not erased in the church, but they are relativized in light of the revelation of God’s radical grace to all humans in Christ. ‘There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus’ (Gal. 3:28). What is particularly striking is that James extends this principle to include all human beings (whoever might enter the Christian assembly).

The second part of the paragraph touches on another theological issue: the reality of judgment. While he does not say a lot about it, the grace of God in providing salvation for those who know Christ is something James clearly presupposes. But verses 8–13 remind us that this teaching of grace and of free acceptance before God in Christ does not erase the reality of a judgment to come. The ‘already’ of joyful acceptance with God, with the assurance it provides, must never push out of sight the ‘not yet’ of the day of judgment, when Christians will have to answer for what they have done.

D. The faith that saves (2:14–26)

Context

This passage is the theological climax of James’ plea for a ‘pure religion’ that vindicates itself in action (1:19 – 2:26).156 But it is also closely related to the immediately preceding context. In verse 12, James has exhorted his readers to ‘speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom’. James is well aware that some of his readers may object to this warning with the response that their faith has already determined their status in the judgment. James, they object, is putting too much emphasis on ‘works’ when it is faith that counts.

James does not in any way question the vital and central importance of faith. We miss James’ point in this paragraph if we do not understand this. James does not dispute the power of faith to justify or to save. What he is concerned to do is to define the true nature of faith. As he does throughout his letter, James attacks superficial and inconsistent Christians who claim they have faith but fail to act on the basis of their faith. Such a ‘faith’, James says, amounts to no more than a verbal profession – such as the confession that ‘God is one’ (v. 19). A ‘faith’ that is apart from ‘deeds’, or ‘works’ (vv. 20, 26), is dead (vv. 17 and 26) and ‘useless’ (v. 20). It does not have the power to save (v. 14) or to justify (v. 24). True biblical faith issues in ‘deeds’ (vv. 14, 17); it works along with active obedience and is ‘completed by’ works (v. 22). It is the kind of faith exhibited by both the revered ‘father’ of faith, Abraham (vv. 21–23), and Rahab, the immoral outcast (v. 25). It is absolutely vital to understand that the main point of this argument, expressed three times (in vv. 17, 20 and 26), is not that works are a kind of second, unrelated, addition to faith but that genuine faith naturally produces works. That is its very nature.

James writes this part of his letter in an argumentative style, sometimes called a ‘diatribe’. He introduces an imaginary objector who states his or her own viewpoint as a foil for James’ argument (v. 18). He attacks the person holding the teaching he combats as if he or she were present (‘you foolish person’, v. 20); and he appeals directly to his readers to judge the cogency of what he is saying (‘you see’, vv. 22, 24). This style strongly suggests that James is combating people who were setting forth an incorrect view of faith. It is likely that these people had heard of Paul’s insistence on ‘justification by faith alone’. But it is equally clear that their understanding of Paul’s view is tragically flawed; the view James contests in this passage is certainly not Paul’s. Properly interpreted, Paul and James are united in their understanding of faith and works and their relationship to justification. The appearance of a conflict is created because they are using some key terms in slightly different ways and especially because they are seeking to correct very different problems (see the Introduction, pp. 59–65; and the comments on v. 24 below).

Comment

14. James’ emphasis on ‘showing mercy’ and its consequence for the day of judgment (vv. 12–13) leads naturally to such questions as, ‘How can deeds of mercy help in the judgment?’ and, ‘Is not faith all that matters?’ James answers these questions by pointing to the inseparable union between faith and works. He begins with two rhetorical questions that are directed ultimately to his readers but that are immediately addressed to someone who is advocating a ‘faith only’ view. The questions are clearly to be answered in the negative (in fact, the Greek construction in the second question requires a negative answer): faith that has no works is no good ; that kind of faith cannot save. The stress in the last statement on the specific nature of the faith involved is important. In the NRSV, the clause is translated ‘Can faith save you?’, which suggests that James is denying that faith can save. But the Greek word for faith (pistis) has the article in this clause, which suggests that it is referring back to the faith just mentioned: the faith the person claims to have. James is not saying that faith does not save: he is saying that the faith this person claims to have, a faith that has no deeds, cannot save (see NET: ‘can this kind of faith save him?’). Therefore, while James’ own view of faith does not differ from that found in Paul and the rest of the New Testament (cf. 1:6; 2:1, 5; 5:15), in 2:14–26 ‘faith’ often refers to ‘bogus’ faith that neither Paul nor James would regard as genuine Christian faith.

This bogus faith, James says, does not have deeds, or ‘works’ (erga). In this word also, some discern a difference between Paul and James. On the one hand, James uses deeds in a positive sense, to refer to works of love and mercy that Christians do to fulfil the law of love (cf. 2:8–13). Paul, on the other hand, especially when he is discussing justification, often refers to ‘works of the law’. Many contemporary interpreters think that Paul’s ‘works of the law’ refers to Jewish Torah obedience, especially as that obedience signifies the special place of the Jews vis-à-vis the Gentiles. But it is doubtful if this phrase has quite this restricted sense in Paul (see the Introduction, pp. 59–65). Probably, then, Paul and James mean roughly the same thing when they refer to ‘deeds’: actions done in obedience to God. Both apostles insist that both faith and works are necessary for a person ultimately to be saved. But while James is content simply to emphasize the necessity of both, Paul goes into greater detail on their relationship, insisting that faith plays a mediating role in our salvation that ‘deeds’, or ‘works’, do not (see again the Introduction, pp. 59–65).

A faith that lacks these actions cannot save. Save (sōzō) can sometimes refer to rescue from physical danger (as it seems to in 5:15), and a few interpreters have thought the verb might have this meaning here. But the context, with its focus on ultimate judgment (vv. 12–13) and justification (vv. 22–25), makes clear that the word has its normal New Testament spiritual meaning here. Sometimes save describes the initial entrance of a person into God’s kingdom (‘conversion’), but it often denotes the final deliverance from sin, death and judgment in the last day. This is the meaning the word seems to have in James (cf. 1:21; 4:12; 5:20), and it makes good sense here, since verse 13 has spoken of the final judgment. When James says, then, that the faith some people claim to have cannot save, he probably means that it will be of no profit at the time of God’s righteous judgment.

15–16. James reinforces the general theological point he has made in verse 14 with an illustration. He pictures one who has at least an external relationship to the church, since it is the person’s brother or sister who is in need. Their need is for basic, life-sustaining provisions: adequate clothing (the Greek word gymnos, ‘naked’, ‘ill-clad’, often refers to the lack of the outer garment, the chitōn) and daily food. How does this ‘believer’ respond? He or she dismisses the person in need with pious words: ‘Go in peace; keep warm and well fed.’ ‘Go in peace’ is a familiar Jewish form of dismissal; NLT captures the sense well: ‘Good-bye and have a good day.’ The verbs thermainesthe (keep warm) and chortazesthe ([be] well fed) could be either middle or passive. If the former, the ‘believer’ would be encouraging his or her needy fellow-Christians to provide for themselves, ‘to make their own way’: ‘Stay warm! Have a nice meal!’ (CEB). If the verbs are passive, the dismissal would take the form of a prayer: ‘be warmed and filled’ (ESV). In either case, the point is the same: confronted with a need among his or her own brothers and sisters, this ‘believer’ does nothing but express good wishes. What good is it? James asks. Within the illustration, this good, or ‘profit’ (ophelos), refers primarily to the situation of need that has gone unprovided for: words, however well meant, have not done these needy people much good. But the attentive reader cannot miss the way these words reproduce the phrase with which James introduced verse 14 (Ti to ophelos). Not only do the empty words of this ‘believer’ do no good for these others; they bring no spiritual ‘profit’ to himself or herself either.

This illustration, like the one in 2:2–3, is clearly hypothetical; James is not referring to a specific incident. On the other hand, it is clear that the illustration reflects a real and deeply felt concern of James. Providing for the poor is one of those deeds of mercy that will ‘triumph over’ the judgment of God (v. 13). In this, James stands in a long and widespread biblical tradition. Isaiah called the people of his day to put real meaning into their religious rituals: ‘share your food with the hungry’; ‘provide the poor wanderer with shelter’; ‘clothe [the naked]’ – then God would answer when they called (Isa. 58:7–9). Jesus promised the kingdom to those who feed and clothe ‘one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine’ (Matt. 25:31–46). And John denies that anyone who fails to provide for a brother or sister in need can have real love; for we are to love not ‘with words or speech but with actions and in truth’ (1 John 3:17–18). The warning is one that the church needs constantly to hear. Too often we have been content to offer mere words, when God may have been calling us to action. Words – sermons, prayers, confessions of faith, wise advice, encouragement – are indispensable to true Christianity. But they are shown to have real meaning, James reminds us, when people can see actions that correspond to those words.

17. James now draws the conclusion from the illustration: faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. The phrase by itself (kath’ heautēn) suggests, as Mayor says, that the faith is ‘ . . . not merely outwardly inoperative but inwardly dead’.157 This kind of faith is ‘in and of itself ’ useless, inactive, inert (the meaning of nekros in a context like this; cf. Rom. 7:8; Heb. 6:1; 9:14). The contrast is not, then, between faith and works, but between a faith that ‘has works’ and a faith that does not have works. The latter is, like a body without a spirit (cf. 2:26), lifeless, and profits one nothing on the day of judgment.

18. James moves on to a new stage of his argument by interjecting the opinion of another person: But someone will say. The identity of this person and the content of his or her opinion are not easy to determine. A major reason for the difficulty is that ancient manuscripts lacked punctuation, so that we must decide for ourselves how far this other person’s comments extend. There are three main possibilities.

a. The other person is an ‘ally’ of James, who carries on James’ argument by throwing further doubt on the reality of the faith of the person who has been mentioned in verses 14–17: ‘You [the ‘false’ believer of the illustration] say that you have faith; and I have works. But you cannot show me your faith because you do not have works; I, on the other hand, can show you my faith by my works.’158 The great advantage of this interpretation is that it handles the pronouns consistently throughout. ‘You’ is always the person who claims to have faith yet has no works; ‘I’ is always James or his ally who claims to have works. But there is an even greater objection to this view: it must take the opening phrase of the verse, But someone will say, as introducing a viewpoint similar to that of James. The word alla (but) certainly can have an emphatic force (‘yes’, ‘indeed’), but the phrase as a whole is consistently used in Greek literature to introduce an objection to or disagreement with the view being presented (see 1 Cor. 15:35 and numerous examples from the ‘diatribe’ style). Moreover, this introduction requires that the opening words be read ‘you claim to have faith’, a nuance that James does not at all make explicit.

b. The other person is an objector who is casting doubt on the reality of James’ faith. On this view, the objector’s words can be confined to the first three words after the introduction and put in the form of a question: ‘Do you, [James], really have faith?’ James then responds: ‘I do have works; and while you cannot show me your faith at all, since you lack works, I can show you my faith by those works.’159 Others who also think the objector is doubting James’ faith go to the opposite extreme and understand all of verses 18–19 to be the objector’s words: ‘You [James] claim to have faith, and I can just as well claim to have works. But you cannot show me your faith apart from works, whereas I, if I wanted, could show you my faith from my works. Your [James’] faith is no better than that of the demons!’ James’ response would then begin in verse 20.160 This view retains the natural force of the opening phrase, but suffers from a strained interpretation of the phrase ‘and I have deeds’. Hort takes this as James’ reply to the objector’s question, but kagō (‘and I’) is a very unusual way to introduce an answer to a question and the entire phrase seems redundant. The other alternative, according to which all of verses 18–19 contains the objection, suffers from an even more strained interpretation of the last part of verse 18.

c. Largely because these first two views suffer from so many difficulties, a third interpretation is to be preferred. According to this approach, ‘you’ and ‘I’ in the first part of verse 18 do not refer to specific parties in the dispute, but are used simply to distinguish two different individuals. NLT adopts this interpretation in its translation: ‘Now someone may argue, “Some people have faith; others have good deeds.” ’ This ‘someone’ would then be objecting to James’ argument by claiming that different people may have different ‘gifts’: one may have faith and another may have works. Did not Paul say that the Spirit sovereignly distributed such gifts (1 Cor. 12)? And did he not say that faith itself was one such gift (1 Cor. 12:9; cf. Rom. 12:3)? How can James then demand that all Christians possess both faith and works? To this reasoning James responds that faith and works are not special gifts that a Christian may or may not have; neither is an ‘option’ for any Christian. Only where works are present is genuine, saving faith present. The difficulty with this view is that ‘you’ and ‘I’ at the beginning of the verse cannot be applied to specific individuals, as they seem to be in the rest of the verse. In reply, Ropes points to a similar shift in the force of pronouns in an argument from the Cynic philosopher Teles. In the final analysis, this interpretation has fewer difficulties than the others and should probably be adopted.161

James, then, uses the device of the imaginary objector to further his argument for the inseparability of faith and works. Any division between the two is unthinkable, indeed impossible. Genuine faith cannot exist without works. When James says to the objector, Show me your faith without deeds, he is not simply challenging this person to give evidence for his or her faith; he is suggesting that the faith the objector claims to have is not faith at all.

19. What does this kind of ‘faith’, this ‘faith without works’, amount to? James portrays the essential poverty of this faith by comparing it to the ‘faith’ that demons have. They believe that there is one God, just as does any professing Jew or Christian. The confession of the uniqueness of God, taken from Deuteronomy 6:4, was part of the Shema, a confession of basic doctrine that the Jew recited twice daily.162 Christians also asserted the existence of one God in the face of the polytheistic religious beliefs of many Gentiles (cf. 1 Cor. 8:4–6; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:5). It is not at all unusual, then, that James should commend assent to this doctrine: Good! But the fact that James goes on immediately to ascribe the same belief to demons suggests that more than a little irony is intended in the commendation. James may also intend irony by mentioning the demons’ reaction to their belief. The word shudder (phrissō) was used in some ancient magical texts ‘of the effect that the sorcerer wishes to bring about by means of his magic’ (MM). It is, says Hort, ‘at once more distant and more prostrate than worship’. But at least it is a response – which is more, apparently, than can be said of some professing Christians who make the same confession!

This verse indicates quite plainly that the faith that James speaks about in these verses is very far from the full Christian faith that both he and Paul proclaimed. As important as correct doctrine is, no one in the early church considered it sufficient for salvation. Genuine faith must go beyond the intellect to the will; it must affect our attitudes and actions as well as our ‘beliefs’. As Mitton says, ‘It is a good thing to possess an accurate theology, but it is unsatisfactory unless that good theology also possesses us.’

20. This verse introduces a new stage in James’ response to the suggestion that faith can exist without accompanying works. In verse 19 he has shown that this kind of ‘bare’ faith is nothing more than knowledge about God, such as demons have, and that it leads to nothing better than abject fear before God. Now he will show from the Old Testament that real faith always has works and that it is this ‘working faith’ that leads to acceptance before God. James addresses the person who has advocated a separation of faith and works as you foolish person. Foolish (kenos, lit. ‘empty’) is rarely applied to people, but probably suggests deficiency in understanding as well as moral perversity. We need not assume that James has a specific person in mind (some scholars who were anxious to find dissent between James and Paul even thought that James had Paul in mind here!). The rebuke of an imaginary opponent was a customary feature of the ancient argumentative style called diatribe (cf. also Rom. 2:1; 9:20). James asks his imaginary opponent if he or she wants evidence (the force of ginōskō, ‘know’, here) that faith without works is useless. The word translated useless is agros, which means, according to the etymology of the word, ‘not-working’, or ‘idle’ – Jesus used it to describe workers who had not been hired for the day (Matt. 20:3, 6). James’ choice of the word here creates a pointed play on words: ‘faith that has no works does not work’! The verse restates the main point of the entire section: faith without works, or deeds, does not save (v. 14); it does no good (v. 16): it is dead (vv. 17, 26) and useless.

21. Furthermore, faith without works does not confer ‘righteousness’; it does not ‘justify’. This is the thesis of verses 21–25, stated theologically for James’ readers in verse 24 and demonstrated from the lives of Abraham and Rahab in verses 21–23 and 25. It is possible that James adduces Abraham as an example because his opponents have already used Genesis 15:6 as a proof text for the importance of faith. Abraham, one of the most revered figures in Israel’s history, was referred to frequently by Jews in support of all sorts of views. As might be expected, Abraham’s amazing obedience to the Lord’s command to sacrifice his son Isaac was a particularly popular source of theological and devotional comment. Philo calls this ‘offering of Isaac’ the greatest of Abraham’s ‘works’ (On Abraham, 167); and 1 Maccabees 2:52 links Abraham’s faithfulness ‘in the test’ to the pronouncement of Genesis 15:6 ‘and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’. James argues that Abraham’s willingness to kill his son in obedience to the Lord’s command is evidence of ‘the works’ on the basis of which Abraham was considered righteous.

The claim that James makes about Abraham in this verse is, as we have seen, quite in keeping with Jewish tradition in James’ day. But how does it cohere with the teaching of Paul? James appears to differ with Paul on two key points. First, Paul appeals to Genesis 15:6 to prove that Abraham’s faith, in distinction from his works, was ‘credited’ to him for righteousness (Gal. 3:6; Rom. 4:1–5). Second, Paul insists that Abraham, and people generally, are justified by faith and not by works (e.g. Rom. 3:28). Resolution of the tension between the two writers is not easy. But we think they can be shown to be making complementary rather than contradictory points when all the relevant factors are taken into account. We will lay the groundwork for this resolution in the exegetical details as we move verse by verse through this section. In the Introduction, we place the resolution we argue for here in a broader context (see the section on ‘Faith, works and justification’).

An important consideration in evaluating James’ argument is his use of the key verb dikaioō (consider righteous, ‘justify’) in this verse and then again in verses 24 and 25. This verb occurs forty-four times in the LXX. Of the twenty-eight times there is a Hebrew original, twenty-two involve a form of the verb ṣādaq. The word is associated above all with the ‘law court’, and describes the verdict of innocence rendered by the judge (even when the verb is used without direct reference to a legal setting, the forensic connotations are maintained; cf. Gen. 38:26; 44:16; Jer. 3:11; Ezek. 16:51–52). God is sometimes the judge before whom one pleads one’s case (1 Sam. 12:7; Isa. 43:26; Mic. 7:9) and who passes judgment on the lives of men and women. What is particularly important is that this divine verdict is usually rendered with respect to actual conduct. In 1 Kings 8:31–32 Solomon prays: ‘When anyone wrongs their neighbour and is required to take an oath and they come and swear the oath before your altar in this temple, then hear from heaven and act. Judge between your servants, condemning the guilty by bringing down on their heads what they have done, and vindicating [dikaiōsai] the innocent [dikaion] by treating them in accordance with their innocence [dikaiosynēn].’ In such cases, righteousness designates not sinless behaviour, but conformity to a particular norm: often, although not always, that norm is found in the covenant stipulations. However, while a relative degree of ‘righteousness’ is possible for human beings, ultimate righteousness, complete conformity to the will of God, is recognized to be impossible. ‘Do not bring your servant into judgment, for no one living is righteous before you’ (Ps. 143:2). Here there is a clear precedent for Paul’s emphasis on the need for God, in an act of grace, to supply the righteousness that humans are unable to achieve (Rom. 3:20 and Gal. 2:16). Nevertheless, the general thrust of the Old Testament is that ‘men are declared to be in the right on the facts, i.e. because in general or in a specific matter they are upright, and innocent’.163 This declaration is sometimes attached to the final judgment (Isa. 43:9; 45:25; 50:8; 53:11?).

Judaism maintained the same basic viewpoint: ‘righteousness’ related to correct conduct, as defined by God’s law, and the verdict of justification was pronounced over those who faithfully observed the covenant stipulations.164 Matthew’s Gospel reflects this Jewish usage. While entrance into the kingdom is dependent on commitment to Jesus (‘following Jesus’), ‘righteousness’ is mainly, if not exclusively, the conduct expected of the disciple (Matt. 5:20) and dikaioō is used of the last judgment, at which time ‘works’, that is, things we say and do, are taken into account (Matt. 12:37).

The early date of James, the Jewish atmosphere of the book and the close relationship to the teaching of Jesus make it likely that James is using dikaioō in this sense: ‘declare to be right before God’. Nevertheless, a significant number of scholars think that James is using the word in a different sense. They note that dikaioō can sometimes mean ‘demonstrate to be innocent or right’ (cf. Gen. 44:16; Luke 7:29, 35; and the references in G. Schrenk, TDNT II, pp. 213–214), a sense that might fit very well with the focus in verses 18–19 on ‘showing’ to others the reality of one’s faith. On this view, then, James is not claiming that works were involved in Abraham’s being declared righteous, but that they were necessary to demonstrate that he was, in fact, righteous.165 However, in addition to the evidence from the usual meaning of dikaioō that we have noted, this meaning does not fit the context well. James’ concern, as verse 14 makes clear, is not ‘How can a believer show that he or she is right before God?’ but ‘What kind of faith is necessary to secure vindication from God in the judgment?’

James, then, is probably claiming that works were involved in Abraham’s being declared righteous. What, then, of Paul’s claim that Abraham was declared righteous by his faith? One option is that Paul focuses on initial justification and James on final justification: Abraham entered into relationship with God by faith but he was ultimately declared righteous on the basis of faith and works.166 However, this distinction between present and future does not ultimately solve the problem. Paul’s appeal to Abraham in Romans 4 and Galatians 3 is to counter a charge that God’s justifying verdict, whenever it is rendered, comes through his works. While attractive, then, no neat solution to the Paul vs. James issue on the basis either of different meanings of dikaioō or of different ‘moments’ in justification seems to be convincing. Accommodation between their viewpoints must be sought on another level.167 James, we argue, is making a general point: God’s ultimate verdict over Abraham was rooted in his faith but took into account his works. Paul, on the other hand, with greater precision, insists that works, while ‘involved in’ Abraham’s ultimate justification, were neither the basis on which nor the means by which that justification was attained.168 (See, again, the Introduction, pp. 59–65 for a larger discussion.)

22. Still addressing himself to the ‘objector’ of verse 18 (the Greek verb for You see is in the singular), James now asserts that Abraham’s faith and his actions were working together. If verse 21 has given the impression that James is interested only in Abraham’s works, this verse shows that James has presumed Abraham’s faith all along. We should recall that it is the nature of Abraham’s faith, a faith that is not useless (v. 20), that James wants to illustrate. Moreover, Genesis 15:6, with its stress on Abraham’s faith, has probably been in James’ mind all along. He begins with Abraham’s works because it was this element in the patriarch’s life that he needed to highlight. Perhaps some of his readers had seized on Genesis 15:6 in order to stress Abraham’s faith and had interpreted this faith in accordance with some Jewish traditions, as his turning from idolatry ‘to the worship of one god’.169 But this kind of faith, of course, would be no better than that of the demons (v. 19), and James wants to show that Abraham’s faith was much more than that.

James uses another wordplay to stress the intimate relationship between Abraham’s faith and his works: his faith and his actions (ergois) were working together (synergei). Abraham’s faith was a ‘working’ faith, an active faith, a faith that was not so much the source as the constant partner of his works. This constant cooperation of faith and works is highlighted with the use of the imperfect tense of the verb, a tense that connotes continual or repeated action. ‘Faith’ was not something that Abraham exercised on one occasion; it stimulated, directed and cooperated with his works. But not only did Abraham’s faith do something to, or with, his works; his works also did something to his faith: they completed it. The verb used here, teleioō, means ‘to perfect’ or ‘bring to maturity’. Just as the ‘perfect’ Christian is produced through faithful endurance of trials (1:3–4), so ‘perfect’ faith is produced through successive acts of obedience. Abraham’s faith was strengthened, matured and deepened by the successive ‘trials’ through which he was called to go. By this James does not mean that faith cannot exist without works (for a dying person may truly believe without ever performing a ‘work’), nor that faith is simply shown to be ‘perfect’ through works, but that works are the necessary, inevitable product of true saving faith and hence bring faith itself to ‘maturity’.170 If I swing a sledgehammer in an arc that moves through a glass table, the necessary outcome is a shattered glass table. The shattering itself is not the swing of the sledgehammer, but it is the inevitable result. In a similar manner, faith is the decisive ‘action’ that leads to justification. But that ‘action’ leaves evidence of its occurring – ‘works’. Faith must not be confused with works, but neither can faith be separated from works.

23. As a result of the active cooperation of faith and works in Abraham’s life, manifested especially in his obedience to God when asked to sacrifice his son, he received God’s approval: he received righteousness and was called God ’s friend. Genesis 15:6, which has been behind James’ discussion of Abraham all along, is now cited. But what does James mean when he asserts that this scripture was fulfilled as a result of Abraham’s obedience? Certainly Genesis 15:6 is not a prophecy. It straightforwardly asserts that God ‘reckoned’, or ‘considered’, Abraham’s faith – in this context, specifically his belief in God’s promise to give him a natural son and many descendants – as righteousness. Righteousness should be taken in a forensic or judicial sense, as meaning that God considered him as ‘being right’ before him, and this is a fair extrapolation from the intention of the original.171 How, then, could this pronouncement be fulfilled ?

One important key is to recognize that the verb plēroō need not be given the strict meaning ‘fulfil’. The word means, basically, ‘to fill’ or ‘fill up’ and can be used of fishing-nets (Matt. 13:48) and houses (John 12:3). More typically in the New Testament, it is used to designate the ‘filling up’ or ‘culmination’ of the Old Testament through the advent of Jesus. This can take the form of a ‘fulfilment’ of a prophecy, the bringing out of the ultimate significance of a historical event (Matt. 2:15) or the climactic interpretation and application of the Old Testament law (Matt. 5:17). There is no need, then, to think that James views Genesis 15:6 as a prophecy that was ‘fulfilled’ later in Abraham’s career. What he is suggesting, rather, is that this verse found its ultimate significance and meaning in Abraham’s life of obedience. When Abraham ‘put faith in’ the Lord, God gave him, then and there, the status of a right relationship with him: before he had done works, before he was circumcised. This Paul brings out forcefully (Rom. 4:1–17). But the faith of Abraham and God’s verdict of acquittal were ‘filled up’, given their ultimate significance, when Abraham ‘perfected’ his faith with works and the angel of the Lord reasserted God’s verdict: ‘now I know that you fear God’ (Gen. 22:12). James does not deny that Abraham was given a righteous standing with God through his faith, long before he offered Isaac in obedience to God. But he wants to emphasize that Abraham’s faith was a vital, active faith and that God’s verdict was reconfirmed on the basis of that activity. The initial declaration of righteousness on the basis of faith is given its ultimate meaning and validity through the final declaration of righteousness on the basis of a ‘faith that works’. Thus Paul focuses on the chronological placement of Genesis 15:6, and cites it as evidence of the initial declaration of righteousness that Abraham attained from God solely on the basis of faith. James cites the same verse more as a ‘motto’, standing over all of Abraham’s life, and applies it to God’s ultimate declaration of Abraham’s righteousness.

James introduces a second result of Abraham’s active faith: he was called God ’s friend. The NIV, along with most other versions, separates this statement from the quotation of Genesis 15:6, implying that it is not a second scriptural text. This is appropriate, since the phrase is nowhere found in the Old Testament. However, two Old Testament verses call Abraham a ‘friend’ (’hb) of God (2 Chr. 20:7; Isa. 41:8; cf. also Isa. 51:2; Dan. 3:35 LXX), and the title was a popular one for Abraham in intertestamental literature.172 James cites it as an indication of the privileged status Abraham was given on account of his deep faith and practical obedience.

