1

The Epistle of James

The Southern BaptistJournal of Theology

Vol. 4 · No. 3 Fall 2000

Editor-in-Chief:

R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

Executive Editor:

Daniel L. Akin

Editor:

Thomas R. Schreiner

Associate Editor:

Brian J. Vickers

Assistant Editor:

Randall K. J. Tan

Advisory Board:Timothy K. Beougher

Craig A. Blaising

Daniel I. Block

John B. Polhill

Thom S. Rainer

Esther H. Rothenbusch

Mark A. Seifrid

Mark E. Simpson

Design: Jared Hallal

Editorial Office & Subscription Services:

SBTS Box 2388

2825 Lexington Rd.

Louisville, KY 40280

(800) 626-5525, x4413

Editorial E-Mail: journal@sbts.eduYearly subscription costs for four issues:

$20, individual inside the U. S.; $30, individual outside the U. S.; $35, institutionalinside the U. S.; $45, institutional outside the U. S. Opinions expressed in TheSouthern Baptist Journal of Theology are solely the responsibility of the authorsand are not necessarily those of the editors, members of the Advisory Board, orThe Forum. We encourage the submission of letters, suggestions and articles byour readers. Any article submissions should conform to the Journal of BiblicalLiterature stylistic guidelines.This periodical is indexed in Religion Index One: Periodicals, the Index to BookReviews in Religions, Religion Indexes: Ten Year Subset on CD-ROM, and the

ATLA Religion Database on CD-ROM, published by the American TheologicalLibrary Association, 250 S. Wacker Dr., 16th Flr., Chicago, IL 60606, E-mail:atla@atla.com, WWW: http://atla.com/.THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY is published quarterly byThe Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2825 Lexington Road, Louisville, KY40280. Fall 2000. Vol. 4, No. 3. Copyright © 2000 The Southern BaptistTheological Seminary. ISSN 1520-7307. Second Class postage paid atLouisville, KY. Postmaster: Send address changes to: SBTS Box 2388,2825 Lexington Road, Louisville, KY 40280.

Mark A. SeifridThe Waiting Church and Its Duty: James 5:13-1832Ron JulianA Perfect Work: Trials and Sanctification in the Book of James40

Daniel L. AkinSermon: The Power of the TongueSermon: James 3:1-12

66

Dan G. McCartneyThe Wisdom of James the Just52

Timothy George“A Right Strawy Epistle”: Reformation Perspectives on James20

Robert H. Stein“Saved by Faith [Alone]” in PaulVersus “Not Saved by Faith Alone” in James

4

Editorial: Thomas R. SchreinerPractical Christianity2

2

For some of us it is easy to talk about theChristian faith. We are interested in exege-sis, theology, church history, evangelism,missions, Christian education, churchmusic, and what is happening in theChurch throughout the world. Perhaps wehave studied some of these subjectsdeeply, so that we are a fount of informa-tion to those who have not had that privi-lege. Perhaps some of us know the joy ofpreaching and teaching God’s word, andhave experienced the joy of beingentrusted with holy things. Those of uswho preach, teach, and write about thethings of God could easily begin to imag-ine that our knowledge of God is deeperthan it really is. Simply because we speakabout these things often, we may deceiveourselves into thinking that our godlinessmatches everything we proclaim.

James brings us back to earth. Hereminds us that not many of us shouldbecome teachers, since there is a stricterjudgment for teachers (Jas 3:1). Our Chris-tian maturity is not measured only bywhat we teach, preach, and write, butalso by what we say in our homes, to ourfriends, and to those with whom we work(Jas 3:1-12). James reminds us that oureveryday speech is a barometer of theheart, indicating whether we are trulypraising God, or whether we are peoplewho are easily irritated and provoked. Wemay be tempted to think that we are trulywise and discerning. True wisdom, Jamesinstructs us, is not determined by ourintellectual ability (Jas 3:13-18). The wis-dom of God is demonstrated by our godlybehavior. If we are motivated by selfishambition, and consumed by envy and jeal-

ousy, then we are not wise. If, on the otherhand, we are full of humility, gentleness,love, mercy, and patience, then wisdomgenuinely resides in our hearts.

Our religion—yes, even our preachingand teaching—can become a cloak foradvancing our own reputations, so thatour faith becomes a platform for idolatry.One test for all of us is how we treat thelowly people of the world (Jas 2:1-13).When the rich or prestigious come to ourchurches, do we treat them royally andattend to their every need? But when the“no names” attend, do we by comparisonignore them, knowing that they cannotassist our church as much? We may evenjustify such behavior by saying that somecontacts are more “strategic” than others,revealing that we have swallowed thevalue system of the world.

James is a spiritual tonic for us, sincewe can easily confuse “hearing the word”with “doing the word” (Jas 1:22-27). Wemight think that we are progressing wellin the Christian life if we read our Biblesand pray daily, and regularly attend ser-vices where God’s word is proclaimed.James warns us against a disconnectbetween our hearing and doing, andreminds us that without the latter our“religion” is useless.

I am hopeful that this issue of the jour-nal will prove helpful to our readers. Rob-ert Stein tackles the difficult issue of“justification by works” in James (2:14-26),explaining how, when rightly understood,there is no contradiction between Paul andJames. Timothy George’s companionpiece provides a history of interpretationof James 2, emphasizing Reformation per-

Practical Christianity1

Editorial: Thomas R. Schreiner

Thomas R. Schreiner is a profes-

sor of New Testament at The Southern

Baptist Theological Seminary. He has

also taught New Testament at Azusa

Pacific University and Bethel Theo-

logical Seminary. Recently, he com-

pleted a commentary on Romans in

the Baker Exegetical Commentar y

Series. Currently, he is working on a

theology of the apostle Paul and is co-

authoring a work on perseverance and

assurance (both due from InterVarsity

Press). He is also serving as the preach-

ing pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in

Louisville, Kentucky.

3

spectives. Mark Seifrid examines the texton anointing the sick with oil (5:13-18).How should we understand this diffi-cult passage, and what does it say to ustoday? Seifrid’s study provides insightfulanswers to these questions. Ron Juliangives us an inroad into the primarypurpose of James—living lives that arepleasing to God. Dan McCartney opens awindow into the relationship betweenJames and other wisdom writings. Finally,Daniel Akin concludes this issue with asermon on the tongue (Jas 3:1-12). Here iswhere the message of James speaks toevery heart. I pray that the Lord will speakto every person who reads this outstand-ing sermon.

EDITOR’S NOTE 1 In Volume 4.2 in John Piper’s article, To

Live upon God that is Invisible: Suffering

and Service in the Life of John Bunyan, thestatement on p. 7, “After Cromwell’sdeath, his brother Richard was unableto hold the government together,”should read, “his son” rather than “hisbrother.”

4

“Saved by Faith [Alone]” in PaulVersus “Not Saved by Faith Alone”

in JamesRobert H. Stein

Robert Stein is the Mildred and Ernest

Hogan Professor of New Testament at

The Southern Baptist Theological Semi-

nary. Dr. Stein has a Ph.D. from Prince-

ton Theological Seminary, taught at

Bethel College and Bethel Theological

Seminary from 1969-1997, and has

served as a Professor at Southern since

1997. He is a renowned scholar and

has writ ten numerous books, articles,

and book reviews. His most recent book

is Jesus the Messiah and a revision of

The Method and Message of Jesus’

Teachings has also been published

recently.

IntroductionIn contrast to Romans 3:28 where Paulstates, “For we maintain that a man is jus-tified by faith apart from works of theLaw,” James writes in 2:24, “You see thata man is justified by works and not byfaith alone.”1 As a result, the relationshipbetween faith, works, and justification inthe teachings of Paul and James have beenmuch debated.

On the one hand, there are those schol-ars who argue that the teaching and the-ology of Paul and James are contradictoryand incapable of harmonization. Nodoubt the most famous of these is MartinLuther, who referred to James as a “rightstrawy epistle”2 and in his Preface to thebook states that James

. . . is flatly against St. Paul and allthe rest of Scripture in ascribing jus-tification to works [2:24]. It says thatAbraham was justified by his workswhen he offered his son Isaac [2:21];though in Romans 4 [:2-22] St. Paulteaches to the contrary that Abra-ham was justified apart from works,by his faith alone, before he hadoffered his son.…3

More recent scholars give a similarassessment. “What we encounter[between Paul and James] is not simply atension but an antithesis.…There are nogrounds for blurring the fact that James2:14ff. visibly appears to have been writ-ten intentionally in opposition to Paul’sstatement.”4 J. T. Sanders argues thatJames “misunderstands Paul,” “opposes

the writings of Paul,” and “rejects Paulinetradition.”5 Ropes writes that “Jamesshows no comprehension of what Paulactually meant by his formula [saved byfaith and not by works] . . . and he heart-ily dislikes it.” Furthermore he “wouldhave deplored as utterly superficial andinadequate James’s mode of stating theconditions of justification.”6 Compare alsoBultmann who states, “. . . Paul’s conceptof faith is . . . utterly misunderstood. ForPaul would certainly have agreed with theproposition that a faith without works isdead (2:17, 26) but never in the world withthe thesis that faith works along withworks (2:22).”7

On the other hand, there are those whoseek to argue that James and Paul are inagreement and that no conflict exists.Marxsen argues that what James

. . . attacks is the idea that the Paulineformula should be accepted as validwith this interpretation of faith [afaith without works].…The author . . . brings out what Paul means byfaith by means of an addition. Inother words, what Paul signifies by‘faith’ can now be expressed only by‘faith and works.’…His aim is tobring back a Paulinism that has beenmisinterpreted and distorted to thetruly Pauline position.8

Mitton also argues that “James isentirely at one with Paul.”9

Still others argue that James and Pauldo not contradict each other but are deal-ing with different issues and fighting dif-

5

ferent foes. Thus there is “no disagreementbetween James and Paul, only a slightvariation of emphasis.”10 “The polemic ofJames . . . was not directed at the thesis ofPaul, but at a slogan derived from it.”11

The false views which Paul andJames are opposing, in Rom. 4 andhere respectively [James 2:14-26], aredifferent. Paul is combating the ideathat men can put God under anobligation to themselves.…James isopposing the idea that a real faithcan exist without producing worksof obedience. The difference of aimaccounts to a large extent for thedifferences of language. There is noneed to infer any significant dis-agreement between their fundamen-tal positions.12

Formally, Ro 3:22 (justification byfaith without the deeds of the law)and Ja 2:24 (justification by worksand not by faith only) are sharplyopposed theses. In reality the dif-ferences are modified if we takeaccount of the different applicationsof the terms.13

The present article will explore theargument of James in 2:14-26 with thepurpose of seeing if he and Paul areindeed in disagreement. We shall do soby examining: (1) The terminology of Pauland James; (2) the context of James 2:14-26; (3) key issues found in James 2:14-26;and (4) James 2:14-26 and the rest of theNew Testament.

The Terminology of Paul and JamesIndividual words in any language usu-

ally bear a range of possible meanings. Ifa person looks up any particular word ina dictionary, he or she will find a numberof possible meanings associated with theword because the semantic range of wordsvary. Some possess many different, pos-sible meanings. Others possess only a few.It is difficult, however, to think of anyword in the English language that has

only one specific meaning. Within thenorms of language words almost alwayspossess a range of meanings.

Within the writings of Paul and Jamesthis is also true. In James, for example, theword “trial (peirasmos)” is used positivelyin 1:2 and 12. In 1:13-14 its verbal form“tempted (peirazo),” however, is usednegatively. It should not therefore surpriseus that the same word may be used byJames and Paul in different ways and pos-sess different meanings. There are twoterms used in James 2:14-26 that possessmeanings quite different from the normalway that Paul uses these terms. Theseterms are: “faith” and “believe (pistis–pisteuo)”14 and “works (erga).”

“Faith” and “Believe”In James the noun “faith” is found six-

teen times. Five are found outside 2:14-26(1:3, 6; 2:1, 5; 5:15) and the rest are con-tained in our passage (2:14 [2], 17, 18 [3],20, 22 [2], 24, and 26). The verbal form“believe” is found only three times andall occur in our passage (2:19 [2] and 23).The five occurrences of “faith” outside ourpassage indicate that a different faith isbeing described there than the “faith”James begins to discuss in 2:14-26. In 1:3the “faith” described is one that success-fully encounters trials and as a result pro-duces endurance. In 1:6 it is a “faith” thatendures in prayer and as a result receiveswisdom from God. In 2:1 it is “faith” inour Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.15

In 2:5 the poor of this world who are heirsof the kingdom are described as rich in“faith.” In all these instances “faith” isportrayed positively. It is never viewed asmerely an intellectual assent to doctrinalpropositions.

In 2:14-26 “faith” is viewed quite dif-ferently, and it appears that the faith

6

being discussed is that of a real or hypo-thetical opponent whom James hasengaged in a diatribe. This opponent’s un-derstanding of faith is quite different fromthat of James himself. This can be seen byobserving how this faith is described:

2:14a—It is a faith that possesses noworks;2:14b—It is a faith that cannot save;16

2:17—It is a faith without works thatis dead;2:18a—It is a faith that is distinct andseparate from works;2:18b—It is a faith without works;2:18c—It is contrasted with a faithshown by works;2:20—It is a faith without works thatis useless;2:22a—It is contrasted with a faiththat works along with works;2:22b—It is contrasted with a faithperfected as a result of works;2:24—It is a faith that is alone; and2:26—It is a faith without works thatis dead.

The verbal cognate “believe” also helpsus to understand the kind of faith pos-sessed by James’s opponent:

2:19a—It is assent to the biblicalproposition that God is one;2:19b—It is a kind of faith that evendemons possess; and2:23—It is contrasted with the kindof faith Abraham possessed.

From the above it is obvious that a dis-tinction must be made between “faith” asit is understood by James and “faith” as itis understood by his real or imaginaryopponent. It is doubtful that James wouldacknowledge that his opponent’s kindof faith is true or real faith. He hints atthis in 2:14a when he describes hisopponent’s faith as follows, “What use isit, my brethren, if someone says he hasfaith but he has not works.” As numer-ous commentators point out, James doesnot say, “What use is it, my brethren, if

someone has faith but has not works.”17

James appears to have intentionallyworded his introductory statement in away that indicates that his opponent doesnot have true Christian faith. This inter-pretation finds support in 2:14b whereJames states, “Can that faith save him?”18

The use of the article he indicates thatJames is asking whether the specific kindof faith he has just described can save theman. Still further support for this viewcomes from 2:18. Here the imaginaryopponent19 describes his faith as beingone totally independent of works. “Butsomeone may well say, ‘You have faithand I have works.’”

In Paul “faith” almost always refers toa whole-hearted trust in God that salva-tion can be received as a gracious gift apartfrom any meritorious works because ofthe death and resurrection of his Son, JesusChrist. Faith for Paul involves “man’stotal response to and involvement withJesus Christ.”20 Accompanied with the giftof the Spirit it involves a new creation(2 Cor 5:17) in which the believer has beenraised to newness of life and has becomea slave to righteousness (Rom 6:18). Itinvolves an obedience of faith (Rom 1:5).Thus Paul would never say that “demonsbelieve,” as James does in 2:19, becauseof the different meaning he gives to theterms “faith” and “believe.” The faith ofJames’s opponent involves merely intel-lectual assent to propositions such as“God is one.” It is a belief that certainpropositions are true. Paul’s use of thewords “faith” and “believe” involve faithin God and his Son. It is not merely propo-sitional, although that element is present.It is also relational! Faith for Paul involvesa relationship of grace and love towardGod that results in a transformed life; forJames’s opponent faith involves nothing

7

more than assent to doctrinal truths. Yeteven the demons possess a correct under-standing of such doctrinal propositionsand assent to their truth. In fact their theo-logical understanding of doctrinal propo-sitions is undoubtedly more correct thanours due to their supernatural nature, butsuch knowledge does not result in theirsalvation!

“Works”The term “works” also possesses a

range of possible meanings, and it is usedquite differently in James and Paul. InJames it is used fifteen times and alwayspositively. This is true both for the twelvetimes it is used within our passage andthe three instances it is used elsewhere(1:4—associated with endurance, 1:25—contrasts with the mere hearing of the lawof liberty; 3:13—are the results of goodbehavior). In our passage it is used in:

2:14—From 2:15-16 it is clear that itrefers to such things as clothing the“naked” and feeding the hungry, i.e.,works of loving kindness;2:17—The works mentioned hererefer to the actions described in 2:15-16;2:18—In these three instances worksrefer to the works mentioned in 2:17;2:20—Here works refer to the faith-ful obedience of Abraham;2:21—Here works refer to Abra-ham’s obedience in offering up Isaacas a sacrifice;2:22—In these two instances worksrefers to Abraham’s offering of Isaacin 2:21;2:24—Here works refer to the kindof actions mentioned in 2:15-16, 21;2:25—Works here refer to Rahab’sprotecting God’s messengers; and2:26—Here it refers to the works ofloving kindness, obedience, andfaith mentioned in 2:15-17, 21, 25.

It should be noted that in 2:14-26, andin the rest of James, “works” are alwaysseen positively and, when described,

involve acts of loving mercy, kindness,and obedience to God. They are per-formed from a faith that “works throughlove.” They have nothing to do with ritu-alistic or ceremonial actions.

In Paul, however, “works” possess avery different meaning. In Romans andGalatians they are frequently described bythe expression “works of law” (Rom 3:20,28; Gal 2:16 [3]; 3:2, 5, 10). Works are anti-thetical to grace (Rom 11:6). They are anattempt to boast before God, place Godunder obligation (Rom 4:2), and as aresult earn justification (Rom 4:4). Conse-quently, “works” are a way of seekingrighteousness that is inimical to faith(Rom 9:30-33), and it is impossible toachieve justification through this method(Rom 3:20). The specific “works” that Paulhas in mind are: circumcision (Rom4:1-12; Gal 5:3, 6; 6:15; 1 Cor 7:19; cf. Acts15:1, 5); ritualistically keeping certain days(Gal 4:10); abstaining from certain foodand drink (Col 2:16); etc. It should benoted that clothing the naked and feed-ing the hungry do not appear in Paul’spolemic against works. Paul is not argu-ing against faith needing to be accompa-nied by loving acts of kindness and mercy.These are not the works that he is oppos-ing. He is not opposed to good deeds donein obedience to God. These kinds of worksare spoken of quite positively in Paul.21

He is opposed, rather, to performing cer-tain ritual acts found in the Old Testamentfor the purpose of acquiring a standingbefore God. Such “works” deny theadequacy of “by grace through faith” andultimately trust in the “works” one doesto achieve justification.

It is clear that, although Paul and Jamesare using the same terms for “works,” theyattribute different meanings to them, justas in the case of “faith.” These meanings

8

lie well within the semantic range of theseterms, but they are not identical. In factthey are antithetical. As a result Paul’swords in Romans 3:28 (“For we maintainthat a man is justified by faith apart fromworks of the Law”) can be interpreted,“For we maintain that a person is justi-fied by a whole-hearted trust in God’sgrace and mercy and not by seeking tomerit favor with God through such actsas circumcision and the keeping of theritual law.” On the other hand, James’swords in 2:24 (“You see that a man is jus-tified by works and not by faith alone”)can be interpreted, “You see that a personis justified by a faith that works throughlove and not by a sterile assent to religiouspropositions unaccompanied by works.”

The Context of James 2:14-26The value of the context of James 2:14-

26 for understanding this passage isdebated. Some suggest that the discussionof “faith” in 2:14-26 picks up the themebegun in 2:1-13. “In this section St. Jamesproceeds to enlarge on the meaning andnature of that faith in Jesus Christ whichwas spoken of in ver. 1 as inconsistentwith prosopolempsia [personal favor-itism].”22 There are several parallelsbetween these two sections: “faith” (2:1and 14ff.); clothing (2:2 and 15); person inneed (2:2 and 15-16); the expression “youdo well” (2:8 and 19); “called” (2:7 and 23);“if a man . . .” (2:2 and 14). Ties betweenthe present passage and chapter oneinclude: “faith” (1:3, 6 and 2:14ff.);“works” (1:4, 25 and 2:14ff.); the contrastbetween “hearing and doing” and “faithand works” (1:22-25 and 2:14-26); concernfor the needy (1:27 and 2:15-16).23

On the other hand, Dibelius has arguedthat “A connection between this treatise[2:14-26] and the preceding one cannot be

established.”24 That there are allusions in2:14-26 to what has preceded is obvious.Yet there does not appear to be any inti-mate or necessary tie between our passageand what has preceded. Thus James 2:14-26 can be understood, for the most part,without the help of its context. As sooften in works of wisdom, the logical tiesbetween sections are loose and play nomajor role in understanding the meaningof individual sections. Our present pas-sage can be understood without majordependence upon the material that haspreceded or that follows. The generalargument against merely hearing and notdoing in 1:22-25 and some of the vocabu-lary ties with 2:1-13 help throw some lighton the issue James deals with in 2:14-26,but they do not play a determining roleon how to interpret our passage. Thus,due to the constraints of space, we shallproceed to the discussion of the keyexegetical issues involved in 2:14-26.

Key Issues Found in James 2:14-26The structure of this passage involves

three sections. The first consists of 2:14-17, which begins with a question aboutfaith not having works (2:14b) and con-cludes with a summary (2:17) about faithnot having works that forms a kind ofinclusio. The second section consists of2:18-19 where James interacts with thecomments of a real or imaginary oppo-nent. The third section (2:20-26) is alsointroduced by a question. It likewiseinvolves a rhetorical question based on thefact that faith apart from works is useless.The section concludes again with a kindof inclusio that faith apart from works isdead (cf. 2:20 and 26).

Section One—2:14-17The first section begins with the ques-

9

tion, “What use is it…,” that introducesthe following diatribe. This expression isfrequently associated with a diatribe (cf.1 Cor 15:32; Sirach 20:30; 41:14). The ques-tion assumes “before God in the last judg-ment” and is soteriological in nature (1:12,21; 4:12; 5:20). The conditional sentence(“If a [person] has . . .”) need not implythat this is a hypothetical question. It ismore likely that we have here an actualsituation that James encountered on morethan one occasion. This is suggested bythe present tense of the verb “say” (lego).We have already noted the fact that Jamesdoes not state that the person has faith butonly says that he has faith, and that this

[literally—the faith just referred to] faithcannot save. He is not saying that faith, inthe sense that both he and Paul under-stand it, cannot save, but that the faithreferred to in 2:14a and described in 2:15-16 cannot save.

In 2:15 and 16 James provides anexample of what he means by the worksthat must accompany faith. This “is sucha crass example of faith without worksthat the nature of any such situationbecomes clear to all.”25 Whether the illus-tration is a real one that reflects the situa-tion of James or merely hypothetical isunclear, but this does not affect the argu-ment. “Without clothing” need not meanthat the people described are naked andtotally without clothing. It probablymeans that they are inadequately dressedand may refer to their lacking the outergarment worn over a tunic (Matt 5:40;Luke 6:29; John 13:4; cf. James 2:6). “Dailyfood” refers to the food needed for thatday. It is not the same word used in theLord’s Prayer. The needs that James high-lights indicate that by “works” he is notreferring here to ritual laws or what Paulcalls “works of law.” They refer rather to

the most basic form of love and compas-sion, mercy and kindness.

The kind of faith James claims isunable to save is one that can see a fellowChristian, i.e., a brother or sister, in suchterrible circumstances and instead of pro-viding what is needed utters pious plati-tudes—“Go in peace, be warmed andfilled.” The first of these platitudes is asemitic idiom (Judg 18:6; 1 Sam 1:17; 20:42;29:7; 2 Sam 15:9; Mark 5:34; Luke 7:50; Acts16:36) that means something like, “Maythe Lord bless you as you go.” The lattertwo banalities are in either the middle orpassive voice. There is little difference,however, as to how they are to be under-stood in this sentence. They are trite andloveless wish prayers such as, “May Godprovide your needs.”

“What use is that?” repeats exactly the“What use is it?” of the opening verse ofour passage. The expected answer is ofcourse, “None whatsoever!” Here Paulwould be in complete agreement. Thefaith described in these verses cannotsave, because it is not a faith that “worksthrough love (Gal 5:6).” The exampleJames provides in these verses brings tomind Jesus’ parable of the Sheep and theGoats. In this parable the separation of thesheep to eternal life and the goats to eter-nal punishment is based on their behav-ior toward “the least of these my brethren(Matt 25:40).” The sheep fed believers (thebrethren) who were hungry, gave themsomething to drink when thirsty, wel-comed them as strangers, clothed themwhen naked, and visited them when sickand in prison. It should be noted that twoof these actions (“feeding the hungry” and“clothing the naked”) are found in theillustration of James. Whether James wasaware of and even patterned his exampleafter Jesus’ parable is impossible to say.

10

The thought, however, is the same. Thebehavior reflected toward the least of thebrethren, i.e., the believing community, isa behavior that is ultimately directedtoward God and the Savior of these breth-ren (cf. Matt 10:40-42; 1 John 3:17-18). Suchbehavior is a much more accurate reflec-tion of their attitude (or “faith”) towardGod than any mere confession such asfound in 2:19.

“Even so” introduces James conclud-ing summary of this section (2:14-17). Thissame expression is used in similar fash-ion in 1:11; 2:26; 3:5 to draw a conclusionfrom a preceding analogy or example.“Faith, if it has not works, is dead, beingby itself.” It is difficult in an English trans-lation to indicate the article that standsbefore “faith.” It is clear in the Greek text,however, that James is referring specifi-cally to the faith noted in 2:14 and illus-trated in 2:15-16. “If it has no works”parallels the exact same expression in 2:14.This so-called “faith” is described as“dead.” In 2:20 such a faith is referred toas “useless.” The reason is that it is “byitself.” Similar expressions for “by itself”are “without works” (2:18, 20, 26) and“alone” (2:24). The response shown in theexample is so heartless and lacking ofmercy that even the qualified approvalgiven in 2:19 to a demonic-like assent to atheological proposition is not given here!This faith is “dead.” This indicates that“Works are not an ‘added extra’ any morethan breath is an ‘added extra’ to a livingbody.”26 The faith that James is describ-ing may fit the possible semantic range ofthe word “faith” in James’s day, but it doesnot fit what “faith” means in the contextof the Christian faith!

