James Through the Centuries 9781405151146, 1405151145

Table of contents :
James Through the Centuries
Copyright
Contents
List of Plates
Series Editors’ Preface
Preface
Acknowledgements
Introduction
Aim and Design of the Commentary
Reception History from a Bakhtinian Perspective
Brief History of Interpretation
Key Interpreters
John Chrysostom (347–407)
Augustine (354–430)
Bede the Venerable (673–735)
Martin Luther (1483–1546)
John Calvin (1509–64)
Søren Kierkegaard (1813–55)
Frederick Douglass (1818?–1895)
Charles F. Deems (1820–93)
Joseph B. Mayor (1828–1916)
Elsa Tamez (1950– )
Patterns of Interpretation
The sovereign God
James and Jesus
Faith in action: ethics, practical theology, and James
James and Paul
James of Jerusalem: In History and Tradition
James of Jerusalem as the Author of the Epistle of James
The Relationship of James of Jerusalem and Jesus
James as the brother of Jesus
James as an older half-brother of Jesus: the son of Joseph from a previous wife
James as the cousin of Jesus
James the brother of Jesus in the New Testament
Portraits of James outside the New Testament
Josephus
Eusebius
Excursus: James in the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Gnostic writings: the Nag Hammadi Library
New Testament Apocrypha
The Gospel of the Hebrews
Protevangelium of James
Pseudo-Clementine literature
Conclusion
Other Visual Representations of James of Jerusalem
James 1:1–11: Trials, Endurance, Wisdom, and the Exalted Poor
James 1:1–4
Ancient literary context
The interpretations
James 1:5–8
Ancient literary context
The interpretations
James 1:9–11
Ancient literary context
The interpretations
James 1:12–27: Trials, Endurance, and Doers of the Word
James 1:12–15
Ancient literary context
The interpretations
James 1:16–18
Ancient literary context
The interpretations
James 1:19–21
Ancient literary context
The interpretations
James 1:22–5
Ancient literary context
The interpretations
James 1:26–7
Ancient literary context
The interpretations
James 2:1–13: Deeds of Faith, the Chosen Poor, and the Law of Liberty
James 2:1–7
Ancient literary context
The interpretations
James 2:8–13
Ancient literary context
The interpretations
Early modern and modern
James 2:14–26: Faith without Works Is Dead
James 2:14–17
Ancient literary context
The interpretations
James 2:18–26
Ancient literary context
The interpretations
James 3:1–12: The Power and Danger of Speech
James 3:1–5a
Ancient literary context
The interpretations
James 3:5b–12
Ancient literary context
The interpretations
James 3:13–4:12: The Fruits of Wisdom versus Friendship with the World
James 3:13–18
Ancient literary context
The interpretations
James 4:1–10
Ancient literary context
The interpretations
James 4:11–12
Ancient literary context
The interpretations
James 4:13–5:6: The Sovereignty of God and God’s Judgment upon the Rich
James 4:13–17
Ancient literary context
The interpretations
James 5:1–6
Ancient literary context
The interpretations
James 5:7–11: The Patience of the Faithful and the Compassion of the Lord
James 5:7–11
Ancient literary context
The interpretations
James 5:12–20: Speech and Actions in the Community of the Faithful
James 5:12
Ancient literary context
The interpretations
James 5:13–18
Ancient literary context
The interpretations
James 5:19–20
Ancient literary context
The interpretations
Biographies
References
Index of Names
Index of Subjects

Citation preview

155mm

155mm

22.5mm

James

“In an engaging manner, David Gowler tells the story of the reception of the letter of James through the centuries. Along the way we meet an eclectic group of interpreters, some well-known and others not. The result is that we learn not only about how James was read in scholarly circles, but also among the more marginal, outside of the academy. Such a story is indeed a tribute to the letter of James.” Alicia Batten, Conrad Grebel University College at University of Waterloo

James Through the Centuries

“Gowler’s commentary locates James not only at various intersections in the history of learned commentary, from Chrysostom to Kierkegaard, but even more richly in the history of icons, mediaeval woodcuts and other artistic representations, in monastic rules, hymnody, literature, political polemics, and much more. This is a breathtaking survey of the ways, both overt and subtle, that James has become embedded in multiple aspects of Western culture.” John S. Kloppenborg, University of Toronto

David B. Gowler

83mm

James Through the Centuries David B. Gowler This unique commentary on James by an outstanding New Testament specialist, David B. Gowler, provides a broad range of original perspectives on how people have interpreted, and been influenced by, this important epistle. The author explores a vast array of interpretations extending far beyond theological commentary, sermons, and hymns, to also embrace the epistle’s influences on literature, art, politics, and social theory. The work includes examples of how successive generations have portrayed the historical figure of James the Just, in both pictorial and textual form. Contextualizing his analysis with excerpts from key documents, including artistic representations of the epistle, the author reviews the dynamic interactions between the James and Jesus traditions and compares James’s epistle with those of Paul. The volume highlights James’s particular concern for the poor and marginalized, charting the many responses to this aspect of its legacy. Drawing on sources as varied as William Shakespeare, John Calvin, Charles Schultz’s Peanuts, and political cartoons, this is an exhaustive study of the theological and cultural debates sparked by the Epistle of James.

229mm

Wiley Blackwell Bible Commentaries

Through the Centuries

Gowler

David B. Gowler is The Dr. Lovick Pierce and Bishop George F. Pierce Chair of Religion at Oxford College, Emory University, USA. He has published dozens of books, articles, book chapters, and book reviews, and since 1991 has served as co-editor of Emory Studies in Early Christianity.

7mm

7mm

83mm

James Through the Centuries

Wiley Blackwell Bible Commentaries

Series Editors: John Sawyer, Christopher Rowland, Judith Kovacs, David M. Gunn John Through the Centuries Mark Edwards Revelation Through the Centuries Judith Kovacs & Christopher Rowland Judges Through the Centuries David M. Gunn Exodus Through the Centuries Scott M. Langston Ecclesiastes Through the Centuries Eric S. Christianson Esther Through the Centuries Jo Carruthers Psalms Through the Centuries: Volume I Susan Gillingham

Galatians Through the Centuries John Riches Pastoral Epistles Through the Centuries Jay Twomey 1 & 2 Thessalonians Through the Centuries Anthony C. Thiselton Six Minor Prophets Through the Centuries By Richard Coggins and Jin H. Han Lamentations Through the Centuries Paul M. Joyce and Diana Lipton James Through the Centuries David B. Gowler

Forthcoming: 1 & 2 Samuel Through the Centuries David M. Gunn 1 & 2 Kings Through the Centuries Martin O’Kane Psalms Through the Centuries: Volume II Susan Gillingham Song of Songs Through the Centuries Fiona Black Isaiah Through the Centuries John F. A. Sawyer Jeremiah Through the Centuries Mary Chilton Callaway Ezekiel Through the Centuries Andrew Mein Mark Through the Centuries Christine Joynes The Acts of the Apostles Through the Centuries Heidi J. Hornik and Mikeal C. Parsons Romans Through the Centuries Paul Fiddes

1 Corinthians Through the Centuries Jorunn Okland Genesis 1–21 Through the Centuries Christopher Heard Genesis 22–50 Through the Centuries Christopher Heard Deuteronomy Through the Centuries Jonathan Campbell Daniel Through the Centuries Dennis Tucker Luke Through the Centuries Mark Bilby Matthew Through the Centuries Ian Boxall Chronicles Through the Centuries Blaire French Colossians and Philemon Through the Centuries Harry O. Maier Numbers Through the Centuries Ryan P. O’Dowd Job Through the Centuries David Tollerton and Stephen J. Vicchio

James Through the Centuries David B. Gowler

This edition first published 2014 © 2014 David B. Gowler Registered Office John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK Editorial Offices 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148–5020, USA 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell. The right of David B. Gowler to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author(s) have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services and neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for damages arising herefrom. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Gowler, David B., 1958–   James through the centuries / David B. Gowler.   pages cm   Includes bibliographical references and index.   ISBN 978-1-4051-5114-6 (cloth) 1. Bible. James–Commentaries.  I. Title.   BS2785.53.G69 2014  227′.9107–dc23 2013020984 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Cover image: St Michael fighting the dragon, woodcut by Albrecht Dürer, 1498, from The Revelation of St John (Revelation 12:7–9) Cover design by www.cyandesign.co.uk Set in /.pt Minion by SPi Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India 1 2014

In memory of Aurelia Stookey and Mitchell Stookey Who is wise and understanding among you? Show by your good life that your works are done with gentleness born of wisdom. James 3:13

Contents

List of Plates

ix

Series Editors’ Preface

xii

Prefacexiv Acknowledgementsxviii Introduction1 James 1:1–11: Trials, Endurance, Wisdom, and the Exalted Poor

63

James 1:12–27: Trials, Endurance, and Doers of the Word

99

viii Contents  James 2:1–13: Deeds of Faith, the Chosen Poor, and the Law of Liberty

143

James 2:14–26: Faith without Works Is Dead

173

James 3:1–12: The Power and Danger of Speech

204

James 3:13–4:12: The Fruits of Wisdom versus Friendship with the World

219

James 4:13–5:6: The Sovereignty of God and God’s Judgment upon the Rich

252

James 5:7–11: The Patience of the Faithful and the Compassion of the Lord

278

James 5:12–20: Speech and Actions in the Community of the Faithful

288

Biographies317 References323 Index of Names

331

Index of Subjects

335

List of Plates

1.1: 1.2: 1.3: 1.4: 1.5: 1.6:

Mural of the flight into Egypt (from left to right: James, Joseph, Jesus, and Mary), Dormition Abbey, Jerusalem The martyrdom of James, Sts. James Cathedral, Jerusalem The martyrdom of James, James thrown from the pinnacle of the Temple, Sts. James Cathedral, Jerusalem The martyrdom of James, James about to be struck with the fuller’s club, Sts. James Cathedral, Jerusalem James with episcopal robes, wearing a mitre, and holding a crozier, a painting by E. Esme in the western courtyard of Sts. James Cathedral, Jerusalem James (close-up view) with episcopal robes, wearing a mitre, and holding a crozier, in the western courtyard of Sts. James Cathedral, Jerusalem

33 42 42 42 43 43

x  List of Plates 1.7: 1.8: 1.9: 1.10: 1.11: 1.12: 1.13: 1.14: 1.15: 1.16: 1.17: 1.18: 1.19: 1.20: 1.21: 1.22: 1.23: 1.24: 1.25: 1.26: 1.27:

The throne of St. James, chancel area, Sts. James Cathedral, Jerusalem44 Painting of St. James of Jerusalem seated on the chair of the episcopate, chancel area, Sts. James Cathedral, Jerusalem 44 Painting of St. James of Jerusalem seated on the chair of the episcopate (close-up view), chancel area, Sts. James Cathedral, Jerusalem45 The throne of St. James with paintings of the patriarchs of Jerusalem in the background, Sts. James Cathedral, Jerusalem 45 Painting of St. James as the first patriarch of Jerusalem, Sts. James Cathedral, Jerusalem 45 Painting of Mary and Jesus (center), James the Great (left), and James of Jerusalem (right), Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem46 Close-up view showing James the Great (left) and Mary and Jesus (right), Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem 46 Close-up view showing Mary and Jesus (left) and James of Jerusalem (right), Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem 46 Painting of St. James of Jerusalem seated on the chair of the episcopate, chancel area, Sts. James Cathedral, Jerusalem 54 Ceramic tile icon of James of Jerusalem by George Sandrouni, Jerusalem54 James Tissot, James the Lesser (1886–1894) 55 Western face of Salisbury Cathedral, Salisbury, UK 56 James the Less, western face of Salisbury Cathedral, Salisbury, UK57 Close-up of fuller’s club held by James the Less, western face of Salisbury Cathedral, Salisbury, UK 57 James the Less (left) and James the Great (right), western face of Salisbury Cathedral, Salisbury, UK 58 Johann von Eck, The Martyrdom of James (1531) 59 Hieronymus Emser, James Reads His Letter (1539) 59 Illustration from Martin Luther, Luther’s Bible: The Apostle James the Lesser (seventeenth century) 60 “The Apostle James (the Less),” by Solis the engraver, in Martin Luther, Das symbolum der Heyligen Apostel (1548) 61 “The Apostle James the Less,” in The Book of Common Prayer, Church of England (1708) 61 El Greco (Domenikos Theotokopoulos), James the Lesser (ca. 1610–14) 61

List of Plates  xi 2.1:

“S. J. T. [Samuel Tilden] as ‘Mr. Facing-Both Ways’ . . .” Cartoonist: A. B. Frost. Harper’s Weekly, August 26, 1876 88 2.2: “Saint and Sinner” (Grover Cleveland and Adlai Stevenson). Cartoonist: Victor Gillam. Judge, August 6, 1892, p. 81 88 3.1: Image of James the Just in Christoph Weigel, Biblia ectypa (1695)132 7.1: Jan Luiken, “The Scrubbing-Brush: The Courtyard Is Perfect” (1711)239 7.2: Pride and humility in Charles Schulz, Peanuts245 9.1: The seventh engraving in William Blake, Illustrations of the Book of Job [in Twenty-One Plates] (1878) 282 9.2: Harriet Powers, Pictorial Quilt283 10.1: Nicolas Poussin, Extreme Unction (ca. 1639) 307

Series Editors’ Preface The Wiley Blackwell Bible Commentaries series, the first to be devoted primarily to the reception history of the Bible, is based on the premise that how people have interpreted, and been influenced by, a sacred text like the Bible is often as interesting and historically important as what it originally meant. The series emphasizes the influence of the Bible on literature, art, music, and film, its role in the evolution of religious beliefs and practices, and its impact on social and political developments. Drawing on work in a variety of disciplines, it is designed to provide a convenient and scholarly means of access to material until now hard to find, and a much-needed resource for all those interested in the influence of the Bible on Western culture. Until quite recently this whole dimension was for the most part neglected by biblical scholars. The goal of a commentary was primarily if not exclusively to

Series Editors’ Preface  xiii get behind the centuries of accumulated Christian and Jewish tradition to one single meaning, normally identified with the author’s original intention. The most important and distinctive feature of the Wiley-Blackwell Commentaries is that they will present readers with many different interpretations of each text, in such a way as to heighten their awareness of what a text, especially a sacred text, can mean and what it can do, what it has meant and what it has done, in the many contexts in which it operates. The Wiley Blackwell Bible Commentaries will consider patristic, rabbinic (where relevant), and medieval exegesis as well as insights from various types of modern criticism, acquainting readers with a wide variety of interpretative techniques. As part of the history of interpretation, questions of source, date, authorship, and other historical-critical and archaeological issues will be discussed, but since these are covered extensively in existing commentaries, such references will be brief, serving to point readers in the direction of readily accessible literature where they can be followed up. Original to this series is the consideration of the reception history of specific biblical books arranged in commentary format. The chapter-by-chapter arrangement ensures that the biblical text is always central to the discussion. Given the wide influence of the Bible and the richly varied appropriation of each biblical book, it is a difficult question which interpretations to include. While each volume will have its own distinctive point of view, the guiding principle for the series as a whole is that readers should be given a representative sampling of material from different ages, with emphasis on interpretations that have been especially influential or historically significant. Though commentators will have their preferences among the different interpretations, the material will be presented in such a way that readers can make up their own minds on the value, morality, and validity of particular interpretations. The series encourages readers to consider how the biblical text has been interpreted down the ages and seeks to open their eyes to different uses of the Bible in contemporary culture. The aim is to write a series of scholarly commentaries that draw on all the insights of modern research to illustrate the rich interpretative potential of each biblical book. John Sawyer Christopher Rowland Judith Kovacs David M. Gunn

Preface Hanging on the wall near my desk is a ceramic tile on which is painted the image of James of Jerusalem. It is the only one of its kind and was difficult to obtain. As I discovered first hand, even in the Old City of Jerusalem, where centuries before James had served as the first leader of the nascent group of post-Easter followers of Jesus, modern icons of James of Jerusalem are impossible to find. I searched for an icon of James, without success, in a seemingly countless number of shops in Jerusalem. After a long and fruitless quest, I returned to the workshop of George Sandrouni, which at that time was located across the street from the Cathedral of Sts. James in the Armenian section of the Old City. I asked him to paint for me an image of James of Jerusalem, based on the painting situated by the throne of James in the altar of the cathedral. After I explained about the commentary on James that I was beginning to research, George readily agreed, and a few weeks later I received in the mail a

Preface  xv ceramic tile with the image of James painted upon it. That image has graced the wall next to my desk ever since, and it helped inspire me as I continued to research and write this volume. That quest for an icon of James was well worth the effort. Likewise, the quest to discover how people have responded to the Epistle of James through the centuries was both sometimes elusive but also rewarding, as I hope readers of this volume will agree. This commentary seeks to illuminate the diversity of historical responses to James, drawing on a vast array of sources, whether scholarly, theological, or secular, from erudite texts to devotional hymns and sermons to popular culture. It attempts to be as comprehensive as possible, but it necessarily focuses on some key voices. This approach enables a myriad of responses to James to be heard; those that have dominated discussions and those interpreters—like James, sometimes—that have been marginalized or otherwise traditionally underrepresented. A few items in this book have not, to my knowledge, been published before; some materials are not readily available; other sources are quite familiar. What I hope is that readers will become, as I have, more appreciative of the enigmatic and compelling nature of this often ignored text. I am grateful to Judith Kovacs and Chris Rowland for their invitation to write the volume on James in this innovative and unique series. Their commentary on the Book of Revelation, the initial volume in the series, set a very high standard for the rest of us. Judith and Chris also set a very high standard as editors whose vision for the series established helpful parameters, parameters that include a wise understanding that each volume needs a distinctive voice in and of itself. I am grateful to have them as both colleagues and friends. I am also grateful for the patience and professionalism of the people at Wiley Blackwell with whom I worked, including Rebecca Harkin, Karen Raith, Georgina Coleby, Nora Naughton, and Rebecca du Plessis. I began this commentary during a sabbatical at the University of Oxford. Chris Rowland facilitated my being named a Visiting Theologian by the Theology Faculty, which gave me valuable access to both the resources of the  main Bodleian Library and the Theology Faculty Library. Chris and Catherine Rowland, both dear friends, were most gracious hosts to my family and me during the sabbatical. I also spent part of my sabbatical happily ensconced at a desk in Pitts Theology Library of Emory University, making use of its incredible resources. I am especially thankful for Myron McGhee—Senior Circulation Specialist at Pitts, as well as a scholar and artist in his own right— whose diligent work assisting me in locating those resources added much to this volume. I also am fortunate that my position as Pierce Chair of Religion at Oxford College of Emory University includes significant research funds; these funds financed research trips to Florence, Madrid, Berlin, and Jerusalem, as

xvi Preface well as two trips to England, during the writing of this book. In Jerusalem, Father Emmanuel Atajanyan, the former Dean of the Theological Seminary of the Monastery of Sts. James and a member of the Synod and Supreme Religious Court of the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, escorted me to the chancel area of the Sts. James Cathedral, where I was able to see rare artifacts, including the painting of James that George Sandrouni turned into an icon for me. I was also fortunate to have the assistance of two Oxford College of Emory University student research scholars, both of whom worked for a year on a project related to this book. Alexa Hayes’s research focused on certain images of James of Jerusalem in visual art, and Isaac Payne, now a graduate student at Harvard, researched the use of James in the Social Gospel movement, the Civil Rights movement, and Liberation Theology. John Kloppenborg and Alicia Batten, eminent specialists in the interpretation of James, graciously agreed to read a draft of the book manuscript. I am grateful for their many insights that made the volume much stronger. I ignored their sage advice at my peril. Many thanks are also due to Douglas Low, who traveled with me on two memorable research trips to Israel. His biblical know­ ledge, theological expertise, and friendship were invaluable not only on those trips but also during the thirty years we have known each other. I am indebted to his knowledge, patience, good humor, and skill at photography—especially after I dropped and broke my camera while photographing images of James at the Dormition Abbey. My brother-in-law, Jerry Stookey, OP, was on sabbatical at the École biblique during our second trip to Israel. Jerry was a model of hospitality for Douglas and me during our stay in Jerusalem. Jerry’s excitement for this project was contagious, and he contributed much to its success. Without his assistance, for example, the rare photographs from the Cathedral of Sts. James would not have been taken. More importantly, Jerry has dedicated his life to promoting justice and peace throughout the world, and he is a kindred spirit, in many ways, with James of Jerusalem. I think especially of James’s prophetic words to the rich and of encouragement to the poor, the “militant patience”—steadfastness, resistance, and heroic endurance—of which Elsa Tamez speaks. But most of all, the words of James 3:18 reflect Jerry’s ministry as a priest who works diligently for  justice: “And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.” Just yesterday, October 22, 2012, my brother Gary was diagnosed with nonHodgkin’s lymphoma. As I write this preface, I am reminded that in the preface of my first book, Host, Guest, Enemy, and Friend, I included words about the courage of my nephew James, the son of Gary and his wife Lorna, who as a young child endured multiple surgeries to try to repair a life-threatening arterio-venous malformation in his brain. James has now lived for over thirty years

Preface  xvii with AVM and has undergone additional surgeries in recent years. Through it all, James continues to be an inspiration to our family. Gary and Lorna’s family was also mentioned in a more recent book that I edited, Sea Voyages and Beyond, by Vernon K. Robbins. My dedication in that book was to the memory of Bethany Gowler, Gary and Lorna’s daughter. It was almost exactly ten years ago, on November 6, 2002, that Bethany, then seventeen, was killed in an automobile accident. So, in this preface, it is with great sadness that I write about Gary and Lorna’s more recent trial in a lengthy series of trials over the past three decades. As I do so, however, I also marvel at their courage, goodness, and faith. May they take comfort in the words of James that, through such endurance, they will become “mature and complete, lacking in nothing” (James 1:4). My deepest wish is that the preface of my next book will be able to include a note of thankfulness that Gary is cancer-free and in full health. This volume is dedicated to the memory of two of the most wonderful human beings I have ever known: Aurelia Stookey and Mitchell Stookey. They, more than anyone I know, were “doers of the word,” spending much of their time either actively working for the well-being of others or thinking about what actions they could take to promote the well-being of others. Aurelia and Mitchell Stookey epitomized the wisdom (from above) and understanding mentioned in James 3:13, and their good lives were filled with good works done in “gentleness born of wisdom.” They were also exceedingly gracious, loving, and kind, and they welcomed me into their family with open arms. They, justifiably, were incredibly proud of their children—Donald, Charlyn, Patricia, Mary Jane, Jerry, Tom, Joe, and Rita—their grandchildren, and their great-grandchildren (too numerous to mention here). I am grateful for the years that I was able to be with them and to learn from them, and I am proud to be a member of their wonderful family. Most of all, I am thankful for their eighth child, the greatest gift I have ever received. David B. Gowler The Feast of St. James October 23, 2012

Acknowledgements Texts The Commentary on the Seven Catholic Epistles of Bede the Venerable (CS 82). © 1985 by Cistercian Publications. Published by Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN. Reprinted with permission. James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John,Vol. 11, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, ed. Gerald Bray. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000. Copyright © 2000 by the Institute of Classical Christian Studies (ICCS), Thomas C. Oden, and Gerald Bray. Used by permission of InterVarsity Press PO Box 1400 Downers Grove, IL 60515. www.ivpress.com.

Acknowledgements  xix Blassingame, John W., et al., eds. The Frederick Douglass Papers, Series One: Speeches, Debates, and Interviews, Vol. 1: 1841–6. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1979. Blassingame, John W., et al., eds. The Frederick Douglass Papers, Series One: Speeches, Debates, and Interviews, Vol. 2: 1847–54. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982. Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1989 by the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Unless stated otherwise, primary texts quoted within this book are taken from Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL): www.ccel.org. In a few cases, small modifications were made to modernize the language.

Illustrations 1.16: Ceramic tile of James of Jerusalem by George Sandrouni. Photograph by Cathy Wooten, Oxford College of Emory University. 1.7: James Tissot, James the Lesser. The Art Archive / Superstock. 1.22: Johann von Eck, 1531. The Martyrdom of James. Courtesy of the Richard C. Kessler Reformation Collection, Pitts Theology Library, Candler School of Theology, Emory University. 1.23: Hieronymus Emser, 1539. James Reads His Letter. Courtesy of the Richard C. Kessler Reformation Collection, Pitts Theology Library, Candler School of Theology, Emory University. 1.24: Martin Luther, Luther’s Bible: The Apostle James the Lesser, seventeenth century. Courtesy of the Pitts Theology Library, Candler School of Theology, Emory University. 1.25: Martin Luther. Das symbolum der Heyligen Apostel (Solis the engraver), 1548. Image Title: “The Apostle James (the Less).” Courtesy of the Richard C. Kessler Reformation Collection, Pitts Theology Library, Candler School of Theology, Emory University. 1.26: The Book of Common Prayer (Church of England). “The Apostle James the Less,” 1708. Courtesy of the Pitts Theology Library, Candler School of Theology, Emory University.

xx Acknowledgements 1.27: El Greco (Domenikos Theotokopoulos), ca. 1610–14. James the Lesser. The Art Archive / Superstock. 2.1: “S. J. T. as ‘Mr. Facing-Both Ways’ . . .” Cartoonist: A. B. Frost. Harper’s Weekly, August 26, 1876, p. S705. Provided by Manuscript, Archives, and Rare Book Library, Emory University. 2.2: “Saint and Sinner.” Cartoonist: Victor Gillam. Judge, August 6, 1892, p. 81. Provided by Archives & Special Collections, Valdosta State University. 3.1: Christoph Weigel, 1695. Biblia ectypa. Courtesy of the Pitts Theology Library, Candler School of Theology, Emory University. 7.1: Jan Luiken, 1711. The Scrubbing-Brush: The Courtyard Is Perfect. Courtesy of the Pitts Theology Library, Candler School of Theology, Emory University. 7.2: PEANUTS © 1959 Peanuts Worldwide LLC. Dist. by UNIVERSAL UCLICK. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved. 9.1: William Blake, Illustrations of the Book of Job [in Twenty-One Plates]. Yale Center for British Art, Gift of J. T. Johnston Coe in memory of Henry E. Coe, BA 1878, Henry E. Coe, Jr., BA 1917, and Henry E. Coe III, BA 1946. 9.2: Harriet Powers, Pictorial Quilt. Photograph © 2014 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. 10.1: Nicolas Poussin, ca. 1639. Extreme Unction. The Art Archive / Duke of Rutland / Eileen Tweedy. All other photographs were taken by Rita Gowler, Camden Gowler, Jacob Gowler, or David B. Gowler.

Introduction Aim and Design of the Commentary The Apostle James must be dragged a little into prominence—not in behalf of works against faith; no, no, that was not the Apostle’s meaning, but in behalf of faith. (Kierkegaard 1974: 49)

“Why in the world did you pick the Epistle of James?” a colleague asked when I started this project. “I have never found James particularly interesting. Just a list of admonitions; not much there, it seems.” My response was that I had just James Through the Centuries, First Edition. David B. Gowler. © 2014 David B. Gowler. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2 Introduction f­inished writing a book on Jesus and was intrigued by the convergence of the message of Jesus and the message of James. As Patrick Hartin puts it, “. . . James is the true heir to the message and way of life of Jesus. On him the mantle of Jesus truly rests” (2004: xvii). Inheriting the mantle of Jesus, however, did not ensure that the Epistle of James was quickly and universally accepted by the Christian church. Unlike the mantle of Elijah/Elisha, the waters of canonicity did not part at the touch of this inherited mantle (cf. 2 Kings 2:1–18). It is ironic that a text which echoes so much of the teachings of Jesus, especially the Sermon on the Mount, and which inherits in many ways the heart, mind, and message of Jesus, ran into so many difficulties in being accepted as scripture. In this instance, Jesus was correct about a prophet being without honor in his own land. One is tempted to wonder whether these objections about James might stem from more than just questions about apostolic provenance or perceived disagreements with Paul’s justification by faith, for example. Perhaps it also stems in part from the fact that James often ventriloquates sayings of Jesus that many Christians attempt to ignore or domesticate (cf. Tamez 2002: 62). The “works” of which James speaks (e.g., James 2) include works of social justice, making sure that one’s less fortunate sisters and brothers have their physical needs met, such things as food, clothes, housing, a living wage, and adequate health care. The fact that James inherits to a large extent the heart and mind of Jesus means that this book’s exploration of how the Epistle of James has been received over the centuries is not just an academic exercise. As will become clear in the commentary, the Letter of James often has an “immediate” effect on its readers, as Robert Wall, Professor of Scripture at Seattle Pacific University, notes about his students: . . . [M]ost who closely read what James says are able to locate themselves in its literary and moral worlds. As a result, my students sometimes locate themselves among the rich and powerful who disregard the powerless; they often confess themselves to be the very believers who substitute facile confession for an embodied devotion to God, or use malicious words to gain an advantage over a rival—all important contours of James’s concern . . . . An interpretation of James should search out those meanings that allow the text to have a prophetic effect on its current readers and their context; indeed this is one canonical role that any biblical book performs, James more so than others (1997: 2).

This commentary highlights a number of diverse responses to James through the centuries, while attempting to balance depth and breadth, to focus on important voices while being as comprehensive as possible. The commentary, however, does not merely focus on theological or academic responses, and it

Introduction  3 often omits details of academic debates in modern scholarship that are ­adequately covered in historical-critical commentaries on James. This overview of the reception history of James takes into account not only commentaries and theological works, but also sermons, hymns, and other materials, as well as addressing, where possible, social and political elements, literature, and the arts. An essential element of this endeavor is to allow a wide variety of responses to James to be heard: those that have dominated discussions and those—like James, sometimes—that have been marginalized. Because of its unique role within the canon and the vagaries of its reception by various groups within and outside the church, the amount and depth of response to James is rather meager compared to the reception of the Gospels, Paul, or Revelation. Yet, we find numerous voices responding to James over the centuries in both expected and unexpected places and in both predictable and unpredictable ways. This reception history commentary follows the same basic pattern for each section of James. First, a brief analysis of the “Ancient Literary Context” paints an overall portrait of the verses to which interpreters respond and sets the stage for the types of interactions they have with the text. The discussions of these responses, “The Interpretations,” are divided into two sections, “Ancient and Medieval” and “Early Modern and Modern.” The interpretations follow a roughly chronological order, although some deviations from that chronology are made for the sake of clarity or to illustrate certain themes more completely. For the sake of context, the commentary includes numerous excerpts to permit those voices to speak for themselves as extensively as possible.

Reception History from a Bakhtinian Perspective Truth is not born nor is it to be found inside the head of an individual person, it is born between people collectively searching for truth, in the process of their dialogic interaction. (Bakhtin 1984: 110)

Although not made explicit in this commentary, the philosophical foundation for my own approach to reception history is influenced by the “Dialogism” of the philosopher and classicist Mikhail Bakhtin. As the quote above indicates, Bakhtin stresses the importance of the dialogic interaction of numerous voices, a polyphony, in other words. Polyphony is an expression derived from music that denotes a combination of two or more independent, melodic parts. Bakhtin, however, applies it to what he discovers in Dostoevsky’s novels, where Dostoevsky unfolds “a plurality of consciousnesses, with equal rights and each with its own

4 Introduction world.” The voices of the characters, alongside the author’s voice, are “full and equally valid voices” (1984: 6–7). Polyphony thus can be seen as any environment devoted to the idea that all voices—often contesting voices representing a variety of ideological positions—receive a fair and equal hearing (Gowler 2000: 444; cf. Gregory the Great’s words about the single “tambourine” versus the voices in a “chorus” in my chapter “James 3:13–4:12” below). These voices, then, are simultaneously independent and interde­pendent in various ways. This goal of polyphony is exactly the aim of “The Interpretations” sections of the Wiley Blackwell Bible Commentaries series. As Christopher Rowland notes concerning the commentary on Revelation that he and Judith Kovacs produced, numerous interpreters are allowed “to speak for themselves without being subjected to editorial judgment,” but Rowland and Kovacs also maintain their own “distinctive point of view” (http://bbibcomm.net/files/rowland2004. pdf). That approach is polyphony at its best, and the “The Interpretations” ­sections of this commentary on James will have the same goal. From a Bakhtinian perspective, language is produced out of social interaction among people (see Gowler 1993: 220). As texts are read and reread, then, dialogues are created among interpreters of differing conceptual horizons, dialogues that enrich and deepen our understandings of what a text connotes and denotes (see Bakhtin 1991: 282). Any utterance—whether text, speech, or work of art—is in essence a rejoinder, an active participant in social dialogue. The Epistle of James, for example, was created by and existed in conversations with its cultural environment(s) and with numerous dialogical social discourses over the centuries, and James’s significance must be understood in the context of those discourses. Therefore, the “meaning” of the Epistle of James does not reside alone in the creative genius of its author; it exists in a relation between creator and contemplators (see Gowler 2000: 102), and a complex correlation exists between the text and the contexts in which James has been read and reread. We stand, therefore, on the shoulders of centuries of conversations; our own interpretations are never independent of the reception history of these texts. Thus a reading of James does not allow a passive role; interpreters participate in the formation of meaning as have, broadly speaking, the whole complex of people and social situations in which the Epistle of James has been read and heard through the centuries. Current interpreters thus are not like telegraph operators who must receive and decode an “original” message. Instead interpreters participate in the construction of meaning, a construction that began in the dialogues to which the Epistle of James responds and continued through the centuries in which James was received. Those dialogues endure and are extended every time James is interpreted anew, and this volume celebrates those continuing dialogues. Thus a major strength of this commentary series is that it makes explicit what in reality is inherent but usually implicit—that our own interpretations are

Introduction  5 incomplete without a dialogic response to the responses of those interpreters who have preceded us.

Brief History of Interpretation Luke Timothy Johnson noted in 1995 that an “adequate account of how James was first received and subsequently interpreted has yet to be written” (1995: 124). Johnson’s commentary offers a sketch of the history of interpretation that provides an excellent starting point for these discussions (1995: 124–61; cf. 2004: 39–100), and other scholars before and after Johnson provide additional helpful details (e.g., Mayor 1990: 84–102; Ropes 1916: 86–109; Adamson 1989: 147–66; Penner 1999: 257–308; Myllykoski 2006, 2007; Batten 2009). Volumes in the Wiley Blackwell Bible Commentaries series, however, do not provide lengthy and comprehensive accounts of the history of reception. Instead, these brief volumes are more representative, and they allow that story to unfold as interpreters react to specific scriptural texts. Such it is with this volume. What makes a study of the history of reception of James especially interesting is the fact that James has, as Todd Penner observes, “an unusual place in the history of interpretation” (1999: 257). James has been labeled an “oddity” (Laws 1980: 1), the “Melchizedek” of the Christian canon (Penner 1999: 257), the “junk mail” of the New Testament (Elliott 1993: 71), and the “stepchild of New Testament scholarship” (Hartin 2003: ix). Dan McCartney observes that James has a “unique voice” within the New Testament, one that focuses on “practical theology” with memorable phrases and aphorisms helpful for moral exhortation (2009: 1). Craig Blomberg and Mariam Kamell suggest that the numerous “challenging pronouncements” in James—such as the ones to which McCartney alludes—caused many Christians to “have avoided this book in their studies or at least given it short shrift” (2008: 21). Christopher Church provides a more imaginative illustration for James’s reception in the church. He compares the uniqueness of James to a coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae), a “living fossil” of a fish thought to be extinct for 65 million years but discovered alive in the waters off the coast of South Africa in 1938. This comparison to a coelacanth is apt, Church believes, because James in many ways is a “living” representative of an ancient, flourishing “Jewish Christianity” (McKnight and Church 2004: 323). These explanations may not be mutually exclusive, since the “challenging pronouncements” in James stem from the Torah obedience—following the law of God—so important to Jesus and the resulting Jewish Christianity (i.e., Jewish followers of Jesus who also followed the law because of God’s covenant with Israel), not to mention the eventual dominance within the church of Paul’s

6 Introduction f­ ormulation of justification by faith. And, as Elsa Tamez points out, the difficulties for many Christians are increased by James’s radical pronouncements on wealth and poverty (Tamez 2002). The most striking thing about the reception of James in the early church is the paucity of references to James—especially in the West. The reception in the East is somewhat easier to ascertain. Origen (185–254 CE), the successor of Clement as the head of the Alexandrian School, is the first person to cite James explicitly as scripture. One example is in his second homily on Leviticus (2.4.5), where he cites James 5:20 and calls James “divine scripture” (Origen 2005: 47). In addition, Origen provides evidence that at least some in the church believed that James of Jerusalem wrote the epistle. Origen calls the author of James the “brother of the Lord,” for example, when Origen cites James 4:4 in his Commentary on Romans (8.2; see other references in Johnson 2004: 65–6; as Johnson notes, John Chrysostom later elevates this title to “brother of God”). Other members of the Alexandrian tradition use James extensively, including the first extant commentary of James attributed to Didymus the Blind (but see the questions of authenticity raised by Ropes 1916: 110). Both Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria cite James extensively as well. The lack of references to James by other early church figures could be to some extent attributed to competition between rival schools such as Alexandria and Antioch. As Johnson notes, “The more fervently the Alexandrians quoted James in favor of their theological positions, the less attractive James would likely appear to those opposing such positions” (2004: 71). John Chrysostom and others greatly concerned with morals and practical theology (e.g., monks), however, were more accepting of James and utilized it more frequently. The story in the Western church is much different. The lack of clear references to James is extraordinary. Although both Irenaeus and Tertullian use the term “friend of God,” that in itself is not a clear reference to James 2:23 (cf. 2 Chron. 20:7; Isaiah 41:8). Cyprian, Novatian, and Ambrose also give no clear evidence of knowing the epistle, although Ambrose might allude to James 2:5 and 4:8 (Ropes 1916: 101). The absence of clear citations or even allusions to James from early writings in the West is intriguing, especially if, as some scholars argue, James were known and used by the Roman church by the middle of the second century and if 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas (which uses the term dipsychos; cf. James 1:8; 4:8) allude to James (Johnson 1995: 135; 2004: 91–6; Hartin 2003: 6). Beside these possible but disputed uses of James in the West, James does not appear in the Muratorian Canon (ca. 200 CE)—even though it does mention Jude and two letters of John—or in the writings of early Latin authors. Jonathan Yates’s investigation of the reception of James in the West provides some important insights as to how this might have occurred. He notes that “the first irrefutable reference” to James in the West comes from Hilary of Poitiers in his anti-Arian

Introduction  7 work, On the Trinity (ca. 356–60 CE; see Yates 2004: 276–7). Hilary, the premier fourth-century theologian in the West before Ambrose and, of course, Augustine, was a lawyer who, although married, was elected Bishop of Poitiers. Hilary is called the “Athanasius of the West,” because he championed the theological formulation of the Council at Nicaea and vigorously defended it against the Arians. Hilary quotes James in a section where he is discussing the “fraud and fallacy” of the Arians who cite sections of the Bible in order to “attempt, by praising the Godhead of the Father only, to deprive the Son of His Divinity.” James 1:17, Hilary says, is one of the passages the Arians misuse and cites the “apostle James” as its author: “And further, they profess themselves certain that in the Father there is no change nor turning, because He has said through the prophet, I am the Lord your God, and I am not changed [Malachi 3:6], and the apostle James, With Whom there is no change [1:17]” (On the Trinity 4.8.26). The next unambiguous citation of James in the West is attributed to Ambrosiaster, a mysterious author who—apparently in Rome—wrote the ­oldest Latin commentary on the Pauline epistles. Ambrosiaster’s commentary on Galatians 5:10 (ca. 380; see Yates 2004: 277), cites James 5:20 as from the “apostle James” and as authoritative. Yates also argues that Pelagius provides critical information about James’s acceptance in the West. Pelagius assumes that James of Jerusalem wrote the ­letter and calls James “blessed,” “saintly,” and “veteran soldier of Christ.” Pelagius also cites James in abbreviated form, which, Yates contends, means that he expected his readers to know the epistle well enough to be familiar with the full citations: “In other words, Pelagius’ manner of citing James offers significant evidence that James had been accepted as scripture in certain circles of Rome at least by circa 390” (2002: 487–8). Johnson, for one, argues that James became more popular in the West due to  the influence of Jerome (who included it in the Vulgate), Augustine, and Rufinus. Among those three, it was Augustine’s authority that firmly established James’s status as scripture (Johnson 1995: 137–8; 2004: 96–100). Yates suggests another, earlier influence on James’s acceptance in the West, one that might have influenced both Hilary and Ambrosiaster: Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria. In Yates’s view, this influence primarily occurred during Athanasius’s two exiles in the West (a total of eight years). As noted above, Athanasius cites James extensively, considers it authoritative, and includes it in his influential “Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle” (367 CE), in which were listed, for the first time, the twenty-seven books that came to be the canon of the New Testament. James, of course, was among them (2004: 273–88). The details of the reception of the Epistle of James will unfold as the commentary proceeds, but a brief introduction to the key interpreters who arose in the process of writing this commentary will be helpful in setting the stage. The

8 Introduction inclusion of some voices will be uncontroversial—Martin Luther obviously will play a major role in the interpretations that follow. Other voices, however, may be unexpected— Søren Kierkegaard, Frederick Douglass, and Elsa Tamez, for example. Their voices are included not only because of the depth and breadth of their responses to James but also in the interest of polyphony, where voices representing a variety of ideological positions, including voices that are sometimes silenced or marginalized, receive a fair and equal hearing.

Key Interpreters John Chrysostom (347–407) John Chrysostom served as a deacon and then presbyter in Antioch, during which time he wrote the majority of his exegetical homilies. Against his wishes, he was appointed Bishop of Constantinople in 398, and, though ­popular with the people, he quickly became unpopular in some circles for his  denunciations of iniquity—the clergy and the wealthy were typical ­targets. In his sermons, he rails against the abuses of the wealthy and speaks words of comfort to the poor. A gifted orator—chrysostom in Greek means “golden-mouthed”—Chrysostom was also unafraid to stand up against the emperor, such as when he gave the eunuch Eutropius sanctuary in his church against the wishes of the Emperor Arcadius (Davies 1980: 220). His ascetic practices and generous almsgiving were indicative of his concern for the poor. Chrysostom’s devotion to the Bible sometimes generated animosity against those who ignored the Bible or who did not work diligently to understand it and apply it in their lives. This anger led him to castigate his listeners for their ignorance and malfeasance. His goal was to exhort his listeners to live faithfully as Christians, which for him “meant striving for social justice for the poor through almsgiving and turning one’s back on material goods to strive for spiritual virtues” (McKim 2007: 571). Although Chrysostom does not utilize James extensively (forty-eight times from twenty separate verses, e.g., 2:18; 5:12; Homilies I, V, XVII; see Johnson 1995: 132) and has no (extant, at least) homilies on James, his voice is an important one in the reception of James. Adamson, in fact, states that Chrysostom’s support of the epistle and his identification of its author as James the brother of  Jesus were critical in James’s acceptance as scripture in the Syrian church (1989: 154). Chrysostom also is important because he often stands in contrast with other interpreters who tend to domesticate some of James’s more radical statements about the rich and poor.

Introduction  9

Augustine (354–430) Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, a small town in North Africa, was the most influential theologian of Western Christianity. Born at Tagaste, about fifty miles from Hippo, Augustine studied rhetoric in Carthage and, although not yet converted to Christianity, was deeply influenced by his Christian mother, Monica, and, later, by Ambrose, Bishop of Milan. Augustine documents his early life through his classic work, Confessions, the first Christian autobiography. His narrative covers his early “muddy cravings of the flesh,” to opening a grammar school in Tagaste, to teaching rhetoric in Carthage, to the birth of his son, Adeodatus (while remaining unmarried to his mother), to his nine years as a Manichean, to his move to Rome and then Milan (where he became an instructor in ­rhetoric), to hearing the voice to “take up and read” the New Testament (and reading Romans 13), to his baptism by Ambrose, and to the moving account of his mother’s death in Ostia, on their way back to Africa. Augustine was ordained a priest in Hippo and eventually became bishop. A prolific author, Augustine wrote voluminous letters, sermons, commentaries, and other books—such as The City of God, On the Trinity, and On Christian Doctrine—that have exerted a tremendous influence throughout the history of the church. He also was engaged in a number of controversies with such groups as the Donatists, Arians, and Pelagians, and he utilizes James frequently in these dialogues to argue about issues such as free will and the relation of faith and works. Unfortunately, Augustine’s attempt at a commentary on James—put together by some of his students—is no longer extant. Augustine, though, cites James frequently in his writings (especially James 1:17; 2:10, 19–26; in his works, he cites all but 18 of the 108 verses in James), and two of his sermon expositions on James are extant (1:19–22 and 5:12).

Bede the Venerable (673–735) When Bede was seven years old, his family presented him as an oblate to the monastery at Wearmouth, and he spent the rest of his life as a monk in the service of the church. The monastery had an impressive library, and Bede became well versed in a number of fields—science, mathematics, grammar, rhetoric, history, theology, and the study of the Bible. As Bede notes in the ­conclusion of his Ecclesiastical History of England, the study of the Bible was his primary love and focus: “I wholly applied myself to the study of Scripture; and amidst the observance of monastic rule, and the daily charge of singing in the church, I always took delight in learning, or teaching, or writing . . .” (XXIV). Included among Bede’s numerous biblical commentaries are his commentaries

10 Introduction on the seven epistles that “church tradition calls catholic, that is, universal” (i.e., not addressed to particular churches; James; 1 and 2 Peter; 1, 2, and 3 John; and Jude; Bede 1985: 3), which he wrote from approximately 709–16 CE. Afraid that his fellow Christians might be led astray by false teachings, Bede often uses the commentary on James (and the other catholic epistles) to refute “false” doctrines espoused by such groups as Manicheans, Arians, and Pelagians. Bede’s commentary on James is especially helpful, because it not only provides a full treatment of James, but it also dialogues with earlier authors, especially Augustine. Bede writes with clarity, precision, depth, and, as many note, personal charm. Bede treats the historical sense of the passages he exegetes, but he also seeks to strip “off the bark of the letter to find a deeper and more sacred meaning in the pith of the spiritual sense” (Bede 1985: x–xi). Since his commentary on James was one of the earliest he wrote, it does not include the amount of allegorical interpretations that his later works utilize (xi). Bede’s interpretations of the “poor” in James 2:5 and the “rich” in James 1:11 and in 2:7 certainly are more “spiritualized” (i.e., “domesticated”) than other, especially more recent, commentators. In addition, Bede’s comments about faith and works are important contributions to the discussions, and he elaborates how the views of James and Paul are complementary (e.g., “faith and charity cannot be separated from one another”; Gal. 5:6; James 2:20–1; 1985: 28–32).

Martin Luther (1483–1546) Every discussion of Martin Luther and the Epistle of James includes the famous comment from his Preface to the New Testament that James “is really an epistle of straw” (Luther 1955–76, (hereafter abbreviated as LW) 35: 362; cf. 1 Cor. 3:12, LW 35: 395). Luther’s doubts about the epistle’s apostolic authorship and authority were anticipated in comments by Erasmus (and Jerome). As Timothy George notes, Luther’s first recorded criticism about James (1519) merely echoes Erasmus’s critique that James’s style was “far inferior” to the majority of “apostolic” writings in the New Testament and certainly not comparable to Paul (2000: 22). Even Luther’s lectures on Romans, however, demonstrate Luther’s appreciation for aspects of James. His comments about Romans 3:20, for example, ­envision no contradiction between Paul and James about being “justified by works.” Paul, in fact, indicates in Romans 2:13 that “doers of the Law will be justified before God”: Therefore, when St. James and [Paul] say that a man is justified by works, they are contending against the erroneous notion of those who thought that faith suffices without works, although the apostle does not say that faith justifies without its

Introduction  11 own works (because then there would be no faith, since, according to the philosophers, “action is the evidence that form exists”), but that it justifies without the works of the Law. Therefore, justification does not demand the works of the Law but a living faith which produces its own works (LW 25: 235).

Luther then cites James 2:10 to argue that faith is indivisible; such works are not the works of the law but are instead produced from faith and grace (LW 25: 236). In later writings, however, the impact of Luther’s further study of Paul’s Letter to the Romans and his conclusion that one is justified by faith alone led Luther to make more trenchant criticisms of the Epistle of James. After the debate with Johann Eck in Leipzig (1519) and the famous “Here I stand” ­comment attributed to Luther at the Diet of Worms (1521), Luther was protected by Frederick the Wise at Wartburg Castle. Plagued by insomnia, constipation, and depression, he set to work translating the entire New Testament into German (George 2000: 22–3). It was in this first edition of his translation that Luther penned perhaps his most quoted thoughts on James: In a word, St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that it is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.

What is not quite as well known, however, is that Luther deleted this characterization of James from subsequent editions of his New Testament (after 1522). Luther also always includes James in his editions of the New Testament, although he places James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation, which he finds to be less helpful works, out of their canonical order at the end of his New Testament (George 2000: 23). In his Preface to the Epistle of James, Luther praises James as a “good book” but, as elaborated in chapter “James 1:1–11” below, discusses a number of reasons why he does “not regard it as the writing of an apostle” (LW 35: 395–6). The contradiction “against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works” and the omission of “the Passion, the resurrection, or the spirit of Christ” are the most important reasons. Luther concludes that the author of James “wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task.” Luther thus removes James from “among the chief books . . . though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him” (LW 35: 397; editions prior to 1530 were more critical of James).

12 Introduction As my chapter entitled “James 2:14–26” explains, near the end of his life, Luther made another (in)famous comment about James at the Licentiate Examination of Heinrich Schmedenstede (1542). This exchange reflects, most likely, Luther’s frustration with his Roman Catholic opponents using James against his views. In addition, chapter “James 5:12–20” discusses another major point of contention between Luther and his Roman Catholic opponents: whether James 5:14 teaches the sacrament of extreme unction. Nevertheless, despite his reservations about the epistle, Luther, particularly in his sermons, also says many positive things about James. The variety of Luther’s responses contained in this commentary will give a more balanced portrayal of Luther’s complex and often strained relationship with this book.

John Calvin (1509–64) Other Reformers, such as Melanchthon, Tyndale, and Zwingli, defend James’s message and role in the canon. The best representative and most extensive example, however, is John Calvin’s commentary on James, a work that clearly demonstrates Calvin’s considerable talents as an interpreter of scripture. Calvin was born in Noyon, France, and, according to his father’s wishes, was educated in Paris and studied law at Orleans and Bourges. After a “sudden conversion,” to which he briefly alludes in the preface to his commentary on the Psalms, he began to change course and eventually was no longer “obstinately devoted to the superstitions of Popery” (Preface to the Commentary on the Psalms). After publishing the first edition of the Institutes of the Christian Religion, he was offered a position as a lecturer and preacher in Geneva (1536), where he stayed for the rest of his life, except for a three-year exile in Strasbourg (1538–41; CCEL). Calvin’s commentary on James reflects the approaches of Calvin’s contemporary humanist scholars with its, for example, emphasis on rhetoric, philology, and historical insights. The commentary thus in many ways anticipates a historical-critical approach; Calvin believes that an interpreter should ascertain the “original” meaning of the text—in its literary and historical contexts— before applying the text to contemporary life (see McKim 2007: 291). Calvin expresses his exegetical perspectives in his very first commentary (1540), on Paul’s letter to the Romans. In the Dedication (to Simon Grynaeus) of that commentary, Calvin states that the “chief excellency of an expounder consists in lucid brevity” and the exegetical task is “to lay open the mind of the writer whom he undertakes to explain, the degree in which he leads away his readers from it, in that degree he goes astray from his purpose, and in a manner wanders from his own boundaries” (“The Epistle Dedicatory” to Romans; CCEL).

Introduction  13 Calvin’s commentary is an important voice in James’s reception, not just because of its interaction with his contemporaries like Luther and Erasmus, but because Calvin provides a close reading of James, attends carefully to its religious and ethical message, insists that Paul and James are not in disagreement, and skillfully uses Greco-Roman sources (e.g., Plato, James 1:16, 5:2; Horace, James 3:6, 4:2; Aesop, James 1:26; Pliny, James 4:3) and classical rhetoric to explicate James’s message and arguments (i.e., see his treatment of James 2:14). Calvin’s positive view on the worth of James perhaps is best summed up by this quote from his preface to the commentary: . . . it is a rich source of varied instruction, of abundant benefit in all aspects of the Christian life. We may find striking passages on endurance, on calling upon God, on the practice of religion, on restraining our speech, on peace-making, on holding back greedy instincts, on disregard for this present life . . . (1995: 259).

Søren Kierkegaard (1813–55) This commentary contains numerous types of responses to James from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, including selections from such figures as Thomas Manton and John Wesley. Wesley’s Notes on the Bible and his sermons (e.g., Sermon 83, “On Patience”; James 2:4) are important resources for any reception history of James. Wesley, for example, approves of James’s criticism of the “antinomian spirit” that had infected many in James’s day—and Wesley’s— and had “perverted the glorious doctrine of justification by faith into an occasion of licentiousness” ( “Introduction to James” in Notes on the Bible, Wesley 1755). Yet the next key interpreters of James actually come from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As the historical-critical approach to James became dominant in the nineteenth century, four distinct voices stand out from among all the interpreters of James during that era: Søren Kierkegaard, Frederick Douglass, Joseph B. Mayor, and Charles F. Deems. The philosopher Søren Kierkegaard held the Bible in great esteem: “The Bible is always on my table and is the book I read most” (1988: 218). Kierkegaard refers to the Bible at least 1,500 times in his writings, and he is very disappointed with the church’s lack of ability to put the teachings of the Bible into practice. One main complaint Kierkegaard has against the Lutheranism of his day, for example, was its utilizing the Bible to enumerate doctrines instead of using scripture for true spiritual guidance. The Bible should be “the object of faith,” and it proclaims—especially in the Synoptics and James—“radical demands” for Christian life (McKim 2007: 609, 612). Kierkegaard thus champions James. He argues that James has a deep understanding of the logic and pathos of the heart, of receptivity and doubt, and the

14 Introduction recognition that hearing God’s word entails doing it as well (Polk 1988: 206– 33). This latter focus on doing the word includes self-examination and then action. The one who only hears the word “is outside it”; only then does one actually hear what one “is proclaiming to [one]self ” (Kierkegaard 1990: 173). Kierkegaard is important not because of the breadth of his interaction with James but because of its depth, especially his extensive focus on James 1:17.

Frederick Douglass (1818?–1895) In 1838, a slave named Frederick Bailey fled Maryland to live in freedom in New York City and then in New Bedford, Massachusetts. He changed his last name to Johnson and then to Douglass to avoid detection from fugitive slave hunters. Three years later, Douglass rose to prominence when he spoke at an antislavery convention in Nantucket and delivered an extremely moving and eloquent extemporaneous address. As Douglass concludes in his autobiography: “From that time until now, I have been engaged in pleading the cause of my brethren—with what success, and with what devotion, I leave those acquainted with my labors to decide.” William Lloyd Garrison—who heard Douglass speak in Nantucket—writes in his preface to Douglass’s autobiography about the “multitudes” of minds Douglass enlightened that day about the evils of slavery through his “stirring eloquence.” This fugitive slave, “trembling for his safety,” was “in natural eloquence a prodigy”: “As soon as he had taken his seat, filled with hope and admiration, I rose, and declared that PATRICK HENRY, of revolutionary fame, never made a speech more eloquent in the cause of liberty, than the one we had just listened to from the lips of that hunted fugitive” (Douglass 1845). Because of that speech, Garrison and others prevailed upon Douglass to become a “lecturing agent” to promote antislavery for the Massachusetts AntiSlavery Society: “As a public speaker, he excels in pathos, wit, comparison, imitation, strength of reasoning, and fluency of language. There is in him that union of head and heart, which is indispensable to an enlightenment of the heads and a winning of the hearts of others” (Douglass 1845). After he published his autobiography, Douglass could no longer hide in ­anonymity, so he left for a speaking tour of England and Ireland. The Epistle of James features prominently in many of those lectures. He returned to the United States two years later having earned enough money to purchase his freedom from his owner, Thomas Auld. Douglass continued to work for human equality and civil rights—including rights for women—the rest of his life. His speeches utilizing the Epistle of James, as seen in chapters “James 1:12–27” and “James 3:13–4:12,” are still riveting in their cogency and eloquence.

Introduction  15

Charles F. Deems (1820–93) Charles Deems was the founder (in 1868) and first pastor of the non-denominational Church of the Strangers in New York City, a church created in many ways for people who felt as “strangers” in a “dispersion.” Deems also was an academic, first at the University of North Carolina (1842–7), then at Randolph Macon College (1847–8), and later as President of Greensboro Female College (1850– 4). Deems was indefatigable in the missions that he undertook, whether in the temperance movement in the United States or at Church of the Strangers— where he only took one vacation during his twenty-five years as pastor. Deem’s Gospel of Common Sense is an intriguing book on the Epistle of James, one that is so passionate and innately interesting that it merits being included as one of the major voices in this commentary. The preface states that James was a favorite of Deems, in part because James contains “the plain teaching of those rules by which daily life is guided.” Deems wants to put James’s faith and ethics into practice for his day, because, as Deems argues, the Hebrew and Christian Sacred Scriptures are not only authoritative in religion; they are rich in ethics. A visible life constructed on the Decalogue, the Book of Proverbs, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Epistle of JAMES would fill the loftiest, broadest and most beautiful outline of manhood (1888: v).

Thus Deems defends James against Luther’s “epistle of straw” accusation—and argues that Luther “lived long enough and grew wise enough” to change that opinion—because applying the teachings of James in our daily lives in economic terms “is that which alone can save our civilization” (vi). As the examples cited in the commentary demonstrate, Deems’s book, because of its stylistic language, is sometimes reminiscent of the artistic imagination found in Ernest Renan’s, The Life of Jesus, but within a traditional, yet open, protestant Christianity (Deems dedicates the book to a Jewish rabbi and a Roman Catholic bishop). He defends James’s apostolic authority and rejects the idea that James writes to counteract Paul’s teaching: “A critical examination of JAMES’S epistle does not reveal a single fact which suggests that the writer had in his mind any thought of anything that had proceeded from the pen of Paul” (26). In addition, Deems notes that James is meant to “inculcate morals,” and he points to similarities between James’s and Jesus’ teachings: Indeed in this epistle one is constantly reminded of the Sermon on the Mount, and the Apostle seems to have been a very close student of that wonderful discussion on Character delivered by his brother Jesus. These two sons of Mary were much alike in some mental characteristics, and the so-called Sermon on the Mount

16 Introduction delivered to Jews and the Epistle of JAMES delivered to Christians will ever remain the most valuable text-books on morals in possession of the world (26–7).

Joseph B. Mayor (1828–1916) Joseph Mayor was born in Ceylon (Sri Lanka), the son of missionaries. He earned an MA from Cambridge University, and the University of Dublin honored him with a LittD. Mayor served for many years as Professor of Classics at King’s College, London. His magisterial commentary on James was originally published in 1892, and the third edition (cited here in its 1990 reprinting) was published in 1913. The current edition of 621 pages demonstrates Mayor’s attention to detail; the commentary itself does not begin until page 499, because Mayor spends so much time discussing authorship, evidence for authenticity, relationship to other New Testament books and other first-century writings, date, grammar and style, audience, and detailed notes on the Greek text (the critical notes alone consist of 158 pages). Of particular note are Mayor’s important discussions of James’s use of Wisdom literature and the Jesus traditions also found in Matthew and Luke (see Painter and DeSilva 2012: 4). Mayor is attentive to myriads of intricate details of text and context, but, as he notes in the preface, he also wants to advance his readers’ Christian faith (13). Mayor’s commentary should be read alongside the equally impressive The Epistle of St. James (1916) by James Hardy Ropes (1866–1933), the Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard University. Ropes dialogues extensively with Mayor and disagrees with him at key junctures. Ropes argues, for example, that James was written by a Christian teacher “in some “half-hellenistic city of Palestine” after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE and before the Bar Kochba revolt of 132–5 CE (1916: 49), whereas Mayor is convinced that James the brother of Jesus wrote the epistle. The third commentary of this era that plays a prominent role in the reception of James is that of Martin Dibelius. His commentary on James first appeared in Heinrich Meyer’s 1921 edition of Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament. The fifth edition of the James commentary—edited and published in 1964, seventeen years after Dibelius’s death—was translated into English and published in 1976. Dibelius’s commentary is significant in many ways, not least of which is that James is not read (solely) through the prism of Paul’s letters. Dibelius understands James as early Christian paranesis: “a text which strings together admonitions of general ethical content” (1975: 3). Paranesis does not reflect the historical situation of a specific church and does not “strive to fashion new thoughts”; instead, as paranesis, James attempts to “give life to ancient wisdom” and is a “book of popular slogans” (xi–xii). Dibelius declares that James is “eclectic,” and since James adopts

Introduction  17 c­ oncepts from various places, it is difficult “to deduce . . . the intellectual environment of the author who appropriates them” (21; cf. the critique of Davids 1982). As Todd Penner notes, the effect of Dibelius’s work was to relegate the study of James to the study of ethics: “Dibelius had taken the history and ­theology out of the text”: There is no specific historical situation to be reconstructed. There is no true author of the text. There is no overarching framework of argument. Ergo there also can be no guiding theological concept or principle. Dibelius had made the argument for situating James in the Hellenistic world, particularly based on its associations with Hellenistic Jewish literature. This provided the basis for some critical engagement on this point (cf. Kittel 1931; 1942). In the final analysis, however, the dominating argument that James is simply a loose, eclectic collection of admonitions with little continuity of thought leaves little room for expansion (1999: 265–6).

The post-Dibelius developments in the study of James are discussed extensively elsewhere, so this reception history commentary will not focus on those debates except in passing (see especially Penner 1999: 257–308; Myllykoski 2006, 2007; Batten 2009). The voices of Mayor, Ropes, and Dibelius will appear as vital contributors in the reception history of James, but a major emphasis of this commentary is to include as major interpreters other voices at the polyphonic table of interpretation, such as the work of Elsa Tamez.

Elsa Tamez (1950– ) Elsa Tamez is Emeritus Professor of Biblical Studies at the Latin American Biblical University in San Jose, Costa Rica, and one of the foremost creators and proponents of Latin American liberation theology from a feminist perspective. Her biblical exegesis illuminates elements of oppression in biblical texts that all too often are overlooked in exegeses of other interpreters. Her first book, Bible of the Oppressed (1980), explores the themes of oppression and liberation in the Bible and argues that God’s self-revelation clearly indicates that “God is on the side of the subjugated” (1–2). God seeks to liberate the oppressed and desires a new and just social order to be created (60–1). The principal motive for oppression is the desire to pile up wealth, Tamez says; thus oppressors are also idolaters who worship wealth. The accumulation of wealth is therefore incompatible with Christianity, as James 5:1–6 demonstrates, and the reason why the Bible opposes the rich and seeks the liberation of the poor is not because riches in and of themselves are evil, but because the oppressors have acquired their riches, as James demonstrates, “at the expense of their neighbors” (71–3).

18 Introduction In her book The Scandalous Message of James (1990; 2002), Tamez declares that the Epistle of James urges Christians to practice community values taught by Jesus, with integrity of word and deed: to work for justice, oppose oppression, care for the needy, and to be forthright and honest in prayer before God. Like Jesus, the Epistle of James is subversive; it is written by “a servant of Jesus Christ concerned with the poor and oppressed people of his times, people who were undergoing unbearable suffering and were in need of strength and hope. James offered them a word of encouragement and advice” (2002: 1). In brief, Tamez looks at James through three lenses. First, the communities to which James writes are experiencing oppression, marginalization, and perhaps persecution. James writes this letter out of concern for their suffering. He employs many sayings of Jesus and does not hesitate to condemn oppressors: “He hurls all of his fury at them in apocalyptic style” (60). Second, James seeks to uplift the spirits of the people in the communities, giving them “enthusiasm and courage.” Third, James is extremely concerned about praxis. He assures the oppressed poor that God is with them and urges them to have “militant patience”—steadfastness, resistance, and heroic endurance—while continually practicing justice in their own lives. James insists most of all, Tamez declares, in integrity and single-minded consistency in faith and deeds. Faith is alive only if accompanied by good works, which for James means justice, such as visiting and assisting oppressed groups like widows and orphans and rejecting the ­perverted values of the world (60–2). The final chapter of Tamez’s book offers a challenge for the church, because many of the defects cited by James are still found in churches today—such as favoritism, gossip, and hypocrisy. Churches also usually include more people from the upper middle class than from the poor, with the wealthy in real control. “Why is it,” Tamez asks, “that from before the time of Constantine up until our day, the church has opened its doors to the rich and the rich have largely taken control of the church?” (64). A comparison of Tamez’s book on James and her more recent book on 1 Timothy, Struggles for Power in Early Christianity (2007), is instructive. In contrast to James, 1 Timothy reflects a “closed and authoritarian discourse” that seeks theological legitimation for power (e.g., conflicts between genders and competition for community leadership that results in exclusion and marginalization). The “human face of Jesus Christ,” however, helps Christians to overcome the desire for power and domination (xi–xvi). Tamez acknowledges that 1 Timothy reflects patriarchal, discriminatory cultural traditions that clash with the teachings of Jesus (1 Timothy, for example, “has caused much damage to women throughout its history”; 111), but she also explores more liberating traditions in the New Testament, such as James 1:27; 2:1–4; 5:1–6 (9, 21, 51).

Introduction  19 It is not surprising that, like James, voices that call for social and economic justice for the poor against the exploitation of the elite have been marginalized over the centuries. Tamez’s The Scandalous Message of James thus is an important voice in the polyphonic reception history of James.

Patterns of Interpretation Historical-critical commentaries often contain sections on the “themes” of James, and an excellent introduction to such thematic issues may be found in Alicia Batten’s What Are They Saying about James? (2009: 47–71). Such themes arise organically in context, so they are discussed more fully in the following chapters. A brief overview of some of these patterns of interpretation, however, would serve as a helpful introduction. The Epistle of James is embedded in early Jewish Christianity—including, most of all, Torah obedience and the teachings of Jesus (which were also rooted in Torah obedience). This embeddedness in Jewish Christianity gives the Epistle of James a certain coherence, although its theology is certainly not systematic in a way that many modern people expect or desire. Hence Martin Dibelius could say, because of his position that James is paranetic literature, that “the entire document lacks continuity in thought” (1975: 2; emphasis in the original) and “eclecticism is an inherent aspect of paraenesis” (5). In fact, Dibelius argues that James “has no ‘theology,’ ” because “paraenesis provides no opportunity for the development and elaboration of religious ideas” (21; emphases in the original). Dibelius thus concludes that James “is not a thinker, a prophet, or an intellectual leader, but rather a pedagogue, one among many, who appropriates and distributes from the property common to all” (25). More recent scholars, however, envision a greater amount of unity in James, with Patrick Hartin, for example, postulating “convictions” that operate as “unifying principles” (1999: 9). For Hartin, it is the “call to perfection” that provides a unifying meaning for the epistle (cf. Strange 2010 ). Perhaps interpreters should evaluate not just the form and goals of the epistle, Hartin says, but should also take into account that James does not present a systematic portrait of who God is because it presumes to share so “much in common with its audience” (2003: 31). Recent rhetorical analyses, in addition, have discovered more coherence in James as far as themes, argument, and composition (e.g., Wuellner 1978; Watson 1993: 99–120; Penner 1996: 121–213; Wachob 2000). Interpreters focus on many themes, and their expositions often use James to elucidate and clarify theological concerns, including a tendency to use James as a prooftext to validate their theological positions. A few examples will serve to

20 Introduction illustrate common patterns of interpretation found in the dialogues that interpreters through the centuries have had in their encounters with James.

The sovereign God The epistle refers to James as God’s servant (1:1) who echoes the Shema that God is one (2:19). God is the Creator who made human beings in God’s image (3:9) and the Lawgiver and Judge (4:12). For James, God is personal; you should pray to God, God is generous in answering (1:5), and humans can be “friends of God” (1:23; or, alternatively, friends “with the world”; 4:4). God is unchanging and therefore trustworthy. From God comes “every perfect gift” (1:17), and God is neither tempted by evil nor tempts human beings (1:13). God thus functions as both friend and generous benefactor (see Batten 2010), but another key element of God’s sovereignty is God’s role as eschatological judge who will “mete out justice to the righteous and judgment to the wicked/rich/proud” (Penner 1996: 212). This motif may even provide the key for how the structure of the main body of James should be evaluated. James calls its readers to purity and wholeness as they await the eschaton (212) and gives encouragement to remain steadfast even in the face of trials and tribulations; James also issues warnings about the coming judgment of God to those who are friends of the world. Thus the wisdom tradition in James, like the Jesus tradition, pushes beyond the traditional, conventional, and practical. James’s ethical exhortations, once again like what Jesus proclaims, are urgent and sometimes subversive in light of the coming judgment of God (cf. Penner 1996: 258–9). James urges its readers to be friends with God, not friends of the world. This friendship with God is possible because God is the generous benefactor: God is the righteous Lawgiver and Judge (4:11; 5:4) but also is merciful, gracious, and forgiving (1:17; 4:6–11; cf. Batten 2010: 56–121; McKnight 2011: 42). Over the centuries, interpreters have built upon James’s portrait of God, expressing their view of God’s sovereignty in various ways. The urgency of eschatological judgment is often downplayed, although God’s role as final judge is maintained. The stress tends to be on one’s fragile mortality and the possible imminence of individuals facing God instead of the universal judgment being at hand. In such responses, the issue of the relationship of God’s sovereignty and the free will of human beings is a common thread. Augustine returns again and again to James in his arguments about grace and free will, for example, but others cite James in their own responses to that issue (e.g., John Chrysostom, Bede, John Cassian, and John Wesley).

Introduction  21

James and Jesus James refers explicitly (by name) to Jesus only twice (1:1; 2:1), although it may refer to Jesus in some instances as “Lord” or “the excellent name” (e.g., 2:7; 5:7–8, 14–15). In addition, James never quotes Jesus by name, but it does echo teachings of Jesus extensively. Joseph Mayor, for example, states that James contains more of the teachings of Jesus (as found in the Gospels) than “in all the other Epistles put together” and perhaps may have “preserved sayings of our Lord not recorded in the Gospels” (1990: 81; see also the correspondences postulated by Adamson 1989: 169–95; cf. Deppe 1989; Batten 2009: 72–83; Johnson 2004: 136–54; Hartin 2004: 101–7; Kloppenborg 2007; McCartney 2009: 49–52, 71). Interpreters of James have noted the extensive connections between James and the Sermon on the Mount (e.g., James 1:2, 4, 5–6, 10, 17, 19–20, 22–3; 2:5, 10, 11, 13; 3:12, 18; 4:4, 8, 10, 11, 13–15; 5:2–3, 10), as well as connections with other Jesus traditions (e.g., James 4:9/Luke 6:25; James 2:8/Matt. 22:39; James 3:1/Matt. 23:8–12; James 5:9/ Matt. 24:33). James 5:12 is perhaps the most clear of these echoes, since James shares with Jesus a distinctive if not unique total prohibition of oaths with great similarity in language (i.e., not to swear by heaven or earth, as well as to let your answers be simply “yes” or “no”; James 5:12 / Matt. 5:34–35, 37). Wesley Wachob argues that these echoes of Jesus traditions are rhetorical “invention,” the process by which speakers/writers discover and select the best possible “proofs” of persuasion from the speakers/writers’ point of view. This “manipulation” of traditions, Wachob declares, “provides clues to the social location of thought” in James (2000:18). Scot McKnight puts this process in more modern terms: “. . . as modern online dictionaries recapture and carry on, with new additions, subtractions, and modifications, sometimes with little or no trace of citation, so James may be said to have given his own ‘wiki’ version of the various sayings of Jesus.” For McKnight, this process is “the ultimate compliment and a way of carrying on the sacredness of the earlier tradition” (2011: 27). Patrick Hartin suggests that the interaction between James and the Jesus traditions occurs somewhere in the nexus of the Sayings Source Q and Matthew. Hartin envisions James as being familiar with Q and is “conscious of the way it developed” in the Matthean traditions (Hartin 2003: 81–8; cf. 1991: 152–4, 243; cf. Bauckham 1999: 97–107; Batten 2009: 75). John Kloppenborg gives additional substance and particularity to both Wachob’s and Hartin’s arguments by demonstrating that James echoes the Jesus traditions from the Q source itself. Kloppenborg points to the fact that within ancient rhetorical traditions, the verbatim repetition of previous discourses was often not desirable and there was no need to cite previous discourse explicitly (2007: 133). Instead, the task was to paraphrase, what rhetoricians called

22 Introduction “­emulation” (aemulatio), the goal of which was to compete with the previous discourse to express the same thought in a more compelling way in a new context. The previous discourse is less a “source” than a “resource,” and changes to the previous discourse stem from “deliberate and studied techniques of verbal and conceptual transformation” (133). James’s message is embedded in the message of Jesus, both of which focus on Torah obedience. James captures the essence of Jesus’ message and speaks, in many ways, with the voice of Jesus (cf. Hartin: 2004: 101–7). One major question is how the reception of James reflects this coherence with Jesus’ message and how interpretations develop, depending, in part, upon the contexts of these responses. The emphasis is primarily on orthopraxy, being “doers of the word” (1:22) and how to be “mature and complete” (1:4). Interpreters tend to respond to James’s coherence with the message of Jesus in the same way they respond to the radical aspects of Jesus’ message in the Gospels: incorporating those radical critiques into their interpretations or domesticating them in varying ways, as demonstrated in the “practical theology” in James.

Faith in action: ethics, practical theology, and James Interpreters postulate many reasons for James’s closeness to the traditions of Jesus. Charles Deems, for example, focuses on the personal relationship between Jesus and his brother James: the “two sons of Mary were much alike in some mental characteristics” (1888: 27). Other analyses focus on the traditions themselves, such as Kloppenborg’s discussion of James’s rhetorical emulation of Jesus traditions (2007: 133). As noted above, the overlap between Jesus traditions and James includes Torah obedience and the ethics that result from that obedience, but it also involves distinctive elements of Jesus’ teachings (e.g., the prohibition of oaths that challenge aspects of Torah obedience). The details must await the commentary below, but one example of James’s ethical concerns will be ­ ­paradigmatic for what occurs in other instances. James has a special concern for issues of poverty and wealth, and interpreters respond to that emphasis in various innovative and intriguing ways. Poverty and wealth James echoes Jesus’ viewpoint on poverty and wealth. James is committed to the poor and marginalized, and his Torah obedience leads him to stress that loving one’s neighbors means taking care of their physical as well as spiritual needs (e.g., Lev. 19:15–18; James 2:8, 14–18). God, for James, is a God of social justice (1:27), so James encourages the poor and condemns the actions of the

Introduction  23 wealthy (1:9–11; 4:13–16). James calls for believers to imitate God’s actions with concern for the poor (5:1–6), avoiding discrimination against the poor or for the rich (2:1–7), and performing concrete actions on behalf of those in need (2:14–17; Hartin 2003: 31–3, 37). As Alicia Batten demonstrates, the terms James uses for a poor person (ptōchos) and for a rich person (plousios) have social as well as economic implications. The term ptōchos should be translated as degraded poor, because it involves both “economic marginality” and loss of status and honor in society. The other term James uses for poor, tapeinos, designates low status, but it includes material poverty. The term plousios, on the other hand, should be translated as greedy rich person, because it involves not just “economic wealth” but also greediness (2008: 72–3). In James’s view, the greediness of the rich is a critical moral failure because it has “direct and negative consequences for the poor” (76). James thus does not pontificate from an ivory tower on issues of wealth and poverty; it speaks prophetically about economic and other injustices that its intended readers face, with words of consolation for the degraded poor—words that give them communal identity and honor (Batten 2007)—and judgment upon the avaricious rich. James presents its readers with a stark choice: friendship with God or friendship with the world (4:4) and declares that the rich should not be envisioned as potential patrons; instead James wants his intended audience to reject such systems of human patronage (Vhymeister 1995; Kloppenborg 1999) and to trust and depend upon God as their “ideal benefactor and friend” (Batten 2007; 2009: 69–70). Domestications of James’s message James’s concern with Torah obedience, practical theology, and ethics perhaps is one of the major reasons why James is so prevalent in sermons and other discourses that focus on practical applications of scripture to one’s life. It also can help explain why James tends not to be as important to theologians (who are more concerned with doctrines), as well as why James is often ignored, marginalized, and domesticated by many interpreters. Other factors certainly play a role—such as James’s apparent contradiction of Paul’s theology of justification by faith or James’s place within Jewish Christianity—but James’s radical pronouncements about poverty and wealth certainly contribute to this marginalization. James’s position, in many respects, is similar to the Jesus traditions it echoes. What Albert Schweitzer once famously observed of historical Jesus scholars is also true concerning many interpreters of James: . . . notice what they have made of the great imperious sayings of the Lord, how they watered down his imperative world-denying demands on individuals so that he did not come into conflict with our ethical ideas, and so as to adjust his

24 Introduction denial of the world to our acceptance of it. Some of the greatest sayings are found lying in a corner like explosive shells from which the charges have been removed (2001: 480).