24. James now addresses his readers directly (You see [hōrate] is plural) and formulates a theological principle drawn from the life of Abraham: a person is considered righteous by what they do [‘works’, ergōn] and not by faith alone. With this statement we reach the climax of the tension between James and Paul. For does not Paul say almost exactly the opposite? ‘We maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law’ (Rom. 3:28). In our comments on verses 14 and 21 we have already dealt with the crucial points, but it will help to repeat them here. First, we must recognize that Paul’s ‘faith’ and James’ ‘faith alone’ are entirely different concepts. Paul has a strongly dynamic concept of faith, by which the believer is intimately united with Christ, his or her Lord, and which includes a commitment of obedience to that Lord. Thus Paul can speak of ‘the obedience that comes from faith’ (Rom. 1:5) and say that it is ‘faith expressing itself through love’ that avails in Christ (Gal. 5:6). In other words, faith for Paul includes the commitment to obedience; it is confessing that Jesus is Lord that is the true content of faith and that brings salvation and justification (Rom. 10:9–10).173 While James’ own concept of faith may not be entirely different from this, he has spoken throughout verses 14–26 of a ‘faith’ that certain people claim to have (v. 14). This ‘faith’ is a matter of speech without action (vv. 15–16), verbal profession without trust and commitment (vv. 18–19). It is this dead, barren faith that James designates by ‘faith alone’ in verse 24. Paul himself would have been second to none in condemning anyone who thought that this faith could justify.

On the other hand, it is impossible to imagine Paul saying that ‘a person is considered righteous, or justified, by works’. As Romans 4:2–8 (and cf. Rom. 9:10–12) shows, Paul excluded ‘works’ (and not just ‘works of the law’) as a means by which a person can be justified before God. As we have argued above (on v. 21), the resolution of the tension between James and Paul on this point comes when we recognize that Paul is speaking more particularly than James about the means of being justified before God. In other words, James’s ex ergōn and Paul’s ex ergōn [nomou] function differently at the level of theology. The former is used to insist that no-one can be justified apart from works; the latter claims that ‘works’ are never the means by which one is justified. As Calvin puts it: ‘ . . . as Paul contends that we are justified apart from the help of works, so James does not allow those who lack good works to be reckoned righteous.’174 That little word only that James adds to faith makes all the difference: it shows that James has no intention of excluding faith from the process of justification. He was deeply disturbed, however, by a faith that had no consequences for life – what we may call ‘cheap faith’. Faced with this tendency, James had to place great stress on the active nature of faith and to assert that actions did matter in the long run. Paul was faced with a very different problem. His Jewish and judaizing opponents considered works done in obedience to God as a necessary means to maintain their place in God’s covenant. Against them, Paul asserted that the covenant on which they relied was, in effect, broken and that faith in Christ was the only way that one could now be made right with God.

Whenever people rely on their religious activities for salvation, Paul’s powerful plea for a radical commitment of the whole person to Christ must be vigorously proclaimed. But when ‘faith’ has been turned into nothing more than a verbal commitment to certain doctrines, James’ understanding of faith as an active, vigorous obedience must be forcefully reasserted.175

25. Just in case his readers have missed the point, James adds one final illustration. If it might be objected that Abraham’s works were no more than what might be expected from one who had so richly experienced God’s grace, the same is certainly not true of Rahab. With little basis for her belief, she had become convinced that ‘the LORD your God is God in heaven above and on the earth below’ (Josh. 2:11). And on the basis of this ‘faith’ she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction. To be sure, James does not specifically mention her faith, but it is clear from his entire argument that he assumes it. Significantly, Hebrews 11:31 singles her out as an example of faith. James’ point here, then, is the same as he has made in the similarly worded verse 21: God’s final judgment takes into consideration the actual righteousness that a person exhibits through works. The aorist participles hypodexamenē (gave lodging to, or ‘received’) and ekbalousa (sent off) may specify the time when Rahab was considered righteous (ekikaiōthē) but more likely elaborate on the ‘works’ (ergōn; NIV what she did) James has in view.

Why has James chosen Rahab as an example of justification by works? Perhaps he has been influenced by the traditional association of Abraham and Rahab, attested in the early Christian book 1 Clement (chs. 10 and 12). In this text both Abraham and Rahab are extolled for their ‘faith and hospitality’. The reference to Abraham is to the welcome he gave to the three ‘men’ in Genesis 18, an incident that was frequently mentioned in Jewish tradition. Some think that this hospitality motif explains why James mentions both Abraham and Rahab; the ‘works’ they did are precisely those which people with a sham faith do not have (vv. 15–16).176 A serious problem with this theory, however, is James’ failure to mention the Genesis 18 incident. Another possibility is that Abraham and Rahab are both mentioned because they were both considered to be proselytes (converts) who acted on the basis of their faith in the ‘one God’. But what James seems to emphasize more clearly, by pointedly calling Rahab a prostitute, is the difference between Abraham and Rahab; Abraham, the widely heralded hero and ‘father’ of Israel, is juxtaposed with the pagan woman of loose reputation.177 But both the patriarch and the prostitute are declared righteous on the basis of works that issued from their faith.

26. James concludes the passage by restating its central theme: faith without deeds is dead. Just as the body without its invigorating spirit, or ‘breath’ of life (cf. Gen. 2:7), is nothing more than a corpse, so faith without the deeds or works that give it vitality is dead. Again we see that James is concerned not that works be ‘added’ to faith, but that one possess the right kind of faith, ‘faith that works’. Without that kind of faith Christianity becomes a barren orthodoxy and loses any right to be called faith.

Theology

The apparent conflict between Paul and James in this paragraph attracts considerable attention – as well it should, considering the issues at stake. But it would be terribly unfortunate if we spent so much time on this matter that we missed what James is telling us in this passage. ‘Justification by faith alone’ has been a doctrine central to the churches descended from the Reformation. This doctrine is true and important. But turning the doctrine into an excuse for failing to live in obedience to Christ and his word has been a constant temptation. James appears to be warning about just this kind of error; and we need to hear his warning. We are not justified through or on the basis of our works; but neither are we justified without them. True faith will always manifest itself in works of obedience. Without works, faith is not really faith – certainly not saving faith.

Somewhat ironically, no-one has captured the basic message of James 2:14–26 more forcefully than Luther (from his preface to Romans):

O it is a living, busy active mighty thing, this faith. It is impossible for it not to be doing good things incessantly. It does not ask whether good works are to be done, but before the question is asked, it has already done this, and is constantly doing them. Whoever does not do such works, however, is an unbeliever. He gropes and looks around for faith and good works, but knows neither what faith is nor what good works are. Yet he talks and talks, with many words, about faith and good works.

4. DISSENSIONS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY (3:1 – 4:12)

The series of paragraphs following 1:19 – 2:26 – which, as we have seen, is relatively unified around the theme of doing the word – do not, at first sight, appear to have much in common. Nevertheless, a closer scrutiny reveals some measure of cohesiveness in the material in 3:1 – 4:12. This section begins and ends with warnings about the sin of impure speech (3:1–12; 4:11–12). Between these paragraphs, James focuses on the problem of dissensions and disputes within the community. These two issues are naturally related, since impure, especially critical, speech almost always accompanies quarrels and arguments. Another unifying factor within the section dealing with community dissension (3:13 – 4:10) is the theme of envy, or selfishness, the sinful attitude that James holds responsible for the contentious, arrogant behaviour of his readers.178 The cure for this selfish envy is radical repentance, a humbling of oneself before God (4:4–10), an embracing of ‘the wisdom from heaven’, with its fruits of humility and peace (3:13–18). Only through such a transformation in the attitude of individual Christians will it be possible to avoid sinful speech and bring healing to the community’s divisions.

A. The harmful effects of the uncontrolled tongue (3:1–12)

Context

James has already mentioned his concern about sins of speech. In 1:19 he encouraged his readers to be ‘slow to speak’, while controlling the tongue is picked out as one of the main ingredients of a ‘pure religion’ in 1:26. Now he attacks the problem at some length. Perhaps the general issue of ‘works’ in 2:14–26 has stimulated this section: ‘words are also works’ (Tasker). These verses, more than any others in the epistle, reveal the breadth of James’ background. The problem of uncontrolled speech is a frequent theme in Proverbs and other Old Testament and Jewish wisdom literature. But James goes beyond these sources, pressing into service illustrations widely popular among Greek and Hellenistic-Jewish moralists. These illustrations are of a type that would have been known among those with even a minimal acquaintance with Hellenistic culture. The picture of James that emerges is of a reasonably well-educated Jew who knows his Old Testament thoroughly and who is well acquainted with Hellenistic-Jewish culture, language and literature.

The paragraph falls into four basic parts. 1) In verses 1–2 James introduces the issue by warning people who want to be teachers about the peculiar difficulty of controlling the tongue. 2) The incredible power of the tongue is the theme of verses 3–6, summarized in verse 5a: ‘the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts.’ 3) Powerful as it is, the tongue is extremely difficult to keep under control (vv. 7–8). 4) Verses 9–12 end the passage on a note typical for James throughout the letter: the tongue reveals its evil nature by manifesting that ‘doubleness’ that is so typical of sin.179

Comment

1. James approaches the subject of the tongue by means of a warning about the teaching office. Teachers (didaskaloi) played a prominent part in the life of the early church. Paul singles them out as exercising one of the three most prominent ministries in the church, along with apostles and prophets (1 Cor. 12:28; see also Acts 13:1; Rom. 12:7; Eph. 4:11). Somewhat comparable to the Jewish rabbi, the teacher in the early church was entrusted with the crucial task of transmitting the doctrine that bound the community together (see 2 Tim. 2:2). A certain authority and prestige naturally adhered to the teaching ministry. Teachers in James’ day would have been particularly noteworthy, since few people could read and opportunities for advancement in status were meagre. It is not surprising, then, that Christians were attracted to the teaching ministry. Concern about believers coveting this ministry for the wrong reasons probably lies behind James’ warning: Not many of you should become teachers.

As a reinforcement of this warning, James points to another, less attractive, aspect of teaching: we who teach will be judged more strictly. An alternative, more literal, translation of the Greek would be ‘we shall receive a greater judgment’, the word ‘judgment’ (krima) suggesting the idea of punishment or condemnation. Clearly, James cannot mean that Christian teachers will receive a more severe penalty than other Christians – few, indeed, would become teachers in that case! Probably we should understand him to be saying that the importance of the teaching ministry renders it liable to a closer scrutiny and that failure to discharge the ministry faithfully will bring a correspondingly more severe penalty. Jesus warned that ‘From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked’ (Luke 12:48). Those who have been given the teaching ‘gift’ bear an awesome responsibility for their exercise of that gift in nurturing people in the faith. Paul was very much conscious of this responsibility. As he said goodbye to the elders of the Ephesian church, he stressed that he had been faithful to his task as a herald of the gospel: ‘I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of any of you. For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God’ (Acts 20:26–27). As an example of a failure to discharge this responsibility we may cite the insincere, rapacious Jewish scribes of whom Jesus said: ‘These men will be punished most severely’ (Mark 12:40). Those who lead others in the faith must be careful that their own lives reflect what they are teaching. Greater knowledge brings with it a greater responsibility to live according to that knowledge. James’ intention is not to dissuade those from teaching who, like himself, have the call and gifts to teach. But he does want to impress upon his readers the seriousness of the ministry and to warn them that it must not be entered into frivolously or for selfish reasons.

2. Teachers place themselves in greater danger of judgment because the main tool of their ministry is also the part of the body most difficult to control: the tongue. As Doriani says, ‘Teachers are especially vulnerable to failures of speech because their role demands that they speak so much. More words mean more errors. As we grow accustomed to public speaking, we can become careless. When asked to offer opinion, we comply, even if we have scant qualifications and little factual basis.’180

To highlight the peculiar danger of the tongue, James first acknowledges the prevalence of sin: we all stumble in many ways. The verb ‘stumble’ (ptaiō) is applied figuratively to spiritual failure both in Judaism and in the New Testament (cf. 2:10; Rom. 11:11; 2 Pet. 1:10). It may suggest sins of a relatively minor, even inadvertent, nature. The emphasis is probably not on the number of sins (as the NLT ‘we all make many mistakes’ may suggest), but on the variety of sins (see NIV and ESV). In contrast to this, James says, is the one way in which we all sin – with the tongue. James is not the first to single out impure speech as a particularly widespread sin. Proverbs, for instance, has a great deal to say about the importance and power of words (cf. 10:8, 11; 16:27–28; 18:7–8). Sirach, like James, highlights sins of speech in conjunction with inadvertent sins: ‘A person may make a slip without intending it. Who has never sinned with his tongue?’ (Sirach 19:16). James puts it positively: anyone who is never at fault in what they say is perfect, able to keep their whole body in check. So difficult is the mouth to control, so given is it to uttering the false, the biting, the slanderous word, so prone to stay open when it were more profitably closed, that the person who has it under control surely has the ability to conquer other, less unruly, members of the body.

Since James continues to include himself in his strictures (‘we all make many mistakes’) he may also be continuing to think specifically of teachers in this verse. But the rest of the passage makes no reference to teachers, and James’ warning about the tongue certainly has general application. Probably, then, James intends to include all his readers in the first person plural of verse 2. His warning to would-be teachers has suggested to his mind the problem of the tongue; and this is a problem for everyone in the church.

3. With this verse begins a series of illustrations that James uses with great effect in portraying the power and danger of the tongue (vv. 3–6a). None of these illustrations is original to James; he draws from familiar and widely used images to make his points.

In the first image, James reminds us of the way we are able to control a horse by using the small bit in its mouth. This image may have been suggested by verse 2, where James uses the verb chalinagōgeō, ‘bridle’ (translated keep . . . in check in the NIV). But the use of the horse to illustrate the idea of something small controlling something large was not new. The fifth-century BC playwright Sophocles has one of his actors say, ‘I know that spirited horses are broken by the use of a small bit’ (Antigone, 477). To be sure, James does not specifically mention the small size of the bit. But he probably intends this to be inferred since he does stress that bits, when inserted into horses’ mouths, enable us to control the whole animal.

4. The contrast between a small instrument and the large object it can control is made explicit in the second illustration. Take ships as an example: though they are very large and are driven by strong winds, a very small instrument, the rudder, can turn them in whatever direction the pilot wishes. Once again, James has employed a very popular image. Aristotle specifically contrasted the small size of the rudder, turned by one person, with the ‘huge mass’ of the ship it controls (Quaest. Mechan. 5), and both humans and God were often compared to a helmsman. Interestingly, one also finds several places in which the horse and its rider and the ship and its rudder are used together to illustrate various points.181 Sometimes even fire (cf. v. 5) is included along with the horse and the ship.182 The fact that the combination of images found in verses 3–5 is attested elsewhere may suggest that James is dependent on these sources. But such a hypothesis is probably not necessary. The illustrations are, after all, rather obvious, as the frequency of their occurrence suggests. They were probably ‘in the air’, as it were, so that James’ use of them demonstrates nothing more than that he was acquainted with the wider culture around him.

Both illustrations in verses 2–4 focus on the control exercised by a person through a small object (the bit, the rudder) on a large body (the horse, the ship). A strict application of this imagery would suggest that the believer similarly uses the tongue to control ‘the whole body’ (v. 2), but it is difficult to understand how the tongue could directly control the body. Probably we should make the application a little differently: just as the bit determines the direction of the horse and the rudder the ship, so the tongue can determine the destiny of the individual. When believers exercise careful control of the tongue, it can be presumed that they also are able to direct their whole lives in their proper, divinely charted course: they are ‘perfect’ (v. 2). But when that tongue is not restrained, small though it is, the rest of the body is likely to be uncontrolled and undisciplined also.

5. The first part of this verse draws the application from the images in verses 3–4 (likewise, houtōs). The importance of the bit and the rudder, small though they may be, is comparable to the importance of the tongue, a small part of the body, yet one that makes great boasts. ‘Boasting’ is often in the New Testament a sinful activity and manifests an arrogant presumptuousness before God. Here, however, ‘boasting’ is used without these negative connotations – the tongue does have considerable importance and it can legitimately boast about its power to determine a person’s destiny. Phillips paraphrases, ‘the human tongue is physically small, but what tremendous effects it can boast of!’

This half-verse is transitional. The images in verses 3–5a focus on the disproportionate power of the tongue, while verse 6 highlights the tongue’s destructive potential. Both these ideas are present in verse 5b: Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. A peculiarity of this translation is that the same Greek word (hēlikos) is given different, indeed opposite, meanings in its two occurrences: it is rendered both great and small. The explanation is that the word ‘expresses magnitude in either direction’ (Hort) – immensity or minuteness. Used in the same sentence in this way, a certain antithetical symmetry is achieved.183 As an image, the rapid destructive spread of fire was frequently used to convey a warning about the effect of unrestrained passions. The Old Testament compares the speech of a fool to ‘a scorching fire’ (Prov. 16:27) and Sirach says that the tongue ‘will not be master over the godly, and they will not be burned in its flame’ (Sirach 28:22). The word translated forest (hylē) could refer to the brush which covered so many Palestinian hills, and which, in that dry Mediterranean climate, could so easily and disastrously burst into flame.184

6. The identification of the tongue with fire, implicit in verse 5, is now stated and the destructive potential of the tongue is further stressed. These points, made at the beginning and end of verse 6, are clear, but the middle part of the verse presents the reader of the Greek text with a notable difficulty. Including the first part of the verse, James uses five expressions in the nominative case with only one indicative verb. The interpreter or translator must decide how best to combine these words to make sense of the verse, and every combination has some difficulties. Because of this, many have suggested that the text must be emended, that is, that we have to change the wording to make sense out of it. But conjectural emendation of the New Testament text, with its wealth of manuscript evidence, should always be a last, desperate, resort. We will therefore attempt to explain the text as it stands.

An initial problem is the meaning of the phrase ho kosmos tēs adikias, which immediately follows the statement the tongue also is a fire. Taking kosmos to mean ‘adornment’ (cf. 1 Pet. 3:3), some think that James may be suggesting that the tongue ‘adorns’ unrighteousness, by using flowery language to make sin attractive. But this meaning of kosmos is poorly attested in the New Testament and is far from the obvious meaning of James’ phrase. A second option is that kosmos means ‘sum total’ or ‘mass’ (see BDAG; Prov. 17:6a [LXX only]). On this understanding, James emphasizes the great evil inherent in the tongue, a ‘mass’ or great body of unrighteousness. The problems with this view are that the meaning ‘totality’ for kosmos is poorly attested, the article before kosmos is not adequately explained and the force of the verb kathistatai (‘appoint’, ‘cause’) is lost. The most natural translation of the phrase, which gives kosmos the same meaning it has in three of its other occurrences in James (1:27; 4:4 [twice]), is ‘the unrighteous world’ (so most English versions; see e.g. NIV, a world of evil; ESV, ‘a world of unrighteousness’). The phrase is then parallel to Luke 16:9, mamōna tēs adikias (‘unrighteous mammon’), and uses ‘world’ in its well-attested New Testament sense – the fallen, rebellious, sinful world system.

If we adopt this translation of the phrase ho kosmos tēs adikias, two different punctuations of the verse are possible: 1) ‘And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is placed among our members as a world of iniquity; it stains the whole body . . . ’ (NRSV); 2) ‘And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body . . . ’ (ESV). In the first case, ho kosmos tēs adikias is a predicate of the verb kathistatai; in the second reading, this phrase is an appositional modifier of ‘the tongue’. The difference between the two is not great, but the first is perhaps a more natural reading. Both renderings take the verb kathistatai to be passive (by form, it could be either middle or passive). But it could also be middle, in the sense ‘appoints itself as’ or simply ‘represents’ (NET).185

What does it mean, then, to say that ‘the tongue makes itself the unrighteous world in our members’? Presumably, James wants to suggest that the tongue contains within it the sins of the fallen world. As Calvin puts it, ‘a slender portion of flesh contains the whole world of iniquity.’ Jesus, it will be remembered, claimed that ‘what comes out of their mouth’ defiles a person and explained further that the mouth expressed the heart, in which are found ‘evil thoughts – murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander’ (Matt. 15:11, 18–19). No other ‘member’ of the body, perhaps, wreaks so much havoc on the godly life.

Verse 6 concludes with a series of three participles that further describe the tongue. It corrupts (spilousa) the whole body, accomplishing the exact opposite of ‘pure religion’, which involves keeping ourselves from being ‘polluted [aspilon] by the world’ (1:27). The sins committed with the tongue spread spiritual pollution to the whole person. With the second two participles, James returns to the imagery of fire to characterize, respectively, the extent and the source of the devastation wrought by the tongue. In saying that the tongue sets on fire the whole course of one’s life, James clearly intends to reiterate the magnitude of the tongue’s destructive potential. But his precise meaning is unclear. The phrase could more literally be translated ‘the cycle of existence’ (ton trochon tēs geneseōs). Language like this was used in the Orphic religion to describe the unending cycle of reincarnations from which deliverance was sought. But there is sufficient evidence to show that what had originally been a technical religious or philosophical expression had become popularized and was used in James’ day as a way of describing the course of human life, perhaps with an emphasis on the ‘ups and downs’ of life.186 The point, then, is that the tongue’s fiery destructive power affects all of human existence, from beginning to end, and all its circumstances. Where does this enormously destructive potential come from? From hell, says James. He uses the term gehenna here, reflecting again his acquaintance with the teaching of Jesus, who used it often to describe the place of ultimate condemnation (the word occurs only here and in the teaching of Jesus in the NT). The word is a transliteration of the Hebrew ‘Valley of Hinnom’, which had an evil reputation in the Old Testament, and in the intertestamental period came to be used of the place of final judgment. The power of Satan himself, the chief denizen of hell, gives to the tongue its great destructive potential.

James does not elaborate the ways in which the destructive power of the tongue can make itself felt: but he undoubtedly would have thought of those sins of speech that are enumerated in Proverbs: thoughtless ‘chattering’ (10:8; cf. 12:18; 29:20); lying (cf. 12:19); arrogant boasting (18:12); gossiping (10:18). Think what enormous, sometimes irreversible, harm can be caused to people by unsubstantiated, often false, rumours. Such a rumour can be harder to stop than any forest fire (cf. v. 5). We know from bitter experience that the childhood taunt, ‘Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me’, reverses the truth of the matter. The wounds caused by sticks and stones heal; the wounds caused by words sometimes never heal.

7. Verse 7 begins with a gar (‘for’), untranslated in the NIV. James may use this word to indicate that verses 7–8 provide the basis for something that has been said in verse 6. On this view, perhaps it is the untameable nature of the tongue that provides evidence for the assertion that the tongue receives its power from hell. However, this word often signals simple continuation of thought in the New Testament; it is for this reason that the NIV (along with NLT; HCSB; CEB) does not translate it. On this view, verse 7 simply adds another argument to James’ warning about the tongue. The claim that mankind has been successful in taming all kinds of wild animals alludes to the Genesis creation story. The fourfold division of the animal kingdom picks up the similar classification in Genesis 1:26.187 The peculiar repetition of the verb ‘tame’ may reflect this same text. The first occurrence of the verb (damazetai) is in the present tense, connoting the extended time during which the taming of the animals has taken place. But the repetition of the verb in the perfect tense (dedamastai) may suggest that mankind has been given the ability to tame the animals at a time in the past. James accentuates this allusion to the original creation by contrasting the physis of the animal kingdom with the physis of mankind. This word probably has in the context the connotation ‘species’ (NRSV; NAB). It is an interesting coincidence, and perhaps no more than that, that Philo compares humans to the driver of a chariot (cf. Jas 3:3) and the pilot of a ship (3:4) in stressing their dominion over creation.188

8. In the Greek of this verse, the tongue comes first for contrast: mankind may subdue animals, but the tongue no-one can tame. It is not clear what we should make of James’ addition of anthrōpōn (‘of people’) to oudeis (‘no-one’). The word may simply stress the human nature of the people James refers to; many English translations, such as the NIV, capture the sense by rendering no human being. But Augustine suggested a more subtle interpretation: ‘ . . . he does not say that no-one can tame the tongue, but no-one of men; so that when it is tamed we confess that this is brought about by the pity, the help, the grace of God.’189

The two descriptions of the tongue that complete the verse may be in apposition to tongue (NRSV – ‘a restless evil, full of deadly poison’), but it is probably better to see a new sentence beginning here: It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison (so most of the English translations). Restless translates the same word (akatastatos) that James used in 1:8 to describe the ‘double-minded’ person, unstable in all they do’.190 As a modifier of evil, it may suggest that the ‘evil’ is difficult to control – ‘always liable to break out’ (Phillips) – or that the evil involves ‘instability and lack of single-mindedness’ (Davids). The first interpretation would make this a natural complement of verse 8a; the second would prepare the way for the description of the ‘double’, contradictory, use of the tongue in verses 9–12. Probably the former should be accepted, because it yields a more natural meaning in combination with ‘evil’. The final description of the tongue in this verse, full of deadly poison, reflects Old Testament teaching: evil people ‘make their tongues as sharp as a serpent’s; the poison of vipers is on their lips’ (Ps. 140:3). The poison produced by the tongue ‘destroys [the] neighbour’ (Prov. 11:9, NET) and brings the one who sins to ruin also (Prov. 10:8).

9. As a final, climactic indictment of the tongue, James attributes to it that ‘doubleness’ which stands at the centre of his polemic against superficial Christianity. The inconsistent, unstable wavering of the double-minded person (1:7–8), which is manifested in an attitude of partiality (cf. 2:4) and a failure to produce justifying works (2:14–26), also comes to expression in the tongue. Like Bunyan’s ‘Talkative’, who was ‘a saint abroad and a devil at home’, those who are double-minded show by the contradictory nature of their speech that their faith lacks focus and stability.

It is deplorable that the same instrument is used to praise our Lord and Father and to curse human beings, who have been made in God ’s likeness. The praise, or ‘blessing’ (eulogeō), of God was a prominent part of Jewish devotion. ‘The Holy One, Blessed be He’ is one of the most frequent descriptions of God in rabbinic literature and ‘the eighteen benedictions’, a liturgical formula used daily, concluded each of its parts with a blessing of God. Christians, of course, also blessed God in prayer (cf. Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3). It is rare to designate God as Lord and Father (although see 1 Chr. 29:10; Isa. 63:16), but it is doubtful whether James intends anything special by these titles. This activity of blessing, in which we praise and honour God, is cited by James as the highest, purest, most noble form of speech. The lowest, filthiest, most ignoble form of speech, on the other hand, is cursing. The word of the curse, which is the opposite of blessing (cf. Deut. 30:19), was seen to have great power in the ancient world. To curse someone is not just to swear at him or her; it is to desire that he or she be cut off from God and experience eternal punishment. Jesus prohibited his disciples from cursing others; indeed, they were to ‘bless those who curse you’ (Luke 6:28; cf. Rom. 12:14). What makes cursing particularly heinous is that the one whom we pronounce damned has been made in God ’s likeness (James’ further allusion to Gen. 1:26 [cf. v. 7] is clear). The rabbis cautioned against cursing for the same reason: one should not say ‘ “Let my neighbour be put to shame” – for then you put to shame one who is in the image of God’ (Bereshith Rabba 24, on Gen. 5:1).