Section Two—2:18-20There are a number of exegetical diffi-

culties associated with these verses. In anow famous quotation, Dibelius refers to2:18 as “one of the most difficult New Tes-tament passages.…”27 Some of the diffi-culties involve: “Who is the person raisingthe question and how should we under-stand the question? Is the questioner anally of James repeating his views or anopponent?” The second main questioninvolves where James’s reply to the ques-tion begins. Does it begin in 2:18b, 2:19,or 2:20? There are three main alternativesregarding the identity of the questioner:

(1) He is a supporter of James whoattacks the idea that one can havefaith apart from works. Thus the“you” refers to his and James’sopponents, and the “I” to his andJames’s views. This ally arguesagainst the suggestion that faith andworks can be separated. They arenot two, acceptable alternatives.This allows the “you” and “I” tocorrespond more consistently tothe opponent’s view (“you”) andJames’s and his supporter’s view(“I”) throughout the passage. Thuswe should understand 2:18 and 19as essentially James’s and his ally’sresponse to their opponents.(2) It is a straw man James uses toargue (either in favor of James or inopposition to him) that faith can (orcannot) be separated from works.(3) It is an opponent of James whoargues that faith and works are sepa-rate virtues or gifts. Some have faithwhereas others have works. Theycan exist separately. Just as some areordained for works (note the dea-cons of Acts 6), others are ordainedfor prayer and ministry of the word,i.e., faith (note the apostles of Acts6). The opponent, like Paul in 1Corinthians 12:4ff., believes that“faith” and “works [healing]” areseparate gifts.

Various arguments are given in supportof each of these positions. We shall, how-ever, due to considerations of space,argue only for the last of the alternatives.

11

The opening expression “But someonemay well say” opens a diatribe that usu-ally involves an opponent whose view isbeing stated (1 Cor 15:35; cf. also Rom 9:19;11:19; Luke 4:23). This suggests that in 2:18the question comes from an adversary.Also the normal way of interpreting the“But (alla)” of 2:18 is as an adversative. Itis far more common to interpret the Greekword alla as “But” than “Indeed” as thefirst view requires.28 The first view alsorequires us to think that James is nowintroducing a third person into the argu-ment, whereas it seems more likely thathe is dealing with the same opponent whois now responding to what James has saidin 2:14-17.

It is better therefore to interpret 2:18 asintroducing the argument of an opponent.Where, however, does the opponent’sargument end? It seems best to see it asending in 2:18a and to have James’scounter argument begin with “Showme…” in 2:18b.29 These verses then shouldbe understood as follows. An opponentchallenges what James has said in 2:14-17by saying, “You have faith and I haveworks.” The problem with this statementis that the opponent attributes to James“faith” and to himself “works,” and thisview is the opposite of what James hasbeen arguing in 2:14-17. One wouldexpect from the mouth of James’s antago-nist, “You have works and I have faith.”Here, however, the “you” and “I” shouldbe understood more like “one” and“another” or as allos . . . allos in Greek. Itmust be acknowledged that the latterunderstanding is a weakness in the inter-pretation advocated.30

The objection being raised in 2:18 is theview that faith and works can be sepa-rated and isolated from each other. A per-son supposedly can possess one or the

other. Thus one may have faith andanother works. Consequently, the manwho possesses works should not con-demn the man who has faith (and vice

versa). To this James responds in 2:18b thatsuch a division is impossible. One cannothave faith without works. “Show me yourfaith without the works” means “Demon-strate to me how you can have faithwithout works! I (or “a person”) can dem-onstrate to you my faith only by my (“his”or “her”) works!” In the whole discussionit is not the content of faith that is theissue, but its lack of works. This Jamesmakes clear in his next illustration.

“You believe that God is one.”31 Thiscan be understood either as a rhetoricalquestion or as a statement. The faithbeing challenged by James centers onthe Shema, which plays an important rolein the history of God’s people.32 The faithbeing described is essentially creedalism,i.e., an intellectual assent to some propo-sition about the nature of God. Faith hereis simply the approval of a theologicalstatement. It does not involve belief in orpersonal trust in God but belief that or abelief about God. The response “You dowell” indicates that the confession is bothcorrect and good. Its inadequacy becomesimmediately apparent, however, by thenext statement.

“The demons also believe, and shud-der.” Here James describes clearly thekind of faith he claims cannot save. Thefact that such a faith cannot save isself-evident. The demons, allies of Satandoomed to hell, can also claim the kind offaith that James’s opponents possess. Theyeven possess a better “creedalism,”because of their supernatural knowl-edge!33 Their knowledge is also moreexistential than that of James’s opponents,for the demons “shudder”34 as a result

12

their knowledge. For James such a faith isdead. Correct confession apart fromworks of love rises no higher than the faithof demons. True faith must be accompa-nied by works of love.

Section Three—2:20-26The third section of our passage, like

the first, begins with a question (cf. 2:14and 20). It will also, like the first, end witha summary statement (cf. 2:17 and 26).Furthermore, just as the first sectionbegins with a question (“. . . if someonehas faith without works can this savehim?”) and concludes with a parallelstatement (“Even so faith, if it has noworks, is dead”), so the third section alsobegins with a question (“. . . that faithwithout works is useless?) and concludeswith a parallel statement (“. . . so also [literally – even so] faith without worksis dead).35 In the first section we find state-ments such as “faith without works can-not save” (2:14) or “faith, if it has noworks, is dead” (2:17). In the concludingsection such statements occur three times:“faith without works is useless” (2:20);“justified by works and not by faith alone”(2:24); and “faith without works is dead”(2:26).36

The third section begins with the ques-tion, “But are you willing to recognize,you foolish fellow, that faith withoutworks is useless?” Such a direct, harshaddress is characteristic of the diatribestyle (cf. 1 Cor 15:36; Rom 2:1). The term“useless” is composed of the negative pre-fix “a” attached to the root “ergon” whichmeans “work.” The result is the adjectiveargos, e, on that appears in text as arge. Thuswe have a pun—Faith without works” is“workless” or “useless.”

In 2:21-24 James appeals to the exampleof Abraham, who is referred to as “our

father.” James is probably appealing to acommon hero that he shares with his read-ers. The question as to whether Abrahamwas justified by “works when he offeredhis son Isaac” expects a positive answerfrom his readers. This is evident from theuse of ouk. There is a clear differencebetween James’s and Paul’s use of Abra-ham as an example, even though bothappeal to the same text, Genesis 15:6.37

James, when he refers to Abraham’s faith,refers to his offering up of Isaac. Paulrefers to Abraham’s faith as occurringbefore his circumcision and his offeringof Isaac (Rom 4:10-14) as he trusted in thepromises God made to him (Rom 4:18).Like Paul, James refers in these verses toAbraham’s “justification.” Again, how-ever, as in the case of the terms “faith” and“works,”38 we should not assume thatJames and Paul mean the same thing intheir understanding of the term “to jus-tify” in Genesis 15:6.39

The terms “justification” and theEnglish synonym “righteousness” refer tothe same Greek term. These terms and theverb “to justify” all stem from the sameGreek root. For Paul, this refers to the giftof righteousness based on the work ofChrist that is appropriated by faith alone.It is primarily a forensic or legal termreferring to one’s status or standingbefore God. It is not primarily a worddescribing human virtue. Some “righ-teous” people were in fact far from virtu-ous (cf. Gen 38:26; Luke 18:14). For Paul,justification comes instantaneously uponinitial faith. It is not a virtue that devel-ops after initial faith. It is a judicial pro-nouncement of innocence, not a moralquality of personal piety.

For James the adjective “righteous” andthe noun “righteousness” refer primarilyto a moral quality. In 1:20 it refers to the

13

moral quality of life that God demands.In 3:18 it is used in the expression “fruitof righteousness.” The exact meaning inJames of this common expression isunclear. 40 What is certain, however, is thatthe meaning is ethical in nature and notforensic.41 When compared to Paulineusage (cf. Rom 1:17; 3:10; Gal 3:11), it isclear that the adjective “righteous” in 5:6and 16 bears an ethical and moral mean-ing rather than a forensic one.

In 2:21, 24, and 25 the verb “justify” andin 2:23 the noun “righteousness,” how-ever, must be interpreted in light of “Canthat faith save him?” of 2:14. Thus “beingjustified” and “being reckoned righ-teous”42 are the equivalent of “beingsaved.” They do not refer to the moralvirtue of Abraham and Rahab but the sal-vation and righteous standing God hasattributed to them in light of their work-ing faith. The forensic nature of theseexpressions is seen in the passive natureof the verb in 2:21, 24, and 25 (they are“divine” passives) and the term “reck-oned” in the quotation found in 2:23.

We have already shown that James isarguing against a view of faith thatinvolves merely mental assent. Such afaith will not save (2:14). In fact, it is notfaith in the Christian sense at all. True,saving faith is accompanied by works,which are the fruit of faith. When Jamesrefers to “works,” he is clearly not refer-ring to “works of law.” He is also notreferring to deeds of mercy and love iso-lated from faith. The works that he refersto are always associated with faith in theLord Jesus Christ (2:1). Thus “by works”in 2:21-22 should be understood as “by afaith that works through love and obedi-ence (cf. Gal 5:6)!” There is no thoughthere of “works of law.” We can thereforetranslate 2:21 by the following paraphrase,

“Was not Abraham our father justified bya faith that manifests itself in works oflove, when he offered up Isaac his son onthe altar?”

Because of the use of the singular “you”in v. 22, James is probably addressing hisopponent of 2:19-20. “You see” in v. 22 canbe understood in the sense of “You areable to see with your eyes through theexample of Abraham.…” This wouldmean that the verb “justified” should beinterpreted as demonstrative in nature,i.e., Abraham’s justification was demon-strated or shown by his visible works, i.e.,the works “you see.” The offering of Isaacserves as an example of 2:18 in that Abra-ham shows his faith, which brought himjustification, by this work. More likely,however, “You see” should be interpretedas in 2:24, “You can see logically as aresult that. . . .” This meaning fits thecontext of James 2:14-26 better in that thebasic issue involves, “What kind of faithsecures righteousness?”43 The differencebetween Paul and James in their use ofthe term “to justify” involves the tempo-ral dimension envisioned. Paul refers tothe initial, proleptic pronouncement ofGod’s judicial verdict upon faith. Jamesis referring to the verdict in the final daywhen a person stands before God. In thatday Abraham’s faith would be demon-strated by his life of obedience and love.James has more in mind what Paul saysin Romans where he states concerning therighteous judgment of God that he

. . . will render to each person accord-ing to his deeds: to those who by per-severance in doing good seek forglory and honor and immortality,eternal life; but to those who are self-ishly ambitious and do not obey thetruth, but obey unrighteousness,wrath and indignation. There will betribulation and distress for everysoul of man who does evil, of the Jew

14

first and also of the Greek, but gloryand honor and peace to everyonewho does good, to the Jew first andalso to the Greek . . . for it is not thehearers of the Law who are justbefore God, but the doers of the Lawwill be justified (Rom 2:6-10, 13).44

Verse 22 can also be understood eitheras “You are able to see . . .” or “You can seetherefore.…” The latter is more likely. Al-though only a single “work” is mentionedin 2:21, the plural “works” is used in orderto maintain the symmetry of 2:14, 17, 18,and 20. The tense of “was working with”(an iterative imperfect—the only imperfectfound in the entire letter) implies, however,that this was but one of many works bywhich Abraham demonstrated his faith.

A chiasmic parallelism is contained inthis verse—“Faith (A) was working withhis works (B) and as a result of the works(b), faith (a) was perfected.”45 Mussnerrightly points out that this is not an equalparallelism. He states, “James does not saythat—and this is especially importantto observe—works worked togetherwith faith but the reverse. Faith workedtogether with his works. That means thatwhat is primary in importance for Jamesis faith.”46 James clearly sees faith as pri-mary. Works do not produce faith. Jamesnever entertains the idea that works canexist independently of faith. Earlier in 1:22James gives the command to be doers ofthe word (cf. “works”) and not hearersonly (cf. “faith”).47 No thought is given tothe possibility that one can be a “doer”but not a “hearer.” Apparently both Jamesand his opponent(s) would agree thatdoing and works are dependent on hear-ing and faith! Faith (and hearing) is priorto and produces works (and doing)!Works bring faith to perfection. Yet faithand works should not be thought of asseparate entities. “The relation between

Abraham’s faith and his works is notproperly one of consequence, demonstra-tion or confirmation, all of which termsassume a measure of distinction betweenthe two: for James they go together in anecessary unity.…”48

The example of Abraham begun in v.21 comes to conclusion in v. 23 with “andthe Scripture was fulfilled” and the quo-tation of Genesis 15:6. This quotation isalso quoted by Paul in Romans 4:3 (cf. alsov. 9); and Galatians 3:6. The term “ful-filled” is not used in the frequent proph-ecy-fulfillment schema in which it is sooften found in the New Testament. It isused, rather, in the sense that Abraham’sfaith referred to in the OT quotation isdemonstrated or proven by his acts offaithful obedience and especially in hisoffering of Isaac on the altar. Such faith-ful obedience shows that Abraham truly“believed” God, and this was reckoned (adivine passive for “God reckoned it”) tohim for righteousness.49 The referenceto Abraham being called a “friend of God”is not found in the Old Testament. Sev-eral suggestions have been made,50 butit is probably best to see James as build-ing on such passages as 2 Chronicles 20:7and Isaiah 41:8 (cf. Isa 51:2) that refer toAbraham as “my beloved.”

Of all the statements found in 2:14-26none raise more theological problems thanv. 24. It is ironic that the specific affirma-tion “justification by faith alone” doesnot come from any statement found inthe letters of Paul but rather from James.And James is arguing that justification isnot by faith alone! “You see,” which isaddressed to James’s Christian readers(note “you” is plural and the readers arethe “brethren”—1:2, 16, 19; 2:1, 5, 14; etc.),introduces the conclusion, “A man is jus-tified by works and not by faith alone.”

15

There is no getting around the fact that, ifJames means by the words “works” and“faith” the same thing that Paul means inRomans 3:28, we have a clear and unde-niable contradiction! Yet, we have arguedthat “faith” and “works” possess a seman-tic range of possible meanings and thatPaul and James choose from these possi-bilities different “meanings” for theseterms. If we translate this verse accord-ing to James’s usage of these terms, wehave the following: “In conclusion you seethat a man is justified by a living faith thatworks through love and not by a deadfaith that involves merely an assent to cer-tain doctrines.” It is doubtful that Paulwould disagree with this, although it isequally doubtful that he would havephrased this thought the way James did.51

James provides a second illustration inv. 25 to support the illustration given in2:23-24. This involves Rahab. It is unclearas to why James uses the illustration ofRahab in conjunction with Abraham.Some have suggested that they were bothexamples of ideal proselytes. In 1 Clem-ent 10-12 they are placed together, alongwith Lot, as examples of hospitality andfaith. Regardless, Rahab’s action in pro-tecting the “messengers” serve as anotherexample of how a faith which producesworks leads to justification. Although herfaith is not specifically referred to, worksmust be seen as stemming from her faith.The example of Abraham sets the patternby which we should interpret the second,similar example (“In the same way”). Theentire context, which deals with faithwith/without works, likewise requires usto see Rahab’s works as being associatedwith her faith.

A concluding summary (“For just as”)brings not only the third section, but alsothe entire passage to its conclusion. The

analogy is difficult in that it compares faiththat is dead without works, to a body thatis dead without the spirit. Thus we havea comparison of faith with the body andworks with the spirit! This is strange.52 Weshould not, however, press the details ofthe analogy, but seek to understand itsmain point. Apart from the spirit the bodyis dead! In a similar way faith apart fromworks is dead! One cannot separate them.The body is dead if it has no spirit (2:26);faith is dead (2:17; cannot save—2:14; use-less—2:20) if it has no works! For Jamesfaith and works are not separate entitiesthat can exist independently. Even as acoin cannot have only one side, so Chris-tian faith cannot possess only one side. Itrequires both faith, in the sense of mentalassent, and works.

James 2:14-26 and the Rest of theNew Testament

Up to this point we have sought tounderstand James’s argument in 2:14-26.In opposition to a real or hypotheticalopponent he has sought to demonstratethat a person is saved by a faith that islife-changing and accompanied by acts oflovingkindness. Mere intellectual assentto theological propositions, even if correct,is insufficient, because it rises no higherthan demonic faith. “According to [Jamesand Paul], a man is saved by faith alone,but the faith that saves is not alone—it isfollowed by good works which prove thevitality of that faith.”53 In this section weshall seek to establish that James’s teach-ing on this subject is in accord with theteachings of the rest of the New Testa-ment. In fact, the danger encountered byJames in the first century elicited a theo-logical response that may be extremelyrelevant today. For a Christianity that hasbeen satiated with a nominal Lutheran

16

“saved by grace alone” and a flippantBaptist “once saved always saved,”54 themessage of James is both timely and nec-essary.

First of all we can begin by comparingthe message of James with that of Johnthe Baptist. John proclaimed, “Repent . . .bear fruits in keeping with repentance”(Matt 3:2, 7). The message of Jesus alsodemanded repentance and faith (Mark1:15) accompanied by “good works” (Matt5:16). Jesus also warned that mere profes-sion of him was insufficient, for “Noteveryone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’will enter the kingdom of heaven, but hewho does the will of My Father who is inheaven . . . ”(Matt 7:21). In 1 John 3:17-18we read, “But whoever has the world’sgoods, and sees his brother in need andcloses his heart against him, how does thelove of God abide in him? Little children,let us not love with word or with tongue[in James—faith and hearing], but in deedand truth [in James—works and doing].”“The fact that Christianity must beethically demonstrated is an essential partof the Christian faith through the NewTestament”55 is obvious.

What about Paul, however? We shouldnot assume that the places where Paul isengaged with his opponents and arguesfor faith “alone” apart from works of laware the totality of his message. There arenumerous places where Paul gives teach-ings that seem to be in complete accordwith that of James. We have alreadyquoted Galatians 5:6—“For in Christ Jesusneither circumcision nor uncircumcisionmeans anything, but faith working through

love” (author’s italics). Elsewhere Paulrefers to: “obedience of faith” (Rom 1:5;6:16; 15:18; etc.); “every good deed” (2 Cor9:8); “faith and love” (1 Thess 1:3; 3:6; 1Tim 2:15; 4:12; 6:11; 2 Tim 1:13; 2:22; 3:10;

Tit, 2:2; Phlm 5); “word or deed” (Col3:17); “work of faith” (1 Thess 1:3; 2 Thess1:11); etc. The relationship of the “indica-tive and imperative” in Paul should benoted. Paul believed that faith in Christinvolved having died with him and thatthis led to a new life in which faith workedthrough love (Rom 6:1-23). Thus theindicative (faith) and the imperative(works) are not separate teachings but areintimately associated.56 In a similar man-ner, Paul also knew that the faith was notthe greatest of Christian virtues. Love wasmore important still (1 Cor 13:2, 12).

ConclusionMuch of the discussion centering on

James 2:14-26 concentrates on a centraltheme of the Reformation—“justificationby faith.” The need for the debate on thatissue, and its stalwart defense by theReformers forever puts us in their debt.As in many theological debates, however,the focus and debate on the central issueoften results in a neglect of related but,for the moment, peripheral issues. Theseperipheral issues are not unimportant,but, being on the edge of the debate, theyare often relegated to a lesser role andimportance. Unfortunately, this hasoccurred with respect to the issue of justi-fication by faith.

Justification is but one of several meta-phors and images used to describe whatoccurs in the experience of becoming aChristian. It may be the most, or at leastone of the most, important of these meta-phors. Yet, like any other metaphor, it isunable to express all that occurs when aperson becomes a Christian. There arenumerous other metaphors that indicatethat much more occurs at conversion thana person receiving a new, legal standingbefore God or being “reckoned” righ-

17

teousness. Other relational metaphors arealso used to describe this relationship: rec-onciliation; peace; in Christ; forgiveness;adoption; saints; etc. Other metaphors areused to describe the “metaphysical”change that has taken place in this expe-rience: died to sin; raised in newness oflife; passed from death to life; born again;new creation; baptized by the Spirit; etc.

The discussion concerning “goodworks” is all too often set purely in theframework of justification by faith. Whatis the relationship between the newstanding of righteousness that a personpossesses and Christian living? Is “justi-fication” simply a legal fiction? Thedebate all too often loses sight of the factthat justification is not synonymous withChristian conversion. If, when a person isjustified, he is also born again and madea new creation through the gift of theSpirit, the issue of whether faith must beaccompanied by works is a moot one.Good works are not an option for thebeliever, but a necessary fruit. A “goodtree bears good fruit” (Matt 7:17). A truefaith, unlike mere intellectual assent, mustbear good fruit. Such good fruit or workscan never be the cause of salvation. Herethe Reformation cry of “justification byfaith alone” must be affirmed at all costs.But James’s warning that the faith thatsaves cannot be alone but will be accom-panied by works must also be affirmed.This seems to be especially true at thepresent time.57

ENDNOTES1 All biblical quotations are from theupdated edition of the New AmericanStandard Bible.

2 The full quotation is that whereas John,Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and 1Peter “. . . show you Christ and teach you

all that is necessary and salvatory for youto know.…St. James’s epistle is really anepistle of straw, compared to these oth-ers, for it has nothing of the nature ofthe gospel about it.” See Martin Luther’s

Basic Theological Writings, edited byTimothy F. Lull (Minneapolis: FortressPress, 1989) 117. For the German text seeWA DB 6, 10 (Weimar Edition of Luther’sworks, Die Deutsche Bible, vol. 6, p. 10).

3 Luther’s Works: Word and Sacrament

(Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960)35:396.

4 J. B. Soucek, “Zu den Problemen desJacobusbriefes,” Evangelische Theologie 18(1958) 467.

5 Jack T. Sanders, Ethics in the New Testa-

ment (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975)121-122.

6 James Hardy Ropes, A Critical and

Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St.

James (The International Critical Com-mentary; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1916)35-36.

7 Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New

Testament (London: SCM Press, 1955)2:163. Cf. also Dan Otto Via, Jr., “TheRight Strawy Epistle Reconsidered: AStudy in Biblical Ethics and Hermeneu-tic,” The Journal of Religion 49 (1969) 257,“. . . one cannot say that while Paul andJames differ in the realm of definitions,there is really no conflict between them.It cannot be shown that they disagreemerely on the meaning of words butagree in basic concepts. They also dis-agree in their basic understanding ofman, disagree on what constitutes man’swholeness or well-being.”

8 W. Marxsen, Introduction to the New

Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1970) 230-231.

9 C. Leslie Mitton, The Epistle of James

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966) 8.

ˆ

18

10G. B. Caird, New Testament Theology

(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994) 190.11Leonard Goppelt, Theology of the

New Testament (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1982) 2:209.

12C. E. B. Cranfield, “The Message ofJames,” Scottish Journal of Theology

18 (1965) 341.13Joachim Jeremias, “Paul and

James,” Expository Times 66 (1954)371. Compare William Barclay, The

Letters of James and Peter (Philadel-phia: Westminster Press, 1976) 72-74. Much earlier Augustine arguedthat “the statements of the twoapostles Paul and James are not con-trary to one another when the onesays that a man is justified by faithwithout works, and the other saysthat faith without works is vain. Forthe former is speaking of the workswhich precede faith, whereas thelatter, of those which follow onfaith, just as even Paul indicates inmany places.” See Saint Augustine,Eighty-Three Different Questions (TheFathers of the Church; Washington:Catholic University of AmericanPress, 1982) 196.

14It is unfortunate that in English twodifferent words are used to describethe noun and verb that in Greekpossess the same root.

15There is a great deal of confusionas to exactly how this expressionshould be interpreted.

16The question is introduced by theGreek particle me, which expects anegative answer.

17Cranfield, p. 338, rightly points out,“This fact should be allowed to con-trol our interpretation of the wholeparagraph.”

18Cf. again Cranfield, p. 338, “By ‘that

faith’ . . . the writer means that thingwhich the man in question wronglycalls ‘faith’; he does not imply thathe himself regards it as faith.”

19The interpretation of this very diffi-cult verse is discussed below.

20Thorwald Lorenzen, “Faith withoutWorks Does Not Count before God!James 214-26” Expository Times 89(1977) 233.

21Cf. Rom 2:7; 2 Cor 9:8; Eph 2:10; 1Thess 1:3; 2 Thess 1:11; etc.

22Joseph B. Major, The Epistle of St.

James (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1954) 95; cf. also Ralph P. Martin,James (Word Biblical Commentary;Waco: Word Books, 1988) 77-79;Christoph Burchard, “Zu Jacobus2:14-26,” Zeitschrift für die neutes-

tamentliche Wissenschaft 71 (1980) 28-30; Luke Timothy Johnson, The

Letter of James (The Anchor Bible;New York: Doubleday, 1995) 235-236.

23See Timo Laato, “Justificationaccording to James: A Comparisonwith Paul,” Trinity Journal 18 (1997)47-61, who argues for the impor-tance of 1:16-25 for understandingour passage.

24Martin Dibelius, James (Hermeneia:Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975)149.

25Peter Davids, The Epistle of James

(New International Greek Testa-ment Commentary; Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1982) 121.

26Ibid., 122.27Dibelius, 154.28Dibelius, p. 150, states that “ . . . no

reader could have supposed thatsomeone other than an opponent ofJas is introduced by the formula ‘butsomeone will say.’”

29So RSV, NRSV, NIV, NEB, NAB, butcontra NASB .

30For a similar view and a moredetailed discussion, see ScotMcKnight, “James 2:18a: The Uni-dentifiable Interlocutor,” Westmins-

ter Theological Journal 52 (1990)355-364. For an opposing view seeLaato, 78-81.

31There is a textual problem here inthat some manuscripts omit thearticle and have a different wordorder, but no significant issue ofinterpretation is at stake.

32Cf. Deut 6:4; Josephus, Antiquities

3.91; 4.201; 5.112; Rom 3:30; 1 Cor8:4-6; Gal 3:20; Eph 4:6; 1 Tim 2:5;etc.

33Note Mark’s statement concern-ing the accurate perception of thedemons with respect to Jesus’ iden-tity. Cf. Mark 1:24, 34c (this Markaneditorial comment is especially im-portant); 3:11; 5:7.

34See Sophie Laws, A Commentary on

the Epistle of James (Harper’s NewTestament Commentaries; San Fran-cisco: Harper & Row, 1980) 126-128,who sees this term as coming out ofthe practice of exorcism.

35W. Nicol, “Faith and Works in theLetter of James,” Neotestamentica 9(1975) 7-9.

36For the attempt (unconvincing tothis writer) to interpret 2:20-24 asa chiasmus, see John G. Lodge,“James and Paul at Cross-Purposes?James 2,22,” Biblica 62 (1981) 200-207.

37Dibelius’s statement, p. 164, servesas a helpful warning—“Whoevercomes to Jas after a look at Paul(Rom 4) must completely forgetPaul’s interpretation of Gen 15:6

19

(faith reckoned as righteousness).”38See above pp. 4-8.39Cf. how Luke uses the term “good”

in 18:19 and 23:50. In 18:19 Jesus isquoted as saying “No one is good

except God alone.” Yet in 23:50Joseph of Arimathea is described as“a good and righteous man.”