The domestications of James can be seen in numerous ways. Sometimes the text is spiritualized (e.g., see the discussion of Dibelius above and of James 2:1–7 in chapter “James 2:1–13”). Domestications of the tradition can include some acknowledgement of James’s social as well as theological implications (e.g., Augustine and Bede), but every so often the domesticating arguments take the form of insisting that “real” obedience to James’s commands is sometimes doing the opposite of what James (or Jesus) commands (e.g., see Alfred Plummer’s discussion of James 4:13–17 in chapter “James 4:13–5:6”). Although James’s radical statements about wealth and poverty have often been ignored, passages found in James have led “Radical Christianity” throughout the ages to conclude that discipleship is about deeds not words. James emphasizes humility (1:9), the demonstration of faith through good works (2:17–18), no differentiation between the rich and the poor (2:1–7), and it denounces exploitation of poor day-laborers by the wealthy (5:1–6). God favors the poor (2:5), an aspect taken up by many “radical Christians” (Bradstock and Rowland 2002: xx). For example, a vigorous critique on wealth is found in On Riches by Pelagius or one of his disciples (see chapter “James 2:1–13”). The Lollards, English Dissenters of the late fourteenth and early ­fifteenth centuries who champion a simple lifestyle, echo James’s words about God choosing the poor of this world (see chapter “James 2:1–13”). So many interpreters take these social critiques seriously (see also, for example, Walter  Rauschenbusch and Washington Gladden in chapter “James 2:1–13”), sometimes to their peril (e.g., John Chrysostom; see my chapters “James 2­ :14–­26” and “James 3:13–4:12”). Some discussions—such as the works of Gustavo Gutiérrez and Elsa Tamez— recapture in a dialogic way James’s ­radical critique of the rich, the elite’s exploitation of a community of believers, and the words of encouragement offered to those who suffer such exploitation. But James also offers more than hope and encouragement; as Tamez puts it, James demands an active and militant patience with consistency in words and deeds (2002: 11; cf. Maynard-Reid 1987). Interpretations that extend James’s concern for the poor and marginalized Some interpretations extend James’s words concerning poverty and wealth to related issues of gender, class, and race—and segregation, oppression, and marginalization. Note, for example, interpreters who apply James’s admonitions to issues of race, such as Frederick Douglass (chapters “James 1:12–27” and “James

Introduction  25 3:13–4:12”), Benjamin Mays (“James 2:1–13”), D. J. Smit (“James 2:1–13”), Gay Byron (“James 2:1–13,” who also applies these insights to gender, e.g., see “James 4:13–5:6”), and Addison Eastman (see “James 4:13–5:6” and his discussion of migrant workers in the United States). Other forms of domestication Domestications of James’s message also occur when interpreters use citations from James to “prooftext” their arguments on a different topic from which the text from James is concerned. Opponents in theological debates, for example, are often called “double-minded,” with James 1:8 cited as evidence (e.g., see Athanasius in chapter “James 1:1–11”). As is common in prooftexting with biblical passages, these texts are cited to support doctrines the interpreter holds dear: For Jerome, James’s “every perfect gift” must include virginity (see “James 1:12–27”), and Augustine believes the fact that God has “chosen the poor” (James 2:5) supports the doctrine of predestination (see “James 2:1–13”). The most common form of domestication is to adjust the radical demands of James (and Jesus) to the conventional norms of society. Ironically, as Steven Friesen notes concerning modern capitalism, the economic activities of the elite that James decries as “arrogant and evil became codified as standard economic practice” (2005: 246; see Batten 2008: 77). Another example is the complete prohibition of oaths (see the discussion of James 5:12 in chapter “James 5:12–20”). While some interpreters seek to follow the injunctions of Jesus and James (e.g., John Chrysostom, Menno Simons, George Fox), most interpreters envision this prohibition as not being absolute. Sometimes the primary concern is to harmonize scripture passages (e.g., Augustine), but many others also are concerned about how Christians are to function within society (e.g., Mayor, Plummer).

James and Paul The apparent contradictions between James and other biblical texts are major emphases in many interpretations of James. Does God, for example, tempt/test people? James says no (1:13), but other biblical texts indicate otherwise. Genesis 22:1, for one, says that “God tested Abraham,” and the story that follows (22:1– 14) demonstrates how God tested Abraham by telling him to sacrifice his “only son.” Other Hebrew Bible passages describe instances where God tests human beings, and interpreters of James struggle to understand what James is saying in light of those passages, especially since most ­interpreters believe that biblical

26 Introduction passages cannot contradict each other (e.g., see the discussion of James 1:13 by Augustine, Bede, Martin Luther, and others in chapter “James 1:12–27”). In the history of interpretation, though, the most debated issue is the ­relationship of James with Paul, specifically their views on justification and ­salvation—the relationship of faith, works, and the law. Is James attempting to refute Paul? Does Paul react against James the brother of Jesus or the Epistle of James? Or are the two documents independent of each other? As Ropes points out, in most discussions of the relationship between James and Paul’s writings, interpreters are unable “to separate themselves from modern theological issues” (1916: 35). Some interpreters view James 2:14–26 as a direct and negative response to Paul’s theology of justification by faith. F. H. Kern, for example, declares that the disagreements about justification by faith originate from a time period later than James (the brother of Jesus) and Paul: The Epistle of James represents the viewpoint of marginalized Jewish-Christian communities, and Paul’s writings represent the view of the dominant Gentile churches (Kern 1835; Kern later changes his mind and argues that James the brother of Jesus was the author of the epistle; Kern 1838; see Johnson 1995: 148). Other interpreters envision Paul’s writings to be a response to James’s earlier epistle. Joseph Mayor, for example, argues that James presents a picture of prePauline Christianity. Instead of James being aware of and responding to Paul, Paul is aware of and responds to the Epistle of James (as does Peter in 1 Peter). Although James’s argument about faith and works “has no bearing on St. Paul’s doctrine,” Paul’s letter to the Romans is filled “with constant reference to St. James, sometimes borrowing phrases or ideas, sometimes introducing a distinction for the purpose of avoiding ambiguity, at other times distinctly controverting his arguments as liable to be misapplied, though conscious all the while of a general agreement in the principles affirmed” (Mayor 1990: 110; cf. Deems 1888: 135). Mayor bases this conclusion on an analysis of passages from James and Paul that discuss Abraham in the context of faith and works. Most interpreters agree that there is little or no contradiction between James and Paul’s writings on faith and works. This view is found throughout early Christianity, since it was assumed that there could be no real contradictions in scripture. The distinction both ancient and modern interpreters make is that James speaks of works as a product of faith (similar to Paul’s “fruits of the spirit”), something that happens after one becomes a believer, where one’s faith is demonstrated through good works. Origen, for example, includes the following discussion of faith and works in his “Dialogue with Heraclides”: But we must keep in mind that we are judged at the divine tribunal not on our faith alone as if we did not have to answer for our conduct (cf. James 2:4), nor on

Introduction  27 our conduct alone as if our faith were not subject to examination. It is from the correctness of both that we are justified; it is from the noncorrectness of both that we are punished for both . . . (1992: 64).

This homiletic exhortation to “right conduct” extends from 8:21 to 10:19, and it includes citations not only from James 2:24, but also from 1 Timothy 6:20, Ephesians 5:3, and 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 that demonstrate continuity between Paul and James (cf. the discussions of James and Paul in chapter “James 2:14–26” below). A recent move within scholarship is to suggest that James should be read on its own terms (e.g., Hartin 2004: 107–11; Johnson 1995: 111–12; cf. McKnight 2011: 1–2; Batten 2009: 47–54). These scholars question whether one should interpret the entire epistle on the basis of thirteen verses (James 2:14–26) and their supposed relationship to selected passages from Paul (e.g., Gal. 2:15–21). The questions interpreters have either asked or assumed through the centuries are to what extent the same or similar vocabulary that James and Paul utilize, written in different circumstances and contexts, also involve distinct theological visions. Both the Epistle of James and Paul’s epistles, these scholars say, deserve to be appreciated on their own right and not, as has been the case through the centuries, with theological preference being given to Paul’s perspective as the measure of “authentic Christianity” (Johnson 1995: 111; Hartin 2004: 107).

James of Jerusalem: In History and Tradition Troparion in tone 4 You embraced the Gospel as a Disciple of the Lord; As a martyr you did not betray it, O Righteous One! As God’s brother you have boldness before Him; As a faithful Bishop it is yours to intercede for us. Beseech Christ God that our souls may be saved. Kontakion in tone 4 The Word of God, only-begotten of the Father, Who has come to dwell among us in these latter days, Chose you to be the first shepherd and teacher of Jerusalem, A faithful steward of spiritual mysteries! Therefore we all honor you, Holy Apostle James! (For the feast day of St. James, October 23; http://oca.org/FStropars.asp?SID=13&ID=103039.)

28 Introduction Praise for the Lord’s own brother,   James of Jerusalem; he saw the risen Savior   and placed his faith in him. Presiding at the council,   That set the Gentiles free, he welcomed them as kindred   on equal terms to be. (The Hymnal 1982: 232)

The reception history of the Epistle of James is fascinating, but how the historical person James of Jerusalem has been received through the centuries is just as intriguing. For most interpreters, James of Jerusalem is believed to be the author of the epistle, but ideas about his relationship to Jesus vary among interpreters, and the stories of and responses to his life, character, and death develop in ways that are critical to understanding how the epistle itself was received. In addition, James is designated in various and perhaps confusing ways. James of Jerusalem is also called James the brother of Jesus (to denote his familial relationship with Jesus) and James the Just (to denote his great piety and righteousness). He is also sometimes conflated with James the Less, one of the apostles, James the son of Alphaeus. The following brief review begins with theories of James of Jerusalem as the author of the epistle, as well as the development of theories about his familial relationship with Jesus. Then the focus will turn to his portrait within the New Testament and, finally, to the reception of James of Jerusalem outside the Christian canon. This discussion must be a succinct overview; readers who wish the best and most extensive treatment of these issues should turn to John Painter’s Just James (2004). Finally, the chapter will conclude with a few illustrative examples of visual images of James of Jerusalem.

James of Jerusalem as the Author of the Epistle of James Theories of the letter’s authorship vary (see “James 1:1–11”), and the internal and external evidence is ambiguous. The author begins by calling himself “James, a servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ,” an appellation which, although apparently self-effacing, exudes authority, an authority that allows the author to fill the missive with numerous commands to his “brothers and sisters” without further detailing his qualifications to do so. The first question is which “James” is the author claiming to be? Several people named James are mentioned in the New Testament Gospels (e.g., James the son of Zebedee (later called James the Great), brother of John, and one of the “Sons of Thunder,” Mark 1:19; 3:17;

Introduction  29 James the son of Alphaeus (another apostle), Mark 3:18; James the “younger/ less” (mikros), son of Mary and brother of Joses/Joseph, Mark 15:40/Matt. 27:56; James the father of Judas (one of the apostles), Luke 6:16; and James the brother of Jesus, as well as the brother of Joses, Judas, Simon, and unnamed sisters; Mark 6:3. James is also mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament, in Acts (1:13; 12:1, 2, 17; 15:13, 17; 21:18), Paul’s letters (1 Cor. 15:7; Gal. 1:18; 2:9, 12), and Jude 1:1 (where the author claims to be his brother; cf. Mark 6:3). Most interpreters argue that the author of the epistle implicitly claims to be James the brother of Jesus, which leaves three basic options for how James the brother of Jesus authored the epistle. First, James could have written the epistle before or without encountering the writings of Paul that espouse justification by faith. Joseph Mayor, for example, argues that James probably was written earlier than any other book in the New Testament (in the 40s CE) by James the brother of Jesus “who had been brought up with Jesus from his childhood and whose teaching is in many points identical with the actual words of our Lord as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels” (1990: 13). As noted above, Mayor contends that James presents a picture of pre-Pauline Christianity and that both Paul and Peter respond to what James had written. Other interpreters argue that James writes in response to Paul’s message that was either known or “beginning to be heard, even if Paul’s message was distorted” (e.g., McKnight 2011: 38, who postulates a date in the 50s). Others make even more direct connections. The Venerable Bede, for example, argues that James writes in response to misunderstandings of Paul’s doctrine of ­justification by faith: James stresses that Paul does not teach that once people believe in Christ, they could live wickedly and still be saved by faith (1985: 30; see chapter “James 2:14–26” below; see also Hengel 1987: 253–67). One major objection to the idea that James the brother of Jesus wrote James is the high quality of the Greek in the epistle. Thus the third option is that James of Jerusalem did not author the epistle. Hence James Hardy Ropes, who believes the text is pseudonymous, says “the writer shows a contact with Greek modes of public preaching and with Greek ideas and illustrations which would not be expected in a Galilean peasant . . .” (1916: 50). Patrick Hartin overcomes this objection by offering two possible solutions that permit James the brother of Jesus to be the impetus behind the epistle. Hartin’s first option is that James—as Paul acknowledges doing in 1 Cor. 16:21 and Gal. 6:11—possibly composed the epistle with the assistance of a scribe. A second option, which Hartin prefers, is that shortly after James’s (the brother of Jesus) death, a scribe with great facility in Greek composed the epistle in James’s name (2003: 24–5). This issue is critical for some interpreters, because they connect authorship with canonicity or authenticity of message. See, for example, the comments by Martin Luther in chapter “James 1:1–11” about “some Jew” writing James and

30 Introduction that it is “not the writing of an apostle.” In a similar mode, although with different conclusions, J. D. Michaelis insists that since James was canonical, it had to be written by an apostle (either James the son of Zebedee or James the son of Alphaeus; if it were written by James the “half brother of Christ, and not an apostle, we have no proof of its inspiration and infallibility”; Kümmel 1972: 72). Chapter “James 1:1–11” explores these and other positions taken by interpreters of James.

The Relationship of James of Jerusalem and Jesus James as the brother of Jesus Interpreters have understood the term “brother” (adelphos) of Jesus in different ways. The three most common positions, the Helvidian, Hieronymian, and Epiphanian theories, were thus entitled by J. B. Lightfoot in honor of the people who were “their most zealous advocates in the controversies of the fourth century when the question was most warmly debated” (1865: 1; http://philologos. org/__eb-jbl/brethren.htm). The terms adelphos and adelphē normally designate a biological brother and sister, so the simplest and most likely explanation is that the New Testament indicates that Jesus and James are blood relations. A common early interpretation within the church, therefore, is that the brothers and sisters of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels (Matt. 12:46; 13:55–6; Mark 3:31–2; 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12; 7:3, 5, 10; but cf. Matt. 28:10; John 20:17) were the actual (younger) children of Joseph and Mary. This position is called the Helvidian theory, after Helvidius, an obscure figure made famous by Jerome’s criticisms of his position. Helvidius points, for example, to such biblical verses as Matthew 1:25, which says that Joseph “had no marital relations with [Mary] until she had borne a son.” To Helvidius, this verse implies that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus was born. He also cites Luke 2:7, which says that Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn son,” which, Helvidius argues, implies that Mary had other children. Helvidius has antecedents to which he can refer. Tertullian, for example, uses the fact that Jesus has “brothers” to argue against Marcion’s idea that Jesus was not “born”: We now come to the most strenuously-plied argument of all those who call in question the Lord’s nativity. They say that He testifies Himself to His not having been born, when He asks, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” In this manner heretics either wrest plain and simple words to any sense they choose by

Introduction  31 their conjectures, or else they violently resolve by a literal interpretation words which imply a conditional sense and are incapable of a simple solution, as in this passage. We, for our part, say in reply, first, that it could not possibly have been told Him that His mother and His brethren stood without, desiring to see Him, if He had had no mother and no brethren. They must have been known to him who announced them, either some time previously, or then at that very time, when they desired to see Him, or sent Him their message (Tertullian, Against Marcion 4:19).

Tertullian makes the same argument when he calls Joseph the “supposed” father of Jesus but labels Mary his “mother” and speaks of Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” without any qualifications (On the Flesh of Christ, Chapter 7). Based on these and other texts, Helvidius concludes that after the virgin birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary had a married sexual relationship that resulted in the birth of other children. In this view, James is indeed the real, younger brother of Jesus, the son of Mary and Joseph (see Painter 2004: 213–20; Hartin 2004: 25–6).

James as an older half-brother of Jesus: the son of Joseph from a previous wife Because of the development of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Helvidian position of James being a younger brother of Jesus born of Joseph and Mary became untenable if not heretical. Other positions became necessary to explain how Jesus, son of the (perpetual) Virgin Mary, was described in scripture as having “brothers and sisters.” The Epiphanian theory, which came to be the dominant position in the Eastern tradition, argues that Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” were children of Joseph by a previous marriage. This theory is named for Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis around 366 CE, who was one of its early proponents and a vigorous opponent of the Helvidian theory. In section 29 (“Against Nazoraeans”) of his Panarion he writes: . . . Christ himself is high priest and the founder of the office of the high priests since James, who was called the Lord’s brother and who was his apostle, was immediately made the first bishop. He was Joseph’s son by birth, but was ranked as the Lord’s brother because of their upbringing together. For this James was Joseph’s son by Joseph’s first wife, not by Mary, as I have said in many other places [see Ancoratus 60.1–4] and dealt with more clearly for you. And moreover I find that he was of Davidic descent because of being Joseph’s son,  that he was born a nazirite—for he was Joseph’s first-born, and (thus) consecrated. And I have found further that he also functioned as (high)-priest in the ancient priesthood. Thus he was permitted to enter the Holy of Holies once a year, as scripture says the Law directed the high priests to do. For many

32 Introduction before me—Eusebius, Clement and others—have reported this of him. He was allowed to wear the priestly tablet besides, as the trustworthy authors I mentioned have testified in those same historical writings (Epiphanius of Salamis 2009: 3.8–4.4).

Epiphanius and others who hold this position take their cue from earlier texts. In the Protevangelium of James, for example (see below), written in the middle of the second century CE, Joseph is a widower who had at least two other sons by a previous marriage. Joseph declares that fact to the high priest when a sign from heaven in the temple demonstrates that he was to take Mary (who lived in the temple from three years of age until twelve) home with him (9.2). One of Joseph’s sons leads the donkey on which a pregnant Mary rides from Nazareth to Bethlehem (17.2), and his sons stayed with Mary in a cave while Joseph went to find a midwife to assist in the birth of Jesus (17.1). Similarly, Epiphanius later writes that James was called the “Lord’s brother” and was raised together with him, but in reality James, like the other brothers of Jesus, was born of Joseph’s “real wife,” not of “the ever-virgin Mary” (66.19.8). In Chapter 78 of the Panarion, “Against Antidicomarians,” Epiphanius also denounces those who had a “grudge against the Virgin and desired to cheapen her reputation” by saying that “St. Mary had relations with [Joseph] after Christ’s birth.” The Epiphanian view is represented in a number of visual works of art that also reflect the story in the Protevangelium of James, where Joseph’s son James leads the donkey on which the pregnant Mary rides from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Sometimes this imagery is also extended to depictions of the flight into Egypt. James might appear, for example, in a recent mural painted on a semi-dome in Dormition Abbey, Jerusalem, near the circular crypt where Mary, according to tradition, “fell asleep” (Plate 1.1). The mural, in my reading, depicts Mary, Joseph, Jesus, and James on the flight to Egypt. Mary holds the baby Jesus in her right arm, and the young boy James is walking on the far left and holding Joseph’s hand.

James as the cousin of Jesus The Hieronymian theory, named after its steadfast proponent Jerome, states that the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus are actually Jesus’ cousins. Jerome directs his treatise, “The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary” (ca. 383 CE), against Helvidius, when both Jerome and Helvidius were in Rome under Pope Damasus. Jerome, in his belief that virginity is a more blessed state than marriage, not only claims that Mary remained a virgin, but that Joseph did as well: “Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born” (Chapter 21; Chapters 3–11). In addition, he argues that

Introduction  33

Plate 1.1  Mural of the flight into Egypt (from left to right: James, Joseph, Jesus, and Mary), Dormition Abbey, Jerusalem

“first-born son” does not imply later children and that the brothers and sisters of Jesus mentioned in the New Testament are first cousins. Jerome then, in a move that seems to be his creation, identifies James the brother of Jesus with James the “less/younger,” the apostle and son of Alphaeus. Jerome states, based on his reading of Mark 15:40: Observe, he says, James and Joses are sons of Mary, and the same persons who were called brethren by the Jews. Observe, Mary is the mother of James the less and of Joses. And James is called the less to distinguish him from James the greater, who was the son of Zebedee, as Mark elsewhere states (Chapter 14).

Jerome thus not only equates James the brother of Jesus with the son of Mary the wife of Alphaeus (Mark 15:40) but also equates Alphaeus with Clopas (John 19:25): Let me point out then what John says, “But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” No one doubts that there were two apostles called by the name James, James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alphæus. Do you intend the comparatively unknown James the less, who is called in Scripture the son of Mary, not however of Mary the mother of our Lord, to be an apostle, or not? If he is an apostle, he must be the son of Alphæus and a believer in Jesus (Chapter 15).

34 Introduction Thus since Paul calls James of Jerusalem an apostle (Gal. 1:18–19), this James must be one of the twelve apostles. James the son of Zebedee had already been killed by Herod Agrippa I, so that leaves James the less/younger as the only surviving apostle named James. Jerome then argues that John 19:25 means that Mary the wife of Clopas/Alphaeus (Jerome notes that Moses’s father-in-law also had different names) is the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, which makes James the son of Alphaeus/Clopas the first cousin of Jesus. Despite its weaknesses with respect to the biblical traditions, Jerome’s solution eventually became the dominant tradition in the West. Augustine was a firm believer in the Hieronymian position, and, under his influence, Jerome’s arguments won the day in the West. In the East, Chrysostom, although he was initially in favor of the Epiphanian position (see Lightfoot 1865: 125–8), may have been convinced by Jerome’s arguments, since in his Homilies on Galatians, Chrysostom calls James not only an apostle but also the son of “Cleophas” (1:19). There are, of course, other possibilities concerning James’s relationship to Jesus. James Tabor, for example, postulates that Jesus’ brothers and sisters stemmed from a Levirate marriage between Joseph’s brother, Clophas/Alphaeus, and Jesus’ mother Mary. In this hypothesis, Joseph died childless—Jesus was not his son—and Joseph’s brother was required by law to wed Mary (per Deut. 25:5–10). As Tabor concludes: “Jesus was born of an unknown father, but was not the son of Joseph. Joseph died without children, so according to Jewish law ‘Clophas’ or ‘Alphaeus’ became his ‘replacer,’ and married his widow, Mary, mother of Jesus” (2006: 80). On the other hand, James and Jesus could, in fact, be full brothers, a position that obviously was not widely held throughout the history of Christianity, since it rejects the doctrine of the virgin birth. This position assumes that Joseph and Mary had several children together: Jesus, James, Joses, Judas, Simon, and some unnamed daughters (cf. Mark 6:3).

James the brother of Jesus in the New Testament Most scholars argue that the Gospels tend to portray James the brother of Jesus as not a follower of Jesus during Jesus’ lifetime and, in fact, showing hostility to Jesus’ ministry (e.g., Mark 3:19b–35; but cf. Hartin 2004: 10–15; Painter 2004: 11–41). James is either mentioned in passing (e.g., Mark 6:3; Matt. 13:55) or assumed to be included in references to Jesus’ family that appear to be negative concerning their belief in Jesus (e.g., Mark 3:19b–35; John 7:3–5). In the Book of Acts, however, Mary and the brothers of Jesus are with the apostles in the upper room “constantly devoting themselves to prayer” (1:14). This passage is notable for at least three reasons: First, Acts distinguishes between

Introduction  35 “James son of Alphaeus” (1:13)—one of the eleven in the upper room—and the “brothers” of Jesus (1:14), which indicates that the author of Acts did not believe James the brother of Jesus was the same person as James the son of Alphaeus. Second, James, assuming he is included in the reference to the “brothers” of Jesus, is still not mentioned by name; he does not appear by name in the entire Gospel of Luke (both Luke and Acts were written by the same author) and still is unnamed here. Finally, the family of Jesus is firmly within the camp of Jesus’ ­followers at this stage (cf. Painter 2004: 42, who argues that there is no evidence of a post-resurrection “ ‘conversion’ of James from unbeliever to believer”). After Herod Agrippa I has James the brother of John executed (Acts 12:1–2), he imprisons Peter. An angel miraculously delivers Peter from prison, and Peter sends a message of his delivery to “James and to the brothers” (12:17; NRSV = “believers”). But who is this James? It has to be James the brother of Jesus (i.e., James of Jerusalem and James the Just). This reference to James the brother of Jesus being a leader in the Jerusalem church is abrupt and surprising. James the son of Alphaeus is the only other James (besides James the Apostle, the brother of John) that readers have encountered at this point of the narrative. In fact, Acts never identifies “James” as the brother of Jesus or explains how he reached his position of authority. At this point, though, either the authority in the Christian community in Jerusalem shifts from Peter to James (Johnson 1995: 97; cf. Hartin 2004: 52–5) or Acts now acknowledges that James already was the leader of the Jerusalem church (Painter 2004: 44). After “certain individuals came down from Judea” (Acts 15:1) to Antioch to insist that Gentile Christians be circumcised, “Paul and Barnabas and some of the others” went to Jerusalem to meet “with the apostles and the elders.” At the assembly, some Christian Pharisees declare that Gentile Christians must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses (15:5). Peter speaks in the discussions, but it appears that James has the final word and the authority to make the decision: “Therefore I have reached the decision,” James says, that Gentile Christians do not have to follow the whole law but have to abstain “from things polluted by idols,” from “fornication,” and “from whatever has been strangled and from blood” (15:20). Finally, in Acts, James appears in Paul’s final visit to Jerusalem. When Paul makes his report to “James and the elders,” they—the group, not James individually—praise God but say that because of the Jewish Christians who are “zealous for the law,” Paul should take the vow of a Nazarite and pay for four others who were taking that vow (21:17–26). Some of the evidence in Paul’s writings demonstrates a more antagonistic situation. In 1 Corinthians, however, any confrontation is glossed over or nonexistent. In 15:3–7, for example, James simply appears in Paul’s list of people who witnessed the resurrection of Jesus before Paul did (15:8). Jesus appeared, Paul says, first to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve, then to five hundred

36 Introduction ­ rothers and sisters, then to James, then to all the apostles, before appearing, “as b one untimely born,” to Paul. James also may be included—though unnamed— in Paul’s comment that many leaders in the church are accompanied by a “believing wife,” such as “the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas” (1 Cor. 9:5). Paul refers to James three times in the more polemical letter to the Galatians. In the first section of the letter, when Paul is trying to vindicate his apostleship, he indicates that after his conversion and sojourn in Arabia, Paul travelled to Jerusalem and stayed with Cephas for fifteen days. He claims that he did not “see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother” (1:15–19). In Galatians 2, Paul says that fourteen years later he met with the “acknowledged leaders” of the church in Jerusalem (2:2). A few verses later he speaks of the “acknowledged leaders” again and says that since God shows no partiality, it made no real difference to him who they were and declares that “those leaders contributed nothing” to him (2:6). Then Paul includes James specifically in the leadership of the church when he says that “James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given” to Paul and offered him “the right hand of fellowship,” agreeing to a division of labor: Paul to the Gentiles (or “nations”; see Painter 2004: 65–7, who argues that “the pillars” assumed that Paul’s mission would be restricted to the Gentiles, whereas Paul understood it to mean a “universal mission to ‘the nations’ ”) and them to the “circumcised.” They also asked that Paul “remember the poor” (2:9–10). James’s importance is highlighted not only by the fact that he is one of the three “acknowledged pillars,” but also by the fact that he is listed first, ahead of Peter and John. Finally, in Galatians 2:11–14, Paul writes that he confronts Cephas for his hypocrisy after Cephas withdraws from table fellowship with Gentile Christians when “certain people came from James,” because Cephas was afraid “of the circumcision faction” (2:12). Paul does not clarify James’s precise connection with this “circumcision faction”; his focus is on Peter’s hypocrisy and the validity of Paul’s gospel. One might conclude, because of Peter’s status as a leading apostle, that James was the authority behind the “circumcision faction.” Peter appears to acquiesce to James’s authority to formulate the definitive response of the church in Jerusalem (Painter 2004: 69). These passages portray James as the dominant voice and primary leader of the church in Jerusalem, one who was a follower of Jesus who stayed faithful to the Torah. As a Torah-observant Jewish Christian, James is open—under certain conditions—to the Gentile mission of others, although he, as did Jesus, focuses on the restoration of Israel (cf. Hartin 2004: 83). The Letter of James, whether or not James the brother of Jesus wrote it, stands firmly within that tradition.

Introduction  37

Portraits of James outside the New Testament The traditions concerning James of Jerusalem develop as later texts continue to respond to James in divergent ways. These texts focus on James’s identity, reputation, and character, and they include accounts of his death that serve to demonstrate his piety and faithfulness.

Josephus The Jewish historian Josephus (37– ca. 100 CE) provides a brief report of the death of James in his Antiquities of the Jews. After the death of the procurator Festus, and before his replacement Albinus arrived, the high priest Ananus brought James the brother of Jesus “and some others” before the Sanhedrin. Ananus accused them of breaking the law and had them stoned to death. Josephus then writes that some “fair-minded” strict observers of the law protested to King Agrippa, who removed Ananus as high priest (Antiquities of the Jews, 20.9.1). In Josephus’s version of James’s death, then, James is stoned to death along with others.

Eusebius Eusebius (260–339), the Bishop of Caesarea and a prolific author, is often called the father of church history. Although his own theological point of view greatly influences the writing of his Ecclesiastical History, the work also presents selections from many of his predecessors in the church. In the case of the death of James of Jerusalem, the Ecclesiastical History contains accounts from Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement of Alexandria. Eusebius reports that James is called the “brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph,” surnamed “the Just” because “of the excellence of his virtue,” and “is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem” (2.1.2). Citing Clement, Eusebius states that Peter and James and John chose James as bishop after the ascension of Jesus, “as if also preferred by our Lord” (2.1.3). He then says that Clement also writes that James, along with others, received a special post-Easter revelation from Jesus: “The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge (gnōsis) to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one . . .” (2.1.3–4). Eusebius then provides a succinct version of James the Just’s death that he says comes from Clement of Alexandria: James “was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller . . .” (2.1.4). The

38 Introduction more extensive accounts, though, are found in Chapter 23 of Book 2, where Eusebius provides details from other sources. Eusebius begins the chapter by saying that after Paul appealed to Caesar and was sent to Rome (cf. Acts 25:1– 12), “the Jews, being frustrated in their hope of entrapping him by the snares which they had laid for him, turned against James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles” (2.23.1). Eusebius then writes: Leading him into their midst they demanded of him that he should renounce faith in Christ in the presence of all the people. But, contrary to the opinion of all, with a clear voice, and with greater boldness than they had anticipated, he spoke out before the whole multitude and confessed that our Saviour and Lord Jesus is the Son of God. But they were unable to bear longer the testimony of the man who, on account of the excellence of ascetic virtue and of piety which he exhibited in his life, was esteemed by all as the most just of men, and consequently they slew him (2.23.2).

Eusebius then reminds his readers of the earlier account from Clement that James was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and beaten to death with a fuller’s club. Here, however, Eusebius adds the version from Hegesippus, “who lived immediately after the apostles” and gives, in Eusebius’s opinion, “the most accurate account in the fifth book of his Memoirs” (2.23.3). The account begins by identifying James as “the Just” and describing his holy life: James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James. He was holy from his mother’s womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath. He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people. Because of his exceeding great justice he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek, “Bulwark of the people” and “Justice,” in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him (2.23.4–7).

This account, which stresses the piety, holiness, asceticism, and Torah obedience of James, also describes him as a priest—if not high priest—and a life-long Nazarite (cf. Acts 21:18–26). James might function, in fact, as the “true high priest” who in his earnest prayers begs (and receives?) forgiveness for the people (Myllykoski 2007: 34).

Introduction  39 After establishing James’s character, Hegesippus’s story then turns to why and how James was killed. James persuaded many people in Jerusalem that Jesus was “the Christ”: Therefore when many even of the rulers believed, there was a commotion among the Jews and Scribes and Pharisees, who said that there was danger that the whole people would be looking for Jesus as the Christ. Coming therefore in a body to James they said, “We entreat you, restrain the people; for they are gone astray in regard to Jesus, as if he were the Christ. We entreat you to persuade all that have come to the feast of the Passover concerning Jesus; for we all have confidence in you. For we bear you witness, as do all the people, that you are just, and do not respect persons. Therefore persuade the multitude not to be led astray concerning Jesus. For the whole people, and all of us also, have confidence in you. Stand therefore upon the pinnacle of the temple, that from that high position you may be clearly seen, and that your words may be readily heard by all the people. For all the tribes, with the Gentiles also, are come together on account of the Passover.” The Scribes and Pharisees therefore placed James upon the pinnacle of the temple, and cried out to him and said: “Just one, in whom we ought all to have confidence, forasmuch as the people are led astray after Jesus, the crucified one, declare to us, what is the gate of Jesus.” And he answered with a loud voice, “Why do you ask me concerning Jesus, the Son of Man? He himself sits in heaven at the right hand of the great Power, and is about to come upon the clouds of heaven.” And when many were fully convinced and gloried in the testimony of James, and said, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” these same Scribes and Pharisees said again to one another, “We have done badly in supplying such testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, in order that they may be afraid to believe him.” And they cried out, saying, “Oh! Oh! The just man is also in error.” And they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah, “Let us take away the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings” [Is 3:10]. So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to each other, “Let us stone James the Just.” And they began to stone him, for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned and knelt down and said, “I entreat you, Lord God our Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And while they were thus stoning him one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of the Rechabites, who are mentioned by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out, saying, “Cease, what are you doing? The just one prays for you.” And one of them, who was a fuller, took the club with which he beat out clothes and struck the just man on the head. And thus he suffered martyrdom. And they buried him on the spot, by the temple, and his monument still remains by the temple. He became a true witness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ. And immediately Vespasian besieged them (2.23.8–18).

The account from Hegesippus ends there, and Eusebius notes that this story agrees with Clement’s version that James “was so admirable a man and so

40 Introduction c­ elebrated among all for his justice” that even the “more sensible” Jews believed that the siege and destruction of Jerusalem was the direct result of this unjust killing of James (2.23.19). Yet there are some key differences between the ­stories. Hegesippus, for example, adds details about James not only being thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and killed with a fuller’s club—as the report from Clement indicates—but that James was also stoned—the sole method of execution included in Josephus’s account. Thus Hegesippus’s account might attempt to reconcile those two versions, although the story from Clement seems to indicate that James was beaten to death with the fuller’s club (a long beating not just one strike), whereas Hegesippus’s story seems to indicate one strike with the fuller’s club. Although Josephus’s account actually is the earliest tradition about James’s martyrdom, Eusebius turns to it last. Eusebius, on the whole, recapitulates what we find in extant copies of Josephus’s text with one notable exception: He quotes Josephus as saying that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE was on account of the martyrdom of James: “These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man” (2.23.20). These words most likely are a later Christian interpolation to Josephus’s account. No extant manuscript of Josephus’s Antiquities includes those words, although the same passage is found in Origen’s Against Celsus (1.47). The rest of Eusebius’s account follows the Josephus text with minor differences. Ananus took the opportunity between the death of Festus and the arrival of Albinus as the new procurator, “called together the Sanhedrim, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the socalled Christ, James by name, together with some others, and accused them of violating the law, and condemned them to be stoned.” When “those in the city who seemed most moderate and skilled in the law were very angry at this” protested to King Agrippa and Albinus—it was against the law for Albinus to gather the Sanhedrin without Albinus’s knowledge—Ananus was deposed after only serving three months as high priest. A painting in Sts. James Cathedral in Jerusalem gives a dramatic rendering of the death of James. The cathedral is the seat of the Armenian Patriarchs and is named in honor of both James of Jerusalem and James the Apostle, son of Zebedee, hence the plural in the title of the cathedral: “Sts. James” (Srbots Hakobiants in Armenian). Tombs of both saints are located in the cathedral, and the cathedral itself is reportedly built on the spot where James of Jerusalem lived. The present cathedral, built in the twelfth century, also is believed to be where, after the resurrection, Jesus “ordained the Apostle James, Brother of the Lord, as the first bishop of Jerusalem” (Atajanyan 2003: 15, 20). On the south wall of the main sanctuary is a painting that illustrates the martyrdom of James of Jerusalem. The first picture (Plate 1.2) shows the entire

Introduction  41 painting, which depicts three distinct points in time in the martyrdom story. In the center of the painting, James stands with his arm extended at the pinnacle of the temple, bearing witness to his faith in Jesus. Just as the story from Hegesippus has James declare that Jesus is sitting “at the right hand of the great Power,” so we see, at the very top of the painting, God seated up in heaven, Jesus sitting on God’s right (to the viewer’s left) and holding a cross, and the Holy Spirit, depicted as a dove, in the air between them. The audience to whom James speaks, who will throw him from the pinnacle, is on the viewer’s left. The martyrdom is depicted (in stages) on the right side of the painting. The next photo shows a close up of the section of the painting that depicts James being thrown from the pinnacle of the temple (Plate  1.3). The third photograph shows the bottom right of the painting (it includes James falling), which depicts the final episode in James’s martyrdom (Plate 1.4). James kneels in prayer, and a man with the fuller’s club prepares to strike him. In Hegesippus’s version, James prays, as did Jesus and Stephen, for God “to forgive them, for they know not what they do,” but the painting gives no clear evidence that stoning is part of what is depicted (apart from an apparently bloodied head, although that may be due to the fall). Eusebius’s final mention of James the Just concerns James’s “episcopal chair” (or “throne,” from the Greek thronos): The chair of James, who first received the episcopate of the church at Jerusalem from the Saviour himself and the apostles, and who, as the divine records show, was called a brother of Christ, has been preserved until now, the brethren who have followed him in succession there exhibiting clearly to all the reverence which both those of old times and those of our own day maintained and do maintain for holy men on account of their piety (7.19).

Other photographs from the cathedral in Jerusalem illustrate these aspects of James of Jerusalem. On the outside wall of the cathedral in the parvis, the enclosed western courtyard, and north of the front door where worshippers enter, a series of paintings are found. The painting on the left depicts James the Great with his decapitated head. The other painting, by E. Esme, depicts James of Jerusalem sitting on his episcopal chair. James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, is also portrayed as wearing episcopal robes, wearing a mitre, and holding a crozier (Plate 1.5; Plate 1.6). Other items in Sts. James Cathedral illustrate James as the first Bishop of Jerusalem. The cathedral’s sanctuary is lit only by oil lamps (ganteghs) hanging from the vaulted dome, as well as candles on the three altars, and the lack of light makes it difficult to take photographs. At the front of the main sanctuary is the throne of St. James of Jerusalem. James is believed to be buried under the floor just in front of the throne. The photograph of the throne of James the Just

42 Introduction

Plate 1.2  The martyrdom of James, Sts. James Cathedral, Jerusalem

Plate 1.3  The martyrdom of James, James thrown from the pinnacle of the Temple, Sts. James Cathedral, Jerusalem

Plate 1.4  The martyrdom of James, James about to be struck with the fuller’s club, Sts. James Cathedral, Jerusalem

Introduction  43

Plate 1.5  James with episcopal robes, wearing a mitre, and holding a crozier, a painting by E. Esme in the western courtyard of Sts. James Cathedral, Jerusalem

Plate 1.6  James (close-up view) with episcopal robes, wearing a mitre, and holding a crozier, in the western courtyard of Sts. James Cathedral, Jerusalem

(Plate 1.7) is taken from the chancel and altar areas of the cathedral, a vantage point usually available only to Armenian priests. Although photos of some of these artifacts, to my knowledge, have never been published, photos of this throne may also be found in Atajanyan (2003) and Painter (2004). On the day of the Feast of St. James every year, the Patriarch stands in front of this throne, a symbol of his place in the succession of the bishopric from St. James until today. The primate’s chair, used on other occasions, is situated just to the left of the throne. Standing in front of the throne of St. James, with the chair of the primate to the left, you can see a painting of James of Jerusalem just to the right of the throne (Plate 1.8). Once again, James is portrayed as seated on the chair of the episcopate, wearing bishop’s robes and mitre, and holding a crozier (Plate 1.9). Upon close inspection, viewers will see an image of Jesus, also seated upon a chair, on James’s episcopal robes, a symbol of James having been given the episcopate of Jerusalem by Jesus. As with these and other images of James and Jesus, there often is a great resemblance between the two figures. Such similarity in looks, according to tradition, necessitated Judas Iscariot kissing Jesus in his

44 Introduction

Plate 1.7  The throne of St. James, chancel area, Sts. James Cathedral, Jerusalem

Plate 1.8  Painting of St. James of Jerusalem seated on the chair of the episcopate, chancel area, Sts. James Cathedral, Jerusalem

infamous act of betrayal in order to distinguish Jesus from his brother James for those who came to arrest Jesus. Standing to the right of the throne of St. James and looking at the northern wall of the sanctuary, you can see a large number of portraits. One photograph (Plate 1.10) shows the throne of St. James with its canopy, and some of the portraits are in the background (on the wall on the far side of the throne). Those portraits are, according to the Armenian Orthodox Patriarchate, of all the patriarchs of Jerusalem, beginning with the first bishop, James of Jerusalem. Usually hidden by an oil lamp and in one of the darkest corners of the cathedral, the painting of the first Bishop of Jerusalem (the farthest portrait on the bottom right) depicts James sitting on the e­ piscopal throne (Plate 1.11). Note that this painting portrays James as older, with white hair and beard. Although he holds a crozier, no mitre is on his head, and the image that appears on his garments appears to be a depiction of the Annunciation. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem also has a painting of James the Great and James of Jerusalem together with Mary and Jesus (Plate 1.12). James the Great (the Apostle, who, along with his brother John the Apostle, was the son of Zebedee) stands on the viewers’ left, holding his decapitated head.

Plate 1.9  Painting of St. James of Jerusalem seated on the chair of the episcopate (close-up view), chancel area, Sts. James Cathedral, Jerusalem

Plate 1.10  The throne of St. James with paintings of the patriarchs of Jerusalem in the background, Sts. James Cathedral, Jerusalem

Plate 1.11  Painting of St. James as the first patriarch of Jerusalem, Sts. James Cathedral, Jerusalem

Plate 1.12  Painting of Mary and Jesus (center), James the Great (left), and James of Jerusalem (right), Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem

Plate 1.13  Close-up view showing James the Great (left) and Mary and Jesus (right), Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem

Plate 1.14  Close-up view showing Mary and Jesus (left) and James of Jerusalem (right), Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem

Introduction  47 James the Great also, in his role as a pilgrim, holds a ­walking staff with a gourd attached (to hold water). Mary sits in the middle of the painting, sitting on a throne and holding a young Jesus (Plate 1.13). James of Jerusalem stands on the right, once again in his bishop’s robes and wearing a mitre. This time, however, he carries a cross instead of a crozier (Plate 1.14).

Excursus: James in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Robert Eisenman postulates that James might be—or at least greatly “­parallels”— the “Righteous Teacher at Qumran” (1997: 959). In Eisenman’s reconstruction, the “Historical James . . . [is] zealous for the Law, xenophobic, rejecting of foreigners and polluted persons generally, and apocalyptic” (xxxii). James, Eisenman claims, is at the “centre of the ‘opposition alliance’ in Jerusalem involved in and precipitating the Uprising against Rome in 66–70 CE” (xix). James thus is envisioned as a pivotal figure among “nationalist-inclining” Jews, the revolutionary groups of which Josephus writes. James’s death, unlike Jesus’ death four decades before, is tied in popular imagination to the fall of Jerusalem (xxxii). Eisenman also finds numerous references to James hidden in other texts. The death of Stephen in Acts, for example, is a retelling of James’s death (e.g., Stephen in Greek means crown, which “parallels the word in Hebrew used to designate the mitre worn by the High Priest—also a colloquialism for the hair of the Nazarites—both themes again connected with James” (444; for a critique of Eisenman’s book, see Davies 1999; Painter 2004: 333–44).

Gnostic writings: the Nag Hammadi Library In late 1945 near Nag Hammadi, Egypt (about 340 miles south of Cairo), three brothers were digging for fertilizer—nitrogen-rich deposits of soil called sabakh—and discovered an ancient earthenware vessel containing thirteen codices made of papyrus; the codices—containing fifty-two separate tractates with forty-six different texts (six are duplicates)—came to be known as the Nag Hammadi Library (Meyer 2005: 13–31). These gnostic texts include tractates that build upon the authority of James as one who receives a special revelation from Jesus (cf. Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History 2.1.2–4 above). The four main texts of interest are the Apocryphon of James, the Gospel of Thomas, the First Apocalypse of James, and the Second Apocalypse of James. The Apocryphon of James claims to be a “secret book revealed to [James] and Peter by the master [i.e., Jesus]” (1.8–2.7; Meyer 2007: 23). The text purports to be written by James, and the narrative clearly elevates James over Peter. Five hundred and fifty days after the resurrection, Jesus takes James and

48 Introduction Peter aside to give them a special revelation. Painter notes that the primacy of James over Peter can be seen, for example, in the way that Peter’s words from Mark 10:28 about leaving one’s family and home behind are attributed to James (4.25–8; Painter 2004: 166). Although the Apocryphon of James does not explicitly identify which James is writing the text—and James is not designated as the brother of the Lord or as the Just—the text concludes with a clear hint: James sends the apostles to preach throughout the world, but he “went up to Jerusalem,” evidently to lead the church there (16:1–11; Meyer 2007: 30). The Gospel of Thomas (late first or early second century CE) is a collection of 114 sayings attributed to Jesus that includes only one reference to James: “The disciples said to Jesus, ‘We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?’ Jesus said to them, ‘No matter where you have come from, you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being’ ” (Logion 12; Meyer 2007: 141). This reference to James is the earliest evidence that he was named “the Just,” and the importance ascribed to him in this text is striking, because in Logion 1, it is Judas Thomas the Twin (i.e., of Jesus) who has the critical role of recording these “hidden sayings.” This perspective from the Gospel of Thomas correlates with those traditions where Jesus ordains James as leader of the church in Jerusalem. The naming of James as leader—especially in connection with these hidden sayings being given to “the Twin”—“maintains the priority of the family of Jesus” (Painter 2004: 162–3). The First Apocalypse of James, found in Codex V of the Nag Hammadi Library, contains dialogues James has with Jesus in which James receives special revelations from his rabbi and Lord. The apocalypse begins with Jesus revealing signs to “his brother” James, although James is not “physically” his brother (which likely reflects a docetic Christology and not that James is a cousin or half-brother; Painter 2004: 171). The First Apocalypse of James, then, portrays James as a pre-Easter follower of Jesus. After Jesus’ passion, James is alone praying, and Jesus appears to him. James immediately stops praying, embraces Jesus, and kisses him. Jesus, for the first time, calls him “James the Just” (32:1; James is also called a “servant,” cf. James 1:1). Jesus then declares that he did not suffer and die (someone else did instead) and predicts James’s forthcoming martyrdom: “James, this is how you will face these sufferings. Do not be sad. The flesh is weak, and it will get what is ordained for it. But as for you, do not be timid or afraid” (25.10–28.4; Meyer 2007: 327). It may seem strange that James appears so prominently in gnostic-influenced texts, since he, as Painter notes, “epitomized conservative Jewish Christian values” (2004: 173). James had a leadership role in the Jerusalem church, was martyred in Jerusalem, and, according to an early tradition, received a post-Easter revelation from Jesus. Thus, James “was a ready

Introduction  49 made  revealer figure in a Gnosticizing situation” (Painter 2004: 173). The added attraction of James for such Gnostics might be that they could appeal to James as an “outsider,” an authentic and reliable “alternative to the apostolic authority,” since James was not one of the twelve apostles (Schoedel 1990: 261). The Second Apocalypse of James, also included in Codex V, claims to contain the discourse that James spoke in Jerusalem just before his death. A priest named Mareim, who also apparently witnessed James’s execution, writes down James’s words and reports them to Theuda, James’s father, since he and Theuda were relatives. In his discourse, James reflects on the life and words of Jesus, and he reveals special insights that Jesus imparted solely to him during a resurrection appearance. James speaks with authority, because he was the one “who received revelation from the fullness [plērōma] of imperishability.” James becomes the one through whom the revelation of Jesus comes (through the Spirit), and he serves as a guide to those who enter the kingdom. As Jesus explains to James: “. . . through you those who wish to enter may go through a good door . . . . They follow you and enter, [and you] accompany them inside and give each of them a share of the reward” (54.15–56.14; Meyer 2007: 337). James also describes, apparently to a crowd of people who will soon accuse him of blasphemy, a resurrection appearance in which Jesus discussed with James their family relationship: One time when I was sitting and meditating, the one whom you hated and persecuted opened the door and came in to me, and he said to me, Hello, my brother; brother, hello. As I raised my [head] to look at him, mother said to me, “Don’t be afraid, my son, because he said to you, ‘My brother.’ You were both nourished with the same milk. That is why he says to me, ‘My mother.’ He is not a stranger to us; he is your step-brother . . .” (50.4–51.13; Meyer 2007: 335–6)

If Jesus and James were nourished by the same milk, The Second Apocalypse of James does not believe that James was the son of Joseph from a previous marriage or that James and Jesus were cousins. The text, however, also denies that Mary was the actual mother of Jesus (cf. The First Apocalypse of James, where James is not Jesus’ “physical” brother; noted by Painter 2004: 175). James concludes his discourse by declaring the divinity of Jesus to his audience, urging them to “walk in accordance with the one who wants you to become free people” (59.1), and proclaiming that his listeners “have judged themselves.” Because of this, the temple is doomed; it shall be torn down, “to the ruin and derision of those who live in ignorance” (60.23).

50 Introduction James’s message was disturbing to “all the people and the crowd.” Mareim writes that he himself was with the priests at that time but did not reveal his relationship with James, because “they were all saying with one voice, ‘Come, let us stone “the Just.” ’ They arose and said, ‘Yes, let us kill this man, that he may be removed from our midst. For he will be of no use to us at all.’ ” Then the text describes details of James’s death. First, James’s opponents found him in the temple, took him to the pinnacle, and threw him off. James, however was still alive, so: They seized him and [abused] him, dragging him on the ground. They stretched out his body and rolled a stone on his abdomen, and they trampled him with their feet and said, “O you who have gone astray!” Since he was still alive, they raised him up again, made him dig a hole, and forced him to stand in it. They covered him up to his abdomen and stoned him in this manner.

James then utters a lengthy prayer of a righteous sufferer—another sign of his great piety (Painter 2004: 177)—and dies at the end of his prayer. As Myllykoski notes, in contrast to Hegesippus’s version of James’s death, this depiction reflects somewhat accurately, albeit with some differences, the Jewish judicial practice of stoning in the Mishnah (Sanh. 6.4). The Mishnah, which reached its final form around 220 CE, indicates that the condemned person must be pushed from a height at least twice a human’s height. If the person does not die from the fall, a witness must drop a large stone on the condemned person’s chest. If the person still is alive, then people must stone the condemned person (2007: 78).

New Testament Apocrypha Other texts in the New Testament Apocrypha shed some light on the development of traditions about James, as a few illustrative examples will demonstrate.

The Gospel of the Hebrews No copy of the Gospel of the Hebrews is extant; there are only brief quotations of it found in four ancient writers, all of whom at one time or another were connected to Alexandria: Jerome (who briefly studied with Didymus the Blind in Alexandria) quotes it four times, and Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and the

Introduction  51 commentary attributed to Didymus the Blind each quote it once. The Gospel may have been used by Jewish-Christians in Alexandria, although it does bear some traces of Gnosticism (Ehrman 2003: 15). The reference to James from the Gospel of the Hebrews is found in Jerome’s Lives of Illustrious Men (Chapter 2). Jerome writes that “the Gospel according to the Hebrews,” which he translated into both Greek and Latin, depicted Jesus’ appearance to James after the resurrection: [T]he Lord, after he had given his grave clothes to the servant of the priest, appeared to James (for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he drank the cup of the Lord until he should see him rising again from among those that sleep).

Jesus then appears to James and calls for a table and bread to be brought. Jesus blessed the bread, broke it, and “gave to James the Just and said to him, ‘my brother eat thy bread, for the son of man is risen from among those that sleep.’ ” This gospel fragment differs from the canonical gospels in several ways: James attends the Last Supper and is the first witness to the resurrection. In addition, Jesus calls him “my brother,” and the Gospel also calls James “the Just” (Hartin 2004:129). All of these aspects heighten the importance of James and present him, most likely, as the highest authority within the church, the leader of the followers of Jesus post-Easter.

Protevangelium of James The Protevangelium of James is a second-century text that focuses on the miraculous birth of Mary to her parents Joachim and Anna, Mary’s subsequent upbringing in the temple, her engagement at twelve years of age to the (assumed by most to be elderly) widower Joseph, her miraculous conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit, and Jesus’ birth in a cave (Schneemelcher 1991: 1.371–3; Ehrman 2003: 63). Its title in the oldest surviving manuscript, in fact, is Birth of Mary: Revelation of James. In this work, Joseph has at least two other sons by his previous marriage (17.1), and one of them led the donkey on which pregnant Mary rode on the trip to Bethlehem (17.2). The narrative does not indicate explicitly that James was one of those sons, but the text concludes with this statement of authorship: But I James, the one who has written this account in Jerusalem, hid myself away in the wilderness when there was a disturbance at the death of Herod, until the disturbance in Jerusalem came to an end. There I glorified God, the Master, who gave me the gift and the wisdom to write this account (25.1; Ehrman 2003: 71–2).

52 Introduction This account, reflected in some images through the centuries (e.g., see Plate 1.1), was attacked by Jerome because it conflicts with his arguments that James and Jesus were cousins.

Pseudo-Clementine literature This term designates a number of “romance writings” that chronicle aspects of Clement’s life and cite him as the author. These pseudonymous texts reached their final form in the third or fourth centuries, but sections possibly originated in a Jewish-Christian community in Pella in the second century, a community in which James was venerated. The main texts are found in two different sections: The Homilies and the Recognitions. Clement, later to be bishop of Rome, was introduced by Barnabas to Peter, who converted Clement to Christianity. Much of the work contains the teachings of Peter, sometimes given in teachings to Clement, sometimes given in disputes with opponents (Hartin 2004: 129; Painter 2004: 191–3). Three “introductory writings” preface the main texts. The first is a purported letter to James, the opening line of which says, “Peter to James, the lord and bishop of the holy Church” (1.1.1; Schneemelcher 1991: 2.493). “Peter” urges “James” to safeguard the “books of his preachings”—not to give them to the Gentiles but only to those among “any one of our own tribe” whom James judges as worthy (1.1.2). The letter seems also to have an antiPauline motif: Peter writes that some Gentiles have rejected his “lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine of the man who is my enemy” (1.2.3). This initial letter is followed by the Contestatio, the account of the letter’s “reception” by James, who calls together the seventy elders, reveals to them the contents of the letter, and outlines the precautions necessary to pass on the preaching of Peter. James fulfills this role as the leader of the Jerusalem church. The third document is another letter that serves as an introduction to the “Clement romance” which follows, and it provides an account of Peter ordaining Clement as his successor as the bishop of Rome (Schneemelcher 1991: 2.485). The letter purports to be from “Clement to James, the lord and the bishop of bishops, who governs the holy church of the Hebrews at Jerusalem, and those which by the providence of God have been well founded everywhere” (1.1). This introduction suggests the primacy of James (“lord and bishop of bishops”) as the authoritative figure who safeguards the authentic traditions.

Introduction  53 In Book 1, Chapter 66 of the Recognitions, James is labeled “our James” (cf. 1.69) and “the bishop,” who, after spending the night in prayer, comes to refute Caiaphas in the temple (Caiaphas is called the “chief of the priests,” and James is called “the chief of the bishops”; 1.68). After his speech, James is thrown “headlong from the top of the steps” and presumed dead (1.70). James (who survives) and five thousand others then flee to Jericho, and James sends Peter to Caesarea (1.71). The “commission” from the high priest to arrest them certainly is an implicit criticism of Paul’s persecution of the church (1.71; cf. Acts 9:2). There are numerous other apparently anti-Pauline motifs in sections of the Pseudo-Clementines, which is why the Pseudo-Clementines are so important for F. C. Baur’s dialectical construction of James/Peter/Paul relationships (see chapter “James 1:1–11”). The Pseudo-Clementines include evidence of the perceived authority of James. He is the bishop of bishops and the leader of the Jerusalem church. His authority comes directly from Jesus, it extends over the apostles, including Peter, and he is responsible for the Christian mission, as well as debating and serving as an apologist to the Jews (Painter 2004: 194).

Conclusion Despite these references to James in the texts cited above, however, James of Jerusalem became less important in the church. As Painter notes, several elements contribute to this decline. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE and the disappearance of the Jerusalem church certainly played a major role. The triumph of Pauline Christianity and the disappearance of the Jewish Christianity represented by James the Just contributed to this process as well. Peter emerged as a “more ecumenical transformation of the James tradition,” which likely led to the diminishing of the importance of James in the early church (Painter 2004: 178). Peter also emerged in church traditions as the first Bishop of Rome, the city at the center of the Empire, and James remained Bishop of Jerusalem, a city that no longer functioned as the center of Christianity or Judaism. It is in this context that the struggle for the acceptance of the Epistle of James within the church—the Western Church, in particular—might be evaluated (cf. Painter 2004: 181). The epistle of James has undergone somewhat of a resurgence in New Testament scholarship, but James of Jerusalem remains hidden in many ways. That fact was driven home to me as I walked the streets of the old city of Jerusalem looking for modern icons of James. None were to be found; when

54 Introduction

Plate 1.15  Painting of St. James of Jerusalem seated on the chair of the episcopate, chancel area, Sts. James Cathedral, Jerusalem

Plate 1.16  Ceramic tile icon of James of Jerusalem by George Sandrouni, Jerusalem

asked about icons of “James of Jerusalem,” shopkeepers and others were bewildered, not knowing of whom I spoke (a small number pointed me to images of James the son of Zebedee). Any images of James were rare outside of the Armenian Cathedral of Sts. James, with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Basilica of the Dormition Abbey being two notable exceptions. Unable to find a modern image of James the Just, as noted in the Preface, I asked George Sandrouni to paint an icon of James of Jerusalem, based on the image of the main painting in the Cathedral of Sts. James (Plate 1.15), on a ceramic tile (Plate  1.16). In that creative spirit of envisioning James of Jerusalem anew, I now turn to a very brief discussion of how James of Jerusalem is portrayed in art.

Other Visual Representations of James of Jerusalem The study of visual representations of James of Jerusalem is complex, not just because of the scarcity of images but also because of the differences in opinion about his “real” identity. Is James of Jerusalem (i.e., James the brother of Jesus /

Introduction  55

Plate 1.17  James Tissot, James the Lesser (1886–1894)

James the Just) the same person as James the Less (one of the Twelve Apostles), for example? There is even sometimes confusion between “James the Great” and “James the Less” and/or “James of Jerusalem” (see Bedford 1911: 4–5). Even the legends surrounding James the Great and the network of pilgrimage routes, the “Way of St. James” (Camino de Santiago), that converge upon what some believe to be the tomb of St. James (the Great) in the cathedral in Santiago de Compostela (north-west Spain), is sometimes conflated with the iconography of “James the Less.” Richard Bedford’s 1911 book, St. James the Less, provides a solid foundation for the study of the iconography of James. Bedford notes, for example, how many artists stress “St. James’s legendary likeness to Our Lord.” James can often be ­identified, even without his usual “emblems,” by his similarity to Jesus, such the “long, ascetic face, with its delicately moulded nostril and deep-set, piercing eyes” (3–4). Sometimes images of James and Jesus are indistinguishable, such as the painting of James by James Tissot (created 1886–94). Tissot’s painting (Plate 1.17), one of his 700 watercolors that illustrate the Bible, portrays James praying in the Garden of Gethsemane, in Tissot’s series of works about Jesus’ Passion. The setting seems out of place (James praying in the Garden instead of

0002020198.INDD 55

9/13/2013 10:03:54 AM

56 Introduction Jesus?), but it does foreshadow the continual prayer that Hegesippus claims to have caused James’s knees to become “hard like those of a camel.” James often appears with other iconographic elements, besides the accoutrements of a bishop. Because church tradition (e.g., Hegesippus) states that James was ultimately killed by being struck with a fuller’s club, for example, James usually appears holding a fuller’s staff, as is found in the following photographs of a sculpture of James of Jerusalem from the western face of Salisbury Cathedral (Salisbury, UK). James, as seen in the photo of the front of the cathedral (Plate 1.18), is on the right, in the third row of sculptures, fourth from the right (a window is to the left, and James the Great—lighter in color than the other nearby statues—is just to his right). One notes that besides holding a fuller’s club, these images of James also tend to resemble Jesus (Plate 1.19). The fuller’s club often looks like a hockey stick as seen in the close up image from the Salisbury Cathedral (Plate 1.20), but sometimes it looks like a club or flat bat, as long as it was substantial enough to beat cloth. The cathedral also allows for an easy comparison between James the Less and James the Great, by placing them side by side (Plate 1.21; James the Less on the left, with James the Great, with his pilgrim’s staff, on the right). Around the fourteenth century, another emblem begins to be associated with James and his martyrdom. Instead of being beaten to death with a fuller’s

Plate 1.18  Western face of Salisbury Cathedral, Salisbury, UK

Introduction  57

Plate 1.19  James the Less, western face of Salisbury Cathedral, Salisbury, UK

Plate 1.20  Close-up of fuller’s club held by James the Less, western face of Salisbury Cathedral, Salisbury, UK

58 Introduction

Plate 1.21  James the Less (left) and James the Great (right), western face of Salisbury Cathedral, Salisbury, UK

club, James now is assaulted with something that resembles the bow of a violin. The instrument actually is a bow used by hat-makers to fashion felt and beaver hats, as well as by wool makers (Bedford 1911: 21). This development in ­iconography possibly occurred because of the close connection that guilds of fullers and hat-makers had in the middle ages. James the Less was not the most common patron of fullers—they most likely would not want to be reminded that one of their own martyred James—but, in spite of that issue, James became the patron saint of hat-makers, mercers, and fullers, haberdashers, and ­others— even pastry cooks (Bedford 1911: 25–6). Images of the martyrdom of James are rare until the twelfth century. The use of the bow is more common in German iconography, as can be seen in the 1531 image (Plate 1.22), The Martyrdom of St. James, by Johann von Eck. James, in this depiction, is far removed from the height of the Temple from which he was thrown. He is portrayed as praying and about to be killed with a fuller’s bow (which seems not as formidable a weapon as the club).

Introduction  59

Plate 1.23  Hieronymus Emser, James Reads His Letter (1539)

Plate 1.22  Johann von Eck, The Martyrdom of James (1531)

Sometimes in addition to the fuller’s club/bow, James also wears a fuller’s hat, as seen in the sixteenth-century work, James Reads His Letter, by Hieronymus Emser (Plate 1.23). Emser, who originally agreed with the reforms within the church begun by Luther, broke with Luther in 1519 and became his vehement opponent. In response to Emser’s defense of papal primacy, Luther burned Emser’s writings. Emser later produced a German translation of the New Testament (1527), from the Vulgate, in which he specifically “corrected” the errors of Luther. In the illustration found at the beginning of the Epistle of James in a 1538 edition of the Emser New Testament, James sits reading his epistle, wearing the flat hat with a long brim (in the back) that is characteristic of fullers. The fuller’s rod, with its clubbed end resting on the ledge just above the ground, leans on his right shoulder as well. A cockle shell, which symbolizes a pilgrim and is usually an image connected with James the Great, appears on his upper arm. A much more rugged-looking depiction of James appears in a seventeenthcentury edition of Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible (Plate  1.24). The fuller’s club rests on his left shoulder, and his right hand holds the epistle he contributed to the Bible (no matter what Martin Luther himself thought!). The description below the image speaks of James as the son of Alphaeus and ­mentions his martyrdom following his testimony at the Temple.

60 Introduction

Plate 1.24  Illustration from Martin Luther, Luther’s Bible: The Apostle James the Lesser (seventeenth century)

Another image of James appears in Das symbolum der Heyligen Apostel by Martin Luther (Plate 1.25; ca. 1548). James carries his book in his right arm, and the bow with which he is killed in his left hand. In the background on the right, James’s martyrdom is depicted, a combination of both being thrown down from the height and being beaten with the fuller’s bow. Virgil Solis (1524–62), an engraver and printmaker in Nuremberg, is the artist who created this work, and his initials are in the top right corner. Likewise, in an image published in 1708 in the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer (Plate  1.26), James appears not in his episcopal robes, but barefoot and in well-worn clothes. His left knee sticks out p ­ rominently, as he leans upon the club held in his right hand and holds his epistle in his left. In many representations of James, he holds a book—a symbol of the belief that James had written part of scripture. That is the emblem El Greco chooses for one of his paintings of James the Less (ca. 1612). In contrast to conventional depictions of James resembling Jesus, El Greco’s portrayal of the Apostle is a self-portrait (Plate 1.27). This interpretation of James is housed in the Museo

Plate 1.25  “The Apostle James (the Less),” by Solis the engraver, in Martin Luther, Das symbolum der Heyligen Apostel (1548)

Plate 1.26  “The Apostle James the Less,” in The Book of Common Prayer, Church of England (1708)

Plate 1.27  El Greco (Domenikos Theotokopoulos), James the Lesser (ca. 1610–14)

0002020198.INDD 61

9/13/2013 10:04:00 AM

62 Introduction del Greco in Toledo, Spain. In this version, El Greco omits other traditional emblems associated with James, such as a mitre, crozier, or fuller’s rod. Instead, St. James is depicted in El Greco’s distinctive Mannerist style, with an elongated form and a dark background. This image, like James of Jerusalem himself—and his brother, Jesus of Nazareth—is both enigmatic and compelling. El Greco’s James holds his book in his right hand and with his left hand invites the viewer to consider all that he has written within it. In this image, El Greco himself takes the role of James and bids us to reflect—and act upon?—the scripture he holds in his hands. In a similar fashion, the sometimes-enigmatic epistle ascribed to James has also generated compelling responses to what lies within, and the next chapter begins to explore the diverse ways in which interpreters have considered and responded to James’s text through the centuries.

James 1:1–11 Trials, Endurance, Wisdom, and the Exalted Poor James 1:1–4 Ancient literary context The letter’s opening words do not exude authority directly, but its apparently self-effacing introduction indirectly assumes it. James is “a servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ,” a rather high calling. In addition, even though James speaks in some ways as the equal of his readers—by using the address “my brothers and sisters” instead of “my sons and daughters”—the number of James Through the Centuries, First Edition. David B. Gowler. © 2014 David B. Gowler. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

64  James 1:1–11 imperative sentences used throughout the letter demonstrates the authority with which the author speaks. James’s authority is such that he does not feel compelled to highlight his qualifications to utter such commands or to clarify which “James” he is. James 1:1 and 2:1 are the only places where James explicitly mentions Jesus, but echoes of Jesus’ words and teachings permeate the letter. The first echo can be heard in the address to the “twelve tribes in the Dispersion,” which seems to evoke Jesus’ eschatological call for the restoration of Israel (cf. Matt. 10:1–23; cf. Gowler 2007: 121–44). Just as Jesus’ subversive wisdom is sometimes linked to his eschatological perspective, so too James’s commands can be similarly motivated. The letter’s abrupt beginning immediately calls attention to the suffering the intended readers are evidently experiencing. It is therefore no coincidence that the first imperative of the letter (1:2) focuses on “trials,” a recurrent theme in the letter, which highlights the necessity for steadfastness through such trials. James does not yet specify what he means by “trials” (cf. Matt. 5:11–12), but we find out later that they include ill-treatment within the church (2:2, 4, 6), economic injustice (4:3, 13; 5:2–5), and illness (5:14– 16). James expresses his solidarity with his “brothers and sisters” in these times of difficulty but also has (sometimes difficult) words of wisdom to impart to them. The recipients of the letter are to consider these trials as “nothing but joy.” Joy (charan) connects with the earlier “Greetings” (charein), one of many such word-linkages in James, and joy is of utmost importance in this section. Trials should be considered as joy because of what they should produce: an active steadfastness of faith—endurance, wholeness, and wisdom.

The interpretations Ancient and medieval As noted in the Introduction, Eusebius (ca. 260–339), the Bishop of Caesarea, states that the Epistle of James did not have universal acceptance in the early centuries of the church: These things are recorded in regard to James, who is said to be the author of the first of the so-called catholic epistles. But it is to be observed that it is disputed; at least, not many of the ancients have mentioned it, as is the case likewise with the epistle that bears the name of Jude, which is also one of the seven so-called catholic epistles. Nevertheless we know that these also, with the rest, have been read publicly in very many churches (Ecclesiastical History, 2.23.24).

James 1:1–11  65 In the same work, Eusebius records common opinion over which works are “accepted” (homologoumena) as divine scripture, such as the four Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles of Paul, those works that are “disputed” (antilegomena), such as James, Jude, and the second epistle of Peter, and those that are “rejected” (nothoi), such as the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Apocalypse of Peter (3.25.1–7). Eusebius, it should be noted, is recording common opinion, and his classification of James as among the disputed texts primarily indicates that there are too few witnesses on James’s behalf to include it in the ­homologoumena. In other places, Eusebius assumes James to be scripture and its author a “holy Apostle” (Mayor 1990: 84–5). Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 315–87) was consecrated as Bishop of Jerusalem in 348, but was deposed three times during his career, including an eleven-year exile, which ended in 378 (Davies 1980: 168). In his catechetical lecture “On the Mysteries” (Lecture XXIII.17–18), which comments on the Lord’s Prayer, Cyril attempts to explain the apparent differences between Jesus’ and James’s statements about temptation (James 1:2, 12, 13; cf. Tertullian, On Baptism, Chapter 20). He first illustrates James’s point about trials by using a metaphor about swimming through a torrent and then concludes that Jesus does not mean to ask that believers never be tempted at all: And lead us not into temptation, O Lord. Is this then what the Lord teaches us to pray, that we may not be tempted at all? How then is it said elsewhere, “a man untempted, is a man unproved” ; and again, My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations? But does entering into temptation mean being overwhelmed by the temptation? For temptation is, as it were, like a winter torrent difficult to cross. Those therefore who are not overwhelmed in temptations, pass through, showing themselves excellent swimmers, and not being swept away by them at all; while those who are not such, enter into them and are overwhelmed. As for example, Judas having entered into the temptation of the love of money, swam not through it, but was overwhelmed and was strangled both in body and spirit. Peter entered into the temptation of the denial; but having entered, he was not overwhelmed by it, but manfully swam through it, and was delivered from the temptation.

Cyril concludes by citing the assurances in Psalms 66:10–12 that God tested them, like silver is tested, and God saw them through into a place of rest, thus being delivered from temptation. Jerome (ca. 340–420) is most famous for his primary role in the production of the Vulgate, a translation of the entire Bible into Latin. Jerome eventually settled in Bethlehem, where he spent thirty-four years translating; writing various commentaries, homilies, letters, and other works; teaching theology to the monks gathered around him; and even starting a school for the children of the

66  James 1:1–11 neighborhood. His letters especially demonstrate his fiery and irascible personality, with a biting sarcasm that he unleashes at the slightest perceived provocation. Among the debates in which he engaged were the controversies surrounding Origen and Pelagius, and he specifically attacks people such as Helvidius, Jovinian, and Vigilantius (see MacCulloch 2009: 294–6; Davies 1980: 226). Jerome writes his Lives of Illustrious Men to demonstrate that there were excellent “ecclesiastical writers.” His list includes 135 men, with Jerome being the 135th. The second chapter concerns “James, who is called the brother of the Lord,” and it notes that some in the church dispute whether the epistle was published by another person using James’s name: James, who is called the brother of the Lord, surnamed the Just, the son of Joseph by another wife, as some think, but, as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord of whom John makes mention in his book, after our Lord’s passion at once ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem, wrote a single epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic Epistles and even this is claimed by some to have been published by someone else under his name, and gradually, as time went on, to have gained authority.

Jerome cites Hegesippus (see Introduction), who says that James the Just was the brother of Jesus who became head of the Jerusalem church. James, “holy from his mother’s womb,” was a vegetarian, and abstained from alcohol. Jerome also includes other aspects of James’s piety (e.g., entering the Holy of Holies and having knees like that of a camel because of praying so much). He also relates Josephus’s version of James’s death: Ananias the high priest tried to force James publicly to deny that “Christ was the son of God.” When he refused, James was cast down from the pinnacle of the temple. Still “half alive,” but with broken legs, James prayed, like Jesus and Stephen, for God to forgive his executioners. Only then was James “struck on the head by the club of a fuller” and died. Jerome also reports that Josephus records that “the downfall of Jerusalem was believed to be on account of [James’s] death.” Cyril of Alexandria (ca. 378–444) was the bishop of Alexandria and all Egypt, one of the most important theologians of the fourth and fifth centuries, and a potent political force in his era (e.g., his major role in defending the term Theotokos as a title for Mary and the resulting condemnation and deposing of Nestorius, the bishop of Constantinople; see McKim 2007: 338–9). In one of his works written against the Arians, Thesaurus de sancta et consubstantiali trinitate, Cyril argues that James 1:1 proclaims the Trinity. As is his custom in his writings, Cyril focuses on the “nature” (physis) of the Son: “And how is it not already clearly evident to all, that the Son is God by nature (physis)? The one who in this way exists, how could he be created and made?” Cyril then cites

James 1:1–11  67 James 1:1 and states: “Here in this place [James] addresses Jesus Christ as God and Lord, knowing that this one by nature is the herald of the truth” (Patrologiae Graecae 75:509; noted by John Kloppenborg in private correspondence). The Venerable Bede reads “dispersion” (James 1:1) in light of Acts 8:1, where, because of persecution, Christians were “dispersed” throughout Judea and Samaria. These Christians suffered persecution “for righteousness’ sake” (Matt. 5:10). But Bede also understands this dispersion as designating those who are exiled because of “different calamities” (1985: 7), thus connecting the dispersion with the trials the readers are going through. The testing has a real purpose—patience and demonstrating a firm faith: For this reason, [James] says, you are being tempted by adversities, that you may learn the value of patience and that through this you may be able to show and test that you have in your heart a firm faith in the future reward. What Paul says, “Knowing that tribulation works patience, patience proof ” (Romans 9:3–4), ought not to be considered contradictory to this passage but rather in agreement. For patience builds character, because he whose patience cannot be overcome is proven perfect (9).

The preaching of the reformer Jan Hus (1369–1415) often excoriates the luxurious lifestyles of some in the church hierarchy. He derides the pope, for example, by comparing Jesus riding on a donkey with the pope seated on a stallion with people kissing his feet. Hus seeks to lessen the increasing gulf between the clergy and the laity and decries the use of indulgences for raising money. He interprets James 1:1–2 in particular through the lens of his excommunication by Cardinal Odo de Colonna in 1411, as well as the sufferings of like-minded people (Hus 1972: 50). In a letter to John Barbatus and the people of Krumlov, written from Prague in 1411, Hus says: I have heard of your tribulation; therefore, “count it all joy when you fall into various temptations,” for the testing of your constancy. Dearly beloved, I am now beginning to be tested; but I regard it as a joy that for the sake of the gospel I am called a heretic and am excommunicated as a malefactor and disobedient (Hus 1972: 50).

Hus then compares their situation to that of the apostles under Annas and Caiaphas. The apostles were commanded not to speak of Jesus, but they responded that they had to follow the will of God, not the commands of human beings: “God must be obeyed above all” (51; cf. Letter 25, Hus 1972: 102–3). Likewise, Hus returns to these verses in a letter he writes in exile (ca. November 1412) to the people of Prague. He alludes to the abandonment of the reform

68  James 1:1–11 movement by others, such as Stanislav of Znojmo and Stephen Páleč, because they were in “greater terror of miserable man than of Almighty God who has the power to kill and give life, to condemn and to save (James 4:12), to preserve His faithful servants in temptation and to grant him—in lieu of the minute ­suffering—eternal life of immense joy” (Hus 1972: 79). Instead Hus exhorts them with James 1:2–4, 12, to count these “various temptations” as “all joy” that leads to steadfastness, perfection, and completion, and then, finally, to “the crown of life.” Hus calls upon them to “stand fast in the truth which you have learned” and to trust in God (Hus 1972: 80). If Jesus were declared guilty of heresy, banned, and hanged on a cross as one accursed, Hus argues, the “present-day messengers of the Antichrist” are even worse: “[I]t is no wonder that they calumniate and persecute, curse, imprison, and murder” God’s servants (Hus 1972: 81). Hus’s most poignant use of James 1:2–4, however, comes in his letter to Lord John of Chlum, written in prison on June 23, 1415, in Constance, as Hus was preparing to be burned at the stake: I am greatly consoled by the words of our Saviour: “You shall be blessed when men shall hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and cast out your name as evil on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice and exult: for behold! great is your reward in heaven” [Luke 6:22–3]. It is good, indeed the best, consolation, but difficult, not in respect of being understood, but to be fully sustained; that is, to rejoice in these tribulations. James held that rule along with the other apostles; he said: “Count it all joy, my brethren, when you fall into various temptations, knowing that the testing of your faith works patience, and patience then has perfect effect.” Surely it is difficult to rejoice without perturbation, and to esteem it all joy in various temptations. It is easy to talk about it and to expound it, but difficult to fulfil it. Even the most patient and valiant soldier, knowing that on the third day He would rise, conquering by His death the enemies and redeeming the elect from damnation, after the Last Supper was troubled in spirit . . . O most kind Christ, draw us weaklings after Thyself, for unless Thou draw us, we cannot follow Thee! Give us a courageous spirit that it may be ready; and if the flesh is weak, may Thy grace go before, now, as well as subsequently. For without Thee we can do nothing, and particularly to go to a cruel death for Thy sake. Give us a valiant spirit, a fearless heart, the right faith, a firm hope, and perfect love, that we may offer our lives for Thy sake with the greatest patience and joy. Amen (Hus 1972: 186–7).

Early modern and modern As noted in the Introduction, over the course of his life, Martin Luther wrote some caustic words about the Epistle of James—that it is, for example, “a chaos” and an “epistle of straw” (LW 35: 362, 354). Luther also questions James’s ­canonicity and authorship:

James 1:1–11  69 We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [Wittenburg], for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, “Wait a moment! I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.” This he did. He wrote not a word about the suffering and resurrection of Christ, although this is what all the apostles preached about (LW 54: 424).

In his Preface to the Epistle of James, Luther praises James but then lists his primary objections to it: Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons follow (LW 35: 395–6).

Luther’s first reason for denying the apostolic authorship of James is that it is “flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works” (2:24), especially in James’s discussion of Abraham (2:21). An apostle would not have made that mistake: Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its applications to works (James 2:23) of Moses’s statement in Genesis 15:6, for Moses is speaking here only of Abraham’s faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.

Second, Luther objects to the fact that although James mentions Jesus, he “teaches nothing about him” and does not mention “the Passion, the resurrection, or the spirit of Christ.” A true apostle would speak of those things, and all “the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate Christ”: “Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it.” Third, Luther objects that “this James does nothing more than drive to the law and to its works.” What James calls a “law of liberty” (1:25), Luther argues, Paul calls a “law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin.” In addition, Luther complains, James throws his verses together “chaotically,” and

70  James 1:1–11 Luther concludes that the author must have been a “good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching.” Then Luther declares that James could not have written this text, since James quotes 1 Peter (1 Peter 4:8, cf. James 5:10; 1 Peter 5:6, cf. James 4:10), because James was killed by Herod (in Acts 12:2) before 1 Peter was written. This argument, however, assumes that the alleged author was James the brother of John (whose death is mentioned in Acts 12:2), not James the Just. Luther’s Preface on James concludes with these thoughts: In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task [editions prior to 1530 added here, “in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture”]. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. [editions prior to 1530 read, “Therefore, I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are ­otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all Scripture?”] (LW 35: 397).