10. The deceitful duality of the mouth, then, is clearly marked: from it come both blessing and cursing. James’ interesting shift to mouth, along with his use of the verb exerchomai (‘come out’), strongly suggests that his words are dependent on Jesus’ teaching regarding the defiling power of speech (cf. Matt. 15:11, 18–19). Like Jesus, James sees a person’s speech as a barometer of his or her spiritual state; it reveals what is in the heart. Jesus’ warning must be taken with utter seriousness: ‘But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned’ (Matt. 12:36–37). The person who is double and inconsistent with regard to the things of God in his or her heart (dipsychos; see 1:8 and 4:8) will be double and inconsistent in speech. The same theme is found in many Jewish works. According to The Testament of Benjamin 6:5, ‘the good set of mind does not talk from both sides of its mouth: praises and curses, abuse and honour, calm and strife, hypocrisy and truth, poverty and wealth, but it has one disposition, uncontaminated and pure, towards all men.’ This kind of doubleness in speech should not be. Christians who have been transformed by the Spirit of God should manifest the wholeness and purity of the heart in consistency and purity of speech.

11. James asserts the incompatibility of a pure heart and impure speech with three illustrations. Each is cast in the form of a rhetorical question expecting the answer ‘no’ – a favourite literary device in James. The importance of the spring (pēgē) in dry Palestine can hardly be overestimated. On this source of water depended the very existence of many a village. One can imagine how critical it was that a fresh-water spring continue to produce fresh (glykos, ‘sweet’) water. To be sure, some streams and springs produced a mixture of fresh and salt water which was unusable. But James’ point is that the same spring does not pour forth fresh water one minute and bitter, brackish water the next. Its water may be good, bad or indifferent, but it is consistent in producing the same kind of water. The tragedy of the tongue is precisely this inconsistency: its tendency to bless God one minute yet curse people the next. The word James uses to describe the useless water, ‘brackish’ (pikros, ‘salt’ in NIV, ESV; ‘bitter’ in NLT and HCSB), is not one normally used of water: it may be that he assimilates his description of the water to language associated with the tongue, whose speech is often said to be pikros (Ps. 64:3; Prov. 5:4; Sirach 29:25; and cf. 3:14).

12. The image of the plant that produces according to its nature was a popular one in ancient literature. Epictetus, for instance, asked: ‘How can a vine be moved to act, not like a vine, but like an olive, or again an olive to act, not like an olive, but like a vine? It is impossible, inconceivable.’191 As a direct ancestor of James’ imagery we naturally think of Jesus’ teaching about the good tree producing good fruit, and vice versa: ‘Do people pick grapes from thorn-bushes, or figs from thistles?’ (Matt. 7:16). Nevertheless, James’ language and teaching does not closely correspond to Jesus’, so we may be justified in supposing that James picks up the imagery from the general culture. The point he makes is the same as that in verse 11: as the fig-tree cannot produce olives or the grapevine figs, so the pure heart cannot produce false, bitter, harmful speech.

The final sentence returns to the image of salt and fresh water from verse 11, but is used now to make a negative point: Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water. The image is introduced abruptly (oute, ‘neither’), and some manuscripts attempt to ease the construction by adding houtōs, ‘similarly’, before it. But, while a bit awkward, the sentence is perfectly understandable; the sense is captured well in the NIV. Another difficulty in the verse, which is concealed in the NIV rendering, is the use of the simple halykon, ‘salt’, to describe what produces fresh water. Some manuscripts add the Greek word for ‘spring’ to ease the problem, but the word has probably been added by scribes who themselves saw the problem. Probably, then, James is writing elliptically, using the simple halykon to refer to a ‘salt spring’ (see BDAG and most English versions). In any case, James’ warning is obvious: what is good at heart must produce good; what is evil at heart will inevitably produce evil. So the heart that is not right with God cannot help but produce ungodly speech. It should be mentioned that James’ imagery (as that of Jesus in Matt. 7) must not be pressed beyond its intention. ‘A man is after all not a tree’,192 and the automatic natural processes of plant life cannot be exactly compared to the willing, deciding processes of human life. But, whatever its limits, the imagery conveys an important warning: only a renewed heart can produce pure speech; and consistently (though not perfectly) pure speech is to be the product of the renewed heart.

Theology

No passage in James displays the letter’s indebtedness to the Old Testament and Jewish wisdom tradition as much as this one. Wisdom literature, as exemplified especially in Proverbs, focuses on the concrete realities of life, giving the people of God guidance as they navigate the difficult and sometimes hostile world they inhabit. Wisdom is also characterized by its appeal to the creation order. James’ down-to-earth warnings about the tongue, while not taking the same form as the proverbs, exemplify these features of wisdom. But, as we have seen, James 3:1–12 not only exhibits some of the same forms as are found in wisdom literature; its warnings about speech pick up many of the key themes in that literature also. Therefore, while James provides few specifics about the kind of speech that he deplores, we rightly turn to Old Testament books such as Proverbs for the specific concerns that James undoubtedly has in mind (see esp. Prov. 10:8, 11, 18–19, 21; 11:9, 13; 12:18–19, 25; 13:3; 15:1, 23; 16:27–28; 17:14, 27–28; 18:2, 7–8; 25:11; 27:2, 5–6; 29:5, 11, 20).

B. Overcoming dissensions through true wisdom (3:13 – 4:3)

Context

Most commentaries and English translations follow the chapter division and place a significant break between the last paragraph of chapter 3 (3:13–18) and the first of chapter 4 (4:1–3 or 4:1–10). There are good reasons for this division, since the focus seems to move from wisdom to quarrels. However, without ignoring the differences, we think there are good reasons to consider these paragraphs as two sides of the same coin. In both paragraphs, James attacks unrighteous and misguided ‘zeal’ or ‘envy’ (Greek zēlos): it is a key characteristic of ‘earthly’ wisdom (3:14, 16), and this same ‘envy’, or ‘coveting’ (zēloō) leads to the bitter arguments James condemns in 4:1–3 (see v. 2). Lending greater importance to this word is the fact that James may be following a general pattern of teaching prominent in his world, a pattern, or ‘topic’, that focused on this vice of ‘envy’ or ‘jealousy’ (often phthonos in Greek).193 The closest parallels to James come in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, a Jewish pseudepigraphical work, most of which was written around 100 BC. In this book, slander (katalalia, Testament of Gad 3:3), violence (polemos) and murder (Testament of Simeon 4:5) are all traced to jealousy. And these, of course, are just the same issues attacked by James in 4:1–12. Moreover, the Testaments frequently highlight as a basic spiritual problem ‘double-mindedness’, striking another familiar chord for the reader of James (cf. 1:8 and 4:8). Direct dependence of James on the Testaments is unlikely. James, we may surmise, knows of the kind of tradition found in the Testaments because it was so common in the ancient world. He presses it into use here in order to rebuke his readers for jealous and selfish attitudes that are manifesting themselves in disunity and bitter disputes.

If ‘envy’ is the key vice running through 3:13 – 4:3, peace is the key virtue. After the initial rhetorical question setting up the issue of wisdom (3:13a), James calls on his readers to demonstrate the reality of their wisdom in humility and good works (v. 13b). This leads into the contrast between two kinds of wisdom that dominates the paragraph. The wrong kind is characterized by envy, selfishness and disorder (vv. 14–16) – the opposite of peace. The right kind of wisdom, on the other hand, is above all ‘peace-loving’ (the first specific ‘fruit of wisdom’ listed in v. 17). And James underscores this virtue with his concluding blessing on ‘peacemakers’ (v. 18). The absence of peace, on the other hand, is obviously the main issue in 4:1–3. The community is marked by quarrels and arguments – some of them perhaps even violent. And James traces these disputes to the characteristics of false wisdom that he pointed out in 3:14: envy (v. 2) and selfishness (v. 3).

Comment

13. The question introducing this section – Who is wise and understanding among you? – is in fact a challenge: if you claim to be wise, demonstrate your wisdom in the works that true wisdom produces. Many commentators think that James’ question is directed particularly to the teachers who were mentioned in verse 1.194 But neither sophos (wise, ‘wise person’) nor epistēmōn (‘knowledgeable’, ‘full of understanding’) is regularly used as a title for the teacher. They occur together several times in the Septuagint, once with reference to the qualities leaders should possess (Deut. 1:13, 15) but also with application to all of Israel (Deut. 4:6; Dan. 5:12 applies them to the prophet). Clearly James considers ‘wisdom’ a virtue available to all (1:5), and even 3:1 is not really directed to teachers, but to those who would become teachers. Therefore James’ exhortation is better taken as directed generally to all believers, but especially to those who pride themselves on their superior understanding.

As Dibelius points out, James’ exhortation to the ‘wise person’ reads awkwardly, because he has combined two ideas in it: wisdom is to produce works and wisdom is to be characterized by humility. The first idea reminds us strongly of James’ earlier demand that faith manifest itself in works. True wisdom, like real faith, is a vital, practical quality that has as much (or more) to do with the way we live as with what we think or say. In this James is true to the Old Testament conception of wisdom as a way of life, the attitude and conduct typical of a godly person. But James is even more interested in the second idea mentioned above, the qualities that wisdom should manifest. The deeds, or ‘works’ (erga), that demonstrate wisdom are to be done in the humility that comes from wisdom (taking sophias as a genitive of source). Humility (praütēs) was not always prized as a virtue among the Greeks; it suggested to many a servile, ignoble debasement.195 But Jesus, who was himself ‘gentle and humble’ (praüs kai tapeinos, Matt. 11:29), pronounced a blessing on those who were meek (Matt. 5:5). This Christian meekness involves a healthy understanding of our own unworthiness before God and a corresponding humility and lack of pride in our dealings with others.

14. The opposite of meekness is bitter envy and selfish ambition. Envy (zēlos) is not, of course, always a bad thing. The same Greek word can also be translated ‘jealousy’; and jealousy for the right thing is often commended. Thus Phinehas is rewarded for his ‘zeal’ for the Lord’s cause (Num. 25:11–13) and Jesus himself was consumed by a similar zeal (John 2:17). But true, unselfish zeal for the Lord lies all too close to a selfishly motivated, harsh and violent fanaticism. It is ‘jealousy’ or ‘zeal’ in this sense that Paul often condemns (Rom. 13:13; 2 Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:20) and that James speaks of here. It is related to what we would call ‘jealousy’ in that such zeal is often selfishly motivated and involves envy and criticism of others. Selfish ambition translates the single Greek word eritheia, a comparatively rare word. It is tempting to define it with reference to the similar eris (‘strife’) which Paul uses three times in close conjunction with zēlos (in the texts cited above). But this derivation is unlikely. In its only pre-New Testament occurrences (in Aristotle), the word refers to the narrow partisan zeal of factional, greedy politicians. This meaning makes excellent sense here in James. Some who pride themselves on their wisdom and understanding are displaying a jealous, bitter partisanship that is the antithesis of the humility produced by true wisdom.

People like this should certainly not boast. Several commentators understand the truth to be the object of both ‘boast’ and ‘lie against’ (or deny). But it is simpler to take ‘boast’ absolutely and infer that its object is ‘wisdom’. Denying the truth will then designate the result of this unjustified boasting. NLT captures this idea: ‘don’t cover up the truth with boasting and lying.’ To boast about wisdom when one is displaying jealousy and selfish ambition is, in effect, to give the lie to the truth that wisdom must be associated with humility. It should be noted that, while the verse is couched in the form of a conditional sentence, it is not a true conditional relationship: the imperatives would be valid whether the condition were fulfilled or not.196 James does not mean that it is only when bitter jealousy and selfish ambition exist that we should not boast and speak against the truth. It is always wrong.

15. In a somewhat ironical way, James now contrasts the ‘wisdom’ such as these jealous and contentious people have with the wisdom that comes down from heaven. Heaven is the NIV rendering of anōthen, ‘from above’ (see e.g. ESV); the NIV perhaps chooses this translation to highlight the implicit contrast with demonic at the end of the verse.197 In any case, ‘from above’ indicates divine origin (see 1:17). True wisdom, as Scripture makes plain, comes only from God: ‘the LORD gives wisdom’ (Prov. 2:6). That is why it can be attained only by asking God (Jas 1:5). The ‘wisdom’ that manifests itself in selfishness and envy has a quite different nature and origin. James describes it with three adjectives, each of which takes its meaning from its implied opposite. First, this wisdom is earthly instead of heavenly. Earthly (epigeios) can have a neutral significance (cf. John 3:12), but it easily takes on negative connotations, describing that which is transitory, weak and imperfect (see the contrast between ‘earthly’ and ‘heavenly’ bodies in 1 Cor. 15:40; cf. 2 Cor. 5:1). Its derogatory sense is obvious in Philippians 3:18–19, where Paul says that the ‘enemies of the cross of Christ’ have their minds ‘set on earthly things’. Second, this wisdom is unspiritual rather than spiritual. The word James uses, psychikos, is the adjective derived from psychē, ‘soul’, and always has a negative nuance in the New Testament. It has to do with that part of the person ‘where human feeling and human reason reign supreme’ (Knowling). In every other New Testament occurrence, the word is explicitly contrasted with ‘spiritual’ (1 Cor. 2:14; 15:44, 46; Jude 19). Third, this wrong kind of wisdom is demonic (daimoniōdēs, lit. ‘pertaining to demons’). This word occurs only here in the Greek Bible and may mean that the wisdom is demonic either in nature or, more probably, in origin. The wisdom that does not produce a good lifestyle (v. 13) is, in sum, characterized by ‘the world, the flesh and the devil’. In each of these ways, it is the direct antithesis of ‘the wisdom that comes from above’ – heavenly in nature, spiritual in essence and divine in origin.

16. James now justifies his harsh verdict on false wisdom by describing the effects it produces. Envy (zēlos) and selfish ambition (eritheia) have already been singled out as characteristic of those who are making a false claim to wisdom (v. 14). Now James points out how egocentric, selfish attitudes inevitably lead to disorder and every evil practice. Akatastasia (disorder) is the noun form of the adjective James has used in 1:8 and 3:8 to characterize the ‘double-minded’ person and the ‘double-speaking’ tongue. The term connotes a restless, unsettled state. It is used in Luke’s Gospel to describe the ‘tumults’, the uprisings and revolutions, that will typify the period preceding the parousia (Luke 21:9). And Paul, pleading with the Corinthians to refrain from an unbridled, unorganized display of individual spiritual gifts in the assembly, reminds them that ‘God is not a God of disorder [akatastasis] but of peace’ (1 Cor. 14:33). ‘Confusion’, ‘disorder’ and ‘tumults’ will inevitably break out in the church where Christians, especially leaders, are more interested in pursuing their own ambitions or partisan causes than the edification of the body as a whole. What one ends up with is every evil practice, or ‘every kind of evil’ (HCSB – the Greek pan [‘every’] can have this sense [BDAG]). Where the hearts of individual Christians are wrong, an unlimited variety of sins will be found also.

17. James has described what the wisdom that comes from heaven is not (v. 15); now he tells us what it is, with a series of seven adjectives. Or, more properly, he tells us what effects divine wisdom should produce – for almost all of these adjectives describe what wisdom does rather than what it is. It is again clear that James does not view wisdom as a series of correct propositional statements but as a quality that motivates certain kinds of behaviour. James’ description of the wisdom that comes from heaven reminds us inevitably of Paul’s description of ‘the fruit of the Spirit’ in Galatians 5:22–23. While there is little verbal resemblance, the emphasis in both texts is on humility, peaceableness and upright behaviour. What Paul says the Spirit produces, James says wisdom produces. This similarity, coupled with the fact that James never (except perhaps in 4:5; see below) mentions the Holy Spirit, may point to the equivalence of wisdom and Spirit in James’ thinking. Certainly, the two were frequently associated in Jewish literature.198 However, we must be cautious in speaking of ‘equivalence’; although what is produced by James’ wisdom and what is produced by Paul’s Spirit are similar, that does not mean that the two can be seen as equivalent concepts.199

The first, and overarching, attribute of wisdom is that it is pure. The word pure (hagnos) connotes moral blamelessness, such as the unsullied chastity of the virgin bride (cf. 2 Cor. 11:2). Wisdom which is free from any stain or blemish would be incapable of producing anything evil (cf. v. 16). James has arranged the following series of adjectives with a view to the way they sound (a letter such as this would have been read out in the Christian assembly). The Greek words for the first four virtues (peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy) all begin with an ‘e’ sound – eirēnikē, epieikēs, eupeithēs, eleous – and combine to produce an alliteration. The last two also involve an alliteration – this time with an ‘a’ sound – and, in addition, have an almost metrical, rhyming similarity – adiakritos, anypokritos (impartial, sincere [cf. also agathōn, ‘good’, just before these words in the Greek]).

James begins with the quality of peace-loving because this virtue is especially prominent in this context. He criticizes those who falsely claim to be wise for their contentiousness and the disputes they spawn (3:14; 4:1–2). According to the Old Testament also, wisdom produces peace (Prov. 3:17), and Paul lists ‘peace’ as a fruit of the Spirit. Why is wisdom peace-loving? Because it is also considerate and submissive. To be considerate, or ‘gentle’ (epieikēs), is to be kind, willing to yield, unwilling ‘to exact strict claims’ (Hort). With such an attitude, the believer, motivated and empowered by wisdom, will follow in the footsteps of his or her Lord, who also was characterized by ‘meekness and gentleness’ (praytētos kai epieikeias, 2 Cor. 10:1). The person who is submissive (eupeithēs) is one who is ‘easily persuaded’ – not in the sense of a weak, credulous gullibility, but rather in that of a willing deference to others when unalterable theological or moral principles are not involved. Wisdom is also full of mercy and good fruit. James provides his own definition of ‘mercy’: it is that love for the neighbour that shows itself in action (2:8–13). It is not surprising, then, that James couples mercy so closely with good fruit – acts of mercy are those ‘fruits’ which genuine wisdom, like genuine faith, must produce.

The second-to-last attribute, adiakritos, is the most difficult to define. Most agree with the NIV rendering impartial (NIV; ESV).200 But the word could also refer to the quality of consistency (‘unwavering’ in NASB).201 This last meaning makes good sense here in light of James’ use of the cognate verb (diakrinō) in 1:6 (and possibly 2:4 – see the notes on that verse). Moreover, we have seen the importance which James gives to the need to be ‘undivided’, ‘not of two minds’. On the other hand, James also stresses the incompatibility of Christianity and partiality (2:1–4) and mentions mercy in that context, as he does here. Probably the former meaning, ‘impartial’, should be accepted.202 Finally, the wisdom that comes from heaven is sincere – genuine, ‘without show or pretence’ (anypokritos). Our world elevates intelligence and cleverness; but Christians, James teaches, should be focused more on wisdom and its fruit.

18. In this verse James singles out for special emphasis one attribute of wisdom – its peaceableness. This emphasis is no doubt the product of James’ desire to eradicate the bitter, contentious quarrels and disputes that were rending the church (3:16; 4:1–2). The peace that genuine wisdom should produce was notably absent. While the connection to the preceding context through the stress on peace is therefore obvious (and note also the mention of ‘fruit’ in both v. 17 and v. 18), the verse as a whole fits a bit awkwardly in its present position. Dibelius may be right to suggest that the saying here was originally an independent proverb. This circumstance would help to explain why the verse is somewhat difficult to understand. The Greek of the verse uses a passive verb (speiretai, ‘is sown’) followed by a dative (tois poiousin eirēnēn, ‘for’ or ‘by’ those who make peace). The question is whether the harvest of righteousness is produced by those ‘peacemakers’ (a dative of instrument) or for them (a dative of advantage). The NIV – peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness – reflects the latter interpretation: people who are active in making peace reap (for themselves) the reward of a harvest of righteousness. But most of the other English translations reflect the other interpretation: peacemakers sow a harvest of righteousness (for others) (e.g. ESV; HCSB). Some interpreters claim that the former should be adopted because this construal of the dative fits New Testament style better than the alternative. But a dative of agency is not unknown in the New Testament and this translation makes better sense of the verse – peacemakers produce, in the atmosphere of peace they create, peace among the people they deal with.

What is this ‘fruit’ of righteousness? The phrase is a familiar one in the Septuagint, where it means ‘the fruit which is righteousness’ (an epexegetic genitive). Laws argues that this fruit of righteousness may be nothing else than wisdom itself,203 but the focus here is not on wisdom but on what wisdom produces. Others, noting the frequent association of righteousness and peace in the Old Testament, interpret the fruit of righteousness as peace. But it is unnecessary to introduce these more specific ideas. Righteousness in James 1:20 meant that conduct which is pleasing to God, and this is the ‘fruit’ intended here also. It includes all the virtues listed in verse 17 and is the opposite of every evil practice (v. 16). This righteousness cannot be produced in the context of human anger (1:20); but it can grow and flourish in the atmosphere of peace. Those who create such an atmosphere are assured by their Lord of their reward: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God’ (Matt. 5:9).

4:1. As we noted in the introduction to this section, most translations and commentaries put a significant break between the end of chapter 3 and the beginning of chapter 4. However, while the focus shifts, the topic remains the same: rebuke of sinful attitudes that lead to dissensions. As he did in 3:13, James uses a question to introduce his next topic. In this case, the topic is one that arises naturally from the preceding discussion. James has suggested a connection between ‘envy and selfish ambition’ and ‘disorder’ (3:16). Now he specifies more clearly what he means by ‘disorder’ and portrays the way it is produced by jealousy and by other desires. In place of ‘disorder’ we now read of fights (polemoi) and quarrels (machai). As with our English equivalents, both words were most often used to describe physical conflicts between individuals or nations. In a metaphorical sense, however, both words could describe violent verbal disputes. Paul, for instance, cautions Titus to avoid ‘quarrels [machai] about the law’ (Titus 3:9); and in the Psalms of Solomon 12:3, slanderous lips are said to ‘kindle strife’ (polemos). Both words resemble their English counterparts. We, too, use ‘fight’, ‘battle’, ‘war’, and so on, for verbal disputes as well as armed conflicts (e.g. ‘the United Nations fought over the meaning of the treaty clause’; ‘Churchill always loved a parliamentary battle’). The Christians to whom James wrote were obviously engaged in such verbal battles. And since disputes of this sort are almost always accompanied by harsh words, criticism and slander, the misuse of the tongue that James castigates (cf. 3:1–12; 4:11–12; 5:9) probably arose from these disputes.

It is deplorable that the Christian church has so often been characterized by such bitter controversies. The seventeenth-century Jewish philosopher Spinoza observed: ‘I have often wondered that persons who make boast of professing the Christian religion – namely love, joy, peace, temperance, and charity to all men – should quarrel with such rancorous animosity, and display daily towards one another such bitter hatred, that this, rather than the virtues which they profess, is the readiest criteria of their faith.’204 Some battles are, to be sure, worth fighting; but even then they must be fought without sacrificing Christian principles and virtues. We do not know what the disputes that James refers to were about.205 At any rate, James seems to be bothered more by the selfish spirit and bitterness of the quarrels than by the rights and wrongs of the various viewpoints. It is suggestive that James has used a word connoting political ‘factions’ (eritheia) in 3:14 and 16.

What is the source of these quarrels? James points his finger at the desires that battle within you. Desires translates the word hēdonē, a term that means simply ‘pleasure’, but which often carries the negative connotations of sinful, self-indulgent pleasure (we get our word ‘hedonism’ from it). It consistently has this negative meaning in the New Testament (Luke 8:14; Titus 3:3; 2 Pet. 2:13). The appropriateness of James’ use of the term here is demonstrated by its description in 4 Maccabees 1:25–26: ‘in pleasure [hēdonē] there exists even a malevolent tendency, which is the most complex of all the emotions. In the soul it is boastfulness, covetousness, thirst for honour, rivalry, malice; in the body, indiscriminate eating, gluttony, and solitary gormandizing.’ James would have undoubtedly added to this list jealousy (see 4:2) and selfish ambition (see 3:16). The military imagery of the opening words of the verse is carried on in James’ description of the passions that battle within you. Within you translates a Greek phrase that could also be rendered ‘in (or among) your members’ (see NASB). Some interpreters therefore think that the reference might be to the members of the Christian community.206 But ‘members’ probably refers to parts of the human body (as in 3:5–6). It is possible that he intends to suggest the conflict and tumult of the passions with one another within the individual, but it is better to assume that the object of the ‘battle’ is the person’s higher nature, or soul, as in 1 Peter 2:11: ‘Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul.’ The arguments and conflicts that were disrupting Christian fellowship could not be ascribed to righteous passion or justifiable zeal; it was selfish, indulgent desire that was responsible.

2a. This verse makes even clearer that illicit desire was responsible for the disputes and conflicts plaguing the church. James uses a different word for desire (epithymeō), but this is due simply to the fact that the verbal form of the word James has used in verse 1 (hēdonē; the verb is hēdomai) is rare. Clearly he means the same thing.207 Just what James is saying about ‘desire’ and its results is a matter of dispute. The fundamental problem is to determine the relationship among the series of verbs in the first half of the verse. The NET separates them into three separate sentences:

‘You desire and you do not have.’

‘You murder and envy and you cannot obtain.’

‘You quarrel and fight’ (cf. also KJV; HCSB; NAB).

This rendering takes the sequence of positive–negative verbs as key to the structure, so that each of the first two sentences describes a frustrated desire. An emphasis on frustrated desire would certainly make good sense in the light of verses 2b–3. But the rendering has against it the difficult subordinate position of ‘you murder’. The second main alternative is represented in the NIV:

You desire but do not have, so you kill.

You covet but you cannot get what you want, so you quarrel and fight (cf. also NRSV; ESV; CEB; NLT; NASB).

This structure places the emphasis on the fact that frustrated desire leads to violence, and it should be preferred because it matches closely a pattern of moral exhortation common in the Hellenistic world. This pattern, which has been richly illustrated by L. T. Johnson,208 focuses on the way in which ‘envy’ (phthonos), ‘jealousy’ (zēlos) and related emotions inevitably lead to hostile acts, such as quarrels, wars and murder. One or two examples will suffice to illustrate the pattern. The Testament of Simeon (in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs) is titled ‘concerning envy’ (phthonos). A central theme of the Testament is the way in which envy led Simeon to seize and almost murder his brother Joseph. Simeon warns his children that ‘envy dominates the whole of man’s mind’ and ‘keeps prodding him to destroy the one whom he envies’ (3:2–3). Epictetus, a second-century-AD moralist, implies an organic relation between envy and violence when he notes that Caesar can free people from ‘wars and fightings’ (polemoi kai machai) but not from ‘envy’ (phthonos).209 In the New Testament, the chief priests’ decision to deliver Jesus to Pilate is attributed to ‘envy’ (phthonos) (Mark 15:10), while the persecution suffered by the early church is often attributed to ‘jealousy’ or ‘zeal’ (zēlos) (Acts 5:17; 13:45; Phil. 3:6). James’ teaching appears to fit perfectly into this well-known pattern. While he uses the root zēlos rather than phthonos (which is more often found in these traditions), the two were often interchangeable (1 Maccabees 8:16; Testament of Simeon 1:6; 4:5) and zēlos is found in these traditions also. But if James is utilizing this pattern, it is clear that ‘kill’ and ‘quarrel and fight’ must be the results of the attitude of jealousy, envy and covetousness described. This relationship is preserved in the NIV punctuation.