40See Phil 1:11; Heb 12:11; Amos 6:12;Prov 11:20 (LXX); cf. also 2 Cor 9:10;Isa 32:16-18.

41John Reumann, “Righteousness” in

the New Testament (Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1982) 150.

42It is unfortunate that in English weuse two different words (‘justify”and “righteousness”) to describethis verb and noun that possess thesame root.

43Douglas J. Moo, James (Tyndale NewTestament Commentary; GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1985) 109.

44See Klyne R. Snodgrass, “Justifica-tion by Grace—To the Doers: AnAnalysis of the Place of Romans 2in the Theology of Paul,” New Tes-

tament Studies 32 (1986) 72-93.45The NASB and REB preserve this

chiasmic structure in its translationof 2:22. It is lost, however, in theNIV, RSV, NRSV, and NAB.

46Franz Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief

(Herders Theologischer Kommen-tar zum Neuen Testament; Freiburg:Herder, 1964) 142.

47Cf. Rom 2:13. The close associationof hearing and faith is reminiscentof Paul’s words in Gal 3:2 (“hearingwith faith”) and Rom 10:14, 17(“faith comes from hearing”).

48Laws, 134. Cf. Cranfield, p. 341, whostates, “The verse [2:22] is then tan-tamount to an emphasizing of theinseparability of faith and works.”

49For a parallel argument with respectto Abraham’s righteousness, cf. 1Macc 2:52.

50See, for example, Lodge, 208-13, andJohnson, 243-44.

51Cranfield, p. 341, comments, “Theclue to the understanding of verse24 . . . is the recognition that here, asin verse 14, the author is making aconcession to his opponents’ use ofterms. He does not himself believethat a faith which does not produceworks is really faith at all, but forthe moment he accepts his oppo-nents’ way of speaking, and so isforced to deny that a man is justi-fied by faith alone. ‘By faith alone’is right, if what is called ‘faith’ isreally faith; but, if something whichcan exist without producing worksis meant, then the formula sola fide

will not do.”52Cf. Luther’s comment, “He [James]

presents a comparison: ‘As the bodyapart from the spirit is dead, so faithapart from works is dead’ [Jas. 2:26].O Mary, mother of God! What a ter-rible comparison that is! James com-pares faith with the body when heshould rather have compared faithwith the soul!” This is found inLuther’s Works, 54:425 (WA, TR, p.157).

53Bruce Manning Metzger, The New

Testament (Nashville: AbingdonPress, 1965) 254.

54The present author has no problemwith these expressions if they areproperly understood. However,the abuse and misunderstandingencountered today may be verymuch like that which James encoun-tered and sought to combat in hisday.

55Barclay, 73.56Cf. Rom 6:6, 11, 14 and 12-13; 6:17-

18 and 19; 8:9-11 and 12-13; 1 Cor5:7b and 7a; Gal 5:25a and 25b; Col3:1a and 1b; 3:3 and 2, 5; 3:9b-10and 9a.

57It is evident that James is well awareof the fact that salvation is “bygrace.” His references to human sin-fulness (3:2), the fact that all standguilty before God (2:10), and theneed for mercy (2:13) reveal this.

20

The history of theology is the story of howthe church has interpreted the Bible. Whilemany other factors must also be taken intoaccount, the church has always tried todefine its faith in terms of its grasp of theWord of God in Holy Scripture.2

This principle has important implica-tions for the way we study the Bibletoday. It requires that we take seriouslythe exegetical tradition of the church asan indispensable aid for a contemporaryinterpretation of the Bible. It is not enoughto come to the study of the text with theNew Testament in one hand (even if weread it in the original Greek!) and the lat-est commentary in the other. We must alsoexamine carefully how God has spokenin his Word to other Christians of differ-ent ages, in various cultures and life set-tings. How they have understood—andmisunderstood—the Scriptures will sig-nificantly supplement our own investiga-tion of the text.

The Scriptures have spoken in newand fresh and powerful ways throughoutthe history of the church. To take butone example, Paul’s reinterpretation ofHabakkuk’s dictum, “The just shall liveby faith,” rediscovered by Martin Lutherthrough whom it was reclaimed by JohnWesley, reemerged as pivotal text in KarlBarth’s Commentary on Romans. As faith-ful members of the “communion ofsaints,” that is, the church extendedthroughout time as well as space, we can-not close our ears to the living witness ofthe Scriptures through the ages.

The Status of JamesPrior to the Reformation

At the time of the Reformation theEpistle of James emerged as a source ofgreat controversy among the reformersthemselves. In this study we shall see howJames was treated, respectively, by Mar-tin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, JohnCalvin, and the Anabaptists. We maybegin our investigation, however, byreferring to a sermon on James 2:12preached by the famous Anglican divineJohn Donne on February 20, 1628. In theintroduction to the sermon he describedJames as

one of those seven Epistles, whichAthanasius and Origen call’d Catho-lick; that is, universal; perchancebecause they are not directed to anyone Church, as some others are, butto all the Christian world: And S.Hierom call’d them Canonical; per-chance because all Rules, all Canonsof holy Conversation are compriz’din these Epistles: And Epiphanius,and Oecumenius call’d them Circu-lar; perchance, because as in a Circleyou cannot discern which was thefirst point, nor in which, the com-pass begun the Circle; so neither canwe discern in these Epistles, whomthe Holy Ghost begins withall,whom he means principally, King orSubject, Priest or People, Single orMarried, Husband or Wife, Father orChildren, Masters or Servants; butUniversally, promiscuously, indiffer-ently, they give ALL rules, for ALLactions, to ALL persons, at ALLtimes, and in ALL places.3

Donne’s description is a good sum-mary of what could be called a “retrospec-tive consensus” on the Epistle of James.

“A Right Strawy Epistle”:Reformation Perspectives on James1

Timothy George

Timothy George is the founding

Dean of Beeson Divinit y School of

Samford University, Birmingham, Ala-

bama. He is the author of John Robin-

son and the English Separatist Tradition,

Theology of the Reformers, and Faith-

ful Witness: The Life of William Carey,

as well as several scholarly ar ticles.

Dr. George also serves as a senior

advisor for Christianity Today.

21

As “catholic, canonical, and circular,” itsplace among the New Testament writingsseemed secure. Upon closer examination,however, the status of James in the earlychurch appears less certain. It is not quotedby any Church Father of the second cen-tury, nor does it appear in the Muratoriancanon, the famous list of Scriptures ac-cepted by the Roman Church around 200.4

The earliest undisputed reference to Jamesamong the Church Fathers appears onlyin the writings of Origen who accepted itsauthority but recognized that not everyoneelse did, a view shared by his disciple,Eusebius of Caesarea.5 In the West Jeromegave credence to James by including it inhis Vulgate version of the New Testament,although he too registered doubt concern-ing the apostolicity of its author.6 August-ine, who wrote a commentary on Jameswhich is no longer extant, had no doubtthat the author of the epistle was James,the brother of Jesus. This view, widelyaccepted during the Middle Ages, helpedto secure for James a recognized statuswithin the Christian canon.7

The Epistle of James attracted relativelylittle attention during the millenniumbetween Augustine and Luther. The mostfrequently quoted text from the epistlewas James 5:14, which became the classicproof text for the sacrament of extremeunction. When the British monk andchurch historian Bede wrote his com-mentary on James in the eighth century,he interpreted the oil of anointing as“oil which had been consecrated by abishop”.8 Thomas Aquinas repeatedlyappealed to James 5 as the scripturalbasis for the sacrament of extremeunction: “Extreme unction is a spiritualremedy, since it avails for the remissionof sins, according to James 5:15. Thereforeit is a sacrament.”9 This view was recog-

nized as the official position of the RomanCatholic Church at the Council of Trentin the sixteenth century. The same coun-cil had earlier included the Epistle ofJames in its “Decree Concerning theCanonical Scriptures” and had declaredanathema anyone who did not accept “intheir entirety and with all their parts” theaforesaid sacred books.10

The Epistle of James and LutherUndoubtedly the most important event

in the development of biblical studiesduring the Reformation was the publica-tion of Desiderius Erasmus’s New Testa-ment in 1516. It was the first completeedition of the New Testament ever to bepublished with a Greek text and a trans-lation based upon it. Along with the Greekand Latin texts, printed side by side,Erasmus included his Annotationes, orcritical remarks. Concerning James,Erasmus repeated the patristic reservationabout authorship, drawing especially onJerome. He then added his own doubtsbased on his analysis of the language andstyle of the epistle: “It just doesn’t mea-sure up to that apostolic majesty and grav-ity. Nor should we expect so manyhebraisms from the Apostle James whowas the bishop of Jerusalem.”11 Despitehis criticism of James based on humanis-tic philology, Erasmus did accept theepistle as a proper part of the canon. In1520 he published a paraphrase of James.During the reign of Edward VI, Erasmus’sNew Testament Paraphrases were trans-lated into English and, by royal decree,placed in every parish church in England.

As we shall see, Luther’s critique ofJames was far more radical than that ofErasmus. In his first published criticismof he epistle (1519), however, Luthermerely echoed Erasmus’s remark: “The

22

style of this epistle is far inferior to theapostolic majesty, nor is it in any waycomparable to Paul.”12 Although his mainargument against James was more theo-logical than philological, Luther usedErasmus’s critical scholarship as a launch-ing pad for his own more trenchant attack.In this sense, too, “Erasmus laid the eggwhich Luther hatched!”

Between 1515 and 1522 Luther’s atti-tude toward James underwent a completetransformation. In the summer of theformer year Luther began his lectures onPaul’s Epistle to the Romans at the Uni-versity of Wittenberg. In his “scholion” onRomans 3:20 he spoke of James and Paulin the same breath and saw no contradic-tion in their respective views on justifica-tion: “When St. James and the apostle saythat a man is justified by works, they arecontending against the erroneous notionof those who thought that faith sufficeswithout works.”13 Does the phrase “justi-fied by works” indicate that somethingother than faith in Christ is required forjustification? Again, Luther quoted James(2:10), “Whosoever…fails in one point hasbecome guilty of all of it,” to prove theindivisibility of that “living faith whichproduces its own works.”14

In his Lectures on Romans Luther couldstress the compatibility of James and Paulbecause he had not yet developed hismature doctrine of justification by faithalone. Though he may well have experi-enced his “evangelical breakthrough” by1515 (as most Luther scholars contend),he had not yet learned to formulate hisinsight into the gracious nature of God interms of the sheer imputation of Christ’srighteousness. For example, in the sameLectures on Romans, he interpreted thefamous “iustitia dei” of Romans 1:17 as aprogressive justification, a “growing more

and more” toward the achievement of aright standing before God. The Christianlife was thus always a “seeking and striv-ing to be made righteous, even to the hourof death.”15 By 1518, however, Luther hadbegun to speak of justification largely inforensic language: we are declared righ-teous by faith alone. In this view there wasno direct correlation between the state ofjustification and one’s outward works, asLuther made clear in his sermon on thePharisee and the publican (1521): “Andthe publican fulfills all the command-ments of God on the spot … by gracealone. So he went down to his housedeclared righteous. Who could have seenthat, under this dirty fellow?”16 This viewof justification required the strongestopposition between faith and works. AsLuther put it, “If faith is not without all,even the smallest, works, it does notjustify.”17

The formulation of Luther’s maturedoctrine of justification coincided pre-cisely with his shift of opinion on James.A pivotal moment in this process was theLeipzig Debate of 1519 during which hisopponent, John Eck, cited James 2:17against Luther’s position. Luther repliedwith the Erasmian critique of James’sauthorship, to which we have referred,and added that, in any event, one couldnot oppose one writing of the Bible againstthe whole Scripture.18 Thus Luther wasforced by Eck to distinguish variouslevels of authority within the Bible itself.

On Friday, April 26, 1521, Luther wasspirited away from Worms by the soldiersof his prince Frederick the Wise follow-ing his heroic refusal to recant his teach-ings (“Here I stand. I can do no other. Godhelp me.”) unless persuaded by cleararguments from Scripture. “My con-science is captive to the Word of God,” he

23

had said. Secluded in the Wartburg Castle,he worked furiously on his translation ofthe New Testament into German, firstpublished in September 1522. In the pref-ace to the so-called September TestamentLuther set forth his famous verdict on theEpistle of James.

In a word St. John’s Gospel and hisfirst epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, espe-cially Romans, Galatians, andEphesians, and St. Peter ’s firstepistle are the books that show youChrist and teach you all that is nec-essary and salvatory for you toknow, even if you were never to seeor hear any other book or doctrine.Therefore St. James's epistle is reallya right strawy epistle, compared tothese others, for it has nothing of thenature of the gospel about it.19

What did Luther mean when he calledJames “a right strawy epistle” (eyn rechte

stroern Epistel)? The image of straw recallsthe Pauline metaphor of “wood, hay andstubble” (1 Cor 3:12), “Holz, Stroh oder

Heu” in Luther’s rendering, the faultymaterials which some use in trying tobuild on the foundation of Christ.20 Somedoubtful epistles such as Hebrews were amixture of worthless and valuable mate-rials, but James was really (rechte) anepistle of straw!

In his “Preface to the Epistle of James”Luther cited three reasons for this harshnegative judgment. First, James contra-dicts Paul and all the rest of the Scripturein ascribing justification to works. Luthersaw this as evidence of the deutero-apos-tolic character of the document, ratherthan an indication of a real conflict be-tween Paul and the historical James. Sec-ond, it does not really preach or inculcateChrist. There is no mention of the passion,the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ.Here Luther raised his standard for adju-dicating the apostolicity of any New Tes-

tament writing:

This is the true test by which to judgeall books, when we see whether ornot they inculcate Christ (ob sieChristum trieben oder nicht)…. What-ever does not teach Christ is not yetapostolic, even though St. Peter orSt. Paul does the teaching. Again,whatever preaches Christ would beapostolic, even if Judas, Annas,Pilate, and Herod were doing it.21

Third, granted the good intentions ofthe author, i.e., to guard against a falseview of faith without works, he wasunequal to the task. Thus Luther con-cluded that the author must have been“some good, pious man, who took a fewsayings from the disciples of the apostlesand thus tossed them off on paper.”22

Despite all of these strictures, Lutherdid not, as is commonly repeated, exciseJames completely from the canon. Heincluded James in all of the editions of hisGerman New Testament, although he diddetach it from the usual order and placedit, along with Hebrews, Jude, and theApocalypse, at the end of the Bible. It istrue that on one occasion Luther said,“Away with James. I almost feel likethrowing Jimmy into the stove, as thepriest in Kalenberg did”—a reference to alocal pastor who used the wooden stat-ues of the apostles for firewood.23 But thisis a typical Lutheresque statement madenear the end of his life (1542) in the heatof polemical exchange with his RomanCatholic opponents, who found James aready-made weapon to use against theReformation. More telling is the fact thatafter 1522 Luther withdrew his character-ization of James as a “right strawy epistle”from subsequent editions of his New Tes-tament. And, on several occasions, hepreached from James in accordance withthe lectionary of the church year. In one

24

of these sermons he referred to the pas-sage in question (James 1:16ff.) as “a goodteaching and admonition.”

Even this was grudging praise, how-ever, for in the next breath he was sayinghow much better it would be, betweenEaster and Pentecost, to preach throughPaul’s great chapter on the resurrection (1Corinthians 15).24

Luther’s criticism of James, then, whileincorporating elements of humanistic phi-lology, was essentially theological in char-acter. For him Christ remained the Lordand the Center of the Bible. Those writ-ing which most clearly “inculcatedChrist” were the “true and certain chiefbooks” while the others, such as James,had to be relegated to the periphery. Sincethe doctrine of justification by faith alonewas the “article by which the churcheither stands or falls,” James’s neglect ordistortion of this important truth wassufficient reason for assigning it to a levelof secondary significance.

The Epistle of James and ZwingliLuther was the catalyst for the Refor-

mation not only in Germany but through-out all of Europe. Huldrych Zwinglireferred to him as an “Elijah” and urgedhis congregation to buy and read hisbooks, which poured forth from the print-ing presses of Zurich and Basel. JohnCalvin went so far as to call Luther his“father” in the Lord, although he hadnever met him in person. The Reforma-tion in Switzerland, however, had both adifferent origin and social setting than thatof Germany. It was an urban movementsustained by city councils rather than ter-ritorial princes. In the essential Reforma-tion concerns, sola gratia, sola scriptura, sola

fide, Zwingli and Calvin agreed withLuther over against the Church of Rome

on the one hand and the radical reform-ers on the other. Nonetheless, the shapeof their theologies and the varying empha-ses they placed upon these cardinaldoctrines were quite different. We cangauge the distinct character of Reformed(as over against Lutheran) theology byexamining the comments of Zwingli andCalvin on the Epistle of James.

On January 1, 1519, Zwingli entered thepulpit of the Grossmünster in Zurich andbegan preaching, verse by verse, throughthe Gospel of Matthew. This event sig-naled his desire to reform the church onthe basis of a careful exposition of HolyScripture. Matthew was followed by Acts,then the epistles to Timothy, thenGalatians, and so forth, until Zwingli hadworked through most of the books of bothOld and New Testaments.25 Zwinglipreached without manuscript or notes,and, sadly, few records of his sermonshave survived. Fortunately we do havecertain notes from Zwingli’s sermons onJames, which were taken down by hisfriend Leo Jud and published the yearfollowing the reformer’s death in 1531.

Unlike Erasmus and Luther, Zwingliseems not have doubted the apostolicityof James. He referred to the author as the“Apostle James,” “St. James,” or even“the pious, holy, or divine James.” Forexample, both Luther and Zwingli agreedthat James 5:14 provided no warrant forthe Roman sacrament of extreme unction,but the basis of their objections varied.Luther challenged the authorship of theepistle and added that, even if it had beenwritten by an apostle, no apostle had theright on his own authority to institute asacrament.26 Zwingli accepted the apos-tolic status of James, but argued a differ-ent interpretation: “James here has taughtnothing other than sincere sympathy for

25

and visitation of the sick.”27 On another,very different, occasion Zwingli hurledthis same text at Luther. Arguing againstLuther’s doctrine of the corporeal pres-ence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper,Zwingli, not without a touch of irony,asked his opponent: When James enjoinsthe elders to pray for and anoint the sick,why does he not also say, “shall partakeof the body of Christ with him,” especiallywhen you hold that faith is establishedand sins forgiven through this eating?28

On the thorny issue of faith and works,Zwingli had no difficulty in harmonizingJames and Paul. The two apostles merelydirected their writings to different audi-ences:

Paul wrote against “works”-men(operarios) and superstitious, sancti-monious hypocrites. James, on theother hand, opposed ambitiousboasters of vain faith, pseudo-christianous, who had received thegospel but were not living accord-ing to it.29

In an apparent slap at the Lutherans,Zwingli denounced those who “take awayfrom faith the works of love, glorying onlyin the empty word, ‘faith.’”30

Therefore like Christ himself andPaul and James we warn them thatthey must show forth their faith bytheir acts, if they have faith…. Hencewe preach the law as well as grace.For from the law the faithful andelect learn the will of God.31

Not only is James’s authority unques-tioned, he is placed on an equal rankingwith Paul and Christ! Unlike Luther,Zwingli did not feel the need to separatelaw and gospel into polar opposites. Thelaw served a positive function in theChristian life insofar as it encouragedthe active embodiment of faith. “Christ

will not let his people be idle,” Zwingliwrote. Moreover, “Those who have rightlyunderstood the mystery of the gospel willexert themselves to live rightly.”32 Jameswas valued by Zwingli because, perhapsmore than any other New Testament writ-ing, its primary theme is the outworkingof faith in action.

The Epistle of James and CalvinZwingli’s effort to “rehabilitate” James

as a proper book for Protestant Christianswas advanced further by John Calvin,whose commentary on James, originallypublished in French in 1550, is perhaps thebest sixteenth-century treatment of theepistle. Calvin was well aware of thedisputes, ancient and contemporary,concerning the canonicity of James, yet hegladly included it among the authenticscriptures for, as he put it, “I can find nofair and adequate cause for rejecting it.”He regarded it as apostolic even thoughhe doubted (here he differed fromZwingli) that it had really been written bythe Apostle James. The precise identity ofthe writer was of immeasurably lessimportance than the divine origin of thebook. And, if James seemed to preach lessof the grace of Christ than we might pre-fer, “we must remember not to expecteveryone to go over the same ground.”James, then, contains nothing unworthyof an apostle of Christ. It is a rich store ofvaried instruction on many aspects of theChristian life. It contains striking pas-sages—this is Calvin’s rough outline of thebook—“on endurance, on calling uponGod, on the practice of religion, onrestraining our speech, on peacemaking,on holding back greedy instincts, on dis-regard for this present life.”33

Calvin, no less than Luther, was con-vinced that a right standing before God

26

Not for nothing does the Lord by hisprophets throw sharp words at thosewho sleep on ivory couches, whopour on precious ungents, whoentrance their palates with sweet-ness to the notes of the zither, to allintents like fat cattle in rich pastures.All this is said to make us keep a per-spective in all our creature comforts;self-indulgence wins no favor withGod.37

Calvin’s sermons on James were deliveredat a time when streams of refugees werepouring into Geneva because of the per-secution of Protestants in France, Italy, andother lands. Most of these were destitutepeople who arrived with virtually noth-ing. One of Calvin’s major activities as areformer was to organize a system ofsocial welfare and relief to meet the basicneeds of those who sought asylum in hiscity. Many of the patrician families ofGeneva resented the influx of foreignrefugees and needed to hear, Calvin felt,James’s sermon on the sin of discrimina-tion (2:8-11).

If you are cloaking your actions witha pretended charity, it will soon bestripped off. God bids us love ourneighbors, not certain selected per-sons. Now the word neighbor isunderstood across the humanrace…. God expressly commends tous both the alien and the enemy, andall who in any sense might seemcontemptible to us.38

For Calvin to be a “doer of the word”implied a willingness to share one’swealth with the poor since, after all,everything we own has come from thehands of God (1:17).

James Does Not Oppose Worksto True Faith But Rather to aFalse Conception of Faith

Medieval Catholic exegetes of this pas-sage often distinguished between two

derived from sheer grace and not fromhuman effort, as his (in)famous doctrineof double predestination clearly demon-strates. But he was also convinced, no lessthan Zwingli, that true faith would issuein righteous living just as a bud invari-ably yields a flower. Calvin tried to bal-ance these two concerns in his exegesis ofJames 2:14-26, a pericope referred to by amodern scholar as “one of the most diffi-cult passages” in the New Testament.34 Weshall look at three aspects of Calvin’s richand nuanced interpretation of this passage.

The Discourse of Faith and WorksIs Related to James’s Concernfor the Poor

In his exposition of the first verse ofthe epistle (1:1), Calvin noted that Jameswas writing for those “who need, not doc-trine, but effective lines of encourage-ment.” In particular, they needed to beencouraged “to behave warmly and gen-erously toward their neighbors.”35 WhenJames admonished his readers “to visit”(episkeptesthai) the widows and orphans(1:27), he did not exhort them to paypolite pastoral calls, but rather “to stretchout a hand for the relief of those who areoppressed.”36 A prime example of faithwithout works is the comfortable Chris-tian who greets a hungry neighbor with a“God bless you,” but does nothing toalleviate the other’s distress (2:16).

Calvin was not a social egalitarian; hetaught that one’s economic status shouldbe accepted as the result of divine provi-dential ordering. But far from using thisprinciple “to comfort the comfortable,” heupbraided the wealthy for their compla-cency and greed. The rich stand in dan-ger of divine judgment because they havepampered themselves while their poorneighbors suffer from want.

27

levels of faith—fides informis (unformedfaith) and fides formata (formed faith). Theformer was a kind of elemental faithwhich implied an assent to the basic truthsof Christianity but which could exist apartfrom the infusion of sacramental grace.Fides formata, on the other hand, was thatfaith which, informed by the habit ofsupernatural love, was active in goodworks. Such works were in fact requis-ite for the earning of merits which con-tributed toward the justification of thesinner.39 Calvin was aware of this inter-pretation and explicitly rejected it. Thescholastic schematization of salvationturned faith and grace into essentiallyhuman qualities (though they were alsosaid to be gifts of God) which issued in ananthropocentric doctrine of justification.For Calvin, as well as for Luther, grace wasthe unilateral favor of God toward help-less sinners, and faith the gift whichenabled sinners to grasp the divine prom-ise of acceptance.

But how to reconcile this Protestant,even Lutheran, understanding of justifi-cation with James? Calvin suggested thatJames’s polemic was directed against apretended, flaccid faith that was only apretext for unbelief. Thus James intro-duced his hypothetical interlocutor with,“If someone says he has faith….” Jamesdoes not attribute genuine faith to such ahypocrite, nor does he at any point offer afull evangelical definition of faith. “Justremember, he is not speaking out of hisown understanding of the word when hecalls it ‘faith,’ but is disputing with thosewho pretend insincerely to faith, but areentirely without it.”40 No wonder, then,that James denies any salvific effect to thiskind of faith, which is hardly worthy ofthe name.

Calvin underscored the interpretation

by pointing out certain stylistic featuresof James’s discourse. Erasmus had repre-sented this passage as a dialogue betweenone side that supported faith withoutworks, and another that supported workswithout faith, with James steering amiddle course between them. Such a read-ing, Calvin held, was untenable for itmissed the deep irony in James’s speech.Calvin saw 2:18 (alla … tis = “But some-one will say” RSV) as introducing a rebut-tal to the vain boast of those who imaginethey have faith, but whose lives revealtheir faithlessness. The irony is continuedin the next line as well: “Show me yourfaith without works”—an obvious impos-sibility, since, as he has just shown, such afaith is not real but dead (2:17).

This line of argument is furtherreflected in James’s comment about thedevils who believe and tremble. In thisstatement, Calvin felt, the irony wasmingled with a touch of sarcasm: “It isquite ludicrous for anyone to say thatdevils have faith.” Since even the devilstremble at the thought of divine judgment,one who only professes a vain, empty faithis worse off than the hosts of hell! In sum,this remark is simply further proof that“our whole discussion is not on the sub-ject of faith, but on a certain uninformedopinion of God, which no more bringsGod and man together than looking at thesun lifts us up into the sky.”41

For James “Justification by Works”Refers to the Demonstration ofFaith in Deeds of Love

Calvin contended that James’s inten-tion was not to show the source or man-ner of one’s attainment of righteousness(this is evident to all, he said!), but simplyto stress a single point: that true faith isconfirmed by good works. This is also the

28

key to the reconciliation of James andPaul.