Luther’s sermon on Matthew 8:23–7 (February 1, 1517) observes that the “fool reposes in himself ” and forgets God, whereas the “wise one forsakes himself ” and seeks refuge in God. The former action, for Luther, is the “very cesspool of all evil,” but to seek after God is the sum of all good. He notes how James both says to count it all joy when you encounter various trials (1:2) but also for the rich to “weep and howl for the miseries” that will come upon them (5:1). Luther interprets these verses in the context of the storm at sea in Matthew 8:24, where the boat which held Jesus and the disciples was being swamped by the waves, and uses this story as an allegory of difficulties in people’s lives: “Therefore it is well with those who find water breaking into their ship, for this moves them to seek help from God.” Christ, by sleeping, apparently abandons us, but he does so to allow us to go through such storms in terror in order to bring us forward. He creates the situation so that we do not perish but turn back to him, so that more and more we are being constantly saved: “Indeed, he wants to arouse in us a desire for him, so that we may continue to cry out to him; he wants us to cry out to him in order that he may hear and answer us. He wants to hear us that he may save us . . . Therefore, sleep on,

James 1:1–11  71 Lord Jesus, that thou mayest awake, and let us perish, that thou mayest save us” (LW 51: 24–5). Luther also writes that the “patience” of James 1:4 applies especially to leaders. In his commentary on Genesis 37:31–3, Luther notes that although Joseph was abused by his brothers, he did not take punitive action against them. Luther understands it to be a “mark of Christians” not to be angry or indignant when evil is inflicted upon them (LW 6: 399), although brotherly reproof and admonition have been entrusted by God as the duty for fathers, teachers, magistrates, and others: In this manner those who have the power of chastisement and punishment either with the Word or the sword or the rod should accustom their heart to patience, faith, and love. “Let patience,” says James (1:4), “have the perfect work.” . . . he who is patient in faith in Christ is truly holy. No sin remains in him. For whatever he suffers is sheer righteousness as pure as it can be (LW 6: 402).

Not all of the Reformers share Luther’s doubts about the apostolic authenticity of the Epistle of James. Melanchthon, Tyndale, and Zwingli all defend James’s message and/or role in the canon of Scripture, as the following quote from Tyndale demonstrates: Though this epistle were refused in the old time, and denied of many to be the epistle of a very apostle . . . it ought of right to be taken for holy Scripture. For as for that place for which haply it was at the beginning refused of holy men, as it ought, if had meant as they took it, and for which place only, for the false understanding; yet if the circumstances be well pondered, it will appear that the author’s intent was far otherwise than they took him for (Tyndale 1964: 161).

Likewise, although John Calvin does not explicitly mention Luther (he tends to be reticent about mentioning other commentator’s names when he disagrees with their interpretations), Calvin defends James’s authenticity, most likely in partial response to Luther’s critique of James: We know from the testimony of Jerome and Eusebius that this epistle was originally only accepted by many churches after much controversy. Indeed, to this day, there are several who do not rate it worthy of authority. Yet I am glad to include it, without dispute, for I can find no fair and adequate cause for rejecting it. The apparent distortion (in chapter two) of the doctrine of free justification is a matter we shall readily clear up when we come to it (1995: 259).

Calvin agrees that the author could not be James the son of Zebedee, since Herod had him executed not long after the resurrection of Jesus: “Ancient

72  James 1:1–11 ­ pinion is almost unanimous that this was one of the disciples, surnamed o Oblias, a blood-relation of Christ, who presided over the Jerusalem Church. He is reckoned to be the same man as Paul names (Gal. 2:9) along with Peter and John as ‘pillars of the church’ ” (259). Calvin, however, does not find it likely that this James would be elevated over the other ten apostles as one of the three pillars of the church. He leans towards the idea that Paul is speaking of James the son of Alphaeus, although he admits that there could have been another James who became “president of the Jerusalem Church, who was in fact taken from the band of disciples.” Calvin notes the esteem that Oblias was held “in the eyes of the Jews” but concludes: “It is not for me to say firmly which of these two was the author of the epistle” (260). Calvin considers the epistle a worthy part of the canon: “I am fully content to accept this epistle, when I find it contains nothing unworthy of an apostle of Christ.” His reasons are that James is full of instruction on various subjects that benefit every part of the Christian life, including remarkable passages on patience, prayer to God, the excellence and results of heavenly truth, humility, holy duties, the restraining of the tongue, the cultivation of peace, the repressing of lusts, and the contempt of the world (259). James’s opening words about trials and patience is one of the reasons that Calvin admires the book. Calvin argues that “temptations or trials” in this passage include all adverse things that test our obedience to God. We labor under diseases—avarice, envy, gluttony, intemperance, and the innumerable lusts in which we abound—and different remedies are applied to remove them. God “afflicts us in various ways, because, we cannot be cured by the same medicine”: The effect of telling them to count it all joy is to have the whole sum put on the credit side, accounted only as a source of congratulation. There is nothing in our distress which can spoil our rejoicing. He is teaching us both to bear adversity quietly and calmly, and to know why believing men are to be happy under affliction. We know that the natural trend of our feelings is to be grieved and saddened by any kind of temptation. Nor can any of us entirely escape the instinct to break down and cry, when trouble comes: but this does not prevent God’s children from rising above fleshly pains, under the guidance of the Spirit. By this means, they may continue to rejoice, even in the midst of sorrow (261–2).

For some interpreters, the canonicity and inspiration of the Epistle of James is dependent upon its authorship. For example, Johann David Michaelis (1717– 91), Professor of Oriental Languages at Göttingen, declares that the Epistle of James is inspired and infallible only if an apostle wrote it, either James, the son of Zebedee or James, the son of Alphaeus:

James 1:1–11  73 But if it was written by James, who was a half brother of Christ, and not an apostle, we can have no proof of its inspiration and infallibility. And inspiration and infallibility are not just everyday matters that one can accept without proof. Therefore, if it is not written by a James who was an apostle, I cannot accept the inspiration of the letter—the letter, furthermore, about which the ancient church was so divided (Kümmel 1972: 72).

The New Testament scholar Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860), Professor of Church History and Dogmatics in Tübingen, is famous for his dialectical view of primitive Christianity. In this schema, “catholic Christianity” emerged from a conflict between the Pauline Gentile Christianity and the Petrine Jewish Christianity (which includes the Jewish Christianity represented by James the brother of Jesus). Since the Epistle of James displays no direct attack on Paul’s theology, Baur concludes that it must be a pseudonymous work. Instead James represents “a more definite formation of Catholic Christianity” which results from “adjustment” of “the two members of the antithesis”: Petrine and Pauline Christianity (Baur 1878: 128). The problem for Baur is that James, in his view, presupposes the Pauline doctrine of justification and James’s “tendency is distinctly anti-Pauline, though it may not be aimed directly against the apostle himself ” (128). The author of James, since he speaks of the “royal law” and the “law of liberty” is aware of the Pauline idea of “making the law an inward thing.” James is acting against “doctrinal formalism,” but it is not a “mere polemic against the Pauline doctrine of justification.” Instead: he places before himself the general task of giving, from the standpoint of his more liberal and spiritualised Jewish Christianity, a comprehensive view of the whole field of the Christian life as it manifests itself in its essentially practical nature, in suffering and in action. He aims at delineating the Christian as he ought to be, as a perfect man in the perfection of the Christian life, which can only be properly conceived as a perfect work. This shows us how well the writer was aware of his position in the age, and of the significance of his Jewish Christian standpoint (130).

Baur argues that James displays a “Jewish Christian standpoint,” but it also “bears unmistakable traces of the influence of Paulinism, and of the need that was felt to come to an understanding with it” (131). He thus concludes that James “betrays the circumstances of a later age,” is free of any personal polemic, and that it makes an important contribution “to the formation of catholic Christianity” through its doctrine of works and “the practical behaviour of the Christian” (131).

74  James 1:1–11 E. J. Hardy, an Irish Chaplain in the Royal Army for over twenty-five years, became famous because of his book, How to Be Happy Though Married (1887). Less well known is his sermon, “The Perfect Work of Patience,” where he discusses James’s view on the relationship between trials and patience: Let us remember where it is that we are to get patience in the presence of temptations and sorrows. We must go in prayer, as our Master did in the garden of Gethsemane, to the source of all strength. If He would not go to His trial unprepared, it is certainly not safe for us to do so. By a stroke from the sword the warrior was knighted, small matter if the monarch’s hand was heavy. Even so God gives His servants blows of trial when He desires to advance them to a higher stage of spiritual life. Jacobs become prevailing princes, but not until they have wrestled with temptations and prevailed (The Sermon Bible 1900: 343–4).

Robert William Dale (1829–95) served as pastor of Carr’s Lane Congregational church in Birmingham, UK, for thirty-six years. Dale was active in the life of the  church and—as a member of the Liberal party—in the political life of Birmingham. He focuses many of his sermons, for example, on family life in an industrial and urban society, on the relationship between employer and employee, on the stewardship of one’s wealth, and the municipal duties of Christians (Fant 1971: 5.146). Socialism would only succeed, Dale believes, if there is a radical transformation of human nature. In his sermon on James 1:2–11, “The Gospel of Suffering,” Dale makes the following observation about James’s call to “count it all joy” when tempted: This, I say, is stern doctrine. To count it all joy when suffering comes upon us, and suffering that tests our faith, how is this possible? It is only possible when we come to think of righteousness as being infinitely more precious than comfort, happiness, or peace; when we come to see that the great thing for us in this life is not to enjoy ease and prosperity, to get rich, to rise in the world, but to become better men. For this we require wisdom—a true estimate of the nature and ends of human life (188).

John Wesley’s 1872 sermon, “On Patience,” notes that “as long as any of us are on earth, we are in the region of temptation” (Sermon 83). Wesley speaks of the instantaneous nature of salvation when people are “born of the Spirit,” a change from inward sinfulness to inward holiness. In the process of sanctification, peace, hope, joy, and love “are the fruits of patience”: But what is Patience? We do not now speak of a heathen virtue; neither of a natural indolence; but of a gracious temper, wrought in the heart of a believer, by the power of the Holy Ghost. It is a disposition to suffer whatever pleases God, in the

James 1:1–11  75 manner and for the time that pleases him . . . We may observe, the proper object of patience is suffering, either in body or mind. Patience does not imply the not feeling this: It is not apathy or insensibility. It is at the utmost distance from stoical stupidity; yea, at an equal distance from fretfulness or dejection. The patient believer is preserved from falling into either of these extremes, by considering,— Who is the Author of all his suffering? Even God his Father;—What is the motive of his giving us to suffer? Not so properly his justice as his love;—and, What is the end of it? Our “profit, that we may be partakers of his holiness.”

Charles Deems’s Gospel of Common Sense assumes that James of Jerusalem is the author of James and buttresses the apostolic authority of James by cementing his family connection with Jesus: See the modesty of this great man . . . He had played with the holy child Jesus in the house of Joseph and Mary, and down the Nazareth streets close by the Fount of the Virgin. He had grown up under the spell of the matchless character of the wonderful brother whose life was made sublime and simple by the great work which He had to do. With Him, JAMES had climbed the heights above Nazareth, and descended the slopes into the plain below, and in long, deep, earnest talks had received into himself, under the eye of their pure and exalted mother, a formative element which told powerfully upon his own character (1888: 30).

This section of James, for Deems, begins with an acknowledgement of the difficulties of life. Life is never free from trouble—which should not discourage us—but James’s readers have “several sources of trouble” in addition to those that are endemic to all human beings (37): They were in exile from their homeland, their “Christian profession” created difficulties with their fellow Jews, and their “natural attachment to their old forms of worship” separated them from Gentile Christians. Finally, “as Jews,” they were “exposed to all the depressions which came to them from their Roman conquerors . . .” (37): “The good JAMES saw all this. There was nothing vague and dreamy in him. He took direct and clear views of life. He knew how much their condition of suffering would have a tendency to depress his scattered brethren. He would strengthen that he might cheer them” (37–8). James’s admonition was for “his brethren” to have “all joy” in their trials. The reason for this rejoicing “comes in the providence of God” (42): A devout and intelligent soul should know that God his Father is not an unconcerned observer of the movements of the universe. Having fashioned that orderly universe, He governs it on certain principles; but He has never surrendered the government of that universe, or turned it loose, to go of itself . . . He may not interfere to stop the operation of the laws He has wisely ordained; but He will

76  James 1:1–11 bring other laws to operate on the results so as to benefit His children. He may not keep the fire from burning a heroic saint who rushes in to pluck a sinner from the flaming house; but He will bring to that saint from his torturing wound and ugly scar a glory princes cannot gain from crowns (43–4).

The effect of trial upon a person actually generates what a person needs most: “the certainty that his faith is genuine” (45). Frances Jane (Fanny) Crosby (1820–1915) is perhaps best known for composing the hymn “Blessed Assurance,” one of the over 8,000 hymns she created. Crosby was blinded by an incompetent doctor at six weeks of age, but she said: It seemed intended by the blessed providence of God that I should be blind all my life, and I thank him for the dispensation. If perfect earthly sight were offered me tomorrow I would not accept it. I might not have sung hymns to the praise of God if I had been distracted by the beautiful and interesting things about me (www. cyberhymnal.org/bio/c/r/o/crosby_fj.htm).

Crosby’s hymn on James 1:2–4, “Never Give Up,” echoes similar sentiments for others who undergo trials: Never be sad or desponding, If thou hast faith to believe. Grace, for the duties before thee, Ask of thy God and receive. Refrain Never give up, never give up, Never give up to thy sorrows, Jesus will bid them depart. Trust in the Lord, trust in the Lord, Sing when your trials are greatest, Trust in the Lord and take heart. Never be sad or desponding, Lean on the arm of thy Lord; Dwell in the depths of His mercy, Thou shalt receive thy reward. (www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/n/e/nevergup.htm).

Joseph Mayor’s commentary argues that the author of James clearly either is or wishes to portray himself as being “the President of the Church at Jerusalem, and the brother of the Lord” (1990: 23). Mayor concludes that James was the son of Joseph and Mary, was brought up with Jesus, and was not one of the

James 1:1–11  77 twelve apostles or even a follower of Jesus until Jesus appeared to him after the resurrection (73). James observed, loved, and revered the law, as his epistle attests, and Mayor believes that this reverence “was learnt in the well-ordered home of Nazareth,” not just from his parents, but the “constant intercourse with Him who was full of grace and truth, in childhood as in manhood, must have prepared James to find in the Ten Commandments no mere outward regulations, but an inner law of liberty and love written in the heart” (78). Mayor postulates that James most likely, although he spoke Aramaic, learned Greek because of the proximity of such cities as Sepphoris, and he shows “the same fondness for figurative speech” as his brothers Jesus and Jude (80). Mayor’s commentary on this text (1:1–4) follows James’s arguments that trials test faith, which produces endurance, which then builds “perfectly matured Christian character, thoroughly furnished to all good works.” Mayor points to the testing of the Syro-Phoenician woman (Mark 7:24–30) as an example of such trials. The woman endures Jesus’ test (e.g., Jesus calling her a “dog”) and ends up victorious (with a healed daughter) because of her “unshaken trust in God.” James 1:1–4 speaks to encourage people who are suffering and in danger of “losing heart.” It is not God’s will for them to escape temptation (cf. the Lord’s Prayer), but James encourages them to work through the trial and bring it to “good account.” Mayor notes how human it is to wish all tribulations away but argues that the right way to look at such trials is to envision them “as part of our schooling for heaven, helping to form the cross which has to be borne by every Christian” (503). James Hardy Ropes notes that the term peirasmos means “affliction” in the sense that it is a common test of character. These experiences may strain one’s faith but are not necessarily due to persecution; they can include distresses of various kinds, such as “grievous poverty.” Ropes argues that James expresses his solidarity (“my brothers and sisters”) with his readers who “appear to be largely poor and struggling people, subject to the hardships of the poor” (James 1:9– 11; 2:1–7, 15–17; 4:13–5:11; 1916: 133). This active steadfastness in the face of adversity and suffering is the middle section of an argument that builds to a crescendo in verse 4. Trials should be considered as nothing but joy because they produce endurance—an active, constant steadfastness. But this is not the final virtue: Active steadfastness should (imperative mood) produce “completeness of character” (137; cf. “make a complete job of it,” Mayor 1990: 346), a completeness that is signified by a positive result (“mature and complete”) and its negative counterpart (“lacking in nothing”). Ropes and many others argue that faith is as foundational for James as it is for Paul. Not only does the word faith appear sixteen times in the letter, but it is essential to James’s argument and central message. This introductory section about faith in 1:1–4 is buttressed later by references to the faithfulness of such

78  James 1:1–11 people as Abraham (2:21–4), Rahab (2:25), prophets (5:10), and Job (5:11). As Mayor similarly notes, “St. James no less than St. Paul regarded faith as the very foundation of religion . . .” (1990: 345). Key for James, however, is the development of faith through such testing and the resulting expression of faith in concrete actions (e.g., James 2:5–26; 5:15; cf. Johnson 1995: 178). Elsa Tamez states that James’s insistence on recommending patience to his listeners is a clear signal that the readers or communities he has in mind are undergoing difficult problems: “the experience of oppression pervades the letter” (2002: 14). We thus find in the letter of James a community or communities of Christians who are marginalized or deprived of their social, civil, and political rights in the cities or regions in which they live (19). There are two antagonistic groups: the oppressed and the oppressors, and both groups include Christians and non-Christians. Within the Christian community of the marginalized, there are also different social strata: the “poor,” who lack the means of subsistence and live from alms; the “less poor,” who at least have a job but own no property; and those who live more comfortably (19). The oppressors are the rich, and James’s “antipathy toward them and his sympathy with the poor is undeniable” (21). Most commentaries on James devote many pages to the rich, Tamez observes, which domesticates the contrasting picture that James paints (e.g., by making the “poor” symbolic for pious Christians and the “rich” symbolic of non-Christians). This emphasis on the rich is understandable in commentaries stemming from scholars in Europe or the United States, where there are many rich people in the churches: A Latin American reading of the epistle, on the other hand, fixes its gaze on the oppressed and dedicates long pages to them, their sufferings, complaints, oppression, hope, and praxis. From the angle of oppression with which we are reading James, we must adopt the perspective of the oppressed, which, we believe, is that of James (21).

The “trials” of James 1:2, Tamez concludes, thus refer to the variety of oppressions and persecutions that produce suffering. James attempts to infuse courage into his readers by asking them to reflect on their own bitter experiences. The joy of which James speaks is not eschatological; neither is it a masochistic insistence to rejoice in suffering per se. Instead readers are urged to become aware of both the process and the result of those experiences: They strengthen the spirit and form a “militant patience” (Tamez 2002: 31). Therefore, James is not referring to “patience” in a passive or submissive way. Such an interpretation of “patience,” Tamez believes, is harmful for Christian life, because “it encourages resignation, a lack of commitment to concrete realities, and a subjection to governing authorities” (such as in Rom. 13:1).

James 1:1–11  79 James’s call for a “militant patience” envisions an active and heroic patience that “watches for the propitious moment”: Here to be patient means to persevere, to resist, to be constant, unbreakable, immovable . . . James is very clear in this regard when he says in 1:3–4 that patience is accompanied by perfect works. This is a militant patience that arises from the roots of oppression; it is an active, working patience (Tamez 2002: 44).

Tamez argues that James thus asks these Christian communities to reflect on the positive side of oppression. Instead of envisioning the recompense of their suffering as being realized in the eschatological end of time, James contends that it is received in the present, in the heart of praxis, in the life of the communities, when they experience wholeness and integrity within themselves: “In the very process of resisting dehumanizing forces, the communities and their members are humanized” (2002: 47). The experience of being perfect/complete should remind those who suffer that they are human beings, not dehumanized things suffering the oppression of the rich, and that they live in community with one another: Integrity, then, does not occur only in the body of one member of the community, but rather in the entire community, in which everyone becomes sensitive to the pain of the others within the community and outside of it. To feel what the other feels is truly a gift that should cause us to rejoice (Tamez 2002: 47–8).

Gay Byron is the Baptist Missionary Training School Associate Professor of New Testament and Black Church Studies at Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School in Rochester, New York. Like Tamez, Byron applies James in terms important for contemporary Christians. She points out, for example, that James’s term diaspora (dispersion) could very well describe the millions of Africans dispersed though North and South America, as well as other parts of the world, by the trans-Atlantic slave trade, a great evil whose tragic consequences still affect people today. Yet, Byron argues, one should not focus exclusively on the great “pain, hardship, and despair” resulting from the slave trade; one should also recognize that the “African diaspora is a rich collection of many persons who are an integral part of this rapidly changing world” and that those in the diaspora “are sometimes best positioned to experience the mercy and power of God” (2007: 463). James’s call in 1:1–4, Byron believes, is for Christians to have spiritual discipline in times of trial. She cites Howard Thurman’s discussion of how spiritual resources such as commitment, prayer, suffering, and reconciliation can not only aid us to overcome trials but also assist us in “developing strategies for

80  James 1:1–11 circumventing the ideological and material traps associated with racism.” Like Tamez, Byron insists that James is not calling for passive endurance; it includes an inward spiritual self-mastery and an outward social protest as part of the “inward journey” to freedom. This journey, however, is not an individual one. It is accomplished in community (463–4). Susan H. Peterson began hymn-writing in 1997, with a goal of composing 100 hymns, a goal she reached before her death just seven years later. Her method was to pick a scripture passage and to compose a hymn based on that passage. Her 1998 hymn “Count It Joy” begins with a reflection on James 1:2 and continues with major themes of the rest of the chapter as well: Count it joy, and never be discouraged, When by trials your life is sorely pressed. For you know that when your faith is tested, Your endurance then develops best. Perseverance must complete its working; You will need to let it have its way. When it’s done, you’ll be complete and perfect, Having all you need to meet each day. So if any one of you lacks wisdom, Ask of God, Who always hears and cares. He gives freely without asking questions; His abundance will become your share. But when asking, you must never falter, Like a wave that’s blown and tossed about. If you do, you’ll never gain God’s blessing; Double-minded, you’ll succumb to doubt. Blest the man who perseveres in trial; For you know the testing soon will pass. When it’s o’er and you have stood unmoving, You’ll receive the crown of life at last. But when tempted, never be accusing; It’s not God who leads you from the path. Your own lusts seduce you and entice you, Giving birth to sin, and sin to death. (www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/c/o/u/countjoy.htm)

Thomas Ellsworth illustrates James’s call for perseverance with an iconic image from American sports. In the book, Preaching James, Ellsworth highlights the relentless perseverance of one of the most famous running backs in the National Football League: Walter Payton of the Chicago Bears. Ellsworth notes that Payton was only 5ʹ 10˝ tall and 202 lb in weight, but that he ran for a (then) record 16,726

James 1:1–11  81 yards in his football career. So over the course of his twelve-year career, Payton ran for over nine miles. Ellsworth observes, however, that, on average, Payton was tackled and knocked down every 4.4 yards during those nine miles. He concludes: “That makes his record demand even more respect. All through those twelve seasons, he kept getting up, and getting up, and getting up again. Great victories await those with great endurance” (Baker and Ellsworth 2004: 22). John Keenan, Emeritus Professor of Religion at Middlebury College in Vermont, has published a number of works integrating biblical studies, Christianity, and Buddhism. His book The Wisdom of James, for example, uses Mahāyāna Buddhism to attempt to open “new avenues of the Christian story” that “otherwise are filtered out in the dominant discourse” (2005: 2). Keenan argues that the language of being a slave is similar to the devotional (bhakti) cults in India, one of which is “pure land buddhas” who are “ready to respond with compassion to the prayers of those who call upon his attention.” In this case, however, James “submits the very center of his person” both to God and “the Lord Jesus Christ.” In Mahāyāna scriptures, Keenan observes, the patient endurance of which James speaks is the “outcome of the maturation of the gift of wisdom.” Completeness/perfection in Mahāyāna Buddhism can only be achieved by “abandoning efforts to realize it,” and in James, “one matures into the perfection of wisdom by abandoning the viewpoint that assures one of final perfection,” since wisdom is the gift that God gives from above (2005: 36).

James 1:5–8 Ancient literary context For James, trials and testing of one’s faith produce endurance, and the full effect of this endurance is that one becomes “mature and complete, lacking in nothing.” Yet James notes that “lacking in wisdom” (with a leipomenoi/leipetai word link) is a universal problem of the human condition. Wisdom may be the most important attribute that leads to completeness/perfection, and it provides both the understanding of the true nature of trials and therefore the ability to endure those trials. Faithful prayer is the means through which to obtain God’s wisdom in the midst of trials, and faith is not only the incentive for prayer, it is the necessary condition: One is not led to pray without faith, and prayer is ineffective without faith. This dialogic relationship may indicate that although the main topic in this section may seem to be prayer, the real focus might possibly be an active faith. Prayer requires not only an unwavering faith but also an active faith (e.g., nine

82  James 1:1–11 of the fourteen references to faith in James occur in the “faith and works” discussion of 2:14–26). Prayer, wisdom, and faith—three of James’s key emphases—are intimately related, however, so it may be a mistake to prioritize one over another in this section. Faithful constancy in prayer is indicative of a person who has full and unwavering confidence in God who gives “generously and ungrudgingly.” Just as God is “single-minded” in the sense of giving generously to “all,” believers should be single-minded in their response of faith/trust in God, including confidence in prayer. The “double-souled” (dipsychos) person displays the opposite characteristic, and James urges its readers instead to choose friendship with God, not friendship with the world (cf. 4:4). The term dipsychos may (or may not) have been coined by James (it also appears in James 4:8); it is not found in extant literature antecedent to James, but a comparable idea is found in numerous Jewish texts (cf. the “double heart” of Ps. 12:2; Sirach 1:28) and Greek texts (e.g., the diplous anēr of Plato’s Republic 397E). In addition to standing firmly within Jewish wisdom tradition, James also engages the specific wisdom tradition voiced by Jesus of Nazareth. James 1:5, for example, echoes Matthew 7:7/Luke 11:9: “Ask, and it will be given you.” A key difference, however, is that James 1:5 narrows the focus, both in regard to the subject of the request (wisdom) and in God’s response (generously responding by imparting wisdom; Luke’s version, in contrast, narrows the gift to the “Holy Spirit”; Luke 11:13). The gospel passages, in addition, are followed by examples of (imperfect) human fathers giving good gifts to their children and the resulting conclusion that God the (perfect) heavenly father gives good gifts to those who ask (cf. the “every perfect gift” of James 1:17). James also reflects Jesus’ concern for persistence in prayer and the essential element of faith: James 1:6 echoes the words of Jesus in Matthew 21:22: “Whatever you ask in prayer with faith, you will receive” (the parallel in Mark 11:24 omits “in prayer,” and James adds “never doubting”). The gist of what both Jesus and James have to say about God and prayer is perhaps best summarized by Douglas Moo’s comment on James 1:5–8: “James exhorts them to pray in undivided faith for the wisdom that a gracious God is anxious to give to those who ask” (2000: 57).

The interpretations Ancient and medieval Athanasius (ca. 296–373), Bishop of Alexandria, famously defends the doctrine of homoousios, the idea that the Father and Son share the same essence, against the Arians, who believe that the Father and Son have similar yet different

James 1:1–11  83 essences and that the Son is a created being (McKim 2007: 129). Athanasius writes Defence of the Nicene Definition to a friend being challenged by Arians over the use of non-scriptural language in the Nicene Creed. Athanasius defends the Nicene Creed and attacks the Arians’ “fickleness” and their “ignorant and irreligious” attempts to reverse an ecumenical council. Setting a pattern for later authors, Athanasius uses James 1:8 to label his opponents “double-minded”: Are they not then committing a crime, in their very thought to oppose so great and ecumenical a Council? Are they not in transgression, when they dare to confront that good definition against Arianism, acknowledged, as it is, by those who had in the first instance taught them irreligion? And supposing, even after subscription, Eusebius and his fellows did change again, and return like dogs to their own vomit of irreligion, do not the present gain-sayers deserve still greater detestation, because they thus sacrifice their souls’ liberty to others; and are willing to take these persons as masters of their heresy, who are, as James has said, doubleminded men, and unstable in all their ways, not having one opinion, but changing to and fro, and now recommending certain statements, but soon dishonouring them, and in turn recommending what just now they were blaming?

According to Athanasius, the double-minded “Greeks” differ as far as doctrines, whereas “our Fathers” and those who agree with Athanasius are not double-minded; they are “the holy and veritable heralds of the truth” who agree and preach “the same Word harmoniously” (2.4). Augustine cites James 1:5 several times, sometimes merely as a pretext to reiterate his views on virginity and marriage (e.g., “Of Holy Virginity”; Chapter 43; cf. his letter to Juliana, “On the Good of Widowhood,” where he discusses the two great gifts of God: wisdom and continence; Chapter 21). Like Athanasius, though, Augustine usually mentions James 1:5 against his opponents during major controversies. One key argument Augustine uses against Pelagius, for example, is that wisdom comes from the grace of God (Chapter 17 of On Nature and Grace). After citing James 3:17 about the positive qualities of God’s wisdom, connecting it to the ability to tame the tongue, Augustine asks: Will any one, then, dare to divorce it from the grace of God, and with most arrogant vanity place it in the power of man? Why should I pray to God that it be accorded me, if it may be had of man? Ought we not to object to this prayer lest injury be done to free will which is self-sufficient in the possibility of nature for discharging all the duties of righteousness? We ought, then, to object also to the Apostle James himself, who admonishes us in these words: “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all men generously and ungrudgingly,

84  James 1:1–11 and it shall be given him; but let him ask in faith, nothing doubting.” This is the faith to which the commandments drive us, in order that the law may prescribe our duty and faith accomplish it.

Augustine discusses the issue more fully in his treatise, On Grace and Free Will. This work and the two letters from Augustine that accompany it, are directed to Valentinus and the other monks of Adrumetum, because the “monastery was disturbed with no small commotion” concerning the free will of human beings. Some were denying that humans have free will in light of the grace of God and maintained that “in the day of judgment God will not render to every man according to his works.” Augustine urges them to put their faith “in the inspired word of God, and believe both that man’s will is free, and that there is also God’s grace, without whose help man’s free will can neither be turned towards God, nor make any progress in God.” His key argument in this section is that James’s injunction calls upon humans to be wise, but that it also requires obedience. True obedience, Augustine writes, requires free will. But human beings cannot obey this command merely by free will; they need the help of God’s grace, otherwise James would not have commanded us to ask God for wisdom. Elsewhere, however, instead of using James as a weapon in doctrinal controversies, Augustine can use James to exhort his readers to positive Christian virtues. Note his conclusion to On Grace and Free Will (Chapter 46) where he quotes sections of James 1:5 and 3:17, bids his readers to live the godly lives that James enjoins, and warns them against “another wisdom” that they “must repel,” one that leads to “bitter envying and strife” (3:14–15). Once again, Augustine argues that since this wisdom has to come from God above—we must ask God for it—it cannot come from human beings. Likewise, Leo the Great, who served as pope from 440–61, in his eleventh sermon on Lent (Sermon XLIX.4), uses James 1:5 to urge Christians to examine themselves in light of the standards of God’s commands. This examination should propel them to prepare their minds and bodies and thus to invoke the help of God so that they could “fulfill all things through Him.” No one is exempt from this injunction, because God grants both the will and the power to ask of wisdom from God, and God will grant wisdom to anyone who asks. People also have enough knowledge to realize the virtues they should “cultivate” and the vices they should “fight against.” Human beings have enough reason “to understand the character of [their] mode of life” and the “secrets of [their] heart.” Christians should not seek after the “delights of the flesh,” but instead examine themselves and their actions according to the standards set by God. In that way, Leo argues, we can see our “conformity or dissimilarity to God’s image” before it is too late to “throw off awhile our

James 1:1–11  85 carnal cares and restless occupations, and commit ourselves from earthly matters to heavenly.” Like Augustine, Bede connects the argument in James 1:5 to the Pelagian controversy: Since “all saving wisdom . . . must be begged from the Lord” (and Bede also cites Sirach 1:1), “no one is able to understand and be wise of his own free will without the help of divine grace, although the Pelagians argue a lot [about this]” (1985: 9). Then Bede connects James 1:2 with 1:5, in a move approved by such later commentators as Mayor (1990: 348) and Johnson (2004: 179)—questioned by Laws (1980: 54–5)—by saying that such wisdom is necessary in order for believers to understand that temptations should bring joy: But here particularly he seems to be talking about that wisdom which is necessary for us to use in temptations. If anyone of you, he says, is not able to understand the usefulness of temptations which befall the faithful for the sake of testing, let him beg from God that there be given him the realization by which he may be able to recognize with what great kindness the father chastises the sons whom he carefully makes worthy of an eternal inheritance (1985: 9).

On the other hand, people who doubt or hesitate because of their consciousness of sin, “easily abandon” their faith at the onslaught of temptations and are “carried away at the will of the invisible enemy as if by a blast of wind through different kinds of errors and vices” (10). Early modern and modern Luther considers Psalm 90 to be the only Psalm written by Moses, and his exegesis of Psalm 90:17 cites James 1:8, specifically the petition to “establish Thou the work of our hands” (LW 13: 137). This petition is still necessary, Luther believes, because “this work of God which we perform in our ministry is attacked on the outside by the devil and on the inside by our own heart.” It is difficult in such an environment “to cling to the faith that God is kindly disposed toward us and not to doubt God’s work.” Luther notes, however, that one’s ability to teach or learn is hindered by doubt, since that person is “unstable in all his ways” (James 1:8). In Luther’s view, Moses prays in Psalm 90:17 for the establishment and confirmation of the “work of our hands,” because he wants them to be certain of the “Word and work of God” (LW 13: 140). Luther defends his Thesis #7 with James 1:5–8 as well. In that thesis, Luther declares that each person taking the sacrament must have faith, otherwise that person would take that sin “to his own damnation.” Luther defends this idea in

86  James 1:1–11 the “proceedings at Augsburg” and states that James 1:5–8 “. . . is certainly a most unequivocal statement, which also leads me to the conclusion that no one can receive grace or wisdom who doubts that he will receive it.” Likewise, in his “Defense and Explanation of All the Articles,” Luther declares, “It is heresy to hold that the sacraments give grace to all who do not put an obstacle in the way” (LW 31: 100–1, 261). Luther furthers his arguments about the sacraments by using James 1:5–8 in part of his answer to Pope Leo X’s bull Exsurge Domine, a document which censured forty-one of Luther’s statements as “heretical, scandalous, erroneous, offensive to pious ears, misleading to simple minds, and contrary to Catholic teaching.” It gave Luther sixty days to recant or face being excommunicated. On the sixtieth day (December 10, 1520), Luther burned his copy of the bull and was subsequently excommunicated by the pope. In his response, Luther notes the necessity of faith and repentance for the efficacy of the sacraments: Does that not say clearly enough that the man who prays and does not firmly believe that he will receive what he asks, cannot receive anything from God? How much less can he receive anything who does not pray, does not believe, does not repent, has no intention to do good, but only, as they teach, “removes the obstacle of an evil design.” How can the sacraments give grace to hearts that are without faith and desire, unrepentant, and unkind? May God protect all his Christians against such an un-Christian error as taught by this deceitful bull and leaders of the same sort (LW 32: 13–14).

Luther argues that if people pray while doubting God’s fulfillment, praying without interest (Abenteuer) in whether the prayer is fulfilled, they destroy their own prayers and labor in vain. James 1:5–8 means, for Luther, that God cannot give anything to people with such unstable hearts: “Faith, however, keeps the heart firm and makes it receptive to God’s gifts” (“On Rogationtide Prayer and Procession”; LW 42: 88). Calvin’s Commentary on James expands God’s generous and ungrudging gift of ordering “all things to fall out for our good” to the “whole range of right understanding.” All people “by nature” are without wisdom. Some do not want it, but others are “endowed with a spirit of prudence.” James thus reminds people who are not yet fully convinced of their salvation—given by God through the cross of Christ—that they are to ask for wisdom. Calvin proclaims that God gives to “all” who ask and that no person “should cut himself off from such a benefit”: “As sure as the command prescribes to every man his duty, so the promise declares that they will not be disappointed in its fulfillment.” Calvin then notes the similarity of this verse with Matthew 7:7/Luke 11:9 (“Knock, and

James 1:1–11  87 it shall be opened”), which demonstrates that if one asks of God it will not be in vain: God is always ready “to add new blessings to former ones, without any end or limitation” (1995: 263–4). James 1:6 shows, for Calvin, what James means by true faith, since James adds the explanation “nothing doubting.” Faith relies on God’s promises, ensures we receive what we ask, and is intimately connected with the certainty of God’s love towards us. James wants us to be so convinced of what God has promised that we do not doubt whether God will hear us. God, on the other hand, punishes the unbelief of those who waver or doubt God’s promises by their own “worries”: “they torture themselves inwardly.” Thus Calvin also uses this verse to argue against the “sinful teaching” of the “papacy” about praying “in diffidence, with no sure thoughts of succeeding.” Instead, Calvin holds that our prayers are heard by the Lord only when we pray with confidence that we shall obtain what we ask. James thus implicitly contrasts the liberality of God with the double-mindedness (i.e., one with “two souls” who hesitates between faith and unbelief) of human beings (265). Just as God gives to us generously, so we should open our hearts to do the same to others. James Hardy Ropes connects this double-minded or double-souled ­person with a minor character in John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, “Mr. Facing-both-ways” (Part I, Section VI), since this person exists “with soul divided between faith and the world” (Ropes 1916: 143). This term from Bunyan often can merely illustrate hypocrisy, as in an 1876 cartoon about the two-facedness of presidential candidate Samuel Tilden (Plate  2.1a). Tilden appears two-faced, with one face declaring his support of civil service reform and against political patronage, whereas his other face is associated with his alleged Confederate sympathies and to his connections with the corrupt Boss Tweed. This cartoon reflects the bitterness of the disputed election. Tilden actually won the popular vote against Rutherford B. Hayes and led in the electoral college results, with some electoral college votes still in dispute. The Compromise of 1877 resolved the disputed election in favor of Hayes, an agreement that ended Reconstruction by removing federal troops from the southern US states. Mr. Facing-both-ways, however, also can depict the “saint versus sinner” aspects of human beings, as a Harpers Weekly cartoon did with the 1892 presidential ticket of Grover Cleveland and Adlai Stevenson. In that cartoon (Plate  2.1b), Cleveland is depicted as a “saintly” good-government reformer, whereas Stevenson is portrayed as the sinful deliverer of political patronage jobs to political bosses and other allies. A closer connection to the double-minded person in James is found in Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s Faust. In the play, Faust yearns for heavenly

88  James 1:1–11

Plate 2.1a  “S. J. T. [Samuel Tilden] as ‘Mr. Facing-Both Ways’ . . .” Cartoonist: A. B. Frost. Harper’s Weekly, August 26, 1876

Plate 2.1b  “Saint and Sinner” (Grover Cleveland and Adlai Stevenson). Cartoonist: Victor Gillam. Judge, August 6, 1892, p. 81

things but is powerfully attracted to aspects of the physical world, a tension that remains unresolved in the work. As Faust explains to Wagner: Ach! Two souls cohabit in my breast, each one struggling to tear itself from the other! The one, like a coarse lover, clings to the earth with every sensual organ; the other struggles violently from the dust and soars to the fields of the great departed spirits. (Goethe 2004: 44–5)

The English poet A. H. Clough’s poem Dipsychus, however, makes the most explicit connection with James (1:8) by using James’s Greek term for “double-souled.” Clough’s poem is based on Goethe’s Faust (in early drafts of the poem, the two speakers were named Faustulus and Mephistopheles), but the Epilogue seems to downplay the parallels (Ryals 1963: 187). Several of Clough’s works focus on indecision and the paralysis of the will to act, as in poems such as “Say Not the Struggle Naught Availeth,” “Thesis and

James 1:1–11  89 Antithesis,” and “Easter Day.” Does Dipsychus reflect Clough’s disillusionment with life that results from the conflict between “the spirit’s aspiration for ideals and reason’s demand for action”? Or is it a satire in which Dipsychus “is applauded for accepting the course which common sense dictates” (182–3)? The section most relevant to James 1:8 is found in Part I, Scene XI, “The Piazza at Night,” where Dipsychus says: . . . And, oh! this woman’s heart, Fain to be forced, incredulous of choice, And waiting a necessity for God.   Yet I could think, indeed, the perfect call Should force the perfect answer. If the voice Ought to receive its echo from the soul, Wherefore this silence? If it should rouse my being, Why this reluctance? Have I not thought o’ermuch Of other men, and of the ways of the world? But what they are, or have been, matters not. To thine own self be true, the wise man says. Are then my fears myself? O double self! And I untrue to both?

Dipsychus goes on to describe the positive times when such things as “love, and faith, and dear domestic ties” seem “ignoble,” “mean,” and “nought as I would have it.” Yet at other times: My mind is in her nest; my heart at home In all around; my soul secure in place, And the vext needle perfect to her poles.

This “double self ” means that: Aimless and hopeless in my life I seem To thread the winding byways of the town, Bewildered, baffled, hurried hence and thence, All at cross-purpose even with myself, Unknowing whence or whither. (Clough 1974: 274–5)

Yet, as Ryals notes, Clough seems to conclude that Dipsychus and the Spirit must join together: By himself each is incomplete, for worldly wisdom without ideals and spiritual aspiration without a basis in reality are, Clough maintains, as nothing. Though the

90  James 1:1–11 world is not as we would ideally have it, it must, Clough learned, be accepted . . . Experience had taught him that “no man moves without having one leg off, as one leg always on the ground” (1963: 186).

The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard envisions how the doubt and indecision of such “double-mindedness” is the equivalent of despair: For what is despairing other than to have two wills? For whether the weakling despairs over not being able to wrench himself away from the bad, or whether the brazen one despairs over not being able to tear himself completely away from the good: they are both double-minded. They both have two wills (1956: 61).

For Kierkegaard, James’s admonitions are not paranesis that merely collects aspects of ancient lists of vice and virtue; instead James maps out moral equivalencies and oppositions with both receptivity and doubt at the center of that map. Since it is the double-minded person who does not ask in faith,  although God gives generously to all, that person is not receptive. James links faith with receptivity—they almost become synonyms—and double-mindedness with doubt (Polk 1988: 207). God freely and generously gives; the problem is that many human beings are not receptive to God’s gifts. What is required, James insists, is “purity in heart,” a whole-hearted and single-minded devotion to God, and a consistency “of heart with word and  deed” and “of speech with action” (Kierkegaard 1956: 60; Bauckham 1999: 165–7). As Joseph Mayor puts it, “the haplotēs [liberality] of the giver must be met with a corresponding haplotēs of the suppliant, as in the case of Solomon” (Wisdom of Solomon 8:21; 1990: 350). In other words, just as Jesus calls for believers to be perfect as God is perfect (Matt. 5:48), James calls for believers to be haplotēs just as God is haplotēs. For Charles Deems, the epithet “the giving God” is “exceedingly encouraging,” and James cites three characteristics of God’s giving: It is universal, abundant, and unselfish. God gives liberally to all human beings, never tires of giving, and “never upbraids.” God delights in our petitions and would rather have us more ashamed of not coming before God with petitionary prayer for wisdom “than for any other fault or sin.” We have assurance, then, that “every true prayer” is answered by God, as long as the prayer is “in faith” and not plagued by doubt: How positive is the assurance of an answer to this prayer for wisdom! You may pray for a change in circumstances, for more land or money, or for success in some undertaking, or from deliverance from some trouble; and the Father may

James 1:1–11  91 see that it is better to leave you just as you are, and answer your prayer in some other way. In some way for good every prayer is answered . . . because God has ordained the connection between the real prayer, intellectually meant and ­heartily felt prayer, with the production of some spiritual good. The law of gravity is not more sure in its existence, or more unerring in its action, than the law of spiritual prayer (Deems 1888: 51–2).

Deems ends with a simple caveat about the necessity of faith and the problem of doubt: If a person “is not willing to give God trust, how can he expect God to give him wisdom?” (53). On September 30, 1962, James Meredith arrived at the University of Mississippi, the first African-American student to enroll in that university in the Deep South. On the same day, in this racially charged atmosphere, Robert Walkup entered the pulpit of the First Presbyterian Church in Starkville, Mississippi, and delivered a sermon entitled, “Not Race but Grace.” By focusing his sermon on James’s call for those lacking wisdom to ask God in faith, Walkup clearly suggests that the people responding negatively to Meredith’s arrival at the university are lacking in wisdom (Houck and Dixon 2006: 468). Walkup begins by saying that he, “as just a common garden-variety Christian,” was “troubled” by the “difficult days” they were facing: “If any of you lack wisdom?” Isn’t that a courteous way for James to put it? Wasn’t that nice of James to put that “if ” in there? Was there really any doubt in his mind about whether or not we lack wisdom? Wisdom to James did not mean learning or profundity of thought but the ability to use the trials of life—the ability to discern in life itself the will of God. Now, do we lack that? For all of our supposed learning . . . for all our big talk . . . do we lack wisdom? There is no hope really for us as long as we think that we’re wise. As long as we keep on believing that wisdom was born with us and that understanding shall perish with our going. Only men who confuse themselves with God will dare to pretend in this anguished and troubled day that they know the exact route to the Promised Land. Only men who take upon themselves the omnipotence that belongs to the Lord God Almighty alone will believe that they have in their own mind this day every answer and every truth. ... We could spend the rest of this Lord’s Day praying—for wisdom—for light— for understanding! We need light today, not heat. What we need today is not men with hot heads and big mouths, but men with cool heads and warm hearts . . . [God] promises wisdom if we ask for it, provided we ask in faith, nothing doubting. Nothing “wavering” the Greek really says . . . We must come dependent, wholly and completely dependent upon God’s wisdom, God’s mercy, God’s providence (Houck and Dixon 2006: 470–1).

92  James 1:1–11 As Elsa Tamez notes, James argues that maturity and integrity are the fruit of painful experience. James 1:5–8 also illustrates that James is opposed to the two-faced person, the person who lives a “double life” (2002: 48), and the one who prays “with vacillation, with hesitancy”: Such people are a problem for the community principally because no one can trust them, because they are both with the community and not with it. Moreover, they have no willpower, no decisiveness. With such members of the community the battle against oppression is lost (48).

The double-minded person who prays with a “duplicitous spirit” cannot pray with faith, because we cannot approach God with two hearts: The intimate encounter with God through prayer strips human beings and confronts them with their own selves. They experience moments of self-consciousness and self-criticism. This prayer is able to jolt and destroy the two hearts to create one heart, solid and honest. Divided persons who want to pray with faith will be able to do so only insofar as they allow themselves to stand naked before God and become persons of simple hearts (57).

James, Tamez argues, says that you cannot live in the ambiguity of a doubleminded person, because you either believe that God generously answers prayers or that God does not. In the same way, you are either in the community, or you are not. John Keenan reports that the image of a wave of the sea being driven by the wind as symbolizing a deluded mind is also found in Mahāyāna Buddhism. There it symbolizes a person who focuses on the self, one who “falsely distinguishes self from everything else.” A truly wise person works for the benefit of others, following the path of selfless action. James, Keenan argues, never identifies the content of God’s imparted wisdom. Instead, James stresses trusting God and living out that faith in one’s daily life and practice: Everything is concrete, for faith is not an ideology. It is not a something you think, but a something you do, or, better said, it is not a “something” at all. It is a way in which you live, open to God and open to listening to the needs of other people. This letter, of all the books of the New Testament, enunciates most strongly the mandate for justice and for treating people justly on earth—for addressing the needs of the poor, of the oppressed, those who are underpaid for their work, who are cheated. One can see how James becomes a primary source for liberation theology, and it is not by mistake that liberation theology bases its social practice on wisdom, a wisdom that enables one to go beyond self, to see that we are all one (2005: 39–41).

James 1:1–11  93

James 1:9–11 Ancient literary context This section picks up another major theme of James: the relationship between the rich and the poor, an argument—as seen by the use of the particle de—that continues and builds on the arguments in the previous verses. Here James focuses not just on status, but primarily on status reversal, a double reversal of wealthy and poor that echoes teachings of Jesus (e.g., Matt. 23:12; Luke 14:11; 18:14: all who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted) and is a major theme of Luke (e.g., 1:52–3; 12:20; 16:25: the lowly will be lifted up, and the rich will be sent away empty). Thus James focuses on the fact that wealth does not provide any type of security—other than a false sense of safety—and draws special attention to the brevity of its duration and the certainty of reversal. The “degraded poor” should not be deceived by the apparent security of the “greedy rich” (Batten 2008). The rich will be humbled and will fade away as assuredly as the (flowers of the) grass in the withering heat—just like the grass of the field in Matthew 6:30/Luke 12:28 is “thrown into the oven.” James here is congruent with Hebrew Bible passages concerning the fleeting nature of every human being (e.g., Isa. 40:6–8; Ps. 90:5–6) but focuses s­ pecifically on the ephemeral character of wealth (cf. Job 24:24; 27:21; Ps. 49:16–20; Matt. 6:19; Luke 12:16–21; 16:19–31), including the use of vegetation to illustrate such transitoriness (e.g., Job 14:2; Ps. 37:2; 103:15). Boasting is a prerogative of God, not human beings (cf. Jer. 9:23–4), but James calls for the lowly to boast in God’s actions of reversal. The imagery is not necessarily eschatological (cf. Luke 12:15–21), but it does appear to be so here, since reversal itself can be an eschatological motif, in anticipation of the faithful poor’s exaltation in the age to come (James 4:6–10; cf. Hartin 2003: 61–3). The readers are to “count it all joy,” because God will bring about a reversal of fortunes at the eschaton.

The interpretations Ancient and medieval Bede argues that James speaks ironically and connects Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–21) with James’s statement about the lowly or humble believer being raised up and the rich being brought low: “. . . let [the rich man] remember that his glory, in which he takes pride about his wealth and looks down on or even oppresses the poor, must come to an end, that having been humbled he may perish for ever with that rich man in purple who looked down

94  James 1:1–11 upon the needy Lazarus” (1985: 11). Yet Bede warns not to universalize the saying of James and, by implication, the teaching of Jesus about the rich and poor: He is talking not about every rich man but one who trusts in the uncertainty of riches. For in contrasting a rich man with a humble brother, he has shown that he was speaking about that sort of rich man who is not humble. For even Abraham, although he was a rich man in the world, nevertheless received a poor man after his death into his bosom, a rich man he left in torments. But he did not leave the rich man because he was rich, which he himself also had been, but because he had scorned being merciful and humble, which he himself had been; and on the contrary, he did not receive Lazarus because he was poor, which he himself had not been, but because he had taken care to be humble and innocent, which he himself had been (12).

Bede connects the brief beauty and pleasant smell of the flower in the field with the present happiness of the ungodly—it lasts for a brief day or two and vanishes into nothing. The rising sun represents the strict judge who puts a quick end to the transient glory of the reprobate. The righteous, on the other hand, flourish forever (13). Although perhaps not directly reflective on James 1:11, the last verses of the great English poet Edmund Spenser’s The Faerie Queene reflect upon the immutability of God, the mutability of God’s creation, and the mortality of human beings (Book VII, Canto viii). These final verses first appeared in the 1609 folio of the work. Since they are fragmentary in nature, it is difficult to understand them in the context of the rest of the allegorical work, but they may, like James, connect to a theme of constancy (Spenser 2001: 17): When I bethinke me on that speech whyleare, Of Mutability, and well it way; Me seemes, that though she all unworthy were Of the Heav’ns rule; yet very sooth to say, In all things else she beares the greatest sway; Which makes me loath this state of life so tickle, And love of things so vaine to cast away; Whose flow’ring pride, so fading and so fickle, Short Time shall soon cut down with his consuming sickle. Then gin I thinke on that which Nature sayd, Of that same time when no more Change shall be, But stedfast rest of all things, firmly stayd Upon the pillours of Eternity, That is contrayr to Mutabilitie: For, all that moveth, doth in Change delight: But thence-forth all shall rest eternally

James 1:1–11  95 With Him that is the God of Sabbaoth hight: O that great Sabbaoth God, graunt me that Sabaoths sight. (Spenser 2001: 712).

Early modern and modern Calvin explains that James enjoins the poor to be content with their humble condition and forbids the rich to be proud. The poor person should “glory in his high estate, finding gratitude to God for the full and sufficient recompense of sheer adoption, and avoiding over much distress in straitened circumstances of life” (1995: 265–6). The admonition to the rich (1:10) pertains, according to Calvin, not only to the wealthy but also to “all who rise above their neighbours in rank or birth or other outward thing.” James’s point is that all worldly things are to be despised: He tells them to glory in their lowliness, their smallness, to restrain those lofty notions that swell out of prosperity. He says low, because the revelation of the Kingdom of God should bring us to think little of the world, and to teach us that all things which earlier were greatly admired are really of no account, or only of the slightest. Christ Himself, Teacher of the poor, has a message which rejects entirely the pride of the flesh. In case the wealthy get enmeshed in the empty delights of the world, let them become used to glorying in the loss of their carnal splendours. . . . [G]lorification over riches is folly and absurdity, since they are gone in a flash. Philosophy teaches the same, but the moral goes unheard, until men’s ears are opened by God to heed the eternal reality of the Kingdom of heaven. This is why he speaks of brother, meaning that this doctrine can only begin from our entry into the ranks of the family of God (Calvin 1995: 266).

Robert William Dale (1854–95), the Congregationalist pastor of Carr’s Lane Church in Birmingham (UK), preached a sermon, “The Gospel of Suffering,” in which he observes that the “believer who is lowly” is a child of God through Christ and an “heir of eternal blessedness.” So a poor person should not resent his poverty and obscurity, because each believer is a “prince on the way to his kingdom.” Dale acknowledges that such a life may contain many rough roads and hardships, including “suffering from hunger, cold, and weariness.” In addition, his fellow travelers do not know of his greatness. The key point, though, is that “he knows”: It is a hard thing for a Christian man to maintain this high and cheerful manner while he is enduring hardships. The hardships are so real, so distressing, that they fill all his thoughts. How is it possible for him not to be depressed? It is only ­possible when he comes to see how brief are his earthly sufferings when ­compared

96  James 1:1–11 with eternal glory. Let him look at things as they are; let him have true wisdom, wisdom to form right judgments about this world and the next, about earthly sorrows and divine blessings, and then the brother of low degree will “glory in his high estate” (Fant 1971: 5.191).

In a similar way, Dale argues that James declares that a rich man should glory whenever he is brought down from his “imagined security of eminence,” because it demonstrates to him that his riches will soon disappear, “and the great question for him to consider is what he is,” for he may discover that apart from his money, he is worthless (192). Charles Deems understands the “lowly . . . being raised up” in economic terms, such as an acquisition of wealth by a poor person through the “providence of God” (1888: 57). It is easier, in some ways, for that person to “boast,” although it is extremely important not to become ensnared in the lure of riches. In contrast, it is much more difficult for a rich person to boast in being brought low. Deems calls upon that person to rejoice, however, because now “the formerly rich brother can glorify God by showing that divine grace can sustain him as well in narrow and poor limits as it has done in large and wealthy places. Let the reduced brother rejoice” (58). Yet Deems concentrates on what he calls a “manifestly higher thought”: That although James’s readers do not have high political, social, or economic positions in the world’s estimation, they have exalted lives with high spiritual power and inner spiritual capabilities, which included the gift of eternal life (59–60). It is this exalted spiritual position in which believers should rejoice; the “poor in faith”—whether rich or poor in the economic sense—cannot. Walter Rauschenbusch (1861–1916) was the premier theologian of what came to be called the Social Gospel movement in the United States. Rauschenbusch was a professor at Rochester Theological Seminary in New York, and his book, Christianity and the Social Crisis, argues that James and Revelation are “more or less directly the product of . . . Jewish Christianity,” a group, which although it survived until the fifth century, was marginalized by larger Christianity and even deemed heretical. Jewish Christianity, however, represents “the radical social wing of the primitive church,” leavened as it were by the “democracy” of the Hebrew Bible prophets and post-exilic Judaism. Rauschenbusch also adds that these Jewish Christian churches treasured and preserved the sayings of Jesus, another indication of their “radical social spirit.” Rauschenbusch then cites James 1:9–11 as an example of this radical, egalitarian spirit inspired by its roots within Judaism: In popular Jewish thought the poor and the godly were simply identified, and there was a frequent and strident note of hostility to the upper classes. The Epistle of James shares this Jewish spirit. It is one of the most democratic books of the New Testament (1908: 98; cf. Dibelius 1975: 39).

James 1:1–11  97 Foy Valentine’s short commentary on James applies James’s “prophetic indignation” of the injustices perpetuated by the rich upon the poor to contemporary Christians: The church has nearly always been reluctant to hear the word of God about wealth. The words of Jesus at this point are all too often glossed over. The message of the prophets regarding riches is thought by many to be particularly obnoxious. The teaching of James in this regard is considered especially offensive by many. Why? This is true because it is a hard doctrine, and hard doctrines are much more easily ignored than confronted. They are much more easily discounted than accepted. They are much more easily explained away than obeyed. It was not the disposition of James, however, to mince words, so he shared his spiritual insight at this important point. Wealth is a great danger to the spiritual life. Human beings need a little bit but are choked by a lot. Riches may buy special status in this world’s clubs but in the church, bought by the blood of Jesus Christ, everybody is somebody.

That is why, Valentine writes, James returns again and again to the issues of wealth and poverty (1981: 72). Pedrito Maynard-Reid, Professor of Biblical Studies and Missiology at Walla Walla University, objects to the idea that the terms poor and rich in 1:9– 11 connote a primarily spiritualized “semireligious” sense of wealth and poverty. Maynard-Reid believes that such interpretations (he cites Martin Dibelius and Ralph Martin as examples) seem to be created to “placate the wealthy Christians within our own contemporary communities” (1987: 44). Instead, he notes, both James and the rest of the New Testament have a generally negative view of the economically rich in first-century Palestine. Maynard-Reid believes that James’s “scorching heat is a blasting, scorching southeast wind of the desert which blows incessantly day and night during the spring.” This extreme, dry, withering heat “is fatal to young growth and flowers.” MaynardReid, though, argues that for James, the “flowers” are not “weaklings.” They symbolize the (apparently) strong and powerful rich. The imagery thus “is more forceful and poignant, for the rich in the height of their glory and majesty are cut down.” The judgment upon the rich, Maynard-Reid concludes, will be abrupt and final (46). Although Elsa Tamez stresses that James focuses on the present experience of a militant patience and fully developed works, she also notes that beyond the joy of service and hope in the midst of suffering from oppression, there also is an eschatological joy: “knowing and believing that at the end of time the oppressed will be favored” (2002: 31). Therefore the oppressed can rejoice in anticipation of the eschatological new order that will bring about such a ­reversal. Thus James calls upon the oppressed to glory in their (future) exaltation (42).

98  James 1:1–11 This “boasting” is meant in a positive sense; it connotes anticipated happiness. The idea of a future reversal of an unjust present order, common in Hebrew thought, includes judgment in favor of the poor and against the rich. The antithesis between the one in a lowly condition (tapeinos) and the rich (plousios) means that the humility of the lowly cannot be a “moral or spiritual characteristic.” The person is lowly because she or he is economically poor within the Christian community. James proclaims, Tamez writes, that the poor should rejoice because God will soon enact a dramatic change where the poor Christians will be exalted (42). Tamez notes that James declares the rich “will suffer the opposite fate.” They will fail in their business dealings, “which are precisely the cause of their ruin since usually they are rooted in injustice and the desire for gain.” James’s call for the rich to “glory in their humiliation” thus, for Tamez, is sarcasm, because James later announces that the rich “should begin to weep because of what awaits them. For now James leaves the rich no glimmer of hope: not only their wealth will perish, but also their business and they themselves” (34–5). According to Tamez, then, the “rich” in the letter do not belong to the Christian community (or, at least, the author of James does not believe they should belong in it). The rich are condemned to failure in all their pursuits (1:11), and this judgment occurs because they oppress other human beings. James seems to be reacting against a church that is beginning to “open widely” to the rich, a development that James opposes (25–6).

James 1:12–27

Trials, Endurance, and Doers of the Word James 1:12–15 Ancient literary context

In one sense, James 1:12 provides both a transition from the arguments in James 1:9–11 and a return to themes of trials, testing, and perseverance initiated in 1:2–4. In James 1:2–4, testing of one’s faith produces endurance that results in maturity and completeness. In 1:12–15, in contrast, being tempted by one’s own desire leads to sin and death, but the one who endures temptation/ testing (peirasmos, as in 1:2) “has stood the test” and receives “the crown of life.” James Through the Centuries, First Edition. David B. Gowler. © 2014 David B. Gowler. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

100  James 1:12–27 The image of the crown of life seems to reinforce the eschatological aspects of this early section of James (cf. Hartin 2003: 90). Spiritual maturity may be the result of testing in the present, but the crown of life awaits those who continue to withstand such testing. Yet James wants to make clear that it is against God’s fundamental character to tempt anyone to sin: God is not tempted by evil and does not tempt anyone. The fault lies with human beings—their own (with the emphatic personal pronoun idios) desire (cf. Sirach 15:11–14). God therefore is in no way responsible for the sins of human beings, and James’s claim that God cannot be tempted to evil and does not tempt anyone is unique in the Bible. In fact, this latter statement seems to contradict other biblical verses (e.g., the pathos-filled testing of Abraham in Gen. 22:1–14; cf. James 2:21–4), a difficulty that many commentators—both ancient and modern—address. Verse 12 resonates with Jewish tradition on many levels. The macarism (beatitude-form) is found in the teachings of Jesus (e.g., Matt. 5:3–12; Luke 6:20–2) and in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Ps. 1:1; Prov. 8:34; Job 5:17; cf. Sirach 14:1). The idea that God blesses the faithful who endure suffering is also found in Jewish traditions (e.g., Dan. 12:12; 4 Macc. 7:22). Perhaps James is responding in some way to the “do not lead us into temptation” petition of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13/Luke 11:4). The term “desire” (epithymia) does not necessarily have a negative connotation, but it always does so in James (Johnson 1995: 193), and this section may connect such evil desire with lust. The fishing and hunting terms “lured” and “enticed” can evoke that image, but the language of verse 15 becomes clearly sexual (cf. Prov. 7:22–3) as the thought progresses: one can be tempted by desire, and then the desire “conceives” and “gives birth to sin” and, when “fully grown,” “gives birth to death.”

The interpretations Ancient and medieval Dionysius of Alexandria, a student of Origen at the catechetical school in Alexandria, succeeded Heraclas (Origen’s successor) as both head of the school (ca. 232) and then as Bishop of Alexandria (ca. 247). The exegetical fragments of Dionysius on Luke 22:42–8 utilize James 1:13’s argument that God “cannot be tempted of evil” to draw a distinction between being “tempted” (withstanding and enduring temptation) and “entering into temptation” (having “fallen into it”). Jesus and Abraham, for example, did not “enter temptation” but “were tempted.” It is the “wicked one” who “draws us into temptation,” since the wicked one operates with the temptations of evil. But God “cannot be tempted of evil.” The result, for Dionysius, is: “The devil, therefore, drives us on by

James 1:12–27  101 ­violence, drawing us to destruction; but God leads us by the hand, training us for our salvation” (“An Exposition of Luke 22:46”). The Festal Letters of Athanasius often concentrate on such topics as fasting, feasting, purity, and charity toward others, especially the poor. Letter XIII was written from Rome for Easter, 341 CE, during Athanasius’s second exile. Athanasius opens with an acknowledgement that the “opponents of Christ” oppress them with “afflictions and sorrows,” but that God comforts them with their mutual faith. The purpose of the letter is to “comfort ourselves, and provoke one another to good,” in spite of the afflictions and persecutions from the “corrupt heretics.” Athanasius notes that even worse than physical persecution is the fact that “their insults reach even to the Bishops” (XIII.1). Athanasius refers first to Paul (Rom. 5:3) to argue that they should “glory in afflictions” and not be discouraged when the enemies arrayed against them persecute them. Instead, Athanasius says they should “press after the crown” and turn the other cheek to those who smite them: For the lovers of pleasure and the lovers of enmity are tried, as the blessed Apostle James says, “when they are drawn away by their own lusts and enticed” [James 1:14]. But let us, knowing that we suffer for the truth, and that those who deny the Lord smite and persecute us, “count it all joy, my brethren,” according to the words of James, “when we fall into trials of various temptations, knowing that the trial of our faith produces endurance” [James 1:2].

Athanasius calls for rejoicing in difficult times, because salvation comes through such afflictions. Jesus had to suffer to redeem humankind, and he also said, “In the world you will face persecution” (John 16:33). Athanasius believes, though, that Jesus spoke these words only for “those who diligently and faithfully perform good service” to him, because he knew that those who followed him would be persecuted (XIII.6). The Life of Antony, also attributed to Athanasius, was influential in the development of the ascetic tradition in the early church, and Augustine credits it for his resolution to renounce the world and give himself wholly to God (Confessions viii). Life of Antony 21 is part of a larger address (16–43) from Antony to monks that exhorts them to persevere and encourages them against the wiles of Satan: “And let us strive that wrath rule us not nor lust overcome us.” Not only is James 1:15, 20 quoted as a proof text, but the text then goes on to argue that these sins stem from evil spirits, “terrible and crafty foes” against which we wrestle. Others, like Cyril of Jerusalem, when citing James in his Homily on the Paralytic at the Pool of Bethesda, cite James 1:12–15 to declare that Christians could never blame God when they are afflicted by various troubles. The fault is our own: “Each of us are scourged with the ropes of our own sins” (Yarnold 2000: 220). Jerome declares that Jovinian, who opposes Christian asceticism, is wrong to propose that the baptized of the spirit and not just of water cannot be tempted

102  James 1:12–27 by the devil (Against Jovinian II.1). Jerome quotes James 1:12 about enduring temptation and receiving the crown of life, and he then notes that we should never think, as the story about God testing Abraham in Genesis 22:1 might lead us to believe, that we are ever tempted by God. Proof, Jerome argues, may be found in James 1:13 that we are instead tempted by our own desires, not by God, and that temptation leads to sin and then death, as James makes clear: God created us with free will, and we are not forced by necessity either to virtue or to vice . . . [S]o in things wicked and sinful, the seeds within us give the impulse, and these are brought to maturity by the devil. When he sees that we are building upon the foundation of Christ, hay, wood, stubble, then he applies the match. Let us then build gold, silver, costly stones, and he will not venture to tempt us: although even thus there is not sure and safe possession.

When Augustine cites James 1:13, he takes pains to declare that human beings cannot blame God for their own failings (e.g., On Grace and Free Will, Chapter 3). Section 18 of On Continence, which attacks Manichean beliefs, argues that the nature of the living and true God is “in the highest sense good and incapable of change, neither does any evil, nor suffers any evil, from Whom is every good . . .” The “Manichees” are incorrect, Augustine argues, because of their belief in “two natures”: “Far be it from us to believe, what the madness of the Manichees believes, that there are here shown two natures or principles contrary one to another at strife, the one nature of good, the other of evil. Altogether these two are both good; both the Spirit is a good, and the flesh a good . . .

Augustine instead argues that the problem is that the nature of human beings, although “good and well formed” by God, is unhealthy. Only through God’s gift of continence can we “overcome our disease” by following James’s advice: “For every one is tempted,” says the Apostle James, “being drawn away and enticed by his own lust.” And against this fault there is sought the help of medicine from Him, Who can heal all such sicknesses, not by the removal of a nature that is alien from us, but in the renewal of our own nature.

Augustine’s point is that James intentionally adds “by one’s own desire” to demonstrate that individuals should repent and cry out to God not only for forgiveness but also for God to heal their souls. Augustine also uses this verse in his comments on the Lord’s Prayer in Chapter 4 of On Forgiveness of Sins and Baptism to stress that the baptized are

James 1:12–27  103 injured by their “consent” to concupiscence: “For evil remains in our flesh, not by reason of the nature in which man was created by God and wisdom, but by reason of that offence into which he fell by his own will . . . ”: When, therefore, we have by an unlawful inclination of our will yielded consent to these lusts of the flesh, we say, with a view to the cure of this fault, “Forgive us our debts;” and we at the same time apply the remedy of a work of mercy, in that we add, “As we forgive our debtors.” That we may not, however, yield such consent, let us pray for assistance, and say, “And lead us not into temptation;”—not that God ever tempts any one with such temptation, “for God is not a tempter to evil, neither tempts He any man.”

The reason to utter these words, Augustine adds, is to obtain God’s assistance “whenever we feel the rising of temptation from our concupiscence.” As a result of that prayer, God will enable us to conquer those enticements to sin, and, in fact, preserve in us the desire to be perfected in the end, when “there will exist no longer a concupiscence which we are bidden to struggle against, and not to consent to.” Augustine refines this analysis in Chapter 12 of On the Gift of Perseverance, where, in another reflection on the Lord’s Prayer, he argues that when a person “of his own will forsakes God,” that person is deservedly forsaken by God. Augustine here interprets James 1:13, “God tempts no one,” as meaning that God tempts no one with a hurtful temptation. Psalm 26:2 (“Prove me, O Lord, and try me”), Augustine writes, demonstrates that temptations can actually be beneficial: “For to be tempted and not to be led into temptation is not evil,— nay, it is even good; for this it is to be proved.” Augustine’s conclusion that there are two kinds of temptation allows him to harmonize James 1:13 with such verses as Deuteronomy 13:3. For example, in his commentary, On the Gospel of St. John (Tractate XLIII.5–6), Augustine notes that James says that God tempts no one but Deuteronomy says that God does tempt/test people. The answer is that “there are two kinds of temptation: one, that deceives; the other, that proves.” The former is a hurtful temptation, but the latter temptation demonstrates whether, as Deuteronomy 13:3 says, “you love the Lord your God with your heart and soul.” Yet Augustine has to explain further how some human beings succumb to such evil temptations, and he does so in his discussion of the Lord’s Prayer in To the Competentes (Chapter 7). Deuteronomy 13:3, once again, concerns the type of temptation “which is called a proving.” James’s statement that God tempts no one, however, applies only to “evil temptations, whereby men are deceived, and brought under the yoke of the devil.” Augustine must then elucidate how God is involved even in this kind of temptation that leads one astray. The answer is that in God’s “deep and hidden judgment,” God “abandons some,” and the devil takes

104  James 1:12–27 advantage of that abandonment, because there is no real “resistance against his power.” Thus Christians pray, “Lead us not into temptation” so that God will not abandon them, because, as James says, all humans are tempted by their own desires, and those desires bring forth sin and, finally, death. Augustine concludes: “What then has he therefore taught us? To fight against our lusts.” In a sermon on the Lord’s Prayer, Peter Chrysologus (ca. 405–50) explains the apparent contradiction between the Sermon on the Mount’s “lead us not into temptation” with James’s “God tempts no one” as meaning that God “tempts” people only in the sense that God “abandons those who stubbornly go into the snares of temptations.” Adam, who “succumbed to the wiles of the tempter,” is the primary example, because he “abandoned the commands of his Creator” (1953: 122). John Cassian, whose Institutes made known in the West the rules of Egyptian monastic traditions and were a significant influence in the Rule of Saint Benedict, includes a discussion about and remedy for the “eight principal faults” (i.e., vices: gluttony, fornication, avarice, anger, dejection, listlessness, boasting, pride; “Conference V: Conference of Abbot Serapion on the Eight Principal Faults,” Chapter 2). Cassian stresses that the moral and spiritual well-being of monks are dependent upon an intense devotion to and intimate knowledge of scripture. Scripture must be read regularly, extensively memorized and recited, and its implications applied in one’s daily life. Because of the importance of interpreting scripture, Cassian struggles to explain the apparent contradiction in scripture about temptation. Inclination to such sins as gluttony and fornication “exist in us naturally” (James 1:14, 15) but have to be completed by “bodily acts.” But Cassian needs to clarify the meaning of “Lead us not into temptation,” which he does in “The First Conference of Abbot Isaac” (Conference IX.23), in order to explain more fully how temptation occurs. The main issue, for Cassian, is why one should pray to God not to be led into temptation when it is through such temptation that our endurance is proved. Cassian notes that scripture says: “Every one who is not tempted is not proved” (Sirach 34:11) and “Blessed is the man that endures temptation” (James 1:12). The prayer for us not to be led into temptation actually means do not allow us to be overcome by temptation whenever we fall into it: For Job was tempted, but was not led into temptation. For he did not ascribe folly to God nor blasphemy, nor with impious mouth did he yield to that wish of the tempter toward which he was drawn. Abraham was tempted, Joseph was tempted, but neither of them was led into temptation for neither of them yielded his consent to the tempter.

The following clause of the Lord’s Prayer, “But deliver us from evil,” clarifies this thought further, Cassian claims, because it asks God not to allow us to be tempted by the devil beyond what we can resist.

James 1:12–27  105 Bede overcomes the apparent discrepancy between James 1:13 and other scriptures (e.g., Gen. 22:1) with a different approach. He makes a distinction between “outward” temptations (“with the Lord’s assent for the sake of being tested”), which he believes James up to this point was discussing, and “inward” temptations that stem from the devil’s instigation or through the frailty of our nature. In the first, God allows temptations that test one’s faith: “God tempted Abraham” (Gen. 22:1). Yet God never “deceives” the tempted into sinning. Bede then comments on the three ways humans can be tempted: by Satan, by delight, or by our own weakness. If we resist the devil’s temptation, Bede writes, temptation “carries us on to the victory by which we may deserve to receive the crown of life.” But, for Bede, there is an intermediate step between the crown of life and the “death” of which James speaks: If in fact at the enemy’s suggestion we begin gradually to be drawn from the right intention and lured into vice, we offend by taking delight but we do not yet incur the death-penalty. But if by bringing forth evil action also follows the delight in wickedness conceived in the heart, then the enemy departs victorious from us, already blameworthy of death (1985: 15).

Joseph, for example, was tempted by Potiphar’s wife but “did not have the concupiscence of lust,” did not delight or consent, and “therefore he escaped victorious” (15). David, on the other hand, “had not yet conquered the desire of the flesh,” and “he was drawn on and lured by his own concupiscence” (15). Such a failure “rightly incurs the ruin of death” (16). Jan Hus refers to James 1:12 in a letter he writes as he is preparing himself for his imminent execution. Hus takes heart in James’s words about enduring temptation, standing “the test, and receiving the crown of life”: That crown, I firmly hope, the Lord will allow me to share along with you, most fervent lovers of the truth, and along with all who firmly and steadfastly love the Lord Jesus Christ, Who suffered for us, leaving us an example that we should follow in his steps. He had to suffer, as He Himself said; and it behoves (sic) us  to  suffer, so that the members would suffer along with the head. He says, “If  anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Matt. 16:24; Hus 1972: 186–7).

Earlier in that same letter, Hus cites James 1:2–3 to “count it all joy when you shall fall into divers temptations” and notes how difficult it is to follow James’s admonitions. It is one thing to say them but “difficult to carry them out.” Even Jesus, who knew he would rise on the third day, said the night of his arrest that his “soul is sorrowful even unto death.” Hus concludes the letter by asking God to “Grant me a brave spirit” so that he could be ready to face his death: “Grant me a ready spirit, a fearless heart, a right faith, a firm hope, and a perfect love, that for Thy sake I may lay down my life with patience and joy. Amen” (186).

106  James 1:12–27 Early modern and modern Martin Luther’s Commentary on Genesis (37:15–17) discusses, in light of Joseph’s tribulations, how Christians should act when they are “afflicted and disciplined.” Their hearts must be aroused against evil and must continue to have faith. God, who made all things out of nothing, can restore them, like Joseph, “after being reduced to nothing,” for the benefit of themselves and others (LW 6: 355). Christians may be mortified according to the flesh, but they are made alive according to the spirit. In fact, the more difficult the sufferings: the greater and more wonderful are the things that are worked in the saints. It is a proof of Grace and God’s goodwill when they are disciplined by the cross and afflictions. For when they persevere by faith in the promise and endure, great and incredible blessings follow according to the statement in James 1:12 (LW 6: 355).

Luther sometimes feels little need to reconcile James 1:13 with other scriptures. In his commentary on Genesis 22:1–2, for example, Luther notes that Abraham was indeed tempted sorely by God and chides James for its “cold” treatment of temptation (LW 4: 92): The verb “to tempt” [Gen 22:1] must be particularly noted, for it is not put here needlessly. Nor should it be treated as coldly as James does (1:13), when he declares that nobody is tempted by God. For here Scripture states plainly that Abraham was actually tempted by God Himself, not concerning a woman, gold, silver, death, or life but concerning a contradiction of Holy Scripture (i.e., Gen 21:12 and Gen 22:2).

Yet Luther does make a distinction between testing and tempting “for evil” and in doing so cites James more affirmingly: Thus a father takes an apple away from his boy under some pretense, not because he wants to deprive him of it but merely to make a test whether his son loves him and believes that his father will give it back. If the son gladly gives up the apple, the father is pleased with his son’s obedience and love. Thus God’s testing is a fatherly one, for James says in his letter: “God is not a tempter for evil”; that is, He does not test in order that we may fear and hate Him like a tyrant but to the end that He may exercise and stir up faith and love in us (LW 4: 131–2).

Luther also quotes James 1:12 in a positive way in his exposition of the Lord’s Prayer. He warns that after God forgives us our sins, nothing is as important as guarding against a relapse. For Luther, James 1:12 demonstrates that trials are helpful to keep people alert, perfect them in humility, and make them acceptable to God as God’s dearest children: “Blessed are they who take this to heart, for unfortunately, everyone today seeks tranquility and peace, pleasure and comfort [in their lives]” (LW 42: 75).