But is James seriously accusing his readers of murder? Indeed, it has been asserted that he is doing just that. Some recent Jewish-Christian converts among James’ readers, it is alleged, may have been members of the radical Jewish Zealot movement, which advocated assassination of prominent Romans and their collaborators as a policy of terror. Perhaps James must warn them that such practices are totally incompatible with their new faith.210 While such a scenario is not impossible, granted the sociopolitical situation in Palestine in James’ day, it does not square well with James’ clear indication that the problems he addresses were within the church (cf. among you in 3:13; 4:1). More popular has been the suggestion that phoneuete (you kill) be emended to phthoneite (‘you are envious’), but there is no textual justification for the change. Others suggest that kill may connote attitude rather than action: ‘you are murderously jealous’ (Phillips; cf. Matt. 5:21–26; 1 John 3:15). However, in the light of the tradition we have cited, it is simplest to take kill straightforwardly and to regard it as that extreme to which frustrated desire, if not checked, may lead.211 Things have not yet gone this far among James’ readers. But ‘fightings’ and ‘wars’ are already in evidence among them; and, if covetous zeal goes unrestrained, the danger of actual violence is real. With penetrating insight, then, James provides us with a powerful analysis of human conflict. Verbal argument, private violence or national conflict – the cause of them all can be traced back to the frustrated desire to want more than we have, to be envious of and covet what others have, whether it be their position or their possessions. The central thrust of verses 1–2a is seen in their chiastic structure:

A Fights and quarrels (v. 1a)

B come from wrong desires (v. 1b)

B' Frustrated desire (v. 2a) leads to

A' quarrels and fights (v. 2b)

2b–3. Why is this desire to have frustrated? Because of a failure to pray properly. You do not have because you do not ask God. Oh yes, you ask, James admits, but your asking is done with wrong motives – and it is for this reason that you do not receive. Jesus had promised, ‘Ask and it will be given to you’ (Matt. 7:7). But clearly Jesus had in mind that asking which has as its focus and motive God’s name, God’s kingdom and God’s will (Matt. 6:9–10) – not an asking that had the purpose of the indulgence of those pleasures (hēdonai) that are at war with our souls (cf. v. 1). Hort comments: ‘God bestows not gifts only, but the enjoyment of them: but the enjoyment which contributes to nothing beyond itself is not what He gives in answer to prayer; and petitions to Him which have no better end in view are not prayers.’

In the Greek text of verses 2b–3, an interesting phenomenon is encountered: the verb ask, aiteō, shifts in voice from middle to active and back to middle. Many attempts to find significance in this shift have been made. Mayor suggested that the active (v. 3) denotes ‘the word without the spirit of prayer’, while Hort argued that the active suggests the asking of a person, while the middle connotes asking for something.212 In three of the four other New Testament instances where the same verb shifts voice, however, it is difficult to discern any difference in meaning.213 Probably, then, we should see no difference in meaning in the two forms of the verb that James uses.

Theology

Wisdom is a great theme in Scripture. It is God’s gift to his people, enabling them to live in this world in a way that aligns with God’s purposes and will. Wisdom is therefore very practical. Some Old Testament books feature a focus on wisdom and are therefore labelled ‘wisdom’ books (e.g. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes). Many interpreters note similarities between these books and James’ letter. Both feature pithy sayings, illustrations and a focus on living in this world. It is not clear that we should classify James as a wisdom book, but he certainly shares with these Old Testament books a concern about living in this world before God. James 3:13 – 4:3 suggests that this wisdom is the antidote to Christian quarrels. Sometimes, of course, Christians must reluctantly engage in argument for the sake of the truth. But too many Christians – and especially Christian leaders – quarrel with other Christians for the wrong reasons. James analyses some of those reasons in this part of his letter and quite bluntly distinguishes between wisdom ‘from above’ and wisdom ‘from below’. Christians are right to be passionate about their beliefs: ultimate issues are at stake. But passion must be directed to the right ends and not become an excuse for personal aggrandizement. When Christians pursue their own agendas and fail to listen to what brothers and sisters are saying, dissension results. Fights and quarrels among believers on a host of issues sadly mark many churches and larger movements within God’s church.

C. A summons to repentance (4:4–10)

Context

In the preceding nine verses, James has analysed the sin of human jealousy. He has portrayed it as ‘earthly, unspiritual, demonic’ (3:15) – the antithesis of that ‘wisdom from above’ that God gives to those who ask. He has described the horrendous consequences of unrestrained and unfulfilled jealousy and desire. Now he turns from analysis to exhortation. Calling his readers ‘adulterous people’ (v. 4) and ‘double-minded’ (v. 8), James warns them about flirtation with the world and its consequences for their relationship to God (v. 4). He reminds them of God’s jealousy for his people and the availability of his grace (vv. 5–6). And on the basis of this, he urges his readers to repent (vv. 7–10).

As we noted in the introduction to the last section (3:13 – 4:3) and in our notes on 4:1, most commentators include verses 4–10 with verses 1–3 as one continuous section. The call to repentance in verses 4–10 would then relate particularly to the selfish envy and divisiveness that James has analysed in verses 1–3. But we think that 4:4–10 has a much broader scope. The relative independence of this section is indicated by the disappearance – for the moment – of the vocabulary and themes of Hellenistic moral exhortation that so strongly mark 3:1 – 4:3 (and esp. 3:13 – 4:3). Instead, James now makes use of language and ideas drawn from the Old Testament (and especially the prophets). He breaks out in a passionate summons to his readers to turn away from their worldly ways and submit themselves wholeheartedly once again to their gracious but jealous God. James gathers up all the specific issues that he deals with in his letter into one all-embracing demand. Here, if anywhere, we find the heart of James’ letter.214

Comment

4. James’ dependence on the Old Testament is clearly seen in his opening address to his readers. You adulterous people translates a Greek feminine noun (moichalides): hence ‘adulteresses’ in NASB. The difficulty of the feminine form is erased in some manuscripts that add the masculine ‘adulterers’ (cf. KJV) but this is clearly a secondary attempt to get around the problem. Why, then, the feminine form? Some have thought that James intends it literally: that he is now turning his attention to women in the church who are unfaithful to their marital vows. But the context gives no indication of this. It is the Old Testament that provides the explanation for the address. As stressed especially in the prophets, God has joined himself with the people Israel by graciously electing them and bringing them into covenant relationship with himself. This relationship is frequently portrayed with marital imagery (Isa. 54:1–6; Jer. 2:2). Thus, when that relationship is jeopardized by Israel’s dalliance with other gods, the situation can be labelled ‘adultery’: ‘ “But like a woman unfaithful to her husband, so you, Israel, have been unfaithful to me,” declares the LORD’ (Jer. 3:20). It is in Hosea that this theme finds its most poignant expression. The prophet’s marriage to an unfaithful harlot is used to mirror the unfaithfulness of Israel to the LORD. Israel ‘has played the whore’ (2:5 NRSV), deserting her ‘first husband’, the LORD, in order to pursue other ‘lovers’, Baal and other false gods (2:7). Yet the LORD promises to show mercy to his people; they will again call him ‘my husband’ (2:16), for the LORD promises, ‘I will betroth you in faithfulness, and you will acknowledge the LORD’ (2:20). Jesus made use of this imagery, calling those who rejected him an ‘adulterous generation’ (Matt. 12:39; 16:4). As these references suggest, this tradition always pictured the LORD as the ‘husband’, Israel as the ‘wife’.

James’ use of ‘adulteresses’ thus serves to characterize his readers as the unfaithful people of God. By seeking friendship with the world they are, in effect, committing ‘spiritual adultery’ and making themselves enemies of God. In the light of the Old Testament background, this must mean a hostility not only of the believer towards God, but also of God towards the believer. God must judge those who break their covenant vows to him. Certainly James’ readers were not overtly disclaiming God and consciously deciding to follow the world instead. But their ‘envy’, ‘selfish ambition’ and sinful ‘desires’, exhibiting as they did ‘earthly, unspiritual, demonic’ attitudes (3:15), amounted to just that. Moreover, we must remember that friendship signified a deeper and more intimate relationship in James’ world than in many of our cultures.215 God will brook no rival, and when believers behave in a way characteristic of the world, they demonstrate that, at that point, their allegiance is to the world rather than to God. By drawing out the ultimate consequences of worldly behaviour in this way, James seeks to prick the consciences of his readers and to stimulate their repentance. They need to recognize that their selfish, quarrelsome behaviour is a serious matter indeed.

5. The striking and forceful application of the Old Testament imagery of God as the spouse of his people is the key to understanding this verse. It explains the seriousness of any flirtation with the world by bringing to mind the jealousy of the Lord, which demands a total, unreserved, unwavering allegiance from the people with whom he has joined himself. This, at least, is what we think the verse means, but it is one of the most debated and difficult verses in the letter. The Greek features three key ambiguities: 1) the subject of the verb epipothei (longs) is not specified; 2) the word pneuma could refer to either the human spirit or the divine Spirit; and 3) the word phthonos could denote either a negative ‘envy’ or a positive ‘jealousy’. As translators and commentators debate these points, three basic options emerge:

a. ‘He jealously longs for the spirit/Spirit he has caused to dwell in us’ (NIV; see also e.g. RSV; NRSV; ESV; NASB). This translation takes pneuma (spirit or ‘Spirit’) as the object of the verb epipothei; gives phthonon a positive nuance (jealously);216 and assumes that the subject of this verb is God.217

b. ‘The Spirit who lives in us yearns jealously’ (HCSB; see also NKJV). This translation is similar to the first in giving phthonon a positive meaning but it understands the subject of the verb to be the divine Spirit.218

c. ‘The spirit that God caused to live within us has an envious yearning’ (NET; see also NJB). This way of rendering the half-verse differs from the first two in giving phthonon a negative nuance (‘envious’). This decision requires that pneuma be a reference to the human spirit.219

While differing in the details of the syntax, the first two options agree on the critical point: phthonon is understood positively, and the clause then refers to divine jealousy. The third, on the other hand, by giving phthonon a negative nuance, interprets the clause as a reference to the tendency of the ‘spirit’ breathed into man by God at creation (Gen. 2:7) to have sinful envious attitudes. Each of these views has points in its favour. Interpreting the clause as a reference to human envy has a strong lexical basis. Phthonos always has a negative connotation in biblical Greek and is naturally never used with reference to God. Moreover, as we have seen, phthonos is a key word in the tradition that James has used in 3:13 – 4:3, and in this tradition the word always describes a sinful human attitude. Similarly, the word epipotheō (‘yearn’, ‘desire’) is never used with reference to God in biblical Greek. Contextually, a reminder about the innate human propensity to sinful jealousy would make excellent sense. James’ readers would need to recognize the strength of this desire in order to take the necessary steps to deal with it. And, finally, a statement about human sin would provide a natural contrast with the ‘greater grace’ of God highlighted in verse 6.

These are strong points, but none of them is finally decisive. Since phthonos and zēlos are sometimes interchangeable (cf. 1 Maccabees 8:16; Testament of Simeon 4:5; Testament of Gad 7:2), and the latter was frequently used of the ‘jealousy’ of God, it is not impossible to ascribe phthonos to God.220 Moreover, phthonos was occasionally used by Greek writers of the jealousy of the Olympian gods. Therefore, while unusual, James’ use of phthonos with respect to God’s desire for his people is not impossible. Perhaps he has chosen the word because he has used zēlos negatively in 3:13 – 4:3 (see 3:14, 16; the cognate verb occurs in 4:2). On the other hand, James’ use of epipotheō (‘desire’), far from being a point against the NIV-style rendering, actually favours it. While not used elsewhere of God, it always has a positive connotation in the New Testament. Moreover, understanding this verb to refer to the human spirit’s tendency is a bit awkward. In deciding between the first two options (which share a basic understanding of the clause), the former has in its favour its decision to give both verbs in the sentence the same subject (God ‘yearns’; God ‘causes to dwell’).

Ultimately, we therefore favour the first option. Contextually, the appropriateness of a reference to God’s jealousy for his people outweighs the undoubted linguistic difficulty posed by phthonos. Verse 5 clearly substantiates a point made in verse 4. A reference to human susceptibility to jealousy fits awkwardly in this context. But to see in verse 5 a reminder of God’s desire that his people be wholly and unreservedly his provides a beautifully appropriate substantiation of the warning against any flirtation with the attitudes and the values of the world in verse 4. If we adopt this general view, it remains unclear whether pneuma refers to the human spirit, put in us at creation, or the divine Spirit, given to us at conversion. In either case, the phrase reminds us that God has a claim on us by virtue of his work in our lives.

It might be thought that this debate about syntax could have been avoided if we had simply identified the Old Testament passage that James is referring to (Or do you think Scripture says without reason . . .). In fact, however, the words in the last part of the verse do not conform to any Old Testament passage. It is possible that James refers to the Old Testament text he will quote in verse 6.221 This has led many scholars to suppose that James is citing an apocryphal text.222 But Scripture (graphē) is limited to references to the canonical Old Testament in the New Testament. We should probably conclude, then, that James has in mind the theme of God’s jealousy as it is expressed in such verses as Exodus 20:5; 34:14; Zechariah 8:2; and others.223

6. The interpretation of verse 5 will determine the meaning of the mild contrast found in verse 6a: But [de] he gives us more grace. If verse 5b is taken as a statement about the sinfulness of the human spirit, the more or ‘greater’ (meizona) grace will suggest the ability and willingness of God to overcome sinfulness: ‘he gives us grace potent enough to meet this and every other evil spirit’ (Phillips). If, however, verse 5b depicts the jealousy of God for us, verse 6a will emphasize that God’s grace is completely adequate to meet the requirements imposed on us by that jealousy. Our God is ‘a consuming fire’ and his demands on us may seem terrifying. But our God is also merciful, gracious, all-loving, and willingly supplies all that we need to meet his all-encompassing demands. As Augustine has said, ‘God gives what he demands.’224

There is, however, a requirement for the experience of this grace: humility. This is the force of the quotation from Proverbs 3:34, and it becomes the dominant motif in the commands in verses 7–10.225 God’s gift of sustaining grace can be received only by those willing to admit their need and accept the gift. The proud, on the other hand, meet only resistance from God. This is a theme that sounds throughout the Old Testament (cf. Pss 18:27; 34:18; 51:17; 72:4; 138:6; Isa. 61:1; Zeph. 3:11–12). It is worth noting that ‘pride’ (hyperēphania) is often associated with jealousy;226 perhaps James would want us to see here an implicit condemnation of these jealous and selfish people whom he has criticized in 3:13 – 4:3.

7–8a. The series of commands in verses 7–10 flows from the quotation of Proverbs 3:34: if God, indeed, gives grace to the humble, then human beings can access that grace when they submit . . . to God. This imperative stands almost as a ‘heading’ over the following series of commands and is matched by the command to humble yourselves which concludes the series in verse 10. This latter command picks up the word ‘humble’ from the quotation of Proverbs, thereby giving a strong coherence to the paragraph. Between these two basic commands are three couplets: Resist the devil . . . Come near to God (vv. 7b–8a); Wash your hands . . . purify your hearts (v. 8b); Grieve, mourn and wail . . . Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom (v. 9). The whole context, from verse 6 on, is strikingly similar to 1 Peter 5:5–9:

In the same way, you who are younger, submit yourselves to your elders. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility towards one another, because,

‘God opposes the proud
but shows favour to the humble.’

Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.

Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of sufferings.

Both texts are built on a quotation of Proverbs 3:34. In each case, the author calls on his readers to display humility, which will result in God’s exalting them. Both texts also exhort readers to resist the devil. These similarities probably indicate that James and Peter have independently made use of standard teaching in the early Christian church.

While James has earlier stressed a person’s own evil tendency as being responsible for sin (1:14), he recognizes here the role of a supra-personal evil being: ‘behind the vile impulse lies the devil.’227 The word diabolos (‘devil’) is used in the Septuagint to translate śṭn, the Hebrew word which gives us the title ‘Satan’. The two titles are thus identical in meaning (cf. Rev. 20:2). The devil is, above all, the ‘tempter’ (Matt. 4:3; 1 Thess. 3:5), seeking always to separate God and human beings.228 This separation Christians must resist. When they do, James promises that the devil will flee from you.229 Whatever power Satan may have, Christians can be absolutely certain that they have been given the ability to overcome that power.

Instead of succumbing to the devil’s desire to separate us from God, we should come near to him. God, James promises, graciously responds by drawing near to us in turn. It should, of course, be obvious that James is not here talking about salvation, but about the repentance of those who are already Christians. Those who sincerely repent and return to God will find him, like the father of the prodigal son, eager to receive back his erring children.

8b–9. How it is that we are to ‘come near to God’ is spelled out by the commands in verses 8b–9. Together, these call for a sincere and radical repentance from the sinful ways that James has described in 3:13 – 4:3. The two commands in verse 8b are formulated in a perfectly balanced parallelism, the imperative in each clause being followed by its object, with a pejorative address to the readers completing the clause. A note of blunt vividness is given to the two clauses in the Greek by the lack of any articles or possessive pronouns. And this bluntness is also expressed by James’ strongly negative descriptions of his readers: sinners, you double-minded. These create quite a contrast to James’ familiar and affectionate address ‘brothers and sisters’ and serve to impress on his readers the seriousness of the sins that they are involved with.

Double-minded translates the word dipsychos (‘two-souled’), which James earlier used to characterize the person whose faith is marked by doubting and instability (1:6–8). In the present context, the term brings forcibly to mind the ‘doubleness’ of the Christian who seeks to become ‘a friend of the world’ (v. 4). God and ‘the world’, the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of Satan, the age to come and this evil age – the Christian is pulled and torn between them. To allow ‘the world’ to entice us away from a total, single-minded allegiance to God is to become people who are divided in loyalties, ‘double-minded’ and spiritually unstable. James’ readers, by exhibiting a jealousy and selfishness typical of this world (cf. 3:15), by failing to act on what they hear and say (1:19 – 2:26), in their ‘double’ use of the tongue (3:9–10) and in their violent disputes with one another (4:1–2), are guilty of this ‘double-minded’ attitude. What is required of them is a repentance from both this external behaviour (wash your hands) and this internal attitude (purify your hearts). ‘Washing’ and ‘purifying’ stem from the Old Testament provisions for priestly purity in ministering the things of the Lord, but both had also come to be used of ethical purity (see esp. Isa. 66:17). The juxtaposition of hands and hearts to denote both deed and disposition also reflects the Old Testament. The psalmist required ‘clean hands and a pure heart’ for those who would stand before the LORD (Ps. 24:3–4); James asks the same of those who would ‘come near to God’.

If the language of verse 8b reflects priestly traditions, the severe commands of verse 9 echo the language of the prophets. They often used the language of mourning to describe the disasters accompanying the judgments of God; but they also used it to call for God’s people to repent from sin. Thus, Joel, warning of the nearness of ‘the day of the LORD’, pictures the LORD as inviting his people to ‘return to me with all your heart, with fasting and weeping and mourning . . . ’ (2:12). James uses the language in this same sense. Like the prophets, who predicted the coming Day of the Lord, James, too, was firmly convinced that ‘the Lord’s coming is near’ (5:8), and he demands of his readers a deep heartfelt sorrow for sin that is the mark of true repentance – what Paul called a ‘godly sorrow . . . that leads to salvation and leaves no regret’ (2 Cor. 7:10). This is also how we are to understand James’ command to Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. James is no killjoy, denying any place for laughter and joy in the Christian life. But ‘laughter’ in the Old Testament and Judaism is often the scornful laughter of the fool (Eccl. 7:6; Sirach 27:13) who blithely refuses to take sin seriously. It is the mark of the one who prospers in this world, without regard to the world to come. For this reason Jesus warned: ‘Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep’ (Luke 6:25b). Mourning and weeping on the day of God’s judgment can be avoided if people mourn and weep for sin now. Jesus also said: ‘Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted’ (Matt. 5:4). Many people in our day, both outside the church and within it, are marked by a superficial joy and brittle laughter. They live the hedonist philosophy ‘eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die’ that ignores the terrifying reality of God’s judgment. But even the committed Christian can slip into a casual attitude towards sin, perhaps presuming too much on God’s forgiving and merciful nature. It is to all such people that James issues his plea for a radical, thoroughgoing repentance. Only such repentance can produce true Christian joy – the joy that overflows from the consciousness of sins forgiven.

10. James concludes his series of commands with a summarizing exhortation, Humble yourselves, that reflects the promise of the Proverbs quotation in verse 6: God ‘shows favour to the humble’. The humility before the Lord that James commands means to recognize our own spiritual poverty, to acknowledge consequently our desperate need of God’s help and to submit to his commanding will for all our lives. This humility is beautifully exemplified in the tax-collector of Jesus’ parable, who, deeply conscious of his sin, called out to God for mercy. In response, Jesus pronounces him justified and summarizes: ‘all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted’ (Luke 18:14). This saying (parallel to others where humility before other people is the point: Matt. 23:12; Luke 14:11) was taken up as a popular motto in the early church (cf. 2 Cor. 11:7; 1 Pet. 5:6). It expresses the fundamentally important principle that the enjoyment of spiritual vitality and victory comes not through independent effort of our own but through complete dependence on the Lord. To try to ‘exalt ourselves’ by relying on our own abilities, status or money brings only failure and condemnation – God ‘humbles us’. James expressed this earlier in his letter when he encouraged believers in humble circumstances to boast in their ‘high position’ (or ‘exaltation’) and warned rich Christians to boast in their ‘humiliation’ (1:9–10).

Theology

If our interpretation of verse 5 is right, this passage in James contributes to the great biblical theme of the jealousy of God – and reminds us that we need to maintain a careful balance in our understanding of God. James insists that God is both one who makes frightful and all-encompassing demands of his people and one who gives in his grace to all who humble themselves before him. A jealous God who is not a God of grace is terrifying; a gracious God who is not also demanding is a weak and impotent being far from the God of the Bible. Much of our theology and many of the mistakes we make in Christian living arise from a faulty theo-logy: our view of God himself.

D. A prohibition of critical speech (4:11–12)

Context

The connection between this section and its context is not immediately clear. Some interpreters think this short paragraph belongs with the material that follows it, with a focus on arrogant speaking.230 But connections with earlier parts of the letter may be even more important. First, speaking evil of others may be viewed as a manifestation of the pride God resists (4:6) and which is to be avoided through humility before God (4:10). Second, ‘slander’ (katalalia) is often linked to ‘jealousy’ (zēlos; 2 Cor. 12:20; 1 Pet. 2:1), ‘selfishness’ (2 Cor. 12:20), quarrels (polemas in Psalms of Solomon 12:3) and pride (Testament of Gad 3:3), and is seen as a manifestation of double-mindedness (The Shepherd of Hermas, ‘Similitude’ 8.7.2; see ‘Mandate’ 2) – all key ideas in James 3:13 – 4:10. Finally, reference to ‘the law’ and ‘judging’ in verses 11–12 corresponds to the theme of 2:8–13. Just as Leviticus 19:18 (the ‘love command’) was quoted there, so Leviticus 19:16, which prohibits slander, may be in James’ mind here; the shift from ‘brother or sister’ in verse 11 to ‘neighbour’ in verse 12 makes this especially plausible. These several possibilities suggest that verses 11–12 should be seen as a basically independent section that picks up a number of James’ favourite themes. But the prominence of the tradition that links ‘speaking evil’ to the sins of jealousy, quarrelling and pride, which have been the focus of 3:13 – 4:10, suggests that they belong generally to this larger discussion. Perhaps verses 11–12 should be seen as a brief ‘reprise’ of the larger discussion of sins of speech that opened the section (3:1–12).231

Comment

11. After the harsh, denunciatory tone of address in 4:8, suited to a strong call for repentance, James returns here to the more familiar brothers and sisters. Slander translates the Greek katalaleō, a word whose etymology suggests the idea of ‘speak against’ (see NASB). The word denotes many kinds of harmful speech: questioning legitimate authority, as when the people of Israel ‘spoke against God and against Moses’ (Num. 21:5); slandering someone in secret (Ps. 101:5); bringing incorrect accusations (1 Pet. 2:12; 3:16). The context here in James, with its focus on dissensions within the Christian community (3:13 – 4:3), suggests that James is referring to personal attacks and slanderous accusations – the kind of inner-church debates that too often degenerate into name-calling and even the questioning of one another’s Christian convictions.

James’ justification for his prohibition is interesting: to speak against or to judge one’s brother or sister is to speak against or to judge the law. The law to which James refers, in light of his usage of the word elsewhere in the letter, is the Old Testament law (see the note on 1:25). This reference is especially likely in light of the fact that Leviticus 19:16 may well be in the background of James’ thinking here: ‘Do not go about spreading slander among your people. Do not do anything that endangers your neighbour’s life. I am the LORD.’ These prohibitions come just two verses away from the ‘love command’ that James quotes in 2:8 (cf. also 1:25; 2:12). However, as we noted in our comments on that verse, James reveals that he also sees this Old Testament command in light of Jesus’ appropriation of it as central to his own teaching. The law here, then, refers to the Old Testament law as it has been taken up in and reinterpreted in the teaching of Jesus. How is it that ‘judging’ a fellow-believer involves sitting in judgment on this law? Since James contrasts ‘judging the law’ with keeping the law, he apparently thinks that failure to do the law involves an implicit denial of the law’s authority. However high and orthodox our view of God’s law might be, a failure actually to do it says to the world that we do not in fact put much store by it. Again we see coming to the surface James’ understanding of Christianity as something whose reality is to be tested by the measure of obedience.

12. Speaking evil of fellow-Christians is wrong not only because it involves ‘judging the law’; it is wrong also because it involves ‘judging the neighbour’. And this critical, condemnatory judgment involves both disobedience of the demand that we love the neighbour and an arrogant presumption on the rights of God himself. For he is the one Lawgiver and Judge who alone has the right to determine the eternal fate of his creatures (cf. also Matt. 10:28). Yet when we criticize and condemn others, we are in fact pronouncing our own verdict over their spiritual destiny.

Theology

In these verses, and the larger section of which they are a part (3:13 – 4:12), James condemns improper speech and the underlying attitudes that give rise to it. He is not prohibiting the proper, and necessary, discrimination that every Christian should exercise. Nor is he forbidding the right of the community to exclude from its fellowship those it deems to be in flagrant disobedience of the standards of the faith, or to determine right and wrong among its members (1 Cor. 5 – 6). James’ concern is with jealous, censorious speech by which we condemn others as being wrong in the sight of God. It is this sort of judging that Paul condemned among the Roman Christians, who were apparently questioning the reality of one another’s faith because of differing views on the applicability of some ritual laws (Rom. 14:1–13; see esp. vv. 3–4 and 10–13). It is entirely possible that some situation like this was responsible for the problems James addresses. A bitter, selfish spirit (3:13–18) had given rise to quarrels and disputes about certain matters in the church (4:1–2). These disputes were apparently conducted, as they usually are, with a notable absence of restraint in the use of the tongue (3:1–12), including perhaps cursings (3:10) and denunciations (4:11–12) of one another. Such ‘wisdom’ is nothing more than a manifestation of a worldly spirit (3:15; 4:1, 4). It must be replaced by ‘the wisdom from above’, with its meekness, reasonableness and peaceableness (3:17). This flirtation with the world is incompatible with God’s jealous desire to have his people’s wholehearted allegiance (4:4–5). Yet God is willing to turn and bestow his favour if sinful pride can give way to deep-felt repentance and sincere abasement before him (4:6–10).