When the sophists set James againstPaul, they are deceived by thedouble meaning of the term ‘justifi-cation.’ When Paul says that we arejustified by faith, he means preciselythat we have won a verdict of righ-teousness in the sight of God. Jameshas quite another intention, that theman who professes himself to befaithful should demonstrate thetruth of his fidelity by his works.James did not mean to teach uswhere the confidence of our salva-tion should rest—which is the verypoint on which Paul does insist. Solet us avoid the false reasoningwhich has trapped the sophists, bytaking note of the double meaning:to Paul, the word denotes our freeimputation of righteousness beforethe judgment seat of God, to James,the demonstration of righteousnessfrom its effects, in the sight of men;which we may deduce from the pre-ceding words, Show me thy faith, etc.42

The examples of Abraham and Rahabare test cases of this interpretation. Abra-ham was reckoned righteous by God morethan thirty years before he sacrificed hisson Isaac (cf. Gen 15:6), but in that actof obedience Abraham “revealed theremarkable fruition of his loyalty” to God.The character of Rahab the harlot is citedto show that God expects all believers,both those of great renown and those oflowest degree, to demonstrate their faithin good works. Indeed, Calvin went so faras to say that “at no time was any person,of whatever condition or race or class,reckoned among the justified and believ-ing if they did not show works.”43 In thissense Calvin was willing to allow that weare not justified by faith alone—that is,by a bare and empty awareness of God;we are justified by works—that is, ourrighteousness is known and approved byits fruits.

The Epistle of Jamesand the Anabaptists

The Epistle of James continued to stircontroversy throughout the sixteenth cen-tury. It was quoted at the Council of Trentnot only to buttress the sacrament ofextreme unction but also to support theRoman Catholic doctrine of justification.44

James was also a favorite writing of theradical reformers. They frequently quotedJames 5:12 (“Do not swear”) as a warrantfor their eschewal of all oaths, and James1:5 (“If anyone needs wisdom, let him askof God”) as a basis for the direct, unmedi-ated revelations they claimed to havereceived.45 This latter verse was also afavorite text of the Mormon prophetJoseph Smith.

More commonly, the Anabaptists usedthe Epistle of James as a foil for whatthey perceived as the mainline Protestantdoctrine of “cheap grace.” MelchiorHofmann lambasted those who cried“Believe, believe; grace, grace,” but whosefaith was fruitless and dead (James 2:17).46

Menno Simons explicitly refuted Luther’sdenigration of James as a “strawy epistle.”

The Lutherans teach and believe thatfaith alone saves, without any assis-tance by works…. And therefore theimportant and earnest epistle ofJames is esteemed and treated as a“strawy epistle.” What bold folly! Ifthe doctrine is straw, then the cho-sen apostle, the faithful servant andwitness of Christ who wrote andtaught it, must also have been astrawy man; this is as clear as thenoonday sun. For the doctrineshows the character of the man.47

Menno was disturbed by the anti-nomian tendencies which he felt werelatent in Luther’s doctrine.

They strike up a psalm, Der Strick istentzwei und wir sind frei, etc.

29

(Snapped is the cord, now we arefree, praise the Lord) while beer andwine verily run from their drunkenmouths and noses. Anyone who canbut recite this on his thumb, nomatter how carnally he lives, is agood evangelical man and a pre-cious brother.48

The Anabaptist concept of discipleship asa willful repudiation of the old life and aradical commitment to Jesus as Lord couldnot tolerate such a lackadaisical abuse ofthe grace of God.

ConclusionsWhat conclusions can we draw from

this overview of Reformation perspectiveson the Epistle of James?

Luther’s one-sided emphasis on justi-fication by faith, though necessary andcorrect in itself, led him to overly-dispar-age the equally evangelical (in the senseof “pertaining to the gospel”) message ofJames. Using a Christocentric hermeneu-tic, Luther arrived at a “canon within thecanon.” He allowed Scripture to be itsown critic and followed the principle ofChristum triebet to the near exclusion ofJames. We cannot follow Luther in thisrespect, but neither should we be tooharsh in our criticism of him either. Whileall Scripture is inspired by God, it is notall to be interpreted univocally. Few Chris-tians today would advocate capital pun-ishment for disobedient children ormandatory beards for all pastors (Deut21:18ff.; Lev 21:5). In practice, if not intheory, everyone makes a discriminatoryuse of the canon. Witness “favorite verses”or “favorite books,” the “Roman” road ofsalvation, or even the printing of the NewTestament and (sometimes) Psalms to theexclusion of the rest of the Bible. Lutherwas right to evaluate and interpret theScriptures in the light of Jesus Christ, since

Jesus himself did this “You have heard itsaid … but I say unto you.” Luther waswrong in that his grasp of the message ofJesus Christ was too restricted.

The more positive reception of Jamesin the Reformed tradition and among theAnabaptists is a welcome corrective toLuther’s harsh judgment. Yet here too wemust be on guard. Just as an over-empha-sis on sola fide can result in antinomianism,so the preaching of works, unleavened bylove, can issue in legalism. Later Calvin-ists gave way to this temptation as theyscrupulously sought evidence of theirelection in their good works.

We should also be wary of a too easyharmonization of James and Paul. Zwingliand Calvin give the impression that thetwo apostles saw eye to eye, almost as ifthey had just ironed out the differencesbetween them over a long distance con-ference call! Each should be seen, how-ever, as delivering his own unique,uncompromised word from the Lord tothe community of believers of which hewas a part, and through that communityto the larger “communion of saints”through the ages. Still, when James andPaul are placed alongside the other wit-nesses of the biblical revelation, they both,separately and together, present an aspectof the gospel which the church todayneeds urgently to hear: namely, that whilefaith and works may be distinguished,they can never be separated. In our timeno one has expressed this truth better thanKarl Barth: In the act of faith “we have todo with the being and activity of theliving God towards us, with Jesus ChristHimself, whom faith cannot encounterwith a basic neutrality, but only in thedecision of obedience.”49

30

ENDNOTES1 This article first appeared in Review

and Expositor 83 (Summer 1986) 369-382. Used by permission. Note thatsome minor editorial changes weremade, especially changes to conformthe piece to this journal’s format.

2 Indeed, Gerhard Ebeling has arguedthat not only the history of theology,but the entire history of the Chris-tian church should be read as thehistory of the interpretation of theBible. See his perceptive essay,“Kirchengeschichte als Geschichteder Auslegung der HeiligenSchrift,” Wort Gottes und Tradition

(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck andRuprecht, 1964) 9-27.

3 “A Lent-Sermon Preached at White-hall, February 20, 1628 [1628/9]” inThe Sermons of John Donne, vol. 8, ed.Evelyn M. Simpson and George R.Potter (Berkeley: University of Cali-fornia Press, 1956) 335.

4 Joseph B. Mayor, The Epistle of James

(London: Macmillan and Co., 1892),passim, cites many parallels betweenJames and early Christian literature.Recent scholarship has not followedMayor’s lead in seeing these paral-lels as evidence of James’s earlyacceptance in the church. Cf. Mar-tin Dibelius, James, trans. Michael A.Williams (Philadelphia: FortressPress, 1976) 51-61; Sophie Laws, ACommentary on the Epistle of James

(London: Adam and Charles Black,1980) 6-26.

5 Cf. The list of Origen’s citations fromJames in Mayor, James, lxiii-lxiv.Origen described James as “theepistle which is current” (en te

pheromene Iakobou epistole). Eusebius(Ecclesiastical History III.25) classifies

James among the “disputed” writ-ings (antilegomenon) as opposed tothe “agreed upon” books (homo-

legoumenois) of the New Testament.Eusebius Kirchengeschichte, ed.Eduard Schwartz (Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1952) 104.

6 Cf. Jerome, De viris inlustribus 2:J. P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus com-

pletus, Series Latina 22:642f. [here-after, MPL].

7 Cf. Paulus Bergauer, Der Jako-

busbrief bei Augustinus (Vienna:Verlag Herder, 1962). Bergauer dis-plays great erudition in discussingAugustine’s high view of James inorder to prove the (rather moot)point that Luther in his disparage-ment of James was not a goodAugustinian! We only learn ofAugustine’s “expositio” of Jamesfrom his book of retractions: Sancti

Aureli Augustine Retractationum, ed.Pius Knoll (Leipzig: G. Freytag,1902) 169-170. Lingering doubtsabout James’s authenticity contin-ued in the East, especially amongthe Syrian Christians. For example,Paul of Nisibis, a Nestorian theolo-gian, placed James among theantilegomena as late 545. See JamesH. Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical

Commentary on the Epistle of James,

The International Critical Commen-tary (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark,1916) 97-98.

8 Venerabilis Beda, “Expositio superDivi Jacobi Epistolam,” MPL, 93:39.Bede held that James was placedbefore the epistles of Peter and Johnin the canon because the church atJerusalem, over which James pre-sided, was the “fons et origio” of thepreaching of the gospel.

9 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,

III Supplement, question 29, article I.10The author of the epistle is called

“James the Apostle and brother ofthe Lord.” Canons and Decrees of the

Council of Trent, trans H. J. Schroeder(London: Herder, 1941) 99-100, 17-18.

11Annotationes in epistolam Jacobi

(Basel, 1516) 1026: “Nec enim referrevidetur usquequaque majestatemillam et gravitatem apostolicam.Nec hebra-ismi tantum quantum abapostolo Jacobo qui fuerit episcopusHieroso-lymitanus expectaretur.”

12“Resolutiones Lutherianae superpropositionibus suis Lipsiae dis-putatis,” quoted in Ropes, James, 25.

13Luther’s Works, American ed. (St.Louis: Concordia Publishing House,1972 [hereafter, LW]) 25:235.

14LW, 25:235-236.15LW, 25:152, 251-252.16D. Martin Luthers Werke, Kritische

Gesamtausgabe (Weimer: Bohlau,1883 [herafter, WA]) 17:404.

17WA, 7:231. For a fuller exposition ofthe development of Luther’s doc-trine of justification and its contrastwith patristic and scholastic views,see Timothy George, Theology of the

Reformers (Nashville: BroadmanPress, 1986).

18WA, 2:425.19WA DB, 6:537; LW, 35:362. Luther’s

sharp caricature of James mayhave been in part a reaction to theexcessive praise heaped upon theepistle by his colleague and lateropponent, Andreas Bodenstine vonKarlstadt. In 1520 Karlstadt hadpublished a treatise, De Canonicis

Scripturis Libellus, in which hestoutly defended the canonicity ofJames. A recent interpreter has gone

31

so far as to say that “perhaps it isbecause of Karlstadt that the bookof James was kept in the ProtestantCanon.” Calvin A. Pater, Karlstadt as

the Father of the Baptist Movements

(Toronto: University of Toronto Press,1984) 22.

20Das Neue Testament Deutsch von D.

Martin Luther (Stuttgart: DeutscheBibelgesellschaft, 1983) 404.

21Ibid., 420. LW, 35:396.22LW, 35:397. In Table Talk, Luther set

forth the hypothesis of the Jewishauthorship of James: “I maintainthat some Jew wrote it who prob-ably heard about Christian peoplebut never encountered any. Since heheard that Christians place greatweight on faith in Christ, he thought, ‘Wait a moment! I’ll oppose themand urge works alone.’ This he did.He wrote not a word about the suf-fering and resurrection of Christ,although this is what all the apostlespreached about.” LW, 54:424.

23WA, 39/II:199; LW, 34:317. Cf. PaulAlthaus, The Theology of Martin

Luther, trans. Robert C. Schultz (Phila-delphia: Fortress Press, 1966) 81.

24WA, 21:349.25Zwingli never preached on the

Apocalypse, whose canonicity hedoubted. Cf. G. R. Potter, Zwingli

(Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1976) 61. Scholars have onlyrecently begun to examine Zwin-gli’s contribution as an exegete. Seethe very helpful article by FritzSchmidt-Clausing, “Die unterschi-edliche Stellung Luthers und Zwing-lis zum Jacobusbrief,” Reformatio 18(1969) 568-585.

26LW, 36:118.27Huldrych Zwingli: Writings, vol. 1,

ed. E. J. Furcha and H. W. Pipkin(Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publi-cations, 1984) 102. Calvin differedfrom Zwingli in that he believed theanointing in James referred to agenuine sacramental action. He sawit, however, as a temporary gift ofhealing valid only for apostolictimes, “which God withdrew fromthe world fourteen hundred yearsago.” Calvin’s New Testamentt Com-

mentaries, ed. David W. Torranceand Thomas F. Torrance (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 3:314-315.

28Zwingli: Writings, 2:264.29“In Epistolam Beati Iacobi Brevis

Expositio,” Huldrici Zuinglii, Opera,

ed. M. Schuler and J. Schultheiss(Zürich, 1838) VI/2:249.

30Ibid., p. 271.31Zwingli and Bullinger, ed. G. W.

Bromiley (London: SCM, 1953) 273.32Ibid., 108.33Calvin’s Commentaries, 3:259.34Dibelius, James,154.35Calvin’s Commentaries, 3:261, 282.36Ibid., 275.37Ibid., 307. This is from Calvin’s com-

ment on James 5:5.38Ibid., 279. Calvin assigned the relief

of the poor to the deacons. See Rob-ert M. Kingdon, “The Deacons ofthe Reformed Church in Calvin’sGeneva,” in Mélanges d’histoire du

XVIe siècle offerts à Henri Meylan

(Geneva: Droz, 1970) 81-90.39See Heiko A. Oberman, The Harvest

of Medieval Theology (Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press,1962), passim, but esp. 468-469.

40Calvin’s Commentaries, 3:283. Cf.alsoZwingli’s interpretation: “Iacobusergo quum fidem iustificare negat,non de vera illa, viva, et efficaci

perque caritatem operante fideintelligit, cui in scripturis instificatioet salus tribuitur, sed eam (quamiactant quidam) quae non fides(tametsi eam ita appellent) est, sedpotiuo opinio, taxat et reprobat,quam et idcirco mortuam fidemappellat, quod caritate (quae veravita est) careat.” Zuinglii Opera, VI/2:271.

41Calvin’s Commentaries, 3:284.42Ibid., 285.43Ibid., 287.44Canons and Decrees of Trent, 34, 42.45On James 5:12, see Peter Rideman,

Confession of Faith (London: Hodderand Stoughton, 1950) 117-180, 200,204; on James 1:5, Melchior Hof-mann, “The Ordinance of God,” inSpiritual and Anabaptist Writers, ed.G. H. Williams and Angel Mergal(London: SCM Press, 1957) 203.James 5:12 is also cited in articleseven of the Schleitheim Confes-sion: Mennonite Quarterly Review 19(1945) 243-253. To my knowledge,no Anabaptist of the sixteenth cen-tury produced a commentary onJames. However, Francis Stancaro,a leader of the “evangelical rational-ists” in Poland, published a com-mentary on James at Basel in the1540s. See G. H. Williams, The Radi-

cal Reformation (Philadelphia: West-minster Press, 1962) 721.

46Hofmann, Spiritual and Anabaptist

Writers, 201.47The Complete Writings of Menno

Simons, ed. John C. Wenger (Scott-dale, PA: Herald Press, 1956) 333.

48Ibid., 334.49Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (New

York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1956)IV/1:765.

32

IntroductionThe great task of the Church, accordingto James, is to live in the hope of the com-ing of the Lord that has now drawn near(James 5:7-9). Even though the parousia isimminent, it is not subject to calculation.James regards the present hour aseschatological by virtue of the Gospelitself. Through this word, God has createdbelievers as the “first fruits” of the finalharvest (James 1:18). They represent theentrance of the endtime into the presenttime. Believers, therefore, must wait in analien and hostile world for God’s righ-teousness to be established (James 5:9;1:20). Their faith must undergo testing inorder to come to perfection. The immi-nence of the Lord’s coming is not contra-dicted by delay, but accompanied by it.The early rains must be followed by thelatter rains before the final harvest comes(James 5:7). Like a farmer waiting for “theprecious produce of the field,” believersare to wait with patience. The prophets“who spoke in the name of the Lord” pro-vide the pattern “of suffering and of per-severance” that we are to imitate. Thosewho persevere prove the goodness ofGod, that he is full of compassion andmerciful (James 5:10-11).

Waiting for the endtime brings respon-sibilities toward one another in the mean-time. One of the chief concerns of the letteris the conduct of believers in Christiancommunity. James frames his admoni-tions mainly in negative terms, as warn-ings against the tendency to live byhuman wisdom. Faith in Jesus Christ is

incompatible with favoring the wealthyin the congregation. We must rather loveour neighbor as ourselves, especially theneighbor in need (James 2:1-13). Not manyare to become teachers within the congre-gation. Those who do so are to displaytheir wisdom in kind and gentle behav-ior (James 3:1-2, 13-18). Conflicts withinthe congregation arise from the evildesires within its members, and are to bebrought to an end by the repentance ofeach and every one involved (4:1-12).Believers must not “groan” to God againstone another, calling down his judgmenton their neighbor. The Judge himself is atthe gates (James 5:9). Probably James’sstern prohibition against swearing an oathalso has in view relations within the com-munity of faith. Above all else, we are tobe open and honest in our dealings withone another (James 5:12).

In the closing section of the letter, Jamesprovides positive instruction concerningthe life of the waiting community of be-lievers, giving us a glimpse of the waythings ought to be among us (James 5:13-20). The initial exhortations are exceed-ingly brief: “Is someone among yousuffering? Let that one pray. Is someoneamong you cheerful? Let that one singpraises.” That James characterizes well-being with a mere psychological term(euthymei), which signifies a good spiritor happy mood, corresponds to his largermessage. Present prosperity and abun-dance are only temporary. Like the flowerof grass, those who are rich shall witherand fall (James 1:9-11). All of us are like a

The Waiting Church and Its Duty:James 5:13-18

Mark A. Seifrid

Mark A. Seifrid is an associate pro-

fessor of New Testament at The South-

ern Baptist Theological Seminary where

he has taught since 1992. Dr. Seifrid

received the Ph.D. in New Testament

from Princeton Theological Seminary. His

dissertation on justification was published

by Brill and he has a forthcoming work

on justification titled Christ, Our Righ-

teousness: The Justification of the

Ungodly as the Theology of Paul

(Eerdmans).

33

mist, which appears only briefly and thenvanishes (James 4:14). Within this worldwe have only fleeting moments of joy,nothing that is substantial or enduring. Yeteven these brief seasons of earthly happi-ness call for praise and thanksgiving toGod, who is the source of all good (James1:17). Both in sorrow and in joy, we areto direct our hearts to God. In such peti-tion and praise all believers are united,however their immediate circumstancesmight differ.

The greatest part of the closing instruc-tions deals with sickness and sin withinthe congregation. We often allow suchmatters to be pushed to the periphery ofour life as a church. James places them atthe center, undoubtedly because he seesin them the primary expression of theGospel and its power. His instructionsreflect both a sober realism about ourcondition in this world and a firm faith inthe salvation granted us in Christ. Sadly,the practices that he enjoins have falleninto neglect and disuse in our churches.

Anointing the SickIn the case of the anointing of the sick,

our cultural distance from the text and thedifficulties of interpretation have contrib-uted to our reticence to appropriateJames’s instructions. All too often, thepassage has been misused to reject medi-cal care or to claim that God will heal allour illnesses here and now. These abusesof the text should not hinder us from us-ing it rightly. The practice that James en-joins has its primary background in theauthority Jesus gave to his disciples toproclaim the kingdom, cast out demons,and heal in his name. Mark’s Gospelreports that in carrying out their commis-sion the twelve, “anointed many whowere sick with oil and healed them” (Mark

6:13). Undoubtedly the disciples’ proce-dure had its roots in the common practicein the ancient world of anointing with oilfor medicinal purposes.1 In this respect,their approach to healing differed fromJesus, who, according to the Gospels,never employed oil in his healings. Herather merely spoke a word, simplytouched his subjects, or applied his spittle(or a clay made from his spittle). Thedifference in the manner of healing likelysignals Jesus’ unique authority. His wordor touch is sufficient to heal. His use ofsubstances that would otherwise bringreligious pollution marks him as stand-ing above religion.2 The disciples, on theother hand, conform to the contemporarypractice of anointing with oil for healing.Jesus’ implicit acceptance of their actionsignifies that he does not intend for themto reject the human arts of healing. Thesame conclusion applies to the passagefrom James with which we are concerned.His instructions are not to be construedas a prohibition against seeking medicaltreatment.

That is not to say that the disciples per-formed a mere medical procedure or thatJames envisages the elders of the churchpracticing medicine alongside prayer. Thedisciples’ anointing of the sick took placeunder Jesus’ authority. Its healing virtuedid not rest any longer in the applicationof oil, but in the word of the One who hadsent them forth. Medicine is not rejectedhere, but it is transcended. In the disciples’mission, anointing with oil became a vis-ible sign of the healing that Jesus himselfbrings in his announcement of thekingdom. The same conclusion obviouslyapplies to the passage in James. Theelders are to anoint the one who is sick“in the name of the Lord,” that is, by theauthority of Jesus Christ (James 5:14). The

34

practice of anointing appears as a continu-ation of the commission that Jesus for-merly gave to his disciples. The healingpromised in the name of the risen Lordstands in continuity with Jesus’ ownhealings and manifests the kingdom ofGod that he proclaimed.3

It is important to notice a number ofthe details of the text in order to rightlyunderstand the anointing of the sick asJames envisions it. In the first place, Jamesexpects the ailing member of the congre-gation to initiate the visitation by theelders. He does not have in view a rite thateffects healing of itself. The faith of the onewho is sick (and that one’s own desire forhealing) plays a fundamental role in theanointing. James’s language here impliesa formal summoning of the elders of thechurch. This is no mere visit by an indi-vidual Christian, nor by a pastor alone.No special gift of healing to a particularbeliever comes into view here (cf. 1 Cor12:9, 28, 30). The elders probably representthe congregation as a whole. The eldersare to pray “upon” the one who is sickand “anoint him with oil in the name ofthe Lord” (James 5:14). Again, the anoint-ing is not viewed as working of itself, butrather is an expression of faith in God’shealing power. The “prayer of faith,” notthe anointing in and of itself, brings heal-ing (James 5:15). James has just instructedthe one who is suffering to pray (James5:13). That does not mean, however, thatChristians do not need the prayers of oth-ers. Christians especially need others’prayers in times of illness and weakness.Here the church itself, through its elders,is called upon to intercede for one of itsmembers. The unusual expression, “topray upon” which James employs hereprobably signifies the authority of Jesus,in whose name the elders pray.4 They of-

fer their petition as representatives of theChurch that belongs to him and bears hiscommission. Just as Peter announced toAeneas, “Jesus Christ heals you!” (Acts9:34), so James understands such healingsto come from Jesus himself.

It is clear James has a debilitating, life-threatening condition in view. The onewho is afflicted is instructed to summonthe elders, which suggests that the illnessprevents him or her from coming to them.The promise that “the Lord will raise thatone up” likewise presupposes that the ail-ing person is bedridden. Nevertheless, thename formerly given to the Roman Catho-lic rite, “extreme unction,” misses thepoint of the text, and is better designated(as it now is), “the anointing of the sick.”It is not at all clear that James imaginesthe one who receives the anointing to beat the hour of death. And the anointing isgiven as a promise of healing, not merelyas a preparation for death.

Does James then imagine that everyChristian who follows this practice willreceive immediate healing, or that theabsence of immediate recovery reveals alack of faith? That would hardly fit thewitness of Paul, who suffered with a“thorn in the flesh,” which the Lord didnot remove (2 Cor 12:7-10), who oncefeared that he might lose Epaphroditus toillness (Phil 2:25-27), and who on at leastone occasion had to leave an ailing com-panion behind (2 Tim 4:20).5 James, too,expects a testing of faith through trial, notan immediate deliverance from trouble.This is the theme that begins and ends hisletter. Moreover, from the first century tothe present believers have grown ill andpassed away; otherwise the first witnessesto the Gospel would still be here with us!

How then are we to understand thepromise James offers that “the prayer of

35

faith shall save the one who is sick andthe Lord shall raise that one up”? The bestinterpretation by far is that which recog-nizes that James alludes to our final “sal-vation” and our “being raised” from thedead. With a gentle play upon words,James simultaneously leaves open thepossibility of immediate healing whilepointing to the hope of the resurrection.Faith in Jesus Christ and the prayeruttered in faith unfailingly save. Of thisthe one who is ill may be unconditionallyassured. Healing may delay, but it shallcertainly come. This hope of the resurrec-tion in no way replaces a physical heal-ing with a “spiritual” one. James directsour attention to the ultimate and abidinghealing that we await, which is unambigu-ously physical, and in which all sicknessand death shall forever be removed. Eventhe healings that Jesus performed in thecourse of his earthly ministry were tem-porary signs of the presence of the king-dom that is yet to come in its fullness.James understands that God still grantssuch healings when and where he willsto do so. The way in which he describesthe anointing of the sick suggests that heregards any immediate healings that mayoccur as continuations of Jesus’ ministry.As we have noted, they take place “in thename of the Lord” (James 5:14), and likeJesus’ own healings anticipate the perma-nent healing that is yet to take place. Suchhealings display the authority given toChrist, and serve as tangible signs thatGod is merciful and that his purposes forhis people are good. Yet, they are merelytransient signs that point to the arrival ofthe kingdom. James has just directed hisreaders to wait patiently for the comingof the Lord. It should come as no surprise,then, that he subtly reminds them of it inthis context. Until the Lord appears, one

of the trials that all believers must endureis that of sickness and death. The practiceof anointing with oil that James enjoinsprovides a visible sign of the Lord’s prom-ise to save us. In each individual case, itrests with him whether he grants animmediate and temporary “salvation” asa sign of that which is yet to come, orwhether he calls that person to wait forthe ultimate and permanent healing of theresurrection. It would encourage the faithof many believers in times of trial andbring much glory to God if we took upthe practice of anointing and prayer forthe sick in our churches.

James closes this instruction with thepromise that if the one who is ill “hascommitted sins, it shall be forgiven him”(James 5:15). His conception of salvationcontains a dynamic element. Sins have areal effect. Evil desire, when it has cometo completion, brings forth sin, and sinbrings death (James 1:14-15). This is truenot merely for the world, but also for thebelievers whom James addresses in theseverses. James regards it as possible thatthe ailment that has struck the one in needis the result of particular transgressions.The Scriptures elsewhere clearly indicatethat God may well send sickness or evendeath as a temporal punishment for cer-tain sins.6 He does this to discipline hischildren and keep them from further evil.Yet not all sickness is the result of specificsins. James merely raises the possibilitythat such is the case. Moreover, those whobelong to Christ have a weapon to whichthey may resort: prayer by other Chris-tians in the name of the Lord, in whomthere is forgiveness of sins. Here sin anddeath are overcome.