James 1:12–27  107 John Calvin rejects the idea that “temptation” in James 1:12 comes from inward “darts of desire.” Instead, James attempts to offer “words of comfort to relieve the sorrows of those who are hard dealt with in this world . . . [H]is praise is for fortitude in the face of adversity, making the paradox that the blessed are not those commonly so called (who get everything to suit them) but those who are not crushed by their troubles” (1995: 267). On the other hand, Calvin argues, James 1:13 is about inward temptation (“the other sort of ­temptation”)—unlike the testing of Abraham and others—“to see what we are like.” God tests us to bring the secrets of the heart out into the open, but temptation harasses the inner person with foul desires. That temptation flows “from the evil of our flesh” and does not stem from God. James concentrates on the fact “that the root of our destruction lies within ourselves” (269). William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, written at the turn of the seventeenth century, brings a new sophistication to plays of that era, with its “complex and intelligent hero, its fresh and subtle word-play, brilliantly evoked setting and new treatment of the revenge motif, refined and elegant soliloquies, and philosophical richness” (Honan 1998: 280). Hamlet engages the question of the depth of human responsibility for evil, but it does not omit questions about divine responsibility as well. Charles Wordsworth, for example, suggests that passages such as Hamlet’s words in Act II scene ii, “For if the sun breed maggots in a dead dog, being a god-kissing carrion . . . ,” attempt to defend God as not being responsible for corruption in the heart of humans just as the sun is not responsible for maggots appearing in the carcass of a dead dog (1892: 137–8). On the other hand, Wordsworth points out, Shakespeare sometimes echoes passages such as James 1:14 to depict human frailty, partly stemming from our “natural corruption” and our own “willfulness.” To illustrate, Wordsworth cites lines from Act IV scene iv of Troilus and Cressida (139): Something may be done that we will not; And sometimes we are devils to ourselves, When we will tempt the frailty of our powers, Presuming on their changeful potency.

Likewise, in Act I scene iii of Measure for Measure, Shakespeare contends that humans are destroyed when they allow themselves to be “enticed by unlawful pleasure” (Wordsworth 1892: 140): Our natures do pursue (Like rats that raven down their proper bane) A thirsty evil, and when we drink we die.

These words from Measure to Measure also echo the sentiment of James 1:15 of sin giving birth to death, and other lines from Shakespeare build upon this

108  James 1:12–27 image as well, although perhaps not intentionally evoking James. Wordsworth points to the words of Friar Laurence in Romeo and Juliet as one example of Shakespeare engaging in these issues (127–8): In man as well as herbs—grace and rude will; And where the worser is predominant, Full soon the canker death eats up that plant. (Act II scene iii)

The German poet and hymn-writer Johann Heermann published the hymn, “Jesus, Grant that Balm and Healing,” in 1644. Heermann certainly was tested and needed God’s “balm and healing” many times during his difficult life. He was the fifth and only surviving child of his parents, suffered from a severe illness in his childhood, and endured ill health most of his life. An eye disease forced him to give up a scholarship; during his pastorate at Koeben, because of the Thirty Years War (1618–48), he had to flee for his life several times; he lost his possessions more than once; and a lengthy problem with his throat led to his early retirement as a Lutheran pastor in 1634. Heermann’s hymn engages several writings by various church fathers such as Bernard of Clairvaux, and it also combines elements from James 1:13–16 and 4:7. Like Bede, Heermann envisions three modes of temptation: from within, by Satan, and being enticed by the world: Jesus, grant that balm and healing In your holy wounds I find, Ev’ry hour that I am feeling Pains of body and of mind, Should some evil thought within Tempt my treach’rous heart to sin, Show the peril, and from sinning Keep me from its first beginning. Should some lust or sharp temptation Fascinate my sinful mind, Let me think about your passion, And new courage I shall find. Or should Satan press me hard, Let me then be on my guard, Saying, “Christ for me was wounded,” That the tempter flee confounded. If the world my heart entices With the broad and easy road,

James 1:12–27  109 With seductive, sinful vices, Let me think about the load You were willing to endure: Then I’ll flee all thoughts impure, Mastering each wild temptation, Calm in prayer and meditation. (Aufdemberge 1997: 47)

Charles Deems notes that James 1:13 seems to mark the transition from a discussion of external trials to a consideration of a “condition of mind” brought about by those trials (1888: 67). The origin of evil, for example, is the “most puzzling riddle”: Since the eternal God created all things, is God the “author of evil?” James “prostrates” these arguments with a “single blow.” God is in no way responsible; human beings, with their freedom of will, choose to exercise that will in virtue or for evil (70–1). So the genesis of evil actually comes from individuals: A man is spirit, soul and body. The real personality of a man is his spirit. There is his permanent identity. There is his emperorship; for in the spirit is the will. The body is the spirit’s home and the spirit’s instrument of communication with the outer world, that world which has the qualities of matter. The soul is the connecting link between the body and spirit. In the soul are the desires for the things which are known by the senses. It is here that JAMES finds the origin of evil. Desire is quite innocent in its normal conditions. It becomes excited under the influence of the things in the outward world; of those things of which it has knowledge in the body, or by means of the body (74–5).

Deems believes that if those desires are within the will of God, then good or virtue results. But if those desires are contrary to God’s will—and one’s spirit consents to those acts—then those desires become sin. That is why James talks about being “tempted and enticed” by one’s desire: “Desire is represented as a harlot soliciting the spirit to an impure embrace. The harlot’s arts are taken from hunting and fishing. As the hunter draws his game from some safe cover, as the fisherman baits his hook and catches the fish, so the harlot employs allurements to draw away the solicited person . . .” (75). Deems’s advice is not to go into “doubtful places” that are “known to be dangerous.” We should, for example, make sure that the company we keep is as wholesome as the food we (should) eat, and the first misstep can become a slippery slope: Whoever takes the first step does not find it difficult to take the next and the next, and whosoever takes those few steps cannot be far from the destruction of all those things which are most valuable to a man. There is almost no difficulty in “enticing” a man who has been “drawn away” (79).

110  James 1:12–27 Joseph Mayor deals extensively with the issues raised by James 1:13. Humans tend to blame their sins on God, but James responds in two ways. First, it contradicts what we know about God: No matter what some biblical passages appear to say (e.g., Deut. 6:16, “You shall not tempt the lord your God”), God is beyond being tempted and also tempts no one: “Man can be tempted because of the propensity to evil in his own nature; God cannot be tempted because He is absolute goodness” (Mayor 1990: 505). Mayor argues that even though God tempts human beings in the Bible, such as God’s testing of Abraham in Genesis, the real temptation is not drawing human beings into sin; it is a “trial with the view of discovering his motives and principles and of gradually building up the perfect Christian character.” The real cause of temptation and the resulting sin is rooted with human beings, our “appetites, desires, and impulses” (505). William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, Mayor states, illustrates this aspect of temptation. Macbeth starts the play as ambitious, but innocently so. His encounter with the three witches and his wife’s subsequent suggestions, though, demonstrate that Macbeth’s ambition progresses to the point that he is now open to murdering King Duncan. By the time the king later arrives for a visit, Macbeth changes into a “bloodthirsty tyrant” (506). Mayor also discusses other troublesome biblical passages, such as the temptation of Job by Satan. Mayor argues that God permits this temptation, because God knows that Job’s trials will demonstrate his faithfulness and righteousness. Mayor concludes: “It is fundamentally the case of those to whom St. James writes. They are in trouble: Satan is allowed to suggest that this trouble is a sign that God neglects them; yet they are to rejoice in this trouble with its attendant temptation, because in this way their faith will be strengthened, and they will learn endurance” (506). Perhaps most interesting is Mayor’s graph that illustrates James’s teachings on temptation in this passage. Mayor delineates “pre-moral stages” of temptation, such as when some “external stimulus” stirs internal impulses which otherwise would remain dormant. Then Mayor discusses the “moral stages” of temptation, which can develop in two ways. First, people could passively yield to Satan’s influence, where both the “understanding” and the “will” cooperate to attain the (now) desired object. Sin results, repetition of the sin forms a habit of sinning, and finally death results. James, however, exhorts a second path: people should resist temptation, with their wills and minds actively seeking God’s assistance. A virtuous act results, repetition of the virtuous act forms a habit of following God, and the crown of life is the final result (508). C. S. Lewis’s The Screwtape Letters consists of a series of fictional letters from an elderly retired devil, Screwtape, to a young devil, Wormwood, in which the older devil gives the younger one advice on how to work with his new “patient,” a recently converted Christian. Perhaps Lewis gets some inspiration from James

James 1:12–27  111 1:13 about the psychology of temptation in Letter VIII of the book, where Screwtape talks about how God operates: But you now see that the Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of His scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to override a human will . . . would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo. . . We can drag our patients along by continual tempting, because we design them only for the table, and the more their will is interfered with the better. He cannot “tempt” to virtue as we do to vice. He wants them to learn to walk and must therefore take away His hand; and if only the will to walk is really there He is pleased even with their stumbles. Do not be deceived, Wormwood. Our cause is never more in danger than when a human, no longer desiring, but still intending, to do our Enemy’s will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys (Lewis 1961: 38–9).

Elsa Tamez argues that the beatitude in James 1:12 is an apocalyptic blessing directed to those oppressed people who will be saved in the last judgment and participate in the new world to come, because they have remained steadfast in their faith (2002: 31, 77). Such beatitudes, frequently used by Jesus, describe “the attitude of one who suffers as patience, resistance, and firm hope” (32). Implicit in James’s beatitude is the promise of a new dawn and the resulting “crown of life.” The beatitude also continues the thought begun in 1:2 that the community should reflect on the fact that such trials strengthen the spirit. Furthermore, Tamez argues The trial does not have to do with eschatological tribulation, but rather consists of a test linked with poverty . . . [T]here is a parallel that we cannot ignore between “the crown of life promised to those who love him” and “the reign promised to those who love him.” The latter phrase is clearly linked to the poor, and the former . . . occurs immediately after speaking of the poor and the rich. This relationship is not an accidental one (2002: 32).

Tamez also observes that James 1:12 says that God has promised the crown of life to those who love God, endure the trial, and struggle and resist oppression. This “heroic suffering” of those who resist the trial and overcome it, who do not succumb to pain and oppression, results in a crown of life: “It is precisely this hope in this new life that produces joy; if they endure their oppression courageously they can be sure that the crown is theirs” (33). On the other hand, those who do not love God do not endure the trial. James therefore wants the poor and oppressed to know, Tamez argues, that God is in solidarity with them, loves them, and prefers them; knowing that God is on their side increases their hope. James thus tells them that if the community

112  James 1:12–27 is suffering, that suffering is not because of God, because “God does not tempt anybody” (1:13). The ones causing their suffering in this unjust situation are led by their own concupiscence to sin and become murderers (1:15). Tamez connects this solidarity to James 1:17, because it demonstrates that the God of Jesus is the same God who is known through liberating deeds on behalf of Israel, especially the poor in Israel, and God continues to defend the poor because in God “there is no such thing as alteration” and that from God comes “all that is good, everything that is perfect” (35). Patrick Hartin echoes the thought of Bede and other earlier commentators concerning the nature of the trial/temptation. Since the meaning of peirasmos is ambiguous, according to Hartin, James might be exploring that ambiguity by switching from the noun “trial/temptation” (1:12) to the verb “tempted” (1:13– 14). It is therefore possible that the noun refers to external testing or trial, whereas the verb denotes internal, subjective temptation (2003: 90). In contrast, Christopher Church connects this section with the next by pointing out James’s differences with common “folk theology,” such as the ­saying, “God never puts more on you than you can bear.” Church declares, “James, however, contends God never sends evil (1:13)!” Unlike those who are double-minded (1:6–8) or the heavens that change (1:17), “God is faithful both to God’s gracious, self-giving character and to God’s beloved. We are not God’s offspring by accident; God birthed us in keeping with God’s single-minded loving purpose.” Church affirms that James’s words echo teachings of Jesus: believers should pray for God’s assistance without fear (James 1:5; Matt. 7:7–8), because “just like a loving parent, God gives only good gifts” (James 1:17; Matt. 7:9–11; McKnight and Church 2004: 342–3).

James 1:16–18 Ancient literary context James’s discussion of temptation and its origins now continues with an abrupt and solemn warning for readers not to be deceived, or to deceive themselves, a very human trait with regard to one’s own sinfulness. The harshness of this authoritative command is softened by the first use of “beloved” in the text (cf. 1:19; 2:5), which builds upon the collegial “brothers and sisters” of 1:2. The main issue remains God’s character: James has made clear that God does not send temptations; humans are tempted by their own desire. God is the source of all good things, including “every perfect gift,” and is the consistent and sole source of  those gifts. God’s actions are thus consonant with God’s attributes. This ­declaration caused more consternation among the earliest responses to James than

James 1:12–27  113 did James’s teaching on faith and works. In both cases, the issue was how to interpret James alongside other biblical passages that seem to state a different situation. On the other hand, James 1:17 quickly became a favored text in the Eastern church—it is, for example, the last quote from Scripture that the priest utters in the Dismissal in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Johnson 1995: 204)—and has become one of the most quoted verses of James through the centuries. James contrasts the unchanging and eternal creator with the mutable nature of God’s creation. Even the heavenly (as James’s use of astronomical terms indicates) lights which God created, though fixed and dependable in their courses, are mutable: the stars twinkling in the night move positions according to the seasons and occasionally fall and streak across the sky; the sun creeps from horizon to horizon; the moon waxes and wanes as the days progress through the months. Philo expresses a similar idea: “Every created thing must necessarily undergo change, for this is its property, even as unchangeableness is the property of God” (Allegorical Interpretation 2.33). James declares that God is good, immutable, and eternal, and that foremost among God’s “perfect” benefactions is the “birth by the word of truth,” a gift that should bring comfort to the “twelve tribes in the Dispersion” (1:1) who are undergoing economic and other sufferings. The contrast with 1:15 is striking: Desire gives birth to sin which when fully grown, gives birth to death. Here God gives birth—an image that in itself is notable in contrast to God as “Father” in 1:17— and this birth (of “first fruits”) through the word of truth is a deliberate (boulētheis) decision in accordance with God’s purpose. Thus James’s intended audience may be confident that their trials are not sent by God and will lead, if they respond as James urges them to respond, with them being among God’s “first fruits.”

The interpretations Ancient and medieval Origen, as my Introduction noted, champions James and quotes James as “scripture” (see Johnson 1995: 130). One such citation is in defense of the soul being progressively enlightened: “The soul gradually ascends to the heavens after the resurrection. It does not reach the highest point immediately but goes through many stages during which it is progressively enlightened by the light of Wisdom, until it arrives at the Father of lights himself ” (Bray 2000: 15). Many of Athanasius’s writings discuss questions concerning the human nature of Jesus that are raised by the Arian controversy. Around 369 CE, Athanasius participated in a synod of ninety bishops of Egypt and Libya that composed a letter to affirm the Nicene definition and to counteract the remnants of Arianism in the Roman west (e.g., Auxentius). The ninth section of the letter declares that the

114  James 1:12–27 honest refutation of Arianism means the acceptance of the Nicene definition, and the eighth section argues that the “Son’s relation to the Father [is] essential, not merely ethical.” Since Jesus states in John 16:15 that “all that the father has is mine,” Jesus has “the prerogative of creating and making.” Athanasius argues that created things do not have “the power of making,” and they are also “changeable.” But the Son “is of no other essence” than the Father; the proper name for it, Athanasius declares, is coessential: “For that which a man sees in the Father, that sees he also in the Son; and that not by participation, but essentially.” When Jesus says, “I and the Father are one,” it cannot be an issue of moral progress, which is an issue of “quality.” But God is not a “compound of quality and essence”; God is “simple essence, in which quality is not, nor, as James says, ‘any variableness or shadow of turning’ ” (cf. Athanasius’s use of James 1:18 as evidence against Arianism in his Four Discourses against the Arians III.61). In his catechetical lecture, “The Father” (Lecture VII.5), Cyril of Jerusalem uses James 1:17 to expound his view of God as Father and God’s relationship to Jesus and human beings. Even though God is the father of many, God is “by nature and in truth” the father of one only: “our Lord Jesus Christ,” the onlybegotten son. Citing James 1:17, Cyril argues that God, the “Perfect Father . . . begat a perfect Son, and delivered all things to Him who is begotten.” This citation of James helps to illuminate, in part, Cyril’s apparently mediating position between Arianism and Athanasius’s use of homoousion. Didymus the Blind of Alexandria, whom Jerome often calls “the Seer” (before Jerome’s campaign against the beliefs of Origen), was an admirer of Origen. Some echoes of Origen’s views about the pre-existence and transmigration of souls may be found in the commentary on James attributed to Didymus, but in the case of explaining James 1:17 in light of other biblical passages, the commentary notes how bad things may come about through God’s judgment: James calls God the Father of intelligent lights, that is to say, the illuminator of all rational beings from whom, as the giver of these things, the divine gifts come to human beings. These gifts, James says, are the very best, complete and without defect, undoubtedly perfect. But as there are some people who argue from this that only the good things in life come from God, and not things that which are regarded as bad or harmful, we have to recall such passages as “he brought evil on them,” [Isaiah 28:5] “Evil came down from God onto the gates of Jerusalem” [Micah 1:12] and so on. From these and other similar examples it is clear that bad things as well as good may come about through God’s judgment. (Bray 2000: 14).

The influence of asceticism is clearly seen in Jerome’s use of James 1:17–18 in his Against Jovinian. Jovinian, in his view, makes the path of discipleship too easy. In this instance, Jerome condemns Jovinian’s contention that a virgin

James 1:12–27  115 is no better than a wife in the sight of God, and Jerome strongly praises v­irginity/purity. Jerome later has to write an “apology,” (Letter XLVII, To Pammachius), because of his exaltation of virginity over the sacrament of marriage. In Against Jovinian, Jerome first narrates his view of the four virgin daughters of Philip, who for him serve as an illustration of purity for the newly consecrated Gentile church in Caesarea (Acts 21:9). Jerome then turns to the righteous James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, who was “distinguished by” a “rigid and perpetual” virginity. Jerome declares that James 1:17–18 teaches us the following about James: Himself a virgin, he teaches virginity in a mystery. Every perfect gift comes down from above, where marriage is unknown; and it comes down, not from any one you please, but from the Father of lights, Who says to the apostles, “You are the light of the world;” with Whom there is no difference of Jew, or Gentile, nor does that shadow which was the companion of the law, trouble those who have believed from among the nations; but with His word He birthed us, and with the word of truth, because some shadow, image, and likeness of truth went before in the law, that we might be the first-fruits of His creatures.

The example also extends to Jesus, Jerome writes, because Jesus was a virgin and was born of a virgin, who “consecrated the first-fruits of His virgins in His own virgin self.” In a similar way Augustine also cites James 1:17—one of his favorite verses— to stress the importance of “purity.” One example is his letter to Juliana, which explains that her and her daughter’s “holy virginity” derives from God (Letter CLXXXVIII). Augustine makes a related argument in his On the Good of Widowhood (Chapter 26): Therefore let spiritual delights succeed to the place of carnal delights in holy chastity; reading, prayer, psalm, good thought, frequency in good works, hope of the world to come, and a heart upward; and for all these giving of thanks unto the Father of lights, from Whom, without any doubt, every good gift, and every perfect gift, as Scripture bears witness, comes down.

In his letter to Boniface, however, Augustine expands the application of this verse to explain the source of “holy life” and the need for humility (“To Boniface,” Letter CLXXXIX, Chapter 8). All types of virtue are gifts from God, such as “true patience” (On Patience, Chapter 12). Some attribute this virtue not to God but “to the strength of human will.” This error stems from pride, Augustine writes, because the gift is received from God who gives “every good gift, and every perfect gift.” In addition, Augustine uses James 1:17 to demonstrate scripture’s testimony that God is unchangeable and the son of God is begotten, not made (Nature of

116  James 1:12–27 God, Against the Manicheans, Chapter 24; cf. On the Trinity, Book I.2). He also addresses that former point in The City of God (Chapter 21): Plato, indeed, was bold enough to say that, when the universe was completed, God was, as it were, elated with joy. And Plato was not so foolish as to mean by this that God was rendered more blessed by the novelty of His creation; but he wished thus to indicate that the work now completed met with its Maker’s approval, as it had while yet in design . . . For He does not pass from this to that by transition of thought, but beholds all things with absolute unchangeableness; so that of those things which emerge in time, the future, indeed, are not yet, and the present are now, and the past no longer are; but all of these are by Him comprehended in His stable and eternal presence . . . [These things] do not affect His, “with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.”

John Cassian, although he does not enter the controversy directly, is recognized as the head of the “Semi-Pelagians” who react against Augustine’s view of the absolute need for divine grace. Instead the “door of salvation” should be regarded as open to all, because Christ “died for all.” Augustine’s view, they believe, takes away scripture’s assurance of salvation, falsifies God’s promise, and nullifies human responsibility. Although Semi-Pelagians believe in the doctrine of the “Fall” and acknowledge the necessity of God’s grace, some of them think that nature, unaided, could take the first step toward salvation and human restoration with God (Schaff and Wace 1952: 11:387). The thirteenth conference of Cassian (the Third Conference of Abbot Chæremon) is a prominent example of this position. Even that conference, however, affirms that without God’s help “all good of every kind cannot be performed”: From which we clearly infer that the initiative not only of our actions but also of good thoughts comes from God, who inspires us with a good will to begin with, and supplies us with the opportunity of carrying out what we rightly desire: for “every good gift and every perfect gift comes down from above, from the Father of lights” (James 1:17), who both begins what is good, and continues it and completes it in us . . . But it is for us, humbly to follow day by day the grace of God which is drawing us, or else if we resist with “a stiff neck,” and (to use the words of Scripture) “uncircumcised ears” (Acts 7:51), we shall deserve to hear the words of Jeremiah: “Shall he that falls, not rise again? and he that is turned away, shall he not turn again? Why then is this people in Jerusalem turned away with a stubborn revolting? They have stiffened their necks and refused to return” (Jer 8:4–5).

On the other hand, Cassian also records Chæremon as citing James 1:17 to affirm that human beings “while still enclosed in the flesh” cannot obtain the “prize of perfection” by their own strength alone (Conference III, Chapter 5).

James 1:12–27  117 They must be “protected by the divine compassion.” Likewise, Cassian’s account of the Conference of Abbot Paphnutius (Conference III; Chapter 16) confirms the view that faith must be given by God. Paphnutius states: So thoroughly then did those Apostles and men in the gospel realize that everything which is good is brought to perfection by the aid of the Lord, and not imagine that they could preserve their faith unharmed by their own strength or free will that they prayed that it might be helped or granted to them by the Lord . . . How foolish and wicked then it is to attribute any good action to our own diligence and not to God’s grace and assistance, is clearly shown by the Lord’s saying, which lays down that no one can show forth the fruits of the Spirit without His inspiration and co-operation. For “every good gift and every perfect boon is from above, coming down from the Father of lights” (James 1:17).

The commentary on James attributed to Oecumenius (designated as “Ps.Oecumenius” because its authorship is questionable) utilizes James 1:17 to speak of the human pilgrimage that begins with imperfection but reaches perfection. This perfection is gained because believers with great effort cleanse their souls from the wickedness they inherit through original sin. Finally, they reach the “divine splendor.” Ps.-Oecumenius also stresses the immutability of God and the mutability of human beings. We are different from Jesus, because God gives us birth by the Word of life. For Ps-Oecumenius, though, this means that human beings are created by Jesus the Son of God—since the Gospel of John tells us that all things are made by him (Bray 2000: 16). In his sermon, “Be You Creative as God Is Creative,” Meister Eckhart (ca. 1260–1327), the Dominican preacher, theologian, and mystic, focuses on, like Augustine and others, the immutability of God, but he heads in a different, mystical direction. Citing James 1:17, Eckhart declares that God is pure generation and the life of all things. Eckhart also stresses God’s nearness to humanity: And now let us consider the third part of our text from the Scripture: “from the Father of the light.” The word “Father” makes us think of sonship or daughtership; the word “Father” signifies a pure generation and means the same as “a life of all things.” The Father generates his Son in eternal knowledge. He generates his Son in the soul exactly as in his own nature . . . I was once asked what the Father did in heaven. And I said that he was generating his Son, and that this activity was so agreeable to him and pleased him so much that he does nothing other than generate his Son, and both of them flourished in the Holy Spirit. When the Father generates his Son in me, I am that very same Son and no one else. “If we are sons, we are heirs as well” (Rom. 8:17). Whoever rightly knows the truth understands well that the word “Father” implies a pure generation and a production of children. For this reason we are here as a child, and are the same Son (Eckhart 1980: 400–1).

118  James 1:12–27 As Matthew Fox notes, this “pure generation” is not restricted to heaven; it also takes place within human beings. What God generates in human beings is the birthing of the Son of God. Likewise, to be children of the Father who is “pure generation” means that we are also to “generate” our praise of God (Eckhart 1980: 404). God is thus the origin of and final end for every being. By the pure and eternal generation of the Son, the Father becomes conscious of himself, and the reflected love from Son to Father is the Holy Spirit. Together with the Son, God also begets created things. In a way similar to how the Son returns to the Father, so all created things tend to return to God and to lose themselves in the unity of God’s being. As Eckhart claims in another sermon: Now rejoice, all ye powers of my soul, that you are so united with God that no one may separate you from Him. I cannot fully praise nor love Him therefore must I die, and cast myself into the divine void, till I rise from non-existence to existence. If I should remain entombed in flesh till the judgment day and suffer the pains of hell, that would be for me a small thing to bear for my beloved Lord Jesus Christ, if I had the certainty at last of not being separated from Him. While I am here, He is in me; after this life, I am in Him. All things are therefore possible to me, if I am united to Him Who can do all things. Previously I could not distinguish whether we were divine by nature or by grace. Then came Jesus and enlightened me so that I recognized in the Divine Nature Three Persons, and that the Father was the Bringer-Forth of all things, as St James says, “every perfect gift comes down from the Father of lights” (“The Self-Communication of God”).

Early modern and modern Luther’s notes on Psalm 90:5–6—perhaps because of its similarity with James 1:11—cite James 1:17 to speak of the immutability of God and the impermanence of nature and human life: “The night is indeed changed into day; and the day, as a result of the alternation process, is darkened into night. But, so James informs us, there is nothing of this in God.” Luther’s commentary on Galatians 5:19–21, however, uses James 1:17 to reinforce the idea that although faith alone is not sufficient—one must walk in the spirit and not perform the lusts of the flesh—faith alone justifies. If faith is genuine, it obtains the spirit of love, which leads people to fulfill the law and obtain the kingdom of God. All this must be ascribed to faith, for Luther, which is dependent upon the mercy of God who sends the apostles and preachers of the word. All our sufficiency, therefore, is from God, from “whom every boon and every perfect gift come” (LW 27: 371). As noted in “James 1:1–11,” Pope Leo X’s bull, Exsurge Domine, censured forty-one of Luther’s statements as heretical. Luther’s written response to the bull includes a discussion about how sin remains in human beings even after

James 1:12–27  119 baptism. It echoes the above thoughts about God’s immutability, human fallibility, and God’s grace: . . . we too are not entirely cured by baptism or repentance, but a beginning is made in us and the bandage of the first grace binds our wounds so that our healing may proceed from day to day until we are cured. For this reason St. James says in James 1[:18], “God has given us birth through his word, out of his sheer gracious will, without our merit, that we should be a first fruit of his work or creatures.” This as if to say, “so long as we live here on earth, believing in his word, we are a work that God has begun, but not yet completed; but after death we shall be perfect, a divine work without sin or fault” (LW 32: 24).

John Calvin’s comments on James 1:16 stress the superiority of James’s view of the unchangeability of God over that of Plato. He also notes that James differs from Plato, because James believes that, since God is good, no disasters fall upon humanity from God’s hands. God “properly” punishes “crimes,” but those penalties justly inflicted by God should not be classified as “evils”: Plato is out of his depth: James gives God His right and duty to punish, but allows no blame to fall on Him. We should learn from this passage, that we should be so impressed with the countless benefits of God, which daily we see fall from His hand, that we should turn all our minds to His glory, and any idea that occurs to us, or is suggested by others, which is not in accord with His praise, we should reject with all our hearts (1995: 269–70).

Calvin then argues that James 1:18 shows how “our election, before the foundation of the world, was an act of freedom.” It is by the grace of God that we have the right of adoption, because God “freely calls us” (270). The concise commentary on James by the influential Presbyterian minister Matthew Henry explains these verses in James by saying that God’s providential dealings with human beings display their “dispositions” for good or for evil and that afflictions sent by God are designed to bring out the best in us. He optimistically declares that afflictions, if they are not our fault, “cannot make us miserable,” because Christians who love God have been promised the crown of life. So any affliction we suffer on earth will be “fully recompensed” in heaven, “where love is made perfect.” Some of God’s providential dealings with humans produce dispositions that are inherent in humans’ hearts, but James makes clear that nothing sinful in “heart or conduct can be ascribed to God.” In Henry’s words, God “is not the author of the dross, though his fiery trial exposes it.” We cannot blame our sin directly or even indirectly on God: “Afflictions, as sent by God, are designed to draw out our graces, but not our corruptions. The origin of evil and temptation is in our own hearts.”

120  James 1:12–27 James 1, especially James 1:17–21 was Kierkegaard’s favorite passage in his favorite book of the Bible; he wrote four complete discourses—one of the first two discourses he ever published and his last discourse—and nine shorter ­passages to explain just James 1:17 (Kierkegaard 1978: 416, 569; cf. Bauckham 1999: 160). Vernard Eller thus argues that “we are here at the center of Kierkegaard’s religious thought” (1962: 1267). Kierkegaard insists that James 1:17 cannot mean that whatever one experiences as good and perfect necessarily can be attributed to God or, on the other hand, that those things accepted as being from God must be good and perfect. If this were the case, individuals would then face the impossible task of trying to discern which experiences were gifts from God and which experiences were the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” (1267). Instead Kierkegaard argues: If you doubted whether [the apostolic word] came from God, or whether it was a good and perfect gift, have you dared to make the test? And when the easy play of happiness beckoned you, have you thanked God? And when you were so strong that it seemed as if you needed no assistance, have you thanked God? And when your allotted share was small, have you thanked God? And when your wish was denied you, have you thanked God? And when you must deny yourself your wish, have you thanked God? And when men did you wrong and offended you, have you thanked God? We do not say that the wrong done you by men thereby ceased to be a wrong, for that would be an untrue and foolish speech! Whether it was wrong, you must yourself decide; but have you referred the wrong and the offense to God, and by your thanksgiving received it from Him as a good and perfect gift? Have you done this? Then surely you have worthily interpreted the apostolic word to the honor of God, to your own salvation; for it is beautiful for a man to pray, and many promises are held out to the one who prays without ceasing; but it is even more blessed to return thanks. Then surely have you worthily interpreted that apostolic word, more gloriously than if all the angels spoke in glowing tongues (Kierkegaard 1958: 48–9).

Kierkegaard focuses on the theme that God is the unchangeable giver of good. Not only does every good gift come from God, but “since God is continuously and consistently good, the whole of life, all that happens to one, comes from God as God’s good and perfect gift, and should be received with thanksgiving” (Bauckham 1999: 169–70). James calls his readers, therefore, to trust the unchangeable God unconditionally. Although primarily based on Lamentations 3:22–3, Thomas Chisolm’s hymn, Great Is Thy Faithfulness, captures the sentiments of James 1:17. The hymn became popular worldwide when George Beverly Shea started singing it at Billy Graham crusades: Great is thy faithfulness, O God my Father,   There is no shadow of turning with thee;

James 1:12–27  121 Thou changest not, thy compassions they fail not;   As thou hast been thou forever wilt be. Great is thy faithfulness! Great is thy faithfulness!   Morning by morning new mercies I see; All I have needed thy hand has provided.   Great is thy faithfulness, Lord, unto me. (Hymns and Psalms 1985: 66)

Another hymn that explicitly uses James 1:17 comes from Matthias Claudius, who wrote the words based on a song he heard local farmers singing (“Wir pflügen und wir streuen”). The words were put to music by Johann Schulz and translated into English by Jane Campbell. The song can be found in places as varied as the musical Godspell (1971) and the animated film, “Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit” (2005): We plough the fields and scatter the good seed on the land, but it is fed and watered by God’s almighty hand: he sends the snow in winter, the warmth to swell the grain, the breezes and the sunshine, and soft, refreshing rain. All good gifts around us are sent from heav’n above; then thank the Lord, O thank the Lord, for all his love. www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/w/e/p/weplowtf.htm

Written in 1674 by Thomas Ken, the hymn “Awake, My Soul, and With the Sun,” includes a final stanza that might be the most frequently sung music in protestant churches. Today this stanza is simply known as “The Doxology.” As the website cyberhymnal.org notes, Ken wrote this hymn for students at Winchester College to use for their private devotions. The full hymn, which concludes with this stanza that builds upon James 1:17, was sung at Ken’s funeral at his request: Praise God, from Whom all blessings flow; Praise Him, all creatures here below; Praise Him above, ye heavenly host; Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/a/w/awakemys.htm

122  James 1:12–27 Charles Deems observes that this section of James stresses the importance of having the correct view of God: “wander into the forests of falsehoods far as one may, the man who holds the truth as to God can never be finally lost” (1888: 81). Various doctrinal heresies, moral errors, and other wrongs may be traced to the lack of understanding that nothing good is created by our own nature. Deems notes that James uses the same word Jesus uses to Nicodemus in John 3:3: “begotten from above” and that James teaches that all good things in the entire universe stem as gifts from God alone: “If anywhere anything can be found which any intellect can perceive, and any heart can feel to be good, it has to come from God” (82). The best of these gifts is light—hence James calls God the “Father of lights”— physical, intellectual, spiritual, and “all conceivable modes of illumination.” And God graciously pours down upon all of us such gifts, not occasional gifts, but “incessant sunshine” and an “unceasing rain of blessings” (83): The world can never cease being grateful for Moses, and David, and Paul; for Homer, and Plato, and Shakespeare; for Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton; for Jerome, and Luther, and Wesley—the great lights of philosophy, poetry and piety. It must be remembered that none of these came of themselves; that they were all kindled by the Father of lights (84).

Joseph Mayor stresses that James balances the more negative message of 1:13 with a more positive side of the same characteristic. God not only bears no trace of evil and does not harm others, but God also is “absolute Goodness,” the source of all that is good. Mayor argues that sinful human beings hide the true nature of the God of love by envisioning God as a stern, vindictive being, who is jealous of human beings’ happiness: Such an imagination is a delusion of the devil. Even this material sun does not cease to shine behind the cloud which hides it from human view; and God’s love, more unchanging than the brightness of the sun, knows no eclipse. In all worlds he is eternally the same, the giver of all good, who cannot do otherwise than will what is best for every one of His creatures. His purpose for us Christians is that we should be the first-fruits, the sample and earnest, of His new creation. Through us He reveals to the world what He would have all men to be (1990: 509).

Modern scholars debate many aspects in this section of James. One major focus is what James means by birth by the “word of truth.” Obviously Genesis 1 comes to mind, but the word of truth could also be the Jewish Law—as interpreted by early Christians—that gave birth to the people of Israel (cf. the “first fruits” designating Israel in Jeremiah 2:3; Ropes 1916: 167). It could also mean the truth of the gospel message that gave birth to the Christian community (Blomberg and Kamell 2008: 75), where “first fruits” would designate the

James 1:12–27  123 ­eschatological community of Christians (e.g., Col. 1:5). Or a combination of the above could be achieved by understanding “word of truth” as being an idiom for the wisdom of God where the same agency that brought about the first ­creation now brings about a new creation (Wall 1997: 67). Patrick Hartin argues that this section is “undoubtedly” about the gift of rebirth as a new reconstituted people. James’s readers/hearers received this “perfect gift of rebirth as God’s people” and have the responsibility to cherish God’s generous gifts and “to remain true to what they have been given and to lead their lives in ways that rely upon the God of all good gifts.” This new life, Hartin argues, includes the responsibility to lead a virtuous life (2003: 105). Elsa Tamez concurs with this focus on ethical responsibility, since James’s understanding of God is closely linked with its understanding of integrity: Human beings should act, as God does, with integrity, since all that is good, everything that is perfect “comes down from the Father of lights.” . . . According to James, God is one not only because there are no other Gods like God, but because God acts consistently with the divine purpose, which for James is the cause of the poor (50).

James 1:19–21 Ancient literary context Now James turns to how the “beloved,” as recipients of God the benefactor’s gifts, are supposed to conduct themselves. Just as verse 16 urged them not to be deceived, verse 19 stresses (the form can be either indicative or imperative mood) the necessity of understanding the importance of these instructions. Even in the face of difficult trials, the correct response to God involves right behavior and faithful actions: be quick to listen, slow to speak (cf. Matt. 5:21– 2), and slow to anger. Although the beloved are to be quick to listen, James emphasizes that listening alone is not enough: it is a necessary first step to belief and then to action that should inevitably follow (1:22–5). Of the three items in verse 19, James singles out anger in the next verse, noting that it “does not produce God’s righteousness.” As Ropes puts it, the believer’s goals should be not to talk too much—which can lead to strife (cf. the conflicts, disputes, and even murder taking place among James’s intended audience)—and a humble listening, especially to God (1916: 172). God’s implanted word is to be received with meekness, with the humility that is reminiscent of Jesus’ beatitude in Matthew 5:3, and it echoes the “lowly” in James 1:9. This reference to righteousness is the first in James, and it is a key term as the letter proceeds (e.g., 2:23, 24; 3:18; 5:6, 16). Believers are to reflect the righteous ­character of God, and it is God’s character that sets the standard for how the “beloved” should act.

124  James 1:12–27 An important part of this process is for believers to “rid themselves” (a term often used for removing clothing) of “sordidness” (a term used in 2:2 for dirty clothes). This word can mean physical filth, but it also can denote moral ­baseness, such as a “rank growth of wickedness” that James decries. If James’s readers/hearers follow these exhortations and cast off such sordidness, however, the implanted word of God has the power to save their souls.

The interpretations Ancient and medieval James apparently exhorts its readers to be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger because of problems within his intended audience (4:1–2). In a similar way, later interpreters often apply these words to the use and abuse of power within the church hierarchy. In a letter to Auxilius, for example, Augustine utilizes James 1:20 in an attempt to persuade his fellow bishop to reconsider the  excommunication of “our son Classicianus, a man of rank” (Letters of St.  Augustine, “To Auxilius,” Letter CCL). After first tactfully suggesting that Classicianus did nothing to deserve such a harsh punishment—though also stating that he did not wish to “interfere with your Holiness”—Augustine beseeches Auxilius to pardon him, even if Classicianus were at fault, because even bishops can allow “unjust passionate resentment to gain secretly upon” them. Instead, Augustine counsels, mutual love should reunite them, strife could be banished, and peace return. If not, Auxilius could forever lose his former friend Classicianus, as the devil, the real enemy, rejoices “over you both.” Gregory the Great (ca. 540–604), born of a family that had produced two popes, was the first monk to become pope. Gregory was an extremely active and influential pope who extended the sovereignty of the bishop of Rome. Gregory gives a number of kings various types of instructions—including both commands and reprimands—on how best to govern their lands (McKim 2007: 486). One such example is Gregory’s letter to Rechared, the Visigoth King of Spain. Upon hearing that Rechared had repudiated Arianism, declared himself a Catholic (587 CE), and adopted Catholicism as the creed of the Spanish Church (589 CE), Gregory writes Rechared (Epistle CXXII) to express his delight that the king had moved from the “error of Arian heresy to the firmness of a right faith.” Along with the letter, Gregory sends some gifts: a key from the apostle Peter, a cross “in which there is some of the wood of the Lord’s cross,” and some hair from John the Baptist. After praising Rechared, Gregory offers guidance on how to rule his nation, some of it based on James 1:19–20. He urges Rechared to govern his subjects with moderation: “For a kingdom is ruled well when the glory of reigning does not dominate the disposition.” Gregory then advises:

James 1:12–27  125 Care also is to be taken that wrath creep not in, lest whatever is lawful to be done be done too hastily. For wrath, even when it prosecutes the faults of delinquents, ought not to go before the mind as a mistress, but attend as a handmaid behind the back of reason, that it may come to the front when bidden. For, if once it begins to have possession of the mind, it accounts as just what it does cruelly.

Gregory explicitly cites James 1:19–20 to prove his point but then quickly assures Rechared that he is sure that “under the guidance of God you observe all these things.” Other commentators, however, focus on more spiritual aspects of this ­passage. John Cassian, for example, in his “The First Conference of Abbot Nesteros,” reports the words of the Abbot concerning religious knowledge and how one proceeds from practical knowledge to spiritual knowledge (Conference XIV.9). Believers are to purge themselves “from the stain of all sins” and be very careful of what they say, especially “in the conference of the Elders”: For it is an impossibility for one, who takes to the pursuit of reading with the purpose of gaining the praise of men, to be rewarded with the gift of true knowledge. For one who is bound by the chain of this passion, is sure to be also in bondage to other faults, and especially to that of pride: and so if he is baffled by his encounter with practical and ethical knowledge, he will certainly not attain that spiritual knowledge which springs from it. Be then in all things “swift to hear, but slow to speak” (James 1:19), lest there come upon you that which is noted by Solomon: “If you see a man who is quick to speak, know that there is more hope of a fool than of him” (Prov. 29:20 LXX); and do not presume to teach any one in words what you have not already performed in deed.

The Abbot connects words and deeds in a way reminiscent of James, and Cassian reports that he then points to a major stumbling block to avoid—emulating those “who have attained some skill in discussion” so that they can “discourse on what they please elegantly and fully [and] are imagined to possess spiritual knowledge by those who do not know how to distinguish its real force and character.” The Abbot distinguishes between those who speak elegantly and those who have true and deep spiritual insight, an insight that can be gained not by human learning but “only by purity of soul, by means of the illumination of the Holy Ghost.” Cassian then offers insight into one’s spiritual development in his Institutes of the Cenobia and the Remedies for the Eight Principal Vices. He discusses the eight major vices (see the list above in the discussion of the Conference of Abbot Serapion). Anger, we read in Book VIII.1, has to be utterly rooted out from the depths of our soul, because it blinds the eye of the soul and prevents us from being receptive to spiritual light: “Nor can we become partakers of wisdom,” even if we are thought to be wise “by universal consent,” since “anger

126  James 1:12–27 rests in the bosom of fools” (Eccl. 7:10 LXX). One also cannot inherit eternal life, even if we are considered to be “perfect and holy in the estimation of all men,” since “anger does not produce God’s righteousness” (James 1:20). Bede connects James’s “quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger” not only with one’s behavior in difficult situations, but also with the need to refrain from teaching others the things that you have “recently learned.” He affirmingly notes Jerome’s observation that the Pythagoreans, who teach “natural knowledge,” command their listeners to keep silence for five years and only then begin to preach (1985: 18). In this way, they can reach a maturity of wisdom before teaching, increase their humility, and lessen their boasting. Bede also differentiates “uncleanness” from “the profusion of wickedness.” Both body and mind must be cleansed from vices so that people may be worthy “to receive the word of salvation”: “For anyone who does not first turn aside from evil is not able to do good. Indeed, he speaks of all uncleanness, both of body and soul; wickedness, however, belongs particularly to the perversity of the inward man” (19). Early modern and modern Calvin expounds on the idea that spiritual birth is not a one-time event. Since, even after spiritual rebirth, some traces of our “old humanity still remain,” human beings have to be continually refashioned until “the flesh is done away.” In contrast to Bede, Calvin argues that the silence enjoined by James is not that of the Pythagoreans, which serves to promote patience. Instead, it allows us to hear—and not interrupt—God. Anger is a particular problem, for example, because we can only hear God when our minds are “composed” (1995: 271). Humility is critical, on the other hand, because it allows us to live in the nurture of God and—Calvin follows the gardening allusion in James 1:21—to eradicate the “weeds” of the base nature inherent in us all (272). James’s admonitions to be “quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger” find echoes in numerous places. William Burgess, for example, sees a “parallel” between James 1:19 and the (often mocked) words of Polonius to his son Laertes in Act I scene iii of Hamlet (Burgess 1903: 34). Polonius gives his son instructions as Laertes prepares to return to France. In that soliloquy, Polonius includes the following advice: Give thy thoughts no tongue, Nor any unproportion’d thought his act. . . . Beware Of entrance to a quarrel . . . Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice: Take each man’s censure, but reserve thy judgment . . .

James 1:12–27  127 Jonathan Edwards (1703–58) was the most famous theologian of the First Great Awakening in the United States. He earned his bachelor’s (1720) and master’s (1723) degrees at Yale and, after brief pastorates in New York and Connecticut, became pastor of the First Church of Christ in Northhampton, Massachusetts (1726–50). Differences of opinion in theology—such as his revised view of the Lord’s Supper—led to his removal from that position. He then served as a missionary to Native Americans before being named president of the College of New Jersey (which later changed its name to Princeton). Edwards died the same year he assumed the presidency of the college (1758), because of a fever that resulted from an inoculation for smallpox (McKim 2007: 397). Edwards utilizes James 1:19 in his 1743 defense of the spiritual revival against the attacks of the “Old Lights,” such as Charles Chauncy of Boston (“Some Thoughts Concerning the Revival”). Edwards argues that the revival is a “glorious work of God,” although anything involving human beings will have imperfections. In Part IV (“What things are to be corrected and avoided”) of this treatise, Edwards hopes that the more zealous members of the revival would correct or avoid some of their errors. Edwards praises meekness, mildness, and humility among God’s people, and he warns about the danger of “undiscerned spiritual pride” that attends “a great revival of religion.” It can cause unsuitable and self-confident boldness before God and other human beings, where people act in a manner in which they become noticed and “much regarded.” Spiritual pride also makes one “more apt to instruct others” than to ask questions about oneself, with a tendency to put on “the airs of a master,” rather than the humility a disciple should have, a humility that asks questions like: “What shall I do that I may live more to God’s honor? What shall I do with this wicked heart?” The humble person is quick to listen, as James 1:19 advises, so, Edwards says, “The eminently humble Christian thinks he wants help from everybody, whereas he that is spiritually proud thinks everybody wants his help. Christian humility, under a sense of others’ misery, entreats and beseeches; spiritual pride affects to command, and warn with authority” (1974: 1659). Charles Deems observes, as had Jerome, Bede, Calvin, and others, how James’s admonition had been inculcated by teachers throughout the ages. As noted above, for example, Pythagoras enjoined his disciples to have five years of preliminary silence. Deems also relates the common observation that humans have two ears but one tongue and therefore should listen twice as much as they speak (1888: 89–90). This behavior is especially important for James’s audience, because God was speaking to them in their great trials. So Deems argues that since we cannot understand God’s plan or timetable, we must be slow to speak, very slow to interpret, and even slower to make charges against God. It is folly to be angry with God; God knows all things, and

128  James 1:12–27 ­ hatever comes from God must be good. Likewise James’s admonition must w also regulate our relationships with other human beings. To live otherwise is to guarantee an “injurious effect on others” (91). The “implanted word” demonstrates, Deems writes, that we can do nothing to save ourselves. This gift always comes from God, and our only hope for salvation is having the word of God grafted upon our hearts (96). The Presbyterian author and minister Frederick Buechner often distills ­profound theological insights in unassuming prose. In his book, Telling the Truth, Buechner describes the primary role of a preacher as simply telling the congregation “the truth”: Before the Gospel is a word, it is silence . . . It is life with the sound turned off so that for a moment or two you can experience it not in terms of the words you make it bearable by but for the unutterable mystery that it is. Let [the preacher] say, “Be silent and know that I am God, saith the Lord” (Ps. 46:10). Be silent and know that even by my silence and absence I am known. Be silent and listen to the stones cry out . . . [N]one of us [are] very good at silence. It says too much. So let [the preacher] use words . . . which do not only try to give answers to the questions that we ask or ought to ask but which help us to hear the questions that we do not have words for asking and to hear the silence that those questions rise out of and the silence that is the answer to those questions (Buechner 1977: 23–4; cf. Brosend 2004: 55).

James 1:22–5 Ancient literary context “Become doers of the word” is the heart of James’s message, and much of the letter elaborates this central theme. The recipients of this letter are not just merely to hear the word but continually to be doers of that “law of liberty,” an injunction that echoes Jesus’ beatitude in Luke 11:28: “Blessed . . . are those who hear the word of God and obey it!” In addition, despite apparent differences between James and Paul, Paul echoes a similar thought: “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified” (Rom. 2:13; cf. Deut. 30:10; Ezek. 33:31–3). James’s mirror analogy is common in both Jewish and Hellenistic literature, and in the latter it is used specifically in connection with moral improvement (see Mayor 1990: 381–2). A mirror is used to examine one’s body, often with the intention of making adjustments to “correct” one’s appearance. In a similar way, looking into the “perfect law” should lead one to make necessary corrections in one’s moral life. Just as “every perfect gift” comes from God, so does “the perfect law” (­teleios), the “law of liberty” that brings completeness and wholeness if one is a “doer

James 1:12–27  129 who acts.” James’s switch from “word” (1:22–3) to “law” (1:25) is ­noticeable, but the section begins and ends in similar ways: In 1:22, the recipients of the letter are to be doers of the word, not merely hearers, with the “merely hearers” receiving a warning that they “deceive themselves.” In 1:25, the ­hearers/doers are again contrasted: they are not to be hearers who forget but doers who act, but in this instance the doers receive a promise—they will be blessed.

The interpretations Ancient and medieval Hilary of Arles expands upon James’s reference to a mirror by distinguishing between two types of mirrors. He decides that a small mirror in which you see “small things,” describes the Hebrew Bible that “leads no one to perfection.” In a large mirror, however, you see great things. That is analogous to the New Testament, “because in it the fullness of perfection is seen” (Bray 2000: 18). Bede quotes Romans 2:13 to stress James’s point that it is imperative to be “doers of the word,” and he summarizes James’s thoughts about the necessity of putting words and faith into action: “Happiness is prepared not by an empty hearing of the word but by carrying it out in deed, just as the Lord, speaking to his disciples, says, If you know these things, you will be happy if you do them” [John 13:17] (1985: 20; emphases in the original). Ps.-Oecumenius similarly connects knowledge of the law with putting it into practice if someone wants to be “truly religious”: If you want to be truly religious, do not demonstrate this by your knowledge of  the law but by the way you put it into practice. Religion appears to mean ­something more than “faith,” in that it offers the knowledge of hidden things and confirmation of what is grasped by faith (Bray 2000: 20).

Many political treatises make use of James 1:25, such as Marsilius of Padua’s (ca. 1280–1343) controversial Defender of the Peace (1324). The ecclesiastical reaction to this work, when his authorship was discovered in 1326, led him to flee the University of Paris to the haven of Ludwig of Bavaria’s court in Nuremberg (O’Donovan and O’Donovan 1999: 423). In this treatise, Marsilius denies that the pope/church has coercive power. God is the ultimate source of all power on earth, but the power to legislate belongs to the people, not to individual “representatives” of God. Law, therefore, is the expression of the will of the people, “who, by the voice of the majority, could enact, interpret, modify, suspend, and abrogate it at will” (Catholic Encyclopedia: www.newadvent.org/ cathen/09719c.htm). Part of Marsilius’s initial arguments thus distinguish

130  James 1:12–27 between the different meanings of the term law. One sense is the natural ­inclination toward some action or passion (e.g., Rom. 7:23). It also could mean any productive habit or producible thing from an exemplar or measure (e.g., Ezek. 43:12–13). The third sense of law: means the standard containing admonitions for voluntary human acts according as these are ordered toward glory or punishment in the future world . . . In this sense “law” was also used for the evangelic discipline in James 1:25 . . . In this sense of the term “law,” all religions, such as that of Mohammed or of the Persians, are called laws in whole or in part, although among these only the Mosaic and the evangelic, that is, Christian, contain the truth.

It is only in the fourth sense of law that Marsilius places the more familiar view of the term: “the science or doctrine or universal judgment of matters of civil justice and benefit, and of their opposites” (Defensor Pacis 10:3; O’Donovan and O’Donovan 1999: 431). Similarly, William of Ockham (ca. 1285–1347) conducted a religious and political dispute with Pope John XXII and had to flee Avignon. He, as did other Franciscan dissidents such as Michael of Cesena, found refuge under the protection of Ludwig of Bavaria. Ockham died unreconciled with and excommunicated from the church, evidently “the first major western theologian to enter into protracted dispute with the papacy on matters of Christian doctrine” (William of Ockham 1995: xiv; O’Donovan and O’Donovan 1999: 454). In one of his treatises about the use of imperial and papal power, A Short Discourse on the Tyrannical Ascendancy of the Pope, written during the early 1340s, Ockham elaborates political themes such as an assault on the papal claim of plenitudo potestatis (supreme jurisdiction over worldly goods). He also champions the rights of humankind through natural and divine law, the power of fallen humanity to establish governments and distributions of property, and the rights of ­unbelievers to exercise jurisdiction and ownership not subject to papal rule. Ockham uses James 1:25 to extol gospel law as the law of  freedom from every external servitude that lacks rational justification—­ freedom from the “arbitrary, excessive, and harsh commands of tyrants, whether popes or emperors” (O’Donovan and O’Donovan 1999: 457). Directly challenging the idea that the pope has the right to do all things that are not against natural or divine law, Ockham declares that assertion is “false, and dangerous to the whole community of the faithful.” It is also heretical in Ockham’s view, because it conflicts with scripture, and “compared with the law of Moses the gospel law involves, not more servitude, but less, and hence it is called by blessed James a law of perfect freedom” (A Short Discourse on the Tyrannical Ascendancy of the Pope 2:3).

James 1:12–27  131 Early modern and modern Martin Luther compares the teaching of the law with the raven Noah releases from the ark and compares the dove released from the ark to becoming righteous (Gen. 8:6–12). He reasons that if one stops with Moses and the law, all you have is the “raven flying back and forth outside the ark.” Only with faith in Christ does the dove return with the olive branch. Luther also declares that he has the right to censure “the effrontery of our opponents, who shout that when we deny the righteousness of works, we are forbidding good works and condemning the Law of God.” He asks his opponents to put forward an example of anyone who has observed or will observe all of the first and second tables of the  law. Since no examples can or will be forthcoming, Luther concludes: “Therefore, he who stands on the teaching of the Law is actually nothing but a hearer (James 1:22), who learns nothing else than to know what he ought to do” (LW 2: 159). Not surprisingly, Luther also mentions James 1:22 in his commentary on Galatians 3:2. He argues that Paul is declaring that his readers did not receive the Holy Spirit through the law, even though they had taught and heard the law every Sabbath and were “doing its works” with “great effort and labor.” Luther then paraphrases Paul as saying: “On this basis above, all you should have received the Holy Spirit if He had been granted through the Law, since you were not only teachers and pupils of the Law but doers of it as well (James 1:22). Yet you cannot show that this ever happened.” Luther goes on to posit that Paul believes that the Holy Spirit was not given to them because of their zealous observance of the law: Therefore it is obvious that the Holy Spirit was granted to you solely by your hearing of faith, before you did good works or produced any fruit of the Gospel. On the other hand, even when the Law was performed, it never brought the Holy Spirit—much less when it was merely heard. Therefore not only the hearing of the Law but also the effort of the zeal with which you tried to carry out the Law with your works is useless (LW 26: 203–4).

John Calvin lessens the apparent divide between James and Paul by distinguishing between the “doer” of Romans 2:13—who satisfies the law of God in every way—and the “doers” of James 1:22—those who, from the heart, embrace God’s word and whose lives demonstrate that they are sincere believers. The word of God takes root in such people and brings forth its fruit (1995: 273). Any possible conflict between this section and Paul’s writings is explained by how James contrasts his “perfect law, the law of liberty” with other biblical passages. Unless the law is “written in the heart with the finger and Spirit of God,” it is a “dead letter” and a “lifeless corpse.” The law’s teaching should therefore

132  James 1:12–27

Plate 3.1  Image of James the Just in Christoph Weigel, Biblia ectypa (1695)

not be “slavish things” to which the believer is “tied to the apron-strings,” but instead it is a “vehicle of liberty” (274–5). Christoph Weigel (1654–1726), a German engraver and publisher, portrays many aspects from James’s first chapter in his image of James the Just (Plate 3.1) in an engraved pictorial Bible (Biblia ectypa). In this 1695 volume that contains hundreds of illustrations, James sits, quill in hand, writing his epistle. He gazes into a mirror, symbolizing for the viewers the fact that they should be doers of the word, not merely hearers, unlike those who look at themselves in a mirror and forget what they look like (James 1:23–4). In the back left of the picture, viewers see the wind creating great waves, reminding viewers not to be doubleminded and doubting, thereby being driven and tossed like a wave by the wind (James 1:6–8). Likewise, the viewer sees the sun rising and a flower on the left drooping and wilting in the scorching heat of the sun, reminding them that the rich will suffer the same fate (James 1:9–11). Søren Kierkegaard also picks up on James’s mirror analogy, and in a way similar to Weigel’s image, connects one’s reflection in a mirror with the necessity of actions, of doing, not just hearing, the word. He notes that someone who

James 1:12–27  133 “knows his soul” can see himself in the mirror and then, as James says, “forget what he looks like”: As long as he merely hears the Word, he is outside it, and when the proclaimer is silent, he hears nothing; but when he does the Word, he continually hears what he himself is proclaiming to himself. And any mere hearing of the Word is infinitely more imperfect than the doing, not only because the doing is superior but because in comparison with the exactitude of the doing any oral communication is very imperfect, both in its brevity and in its prolixity (Kierkegaard 1990: 173).

Walter Rauschenbusch sees James as a Jewish Christian work with powerful ethical statements that present “most accurately the ethos that was shared by Jesus” and “the radical social wing of the primitive church.” James’s “paradox” of calling the perfect law the law of liberty is also similar, Rauschenbusch argues, to Jesus’ view of the law. The law to which Jesus pledges allegiance is the “law as he had it in his heart,” and this perfect law of liberty that guides the “Christian commonwealth” helps to discern the “real nature of every case.” Jesus establishes not a set of rules but a central, guiding principle: the law of love. It is on that principle that James sets his sights (1968: 180–2). Shailer Mathews (1863–1941), like Rauschenbusch, was a leader in the Social Gospel movement in the United States. Mathews was a Baptist academic who taught at Colby College (1887–94) and the University of Chicago Divinity School (1894–1933), where he served as dean for the last twenty-five years of his career. Besides his role in the Social Gospel movement, Mathews championed the academic study of the Bible in opposition to the emerging fundamentalist movement in the United States. Matthews was also influential in what came to be known as the “Chicago School,” which included other notable ­scholars such as Shirley Jackson Case, that emphasized the socio-historical method in its approach to biblical texts. In his 1905 book, Messianic Hope in the New Testament, Matthews declares that the Letter of James is “an early homily, with more or less polemic purpose against Paulinism.” Matthews observes that messianism is almost non-existent in James, with its focus being more on praxis than messianic hope, although the exhortations in James stand on the expectation of a new age, judgment, and a crown of life (154). Yet Matthews also argues that the “perfect law of liberty” in James 1:25 is similar to Paul’s view that the “gospel was not a new law, and the life of faith was not to yield to a new legalism” (218), even though James represents if not an anti-Pauline point of view certainly an un-Pauline point of view (309). Many responses to James 1:25 are aimed at students of theology, biblical scholars, or “orthodox” Christians. One example is a sermon preached by Alexander Maclaren, (1826–1910), a Baptist minister who was born in Glasgow

134  James 1:12–27 but served churches in Southampton (1846–58) and Manchester (1826–1910). His sermon on James 1:25 focuses on the perfect law and its doers, and it stresses that the ethical component of scripture issues a warning: No word of the New Testament is given us in order that we may know truth, but all in order that we may do it. Every part of it palpitates with life, and is meant to regulate conduct. There are plenty of truths of which it does not matter whether a man believes in them or not in so far as his conduct is concerned. Mathematical truth or scientific truth leaves conduct unaffected. But no man can believe the principles that are laid down in the New Testament and the truths that are unveiled there without these laying a masterful grip upon his life and influencing all that he is . . . This thought gives the necessary counterpoise to the tendency to substitute the mere intellectual grasp of Christian truth for the practical doing of it. There will be plenty of orthodox Christians and theological professors and students who will find themselves, to their very great surprise, among the goats at last.

After this allusion to the Sheep and Goats parable of Matthew 25, Maclaren then argues that Christianity exists not of what we feel, but of what we do (The Sermon Bible 1900: 351). In a similar way, Alfred Plummer’s commentary rebukes those persons who have a keen interest in studying “about God’s Word,” with ready access to ever-expanding academic resources, but whose interest remains merely academic: “We study Lives of Christ, but we do not follow the life of Christ. We pay Him the empty homage of an intellectual interest in His words and works, but we do not the things which He says” (1891: 110). Many other commentaries and sermons utter similar observations and warnings. Charles Deems, for example, cautions those who learn all about scripture but do not incorporate its lessons into their daily lives. Such lessons should be in the lives of Christians analogous to the sap of a tree that “works out fruit on the stem which is grafted thereon.” The sermon is not finished until its hearers put the words into practice in their daily lives (1888: 97). Likewise, Michael Cocoris’s sermon on James 1:22–5, “When Life Deals You a Lemon, Make a Lemonade,” calls the Bible “God’s recipe book for making lemonade out of lemons.” Obviously, Cocoris observes, you have to do what the Bible says or you will never get “lemonade”: You could have the most expensive and extensive recipe book in your home. It could tell you how to make Chicken Normandie and Trout Almondine, Crab Bisque; you could have all the ingredients in the refrigerator, yet if you just read the book and did not do what it said, you would not enjoy those fine dishes. You could read and get enlightened. You could understand how to make it. You could even read and get excited, but until you have followed the directions, you have not enjoyed the food. You would have to follow the directions exactly and entirely

James 1:12–27  135 to get the maximum results. Some just read the book. Some start following a recipe and then stop. Some finish, but don’t follow the recipe exactly. For guaranteed results, one must follow the instructions completely (Cocoris 1989: 225–6).

Tamez follows a similar vein but argues that James connects faith and ­ ractice as the “core of integrity,” and that James links practice with the law of p freedom, faith, and wisdom (“word” in James 1:22 means the “perfect law of freedom” in 1:25). These three are effective and alive only “insofar as they are demonstrated in the practice of justice” (2002: 51). Those who merely hear the Word and do not practice it demonstrate a lack of integrity and rob the Word of its power; steadfast practicing of the Word gives the Word life, verifies that it is true, and will be a cause for joy, because of its connection to consistency and integrity (29, 52; James 1:15, “blessed/happy”). The adjective “perfect/complete” (1:15) not only indicates that the law of liberty lacks nothing, Tamez argues, it also connotes the fact that it makes people who follow the law steadfastly in their daily lives completely free as well (68). Likewise, Gay Byron argues that James’s “doers of the word” and the verses aligned with that sentiment indicate that Christians should be “immersed in the social, economic, and political realities of the larger world.” The responses of African-American religious and political leaders in community also demonstrate that it is the individual and communal striving for justice that helps to move humans closer to the heart and mind of God (2007: 464).

James 1:26–7 Ancient literary context These two verses continue to explain what James means by being “doers of the word” (1:22). James 1:26–7, in many ways, sums up the first chapter, but these verses also prepare readers for what follows in the next chapters. For example, James first exhorts its recipients to rid themselves of “all sordidness and rank growth of wickedness” (1:21), and now James speaks of religion that is “pure and undefiled” (1:27). People who consider themselves religious but do not “bridle their tongues” instead “deceive their hearts” (or “indulge”; cf. Johnson 1995: 210–11), and their “religion is worthless.” This reference to bridling the tongue both looks backward to the “slow to speak” of 1:19, as well as forward to the “bridle” and “rudder” of 3:1–12. In contrast, “pure and undefiled religion,” in God’s eyes, consists of two aspects: caring for orphans and widows in their times of distress and keeping

136  James 1:12–27 oneself “unstained by the world.” Caring for orphans and widows is a significant theme in the Hebrew Bible, since they are usually defenseless and have no one to support or defend them. God is the “father of orphans and protector of widows,” and God commands others to refrain from oppressing them and to participate in their aid (Ps. 68:5, cf. Exod. 22:22; Deut. 10:18; 24:17–21; 26:12– 13; Job 31:16–23; Ps. 146:9; Isaiah 1:17; Jer. 22:3; Ezek. 22:7; Zech. 7:10; Tobit 1:8). God sets the example to emulate: God expects—and “pure and undefiled religion” demands—social justice, a direct engagement with the world (cf. James 2:1–7, 14–26). True religion is exemplified by a concern for and direct action with the weakest and least fortunate in society, a view James shares not only with the biblical tradition but also with Jesus of Nazareth (e.g., Matt. 25:31–46). The terms pure, undefiled, and unstained all stem from the cultural understandings of the ancient world, where miasma is of great concern. Such purity rules delineate the sacred and profane, what is in its place and what is not, but they also explicate who is inside and outside the community of believers. Pollution, in this sense, includes those words and actions that create discord within the community and decrease the community’s solidarity (Wall 1997: 98). Yet for James such language also signifies a moral purity that distances itself from the evils of the world. Words and actions, indeed, faith and actions are inexorably linked. What people say they believe has to be demonstrated by what they actually do in their daily lives. James explains that “doers of the word” are those who bridle their tongues, actively care for those on the margins, and remain pure and holy.

The interpretations Ancient and medieval Bede infers from this section of James that Christians should hear the word of God and do it, but even people who appear to carry out actions commanded by God do so in vain if they do not also “bridle” their tongues from slanders, lies, blasphemies, and foolish conversation, or even the act of talking too much. The key, for Bede, is the “before God” (1:27). Some people, because of their actions, appear righteous before other human beings but are idolaters in the sight of God. Bede stresses that the actions “particularly pleasing to God” are mercy and innocence. He also connects “care for orphans and widows in their distress” (James 1:27) with the eschatological reward given to those who care for the “least of these who are members of my family” in Matthew 25:40 (Bede 1985: 21).

James 1:12–27  137 Early modern and modern In his “Exposition on the Lord’s Prayer,” Luther applies James 1:26 to one’s relationship with one’s neighbor. He begins by asking how people would like it if their sins were broadcast to the whole world. Obviously everyone prefers that others should “keep quiet about them, forgive them, cover them up, and pray for you . . .” Luther then declares: Do not ever suppose that either the slightest or the gravest sins of a backbiter, slanderer, and malicious judge are forgiven until he performs the one good work of bridling and changing his evil tongue . . . (James 1:26). . . . Oh, if a person could only busy himself with this noble work, how easily he could atone for his sins, even in the absence of much else! (LW 42: 68).

Such comments might be surprising to those who only understand Luther’s view of James through his famous “epistle of straw” comment. Calvin connects these verses to the previous ones addressed to the “doers of the law.” As a rule, the hypocritical tend to have a “sharp and censorious tongue,” which is a common trait among those persons who, in observing the law, “have shed their grosser sins.” That explains its inclusion here in the context of the law of liberty. Calvin stresses the activities in which believers should be engaged and connects them specifically to helping widows and orphans, the neediest in society: Indeed there are a great many others whom the Lord commands us to help, but, by syndoche, he refers to the widows and the orphans. There can be no doubt that by this single instance he is commanding the general range of charity. In other words, if a man wants to be thought religious, he must show it by his self-denial, and by his compassion and well-doing toward his neighbors (1995: 275).

John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress portrays the dangers of being all talk and no action, as the character “Talkative” demonstrates. Upon first meeting Talkative, the character Faithful is very impressed and declares to the character Christian that Talkative “will make a very excellent Pilgrim” (Bunyan 1960: 77; emphases in the original). Christian then explains to Faithful why this is not the case, and James 1:27 plays a key role (Part I; Fifth Stage): He talketh of Prayer, of Repentance, of Faith, and of the New-birth: but he knows but only to talk of them. I have been in his Family, and have observed him both at home and abroad; and I know what I say of him is the truth. His house is as empty of Religion, as the white of an Egg is of savour. There is there, neither Prayer, nor sign of Repentance for sin: Yea, the bruit in his kind serves God far better than he. He is the very stain, reproach, and shame of Religion to all that know him; it can hardly have a good word in all that end of the Town where he dwells, through

138  James 1:12–27 him. Thus say the common People that know him, A Saint abroad, and a Devil at home. His poor Family finds it so, he is such a churl, such a railer at, and so unreasonable with his Servants, that they neither know how to do for, or speak to him. Men that have any dealings with him, say, ’tis better to deal with a Turk than with him, for fairer dealing they shall have at their hands. This Talkative, if it be possible, will go beyond them, defraud, beguile, and over-reach them . . . For my part I am of opinion, that he has, by his wicked life, caused many to stumble and fall; and will be, if God prevent not, the ruine of many more (Bunyan 1960: 78–9).

In response, Faithful acknowledges that Christian would not say such things out of any ill will, so he believes what Christian has to say about Talkative. He also acknowledges that in the future he will understand better the distinction between saying and doing. Christian then takes the opportunity to explain this distinction further by quoting James 1:22–7 extensively. Saying and doing, Christian argues, “are as diverse as are the Soul and the Body: For as the Body without the Soul, is but a dead Carkass; so, Saying, if it be alone, is but a dead Carkass also” (79): This Talkative is not aware of, he thinks that hearing and saying will make a good Christian and thus he deceiveth his own Soul. Hearing is but as the sowing of the Seed; talking is not sufficient to prove that fruit is indeed in the heart and life; and let us assure our selves, that at the day of Doom, men shall be judged according to their fruits (79–80).

Christian then continues with quotes from Matthew, including the judgment scene in Matthew 25, and he concludes: “It will not be said then, Did you believe? but, Were you Doers, or Talkers only? and accordingly shall they be judged” (80). Once Faithful, upon Christian’s advice, turns his discussion with Talkative to deeds, not just words, Talkative quickly bids adieu. Christian observes that Talkative “had rather leave [Faithful’s] company, then reform his life” (Bunyan 1960: 85), and he concludes: You did well to talk so plainly to him as you did; there is but little of this faithful dealing with men now a days, and that makes Religion so stink in the nostrills of many, as it doth: for they are these Talkative Fools, whose Religion is only in word, and are debauched and vain in their Conversation, that (being so much admitted into the Fellowship of the Godly) do stumble the World, blemish Christianity, and grieve the Sincere. I wish that all Men would deal with such, as you have done, then should they either be made more conformable to Religion, or the company of Saints would be too hot for them (85).

Both John and Charles Wesley returned to England disillusioned from their sojourns in Georgia. John Wesley’s later conversion on Aldersgate Street during

James 1:12–27  139 a reading of Luther’s Preface to Paul’s Epistle to the Romans is well known, but his brother Charles’s conversion a few days before—also on Aldersgate Street— is not quite as famous. Charles was suffering from a physical ailment (pleurisy, for which he had already been bled) in the home of John Bray, a Moravian Christian. Charles’s spiritual ailments mirrored his physical ones. On Pentecost Sunday, May 21, 1738, after reading Psalm 38, 40, and Isaiah 60:1, Charles felt that he “now found myself at peace with God, and rejoiced in hope of loving Christ” (compared to John’s heart being “strangely warmed” three days later). On Tuesday, May 23, Wesley writes, “I waked under the protection of Christ, and gave myself up, soul and body, to him. At nine I began an hymn upon my conversion, but was persuaded to break oil, for fear of pride. Mr. Bray coming, encouraged me to proceed in spite of Satan. I prayed Christ to stand by me, and finished the hymn” (Charles Wesley’s Journal; online at http://wesley.nnu.edu/ charles-wesley/the-journal-of-charles-wesley-1707-1788). That experience would be incorporated into his hymn, Aldersgate Street, some of which is based on James 1:27, especially stanzas 4 and 5: Thy mind throughout my life be shown,   While, listening to the sufferer’s cry, The widow’s and the orphan’s groan,   On mercy’s wings I swiftly fly, The poor and the helpless to relieve, My life, my all, for them to give. Thus may I show thy Spir’t within,   Which purges me from every stain; Unspotted from the world and sin,   My faith’s integrity maintain; The truth of my religion prove By perfect purity and love. (Hymns and Psalms 1985: 318)

Likewise, the Quaker beliefs of the poet and famous abolitionist John Greenleaf Whittier (1807–92) are expressed in his poem, “O Brother Man.” This poem, later turned into a hymn, is based on James 1:27. Here Whittier speaks of how true worship consists in one’s actions for the marginalized, especially widows and orphans, and how those actions bring about God’s peace: O brother man, fold to thy heart thy brother; Where pity dwells, the peace of God is there; To worship rightly is to love each other, Each smile a hymn, each kindly deed a prayer.

140  James 1:12–27 For he whom Jesus loved has truly spoken: The holier worship which He deigns to bless Restores the lost, and binds the spirit broken, And feeds the widow and the fatherless. (The BBC Hymn Book 1951: 376)

Thomas Guthrie’s (1803–73) sermon, “True Religion,” explains how being “doers of the word” (1:22–5) contributes to our understanding of 1:27. Guthrie rails against the idea that being “religious” can be equated with such things as reading the Bible daily or faithful church attendance. Hearing the word is important, Guthrie says, But will hearing a discourse on fire warm a man? On meat, feed him? On medicine, cure him? If not, no more will it save us to know all about the Saviour. It will no more take a man to heaven than it will take him to France, or Rome, or Jerusalem, that he knows the way . . . It is not . . . the word heard, but the word done, diligently, habitually, prayerfully done, that will bring us to the kingdom of heaven (Fant 1971: 125).

Frederick Douglass’s best-known speech, “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” was delivered in Rochester, New York, on July 5, 1852. Sponsored by the Rochester Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Society, entrants paid 12½ cents to hear this address. Douglass cites both James 1:27 and 3:17 to decry the incongruity of Christianity and slavery. As Aymer notes, the use of James in this speech is “part of a thorough deconstruction of slaveholding religion” (2008: 47). A lengthy excerpt is necessary to convey the power of the address: A worship that can be conducted by persons who refuse to give shelter to the houseless, to give bread to the hungry, clothing to the naked, and who enjoin obedience to a law forbidding these acts of mercy, is a curse, not a blessing to mankind . . . But the church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the oppressors. It has made itself the bulwark of American slavery, and the shield of American slave-hunters. Many of its most eloquent Divines, who stand as the very lights of the church, have shamelessly given the sanction of religion and the Bible to the whole slave system. They have taught that man may, properly, be a slave; that the relation of master and slave is ordained of God; that to send back an escaped bondman to his master is clearly the duty of all the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ; and this horrible blasphemy is palmed off upon the world for Christianity. For my part, I would say, welcome infidelity! welcome atheism! welcome anything! in preference to the gospel, as preached by those Divines! They convert the very name of religion into an engine of tyranny, and barbarous cruelty, and serve

James 1:12–27  141 to confirm more infidels, in this age, than all the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Bolingbroke, put together, have done! These ministers make religion a cold and flinty-hearted thing, having neither principles of right action, nor bowels of compassion. They strip the love of God of its beauty, and leave the throne of religion a huge, horrible, repulsive form. It is a religion for oppressors, tyrants, man-stealers, and thugs. It is not that “pure and undefiled religion” which is from above, and which is “first pure, then peaceable, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.” But a religion which favors the rich against the poor; which exalts the proud above the humble; which divides mankind into two classes, tyrants and slaves; which says to the man in chains, stay there; and to the oppressor, oppress on; it is a religion which may be professed and enjoyed by all the robbers and enslavers of mankind; it makes God a respecter of persons, denies his fatherhood of the race, and tramples in the dust the great truth of the brotherhood of man (Douglass 1982: 377–8).

Charles Deems declares that a professed believer with an unbridled tongue is “utterly useless to the cause of all true religion.” That person may have all sorts of other good qualities—such as participation in public worship—yet that person’s religion may be “as empty as a bubble” (1888: 102–3). Instead, Deems notes, a “truly religious life is a life of beneficence” (105). True religion looks outward, not inward; it focuses on the greatest need, and it requires a personal presence. In other words, giving money to charitable organizations is a w ­ orthwhile effort, but true religion requires that people must also work actively, personally, and directly with those in need. This activity is necessary for our own spiritual development and for those who are helped. A gift of money can never take the place of a personal relationship and personal effort (Deems 1888: 106–8). Tom Hanks contends that “distress” or “affliction” (1:27) is best translated as “oppression,” which he connects to the Hebrew Bible’s concern for the oppression of widows and orphans. Hanks then argues that James is analyzing a “class struggle,” although in a strict Marxian sense, class struggle “occurs after the rise of capitalism.” Hanks cites numerous biblical examples, however, of “antagonistic classes and the struggle of the poor against their oppressors” in such places as Exodus, Psalms, and the eighth-century prophets. Hanks laments the fact that “[t]his reality of class struggle is largely ignored and evaded in conservative evangelical theology (1981: 21). Elsa Tamez posits that widows and orphans were among the people being oppressed in the communities to whom James is writing. Widows and orphans are of particular note in the Hebrew Bible, because they continually appear as representatives of oppressed classes seen as truly helpless: They have no one to defend them, and they cannot defend themselves. Tamez observes that everyone, especially those in power, takes advantage of them, and the Hebrew Bible

142  James 1:12–27 portrays them as particular objects of God’s love and as those who seek to do God’s will. In addition, in the early church, the care of widows and orphans was a major concern, so James defines true religion as alleviating their oppression, visiting them, and sharing basic necessities with them (2002: 17). Tamez connects faith and actions in concrete social engagement, as well as current actions and eschatological hopes: For James, the link between the experience of oppression and eschatological hope is the practice of faith. At the end of the first chapter he summarizes the meaning of the spiritual life acceptable to God: “coming to the help of orphans and widows when they need it, and keeping oneself uncontaminated by the world” [or, as Tamez prefers, “protect them from the world”]. The orphans and the widows, as we have pointed out, represent the oppressed and exploited, and the world responsible for their being oppressed represents the institutions, the structures, the value system that promote injustice or are indifferent to it (51).

Likewise, Christopher Church argues that James cites “orphans and widows” to designate all the “overlooked, underestimated, passed by, stepped on ‘little people’ who do not have the strength to rescue themselves from all that enslaves them” (McKnight and Church 2004: 349). James’s arguments have both ­personal and social consequences. Christians must demonstrate a “caring advocacy” for other human beings in need. James, Church contends, believes that Christians owe more to the less fortunate, because “in James’s experience, the rich can and do fend for themselves” (345). People in modern society, Church writes, still may be invisible to those more privileged. Those marginalized and often ignored include an HIV-positive patient who lacks insurance coverage, a pre-schooler with no one at home to read to her, a hardworking mother whose minimum wage job means that she is one late rent payment away from homelessness, a child victim of physical or sexual abuse, and an undocumented alien unable to speak English who has traveled 2,000 miles in search of a better life and a chance to send money home to his hungry family. Church concludes that James gives Christians an unequivocal call to: look around us for the needy who cannot help themselves. God has not forgotten them . . . God cares for the needy, and the religion that God approves does not leave them forgotten. Pure and undefiled religion sees the other as a brother or sister who merits our active love, not just our weak sentiment. Pure and undefiled religion sees the stranger dying by the roadside as my neighbor, as my responsibility (350).