5. IMPLICATIONS OF A CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW (4:13 – 5:11)

The fourth general grouping of James’ exhortations has as its unifying theme the Christian perspective on the period of time in which the church lives.232 This perspective is the touchstone for each major topic in 4:13 – 5:11. In 4:13–17 James prohibits an arrogant, boastful attitude that neglects to take into account the transitoriness of this life. In 5:1–6 James pronounces judgment on rich oppressors because they have lived lives of self-centred luxury ‘in the last days’ – days that are quickly moving towards a climactic day of judgment. Christians, on the other hand, must exercise patience as they wait for this day to dawn, and should remain steadfast in their faith as they encounter trials (5:7–11).

A. A condemnation of arrogance (4:13–17)

Context

Several expositors take this section closely with 4:11–12 or 4:1–12, singling out arrogance or worldliness as the unifying theme. However, while the attitude of those who presume to stand in judgment of others may be labelled arrogant, James does not highlight this. And the identical introductions to 4:13–17 and 5:1–6 (Now listen) suggest that James wants us to read these paragraphs together. Moreover, these sections are associated also by the theme of wealth. To be sure, those described in 4:13–17 are not explicitly said to be rich, but the extensive travel plans mentioned in verse 13 imply that they are well off, and their intention is to ‘make money’. Both paragraphs 4:13–17 and 5:1–6, then, criticize people for leaving God and his values out of their way of life. However, while the rich in 5:1–6 are unreservedly condemned, the merchants in 4:13–17 are exhorted to change their attitudes. It is not their wealth that James criticizes, but their boastful arrogance. This suggests that the people James addresses in this paragraph are probably Christians.233 However, James’ failure to address them as ‘brothers and sisters’ and the lack of overtly Christian descriptions of them may suggest that he also has in mind people outside the church.

Comment

13. Now listen (age nyn) is not used here as a true imperative, as its singular form (with plural legontes, ‘saying’, following) demonstrates. It is a form of address that is found elsewhere, particularly in popular Greek style. Combined with you who say, it gives to James’ language a rather brusque tone. The travelling merchants whom James addresses are characterized as deliberate and self-confident planners. They decide where they will go, when they will go, how long they will stay, and they are absolutely certain that they will gain profit from their venture. The picture James paints here would be familiar to his readers. The first century was a period of great commercial activity, and especially the Hellenistic cities of Palestine (the Decapolis, for instance) were heavily involved in commerce of various kinds. Many Jews were active in these business comings and goings; large numbers had settled in cities throughout the Mediterranean world for commercial reasons. It need hardly be said that the people James pictures are easily recognized also by the modern reader. The distance between cities may be greater, the means of transportation quicker and the business activities different, but in James’ day and ours, the ‘bottom line’ is the same – profit. As the following verses demonstrate, however, it is not the desire to make a profit that James criticizes. He is concerned rather about the exclusively this-worldly context in which the plans are made – a danger, it must be said, to which business people are particularly susceptible.

14. In laying their plans with reference only to this world, these business people have failed to reckon with a fundamental fact – the insubstantial and transitory nature of ‘this world’. For such people as they are (a paraphrase of the indefinite relative hoitines that James uses here; NIV tries to capture it with the initial why) to plan so confidently is the height of foolishness. This, the main point of verse 14, is clear, although the precise way in which James expresses it is debated. The NIV (along with NRSV; ESV; CEB; NET) divides the first part of the verse into two parts: a statement, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow, and a question, What is your life? Other versions combine these into a single statement: ‘you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow’ (NASB; cf. also NAB; HCSB; NLT; and the punctuation of the Nestle-Aland [28th edn] and United Bible Societies [4th edn] Greek texts). The situation is complicated by the presence of several variant readings.234 Without rehearsing all the arguments, the decisive consideration seems to be the placement of poios (what), which is awkward if it is construed as the object of epistasthe (know).235 It is more naturally taken as the introduction to a separate question, as in the NIV.

The answer to this question is then given in the last part of the verse, in which life is compared to a mist (atmis). This word could also be translated ‘a puff of smoke’ (GNB; Phillips; cf. Acts 2:19) and has some affinity with the ‘vanities’ of life that Ecclesiastes talks so much about. Whatever the exact meaning, James obviously intends to emphasize the extremely short duration of life. Illness, accidental death or the return of Christ could cut short our lives just as quickly as the morning sun dissipates the mist or as a shift in wind direction blows away smoke. This realistic reckoning with the brevity and uncertainty of life, and even the images used to describe it, are found frequently in Scripture. Proverbs 27:1 warns: ‘Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring.’ Job 7:7, 9, 16 [RSV] and Psalm 39:5–6 describe life as a ‘breath’. Particularly close to James’ teaching are, as so often, some words of Jesus. In Luke 12:15, he warns the crowds about covetousness and reminds them that ‘life does not consist in an abundance of possessions’. In a brief parable, he illustrated his point with a rich man, who, like James’ business people, made definite plans for acquiring more goods, but who was prevented from executing his plans by his death (Luke 12:16–20). This passage contains several themes that James utilizes both here and in 5:1–6, and it is quite possible that it has furnished the stimulus for his own exhortations.

15. Instead of (anti) the self-confident, this-world-oriented attitude expressed in verse 13, the business people should qualify all of their plans and hopes with reference to the will of the Lord. What must be recognized is that this world is not a closed system; that an influence quite outside the material sphere ultimately determines the success and failure of plans – indeed, the very continuation of life itself. Such a conception is not, of course, specifically Christian. Any worldview that is not narrowly materialistic would naturally incorporate this perspective. Thus it is not surprising that the formula ‘if God wills’ or ‘if the gods will’ is widespread in pre-Christian Greek philosophy and religion.236 The very generality of the phrase has led some commentators to suppose that James may have in view non-Christians in this paragraph. However, James speaks of the Lord rather than ‘God’; and although the reference is probably to God the Father rather than to Jesus, the implication of God’s control of history through Christ is not far removed. Thus, however widespread the phrase may have been, James ‘baptizes’ it in service of a specifically biblical worldview of history and its sovereign ruler.

According to the best texts (which read the indicative zēsomen, we will live, rather than the subjunctive zēsōmen, ‘if we live’), the will of the Lord is to be acknowledged as the condition under which Christians are to view both their lives and their specific plans.237 Paul exemplifies this attitude, as he frequently expressed his submission to the Lord’s will in his plans for missionary work (Acts 18:21; Rom. 1:10; 1 Cor. 4:19; 16:7; cf. Heb. 6:3). However, as Calvin pertinently observes, Paul and the other apostles do not always state this condition; what was important was that ‘they had it as a principle fixed in their minds, that they would do nothing without the permission of God’. What James encourages is not the constant verbalization of the formula If it is the Lord ’s will, which can easily become glib and meaningless, but a sincere appreciation of God’s control of affairs and of his specific will for us.

16. James now traces the failure to take God into account in making plans to its root: arrogant pride. Some English translations suggest that ‘arrogance’ qualifies ‘boasting’ as describing the manner of the boasting (cf. CEB ‘boast and brag’). But when in (en) follows boast (kauchaomai) in the New Testament, it always signifies the object in which one boasts, and the plural ‘arrogances’, ‘matters of arrogance’ (alazoneiais) also supports this interpretation. Thus the NLT probably captures James’ intention very well: ‘you are boasting about your own plans’ (‘boasting in your arrogance’, found in many versions, is ambiguous, it not being clear whether ‘in’ indicates the object or the manner of the boasting). James refers here to what John calls ‘the pride of life’, an arrogant sense of self-sufficiency and self-importance that is characteristic of this world (1 John 2:16; see also Rom. 1:30; 2 Tim. 3:4). People not only leave God out of account in planning their lives; it is the essence of sin that they brag about it as well – ‘I’ takes centre stage in place of God. This kind of boasting is evil, then, not because of the arrogant manner in which it is done; it is evil because the objects of the boasting are instances of arrogant disregard for God.

17. In this verse James shifts from the second person plural that he has used throughout this paragraph to the third person. The saying in verse 17 is also quite general and does not seem to address specifically the matter that James has been talking about. Most commentators, therefore, think it likely that James is here quoting a traditional saying that circulated independently of this context. This may be so, but it does not mean that James is simply throwing into this context a saying that has no relevance to what he has been speaking about. He links the saying to its context with an oun (then), showing that he views what he has been addressing as leading up to the saying in verse 17. Laws thinks that James may still have in mind Proverbs 3, from which he has quoted in 4:6. Verses 27–28 of that chapter prohibit any delay in doing good to the neighbour – and in the Septuagint this prohibition is based on the consideration that ‘you do not know what the next day will bring forth’. With this Old Testament tradition in mind, then, James’ criticism of one who fails to do good may be seen as a second implication of the transitoriness of life, stated in verse 14. It is doubtful, however, whether so allusive a reference provides a sufficient explanation. Another suggestion is that James is indirectly rebuking the merchants for failing to do good with their money. But however widespread this motif may have been, it fits poorly here, since James is not yet talking about riches per se. More probable is the supposition that James adds the saying as an encouragement to do what he has just commanded. He has told his readers what the good is; if someone doesn’t do it, that person is sinning. Such a person cannot take refuge in the plea that he or she has done nothing positively wrong; as Scripture makes abundantly clear, sins of omission are as real and serious as sins of commission. The servant in Jesus’ parable who failed to use the money he was entrusted with (Luke 19:11–27); the ‘goats’ who failed to care for the outcasts of society (Matt. 25:31–46) – they are condemned for what they failed to do.238 Another teaching of Jesus reminds us very forcibly of James’ words here: ‘The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows’ (Luke 12:47).

Theology

The attitude that perhaps most typifies many people in our world today is arrogance. And this attitude is especially marked among those who are comparatively well off. Those who have had some success in life and accumulated possessions and influence exhibit a self-satisfied haughtiness towards others that is offensive to God. Christians who have done well in the world can easily fall prey to such attitudes. As he has done earlier (see 1:10–11), James here reminds believers of their uncertain status and the way in which all they have may suddenly disappear.

B. A condemnation of those who misuse wealth (5:1–6)

Context

This section is closely related to 4:13–17 both in style – the two are introduced with the imperatival age nyn, Now listen – and in content – a pursuit of wealth that disregards God and his purposes in history is condemned in both. But the prominence of the eschatological consummation ties 5:1–6 closely to 5:7–11 also. If 4:13–17 is directed both to the church and to the world, and 5:7–11 clearly to the church, 5:1–6 unmistakably addresses non-Christians. This is clear both from the many biblical and extrabiblical traditions concerning unrighteous wealth that James utilizes, and from James’ failure to hold out any prospect of deliverance for those whom he condemns in this paragraph. The rich people pictured are clearly wealthy landowners, a class accused of economic exploitation and oppression from early times. In James’ surroundings, we may think particularly of Palestinian Jewish landlords who owned large estates and were often concerned only about how much profit could be gained from their lands.239 James proceeds to announce the condemnation of these rich landholders (v. 1) and justifies their condemnation on the grounds of their selfish hoarding of wealth (vv. 2–3), their defrauding of their workers (v. 4), their self-indulgent lifestyle (v. 5) and their oppression of ‘the righteous’ (v. 6).

Why does James preach this message of denunciation of non-Christians in a letter addressed to the church? Calvin appropriately isolates two main purposes: James ‘ . . . has a regard to the faithful, that they, hearing of the miserable end of the rich, might not envy their fortune, and also that knowing that God would be the avenger of the wrongs they suffered, they might with a calm and resigned mind bear them’.240

Comment

1. James speaks in the tones of the Old Testament prophets. Weep (klaiō) and wail (ololyzō, an onomatopoeic word, sounding like what it describes) are frequently used by the prophets to describe the reaction of the wicked when the Day of the LORD comes (cf. e.g. Isa. 13:6; 15:3; Amos 8:3). In fact, ololyzō is found only in the prophets in the Old Testament and always in the context of judgment. This background makes clear that the misery that is coming on the rich refers not to earthly, temporal suffering, but to the condemnation and punishment that God will mete out to them on the day of judgment.

James’ denunciation of the rich picks up and develops a pervasive biblical theme. God’s concern for the poor is reflected in many of the Mosaic laws giving direction for life in the covenant. In Israel’s later history, these laws were ignored and the poor were often oppressed and taken advantage of by wealthy, powerful Israelites. Hence, ‘the rich’ occasionally becomes a synonym for ‘the unrighteous’ in wisdom traditions (cf. Prov. 10:15–16; 14:20), and many of the prophets were especially outspoken in their condemnation of rich oppressors (cf. Amos). This theme was very prominent in intertestamental Jewish literature (cf. esp. 1 Enoch 94–105) and found a secure place within the New Testament. Jesus, especially in Luke’s Gospel, has much to say about the dangers of wealth. In a saying particularly close to James’ teaching, he pronounced a woe upon the rich and warned that their ‘consolation’ in this world would be replaced by ‘mourning’ and ‘weeping’ in the next (Luke 6:24–25). Revelation 18:10–24 is a lengthy ‘woe’ directed to the ‘merchants of the earth’ who ‘weep and mourn’ over the devastation of ‘the great city’, Babylon. In all this, it is not always easy to determine the basis on which the rich are being judged. But although some traditions appear to condemn the rich merely because they are rich, in the New Testament, at least, condemnations of wealthy people are almost always attributed to a misuse of wealth. Certainly James’ enumeration of the sins of the rich people that he condemns shows that this is the case here. It is particularly obvious that James does not intend to pronounce judgment on all rich people if, as we have argued, James 1:10 implies the presence of rich Christians among James’ readers. The designation you rich in 5:1, therefore, essentially means, as so often in Scripture, the unrighteous rich. Having said this, it would be wrong to ignore the fact that ‘the rich’ and ‘the unrighteous’ are so easily associated; Scripture warns that wealth can be a particularly strong obstacle to Christian discipleship. Not for nothing did Jesus warn, ‘It is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven’ (Matt. 19:23). (See, further, the section ‘Poverty and wealth’ in the Introduction, pp. 70–72.)

2–3. The first indictment of the rich has to do with the worthlessness of the worldly goods that they have so carefully assimilated. James singles out three classes of material goods. Wealth (ploutos) is sometimes understood as a reference to crops, with clothes and gold and silver then specifying the two other most common forms of wealth in the ancient world. But it is more likely to be a general summarizing term for any wealth; rot (sēpō) can refer to the decay or transitoriness of all forms of human endeavour (Sirach 14:19). The clothes eaten by moths evokes Jesus’ similar warning about the transitoriness of ‘earthly treasures’ that are consumed by moths (Matt. 6:20). James’ reference to the corrosion of gold and silver has sometimes been taken as an indication of his impoverished background since, of course, these precious metals cannot, in fact, rust or corrode. But the word ‘rust’ (ios) was already being applied to gold and silver (Epistle of Jeremiah 10), and the image seems to have become a traditional way of designating the temporality of even the most precious metals (cf. also Sirach 29:10).241 All three statements in verses 2–3a, in fact, reflect the traditional Old Testament and Jewish teaching about the foolishness of placing reliance upon perishable material goods.

It is striking, however, that James uses the perfect tense in all three clauses to designate the perishing of these riches. Many commentators take these perfect tense verbs as ‘prophetic’ or ‘proleptic’ perfects: the destruction of these goods in the future ‘misery’ of the judgment is so certain that it can be described as already present.242 Ropes, however, protests that James’ shift to the future tense when depicting the judgment in verse 3 (‘their rust will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh’) renders this suggestion implausible. It is probably better to view the perfect verbs as emphasizing the existing state of affairs.243 While it has not yet happened in reality, the wealth and luxurious possessions of these rich people are already, from the standpoint of the spiritual realm, worthless.

Not only will wealth bring no long-lasting benefit; its ‘decay’ will testify against the rich at the judgment and bring a guilty verdict upon them: eat your flesh like fire is an image of God’s judgment (Judith 16:17). The reason for this judgment may simply be because the rich have concentrated on the accumulation of earthly treasure to the exclusion of heavenly treasure, thereby plainly indicating where their ‘heart’ is (cf. Matt. 6:19–21). On the other hand, the hoarding of wealth by the rich is condemned (in at least one passage that James may have been familiar with) because it was put to no use in aiding the poor: ‘Help the poor for the commandment’s sake, and in their need do not send them away empty-handed. Lose your silver for the sake of a brother or a friend, and do not let it rust under a stone and be lost. Lay up your treasure according to the commandments of the Most High, and it will profit you more than gold’ (Sirach 29:9–11). The same sentiment is found in the Lucan version of Jesus’ words about treasure: ‘Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys’ (Luke 12:33). The hoarding of wealth is wrong not just because it demonstrates utterly false priorities; it is doubly sinful because it also deprives others of their very life.244 This is another instance in which failing to do good is sin (4:17): ‘God has not appointed gold for rust, nor garments for moths; but, on the contrary, he has designed them as aids and helps to human life’ (Calvin). In this sense, James may intend the decay of the goods described in verses 2–3a to be understood, at least in part, literally: the actual evidence of disuse will stand as a witness against the rich.

James summarizes this first indictment of the rich at the end of verse 3: You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Hoarded wealth could also be translated ‘laid up treasure’ (so most versions; the verb is ethēsaurisate). This verb can take an object, and some have thought it is natural to supply one here: either ‘fire’ or ‘wrath’ (cf. Rom. 2:5). But it is better to take the verb absolutely (see Luke 12:21): the hoarding of material things in itself is what James condemns. Our versions differ on the translation of the Greek preposition en in this clause. Some translate ‘for’, yielding the idea that these rich people who think they are gathering treasure are in fact gathering evidence that will stand against them when the last days, the time of judgment, come. See, most clearly, NLT: ‘This treasure you have accumulated will stand as evidence against you on the day of judgment’ (see also NAB; NJB; NRSV).245 But the preposition could also be translated ‘in’, in which case James would be thinking of the last days as already having begun. The expectation that the coming of Christ meant the inauguration of the ‘last days’ is common in the New Testament (Acts 2:17; 2 Tim. 3:1; Heb. 1:2; 2 Pet. 3:3 (?); 1 John 2:18; Jude 18). The application of this expression to their own time testified to the early Christians’ belief that they were living in that era when God’s promises were coming to fulfilment – an era of indefinite duration immediately preceding the climax of history. James shares this perspective, as his conviction about the nearness of the parousia makes clear (5:8). While certainty is impossible, this present focus may be what James intends.246 What James is saying, then, is that those who are avidly accumulating wealth in his day are particularly sinful, because they utterly disregard the demands made upon people by the display of God’s grace in Christ, and especially foolish, because they ignore the many signs of the rapidly approaching judgment. Like the rich fool, they have failed to reckon with sudden judgment (Luke 12:15–21). ‘It is in the last days that you have stored up your treasure!’ (NASB). As those who live in these ‘last days’, we, too, should recognize in the grace of God already displayed and the judgment of God yet to come a powerful stimulus to share, not hoard, our wealth.

4. A second charge that James levels against the rich is more specific: they have failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields.247 The circumstances pictured by James are very much true to life.248 First-century Palestine, before AD 70, witnessed an increasing concentration of land in the hands of a small group of very wealthy landowners. As a result, the smallholdings of many farmers were assimilated into these large estates, and these farmers were forced to earn their living by hiring themselves out to their rich landlords. Jesus’ parable about the workers in the vineyard (Matt. 20:1–16) is cast against this familiar rural background, and it is significant that the workers expect their pay at the end of the day. Indeed, this was commanded in the law: ‘Do not take advantage of a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether that worker is a fellow Israelite or a foreigner residing in one of your towns. Pay them their wages each day before sunset, because they are poor and are counting on it. Otherwise they may cry to the LORD against you, and you will be guilty of sin’ (Deut. 24:14–15). Such warnings are found elsewhere, for instance in Leviticus 19:13 (another possible instance of James’ use of this chapter), and in Malachi 3:5, where, significantly, defrauding labourers of their wages is associated with oppression of ‘the widows and the fatherless’ (cf. Jas 1:27). Prompt payment would have been very important for the labourer, who often got by at a barely subsistence level and who needed a steady income to provide ‘daily bread’ for himself and his family. In a society where credit was not readily available, the failure to pay workers promptly could jeopardize life itself.

James is convinced, however, that the rich will not get away with their sin. In a vivid image reminiscent of Abel’s blood crying out to God (Gen. 4:10), James pictures the wages themselves crying out, making God aware of the sin and pleading for vindication (cf. Ps. 18:6). What the rich think they do in secret, and without danger of prosecution, is not hidden from the Lord Almighty. Almighty translates Sabaōth (cf. KJV; NASB), which is itself the transliteration of a Hebrew word that means ‘army’. The title ‘Lord Almighty’ thus pictures God as the almighty, powerful leader of a great army. Sometimes this army is an earthly one, as when David expresses his confidence in the outcome of his fight by claiming to come ‘in the name of the LORD Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel’ (1 Sam. 17:45). More often it is the heavenly army that God is pictured as leading. It was ‘the LORD Almighty’ whom Isaiah saw in his famous vision (Isa. 6:3), and the title became a favourite one of his. He uses it often in descriptions of the judgments that God will bring upon Israel and the nations, and sometimes, as in Isaiah 5:9, this judgment is linked specifically to oppression of the poor. Therefore, when James affirms that the wrongdoing of the rich has become known to God, he makes clear that this God is holy, powerful and determined to judge those who infringe his commandments.

Because the accusation of withholding wages is a traditional description of the depravity of the rich, it has been suggested that James is not intending to describe conditions that actually existed in his day. But while it may be that the tradition has influenced James in singling out this particular sin, it is almost certain that the rich whom James chastises were actually guilty of this sin also.

5. The pursuit of a luxurious lifestyle that is selfish and unconcerned about others’ needs is the third accusation brought against the rich. They have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. The Greek for this phrase has two verbs. The latter one translates a form of spatalaō, which occurs in biblical Greek elsewhere only in 1 Timothy 5:6 and in Ezekiel 16:49. In the Ezekiel text, the people of Sodom are condemned for being ‘arrogant, overfed and unconcerned’, and for failing to help ‘the poor and needy’. Lived . . . in luxury translates a form of tryphaō. Peter uses the noun cognate to this verb to refer to the daytime ‘revelling’ in which depraved false teachers delight (2 Pet. 2:13). Even the easily overlooked phrase on earth bears clear negative connotations, suggesting a contrast between the pleasures the rich have enjoyed in this world and the torment that awaits them in eternity. An illuminating parallel is found in Abraham’s words to the rich man ‘who lived in luxury every day’: ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony’ (Luke 16:25).

This ‘reversal of fortunes’ scheme sheds light on the last clause of verse 5: you have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. As in verse 3, there is debate about the preposition en. NIV translates ‘in’, suggesting that the day of slaughter, as the ‘last days’ in verse 3, is a present, or at least inaugurated, phenomenon. Here, however, biblical and Jewish usage suggests a future reference. While not found in the Septuagint, the phrase ‘day of slaughter’ has an equivalent in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 30:25 (v. 24, Heb.), where the Day of the Lord is pictured. The pseudepigraphical 1 Enoch also uses the phrase to describe the judgment (90:4) and in a context that has many parallels to James 5:1–6. Moreover, the Bible often uses the imagery of a slaughter in battle to describe the day of judgment (cf. e.g. Ezek. 7:14–23; Rev. 19:17–21).249 The preposition should probably, then, be translated ‘for’ (as in HCSB; CEB; NAB). James’ point, then, is that the rich are selfishly and ignorantly going about accumulating wealth for themselves and wastefully spending it on their own pleasures in a time (‘the last days’ of v. 3) when the ultimate day of judgment is imminent (see v. 9: ‘the Judge is standing at the door’). The ‘last days’ have already begun; the judgment could break in at any time – yet the rich, instead of acting to avoid that judgment, are, by their selfish indulgence, incurring greater guilt. They are like cattle being fattened for the kill.

6. The final accusation against the rich is that they have condemned and murdered the innocent one. Innocent could also be translated ‘righteous’ (dikaion), and some interpreters think that this ‘righteous one’ might be Jesus, or perhaps even James ‘the Just’ (or ‘righteous’) himself (assuming, of course, that a later writer has used James’ name). The context and the traditions that James is using suggest another meaning, however: a generic reference to righteous people who are being persecuted by the rich.250 These people are ‘poor and needy’ and trust in God for deliverance. They are often pictured as being persecuted by the wicked rich. In Wisdom of Solomon 2:6–20, for instance, the desire of the wicked who live luxuriously in this life, with no thought for tomorrow, is to ‘oppress the righteous poor man’ (v. 10) and to ‘condemn him to a shameful death’ (v. 20). It is this widespread Jewish tradition (cf. also Pss 10:8–9; 37:32) that James utilizes here to describe the excesses of the rich (cf. also Jas 2:5–7). What does James mean when he says that the rich have . . . murdered these righteous people? He may have in mind the practical outcome of the failure of the rich to share their possessions and to pay the wages of their workers: ‘to take away a neighbour’s living is to murder him; to deprive an employee of his wages is to shed blood’ (Sirach 34:22). However, condemned (katadikazō) is a judicial term, and suggests rather that the rich are using, and perhaps perverting, the legal processes available to them to accumulate property and to gain wealth. Such activities had long been practised in Israel, and were roundly condemned by the prophets (cf. Amos 2:6; 5:12; Mic. 2:2, 6–9; 3:1–3, 9–12; 6:9–16).

As does the NIV, virtually all modern translations take the last clause of the paragraph as a statement: who was not opposing you. Presumably this would be understood as a reference to the non-resistance of the poor, afflicted righteous (cf. Matt. 5:39; Rom. 12:14): the oppression of the rich is all the more heinous in that their victims refuse, or are unable, to retaliate. However, it is possible to translate the clause as a question, expecting the answer ‘yes’: ‘does he not resist you?’ The subject of the verb could then be God (cf. the Twentieth Century New Testament) or Christ, and the reference be to the future judgment: ‘will not God stand against you?’251 Alternatively, the subject of the question could be ‘the innocent one’ and the reference be to the attempts of the righteous to oppose the actions of the rich in this life (as in Wisdom of Solomon 2:12); to the pleas for vindication that the righteous, though perhaps dead, continue to utter (cf. Rev. 6:9–11); or to the witness of the righteous against the rich at the judgment. Of these, the first and generally accepted interpretation makes best sense. Although it has been criticized as being anticlimactic, the simple assertion that the righteous person is not resisting his or her rich oppressor ‘brings the section to an end on a note of majestic pathos’ (Tasker).

Theology

James 5:1–6 is one of the clearest and strongest comments about riches that we find in the New Testament. It brings to a climax James’ focus on this issue in his letter (see also 1:9–11, 27; 2:5–7, 15–16; 4:13–17). These passages have made the letter of James a favourite of liberation theologians, who, in reaction to economic and social oppression, find in the Scriptures a denunciation of wealth and a programme to resist such oppression. Liberation theologians focus attention on large and serious issues, as the worldwide church, increasingly strong in the two-thirds world, has come to recognize. Yet imbalance is terribly easy on this matter. The Scriptures are clear about the ultimate insignificance of the wealth and power for which too many Christians strive. And they are equally clear about the imperative need that wealthier Christians share their blessings with poorer Christians. But, as we have seen in James 5:1–6, the Bible does not denounce wealth per se, but wealth immorally gained and selfishly used. Nor does the Bible countenance revolutionary programmes to right imbalances. Christians are right to support political measures that foster biblical values. But we must also recognize that every human revolution simply ends up putting one oppressor in the place of another; only the ultimate ‘revolution’, when God brings in a new heaven and new earth, will right these wrongs.