It is worth remembering that in the bib-lical understanding, sickness and deathare the result of our fallen state. Not

36

every affliction that comes to us is theresult of particular transgressions, but allillness ultimately derives from our sinful-ness. Indeed, the Scriptures sometimesuse the image of incurable wounds or sick-ness to describe human sinfulness andrebellion.7 From this perspective, theincarnation of the Son of God can be seento have enormous significance. He tookour condition upon himself in order toredeem us from it: “He himself took ourillnesses and bore our diseases” (Isa 53:4;Matt 8:17). His cross accomplished ourforgiveness, and for this reason workedour healing: “by his wounds you werehealed” (1 Pet 2:24). The healings thatJesus performed were not mere “won-ders” standing arbitrarily alongside hisoffer of forgiveness. They were visibleexpressions of the effect of that forgive-ness, which secures participation in thecoming kingdom of God: “In order thatyou might know that the Son of Man hasauthority on earth to forgive sins, I say toyou, rise, take up your pallet and walk”(Mark 2:10-11). To possess the forgivenessof sins is to possess eternal life, freedomfrom sin and death.

The Call to PrayerIt is not at all surprising, then, that

James draws a conclusion from the prom-ise of healing that is applicable to theentire community of believers: “Thereforeconfess your sins to one another and prayfor one another, so that you might behealed. The prayer of a righteous personeffects much, since it actively works”(James 5:16). Here again, James engagesin a play upon words. In the first instance,the “healing” that results from mutualconfession most likely is the remission ofsins itself. In accord with other biblicalwriters, James pictures sin as a “sickness”

from which only the Lord can deliver us.We are powerless to save ourselves. Wemust cling to the Lord and the prayeroffered in his name.

Secondly, an echo of James’s precedingallusion to the resurrection from the deadas the ultimate healing is heard in thisverse as well. The “healing” from sin,which is the object of our prayer for oneanother, will find its full expression whenwe are raised from the dead. Then, andonly then, such petitions may cease. Theloss of this practice within our churchesis to be lamented even more than the lossof the anointing of the sick. We are sounaccustomed to it and unpracticed in it,that it has become very difficult for us toimplement. James does not intend for usto become introspective. Confession ofconscious sins is sufficient. Furthermore,James surely does not wish for us to vio-late the dignity, trust, or private concernsof other persons in the confession of ourown sins. Undoubtedly other factors mustbe taken into consideration as well. Mostimportantly, the focus of our confessionmust remain upon our prayer for oneanother. That is James’s primary topic. Hedoes not measure the effect of the confes-sion by our soul-searching, but by thepromise attached to prayer. Otherwise,mutual confession may devolve into avain exercise in self-achieved catharsis.Despite all the difficulties attached to it,however, the practice is worth recovering.James calls us to something more biblicaland profound than the “accountabilitygroups” that have currently become sopopular among evangelical Christians.Mere accountability to one another caneffect outward change and conformity togroup standards, but it has no power totransform the human heart. The Churchhas a far greater calling, and far greater

37

resources in the Gospel. Our prayer forone another in the name of Jesus Christbrings with it the forgiveness of sins andthe healing of our persons, which Godalone can work. We have been given theresponsibility of participating in his workin one another’s lives.8

As an example of the efficacy of theprayer of a righteous person, James pointsto the biblical story of Elijah. He is intro-duced as “a human being, like to us inpassions” (anthropos en homoiopathes

hemin). Probably James is countering thecommon image of Elijah as a spiritualhero, by pointing to his weaknesses thatappear in the biblical narrative (see 1Kings 19:4-18). Elijah was a righteousman, but he was at the same time a sinnerlike us. For this reason, we can takeencouragement from his experience. Itwas Elijah’s fervent prayer that was pow-erful, first bringing drought for three anda half years and then bringing the droughtto an end (James 5:17-18).9 As is frequentlythe case in this letter, the example thatJames chooses is a tangible representationof the truth he wishes to teach. Rain waswithheld from Israel as a judgment uponit and Ahab its king, who had led it astrayto the worship of Baal (1 Kings 18:18). Theend of the drought followed Elijah’striumphant confrontation with the proph-ets of Baal and the conversion of thepeople (1 Kings 18:41-46). In calling atten-tion to this part of the story, James may bequietly reminding his readers of the effi-cacy of their cries to “the Lord of hosts,”who shall finally bring judgment uponthose who oppress the poor (James 5:4-6).His elaboration of the effect of Elijah’s sec-ond petition is likewise revealing: “Heprayed again, and the heaven showeredrain, and the earth sent forth its fruit”(James 5:18). James here recalls Isaiah

55:10-11, where God’s word is said toeffect his saving purposes just as certainlyas the rain and snow cause the earth toyield its produce. James is perhapsreminding us that behind Elijah’s prayerstands the word of God. The prophetmerely entered into the effecting of God’spurposes in his praying. Even moreimportantly, the allusion to Isaiah speaksof the accomplishment of God’s savingpurposes on earth. Just as Elijah’s prayerbrought about a time of repentance andblessing, so believers in Christ may takecourage that God will hear their prayerfor one another and bring to pass theirpetitions. Again, James’s glance is castforward to the coming of the Lord. Thetext of Isaiah that he echoes intimates anew creation, in which heaven and earthexperience peace and blessing.

Restoring SinnersJames’s final exhortation deals with the

duties of Christians toward those who fallaway. The passage therefore forms some-thing of a chiasm. The opening instruc-tion concerning the anointing of the sickhas its counterpart in the restoration of theapostate believer. We need not enter intoquestions concerning the perseverance ofthe saints here. It is sufficient to recognizethat at least in outward and visible ways,those who name Christ as Savior some-times do “wander astray from the truth”(James 5:19).10 Although we shall not beable to persuade all of them, we shall beable by the grace of God to persuade someof them. We have a duty, like Jesus him-self, to seek out the lost sheep, whoeverthey might be. Probably James continuesto recall something of the Scripturalaccount of Elijah’s ministry, since in hisencounter with the prophets of Baal,Israel was turned back to the Lord

38

Scriptures is found in the Hebrew textof Job 42:8, where God informs Job’swould be comforters that he shallpray “upon” (i.e. “concerning”) them(we’iyyôb ‘abdî yitpallel ‘alêkem) and Godshall accept his prayer. In James 2:7 therich are said to blaspheme “the noblename which is named upon you.” Jameshere has in mind the name of Jesus Christto whom believers belong. The biblicalidiom expresses God’s ownership andblessing (e.g. 2 Sam 6:2, Isa 63:19, Jer34:15, Dan 9:18, Amos 9:12). It may bethat the expression here reflects theinvocation of Jesus’ name upon the syna-gogue of believers.

5 See Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James,Pillar New Testament Commentary(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 244-245.

6 See for example John 5:14; 1 Cor 5:5; 1Cor 11:30.

7 E.g., Jer 3:22; Hos 7:1; Ps 107:17-20; Mark2:17. See Johannes Hempel, Heilung als

Symbol und Wirklichkeit im Biblischen

Schrifttum, 2nd ed. (Göttingen: Vanden-hoeck & Ruprecht, 1965).

8 On this topic see Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life

Together, translation and introduction byJohn W. Doberstein (New York: Harperand Brothers, 1954).

9 In attributing the period of rainlessnessto Elijah’s prayer, James builds upon thebiblical narrative, perhaps finding anindication of prayer in Elijah’s openingword to Ahab, “As the Lord the God ofIsrael lives, . . .” See Luke Timothy John-son, The Letter of James a New Translation

with Introduction and Commentary, AnchorBible Commentary (New York: Double-day, 1995) 336.

10The dynamic element within James’sconception of salvation again comesto expression here. The believer who

(1 Kings 18:37). Despite debate on thequestion, it is most likely that when Jamesspeaks of someone turning a sinner from“the error of his way” and thereby saving“his soul from death,” he has in view thesalvation of the one who has fallen intoerror.11 The one who does so “covers amultitude of sins.”

In this final appeal, James implicitlyappeals to believers to be like God, whois unchangingly good to all persons(James 1:17). He is the one who has savedall of us from death and who has coveredall our sins in Jesus Christ. When we con-sider all these exhortations together, itbecomes quite clear what James expectsof the Church as it waits for its Lord: Weare to be “little Christs” to one another,meeting one another in the present mis-ery of sickness and sin with the promiseof the Gospel and the power of prayer inJesus’ name.

ENDNOTES1 See, for example, the references in H. L.Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar

zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud

und Midrasch, Band 3 (Munich: C. H.Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1961)s.v. Mark 6:13 (1:11-12); James 5:14 (3:759).

2 See David Smith, “Jesus and the Phari-sees in Socio-anthropological Perspec-tive” Trinity Journal 6 (1985) 151-156.

3 Jesus’ healings stand alongside his proc-lamation as a witness to the kingdom.On this topic, see H. K. Nielsen, Heili-

gung und Verkündigung: Das Verständnis

der Heilung und Ihres Verhältnisses zur

Verkündigung bei Jesus und in der ältesten

Kirche, Acta Theologica Danica 22(Leiden: Brill, 1987).

4 The only parallel to James’s usage whichI have been able to locate in searches ofthe Thesaurus Linguae Graecae and the

39

restores the sinner saves a life fromdeath (James 5:20). Only those whocontinue in faith shall receive salva-tion (James 1:12, 2:14-26, 5:11).

11The coordination of the pronounsand the general thrust of the pas-sage argue for this reading.

40

A Perfect Work:Trials and Sanctification

in the Book of JamesRon Julian

Ron Julian teaches biblical studies

at McKenzie Study Center, tutors at

Gutenberg College, and pastors at Ref-

ormation Fellowship, all in Eugene,

Oregon. He is the author of Righteous

Sinners, published by NavPress.

IntroductionNobody enjoys the trials of life, yet theBible consistently urges us to find themvaluable. In the book of James we find themost straightforward and challenging ofall such statements: “Consider it all joy,my brethren, when you encounter vari-ous trials” (1:2).1 I cannot be the only onewho, as a young believer, choked on thisstrange exhortation. Surely joy is ourresponse to things we eagerly desire; howcan “trials” be considered desirable? IsJames merely using hyperbole? No, Jamesmeans what he says. Trials are truly some-thing to rejoice in, not because they aredesirable in themselves, but because theylead to a most desirable outcome: Theylead to our sanctification. How James con-nects trials and sanctification is the topicof this essay.

Before I begin my analysis of James,some explanations are in order. First of all,my use of the word “sanctification” needsto be clarified. I have no intention ofexploring the Bible’s use of the word“sanctification” (hagiasmos). James is verymuch concerned with the believer ’sgrowth into Christian maturity, and mod-ern theological dialogue tends to borrowthe word “sanctification” to refer to thatprocess, a term that James himself doesnot use. I will argue, however, that Jamesmakes a strong contribution to our con-

cept of change in the Christian life—to ourconcept of sanctification.

Second, while I will focus on the first

twelve verses of James, I will regularlyhighlight the connection between theseverses and the coherent picture of sanc-tification that unfolds in the rest of theletter. Given the history of James studies,however, I need to say something aboutmy use of the word “coherent” and theassumptions I am making. Normally, acareful interpreter approaches an epistlelooking for two important and relatedthings: (1) The situation(s) of the readersthat the author addresses; and (2) The flowof thought that gives unity and coherenceto the author’s individual statements.Some commentators, however, argue thatwe should downplay James’s letter-likeopening and treat the book as an exampleof wisdom literature, something like aNew Testament version of the book ofProverbs. If James is indeed a book likeProverbs, then it lacks the very things theinterpreter is most eager to find: (1) asituation that the author addresses and(2) coherence.

Martin Dibelius takes this line of think-ing to an extreme. In James 1:4-5, forexample, James repeats the word leipo,“… that you may be perfect and complete,lacking in nothing. But if any of you lacks

wisdom…” Normally, such a repetitionwould suggest a coherent connection inthe author’s mind between the “perfec-tion” in verse four and the “wisdom” inverse five. Dibelius argues, however, thatsince we know in advance that there is nocoherence between the isolated ideas in

41

the book, James must have deliberatelyrepeated the word to create an artificialconnection between ideas that were in factunrelated. James moves from a saying ontrials to a saying on prayer with a “catch-word link.”2 In this line of thinking, thegenre dictates that we should not onlystop looking for coherence, but that weshould also deliberately ignore whateverindicators of coherence we find. I thinkJames Adamson is more persuasive thanDibelius: “We have too long been ham-pered by two misconceptions, first thatJames lacks unity and coherence, and sec-ond that James’s concept of Christianityis peculiar and unorthodox.”3

This paper assumes the unity of James.The following conclusions were reachedafter examining the whole book and willguide the approach undertaken in the restof the essay:

(1) What James has written is not per-sonal, but it is purposeful. James pre-sumably writes to a number ofchurches with which he has limitedpersonal contact, and the letter hasnone of those personal commentsthat mark Paul’s letters to thechurches he founded. James wrotein order to address problems that heknew the churches were facing.(2) The letter is not tightly argued, butit is coherent. James is clearly notstarting with a premise and work-ing his way step-by-step over fivechapters to a conclusion. Further-more, the connections that exist be-tween his ideas are often leftimplicit. Yet it would be a mistaketo neglect the real focus and coher-ence of the letter. James is clearly aman who has read the prophetsand wisdom literature, and his workhas a certain generality befitting apastoral letter written to manychurches. James has by no meansthrown together a disconnected setof proverbs.

The Testing of Your Faith“Consider it all joy, my brethren, when

you encounter various trials, knowingthat the testing of your faith producesendurance” (1:2-3).

What is Faith?James does not share the current popu-

lar conception of “faith” as a vague beliefthat things will be all right. He does noteven share the popular Christian concep-tion that “faith” just means believing inJesus. For James, faith includes a distinc-tive set of beliefs with specific content. Tobe sure, the message we are to believebegins with the truth that Jesus is theChrist, a truth that James neither explainsnor defends, but merely assumes. Jameshighlights the aspects of that message thatdirectly address our predicament, ourdestiny, and the choices we face. He tellsus that the human soul is in peril of death(5:20) and the adverse judgment of God(4:12), and it needs to be saved. Such sal-vation is available (2:21); God will justify(2:24) and be gracious to (4:6) the one whoresponds to Him (4:8). In contrast to thejudgment awaiting the unredeemed, thosewho come under God’s grace stand toinherit the crown of life (1:12) and a placein God’s kingdom (2:5) at the return of theLord (5:7-8). This inheritance is valuablebeyond measure; therefore, even thoughbelievers may suffer much in this life, theirfuture hope makes them rich (2:5) andexalted (1:9). These are the truths that aperson with “faith” will believe.

This set of beliefs, this faith, confrontsus with two striking implications:

(1) If the gospel is true, then the mostimportant events of my life are stillahead of me (belonging to the endof the age), invisible to me now.(2) Nevertheless, now is the timewhen I must decide whether I actu-ally believe this message. The impor-tant decisions of today all hang onwhether I believe what the gospel

42

says about my tomorrow.

Faith under TrialBy its very nature, therefore, faith will

be tested by the circumstances of life. Wewill be forced to decide whether thegospel’s intangible truths are substantialenough to affect how we live today. Indiscussing this testing, James uses tworelated terms: “Consider it all joy, mybrethren, whenever you encounter vari-ous trials, knowing that the testing of yourfaith produces perseverance.”

The Greek word peirasmos and itsrelated forms sometimes refer to explicitattempts to entice and seduce someone toevil; in such contexts we usually translateit as “temptation.”4 James, however, seemsto be using it with its broader sense of “atrial, something that tests what we aremade of.” In the context, peirasmos is usedin parallel with dokimion, a word thatemphasizes the idea of testing, and so “tri-als” seems the best translation. The issue,however, is not quite that simple. In thelarger context (1:13), James uses the verbform peirazo in the narrower sense: Goddoes not “tempt” anyone. One mightreasonably argue that James is saying,“Rejoice in temptations, but do not blamethem on God.” It is unlikely, however, thatJames is denying that the peirasmois ofverse three come from God.5 He later usesAbraham’s offering of Isaac as an exampleof faith at work, and surely James knowsthat God is described there as having“tested” Abraham (LXX Gen 22:1, peirazo).We would do better to see James qualify-ing the broad use of peirasmos in 1:3 bydenying that it includes the narrowermeaning in 1:13; that is, God tries ourfaith, but we should not interpret that asGod’s attempt to tempt us, i.e., to seduceus into evil.

Scholars often compare James 1:3 with

1 Peter 1:7 and discuss the derivation ofdokimion in both.6 It is sometimes arguedthat James emphasizes the process (“test-ing”) and Peter the favorable outcome(“proof”). Several explanations are pro-posed for this difference, some involvingthe idea that James and Peter are in factusing two different words. A definitiveanswer may be impossible. The differencebetween James and Peter can be exagger-ated, however. Peter may be emphasizingthe favorable outcome, but the testing pro-cess is not far from view. James may beemphasizing the process, but a favorableoutcome is clearly part of his picture aswell; one does not rejoice in failing the test.A good translation in both James andPeter is “the proving of your faith.” Thiscaptures both features of this word inJames’s usage: it is a process that resultsin proof. The idea of proof, genuineness,is at the heart of the dokim- word group.The process of proving the genuinenessof our faith results in “perseverance”;indeed, as we will see, perseverance isthe proof of genuineness.

James, then, has a concept that faith—the rich set of beliefs about the need forsalvation and the inheritance of theredeemed—is proved in the midst oftrials. What does that look like? We canbegin to answer that question by consid-ering the rest of James’s letter. While I can-not write an entire commentary on Jamesin the space of one article, three points willat least present the general direction ofmy thinking:

First, while James is not writing to aspecific set of people, neither is he writ-ing vague exhortations to generic Chris-tians. A strong note of warning soundsthrough the letter, suggesting that Jamesis at least generally aware of real spiritualproblems in the churches to which he is

43

writing. He uses phrases such as: “do notbe deceived” (1:16); “be doers and not justhearers who delude themselves” (1:22); “ifanyone thinks himself to be religious… hisreligion is worthless” (1:26); “quarrels andconflicts among you” (4:1); “you adulter-esses” (4:4); and “you double-minded”(4:8). James is not writing about trials in avacuum; he is writing to churches wherefaith is under trial.

Second, wealth is a big issue in Jamesbecause wealth is often an issue that forcesbelievers to confront the claims of thegospel. For example, James rebukes thosewho would fawn over a rich man in theassembly and yet ignore and dishonor apoor man (2:1-7). Why? Because believ-ers should be nicer? Because charity to thepoor is a religious duty? No, the issue ismore fundamental. We toady to the richbecause we value money; we want to beassociated with those who have it; and weeven hope that some of it will come ourway. (Tell me that you would not takenotice if Bill Gates joined your church andstarted tithing.) In contrast, a poor manhas nothing that can do us any worldlygood. No prestige, and certainly nomoney, will come to us. James mustremind his readers what their faith tellsthem about who and what is truly valu-able: “…did not God choose the poor ofthis world to be rich in faith and heirs ofthe kingdom which He promised to thosewho love Him?” (2:5). Who is truly rich?The unbelieving rich of this world, whowill lose everything and enter into judg-ment? Or believers, poor though they maybe, who stand to enter into the riches ofeternal life in the kingdom of God?

Third, trials, therefore, are not neces-sarily hardships. The rich of James’s day,it is true, brought suffering upon many(2:6-7; 5:4-6). But the rich may try your

faith just by attending the assembly. Theymay be a trial simply because, in a worldlysense, they have more to give than lowlywidows and orphans. In fact, they maybe a trial by the example they set, by theworldly ambition they may incite in theheart. In all of these situations, theworldview of believers is under trial. Dothe rich understand the salvation of theirsouls to be their real need? Can the tran-sitory riches of this world amount to realwealth, or is that only found in the eter-nal promises of the gospel? How can theysay that they “believe” the gospelpreached by the apostles if they refuse toaccept any of its implications for theirvalues, goals, and lives?

Staying the CoursePerseverance (NASB “endurance,”

from hypomone) is a major theme in theNew Testament, starting with the teach-ing of Jesus (see especially Luke 8:5-15).In the face of whatever obstacles, pres-sures, and temptations they may encoun-ter, believers are called to persevere in thefaith. In 1:3, James describes perseveranceas resulting from the proving of our faith;in 1:12, he implies that persevering undertrial is the proof itself. These two ideas fitwell together and demonstrate how Jamesconceives of perseverance: Perseveranceis the inevitable result of genuine faithunder trial, because such faith stays thecourse and thereby shows itself to begenuine.

In a way, perseverance as a test of faithis easy to understand. A man shows hisunbelief clearly if he walks away from thefaith, saying, “I’ve changed my mind;Jesus is a fraud.” James, however, seemsto have a more subtle concept of perse-verance. Nowhere in his letter does hewarn his readers against abandoning the

44

doctrines concerning Christ. Unlike thebook of Hebrews, where the author genu-inely fears that his readers will walk awayfrom belief in Jesus as the Christ, Jamesshows no such fears for his readers. He isnot worried about people abandoningtheir religion; he is afraid that they arerefusing to act on the implications of thatreligion. James is sometimes criticized forhis lack of Christological material; Lutheris well known to have complained aboutit.7 But we need to recall that Jamesaddresses a specific situation, and that heis apparently not concerned about thedoctrines of his readers. Instead, he isworried about the values, attitudes, andactions that ought to be resulting fromthose doctrines. James fears that his read-ers are abandoning the faith in everythingbut name.

If my friends “persevere” in callingthemselves my friends over the years, andyet ignore me, refuse to help me, and gos-sip about me, what does their persever-ing “friendship” really mean? They maycall themselves my friends, but they actinstead as my enemies whenever they arefaced with a choice. Such is James’s con-cern for some who claim to have “faith.”Their religion tells them that Jesus is theking of God’s kingdom, but they live as ifthe kingdom were not real and did notimpinge on their practical living. The hopeof gaining citizenship in that kingdommakes every believer rich, but James seesmany of his readers living as if onlypeople with money are rich. If people failto live according to the gospel, then whatdo they mean in saying they “believe” it?If people live contrary to the gospel, thentheir professions of faith are vain andmeaningless. For James, true perseverancemeans following the implications of thegospel wherever they may lead. If I will

not live out the implications of thegospel, then I have not “persevered,”however long I may hold to the Christianreligion.

Perfect and Complete“And let endurance have its perfect

result, that you may be perfect and com-plete, lacking in nothing. But if any of youlacks wisdom, let him ask of God, whogives to all men generously and withoutreproach, and it will be given to him. Butlet him ask in faith without any doubting,for the one who doubts is like the surf ofthe sea driven and tossed by the wind. Forlet not that man expect that he will receiveanything from the Lord, being a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways”(1:4-8).

Lacking in NothingSo far James has used the word

hypomone (“endurance, perseverance”)once, asserting that it is the desirable out-come of the process that proves our faith.Although I have looked ahead in the let-ter to suggest that James has a concept ofperseverance deeper than just “remaininga Christian,” his opening comments inverse three use the term without clarifi-cation. The clarification begins with versefour. In order to see the nature of James’sargument, it is helpful to discuss twoissues of translation. First, the use of theword “let” (in “let endurance have”),although acceptable as a translation of athird person imperative, can be mislead-ing. James is not saying that perseverancewould have a perfect result if only wewould “allow” it to do so. What wouldthat mean? Can we somehow sabotage agenuine, from-the-heart perseverance infaith and keep it from having any impacton our lives? No, I regard the imperative

45

as explaining what must characterize“perseverance,” if it is truly to be a faith-affirming, joy-producing aspect of abeliever’s life. “Perseverance is to have aperfect work,” he says. Perseverance ismeant to have a certain result, implyingthat if this result is lacking, then one’s faithis not genuine.

Second, James says that perseveranceis intended to have an ergon teleion (“per-fect work”) in the believer’s life. “Perfect”is another potentially misleading transla-tion; it seems to suggest a moral perfec-tion that is not James’s intent. A clearer (ifperhaps pedestrian) translation might be“perseverance is to have a fully-developed

work, so that you might be fully-developed

and complete, lacking in nothing.” Teleios

refers to “arriving at the goal,” “becom-ing all that you were intended to be.” Anadult is a child that has become teleion (asin Heb 5:14); an oak tree is an acorn thathas become teleion. “Mature” is often agood translation. For James, it is faith thatmust mature. Faith must arrive at itsappointed goal, so that believers are notdeceived (1:16), are doers and not justhearers (1:22), have a religion that is notworthless and defiled (1:26-27), have afaith that can truly save them (2:14), dem-onstrate the wisdom from above (3:17),and strengthen their hearts (5:8). Accord-ing to James, faith is immature and incom-plete if it has not yet persevered undertrial and grown thereby.

We can see the concept of a perfected,fully-developed faith by considering thestory of Abraham in the light of James’sdiscussion in 2:21-24. Abraham heard thepromises concerning his son Isaac, and hebelieved them. But later God testedAbraham, requiring him to act on hisbelief by offering up Isaac. James says,“faith was working with [Abraham’s]

works, and as a result of the works, faithwas perfected (from the verb teleioo).” Faithhas been completed and fully-developedwhen the believer faces the implicationsof that faith and acts on them. An untestedfaith may be genuine, but it has yet to mani-fest itself in its shaping of the believer’smind and actions in observable ways.

The world in which James’s readerslive provides the arena in which faith canbecome “perfect” through action. Left tothemselves, they would undoubtedlychoose a life without troubles or even dif-ficult choices. But this is not an option.They live in a world where rich peoplehave all the power, including the powerto make their lives miserable, and whereriches seem to promise to make life ful-filling now. Their even poorer brethrenseem at best negligible and at worstobstacles to fulfillment. Jealousy and self-ish ambition are tearing their assembliesapart, as each “believer” vies with theothers for power. Under such pressures,the believers must decide what theirinheritance in the kingdom of God meansto them. To turn away from the desirefor riches and find contentment in thepromise of God is a life-changing, faith-maturing kind of decision. The doctrinethat Jesus is the Christ takes on a personalsignificance that has been forged underpressure.

But What If You Do Lack?In this section of the essay, I connect

v. 5 “if any of you lacks wisdom” withv. 4, “perfect and complete, lacking innothing.” Unlike the approach taken byDibelius mentioned above, I understandthat the repetition of “lack” is crucial inshowing the flow of James’s thought. Notall scholars agree that these verses shouldbe connected, and I sympathize with their

46

reservations. Two aspects of vv. 5-8 cangive the impression that they stand alonein James’s thought: (1) the meaning of“wisdom,” and (2) the nature of James’steaching on prayer.