James 2:1–13 Deeds of Faith, the Chosen Poor, and the Law of Liberty James 2:1–7 Ancient literary context James calls his intended audience “brothers and sisters” (2:1) and “beloved brothers and sisters” (2:5), apt terms because James is concerned about people in the community treating each other as beloved family members. These addresses suggest a close relationship but also serve to introduce some rather harsh observations, rebukes, and instructions for changing their behavior. The James Through the Centuries, First Edition. David B. Gowler. © 2014 David B. Gowler. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

144  James 2:1–13 recipients’ works, in this instance showing favoritism to certain people, are not living up to their professed faith in the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1). The importance of issues concerning the rich and poor—specifically the oppression of the poor by the wealthy—is underscored by these verses and by the number of times James returns to this theme (cf. 1:9–11 and 5:1–6). In this example, the rich person is shown favoritism by being invited to sit “here,” whereas the poor person is shamed in public by being told to stand “there” or to sit at someone’s feet (a place of subservience or a place even reserved for enemies; cf. Ps. 110:1). James chides them for their obsequious behavior toward the wealthy by reminding them of one place where God does indeed show partiality: God is on the side of and is an advocate for the poor. James here echoes Jesus’ words that the poor are “heirs of the kingdom” (Luke 6:20; cf. Matt. 5:3; Gospel of Thomas, henceforward GThom 54). James also echoes the reversal theme of Jesus: The poor—shamed by society in general and by the acts of favoritism in the community—are exalted by God. On the other hand, those who are honored by society—such as the elite—are sinful predators: they oppress members of the community, drag them into court, and blaspheme (2:6–7). James exhorts them not to shame the poor—which dishonors God as well—but to honor what God honors (the poor, widows, orphans, et al.), not what society honors (the wealthy, powerful, and so on); dishonoring these paradigmatic examples of the poor (cf. Ps. 14:21), once again, is the opposite of a “pure and undefiled” religion that cares for “the orphans and widows in their distress.” The community, because of such favoritism, shows itself to have been “stained by the world” (1:27). Indeed they have sided with those wealthy who not only oppress the community but also stand against God (2:7).

The interpretations Ancient and medieval Augustine often relates these verses to theological issues. In a letter to Jerome, for example, Augustine places James 2:1–6 in the context of James 2:10 and discusses how a person who “offends in one point of the law” is “guilty of all” (James 2:10). He asks whether the person who says to the rich man “Have a seat here, please” and to the poor man, “Stand there” is “guilty of homicide, and adultery, and sacrilege?” Augustine does mull over the importance of this difference in one’s treatment of rich and poor, because he posits that James uses this example to show that such deference to the rich is not a “trifling sin.” Even if it is true that a person guilty of one sin is guilty of all crimes, it does not follow that all sins are equal (Letters of St. Augustine, CLXVII).

James 2:1–13  145 Augustine also does not discuss the social implications of James 2:5 when he cites it in Chapter 34 of On the Predestination of the Saints to argue for the “special calling of the elect.” God chooses the elect not because they believe but so that they may believe. Citing John 15:16 and Ephesians 1:4 to buttress his arguments, he declares that the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world “with that predestination in which God foreknew what He Himself would do.” Augustine then moves to James 2:5: Therefore God elected believers; but He chose them that they might be so, not because they were already so. The Apostle James says: “Has not God chosen the poor in this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which God hath promised to them that love Him?” By choosing them, therefore; He makes them rich in faith, as He makes them heirs of the kingdom; because He is rightly said to choose that in them, in order to make which in them He chose them. I ask, who can hear the Lord saying, “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,” and can dare to say that men believe in order to be elected, when they are rather elected to believe; lest against the judgment of truth they be found to have first chosen Christ to whom Christ says, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you”?

Augustine sometimes acknowledges more of the social context of these verses, such as when he notes that it is wrong to place a rich person in a seat of honor in church and to ignore a poor person who actually is more learned and holy. He agrees with James that it is a sin to judge by such external appearances (Letters 167.18). The British theologian Pelagius is best known for being the target of Augustine’s criticisms on the nature of God’s grace and human involvement in salvation. Pelagius’s more optimistic view of the human condition and one’s ability to reform the world, a type of “Christian perfectionism,” is a recurrent feature in “radical Christianity” (Bradstock and Rowland 2002: 12). The work On Riches, written by Pelagius or, more likely, by one of his disciples in the fifth century (see Rees 1991: 171–4), pointedly criticizes wealth and property, although it does not insist on a communal sharing of property. Wealth itself is not wrong, but it is a result of covetousness and theft. Wealth also is the cause of much violence, is very likely to lead to sin, and blinds the rich to the reality of the “equality of humanity shared by both” rich and poor (12–13). The b ­ ottom line is that wealth is an obstacle to salvation and exemplifies the discrepancy between many Christians’ beliefs and practices. On Riches 14.2, for example, discusses how: Anyone who has come to us poor after the pattern of Christ, of whom it is written that “he had no comeliness or beauty, but his face was despised” (Is 53:2), is provoked, mocked, and ridiculed in the manner of the Jews and, like him whose

146  James 2:1–13 form and likeness he bears, is judged to be a deceiver and a traitor. But if anyone, however unbelieving and encompassed by a variety of sins and wrongdoing, comes to us distinguished in appearance and clothed in splendid apparel befitting his rank, he is given pride of place over all the poor, however holy their lives, contrary to the apostle’s command, and this world’s style is preferred to the ­pattern of Christ (Bradstock and Rowland 2002: 24).

On Riches observes that these actions are exactly opposite of the example of Jesus and the apostles and asks the poignant question: “Why then are we ashamed to live by the example of those whose disciples we profess to be?” (24). Bede notes that James must have known that his readers were “indeed imbued with the Gospel faith but devoid of works.” They had not obeyed the Lord’s commandments about giving offerings to the poor. Instead, Bede postulates about the motives of those seating the wealthy in privileged places: they had shown favoritism to the rich “for the sake of earthly advantages what ought to be done to the poor for the sake of eternal rewards,” an idea comparable to the recent studies of James and patronage by Kloppenborg, Batten, and others. That is why James’s readers had earned his rebuke. Such commandments from the “glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1) must be obeyed, with rewards of everlasting glory for whatever is given to the poor (1985: 21–2). Bede interprets the “poor” in 2:6 as the “humble and those who because of  their faith in invisible riches appear contemptible to this world” (23). For example, Jesus “created poor parents for himself,” was brought up through their devotion, and “made them famous and noble because of their anticipation of the future kingdom” (23). These rich, on the other hand “undoubtedly prefer their riches to Christ.” Since they are separated from Christ, they oppress those who have faith, dragging them to judgment before the powerful and blaspheming the holy name of Christ (23). Ps.-Oecumenius follows the honor and shame portrait painted by James by observing that those who show favoritism bring “great shame and reproach” upon themselves, much more, in fact, than the disdain they show to their neighbors (Bray 2000: 22). He also notes, similar to the comments of Frederick Buechner below, that when the poor come to faith, they often are “more energetic and more determined to work at it” than are the wealthy (23). The Lollards were an English Dissenters and Reform movement in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries that was based on the teachings of John  Wyclif. Wyclif ’s translation of the Bible was a critical catalyst for the ­movement—after Wyclif ’s death a 1390 edition of the Bible in English became known as the “Lollard Bible”—which also echoed his anti-establishment criticisms of the church and clergy. Lollards promoted the study of the Bible in

James 2:1–13  147 English, the equality of the sexes (women were among the Lollard preachers), and a biblically based personal faith and lifestyle. The Lollards, like Wyclif before them, were deemed heretics by the church, and the Lollard Bible was banned in 1407 (Bradstock and Rowland 2002: 56). The Lollards’ commitment to a biblical lifestyle included a significant dedication to ethical issues involving wealth and poverty. Like Wyclif, they criticized the lifestyle of the clergy and focused on simplicity in one’s lifestyle, personal responsibility, repentance, and discipleship. An example of such Lollard concerns may be found in a Christmas Day sermon on Luke 2:1–14 (Bradstock and Rowland 2002: 56–8). The sermon begins by observing that Joseph and Mary, although being “of high character,” were “poor” in material goods; thus Jesus was born in “great poverty” and both “poor and rich must learn a lesson from this . . .” The sermon lists a number of worldly goods that do not appear in the birth story: a great castle, rich clothes, royal servants, fine meals, and rare wines. Instead, Mary had a “stinking stable in the highway,” with clothes and other accoutrements fitting a wife of a poor carpenter. Jesus was born in utter poverty and was laid not in a cradle but in a manger among the food of animals: “He was born in this way to give us an example to have ever in mind that all our life we are here but in exile and on pilgrimage, having here no city to dwell in but rather await the bliss of heaven as our own country and proper heritage.” God also did not send the first message of Jesus’ birth to the emperor of Rome, or King Herod, or other powerful and wealthy people; instead God sent an angel to announce Jesus’ birth to “simple, poor shepherds” to demonstrate that Jesus would live his life simply and “in poor estate.” The Lollard sermon thus concludes that no rich person should despise anyone because of his or her poverty or simple vocation, if that person leads a virtuous life of faith. Rich people should also note well that Jesus chose the poor for his own friends instead of the rich. Therefore, the sermon declares, James says that God chose the poor of this world (2:5), showing to the “simple” and those of “moderate learning” (i.e., like the Lollards, rather than the “lofty clergy and the intellectuals”) the “mysteries of Scripture” (Matt. 11:25; Bradstock and Rowland 2002: 57–8). Early modern and modern John Calvin explains James’s apparent “inconsistent” admonition about one’s duties within human society by arguing that James does not unilaterally condemn the respect given to the rich but “the fact that they do this to bring insult on the poor” (1995: 276). The context, for Calvin, demonstrates that it is absurd for this verse to mean that it is sinful to offer one’s seat to a rich person. Instead,

148  James 2:1–13 the verse shows that it is sinful to show honor to the rich and to look down upon and shame the poor. Verses 5–7 illustrate how “ridiculous it is for them to curry favour with the rich by slighting the poor” (277). God “ennobles” the poor, and it perverts God’s will to treat them with shame or reject them: “By and large, the wealthy harass plain, decent people, and it is quite absurd to give this rough treatment such a reward as to hold them more esteemed than the poor who actually help us, not hurt us” (277). God sends grace both to the rich and poor but prefers the poor. The poor more likely ascribe all they have to the mercy of God, whereas the rich are more likely to ascribe their situation to their own work and merit. Calvin also stresses that James speaks negatively about the wealthy here not to provoke his readers to exact revenge but instead to delineate why his readers should not show deference “to their own executioners.” Calvin concludes: Granted, there are some rich folk of equity and moderation, men who keep clear of any foul play, but there are not many to be found like this. The general trend of life, what we may call everyday experience, is exactly as James says . . . Let the rich learn to take greater heed to themselves, and avoid the contagion which is so rife within their ranks (278)

Jacques Bossuet (1627–1704) perhaps is best known for being the court preacher for Louis XIV, but he also was famous for his eloquent sermons and his defense of the divine right of kings. As part of the Catholic Counter Reformation, Bossuet tries to stem the tide of Protestantism, but he also attempts to understand and relate to these “separated brethren.” In his youth, Bossuet shows signs of being aware of the dangers of materialism, although his time in the king’s court seems to deaden his awareness of its dangers, and he apparently has little knowledge of the terrible conditions of the poor peasants in France. One of his sermons, however, was preached on behalf of a house for the poor: “On the Eminent Dignity of the Poor in the Church” (Fant 1971: 2.279–305), in which he focuses on Matthew 20:16 and Psalm 72:13. In that sermon Bossuet argues that the great reversal of which Jesus speaks is already starting in the present—rich people cannot enter the Holy Church “except on condition they serve the poor”—but the reversal will be fully accomplished only at the final judgment. Bossuet notes that Jesus came “to preach the Gospel to the poor” (Luke 4:18) and said that the poor would inherit “the kingdom of heaven” (cf. Matt. 5:3; Luke 6:20). Since the poor were the first to enter the church (1 Cor. 1:26–27), the church must “honour the poor and needy as our elders in Christ’s family, as those chosen by his Father to be the citizens of his Church, who, bearing the clearest marks of him, are also his most precious members.” Bossuet then quotes James 2:5–6 and continues:

James 2:1–13  149 The Apostle, as you see, wishes us to consider the eminent dignity of the poor and that prerogative of their vocation which I have sought to expound. God, he says, has chosen them in a special manner to be rich in faith, and the heirs of his kingdom. Is not this what I have said—that they are called to the Church with the honour and preference of a special choice? And must we not conclude, as St. James concludes, that it is lamentable blindness not to honour the poor, whom God himself has so honoured by the grace of pre-eminence he gives them in his Church? Christian men, pay them respect, honour their station (290).

Bossuet concludes that God calls upon the rich “before the hour of doom” to bear the burden of the poor, relieve them of their needs, and lessen their burdens: “Share with the poor the burden of poverty; take your portion of their distress, and you will earn thereby a share in their privileges. Unless they so share in the privileges of the poor, there is no salvation for the rich” (292–3). Matthew Henry understands James as requiring that Christians who profess to be “disciples of the lowly Jesus” must not show respect or disrespect to people based on “mere outward circumstances and appearances.” Christians should often question how they conduct their lives, but Henry then notes: As places of worship cannot be built or maintained without expense, it may be proper that those who contribute thereto should be accommodated accordingly; but were all persons more spiritually-minded, the poor would be treated with more attention that usually is the case in worshipping congregations. A lowly state is most favourable for inward peace and for growth in holiness. God would give to all believers riches and honours of this world, if these would do them good, seeing that he has chosen them to be rich in faith, and made them heirs of his kingdom, which he promised to bestow on all who love him. Consider how often riches lead to vice and mischief, and what great reproaches are thrown upon God and religion, by men of wealth, power, and worldly greatness; and it will make this sin appear very sinful and foolish (Concise Commentary).

Charles Deems imagines that the striking portrait of a rich man in James 2:2–4 is intended as an attempt to “throw contempt” on a “dude” whose splendid clothes are brilliantly colored and immediately attract attention. The rich man is more than elegant: “he is gorgeous in his appearance,” not just wearing rings but is “loaded” with them. Distinctions based on national prejudice or social distinctions, Deems concludes, are not simply uncharitable but are unjust and destructive of both the church and the spiritual life of the believer (1888: 111–12): “The lesson to us, in our age, is to exclude caste from churches, in public worship if not elsewhere. Whatever makes a poor man or poor woman feel unwelcome in church is a wrong against Christian charity” (116).

150  James 2:1–13 Deems also declares that James’s warning applies to those people who wear expensive if not “conspicuous ornaments” to church. The injustice of such behavior is reinforced by James 2:5. The Christians who are being despised are actually the favorites of heaven. God ordinarily chooses the poor, such as Martin Luther, who was born of a poor miner. But the ultimate case is Jesus of Nazareth himself, who was born of a virgin and who had no special distinction, high place, or material possessions (118–19). And in looking around in his day, Deems sees few rich people as God’s servants; instead, “God’s favorites generally are not rich” (119). Faith is the legal tender of the “unseen world” of heaven. Among those poor in the eyes of the world are those who are “millionaires of faith” who are the chosen ones of God (120). On the other hand, wealth tends to make human beings selfish, arrogant, and oppressive. What they do not spend on “pampering themselves,” the rich usually spend on oppressing the poor. In doing so, they not only bring suffering on the godly poor, but they blaspheme the name of God (122). Joseph Mayor laments the lack of improvement in England (around 1897) about the problems James discusses in these verses. In Mayor’s day, the issue included paying to sit in privileged pews. He believes the practice is necessary but bemoans its extent: It is to be feared that, if St. James were to visit our English churches, he would not find much improvement upon the state of things which existed in the congregations of his time. While there is perhaps no objection either to the appropriation of sittings, in so far as it assures to regular attendants the right to sit in their accustomed place, or to the exactment of a fixed payment from the well-to-do members of the congregation for the use of their seats, it is surely most contrary to the spirit of the Gospel that all the best seats should be monopolized by the highest bidders. The poor are at any rate not to be at a disadvantage in the House of God. The free and open seats should at least be as good as the paying seats, and it should not be in the power of a seat-holder to prevent any unoccupied sitting from being used (Mayor 1990: 521).

Mayor realizes, though, that where people sit in church is just a symptom of a deeper problem. The poor, he declares, should also be shown respect “in our ordinary discourse.” In fact, we should show even more courtesy to the poor than to the rich. Not only should we have a “feeling of common brotherhood which unites all Christians to Christ” and use our talent for the common good of all, but the poor have a greater claim upon us, such as “the claims of the widow and orphan were noticed in the previous verse.” The reason is that “it may be more difficult for those who have long been down-trodden to rise to their full dignity as Christians, unless aided by our brotherly sympathy” (521–2).

James 2:1–13  151 But Mayor goes on to argue that the rich, according to James, are “blasphemers and persecutors,” whereas the poor are to inherit the kingdom of heaven (522). Mayor then questions whether “if wealth is thus detrimental and poverty favourable to our highest interests, we should not take steps to diminish the one and increase the other.” James, he notes, witnessed “the experiment of socialism” among the first Christians in Jerusalem, which some regard to be an economic failure because of the words of Paul about bringing aid to the church in Jerusalem. Whatever the case, Mayor notes, the experiment was not long lasting. Yet James would have approved of the steps taken in the England of Mayor’s day to ameliorate the desperate condition of the poor. Likewise, Mayor postulates, James would have supported “a more careful circumscription of the supposed rights of property and also of any measures, consistent with justice, which would tend to check the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, such as a graduated scale in the income-tax and the death duties.” But the church still has much to do in  addition to the work of the government to advance God’s kingdom on earth (523). Washington Gladden (1836–1918), the prolific author and Congregation­ alist pastor, was one of the early members of the Social Gospel movement in the United States. In his book, The Christian Pastor and the Working Church, Gladden seeks to illuminate the best methods to bring to bear “the truth of the Gospel of Christ” to people’s daily lives in effective ways that extend “the Kingdom of God upon earth” (1923: v). The book contains practical advice for how pastors are to administer the church; their roles in study, pulpit, and altar; and the administration of activities such as Sunday School, midweek services, and revivals. The final chapter concerns “The Care of the Poor,” and Gladden opens with strong words: “It might almost be said that the Christian church was organized for the care of the poor” (448). Among the reasons Gladden lists are James’s statement about God choosing the poor. Gladden spends twenty-seven pages describing the importance of caring for the poor by the church and details how best to do so. He concludes by saying: “No more important field of labor is open to the working church; none in which greater wisdom or a more genuine love of souls is needed; none in which the church can do more to help in answering its prayer for the coming of the kingdom of heaven” (475). Likewise, Walter Rauschenbusch declares that James’s refusal to allow any “difference in rank” within the Christian church is based upon Jesus’ protest against “all exalting of man over man in rank” (1968: 195). This egalitarianism includes Jesus’ ridicule of those who “scramble for a high seat at a dinner party” or assume honorific titles of some sort. So just as Jesus forbade people to exalt themselves over others so James forbids acts of favoritism (198).

152  James 2:1–13 The 1942 edition of Doran’s Ministers Manual suggests a “midweek fellowship meeting topic (or suggested sermon subject)” on James 2:1–4: “The Harm of Showy Dress in Church” (Hallock and Heicher 1942: 395–6). The recommended sermon outline takes note of the underlying economic rationale ­inherent in the text: The tailor and the jeweler make many a scoundrel look respectable. Respect of persons on the ground of dress has long existed—seen in the Early Church and seen today. It is wrong: I. Because it is out of accord with the purpose of the church. The church is the place to promote brotherhood. Brotherliness should show itself there. The burdened should find sympathy and comfort. To treat a person humiliatingly because of his apparel adds burdens upon his heart. II. It is wrong because it is contrary to the mind of Christ. Jesus is the Son of man, hence the brother of all men. He does not make distinctions between his brothers on the ground of apparel.

The manual offers a few other reflections about these insulting actions toward other human beings that become a barrier preventing many people from attending church. The manual then concludes with an exhortation and with a pointed quotation: Let God be the absorbing thought in his house. Let the atmosphere of all our churches be warm with brotherly affection. ‘Full many people go to church,   As everybody knows; Some go to close their eyes,   And some to eye their clothes.’

Benjamin Mays was born August 1, 1894, in Epworth, South Carolina. His parents were former slaves but were tenant farmers when their youngest child Benjamin was born. Mays graduated as valedictorian of his high-school class, graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Bates College, and earned both a Master’s and Doctorate from the University of Chicago. Mays was a pastor, professor, president of Morehouse College, dean of Howard University’s School of Religion, and a mentor to Martin Luther King, Jr., while Dr. King was a student at Morehouse (Houck and Dixon 2006: 56). In his 1954 address to the World Council of Churches, Mays disputes the idea that segregation is found in the Bible, arguing instead that segregation started when modern Western imperialism “began to explore and exploit the colored peoples of Africa, Asia, and America” (56). Mays cites James in his argument:

James 2:1–13  153 New Testament scholars and church historians all agree that since its inception, the Christian Church has held in its membership people of different nations, races, and even colors. Nowhere in the early church do we find distinctions drawn on the basis of country or race. James (2:1–6) condemns the separation of cultural or social groups in the local church. The fact that the early church drew no distinctions based on race or color, and that Christians were often described as a “new people” or a “third race,” drawn from many racial or ethnic groups, is attested by Tertullian, Origen, Ignatius, Hermas, Barnabas, Clement, and others. Their position is sustained by later scholars—Harnack and Ramsay, Cadoux and Moffat, Griffin, and Latourette. We seek in vain for signs of segregation based on race and color in the church of the first centuries of the Christian era (60).

Mays’s conclusions based on James 2:1–6 resonate far beyond the context of segregation in the United States in 1954. Years later, in a 1990 issue of the Journal of Theology for Southern Africa, D. J. Smit notes how radically ­apartheid—its theology, spirituality, and church order—is unmasked as unChristian “partiality” by James 2:1–13. Apartheid treats “human beings and ­fellow believers ‘according to their appearance’ thereby ‘making distinctions among themselves and becoming judges with evil thoughts.’” Smit declares: “Underlying apartheid is an anthropology, a way of viewing humanity, which deserves no place in the Christian church.” Smit quotes Allan Boesak and Archbishop Desmond Tutu to illustrate the heretical nature of apartheid. Boesak, for example, had written: Racism is a form of idolatry in which the dominant group assumes for itself a status higher than the other, and through its political, military, and economic power seeks to play God in the lives of others . . . Racism has brought dehumanization, has undermined black personhood, destroyed the human-beingness of those who are called to be the children of God. It has called those who are the image of the living God to despise themselves, for they cannot understand why it should be their very blackness that calls forth such hatred, such contempt, such wanton, terrible violence. Racism has not only contaminated human society, it has also defiled the body of Christ. And Christians and the Church have provided the moral and theological justification for racism and human degradation. Apartheid means that the most important thing about a person is not that he or she is a human being created in the image of God with inalienable rights, but his or her racial identity. It means that racial identity determines, with an overwhelming intensity, everything in a person’s life (65–6).

James 2:1–6, Smit argues, does not really “point the finger of accusation” at other people but instead allows those practicing partiality to see themselves in the mirror. In every church in every place, people are treated differently because of their outward appearance, “whether they are black, white, rich, poor, men,

154  James 2:1–13 women, elderly, children, powerful and influential, leaders and respected, or powerless and marginalized.” Smit then applies James’s lessons to his own experiences in South Africa: In many South African churches one will find the same kind of problem to which James refers in his example, namely that the church—in spite of the fact that they are poor, oppressed, powerless, “black,” themselves—pay much more respect and honour to the rich and powerful, than to the poor, the women, the widows, the orphans, the children, among their own members. There are many and understandable reasons for this—in the light of the norms that are accepted in society at large and the possible advantages—but in the church it remains sin, a denial of God’s own actions, of Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, and a transgression of the will of God. In many South African churches one will even find that the church itself is structured and organised, whether officially and openly, or subtly, in terms of discrimination, of “treating people differently according to who they are and how they look.” The problem is that we can become so accustomed to this, that we may fully and enthusiastically agree with the rejection of “partiality” and “discrimination,” and still accept discriminatory practices and structures as natural, as the  way things are and ought to be. We may, for example, reject racism, yet ­practise sexism. It is because of this that we need examples, mirrors, to help us to see  ourselves and the discrepancies between theory and practice in our own ­congregations and lives (66–7).

The New Testament scholar Martin Dibelius tends to spiritualize poverty in the Letter of James. He places James in the Jewish religious tradition of the “piety of the poor,” a move that prioritizes theological aspects of “poverty” over the material aspects. (cf. Edgar 2001: 111; Brosend 2004: 64). Dibelius argues that in ancient Judaism, “piety” was understood, to a large extent, as humbling oneself before the will of God. “Poverty,” therefore, became an apt expression for piety and, as a result, “ ‘poor’ and ‘pious’ appear as parallel concepts” (Dibelius 1975: 39). Those calling themselves “poor” may have generally corresponded to “actual social circumstances,” but whether or not this was the case, the “pious thought of themselves as the poor because poverty had become a religious concept” (40; emphases in the original). Some scholars, however, carefully incorporate material aspects of poverty as experienced in the first century in their interpretations of James. As Brosend puts it in summary form: [F]or the vast majority of those living in the first-century Mediterranean world, life was unimaginably precarious and fragile. The daily challenge was not to

James 2:1–13  155 climb another rung up the ladder of success but simply to find or earn enough to eat to survive . . . James, it seems, writes out of an ideological bias in favor of the poor, not the spiritualized poor or the pious poor but the poor who struggle every day for their daily bread . . . James calls for the community to join with God’s bias, not only in attitude (2:1–6) but in practice (1:17; 2:14–26). Hence the call is not really for impartiality (which we shall see is often quite partial in favor of the elite) but for partiality and action on behalf of the poor. And all this, for James, is how one keeps the law (Brosend 2004: 66).

In a similar way, most recent scholarship notes the harsh realities of the poverty that James addresses. Robert Wall, for example, insists that the example given in James 2:1–7 addresses “real problems of real people” (1997: 103). This story, in Wall’s view, suggests “an actual incident, a real crisis . . .” Wall offers two possible scenarios. First, a non-Christian banker who holds a debt (e.g., rent) of a Christian who is so poor that he cannot pay the debt (hence his filthy clothes). Another scenario could be a poverty-stricken worker who sues a wealthy person for non-payment of wages. Either way, in the community reaction described by James, the poor person loses and The psychology of fear that shapes this act of discrimination is all too familiar. Ironically, those marginalized groups whose prospects of survival are least likely are also those most accommodating or acquiescent to society’s oppressors. The failure to act in accord to God’s will is a failure of nerve, of spirit, of wisdom. And so goes the conflict plotted by every implied story that James narrates (105).

In addition to the honor and shame context, Alicia Batten situates these verses in the first-century context of patronage (cf. Bede). One of James’s purposes in this section is to discourage its intended audience from participating in patron–client relationships. The needy are indeed to be cared for, provided with adequate food and clothing, but the community is to avoid relying on wealthy patrons to support the community. James looks with disdain upon the favoritism (honor) that then is shown to such patrons in this patron–client relationship. The community is not to act like clients to wealthy benefactors but instead is to care the poor—since they themselves are the poor—and be “rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom” (Batten 2010: 130; cf. Reicke 1964: 27; Vhymeister 1995: 265–83; Kloppenborg 1998). In the context of patronage, John Kloppenborg observes that the contrast between the rich and poor is “a standard rhetorical trope in Graeco-Roman moralizing literature” (e.g., Philostratus, Stobaeus, Petronius; Kloppenborg 2008: 228). Kloppenborg concludes that this sygkrisis of rich and poor is actually addressed to “James’s peers,” who likely belong “to urban, reasonably well

156  James 2:1–13 educated groups of diaspora Judaeans” (231). Kloppenborg thus critiques the conclusion that there is “an equation of poverty and piety in Israelite discourse” as well as the idea that James’s discourse deconstructs the social hierarchies of antiquity: Status hierarchies were simply too deeply ingrained in Greek and Roman society, and supported by a nexus of legal, economic, familial, and political provisions. What he could accomplish, however, was to produce a kind of “joke,” which exposed again the fragility and contingency of status hierarchies, and to undermine the self-evident nature of the categories and distinctions required to maintain such hierarchies. This is not “revolutionary” discourse; as with Lucian it probably amounted to a plea for increased benefaction of the poor by the rich, as indeed James himself recommends in 2:14–26 (232).

Étienne Trocmé places these verses in the context of social inequalities but argues that James expresses his displeasure with these inequalities in contrast to the Pauline churches. James holds the social ideal of the Jerusalem church, which shares their possessions in a “rigorous egalitarianism.” In contrast, Trocmé argues, the Pauline churches relied upon wealthy notables for places to worship and financial resources. James’s “pauperism . . . bristles against” the favoritism thus shown to the rich (1964: 666–7). Craig Blomberg declares that the “famous slogan of liberation theology, ‘God’s preferential option for the poor’” is not based on a close reading of James 2:1–7. Blomberg argues that this description should not be applied “indiscriminately” to both Christian and non-Christian poor, since James is talking about the poor “who love [God].” Blomberg concludes: While the materially impoverished of our world should provoke Christian compassion, irrespective of their world-view or religious allegiance, James 2:5 is not teaching anything about automatic religious superiority based on low economic standing, even if it is often the case that the materially poor more quickly recognize their dependence upon God than the materially rich (Blomberg 1999).

So James has in mind, Blomberg believes, the majority of his intended audience, Jewish Christians who, for example, are day laborers on large estates of “rich absentee landlords.” Such Christians, because of their increasing debts, were “often led to virtual slavery, and even penury consignment to debtors’ prison” (1999: 152). Gustavo Gutiérrez is considered the “founder of liberation theology,” and his book, A Theology of Liberation, is one of liberation theology’s seminal texts. Gutiérrez is a Roman Catholic theologian and Dominican priest whose work

James 2:1–13  157 helped galvanize liberation movements in Latin American Catholicism after Vatican II. Gutiérrez, like many liberation theologians, is no academic isolated in an ivory tower. Although he has taught at institutions such as the Pontifical University of Peru and the University of Notre Dame, he founded and directed, for example, the Bartolomé de Las Casas Institute in Lima, Peru, to minister to the poor. Gutiérrez stresses the need for solidarity with the poor and directly engaging injustices in society: “To place oneself in the perspective of the Kingdom means to participate in the struggle for the liberation of those oppressed by others” (1973: 203). Thus our attitude and—even more importantly—our commitment to the marginalized who “inherit the Kingdom” (James 2:5) is the essential barometer as to whether “we are directing our existence in conformity with the will of the Father” (203). In brief, the Bible views poverty as “a scandalous condition inimical to human dignity and therefore contrary to the will of God” (291). Gutiérrez’s description of “poverty” also informs us of his perspective on James 2:1–7: I do not think there is any good definition, but we come close to it by saying that the poor are non-persons, the in-significant, those who do not count in society and all too often in Christian churches as well. A poor person, for example, is someone who has to wait a week at the door of the hospital to see a doctor. A poor person is someone without social or economic weight, who is robbed by unjust laws; someone who has no way of speaking up or acting to change the situation. Someone who belongs to a despised race and feels culturally marginalized is ­in-significant . . . We do not know the names of the poor; they are anonymous and remain so. They are insignificant in society but not before God (144–5).

Pedrito Maynard-Reid focuses on James’s continued “sensitivity” to the trials of the poor and his “censoriousness” of the rich. James protests both against the lack of sensitivity to the poor and the prejudice of some in favor of the rich (1987: 48). In contrast to Dibelius, who argues that James 2:2–4 is an illustration and cannot be used as a historical source for an actual occurrence within the Christian community, Maynard-Reid declares that James does not “spiritualize” the rich and poor, so this illustration most certainly refers to literal ­economic and class distinctions (53). Maynard-Reid divides the “rich” in James into three groups. The first are wealthy landowners and agriculturalists (James 5). The second are merchants (4:14–17). The third group consists of financiers who deal directly with money (e.g., 2:6). The illustration of 2:2–4, however, could involve members of any of these three groups (59). James rejects these rich people because of their actions: They oppress people, drag them into court, and blaspheme God (2:6–7).

158  James 2:1–13 The word oppress, reminiscent of the term the prophets use to denounce social injustice committed by the rich against the poor, widows, and orphans, has violent overtones that emphasize exploitation and domination, such as dragging the poor into court over issues of debts, rents, and wages (63–6): According to James, then, anyone who honors the rich at the expense of the poor discriminates against those whom God has elected; shows favor to those who oppress God’s chosen—as well as blaspheming God whose possession the poor are; and transgresses the whole law of God and is, therefore, in the same category as the murderer and adulterer. That [person] can expect no mercy in the ­judgment (63–7).

Elsa Tamez believes that, for James, the core of praxis is integrity—consistency in hearing, seeing, believing, speaking, and doing—both in one’s personal life and in the life of the community. Churches should thus be signs of God’s reign and how different that reign is from the world’s values: At a time when there are many poor, the landowners take advantage of the workers, the merchants plot to earn more money, and the Christians are marginalized and dragged before the courts, the church out of concern for self-preservation runs the risk of imitating the values of that corrupt society. Therefore James exhorts them not to show favoritism toward the rich, not to seek the important places in the church (2:1), not to be envious, jealous, argumentative, not to be hypocrites speaking badly of one another.

James wants Christians to be resolute and decisive people of integrity, because otherwise the community is doomed to fail (2002: 46). The integrity of which James speaks also involves the presence of the poor within the community and visiting the community (2:2). Tamez therefore offers two possibilities for this discrimination against the poor: Either the members of the communities did not suffer the poverty of the extremely poor (ptōchoi), or they, despite being at the same level of extreme poverty, tended to favor the rich. James condemns this favoritism by reminding them that the poor will inherit the reign promised to those who love God (20). For James, the oppressors are the rich, and his antipathy toward them and his sympathy for the poor are evident. Tamez observes that this viewpoint causes problems for modern biblical commentaries from Europe and the United States, where there are many rich people in the churches. As a result, many commentaries downplay James’s message for the poor and the rich. Yet, Tamez argues, a Latin American reading fixes its gaze on those neglected and oppressed people (21–2). James prohibits favoritism, because it always favors the rich, and the poor, as always, are marginalized and oppressed (2:5). Tamez

James 2:1–13  159 criticizes those commentators who downplay the real economic oppression as well as God’s special concern for the materially poor by making poor and pious synonymous, because those commentators allow the unjust economic order to remain unchallenged and unchanged. The rich, unlike the poor, dress elegantly with gold rings and fine clothes (2:2). Tamez agrees with Sophie Laws that a ring symbolizes more than just wealth; it also is an insignia for the equestrian order, the second level of the Roman aristocracy. The fine clothes and gold rings thus refer to both power and wealth. James 2:6b–7, for example, indicates acute social problems between the social classes: The rich oppress the poor and drag them before the courts (23). Because of their oppression of the poor, Tamez believes that James does not look with favor upon the inclusion of the rich within the church: “James insists that the vocation of the church, its mission, is the poor, who are rich in faith and the heirs of God’s reign” (26). Tamez therefore takes aim at scholars who, she believes, domesticate the text: The approach to this text taken by certain scholars is suspect. James Adamson, a biblical scholar and a Presbyterian minister from the United States, for example, even before examining the text states, “not every rich man is doomed to be damned , . . . and not every poor man is sure to be saved” [Adamson 1976: 108–9]. This assertion is not striking in and of itself, since it could be made after analyzing the text; but it is striking that he begins his analysis with this premise. His concern for the rich and not for the poor is obvious; his readers are not of the Third World. For his part, Leslie Mitton identifies the poor with the devout and asserts that the term refers to “the class of people for whom prosperity means little since obedience to God means everything” [Mitton 1966: 86]. Only someone with a job, food, and shelter could affirm such a thing. The hungry, the exploited, the jobless want at least to satisfy their basic necessities, and they turn to God with those hopes. James refers here to the poor in both a concrete way and in a general sense, not only to those who get no seat in church and are treated badly (37).

In Tamez’s view, James’s “rich in faith” cannot be relegated to a spiritual plane unconnected to the material needs of the suffering and oppressed poor. When interpreters equate “poor” and “pious,” they ignore real economic oppression and God’s special concern for the poor: “The rich become the pious poor and the poor rich in piety, and the economic order and the unjust power stay as they are” (37). Gay Byron calls attention to divisions other than rich/poor to which this passage could apply: James, in her view, challenges his “brothers and sisters” not just to examine their perceptions of the poor but also “to establish relationships that are free from biased or evil judgments.” This discussion builds on

160  James 2:1–13 James 1:9–11 as well as the beatitudes of Jesus which “assert the exalted status of the poor.” Byron argues, though, that James moves past the simple categories of rich/poor to greater religious and ethical considerations, such as the “subtle ways” in which economic status is often inexorably intertwined with such issues as ethnicity or gender (2007: 465). Byron then points to the African-American church, which has a “diverse socioeconomic composition,” and she declares that the acts of partiality that James decries also take place in the African-American church today. Class, she writes, “is a major issue within black communities,” and more affluent (e.g., black, middle-class) congregations interact poorly or do not interact at all with the poor and disenfranchised in their midst. Byron intimates that James seeks relationships where the more comfortable churches and their members should do more than just give charitable contributions; they should also participate in “genuine relationship-building” activities without “a trace of partiality or hypocrisy” (465–6). This advice is reminiscent of Deems’s words concerning James 1:26–27 (see chapter “James 1:12–27” above) that true religion requires working directly and personally with those in need. Frederick Buechner’s entries for “Poverty” and “Riches” in his book, Wishful Thinking, apply the spirit of James 2 for modern Western readers. The entry “Poverty” says: In a sense we are all hungry and in need, but most of us don’t recognize it. With plenty to eat in the deepfreeze, with a roof over our heads and a car in the garage, we assume that the empty feeling inside must be a case of the blues that can be cured by a weekend in the country or an extra martini at lunch or the purchase of a color TV. The poor, on the other hand, are under no such delusion. When Jesus says, “Come unto me all ye who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28), the poor stand a better chance than most of knowing what he’s talking about and knowing that he’s talking to them. In desperation they may even be willing to consider the possibility of accepting his offer. This is perhaps why Jesus on several occasions called them particularly blessed (1973: 69–70).

The entry on “Riches” takes a similar tack: The trouble with being rich is that since you can solve with your checkbook virtually all of the practical problems that bedevil ordinary people, you are left in your leisure with nothing but the great human problems to contend with: how to be happy, how to love and be loved, how to find meaning and purpose in your life. In desperation the rich are continually tempted to believe that they can solve these problems too with their checkbooks, which is presumably what led Jesus to

James 2:1–13  161 remark one day that for a rich man to get into Heaven is about as easy as for a Cadillac to get through a revolving door (81).

Other Christians from wealthy, developed nations also attempt to apply James’s admonitions to their own societies. A 1999 hymn by Martin Leckebusch, for example, captures some of the sentiments of James, although it does not cite James specifically. Leckebusch, trained in Mathematics at Oxford University, began writing hymns in 1987. Written in a “view from above,” the hymn laments what “we” have done: In an age of twisted values we have lost the truth we need; in sophisticated language we have justified our greed; by our struggle for possessions we have robbed the poor and weak— hear our cry and heal our nation: your forgiveness, Lord, we seek.

The second stanza expands the horizons to include sinful discrimination and prejudice, in a way similar to what interpreters such as Washington Gladden, Walter Rauschenbusch, Benjamin Mays, D. J. Smit, Allan Boesak, and Gay Byron have done: We have built our discrimination on our prejudice and fear; hatred swiftly turns to cruelty if we hold resentments dear. for our communities divided by the walls of class and race hear our cry and heal our nation: show us, Lord, your love and grace.

The final stanza of the hymn then calls for repentance and obedience to God’s words: We who hear your word so often choose so rarely to obey; turn us from our willful blindness, give us truth to light our way. In the power of your Spirit come to cleanse us, make us new . . . (Moore 2000: 317)

162  James 2:1–13

James 2:8–13 Ancient literary context When Jesus was asked in Matthew 22:34–40 about which commandment in the law was the greatest, he combined the love command in Leviticus 19:18 with Deuteronomy 6:4–5 and said, “on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” In a similar way, James builds upon his previous arguments against favoritism by saying that the love command excludes any such demonstrations of partiality (cf. 2:1). Love is the cardinal virtue, the prism through which all behaviors should be evaluated. Showing partiality to the rich, then, is breaking God’s law. James’s use of the term royal law may designate, for example, the entire Mosaic Law (e.g., Hartin 2003: 121), only Leviticus 19:18 (e.g., Laws 1980: 109) or love, the “Law of the Great King” (Wesley’s Notes on the Bible). The “whole law,” however, must be fulfilled in its entirety. God’s will for humanity is revealed there; keeping the whole law demonstrates one’s devotion to God, and breaking even one of its precepts makes a person accountable for all of the law (cf. Matt. 5:17–30; Gal. 3:10–14; 5:3). Thus all of one’s words and actions are important, because everyone will be judged by the law of liberty (cf. 1:25). James cites two examples from the Decalogue to illustrate his point, the commandments not to commit adultery and not to murder. James also connects murder with the oppression of the poor in 5:1–6, so the issue appears to be important to him and the community to which he writes. Illtreatment of the poor, including showing no mercy, is a sin inconsistent with one who claims to follow Jesus as Lord, and showing partiality to the wealthy is a sin that is condemned by the same Lawgiver who condemns adultery and murder. James echoes other sayings of Jesus—such as “Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy” (Matt. 5:7) and “. . . if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matt. 6:15)—and highlights the warning to show mercy to others (cf. Matt. 25:31–46; see Wachob 2000). James believes that if you want to receive mercy from God, you must show mercy to others (cf. Sirach 28:1–9)—a theme shared, for example, with Jesus’ parable of the unmerciful slave in Matthew 18:23–35 (as Ps.-Oecumenius observes)—you must love all of your neighbors as yourself, including the poor and marginalized, and you must not show partiality to some “neighbors” because of their wealth or social standing.

James 2:1–13  163

The interpretations Ancient and medieval John Chrysostom utilizes James 2:13 in his homily on Philemon 1:17–19 (Homily III; cf. Homily II’s use of James 2:26). After noting that Paul closes his epistle with a prayer, Chrysostom observes that prayer is “a great good, salutary, and preservative of our souls.” Yet prayer is made great “when we do things worthy of it.” Citing both James 2:13 and Matthew 5:7, Chrysostom declares: Do acts worthy of mercy, God will bless you, if indeed you do things worthy of blessing. He will bless you, if you show mercy to your neighbor. For the things which we wish to obtain from God, of those we ought first to impart to our neighbors. But if we deprive our neighbors of them, how can we wish to obtain them? . . . For if men show mercy to such, much more will God, but to the unmerciful by no means.

Elsewhere Chrysostom calls mercy the “highest art,” the “friend of God,” and a “queen” that makes human beings like God. The reason is that it removes shackles, illuminates the darkness, eliminates the gnashing of teeth, and throws open the gates of heaven. It has such power, that we must show mercy even to those who quarrel against us or have sinned against us (Bray 2000: 25). Jerome’s dialogue Against the Pelagians consists of a debate between Atticus, a Catholic, and Critobulus, a “heretic” (Pelagian), about whether human beings can live without sin, including a discussion of whether James says that sins— great and small—are equivalent. In the dialogue, Critobulus asks Atticus if he believes that no saint “can have all virtues.” Atticus replies that it is indeed impossible, because no human being is immortal. Critobulus objects that “the philosophers” take the view that the person who “has one virtue appears to have all.” Atticus rejects that view, though, because the “Apostles” say otherwise. Then Critobulus points out that James says, “he who stumbles in one point is guilty of all.” Atticus replies: The passage is its own interpreter. James did not say, as a starting-point for the discussion, he who prefers a rich man to a poor man in honour is guilty of adultery or murder. That is a delusion of the Stoics who maintain the equality of sins. But he proceeds thus: “He who said, You shall not commit adultery, said also, You shall not kill: but although you do not kill, yet, if you commit adultery, you become a transgressor of the law.” Light offences are compared with light ones, and heavy offences with heavy ones. A fault that deserves the rod must not be avenged with the sword; nor must a crime worthy of the sword, be checked with the rod.

164  James 2:1–13 In a similar vein, Jerome discusses Jovinian’s belief that those baptized of the spirit cannot be tempted by the devil (Against Jovinian II.1). He begins with the observation from Ecclesiastes 2:1 that people should prepare themselves for temptation when they serve the Lord and continues with James’s exhortation to be “doers of the word” and not just hearers. There would be no reason, Jerome decides (citing James 2:10 and Rom. 11:32), for James’s admonitions about adding “works to faith” if Christians “could not sin after baptism.” Augustine makes ample use of James in his anti-Pelagian writings. He cites James 2:10 and 2:12, for example, to argue that no person—“except the one mediator, Christ”—can live “quite free from sin in this life” (On Forgiveness of Sins, and Baptism II.3). God, who foresaw “that such would be our character,” is pleased to provide us with “healthful remedies” against the bonds of sins committed after baptism, and “the works of mercy” are an excellent example of things that have “efficacious virtue” (cf. Matt. 6:14): For who could quit this life with any hope of obtaining eternal salvation, with that sentence impending: “Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all,” if there did not soon after follow: “So speak you, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty: for he shall have judgment without mercy that has showed no mercy; and mercy rejoices against judgment?”

On one hand, Augustine argues against those who cite James 2:13 to claim that “the sins which have been accompanied with almsgiving will do them no harm” (The City of God, XXI.27): The words which the Apostle James subjoins, “And mercy rejoices against judgment,” find their application among those who are the children of the promise and vessels of mercy. For even those righteous men, who have lived with such holiness that they receive into the eternal habitations others also who have won their friendship with the mammon of unrighteousness [Luke 16:9], became such only through the merciful deliverance of Him who justifies the ungodly, imputing to him a reward according to grace, not according to debt.

Yet in a sermon on Matthew 6:19, Augustine again acknowledges the efficacy of almsgiving. Although he says that it “astonishes me much in the Scriptures of God,” he integrates both Matthew 25 and James 2:13 to demonstrate the importance of almsgiving (Sermons on New-Testament Lessons, ­X.9–­10): The one time that Jesus talks about the end-time judgment, the criterion for judgment is feeding the hungry. Following some of God’s commands is evidently not enough, according to Augustine: “For it may be they were chaste,

James 2:1–13  165 no cheats, nor drunkards, and kept themselves from evil works. Yet if they had not added good works, they would have remained barren. For they would have  kept, ‘Depart from evil,’ but they would not have kept, ‘and do good’” (Ps. 34:14). The Lord does not say to the ones entering the kingdom that they receive the kingdom because they remained chaste or have not defrauded anyone or did not lie under oath. No, Augustine marvels, the only thing the Lord mentions is that they receive the kingdom because they fed the hungry: “I see that you are surprised as I am. And indeed it is a marvelous thing.” He then posits, gathering many examples from scripture, that “alms avail much to the quenching and effacing of sins” (e.g., Eccl. 3:30; 29:12; Dan. 4:24). The reason that these blessed people receive the kingdom of God is because they, though sinners, “have redeemed [their] sins by alms.” Those condemned (e.g., because they did not feed the hungry) could have redeemed their sins with alms (Augustine cites Matt. 5:7), but since they did not, they must depart into eternal judgment (Augustine cites James 2:13). The most quoted comments from Augustine about these verses are from his letter to Jerome concerning the interpretation of James 2:10. In that letter he asks Jerome to explain James’s statement that if you offend the law in one aspect, you are guilty of it all. Augustine begins this lengthy letter by illustrating the difficulties inherent in this verse through an anecdote: A man fell into a well. The water was deep enough to break his fall but not sufficient enough to drown him. When another man hears his cries from the well, he asks, “How did you fall in here?” The man replies, “I beg you to work on getting me out rather than asking how I got in.” Thus, Augustine argues, we know enough to be saved from the guilt of sin (i.e., the well), although we may never understand how we became such sinners. But Augustine wants to understand this verse anyway, since it might deny that even the “souls of little children” need to be delivered from “the bond of guilt.” James 2:10, for Augustine, is thus critical to understanding how we must live our lives in light of the future judgment. The context of Augustine’s concern is the Stoic doctrine that virtue is an indivisible whole. A person is either virtuous or evil, and a virtuous person is free from fault, whereas an act of a foolish person is never virtuous. The character of the actor is the determinative factor on the character of the act (see Ropes 1916: 200). Do these words, Augustine asks, mean that one who shows partiality to the rich is “guilty of homicide, and adultery, and sacrilege?” Augustine asks in this letter to Jerome (Letter CLXVII): How does a person who has one virtue therefore also have all virtues, and if a person lacks one virtue does that person therefore lack all of them? It cannot mean that all sins are equal: “The doctrine of the equality of sins the Stoics alone dared to maintain in opposition to the unanimous sentiments of mankind: an absurd tenet,

166  James 2:1–13 which in writing against Jovinian . . . you have most clearly refuted from the Holy Scriptures” (see Jerome, Against Jovinian, Book II). How to distinguish these things? Augustine notes that obviously such a virtue as “prudence” cannot “be cowardly, nor unjust, nor intemperate; for if it were any of these it would no longer be prudence.” And since it can be truly prudence only “when it is brave, and just, and temperate, assuredly wherever it exists it must have the other virtues along with it.” So when one of the virtues exists, the others likewise must be present. Catiline’s apparent virtue of courage actually did not exist, “since it had not along with it other virtues”: “for the truly brave man neither ventures rashly nor fears without reason, we are forced to admit that vices are more numerous than virtues.” Yet even if it were true that having one virtue means you have them all, that does not mean, Augustine notes, that all sins are equal: “it by no means follows that among bad actions one cannot be worse than another, or that divergence from that which is right does not admit of degrees.” But since love is the focus to which Jesus points, it is indeed true that if a person keeps the law but offends in one aspect, that person does become guilty of all, because that person “does what is contrary to the love on which hangs the whole law.” Augustine continues to struggle with James’s “difficult sentence” (2:10), but he takes comfort in what James says next about mercy triumphing over judgment. God uses mercy in judgment—and judgment in showing mercy—so by showing mercy ourselves, we will receive God’s mercy at the last judgment. Augustine concludes his lengthy letter by postulating that James includes these words about mercy (2:13) to console us after the alarming words about our guilt. Peter Chrysologus refers to James 2:13 twice in two of his sermons on Fasting (Sermon 41 and 42). The sermons encourage his hearers to win the “battles of the flesh,” such as a battle against an “overindulgence in food” which “robs one of vitality, sickens the stomach, poisons the blood, infects the body’s fluids, stirs up bile, and creates the high temperature of a fever . . .” This “sick” person can indeed “ruin his mind”; carried away by desires, he rejects what is medicinal, seeks the harmful, and flees from treatment. The answer, Chrysologus says, is an abstinence that heals “what gluttony had made flare up” (Sermon 41; 2005: 163). In a similar way, “moderate fasting” can help exercise control over the body, regulate the mind, and clear one’s intellect with sobriety: “Just as whirlwinds disturb the elements, so do heaps of food cause agitation” (164). Fasting therefore can heal the wounds of sins, but the scars caused by those sins cannot be cleansed without mercy: May the one who knows that he stands unsteadily in this life, who understands that he slips as he passes through the way of the flesh, and who realizes that he is

James 2:1–13  167 subject to attacks from ignorance and to accidents from negligence, may he keep his fast in such a way that he does not omit mercy. Fasting opens heaven for us, and fasting admits us to God; but unless mercy then attends us as the patroness of our cause, since we are unable to remain steadfast in innocence, we shall not be secure about forgiveness, as the Lord says: “Without mercy will judgment be rendered on the one who has shown no mercy” (166).

Chrysologus then argues that the one who gives bread to the hungry gives the kingdom to himself. The one who denies water to the thirsty denies himself the fountain of life. As he continues this theme in Sermon 42, Chrysologus declares that the one who fasts without compassion is like a “field tilled without seeds” (169). The field can be cleared of weeds and all other matters that would disturb the crop, but without seeds, the field will still remain sterile; no matter how often one tills, without seeds, the land will not yield a good crop. In a similar way, fasting “cultivates the soul, it prunes away vices, it eradicates offenses, it tills the mind, it tones the body; but without mercy it does not yield the fruit of life, it does not attain to the reward of salvation” (169). So the one who does not show mercy takes it away from himself (he quotes James 2:13), and the one who wants to receive mercy from God must show mercy especially to the poor: “The one who sows mercy on the person in need will reap mercy for himself ” (170). In his account of the first Conference of Abbot Isaac, Cassian includes the words of the Abbot concerning the Lord’s Prayer (Conference IX.22). The clause, “Forgive us our debts,” for example, gives Christians a way to activate God’s mercy and to moderate God’s sentence upon them. Christians who have forgiven their debtors can ask with confidence for pardon from God. But if they do not forgive others, then uttering this line of the Lord’s Prayer calls down not forgiveness but condemnation upon them and a more severe judgment. That is why some people, when the Lord’s Prayer is recited in services, “silently omit this clause” for fear that they have not been as merciful to others as God demands that they be, for God will judge “without mercy those who have shown no mercy” (James 2:13). In his Introductory Tractate on the Letter of James, Hilary of Arles postulates three interconnected levels of what it means to “love your neighbor.” First is the literal, corporeal level that inspires us to move to the second level, the spiritual level, in which we love others even though they may be absent from us. This level, then, encourages us to move to the next higher level, the  contemplative level “by which love itself is beheld.” The contemplative level is found only in humans, and it “never fails us” (Bray 2000: 24). Hilary then states that James picks these two commandments (adultery and murder) as examples because they chiefly pertain either to loving or hating one’s

168  James 2:1–13 neighbor: Showing love to the poor—being “merciful and lenient to the poor in your judgment”—means that you will have nothing at all to fear from the judgment of God (26). The Rule of St. Benedict, written in the sixth century, sets the standard for the cenobitic monasticism of Western Christianity. The only place the Rule quotes James is in Chapter 64, “Of the Election of the Abbot.” An abbot should be “a worthy steward over the house of God” and is to be elected “for the merit of his life and the wisdom of his doctrine,” with the caveat that he—reminiscent of the teaching of Jesus—“be the last in the community.” The abbot bears a great burden, and he is liable to God for his stewardship of the community. He therefore should be a servant rather than a ruler: “Let him be chaste, sober, and merciful, and let him always exalt ‘mercy above judgment’ (James 2:13), that he also may obtain mercy.” Included in this mercy is the exhortation to hate vice but to “love the brethren.” When he has to correct his fellow monks, he should do so with “prudence and not go to extremes.” Remembering his own frailty, let him “aim to be loved rather than feared.” Bede cites Augustine’s comments about James 2:2–3 to emphasize that showing greater honor to a rich person is not just a “slight sin” (Augustine, Letter 167.3.16–19). Bede then discusses James 2:10–11 in this context: The one who pays greater honor to the rich person “is both an idolater and a blasphemer and an adulterer and a murderer . . . he must be judged guilty of all crimes, for by offending in one he has become guilty of all” (1985: 24). The reason for this, in addition to James’s arguments, is that “charity [love] is the fulfilling of the law” (Rom. 13:10). On love/charity depends the whole law and  the prophets (Matt. 22:40), so people who act without love/charity are guilty of all, because they act contrary to that on which the law and prophets depend (25). James 2:12 thus means that if you love your neighbor “you deserve to be loved by God,” and by showing mercy to your neighbor, “you become worthy of mercy in the divine judgment . . .” (25). Similar to Hilary of Arles, Ps.-Oecumenius states that James refers to the commandments against adultery and murder as examples of what it means to love one’s neighbor. People who love their neighbors will not commit adultery with them or murder them. Loving one’s neighbor also means forgiving others for the sins they commit against us, as well as giving alms to the poor and needy. If we do those things, “God’s mercy will deliver us from judgment.” On the other hand, if we do not love our neighbor and do not forgive others or help the needy, “we shall receive the condemnation handed out to the wicked servant, along with the retribution which is mentioned in the Lord’s Prayer.” ­Ps.-Oecumenius also concludes that since the petition we utter in the Lord’s Prayer requests that God forgives us as we forgive others, if we do not forgive others, then God will not forgive us (Bray 2000: 25–6).

James 2:1–13  169

Early modern and modern Martin Luther uses the first half of James 2:13 to demonstrate the importance of mercy to the needy, especially poor ministers and preachers. He notes that the world is full of people who “sin very grievously against the dear Gospel,” not only by refusing support to needy ministers but by committing theft against the Gospel. Luther cautions that those refusing to show mercy “might experience endless wrath and eternal displeasure” and compares James’s warning with Jesus’ parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. The rich man saw Lazarus every day “lying before his door full of sores, yet he did not have enough mercy to give him a bundle of straw or to grant him the crumbs under his table.” Therefore, the rich man was punished terribly in hell (LW 21: 31–2). Luther’s discussion of James 2:13—which falls directly before James’s comments about faith and works (2:14–17)—demonstrates Luther’s commitment to salvation by faith. He places the verse in the context of Jonah’s experience in the “whale’s belly,” which, for Luther, illustrates God’s grace and wrath. As long as we have resolute confidence in God’s mercy, we “remain in the kingdom of grace” no matter the extent of our sins. The key is believing in God’s grace and forgiveness, even if our conscience fears the (deserved) wrath of God and believes that “the supply of mercy is exhausted and that God would not forgive [us]”: That is elevating God’s grace above everything else, praising and extolling it and with it defying all anger and judgment, joining in the words of the Epistle of James: “Mercy triumphs over judgment,” that is, mercy asserts itself and proves stronger than all wrath and every sentence and judgment of God . . . This is no longer human righteousness based on our works and power, but it is an angelic, yes, divine righteousness based on faith and spirit and devoid of any works. It clings solely to grace, and this no work is able to do. For all this takes place in the heart and conscience, where there is no work and where no work can enter (LW 19: 47–8).

For Calvin, who displays his rhetorical training in his analysis of this section, these verses enlarge on the rich/poor theme of 2:1–7. The church is busy “pleasing the rich” not for the sake of love of neighbor but instead “for the futile purpose of trying to win their favour” (1995: 279). James creates a prolepsis, seizes the plea of the opposite side, and “reveals the falsity of the pretext”: They are paying homage to particular people for specific reasons; they are not merely honoring their “neighbors.” In Calvin’s opinion, James critiques the “slavish obsequiousness” given to the wealthy, when they could be giving “unaffected service” to their neighbors and enjoying “the status of free men, indeed the privilege of kings” (279).

170  James 2:1–13 James insists, according to Calvin, that God does not permit us to omit sections of the Law “as it may strike our fancy.” “Some people” incorrectly interpret James 2:10 as adhering to the “paradox” of the Stoics, that punishment for one offense should be the same as punishment for an entire lifetime of sins. Calvin demurs: Have we grasped James’ argument now? If we make an exception to God’s law, when something is inconvenient for us, even if in other matters we show ourselves obedient, we are convicted overall of violating the entire Law on that one count . . . [T]he Law promises its reward only to complete obedience. And so it is foolish of the scholastics to imagine there is merit in some so-called “partial” justice and morality. This passage, and many others, show quite clearly that there is none such, apart from the entire observance of the Law (280–1).

Calvin observes that such a situation might “strike unbearable alarm on the hearer,” but he finds a loophole of grace. Although the judgment of the Law is “a sentence of eternal death,” the word “liberty” demonstrates how we are delivered from the “rigour of the Law.” James’s point is that if you wish to be judged by the Law, “you must be less severe on your neighbours.” This law of liberty is “equivalent to God’s clemency, which frees us from the curse of the law.” So Calvin sets this discussion in the “context of being tolerant toward weakness,” and he concludes by noting that the promise that God will be merciful to us is a powerful incentive for us to be humane and kind to others. Our mercy to others does not “merit” the mercy of God, but it is God’s will for the elect to show God’s mercy (e.g., Luke 6:36). Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice leaves many issues of justice and mercy unresolved in what Harold Bloom calls “a profoundly anti-Semitic work” (1998: 171, but cf. Honan 1998: 257–62; the following is informed by Schulz 2011). One of the most famous examples is Portia’s speech at the trial of Antonio. Some interpreters view this speech about mercy as Christ-like, but other interpreters— especially in light of the unmerciful way Portia and other non-Jews (e.g., the Duke and Antonio) treat Shylock—understand the speech as incredibly ironic. In the court scene (Act IV scene I), after Shylock affirms his commitment to the legal arrangement that demands the pound of flesh from Antonio, the Duke asks Shylock a critical question: “How shalt thou hope for mercy, rendering none?” Here is where Charles Wordsworth (1892: 216–17) sees echoes of James: Portia enters the court in the guise of a “Doctor of Laws,” Balthasar, and declares that “the Jew must be merciful.” Shylock replies, “On what compulsion must I? Tell me that.” And Portia responds with one of the most famous speeches in Shakespeare’s works: The quality of mercy is not strain’d, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;

James 2:1–13  171 It blesseth him that gives and him that takes: ’Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes The throned monarch better than his crown; His sceptre shows the force of temporal power, The attribute to awe and majesty, Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings; But mercy is above this sceptred sway; It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God’s When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew, Though justice be thy plea, consider this, That, in the course of justice, none of us Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy; And that same prayer doth teach us all to render The deeds of mercy . . . (Shakespeare 1979: 426–7)

As Portia notes, they “pray for mercy,” and in that context note the necessity of rendering mercy to others. Shylock decides not to show mercy, however, and demands justice: “My deeds upon my head! I crave the law.” Portia then turns the tables against him, as she then declares: For, as thou urgest justice, be assured Thou shalt have justice more than thou desir’st.

As readers of the play know, Portia points out that the agreement did not include even a drop of blood. Therefore, unless Shylock could exact his pound of flesh from Antonio without shedding any blood, Shylock must be punished by Venetian law (the confiscation of all his “lands and goods”) for his shedding the blood of a Christian. In addition, if Shylock takes even a bit less or more than a pound of flesh, then the penalty for him is death. Shylock is trapped. The duke, who could have confiscated half of Shylock’s property, allows him to escape with a fine. Antonio, who is owed the other half of Shylock’s property, forgoes his half on the condition that Shylock convert to Christianity (cf. the advice in Measure for Measure, Act II scene ii, to reserve judgment and to extend mercy). Charles Deems highlights the importance of the law in James. It is the law of love that is the “royal law,” but “the law must be revered and obeyed in its entirety, and should govern the Christian quite as much in his treatment of the poor as in his treatment of the rich” (1888: 124). Yet Deems also declares that James actually “shows his readers what Paul showed his”: No person is righteous by the works of

172  James 2:1–13 the law, since all human beings have fallen short of God’s expectations. We can only be saved by the mercy of God, not by “perfect obedience to a perfect law” (131). Alfred Plummer’s commentary on James elaborates on the issues Augustine noted centuries before about how James differs from the Stoics. The Stoics believe in a paradox: “that the theft of a penny is as bad as parricide, because in either case the path of virtue is left, and one is drowned as surely in seven feet of water as in seventy fathoms.” James, on the other hand, is not arguing that every sin is the same and that “to break one of God’s commands is as bad as to break them all.” James’s point is that no fallible human being can claim to fulfill the law as long as “there is any portion of the law which he willfully disobeys.” This willful disobedience, for Plummer, means that the person would also disobey other precepts of the law wherever “it pleases him to do so.” Thus that person is “a transgressor of the law.” Plummer concludes by saying that the people who act this way intend “not to love God, or to obey Him, but to get to heaven, or at least to escape hell, on the cheapest terms” (1891: 133–4; emphases in the original). Elsa Tamez places James’s view of the practice of faith in the contexts of the experience of oppression and eschatological hope. By linking these two aspects together, James wants Christian communities to avoid accommodation to this unjust world and to reject its system of values that either promote or are indifferent to injustice. They are to reject favoritism for the rich and disrespect of the poor, and they must embody the justice that assists the oppressed who are outcasts from society. James thus challenges the Christian community to hear the word of God and keep it, to contemplate the perfect law of freedom and practice it, and to speak and act in a consistent way as befitting those who will be judged by the perfect law of freedom: The law of freedom is a unity; you cannot fulfill one part of it and not another. If you do not commit adultery but do show favoritism against the poor, you have transgressed the royal law that “you must love your neighbor as yourself ” (2:8–11). If the law of freedom is not fulfilled in its entirety, it is not fulfilled at all. Thus the author challenges his brothers and sisters to live with consistency and integrity in their words and deeds; if they have made a decision to obey the law of freedom they should act accordingly. If God chooses the poor to be rich with faith and heirs of God’s reign, the brothers and sisters of faith should show a preference for the poor over the rich, rather than favoring the rich, as it seems some were doing in the congregations (2002: 52).

Tamez, however, believes that James wants his readers to know that this service to others, this fulfilling the “royal law” of loving our neighbors as ourselves, brings a twofold joy: It is a present reality integral to fulfilling the word of God through the joy of serving others and an eschatological promise of anticipated future joy (29–30). James leaves the other part of the royal law unmentioned (to love God), simply because those two aspects are integrally related (33).

James 2:14–26 Faith without Works Is Dead James 2:14–17 Ancient literary context At the beginning of Chapter 2, James asks his “brothers [and sisters]” whether their acts of favoritism demonstrate faith in/of Christ and then offers a problematic example of such favoritism. In James 2:14–17, James now asks his “brothers [and sisters]” what good does it to say (“claim” might be a better translation) you have faith but do not have works, and then James describes a James Through the Centuries, First Edition. David B. Gowler. © 2014 David B. Gowler. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

174  James 2:14–26 concrete example of actions that are required to demonstrate faith. The diatribe-like phrasing of the questions in 2:14—“What good is it . . . ?” and “Can faith save you?”—assumes negative responses. The real answer, as James has already told us, is that God has given us “birth by the word of truth” but we must be doers of that word and not merely hearers who deceive ourselves (1:18, 22). James’s example is a person—this time (2:15) both terms “brother” and ­“sister” are pointedly present in the Greek—who is naked and lacks daily food. This person serves as another example of the desperately vulnerable and marginalized members of society and how one should treat them (e.g., 1:26–7; 2:2–3). It also provides another echo of Jesus’ teachings (i.e., the giving clothes (or not) to the naked in Jesus’ parable of the Sheep and Goats; Matt. 25:36, 43). If you know people are in dire straits and merely offer them apparently kind and merciful but actually vacuous and meaningless words, their real needs remain unmet. In another stylistic parallel with 2:1–7 (a question–example– question pattern), James asks another harsh question (cf. 2:4): “what is the good of that?” Faith, in other words, should produce fruit (works/deeds); if it does not, that faith is dead, just as dead as those poor naked and hungry people will soon be if no one helps them with concrete works/deeds. Faith, James declares, must be expressed in actions, concrete actions of love on behalf of our brothers and sisters in need. These verses begin the section of James that has been problematic for interpreters trying to understand James in light of, in contrast with, or parallel to Paul’s statements about faith and works. Is James in dialogue with Paul, Paul with James, or are both speaking of different issues independently of each other? Is this section better read in light of Jesus’ teachings, what Paul has to say, or neither of the above? Interpreters offer various ways to reconcile the teachings of James and Paul about faith and works, as is clear in this section and the following section on James 2:18–26.

The interpretations Ancient and medieval Origen of Alexandria, who is sometimes called the father of biblical criticism (McKim 2007: 287), cites James 2:17 in his “Treatise on the Passover,” a passage that serves as an interesting example of Origen’s mode of biblical interpretation. Note, for example, how Origen suggests possible symbolism in the Passover instructions in Exodus 12:9 about how to cook the Passover lamb over the fire: “It is also possible that the head is faith and feet the works without which faith is dead” (1992: 43–4; emphases in the original).

James 2:14–26  175 Origen also includes a discussion of faith and works in his only surviving dialogue, the “Dialogue with Heraclides,” and he assumes continuity between James and Paul: But we must keep in mind that we are judged at the divine tribunal not on our faith alone as if we did not have to answer for our conduct (cf. James 2:4), nor on our conduct alone as if our faith were not subject to examination. It is from the correctness of both that we are justified; it is from the noncorrectness of both that we are punished for both . . . If then we wish to be saved, let us not, in our commitment to the faith, be negligent of our practical conduct, nor, conversely, be overconfident of our conduct. It is from both that we know, understand, believe, and will have our reward and beatitude, or their opposite (64).

This exhortation to right conduct extends from 8:21 to 10:19 in the dialogue, which includes citations not only from James 2:24, but also from 1 Timothy 6:20, Ephesians 5:3, and 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 to demonstrate continuity between James and Paul. Origen’s thoughts on theory and practice—faith and works—logically follow from the preceding sections, where Origen stresses the necessity of Jesus’ bodily resurrection and the future bodily resurrection of other human beings. After an objection from Maximus, Origen then emphasizes the composite elements shared by the human Jesus and other human beings—body, soul, and spirit—a shared tripartite composition that is necessary for salvation to be wholly effective. Likewise, Origen argues, faith and works must be organically interrelated in one’s salvation (64). Jerome uses James 2:17 in his “apology” (Letter XLVII, To Pammachius) for his treatise, Against Jovinian. Pammachius and other friends in Rome had not published Against Jovinian, because the text appeared to exalt virginity over marriage. Jerome demurs by asking his “detractors to open their ears.” Jerome had already allowed second and third marriages “in the Lord.” Therefore, he notes, it is impossible for him to have proscribed a first marriage. He even quotes Paul’s comments about not changing one’s circumcision or uncircumcision (1 Cor. 7:18) as applying to remaining married. The real issue, for Jerome, is not “celibacy or wedlock.” Neither is of any use at all without works, “since even faith, the distinguishing mark of Christians, if it have not works, is said to be dead . . .” The commentary by Pelagius on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans cites James 2:15–16 in its discussion of Romans 13:10 (“Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law”) to argue for the necessity of good works: “Even not to do good is wrong. For if one sees that one’s neighbor is in danger of starvation, does one not kill him if, while one has an abundance, one does not give him food, though one has not used up one’s own provisions?” (Pelagius 1993: 138–9).

176  James 2:14–26 Augustine’s Enchiridion (On Faith, Hope, and Love) devotes Chapter 67 to the topic, “Faith without Works is Dead.” Augustine begins by critiquing the belief that people who are baptized may still be saved “as though by fire” (cf. 1 Cor. 3:15) even though they “live in sins” without repentance or do not redeem themselves by giving alms. Those people are deceived, Augustine writes, because scripture teaches otherwise. In a similar way, in his Faith and Works, Augustine integrates the views of James and Paul by analyzing what kind of faith and works are essential for salvation. He argues: the faith that saves is the faith that the apostle Paul adequately describes when he says, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but the faith which works through love” [Gal 5:6]. But if faith works evil and not good, then without doubt, according to the apostle James “it is dead in itself ” [James 2:17]. He then goes on to say, “If a man says he has faith, yet has not works, can his faith be enough to save him?” [James 2:14].

A wicked person, Augustine argues, cannot be saved “so as by fire” because then faith without works would be enough to save that person, thus proving James false, as well as proving Paul false in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, where he says that idolaters, adulterers, extortionists, and other sinners will not “inherit the kingdom of God.” James and Paul, a priori, cannot be wrong. Paul’s words about being saved “so as by fire” (1 Cor. 3:15) thus must not be relevant in this case; instead they must denote some trial of affliction that affects the faithful who still “think about the things of this world.” They suffer the loss of those things rather than the loss of Christ (for similar comments, see Augustine’s City of God, XXI.26). In City of God (XIX.27), Augustine also discusses the apparent differences between James and Paul’s words about faith and works. Christians enjoy peace with God both now and in their future eternal joy, for example, because of their faith. Peace with God in this life, however, is primarily more “the solace of our misery than the positive enjoyment of felicity,” because this life consists more in “the remission of sins than in the perfecting of virtues.” That is why Christians pray that their trespasses be forgiven as they forgive those who trespass against them. There are some prerequisites for this prayer to be effective, though, and Augustine links James and Paul to make his case: “And this prayer is efficacious not for those whose faith is ‘without works and dead’ [James 2:17], but for those whose faith ‘works by love’ [Gal 5:6] .” As long as we have our mortal, corruptible bodies, we do not have “perfect authority over vice,” and therefore even righteous people desperately need this prayer. Vices, Augustine warns, “do not submit without a struggle,” and human life on earth consists of many temptations (Job 7:1).

James 2:14–26  177 Christians must submit themselves to God, body and soul, and work with God’s grace to defeat their vices, all the while giving thanks to God for the blessings they receive. Many interpreters struggle with the apparent discrepancies between James and Paul concerning faith and works. Leo the Great, for example, connects faith and works by arguing that faith provides the basis for works and that the strength of one’s faith comes out only in works (Bray 2000: 29). In a similar way, Hilary of Arles constructs a progression that begins with works: “Works give life to faith, faith gives life to the soul, and the soul gives life to the body.” Both the soul and the body must be fed, but James concentrates on the body because, Hilary believes, he “is speaking especially to those who are rich” (Bray 2000: 28–9). Ps.-Oecumenius declares that James and Paul do not contradict one another, because a person cannot “believe” with mere intellectual understanding; one’s belief has to be applied in practical ways. James and Paul are in agreement, because Paul understands that faith consists in both belief and action (Bray 2000: 28). Bede depends upon Augustine’s interpretation that James is talking about “works of mercy” to console those he had terrified by the previous verses by noting that even daily sins “may be atoned for by daily remedies”: by works of mercy and by “forgiving and giving” (Augustine, Letters 167.20). Bede then explains that faith observed in name only does not save; it is dead if it is not made alive by works of love/charity: It is evident that just as words of concern alone do not help a naked or hungry person if food or clothing is not provided, so faith observed in name only does not save, for it is dead in itself if it is not made alive by works of charity, by which it may be made to come to life (1985: 28).

Bede takes pains to argue that this verse does not contradict Mark 16:16, which states that the one who believes and is baptized will be saved, because “only he truly believes who carries out in deed what he believes.” Faith and love/charity cannot be separated, and Bede ends by affirming Paul’s statement that faith works through love (Gal. 5:6; cf. 1 John 3:17). Early modern and modern Martin Luther’s complaints about James’s view of faith and works are famous, but in some places Luther almost echoes James. As Alfred Plummer notes, Luther often disparages James, but when he explains Paul’s theology, he frequently does so in words that “would serve excellently as an exposition of the teaching of St. James” (1891: 147–8). Even his preface to Paul’s Letter to the

178  James 2:14–26 Romans observes that it is “impossible” for true faith ever to stop doing good works. In fact, Luther writes, “It is as impossible to separate works from faith as burning and shining from fire.” An extensive quote will clarify the context of Luther’s arguments: Faith is a work of God in us, which changes us and brings us to birth anew from God (cf. John 1). It kills the old Adam, makes us completely different people in heart, mind, senses, and all our powers, and brings the Holy Spirit with it. What a living, creative, active powerful thing is faith! It is impossible that faith ever stop doing good. Faith doesn’t ask whether good works are to be done, but, before it is asked, it has done them. It is always active. Whoever doesn’t do such works is without faith; he gropes and searches about him for faith and good works but doesn’t know what faith or good works are. Even so, he chatters on with a great many words about faith and good works.

Faith is a living, unshakeable confidence in God’s grace. This kind of trust in God’s grace, which is what the Holy Spirit does by faith, makes a person joyful, confident, and happy with regard to God and all creatures. Through faith, a person will do good to everyone willingly and happily; he will serve everyone, suffer everything for the love and praise of God, who has shown him such grace (“Preface to the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans”). Calvin continues his discussion on the need for showing mercy toward others by noting that God will be “a grim and fearsome Judge” if we do not treat our fellow human beings with kindness and mercy. James argues against “hypocrites” who say that faith alone is enough for us, since faith is the basis of our salvation. Calvin, as he interprets James, replies that this assertion is futile, because “works” stem from “love”: “faith without love gives no profit, indeed it is sheer loss” (1995: 282). James uses the definition of faith as utilized by the “hypocrites” he is opposing—those who “pretend insincerely to faith, but are entirely without it”—which is “reasoning in terms of an impossibility” (282). Calvin thus sees James’s claim as “universally agreed”; our salvation comes from faith, but the only pathway is being a member of the Body of Christ, one who lives and is ruled by “His Spirit.” James’s example of a naked and hungry person, then, focuses on the matter at hand by encouraging acts of mercy: “now as it mocks a poor man to send him off with words, and not bring him any help. So men mock God, when they arrange their lives to avoid works, or any single action, of sincere charity” (283). As Charles Wordsworth notes, William Shakespeare often appears to be influenced by the Calvinistic stress upon the sovereignty of God (1892: 143). One example is Hamlet’s observation to Horatio that sometimes the “deep plots” of humans fail, and those failures should teach us:

James 2:14–26  179 There’s a divinity that shapes our ends Rough-hew them how we will. (Hamlet, Act V scene ii)

Compare the words of Claudio in Act I scene iii of Measure for Measure, where “the words of heaven” show mercy upon whom God wants to show mercy and not on others to whom God does not want to show mercy (Wordsworth 1892: 143). Yet Shakespeare is no fatalist: although the Divine works its will in creation, human beings have the ability and responsibility to take actions themselves. Helena, for example, in All’s Well that Ends Well, notes to the Widow that “heaven”: Hath brought me up to be your daughter’s dower, As it hath fated her to be my motive And helper to a husband. (Act IV scene iv; Shakespeare 1979: 794)

In Act I, however, Helena speaks some of the most famous words from the play, after Parolles encourages her to pray in her leisure, to remember her friends, and to get a husband: Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie, Which we ascribe to heaven: the fated sky Gives us free scope; only doth backward pull Our slowest designs when we ourselves are dull. (Act I scene I; Shakespeare 1979: 758)

Shakespeare’s Cassius expresses similar thoughts in Julius Caesar: Men at some time are masters of their fates: The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars. But in ourselves, that we are underlings. (Act I scene ii; Shakespeare 1979: 1942)

None of these passages betray a direct connection to James, but they express the idea that human beings are not helpless in the face of fate or destiny; they can take specific actions to make a difference. Thomas Manton (1620–77) was an English Puritan who served as a chaplain to Oliver Cromwell, a Lecturer at Westminster Abbey, and as Rector of St. Paul’s (Covent Garden) in London. His book, The Epistle of James, maintains that James and Paul do not contradict each other, because James is speaking here of

180  James 2:14–26 a “pretence of faith.” James does not say “ ‘if any hath faith’ but ‘if any man say he hath faith,’ ” which means, for Manton, that James is not speaking of what “justifieth” a person but “who is justified.” In other words, James argues that “assent” without works is not true faith: And therefore certainly our apostle meaneth a pretence of faith, otherwise there would be a direct contradiction [between James and Eph. 2:8] . . . The two next verses show he meaneth such a faith as is in the tongue and the lips, such a faith as is alone and by itself; ver. 17, such a faith as the devils may have; ver. 19, such a faith as is dead . . . (Manton 1962: 232).