C. An encouragement to endure patiently (5:7–11)

Context

Psalm 37 is a marvellous song of encouragement directed to the righteous. They are described as ‘poor and needy’ (v. 14) and as suffering persecution at the hands of the wicked (vv. 12–15, 32–33). They are tempted to be envious of the prosperity and well-being of the wicked (vv. 1, 7) and, somewhat paradoxically, also to be impatient for the wicked to receive judgment. In this situation, the psalmist encourages the righteous to ‘be still before the LORD’ (v. 7) and to ‘refrain from anger’ (v. 8), for God will certainly vindicate the righteous and destroy the wicked (vv. 34–40). James writes to righteous people, mainly poor, who were suffering from similar circumstances. His advice is the same as the psalmist’s: ‘be patient’, for the ‘coming of the Lord’, when the wicked will be judged (5:1–6) and the righteous delivered, ‘is near’.

In 5:7–11, James circles back to the beginning of the letter. Here, as in 1:12, James pronounces a ‘blessing’ on those who ‘persevere’ in the midst of hardship.

Comment

7. The transition from denunciation of rich non-Christians to encouragement of believers is signalled by James’ return to his familiar address: brothers and sisters. Then (oun) shows that this encouragement is based on the prophetic condemnation of wicked, rich oppressors in 5:1–6: since God will punish these oppressors, the believers need to wait patiently for that time. Patience is clearly the key idea in this paragraph. It is expressed with the root makrothym- four times (vv. 7 [twice], 8, 10) and with the root hypomon- twice (v. 11). The latter root has figured prominently in chapter 1, where James encouraged his readers to ‘endure’ the trials they were experiencing (1:2–3, 12). Many interpreters think these two word groups express slightly different ideas: makrothym- the long-suffering, loving attitude we are to have towards others (1 Cor. 13:4; Eph. 4:2; 1 Thess. 5:14) and hypomon- the strong, determined attitude with which we are to face difficult circumstances (2 Thess. 1:4); and we have seen that this distinction does seem to be observed by James elsewhere (see the notes on 1:3). However, any difference in meaning in this paragraph is hard to detect. The makrothymia of the prophets (v. 10) does not appear to differ from the hypomonē of Job (v. 11). A similar overlap in meaning can be observed in the Testament of Joseph 2:7, where Joseph, after successfully fighting against the temptation of Potiphar’s wife, says ‘perseverance [makrothymia] is a powerful medicine and endurance [hypomonē] provides many good things’ (see also Col. 1:11). Nevertheless, makrothymia retains a more specific sense in verses 7–8, where it describes not fortitude in trials, but a patient, expectant waiting on the Lord.

Specifically, James encourages patience until the Lord ’s coming. Until (heōs) has a ‘pregnant’ sense here, suggesting the idea of a goal as well as a time period: ‘exercise patience as you wait for, and look for, the coming of the Lord’. Parousia, ‘presence’ or coming, became a technical term in the early church for the expected return of Jesus in glory to judge the wicked (Matt. 24:37, 39; 2 Thess. 2:8) and deliver the saints (1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thess. 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23). This tradition strongly suggests that the Lord here is Jesus rather than God the Father (though cf. 2 Pet. 3:12).252

As an example of patience, James cites the farmer who must patiently wait for the earth to produce its valuable crop on which his livelihood depends. Although there is no specific Greek word behind the English rains (some manuscripts add it; others have ‘fruit’), James uses a phrase that clearly connotes this idea. His Greek would literally be translated ‘early and late’ (see e.g. ESV) but the reference is to the rains that came in Palestine in late autumn and early spring (cf. Deut. 11:14); hence the NIV autumn and spring rains.253 While it is possible that the image, being a traditional Old Testament phrase, says nothing about the provenance of the letter, it is more probable that James uses the language because it fits the circumstances of his readers. But James may well intend a further allusion. Every reference to ‘early and later rains’ in the Old Testament occurs in a context affirming the faithfulness of the Lord (Deut. 11:14; Jer. 5:24; Hos. 6:3; Joel 2:23; Zech. 10:1). James’ readers, being biblically literate, would have detected in the language of this verse an echo of this broader biblical theme and been thereby given a further reinforcement of the confidence they could place in the coming of the Lord to judge their enemies and deliver them.

8. As the farmer waits patiently for the seed to sprout and the crops to mature, so believers must wait patiently for the Lord to return to deliver them and to judge their oppressors. And while they wait, they need to stand firm (lit. ‘establish your hearts’). Paul gave the same exhortation to the Thessalonians as they awaited the parousia (1 Thess. 3:13; cf. 2 Thess. 2:17), and the author to the Hebrews claimed that ‘it is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace’ (Heb. 13:9). What is commanded, then, is a firm adherence to the faith in the midst of temptations and trials. As they wait patiently for their Lord to return, believers need to fortify themselves for the struggle against sin and difficult circumstances.

James encourages his readers to be patient in light of the fact that the Lord ’s coming is near. What did he mean by this? Many scholars think that James’ conviction that the return of Christ was ‘near’ was an overly enthusiastic hope which we now know was disappointed.254 If this were the case, the legitimacy of the course of action James here suggests would be called into serious question: of what value would such advice be when the basic understanding of the course of history on which it is based is mistaken? The accusation that James has erred on this matter rests on the supposition that James believed that the parousia must necessarily occur within a very brief period of time. But there is no reason to think that this was the case. The early Christians’ conviction that the parousia was ‘near’, or ‘imminent’, meant that they fully believed that it could transpire within a very short period of time, not that it had to. They, like Jesus, knew neither ‘that day or hour’ (Mark 13:32), but they acted, and taught others to act, as if their generation could be the last. Almost twenty centuries later, we live in exactly the same situation: our own decade could be the last in human history. And James’ advice to us is the same as it was to his first-century readers: be patient and stand firm!

9. At first glance, this verse does not have much in common with its context, beyond sharing an emphasis on the imminence of judgment. However, grumbling against others is one temptation that accompanies the pressure of difficult circumstances. How often we find ourselves taking out the frustrations of a difficult day on our close friends and family members! Refraining from this kind of complaining and grumbling can be seen as one aspect of patience itself: patience is linked with ‘bearing with one another in love’ in Ephesians 4:2 and is contrasted with retaliation in 1 Thessalonians 5:14–15. The word grumble (stenazō) is usually used absolutely; only here in biblical Greek does it have an object (against one another). The meaning may be that believers should not grumble to others about their difficulties, or that believers should not blame others for their difficulties (cf. NLT). Perhaps James intends both ideas. Once more, however, biblical usage might suggest a further allusion. The verb stenazō (grumble) regularly refers to the ‘groaning’ of the people of God under oppression; see, for example, Exodus 2:23: ‘The Israelites groaned in their slavery and cried out, and their cry for help because of their slavery went up to God.’ This biblical allusion strengthens the supposition that the grumbling James warns about has arisen because of the pressure of difficult circumstances.

As he has done in 4:11–12, James connects speaking against others with judgment. There, however, he likened critical speech to judgment; here he warns that criticism of one another places a person in danger of judgment. This warning is similar to, and may be influenced by, Jesus’ well-known prohibition: ‘Do not judge, or you too will be judged’ (Matt. 7:1). To reinforce his warning, James reminds his readers again that this judgment is imminent: the Judge is standing at the door! In the light of 4:12 (‘there is one Judge’), it is plausible to think that the judge here is God the Father. However, the parallelism between this statement and the references to the parousia in verses 7–8 suggests that the judge may be Christ (see Matt. 24:33; Rev. 3:10). Davids’ concluding comment on this verse bears repeating: ‘The nearness of the eschatological day is not just an impetus to look forward to the judgment of “sinners” . . . but it is also a warning to examine one’s behavior so that when the one whose footsteps are nearing finally knocks on the door, one may be prepared to open . . . The coming Lord is also the judge of the Christian.’255

10. The somewhat parenthetical nature of verse 9 is suggested by the fact that verses 10–11 hark back to the exhortation to patience in verses 7–8. These verses cite the prophets and Job as examples of patience and endurance under affliction. The rehearsal of great feats of fortitude under persecution was a staple of many intertestamental books (cf. 2 Maccabees) and is found in the New Testament also (cf. Heb. 11). Jesus encouraged his disciples to face persecution boldly, ‘for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you’ (Matt. 5:12). Specifically, James says, the prophets are an example of patience in the face of suffering. The NIV, probably correctly, understands a Greek phrase that could be translated ‘suffering and patience’ (e.g. ESV) as a hendiadys: a construction in which the words connected by ‘and’ interpret one another. The idea, then, is probably either patience in the face of suffering (see also NLT) or ‘endurance of suffering’. With this meaning kakopatheia would denote the fact that the prophets endured affliction; patience (makrothymia) would describe the manner in which they endured it. The fact that these prophets spoke in the name of the Lord is added to make clear that the suffering endured by them was a result not of wrongdoing, but specifically of their faithful adherence to the will of God.

11. The first sentence of this verse summarizes the main point of verses 10–11: we count as blessed those who faithfully endure suffering. The author of 4 Maccabees begins his account by ‘calling blessed’ those martyrs who exhibited ‘endurance’ (hypomonē) in the face of persecution (1:10). Similarly, Jesus had bestowed a blessing on those who ‘are persecuted because of righteousness’ (Matt. 5:10). ‘To be blessed’ is not, of course, the same as being ‘happy’ (despite the KJV): ‘happiness’ normally suggests a subjective, emotional reaction; ‘blessing’ is the objective, unalterable approval and reward of God. As the prophets received this reward because they were faithful in tribulation, so, says James, did Job. Many have wondered at James’ allusion to Job as a model of faithful endurance of suffering. Did not Job grumble about his circumstances, self-righteously proclaim his innocence and generally question God’s ways with him? The seeming incompatibility between the canonical portrait of Job and James’ description of him has led some to think that James is dependent on the apocryphal Testament of Job, where Job is presented in a much more positive light. James may, indeed, have been influenced by the kind of tradition found in this book.256 Yet there is still a sense in which the Job of the Old Testament can be seen as a great example of steadfastness. For although Job did complain bitterly about God’s treatment of him, he never abandoned his faith; in the midst of his incomprehension, he clung to God and continued to hope in him (cf. Job 1:21; 2:10; 16:19–21; 19:25–27). As Barclay says, ‘Job’s is no groveling, passive, unquestioning submission; Job struggled and questioned, and sometimes even defied, but the flame of faith was never extinguished in his heart.’257

In addition to ‘the steadfastness of Job’, James’ readers have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The NIV here interprets a difficult Greek phrase which, more literally translated, is ‘the end/purpose [telos] of the Lord’. Some interpreters think that the key word telos means ‘purpose’ (see e.g. NRSV; ESV; NET; NAB) and interpret the phrase to refer to the ultimate purpose of God behind Job’s sufferings (cf. Job 42:5–6). Others think that telos here means ‘end’ or ‘outcome’ (NASB; HCSB): James might then be referring to the parousia – the ‘end’ that the Lord brings about – or to the death and resurrection of Christ – the ‘end’ and ‘seal’ of the Lord’s life. However, it makes best sense to take the phrase as a reference to the end or outcome of Job’s situation, which the Lord eventually brought about: that is, the restoration of his family and fortune (Job 42:13). This is what the NIV translation is getting at (see also CEB; NLT). This interpretation matches similar statements about Job in Jewish literature (Testament of Gad 7:4 and Testament of Benjamin 4:1; cf. Heb. 13:7), provides a concrete example of the ‘blessing’ mentioned earlier, and explains the final clause: Job’s ‘end’ shows that the Lord is indeed full of compassion and mercy. If this is what James means, we also find a good fit with the overall message of the book of Job, which shows how Job’s faithfulness was rewarded in the end. Certainly, James does not mean that patience in suffering will always be rewarded by material prosperity; too many examples, in the Old Testament (Jeremiah!) and the New, prove this wrong. But he does seek to encourage our faithful, patient endurance of affliction by reminding us of the blessing that we receive for such.

Theology

James, we have seen again and again, has a very practical theology. His eschatology is no exception. To be sure, James does not say much about ‘the last things’, although he says enough for us to place him securely within the typical New Testament ‘already/not yet’ perspective (see ‘Eschatology’ in the Introduction). In this passage, James urges us to think about life in light of the ‘end’ of things. God has established a day when he will culminate his programme of redemption and judge all human beings. We are to live each day in the light of that ‘end’ God has appointed: an end whose timing we cannot predict but whose coming is absolutely certain and ultimately significant. Too often, believers fall into the trap of thinking, like the ‘scoffers’ of 2 Peter 3, that Christ’s coming has been pushed so far into the uncertain future as to have no significance for the present. Quite the contrary, teaches James: Christ, the judge of all, including Christians, ‘stands at the door’.

6. CONCLUDING EXHORTATIONS (5:12–20)

A. Oaths (5:12)

12. Although this verse stands essentially on its own, the introductory above all might suggest some connection with the previous context. Certainly James cannot mean that taking oaths is a worse sin than others he has mentioned in the epistle (murder, adultery, worldliness). Perhaps, however, the reference is only to the immediate context, and he intends to highlight the irreverent use of God’s name as a sin more serious than others that may be committed in time of distress (vv. 7–11) – especially, perhaps, in comparison with the other sins of speech, such as grumbling against other people (v. 9), mentioned in the context. Such a connection seems to be rather artificial, however, and it is better to see above all simply as drawing particular attention to this exhortation (cf. 1 Pet. 4:8). It may be also that the phrase is intended to signal the final section of the letter (Paul uses to loipon, ‘finally’, in this way in several of his letters).

The swearing that James here prohibits is not ‘dirty’ language as such, but the invoking of God’s name, or substitutes for it, to guarantee the truth of what we say. In the Old Testament, God is frequently presented as guaranteeing the fulfilment of his promises with an oath. The law does not prohibit oaths, but demands that a person be true to any oath he or she has sworn (cf. Lev. 19:12 – yet another instance in which James includes a topic mentioned in that chapter). Concern about the devaluation of oaths because of their indiscriminate use and the tendency to try to avoid fulfilling them by swearing by ‘less sacred’ things (cf. Matt. 23:16–22) led to warnings against using them too often (cf. Sirach 23:9, 11; Philo, On the Decalogue, 84–95). Jesus, it appears, went even further than this when he commanded his disciples not to swear ‘at all’ (Matt. 5:34). Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:34–37 is particularly important in understanding James’ teaching, because it looks as if James is consciously reproducing that tradition. The similarity between the two passages is clearly seen when they are set side by side:

Matthew 5:34–37

James 5:12

‘Do not swear an oath at all,

‘Do not swear,

either by heaven . . .

not by heaven

or by the earth . . .

or by earth

or by Jerusalem . . .

or by anything else.

Do not swear by your head . . .

All you need to say is simply “Yes” or “No”;

All you need to say is a simple “Yes” or “No”.

anything beyond this comes from the evil one.’

Otherwise you will be condemned.’

It is often argued that Matthew and James diverge on one crucial point: Matthew, it is said, suggests a ‘substitute oath’ – ‘all you need to say is simply “Yes” or “No” ’ (lit., ‘let your word be Yes, yes, No, no’) – while James simply prohibits all oaths. But it is more likely that Jesus in Matthew is saying the same thing as James: our truthfulness should be so consistent and dependable that we need no oath to support it: a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ should suffice. ‘Our mere word should be as utterly trustworthy as a signed document, legally correct and complete’ (Mitton).

The question remains whether Jesus and James intended to prohibit all oaths. At the time of the Reformation, many in the Anabaptist tradition believed this was the case and refused by consequence to take oaths in the courtroom or anywhere else – a belief that many sincere Christians continue to hold. However, it is questionable whether either Jesus or James intended to address the issue of official oaths, oaths that responsible authorities ask us to take. What both have in mind seem to be voluntary oaths. Even with these, it is argued, the intention is not to forbid any oath, but only oaths that would have the intention of avoiding absolute truthfulness. This would seem to be the problem that Jesus addressed (cf. Matt. 23:16–22), and the evidence from Paul’s epistles show that he, for one, continued to use oaths (Rom. 1:9; 2 Cor. 1:23; 11:11; Gal. 1:20; Phil. 1:8; 1 Thess. 2:5, 10). Nevertheless, caution is required. The repetition of Jesus’ teaching by James, where the polemical context of Matthew 5 is lacking, warns us against assuming that the prohibition of oaths was related only to that false teaching. And it may be questioned whether Paul’s ‘witness’ formula really fits into the category of an oath or not. It is possible that Jesus and James do intend to prohibit any voluntary oath.

B. Prayer and healing (5:13–18)

Context

James, like so many other New Testament letter-writers, concludes his homily with an encouragement to pray. Prayer is clearly the topic of this paragraph, being mentioned in every verse. James commends it to the individual believer, in the very different kinds of circumstances that he or she may face (vv. 13–14), and to the community as well (v. 16a). And he encourages such prayer by underscoring the powerful effects of prayer that flows from a righteous heart (vv. 16b–18). Some relationship to verse 12 may be perceived through the common theme of speaking with reference to God (bad speech, v. 12; and good, vv. 13–18), but James does nothing to suggest this connection. It is more plausible to think that James wants to commend prayer as a great source of strength for the affliction that the readers are experiencing (see the use of kakopatheia in both v. 10 and v. 13). Essentially, however, the paragraph is an independent entity.

Comment

13. ‘Pray . . . on all occasions,’ Paul commanded (Eph. 6:18; 1 Thess. 5:17). James, similarly, exhorts believers to pray in whatever situation they may find themselves. They are to pray when in trouble. Kakopatheia, the same word James has used in verse 10 with reference to the prophets, is a general term that denotes the experience of all sorts of afflictions and trials. Paul used the verbal form of this word to describe his imprisonment and exhorted Timothy to be willing to undergo this same kind of suffering (2 Tim. 2:9; 4:5). The prayer believers are to offer in such circumstances is not necessarily for deliverance from the trial, but for the strength to endure it faithfully. Believers are also to pray when they are happy. The Greek verb translated happy (euthymeō) refers not to outward circumstances, but to the cheerfulness of heart that one can have whether in good times or in bad. It was this sense of well-being that Paul encouraged his fellow-travellers to have even though their ship was in imminent danger of destruction (Acts 27:22, 25). When our hearts are comforted, it is all too easy to forget that this contentment comes ultimately from God. Thus, perhaps even more than when suffering, we must be reminded in times of happiness of our glad obligation to acknowledge God’s supreme role in our lives. This inner sense of well-being is to be expressed outwardly: Let them sing songs of praise. This last phrase translates Greek psallō, easily recognized as related to our English ‘psalm’. Taken from a Greek word that designated a kind of harp, the word was used in the Septuagint to describe certain types of songs, especially songs of praise. This singing in praise was closely related to prayer (cf. 1 Cor. 14:15); indeed, it can be regarded as a form of prayer.

14. A third circumstance in which believers are to pray is when someone is ill. In this case, however, the believer who is ill is not commanded to pray, but to summon the elders of the church so that they might pray over them. Elders are mentioned in the book of Acts in connection with the church in Jerusalem (11:30; 15:2; 21:18) and the churches founded through Paul (14:23; 20:17). Although in his letters Paul refers to elders by name only in 1 Timothy (5:17) and Titus (1:5), ‘overseer’ (or ‘bishop’), mentioned in the plural in Philippians 1:1 and in the (probably generic) singular in 1 Timothy 3:1, is probably a different title for the same office. Both Peter (1 Pet. 5:1) and James assume the existence of elders in the church, showing that the office must have been a widespread one in the early church.258 It is possible, though not certain, that the office was taken over from the synagogue. From the prominent role of the elders in Acts and the description of the office in the pastoral epistles, it can be inferred that the elders were those spiritually mature men who were given responsibility for the spiritual oversight of individual, local congregations. Since the Ephesian elders were to ‘shepherd’, or ‘pastor’, their flock (Acts 20:28), and ‘pastors’ are never mentioned along with elders, it is probable that the function of what we know as the ‘pastor’ or ‘minister’ was carried out by the elders. Hence, it is natural that the believer who is suffering from illness should summon the elders.

When the elders come, they are to pray over (epi) the one who is sick. Only here in biblical Greek is proseuchomai (pray) followed by epi : it may simply indicate physical position, but could possibly imply that hands were also laid on the sick person (see Matt. 19:13). As the elders pray for the ill person, they are also exhorted to anoint them with oil. The form of the verb James uses here (an aorist participle) could mean that the elders are to anoint with oil first and then pray (HCSB), but it is more likely (with most versions and commentators) that the actions are to take place at the same time.259

This anointing is to be carried out in the name of the Lord, signifying the divine authority with which the anointing is done (see Acts 3:6, 16; 4:7, 10). The Lord may be God (see 5:10–11) or, perhaps more likely, Christ (5:7–8; and the frequency of NT prayer ‘in the name of Jesus’).260 But what is the purpose of this anointing with oil? The practice is mentioned only one other time in the New Testament: Mark tells us that the twelve ‘drove out many demons and anointed with oil many people who were ill and healed them’ (6:13). Unfortunately, no more explanation of the practice is given there than here in James. In general, there are two main possibilities for the purpose of the anointing.

First, it may have a practical purpose. Oil was widely used in the ancient world as a medicine. In Jesus’ parable, he tells us that the Samaritan who stopped to help the man who had been robbed and beaten ‘went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine’ (Luke 10:34). Other ancient sources attest to its helpfulness in curing everything from toothache to paralysis (the famous second-century physician Galen recommended oil as ‘the best of all remedies for paralysis’, Mod. Temp., 2). What James may be saying, then, is that the elders should come to the bedside of the sick armed with both spiritual and natural resources – with prayer and with medicine. Both are administered with the Lord’s authority and both together can be used by him in healing the sick.261 The difficulty with this view is twofold. First, evidence that anointing with oil was used for every medical problem is not found – and why mention only one (albeit widespread) remedy when many different illnesses would be encountered? Second, why should the elders of the church do the anointing if its purpose were solely medical? Surely others would have done this already were it an appropriate remedy for the complaint.

As a different kind of practical purpose, others suggest that the anointing may have been intended as an outward, physical expression of concern and as a means to stimulate the faith of the sick person.262 Jesus sometimes used physical ‘props’ in his healings, apparently with just such a purpose. But when Jesus did so, the physical action was specifically appropriate to the illness, such as rubbing the eyes of a blind man (Mark 8:23–26) and placing his finger in the ears of a deaf man (Mark 7:33). There is simply no evidence that anointing with oil was generally used with such a purpose.

It is probable, then, that anointing with oil has a religious purpose.263 This second main explanation of the practice can be further subdivided into two types, according to whether the anointing had sacramental or merely symbolic significance. A sacramental understanding of this practice arose early in the history of the church. On the basis of this text the early Greek church practised what they called the ‘euchelaion’ (a combination of the words euchē, ‘prayer’, and elaion, ‘oil’, both used in this text), which had the purpose of strengthening the body and soul of the sick. The Western church continued this practice for many centuries, as well as using oil for anointing on other occasions. Later, the Roman church gave to the priest the exclusive right to perform this ceremony and developed the sacrament of ‘extreme unction’. The key text cited to support the practice is James 5:14–15. While often administered just before death, The Catechism of the Catholic Church stresses that this sacrament has the purpose of strengthening anyone who is sick (Par. 1511–1515). However, James stresses that anointing with oil is focused more on healing than on spiritual strengthening. Nevertheless, the oil could be considered to have a sacramental function in that it acted as a ‘vehicle of divine power’.264 Much as partaking of the Lord’s Supper conveys to the believing participant a strengthening in grace, so anointing may be mandated by God as a physical element through which he works the grace of healing in the sick believer. One’s attitude towards this view will depend considerably on one’s view of the ‘sacrament’ in general. But it may also be asked whether a practice mentioned only once in the New Testament (although cf. Mark 6:13) can possess the importance which this view gives to anointing.

It is best, then, to think of the anointing with oil as a symbolic action. Anointing frequently symbolizes the consecration of persons or things for God’s use and service in the Old Testament. And while chriō is usually used in these texts, James has probably chosen aleiphō because of the physical action involved (see ‘Additional note: aleiphō and chriō ’, below). As the elders prayed, they would anoint the sick person in order to symbolize that that person was being ‘set apart’ for God’s special attention and care.265 While Calvin, Luther and other expositors think that the practice of anointing, along with the power to heal, was meant to be confined to the apostolic age,266 it is doubtful that such a restriction can be maintained. James’ recommendation that regular church leaders carry out the practice would seem to imply its permanent validity in the church. On the other hand, the fact that anointing a sick person is mentioned only here in the New Testament epistles, and that many healings were accomplished without anointing, shows that the practice is not a necessary accompaniment to the prayer for healing. Elders who pray for the sick may do it, and James clearly recommends the practice; but they do not have to do so.

Additional note: aleiphō and chriō (5:14)

Scripture employs two Greek words that mean ‘anoint’: chriō and aleiphō. James’ choice of the latter word in verse 14 may help our understanding of his allusive reference to ‘anointing with oil’.

Aleiphō is used only twenty times in the Septuagint. Ezekiel is the only author to use it to mean ‘rub whitewash’ on walls (seven times, all translating Heb. ṭûḥ). The word frequently refers to the rubbing of oil on the face or body with a beautifying or hygienic purpose (nine times, usually with Heb. sûk). Four times, however, the verb has a ceremonial significance. The precise meaning of Genesis 31:13 is unclear, but in Exodus 40:15 (twice) and Numbers 3:3, aleiphō denotes the ceremonial anointing of the priests, whereby they were set apart for the service of God.

It is this last meaning that is the regular meaning of chriō in the Septuagint. In most of its seventy-eight occurrences, it designates the ‘consecration’ of priests, sanctuary furnishings or the king of Israel. Only three times does it refer to a cosmetic treatment. Significantly, neither word is used with reference to medicinal purposes in the Septuagint.

The same general picture is maintained in the New Testament. Chriō always has a metaphorical meaning, designating God’s special setting aside of Jesus for his ministry (Luke 4:18 [= Isa. 61:1]; Acts 4:27; 10:38; Heb. 1:9 [= Ps. 45:7]), or the consecration of Paul to his (2 Cor. 1:21). As in the Septuagint, aleiphō most often designates a cosmetic or hygienic anointing (Matt. 6:17; Mark 16:1; Luke 7:38, 46 [twice]; John 11:2; 12:3). It is possible, however, that the word has some symbolic overtones in the account of Jesus’ anointing (John 11:2; 12:3).

The significance of this data for James 5:14 is not entirely clear. On the one hand, it can be argued that chriō is the word that more frequently has religious or symbolic overtones and that James would probably have chosen this word had he intended any such significance. On the other hand, neither word is used in Scripture with a medicinal meaning (leaving aside for the moment Mark 6:13 and Jas 5:14). In Luke 10:34, where oil (elaion) clearly has a medicinal use, the verb epicheō, ‘put on’, is used. Therefore it is probably because aleiphō is the New Testament word that describes the physical act of anointing that James has chosen to use it here; chriō never refers to physical anointing in the New Testament.

But while James clearly describes a physical action, it is not necessary to eliminate all symbolic significance from the action. As we have seen, aleiphō is used equivalently to chriō in the Septuagint with reference to the consecrating of priests (Exod. 40:15; cf. chriō in 40:13; Num. 3:3). (Josephus can also use aleiphō with symbolic meaning, parallel to chriō; compare Ant. 6.165 with 6.157.) It is best, then, to view James’ anointing as a physical action with symbolic significance. Since the symbolism of ‘anointing’ is usually associated with the setting apart or consecrating of someone or something for God, we are probably to understand this as the symbolism intended in the action. As the elders pray for the sick person, they also set that person apart for God’s special attention.