First, there is some question aboutwhat James means by “wisdom.” In thepopular preaching that I have heard, theassumption is often made that James istalking about divine guidance. We are toldthat if we do not know God’s will in acertain situation—if we “lack wisdom”—we should ask God for guidance, believ-ing we will receive it.

But it is unlikely that James means“divine guidance” when he refers to “wis-dom” in v. 5. In chapter three, Jamesdescribes “the wisdom from above,” andhe defines it entirely in terms of thegodly behavior of the wise person. Iwould summarize James’s argument inthis way: Not many of James’s readersshould become teachers because of thecaustic power of the tongue, the organ thatreveals the state of the heart beneath. Ifany would claim to be wise, then let themremember what a godly wisdom lookslike. Having accepted the implicationsof the gospel, wisdom has abandoned jeal-ousy and selfish ambition, and so pro-motes peace. In other words, wisdom isthe fruit in the life of a mature, testedChristian, the only sort of person whoshould be a teacher. Moreover, in 1:5,James describes God as giving this wis-dom “generously and without reproach.”It is difficult to conceive how God couldjustly reproach us for not having Hisdivine guidance in advance, but Hecould certainly reproach us for nothaving wisdom, that is, for being fools.The tenor of James’s letter shows that hefears exactly that for many of his readers;their worldliness suggests that they are

ungodly fools. James 1:5, then, is thefirst of several gracious and redemptivecomments James makes. James knowsthat the maturing process has not, in fact,happened for many of his readers. Theyshould be growing in maturity andwisdom, as they struggle with the impli-cations of their faith in the midst oftheir trials. The difference, for example,between God’s wealth and the world’swealth should be clearer to them, since lifehas been forcing them to confront thosevery issues. But what if that is not hap-pening? What if his readers are indeedfools? What should they do? They shouldturn to a gracious God and ask Him togive them wisdom.

Second, another piece of evidence thatmight suggest that 1:5-8 is unconnectedwith the previous discussion of “trials” isJames’s exhortation to pray. James’s wordssound like a typical, stock exhortationto believe that your prayers will beanswered. At first glance, this seems tohave little connection with rejoicing intrials. Given my understanding of thepreceding verses, however, it makes sensethat James would qualify his promise ofGod-given wisdom. Is wisdom givenautomatically to whomever asks? No,God’s response depends on what has ledto the lack of wisdom in the first place.Is it mere immaturity, or is it rooted in astubborn refusal to believe what God haspromised? That is the issue that leadsJames to make the qualification. WhenJames’s readers ask God for wisdom,they must decide again whether theybelieve, as Hebrews 11:6 puts it, that God“exists and that He is a rewarder of thosewho seek Him.” God will give wisdom tofools, but not to fools who refuse tobelieve.

47

Our High Position“But let the brother of humble circum-

stances glory in his high position; and letthe rich man glory in his humiliation,because like flowering grass he will passaway. For the sun rises with a scorchingwind, and withers the grass; and its flowerfalls off, and the beauty of its appearanceis destroyed; so too the rich man in themidst of his pursuits will fade away”(1:9-11).

Two points should be made about thissection. First, in light of the above discus-sion, this section has a stronger connec-tion to what precedes it than is initiallyapparent. In the midst of the trials ofJames’s readers, perseverance should befostering wisdom, a new and matureperspective on life. One way this newperspective will manifest itself is in theirattitude toward the rich. Even if thebelievers are poor, they understand thattheir position is exalted in comparisonwith the rich, who will lose all that theyhave in the end. Rather than envy andpursue the rich, believers will rejoice intheir own exalted status as heirs of a greatkingdom.

Second, unlike some commentators,8 Ido not think that James is contrasting thebrother of humble circumstances with therich brother. There are two alternativeexplanations for the absence of a nounwith the adjective “rich”: (1) James expectsthe word “brother” to be understood fromthe first clause, or (2) the adjective “rich”is being used as a noun itself, “rich (one).”The second alternative is just as plausibleas the first, since rich (usually plural butsometimes singular)9 is often used aloneas a noun. Which explanation fits the con-text best? In his letter, James reminds thebelievers that the rich drag them into court(2:6), blaspheme the name of Christ (2:7),

withhold pay from their laborers (5:4), andput to death the righteous man (5:6). Thissuggests that James conceives of the richnot as their brothers, but as enemies of thefaith. Not every rich person is an unbe-liever, but given the cultural situation ofthe time, James uses his rhetoric to makea legitimate generalization: the rich arepersecutors and unbelievers. The com-mentators who reject the idea that Jamesmeans “rich unbelievers” are put off bythe idea that James would sarcastically tellthe rich to “glory” in their downfall, butthat should not surprise us; chapter fivehas a very similar ironic tone. Versesnine through eleven are James’s (first)reminder to the brethren of the way Godinverts the scales: Those who seem to haveit all will be brought low, but those whoseem to have only God in this life will beexalted in the end.

Who Are the Blessed?“Blessed is a man who perseveres

under trial; for once he has beenapproved, he will receive the crown of life,which the Lord has promised to those wholove Him” (1:12).

Who is truly blessed? Who is truly for-tunate? Who is truly to be envied? Thesequestions are addressed throughout theBible: in the Prophets and the Writings; inthe teaching of Jesus; and here in James.James 1:12 is arguably the key statementin the entire book of James. It is not therich who are to be envied; it is the manwho has real faith and knows it is realbecause it has been tested and approved.The crown that is life has been promisedto those who love God. How do we knowwho loves God? They are those whosefaith has been proven through their per-severance under trial.

This, then, is the culmination of James’s

48

opening exhortation: “Consider it all joywhen you encounter various trials.” Iwould paraphrase 1:2-12 as follows:

I know that your difficulties seemsorrowful, but I urge you to see themas the testing of your faith and torejoice in them. After all, the processthat proves the genuineness of yourfaith results in your persevering inthat faith, and that is highly desir-able. I do not mean that just “beinga Christian” for a long time meansanything. True perseverance is thekind of wrestling with the truth thatultimately brings about the comple-tion and maturity of your faith; itmakes you wise. Now, many of youmay recognize that you have notbeen living out your faith in thisway; you are not wise, but fools.Take heart; ask God and He will gra-ciously raise you up to the wisdomyou lack. But there is no cure for thefolly rooted in stubborn unbelief.You still must decide that Godexists and that He keeps His gra-cious promises. Now in your par-ticular trials, let me remind you of aprofound bit of wisdom that manyof you have been forgetting: it isbelievers, even if they are poor inthis life, who truly have everything,and those who seem to have every-thing in this life will lose it all in theend. After all, who are the trulyblessed ones? Those whose faith hasbeen tested and proven, those whostand to enter into eternal life. Thisis why we rejoice in the testing ofour faith: a tested and matured faithis the mark of citizenship in God’skingdom, a prize above all else.

Implications for Sanctificationand Assurance

In the light of the first twelve verses inJames, (at least) two important implica-tions emerge. Over the years Christianshave proposed many different models forthe process we call “sanctification.” Someof those models strike me as being some-what incoherent, with little connectionbetween the faith that saves and theresulting sanctification. Just as if someone

said to me, “Stand on your head, and Iwill give you a dollar,” God tells me,“Believe that Jesus rose again, and I willinject you with something that makes you‘good.’” In that scenario, sanctificationseems like an unrelated prize (or perhapsburden) that happens to accompanybelief. This model, since it can suggest nonatural connection between belief andsanctification, tends to drift toward see-ing sanctification as optional as well. Godsaves those who “believe”; the next stepof reforming one’s behavior may or maynot be taken by the believer.

The model James articulates is very dif-ferent. The “works” that emerge throughthe testing of our faith are intrinsic to thevery nature of faith itself. We believe thatGod is good, and in the midst of life wehave the opportunity to act on that belief.We believe that the crown of life awaitsthe faithful, and in the midst of life wemust decide whether that crown is morevaluable than the things of this world.Sanctification is not an extra benefit/obligation tacked onto faith; sanctificationis faith becoming itself.

This perspective can be difficult to seeif we assume (which James does not) that“faith” is simply “believing that Jesus isthe Christ.” Under that assumption, itmight seem logical to argue that there isno connection between belief and sancti-fication.10 But to James, believing thatJesus is the Christ means believing thatHis kingdom will truly come to pass andthat citizenship there is valuable beyondanything else. Such a faith confronts thebeliever with a choice that cannot beavoided: Do you believe that Christ’skingdom is the treasure God says it is?That choice is made in the midst of real-life situations.

Some theological traditions have

49

resisted the idea that assurance of salva-tion should or could be tied in any way toour works, i.e., to the way we live ourlives. This is often done for very goodmotives. Those traditions are trying tohelp us avoid the self-righteousness aboutwhich Paul warns us so eloquently andfocus our attention on the work of Christon the cross. This is a worthy goal. ButJames will not allow us to divorce assur-ance from our works. Instead, as shock-ing as it might sound to some, Jamesmakes a case for assurance through sanc-tification. Faith is a real decision to believewhat God has proclaimed and promised.The reality of that decision, however, ishidden in our hearts until life forces us toact on our beliefs. Why are trials some-thing to rejoice over? Because anythingthat makes us act on what we reallybelieve forces our hearts out into the open.To see our own faith emerging as a real,vital force in our own life is a blessingbecause the crown of life goes to peoplewith such faith.

The connection between assurance andsanctification is sobering; salvation comesto those who have a living faith. But thisshould be sobering, not terrifying. We arenot being asked to prove our worthinessfor salvation; salvation is a gracious giftto real people with real weaknesses, yetpeople who also have a real commitmentto the truth. God is not testing our moralperfection; He is testing our faith. As aChristian of many years who has talkedto many other Christians about theirexperience, I think I know something ofhow God accomplishes His testing amongus. One person sees the irrevocable shat-tering of a lifetime dream and must askhimself, “Can I trust God? If my only suc-cess in this world is to find a place in God’skingdom, am I a winner or a loser?”

Another person falls into the moral fail-ure she has always condemned in othersand must finally ask herself, “Will I sub-mit to the humiliation of grace? Will Iadmit that I have just as much need forforgiveness as anyone else?” These trialsrepresent turning points for the soul; ideasto which I once submitted in theory I amrevisiting in practice, in the hard light ofreal life. We do not go through such timeseasily or gracefully. The journey of faithcan look bad at times, as it did for someof James’s readers. But James remindsthem that God is gracious: “Draw near toGod and He will draw near to you” (4:8).One day you will look back on thesetroubled times as the best days of your life,the days when you began to know your-self as a believer and to learn wisdom.

ENDNOTES1 All Scripture quotations are from the

NASB unless otherwise indicated.2 Martin Dibelius, A Commentary on the

Epistle of James (Philadelphia: FortressPress, 1976) 77.

3 James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976) 20.4 For examples of peirasmos and peirazo

referring to “temptation,” see Matt 4:1,1 Tim 6:9. For the meaning “testing,” seeJohn 6:6, Heb 3:8.

5 Contra Adamson, 70.6 For discussions of the lexical issues, seeF. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Gram-

mar of the New Testament and Other Early

Christian Literature, trans. Robert W.Funk (Chicago and London: The Univer-sity of Chicago Press, 1961) §263.2;Walter Grundmann, “dokimos, et al.,” inTheological Dictionary of the New Testa-

ment, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W.Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1964) 2:255-260.

50

7 A brief discussion of Luther’s viewsis found in Simon J. Kistemaker,New Testament Commentary: Exposi-

tion of the Epistle of James and the

Epistles of John (Grand Rapids:Baker, 1986) 20-21.

8 Some commentators who opt for the“rich brother” in 1:10 are: Adamson,61; James H. Ropes, A Critical and

Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle

of St. James (Edinburgh: T. & T.Clark, 1978) 146; Douglas J. Moo,The Letter of James: An Introduction

and Commentary (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1985) 68. An argumentfor the “rich unbeliever” is found inPeter H. Davids, The Epistle of James:

A Commentary on the Greek Text

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 77.9 For the plural of plousios used sub-stantively, see Mark 12:41, and Rev13:16. For the singular, see Matt19:23, and Luke 16:21.

10For an argument asserting that thereis no logical connection betweenfaith and how we live, see ZaneHodges, Absolutely Free! (GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1989) 27-29.

51

52

IntroductionIt has long been recognized that James

has, among the New Testament books, aspecial relationship to Jewish wisdomliterature. A quick glance at the marginsof a Nestle-Aland text turns up morethan thirty cross-references to Jewish wis-dom literature of the Old Testament orintertestamental period, versus ten to thePentateuch, eighteen to Prophets, andseventeen to Psalms (some of which are“wisdom” psalms). While Jewish wisdomliterature clearly influenced James, schol-ars still debate the nature and extent ofthat influence. Almost all scholars whohave studied James agree that there issome kind of relevant background inJewish wisdom literature. However, whilesome would go so far as to call Jamesthe “wisdom” book of the NT,1 and a feweven suggest that it was originally astrictly Jewish wisdom text that was onlylater Christianized,2 others such as Ropesand Dibelius argue that, though Jamesseems to be influenced in some way byJewish wisdom materials, the essentialnature of the book is hellenistic.3 Mostinterpreters in the last few decades havelanded somewhere in between, recogniz-ing the influences of both Greek rhetori-cal devices and language, and Jewishmaterial content and forms. Further, theJewish influence is not restricted to wis-dom. The margins of Nestle-Aland27 alsoreveal that of the eight actual quotations

in James, only two are wisdom texts, mostcitations being from the Pentateuch. More-over, the fierce invective of 5:1-6 certainlysounds more like Israel’s prophets thanher sages.

The object of this study is two-fold:first, to identify more precisely the rela-tion of James to the genres of Jewishwisdom literature, and second, to describethe character of James’s particular “wis-dom” content. That is to say, we will ask,first, “Can James be called ‘wisdom litera-ture’ in any sense,” and, second, “What isthe nature of the wisdom that James urgesbelievers to ask for?”

James and Jewish WisdomLiterature

Before we can address the first ques-tion, we must ask, “what is Jewishwisdom literature?” This is not easy toanswer, since those books that are gener-ally identified as wisdom are so diverse,both in form and in content. Thoughscholars give various answers to this ques-tion, some general distinguishing marksare frequently mentioned.

First, we agree with Crenshaw that theterm “wisdom” can apply either to cer-tain generic forms that appear in the wis-dom literature (e.g., series of aphorisms,instruction books, nature lists, extendeddialogic poetry, self-addressed reflection)or to the themes that wisdom tends toaddress in various forms (e.g., the mean-ing of life, the problem of suffering, mas-tery of one’s environment, grappling withfinitude, and the quest for truth that isassumed to be concealed within the cre-ated order).4 Wisdom literature can beidentified by form or by content.

Second, wisdom is a practical matter.It is not a quest for knowledge for its ownsake, but knowledge of how to live. Wis-dom “is the reasoned search for specific

Dan McCartney is an Associate Pro-

fessor of New Testament at Westminster

Theological Seminary where he has

taught since 1986. His most recent book

is titled Why Does It Have to Hurt: The

Meaning of Christian Suffering, and he

is working on a commentary on James

for the Baker Exegetical Commentary on

the New Testament. Dr. McCartney has

writ ten two other books, as well as

numerous ar ticles and book reviews.

The Wisdom of James the JustDan G. McCartney

53

ways to assure well-being and the imple-mentation of those discoveries in dailyexistence.”5 It also appeals to the humandesire to have some measure of controlover what happens to us. Wisdom’sadmonitions are expressed not in termsof duty but of advantage.6

Furthermore, wisdom is, at least in itsearlier forms, something hidden. Prov-erbs, Job, Qoheleth, Sirach, and Wisdomof Solomon are all searching books, whichtry to ascertain the truth of the matter.Wisdom is typically linked to creationalrather than covenantal theology becausewisdom is looking for the inherent orderin the world, which enables humans tocontrol their world. But Jewish wisdombooks, coming from a cultural environ-ment that depends on God, must strugglewith the tension between the self-relianceimplicit in such a search and dependenceon God’s mercy and disposition, whichcertainly cannot be controlled by humaneffort.7

Does James fit this pattern? First of all,we must note that there is no question thatthere are several points of similarity. E.Baasland8 has noted at least eight “wis-dom” elements in James:

(1) James knows and uses Proverbs.James 4:6 cites Proverbs 3:34, andJames 5:20 at least directly alludesto Proverbs 10:12. To this we mightadd the echo of Proverbs 27:1 (“donot boast about tomorrow”) inJames 4:13-16, and many other par-allels, though these do not necessar-ily evince direct dependence.(2) James explicitly refers to wisdomin 1:5 and 3:13-18.(3) According to Baasland, at least40 of the 108 verses of James haveliterary parallels in wisdom litera-ture.(4) The language and style of Jamesreflect wisdom origins. Baaslandrefers to the work of Halson,9 whonotes that of James’s 67 NT hapaxes,34 are found in the wisdom litera-

ture of the LXX. And of the 21 wordsthat James shares with only oneother NT author, 19 occur commonlyin the wisdom books.(5) James is fond of using highly pic-torial language, in ways similar toSirach and other wisdom writers.Some of this is directly paralleled inSirach. Compare Sirach’s “double-heart” (Sir 1:28) and testing by fire(Sir 2:5) with James’s double-minded doubter (1:8) and the fire ofthe tongue (3:6). But it is the sheerquantity of these vibrant illustra-tions that marks James as clearlystanding in this tradition. Thestream of illustrative examples onthe tongue in James 3:3-12 is breath-taking: bits in horses’ mouths, greatships and little rudders, sparks andforest fires, the taming of animals,fresh and salt water springs, andfruit trees, all in just ten verses. Thereader also encounters dead bodies(2:26), waves and wind (1:6), mistyvapors (4:14), mirrors (1:23), fadingflowers (1:10), and patient farmers(5:7-8).10

(6) James, alone among NT writers,specifically names Job as a patternto be emulated.11

(7) Verses that are transitional fromone general subject to another aretypically drawn from wisdom tradi-tion (Jas 1:4-8, 27, 4:6, 5:19).(8) Most important are particularthemes of James that, while sporadi-cally found elsewhere in the Bible,are central in wisdom. For example,James highlights the themes ofconcern for widows and orphans,12

respect of persons, use and misuseof the tongue, and caution regard-ing future planning.

To this list many other points of con-tact could be noted. Especially notewor-thy is the relationship of James to Sirach.Nestle-Aland27 notes no fewer than 11allusions to Sirach in James, comparedwith 6 allusions and 2 citations from Prov-erbs. Moreover, there are some very obvi-ous shared themes: the dangers of thetongue (Sir 19:6-12, 20:5-8, 18-20, 22:27,28:13-26, 35:7-9), the notion that wisdomis a gift from God (Sir 1:1-10), the dangers

54

of pride (10:7-18), and the warning againstblaming God for sin (Sir 15:11-20).

In addition to these parallels betweenJames and second temple Jewish wisdom,there are similarities in their way of think-ing:

(1) A person’s life is lived either ingood connections or in bad. An ethi-cal dualism predominates in bothJames and in Jewish wisdom. Notein particular the contrast betweensin giving birth to death, and Godgiving birth to “us” (1:15, 18), thefather of lights vs. the shiftingshadow (1:17), the perfect (teleion)work of patience (1:4) vs. the matu-ration (apotelestheisa) of sin (1:15),and the single-minded (haplos) giv-ing of God (1:5) vs. the doublemindedness (dipsychos) of a humanbeing (1:8).(2) As in Jewish wisdom literaturegenerally, there is a fairly strong the-matic concern in James that deedshave consequences. (Baasland refersto this as Tat-Folge Denken).13

Not only the themes, but also thegeneric forms of wisdom literature are evi-dent in James. Davids notes that Jamesexhibits an “apparently disjointed andproverbial nature of style.”14 Many of thesayings in James, even though they havecontextual linkages within the Epistle,could easily stand alone. This aphoristicstyle is one of the most notable featuresshared by James and Proverbs. Halsoncounts 23 short, isolated aphorisms. Butalso like Proverbs, James has a few some-what longer discourses, of which Halsonidentifies seven or eight (2:1-9, 2:14-26,3:13-17, 4:1-6, 4:13-16, 5:1-6 and possibly5:16b-18).15 Compare the “my son” dis-courses in Proverbs 1-7, and the virtuouswife discourse in Proverbs 31:10-31.

Several recent studies highlight simi-larities between James and specificinstances of Jewish wisdom literature. Forexample, in 1993 D. E. Gowan showed the

similarity of the presuppositions of James1:2-5 with those of 4 Maccabees.16 And justrecently D. Verseput noticed the structuralsimilarities with one of the wisdom textsfound at Qumran (4Q185).17

But as Verseput also warns, “the per-vasiveness of wisdom elements through-out all the literature of the Second Templeperiod suggests that the Epistle of Jamescannot be accurately grouped among thewisdom documents by merely pointingout sapiential motifs or by imprudentlyassociating its structure with wisdominstruction.”18 And James certainly hassome characteristics that do not fit thewisdom pattern.

First, at the very least it must be saidthat James is incomprehensible apart fromcertain Christian presuppositions. U. Luckpoints to such things as God the fathergiving birth to us by the word of truth(1:17-18), the implanted word (1:21), thereference to the audience as “belovedbrethren” (1:19, 2:5, cf. 2:1, 14), the impor-tance of and nature of true faith (2:14-26),and the “elders of the church” (5:14) as allstemming from the unique social environ-ment of early Christianity.19 These thingshave no parallel in wisdom literature.20

Second, James does not seem so muchconcerned with the intellectual search forwisdom as with moral action befitting truewisdom.21 While James is not uniqueamong his Jewish contemporaries inthinking of wisdom as a moral matter,when speaking of wisdom itself (3:13-18),he appears to be setting a true, active,socially conscientious wisdom overagainst a false kind of wisdom that boastsand abandons social obligations in favorof private, intellectualized concerns.22

This contrast of true and false wisdom isat best rare in wisdom literature (thoughit does have an interesting counterpart in

55

the first two chapters of 1 Corinthians.Third, James does not fit into the liter-

ary categories of wisdom literature.Crenshaw lists eight such categories:proverb, riddle, allegory, hymn, dialogue,autobiographical narrative, noun lists,and didactic narrative.23 Of these only theproverb and the dialogue have a genericcounterpart in some of James’s aphorismsand the literarily constructed interlocutionof James 2:18. But whereas these genresare indigenous and constitutive in wis-dom literature, they are only useful toolsin James, and his main arguments can besustained without them. Most of James,as already noted, is imperatival in tone,24

even to the point of upbraiding the hear-ers and calling down woes, more like OTprophets than sages.

But the most significant difference isthat James appears to be deeply consciousof real existential problems, not just gen-eralized truths. The exhortations to “stopfighting” (ch. 4) and to anoint and prayfor the sick (ch. 5) have no counterpartin wisdom literature. And the diatribeagainst favoritism in chapter 2 bears thevivid marks of real occurrences. Thoughthe situations may be common enoughthat James can address them in a circularletter, they are specific enough to charac-terize James not as a book of wisdom per

se, but as a work that uses the wisdomtradition and forms familiar to his audi-ence. Nor can we place James firmlyin the camp of Hellenistic diatribes orparaeneses.25 If nothing else, the passionof James 4:1-6, 5:1-6, 2:4, and 2:14-17 oughtto clue us in to the fact that the author ofJames is neither a remote sage in his schoolnor a hellenistic preacher uttering gener-alities. He is a pastor concerned for hispeople.

Nevertheless, James does recognize

that his audience values wisdom, andoffers a picture of what true, godly wis-dom looks like. An examination of hisletter reveals at least five characteristics:(1) True wisdom is a divine gift (and there-fore related to faith); (2) true wisdom isprimarily ethical rather than intellectual;(3) wisdom is eschatologically motivated;(4) wisdom is spiritual in nature; and (5)true wisdom is the wisdom of Jesus. Thefirst three of these have points of similar-ity with some (though by no means all)other Jewish wisdom; the last two areuniquely James.

Wisdom Is a Divine GiftJames actually mentions wisdom twice

in his epistle (1:5 and 3:13-18). In bothplaces the concern is not for wisdom gen-erally but on true wisdom, which is ofdivine origin. “If anyone lacks wisdom lethim ask from the God who gives to allunstintingly.” The notion that wisdom isobtained by asking God for it is rooted inthe prayer of Solomon (1 Kings 3) and therelationship between wisdom being a giftand, therefore, the need to ask for it isdeveloped in Wisdom of Solomon 8:17-9:18.26

The longer discussion of wisdomoccurs in 3:13-18. P. Hartin regards this asthe “very heart and centre of the body ofthe epistle.”27 Whether that is the case ornot, certainly James shares the opinion ofother Jewish wisdom that wisdom is adivine gift.

In addition, because true wisdomcomes “from above” it is, therefore, sin-gularly inappropriate to boast about it(3:14), for to do so gives the lie to one’sclaim to be speaking the truth.28 True wis-dom is therefore humble.29

But James goes further, because wis-dom in James is closely related to faith.

56

Baasland, who is willing to call James aChristian wisdom book, nevertheless rec-ognizes a clear distinction from commonJewish wisdom. James’s exhortation towisdom is on the basis of faith (andaccording to Baasland, baptism); it is nota “clan” wisdom or simply the “Torah”wisdom found elsewhere, but an escha-tological, Christian wisdom. Notice therelationship of true and false wisdom in3:15-17 to true and false faith in 2:14ff.Compare for example 3:13 and 2:18:

2:18 But someone will say, “Youhave faith and I have works.”Show me your faith apart fromyour works, and I by my workswill show you my faith.

3:13 Who is wise and understand-ing among you? Let him showby his good behavior his works[done] in the meekness ofwisdom.

Just as true faith produces good works,so does true wisdom.

In 5:7-11, James contrasts the farmer’swisdom, patiently waiting for God, withindifference to the poor. This seems anodd juxtaposition, but this seemingly oddcontrast shows the connection with faith.Faith also waits in trust, but if it is indif-ferent to the poor it is no true faith.

Finally, James says that faith withoutworks is vain, empty (arge). Vanity is ofcourse a wisdom concern: Ecclesiastesparticularly dwells on the emptiness andvanity of life in this world. James seemsto pick up on this, so that even a life offaith is vain, empty, and meaningless, if itis a “faith” that does not act in accordancewith its precepts. True wisdom is truefaith.