Because of the examples James gives, Manton believes that his chief aim in these verses is to shame the rich, who thought “to satisfy their duty by a few cheap words and charitable wishes; whose offence was as common as pretence of faith, as appeareth 1 John iii. 18, ‘Let us not love in word and in tongue, but in deed and in truth’ ” (235). Dositheus, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, convened the Synod of Jerusalem (1672) to consecrate the restored Church of the Holy Nativity in Bethlehem. The Defense of Greek Orthodoxy (or Confession of Dositheus) was signed by the Patriarch and sixty-eight Eastern bishops. This synod, like the Council of Trent for the Roman church, establishes church doctrine and condemns many of the doctrines of the Protestant churches (Schaff 1876: online at www.ccel. org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.v.vii.html). The Thirteenth Article of the Confession affirms that human beings are not justified by faith alone but also by works: We believe a man to be not simply justified through faith alone, but through faith which works through love, that is to say, through faith and works. But [the idea] that faith can fulfill the function of a hand that lays hold on the righteousness which is in Christ, and can then apply it unto us for salvation, we know to be far from all Orthodoxy. For faith so understood would be possible in all, and so none could miss salvation, which is obviously false. But on the contrary, we rather believe that it is not the correlative of faith, but the faith which is in us, justifies through works, with Christ. But we regard works not as witnesses certifying our calling, but as being fruits in themselves, through which faith becomes efficacious, and as in themselves meriting, through the Divine promises [cf. 2 Corinthians 5:10] that each of the Faithful may receive what is done through his own body, whether it be good or bad. (www.cresourcei.org/creeddositheus.html)

The Methodist Church attempts to strike a via media about faith without works being dead and justification by faith in Article X of the 1743 “Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church”:

James 2:14–26  181 Although good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and spring out of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree is ­discerned by its fruit (Wesley 1743: 6).

In a similar way, Charles Wesley incorporates James 2:15–17 into several stanzas (6–10) of his hymn, Love Feast. For Wesley, “faith alone” contains “social grace,” an “active faith” that demonstrates its aliveness by good works, and one that “sanctifies and makes us whole”: God his blessings shall dispense, God shall crown his ordinance, Here in his appointed ways Nourish us with social grace. Plead we then for faith alone, Faith which by our works is shown: God it is who justifies; Only faith the grace applies— Active faith that lives within, Conquers earth, and hell, and sin, Sanctifies and makes us whole, Forms the Saviour in the soul. Let us for this faith contend; Sure salvation is the end: Heav’n already is begun, Everlasting life is won. Only let us persevere, Till we see our Lord appear: Never from the Rock remove, Saved by faith, which works by love. (Hymns and Psalms 1985: 756).

Charles Deems combats the “sinister criticism” that James’s words were intended to correct the teachings of Paul. In fact, Deems claims, James and Paul are treating two different subjects and actually agree with one another “in fundamentals.” Deems also considers the Epistle of James to be published before Paul’s Letter to the Romans, so it could not be a response to Paul’s arguments there. The bottom line for Deems, however, is that both authors were writing with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and thus must agree in all essentials.

182  James 2:14–26 Any appearance of disagreement has to be due to the “defective intelligence of the reader” (1888: 135). In brief, Paul’s discussion of justification by faith concerns how “unregenerate” human beings can be justified. James, on the other hand, is concerned with “regenerate” human beings who must now “establish their claim to righteousness.” James believes in justification by faith, as the previous verses make clear (e.g., James 1:17–18). What Paul states “logically” concerning the unregenerate, James states more evangelically to the heart of the professed Christian (136). In addition, what Paul calls “the works of the law” (the unregenerate trying to obey the law to get a reward) are very different from James’s “works” (the regenerate helping others through love). James is not speaking of the faith that ­justifies, as does Paul (e.g., Rom. 3:28): He does not ask, “Can faith save him?” But he does ask, “Can that faith save him?” What faith? A worthless, inoperative faith . . . If Paul had ever read this question in the Epistle of James, his answer would probably have been an emphatic declaration: “No, such a faith as that could save no man; neither can any other faith than that faith which worketh through love, as I said in my epistle to the Galatians” (Gal. 5:6). There is no value in any faith, or any charity, or any work which does not “save,” which does not preserve a man’s character (139).

Revere Weidner’s commentary on James in The Lutheran Commentary series (1897) discusses briefly the three positions scholars have taken on the apparent differences between James and Paul: (1) Those such as F. C. Baur and H. J. Holtzmann, who suppose a “real contradiction, and a sharp antagonism between the two doctrinal systems of the two writers”; (2) Those such as W. Schmidt and F. H. Kern, who envision some diversity of doctrine between James and Paul but also a possible “higher unity”; (3) Those such as Calvin, J. B. Lightfoot, and most modern commentators who “affirm there is really no contradiction between James and Paul.” In this last view, the difference between James and Paul is mainly “one of expression.” In reality, Weidner argues, one writer actually supplements the other, either (1) James writes to correct false inferences made from Paul’s writings, (2) Paul writes with James’s position in mind, or (3) there are no direct or even indirect connections between them (19). Weidner states that the “true solution” is that James writes  before Paul (before 50 CE) and does not reference either directly or indirectly the Pauline argument about faith and works. Their writings are “aimed at totally different errors.” James focuses on those persons who have already been “regenerated and justified” (1:18, 21, 25; 2:1), who now live without morals or compassion for others. Their barren faith is dead. Here James echoes the teachings of Jesus (e.g., Matt. 7:20–1; 12:36–7). Weidner

James 2:14–26  183 acknowledges that Luther does not accept the genuineness of the Epistle of James because he thought (1) it is in conflict with Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith and (2) does not stress the passion, resurrection, and spirit of Christ (88). Weidner disagrees, but instead of saying so directly in his own words, he quotes earlier scholars, such as B. F. Westcott, who although celebrating the “freshness and power” of Luther’s comments, points out that Luther’s “bold independence and self-assertion” limits the viability of his position, since such “judgments rest on no definite external evidence.” Because of this, “later Lutherans abandoned the teaching of their great master on the written word” (90–1). Perhaps more poignantly, Weidner closes with a quotation from Frederic W. Farrar: It is impossible not to admire the noble independence of a spirit which was free and bold because it was living and because it felt the Spirit of God as a fresh power. But Luther’s condemnation of the Epistle rose from his not possessing the right clue to its comprehension (91; Farrar, Messages of the Books 1897: 412).

In a way similar to earlier interpreters, Alfred Plummer writes that James’s view on faith and works is in “perfect harmony” with “His Divine Brother” in such verses as Matthew 7:21–3 (i.e., some of those prophesying or casting out demons in Jesus’ name will not enter the kingdom of heaven). The “faith” of which James speaks is “divorced from the love which makes it acceptable” (1891: 138). In addition, Plummer criticizes F. C. Baur’s position that the Epistle of James is not genuine, that it was written sometime in the second century, and that James argues against the Pauline doctrine of justification. Instead, there is no anti-Pauline rancor: “St. James is merely following the course of his own argument, without thinking of St. Paul’s teaching respecting the relation between faith and works” (143). James insists on the “necessity of faith” (e.g., 1:3, 6) and focuses on the “necessity of practice” (e.g., 1:22, 25). He assumes that his hearers have faith and then proceeds to demonstrate “how this must be accompanied by the practice of charity and mercy towards all, and especially towards the poor.” James therefore does not dispute their faith, Plummer claims; James instead maintains that unless there is a corresponding practice, the existence of that faith is not proved: “It is as barren as a withered tree, and as lifeless as a corpse” (144). James Hardy Ropes points out that erga (works) in James do not signify erga nomou (works of the law). Faith, for James, is the “fundamental” characteristic of “true members of the religious community,” but that community also must have binding laws of conduct they are expected to follow. Paul, on the other hand, is replacing the “works of an old and abandoned system” with the “faith of a newly adopted one.” One way to explain the difference is that the first is

184  James 2:14–26 required by “Jewish law” to “secure” salvation, and the second is “demanded by Christian ethics” that spring from one’s “new life” in Christ (1916: 205–6). Ropes concludes that it is not faith and works that are opposed (as with Paul) but “a living faith and a dead faith”: James does not deny that “faith can exist without works, but it is the wrong kind of faith” (207). On February 4, 1968, two months before his assassination on April 4 in the same year, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., preached his last sermon at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia: “The Drum Major Instinct.” The sermon does not mention the book of James, but it does, as did King’s proclamation of civil and human rights, demonstrate a fidelity to James’s view on faith and works, as well as James’s critique of partiality toward the rich. King begins the sermon by speaking about the all-too-human tendency for people to covet recognition, to be first, to desire to “lead the parade” (cf. Mark 10:35). Jesus said, however, that true greatness means being the servant of all. King spends quite a bit of the sermon discussing how people in the United States suffer from this “drum major instinct,” such as the economic desire to “outdo the Joneses” (1992: 184). Yes, King says, it is good to be first in something, but one should strive to be first in love, first in moral excellence, and first in generosity. The greatest should be the servant of all. Then King describes a man who went about serving others, who was born of a poor peasant woman in an obscure village. He worked as a carpenter and became an itinerant preacher. He never wrote a book, attended college, owned a house, had a family, or visited a big city. He, in fact, was a rabble-rouser who practiced civil disobedience and who died abandoned on a Roman cross. That person, Jesus of Nazareth, is the “most influential ­figure that ever entered human history” (190). Then King turns the spotlight on himself to demonstrate that faith without works on the behalf of others is dead: If any of you are around when I have to meet my day, I don’t want a long funeral. And if you get somebody to deliver the eulogy, tell them not to talk too long. Every now and then I wonder what I want them to say . . . I’d like somebody to mention that day, that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to give his life serving others. I’d like for somebody to say that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody. I want you to say that day, that I tried to be right on the war question. I want you to be able to say that day, that I did try, in my life, to feed the hungry. And I want you to able to say that day, that I did try, in my life, to clothe those who were naked. I want you to say, on that day, that I did try, in my life, to visit those who were in prison. I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity. Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice; say that I was a drum major for peace; I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things won’t matter . . . I just want to leave a committed life behind (191).

James 2:14–26  185 As with many instances of the reception of James within the Christian tradition, the connection with James is often made via Jesus’ teachings—especially the care for the poor—as occurs here indirectly with Matthew 25. Elsa Tamez observes that reading this section of James from a woman’s standpoint makes one more sensitive to the double oppression of women based both on class and gender. The poor (ptōchoi), who lack the means of subsistence and live from alms, are in need of clothes and do not have enough food to survive (2:15). In this context, James specifies both the masculine and feminine genders (brothers and sisters). The term brother in this patriarchal society was frequently used to designate both genders, patriarchal language that James uses in several places (e.g., 2:14). It is very probable, Tamez surmises, because of this distinctive addition of the feminine, that the needy within these communities were commonly women (2002: 20–1). Gay Byron declares that James’s discussion of faith at this point in the letter is “no accident.” These verses are directly situated after verses discussing “economic disparities and skewed relationships.” James, then, is making the point that “faith” can only be understood “in the context of a community of individuals who are seeking to become mature and complete in their faith.” Faith means that one has to fulfill the material needs of brothers and sisters living in poverty through specific actions and relationships (2007: 466–7).

James 2:18–26 Ancient literary context An objection arises from either a supporter (cf. Mayor 1990: 409–10) or an opponent (cf. Ropes 1916: 213–14). An imaginary opponent is the most likely candidate in this contrived debate, because of the apparent diatribe format (cf.  “senseless person” in 2:20), although the objection seems awkwardly the opposite of what one would expect (but cf. Dibelius 1975: 149–51). James quickly and forcefully dismisses the hypothetical objection. Works and faith are inseparable, since true faith produces certain actions, and works complete one’s faith. Yet, what, James asks, is true faith? Scholars differ on whether James’s “you do well” is an acknowledgement of faith, or whether it involves irony if not sarcasm. At the very least the opponent is placed in unenviable company: Demons believe that “God is one” (cf. Deut. 6:4), but, as James leaves unspoken, that does them little good. Their knowledge of God only brings a response of fear, not the response the Shema demands: loving God with all one’s heart, soul, and might, and obeying God’s commandments (Deut. 6:4–9). Faith, James

186  James 2:14–26 declares, requires action—deeds of mercy, compassion, and hospitality to all without partiality. Just as Jesus connected love of neighbor to the Shema (e.g., Matt. 22:36–40), so does James (2:8). James next provides additional proof from scripture (Abraham and Rahab) that faith without works is barren. James’s use of the epithet “senseless person” for his supposed opponent is another indication of a diatribe format, but the distance evoked by such a denunciation is partly softened by James’s acknowledgement that they have a common ancestor, Abraham (2:21). Abraham, James argues, was justified by works through his deed of following God’s call to sacrifice his son Isaac. Faith not only was active in those works (James uses the plural) but actually was “brought to completion” (2:22) by them. In verse 24, James moves away from the dialogue with the imaginary opponent to the conclusion his readers should reach because of his arguments: faith “alone” does not make one righteous (2:24); faith without works is a lifeless corpse (2:26). Faith requires faithfulness. Just as James specifically added the word “sister” in the “brother and sister” in need (2:15; cf. 1:2, 19; 2:1, 5, 14, where it is omitted), James now includes male and female examples of faithfulness: Abraham and Rahab. Abraham, the wealthy, prominent male from whom the Jewish people descended, is significantly different from Rahab, a marginalized, non-Jewish female, most likely poor and certainly a sinner. Abraham is perhaps the most famous biblical example of hospitality (e.g., Gen. 18), but James points to a more specific action of faithfulness: Abraham was tested by God’s command to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:1; cf. James 1:2–18, where James’s intended audience is going through trials), his faith was demonstrated by his actions, and he was “reckoned” as righteous by God. As Hartin notes, Abraham’s faith was “perfected through his works” (2003: 159). Rahab the prostitute, on the other hand, received and protected the two spies sent by Joshua to Jericho (Josh. 2:1–14). James states that Rahab “likewise” was “justified by works” when she welcomed the messengers and saved their lives. Although James does not mention Rahab’s faith specifically, his argument presumes that her hospitality stems, to a large extent, from her faith (Hartin 2003: 155–6; Johnson 1995: 245).

The interpretations Ancient and medieval This passage is often cited by interpreters who argue that 1 Clement knows and uses James. The similarities in their portrayals of Abraham, for example, are remarkable. Both refer to Abraham as “a friend of God” (James 2:23; 1 Clem. 10:1)

James 2:14–26  187 and quote Genesis 15:6 about Abraham believing God “and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (James 2:23; 1 Clem. 10:6; see Hartin 2003: 6–7). As Johnson notes, the similarities go beyond what is found in Hebrews about Abraham (e.g., Hebrews cites Gen. 15:5 but not 15:6). Clement also differs from Hebrews and aligns with James in praising Abraham’s actions: “being righteous by deeds” (1 Clem. 30:3, cf. James 2:21, 24; see Johnson 1995: 74). Origen cites James 2:26 in his commentary on John (Book 20, Chapter 66) to try to understand the comment in John 8:39 to “do the works of Abraham.” He argues that the plural is important; believers are not to focus on one “work of Abraham” but are to do “all the works of Abraham.” In a side comment, Origen notes the debates over whether to accept the saying “Faith without works is dead” as authoritative, which seems to reflect debates over the authority if not the canonicity of James during Origen’s era (1993: 219–20). John Chrysostom is in many ways a kindred spirit with James. Note, for example, Chrysostom’s use of James 2:18 in a homily on John 13:20 (Homily LXXII.5). He insists that one’s actions are critical, because faith without works (or faith haunted by works opposed to the Gospel) prevents non-Christians from being converted. Chrysostom argues that “heathen” are attracted to Christianity by a “mode of life” that exemplifies love, because non-Christians respect virtue and are offended by vice “with good reason.” People, Chrysostom notes, ignore those whose actions do not match their words—the greedy exhorting charity, the one commanding love who ill-treats others—and Christians whose actions do not match their professed faith cause non-Christians to remain “in their error,” even when they admire Christian doctrines: “they require proof by works.” Chrysostom then quotes James 2:18 and observes that when non-Christians see Christians tearing “our neighbors worse than any wild beast, they call us the curse of the world.” Christians who behave this way will not only be punished for the evil they do but also because their actions blaspheme the name of God. As Chrysostom states succinctly in a homily on Genesis 2:14: “Faith without works is dead, and works without faith are dead also” (1985: 37). In one of the more unusual uses of James 2:18, Chrysostom encourages the inhabitants of Antioch not to fear death. This exhortation is found in one of his twenty-one homilies, On the Statues, given in response to the inhabitants of Antioch rising up against the emperor because of exorbitant taxes. Among the various things that provoked the emperor Theodosius was the fact that the people of Antioch destroyed statues of him, his deceased wife, and their son Arcadius. They then dragged the pieces of the statues through the streets, and the emperor threatened to destroy the city in response. In his homilies, Chrysostom seeks to console the people of Antioch, as well as to admonish

188  James 2:14–26 them and exhort them to rectify their errors. Chrysostom cites James 2:18 to encourage them not to fear death should they be punished: If you are a Christian, believe in Christ; if you believe in Christ, show me your faith by your works. But how may you show this? By your contempt of death: for in this we differ from the unbelievers. They may well fear death; since they have no hope of a resurrection. But you, who are traveling toward better things, and have the opportunity of meditating on the hope of the future; what excuse have you, if while assured of a resurrection, you are yet at the same time as fearful of death, as those who believe not the resurrection?

Pelagius cites James 2:26 when he discusses the import of Romans 3:28 (“For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law”). Pelagius argues against those who use this verse “to do away with works of righteousness” and first cites evidence from Paul himself to contradict this view (1 Cor. 13:2 about the requirement of love and Rom. 13:10 about love fulfilling the law). Instead, Pelagius states that Paul means requirements of the Jewish law such as “the works of circumcision or the sabbath and others of this sort, and not without the works of righteousness.” In addition to “coming to Christ,” believers must do the work of grace that baptized Christians are obligated to perform (1993: 83). One’s faith is demonstrated in one’s actions; faith results in works. Pelagius (or someone greatly dependent upon his works; see Rees 1991: 105– 6) expands upon these comments in his On the Christian Life. The “works of the law” of which Paul speaks (e.g., circumcision, the new moon, and the Sabbath) were things that “the law had ordered to be done formerly but which were no longer necessary in the time of Christ.” James, on the other hand, clearly states that “works of righteousness” are indeed required of Christians: “he who has not done these is without life, though he may pretend that he has faith” (Rees 1991: 121–2; cf. On Bad Teachers 6.2, written by a follower of Pelagius, where “an invisible faith is revealed in the practice of visible good works”; Rees 1991: 221). The “even the demons believe and shudder” from James 2:19 is another of Augustine’s favorite sayings from James, one that he cites in numerous contexts. One example is in his chapter, “No Gift of God is More Excellent than Love,” in On the Trinity (15:18). Augustine’s discussion of 1 Corinthians 13 notes that the gift of love distinguishes “the sons of the eternal kingdom” from “the sons of eternal perdition.” As Paul says, the only thing that counts is “faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6), which distinguishes true faith “from that faith by which even ‘the devils believe and tremble.’ ” The demons “tremble,” Augustine states, because they have neither hope nor love, but they believe that what Christians hope for is “about to come”; that is why they “are in terror” (Enchiridion, Chapter 8). An expansion of this thought, which

James 2:14–26  189 links love/charity with faith also in connection with 1 Corinthians 13, is found in his Commentary on the Gospel of John, Tractate XXI: “But what says James? ‘The devils believe and tremble.’ Faith is might, but without charity it profits nothing. The devils confessed Christ . . . They had faith but not charity; hence they were devils. Boast not of faith; so far you are on a level with the devils.” In his anti-Pelagian, On Grace and Free Will (Chapter 18), Augustine argues that faith without good works is not sufficient for salvation (cf. Sermons on New-Testament Lessons III.11): “Unintelligent persons” read Paul’s statement about being justified by faith without works (Rom. 3:28) as meaning that faith is enough and that a person could lead a bad life and still be saved. That person, Augustine argues, could not be “a vessel of election,” since Paul in Galatians 5:6 speaks about “faith that works by love.” This is the faith, once again, that separates God’s faithful from the “unclean demons” who “believe and tremble.” Those demons do not possess the faith of the righteous, “the faith which works by love” that God judges “according to its works with eternal life” (cf. the Pelagian, On the Christian Life). In his comments on James 2, Cyril of Alexandria tries to explain why James says that Abraham was justified by works when he offered Isaac on the altar, whereas Paul says that Abraham was justified by faith. Cyril admits that those statements appear contradictory, but he argues that “this is to be understood as meaning that Abraham believed before he had Isaac and that Isaac was given to him as a reward for his faith.” So when Abraham offered Isaac on the altar he had faith that God’s promise of numerous descendants through Isaac would still occur, “believing that God could raise him from the dead” (Bray 2000: 32). Gregory the Great uses James 2:18 in his pleas to Theodoric and Theodebert, Kings of the Franks, to cleanse their priests of the “simoniacal heresy” that, in Gregory’s view, was prevalent in their kingdom. Citing James 2:18, Gregory says, “If good life is wanting, faith has no merit,” and he asks what merit have the “works” of a priest who obtains his office by a bribe. People desiring sacred orders “busy themselves in amassing wealth” and do not bother to live lives worthy of their desired office. Meanwhile, this causes the “innocent and poor” to “recoil from sacred orders.” Corruption takes a toll, Gregory notes, not only on the church but also upon the entire kingdom. A wounded shepherd cannot heal his sheep; a diseased root cannot produce good fruit. In addition, a corrupt clergy may “provoke . . . the anger of God.” Gregory cites James 2:26 to correct George the Presbyter and Theodore the Deacon of the Church of Constantinople (Epistle XV). After Gregory receives word that George had indicated that when Jesus “descended into hell,” he saved everyone there who acknowledged him as God, Gregory writes to reprove him: Jesus descended into hell and “delivered through His grace those only who both believed that He should come and observed His precepts in their lives.” After

190  James 2:14–26 Jesus’ resurrection, only those who had a “life of faith” can be saved, which Gregory argues is based on Titus 1:16, 1 John 2:4, and James 2:26: If, then, believers now are not saved without good works, while the unbelieving and reprobate without good action were saved by our Lord descending into hell, then the lot of those who never saw the incarnation of the Lord was better than that of these who have been born after the mystery of His incarnation.

Gregory concludes that the “true faith” of the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus descended into hell and rescued only the elect—only those who, while alive, God “preserved through His grace in faith and good conduct.” Leo the Great’s fifth sermon on the “Collections” (Sermon X.3–4) argues that the duty of mercy outweighs all other virtues. He laments the fact that some wealthy are not willing to help the “Church’s poor,” even though those same affluent people keep other commands of God. Leo contends that these rich people who have: many meritorious acts of faith and uprightness think they will be pardoned for the lack of this one virtue. But this is so important that, though the rest exist without it, they can be of no avail. For although a man be full of faith, and chaste, and sober, and adorned with other still greater decorations, yet if he is not merciful, he cannot deserve mercy: for the Lord says, “blessed are the merciful, for God shall have mercy upon them” (Matt. 5:7).

Leo extols the incalculable efficacy of mercy to encourage his flock to give to the Lenten collection generously so that their alms and the people aided by those alms will intercede for them. His parishioners should not flatter themselves, Leo says, on the merits of their virtuous lives if they overlook charity: “For ‘almsgiving wipes out sin’ (Eccl. 3:30), kills death, and extinguishes the punishment of perpetual fire.” People who have not been “cleansed by the purification of almsgiving” will have no “indulgence” from God at the last judgment. Leo first quotes Tobias, who urges his son to give alms to the poor so that God will not turn away from him (Tobias 4:7) and then writes, “this virtue makes all virtues profitable,” because without such works faith is dead (James 2:26). Maximus the Confessor (ca. 580–662) is one of the greatest Byzantine theologians, perhaps best known for his opposition to Monothelitism, the idea that although Jesus had two natures, divine and human, Jesus only had one divine will, not a human will. Maximus argues instead that Jesus had both a divine will and a human will. Because of this view, although it eventually became orthodox, Maximus was tried and convicted as a heretic. He was tortured—his

James 2:14–26  191 tongue was cut out, and his right hand was cut off to prevent him from speaking or writing heresy—and died in exile (Hastings 1999: 76). The Mystagogia of Maximus is a treatise on the church, its liturgy, and their effects on human life (1982: 13). In Chapter 5 of this work, which explains Denys the Areopagite’s “The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy,” Maximus discusses the idea of the church as a model of the soul, which consists of two forces: intellect and vitality: [W]hen reason moves with prudence it comes to action; through action it comes to virtue, through virtue to faith, which is a truly confident and reliable conviction about the things of God; through prudence, reason has faith potentially at first; but eventually faith comes to actual expression through virtue, because it is made manifest in works. For as it is written, “faith without works is dead” (77).

As an ascetic monk, the love embodied in Jesus’ life and passion was at the center of Maximus’s thought (e.g., see his The Ascetic Life). His treatise, The Four Centuries on Charity, demonstrates that the whole of Christian life is summarized and contained in charity (1955: 91). As Maximus notes, people should never say that “mere faith” in Christ as Lord can save them. Such faith is ineffective unless believers also exhibit good works: “As to mere believing: the devils also believe and tremble. The work of love is the intentional doing of good to one’s neighbor and long-suffering and patience; also the use of things in due measure” (91). The Venerable Bede contends that those who do not believe there is a God or believe and do not fear God must be “slower-witted and more shameless than the demons” (1985: 29). He then delineates some implications of this belief/unbelief: But it is no great thing to believe that there is a God and tremble if one does not also believe in him, that is, if love for him be not held in the heart. For it is one thing to believe him, another to believe that he exists, another to believe in him. To believe him is to believe that the things he speaks are true; to believe that he exists is to believe that he is God; to believe in him is to love him. Many, even the wicked, are able to believe that the things he says are true; they believe that they are true and do not wish to make them their own because they are too lazy to do anything about them. Even the demons were able to believe, however, that he is God. But they alone know how to believe in God who love God, who are Christians not only in name but in action and [way of] life, because without love faith is empty; with love it is the faith of a Christian, without love the faith of a demon (29).

Bede’s comments on James 2:20–1 explain how James and Paul complement each other. Paul’s message of justification by faith apart from the works of the law (Rom. 3:28) is not well understood, Bede argues, because some take it to

192  James 2:14–26 mean that once they believe in Christ, they could live wickedly and still be saved by faith. James explains how this passage should really be understood: It has the same meaning as James 2:20: “faith without works is worthless.” James, in fact, uses Abraham as an example (James 2:21), because Paul uses Abraham as an example in Romans 4:1–25 to demonstrate that a person is “made righteous without deeds” (30). Since James recalls Abraham’s good deeds which accompanied his faith, he demonstrates that Paul does not teach that a person is made righteous without works to the extent that a believer has no responsibility to perform good works; instead Paul stresses that a person should not think that the gift of righteousness which comes in faith is earned by the merits of former good deeds. The grace of Christ was being given to uncircumcised gentiles, so Paul rightly claims that a person can be made righteous by faith without works, but, for Bede, Paul means “previous works.” A person who is made “righteous by faith” must act “righteously,” and with Abraham as an example, James challenges people “to prove their faith through works.” Bede also, since he thinks Paul wrote Hebrews, uses Hebrews 11:17–19 to make his point. James praises the quality of Abraham’s works (i.e., being willing to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice); Paul/Hebrews praises the constancy of Abraham’s faith. The arguments, however, are not different, because they “both knew that Abraham was perfect both in faith and in works, and therefore each of them has emphasized in preaching on him the virtue which he perceived his hearers needed more” (31–2). Bede notes that James further shows how faith and works go together, because God tempted Abraham by ordering him to offer up his son, “and by his works his faith was fulfilled” (33; emphases in the original). The perfection of his faith “was tested by the performance of works.” To maintain this consistency between James and Paul, Bede interprets 2:24’s justified “by works” as justified by “the works of faith, because no one can have perfect works without faith but many [have] faith without works if they lack the time for works” (33). James does not want his readers to believe that Abraham was a special case, one who is so great he could never be imitated. That is why James also offers up the example of Rahab, the non-Jewish prostitute who by her works of mercy “deserved to be made righteous” and “be enrolled as a member of the people of Israel,” become “royal lineage,” and “mingle with the families of our Lord and saviour himself.” Bede thus envisions James as urging his fellow Jews to accept the messengers of Jesus even though they would be “rejected by their fellow countrymen or hounded to death” (34). The Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by John of Damascus systematically collects the theological positions of his predecessors. In the section “Concerning Faith and Baptism” of this work, John discusses how baptism purifies impure people and the regeneration of the baptized takes place “in the spirit,” because faith has the power to make us children of God and lead us “into our original

James 2:14–26  193 blessedness.” John notes, however, that even though forgiveness of sins is granted to all through baptism, this “second birth” is just the beginning: Baptized Christians should keep themselves “pure from filthy works.” They should never return like the dog to its vomit (2 Peter 2:22) and make themselves once again the slaves of sin: “For faith apart from works is dead, and so likewise are works apart from faith. For the true faith is attested by works” (IV.9). Likewise, Ps.-Oecumenius declares that James is talking about post-baptismal faith, a situation in which having faith without works would make us more guilty of sin (just like Jesus’ parable of the Talents where the talent is buried in a field). Jesus serves as an example, because after his baptism he went into the wilderness to do battle with the devil. Since Paul also exhorts us to “strive” to enter God’s peace, he acknowledges that faith is not enough: “Holiness of life is also necessary, and for that great efforts are required” (Bray 2000: 34). Early modern and modern Luther cites this section of James many times, including minor asides in such places as his commentary on Genesis, where he notes that Cain could not endure God’s judgment, since “even the devil himself ” could not, as evidenced by the fact that “the devils tremble in the presence of God” (James 2:19; LW 1:296–7). As noted in my Introduction, Luther’s complaints about James include not only his belief about non-apostolic authorship, but also the style and mode of writing. James, Luther says, constantly shifts from topic to topic: “there’s no order or method in the epistle.” Luther also complains, as reported in Table Talk 5443, about the comparison in James 2:26 of the body and faith: O Mary, mother of God! What a terrible comparison that is! James compares faith with the body when he should rather have compared faith with the soul! The ancients recognized this, too, and therefore they didn’t acknowledge this letter as one of the catholic epistles (LW 54: 425).

In other places, Luther cites James in his evaluations of the virtues and failings of others. For example, Luther commends the good life of the Waldensians as the “most upright of all.” He then goes on to say that although they “have the best pedagogy,” they do not have a pure vision of justification. The main problem is that the Waldensians believe that people are saved by faith and grace, but they ascribe to faith properties that produce “regeneration.” Therefore, Luther argues, they do not believe that it is faith alone in Christ that saves: They explain faith and grace differently from us, and at the same time they attribute righteousness to works when they say, “Faith apart from works is barren”

194  James 2:14–26 [James 2:20]. If this passage is applied to morals and the preaching of the law, it is excellent, but if we connect it with the article of justification, it’s not so much inappropriate as it is ungodly (LW 54: 176).

Likewise, in the majority of his citations of this passage, Luther clarifies his understanding of James and Paul. For example, in his “Judgment of Martin Luther on Monastic Vows,” Luther argues that works cannot be seen as a ­component of justification. Faith alone justifies, and works are the necessary “fruits of a justifying faith.” The “works of the divine law” found in the Ten Commandments—such as chastity, generosity, and obedience to one’s parents— “do not justify, nor are they necessary for righteousness and salvation,” since Paul says that we are not “justified by the works of the law” (Rom. 3:20). They are necessary, however, since Jesus says that you must keep the commandments “if you wish to enter into life” (Matt. 19:17). The solution for Luther is: Nor can these works be set aside even where faith, which alone justifies, is present, since they are the fruits of a justifying faith. For faith without works is dead and worth nothing . . . Thus it can be said in the matter of a vow and its works that the works are still necessary, even after the vow has been set aside, for these works are still commandments, just as the fruits of righteousness, even though they are not necessary for the attainment of the righteousness which is of faith alone, are still righteousness. Nor can the freedom of the gospel dispense with the commandments of God (LW 44: 298).

In other places, though, Luther is blunt about his disagreements with James. In a discussion of whether Abraham was justified on the basis of works, for example, Luther criticizes James’s “false conclusion” and “raving statement” about works. Luther here defends himself against attacks on his understanding of justification by faith coming from those who use James to argue against Luther’s position. In the heat of this battle, Luther writes: Next the question is usually considered at this point whether Abraham was justified on the basis of his works, as James argues in his letter. Because the text says: “Now I see that you are righteous,” he wants to conclude from this that previously Abraham was not righteous. But the answer, which the words themselves point out, is easy. For it is one thing, even grammatically speaking, to be righteous and another thing to know that one is righteous. Abraham was righteous by faith before God acknowledged him as such. Therefore James concludes falsely that now at last he was justified after that obedience; for faith and righteousness are known by works as by their fruits. But it does not follow, as James raves: “Hence the fruits justify,” just as it does not follow: “I know a tree by its fruit; therefore the tree becomes good as a result of its fruit.”

James 2:14–26  195 Therefore let our opponents be done with their James, whom they throw up to us so often. They babble much but understand nothing about the righteousness of works (LW 4:133–4; cf. where Luther writes, “the passage does not deal with a work, as James says in his letter, since as yet no work has occurred. It is the faith that we admire and praise”).

Similar discussions are found throughout Luther’s works. On July 7, 1542, for instance, Luther presided over the Licentiate Examination of Heinrich Schmedenstede, and the text of that disputation includes forty-six theses to which “Master Heinrich” had to respond. Luther focuses on justification by faith, and the theses sought to “offend,” so that they “may defend the wisdom of God” energetically against their opponents. The candidate engaged in this “debate and battle amongst ourselves” so that the examiners could decide whether he was “worthy to be made overseer of Christ’s great church” (LW 34: 307). The twenty-first thesis argued that it is by faith alone that human beings are justified. The disputation on this thesis was as follows: James [2:22] says that Abraham was justified by works. Therefore, justification is not by faith. Master Heinrich responds: James is speaking of works as the effect of justification, not as the cause. Dr. Martin Luther: That epistle of James gives us much trouble, for the papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest. Up to this point I have been accustomed just to deal with and interpret it according to the sense of the rest of Scriptures. For you will judge that none of it must be set forth contrary to manifest Holy Scripture. Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did (LW 34: 317).

Here Luther refers to a story about a priest in Kalenberg who, when a duchess visited, heated the room by burning wooden statues of the apostles. He saved the statue of James for last, and when he put it into the stove, he remarked, “Now bend over, Jimmy, you must go into the stove; no matter if you were the pope or all the bishops, the room must become warm” (LW 34: 317). One of Luther’s most succinct discussions of faith and works is found in his Preface to Romans. Although it does not cite James explicitly, Luther seems to have the apparent differences between Paul and James in mind. He argues that doing “the works of the law” is quite different than “fulfilling” the law. Doing everything one can through one’s own power to obey the law actually creates an abhorrence of the law, which means that “the works are a total loss and are completely useless.” Luther also clearly distinguishes between “work” done in an effort to “prepare yourself for grace” and “works” performed after salvation,

196  James 2:14–26 which are fruits of the Holy Spirit. One can live in a manner pleasing to God “eagerly, lovingly, and freely without the constraint of the law,” but that can only be achieved through faith in Christ and by the Holy Spirit: “That is why faith alone makes someone just and fulfills the law; faith it is that brings the Holy Spirit through the merits of Christ . . . Then good works proceed from faith itself.” We fulfill the law, then, through faith. Luther takes pains, however, to observe that Paul, in Romans 5, declares that even though faith alone justifies without works, works of faith (e.g., joy, peace, love for God and all people) occur “where faith is genuine.” Romans 6, Luther then argues, makes it clear that “faith does not free us from sin”; God does not condemn us for those sins, but we thus have “a lifetime of work cut out for us.” We must seek to “tame our body, kill its lusts, and force its members to obey the spirit and not the lusts.” The goal is to conform to Christ and to be “completely clean from sin . . .” Christians therefore have true freedom from sin and the law, a spiritual freedom “only to do good with eagerness and to live a good life without the coercion of the law”: It’s as though you owed something to a moneylender and couldn’t pay him. You could be rid of him in one of two ways: either he would take nothing from you and would tear up his account book, or a pious man would pay for you and give you what you needed to satisfy your debt. That’s exactly how Christ freed us from the law. Therefore our freedom is not a wild, fleshy freedom that has no obligation to do anything. On the contrary, it is a freedom that does a great deal, indeed everything, yet is free of the law’s demands and debts (“Preface to the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans”).

Calvin takes issue with Erasmus’s belief that James 2:18 is a dialogue between those supporting faith without works and those supporting works without faith, with James “taking the middle course to refute them both.” Calvin argues that Erasmus misses the irony inherent in James’s words. The alla . . . tis introduces “a rebuttal of the vain boast of those who imagine they have faith, but whose lives reveal their faithlessness” (1995: 284). To buttress his case, Calvin makes a text-critical decision in preferring the “old Latin” and a few Greek manuscripts’ use of “without” in place of the most general reading of “from your works” in the Greek texts. In this way, James is “arguing from the impossible” to demonstrate that no such thing exists. It is true that some people distinguish themselves by commendable works unrelated to faith, but “James is not arguing that every fine appearance leads straight to a man of faith. He only wants to say that preaching faith without the testimony of good works is useless, for fruits always come from the living root of the good tree” (284). Calvin also stresses that we must view James 2:20–6 in its context, and he focuses on the intention of the author. James in no way is discussing the “cause

James 2:14–26  197 of our justification”; hence it is mistaken to try to use these verses to prove that a person is “justified by works.” James intends “nothing of the kind” (285). The “justified” in 2:21 does not involve the source or manner of one’s “attainment of righteousness” but instead makes the critical point that “good works are invariably tied to faith”: So when the sophists set James against Paul, they are deceived by the double meaning of the term “justification.” When Paul says we are justified by faith, he means precisely that we have won a verdict of righteousness in the sight of God. James has quite another intention, that the man who professes himself to be faithful should demonstrate the truth of his fidelity by works. James did not mean to teach us where the confidence of our salvation should rest—which is the very point on which Paul does insist. So let us avoid the false reasoning which has tripped the sophists, by taking note of the double meaning: to Paul, the word denotes our free imputation of righteousness before the judgment seat of God, to James, the demonstration of righteousness from its effects, in the sight of men (285).

Calvin illustrates this distinction by saying that Abraham’s faith was “formed” before God commanded him to sacrifice Isaac; Abraham’s action revealed his integrity and demonstrated the fruition of his loyalty. The “sophists” vainly attempt to make “an effect come before its cause” (286). Calvin also explains the apparently incongruous use of Rahab in conjunction with Abraham in that they function as examples to demonstrate that “at no time was any person, of whatever condition or race or class, reckoned among the justified and believing if they did not show works.” The range of people from a “Patriarch” to a “harlot” includes everyone, even those who are “strangers to the Church” (287). Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary stresses that there is “very happy agreement” between James and Paul as far as works and faith. Henry also furthers the discussion of Abraham and Rahab by saying that James argues that an assent to the gospel “without works, is not faith,” so James is speaking of works that are done “in obedience to the gospel.” That is exactly what James’s two examples demonstrate. With Abraham, faith produced works, and it “advanced him to peculiar favours.” Rahab exemplifies the other end of the spectrum, the power of faith to change sinners: Rahab’s conduct proved her faith to be living, or having power; it showed that she believed with her heart, not merely by an assent of the understanding. Let us then take heed, for the best works, without faith, are dead; they want root and principle . . . Faith is the root, good works are the fruits; and we must see to it that we have both.

198  James 2:14–26 In his classic 1752 sermon, “True Grace Distinguished from the Experience of Devils,” Jonathan Edwards begins by discussing the issue of how “real Christians” can be “distinguished from the rest of the world” (2006: 25:608). Such things as church membership, being a moral person, or even belief in God is not enough, Edwards argues. His text is James 2:19, which Edwards interprets to mean that mere belief in the existence of God is not enough to be a Christian, because, as James indicates, even demons believe that there is one, “holy sinhating God; and that he is a god of truth, and will fulfill his threatenings” (609). Edwards also concludes from James 2:19 that even “for a person to believe the doctrines of Christianity . . . is no evidence of grace” (617). For Edwards, James is not talking about belief only, but also the “infallible evidences of grace, which are laid down in Scripture . . . all of a holy and spiritual nature” (630). True religious experiences come from the Holy Spirit, and the “sense of the supreme holy beauty, and comeliness of divine things of God” is a key indicator of God’s grace (633). What distinguishes “true Christian experience” is knowing and having Jesus as Lord: This is the foundation of the faith of God’s elect. This gives the mind a saving belief of the truth of divine things. ’Tis a view of the excellency of the things exhibited in the gospel, or sense of the divine beauty, and amiableness of the scheme of doctrine there exhibited, that savingly convinces the mind (634).

Edwards thus concludes that the Christian’s sense of the “supreme, holy beauty and glory of God and Christ” truly humbles one’s soul and “alters the very nature and disposition of the heart.” It shows us our own deformity, leads our souls to exalt God instead of ourselves, causes us to hate evil, produces holiness of heart, and disposes us to focus on serving God and promoting the good of humanity (637). False experiences may produce some zeal and cause a certain amount of what is called religion; but it is not truly Christian zeal; ’tis not a being zealous of good works: their religion is not the service of God; ’tis not a seeking and serving God; but indeed, a seeking and serving themselves. Thus the apostle James distinguishes, in our context, a true faith, from the faith of devils [he quotes James 2:19–20; 1 John 1:6–7; 2:3–4; 3:18–19] (637–8).

From a distinctly different perspective, John Wesley writes of free will, justification, and good works in his A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion. In Part I, Article XII, Wesley argues that because of the fall of Adam, human beings cannot prepare themselves for God and have no power to do good works acceptable to God. God judges us as righteous only because of the work of Christ and our faith in Christ, not because of anything we do. Good works are the “fruits of faith and follow after justification,” and they derive from a “true

James 2:14–26  199 and lively faith.” Wesley then proposes an analogy with an apple tree and an apple: “Does it not follow, that the supposing any good work to go before justification is full as absurd as the supposing an apple, or any other fruit, to grow before the tree” (1958: 53). In his work, “The Doctrine of Salvation, Faith, and Good Works,” Wesley states that in reality, neither works nor faith justify us; God does in mercy through the “merits of his Son only.” Yet by the faith given to us by God, we embrace God’s promise of mercy and forgiveness. Faith without works justifies us before God. Yet, Wesley observes: “For that faith which bringeth not forth repentance but either evil works or no good works, is not a right, pure and living faith, but a dead and devilish one, as St. Paul and St. James call it” (1964: 127–8). Frederic W. Farrar (1831–1903) was born in Mumbai, India, and attended the University of London and Trinity College, Cambridge. After graduation, he served as Assistant Master at Harrow School, as a Chaplain to Queen Victoria, and as Headmaster of Marlborough College (1871–6). He also served as a Canon of Westminster Abbey, Rector of St. Margaret’s, Westminster, Archdeacon of Westminster, and Dean of Canterbury (www.ccel.org/ccel/farrar). In one of his sermons, Farrar declares that James 2:18 is clearly directed against Paul’s language that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. James does so, however, because Paul’s language is misinterpreted. James’s critique is aimed against those for whom “faith” means “correct opinion,” those who believe—against Paul’s true intent—that if a person’s opinions about God are correct, then one’s “affections and conduct” do not matter: “All, then, that St. James says in this passage is that correct opinions will save no man, or, to use the term ‘faith,’ not in St. Paul’s sense of it, but in the unhappy sense which others have too often attached to it, that a sound faith in religious matters will alone save no man” (The Sermon Bible 1900: 359). Farrar thus does not go nearly as far as Adolf Hilgenfeld, however, who claims that the “empty headed man” to whom James refers is actually the apostle Paul (Mayor 1990: 412; cf. a connection also apparently made by Robert Eisenman [Eisenman, 1997: 147], who also compares Paul to the “Lying Spouter” or “Liar” in the Dead Sea Scrolls [xxxiii, 959]). Charles Spurgeon (1834–92) was a Baptist minister renowned for his sermons. He pastored New Park Street Chapel, which under his leadership moved to the Metropolitan Tabernacle, and founded what later was renamed Spurgeon’s College. Spurgeon’s 1861 sermon, “Fruitless Faith,” focuses on James 2:17. His operating assumption is that James never could have intended to “contradict the gospel,” so Paul and James “must be reconciled.” If forced to choose between the two, however, Spurgeon would choose “to throw overboard the statement of James”—as Luther “unjustifiably” did—because we must “stick fastest to those who cling closest to Christ,” and in this case it is Paul. Yet we do not have to choose, Spurgeon declares, because

200  James 2:14–26 James and Paul are perfectly reconcilable, and they are viewing truth from different standpoints; but whatever James may mean, I am quite confident about what Paul means, and confident about the truth of the two . . . James never intended, for a moment, nor do any of his words lead us into such a belief, that there can be any merit whatever in any good works of ours.

Faith saves, but it is “faith of a certain kind.” Orthodoxy, faith in a creed or particular facts, achieves nothing, as evidenced by James’s observation about demons. Instead, Spurgeon declares, it is a “faith which produces works which saves us; the works do not save us; but a faith which does not produce works is a faith that will only deceive, and cannot lead us into heaven.” On the other hand, true faith “purges the soul,” and it includes obedience: actively desiring, searching for, and doing the things that the Lord demands. Spurgeon illustrates this type of obedience, as Wesley before him, with an analogy to an apple tree: A tree has been planted out into the ground. Now the source of life to that tree is at the root, whether it has apples on it or not; the apples would not give it life, but the whole of the life of the tree will come from its root. But if that tree stands in the orchard, and when the springtime comes there is no bud, and when the summer comes there is no leafing, and no fruit-bearing, but the next year, and the next, it stands there without bud or blossom, or leaf or fruit, you would say it is dead, and you are correct; it is dead. It is not that the leaves could have made it live, but that the absence of the leaves is a proof that it is dead. So, too, is it with the professor. If he has life, that life must give fruits; if not fruits, works; if his faith has a root, but if there be no works, then depend upon it the inference that he is spiritually dead is certainly a correct one. (Sermon 3434).

F. A. Rollo Russell (1849–1914) was elected to the Royal Meteorological Society when he was nineteen years old, and he became well known for his study of the fog and smog in London and his study of the effects of volcanic eruptions on the weather. Russell was an environmentalist, and his writings include an 1880 tract entitled “London Fog,” which directly led to a decline in the use of coal in London. A member of the Unitarian Church, he also wrote hymns that often included his understanding of science (www.amphilsoc.org/ mole/view?docId=ead/Mss.B.R913-ead.xml). Russell’s hymn, “Christian, Rise and Act Thy Creed,” captures the sentiments of this section of James in that Christians’ actions must match their words and their stated beliefs: Christian, rise and act thy creed; Let thy prayer be in thy deed; Seek the right, perform the true, Raise thy works and life anew.

James 2:14–26  201 Hearts around thee sink with care; Thou canst help their load to bear; Thou canst bring inspiring light, Arm their faltering wills to fight. (www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/c/a/cariseat.htm)

Charles Deems argues that James and Paul complement and do not contradict each other. Faith and works go together like lightning and thunder—one cannot exist without the other—and he furthers his argument with an illustration from Archbishop Whately: Two gentlemen were one day crossing the river in a ferry-boat. A dispute about faith and works arose, one saying that good works were of small importance, and that faith was everything, the other asserting the contrary. Not being able to convince each other, the ferryman, an enlightened Christian, asked permission to give his opinion. Consent being granted, he said: “I hold in my hands two oars. That in my right hand I call ‘faith,’ the other, in my left, ‘works.’ Now, gentlemen, please to observe, I pull the oar of faith, and pull that alone. See! the boat goes round and round, and the boat makes no progress. I do the same with the oar of works, and with a precisely similar result—no advance. Mark! I pull both together, we go on apace, and in a very few minutes we shall be at our landing-place. So, in my humble opinion,” he added, “faith without works, or works without faith, will not suffice. Let there be both, and the haven of eternal rest is sure to be reached” (1888: 150).

Joseph Mayor stresses that faith for James is trusting in the will of God as revealed in Jesus and receiving his word as good soil receives the seed. James’s parable of the “talking philanthropist” brilliantly demonstrates that professing faith means nothing if one does not act in faith in righteous actions. But James, Mayor insists, does not discourage people from seeking a “clear intellectual view in religion” (1990: 526–7). The neglect of study, Mayor believes, leads to serious problems in theology, whether in the nature of the sacraments or the belief in predestination. Mayor defends such institutions as the Catholic Church for attempting to guard against “the misinterpretation of revealed truth” by formulating the essentials of faith in creedal statements, for example, or by the “careful exposition” of particular important doctrines of the church. James is not “objecting to such formularies or treatises. It is not the creed he finds fault with, but the belief that a man is saved by the correctness of his creed” (527). Mayor also explains the differences between Paul and James in interesting ways. First, part of the difference stems from the errors they seek to correct. For Paul, it was against the dependence on the law for salvation and the subsequent forcing of Gentiles to conform to that law. James, on the other hand, argues against depending on Jewish orthodoxy “irrespective of moral conduct.” More

202  James 2:14–26 interestingly, however, Mayor also points to the differences “in the character and development” of Paul and James: To the one, whose spiritual experience had been broken by a violent shock, and whose special office it was to open the kingdom of heaven to the Gentiles, the Gospel is the antithesis of the law; to the other, who had been brought up with Jesus, who had known His disciples from the first, and whose special office it was to make the final offer of salvation to his own countrymen, the Gospel was the consummation of the Law. Again, the one with his deeply speculative nature loves to fix his gaze on the Divine factor in man’s salvation, the other with his strong practical bent directs his attention mainly to the human factor; though each fully allows and even asserts the doctrines complementary to that which may be called peculiarly his own (528).

William Hulme wrote his book, The Fire of Little Jim, in the aftermath of a devastating family tragedy—the death of his eldest daughter. James’s words spoke to Hulme during this time of loss. The contrast between James and Paul, for example, was one aspect that appealed to him during this time, especially with regard to the view of power. Paul’s cry of “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me?” was a viewpoint attractive to Luther, for example. Instead, in a different context of faithfulness, James declares that through our faith we have the power to act and that “we are deceiving ourselves if we do not acknowledge this power.” A plea of helplessness is an abdication of our responsibility as faithful followers of Jesus and a return to the ambivalence of “double-mindedness.” Hulme conclude that James does not describe the exaltation process in a dynamic way as does Paul. Rather he simply assumes it and, on the basis of it, opens the imagination to new horizons for living. In the shock of bereavement one is overwhelmed by one’s helplessness and powerlessness, a passive though agonized victim of a capricious and cruel world. One needs to have one’s balance restored, and James helped me to do this. His affirmation of the power of faith to effect change was the light I needed to penetrate an otherwise dark and painful existence (1976: 117).

Paul’s description of “moral impotence,” however, did not speak to Hulme in his time of need. Hulme instead felt a “total impotence” before the capriciousness of life and needed to hear James’s message: James helps provide believers with knowledge that they have “the resources to utilize the freedom that we have in a creative and responsible way” (117). Elsa Tamez situates these verses in the context of James’s previous denunciation of the lack of respect for the poor and the “adulation” of the rich. James focuses on the need for integrity, combining faith and works in a complementary

James 2:14–26  203 unity, and he seems to contradict Paul’s view of justification by faith alone. For some, evidently—in a distortion of Paul’s view—justification by faith meant having faith without a commitment to others. James was trying to correct this view by introducing works as an important element of justification. But, Tamez writes: We do not know exactly what James understands by faith, but he does make very clear what he understands by works. Throughout his letter he refers to the good works continually spoken of in the Gospels as the liberating deeds of Jesus; they are deeds that effect justice. They are the social works that the prophets demand and that are spoken of in the Sinai tradition. Paul, on the other hand, assails that law or system that is followed blindly and enslaves. For Paul, the Christian must be guided by grace and faith. At no time does he place the works of justice in opposition to justification. Rather he says they are the fruits of the spirit that are born of faith (2002: 53).

Tamez realizes that there is a clear difference in the two approaches. For James, faith cooperates with works; through works faith achieves perfection (2:22). Works justify only in conjunction with faith (2:24). For Paul, however, people are justified and do justice because they are guided by faith and not by the law that enslaves. James’s intention, though, is not to speak of justification and only mentions it in passing, probably because of misunderstandings that had arisen about the Pauline conception of justification by faith. James wants to emphasize the unity between faith and works as “part of the consistency in hearing, saying, and doing,” in the context of his concern for consistency between theory and practice. James’s contribution to the doctrine of justification by faith is his stress on “doing” (53–4): “Therefore, and here we come to the core of integrity, James challenges the communities to show their faith through works, for only in this way is the integrity of Christian life demonstrated” (51–2). Sharyn Dowd notes that Rahab’s appearance in the New Testament stems from the development of various Jewish traditions (e.g., she was exceptionally beautiful, was a prophet, married Joshua, and that Jeremiah and Ezekiel were both descended from her). She was also seen as the “archetypal convert,” which might be the reason why James pairs her with Abraham. The reputations of Abraham and Rahab also reinforce James’s emphasis on hospitality, a concern found in James 2:25 (and the dilemma of 2:15 of those without food or clothing). James argues that any faith without deeds of mercy is dead (1992: 369). Dowd also concludes that the contrast between James and Paul about faith and works is overblown if not manufactured: “Although James has sometimes been contrasted with Paul on this point, Paul would have agreed wholeheartedly that Christian faith results in ethical behavior (e.g., Gal 5:16–26; Romans 12). Paul never assumed that faith could be separated from acts of faithfulness” (369).

James 3:1–12 The Power and Danger of Speech James 3:1–5a Ancient literary context James speaks again to his “brothers and sisters,” which indicates both a change in subject and a sterner tone, one that warns the recipients of the letter about the excesses of the tongue, warnings that are bracketed with another use of “brothers and sisters” in verse 12. Teachers in the community are particularly cautioned: Not many should become teachers, for all of us make many mistakes. James thus includes himself James Through the Centuries, First Edition. David B. Gowler. © 2014 David B. Gowler. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

James 3:1–12  205 among those being warned (“all of us”), and, in doing so, situates himself closer to his intended audience. Teachers, since they are supposed to have a greater understanding, have a greater responsibility both to teach and to act accordingly— they thus will be judged with greater strictness either implying a harsher punishment for sins (cf. Laws 1980: 144) or being judged according to a higher standard (cf. Ropes 1916: 227). Mastering the tongue is most appropriate for those who instruct others with that tongue. The danger of which James warns is the human weakness of not being able to control one’s speech, so although it applies especially to teachers who speak authoritatively about God’s royal law, it is a universal and problematic human condition. The term bridle introduces a series of three examples to illustrate James’s warning. It also echoes the “slow to speak” of 1:19 and “bridle their tongues” of 1:26, where an unbridled tongue means that the person’s “religion is worthless.” The tongue, albeit small, is extremely powerful and dangerous. Examples abound in ancient literature of the pairing of the control of a horse and of a ship (e.g., Plutarch, Aristippus, Philo; see Mayor 1990: 421–2; Ropes 1916: 231; Dibelius 1975: 185–9; Johnson 1995: 258). Just as bits and bridles are used to guide the bodies of horses, so mastering the tongue keeps the whole body in check. Controlling what one says goes a long way to controlling what one does (3:2). A ship metaphorically can symbolize the body: Large ships are driven by strong winds but are guided by the will of the pilot via a very small rudder. The three components in James’s example—the desire of the pilot, the means of control (the rudder), and what is controlled (the ship)—may correspond to human desire, the powerful tongue, and the body (Johnson 1995: 258). This example seems a bit ironic, perhaps, since James will soon declare that no one can tame the tongue (3:8), whereas in this example, the tongue corresponds to the rudder that controls the ship. The example that begins the next section— the forest set ablaze by a small fire seems more apropos to James’s increasingly pessimistic arguments about the tongue. The small tongue can boast of great exploits for both ill and good, as the next section of James will attest.

The interpretations Ancient and medieval John Chrysostom focuses on how one’s words and deeds must correspond with each other. Teachers must set an example for others; those who do not practice what they preach receive God’s condemnation and punishment. Christians should not listen to those whose actions do not match their teachings; on the other hand, those whose teachings and actions do correspond without contradiction—as

206  James 3:1–12 long as they have the right words of faith and o ­ utstanding actions—have ­controlled their own bodies and have no love for this world (Bray 2000: 36). Jerome likes to use James 3:2 to defend himself, especially when attacking his opponents. See, for example, his letter to Domnio in which he sarcastically defends his Against Jovinian against a monk who is a “lounger in the streets” and a “noisy newsmonger.” A lengthy extract displays Jerome’s irascible personality and, ironically, is another example of the dangerous power of the tongue, Jerome’s in particular: Here we have a man who has reached perfection without a teacher, so as to be a vehicle of the spirit and a self-taught genius. He surpasses Cicero in eloquence, Aristotle in argument, Plato in discretion, Aristarchus in learning, Didymus, that man of brass, in the number of his books; and not only Didymus, but all the writers of his time in his knowledge of the Scriptures. It is reported that you have only to give him a theme and he is always ready—like Carneades—to argue on this side or on that, for justice or against it . . . No wonder that such a complete Latinist and so profound a master of eloquence overcomes poor me, who—as I have been some time away (from Rome), and without opportunities for speaking Latin—am half a Greek if not altogether a barbarian. No wonder, I say, that he overcomes me when his eloquence has crushed Jovinian in person. . . . He is a young man—a monk, and in his own eyes an eloquent one (do not pearls fall from his lips, and are not his elegant phrases sprinkled with comic salt and humor?)—I am surprised, therefore, that he can without a blush frequent noblemen’s houses, pay constant visits to married ladies, make our religion a subject of contention, distort the faith of Christ by misapplying words, and—in addition to all this—detract from one who is his brother in the Lord. He may, however, have supposed me to be in error (for “in many things we offend all,” and “if any man offend not in word he is a perfect man” [James 3:2]). In that case he should have written to convict me or to question me, the course taken by Pammachius, a man of high attainments and position. To this latter I defended myself as best I could, and in a lengthy letter explained the exact sense of my words. He might at least have copied the diffidence which led you to extract and arrange such passages as seemed to give offence; asking me for corrections or explanations, and not supposing me so mad that in one and the same book I should write for ­marriage and against it (Letter L.2–3; cf. Letter LVII.7).

Yet, in contrast, Jerome recognizes the dangers associated with not taming the tongue: “The sword kills the body, but the tongue kills the soul.” The tongue can be a great good if it confesses Christ, but a great evil if it does not. What sin could be greater than blasphemy against God? Satan fell from grace, Jerome declares, not because of such sins as theft, murder, or adultery but because of his tongue (Bray 2000: 39). The twenty-one-year and sometimes acrimonious correspondence between Augustine and Jerome includes many examples of each man taking offense

James 3:1–12  207 of slights from the other. Jerome takes exception, for example, to Augustine’s rather tactless advice about Jerome’s translation of the Hebrew Bible (Letter XXVIII). Augustine likewise is hurt by Jerome’s chastising him for various perceived insults (cf. Letter LXXII from Jerome and Augustine’s response in Letter LXXIII). Augustine also complains about Jerome’s mistreatment of him, such as feeling “beaten and belaboured by the missiles and the merciless fists of a second Entellus”; he complains, “How can we engage in such discussion [of scriptural doctrine] without bitterness of feeling, if you have made up your mind to offend me?” In this case, though, Augustine recognizes that he had not tamed his own tongue, and he uses James 3:2 to ask Jerome for forgiveness: I feel that I come far short of that perfection of which it is written, “If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man;” but through God’s mercy I truly believe myself able to ask your forgiveness for that in which I have offended you: and this you ought to make plain to me, that through my hearing you, you may gain your brother [Matt 18:18].

Augustine often cites James 3:2 to point out that all human beings make many mistakes, especially in his anti-Pelagian writings to support the doctrine of original sin (e.g., On Forgiveness of Sins, and Baptism, III.13). This verse, he argues, demonstrates that we lack knowledge of righteousness (On the Spirit and the Letter, Chapter 64), and it “corrects” Pelagius’s “corruption” of James 3:8 (On Nature and Grace, Chapters 16–17). Augustine also argues from James 3:2 that for the regenerate it is the “consent” that is sin, not concupiscence itself (On Man’s Perfection in Righteousness, Chapter 21), and to dispute Pelagius’s contention that “A man is able, if he likes, to be without sin” (On the Proceedings of Pelagius, Chapters 16–18; cf. below, where Augustine notes that human beings cannot tame themselves; God must tame them and their tongues; Sermon V.2 on the Sermon on the Mount). Leo the Great discusses James 3:2 in his eleventh sermon on Lent. Christians should examine themselves in light of God’s commands, prepare their minds and bodies, and invoke God’s help so they could “fulfill all things through Him.” No one is excused from this task, Leo says, because God gives wisdom liberally to all that ask (James 1:5). So Christians know which virtues to cultivate and which vices to fight against, and they can examine themselves by weighing the actions of their lives according to God’s standards. When Christians fall short, however, they should recognize, during the Lenten season especially, that forgiveness of one’s sins is dependent upon one’s forgiving ­others. Since “in many things we all stumble” (James 3:2), we should feel mercy and forgive each others’ faults, just as we pray in the Lord’s Prayer that God should forgive our debts as we forgive our debtors. How one forgives others dictates how one is forgiven (Sermon XLIX.4–5; cf. Sermon LXXXVIII.3).

208  James 3:1–12 Hilary of Arles produces a simple syllogism for how to achieve “perfection”: Silence is the best way to achieve righteousness, and righteousness is the foundation of perfection. Therefore, Hilary argues, James connects perfection with the not-so-simple task of “keeping one’s mouth shut” (Bray 2000: 37). Gregory the Great’s Pastoral Rule is perhaps his most famous and influential writing. Gregory wrote this treatise shortly after becoming pope in 590 CE. He replies to a letter from John, the Bishop of Ravenna, and addresses the duties and obligations of those who enter into the office of episcopacy. Gregory begins by discussing in what “manner everyone should come to supreme rule.” Gregory warns, using James 3:1 as an example of an “affectionate” caution, that people’s “lust of pre-eminence” could lead them strive for “sacred offices of government.” Jesus is the blameless example of how to respond to this temptation; when people wanted to declare him king, he immediately departed “to the mountain by himself ” (John 6:15). Jesus would not allow himself to be made king; instead he offered himself voluntarily to the “ignominious death” on the cross so that his followers “might learn to fly from the favours of the world . . . and to shrink in fear from prosperity” because “this often defiles the heart through vain glory.” Bede notes that “Apollo, a man very learned in the scriptures” only knew the baptism of John but still preached Christ faithfully; once a teacher was present, the gaps in Apollo’s knowledge were easily filled, and he “returned perfect to the task of preaching.” Examples of ineptitude, though, are those teachers who came from Judea to Antioch and taught that gentile believers must be circumcised to be saved (Acts 15:1–2). According to Bede, “Blessed James, therefore, removed them and teachers of their kind from the responsibility of [preaching] the word lest they be an obstacle to those able to carry it out properly.” Bede concludes that those who teach even when not prepared to do so deserve greater “judgment of condemnation” than those who only do wickedness and do not teach (1985: 35). Bede also argues that even though “all of us make many mistakes,” the elect can “remain perfect,” because the “elect offend in one way, the condemned in another.” The daily, unavoidable offenses of the righteous, whether from frailty of the flesh or through ignorance, have daily remedies of prayers and good works. Not offending in speech, such as words of deceit, slander, boasting, and so forth, makes one a “perfect man.” If someone avoids a slip of the tongue, which is almost unavoidable, that person learns how to cultivate the same type of restraint over other, more easily restrained, parts of the body (37). Bede then interprets James’s example of a ship and its rudder symbolically. The large ships on the sea symbolize the minds of men; the strong winds are the appetites of the minds; and the rudder symbolizes the intention of the heart by which the elect pass “through the waves of this world” and “arrive at the happy harbor of the heavenly fatherland” (37). Ps.-Oecumenius interprets James as saying that people who do not practice what they preach will be more harshly judged because their teaching bears no

James 3:1–12  209 fruit. Animals are easily tamed, and people should be able to accomplish the more difficult task of domesticating the tongue. Ps.-Oecumenius then suggests that the text implies that controlling the tongue should just be the first step to using the tongue for a higher, spiritual purpose. Just as a domesticated horse can be put to much better uses, so the tongue should say the right things at opportune times (Bray 2000: 36, 38). The philosopher and Dominican theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225–74), in his treatise Contra Impugnantes, discusses whether it is lawful for religious people to teach at all (in light of Matt. 23:8: “But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all students”). He argues that James 3:1 applies as much to the laity as it does to those in religious orders. James’s prohibition is against the divergence of doctrine not against the multitude of teachers. Aquinas notes that those words may be understood literally, that is, only men who “are discreet and well versed in the Scriptures” should be chosen as teachers. Aquinas concludes: We need not fear that the Holy Scriptures will fall into contempt on account of a multiplicity of teachers to expound them. There is more danger of this being the case when the professors of Scripture are few in number. Hence there is no reason why the number of teachers should be limited; or why, through fear of their being too many, men capable of teaching should be excluded from that office. http:// dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraImpugnantes.htm#21

Political themes become more prominent in John Wyclif ’s (~1330–84) writings in the last decade of his life. In the context of the dispute between the English crown and the papal court over the rights of church taxation, Wyclif penned On Lordship in 1373. In that text he argues that the church of his day, which enjoyed civil jurisdiction and wealth derived from it, was conducting itself in a way manifestly against God’s will. The church should not amass property or grasp after worldly power. Instead the righteous king who rules by grace should promulgate and enforce God’s law by depriving corrupt clergy of their property, an action happily and energetically enforced by John the Gaunt (O’Donovan and O’Donovan 1999: 482–3). Wyclif uses James 3:2 to buttress his arguments against the idea that certain aspects of that law are meant only as a “counsel” for most human beings and are binding only on “moral heroes,” such as “the saints who have been canonized by the church” (Civil Lordship 2:13; O’Donovan and O’Donovan 1999: 500). Wyclif declares that every Christian “ought to be serving God more completely and more perfectly than in fact he does, since no one serves God in every last detail, as he ought.” Wyclif notes that both John 1:8 and James 3:2 indicate that we commit sins: “But the Counselor of whom we speak cannot make the m ­ istake of

210  James 3:1–12 counseling us to render to God some greater and more perfect service than is actually our duty; what he counsels, then, can only be a service which it would be at least a venial fault to omit” (O’Donovan and O’Donovan 1999: 500). Early modern and modern Luther utilizes James 3:1 as part of his challenge to the authority of the pope. His “Defense and Explanation of All the Articles,” for example, declares: “It is certain that it is not within the power of the pope or of the church to establish articles of faith or commandments regarding morals and good works.” Human beings should listen to Christ alone and flee from the commandments of human beings, because, citing Matthew 23:10 and James 3:1: “Such commandments may appear to make us godly, but are only deceit and the destruction of faith.” Luther’s commentary on Genesis 17:15–16 treats the story of God’s promise to Abraham allegorically. Since God calls Abraham by the new name of father, Sarah his wife is the manager of the home, “in order that she alone may be the mother of countless families in the church.” This title praises the unity of the church, because “God does not want a large number of churches.” That is why God unites all nations by naming Abraham as their father and Sarah as their mother with the result that just as there is one God so there is one church. James 3:1 is additional evidence, because just as God does not want many p ­ eople to be teachers, God also “does not want the church to be in many houses or families.” There can be a number of them—Jesus, after all, had twelve ­apostles—but “God does not want everyone to take it upon himself to form a church” (LW 3: 147). In his comments on Ecclesiastes 5:3, however, Luther takes a different tack. He argues that you should not speak rashly where the “Word” is taught, where God is worshiped and preached: “In other words, you should not be the teacher and you should not do the teaching, but you should permit yourself to be taught.” Luther condemns the “wicked,” who are quick to speak before God to prove that their doctrines are “divine.” Luther, once again citing Matthew 23:10 and James 3:1, says: “Do not be your own teacher or anyone else’s, and do not listen to yourself or to anyone else but only to the Word of God” (LW 15: 77). Calvin disagrees with the common assumption that James utters this admonition against those wanting to enter the teaching vocation. Instead, Calvin argues that James uses teachers not in the sense of those who perform public duties in the church but as denoting those “who usurp to themselves the right to pass censure on others . . . who turn a fault-finding look of superiority upon others” (1995: 288). This, Calvin notes, is an “innate condition of human beings”: they tend to make their reputation by “scoring off other folk.” Calvin then builds upon his discussion of James in the previous section in which he advocates kindness and mercy toward others:

James 3:1–12  211 [James] is condemning an excessive passion, which springs from self-seeking and pride, whereby one man inveighs against his fellow, speaks against him, sneers at him, snaps and rummages about to find something to use to his harm. It is usually the case that persistent critics of this sort make wild claims for themselves in hunting down the faults of others. Such is the immoderate and arrogant behaviour from which James bids us turn back. And he gives a reason: those who are so stern with others will face a more heavy judgment themselves . . . This is a thought to keep well in mind, that men provoke God’s severity on themselves when they are too strict on their brothers (288).

Calvin concludes that James urges Christians to have a “gentler attitude.” Since human beings are beset with “a great number of weaknesses,” we should not deny others the pardon that we ourselves need. The best thing to temper our own extreme severity is to recognize our own innate weaknesses (288–9). In a similar approach, Charles Deems contends that James’s admonitions are not confined to “public and authorized teachers” but should be viewed as encompassing a much larger group. The “internal disease,” prevalent in James’s day and a “raging epidemic” in Deems’s era, Deems diagnoses as “much-teachingness.” This terrible disease “appears ordinarily on the tongue, and sometimes on the right hand that holds pen or pencil.” Symptoms include “a disposition to be always taking the chair, much given to finding fault, correcting, playing the censor, putting on professional airs, having an opinion on every subject, with great readiness to give it dogmatically, dictatorially, pontifically, as being paramount, final, infallible, from which there is no appeal.” This ailment is common, Deems observes, “in social and business circles, and in religious assemblies . . . It is a dangerous and hurtful habit, to be corrected by those who have formed it and to be avoided by those who have not” (1888: 156–7). We cannot escape James’s admonition, Deems reasons, because if we know enough to teach, we cannot plead ignorance when we are called into account for our errors. Deems also points to the appropriate modesty of James; James “remembers that he himself is not faultless” since he includes himself in the group being warned (157). A natural development in the warning to teachers is a more general warning about the tongue itself. Deems notes that there is nothing through which we can either accomplish so much good or commit so much evil as the tongue, and he cites an anecdote concerning Aesop: The heathen philosopher Xanthus, expecting some friends to dine with him, ordered his servant Aesop to provide the best things the market could supply. Tongues only were provided; and these the cook was ordered to serve up with different sauces. Course after course was supplied, each consisting of tongue. “Did I not order you,” said Xanthus, in a violent passion, “to buy the best victuals the

212  James 3:1–12 market afforded?” “And have I not obeyed your orders?” said Aesop. “Is there ­anything better than a tongue? Is not the tongue the bond of civil society, the organ of truth and reason, and the instrument of our praise and adoration of the gods?” Xanthus ordered him to go again to the market on the morrow and buy the worst things he could find. Aesop went, and again he purchased tongues, which the cook was ordered to serve as before. “What! Tongues again?” exclaimed Xanthus. “Most certainly,” rejoined Aesop; “the tongue is surely the worst thing in the world. It is the instrument of all strife and contention, the inventor of lawsuits, and the source of division and wars; it is the organ of error, of lies, calumny and blasphemies” (158).

Henri Nouwen (1932–96) was born in Holland and became a Catholic priest in 1957. After earning a doctorate in psychology, he taught at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, and the divinity schools of Yale and Harvard. He also lived with Trappist monks, ministered among the poor in Peru, and served as pastor of communities of people with disabilities in both France and Canada. Nouwen’s book, The Way of the Heart, builds upon the sayings of the desert fathers and mothers who lived in the Egyptian desert in the fourth and fifth centuries CE. Nouwen believes that it is the “solitude, silence and unceasing prayer” of the desert mothers and fathers that serve as the paradigm for Christians today, an example that teaches us “to stand firm, to speak words of salvation, and to approach the new millennium with hope, courage, and confidence” (1981: 94). A major element of this paradigm is silence, and Nouwen includes James’s words in making his case why cultivating silence should be one of the “central disciplines of one’s spiritual life”: The most frequent argument for silence is simply that words lead to sin. Not speaking, therefore, is the most obvious way to stay away from sin. The connection is clearly expressed by the apostle James . . . (James 3:2). James leaves little doubt that speaking without sinning is difficult and that, if we want to remain untouched by the sins of the world on our journey to the eternal home, silence is the safest way. Thus, silence became one of the central disciplines of the spiritual life (35–6).

Elsa Tamez argues that James 3:2 relates perfection (teleios) with the maturity reflected in self-control, with wholeness, being finished, complete, or mature (e.g., 1:4, 25; 2:8, 22; 3:2). Teleios evokes an anticipation of an eschatological reality of completeness, because in its fullest sense it can only be applied to God and Christ. When applied to human beings, teleios refers to people who have achieved maturity in their personality and behavior (68). Tamez finds the concept of Christian perfection similar in Wesley and James, but with different emphases: Wesley tends to relate everything to God and Christ and considers his hearers and readers as individuals. He emphasizes love of neighbor or good works as a result of total dedication to God. James, on the other hand, emphasizes more

James 3:1–12  213 transindividual relationships in the practice and demonstration of the faith. He tends more to “bring God down into history,” to implement the law of freedom into everyday life, to show the favor of God to the poor and not the favor of human beings for God. James addresses first of all the community and the relationships among its members. Again, this dimension is not absent in Wesley, as the personal dimension is not absent in James. But the emphases are different (71).

Tamez concludes that James, like Wesley, challenges us to seek after authentic perfection, perfection that is found among those who do not cause divisions among people, those who insist on integrity, completeness, and wholeness, and those who are consistent in their faith and actions (71–2).

James 3:5b–12 Ancient literary context James’s argument gets increasingly pessimistic as he begins the third analogy about the power and danger of the tongue. The tongue is difficult to control; it is like a small fire that can set ablaze a whole forest, so this example is unlike the previous examples of the bit and the rudder, which are usually successful in controlling a horse or a ship (cf. 3:2). So James moves, it seems, from speaking of when a tongue could be tamed to whether it could be tamed, and, as we shall see in the interpretations, who can accomplish the taming of the fiery tongue (cf. Ps. 39:1–3; 120:2–4; Prov. 16:27; Isa. 30:27). This third question is also implicitly answered in James 3:13–18: The tongue can be tamed through God’s wisdom. The metaphors continue to build for rhetorical effect. The tongue stains the whole body, whereas previously James urges his readers to remain “unstained by the world” (1:27; cf. 2:5; 4:4). The tongue also sets on fire the “cycle of life.” Every aspect of life, from cradle to grave, is affected by the evil that tongues can do (Hartin 2003: 178). The tongue’s danger is highlighted by the fact that this tongue of fire is itself lit on fire by Gehenna. Unlike animals, which can be domesticated (cf. Gen. 1:26–8; 9:2), no human being can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil thing filled with deadly poison. Is the human tongue thus like a serpent’s tongue (cf. Ps. 140:3)? If so, James makes a connection to Genesis 3, as well as to Satan, which perhaps explains why the tongue can be lit with the fire of Gehenna. James then recovers somewhat from the pessimism of these verses to lament the fact that both blessing and cursing come from the same mouth. In doing so, James once again allies himself with his intended readers, not only by using the first-person plural (“we bless”; 3:9) but also by once again calling them “brothers and sisters” (3:10, 12). Blessing and cursing from the same mouth, James observes, is unnatural: Human tongues should bless the “Lord and Father” and

214  James 3:1–12 not, hearkening back to Genesis 1:27, curse other human beings who are also made in the image of God. People should neither be “­ double-minded” (1:8; 4:8) or “double-tongued”—the same word, akatastatos (“unstable” or “restless”) is attached to both—and being double-minded leads to inconsistency in speech. In a similar way, in the verses that follow, James argues that one must choose between “friendship with the world” or submitting oneself to God (4:4–8). The examples James offers demonstrate how unnatural such inconsistency is. Water coming from a spring is consistent; the same opening does not deliver both fresh and brackish water. Neither do fig trees produce olives nor grapevines yield figs (cf. Matt. 7:16–20). And, finally, salt water does not produce fresh water.

The interpretations Ancient and medieval Pachomius notes that a bragging tongue fouls the whole body and, in fact, is “gangrene to the soul.” In contrast, John Chrysostom sometimes uses the metaphor of gangrene for sin (e.g., Homily VI.14), but he also speaks of the tongue as a sword that should not be used to attack others but should instead be used to “cut off our own gangrene” (Bray 2000: 40). Augustine disputes Pelagius’s interpretation of James 3:8 in his 415 CE treatise, On Nature and Grace (Chapters 16–17). Pelagius interprets this verse as a question of reproach; humans are able to tame wild beasts, so they should also be able to tame the tongue—with James assuming that the latter task is easier than the first. Augustine disagrees with that interpretation, because, he argues, if that were James’s intention, James would have directly compared the tongue with wild beasts. Instead the passage speaks of the tongue as a “restless evil” and “full of deadly poison,” which, Augustine points out, “is much more noxious than that of beasts and creeping things.” Citing Wisdom of Solomon 1:11 (“a lying mouth destroys the soul”), Augustine notes that while animals can destroy the flesh, the tongue can kill the soul. Thus, Augustine argues, Pelagius is incorrect in believing that James intends to convey the impression that it is easier to tame the tongue than animals. Instead, James intends to illustrate just how dangerous and evil the tongue can be, an evil that, unlike animals, cannot be tamed by any person. James wants us, Augustine says, to “request the help of divine grace for the taming of the tongue.” Augustine then addresses the apparent tension in James’s text—whether the tongue can actually be tamed and, if so, how: For he does not say: “None can tame the tongue;” but “No man;” (as found in the original) in order that, when it is tamed, we may acknowledge it to be effected by the mercy of God, the help of God, the grace of God. The soul, therefore, should

James 3:1–12  215 endeavour to tame the tongue, and while endeavouring should pray for assistance; the tongue, too, should beg for the taming of the tongue (online at www.ccel.org/ ccel/schaff/npnf105.pdf).