15. While anointing with oil, because of its uncertain meaning, not unnaturally attracts a good deal of attention, we must remember that it is prayer that is James’ main concern in these verses. This is reflected in James’ ascribing the anticipated healing to the elders’ prayer, not to the anointing. Their prayer is denoted with an unusual word, euchē, which connotes a strong, fervent wish or petition (see the use of the verb euchomai in Acts 26:29; 27:29; Rom. 9:3). But it is not the fervency or the frequency of the prayer that renders it effective – it is faith. Faith in 1:6–8, where James also discusses the efficacy of prayer, refers to a wholehearted, unwavering commitment to God. Since it is the elders who offer this prayer, it is clear that it is also their faith that is intended here. James describes two results of the prayer offered in faith: this prayer will make the sick person well; and the Lord will raise them up. Make well translates the Greek word sōzō (‘save’; so most translations) which, of course, is usually used in the New Testament to denote deliverance from spiritual death. A number of scholars think that this may be James’ meaning here also. In fact, they suggest that all of verses 14–16a may be about restoration to spiritual health rather than physical health. But James’ language is too definite to allow this interpretation; he is clearly thinking, at least primarily, of physical healing (see the ‘Theology’ section, pp. 232–236). The word sōzō is certainly appropriate as a description of restoration to health and is used in this way frequently in the Gospels. Similarly, raise . . . up (egeirō) is used to describe the renewed physical vigour of those who have been healed (Matt. 9:6; Mark 1:31; Acts 3:7). Thus the picture is of the elders praying ‘over’ those who are ill and the Lord intervening to raise them up from the sick-bed.

James brings up the topic of sin at this point because of the widespread belief that sickness was caused by sin. But James’ if makes it clear that he does not believe that sickness is necessarily the result of sin, and in this, of course, he is following the teaching of Jesus (cf. John 9:2–3). On the other hand, the New Testament makes clear that sickness and death can be caused by sin (Mark 2:1–12; 1 Cor. 5:5 (?); 11:27–30), and it is this eventuality that James provides for at this point. This is not to be explained along the lines of modern discoveries regarding the relationship of psychological and physical illness. It is sin, not emotional instability or psychological disorder, that James links to sickness.

James introduces no qualification to the promises in this verse: the prayer of faith will make the sick person well; that person’s sins will be forgiven. Does this mean that a prayer for healing that is offered in faith will infallibly be effectual? As we have seen, some have suggested that this is the case but have confined these miraculous cures to the apostolic age. But there is nothing in the text to suggest such a restriction. A more helpful observation is to note James’ specific reminder that the prayer must be a prayer offered in faith. This faith, while certainly including the notion of confidence in God’s ability to answer, also involves absolute confidence in the perfection of God’s will. A true prayer of faith, then, always includes within it a tacit acknowledgment of God’s sovereignty in all matters; that it is God ’s will that must be done. And it is clear that it is by no means always God’s will to heal those who are ill (cf. 2 Cor. 12:7–9 [probably]). Therefore, the ‘faith’ that is the indispensable condition for our prayers for healing to be answered – this faith being the gift of God – can be truly present only when it is God’s will to heal (see the ‘Theology’ section, pp. 232–236).267

16. As a consequence (oun) of the promise that God responds to prayer (vv. 14–15a) and forgives sin (v. 15b), believers should be committed to confessing their sins to one another and praying for one another. Mutual confession of sins, which James encourages as a habitual practice (this is suggested by the present tense of the imperative), is greatly beneficial to the spiritual vitality of a church. This was seen at the time of the Methodist movement in eighteenth-century England. The suggested ‘rule’ for the small meetings of believers that spiritually fuelled that movement had at its head the encouragement to mutual confession and prayer from James 5:16a.

What kinds of sins are to be confessed? It may be that James thinks only of those sins which have brought harm to others (cf. Matt. 5:25–26). But the end of the sentence makes it probable that specifically those sins which may have caused illness are intended. That you may be healed expresses the purpose of mutual confession and prayer. Many take this ‘healing’ to be spiritual in nature, or perhaps a general healing, including both the physical and spiritual spheres. In this case, verse 16a is to be seen as a general deduction drawn from the specific situation of verses 14–15. But it is better to take this sentence as a concluding exhortation to the discussion of physical illness. This is because the verb heal (iaomai) is consistently applied to physical afflictions. To be sure, it is used in the Septuagint to describe the ‘healing’ of sin or faithlessness (cf. Deut. 30:3; Isa. 6:10; 53:5; Jer. 3:22), but in these contexts it is usually the case that sin has already been explicitly compared to a ‘wound’. In the New Testament iaomai is used with spiritual application only in quotations from these Old Testament texts. Therefore, since the purpose of this confession and prayer is physical healing, it is best to understand the confession as involving any sins which may hinder that healing, and the prayers to be specifically for the cure of bodily afflictions. It is striking that, while in verse 14 the elders are to pray for the healing, here the whole church body is to be involved in prayer for healing. As Davids says, James ‘consciously generalizes, making the specific case of 5:14–15 into a general principle of preventive medicine . . . ’ This verse also demonstrates that the power to heal is invested in prayer, not the elder. And while it is appropriate that those charged with the spiritual oversight of the community should be called to intercede for those seriously ill, James makes clear that all believers have the privilege and responsibility to pray for healing.

James’ reminder of the great power of prayer in the last part of verse 16 provides a basis for the exhortations to pray which he has given in verses 13–16a. The power possessed by prayer is not limited to ‘supersaints’; the righteous person simply designates one who is wholeheartedly committed to God and sincerely seeking to do his will. James employs a third word for prayer here (deēsis), but he apparently uses it without any difference in meaning from the other two words for prayer used in this paragraph (cf. proseuchomai in vv. 13–14, 17–18; euchomai in vv. 15–16a). The prayer of the righteous person, James affirms, is powerful and effective. The two adjectives in the NIV translate a complicated Greek construction. The first part of the construction (poly ischuei) pretty clearly means something like ‘is very strong or powerful’. But James later adds a participle, energoumenē, that is harder to understand. This participle could be passive, in which case the meaning could be ‘prayer is very powerful when it is energized (by God or the Spirit)’.268 Thus there would be introduced a specific qualification on the effectiveness of prayer from the standpoint of the will of God. However, the participle is more likely to be middle (as most of the modern translations presume), with the meaning ‘prayer is very powerful in its working, or in its effect’.269

17–18. As an example of a righteous person whose prayers had great effect James cites Elijah. The prophet, whose exploits were so spectacular and whose manner of ‘death’ was so remarkable, was one of the most popular of all figures among Jews. He was celebrated for his powerful miracles and his prophetic denunciations of sin. Most of all, however, he was looked for as the helper in time of need whose coming would pave the way for the Messianic age (Mal. 4:5–6; Sirach 48:1–10; Mark 9:12; Luke 1:17). But it is not Elijah’s special prophetic endowment or unique place in history that interests James, but the fact that, though he was a human being, even as we are, his prayer was ‘powerful and effective’. James highlights the fervency of Elijah’s prayer with the use of a Semitic-influenced ‘cognate’ construction: literally, ‘in prayer he prayed’. He wants his readers to recognize that this power of prayer is available to all who are sincerely following the Lord – not just to a special few.

The situation James describes is recorded in 1 Kings 17 – 18. A drought was inflicted by God and announced by Elijah as a means of punishing the Israelite king Ahab and Israel for their idolatry. Although the Old Testament does not state that Elijah prayed for the drought, 1 Kings 18:42 does picture him praying for the drought to end, and it is a legitimate inference to think that he prayed for its onset also. Similarly, we should probably take the three and a half years specified by James (cf. also Luke 4:25) as a more specific figure for the rounded-off ‘three years’ in 1 Kings 18:1. Perhaps the figure ‘three and a half ’ was suggested by its symbolic associations with a period of judgment (Dan. 7:25; cf. Rev. 11:2; 12:14). But in the light of the fact that the Old Testament never specifically mentions Elijah’s prayer for the drought, why has James chosen this as his example – particularly since other examples of his praying were much better known (that fire would consume the sacrifice on Mount Carmel) or more appropriate to James’ context (raising the widow’s son to life)? Perhaps James intends us to see in the deadness of the land brought back to life an analogy to the illness of the believer restored to health (Davids). On the other hand, evidence exists of a tradition that associated the drought with Elijah’s praying (Sirach 48:2–3; 2 Esdras 7:109), and it is probable that James has chosen this simply as a familiar illustration.

Theology

James 5:13–18 is the only passage in the New Testament epistles that directly addresses the question of physical healing. It is therefore appropriate to add some further comments on the text and to reflect further on the matter of healing. There are several issues to be considered.

a. Physical vs. spiritual healing. As we have seen, some argue that the text does not have to do with physical healing at all, but with spiritual restoration. They point out that astheneō in verse 14 can mean ‘spiritually weak’ (1 Cor. 8:11; 2 Cor. 13:3), as can kamnō, used in verse 15 (cf. Heb. 12:3). And ‘save’ (sōzō), ‘raise’ (egeirō) and ‘heal’ (iaomai) are all used to describe restoration to spiritual vitality. Coming in a context in which the dangers of spiritual lethargy and slackness are all too real (cf. 5:7–11), an exhortation to the elders to pray for those downtrodden and weak in faith would be entirely appropriate.270 While all this is true, James’ language makes it impossible to eliminate the physical dimension. First, while astheneō can denote spiritual weakness, this meaning is usually made clear by a qualifier (cf. Rom. 14:2, ‘in faith’; 1 Cor. 8:7, ‘in conscience’) or the context. Moreover, in the material that is most relevant to James, the Gospels, astheneō almost always refers to illness – whether directly physical, emotional or psychological.271 The same is true for kamnō. And iaomai, when not used in an Old Testament quotation, always refers in the New Testament to physical healing. Beyond this, it is significant that the only other mention of ‘anointing with oil’ in the New Testament comes in a description of physical healing (Mark 6:13).

Granted that physical healing is in view, then, is it possible that spiritual restoration is also involved? Many think that this is the case in verse 16a; others, that the ‘salvation’ in verse 15 may be purposely broad so as to include both the physical and the spiritual dimensions. Thus, even if the prayer of faith does not bring healing, it may bring salvation from sin. But this idea does not fit well in the text. For one thing, salvation is never seen to be the result of prayer in the New Testament. For another, giving two different, though related, meanings to ‘save’ and ‘raise up’ violates a cardinal principle of semantics: never give a word more meaning than the context requires. A physical restoration is all that this context requires; and we should be wary of adding an unnecessary reference to spiritual deliverance. Several elements of the text require a reference to physical healing; everything in the text makes sense as a description of physical healing. Probably, then, the meaning of the text should be confined to physical healing.

b. Who heals? James’ answer to this question is clear: ‘the Lord will raise them up’. Nowhere does the New Testament suggest any other answer. When the apostles ‘healed’ people, they made it clear that they did so only through the power and the authority of the Lord Jesus (Acts 4:7–12). Paul spoke of a ‘gift’ of healing (1 Cor. 12:9, 28), but this gift, as all others, was empowered by and directed by the Spirit who gave the gift. It is interesting, however, that while Paul speaks of a gift of healing, James speaks only of elders who pray for healing. Were there none who had the gift of healing in James’ churches? Is the power to heal confined by James to certain ecclesiastical office-holders? These questions are difficult to answer, and involve us in the larger question of the relationship between ‘charismatic’ and ‘organized’ ministries in the New Testament. Briefly, however, it would seem that early churches differed in the extent to which certain gifts were manifest. Indeed, the Corinthian church seems to be something of an exception in the New Testament, since only here do we read of such ‘spectacular’ gifts as ‘healings’ and ‘miracles’ (contrast Rom. 12:6–8 and Eph. 4:11). Church ‘organization’ must not be regarded as depreciating or ignoring gifts, but as a helpful means of recognizing and manifesting gifts for the edification of the church. Elders were those spiritual leaders who were recognized for their maturity in the faith. Therefore it is natural that they, with their deep and rich experience, should be called on to pray for healing. They, above all, should be able to discern the will of the Lord and to pray with the faith that recognizes and receives God’s gift of healing. At the same time, James makes clear that the church at large is to pray for healing (v. 16a). Therefore, while not denying that some in the church may have the gift of healing, James encourages all Christians, and especially those charged with pastoral oversight, to be active in prayer for healing.

c. On what basis does God heal? Perhaps no greater challenge to faith occurs when fervent, diligent prayer for our own, or others’, healing is not answered. Several persistent questions arise in such situations.

Was it the sin of the sick person that prevented healing? There is no doubt that this can sometimes be the case. Paul specifically says that some of the Corinthian Christians have fallen ill and died because of their abuse of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:30). In times of illness it is appropriate to examine our spiritual lives to see if anything is amiss; and to encourage, with pastoral love, others to do the same. Confession of sin, says James, can lead to healing (v. 16). On the other hand, James also makes it clear that not all sickness is caused by sin (see the comments on v. 15). The idea that there must be a one-to-one correspondence between sin and sickness is clearly rejected in Scripture (cf. Job; John 9:2–3). Therefore it is not always, and perhaps even not usually, a specific sin that causes prayers for healing to go unanswered.

Was it a lack of faith that prevented healing? Did I, or those praying for me, not believe sufficiently deeply? As we have seen, James clearly specifies that it is ‘the prayer offered in faith’ that God responds to. He does indeed seem to imply, then, that it is a lack of faith that will get in the way of God’s healing work. But we must carefully note what is meant by this. The faith exercised in prayer is faith in the God who sovereignly accomplishes his will. When we pray, our faith will necessarily include this recognition, explicit or implicit, of the overruling providential purposes of God. Perhaps, at times, we are given insight into that will in specific circumstances and we pray with absolute confidence in God’s plan to answer as we ask. But surely these cases are very rare – more rare even than our subjective, emotional desires would lead us to suspect. A prayer for healing, then, must usually be qualified by a recognition that God’s will in the matter is supreme. And it is clear in the New Testament that God does not always will to heal the believer. Paul’s own prayer for his healing, offered three times, was not answered; God had a purpose in allowing the ‘thorn in my flesh’, that ‘messenger of Satan’, to remain (2 Cor. 12:7–9; assuming, with most scholars, that the reference is to some kind of physical ailment). What we are suggesting, then, is that the faith with which we pray is always faith in the God whose will is supreme and best; only sometimes does this faith include assurance that a particular request is within that will. This is exactly the qualification that is needed to understand Jesus’ own promise: ‘You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it’ (John 14:14). To ask ‘in Jesus’ name’ means not simply to utter his name, but to take into account his will. Only those requests offered ‘in that will’ are granted. Prayer for healing offered in the confidence that God will answer that prayer does bring healing; but only when it is God’s will to heal will that faith, itself a gift of God, be present. Such faith cannot be ‘manufactured’, however gifted, insistent or righteous we are. In this life, we shall not, most of the time, be able to know whether God’s will is to heal; we shall not always be able to sense whether that ‘faith’ that gets what is asked for is present. When our sincere, fervent prayers for healing go unanswered, therefore, it is not our lack of faith that is at fault; the context in which such faith could be present was absent.

C. A closing summons to action (5:19–20)

Context

James does not conclude his letter with greetings and benedictions typical of epistolary endings, but with a summons to action. This kind of ending is more typical of the more ‘formal’ New Testament letters that read like published sermons; 1 John is an especially close parallel. James’ letter has been full of specific rebukes and commands. Indeed, as we pointed out in the Introduction, there are more imperative verbs per word in James than in any other New Testament book. So it is fitting that he would in the end turn to the community with an encouragement to intervene on behalf of fellow-Christians who may be having difficulty with the spiritual matters that he has been discussing.

Comment

19–20. For a last time James addresses his brothers and sisters. He has spoken to them in his letter about many problems: sinful speech, disobedience, unconcern about others, worldliness, quarrelling and arrogance. Now he encourages every believer to take the initiative in bringing any who have ‘wandered from the truth’ in any of these ways back into fellowship with God and the community.

The truth does not refer here to Christian doctrine in the narrow sense, but more broadly to all that is involved in the gospel. This truth is something that is to be ‘done’ as well as believed (cf. Gal. 5:7; 1 John 1:6). And for James, of course, correct doctrine cannot be separated from correct behaviour. What the mind thinks, and the mouth confesses, the body must do; anything less is worldly, sinful ‘double-mindedness’. The word translated wander (planaō; from which the word ‘planet’, a heavenly ‘wanderer’, is taken) should not be restricted – as the English word could be – to an inadvertent or unconscious departure from ‘the truth’; it was widely used to describe any deviation from the ‘way of righteousness’, whether wilful or not. Peter refers to his readers generally as those who ‘were like sheep going astray’ (1 Pet. 2:25; see also Wisdom of Solomon 5:6 and 2 Pet. 2:15).

Believers who see a brother or sister wandering from the fold should seek with all their power to bring that person back. Bring back (epistrephō) can be used to describe an initial turning to God for salvation (Acts 14:15; 15:19; 26:18; 1 Thess. 1:9), but it also, as here, can refer to the turning back to the faith from which one has strayed (Mark 4:12 [= Isa. 6:10]; Luke 1:16; 22:32). In verse 20, this straying is described as the error of their way, a phrase that could be translated ‘their wandering way’, in order to show that error (planē) is cognate to wander (planaō) in verse 19. Believers who succeed in rescuing such sinners from ‘the error of their way’ should know what has thereby been accomplished: they have been saved from death and a multitude of sins has been covered over.

But who has been saved from death, and whose sin? The Greek is completely ambiguous at this point, allowing either phrase to be applied to the one who has sinned or the one who has converted the sinner. However, the one who has been saved from death is almost certainly the one who has sinned. Death refers to eschatological punishment in James (cf. 1:21), and only the one who has ‘wandered away’ is in danger of this judgment. In keeping with many other biblical texts, James pictures ‘death’ as the final destination on the path which sinners have determined to take: when they are turned back from that journey, they have saved their lives (see Ezek. 18:27; Rom. 6:23). It is more difficult to know whether the sins which are covered are the sinner’s, the converter’s, or both. The words are an allusion to Proverbs 10:12, where hate, which ‘stirs up conflict’, is contrasted with love, which ‘covers over all wrongs’. The ‘covering’ here seems to be the overlooking of slights and offences against us in the interest of preserving peace. This meaning is unlikely in James, however, and 1 Peter 4:8 shows that the phrase had become a traditional one to designate God’s forgiveness of sins (cf. Ps. 32:1). The notion that our efforts to bring others to repentance will bring benefit to our own spiritual standing is certainly biblical. The Lord promises Ezekiel that he ‘will save his life’ if he is faithful in warning his people of their danger of judgment (Ezek. 3:21); and Paul tells Timothy that he will ‘save both himself and his hearers’ if he takes heed to himself and his teaching (1 Tim. 4:16). The blessing given to faithful believers must not, of course, be construed as a reward for their efforts. But the idea that God will treat us as we have treated others is inescapable in Scripture (Matt. 6:14–15; 18:23–35) and explicitly mentioned by James (2:12–13). Therefore James may well be encouraging his readers to seek actively the conversion of those who are straying by reminding them that their efforts will be met by God’s approval and blessing. On the other hand, the sequence of thought in the verse makes it a little awkward to refer the covering of sins to a person different from the one whose salvation has been described. Furthermore, Scripture often associates salvation with the covering, the complete blotting out, of sins, so that the two phrases could be parallel descriptions of the blessing attained by the sinner who is brought back. Probably this latter interpretation should be accepted, although the former is by no means impossible.

Theology

If James is indeed something of a sermon in epistolary form, these last two verses are an appropriate closing summons to action. Not only should the readers of James ‘do’ the words he has written; they should be deeply concerned to see that others ‘do’ them also. It is by sharing with James the conviction that there is indeed an eternal death, to which the way of sin leads, that we shall be motivated to deal with sin in our lives and in the lives of others.

Notes

Mayor, pp. lxix–lxxi, lxxxviii–cix.

Allison, pp. 13–24; cf. also Nienhuis, Not by Paul Alone, pp. 102–106.

See esp. Johnson, pp. 68–80, for a careful and convincing evaluation.

Westcott, General Survey, pp. 357–358, theorizes that ‘Jude’ should be read for ‘James’ in the statement of Cassiodorus that attributes the commentary to Clement. See, on the other hand, Mayor, p. lxxx, and Tasker, p. 18.

In Comm. on John XIX, 6 (Patrologia Graeca XIV, 569), Origen quotes from James 2 and asserts that the words are found in tē pheromenē Iakobou epistolē (the epistle bearing [the name of] James). The word pheromenē (‘bear, carry’) has been taken as an indication of Origen’s doubts about the epistle’s origins, but the word simply means ‘current’ and does not qualify Origen’s acceptance of the letter (cf. Ropes, p. 93; Mußner, p. 39).

It is possible, however, that the omission from the Muratorian canon is accidental, since the text of the canon is mutilated. Cf. Westcott, General Survey, pp. 219–220; Mayor, p. lxvii; on the other hand, Mußner, p. 41.

Dibelius, pp. 53–54; Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, p. 726.

Cf. Laws, p. 24.

Stoutenberg, ‘Luther’s Exegetical Use’, p. 51.

Calvin, p. 277.

Alternatively, it is possible to regard this James as a fifth individual with that name (as does Kümmel, Introduction, p. 411).

The phrase in Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13 could also be rendered ‘Judas the brother of James’ (as in KJV), in which case James the Lord’s brother might be intended (cf. Jude 1). But the translation ‘son of ’ for the genitive of relationship is more likely.

Cf. Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 366; Ropes, p. 66.

In the pseudo-Clementine Epistle of Clement 1:1, James is named as the ‘bishop of bishops’; according to the Gospel of the Hebrews (quoted in Jerome, De vir. ill. 2) the Lord appears first to James after his resurrection; in The Gospel of Thomas, Logion 12, the disciples ask Jesus, ‘Who is to be our leader?’ and Jesus replies, ‘Wherever you are you are to go to James the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being’ (the quotation is taken from Robinson, Nag Hammadi Library, p. 119). Mußner, pp. 4–7, cites much of the literature and provides a helpful discussion.

Ward, ‘James of Jerusalem’, pp. 799–810.

See especially the discussion between Gunter, ‘The Family of Jesus’, pp. 25–41, and Wenham, ‘The Relatives of Jesus’, pp. 6–15.

This view is defended at length by Lightfoot in his excursus on ‘The Brethren of the Lord’ in Galatians and is slightly preferred in the latest full investigation of the matter (Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus, pp. 19–32). Lightfoot claims that this view offers the best explanation for the authority Jesus’ brothers have over him (John 7:1–5), and for Jesus’ committing the care of his mother to a disciple rather than to one of his brothers (John 19:25–27). But it is not clear that Jesus’ brothers had any more authority over him than any relative might possess, and his brothers’ opposition to his message suffices to explain his passing them over as caretakers of his mother.

For an extended defence of the Helvidian position, see especially Mayor, pp. 6–55.

Some Spanish writers, from the seventh century on, claimed that their patron, the son of Zebedee, was the author; the tenth-century Corbey manuscript makes the same ascription. Calvin (p. 277) suggests that James the son of Alphaeus may be the author.

See Mayor, pp. 3–4, for a full list and discussion.

Cf. Massebieau, ‘L’Épître de Jacques’, pp. 249–283; Spitta, ‘Der Brief des Jakobus’, pp. 1–239. Meyer, in Das Rätsel des Jacobusbriefes, suggested that this original Jewish document was based on the ‘testament’ of Jacob to his twelve sons in Genesis 49.

Kittel, ‘Der geschichtliche Ort’, pp. 84–91.

Erasmus; Luther; Hunter, Introducing the New Testament, pp. 164–165 (although Hunter is more cautious in the third edition [1972]; cf. pp. 168–169). Moffat (p. 2) thinks that an unknown James was the author and that the name of the more famous James of Jerusalem was later linked with it.

Cf. e.g. Laws, p. 40.

Kittel, ‘Der geschichtliche Ort’, pp. 73–75.

Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus, pp. 125–130.

Tasker, p. 20. Dibelius, who thinks that James is pseudepigraphic, also notes the subjectivity of this argument, p. 17.

Ropes, p. 25. Zahn, Introduction, I, p. 112, minimizes the quality of the Greek even further: ‘how limited is his [author of James’] command of this foreign language.’

This has been demonstrated by, among others, Sevenster, Do You Know Greek?

Sevenster, Do You Know Greek?, p. 191. Cf. also Turner, Style, p. 114.

M. Hengel’s classic work, Judaism and Hellenism, has documented the evidence of a thorough penetration of Hellenistic ideas in first-century Palestine.

Dibelius calls this the ‘decisive argument’ against the traditional view (p. 18). Cf. also Laws, pp. 40–41.

The description is Dibelius’s, p. 17.

Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, pp. 738–739.

See e.g. Martin, pp. xxxiii–xli; Johnson, pp. 111–116.

See esp. Allison, pp. 445–457, for a convincing argument that James knows of Paul’s distinctive theological emphases. For the opposite view, see e.g. McKnight, pp.53–56.

Kümmel, Introduction, p. 413.

Kittel, ‘Der geschichtliche Ort’, pp. 96–97; Wessel, ‘The Epistle of James’, ISBE II, p. 765; McKnight, pp. 259–263.

Robert and Feuillet, Introduction, p. 564. Mußner, p. 8, suggests the participation of a fellow-author (Mitarbeiter).

Sevenster, Do You Know Greek?, pp. 10–14.

Burkitt, Christian Beginnings, pp. 65–71; cf. also Bruce, Peter, Stephen, James and John, p. 113.

Davids, pp. 12–13. See also, in modified form and cautiously, Wall, ‘James, the Letter of ’, pp. 547–548.

Dibelius, p. 34.

See e.g. Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon.

See e.g. Donelson, Pseudepigraphy; Wilder, Pseudonymity; MacDonald and Porter, Early Christianity, pp. 388–393; Carson and Moo, Introduction, pp. 337–350.

Cadoux, Thought of St. James, pp. 10–18; Schlatter, pp. 90–98; Beasley-Murray, pp. 12–21; Allison, pp. 32–50.

Maurer, ‘φυλή’, TDNT IX, p. 250.

Huther, pp. 11–13; Geyser, ‘The Letter of James’, pp. 27–28.

Mayor, pp. 30–31; Hort, pp. xxiii–xxiv; Adamson, pp. 49–50.

Tasker, p. 39; cf. also Burdick, pp. 162–163.

E.g. the last third of the first century (Brown, Introduction, pp. 741–742); cf. 100–120 in Allison, pp. 28–32.

Hort, p. xxv; Tasker, pp. 31–33; Mitton, p. 233.

Paul and James met at least once prior to the Council (Gal. 1:18–19); but the meeting was brief (Paul spent only fifteen days in Jerusalem) and early (three years after his conversion).

Kittel provides a particularly strong case for this dating (‘Der geschichtliche Ort’, pp. 71–102). See also Zahn, Introduction, I, pp. 125–128; Rendall, The Epistle of St. James, p. 78; Mayor, pp. cxliv–clxxvi; Knowling, pp. xxxiv–xxxviii; Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, pp. 749–753; Hiebert, p. 41; Burdick, pp. 162–163; Wessel, ‘The Epistle of James’, ISBE II, p. 965; Blomberg and Kamell, p. 30; Varner on 1:1. McKnight puts the letter in the 50s (pp. 13–38).