Wisdom Is EthicalRather than Intellectual

The “first of all” attribute of wisdom

in 3:17 is that it is pure (hagne). For Jameswisdom is essentially an ethical quality.30

Knowledge, “savvy,” cleverness, and witmay all be considered forms of wisdom,but these can be used for impure pur-poses. They may easily become both thegrounds and means of boasting. But ethi-cal purity, if it boasts, ceases to be purity,and hence a wisdom that is contentiousor boastful ceases to be wisdom.31 Becauseof this basic quality of purity, true wisdomproduces its other ethical fruit: peacemak-ing, gentleness, etc.

As already noted, just as faith is asso-ciated with ethical behavior, so is wisdom.Wisdom exhibits good behavior andmeekness (3:13) and runs contrary to bit-ter envy, ambition, boasting and lying(3:14). At no point in James is wisdomsimply a matter of the knowing of facts(theoretical knowledge) or even of know-how (practical knowledge).

In particular, the wisdom of Jamesfocuses on two ethical issues: speech eth-ics and humility. The speech ethics ofJames is the subject of a special study byWilliam Baker, who gives ample evidencefor James’s roots in the speech ethics ofthe ancient Near East, particularly asfound in Jewish wisdom.32 But the ethicsof humility is certainly a dominant themein Jewish wisdom as well, and many, ifnot all, the economic and social ethicalmatters in James essentially stem fromconcern for humility. The description ofwisdom in 3:13-18 is largely a descriptionof humility: it lacks bitter envy, ambition,and boasting, and is instead peacable,gentle, compliant, full of mercy. And con-sider the ills that James rails againstthroughout the book: boasting (1:9), blam-ing God for sin (1:13-14; cf. Sir 15:11-20),favoritism (2:1-7; cf. Prov 14:21), friend-ship with the world (4:1-10, including a

57

quotation of Prov 3:34 [LXX] and theexhortation to “humble yourselves” in v.10), judging brethren (4:11-12; cf. Wis 1:11),and merchant planning without recogniz-ing God (4:13-17; cf. Prov 27:1). Pride liesat the root of them all. Even the evils of thetongue may be classified here, since thesection in chapter 3 begins with the warn-ing that not many should be teachers.Apparently, the desire to be called “rabbi”survived in the church, even though Jesushad discouraged it (Matt 23:7-8).

Of course, the ethical character of wis-dom is not unknown in Jewish wisdom.As noted below, later Judaism recognizedall or almost all the books of the OT as theword of God, and the ethical demands ofTorah stood as the supreme standard oflife, so an increasingly revelational notionof wisdom permeated later Judaism. Andindeed much of the later Jewish wisdomliterature identifies Wisdom with God’slaw.33 The identification of wisdom withTorah may have its roots even in the ear-liest levels. In Proverbs 9:10 the beginningof wisdom is the fear of the Lord, and “thefear of the Lord” in Psalms 19:9 appearsin synonymous parallelism with the law,the decrees, the precepts, the command-ment, and the ordinances of the Lord.34

Since the Torah is the ultimate sourceof wisdom, it is a freedom-giving Torah(2:12), but James takes an additional stepand refers to the word of God as implanted

(1:21). Here is another way in whichJames’s uniquely Christian application ofwisdom finds expression. For the wise,freedom-giving Law of God to be effec-tive, especially the royal law of love (2:8),35

it must be implanted (1:21).36 Onceimplanted it must be received humbly.37

Sustaining the agricultural metaphor, thehumble response to God’s planting ofethical wisdom eventuates in the produc-

tion of good fruits (3:17). The followingverse encapsulates this in what soundslike a wisdom saying, “fruit of righteous-ness is sown in peace for those who dopeace.”38

Since wisdom is primarily a moral orethical entity in James rather than intel-lectual or cognitive, the prayer mandateof 1:5 comes into clearer focus. The lack ofwisdom that one should pray to have rem-edied is not an intelligence gap, but amoral gap. The one who prays should askfor moral fortitude in order to face suffer-ing and temptation, and thereby become“perfect.”

Wisdom Is EschatologicallyMotivated

Though the eschatological dimension ofJames, particularly in his exhortations topatience, is clear enough, the recent workof Todd Penner has brought new focus tothis dimension of James’s thought. Pennershows that the eschatological dimensionmore thoroughly penetrates the whole ofthe epistle than had previously beenobserved.39

Such an eschatological focus is not typi-cal of wisdom literature. Ancient NearEastern wisdom generally takes its cuefrom creation and focuses on God’s workand truth in the created order. Eschatologyreceives its impetus from redemption,stemming from a distrust of this worldand a longing for the future overthrow ofthe present order. In wisdom, the idea isto avoid the natural retributions and seekthe natural rewards of this present age;eschatology recognizes that this world isnot fair, and seeks reward and punish-ment in the future.

However, two forces were at workto merge these notions. First, wisdombecame frustrated by the problems of

58

unjust suffering. Just as Jewish prophetsstruggled with the cognitive dissonancegenerated by a belief in Israel’s electionin the face of Israel’s poor political situa-tion, so Jewish wisdom struggled with thecognitive dissonance of a world wheretraditional wisdom did not always work.Hence intertestamental Jewish wisdomwas drawn increasingly towards theredemptive-eschatological framework ofthe prophets.

Second, the nature of the wisdom con-cept changed. As awareness grew of arevealed wisdom from God (as opposed towhat humans are able to figure out forthemselves), wisdom became moreassociated with participation in God’swisdom, not just in creation, but inredemption and law.40 The seeds of thischange are already there in such passagesas Isaiah 33:6, where wisdom and under-standing are eschatological blessings, andIsaiah 11:2, where the spirit of wisdom isa messianic endowment. Already inDaniel, wisdom and eschatology werebeing fused (Daniel was a sage, but hiswisdom was supernatural), and the Tes-taments of the Twelve Patriarchs hasmany instances of both traditional wis-dom and eschatological expectation.Eschatology and wisdom also cometogether in Wisdom of Solomon and 4Maccabees.

James stands in this stream. AsBauckham says, “an eschatological orien-tation is not therefore anomalous; it is tobe expected in wisdom paraenesis fromthe first century C.E.”41 However, whilethe later wisdom books have an interestin God’s judgment and refer to escha-tology as a way of resolving certainwisdom questions, the sayings and admo-nitions of James, like those of Jesus, havean eschatological dimension not found in

classical Jewish wisdom material.42 Thisis no doubt because James recognizes thefact that the eschatological expectationsare already being fulfilled. Although theparousia is still to come (5:7), James knowsthat the messiah has already come (2:1).Hence the divine gift of wisdom is nowfreely available to all who ask in faith (1:5-6). Above all, the readers are the“firstfruits of his creation” (1:18) who weregiven birth by the word of truth. Theeschatological harvest has already begun.

Wisdom Is SpiritualRemarkably, James never refers to the

Holy Spirit in his letter.43 J. A. Kirk44 isprobably right in arguing that wisdom iseffectively functioning in James as theHoly Spirit does in other NT writings.Kirk observed the following:

(1) First, wisdom in James, like theHoly Spirit in the Gospels, is a goodgift that is requested of the Father.James 1:5 speaks of asking God forthe gift of wisdom, which 1:17 goeson to speak of as every good gift,which comes down from above,from a heavenly Father (Father oflights).45 This is very much like Mat-thew 7:7, which speaks of asking theheavenly Father for good gifts, andits parallel in Luke 11:11-13, whichidentifies the good gift requestedand given as the Holy Spirit.(2) James 3:9 also refers to God’sfatherhood as the reason for his giv-ing of wisdom. Here the wisdomfrom above provides the ability tocontrol and direct the tongue.(3) There are some striking parallelsbetween the fruit of wisdom inJames 3:17 and the fruit of the Spiritin Galatians 5:22-6:8. (Note againthat wisdom in James is not prima-rily intellectual but moral.)(4) Several references to wisdomelsewhere in the NT also refer to theSpirit. Ephesians 1:17 is the mostobvious, where the author prays“that the Father may give you theSpirit of wisdom.” The Spirit of wis-dom is of course the Spirit given to

59

Messiah in Isaiah 11:2. Likewisewhere Colossians 1:28 relates theSpirit to maturity and trials, James1:4-5 connects maturity and trialswith wisdom. In contrast to the HolySpirit and true wisdom is false wis-dom and the spirit of the world in 1Corinthians 2:12.46 First Corinthians12:8 identifies the Spirit as the sourceof the utterance of wisdom. FinallyActs 6:3, picking up again on themessianic promise of Isaiah 11,refers to those qualified to be dea-cons as those “filled with the Spiritand wisdom.”

Kirk found the roots of this wisdom-Spirit identification in the Old Testamentand Jewish wisdom literature. Through-out the OT, wisdom and the presence ofGod’s spirit are closely linked (Gen 41:38-39, Exod 31:3-4 [cf. Exod 28:3], Deut 34:9,Isa 11:2). The activity of the creator Spiritof Genesis 1:1-2 resembles the activity ofwisdom in Proverbs 8. Likewise Sirach24:3-5 portrays wisdom in terms of theSpirit of Genesis. In Genesis Rabbah 85,Solomon’s wisdom is identified as theproduct of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.And Haggai 2:5 suggests an identificationof the pillar of cloud and fire as “mySpirit,” i.e., the Spirit of God (echoed inWis 10:17). Broadly speaking, the func-tions of the Spirit of God in the OT fre-quently become in the intertestamentalperiod the functions of wisdom (cf. 1

Enoch 5:6-9 with Isa 11:2ff).Hence Peter Davids suggests, “if some

works have a wisdom christology, Jameshas a wisdom pneumatology, for wisdomin James functions as the Spirit does inPaul.”47 This may be somewhat over-stated, but James conceives of wisdom notas an abstract intellectual ability or clev-erness at manipulating life, but as God’seschatological gift to the believer (the onewho asks in faith) that empowers him orher to live rightly and to endure persecu-

tion and trials. James’s wisdom is no“earthy” wisdom: it comes down fromabove (3:15).

Wisdom Is the Teaching of JesusThe correspondences of James with

the teaching of Jesus are numerous.Mussner48 documents twenty-seveninstances where James’s teaching reflectsthat of Jesus. Of these, eleven are identi-fied as “Q” material, six as uniquelyLukan, seven as uniquely Matthean, andtwo as Markan (though in one case theMarkan material is also found in Matthewand in the other in all three Synoptic Gos-pels). Hence the correspondence withMatthew is very high, with twenty-one ofthe twenty-seven references being foundin Matthew. Fourteen of these are foundin the Sermon on the Mount.

Some of these correspondences may befound elsewhere in Jewish literature. Forexample, the notion that the one whokeeps the whole law but stumbles in onematter has become guilty of all (James2:10), occurs in both Jesus’ teaching (Matt5:19) and in Jewish teaching (m. ‘Abot 2:1,Sifre Deut 96:3.2),49 though James andJesus seem to have strengthened thisnotion somewhat. Likewise the warningagainst slander or grumbling (Jas 4:11, 5:9;Matt 7:1-5) resembles Wisdom 1:11.

Jesus and James reflect Jewish wisdomin the form as well as the content of theirteaching. R. Bauckham,50 referring to thework of David Aune in classifying theaphorisms of Jesus,51 notes several pointswhere the aphorisms of James, Jesus, andJewish wisdom literature have formal (notnecessarily material) resemblances.

These similarities, among other things,have led to the recent burgeoning of schol-arship suggesting that Jesus was a wis-dom teacher, a Jewish sage.52 But Jesus did

60

not just echo the traditional wisdom ofother Jewish sages. Much of what is foundin traditional Jewish wisdom is absentfrom both the teaching of Jesus andJames.53 Furthermore, not only was hisoverall message of the presence andimminence of the kingdom unique, manyof his specific ethical instructions wereunique as well or, at least, not known else-where in Jewish literature. But curiously,some of these are known in James. Themost outstanding example is the prohibi-tion against swearing (Matt 5:34-37; Jas5:12). The similarity here is very evident:

seems to be the case is rather that James iseither writing prior to the formal solidifi-cation of the Greek tradition of Jesus’words, and thus “quoting” in a differentform than we have it in the Synoptics, or(more likely) he is paraphrasing andreapplying the ethical teaching of Jesus.56

Reinforcing Baasland’s opinion is thework of Bauckham, who notes fivehighly distinctive characteristics of Jesus’teaching that are echoed by James: (1)Radical ethics, (2) the rejection of socialstratification, (3) eschatological judgment,not social advantage, as the criterion

for right and wrong, (4)God’s mercy as ofgreater importance thanhis distributive justice,and (5) the concern forrenewing and reconsti-tuting Israel as God’speople.57 Just namingthem here, I think, is suf-ficient for the readerfamiliar with both theGospels and the Epistle

of James to notice the similarity.All this is to show that wisdom for

James is what it was for Jesus—it involvedboth the hearing and the doing of Jesus’words. According to Jesus, it is the wise

man who built his house upon a rock, andis like the one who “hears these words ofmine and does them.” And this furtherdemonstrates the essential Christianity ofJames. While Paul refers to Christ himselfas the wisdom of God (Col 2:3), Jamesunderstands the teaching of Jesus to bewisdom, and Jesus as the ultimate sage,along the lines already suggested by thepassage found in Matthew 12:41-42 andLuke 11:31-32: “the Queen of the South...came from the ends of the earth to listento Solomon’s wisdom, and now one

Though some Jewish wisdom literaturewarned of the dangers of taking oaths(Eccl 5:4; Sir 23:9-13), none prohibited itentirely. Only 2 Enoch 49:1 resembles thestatements of James and Jesus, and mostscholars view this as a Christian inter-polation.

Baasland rightly observes that James’swisdom is decidedly drawn from theJesus tradition. Where James reflects tra-ditional Jewish wisdom, those aspects ofJewish wisdom are also found in Jesus’teaching. On the other hand, whereverJames differs from Jewish wisdom tradi-tion, he is demonstrably at one with thepreaching of Jesus.54 This is true eventhough James never quotes any saying ofJesus as found in the Gospels.55 What

James 5:12Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heavenor by earthor by anything else.

Let your “Yes” be yes, and your “No,”no, or you will be condemned.

Matt 5:34-35, 37But I tell you, Do not swear at all:either by heaven, for it is God’s throne;or by the earth, for it is his footstool;or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the GreatKing.. . . Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comesfrom the evil one.

61

greater than Solomon is here.”If the goal of wisdom is the formation

of character58 then certainly James iswisdom. And his unique interest in thepractical application of the moral instruc-tion of Jesus, and his frequent use ofaphoristic style, may very well earn hisepistle the epithet, “the wisdom book ofthe New Testament,”59 so long as it isclear that it is a New Testament wisdom,and that this wisdom is addressed not tohypothetical, but real church situations.Inasmuch as Jesus himself used Jewishwisdom (both its form and content), itought not surprise us that Jewish wisdomtradition was taken over in the Jewishchurch. Thus there certainly is no needto suppose that James was originally anon-Christian wisdom piece that waslater Christianized, nor is there goodreason to think that James was not explic-itly Christian. True, the great Paulineissues of christology and redemptive his-tory do not arise much in James (onlypeeking out from passages like 1:18, 2:1and 5:8), but no writing should ever bejudged for what it does not say. RatherJames ought to help us expand ournotion of what is characteristically Chris-tian. Without James, much of what itmeans to be a disciple of Jesus might havebeen lost. James reminds us that theessential matter is not hearing or under-standing the word of Jesus, but doing it.That is his wisdom.

ENDNOTES1 Cf. H. Conzelmann, “Wisdom in theNew Testament,” in The Interpreter’s Dic-

tionary of the Bible Supplementary Volume

(Nashville: Abingdon, 1962) 960: “theentire letter of James is a wisdom docu-ment in parenetic style.” C. F. G. Heinrici(Der Literarische Charakter der Neutes-

tamentlichen Schriften [Leipzig, 1908] 75,cited in Baasland, “Der Jakobusbrief AlsNeutestamentliche Weisheitsschrift,”Studia Theologica 36 [1982] 123) likened therelationship to that between Revelationand other Jewish apocalyptic: “Der Brief[Jakobus] verhält sich zu den alttesta-mentlichen Spruchbuchern ebenso wiedie Offenbarung des Johannes zu derApoka-lyptik des Spätjudentums.”

2 L. Massebieau, “L’épître de Jacques,Est-Elle l’Oeuvre d’un Chrétien?” Revue

de l’histoire des religions 16/32 (1895)249-83; F. Spitta, Zur Geschichte und

Litteratur Des Urchristentums II (Göt-tingen: Vanden-hoeck & Ruprecht, 1896)382-391.

3 J. H. Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Com-

mentary on the Epistle of St. James (ICC;Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1916) Introduc-tion Section 2; M. Dibelius, James: A Com-

mentary on the Epistle of James, ed. and rev.H. Greeven, trans. Michael A. Williams(Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress,1975) 1-11.

4 J. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom: An

Introduction, rev. and enlarged (Louisville:Westminster John Knox, 1998) 20-30.

5 Crenshaw, 15.6 W. Zimmerli, “Concerning the Structureof Old Testament Wisdom,” in Studies in

Ancient Israelite Wisdom, ed. JamesCrenshaw (New York: Ktav, 1976) 177.

7 Crenshaw, 51.8 Baasland, 123-124.9 B. R. A. Halson, “The Epistle of James:‘Christian Wisdom?’,” Texte und Unter-

suchungen 102 (1968) 309.10Such illustrative language is, of course,

not limited to Jewish wisdom. James’sillustrative grab bag has parallels inGreek moral literature as well, leadingRopes and Dibelius to think of James asprimarily a hellenistic Greek work

62

(Ropes, Introduction Sec. 2; Dibe-lius, 1-11), but it still stands as onemore similarity to Jewish as well asother wisdom literature.

11The use of great OT personalities asexemplars is common in Jewish wis-dom; cf. e.g., Sir 44:1-49:16.

12Cf. also F. C. Fensham, “Widow,Orphan, and the Poor in AncientNear Eastern Legal and WisdomLiterature” in Studies in Ancient

Israelite Wisdom, 161-173.13Baasland, p. 124, adds a third simi-

larity in thought patterns: A per-son is not regarded as an isolatedentity but is always part of a givenset of social connections. However,this appears to me to be hardlypeculiar to wisdom literature—itruns throughout the Bible—andindeed if anything it is somewhatlessened in the later wisdom books.

14P. H. Davids, “The Epistle of Jamesin Modern Discussion,” Aufstieg und

Niedergang der Römischen Welt, Part2, Principat, ed. W. Haase (Berlin;New York: De Gruyter, 1988)25:3635.

15Halson, 311.16D. E. Gowan, “Wisdom and Endur-

ance in James” Horizons of Biblical

Theology 15 no. 2 (1993) 145-153.17D. J. Verseput, “Wisdom, 4Q185,

and the Epistle of James,” Journal of

Biblical Literature 117 no. 4 (1998)691-707.

18Verseput, 692.19U. Luck, “Die Theologie Des Jako-

busbriefes,” Zeitschrift für Theologie

u. Kirche 81 (1984) 1-30. Luck arguesthat James does, however, differfrom Paul in still holding to the Jew-ish wisdom notion that a person’sidentity lies in what he does.

genre.) Dibelius, 1-11.26Indeed the entire rest of the book

of Wisdom of Solomon may beintended to be read as the prayer ofSolomon. Note the continued use ofthe second person throughout thebook.

27P. Hartin, James and the Q Sayings of

Jesus (Journal for the Study of theNew Testament SupplementarySeries; Sheffield: Sheffield AcademicPress, 1991) 97. Though his chiasticanalysis of 2:1-5:6 is rather forced,it is no doubt true that at least thegaining of true wisdom from Godby humbly asking for it in submis-sion to God is a major concern ofJames.

28V. 14 (NIV: “if you harbor bitterenvy and selfish ambition in yourhearts, do not boast about it or denythe truth”). The implication is thatto boast of one’s wisdom, to beproud of knowing truth, is to beliethe very truth one professes toknow, since that truth includes thefact that if one has wisdom, it ispurely by grace. Cf. F. Mussner,Der Jakobusbrief, 3rd ed. (Herderstheologischer Kommentar zumNeuen Testament XIII; Freiburg,1975) 171. Teachers in the churchesshould read this verse twice a dayuntil they take it to heart. Pride atone’s knowledge is as much thesource of much strife in our day asin James’s day, and is no product oftrue wisdom (v.16).

29Instead of the proud self-servingwisdom of the guru, James advo-cates the humble wisdom of Jesuswho was himself humble (Matt11:29) but nevertheless spoke a wis-dom that demanded a great deal of

20Proverbs does use a similar address,but it is from the vantage point of afather (“my son”) rather than of asibling (“beloved brothers”). Ropescalls it “utterly different” (Ropes,17).

21Cf. below on the ethical nature ofwisdom.

22Cf. W. Bindemann, “Weisheit VersusWeisheit: Der Jakobusbrief AlsInnerkirchlicher Diskurs,” Zeitsch-

rift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

86 (1995) 216.23Crenshaw, 27.24These generic differences from other

Jewish wisdom texts are preciselywhy J. H. Ropes and M. Dibeliusfound James to be generically muchcloser to Greek forms of hortatoryliterature.

25It is curious that even Ropes him-self points out so many marked dif-ferences between James and Greekdiatribes (Ropes, 15-16) that onewonders why he stuck with callingJames a diatribe. Given Dibelius’sinability to provide any positive

characteristics for an ostensiblegenre of paraenesis other than theuse of Stichworten, and the paucityof evidence for paraenesis as ageneric form, as opposed to a rhetori-cal device, we must also concludethat Dibelius too has failed to findany convincing generic model inhellenism. (Dibelius’s only othercharacteristics of paraenesis arenegative, such as the lack of organi-zation, and the lack of continuity ofthought. And as he himself shows,the use of catchwords is so commonin much Jewish literature that theiruse can hardly be called evidencefor paraenesis being a distinct

63

his hearers (P. H. Davids, Commen-

tary on James [NIGNTC; Grand Rap-ids: Eerdmans, 1982] 209).

30U. Wilckens, “sophia, etc.” in Theo-

logical Dictionary of the New Testa-

ment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1971) 7:524-525.

31S. Laws points out that Jamesactually avoids referring to this“earthly” thing as “wisdom.” S.Laws, A Commentary on the Epistle

of James (San Francisco: Harper &Row, 1980) 163. There is only onewisdom, and that which is conten-tious, self-seeking, and boastful isnot it.

32W. R. Baker, Personal Speech-Ethics in

the Epistle of James (Tubingen: Mohr[Siebeck], 1995).

33This seems to be the particular con-tribution of Sirach 24, particularlyvv. 23-24. Later Judaism adopts thisidea generally, e.g., Pirqe Aboth vi.7gives a series of attributes of Torah,which in Proverbs are a descriptionof wisdom. Genesis Rabbah begins

with the words of Prov 8:30, andapplies it to Torah: By looking intoTorah, God created the world. Cf.also Bar 3:9-4:4.

34If there is such a thing as a “wis-dom” psalm, Psalm 19 is surely it,moving from the creation theologyof vv. 1-6 to the praise of God’s lawfor its guidance and protection in vv.7-10 to the warning and safety ofTorah, which uncovers what is hid-den, in vv. 11-13.

35It is likely that the “royal law”refers to Lev 19:18 quoted in James.The commandment is a royal(basilikon) law probably because itis connected with the kingdom(basileia) of 2:5, which may in turn

have roots in Jesus’ proclamation of“the kingdom of God” (tes basileias

tou theou) (cf. Jesus’ comment to thescribe who acknowledged this com-mand that he was “not far from thekingdom of God” [Mark 12:34]). Apassage from the Wisdom ofSolomon shows well how Judaismrelated the notions of Torah, wis-dom, and kingdom: “The beginningof wisdom is the most sinceredesire for instruction, and concernfor instruction is love of her, andlove of her is the keeping of herlaws, and giving heed to her lawsis assurance of immortality, andimmortality brings one near to God;so the desire for wisdom leads tokingdom” (Wis 6:17-20; the transla-tion is that of P. Hartin, in James and

the Q Sayings of Jesus, 92).36Luck, 17.37It seems to me inherently much

more sensible to take en prauteti, “inhumility,” not with apothemenoi,“laying aside,” (as the punctuationin NA27 suggests) but with the fol-lowing dexasthe, “receive.” Thus v.21 is not a tautologous “receive whatyou have received” but instructionon how to receive that which has beenimplanted, a sentiment echoed in3:13.

38It has been suggested that this maybe an agraphon, a saying of Jesus thatwas known to be such in the earlychurch, but not written down andspecifically attributed to him.

39T. Penner, The Epistle of James and

Eschatology: Re-reading an Ancient

Christian Letter (Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic Press, 1996).

40Certainly by the second centuryB.C., all or almost all of the books

in the Hebrew Bible were knownand regarded as authoritative by allJews, so that Jewish wisdom teach-ers such as ben Sirach, Baruch, 4Maccabees and Ps-Phocylides drewfreely from Law, Prophecy, andApocalyptic as sources for the divinewisdom as much as the Wisdomliterature.

41R. Bauckham, James: The Wisdom of

James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage (NewYork; London: Routledge, 1999) 34.

42Hartin, 64-69.43Whatever that enigmatic verse 5 in

ch.4 means, I, along with most com-mentators, think it highly improb-able that the “spirit” is the HolySpirit, whether or not it is the sub-ject of epipothei (“desires”). The bestoption is to give pneuma here thesame meaning it has in its only otheroccurrence in James (2:26), namelythe vivifying breath of life, a mean-ing common in wisdom literature(Job 27:3, 33:4, 34:14-15, Wis 12:1,Eccl 1:14, 2:11, 4:4 etc., cf. also Gen2:2, 7:15, Isa 2:22).

44J. A. Kirk, “The Meaning of Wisdomin James: Examination of a Hypoth-esis,” New Testament Studies 16(1969) 24-38.

45The best explanation for “Father oflights” is as creator of the heavenlylights of Genesis 1. As creator oflights he is source of all light, andhence cannot be shadowed or dark-ened or mistaken. Referring to thecreator as “Father” personalizes thecreator’s relationship even to thenon-human world, much as God’srelationship is personalized in wis-dom literature by the personifica-tion of wisdom itself, which isdeeply involved in creation.

64

46J. A. Davis, Wisdom and Spirit : An

Investigation of 1 Corinthians 1.18-

3.20 Against the Background of Jewish

Sapiential Traditions in the Greco-

Roman Period (Lanham, MD: Uni-versity Press of America, 1984).

47P. H. Davids, Commentary on James,55-56.

48Mussner, 48-50.49G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Cen-

tury of the Christian Era: The Age of

the Tannaim (New York: Schocken,1927) 1:467-468.

50Bauckham, 37-47.51D. Aune, The New Testament in Its Lit-

erary Environment (Philadelphia:Westminster, 1987).