Augustine makes the same point in his sermon on Matthew 5:22 (Sermons on  New-Testament Lessons, V). Those “beasts” that humans tame—the horse, camel, elephant, viper, and lion—do not tame themselves; humans have to do it. But since humans cannot tame their tongues, we must depend upon God to do it: “But that the horse, and ox, and camel, and elephant, and lion, and viper, may be tamed, man is sought for. Therefore let God be sought to, that man may be tamed.” Bede interprets James as saying that the tongue is a fire, because when it speaks evil, it consumes the forest of virtues (cf. Sirach 20:15). The “saving fire” that enlightens the secrets of the heart is contrary to this destructive fire: “Holy teachers are set on fire by it both that they themselves may burn with loving and that by preaching they may set others on fire with fiery tongues, as it were.” Bede points to the tongues of fire in Acts 2:3–4 as an example. The uncontrolled tongue, however, is a “world of wickedness,” because almost all evil deeds are either planned by the tongue (e.g., robberies), performed by it (e.g., perjuries), or defended by it (e.g., making excuses; 1985: 39). Bede refers to Pliny’s observation that even the most dreaded of serpents, the asp, was tamed in Egypt, and it emerges daily from its cave to receive its daily allotment of food from its master. But, Bede argues, the tongue is a more difficult case, because the tongue of the depraved surpasses beasts in cruelty, birds in fickleness and exaltation, serpents in deadliness. For there are people like beasts who have sharpened their tongues like a sword (Ps 64:3), there are people like birds who have placed their mouth into the sky (Ps 73), and whose mouth has spoken lies (Ps 144), there are people like serpents about whom it has been said, The poison of asps is under their lips” (Ps. 140; emphases in the original).

Bede also notes that sweet and bitter water are unable to bubble forth at the same time from a fountain. Even if they are combined in a vessel or well, the sweet water becomes bitter from the bitter water; bitter water is difficult if not impossible to change to sweet water by being mixed with sweet water. Likewise, the bitterness of cursing destroys the sweetness of blessing when they flow from the same mouth (41–2): It is obvious that just as a tree is unable to lose its natural ability to produce its own fruit yet produce the fruit of another tree, so the person who curses can in no way have the fruit of blessing, even though he appears at the time to speak some good (42).

216  James 3:1–12 Bede then takes the “fig tree” as a symbolic reference to Adam and Eve recognizing their nakedness after eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 3:7) and their subsequent attempts to create excuses for their sins. Likewise, olives symbolize the fruit of mercy in Psalm 51:10, and the grapevine denotes the fruit of mercy that comes from God (Ps. 22:5; Rom. 5:5): Therefore the fig tree cannot produce olives, because anyone who tries to make excuses for himself in sins rather than accuse himself by no means bestows the works of devotion which are done in propitiation for sin on his neighbors with a perfect heart but rather with a proud one, nor [is] the grapevine [able to produce] olives, because anyone who perfectly inebriates himself with divine love no longer accuses anyone but himself for his sins (43).

Early modern and modern Calvin points out the contrast: If the tongue is “moderate and well-ordered,” it functions as a bridle that restrains our whole pattern of life. If, on the other hand, it is “rude and dissolute,” it can be that one small match that sets ­everything on fire, corrupting the whole body and affecting every part of life (1995: 290). Horace, Calvin observes, uses “wheel” in a comparable way: “the tongue is like a wild horse, whose frenzy tears a man headlong, like a chariot” (290). Calvin also notes the absurdity of setting oneself up as a teacher over others when one suffers from the “worst of vices” (291). He concludes that in order to give God the worship we owe, “we must first of all put right this vicious ill-speech against our neighbors” (292). As noted in my chapter “James 1:12–27”, in John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress, the characters Christian and Faithful encounter a third man, Talkative, as they make their way up the road (Part I, the Fifth Stage). Talkative is tellingly described as “a tall Man, and somthing more comely at a distance then at hand” (sic; Bunyan 1960: 75) After a brief conversation, Faithful is impressed with Talkative and proclaims to Christian that Talkative “will make a very excellent Pilgrim” (77). Christian disabuses him of that notion, however, by pointing out that his “fine tongue” is but an illusion: christian:  He is the son of one Saywell, he dwelt in Prating-Row; and he is known of all that are acquainted with him by the name of Talkative in Prating-Row, and notwithstanding his fine tongue, he is but a sorry fellow. faithful: Well, he seems to be a very pretty man. christian: That is, to them that have not thorough acquaintance with him, for he is best abroad, near home he is ugly enough: your saying, That he is a pretty man, brings to my mind

James 3:1–12  217 what I have observed in the work of the Painter, whose Pictures shews best at a distance; but very near, more unpleasing. faithful: But I am ready to think you do but jest, because you smiled. christian: God-forbid that I should jest, (though I smiled) in this matter, or that I should accuse any falsely; I will give you a further discovery of him: This man is for any company, and for any talk; as he talketh now with you, so will he talk when he is on the Ale-bench: And the more drink he hath in his crown, the more of these things he hath in his mouth: Religion hath no place in his heart, or house, or conversation; all he hath lieth in his tongue, and his Religion is to make a noise therewith (77–8; emphases in the original). Charles Deems ponders the harmful consequences of malicious statements and suggests that it is “always wrong to tell a lie for any purpose, and it is not always right to utter a truth” (1888: 164). The Christian’s duty is to speak truth in love (Eph. 4:15). Just as “a spark dropped from a man’s pipe has destroyed hundreds of thousands of valuable trees,” when someone’s heart is not right the tongue can multiply the damage, and “society is filled with ugliness” (166). The damage is twofold. First, the wicked tongue hurts the one who speaks evil words. It increases one’s jealousy, hatred, or other evil feelings. Every unkind word, in fact, leaves the speaker worse for speaking it. Second, Deems says, wicked words hurt others, whether they know of the evil things said about them or not (168). James Hardy Ropes argues that the phrase “cycle of nature” (or “wheel of birth”) implies contact with, albeit not understanding of, Greek thought. James betrays no specific knowledge of the Orphic use of the phrase, for example, as designating the after-death transmigration of souls to new bodies. The phrase might stem from acquaintance with “Cynic popular preachers or Stoic-cynic writers of diatribes” (1916: 239). The use of this phrase, however, leads Ropes to conclude that James the brother of Jesus most likely was not the author of this letter. James is written in Greek that is better than most books of the New Testament, and “the writer shows a contact with Greek modes of public preaching and with Greek ideas and illustrations which would not be expected in a Galilean peasant whose experience of the world, even in the period of his broadest activity, came through his leadership of the Christians in Jerusalem” (50). John Keenan laments the fact that scholars dismiss the “plain meaning of the term: wheel of birth, that is, transmigration.” Keenan argues that the idea of

218  James 3:1–12 transmigration was current in the first century and had a long history within Greek thought, so James must have had some awareness as to the meaning of the term wheel of birth (2005: 103). Hints of transmigration, Keenan believes, are found in other New Testament texts, such as John the Baptist being envisioned as Elijah returned (e.g., Mark 8:27–8) or Herod Antipas believing that Jesus was John the Baptist returned (e.g., Luke 9:7–9). The connection of the wheel of life with fire is also seen in Shiva as Natajara dancing “within a samsaric ring of fire” or in Buddha’s words about the wheel of rebirth “being propelled by the fire of passion” (104–5). Keenan suggests that perhaps James’s use of the term “cycle of birth” goes back to India, either to Hindu or Buddhist teachings. Perhaps James does not mean it literally, but it serves as a metaphor for “the constant round of sufferings and vicious circles that our actions engender”: It appears possible that James did accept the image of transmigration, that until one becomes wise and attains eternal life—the crown of life—one is entangled in webs of constant injustice and suffering. This explains why some people in life appear to do well, and others who are innocent, like Job, appear to suffer. The world functions only when God is the judge and when in wisdom we engage in the path of Torah (107).

William Baker, on the other hand, places this entire section (3:1–12) within the category of “personal speech-ethics” in the ancient Mediterranean world, including the Hebrew Bible and later Jewish literature as well as Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, and Roman literature. This section of James, Baker posits, functions to delineate “the spiritual-ethical importance of controlling the tongue and the decisive role of speech in indicating man’s wickedness” (1995: 123).

James 3:13–4:12

The Fruits of Wisdom versus Friendship with the World James 3:13–18 Ancient literary context

“Who is wise and understanding among you?” James asks (3:13). The secondperson-plural “you” of James 3:1 re-establishes a certain distance from the intended readers, a move back from the connections James attempts to establish with the first person plural “we” (e.g., 3:1b, 3, 9). James returns, as always, to the relationship between words and deeds and the wisdom of God that ­generates a harvest of righteousness. James 2:18 intimates that people could James Through the Centuries, First Edition. David B. Gowler. © 2014 David B. Gowler. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

220  James 3:13–4:12 demonstrate their faith by their works. Here the focus is more clearly on the wisdom of God and the resulting gentleness of God’s followers: People’s good lives should demonstrate that their works are accomplished with gentleness born of God’s wisdom (cf. 1:5; 3:17). James first discusses the apparent but false wisdom that leads to “bitter envy and selfish ambition” (see Laws 1980: 162) and describes this “anti-wisdom” in a series of three adjectives of increasing negativity: “earthly, unspiritual, devilish” (3:14–15). James still could be directing these words specifically to those who want to be teachers (cf. “teachers,” 3:1; “wise,” 3:13), although the points are applicable to all believers. Other passages in James reverberate with the term “devilish,” such as the demons who believe and shudder in 2:19. Even more important is the connection of the tongue with Gehenna in 3:6, which prepares readers for understanding that the devil is the source of much evil in people, such as the conflicts and disputes in the community in 4:1–4 (cf. the importance of resisting the devil and the devil’s influences; 4:7). In addition, envy and selfish ambition are interrelated with disorder (cf. the double-minded person being “unstable” in 1:8, and the tongue as a “restless” evil in 3:8). James warns those people who are envious and selfishly ambitious not to participate in behaviors that envy and selfish ambition often produce: being “boastful and false to the truth.” James then moves on to the “wisdom from above” (cf. 1:5, 17) and its positive attributes. The wisdom from above has no trace of partiality or hypocrisy. Instead, it births gentleness of spirit, because God’s wisdom is pure (cf. the pure and undefiled religion in 1:27, the staining of the whole body by the tongue in 3:6, and the call to purify their hearts in 4:8), peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, and full of mercy (3:17). James concludes his list of virtues with a saying that focuses on acts of peace that produce righteousness (3:18), one which also serves as a transition to his next concern: the need for harmony in face of conflicts among his intended readers (4:1). James concludes that one way of life is derived from above; the other is demonic. Thus this discussion prepares us for the next section of James, where the duality is either friendship with the world—for which the readers are rebuked—or friendship with God (4:1–10).

The interpretations Ancient and medieval As noted in the Introduction, it is possible that the author of 1 Clement utilizes sections of James. One intriguing example is 1 Clement 38:2, whose style and content hint of a possible allusion to James 3:13: “Let the wise person show his wisdom not in words but in good deeds. Let the humble-minded not testify to his own humility, but let him leave it to others to bear witness.” Both passages contrast the boastfulness of the arrogant with the humility of the truly wise

James 3:13–4:12  221 person whose wisdom is demonstrated not in words but with deeds. In a similar way, the Mandates section of the Shepherd of Hermas may echo James 3:15 (including James’s use of “double-souled” in James 1:8 and 4:8, which is found fifteen times in the Shepherd of Hermas in various forms): “The faith from above is from God and has great power. But double-mindedness is an earthbound spirit from the devil, having no power” (The Shepherd of Hermas Mandates 9:11; cf. Johnson 1995: 77). Augustine’s On the Gift of Perseverance exhorts people to wisdom, the gift that descends from the “Father of Lights, laden with many and great benefits.” Augustine quotes both James 1:17 and 3:17 and then elaborates on the qualities of wisdom of which James speaks. James 3:14–16 rebukes the “impure and contentious” because they do not demonstrate God’s pure and peaceable wisdom. Such people should not despair, however, because even though this wisdom could never be produced by “human will,” it can be received through “divine liberality.” The “restless” are to be rebuked, Augustine argues, by such declarations of God’s word. Believers should claim as the gift of God the “peaceful wisdom, whereby the contentions are corrected and healed,” even though wisdom “is obtained from faith” (James 1:5) and “is given to us without our asking for it.” Likewise, in his conclusion to On Grace and Free Will (Chapter 46), Augustine advises his readers (quoting James 1:5) to pray for understanding when they do not understand parts of the treatise. Wisdom comes from above, but there is “another wisdom” that his readers should “repel” and pray that it not remain in them—the wisdom that stirs bitter envy and selfish ambition that is “boastful and false to the truth.” This, Augustine says, helps us to understand God’s grace, “because if this wisdom were of ourselves, it would not be from above; nor would it be an object to be asked for of the God who created us.” Gregory the Great was acutely aware of the human tendency to succumb to pride; he thus sometimes referred to himself as “the servant of the servants of God” (McKim 2007: 486). Part III of his influential Pastoral Rule consists primarily of Gregory’s explication of thirty-six different types of admonishments that the “ruler” ought to administer to those “under him.” The twenty-third admonishment (III.22) offers different guidelines for how those who are “at peace” should be admonished from those who are “at variance.” Those at variance have to be clearly informed that they “can by no means become spiritual”—no matter what other virtues they have—if they do not live in concord with their neighbors (cf. Gal. 5:22; 1 Cor. 3:3; Heb. 12:14; Eph. 4:3–4). Some people, for example, take pride in a spiritual gift in  which they excel (e.g., abstinence or knowledge). This pride leads to ­isolation and lack of peace with one’s neighbors, and Gregory cites the admonition of Psalm 150:4—to praise God with tambourine and chorus—to point out that with a tambourine, “a dry and beaten skin resounds, but in the chorus voices are associated in concord.” Those, for example, who afflict

222  James 3:13–4:12 their bodies but forsake concord praise God only with a tambourine and not with the chorus of voices that God desires. Gregory adds that those who have superior knowledge are even more delinquent, because they should know better and should avoid such sin. James speaks of true wisdom in 3:14–17, and God’s wisdom is peaceable; in no way does it withdraw from or create problems with one’s neighbors. Those not living in peace, Gregory says, must be admonished to reconcile with their neighbor before they offer a “gift at the altar” (Matt. 5:23–4): The Venerable Bede connects the warning of James 3:1 that not many should become teachers with the question in 3:13 of who is wise and understanding: Because he had imposed silence on wicked teachers and had forbidden to hold the rank of teacher those whom he beheld having neither perfection of life nor restraint of tongue, subsequently he advised that if anyone among them may be, or may appear to himself to be, wise or learned, let him show his learning more by living wisely and according to learning than by teaching others. For he who brings about the good which he can with a meek heart and a well-controlled mouth certainly gives plain evidence of a wise mind (1985: 43).

On the other hand, Bede notes that a foolish mind is more prone to preaching the word than doing it. The meekness of wisdom is opposed to the zeal of bitterness and foolish strife and is in agreement with what is good. Bede points to the example of Peter “bowing to Paul’s rebuke” (Acts 15:1–30; Gal. 2:11–14) and reminds those who want “to appear more learned and more perfect than others” about the necessity of correcting their neighbors “artfully” (46). Wise people who are humble demonstrate their standing before God much more than any words could ever do. Like James, Bede wants his readers to be “full of mercy and good fruits”: “manifesting outwardly the fruits of that same mercy through works of devotion” (46). Even though everything Christians do in this life contains “the seed of future reward” in the next life, yet the reward itself is the fruit of present works . . . For the fruit of righteousness is eternal life which is a reward for righteous works, because those who seek peace and follow after it (Ps 34:14) cover the ground of their heart with the very peace for which they are eager, as it were with the best sowing, so that through the daily increase of good action they may be able to reach the fruit of heavenly life (1985: 46–7).

Early modern and modern In his commentary on Psalm 2:12, Martin Luther discusses the “sum total of all religion.” It consists of remembering that Jesus is the Son of God, begotten of the Father from eternity, and presented to us for us to serve him. We are

James 3:13–4:12  223 ­reconciled to God through Jesus, and God asks nothing further of us related to reconciliation and the hope of eternal life. We do all things out of faith in the Son of God, and the albeit imperfect obedience that follows afterwards pleases God and brings physical as well as spiritual rewards (LW 12: 85). Luther elaborates on “true service” to Christ by saying people who busy themselves “with commandments or righteousness” do not perform true service to God. They also cannot understand what true service is intellectually, because it does not stem from the heart or mind of humans; “it is a teaching revealed from heaven.” One can only be taught and guided in this true service by the Holy Spirit, who reaches human beings through faith in Christ. Luther thus contends that the “work-righteous” who “reject faith and retain the Law” cannot perform true service to God: Therefore the Christian religion is easy, as I said, if you regard only the outward acts. But if you consider this spiritual service, it is most difficult, for you cannot perform this unless your heart is changed. True religion, then, demands the heart and the soul, not the deed and other externals, although these follow if you have the right heart. For where your heart is, everything else is. Whoever really loves you will not deny you money, favors, or himself. And this is the reason why true religion is “without insincerity” (James 3:17) or hypocrisy, unlike that pharisaical religion which is only outward and does not change the heart (LW 12: 87).

Calvin’s Commentary on James also integrates the verses in this section with the earlier admonition in 3:1. He notes that malicious speech is the product of pride, which itself is “engendered by a false assurance of wisdom.” This false assurance thus is connected to James’s words to those aspiring to be teachers: [T]hese haughty censors, so generous to themselves, so unsparing on others, think that they have outstanding wisdom, but are greatly deceived. The Lord has trained His people quite another way, which is to be gentle and courteous to one another . . . The harsh and unyielding, for all the other great virtues they may have, have no real measure of wisdom (1995: 292–3).

According to Calvin, the difficulties of “excessive strictness” also create additional problems in relationships, beginning with “unworthy jealousies” that poison our hearts and inevitably break out into “quarrelling.” James thus attacks the hypocrisy that belabors the faults of others, and it gets to the heart of true wisdom: “James takes it for granted that wisdom comes to us from no other source than the heaven-sent illumination of God through the Spirit” (293). This heaven-sent wisdom thus acts to counteract the “confusion” and “civil strife” brought on by jealousies. James teaches, Calvin says, that those who have God’s true wisdom are calm, peaceable, restrained, and merciful. They will not conceal or favor vice but instead will work diligently to correct it in moderate, peaceful ways that preserve the unity of the community (295).

224  James 3:13–4:12 The connection between God’s grace, the wisdom from above, and the works of faith that inherently follow is succinctly noted in the first stanza of Charles Wesley’s hymn, “Happy the Man that finds the Grace”: Happy is the man that finds the grace, The blessing of God’s chosen race, The wisdom coming from above, The faith that sweetly works by love. (Hymns and Psalms 1985: 674)

A sermon by William Arnot (1808–75) connects happiness, mercy, and grace even more clearly than Wesley’s hymn. Arnot was a Scottish minister and author, and one of his sermons, “Roots and Fruits,” stresses that after conversion, a Christian becomes a “new creature,” one that is filled with mercy and good fruits: It is a principle of the Gospel that he who gets mercy shows mercy. When a man is full of mercy in this sinning, suffering world, a stream of benevolence will be found flowing in his track all through the wilderness. If the reservoir within his heart be kept constantly charged by union with the upper spring, there need be neither ebbing nor intermission of the current all his days, for opening opportunities everywhere abound (The Sermon Bible 1900: 363).

Frederick Douglass quotes James 3:17 ten times in his extant speeches, and those citations give significant insights into his view of Christianity and his resulting views on abolition (Aymer 2008: 27). One example is his speech, “The Bible Opposes Oppression, Fraud, and Wrong,” on January 6, 1846 in Belfast; his last major speech in a lecture tour of Ireland during the Great Famine. At that speech, the Belfast Anti-Slavery Society presented him with a Bible, and Douglass responds to that gift with the following words: [This Bible] contains all the Words of Heavenly Wisdom—it is opposed to everything that is wrong, and is in favor of all that is right. It is filled with that Wisdom from above, which is pure, and peaceable, and full of mercies and good fruits, without prolixity, and without hypocrisy. It knows no one by the color of his skin. It confers no privilege upon one class, which it does not confer upon another . . . If you claim liberty for yourself, grant it to your neighbour. If you, yourself, were a slave, and would desire the aid of your fellow-man to rescue you from the clutch of the enslaver, you surely are bound by that very desire to labor for the freedom of those whom you know to be in bonds (Douglass 1979: 1.129).

A few months later Douglass delivered a speech at Finsbury Chapel to a group of abolitionists in London (“American Slavery, American Religion, and the Free Church of Scotland”; Douglass 1979: 1.269–99). The three-hour speech, the

James 3:13–4:12  225 text of which records responses from the audience in parentheses, includes an exhortation from James 3:17. The power of this speech, and the critical concern of how the Bible can and should be used to address current moral issues, demand an extended excerpt. Douglass begins with the question of how the horrors of slavery could even be possible in a country that professes to believe in Christianity. America, he says, is dutifully printing tracts and Bibles, sending missionaries all over the world to convert people to Christianity, and spending vast sums to promote the Gospel in other lands. Yet the slave not only lies forgotten—uncared for, but is trampled under foot by the very churches of the land. What have we in America? We have made slavery part of the religion of the land. Yes, the pulpit there stands up as the great defender of this cursed institution, as it is called. Ministers of religion come forward, and torture the hallowed pages of inspired wisdom to sanction the bloody deed (Loud cries of “Shame!”) They stand forth as the foremost, the strongest defenders of this “institution.” As a proof of this, I need not do more than state the general fact, that slavery has existed under the droppings of the sanctuary of the south, for the last 200 years, and there has not been any war between the religion and the slavery of the south. Whips, chains, gags, and thumb-screws have all lain under the droppings of the sanctuary, and instead of rusting from off the limbs of the bondsman, these droppings have served to preserve them in all their strength. Instead of preaching the Gospel against this tyranny, rebuke, and wrong, ministers of religion have sought, by all and every means, to throw in the background whatever in the Bible could be construed into opposition to slavery, and to bring forward that which they could torture into its support. (Cries of “Shame!”) This I conceive to be the darkest feature of slavery, and the most difficult to attack, because it is identified with religion, and exposes those who denounce it to the charge of infidelity. Yes, those with whom I have been labouring, namely, the old organization AntiSlavery Society of America, have been again and again stigmatized as infidels, and for what reason? Why, solely in consequence of the faithfulness of their attacks upon the slaveholding religion of the southern states, and the northern religion that sympathizes with it. (Hear, hear.) I have found it difficult to speak on this matter without persons coming forward and saying, “Douglass, are you not afraid of injuring the cause of Christ? You do not desire to do so, we know; but are you not undermining religion?” This has been said to me again and again, even since I came to this country, but I cannot be induced to leave off these exposures. (Loud cheers.) I love the religion of our blessed Saviour, I love that religion that comes from above, in the “wisdom of God, which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy.” I love that religion that sends its votaries to bind up the wounds of him that has fallen among thieves. I love that religion that makes it the duty of its disciples to visit the fatherless and widow in their affliction. I love that religion that is based upon the glorious principle, of love to God and love to man (cheers); which makes its

226  James 3:13–4:12 followers do unto others as they themselves would be done by. If you demand ­liberty to yourself, it says, grant it to your neighbours. If you claim a right to think for yourselves, it says, allow your neighbours the same right. If you claim to act for yourselves, it says, allow your neighbours the same right. It is because I love this religion that I hate the slave-holding, the woman-whipping, the mind-darkening, the soul-destroying religion that exists in the southern states of America. (Immense cheering.) It is because I regard the one as good, and pure, and holy, that I cannot but regard the other as bad, corrupt, and wicked. Loving the one I must hate the other, holding to the one I must reject the other, and I, therefore, proclaim myself an infidel to the slave-holding religion of America. (Reiterated cheers.) Why, as I said in another place, to a smaller audience the other day, in answer to the question, “Mr. Douglass, are there not Methodist churches, Baptist churches, Congregational churches, Episcopal churches, Roman Catholic churches, Presbyterian churches in the United States, and in the southern states of America, and do they not have revivals of religion, accessions to their ranks from day to day, and will you tell me that these men are not followers of the meek and lowly Saviour?” Most unhesitatingly I do. Revivals in religion, and revivals in the slave trade, go hand in hand together. (Cheers.) The church and the slave prison stand next to each other; the groans and cries of the heartbroken slave are often drowned in the pious devotions of his religious master. (Hear, hear.) The church-going bell and the auctioneer’s bell chime in with each other; the pulpit and the auctioneer’s block stand in the same neighbourhood; while the bloodstained gold goes to support the pulpit, the pulpit covers the infernal business with the garb of Christianity. We have men sold to build churches, women sold to support missionaries, and babies sold to buy Bibles and communion services for the churches. (Loud cheers.) (Douglass 1979: 1.281–3).

As Aymer notes, for Douglass, religion inherently involves followers of the “Saviour” performing good deeds, to care for those who are in need, and the command to follow the Golden Rule (41). Douglass again defends his religion in a speech in Syracuse, New York, the only speech given in the United States that cites James 3:17. He again targets the complicity of the American church with the institution of slavery, and Douglass’s vigorous defense of his Christianity and his opposition to slavery must be seen in the context of prominent Christians who used the Bible to defend slavery: I dwell mostly upon the religious aspect, because I believe it is the religious people who are to be relied on in this Anti-Slavery movement. Do not misunderstand my railing—do not class me with those who despise religion—do not identify me with the infidel. I love the religion of Christianity—which cometh from above—which is pure, peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of good fruits, and without hypocrisy. I love that religion which sends its votaries to bind up the wounds of those who have fallen among thieves. By all the love I bear to such a Christianity as this, I hate that of the Priest and Levite, that with long-faced Phariseeism goes up to Jerusalem

James 3:13–4:12  227 and worships, and leaves the bruised and wounded to die. I despise the religion that can carry Bibles to the heathen on the other side of the globe and withhold them from heathen on this side—which can talk about human rights yonder and traffic in human flesh here. I love that which makes its votaries do to others as they would that others should do to them. I hope to see a revival of it—thank God it is revived. I see revivals in the absence of the other sort of revivals . . . There is another religion. It is that which takes off fetters instead of binding them on—that which breaks every yoke—that lifts up the bowed down. The AntiSlavery platform is based on this kind of religion. It spreads its table to the lame, the halt, and the blind. It goes down after a long neglected race. It passes, link by link till it finds the lowest link in humanity’s chain—humanity’s most degraded form in the most abject position. It reaches down its arm and tells them to stand up. This is Anti-Slavery—This is Christianity. It is reviving gloriously among the various denominations. It is threatening to supercede those old forms of religion having all of the love of God and none of the man in it (Douglass 1982: 2.99–101).

Charles Deems distinguishes between the “wisdom” that makes a person sharp, smart, and cunning—Satan’s training in life that comes “from beneath”— from the “real and worthy wisdom,” James’s “wisdom from above” that is holy and peaceable (1888: 175–6). Deems notices that James once again is “echoing the words of his adored brother Jesus” (Matt. 5:9). Just as Jesus’ blessing on the peacemakers is followed by the blessing on the pure in heart, James links the two as well (3:17). This connection most likely stems from the reality that we cannot live in peace without being pure: The pure in heart see God, and God gives peace to God’s children (180). James also declares that true wisdom is “persuadable,” the term often translated as “gentle.” This hapax legomenon does not denote any deficiency of character or designate those who are easily influenced by others—a condition that Deems colorfully labels as having a “nose of wax.” On the contrary, it denotes a person who, though steadfast, “can be won over by fair means and sound argument” (183). This person is willing to listen, free from stubbornness, and, in another echo of the Sermon on the Mount, “full of mercy.” Joseph Mayor asserts that James here follows the sapiential tradition of such texts as Job and Proverbs. In earlier chapters, Mayor writes, James envisions wisdom as the gift of God that we seek by means of “fervent prayer” and through which Christians gain understanding of why they go through various trials and tribulations. This section of James, Mayor believes, is a sequel to the instructions to teachers, and it focuses in part on the moral qualifications teachers should have, such as “[f]reedom from personal objects, simplicity and modesty singleminded devotion to the pursuit of truth . . . [g]entleness and sympathy, appreciation for the work of others.” Yet this leads Mayor to ask: “Is wisdom nothing more than this to St. James. . . ?” (Mayor 1990: 532). It evidently takes no account of the original powers of the mind, or of the strictly intellectual training needed

228  James 3:13–4:12 for the full development of those powers.” Mayor answers this question by asserting that James’s exhortation is not meant to be a complete answer. James is speaking in a particular context about a specific problem: There were in the Christian assemblies, as we learn from the Pastoral Epistles and elsewhere, the counterparts of the Jewish rabbis, men fluent and positive and argumentative, who arrogated to themselves the name of wise. St. James says nothing as to the extent of their learning or knowledge; he is content to point out those particular characteristics of heavenly wisdom in which they were manifestly deficient. We cannot argue from this that he would have disapproved of elaborate disquisitions on theological questions, such as we read in the Epistle to the Hebrews, or that he would have condemned the pursuit of learning or science for its own sake, but for the present his mind is fixed on practical issues (1990: 533).

Elsa Tamez argues that James not only unites faith and works; he also links wisdom with works, as well as wisdom and the Spirit. James, in fact, envisions the Word, faith, and Spirit as the elements that, in conjunction with praxis, make up “true Christian life” (2002: 53–4). Tamez also notes that James connects wisdom with integrity in both contexts in which wisdom appears (1:5; 3:13–18). The two kinds of wisdom, from on high and demonic, produce different fruits. Those who think they have wisdom must therefore demonstrate it by their good works that their wisdom is “from on high,” through purity, peacemaking, kindness, compassion, and an absence of hypocrisy (54–5).

James 4:1–10 Ancient literary context The tone of the letter grows harsher. At this point, James’s recipients are not “brothers and sisters” but are “you sinners” (4:7) as James transitions from peacemakers (3:18) to envious troublemakers (4:1). At least some among his intended audience—note the repeated use of the second-person plural—are “murderers” who “covet,” engage in “conflicts and disputes” (“wars” and “battles”), are “sinners” who are “double-minded,” and who, being filled with pride, are both friends “of the world” and enemies of God. The conflicts and disputes originate from the “cravings . . . at war” within them. James therefore advises them to “lament and mourn and weep” and to humble themselves before God so that God will exalt them. The word “covet” used in verse 2 is ominous, because the same word (translated as “desire”) in James 1:15 is the desire that, once it is conceived, gives birth to sin and ultimately death. Likewise, the focus on “asking” (in prayer) in verses 2–3 harks back to James 1:5–6, where those lacking wisdom are commanded to

James 3:13–4:12  229 “ask in faith, never doubting.” This reflection on prayer develops further Jesus’ words about prayer in Matthew 7:7/Luke 11:9 (“Ask, and it will be given you . . .”). James writes, however, in the context of both unasked and unanswered prayers. In James 4, some do not even ask and others ask wrongly (or “wickedly,” kakōs) to “spend on” their sinful “pleasures” (cf. the same Greek word hēdonē as the “cravings” of 4:1), so their error includes asking because of their sinful and selfish desires instead of a desire for God’s wisdom. James labels them as adulterers, and James, like Jesus, brooks no middle ground between friendship with the world and friendship with God (cf. “You cannot serve God and wealth,” Matt. 6:24; see Didymus the Blind below). In this case, then, the intended audience’s adultery/idolatry is their “friendship with the world” and “enmity with God”—in stark contrast to Abraham as the “friend of God” (2:23). Verses 6–10 begin and end with the theme that people must humble themselves before God. A key aspect of James’s argument is taken from Proverbs 3:34 (LXX), a text also utilized by 1 Peter 5:5, and a theme of reversal that echoes the teachings of Jesus as well. How can James’s adulterous audience return to a covenantal relationship with God? Verses 7–10 give the answer, as can be seen with the use of the word “therefore” that begins a series of commands and prohibitions. The dualistic nature of James’s arguments (e.g., submit to God/resist the devil; note also the return of the “double-minded” in 4:8) continues in the context of “friendship.” As Johnson notes, friendship in the Hellenistic-Roman world means “to have the same mind, the same outlook, the same view of reality” (Johnson 1995: 288; cf. Batten 2010 on God as friend and patron). One is either a friend of God or a friend of the world: Arrogance, envy, and other sins that betray friendship with the world and enmity with God are countered with a number of second-person imperatives—what James commands his intended audience to do instead: submit themselves to God (4:7), resist the devil (4:7), draw near to God (4:8), (sinners) cleanse their hands and (double-minded) purify their hearts (4:8), lament, mourn, and weep (4:9), and—reworking Proverbs 3:34—humbling themselves before God so God will exalt them (4:10). They are, after all, called to a religion that is pure, undefiled, and unstained by the world (1:27). Despite the overall negative context, some optimism remains: If people resist the devil, the devil will flee; if people draw near to God, God will draw near to them. Yet a new direction and disposition are required. To draw near to a holy God, people’s hands must be clean and their hearts purified (4:8). These strong words echo Proverbs 3:35 as well as Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew) / Plain (Luke), who speaks in terms of reversal: Those who mourn will be comforted (Matt. 5:4), the pure in heart will see God (Matt. 5:8), those who weep now will laugh (Luke 6:21), whereas those who laugh now will mourn and weep (Luke 6:25). James also echoes this ultimate reversal found in other Jesus traditions: the first will be last and the last will be first (Matt. 19:30;

230  James 3:13–4:12 20:16; Luke 13:30) and all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted (Luke 14:11; 18:14; Matt. 18:4; 23:12).

The interpretations Ancient and medieval Many scholars believe that 1 Clement is familiar with the Epistle of James, an argument bolstered by as many as thirteen verbal or thematic similarities between James 4:1–10 and 1 Clement 29:1–30:5. 1 Clement 29:1, for example, exhorts its readers to approach God in holiness of soul and with pure hands, which can be compared with the exhortation in James 4:7–8 to draw near to God, cleansing their hands and purifying their hearts. Likewise, 1 Clement 30:1–5 calls upon its readers to flee evil speech (cf. James 4:11), evil desire (cf. James 4:2), adultery (cf. James 4:4), and arrogance (cf. James 4:6), and, as does James 4:6, 1 Clement then cites Proverbs 3:34, speaks of God giving more grace (cf. James 4:6a), and exhorts its readers to be “lowly-minded” (cf. James 4:10). Other parallels to James 4:1–10 are found in 1 Clement as well (e.g., 1 Clem. 46:5/James 4:1; 1 Clem. 59:3/James 4:10). Such parallels make it possible—but are not determinative—that 1 Clement is in dialogue with James (for these and other details, see Johnson 1995: 72–5). Here again it is possible that the Shepherd of Hermas echoes James, well beyond the use of dipsychos. James’s call for its readers to cleanse their hands/ purify their hearts finds significant parallels in such places as the Mandates of Hermas 9:4: “Cleanse your heart of all the foolish things of this world.” Some passages in the Mandates are almost exact parallels (e.g., “the spirit that God made to dwell in this flesh,” Hermas Mandates 3:1; “the spirit that he has made to dwell in us,” James 4:5; Johnson 1995: 75–9). The commentary attributed to Didymus the Blind discusses three key elements of this section. First, it mulls over why some people do not receive the things for which they pray and decides that the reason is that they ask for them in the wrong way, such as not including the necessary “prerequisites for intercession.” Second, it connects the saying of Jesus in Matthew 6:24 (“You cannot serve God and wealth”) with James 4:4: A person who sins loves the world and therefore is an enemy of God; in contrast, a person who avoids sinning affirms God and is an enemy of the world. Just as you cannot serve God and wealth, “it is also impossible to be a friend of the world and of God at the same time.” Finally, the commentary declares that pride is the greatest of all evils, whereas humility, whenever it can oppose pride, is a great force for good. If one is humble before God, rejecting the proud, God will exalt that person “to the heights” (Bray 2000: 46–7, 50). James 4:6—and texts that closely parallel it (Prov. 3:34 LXX; 1 Peter 5:5)—is the most-quoted verse in this section. John Chrysostom, for example, cites it in

James 3:13–4:12  231 his opening homily on 1 Corinthians (Homily I.4, on 1 Cor. 1:1–3). Chrysostom’s use of James correlates closely with his concern for a genuine Christian lifestyle based on scriptural principles: social justice, disregard for material possessions, God’s love for the poor, and the responsibilities of the rich. Chrysostom begins by arguing that Paul “immediately . . . casts down” the pride of the Corinthians. He asks why, if “our peace be of grace,” some people are “so puffed up,” and he suggests, citing James 4:6, that human beings can only find grace with God through “lowliness of mind.” A “lowly man” bears insults and abuse meekly and is at peace with all human beings, as well as with God. Nothing, Chrysostom concludes, “makes the Christian so admirable as lowliness of mind.” Jerome includes a citation of James 4:6 in a letter to Abigaus, a blind presbyter in Spain. Abigaus had requested that Jerome pray for him, because he was struggling with evil. Jerome writes to console him, and he begins with a focus on humility, especially because he seeks to encourage Abigaus in his time of trouble (Letter LXXVI.1). Jerome notes that he prays every day that God will not remember the sins of his own youth or the rest of his transgressions and then cites a string of passages on pride and humility (e.g., 1 Tim. 3:6 about being “puffed up with conceit”), including James 4:6. Jerome concludes: “there is nothing I have striven so much to avoid from my boyhood up as a swelling mind and a stiff neck, things which always provoke against themselves the wrath of God.” James 4:1–10 figures prominently in Augustine’s writings. He expounds on the meaning of James 4:4, for example, in his commentary on Psalm 92:8 (On the Psalms XCII.10). The eternal God is longsuffering and patient, and God allows evil deeds by wicked humans to occur, but the enemies of God who flourish now will (eventually) all perish. But blasphemers are not the only enemies of God, Augustine says. As James 4:4 notes, if you are a friend of the world, you are an enemy of God. Friendship with the world is also enmity with God: “a soul which is an adulteress through its love of worldly things, cannot but be an enemy to God.” Likewise, in his commentary on the Gospel of John 14:29–31 (Tractate LXXIX), Augustine notes that the devil is the prince of “this world”, not of God’s creatures, but of sinners, the lovers of this world who have thus become enemies of God (James 4:4). The devil and his adherents will fail, because the whole world is “subject to the Creator, not to the destroyer; to the Redeemer, not to the enslaver; to the Teacher, not to the deceiver” (cf. Confessions I.XIII, where Augustine equates friendship with the world as fornication against God). James 4:6 (Prov. 3:34 LXX; 1 Peter 5:5) is another of Augustine’s favorite verses from James, one that resonates with him, as the very beginning of his Confessions indicates: Great art thou, O Lord, and greatly to be praised; great is thy power, and thy w ­ isdom is infinite. And man wants to praise you, man who is only a small portion of what

232  James 3:13–4:12 you have created and who goes about carrying with him his own mortality, the evidence of his own sin and evidence that Thou resistest the proud. Yet still man, this small portion of creation, wants to praise you. You stimulate him to take pleasure in praising you, because you have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they can find peace in you (1963: 17; I.I.1; cf. IV.III.5; IV.XVI.26; VII.IX.13; X.XXXVI.59).

Augustine returns to this idea of “rest/peace” in his lengthy reply to the questions of Januarius (Letters of St. Augustine, LV.X.18). The souls of humans, good or bad, struggle toward the things they love so that they may rest when reaching them. Many things besides God may please the soul through the body, Augustine says, but rest gained elsewhere is brief and problematic, because seeking rest in places other than God will “debase the soul and weigh it down.” The result is that the soul is hindered from seeking higher things: “In such sin the soul is not left unpunished, for ‘God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.’ When, however, the soul delights in God, there it finds the true, sure, and eternal rest, which in all other objects was sought in vain.” Augustine also begins City of God with a reference to James 4:6 (or Prov. 3:34 LXX; 1 Peter 5:5). He notes that it is difficult to convince the proud of the “virtue of humility” that raises human beings through divine grace, not by human arrogance, “above all earthly dignities that totter on this shifting scene. For the King and Founder of this city of which we speak, has in Scripture uttered to His people a dictum of the divine law in these words: ‘God resists the proud, but gives grace unto the humble.’” Such actions are the prerogative of God (Augustine also quotes Virgil’s Aeneid vi.854: “Show pity to the humbled soul, And crush the sons of pride”), but proud human beings want to achieve that goal in their own ways and in their own realms. So, Augustine argues, he must not only speak of the city of God in his work but also has to discuss aspects of the “earthly city,” which “is itself ruled by its lust of rule.” Augustine also applies this saying to the “apostate angels” who sinned and to human beings in general (City of God XI.XXXIV.33). Only a proud person, for example, can presume to live in the midst of all the temptations of this life and not feel the need to ask God to “Forgive us our debts.” Augustine continues: And such a man is not great, but swollen and puffed up with vanity, and is justly resisted by Him who abundantly gives grace to the humble. Whence it is said, “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” In this, then, consists the righteousness of a man, that he submit himself to God, his body to his soul, and his vices, even when they rebel, to his reason, which either defeats or at least resists them; and also that he beg from God grace to do his duty, and the pardon of his sins, and that he render to God thanks for all the blessings he receives.

James 3:13–4:12  233 It is only when we reach our eternal, blessed “final peace” that we will have gained both “immortality and incorruption, and shall have no more vices . . .” In his commentary, Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount (I.XI.32), Augustine declares that human beings must yield to God if they want to be reconciled with God. Until we stop resisting God, God could be called our “adversary,” because God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. As Augustine’s commentary On the Gospel of St. John notes, during the ministry of Jesus, those who yielded to God “were foreordained to eternal life.” Others did not believe, “and could not believe,” even after witnessing miraculous signs, because their eyes were blinded and their hearts hardened “by the mysterious yet not unrighteous judgment of God,” because God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble (Tractate LIV on John 12:44–50). In a similar way, Augustine uses James 4:6 allegorically to condemn the proud “Jews” who rejected Jesus and prepared the way for the “grafted” Gentiles (On the Psalms 107:8). God “resisted the proud,” that is, the first people of the Jews, arrogant, and extolling itself on its descent from Abraham, and because to that nation “were entrusted the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2). These things did not avail them unto soundness, but unto pride of heart, rather to swelling than to greatness. What then did God, resisting the proud, but giving grace to the humble; cutting off the natural branches for their pride; grafting in the wild olive for its humility?

In his work On Nature and Grace Augustine discusses whether humans may, by God’s help, “be perfected” despite the devil’s efforts to make them fall into sin. For we do not deny that human nature can be without sin; nor ought we by any means to refuse to it the ability to become perfect, since we admit its capacity for progress,—by God’s grace, however, through our Lord Jesus Christ. By His assistance we aver that it becomes holy and happy, by whom it was created in order to be so (Chapter 68).

Since James 4:7 assures us that the devil will flee if we resist him, Augustine declares that the devil only prevails against those who do not resist. The difference between his view and the view of the Pelagians, Augustine says, is that he insists “that God’s help must be sought.” The Pelagians, on the other hand, believe that humans can resist the devil on their own, so Augustine claims “they attribute so much power to will as to take away prayer from religious duty.” In contrast, Augustine cites both the Lord’s Prayer (“Lead us not into temptation”; Matt. 6:13) and Jesus’ words to his disciples (“Pray that you may not come into the time of temptation”; Mark 14:38) to illustrate his view that human beings need God’s help to persevere through such trials.

234  James 3:13–4:12 As noted in my chapter “James 1:12–27”, John Cassian’s Institutes of the Cenobia and the Remedies for the Eight Principal Vices discusses how to combat effectively the eight principal vices. Although he lists it last, Cassian notes that the “mischief ” of pride “is the beginning of all sins and faults . . . [and] is destructive of all virtues” (XII.6). Pride not only tempts “ordinary folk and small people,” but it primarily tempts “those who already stand on the heights of valor.” David, for example, as evidenced in Psalms 101 and 131, was a humble person, but he knew that he could not accomplish this humility on his own. He prayed to God that “he might escape unwounded by the darts of this foe,” because he feared falling into the sin of pride since God resists the proud (James 4:6). A similar idea is found in Cassian’s account of the First Conference of Abbot Serenus, where Cassian records Serenus’s thoughts about evil, the power of free will, and the need to ask God for assistance in times of temptation (Conference VII.8). Serenus declares, “our foes are continually lying in wait for us,” but they only have power to incite us to do evil; they cannot force us to do evil. Humans have the power to reject those temptations, as well as the liberty of acquiescing to them. Serenus, though, offers words of hope to those afflicted with such difficulties by noting that we may “claim the protection and assistance of God” against the assaults of our enemies. God is greater than the ones in this world (1 John 4:4), and Serenus assures his listeners that God fights on our side, maintains the good, and draws “us towards salvation even against our will and without our knowing it.” So we can only be deceived by the devil, Serenus concludes, if we choose to yield to him, just as James 4:7 teaches. Compare, however, the reaction to Augustine’s stress on the absolute necessity of God’s grace in Cassian’s account of the (Semi-Pelagian) Third Conference of Abbot Chæremon (Conference VII.9). It is difficult to understand how God gives to those who ask, he writes, but it also is not easy to see how our salvation is completed by our own will. Scripture seems to say different things in this regard, whether it is God judging all according to their deeds (Rom. 2:6) or God working within humans to will and to do God’s pleasure (Phil. 2:13); salvation as a gift from God (Eph. 2:8–9) or God drawing near to us after we draw near to God (James 4:8); making ourselves a new heart and spirit (Ezek. 18:31) or God giving us one heart, a heart of flesh, and a new spirit (Ezek. 11:19–20); God saying to wash our hearts of wickedness (Jer. 4:14) or God creating clean hearts within us (Ps. 51). Both free will and God’s grace appear in these and other passages, because humans can initiate the quest for virtue, but they always need God’s assistance. Cassiodorus’s commentary on the Psalms is intended to be an abridgement of the much longer study of the Psalms by Augustine, but Cassiodorus also includes insights from others, such as Origen, Jerome, and Cyril of Alexandria, in addition to his own thoughts. The book of Psalms during this era was not only one of the most well-known books of the Bible for Christians, but it also was seen as  a basic summary of the whole of scripture and as a repository of sound

James 3:13–4:12  235 moral teaching (Cassiodorus 1991: 300). Cassiodorus’s commentary on Psalm 119:21, which declares that God rebukes the proud, notes that although every human being has countless sins, the proud are singled out in this verse as being rebuked by God. Pride caused the fall of Satan and the sin of Adam. Just as James 4:6 (Prov. 3:34 LXX; 1 Peter 5:5) illustrates, pride is the “mother of vices,” and humility is the “peace of all virtues” (Cassiodorus 1991: 3.185). Part 3 of Gregory the Great’s Pastoral Rule (see my chapter “James 3:1–12”) discusses the different admonishments that the “ruler” ought to apply to “those that are put under him.” These admonishments demonstrate keen insights into what occurs with leaders within the church, as well as the more basic elements of human nature. The thirty-second admonishment (3.30) addresses those “who abstain not from the sins which they bewail, and those who, abstaining from them, bewail them not.” Those two types of people need to be admonished differently. Those who lament their sins but are still mired in them need to know that weeping alone does not cleanse their sins, because after washing themselves with their tears, they “return to filth,” just as a dog returns to its vomit and a washed sow returns to wallow in the mud (2 Peter 2:22). A dog may vomit and empty its stomach, but then it returns and fills up its stomach with the same vomit. And a sow that returns to wallow in the mire after being washed becomes even “more filthy.” Likewise, Gregory declares, those who mourn their transgressions but do not forsake them commit a “more grievous sin.” Even their tears of mourning are “filthy before the eyes of God.” Weeping for one’s sins displays the humility of one’s devotion to God, but returning to those same sins betrays “friendship with the world” (James 4:4) as well as “arrogant enmity” against God. Gregory advises that one’s “inward disposition” is key, where you plant the steps of your heart “towards righteousness through humility . . .” When Gregory hears that his “fellow-priest John” (John the Faster, the Bishop of Constantinople) desires to be called “universal bishop,” he becomes incensed at this arrogance. He rails against “the invention of a certain proud and pompous phrase” and urges the emperor to “cut the place of the sore, and bind the resisting patient in the chains of august authority” (Epistle XX to Mauricius Augustus). He asks the emperor to intervene, to disallow the title, and to force John to obey, if necessary. Gregory would give thanks to God if John would obey such a command from the emperor, but if his arrogance persists, scripture speaks plainly about the consequences. God will become “his adversary,” because those who exalt themselves will be humbled (Luke 14:11; 18:14), pride precedes destruction (Prov. 16:18), and God resists the proud (James 4:6). Gregory’s problem with John claiming the title “universal bishop” is the spiritual authority it implies. Not even Peter, who received the keys of heaven to bind and loose and whose chair Gregory inherited, was called the “universal apostle.” Before writing to the emperor, in fact, Gregory sent a long letter to John in which he remonstrates earnestly against pride in general and John’s pride in this

236  James 3:13–4:12 ­ articular case (Schaff and Wace 1999: 12.xxiii). James 4:6 plays a key role in p Gregory’s arguments in which he states that the “king of pride is near,” including the end of the world, and that “an army of priests” prepare the way for him. God, however, opposes the proud, and the incarnation of Jesus shows us that the humility of God becomes the means of our salvation. Therefore, Gregory concludes, bishops “who have received a place of honor from the humility of our Redeemer” should not imitate the pride of the devil but instead should imitate the humility demonstrated by God on behalf of our salvation (Epistle XVIII). Bede argues that the conflicts and disputes mentioned in James 4:1 stem from zeal and contentiousness that James had earlier forbidden. Such discord results from the “cravings” at war within James’s audience, wars that occur when the hand, tongue, or a combination of the other members of the body “obeys those things which a base mind perversely suggests.” Yet Bede also acknowledges that these cravings can refer to “earthly goods,” such as the desire for a kingdom, riches, or honors (1985: 47). On one hand, the recipients of the letter “do not have,” because they did not ask. Yet they also “ask and do not receive,” because they ask “wickedly,” which is the same as requesting nothing, in Bede’s eyes. James labels these people “adulterers” because they abandon the love of wisdom and turn instead to “worldly friendship”—despising the Creator and serving mammon. Thus, for Bede, these “enemies of God” are not just those who openly blaspheme God or persecute the saints; this category also applies to those who after having faith and confessing God’s name “become slaves to the delights and the love of the world, who are faithful in name only, and prefer earthly to heavenly things” (49). All lovers of the world are enemies of God. Bede then refers back to James 1:10–11 to declare that even though these enemies of God will flourish for a time, when the heat of judgment appears, they will perish (50). God particularly “opposes the proud” and punishes them with a greater penalty, Bede notes, because they trust in their own strength; they refuse to repent, be subject to God, and seek God’s grace (50). God, on the other hand, gives grace to the humble, because they “who in the midst of the wounds of their vices humbly put themselves into the hands of the true physician rightly receive the gift of the hoped-for cure” (50). Bede notes that James refers to the “parables of Solomon” (Prov. 3:34) to make his point, but Bede finds additional insights in the Vulgate’s version: “He himself will deceive mockers and will give grace to the meek,” as well as similar examples of “God deceiving mockers” from 2 Thessalonians 2:10–11 and Matthew 27:42. God also gives grace to the meek because God “bestows both the perfection of their good work and the gifts of a blessed everlasting life” (51). Since the enemies of God will only flourish temporarily, and the friends of God will receive the “eternal joy of life,” Bede advises his readers to focus on their eternal reward, not the fleeting comforts of this world:

James 3:13–4:12  237 Do not love to be made rich, [James] says, and to rejoice in this world, but mindful of the heinous deeds you have done see instead to this, that through the shortlived miseries and poverty and passing lamentation of this life you may reach the eternal joys of the heavenly kingdom rather than beg, grieve, pay the penalty of torments everlastingly in return for temporal joy and wealth which you have amassed through wicked labor (52).

Ps.-Oecumenius points to the absurdity of the hearer’s cravings and the means by which they attempt to satisfy those desires; their actions ensure they will obtain the opposite of what they desire. He then argues that the “murder” of which James speaks is spiritual, not physical, and indicates how serious it is for these people to try to “kill the soul and to fight against godliness.” Likewise, the charge of adultery in verse 4 is spiritual in nature: James calls these people adulterers, not because they practiced physical adultery but because they corrupted the commands which were instituted by God and turned away to other loves. They were even prepared to tolerate an adulterous teacher, even if it were clear that he was as deep in the mud as any pig (Bray 2000: 46–7).

Early modern and modern Erasmus was the first to suggest a textual emendation to James 4:2 in an attempt to make more sense of the apparently difficult reading, “you commit murder.” In his original 1516 annotations on the New Testament, which remained in the later editions (through 1535; pace Laws 1980: 171; Hartin 2003: 197, who state it appears first in the 1519 [second] edition) of his annotations, Erasmus suggests that “you commit murder” (phoneuete) should actually read “you envy” (phthoneite; see Erasmus 1993: 742; Erasmus included this reading in his (December) 1520 Paraphrase of James: Erasmus 1974: 160). Many commentators accept Erasmus’s suggestion (e.g., Calvin 1995: 296: “The word ‘kill’ has no relevance to the context”; Mayor 1990: 446–7; Dibelius 1976: 217: “a rather obvious solution”). Others, however, object for two primary reasons. First, the reading has no textual evidence to support it (e.g., Laws 1980: 171), and, second, the ideas of conflicts, murder, and war are standard elements of the Hellenistic topos of envy (Johnson 1995: 277; Hartin 2003: 197). Titus 1:6 states that elders of the church should be, among other things, “married only once.” Thus in his lectures on Titus, Luther argues against the Catholic church’s imposition of celibacy upon priests and declares that “Christ wants a minister of the Word to have a wife, but the pope does not.” Scripture is the primary authority on all matters, so Luther directs those who disagree with

238  James 3:13–4:12 him to “Go and argue with Paul” (e.g., 1 Tim. 4:1; 1 Cor. 9:5) and advises his listeners to base their arguments on the Bible: If the Word is not available, you are immediately done for. But if you are armed with the Word, Satan has been conquered. Therefore he does everything he can to remove the Word from your heart, so that he may have an idle soul to work on. On the other hand, “Resist the devil and he will flee from you” (LW 29: 20).

Calvin builds upon James’s arguments concerning how conflict can erupt from jealousies. When people allow their “appetites free rein,” the lusts of their hearts will never be satiated. People who gain the entire earth, for example, would long to acquire new worlds that were created for them. As a result, people generate for themselves torments that are greater than any torturer could impose, and Calvin quotes Horace to make his point: “Sicilian tyrants could not find a torture worse than envy” (1995: 296). This insatiability goes further, because such people “seek to make God the Agent of their own desires.” Even their prayers have the “affrontery” and “reckless disregard” boldly to ask God for things they would be ashamed even to mention to another person: Certainly we can have no reverence for God, no fear, no appreciation indeed, if we dare to ask things from Him which even our own conscience would deny us. In short, James intends that we should control our appetites. And the means of control is by subjecting them to God. Our reasonable desires are to be put to God himself. By this course, we shall avoid mean contentions, deceptions, and all kinds of violence amongst ourselves (297).

In Calvin’s view, James compares the love of the world to adultery to attack the human passions that bind us to this world and draw us away from God. Friendship implies addiction and slavery to the “corrupt side of life,” and the bitter fact is that each step one takes toward the world is one step taken away from God. The wonderful truth is, though, that God’s “beneficence actually reclaims us from spites and jealousies” (298–9). For Calvin, James 4:7 discloses that Satan is the true enemy with whom we battle. James’s promise that Satan will flee apparently contradicts our “daily experience,” because it seems certain that “the more bravely we resist, the sharper we feel his pressure . . . My answer is that flee is taken as ‘go to ruin’” (299). God’s help, Calvin concludes, will not fail us as long as we give God the opportunity to help us. James’s “draw near” assumes that we were “drawing away.” If we draw near, however, with God on our side, we have nothing to fear from Satan’s attacks. Calvin is quick to stress, not surprisingly, that even though it may appear

James 3:13–4:12  239

Plate 7.1  Jan Luiken, “The Scrubbing-Brush: The Courtyard Is Perfect” (1711)

from this verse that the initiative lies with us, and God’s grace is secondary, “this is miles from the intention of the Apostle.” Just because it is our duty does not mean that it is within our power, because the Spirit of God “nerves us for our task.” Any sophistic argument otherwise “is quite ridiculous” (299–300). Calvin also connects Luke 6:25 with James 4:9 to argue that both proclaim “sorrow upon the rich.” James is different, however, because he speaks of the “saving sorrow” that leads us to repentance. As 4:10 shows, the grace of God will raise us up when God sees that “we have laid down our lofty aspirations”: “We are jealous and envious, because we long to be high and mighty. We could not be more mistaken. It is God’s own pleasure to raise up the lowly, especially those who willingly resign themselves” (300). The etching, “The Scrubbing-Brush: The Courtyard is Perfect” (Plate 7.1), is found in the 1711 book, Het leerzaam huisraad, by the Dutch artist and poet, Jan Luiken (1649–1712). This image illustrates James’s admonitions to “cleanse your hands” and “purify your hearts.” One servant scrubs carefully the paving stones of the inner courtyard, with a second person watching her. A third person approaching the inner courtyard carries two buckets of water to assist in the task. Luiken’s poem, however, observes that although the scrubbing of the

240  James 3:13–4:12 stones cleans the previous dirty footsteps, “the feet of much that is evil, which should not be there, tramp through the open court yard of the house of the soul and so leave dirty footprints.” Luiken concludes that the real shame is that human beings are so concerned to keep their earthly dwellings spotless while allowing the “grime of evil” to remain, unscrubbed, on their souls. Although Charles Deems notes that James is not inveighing against aesthetics or science when he warns against “friendship with the world,” he avers that it is possible to “become so engaged by the beautiful things of the world . . . as to have the soul wholly drawn off from God.” The study of science, for example, can become dangerous, because people might get so enamored of the laws and phenomena of the universe that they actually begin to believe there is nothing beyond those laws and phenomena and that nothing exists beyond what can be ascertained by their senses. Such people worship creation, not the creator: “All such love becomes hatred to God, and as we see throughout human society, the worldly-minded people and materialistic scientists become idolaters, and thus violate the marriage covenant of their souls with God” (1888: 202). Deems also observes James’s striking language in this passage, where God is “against those who lift themselves up” (209). In fact, it is impossible to gain salvation without discerning one’s inherent guilt and “absolute helplessness.” It is only when we humbly cast away all pride—when we choose humility and avoid humiliation—that God showers favors upon us, and we receive peace of heart (210). Through this submission to God, we receive a thorough change in our moral life. Deems even argues that “He that does not believe in a personal God cannot be a moral man” (211). James’s command to draw near to God, Deems writes, entails a spiritual intimacy with God, an increasing knowledge of God’s character, and alertness to God’s heart, truth, and love (216). God responds to this movement the same way the loving father responds to his prodigal son in Luke 15: on the wings of loving mercifulness and fatherly affection, he rushes to his son. And while that son does not dare to look at him straight in the eyes, much less to put his soiled hands on the sacred person of his father, the father wraps his son in the arms of his love, and covers him with the caresses of his affection. So, the man who draws near to God, God draws with great rapidity toward Himself (221–2).

Commentators struggle over how to interpret James 4:5 (cf. Johnson 1995: 280–2), starting with the problem of what “scripture” James cites, how the verse is to be translated, and how to interpret such details as “spirit.” In spite of these difficulties, Alfred Plummer tries to get at the heart of what the verse means by relating an anecdote about Abraham Lincoln:

James 3:13–4:12  241 At one of the conferences between the Northern and the Southern States of America during the war of 1861–1866 the representatives of the Southern States stated what cession of territory they were prepared to make, provided that the independence of the portion that was not ceded to the Federal Government was secured. More and more attractive offers were made, the portions to be ceded being increased, and those to be retained in a state of independence being proportionately diminished. All the offers were met by a steadfast refusal. At last President Lincoln placed his hand on the map so as to cover all the Southern States, and in these emphatic words delivered his ultimatum: “Gentlemen, this Government must have the whole” (1891: 235).

Plummer’s point is that the United States was at an end if any part, no matter how small, was permitted to break away. There were no exceptions or allowances; it was all or nothing, and this demand is exactly what James 4:5 declares God makes: God will not share us with the world and will brook no rival. God’s “government must have the whole”; anything less means that we are unfaithful adulterers (235). Plummer then notes that James 4:6, like 1 Peter 5:5, quotes the book of Proverbs. He also observes the similarities between this verse and the Magnificat and wonders whether James, the brother of Jesus, might have heard “the Mother of the Lord” recite it. In any case, the Magnificat, James, 1 Peter, and Proverbs all teach the same lesson: God “puts down” the ones who align themselves with the world rather than with God and gives “more graces and blessings” to those who put their faith and trust in God (236–7). The call in James 4:8 to draw near to God has inspired more hymns than perhaps any other verse in the letter. Thomas Hansen Kingo (1634–1703), for example, a Danish bishop in Odense, wrote “Dearest Jesus, Draw Thou Near Me” in 1699 (translated into English by C. K. Solberg in 1908). Kingo, instead of focusing on James’s call to draw near to God, focuses on the believer’s call for Jesus to draw near to the believer, as the opening stanza illustrates: Dearest Jesus, draw Thou near me, Let Thy Spirit dwell with mine; Open now my ear to hear Thee, Take my heart and seal it Thine; Keep me, lead me on my way, Thee to follow and obey, E’er to do Thy will and fear Thee, And rejoice to know and hear Thee.

This nearness to Jesus includes living faithfully in the sheltering care of the church, continuing to seek God’s aid in resisting temptation, gaining “full and free” salvation, and, upon death, entering into God’s presence in heaven (www. cyberhymnal.org/htm/d/j/d/djdtneme.htm).

242  James 3:13–4:12 Likewise, Leila Naylor Morris’s (1862–1929) hymn, “Nearer, Still Nearer” adapts James 4:8 so that the believer calls to Jesus, “as Savior,” to draw near to the believer and provide a shelter in the “Haven of Rest”: Nearer, still nearer, close to Thy heart, Draw me, my Savior—so precious Thou art! Fold me, oh, fold me close to Thy breast. Shelter me safe in that “Haven of Rest”; Shelter me safe in that “Haven of Rest.”

Morris, like Kingo, also echoes the theme of repentance and the turning away from sin, as well as drawing after death “still nearer” to his savior throughout all eternity (www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/n/e/nearersn.htm). Perhaps the most famous hymn that echoes James 4:8 is Sarah Fuller Flower Adams’s (1805–48) “Nearer, My God, to Thee.” For example, as the 1997 movie Titanic portrays, some survivors of the 1912 disaster—other survivors disagreed— remembered that the ocean liner’s orchestra played the hymn as the Titanic began to sink. The hymn is also associated with the 1901 assassination of President William McKinley (eleven years prior to the sinking of the Titanic). McKinley initially survived the assassination attempt and appeared to be on the road to recovery. He took a turn for the worse, however, and died from gangrene eight days after the shooting. Among his final words: “Nearer, my God, to Thee” (www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/n/m/nmgtthee.htm). The same themes echo in this hymn as in the other hymns on James 4:8, such as the desire to be “nearer” to God, something that is accomplished by Jesus through his sacrificial death: Nearer, my God, to Thee, nearer to Thee! E’en though it be a cross that raiseth me, Still all my song shall be, nearer, my God, to Thee.

Later stanzas incorporate the idea of Jacob’s ladder, including angels from heaven calling us to be nearer to God, and the memories of those dreams allow us even through our “woes” to be nearer to God: There let the way appear, steps unto Heav’n; All that Thou sendest me, in mercy given; Angels to beckon me nearer, my God, to Thee. Then, with my waking thoughts bright with Thy praise, Out of my stony griefs Bethel I’ll raise; So by my woes to be nearer, my God, to Thee.

James 3:13–4:12  243 The hymn concludes, as do the other hymns, with the confidence that after death we will be nearer to God in heaven. This sentiment makes the hymn appropriate for its use by the orchestra on the Titanic (either in real life or in the film) and for President McKinley to quote upon his deathbed: Or, if on joyful wing cleaving the sky, Sun, moon, and stars forgot, upward I’ll fly, Still all my song shall be, nearer, my God, to Thee. There in my Father’s home, safe and at rest, There in my Savior’s love, perfectly blest; Age after age to be, nearer my God to Thee. (www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/n/m/nmgtthee.htm)

Charles Wesley utilizes James 4:7–8 in a hymn that integrates several themes from James, especially the stanzas below (1, 2, 4). The first stanza speaks of the efficacy of prayer (cf. James 5:13–18) and the necessity of praying to God with “humble confidence” that God will hear (James 1:5–8; 4:1–3), with a focus on the need to act and the gift from God that allows us to do those acts of faith (e.g., James 1:17–25): Jesus, my strength, my hope,   On thee I cast my acre, With humble confidence look up,   And know thou hear’st my prayer. Give me on thee to wait,   Till I can all things do, On thee, almighty to create,   Almighty to renew.

Included in that faith is the God-assisted ability to discern evil, to petition God especially during times of temptation, and to resist the devil and watch him flee (James 4:7–8): I want a godly fear,   A quick-discerning eye That looks to thee when sin is near,   And sees the tempter fly: A spirit still prepared,   And armed with jealous care, For ever standing on its guard   And watching unto prayer.

244  James 3:13–4:12 The hymn closes with the implicit acknowledgement that we should be “doers of the word”: I want with all my heart   Thy pleasure to fulfil, To know thyself, and what thou art,   And what thy perfect will— This blessing over all,   Always to pray, I want, Out of the deep on thee to call,   And never, never faint. (Hymns and Psalms 1985: 680)

Joseph Mayor observes that James points to a simple cause for quarreling. Human beings are eager to obtain things that the world deems “good” that are limited in quantity. In fact, often the chief value of such goods is derived from the law of supply and demand: the difficulty in obtaining such goods raises their perceived value immensely. Many people thus never obtain such goods, and, Mayor notes, even those attaining a “coveted object” are also often disappointed: No sooner is the coveted object attained, than the process of disillusion commences. There is a moment’s delight at the victory over our rivals, and again the cloud of disappointment settles over us. We feel that, once more, happiness has eluded our grasp, and we are filled with envy and jealousy of those whom we fancy to be in any respect more fortunate than ourselves, till in the end we find our nearest approach to happiness in striving to prevent or destroy the happiness of others.

What is the answer? Mayor notes that the Stoic’s answer is to stop desiring such objects. The Christian answer, though, is that Christians should desire to be and do what God wants them to be and do. And God’s will, Mayor concludes, is a form of the Golden Rule: to desire the good for others as well as for ourselves (1990: 536). As Russell Short demonstrates in his book, The Gospel According to “Peanuts”, Charles Schulz’s comic strip Peanuts is filled with penetrating insights into the human condition, insights often containing theological implications. Short points to one such Peanuts cartoon that illustrates James 4:8, 10, and 16, where Linus is eating a sandwich, and his sister Lucy is nearby reading a book (1965: 46; Plate 7.2). Although there is no evidence that this comic is a direct reflection on James 4, certain common elements are found. Linus’s jelly-covered hands might be symbolic of a deeper problem common to all humanity, just as James’s words in 4:8 about cleansing one’s hands is symbolic of a need for spiritual cleansing sinful and impure hearts. Linus’s increasingly boastful words display the need for humility, which Lucy succinctly and abruptly provides by bursting his bubble (cf. James 4:10, 16; see Short 1965: 46).

James 3:13–4:12  245

Plate 7.2  Pride and humility in Charles Schulz, Peanuts PEANUTS  1959 Peanuts Worldwide LLC. Dist. By UNIVERSAL UCLICK. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

James’s use of the word “cravings” brings two observations of Frederick Buechner to mind. First, Buechner describes envy as “the consuming desire to have everybody else as unsuccessful as you are” (1973: 20). Second, he defines lust as “the craving for salt of a man who is dying of thirst.” This latter observation is reminiscent of Ps.-Oecumenius’s point about the absurdity of people’s attempts to satiate their cravings in ways that ensure they will obtain the opposite of what they desire. Buechner also discusses the nature of humility and notes that it is often erroneously mistaken for self-deprecation. Saying that you are not very good at bridge, for example, when you actually play bridge quite well, is a form of “gamesmanship,” not humility. True humility, Buechner argues, isn’t such gamesmanship, or even thinking ill of yourself; instead it is thinking of yourself in ways not much differently than you think of others. In other words, to be just as pleased, for example, when your opponent plays a good hand at bridge as when you yourself do (1973: 40). James’s God, Elsa Tamez observes, “hears the cries of the victims” (2002: 35). God is partial to the poor, but does James present any hope for the rich? James 1:10–11 and Chapter 5 give no hope, but there is hope in 4:1–10. Although James does not explicitly refer to them, Tamez believes the context makes clear that James calls the rich—at least those who aspire to be rich within the community—to conversion. The harsh tone of this section, the absence of the vocative “my brothers,” the name-calling (“adulterers” and “sinners”), and the critique of

246  James 3:13–4:12 idolatry (those who follow their selfish passions and become friends “of the world”) all point in this direction. Tamez thus argues that James deliberately echoes the words of Jesus about “Mammon” (the god of wealth) and God being two mutually exclusive masters. James thus calls the rich to conversion: There is hope for the rich, but this is the only text in James where we see it. The condition is clear: they must be converted, that is, they must radically change their lives and purify their hands (of unjust business practices). In other words, they must cease being rich, for the rich for James are those who oppress, who exploit, and who blaspheme the name of the Lord. We must recognize that in the text of James, the rich are a stigma, just as the poor (ptōchos) are for an unjust society (39).

The second use of “double-minded” in 4:8 (cf. 1:8), Tamez argues, is directed to those who tend to make friends “of the world” and follow the values of the corrupt society. Since friends of the world are friends of Mammon, they are “adulterers.” Therefore they must be purified; they must clean their hearts and their hands (cease doing evil and “desist from corruption”). For James, you cannot live in ambiguity; the choices are clear: “Either you believe that God generously answers prayers or God does not [1:8]. Either you make friends with God or with the unjust world [4:4]. Either you are in the community or you are out of it. A decisive option must be shown in praxis” (49).

James 4:11–12 Ancient literary context James continues his string of imperative sentences by returning to an earlier theme: the power of the tongue (cf. 1:19, 26; 3:1–12). The vocative “brothers and sisters” also returns, which, as before, softens the tone, although James switches from positive direct commands in the previous verses (e.g., “humble yourselves”) to a negative prohibition: “Do not speak evil”—perhaps denoting slander (cf. Johnson 1995: 292–3; Hartin 2003: 217), an issue so important that James repeats it and adds the qualifying “judges another.” James thus argues that speaking evil of one’s neighbors is the same as judging them, which means for James that they speak evil against and judge the law of God. Therefore they also usurp God’s role as lawgiver and judge, the ultimate act of hubris: acting in God’s place. Instead of judging each other, James’s audience members are to look into the “law of liberty,” be “doers that act” (1:25), and are to “fulfill the royal law” (2:8). James’s final question, which switches from “brothers and sisters” (4:11) to “neighbor” (4:12), echoes words of Jesus about not judging one’s neighbors. Matthew 7:1–5 comes to mind (contra Plummer 1891: 251), where Jesus

James 3:13–4:12  247 ­commands them not to judge one another, so they will not be judged (cf. Luke 6:37; Lev. 19:16–18). The basic outlook is also the same as Jesus’ parable of the Wheat and Weeds in Matthew 13:24–30. In that parable, an enemy sows weeds among the good wheat in the field, but the householder commands his slaves to leave the weeds in the field until harvest time. Only then are the weeds separated and burned; the wheat, however, is gathered into the barn. James’s final question also makes clear that these two verses connect with the concern for proper humility before God (e.g., 4:10) and the need not to act in a way superior to one’s neighbors, to show partiality, or to make “distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts” (e.g., 2:4).

The interpretations Ancient and medieval Augustine cites James 4:11 among a myriad of verses that, for Augustine, demonstrate that “sinners,” because they have free will, cannot excuse themselves by blaming God for their failings: God requires all the commandments to be kept. Augustine argues that this cannot be possible if human beings do not have free will. So when James says not to be deceived (1:16) or not to speak evil against each other (4:11), or other Bible verses wherever it is said, “Do not do this,” and “Do not do that,” and wherever there is any requirement in the divine admonitions for the work of the will to do anything, or to refrain from doing anything, there is at once a sufficient proof of free will. No man, therefore, when he sins, can in his heart blame God for it, but every man must impute the fault to himself. Nor does it detract at all from a man’s own will when he performs any act in accordance with God. Indeed, a work is then to be pronounced a good one when a person does it willingly; then, too, may the reward of a good work be hoped for from Him concerning whom it is written, “He shall reward every man according to his works” (Matt. 16:27) (On Grace and Free Will, Chapter 4).

Bede explores various connections between these two verses with other sections of James, as well as the Hebrew Bible. The “do not slander” prohibition in 4:11, for example, reflects the “deadly poison of the tongue” that causes them to “quarrel and make war” (4:2). Bede also links James 4:11 with the command in Leviticus 19:16 not to be a “slanderer” and the “love command” in Leviticus 19:18. In addition, Bede argues, James’s question in 4:12: “exposes the rashness of the one who takes delight in judging his neighbor and does not take care to examine the uncertain condition of his own frailty and temporal life.” Bede comments that this observation therefore leads to the advice about making future plans that begins in 4:13 (1985: 52–3).

248  James 3:13–4:12 As noted in chapter “James 1:12–27,” Marsilius of Padua’s Defender of the Peace (1324) argues that the pope/church should not have coercive jurisdiction. As part of his arguments against the “coercive jurisdiction of bishops,” Marsilius uses James 4:12: According to this reasoning, therefore, there is also a certain judge who has coercive authority over transgressors of divine law . . . But this judge is one alone, Christ, and no one else. Whence in James 4:12: “There is one lawmaker and judge, that is able to destroy and to deliver.”

Christ’s mercy, Marsilius argues, leads him not to exercise this coercive power yet, so that people may be able to repent “up to the very end” of their lives. The other judge in scripture, the priest, is the teacher of divine law, but he has no coercive power in this world to compel anyone to observe these commands (Defender of the Peace, Discourse 2, Chapter 9). Early modern and modern Calvin notes how James “reproves the passion for censoriousness.” Hypocrites— and by nature we are all hypocrites—eagerly promote themselves by shaming and denigrating others, “speaking against” them with all kinds of slander. James, however, censures those who condemn others to buttress their own reputations; in addition, by judging others, you assume a role that belongs solely to God, and, in fact, if you claim such authority—and thus pretend to be superior to God’s law—then you are shaking off the yoke of God and removing yourself “from the government of the Law” (1995: 301–2). Once again, Calvin detects that James’s argument involves opposites: observance of the Law versus a state of arrogance where people equate their own “foolish opinions” with the authority of God’s law. Calvin concludes with one caveat and one negative example. He asks his readers to “please remember” that James is not speaking about “external polity,” the “edicts and laws of magistrates.” Instead, James is speaking “of the spiritual government of the soul, in which only the Word of God should have supremacy” (302). That leads Calvin to his polemical point: Some people would have us speak more softly if we call the pope Antichrist, when he exercises a tyranny upon souls, making himself a legislator on a par with God. In fact, this passage takes us much further in logic: members of the Antichrist they must be, who willingly accept these snares, and renounce Christ to the degree that they associate with him a man, not merely mortal, but one who sets himself up as his foe. I call it prevaricatory obedience—the devil’s goods—to accept any other than God as Legislator for the government of souls (302).

James 3:13–4:12  249 The writings of William Shakespeare include many observations about God being the ultimate judge of human beings. Shakespeare thus advises both the reservation of judgment on others and the gift of mercy to others. In Henry VI Part 2, for example, when Cardinal Beaufort is on his deathbed, the Earl of Warwick declares that “So bad a death argues a monstrous life.” King Henry responds, as both Jesus and James would advise, “Forbear to judge, for we are sinners all” (Act III scene iii; Shakespeare 1979: 1122). Even more succinct than King Henry’s observation, though, is found John Wesley’s brief notes on the Letter of James. Wesley’s response to the “Who are you to judge” question at the end of James 4:12 is: “A poor, weak, dying worm.” Jonathan Edwards cites 4:12 in his defense of the Great Awakening in the United States in his work, “Some Thoughts Concerning the Revival” (part IV). Edwards argues that forbidding the practice “of judging our brethren in the visible church” would promote the revival (1972: 8.479). God forbids Christians to judge each other because God knows that Christians are “too much of babes” (i.e., weak and fallible). God also realizes, however, that judging each other is “not a work suited to our proud hearts” (479), because judging one another gives humans too much authority over others. After citing James 4:12, Edwards goes to say: Our wise and merciful Shepherd has graciously taken care not to lay in our way such temptation to pride; he has cut up all such poison out of our pasture; and therefore we should not desire to have it restored. Blessed be his name, that he has not laid such a temptation in the way of my pride! I know that in order to be fit for this business, I must not only be vastly more knowing, but more humble than I am (480).

Charles Deems sums up this section of James succinctly: “There are few more evident and more painful indications of the corruption of our nature than the general tendency to detraction. In all ages of the world, men seem to be more able to display their wit and their other intellectual resources in calumny than in eulogy” (1888: 224). The damage is threefold. First, it hurts the detractor by increasing the power and habit of speaking evil of others. Second, it hurts the listener by increasing the listener’s pessimism and decreasing the listener’s confidence in human nature. Third, when the person attacked is absent, that person is injured not only by the attack but also by being unable to respond (225). Joseph Mayor deals with other practical implications of James’s exhortation not to judge. What about those persons whose civic duty it is to judge others, such as a magistrate who must determine whether the accused person in a trial is guilty or not guilty? What of the parent who has to raise children who know the difference between right and wrong? Mayor believes that

250  James 3:13–4:12 [w]hat St. James means is that we are not to indulge in the habit of fault-finding from the mere love of it, where duty does not call us to it, for the sake of showing off our acuteness and pulling down others by way of exalting ourselves. Even where it is our duty to judge, it should be done under a sense of responsibility, with the consciousness of our own liability to go wrong and a genuine desire for the improvement, not the humiliation, of the person blamed; and further our judgment should be determined by the objective standard of right, not by our private tastes or likings; otherwise we set up ourselves above the law and the lawgiver (1990: 538).