See Hadidian, ‘Palestinian Pictures’, pp. 227–228.

Laws, pp. 25–26; Allison, pp. 95–98.

Martin, ‘Life-Setting’, p. 100.

For the emphasis on ‘diaspora letter’, see esp. Verseput, ‘Wisdom’; Bauckham, James, pp. 14–16; McKnight, p. 39.

See esp. Francis, ‘Form and Function’, and Davids, who stress similarities between James and 1 John.

See esp. Deppe, ‘Paraenesis of James’; and also e.g. Hartin, James.

Ropes, pp. 10–16.

Dibelius, pp. 5–11. See also the article by Perdue, ‘Paraenesis’, pp. 241–256, which gives a slightly different set of criteria. Indeed, a major difficulty with the designation ‘paraenesis’ is the looseness of its definition.

See e.g. Frankemölle, pp. 80–88; Baker, Personal Speech-Ethics, pp. 7–12; Witherington, Jesus the Sage, pp. 238–247; Hagner, New Testament, pp. 671–676.

The synagogue homily or sermon is suggested as the background to James by Rendall, The Epistle of St. James, p. 33; Davids, p. 23; and especially Wessel, ‘The Epistle of James’, ISBE II, p. 962, who builds on the results of his doctoral dissertation.

LW 35:397.

Francis, ‘Form and Function’, pp. 110–126.

Davids, pp. 22–29.

See e.g. Bauckham, James, pp. 61–73; Blomberg and Kamell, pp. 23–27; Allison, pp. 77–78.

Issues in the structure of James are discussed by Taylor, ‘Structure of James’, pp. 86–115.

Johnson, Writings, p. 452.

Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, p. 636.

Marshall, New Testament Theology, p. 633.

Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel.

See esp. Penner, Epistle of James and Eschatology.

Mußner, pp. 207–210, particularly emphasizes this point.

See, for example, Dunn, Unity and Diversity, pp. 251–252. See also Chester and Martin, Theology, pp. 20–28, 46–53.

For a brief history of interpretation with an outline of key approaches to the problem, see Allison, pp. 426–441.

See, among many writings, Dunn, Theology of Paul, pp. 354–366.

On this issue, see Moo, Galatians, pp. 21–31.

See e.g. Beale, New Testament Biblical Theology, pp. 519–522.

Laato, ‘Justification According to James’, pp. 47–61; see also, idem, Rechtfertigung bei Jakobus.

Ropes, p. 36.

See Calvin, Institutes, III, 17.12. John Wesley takes a similar approach in his explanation of the difference between Paul and James. He contends that James is speaking of ‘final justification’ and that, while works are not the causal basis of this justification, it does take into account ‘the evidence of works’ (Works, VIII, p. 277, Q. 14).

Cadoux, Thought of St. James, p. 81.

L. T. Johnson has pointed out that Leviticus 19 plays a prominent role in James, and suggests that James viewed the royal law by which Christians are to live ‘as explicated concretely and specifically not only by the Decalogue (2:11) but by the immediate context of the Law of Love, the commands found in Lev 19:12–18’ (‘The Use of Leviticus 19’, p. 399).

See, for the former, e.g. Epictetus, Diss. IV.1.158; Seneca, De vita beata 15.7; and, for the latter, e.g. Philo, Every Good Man Is Free, 45; b. Abot. 6, 2b.

Mayor, p. 74; Gutbrod, ‘νόμος’, TDNT IV, pp. 1081–1082.

Mitton, p. 72.

Schrage, Ethik des Neuen Testaments, p. 266; cf. also Laws, p. 27.

See also e.g. Thielman, Theology, pp. 500, 511.

Wesley, Works, II, p. 444.

Hoppe considers wisdom to be a powerful theological concept in James, related to the regenerating word of God (1:18) and possessing the power to produce those works needed for Christian living (Der theologische Hintergrund, pp. 51–71). But Hoppe is able to draw these conclusions only by making some unlikely connections within James and by reading into James the Jewish dualistic wisdom tradition.

Davids, p. 56; cf. also Kirk, ‘Meaning of Wisdom in James’, pp. 24–38.

Mußner, p. 249.

Ibid., p. 80.

See Bammel, ‘πτωχός, πτωχεία, πτωχεύω’, TDNT VI, pp. 888–902; Davids, pp. 41–44.

For excellent surveys of the biblical teaching on wealth and poverty, see Blomberg, Neither Poverty Nor Riches and Christians in an Age of Wealth.

Wright, Colossians and Philemon, p. 60.

Allison, p. 160.

See the discussion in Martin, pp. 17–18.

See e.g. Davids, p. 55; Martin, pp. 17–18; Johnson, p. 179; Hartin, James, p. 86.

See also Kidner, Wisdom.

McKnight, p. 88, gets at this basic idea with the word ‘simply’; see also Martin, p. 18; Varner, ‘without hesitation’.

The meaning of haplous in Matt. 6:22 / Luke 11:34 is debated. For the meaning ‘single-minded’, ‘pure’, see O. Bauernfeind, ‘μακροθυμία’ etc., TDNT I, p. 386; Marshall, Luke, p. 489.

See also 2 Sam. 15:11; 1 Chr. 29:17; Job 21:23; 22:3; Prov. 11:25; 1 Maccabees 2:37; 2:60; 2 Maccabees 6:6; Wisdom of Solomon 16:27. The Hebrew word in all but one of these texts where there is a Hebrew original is tam: ‘to be complete, finished, to have integrity’.

The word klydōn means properly a ‘billowing’ or ‘surging’ rather than ‘wave’ (Hort, pp. 10–11). The ceaseless, sometimes violent, motion of the sea was a popular image of change and instability in ancient literature. See Sirach 33:2; Philo, On the Giants, 51; On the Sacrifice of Abel and Cain, 90; On the Eternity of the World, 125.

Porter, ‘Dipsychos’, pp. 469–498.

For a survey of options against the background of James’ first-century context, see Baasland, ‘Literarische Form’, pp. 3673–3676.

E.g. Huther, pp. 44–46; Windisch, p. 7; Dibelius, pp. 85–87; Davids, pp. 76–77; Laws, pp. 62–64; Martin, pp. 25–26; McKnight, pp. 99–100; Allison, pp. 204–206; Penner, Epistle of James and Eschatology, pp. 204–210. Davids (p. 77) and Johnson (pp. 190–191) suggest that James addresses the rich as ostensibly Christians, but effectively denies the reality of that status by what he says about them.

E.g. Mayor, pp. 45–46, 189; Ropes, pp. 145–146; Moffat, p. 15; Hort, p. 14; Knowling, pp. 13–14; Mitton, pp. 36–41; Adamson, pp. 76–77; Mußner, p. 74; Hiebert, p. 78; Frankemölle, p. 241; Blomberg and Kamell, pp. 63–64.

Dibelius, p. 85.

Vlachos, p. 33.

Many scholars today argue that the aorist tense, used here, is not a past-referring tense as such; it expresses a ‘perfective’ aspect (that is, viewing an action as a whole; see esp. Varner). However, this way of viewing aorists in this kind of context differs little, in practice, from the traditional approach that would label these aorists as ‘gnomic’.

Moule, Idiom Book, p. 12; Adamson, p. 63.

For a biblical theology of wealth and poverty, see esp. Blomberg, Neither Poverty Nor Riches and Christians in an Age of Wealth.

Mitton, p. 44.

Wuellner, ‘Der Jakobusbrief ’, p. 47.

Klein, ‘Ein vollkommenes Werk’, p. 44; Frankemölle, pp. 276–282.

Blomberg and Kamell, p. 68; McKnight, p. 102.

Hort, pp. 22–23.

Davids, pp. 82–83.

Davids argues that apeiratos means ‘ought not to be tempted’ in the NT apocryphal books Acts of John 57 and Pseudo-Ignatius 11, but the definition ‘unable to be tempted’ is preferable in both. Furthermore, his view has difficulty explaining estin (‘is’) and must give an unusual force to the genitive kakōn.

In 2 Pet. 2:14, 18, deleazō is used of the ‘enticements’ of false teachers. With Hort (pp. 25–26), we may suppose that exelkō is used here equivalently to its non-compounded form, helkō (‘drag’). The latter has a well-attested figurative sense. Philo uses deleazō and helkō together in a passage reminiscent of Jas 1:14: ‘There is no single thing that does not yield to the enticement [deleasthen] of pleasure, and get caught [heilkystai] and dragged along in her entangling nets’ (On Husbandry, 103).

Bengel, p. 7.

The ‘gift’ in this verse is probably general (Allison, p. 268) rather than specific (i.e. wisdom; cf. Poirier, ‘Symbols of Wisdom’, pp. 57–75).

One reason for thinking that James may be quoting is that the first eight Greek words of the verse form an almost perfect hexameter – unique even in the fairly literary James (see Mayor, p. 57; Ropes, p. 159; Dibelius, p. 99; Davids, p. 86).

See e.g. Ng, ‘Father-God Language’, pp. 41–54, who thinks ‘Father’ in James connotes creatorship, redemption, and care for the underprivileged.

I am indebted to Mike Kibbe for this observation.

Allison, pp. 280–282.

Ropes, pp. 168–169; Adamson, p. 78; Hort, pp. 35–36.

A different contextual link is proposed by Amphoux (‘Une relecture’, pp. 554–561), who suggests that ‘slow to speak’ is related to not accusing God of responsibility for temptation (v. 13). But this context is too distant.

See also e.g. Allison, p. 304.

See also Vlachos, p. 56.

This assumes that to logikon adolon gala in 1 Pet. 2:2 refers, at least by extension, to the word of God.

Many scholars would locate the origin of this tradition in the baptismal ceremony.

For this meaning of emphytos, see Herodotus 9:94; Epistle of Barnabas 1:2; 9:9 (where the reference is to the gospel); and the note in Adamson, pp. 98–100.

Calvin, Institutes, I, 6.1.

So also e.g. Varner.

McCartney, p. 121.

Blomberg and Kamell, p. 90.

Calvin, p. 299.

Martin, pp. 60–61.

See esp. Ward, ‘Partiality’, pp. 87–97; Davids, p. 109; Martin, pp. 57–58; Johnson, p. 223; Varner.

For the influence of Leviticus 19 on James’ ethical emphases, see esp. Johnson, Brother of Jesus, pp. 123–135.

The NIV, with most other translations, understands the Greek tēn pistin tou kyriou hēmōn ’Iēsou Christou as an objective genitive construction: faith is directed towards, or ‘in’, the Lord Jesus Christ. This is to be preferred to the alternative, a subjective genitive with the idea of the faith exercised by the Lord Jesus Christ (which does not make much sense in this context). For this second view, see e.g. Johnson, p. 220; Varner.

E.g. Blomberg and Kamell, pp. 106–107.

Synagōgē is used of an ‘assembly’ of Christians (‘righteous men’) in Hermas, ‘Mandates’, 11.9.

Vlachos, p. 71.

Without retracting this point, it must also be noted that many historians think that early Christianity had a fair proportion of wealthy and influential people (see e.g. Judge, ‘Social Identity’, pp. 201–217). Barnabas, for instance, was able to sell property to aid the church (Acts 4:36–37); Phoebe (Rom. 16:2) is named a ‘benefactor’ of the early church.

E.g. McKnight, p. 205.

Vlachos, p. 77. Philo, allegorizing the ‘royal highway’ of Num. 20:17, frequently calls the way to God and his words the ‘royal road’ (cf. e.g. The Posterity of Cain, 102; The Unchangeableness of God, 144–145).

Johnson, p. 232.

See Allison, p. 413.

Hort, p. 56.

Ibid., p. 57.

Varner notes the many allusions in 2:14–26 to the earlier parts of the letter.

Mayor, p. 99. Josephus uses the same phrase to speak of the law’s ‘inherent merits’ by which it has attracted so many to its study and observance (Contra Apionem 2.284). This parallel is closer to James’ use than places in which the phrase seems to mean ‘by itself alone’ (cf. Acts 28:16).

Mayor, pp. 99–100; Adamson, pp. 124–125, 135–137; Mußner, pp. 136–138.

Hort, pp. 60–61.

Cf. Donker, ‘Der Verfasser’, pp. 227–240; and Hodges, ‘Light on James Two’, pp. 341–350, who argues for a slightly supported variant reading to bolster his interpretation.

Most scholars now adopt this view, although usually with some reluctance. Cf. esp. Ropes, pp. 208–214; McKnight, pp. 237–239.

OT scholars debate the exact claim that is being made in Deut. 6:4. The exact sense of this text is not important for the interpretation of James.

Ziesler, Meaning of Righteousness, p. 18. Ziesler’s discussion of the OT and Jewish conception of righteousness is particularly valuable (see pp. 17–127).

Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew, pp. 37–76.

Ziesler, Meaning of Righteousness, pp. 128–129. McCartney (pp. 161–168) contends that the verb in James has connotations of both ‘declaring’ and ‘demonstrating’.

We defended this view in the original version of this commentary, pp. 114–116. See also Blomberg and Kamell, p. 136. John Wesley cited the difference between ‘initial’ and ‘final’ justification to explain the apparent conflict (see his sermon ‘On the Wedding Garment’ [1790]).

Bauckham, James, pp. 125–135.

Both James and Paul use the preposition ek after dikaioō when they refer to justification in relationship to works (see e.g. Gal. 2:16; Rom. 3:20, 28; 4:2). But this preposition, as the lexica reveal, is very flexible in its meaning. The difference between ‘not based on works’ (Paul) and ‘involving works’ (James) is within the semantic range of the preposition.

Cf. e.g. Philo, The Virtues, 216; Josephus, Ant. 1.154–157; Jubilees 11–12; and Davids, pp. 128–129.

A parallel to James’ language is found in Philo, On Husbandry, 42, where he says that Jacob was ‘one who was perfected as a result of discipline’ (teleiōthenti ex askeseōs; Confusion of Tongues, 181, is parallel).

See the discussion in Moo, ‘Genesis 15:6 in the New Testament’, pp. 148–151; idem, Galatians, pp. 189–191.

Cf. Philo, On Sobriety, 56; On Abraham, 273; Jubilees 19:9; 30:20.

See on this esp. Eichholz, Glaube und Werk, pp. 24–37.

Calvin, Institutes, III, 17.12.

Luther himself may well have stressed the message of James much more had he been living in a different age. Faced with an excessive preoccupation with works, he sought to right the balance by an insistence on the Pauline message of faith. See, on this, Via, ‘The Right Strawy Epistle’, pp. 253–267; Dibelius, pp. 179–180.

See particularly Ward, ‘Works of Abraham’, pp. 283–290.

Blomberg and Kamell, p. 146.

The thematic unity of this section has been clearly demonstrated by Johnson, ‘James 3:13 – 4:10’, pp. 327–347.

See Frankemölle, pp. 478–481.

Doriani, pp. 105–106.

The combined imagery is often used to illustrate God’s control of the cosmos (Pseudo Aristotle, Mund. 6; frequently in Philo) and sometimes of the derived authority over creation exercised by humans (Philo, On the Creation, 88). The mind, or higher nature, is also compared to the charioteer and helmsman, as that which must control the whole person (Philo, On the Migration of Abraham, 67; Stobaeus, Eclogae, 3.17.17; Plutarch, How a Young Man Should Study Poetry, 33F). Dibelius gives a large sample of the relevant texts (pp. 185–190).

See particularly Philo, Allegorical Interpretation, 3.223–224, in which the mind is called the ‘charioteer and helmsman of the soul’ and irrationality, if it gains control, is said to set the mind on fire.

Cf. also Philostratus, Vit. Ap. 2.11.2 – ‘for it seems to me a super-human feat for such a tiny [tēlikoud] mite to manage so huge [tēlikouto] an animal’.

Elliott-Bins, ‘Meaning of ’YLH ’, pp. 48–50; cf. also McKnight, p. 280.

Although this verb in the middle usually has the sense ‘appoint for oneself ’ (McCartney, pp. 187–188), it does mean ‘appoint oneself ’ in Jas 4:4 (see also Blomberg and Kamell, p. 158; Allison, p. 537).

See the references and discussion in Dibelius, pp. 196–198.

Cf. Philo, On the Special Laws, 4.110–116.

On the Creation, 8.

On Nature and Grace, c. 15; cf. Knowling, p. 78.

And see Hermas, ‘Mandates’, 2.3: ‘Slander is evil; it is a restless [akatastaton] demon, never at peace’ (cf. Jas 4:1). The word is also linked with sins of speech in Prov. 26:28, LXX.

Discourses, 2.20.18–19.

Berkhof, Christian Faith, p. 452.

See esp. Johnson, Brother of Jesus, pp. 182–201.

See e.g. McKnight, pp. 299–300.

The Greek attitude towards ‘humility’ was not universal, as the examples cited by Allison (p. 310) demonstrate.

See Moule, Idiom Book, p. 152, on this.

BDAG also suggests ‘from heaven’ as a rendering of anōthen.

See on this Kirk, ‘Meaning of Wisdom in James’, pp. 24–38, and the section on ‘Wisdom’ in the Introduction, pp. 69–70.

Baker, ‘Searching for the Holy Spirit’, pp. 293–315.

E.g. McKnight, p. 315; Blomberg and Kamell, p. 176; Allison, pp. 583–584.

See e.g. McCartney, p. 202.

Adiakriōs (an adverb) is also used in the Testament of Zebulon 7:2 with reference to showing mercy. The context favours the translation ‘without discrimination’ (see Charlesworth, p. 806).

She links Prov. 11:30, where ‘fruit of righteousness’ is connected with the ‘tree of life’, and Prov. 3:17, whose ‘wisdom’ is associated with the ‘tree of life’ (p. 166).

Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, ch. 6.

Mußner (pp. 169, 188–189) suggests that the place of the Torah among Christians may have been the issue. But if so, it is surprising that James writes so unreflectingly about the law (1:25; 2:8–11; 4:11–12).

E.g. Martin, pp. 144–145.

The verb form corresponding to hēdonē is never used in the New Testament; and Titus 3:3 shows how hēdonē and epithymia were often interchangeable.

‘James 3:13 – 4:10’, pp. 327–347.

Discourses, 3.13.9.

See Ross, p. 45; Martin, p. 144; idem, ‘Life-Setting’, p. 100.

Davids (pp. 158–159) notes that James accuses the rich of murdering the poor in 5:6 and that the biblical tradition characterized a failure to meet the needs of the poor as murder. However, 5:6 comes in a denunciation of those who are clearly outside the community, and is not parallel to 4:1–3.

Hort, pp. 90–91.

Matt. 20:20–22; Mark 6:22–25; John 16:23–26; 1 John 5:14–16. Only in the Markan text is there some possibility of distinguishing the active and middle (but even then, the commentators do not agree on what the difference is). Note, further, Turner, Syntax, p. 55; Blomberg and Kamell, pp. 188–189. Mußner (p. 179) and Davids (p. 160) suggest that the active may be due to assimilation to the form of Jesus’ saying (Matt. 7:7).

Varner, e.g., calls 4:1–10 the ‘hortatory’ peak of the letter while viewing 3:13–18 as the ‘thematic peak’ (note on introduction to 4:1–10).

Johnson, p. 279.

Cf. Robertson, Grammar, p. 626.

Perhaps most commentators support this general reading: see e.g. Davids, p. 164; Martin, p. 145; McCartney, pp. 210–214; Blomberg and Kamell, pp. 191–192; Vlachos, p. 137. An interpretation that may be considered a variation of this one takes pneuma as the subject of the verb, but views it as the Holy Spirit within the believer, who jealously yearns for the Christian (cf. NJB).

McKnight, pp. 336–340; Allison, pp. 611–622.

See e.g. Laws, pp. 177–178; Johnson, pp. 280–282; Adam, pp. 79–80.

It must be noted, however, that phthonos never overlaps with zēlos when the latter has a positive meaning.

McKnight, pp. 336–340. Carpenter (‘James 4.5 Reconsidered’, pp.189–205), followed by McCartney (pp. 216–217) and Blomberg and Kamell (pp. 191–192), thinks that v. 5b is included in the ‘quotation’, but as an interpretive gloss on the actual citation that follows.

Some popular suggestions: Apocalypse of Moses, 31; the lost book of Eldad and Modad (based on the story in Num. 11:25–30) (Bauckham, ‘The Spirit of God’, pp. 279–281; Allison, pp. 619–622); an unknown book (see Allison, pp. 617–621, for a list of suggestions).

See e.g. Carson, ‘James’, pp. 1006–1007. While graphē usually introduces a single text, it introduces an allusive reference in John 7:37–39. Laws argues that James implies a reference to verses like Pss 42:1 and 84:2, which speak of the soul’s ‘longing’ (epipotheō) for the Lord. She punctuates the sentence as a question – ‘Is pious longing the proper manner of the soul’s desire?’ – and suggests that these verses provide the answer (Laws, pp. 174–179; and, in greater detail, idem, ‘Does Scripture Speak in Vain?’, pp. 210–215. Cf. also Adamson, pp. 170–173. Schlatter [p. 249] had already mentioned Ps. 42:1 in connection with this verse). But the interpretation demands too allusive a scriptural reference.

Confessions 10.39 – Augustine, Confessions (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), pp. 148–149.

Penner, indeed, suggests that the verse introduces the entire section 4:6 – 5:12 (Epistle of James and Eschatology, pp. 149–168).

See Johnson, p. 283.

Davids, p. 166.

See C. E. Arnold, ‘Satan, Devil’, DLNTD, pp. 1077–1082.

In addition to 1 Peter, this idea is found in pre-Christian Judaism; cf. Testament of Naphtali 8:4; Issachar 7:7.

Martin, pp. 160–161; cf. Johnson, pp. 291–292.

See e.g. McKnight, pp. 354–355; Allison, p. 633.

See also Vlachos, p. 151: ‘Living in the Light of Eternity’.

Contrast McKnight, pp. 368–369.

See Metzger, Textual Commentary, pp. 613–615, and McCartney, p. 230, for discussion of these variants.

In the New Testament poios always occurs closely with a verb of knowing when it is its object. It is separated from it only by the subject of the verb (see Matt. 24:42–43; Luke 12:39; Rev. 3:3).

Dibelius (pp. 233–234) cites a number of texts.

The kai preceding zēsomen may then be taken as equivalent to a Semitic waw introducing an apodosis (BDF, #442 [71]) or be construed with the second kai in a ‘both . . . and’ construction (Davids, p. 173; Martin, p. 167).

See the excursus in Tasker, pp. 106–108.

See e.g. MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, esp. pp. 5–27, 88–120.

Calvin, p. 342. Wessel suggests, further, that the preaching may represent a prophetic attempt to reach non-Christians who were frequenting Christian assemblies (‘The Epistle of James’, ISBE II, p. 965).

Blomberg and Kamell (p. 222) and McCartney (pp. 232–233) suggest that the other meaning of the word ios may also be intended: ‘poison’ (Jas 3:8).

Porter, Verbal Aspect, p. 267; Johnson, p. 299.

E.g. Mayordomo-Marin, ‘Jak 5,2.3a’, pp. 132–137; McKnight, p. 386; Vlachos, p. 160.

Cf., most clearly, Dibelius, p. 236; Davids, p. 176; and Tasker, pp. 110–111.

McKnight, pp. 389–390; Allison, p. 667.

McCartney, p. 233.

Failed to pay is a neutral rendering that does not appear to take sides on a textual problem here. Two early, excellent manuscripts (א and B) read the verb aphystereō, ‘defraud’, while the majority of manuscripts have apostereō, ‘withhold’. The difference in meaning is not great, since the latter certainly connotes an illegitimate, fraudulent action.

See e.g. Harland, ‘Economy of First-Century Palestine’, pp. 515–521.

A more specific reference to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 (McKnight, pp. 395–400) is unlikely.

See esp. McKnight, pp. 397–399.

Johnson, p. 305; Varner.

Other interpreters argue, based partly on a certain reading of references to parousia in Matthew’s ‘Olivet Discourse’ (24:3, 27, 37, 39), that James is referring to God’s judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70 (e.g. McKnight, pp. 406–408).

Actually, three-quarters of the average rainfall in Palestine falls in December–February, but it is the rain at the beginning and end of the growing season that is critical. See Baly, Geography of the Bible, pp. 50–51.

The idea that early Christianity moved from a conviction that Christ would return within a short period of time to the realization that Christ might not come for a long time (‘the delay of the parousia ’) has been an influential paradigm in much critical NT scholarship. It is, however, deeply flawed.

Davids, p. 185.

The date of the Testament of Job is not, however, certain; and some think the book might have Christian interpolations. See the discussion in Spittler, ‘Testament of Job’, in Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1:829–837.

Barclay, Letters of James and Peter, pp. 147–148.

However, McKnight (p. 436) and Allison (pp. 756–757) doubt that ‘elders’ refers to people who held an office in the church.

Aorist participles, particularly when (as here) they follow the verb they modify, need not indicate ‘antecedent’ action; they often denote coincidental action.

Blomberg and Kamell, p. 243; McKnight, p. 442; contra Allison, pp. 763–766.

See esp. Wilkinson, Health and Healing, p. 153; cf. also Ross, p. 79; Burdick, p. 204.

Tasker, p. 131; Mitton, p. 191; Hayden, ‘Calling the Elders’, p. 265.

Even if James does not specifically recommend medicinal measures here, we cannot draw the conclusion (as some sincere but misguided believers have) that reliance on medicine is a failure to have adequate faith. James would no doubt have shared the perspective of the Jewish wisdom book Sirach with which he shares many other ideas: ‘Honor the physician with the honor due him, according to your need of him, for the Lord created him; for healing comes from the Most High, and he will receive a gift from the king. The skill of the physician lifts up his head, and in the presence of great men he is admired. The Lord created medicines from the earth, and a sensible man will not despise them’ (38:1–4).

Davids, p. 193; cf. also Calvin, pp. 355–356; Dibelius, pp. 252–254. There is evidence that oil was considered to have a spiritual value (Life of Adam and Eve 36) and to aid in exorcising demons (Testament of Solomon 18:34). That the oil here had the purpose of exorcism, the illness being viewed as demon-inspired, is argued by Dibelius, p. 252, and W. Brunotte, ‘Anoint’, NIDNTT I, p. 121. But anointing with oil is never done in conjunction with exorcisms in the New Testament; Mark 6:13, indeed, distinguishes between anointing the sick and casting out demons.

See also Shogren, ‘Will God Heal Us?’

E.g. Calvin, Institutes, IV, 19.18; and see the classic argument of B. B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles.

See also Moo, ‘Divine Healing’, pp. 191–209.

Mayor, pp. 177–179; Blomberg and Kamell, p. 245; Allison, p. 772; Vlachos, p. 190.

Adamson is probably correct in arguing that all other occurrences of this verb in this form in the NT are middle (pp. 205–210; cf. also Moule, Idiom Book, p. 26; McKnight, p. 448; McCartney, p. 258).

See, for this general approach, Meinertz, ‘Die Krankensalbung’, pp. 23–36; Amerding, ‘Is Any Among You Afflicted’, pp. 195–201; Pickar, ‘Is Anyone Sick Among You?’, pp. 165–174; Hayden, ‘Calling the Elders’, pp. 258–286.

See esp. Warrington, ‘James 5:14–18’, pp. 346–367.