52B. Witherington, Jesus the Sage: The

Pilgrimage of Wisdom (Edinburgh:T. & T. Clark, 1994) 236-244; R. Stein,The Method and Message of Jesus’

Teachings (Philadelphia: Westmins-ter, 1978) 2-3. Witherington thinksthat James only used the tradition-alist “orderly” parts of Jesus teach-ing, or misunderstood Jesus in atraditionalist direction, and failed tograsp Jesus’ “counter-order” teach-ing (244-246). But Bauckham, pp.94-95, thinks this may stem fromWitherington’s prejudicial construalof the nature of Jesus teaching, andsuggests that, instead of “counter-order” versus order construal, it isbetter to speak of kingdom teach-ing, which does not fit into eithercategory.

53Cf. Bauckham, 95, who then goes onto list several missing instructions,e.g., exhortations to work hard,advice on what kind of friends tohave, good and bad wives, and rais-ing of children.

54Baasland, p. 126, “Was Jk von der

jüdischen Weisheitsliteratur unter-scheidet, verbindet Jk mit der Ver-kündingung Jesu. In der neuerenForschung ist es klarer geworden,dass auch übernommene Weisheits-worte durch die Verkündigung

vom Reich Gottes und der eigenenPerson in einem anderen Lichterscheinen.”

55This is one reason why Hartin’sview (James and the Q Sayings of

Jesus) of James’s direct dependenceon Q is not convincing. See R.Bauckham’s review of Hartin inJournal of Theological Studies 44 (1993)298-301.

56This would apply as well if any ofthe sayings in James suspected ofbeing agrapha are in fact such. Thesepossible agrapha are generally of theform of a wisdom saying that isunknown outside the church. 5:12is an example of a known saying ofJesus that has been brought forwardby James, that also occurs in Mat-thew (I assume here that the sayingin Matthew 7 is an authentic verbum

Christi). The sayings in James 4:17,5:20, 3:18 sound like they could bereferences to traditional teachingstemming from Jesus.

57Bauckham, 97-107.58Crenshaw, 3.59Baasland, 124

65

66

Sermon: The Power of the TongueJames 3:1-12

Daniel L. Akin

Daniel L. Akin is Dean of the School

of Theology at The Southern Baptist

Theological Seminary. Dr. Akin has

served as dean since 1996 and has

also served on the faculty of South-

eastern Seminary and Criswell College.

He has an extensive speaking minis-

try, especially on the topic of marriage

and family, and is the author of the

forthcoming commentary on 1-3 John

in the New American Commentary

series.

IntroductionIt is one of the smaller organs of the body.The weight for a male is about 70 grams,for a female, 60 grams. However, itspotential for evil is so great that God sawfit to imprison it behind a double jailer:the teeth and the lips. I am talking aboutthe human tongue.

Why is it that this small 2-3 inch skel-etal muscle covered with mucous mem-brane is so dangerous and lethal? Aninitial investigation could lead one to theconclusion that the problem is its location.Recent research has revealed that there arefew places more infested with harmfulbacteria than the human mouth. Morethan 100,000,000 microscopic critters livein there. Fungus grows in the oral cavity.In 1999 Medical PressCorps News Service

reported that a study led by Dr. DavidRelman, assistant professor of medicineand of microbiology and immunology atStanford University, found evidence of 37unique bacteria in the human mouththat microbiologists had never beforerecorded. Dr. Alan Drinnan, a professorof oral medicine at the school of DentalMedicine at the State University of NewYork at Buffalo, found this rather mun-dane. He said, “It’s really no big surprise.It just reiterates what has been known along time: That there are many bugs thatyou can collect from the mouth but can’tgrow in vitro, in a lab.” It is not a prettypicture. Mouths have viruses that maycause disease. The top of the tongue is themain breeding ground for bacteria thatattack the teeth and gums. The white

blood cells from another person’s salivawill attack once inside your mouth.Indeed you are better off, in one sense,kissing a dog like my Great Dane Saman-tha, than you are kissing another human,because at least a dog’s mouth containsmany enzymes that fight infection!

However, as interesting as all of this is,the problem is not the tongue’s physicallocation, but its spiritual connection. Forin terms of spiritual anatomy, the tongueis directly wed to the heart, and it is theheart that motivates and manipulates thetongue for good or evil, to bless or curse.Jesus understood this very well. In Mat-thew 12:35-37, He said, “A good man outof the good treasure of his heart bringsforth good things, and an evil man out ofthe evil treasure brings forth evil things.But I say to you that for every idle wordmen may speak, they will give an accountof it in the day of judgment. For by yourwords you will be justified, and by yourwords you will be condemned.”

James, like his half-brother the LordJesus, was very interested in the activityof the tongue. He gives attention to it ineach of the five chapters of his letter (cf.1:19, 26; 2:12, 14, 16, 18; 4:11, 13, 15-16;5:12). Yet his most detailed treatment ofthe tongue is 3:1-12. James knew thetongue “is a tattletale that tells on the heartand discloses the real person . . .” In fact,Scripture variously describes the tongueas “wicked, deceitful, perverse, filthy, cor-rupt, flattering, slanderous, gossiping,blasphemous, foolish, boasting, complain-ing, cursing, contentious, sensual, and

67

vile. And that list is not exhaustive.”1

The tongue possesses unspeakablepower. Proverbs 18:21 teaches us, “Deathand life are in the power of the tongue.”What lessons would James want us tolearn concerning this “subject that is ineverybody’s mouth?”2 Six principles areset forth for our careful consideration.3

The Tongue TestsOur Teachers (3:1)

James begins this section by againaddressing his readers as “brethren”(adelphoi). This is his favorite form ofaddress in the letter, occurring 15 times(1:2, 16, 19; 2:1, 5, 14; 3:1, 10, 12; 4:11; 5:7,9, 10, 12, 19). It serves as both a term oftenderness and often as a transition to anew subject. Here he starts at the top withteachers, and in a surprising move, seeksto discourage persons from too quicklyaspiring to that office. In 2:14-26 Jameshammers home the importance of goodworks in the Christian life. He was alsoacutely aware that “in the absence ofworks, there is usually an abundance ofwords.” Far too often, those whose faithis anemic are all too “eager to talk abouttheir faith and to instruct others in its deli-cate theological nuances!”4 James uses oneof his 54 imperatives and warns that thosewho would seek this position should bevery careful. “Let not many of you becometeachers.” With greater privilege comesgreater accountability. “We” (he includeshimself) shall receive a greater judgment.

As heirs to the Jewish synagogue, itwas natural that the early church wouldhonor the office of teacher. Rabbi meant“my great one.” So great was the respectaccorded these teachers in Judaism that ifa man’s parents and his rabbi were cap-tured by an enemy, “duty demanded thatthe rabbi be ransomed first.”5 This respect

for teachers carried over into early Chris-tianity. As A. T. Robertson points out, “Inthe Didache (xiii. 2, xv. 1,2) teachers areplaced on par with prophets and higherthan bishops and deacons.”6

Teachers of the Word of God bear anawesome responsibility for the health ofthe Church. The spiritual and theologicalwell being of God’s people rest heavilyupon their shoulders. That they are faith-ful to the Scriptures is not an option; it isan imperative. Phil Newton says in Refor-

mation and Revival concerning the preach-ing and teaching of the Word of God, “Thepreacher must expound the Word of Godor else he has failed in his calling. He maybe a wonderful administrator, a winsomepersonal worker, and effective leader. Butif he fails to expound the Word of God, heis a failure to his calling to preach theWord.”7 George Zemek at the MastersSeminary adds, “Today there is a greatneed, not for plausible pulpiteers, but forpowerful preachers. Contemporary com-municators, saturated with arrogance,given to humanistic tactics, and practicedin manipulation, abound. Yet thereremains a real drought for the dynamicWord of God conveyed through humblemen of God by the powerful Spirit ofGod.”8

It is a weighty assignment to be calledby God to teach His Word: whether it be apublic ministry behind a pulpit to thou-sands, or one that is private in a familyroom to your children. The stakes arehigh. Eternity looks over one shoulderand the Lord Jesus over the other. It is agreat honor to teach the Word. It is, in onesense, an unbearable mission for which noperson is sufficient. I believe John Pipercaptures something of the gravity of thesituation when, in the context of preach-ing, he writes,

68

All genuine preaching is rooted in afeeling of desperation. You wake upon Sunday morning and you cansmell the smoke of hell on one sideand feel the crisp breeze of heavenon the other. You go to your studyand look down at your pitiful manu-script, and you kneel down and cry,‘God, this is so weak! Who do I thinkI am? What audacity to think that inthree hours my words will be theodor of death to death and the fra-grance of life to life (2 Cor 2:16). MyGod, who is sufficient for thesethings?”9

“My brethren, let not many of youbecome teachers.” As teachers, we mustbe careful with our mouths. As teachers,we must be mindful of our motives.

The Tongue MeasuresOur Maturity (3:2)

James now moves to speak not just toteachers but to everyone, including him-self. “We all stumble in many things.”Stumble is in the present tense and meansto sin or offend. “Many things” refers “notto the number but to the variety of sins.”10

In other words, “we all sin many times inmany ways.”11 His statement was prover-bial in the ancient world.12 It carried theweight of “an indisputable principledrawn from practical life.”13 It is univer-sally evident, “we all make mistakes, weall show the signs of the debilitatingeffects of sin.” The false accusation thatJames is a theological lightweight is evenmore unjust when we consider his doc-trines of sin (v. 2) and anthropology (v. 10).

While we could understand James asspeaking in general terms, reading him inthat way misses the point. His concern stilllies with the tongue. With a twist of irony,James affirms if one could simply avoidstumbling in word, he would be a perfectman, a truly mature man (teleios aner), ableto bridle indeed the whole body.” What

is James’s meaning here?The most difficult activity to control is

our speech. Words have a way of slippingoff the tongue and past our lips before weeven know it. Often this occurs with tragicresults, either for us or others or both. Justconsider for a moment the wisdom of theProverbs in this area:

Proverbs 16:28—“A perverse mansows strife, And a whisperer sepa-rates the best of friends.”Proverbs 18:6—“A fool’s lips enterinto contention, And his mouth callsfor blows.”Proverbs 18:7—“A fool’s mouth ishis destruction, And his lips are thesnare of his soul.”Proverbs 19:9—“A false witness willnot go unpunished, And he whospeaks lies shall perish.”Proverbs 26:7—“Like the leg of thelame that hangs limp, Is a proverbin the mouth of a fool.”Proverbs 26:28—“A lying tonguehates those who are crushed by it,And a flattering mouth works ruin.”

It is not difficult to sin in our speech. Ifwe could just muzzle our mouth and tameour tongue, everything else would seemsimple by comparison. By using the word“bridle,” James looks back to 1:26. Perhapshe remembered the counsel of David whowrote in Psalm 39:1, “I will guard myways, that I sin not with my tongue; I willguard my mouth with a muzzle.”Solomon adds in Proverbs 13:3, “He whoguards his mouth preserves his life, Buthe who opens wide his lips shall havedestruction.”

Only the spiritually mature can controltheir tongue. It is an unmistakable evi-dence of God’s work of grace in their life.It is also one of the ways our maturity ismeasured against the standard of ourMaster. First Peter 2:21-23 reminds us,“Christ also suffered for us, leaving us anexample, that you should follow His steps:

69

‘Who committed no sin, Nor was deceitfound in His mouth;’ who when He wasreviled, did not revile in return; whenHe suffered, He did not threaten, butcommitted Himself to Him who judgesrighteously.”

When you go to your doctor, one of thefirst things he examines is your tongue. Ittells him a lot about your physical condi-tion. If it is coated, you probably have afever. If it is yellowish, your digestive sys-tem may be out of sorts. By looking at yourtongue, a doctor can tell a great deal aboutyour physical condition. Similarly, by atongue examination, we learn quite a bitabout a person’s spiritual condition aswell. Justin Martyr, Church Father andApologist, wrote, “By examining thetongue of a patient, physicians find outthe diseases of the body; philosophers findout the diseases of the mind; Christiansfind out the diseases of the soul.”14

The Tongue DeterminesOur Direction (3:3-4)

Beginning in verse 3, James “launchesinto a series of illustrations to reinforce hisbelief that a comparatively small ‘mem-ber,’ such as the tongue, has influence outof all proportion to its size.”15 As a wiseteacher in touch with the times, he drawsfrom a well of illustrations that were com-mon in the ancient world.

The horse is a magnificent beast weigh-ing nearly half a ton. In terms of rawpower, it was unmatched in James’s day.However, place a two-inch bridle in itsmouth and a 100-pound child on its backwho knows what he is doing, and thatanimal which once ran wild and appeareduncontrollable can be made to dance andprance with remarkable grace and charm.Indeed, it is the same with men andhorses; control their mouth and you are

the master of all their actions.Or consider the large ship. Even in the

midst of fierce winds, the pilot holds thekey to the direction of the ship by virtueof the control he exercises over the smallrudder hidden beneath the water at theback of the ship.

A bit will direct the actions of a horse,though it is quite small in comparison tothis great beast. A rudder will determinethe direction of a ship in spite of its insig-nificant size in comparison to the great seavessel. Likewise, the tongue will direct theactions and determine the direction of ourentire body, despite the fact that it is oneof the smaller parts of our body.

Our life is destined to go in somedirection. It is inevitable. For good or evil,the activity of your tongue is certain to bea determinate factor. Indeed, the rightword at the right time may open doorsof ministry that will set the course ofyour life’s work. On the other hand, thewrong word at any time, even an unsus-pecting time, may close doors, establish areputation, and mark your ministry for ill.Words can most certainly determine ourdirection.

The Tongue InflamesOur Iniquity (3:5-6)

James now compares the tongue in itssmallness to the bridle and the rudder.“Even so,” just like the bridle and the rud-der, “the tongue a little (mikron) memberis.” James now develops his case a stepfurther. First, he notes this little memberboasts continually (present tense) greatthings (megala). “The tongue is powerfuland vainly boasts of its might, a commentthat goes back to Ps 73:9: ‘their tonguestruts through the earth . . .’”16 Second, heintroduces his most striking imagery: thetongue is a fire, guilty of verbal arson in

70

an instant.17 The NKJV states, “See howgreat a forest a little fire kindles.” “For-est” translates a Greek word that means“wood.” James is probably referring notso much to a “forest” (a rare feature ofNear Eastern topography) but “to thebrush that covers so many Palestinianhills which, in that dry Mediterranean cli-mate, could so easily and disastrouslyburst into flame.”18

Verse 6 may be the most severe state-ment in all of Scripture concerning theevil destruction that may leap from thetongue. James identifies four aspects of thetongue’s danger. First, it is a fire, a world(kosmos) of iniquity or unrighteousness, “aworld of wrong” (TEV). Calvin, comment-ing on this phrase said, “By adding that itis a world of iniquity, it is the same asthough he had called it the sea or theabyss. . . . A slender portion of flesh con-tains in it the whole world of iniquity.”19

Second, “The tongue is so set among ourmembers that it defiles the whole body.”“Defile” is in the present tense and meansto stain or corrupt. A contaminatingstench emanates from our tongue and in-fects the whole person like a cancer. Third,the tongue “sets on fire the course ofnature,” literally, “the wheel of origin orexistence.” The NIV translates the phraseas the “whole course of life,” capturingJames’s meaning quite well.20 The evil ofthe tongue works within and without. Itdefiles us on the inside and destroys ourlife on the outside. It leaves nothingunscathed. Fourth, the tongue “is set onfire by hell.” The word translated hell isgehenna. This is its only occurrence in theNew Testament outside the SynopticGospels. The word refers to the valley ofHinnom, just southwest of Jerusalem.Pagan child sacrifices took place there(cf. Jer 32:35). Trash and the bodies

of dead animals and criminals weredumped there. “The place was consideredunclean and unfit for any decent usage.. . . Because the fire burned all the timeand maggots were always present, theLord used gehenna to represent the eter-nal, never-ending torment of hell. . . . Hellis Satan’s place, prepared for him and hisdemons (Matt 25:41). As such, it is usedhere as a synonym for Satan and thedemons.”21 The tongue is a tool that thedevil is well trained to use. Whenever wemake it available to him, he is delightedto use it for his destructive goals.

That fires can be caused from meresparks became clear to me on a JanuarySunday in 1985. We were invited to Sun-day dinner at the apartment of somefriends in Dallas, Texas who lived next toEastfield Jr. College. The husband, a mannamed Bruce, decided to entertain mysmall sons after lunch by shooting bottlerockets out into a big field on the Eastfieldcampus. They loved it, until one of therockets ignited a little spark in the field.Bruce and the boys came into the apart-ment to get a pitcher of water to put outthis tiny flame. However, in the fewmoments it took for them to come insidefor the water and to return outside, astrong wind from the north had fannedthe flame into a great conflagration mov-ing rapidly toward a trailer home businessabout 200 yards away. Fortunately, the firedepartment arrived to douse the fire lessthan 20 feet from the trailers. Such a greatfire burning several acres, and it allbegan with a tiny spark.

Proverbs 16:27 reminds us, “Anungodly man digs up evil, And it is onhis lips like a burning fire.” Proverbs26:20-21 adds, “Where there is no wood,the fire goes out; And where there is notalebearer, strife ceases. As charcoal is to

71

burning coals, and wood is to fire, so is acontentious man to kindle strife.”

The Tongue RevealsOur Rebellion (3:7-8)

The little word “for” which beginsverse 7 reveals the connection these verseshave with the previous proofs of thetongue’s uncontrollable nature. Jamesnow describes the tongue additionally asuntamable. He cites four classifications ofanimals, an argument of amplification byaccumulation, emphasizing the totality ofour ability to tame animals.22 The fourfolddivision also reflects Genesis 1:26 andman’s dominion over the animal king-dom.23 Both the present and perfect tensesare used in affirming man’s ability to tameor domesticate the animal world. Man iscontinually taming and has successfullytamed the creatures that God has placedunder his watch care. But there is onebeast no man can tame. It is wilder, morepowerful, and more elusive than any ani-mal in the jungle: the human tongue. Sev-eral things should be noted about verse 8:(1) The word “tongue” actually occursfirst in the verse for emphasis and con-trast with verse 7; (2) No man, no human,is capable of taming the tongue. Thoughnot stated, it is possible that what mancannot do, God can; (3) This tongue is“unruly,” the same word James used in1:8, translated as “unstable,” in referenceto the double-minded man. The tongue isunstable, unruly, restless, it lacks single-mindedness; (4) It is full of death bearingpoison. A venom more deadly than thatof a cobra, a toxin more lethal than cya-nide, the tongue is a murderer assassinat-ing a man’s character, destroying thetender fabric that holds a marriagetogether. Psalm 140:3 says of evil men,“They sharpen their tongues like a ser-

pent; The poison of asps is under theirlips.”

Steve Stephens drives home the impor-tance of our words in our marriage. Hewrites, “There is nothing more painfulthan having unhealthy communicationwith the one you love. It is through com-munication that we connect and our spir-its touch. If that connection becomescontaminated, it is only a matter of timebefore the whole relationship is poisoned.. . . I have gathered together some closefriends and asked them what not to sayto your spouse. Here is their list:

“I told you so.”“I can talk to you until I am blue in the“face and it doesn’t do any good.”“You’re just like your mother.”“I can do whatever I like.”“You’re always in a bad mood.”“If you don’t like it, you can just leave.”“It’s your fault.”“Can’t you do anything right?”“What’s wrong with you?”“That was stupid.”“All you ever do is complain.”“All you ever do is think of yourself.”“I can’t do anything to please you.”“If you really loved me, you’d do this.”“You get what you deserve.”“You’re such a baby.”“Why don’t you ever listen to me?”“Turnabout’s fair play.”“Can’t you be more responsible?”“You deserve a taste of your own“medicine.”“What were you thinking?”“What’s your problem?”“You’re impossible.”“I can never understand you.”“I don’t know why I put up with you.”“Do you always have to be right?”24

72

Words reveal our rebellion. Words canwreck a marriage. Words can be full ofdeadly poison.

The Tongue CompromisesOur Confession (3:9-12)

James concludes his argument by not-ing the inconsistency of the words thatproceed forth from the tongue. “It is averitable Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Suchinconsistent usage is utterly unfit forbelievers (3:10b). The world of nature isnot guilty of such duplicity (3:11-12).”25

To allow our tongues to function like thiscompromises our confession because it isinconsistent with our profession of Christ.On the one hand, we use our tongues welland “bless the Lord and Father” (literaltranslation). We then turn around and“curse men who are made in the likenessof God.” Amazingly, blessings and cursescome out of the same mouth. James issuesa strong rebuke. “These things ought notto be so.” James clinches his argument bythe use of three illustrations: The first andsecond in the form of a question, the thirdin the form of a statement. First, does aspring (or fountain) gush forth both sweetand bitter water? The obvious answer is“no.” Second, can a fig tree produceolives or a grapevine produce figs? Again,the answer is “no.” Finally, neither can saltwater produce fresh. Bottomline: Badthings don’t produce good things andgood things don’t produce bad things.“Whatever comes out of the mouthunfailingly reveals what is on theinside.”26 Such inconsistency compro-mises our confession, and in the family itcan scar our children. Have you everstopped to think what it is like to be a childand hear some of the things they hearcoming out of the mouth of mom anddad? The same mouth that hopefully says,

“I love you, I’m so proud of you, I thankGod, He gave you to me,” may also beheard to say,

Shut up. Put that down. Stop thatright now. I don’t care what you aredoing, come here right now. Listento me. Give me that. Don’t touchthat. Not like that, stupid. Go away.Leave me alone. Can’t you see I’mbusy? Boy, that was really dumb.Can’t you do anything right? You’dlose your head if it wasn’t screwedon. Hurry up, we don’t have all day!What’s the matter with you? Can’tyou hear anything? I don’t knowwhat I’m going to do with you. Youwill never grow up to amount toanything.

And with words like these we don’tbless, we curse. We don’t build up, we teardown. And parents, words are powerfulwhen directed at our children.

John Trent tells the story of the first timea father took his little girl out for a “daddydate.” After getting their pancakes at a fastfood restaurant, the dad decided thiswould be a good time to tell her howmuch she was loved and appreciated.“Jenny,” he said, “I want you to know howmuch I love you, and how special you areto Mom and me. We prayed for you foryears, and now that you’re here and grow-ing up to be such a wonderful girl, wecouldn’t be prouder of you.”

Once he had said all this, he stoppedtalking and reached over for his fork tobegin eating . . . but he never got the forkto his mouth. His daughter reached outher little hand and laid it on her father’s.His eyes went to hers, and in a soft plead-ing voice she simply said, “Longer, Daddy,longer.” He put down his fork and toldher some more reasons they loved andappreciated her, and then again hereached for his fork: a second time, and athird, and a fourth, each time hearing the

73

words, “Longer, Daddy, longer.”Though this father did not get much to

eat that morning, his daughter got exactlywhat she needed. In fact, a few days later,she spontaneously ran up to her motherand said, “I’m a really special daughter,Mommy. Daddy told me so.”27

Conclusion“The mouth is the open door to the soul

. . .”28 Jesus said in Matthew 15:18, “Thosethings which proceed out of the mouthcome from the heart, and they defile aman.” Peter, quoting Psalm 34:12-13,wrote, “He who would love life and seegood days, Let him restrain his tonguefrom evil, And his lips from speakingdeceit.” A hateful heart will not producehelpful and healing words. No man cantame the tongue (v. 8), but God can. It ismy hope and prayer for me, and forevery person who calls Jesus Lord, thatGod will so fill our heart and thereby con-trol our tongue, that Proverbs 16:24 willbe truly said of us, their “pleasant wordsare a honeycomb, sweet to the soul andhealing to the bones.”

A careless word may kindle strife,A cruel word may wreck a life;A bitter word may smite and kill,A brutal word will accomplish nil;butA gracious word may smooth theway,A joyous word may brighten a day;A timely word may lessen stress,A loving word may heal and bless.

It was said of Jesus in John 7:46, “No manever spoke like this Man.” As we live inthe power of His grace, may it be thatothers will say the same of us.

ENDNOTES1 John MacArthur, James (The MacArthurNew Testament Commentary; Chicago:

Moody, 1998) 144.2 James Merritt, “Don’t Be Hung By YourTongue” (Sermon on James 3:1-12,preached 3-12-95 at the First BaptistChurch of Snellville, Georgia).

3 Duane Watson has analyzed James 3:1-12 according to Greco-Roman rhetoricalpatterns of argumentation. His studydemonstrates the unity of the pericope(contra Dibelius) and also provides guid-ance for the expositor who is interestedin honoring both the form and contentof the inspired author’s work. He arguesthat “James 3:1-12 exhibits the pattern ofargumentation for the complete argu-ment or theme” (51-52). See Duane Wat-son, “The Rhetoric of James 3:1-12 and aClassical Pattern of Argumentation,”Novum Testamentum 35 (1993) 48-64.

4 Zane Hodges, The Epistle of James (Irv-ing: GES, 1994) 77.

5 Cited in William Barclay, The Letters of

James and Peter (Philadelphia: West-minster, 1960) 84; Kent Hughes, James

(Wheaton: Crossway, 1941) 126; andMacArthur, 146-147.

6 A. T. Robertson, Studies in the Epistle of

James (Nashville: Broadman, n.d.) 105.7 Phil Newton, “Biblical Preaching,” Ref-

ormation and Revival 9 (Winter 2000) 19.8 George Zemek, “Paul’s Personal Para-digm for Preaching,” New Testament

Essays, ed. Gary T. Meadors (WinonaLake: BMH Books, 1990) 37-38.

9 John Piper, The Supremacy of God in

Preaching (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990) 37-38.

10Douglas Moo, The Letter of James (PillarNew Testament Commentary; GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 150.

11Hughes, 129.12Watson, 55.13Ibid., 56.14Quoted by Merritt in his sermon; cf. n. 2.

74

15Moo, 152.16Ralph Martin, James (WBC; Waco:

Word, 1988) 112.17Merritt.18Moo, 155.19John Calvin, Commentaries On The

Catholic Epistles, Vol. 22, trans. anded. John Owen (Grand Rapids: Baker,rprt. 1996) 320.

20Moo, 159.21MacArthur, 157.22Watson, 61.23Moo, 160.24Source unknown.25D. Edmond Hiebert, “The Unifying

Theme of the Epistle of James,”Bibliotheca Sacra 135 (July–Sept 1978)227.

26Hughes, 142.27John Trent, “Longer, Daddy…

Longer,” in Stories for the Heart,comp. Alice Gray (Sisters, OR:Multnomah Books, 1996) 157-158.

28W. A. Criswell, Expository Sermons

in the Epistle of James (Grand Rap-ids: Zondervan, 1975) 72.