The love of finding fault, Mayor writes, is the quickest way to bring punishment upon oneself. The beam grows in our own eye as we point out the specks in the eyes of others. Cultivating a habit of negative criticism is destructive to oneself and to others, and our focus on the negative causes us to miss the positive—for even positive things can result from blunders. This habit also deadens “within us all that makes life worth living, if it be true, as the poet teaches, that ‘we live by admiration, hope, and love’” (538). James’s admonition about not speaking evil of one another is famously elaborated in the “Three Gates” poem. Usually attributed to Beth Day around the year 1855 (e.g., Poteat 1957: 49), the poem’s precise origins are somewhat obscure: If you are tempted to reveal A tale to you someone has told About another, make it pass Before you speak, three gates of gold. These narrow gates: First, “is it true?” Then, “is it needful?” In your mind Give truthful answer. And the next Is last and narrowest, “Is it kind?” And if to reach your lips at last It passes through these gateways three, Then you may tell the tale, nor fear, What result of speech may be.

Gordon Poteat, the former professor of Christian Ethics at Crozer Theological Seminary, argues in a section entitled “On Bigotry” in The Interpreters Bible that the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:22 and 7:1–5 are “brought to mind” by James 4:11–12, as well as Paul’s treatment of a similar problem in Romans 14. Similar to Mayor, Poteat asks several germane questions, such as why we are told not to judge others, especially in light of the fact that it is often necessary in our dealings with other human beings “to estimate critically their

James 3:13–4:12  251 characters and abilities.” He also wryly observes, as do others, that James many times practices the very thing he forbids others to do—passing judgments on others (e.g., the “you sinners” in 4:8). But Jesus, James, and Paul are not forbidding the regular “moral appraisal” in human relationships; they condemn the hypocritical attitude of condemnation and assumed superiority that produces “malicious and ungenerous criticism” whose aim is not to improve others but as a means of “self-aggrandizement” and a manifestation of self-righteousness: A most subtle and deceptive temptation is the temptation to be contemptuous toward those who are adjudged morally or religiously inferior . . . Intolerant persons often claim that they are representing God in the strictures they pass upon their fellows, but actually they are usurping his throne. Bigots cover their lust for power over the souls of others with a cloak of piety and orthodoxy. Dogmatists, with the assurance of infallibility, read those whom they deem unorthodox out of the fold. But they forget that there is one lawgiver and judge; they forget that they are not God (cf. 5:9). The cruelty of the self-righteous is most terrible, because it is dressed in the garb of doing good. Intolerance not infrequently reaches its most acrimonious stage in the persons of those who profess to be followers of Christ (Poteat 1957: 58–9).

Robert Wall declares that James is concerned about slander in these verses because it betrays that a person’s true heart and mind are “deeply rooted in the envy of wealth” (because of the similarity of “catchwords” here and in 2:1–13, where a poor “neighbor” is discriminated against within the community). This condition not only destroys community in the present but in the “age to come” as well. Refraining from such slander is a refusal to engage in activities that “undermine human relations” and community cohesion and solidarity (212). Tamez pushes this theme further by observing that James once again addresses members of the community (not the rich), because now he is speaking to “brothers and sisters” in an “amiable tone” (2002: 38). This passage is one of the two places where James exhorts members of the community not to speak badly of one another and not to complain among themselves (4:11–12; 5:9). In both instances, James refers to “the Judge”—either God or Jesus—as the only one with the right to judge. Since the communities addressed by James most likely are suffering discrimination and oppression, this exhortation aims to strengthen them from within and to prevent them from being “undermined by internal divisions and misunderstandings.” If they are transparent and sincere with one another, Tamez believes, their united communities can better withstand the difficulties they face from outside the communities (55–6).

James 4:13–5:6

The Sovereignty of God and God’s Judgment upon the Rich

James 4:13–17 Ancient literary context The mood abruptly switches again with the transitional “Come now, [age nyn] you who say . . . ,” a phrase that is repeated in 5:1: “Come now, you rich people . . .” James either envisions that at least some of his audience are overly concerned with “doing business and making money” (4:13), or, if no one in the intended audience fits in that category, they at least would benefit from hearing James Through the Centuries, First Edition. David B. Gowler. © 2014 David B. Gowler. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

James 4:13–5:6  253 this warning about others (see Hartin 2003: 223). Such people do not properly acknowledge the sovereignty of God over their lives, so James’s description of these business-oriented people brings to mind Jesus’ parable of the Rich Fool in Luke 12:15–20 and its admonition to “take care” and be on one’s guard “against all kinds of greed.” The rich man of the parable plans to build new barns to hold his plentiful harvest and expects to eat, drink, and be merry “for many years” as he enjoyed the fruits of that harvest. The man, however, shows no acknow­ ledgement of God’s sovereignty or the fact that God is the one who provides the harvest. In the parable, after the man states his plans, God declares that the man’s life “is being demanded” of him (Luke 12:20). James, on the other hand, simply notes that all human lives are but a vanishing “mist” (cf. James 1:10–11). Thus human beings should show more humility about their future plans—the admonition “If the Lord wishes/wills” (Deo volente [DV] or conditio Jacobaea) is to be lived out in both word and deed. This phrase about the will of God (ean ho kurios thelēsē) also echoes Matthew’s words of Jesus from the Lord’s Prayer and Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane (Matt. 6:10; 26:42; both have “your will be done”; genēthētō to thelēma sou). The “come now” (age nyn; 4:13) is matched by the “as it is” (nyn de; 4:16), which indicates that “boasting in arrogance” is intimately connected with the prideful activity of making future (economic) plans without acknowledging God’s sovereignty. The presumptions of such business people include a proposed time of initiation (today or tomorrow), future travel to a place (going to such and such a town), duration of activity (a year), an expected activity (doing business), and an assumed accomplishment (making money; cf. Brosend 2004: 126). This arrogant boasting is evil—note James’s earlier exhortation to “humble yourselves before the Lord” (4:10)—because it presumes to know the future without taking God into consideration. Even planning business affairs for a year (4:13) is arrogant for these exemplars of “friends of the world” (4:4), because of the transitory nature of human existence (4:14); even what tomorrow holds is unknown, except to God (cf. Prov. 27:1). Another sin of omission seems to be the merchants’ disregard for what they should be doing with their profits—another implicit connection to the parable of the Rich Fool in Luke 12 and the rich man in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31). This concern in James also echoes the call of Jesus for vertical generalized reciprocity: the responsibility of the rich to give to the poor without expecting anything in return (e.g., Luke 14:12–14). These merchants fail to use their wealth responsibly to assist those in need (cf. 2:1–7, 14–17). The concluding maxim found in James 4:17 attempts to summarize the general ethical intent of the preceding verses (contra Dibelius 1975: 231), but it also echoes sentiments that James expresses earlier in the letter, such as being

254  James 4:13–5:6 “doers of the word” (1:22), “doers who act” (1:25), and being justified by works (2:14–26). The contrast with this “doing” and the condemned “doing” of the merchants (4:13, 15, 17) is critical. The proper response to one’s fragile mortality is to dedicate oneself to hearing and doing the will of God and not acting as if God did not matter (what Wall calls “functional atheism”; 1997: 222). God is the one, after all, who determines one’s future and, in fact, the future of all human existence (cf. 4:12; 5:7–9).

The interpretations Ancient and medieval Origen apparently cites James 4:17 in his systematic On First Principles. He first discusses the nature of the unbegotten God, who created all things and is the parent of the universe (I.III.1). Jesus Christ is the divine, only begotten Son of God, who is God’s “wisdom hypostatically existing” (I.III.2) and from whom humans receive their rational nature. All things “participate” in God, including both “rational and irrational beings”; all are partakers “of the Holy Spirit, receiving it from God.” In fact, all knowledge of God the Father is revealed by the Son through the Holy Spirit (I.III.4). Christ is in the heart of all (Origen cites Rom. 10:6–8), because Christ is the word/reason. Origen argues that the Father and the Son work in both saints and sinner: “all rational beings are partakers of the word (reason) and by this means bear certain seeds, implanted within them, of wisdom and justice, which is Christ” (I.III.6). He quotes John 15:22 (“If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin”) to argue that human beings have no excuse for their sin, because God’s wisdom implanted in them allows them to know the difference between good and evil. And, as James 4:17 notes, human beings need to avoid and guard against things that are wicked, since knowing what is right and failing to do it is sin (I.III.6). John Chrysostom states that James 4:13–17 shows us that what we desire is not most important. James is not attempting to take away “our freedom to decide” but is also not denying our ability to do good. James instead demonstrates that our own will alone is not enough: “To do good as we ought, we need the grace of God.” We should not rely on our own efforts, Chrysostom points out, because God’s grace must complement our efforts, and we should rely on God’s assured love for us. Therefore, as Proverbs 27:1 declares, we should not boast about tomorrow, because we know not what it holds for us (Bray 2000: 52).

James 4:13–5:6  255 Augustine cites James 4:14 in his sermon on John 5:2 (Sermons on NewTestament Lessons, LXXIV.1; cf. Confessions I.XIII.20) before he goes on to interpret the passage allegorically. His main point is that the health of the soul is of paramount importance: Jesus’ healing of the sick man in John 5 explains much about “eternal saving health.” The healing is symbolic, Augustine argues, because the healing of the man’s body is a restoration of a life that is as a “mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes” (James 4:14; cf. 1:10; Ps. 144:4). Such healing is not to be valued as much as the healing of one’s soul. A similar note about the transitory nature of human existence in which James 4:14 plays a role is found in Augustine’s commentary on Psalm 144:3–4 (On the Psalms CXLIV.4–5). Augustine begins with the question raised by Psalm 144:3: “What are human beings that you regard them . . . ?” The best example of God greatly valuing human beings is the fact that God gave “His only-begotten Son” to shed his blood for their salvation. God did not spare God’s only son for humanity and thus will give them everything else (Rom. 8:32) even though “their days are like a passing shadow” (Ps. 144:4). The transitory nature of human existence is in stark contrast, Augustine notes, with God’s eternal truth that always abides and never fails. Likewise, God has filled the earth with good things (Eccl. 16:29), but all of these earthly things are fleeting and transitory. All is vanity, and Augustine declares that James’s words in 4:14 are appropriately aimed “to bring down proud men to humility.” Augustine’s advice thus is to work diligently and by those good works to “seek God.” Because of diligent efforts at good works, even those done in secret, Christians will be rewarded by God on the day of judgment (citing Matt. 6:4). In 400 CE, Augustine, once a Manichean himself, wrote a lengthy reply to a publication by the Manichean Faustus, whom Augustine had met years before (cf. Confessions VI.V.3). In Book XXI of this treatise, Reply to Faustus the Manichean, Augustine answers Faustus’s claim that Manicheans do not believe in two Gods, although Faustus admits that Manicheans sometimes call the “hostile nature God” (XXI.1). Augustine first points to “the things lowest in the scale of nature.” These elements, though earthly and feeble and mortal, “are still the works of God,” and, in looking at them, Augustine is “lost in admiration of the Creator.” Even God’s “lesser works” are great, as seen in the “divine skill” in creating them “in the perfection which it gives to everything in its own kind.” Such creatures are related by divine plan to the rest of creation and are arranged in their “proper place and order.” They are as “a mist that appears for a little while” (James 4:14), but they contribute to the completeness and goodness of God’s creation. Even “despicable” animals nourish and cherish their own flesh, and “rational beings,” who discipline themselves so that earthly passions do not

256  James 4:13–5:6 hinder their understanding of God’s wisdom, love their “own flesh.” Augustine thus comes to his conclusion that illuminates the Manichean “heresy”: Indeed, you yourselves, although your heresy teaches you a fleshly abhorrence of the flesh, cannot help loving your own flesh, and caring for its safety and comfort, both by avoiding all injury from blows, and falls, and inclement weather, and by seeking for the means of keeping it in health. Thus the law of nature is too strong for your false doctrine (XXI.5).

Bede chooses to focus on the arrogance and foolishness of those who make plans without bearing in mind the “investigation of the judge on high.” The distinction between the more general “What is our life?” question and James 4:14’s specific “What is your life?” question is important, Bede believes, because the righteous “begin to live more truly when they reach the end of this life” (1985: 53–4). Although the “enemies of the Lord” will “vanish utterly like smoke” (Ps. 37:20), Bede argues that this passage is different than Wisdom 2:2– 3, which concludes, like Epicurus, “there was no life but this one.” James, as does Job (21:13), teaches that the life of the wicked is short in the present and “eternal death” will follow it in the future. Bede places James 4:17 in its larger context. The letter shows that James’s audience has the knowledge to do good things and that they had learned a “right faith” so that they presumed to become teachers of others. They have not yet, however, attained a “perfection of works or humility of mind or restraint of speech” (54). Bede admits that those who know the good and do not do it commit greater sin than those who sin through ignorance, although the latter is not “entirely free from guilt, for the ignorance of good is itself no small evil” (54). Like Chrysostom, Ps.-Oecumenius observes that James does not deny free will in this passage. We need to realize, however, that everything we do is part of God’s larger plan that “is governed by God’s grace.” Just because we are fortunate enough to accomplish things in this life, such as the business affairs James cites, we should not be naïve enough to believe that we could accomplish these things merely by our own efforts without the blessings that God so freely gives us. But we should not lose proper perspective: James says this in order to indicate just how fleeting and empty our present life is. He wants to makes us ashamed of the fact that we spend all our time engaged in its vanity, and in the evils of this age and in things which, as soon as they are accomplished, disappear, and all our labor vanishes with them (Bray 2000: 52).

In addition, Ps.-Oecumenius stresses how important it is for good works to precede words or preaching. Actions not only must back up one’s words, but

James 4:13–5:6  257 those hearing words of faith must be shown clearly that it is a righteous and holy person “who is proclaiming the faith which is being expounded” (Bray 2000: 53). Early modern and modern Martin Luther echoes James’s thoughts about “doing business and making money” in his 1524 “Trade and Usury,” in the context of one person becoming surety for another. Luther states that although this practice seems “to be without sin and looks like a virtue stemming from love,” it generally ruins many people and does them “irreparable harm.” Another problem is that, since everything is in the hand of God alone, the surety means that people are not trusting God; instead they are trusting in themselves and making themselves God: these sureties act as though they didn’t even have to consult God on the matter or give thought to whether they are even sure of a tomorrow for their own life and property. They act without fear of God, as though they were themselves the source of life and property, and these were in their power as long as they themselves willed it. This is nothing but a fruit of unbelief. It is what James in the fourth chapter of his epistle rebukes as arrogance (LW 45: 252, 254).

In a similar way, Calvin envisions James as condemning another form of pride, one that ignores the providence of God by making long-term plans as if they were the ones who determined their future. Instead, Calvin advises: Let us, however, say it is right and useful, when we make any promise for future time, to make a habit of these expressions: “God willing” or “God permitting.” Naturally I do not want to make a fetish of this, as though the omission should be an offence . . . James means to arouse those who take no respect for the providence of God from their unconcern (1995: 303).

James 4:16, however, demonstrates that James’s caveats are not merely about stray words. By implicitly denying God’s dominion, Calvin argues, the people James addresses are pleased with themselves, put themselves above God, and are infatuated “with the vanity of their own opinions.” Their sin is more ­heinous because it stems from contempt, not ignorance (304). Philip Doddridge (1702–51) was one of the “dissenting clergy” in eighteenth-century England. He was a prolific author, and one of his books helped convert William Wilberforce to Christianity. Doddridge also was a hymnwriter—his associates included the famous hymn writer Isaac Watts—and his lyrics to “Tomorrow, Lord, is Thine,” were published after his death in Hymns Founded on Various Texts in the Holy Scriptures, by Job Orton (1755). This

258  James 4:13–5:6 hymn echoes James’s concern that God is in control of God’s creation and that our lives should be led—and our future plans made—accordingly: Tomorrow, Lord, is Thine Lodged in Thy sovereign hand; And if its sun arise and shine, It shines by Thy command. The present moment flies, And bears our life away; O make Thy servants truly wise, That they may live today. Since on this wingèd hour Eternity is hung, Waken, by Thine almighty power, The agèd and the young. One thing demands our care, O be it still pursued; Lest, slighted once, the season fair Should never be renewed. To Jesus may we fly Swift as the morning light, Lest life’s young golden beam should die In sudden, endless night. (www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/t/l/tlithine.htm)

James 4:13–17 is a popular choice for sermons, such as one by Harvey Goodwin (1818–91). Goodwin was a mathematician at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, until 1848, when, after his ordination, he became a vicar. Goodwin was Dean of Ely (1858–69) and the Bishop of Carlisle from 1869 to 1891 (during which time he famously preached a memorial sermon for Charles Darwin in Westminster Abbey on the Sunday following Darwin’s funeral. He also was featured as a caricature in Vanity Fair on March 17, 1888). Goodwin’s sermon marvels at the mysterious part of God’s plan that makes our lives so uncertain. We have a great work to accomplish, but we do not know whether we have twenty years or twenty days left in our lives to accomplish it. We must remember, Goodwin argues, that this life is primarily one of trial for the next life. We are not commanded to accomplish our work, whatever it is, for its own sake. Instead, our work primarily serves as a way of determining whether we will obey God or not:

James 4:13–5:6  259 The truth of the text is the best truth to carry about with us in order to enable us to set things at their right value. If the uncertainty and shortness of life act to make those unhappy who are negligent of the will of God, in the same ­proportion will it give peace and comfort to the minds of those who do set themselves to do His holy will, for the troubles of life will appear trifling to him who thinks of himself as a traveler on his road home; a person on a journey will put up with many inconveniences, because he says they cannot last long, and home will appear even pleasanter after a rough journey (The Sermon Bible 1900: 365).

Gordon Calthrop (1823–94) was Vicar of St. Augustine’s Church, Highbury, Prebendary of St. Paul’s Cathedral, and author of several publications. His sermon on this section of James observes that everyone heartily agrees that human life is uncertain, “yet perhaps there is no topic, unanimous as our agreement about it may be, which produces so little effect upon character and conduct.” Calthrop finds James to be extremely practical, because many people plan for their futures without any thought about God’s will. All their calculations are made with a certainty that they will live to accomplish these plans. But such plans are foolish and wicked, because people are acting as if they and not God are masters of the situation. James does not, however, condemn a “reasonable foresight.” James knows that we must plan for the future, but he denounces any attempt to ignore God’s role in those plans. Like Goodwin, Calthrop also connects the way we live our lives with our future existence in eternity: Consider the importance of the life which we are now living in the flesh when regarded as determining our future destiny for incalculable ages. Its very uncertainty is part of the merciful Divine plan for making us thoughtful. The uncertainty is the very thing we want for rousing us to earnest seeking after salvation. When we feel it is probable that we shall continue to live, and yet possible that we may die at any time, we are in the very best state of mind for attending to religion (The Sermon Bible 1900: 366–7).

Charles Deems contrasts human life with the Appian Way. Unlike the Appian Way, which is paved on solid ground, fairly stable and permanent, and easily measured mile by mile, our lives are like vapors that may rise in the air and vanish at any time. The antidote to unwarranted self-confidence is not a rote repetition of Deo volente; it is instead referring continually to God’s will and constantly relying on God’s “personal protection and providence” (1888: 231). An essential part of relying on God and not being arrogant is avoiding sin, the presupposition that provides the transition to James 5. In this transitional context, Deems notes the importance of Jesus’ parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. The rich man had opportunity to do good for Lazarus during their

260  James 4:13–5:6 lifetimes but failed to do so. As a result, when he died, the rich man was in ­torment for “the sinfulness of not doing good” (242; emphases in the original). Likewise, Matthew 25 teaches us: All one has to do is to live in a world where there is hunger and thirst and loneliness and nakedness and sickness and imprisonment, and not minister food and drink and companionship and clothing and visitation, to the least of Christ’s brethren, that is, to the least of human beings, for Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, is the brother of all men. Those whom He says He will be compelled to condemn at the last judgment, will not simply be those who mistreated Him; not some who had taken away the food He may have had in His hand, or dashed the cup of water from His lips when He was fevered, or stripped His raiment from Him, or cast Him into prison; not simply those who spat on His face, who lashed Him on the bare back, who pressed the thorn-crown into His holy brow, who nailed Him to the accursed cross; but with them shall go all those who, knowing to do good, do it not (244; emphases in the original).

Deems concludes simply: “If JAMES had written no other sentence, this last verse of his fourth chapter is enough to place him in the foremost ranks of all ethical teachers and win him immortality of fame” (245). Alfred Plummer wryly observes that the old adage “ ‘all men are mortal’ is a proposition which every man believes to be true of everyone excepting himself.” No one seriously thinks they will be exempt from death, Plummer continues, but every one of us from time to time thinks and acts as if death is so far in the distance for us that we need not take into account in the present the definite fact that one day we will die. This condition besets people of all ages from the young for whom death seems so distant to even those of perhaps ninety years of age who plan not just for tomorrow but for “next year.” These people of whom James speaks forget, in their “desire for material advantages and their friendliness with the world,” that they by their actions have “made themselves enemies of God.” So, James asks, “What is their life worth?” They are but a “vapour” (1891: 263–71). Plummer then makes a distinction between rules that should be literally obeyed and principles that should be observed “according to their spirit.” James’s injunction to say, “If the Lord wills,” just like Jesus’ injunction to “allow the thief who has taken our upper garment to have our under one also,” is a principle. Therefore: It is quite possible to keep Christ’s precept without ever surrendering the second garment at all; and indeed we ought not to surrender it. And it is quite possible to keep His brother’s precept without ever writing “D.V.” or saying “Please God,” the habitual use of which would be almost certain to generate formalism and

James 4:13–5:6  261 cant in ourselves, and would be quite certain to provoke needless criticism and irreverent ridicule (268–9).

Instead, Plummer believes, James’s real intent is that we habitually feel at every moment in our lives “absolutely dependent upon God.” Our lives are a gift from God that may end at any time, and when we truly act as if that is indeed the case we no longer will have “carnal self-confidence” about the future: our manner of thinking, speaking, and acting about the future will definitively change, even if the words “If the Lord will” never spring from our lips (269). Pedrito Maynard-Reid envisions this section of James as the first half of a final, two-part condemnation of the wealthy that concludes with 5:1–6. James summarizes and strengthens his previous comments about the rich/poor and gives comfort to the oppressed within the community by “further explicating the final judgment on the rich” (1987: 69). Similar to Deems, who thinks these admonitions are directed to self-confident traveling merchants, Maynard-Reid believes that this “vigorous attack,” signaled by the age nyn (which MaynardReid translates literally as “go now”), is leveled at arrogant, wealthy merchants who deal in trading (71), not the “little shopkeeper of Jerusalem”: “James’s cry seems to be particularly directed at the merchants who throughout SyroPalestine found commercial activity a relatively easy enterprise and a ‘number one’ priority—the accumulation of wealth was their ultimate goal” (77). Maynard-Reid thus interprets James’s harsh language as indicative of James’s conception of the wealthy as unrighteous, unscrupulous, oppressive to the poor, and arrogant. They haughtily have confidence in their own talent, skill, and initiative, but such arrogance and apparent success are worthless, because the wealthy oppose God’s will (1987: 79): “a will that favors the poor and rejects the arrogance of the rich. The one possessing such a clever and arrogant attitude is like a flower which fades with the scorching heat (1:11) or like a mist which vanishes” (4:14). Elsa Tamez notes that the subversive aspects of James once again come out clearly in this passage. This section vehemently denounces, for example, the “carefree life of merchants” (2002: 1). These merchants are rich—although James does not use the term rich here—and probably are not members of the communities that James addresses (38), although certain members of the communities probably lived in a somewhat comfortable situation and were driven by similar acquisitiveness (49). James again echoes the prophetic preaching of Jesus: “poverty is the result of a scandalous act of oppression” (23). The critique, Tamez believes, builds upon the characterization of the rich in chapter two. Unlike the poor, the rich dress elegantly (2:2); they oppress the poor and drag them into court (2:6). This characterization establishes the estrangement of the rich from the poor, and 4:13

262  James 4:13–5:6 adds to the portrait by noting the anxiety of the rich to acquire more and scheme to get it: James criticizes these rich . . . and those who would be rich, because they think of themselves as if they were isolated individuals with no relationship to the wretchedness around them. James tells them that before they make their plans they should say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we shall still be alive to do this or that” (4:15). And this should not be merely a slogan or a prayer for God’s blessing on their enterprise; rather they should consider what God’s will really is, whether God approves of their activities and wants them to live only for themselves. James accuses them of committing sin because they know how to do good and do not do it (23–4).

Tamez concludes that, for James, the church is still largely made up of poor people, although there are different levels of poverty. Some poor have nothing and live from alms (2:15). Others have jobs and can earn a living, but they still are very poor and much exploited (5:1–6). Still others tend to look down upon those who are even poorer (2:6), although their own economic status is unclear. Finally, some in the communities seem to have a more comfortable economic position, ones who might be called “almost rich” (4:13–17): Curiously enough, James does not call this group brothers nor does he call them rich; he simply calls them “you who talk . . .” (oi legontes). I believe that they are members of the Christian community since James reproaches them for not consulting the Lord about their plans and not sharing what they earn with the poor (25).

Such language about the rich, Tamez posits, helps to explain why James was poorly received by many in the church. It is not just a question about apostolic authorship or a lack of christological reflection. The greatest objection to James is that he “overly emphasizes works” (2002: 62). Tamez urges us, however, to place James into its context of oppression, an oppression that requires a praxis in the Christian community that is an affirmation of the (misunderstood) biblical “justification by faith.” James insists, against a misconception that opposes faith and works, that faith must show itself in justice or, in other words, good works. Tamez also argues that “Paul thinks no differently” (62). But the objections to James from various quarters lead Tamez to posit another underlying socioeconomic issue: Do the poor have similar objections to James? It appears not, since, for example, the indigenous peoples of Guatemala make more images of James than of any other and better-known saints. The popular language in many places throughout Latin America (e.g., the “God willing,” “Si Dios quiere” of James 4:15) also demonstrates the

James 4:13–5:6  263 affinity of the poor with the message of James. Many poor people rejoice to find a friend in James who brings them good news, while others who are more economically affluent suffer a crisis of Christian identity, because James says that being a Christian requires a certain way of life of justice and good works. Tamez writes: we must recognize that a militant reading of James will cause a crisis for many Christians today. If we cast a self-critical look at our communities we will see that we are far from the ideal community proposed by James. Many of the defects attacked by James are to be found in our churches: favoritism, competition, gossip, hypocrisy, a dearth of just deeds, contentiousness. And if we look at the social class of our members we find that there are more from the upper middle class than there are poor. The rich in our congregations often takes charge, and this is a story that is regularly repeated. Perhaps the problem—and this is difficult to deal with—is that for the author of the epistle the natural members of the congregation were the poor, and he excluded the rich (64).

Tamez concludes by asking a difficult question both for the affluent in the church and those who desire to be affluent: “Why is it that from before the time of Constantine up until our day, the church has opened the doors to the rich and the rich have largely taken control of the church?” (64). In a similar vein, Christopher Church asks whether a “Christian business plan” is ever possible, based upon these and other verses in James. Church first cites negative examples of how allegedly Christian people participated in corrupt business practices (e.g., Kenneth Lay, the former CEO of the now defunct Enron, who was the son of a Baptist minister and “an active member of First Methodist Church in Houston”). Church then, echoing Spike Lee’s words, points to James’s admonition in 4:17: What does it mean, according to James, to “do the right thing?” Doing the right thing means caring for widows and orphans (James 1:27) or, for example, paying workers a “livable wage” so they can support themselves and their families. Doing the right thing means that businesses also should, Church notes, “avoid discriminatory practices” (James 2:1). This includes being an “equal opportunity employer” in both word and deed, by not discriminating on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, and so forth, but also by resisting the temptation to overcompensate CEOs with obscene salaries or providing tax breaks to wealthy companies at the expense of the working poor. Doing the right thing also means “to show mercy for others” (James 2:8–9, 13), including fair treatment of all stakeholders of a business—employees, the local communities, customers, business partners, and others—instead of “an exclusive focus on dividends for shareholders” (McKnight and Church 2004: 395–7), a theme elaborated in James 5:1–6.

264  James 4:13–5:6

James 5:1–6 Ancient literary context The tone switches again with another “Come now” (age nyn) from the moderate rebuke of merchants to a vehement, vitriolic, and prophetic denunciation of the wealthy who oppress the poor. Whereas the previous section (4:13–17) envisions a possibility of repentance and change (4:15), James 5:1–6 now addresses “you rich people” and thoroughly condemns them; no glimmer of hope appears in these verses for these greedy rich people. Not only will they lose their wealth—which they ironically have laid up “for the last days”—but it will rot, and their clothes become moth-eaten. Their silver and gold will (paradoxically) rust, with the rust bearing evidence of their sins and, in fact, eating their flesh “like fire.” The image of gold “rusting” seems to portray dramatically the impermanence of any material possession, echoing words of Jesus in Matthew 6:19–20 (“store up for yourselves treasure in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes”), as well as the woes on the rich found in Luke 6:24–5 (the rich will “mourn and weep”). Everything the wealthy have, all in which they trust as security to ease life’s sufferings and to which they are devoted, is worthless and will be lost forever, and the “rust” from some of their possessions will play a role in their eternal punishment (5:3). This condemnation might serve in part to give hope to those whom the wealthy oppress; God’s judgment on the “greedy rich” and God’s vindication of the “degraded poor” (cf. 1:9–11; see Batten 2008) both are certain. The delayed exposition of why God will punish the rich—partially explained in 2:6–7—begins in 5:4 with an outraged call to “listen!” Their sins in James 5:4–6, which build upon the initial charge in 5:3 of having “laid up treasure for the last days,” are fourfold: (1) The wealth they have hoarded partially stems from their fraudulent withholding of wages earned by others who mowed and harvested their fields. Those wages of the laborers and the harvesters themselves “cry out” to the “Lord of hosts.” Such unjust withholding of payment is against the Law (e.g., Lev. 19:13; Deut. 24:15), as well as against Jesus’ statement that “the laborer deserves to be paid” (Luke 10:7). (2) The greedy rich live in luxury and pleasure (in the face of great need), a lifestyle reminiscent of the rich man in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus who ended up being tormented in Hades because of his oppression and neglect of the poor (Luke 16:19–31). (3) The rich have “fattened [their] hearts in a day of slaughter,” like an animal being prepared for a sacrifice. (4) The rich condemned—language that evokes the image of the rich that “oppress you” and “drag you into court” of 2:6—and murdered the unresisting righteous one—which evokes the image

James 4:13–5:6  265 of committing murder to obtain something (4:2). The greedy rich thus victimize and oppress the degraded poor by withholding wages from those who depend upon those wages merely to survive at a bare subsistence level (cf. Sirach 34:25–6, where “to deprive an employee of wages is to shed blood”). The Lord of hosts, however, is a just God who acts on behalf of the oppressed and against these rich who exemplify the sin of being “friends of the world.” God, as James declares a few verses later (5:9), is the Judge who is already “standing at the doors” (5:9).

The interpretations Ancient and medieval James 5:1–6 is not extensively quoted by ancient and medieval authors, with commentaries on James being the major exceptions. Hilary of Arles, for example, believes that James here calls upon the rich to repent while they still have time to do so. James directs these words to and about the rich who are too parsimonious to provide any sort of assistance to those in need. Hilary also takes care to explain that gold, as everyone knows, does not rust. James’s intention here is to compare it to other material things that do indeed rust over time (Bray 2000: 54). Bede counsels the rich to avoid the miseries of such future punishments by “weeping and giving alms”: Not only does the visible fire of hell torture the wicked and unmerciful rich in torments but also the very memory of decayed and worthless riches by which they might have been able to redeem their nefarious deeds will very easily burn up their souls no less before the judgment and after the resurrection their flesh as well, when they begin to be seriously angry with themselves for having been unwilling to cleanse their wicked deeds by alms (1985: 55).

Like many commentators, Bede points to Jesus’ parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus as an excellent example of this “corrosion of riches” as a “witness of wickedness,” especially noting Abraham’s words to the rich man about “receiving good things” during his lifetime (Luke 16:25). Even in this life, Bede muses, when some people lose the riches they had put to evil use, they belatedly—as they descend into poverty and are reduced to begging alms to survive—begin to regret that they had not given their possessions to the poor (55–6). Bede interprets James 5:3, “You have laid up treasure for the last days,” as the rich rejoicing in accumulating riches while neglecting the nakedness and

266  James 4:13–5:6 hunger of the poor. These rich do not foresee that they are “heaping up wrath of the eternal judge” for themselves. This includes, as 5:4 notes, the great “wickedness of the proud” who do not use their riches to help the poor and who also are “unwilling to give to their very tired hands and household servants the due reward of their labor” (56). The condemnation and murder of the “righteous one,” Bede believes, does not mean “the poor”; instead it refers to the death of Jesus at the hands of the “rich men who had conspired” to kill him and “had not yet received the faith in his name by which they might be saved” (57). Bede concludes by referring back to James 5:3 (“eat your flesh like fire”) and declares that this was fulfilled in the case of those who had slain Jesus, after James himself was slain, “when the city of Jerusalem and likewise the whole province of Judea was taken and destroyed by the Romans in punishment” (58). Ps.-Oecumenius notes that James makes the possession of wealth by the rich and their miserliness in helping the poor “a source of lamentation.” Instead of using those riches to help others in need, the rich save those possessions only to lose them at death. In contrast, the rich who give their wealth to the poor paradoxically do not lose it but keep “every penny.” If Christians follow the counsel of Ecclesiastes 11:1 to send their bread upon the waters, they will not lose it. In fact, it “will preserve [them] from destruction” (Bray 2000: 54). A commentary on James is also attributed to Theophylact (ca. 1050 – ca. 1108), Archbishop of Ohrid. This commentary echoes some of Bede’s sentiments by saying that James 5:4–6 is a digression aimed at the wealthy Jewish leadership in Jerusalem who “robbed the poor.” These leaders “were being prepared for destruction,” though, “not least because they condemned our Lord.” Specifically, Theophylact argues, like Bede, “the righteous one” in 5:6 refers to Jesus, especially in light of the fact that James includes the note that the murdered righteous one did not resist them. Yet this verse does not refer to Jesus alone, Theophylact writes; it also includes “others who suffered at the hands of the Jews, and [James] may even have been speaking prophetically about his own approaching death” (Bray 2000: 55). The general prologue to Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, although it does not cite James specifically, contains a reference to the rusting of gold in comments about the parson’s tale. The parson is a godly and poor country parson who is rich in “holy thought and work.” A learned man, he diligently seeks to preach “Christ’s own gospel,” is patient in bad times, and, instead of haranguing his parishioners to tithe is more likely to give his own income and goods to his parishioners who are in need. He travels far and wide throughout his large parish to visit all, both “small and great,” in “rain or thunder, in sickness, or in sin, or in any state.” The parson lives a life worthy to be emulated by his flock; his actions, as James would say, demonstrate his faith:

James 4:13–5:6  267 Going afoot, and in his hand, a stave. This fine example to his flock he gave, That first he wrought and afterwards he taught; Out of the gospel then that text he caught, And this figure he added thereunto— That, if gold rust, what shall poor iron do?

The parson “by his own cleanness” shows “how his flock should live.” He did not leave his flock for greener pastures in London where he could be a mercenary for a more financially secure life. The parson is holy and virtuous but shows pity to sinners and leads others to heaven by his example. There is nowhere a better priest, I trow. He had no thirst for pomp or reverence, Nor made himself a special, spiced conscience, But Christ’s own lore, and His apostles’ twelve He taught, but first he followed it himselve. http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/ gchaucer/bl-gchau-can-genpro.htm

This deeply idealized portrait of the parson represents, for Chaucer, “the perfection of religion” (Hirsh 2003: 49), someone who, as James advises, practices what he preaches. Early modern and modern Martin Luther integrates his interpretation of James 5:1 into his commentary on Isaiah 1:13–15. The “hands full of blood” (Isa. 1:15) symbolizes that they are murderers, because they did not help their needy neighbors. Such lack of assistance, Luther argues, destroys that neighbor, and Luther cites such passages as 1 John 3:15, 17, Matthew 25:42, and words of Ambrose (“Feed your starving brother. If you have not fed him, you have killed him”) to back up his case. Luther concludes: In short, he who does not practice love toward his neighbor is regarded by God as a murderer; for even though he is able to help, yet he does not do so. So far as he is concerned, he lets his brother perish. In brief, the meaning is this: “you have hands full of blood. Therefore your prayers and all your efforts are ungodly.” Thus with one word he involves them all in sins and proves them guilty of damnation. This statement does not disturb us very much, but God certainly does not speak in vain . . . We do everything except what love demands; we give much for monstrous and godless religions but nothing for the need of the poor. Clean before men, but unclean, cruel, and murderers before God. Who could rest thinking

268  James 4:13–5:6 of these things? God grant that these things do not come to mind in the last hour! James says: “Come now, you rich, weep, etc.” . . . Nobody considers how great the demand of faith and love is (LW 16: 18).

Calvin stresses the prophetic nature of this section of James, one in which the “severity of the curse of heaven” will be “so appalling and awesome to the rich, that they will be driven to shrieks of distress.” James is not urging the rich to repent, Calvin believes. Instead it is a “straightforward declaration of the judgment of God,” one that should strike the rich with terror, because James does not “approach them with words which invite a change of heart.” James removes all hope of pardon by speaking in a “vein of despair” about their future, although James does not include all rich in this condemnation, only those who “devour all in their paths, like gaping throats, and harass others with tyrannical rage . . .” Christians are called to “attend to the sad ruin of the wealthy, and not be envious of their prosperity,” because God will avenge the hurt and oppression under which the poor now suffer. Thus Christians should bear such tribulations with peaceful and untroubled minds (1995: 305). Calvin envisions James 5:2 as a reproof on the “inexhaustible avarice” of these rich; all the goods they accumulate are transitory and will benefit no one. James’s condemnation of vices covers various types of faults, but the general condemnation falls on all people who accumulate riches unjustly, “make wrongful use of them,” or “hang onto riches with the extreme parsimony of Plautus’ Euclio.” Such people have defects in their character “that it hurts them to share daylight or fresh air with other folk” (1995: 306). On the other hand, God intends material goods to be used to “sustain human life.” Cruelty thus is the “inseparable companion” of the avarice of the rich, those who act as if the human race exists for the benefit of them alone. Yet the cries of the destitute reach the ears of God; their “injuries will not go unavenged”: “So let those who are under unjust oppression endure it with patience, for God will be their champion. Let those who have it in their hands to do hurt avoid it, or they will call God down upon themselves, the Guardian and Patron of the poor” (307). Calvin also recognizes the powerlessness of the poor and their lack of human assistance, but he counsels that the judgment of God is assured: When he adds the righteous one . . . doth not resist, he means that the audacity of the rich increases, since those they crush are without any means of resistance. Yet at the same time he gives warning that the vengeance of God will be all the more ready and swift, as on man’s side the poor are unprotected. I grant that the reason for the just making no resistance is that he ought to bear injuries with patience: at the same time, I think the reference is to his essential weakness,

James 4:13–5:6  269 which is, that he does not resist because he has no force, and has no human assistance (1995: 308; emphases in the original).

In these and other comments on James, Calvin betrays a sensitivity to the poor, as well as to the message of Jesus and James, that prevents him from domesticating this text as much as other commentators. William Shakespeare most likely did not have James 5:1–6 in mind when he composed King Lear (but see Wordsworth 1892: 215–18), but its themes are vividly portrayed: the mad and broken king on the heath (Act III scene iv) understands what the rich people addressed in James 5 do not. This scene is the epicenter of the tragedy; King Lear is at his nadir, and the once-proud king now continues his metamorphosis as he (even through his madness) finally begins to engage other human beings and to have real empathy for them. First he tells the Earl of Kent to enter into the hovel to seek shelter from the storm, an attitude that would seem foreign to the king in Act I: Prithee go in thyself; seek thine own ease. This tempest will not give me leave to ponder On things would hurt me more. But I’ll go in.

Then he tells the fool In, boy; go first.—You houseless poverty— Nay, get thee in. I’ll pray, and then I’ll sleep.

Only then, once the Earl and the Fool are safe inside and Lear is alone, does he utter perhaps the key words of the play and some of the most powerful that Shakespeare wrote: Poor naked wretches, wheresoe’er you are, That bide the pelting of this pitiless storm, How shall your houseless heads and unfed sides, Your loop’d and window’d raggedness, defend you From seasons such as these? O, I have ta’en Too little care of this! Take physic, pomp; Expose thyself to feel what wretches feel, That thou mayst shake the superflux to them And show the heavens more just. (Shakespeare 1979: 1613–14)

In essence, James decries the fact that the rich have not learned the empathy that King Lear has learned, albeit after having lost almost everything he held

270  James 4:13–5:6 dear. This text is reminiscent of Bede’s warning that when some rich people lose their riches, they regret that they had not put their possessions to better use (i.e., helping the poor) when they had a chance. Shakespeare also gives a powerful reminder that all human beings, more or less, are “poor naked wretches” battered by pitiless storms whose lives are “a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.” Many commentators agree with Bede and Theophylact that Jesus is the best example of the murdered “righteous one who does not resist” (e.g., Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary). A similar example may be found in Vol. 4 of Christopher Wordsworth’s commentary on the New Testament. Wordsworth, the Bishop of Lincoln and the nephew of William Wordsworth, notes that the book of James “exhibits Christian faith in its true character as the essential energizing principle of Christian life” (1872: vii), and he examines James in the context of answering why James contains little of specific Christian doctrines instead of what could be called “natural religion” or Mosaic law. The answer, Wordsworth argues, is that James writes not just for Christians of his day but also for Jews who were at that time “exasperated against Christianity” (4). Wordsworth thus compares James’s letter to the speech of Stephen in Acts just before his martyrdom: “That holy Martyr had the love of Jesus in his heart; but the name of Jesus never broke forth from his lips, till the close of his speech, when his murderers were stoning him, and he cried, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’ ” Likewise James, Wordsworth argues, had the faith and love of Jesus in his heart, but since he is writing to Jews who did not believe, he does not mention the name of Jesus in his attempt to inculcate the Christian virtues of which he writes. Like Stephen, however, he delivers them a warning: Since they killed the “Just One” Jesus, the Judge is standing at the door. God had given them forty years after the crucifixion of Jesus to repent, and that time is at an end. Although some Jews had repented, the Jewish nation as a whole remains “obdurate” by imprisoning and killing followers of Jesus and persecuting the church. Soon, Wordsworth writes, they would also murder the author of this epistle (4). Wordsworth then argues that James lived in Jerusalem as Lot lived in Sodom, since “Jerusalem was the scene of the worst crimes” during the forty years after the crucifixion of Jesus. James thus writes this letter as “the last warning [Jerusalem] received from the Holy Spirit of God.” James speaks as “a Hebrew Prophet and a Christian Apostle,” and, as some argue, his “intrepid language of stern rebuke” in the letter hastened his martyrdom. Those stern words, however, demonstrate that James is filled with grief as well as indignation against the “obstinate ingratitude and malignant virulence of the Rulers of Jerusalem against the Just One who had shed His  blood to save them,” although Wordsworth believes that James looks

James 4:13–5:6  271 forward to the ­chastisement the city will receive from God’s retributive justice. Wordsworth praises James 5 in particular: Perhaps there is not a nobler specimen of heroic courage and holy eloquence, and of poetical fervor, sublimity and pathos in the range of Hebrew prophecy, than is to be found in this last chapter of this Epistle. There the writer having declared the indignation of God against His people who had rebelled against Him suddenly changes his tone and turns with an aspect of love and gentleness and comforts those who were obedient and suffering under persecution for His sake. Be patient therefore brethren unto the coming of the Lord (5).

Revere Weidner asserts that this section is not addressed to “rich Christian Jews” but to “the rich Jews who were everywhere persecuting the believers.” Even still, these words are applicable to anyone who behaves the same way. James, like Jesus in Matthew 24, draws no distinction between “the impending destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Advent of our Lord.” In addition, Weidner argues that the murdering of “the righteous one” denotes Jesus. The “Jews of the Dispersion” are not directly involved in condemning and crucifying Jesus, but still “James lays this sin upon the Jews as a nation.” Weidner admits, however, that the present tense of the “he does not resist you” makes it somewhat difficult to understand, since the crucifixion of Jesus was in the past. Weidner thus concludes that it refers to Jesus not standing in the way of current Jews “running to their destruction” (1897: 72). Alfred Plummer agrees that it is possible for “the righteous one” to designate Jesus (cf. Acts 3:14–15; 7:52). When James writes his letter, some Jews still could have been alive who had shouted “Crucify Him” on that first Good Friday. For Plummer, the “Crucifixion was in a very real sense the act of a whole nation”; the Jews of James’s day could be held responsible for the condemnation and death of Jesus just as the “present day English” could be told that they condemned and killed Charles I or the French be held responsible for the condemnation and death of Louis XVI (1891: 286). Plummer, though, ultimately rejects the possibility that “the righteous one” here specifically refers to Jesus. The context in James suggests that it is a class issue: “It is the evil that is inherent in class tyrannizing over class that is condemned, the rich oppressing the poor, and the godless persecuting the godly.” The “righteous one” in this context represents the poor, and perhaps James has in mind the oppression of the “poor righteous man” in Wisdom of Solomon 2:10–20. Plummer concludes: Julius Caesar on one occasion stated his financial position by confessing that he needed half a million of money in order to be worth nothing. The spiritual condition of many prosperous men might be expressed in a similar way.

272  James 4:13–5:6 Caesar never allowed lack of funds to stand between him and his political aims; when he had nothing he borrowed at enormous interest. So also with us. In pursuing our worldly aims we sink deeper and deeper in spiritual ruin, and accumulate debts for eternal bankruptcy. Riches are not a whit less perilous to the soul now than they were in the first century, and yet how few among the wealthy really believe that they are perilous at all. The wisdom of our forefathers has placed in the Litany a petition which every well-to-do person should say with his whole heart: “In all time of our wealth, Good Lord, deliver us” (286–8; emphases in the original).

Joseph Mayor agrees that “the righteous one”—even though some New Testament passages might suggest that this usage denotes the crucifixion of Jesus—“must be regarded as generic and not confined to any one individual.” He also observes that the term was equally applicable to the author of this epistle, James the brother of Jesus, because he “was known to all the Jews as the Just” (1990: 470). Mayor concentrates on James’s “stern denunciation” of the rich and finds some aspects of love, consolation, and call of repentance for them even in this text. At first James’s condemnation seems inconsistent, Mayor admits, with the call not to judge others (James 4:11). But it is similar to Jesus’ denunciations of the Pharisees; such denunciations are certainly presumptuous when done by “ordinary” Christians, but not when uttered by people like James, who is fulfilling the role of a prophet. A prophetic denunciation is also “not inconsistent with the tenderest sympathy,” such as when Jesus utters his lamentation over Jerusalem killing the prophets (Luke 19:41–4). In a similar way, James sternly warns the rich because they represent “the pride of the world,” and their triumphant successes result from selfish oppression of others. So James’s warning of God’s imminent judgment is actually an act of kindness, because, Mayor believes, it is a final invitation to the rich to repent before their imminent destruction, as well as being succor to the poor to assist them to persevere in their time of trouble. Mayor closes by arguing that this “prophetic office” is not yet extinct”: “Wherever sin is rampant, wherever oppression and cruelty prevail, where the denunciation of the evil-doer is a dangerous and unpopular service, there the heart of the prophet will still burn within him, till at the last he speaks with his tongue” (540). Shailer Mathews observes that leaders in the early church were “suspicious of the rich.” Paul, for example, warns his readers about covetousness, and 1 Timothy 6:10 calls the love of money the root of all evils. James, however, which represents an “un-Pauline point of view,” is much more severe in its attitude: “In all folk-literature there is no sterner denunciation of wealth or of that obsequiousness which even in the brotherhood of Christ gives special honors to the well-dressed and wealthy man.” Citing James 5:4, Mathews notes that even with the hostility that James has for wealth and for the wealthy, “it is noticeable that

James 4:13–5:6  273 even here there is no word of revolution, but a trust in the retribution to come in the day of judgment” (1905: 309). In light of how various Christians have interpreted James 5:1–6 over the centuries, one cannot help but wonder whether such interpretations of this ­passage (including the “patience” of James 5:7–11) and other New Testament passages help lead Vladimir Lenin to write: Religion teaches those who toil in poverty all their lives to be resigned and patient in this world, and consoles them with the hope of reward in heaven. As for those who live upon the labour of others, religion teaches them to be charitable in earthly life, thus providing a cheap justification for their whole exploiting existence and selling them at a reasonable price tickets to heavenly bliss (1933: 7).

In that context, it is interesting to read Tom Hanks, writing in an issue of Sojourners in 1981, who decries the habitual domestication of James’s message, although it is “fascinating, although profoundly disturbing to see the conservative evangelical mentality at work to make James more palatable.” James, he says, clearly describes class struggle (4:1–2) that is motivated by greed (4:2) and expresses itself in “capitalistic initiatives” (4:13). James says directly that they murder (4:2; 5:6), but modern Western commentators fall all over themselves to explain it away: “Murder?” say the commentators. “Impossible, free enterprise, capitalist ingenuity, the American way of life, and honest buck; what’s good for General Motors is good for the country.” But James says, “you murder.” The mechanisms of oppression deprive the poor of their land and other means of livelihood and leave them without the essentials for life (22).

James Adamson, reminiscent of Calvin’s reading (Calvin 1995: 308), understands James 5:6 as assuming that the righteous one does not resist because “he cannot.” The poor in this context do not have the capacity to resist and thus have not been able even to begin to resist such oppression. In this instance, Adamson says, “the helplessness of their victims increases the damnation of these rich” (1976: 188). Douglas Moo, on the other hand, cautions that we should read “rich” in its “biblical context.” In other words, the term “rich” bears both an economic and a theological sense, so James should be re-evaluated as “a key biblical spokesperson for the liberation theology movement.” The rich are condemned not just for their wealth, Moo argues, but for their “sinful use of wealth.” Therefore, we cannot apply this passage to all wealthy people, although it does contain serious implications for those who live in “the Western world, where amassing material wealth is not only condoned but admired.” This warning is highlighted by the

274  James 4:13–5:6 fact that Moo believes “you rich” in James can indeed be applied to some rich Christians in James’s community (2000: 210–12). Robert Wall observes that if North American churches would take James’s form of piety seriously, many would be uncomfortable with the ease with which they had acclimated themselves to the “upward economic mobility of liberal democracy while trying to follow after its downwardly mobile Lord.” The prophetic theology of the poor in James inherently afflicts the comfortable, because James is “deeply suspicious about the wealthy.” Their goals are contrary to God’s will, and the desire for wealth replaces one’s desire for God. In addition, James declares that the wealthy have become wealthy at the expense of the poor and that God will vindicate the poor because of this oppression. Wall seeks to balance spirituality and ethics, Paul and James, because they depend upon each other: Indeed, the orthopraxy of James, centered by the renunciation of wealth and solidarity with the poor, must flow from a vital commitment to a gracious God who redeems a sinful world through the redeeming work of God’s Christ. Good deeds are crucial; but they must embody good news. Good news is central; but receiving it by faith must be extended to and enlivened by a world desperate for social and spiritual salvation. The self-correcting conversation between Paul and James, then, envisions a balanced, biblical ethic that is rooted in equal and integral parts of divine grace and human responsibility (1997: 246–7).

Gustavo Gutiérrez writes of “The Ethics of the Kingdom” in his 1991 work, The God of Life. In brief, the love of God and the love of one’s neighbor are different expressions of the same love. Christians are called to practice love and mercy to other human beings, and, on the negative side, to avoid violating the rights of the poor or withholding the necessities of life from them, especially widows and orphans and others on the margins of society, whether they have no means of support, are foreigners serving as “temporary workers,” or others on the periphery. Establishing justice means actively caring for the rights of others, especially the poor, and Gutiérrez places James 5:4–6 in this context. These “harsh but wellaimed” words, Gutiérrez says, rebuke those who feast and prosper while oppressing the poor. Those rich will be punished: “The Letter of James allows no loopholes or excuses.” Gutiérrez notes that the situation to which James speaks has been repeated over and over again “throughout the history of Christianity, including our own day” (1996: 177–8). Gutiérrez concludes: “Love of God and commitment to the poor (including love of ­ourselves) are central elements in the experience of those who believe in the God of life. The coordination of these elements turns our faith into a journey of solidarity in the following of Jesus” (183). Sondra Ely Wheeler’s book, Wealth as Peril and Obligation, examines selected key texts to discuss the New Testament’s ethical view concerning

James 4:13–5:6  275 wealth and possessions. Discussions within Christian ethics, she writes, might gain “greater concreteness and specificity by focusing on a particular question and by closely examining particular texts” (1995: xv). In particular she treats Mark 10:17–31, Luke 12:22–34, 2 Corinthians 8:1–15, and James 5:1–6. Wheeler notes that James cites not a general list of evils but “specific acts made possible by the concrete circumstance of great disparities of wealth and in the power that accrues with wealth.” In doing so, James echoes language from the Hebrew Bible, and it does not involve such things as economic metaphors about their spiritual condition of “poverty” or an automatic condemnation of the rich that involves envy and resentment. Instead, James displays A fierce declaration of God’s judgment on the wealthy as sinners, whose wealth is accumulated and held in defiance of God’s law requiring justice and compassion, and is used to pervert the structures of society to their own ends with impunity, The indictment, based on a tradition already ancient when James wrote, sounds remarkably “modern” even now (1995: 103).

Judgment is imminent, and James wants to inculcate a “profound suspicion” of wealth. Wheeler argues that James’s suspicion is based on the belief that such riches usually both come from and create corruption. Riches also preoccupy minds and distort priorities of the ones who are wealthy (104). Craig Blomberg’s book, Neither Poverty nor Riches, sounds a warning to Christians living in more developed nations concerning “Two-Thirds World countries.” Blomberg observes that in many places such as Latin America, a select few—whether individuals or corporations—own “vast tracts of land” yet fail to offer living wages to their workers. Blomberg calls upon Christians “to reflect long and hard on this passage in James,” because Christians in more developed nations may help to perpetuate such exploitation by the purchases they make: To what extent do we tacitly endorse such injustice by our purchases from such companies, often without even being aware of their practices, or by supporting politicians who promise tax cuts for the upper and middle classes, when programmes helping the needy at home and abroad are slashed in the process and not likely to be replaced by private-sector equivalents? To what extent do the well-to-do Christians in the West and North live lives little different from those described in 5:1–6 . . . even if we plead innocent of the more blatant forms of oppression described in this text? (1999: 158)

Pedrito Maynard-Reid envisions James 5:1–6 as James’s “final attack on the rich.” After denouncing arrogant financial scheming (4:13–17), James turns to an “even more obnoxious and wicked” spirit—the selfish, tyrannical oppressors

276  James 4:13–5:6 against whom cries of the oppressed have reached the Lord of hosts (5:4). James’s harsh language is not a call to repentance; his explication of the ultimate judgment against these wealthy is more intended to be a consolation to those who are oppressed by them (1987: 81–2). Maynard-Reid warns interpreters not to spiritualize the categories of rich and poor; James is dealing with literal economic conditions. It appears that James offers no call for repentance to the rich because he views them as members of an ungodly class: “There is no hope for any rich persons as long as they are members of that class; there is only judgment and damnation” (82). The wealthy are condemned for two primary crimes: luxurious living (5:2–3) and oppression of the poor (5:4), and James describes their punishment in terms more violent than anywhere else in the New Testament, with the possible exception of Revelation 18: it is a judgment which brings hope and satisfaction to the poor. God’s judgment brings about the Great Reversal—the powerful rich and oppressive exploiters are given over to damnation, and the oppressed who have waited patiently receive the eternal reward. Finally, it is necessary to emphasize that although James’s strong fulminations against the rich are apocalyptic and point ultimately to the Final Judgment, his message was relevant to his age and is relevant to ours. His words speak not only of the other world, but address this world. His intense language demonstrates that he opposes the structures that enable the rich to increase their wealth at the expense of the poor—structures that fatten some and allow them to live in luxury while others are exploited and live in misery and filth, eking out a mere existence. James’s indignation is an unqualified condemnation of the intolerable nature of such an existence. His epistle condemns unjust situations in his and our historical contexts (97).

Maynard-Reid stresses the importance of James’s message that God hears the cries of the poor and the oppressed. God not only knows their struggles; God is attentive and will respond. Thus the oppressed have every right to cry out to God and to demand the just wage that is owed them (98). Gay Byron cautions readers not to understand “rich people” as merely drawing attention to the distinctions between the rich and the poor. We must also fully engage the “systems and institutions” that perpetuate oppression of the non-elite by the elite and the injustices—which may also be based on issues of gender or race—that pervade those systems. James 5:4, Byron argues, points directly to such systemic crises as inequitable wages or non-living wages, problems that beset many “African Americans and other ethnic minorities who still live in impoverished conditions in both urban and rural settings.” James warns those who participate in such economic oppression of fellow human beings

James 4:13–5:6  277 (2007: 469). In a similar way, Addison Eastman applies this section of James to the horrific treatment of migrant workers in the United States in the 1970s, which included children being “seriously poisoned by insecticides.” Just like in James 5:4, God hears the cries of the migrant workers who are unjustly treated in this land of wealth (1978: 89). Elsa Tamez highlights the importance of “genuine prayer” in the life of Christian communities. Through prayer, for example, the Christian identity of oppressed communities becomes visible, and God is always ready to listen to their prayers, just as God hears the “spontaneous cry” of and “bitter prayer” of  the cheated mowers in James 5:4 that arise “from the hunger and pain of exploitation.” James 5:1–6, in part, is “the response to the workers’ prayer” (2002: 57). In the Epistle of James, Tamez argues, the poor are impoverished usually because they are oppressed and exploited. James rereads the prophetic tradition and condemns similar injustices: The peasants, for example, live in wretchedness because the oppressive landowners—who could easily pay their salaries— withhold their pay, an action that threatens the lives of these peasants. The peasants die “because they pour out their strength in their work, but the fruit of their work does not come back to them. They cannot regain their strength because the rich withhold their salaries” (2002: 16). Hence James condemns the rich, because the rich have “condemned and murdered the righteous one.” James explicitly refers to these rich oppressors three times (1:10–11; 2:6b–7; 5:5–6) in completely negative ways, which reflects how exploitation by landowners intensified during the Hellenistic period, leaving peasants in desperate straits, often losing their lands and livelihood to their oppressors (22). These rich accumulate wealth (5:3), live luxuriously, and indulge themselves “in the easy life, making others work for them to maintain their luxuries and pleasures” (5:5). They are murderers, Tamez writes, because they condemn to death righteous people, the innocent, and the poor who have no strength or power to resist (24). Tamez also places these verses in an eschatological context, because judgment is the hope of the poor. James wants to infuse joy into these communities, remind them of God’s special love for the poor, and assure them about the end of their oppression because of God’s imminent judgment against the rich. The rich landowner has no mercy on the poor peasant; likewise, James’s apocalyptic denunciation of injustice has no mercy on the rich, but any emphasis on their forthcoming suffering is primarily to convince the poor of the imminent end of their oppression: “The Last Judgment, for James and his readers, signifies the proclamation and imminent realization of justice for the poor and oppressed” (41).

James 5:7–11 The Patience of the Faithful and the Compassion of the Lord James 5:7–11 Ancient literary context Although the term “therefore” indicates some dependence on the previous verses, the tone abruptly switches again, this time from harsh condemnation of the wealthy oppressors (“you rich people”) to an affectionate, pastoral exhortation for James’s “brothers and sisters” (NRSV = “beloved,” a reference that is found three times in these verses: 5:7, 9, 10, and also in 5:12). James encourages them to have patience (5:7, 8, 10) and endurance (5:11) in their time of suffering, James Through the Centuries, First Edition. David B. Gowler. © 2014 David B. Gowler. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

James 5:7–11  279 a suffering most likely stemming from the rich that James had just condemned (5:1–6; cf. 2:5–7). Thus James moves from condemnation of the rich to vindication of his “brothers and sisters” who currently—and, if they act as James exhorts, confidently but patiently—are enduring trials until the Lord comes. James advises them to be patient (5:7; cf. 1:2–4). Just as a farmer has to await patiently his “precious crop,” they must also be patient until the imminent arrival of the Lord (5:8), the same Lord who faithfully brings the early and late rains for farmers (5:7; cf. Moo 2000: 223). Their strengthened hearts (5:8) are to be in stark contrast to the “fattened hearts” of the “rich people” in 5:5 (cf. the “deceived hearts,” 1:26; the hearts with “bitter envy and selfish ambition,” 3:14; and the need for the “double-minded” to “purify” their hearts, 4:8). James encourages patience in light of God’s imminent judgment (cf. the “vengeance is mine” of Deut. 32:35), a “triumphant steadfastness which does not come from the heroic depths of one’s own heart but from certainty of the proximity of the parousia” (Kittel and Friedrich 1964–76 [TDNT] 4: 385). God is ultimately in control. Just as James’s “brothers and sisters” must be patient because the Lord is near, they also must not “grumble against one another,” because “the Judge is standing at the doors” (5:9). One expects grumbling and discontent during difficult times—the wandering in the wilderness after the Exodus is a paradigmatic example—but James instructs them not to let such difficult trials negatively affect the community’s cohesion. They are, even in difficult times, to continue to fulfill the scripture’s “royal law” of loving “your neighbor as yourself ” (2:8, which includes taming their tongues, 3:1–12). James then provides additional positive examples of “suffering and patience”: the “prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord” (5:10) and “the endurance of Job” (5:11). The example of Job also demonstrates, perhaps, that “patience” does not necessarily mean quiet, passive acceptance of oppression, since Job was anything but quiet about his trials. The goal is not merely “survival” until the Lord comes; the “testing of [their] faith” has positive results (1:2–4): It means that their faith, endurance, maturity, and completeness will be rewarded with the crown of life (1:12; cf. 1:25; 2:5). In that sense, James’s hearers will also be “blessed/fortunate,” as are all who demonstrate “endurance” (James 5:11; cf. Jesus’ beatitudes for those who are persecuted [Matt. 5:11] and for those who weep now or are hated and excluded [Luke 6:21–3]).

The interpretations Ancient and medieval Augustine cites “divine Scripture” James 5:11 in his On the Creed: A Sermon to Catechumens (Section 10) in the context of Jesus’ suffering and death on the

280  James 5:7–11 cross. He also discusses Job’s patience as an example but adds a word of caution about avarice. The trials of Job make one “shudder, shrink, and quake,” but some people, since Job receives back twice the number of sons that he had lost, urge patience because God will double temporal rewards. Augustine explains, however, that Job’s former sons did not die; they still lived, so that is why the sons were doubled. No one should therefore use this story to have patience by saying, “Let me bear evils, and God will repay me as He repaid Job.” That inculcates avarice, not patience. Instead, Augustine advises that Christians should hope not for temporal rewards but for the eternal reward that Jesus secures for them. Bede observes that James now turns from rebuking the proud to encouraging the ones oppressed by the wicked rich to have patience, because the end of their tribulation is close at hand: Either they will be taken away to the Lord or their persecutors will be deprived of their power to persecute. Just as the farmer waits for the precious crop, Bede declares that believers should endure present adversities for an even more precious, eternal crop: the “fruit of the heavenly reward” (1985: 58–9). Even the prophets, who were so holy and free from sin that God’s Spirit spoke the mysteries to them, suffered death at the hands of the faithless (e.g., Zechariah, Uriah, John the Baptist, Stephen, and many others). Those holy people—Noah building the ark for a hundred years, Moses leading the people for forty years, David suffering exile, Joseph enduring slavery—“chose not to complain.” They bore their trials with patience, long-suffering, and without murmuring (59). James provides Job as “an outstanding example and one which could be imitated.” Job is a good model, for Bede, because through Job’s labor and patience and God’s compassion, he received twice as much as he lost “through the wickedness of the enemy” (59). Also, like Augustine before him (Epistle 140.1026), Bede believes that the phrase to telos kyriou (NRSV: “the purpose of the Lord,” 5:11) indicates that James is pointing to the fact that Jesus bore the cross with longsuffering. Bede’s readers also knew that Jesus was rewarded with the glory of the resurrection and ascension into heaven. Likewise, Bede adds, since the Lord is merciful and compassionate, God may either glorify them in the present or crown them in secret after death (60). Early modern and modern Calvin also connects these verses with the previous section that condemns the oppressive and violent rich who oppress the poor: James now comforts the poor by saying that disasters will fall from God upon the rich because of “their proud and heartless domination of the poor.” Therefore, like the farmer who “does not grudge the fact that the earth does not immediately produce the mature fruit,” the poor have a real reason to wait patiently for “the day of redemption, with calm minds”—especially because “the Lord is at hand” (1995:

James 5:7–11  281 309). The wrath of God will come upon the rich who “tyrannize and molest decent and peaceable men”; as a result, Calvin argues, James urges the faithful to treat each other fairly and “to be tolerant in condoning offences” (309). James then provides examples of patience because we are blinded by the storms around us and need the vision of such prophets to guide us: The “one outstanding example from them all” is Job, who is “overcome with such hard and various torments, and yet he came out of that profound abyss with his head high” (311). Calvin also observes that Job is sometimes impatient and challenges God: God did not allow His servant Job to be vanquished for he endured his pains with patience; so the patience of no man will be wasted. But one asks, why does the apostle so greatly commend the patience of Job, who in fact under the shock of the blind catastrophe showed considerable signs of impatience. The answer is, that even though on occasion he lapses through weakness of the flesh, and actually wrestles with himself, yet he always comes back to entrusting himself wholly to God, and offering Himself to His restraining and controlling arm. So though his patience lack a little here and there, it well deserves praise (311).

Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary notes that if a farmer waits patiently to harvest a crop, Christians should be patient to wait for their future crowns of glory, because God will repay all their “losses, hardships, and sufferings.” It may seem like a long time, because to “short-lived creatures a few years seem an age; but Scripture, measuring all things by the existence of God, reckons thousands of years but so many days. God brought about things in Job’s case, so as plainly to prove that he is very pitiful and of tender mercy.” The time of God’s redemption is not evident to Job during his trials, and Henry argues that Christians, like Job, will “find a happy end to their trials.” Henry urges his readers to serve God and to bear their trials faithfully, believing that God will indeed reward them with a crown of glory in the end. The English artist, poet, and visionary William Blake (1757–1827) created his masterpiece engravings on the Book of Job at the age of seventy (in 1825). He also created a series of watercolors on Job for Thomas Butts (1805–6, 1821–7). In his engravings, the primary object of interest—the image—is at the center of the page, with various biblical texts surrounding the image that help to illustrate Blake’s vision. The seventh engraving in Blake’s work (Plate  9.1) portrays Job’s three friends coming to “console and comfort him” during his afflictions (Job 2:12). Job’s friends initially respond to his trials by weeping, mourning, and sitting with him for seven days without speaking “for they saw that his suffering was very great” (Job 2:13). In this engraving, Job sits exhausted on a bale of hay or straw, his palms extended down, and he looks off wearily to the (viewer’s) right, with a look of tired resignation on his face. Some interpreters argue that Job’s gaze falls upon an “incipient” cross above him and that a smaller cross is replicated at the bottom right of the engraving (see Wright 1972: 23), perhaps also

282  James 5:7–11

Plate 9.1  The seventh engraving in William Blake, Illustrations of the Book of Job [in Twenty-One Plates] (1878)

symbolizing Job’s torment. Job’s wife stands behind him with her hands upraised, a position that might indicate that she no longer knows how to respond to Job appropriately. (This description and what follows are indebted to Rowland 2010: 35–6.) Her face betrays more emotion than does the face of her husband. Job’s three comforters approach from the left with their arms upraised in sorrow. Two of them look toward heaven, but the one closest to Job looks directly at Job and views him in his afflictions. In the background, the sun sets (or rises?). Is the end near or are his afflictions just beginning? The image’s main caption—the large one just below the engraving—comes from Job 2:12, and the image depicts that verse, but part of Job’s response to his wife’s call to “curse God and die” (Job 2:9) is above the image (“What! shall we recieve Good at the hand of God & shall we not also recieve Evil”; Job 2:10b). At the bottom of the engraving two figures stand on opposite sides of the page, both beneath barren trees. They are shepherds, a female (apparently) on the left and a male on the right. They may or may not be Job and his wife (see Blake 1966: 24), but at the very least, they bear a close resemblance to them and share their sorrow (as do the two figures reposing—perhaps while weeping—on the top of the frame). The two shepherds at the bottom of the page both have

James 5:7–11  283

Plate 9.2  Harriet Powers, Pictorial Quilt Photograph  2014 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

downcast eyes; the one on the left holds a shepherd’s crook, with a dog looking up at her. The figure on the right also looks down, with two sheep on the ground below him. In between the two figures is a quote from James 5:11, written in smaller print than the lines from Job 2:12: “Ye have heard of the Patience of Job and have seen the end of the Lord.” By these words, Blake evokes the vision of James for the final destiny of Job as well. The larger context of James that includes this quote (5:7–11) appears to validate the interpretation that the sun is indeed setting on Job’s afflictions. Despite all appearances, the coming of the “compassionate and merciful” Lord is near. Harriet Powers was born a slave in Georgia in 1837. Powers created an extraordinary pictorial quilt (Plate 9.2), according to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, where it now resides, after receiving a commission from “the faculty ladies of Atlanta University.” The quilt was commissioned as a gift to a retiring trustee of the university, Dr. Charles Hall, who was President of Union Theological Seminary in New York. The quilt is made of dyed and printed ­cotton fabrics applied to cotton, and it consists of fifteen rectangles that depict various scenes. Powers describes the first rectangle as containing three main items: Job praying for his enemies, Job crosses, and Job’s coffin. The connection between Job’s suffering and the suffering of Jesus on the cross is often made (as noted above, this image might also be found in Blake’s engraving of Job in his suffering). Other panels in the quilt portray such biblical events as Moses lifting up

284  James 5:7–11 the serpent (panel 3), Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden with Eve being tempted by the serpent (panel 4), John baptizing Jesus (panel 5), Jonah and the “whale” (panel 6), the crucifixion of Jesus between two thieves, with Mary and Mary weeping at the foot of the cross, the sun turning dark, and blood and water streaming from Jesus’ side (panel 15). Besides panel 1’s depiction of Job and the crosses, a possible connection to James 5 is made by panel 13, which depicts the eternal punishment of the rich. In Powers’s words the panel displays: Rich people who were taught nothing of God. Bob Johnson and Kate Bell of Virginia. They told their parents to stop the clock at one and tomorrow it would strike one and so it did. This was the signal that they had entered everlasting punishment. The independent hog which ran 500 miles from Georgia to Virginia, her name was Betts (www.mfa.org/collections/object/pictorial-quilt-116166).

Fanny Crosby (1820–1915) composed at least two hymns inspired by James 5:8. The first, “The Morning draweth Nigh,” reminds people that “Though long and deep the shadows the dreary night may bring . . . the morning draweth nigh” when Christians will be singing “everlasting praises” (www.cyberhymnal. org/htm/m/o/morndraw.htm). The second hymn, “Waiting for Thy Coming,” published in 1899, is more clearly inspired by James 5:8. Crosby writes that they are “watching for the hour” when “the shadows will be lifted”: We are waiting, blessèd Savior, We are watching for the hour When in majesty descending, Thou shalt come in mighty power; Then the shadows will be lifted, And the darkness rolled away, And our eyes behold the splendor Of the glorious crowning day.

Crosby notes that they are “watching not in vain” for the return of Jesus, and that on that day, their sorrows “like a dream will pass away”: We are waiting, blessèd Savior, For a union, heart to heart, With our dear ones o’er the river, Where we nevermore shall part; Then our sorrows, in a moment, Like a dream will pass away, When our eyes behold the splendor Of the glorious crowning day. (www.hymntime.com/tch/htm/w/a/i/waitfotc.htm)

James 5:7–11  285 Likewise, Granville Jones’s “The Coming of the Lord draweth Nigh” (1895) directly quotes James 5:8. This hymn clearly reflects the difficulties that life brings our way—and some of the trials of which James speaks—and the belief that the day is coming soon when those sorrows will end: Weary hands will cease from labor, Folded, they at rest will lie, For we have a burden bearer, And His coming draweth nigh. Refrain Yes, the weary night is passing, Dawn is breaking in the sky; We shall hail the glad tomorrow, For His coming draweth nigh. Sorrow will not last forever, Tears not always dim the eye; Jesus is our consolation, And His coming draweth nigh. Refrain Pain is not our lasting portion, Balm descendeth from on high, For we have a great Physician, And His coming draweth nigh. Refrain Death is not to be eternal, Tho’ we all are doomed to die; Jesus is the resurrection, And His coming draweth nigh. (www.hymntime.com/tch/htm/h/i/c/hicoming.htm)

Since James enjoins patience (1:3; 5:7, 8), Elsa Tamez argues that people in his intended audience are undergoing difficult problems (2002: 13). But James insists that service brings joy, both the joy of serving others and the anticipated joy of the good that “the coming of the Lord” will soon bring (5:8). Then James gives concrete examples of prophets and (even) Job who are declared happy (30). Job suffers innocently and arbitrarily, but he resists and protests to God and is vindicated in this world, not the world to come. Thus, Tamez writes: When James asserts that God is compassionate and merciful, he introduces another element into the joy experienced in praxis, namely, the participation of

286  James 5:7–11 God as a giver of joy. Joy in suffering is also paradoxically the result of the ­practice and the grace of God. Moreover, insofar as we know and affirm that God is compassionate and merciful, our hope is greatly nourished (30).

James does not insist that people rejoice in suffering per se, Tamez states, but he wants his readers to be conscious of the process and result of that experience: Suffering strengthens the spirit and forms a “militant patience” with fully developed works that “bestows integrity on the person and on the community” (31). Patience, Tamez believes, is one of the most important elements at the core of praxis, although it is a difficult attribute to maintain in desperate situations of oppression. Patience here, however, does not signify a passive and submissive attitude, a position that many have taken to their and others’ detriment. The verb used in 5:11, for example, is hypomonē, which is often used in military situations for a patience that watches for the propitious moment to strike: “This is a militant patience that arise from the roots of oppression; it is an active, working patience” (44), which involves perseverance, resistance, and constancy that are “unbreakable” and “immoveable.” Just as Job resists unto death and is vindicated by God, so James recommends such valiant perseverance. Similarly, the verb used for patience in 5:7, 8, and 10, makrothymia, can either be understood as a synonym for perseverance or it can also have a special nuance of not despairing in a difficult situation as one awaits for an event that is sure to come—such as the coming of the Lord and Judge (44–5). Gay Byron discusses the eschatological hope that informs James’s message and the message of other early Christian communities. James does not call for patient endurance alone; instead it calls for a resolve to persevere and to be a witness to others. But there is more, Byron writes: James is often used as support for the motif of redemptive suffering that is prevalent among African American Christians. In this regard, suffering is considered a moral and spiritual virtue, and the redemptive suffering of Jesus is used as the exemplary model of faith and obedience. But this motif has often wrought serious consequences for African Americans who have understood the words of James (and the teachings of Jesus) as a mandate to tolerate evil in its various manifestations of injustice and oppression (2007: 469–70).

Instead, Byron offers another view. Since suffering is a universal human ­condition—not one experienced just by African Americans—all who suffer should acknowledge their tribulations and “respond to suffering and injustice with acts of compassion and kindness” (470). César Chávez (1927–93) was an American farm-worker and civil rights leader. Dedicated to non-violent civil action, Chávez founded the National Farm Workers Association, which later became the United Farm Workers of

James 5:7–11  287 America. Although not written specifically with Chapter 5 of James in mind, Chávez’s “Prayer of the Farm Workers’ Struggle” captures the spirit of James, both in the situation of landowners refusing to pay laborers wages (as was also the case in Chávez’s experience), but also in the need for intercessory prayer, service, honesty, patience, love, and unity among the oppressed. Show me the suffering of the most miserable;   So I will know my people’s plight. Free me to pray for others;   For you are present in every person. Help me take responsibility for my own life;   So that I can be free at last. Grant me courage to serve others;   For in service there is true life. Give me honesty and patience;   So that the Spirit will be alive among us. Let the Spirit flourish and grow;   So that we will never tire of the struggle. Let us remember those who have died for justice;   For they have given us life. Help us love even those who hate us;   So we can change the world. Amen. (www.colapublib.org/chavez/prayer.htm)

Christopher Church observes that many commentators view the “canonical Job as a strange exemplar of patience” because of the way in which Job persistently protests against all the injustices he has to endure. Church, similar to both Tamez and Byron, suggests a way in which James’s choice of Job is appropriate. He notes that other aspects besides Job’s endurance may make him an example of “faith-perfected-through-struggle par excellence”: Job was a champion of personal integrity and a model of truthful speech; Job refused to accept blame for what he suffered and insisted on vindication; though Job suffered much, he survived his ordeal, bloodied and unbowed (except before God); Job even played the part of peacemaker, offering sacrifices for his “comforters.” For James, however, Job’s story is in the end a tale about God’s compassion and mercy on a victim of unjust suffering; the God who righted things for Job holds the future for the oppressed of James’s community. Assured that God is for them and will reward them, the community must endure even now as it works for justice (McKnight and Church 2004: 408–9).

James 5:12–20

Speech and Actions in the Community of the Faithful

James 5:12 Ancient literary context James 5:12 likely serves as a transition to the conclusion of the letter. For the fourth time in seven verses, James addresses his “brothers and sisters,” this time with an “above all” that accentuates the importance of what follows. Hearkening back to earlier admonitions about the use of the tongue (e.g., 1:19, 22, 26; 2:3, 7; 3:1–12; 4:11–13; 5:9), James now cautions his intended audience James Through the Centuries, First Edition. David B. Gowler. © 2014 David B. Gowler. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

James 5:12–20  289 not to swear oaths—detailing three examples of oaths not to swear. James offers a positive instruction on what to do instead (make statements with a simple “yes” or “no”) and then concludes with a reason for his admonition (so they “may not fall under condemnation”). Once again, James echoes Jesus traditions, whose absolute prohibition of oaths was unusual—and most likely unique—in first-century Judaism (Matt. 5:33–37). These final examples of how one should and should not use one’s tongue are, in fact, “the closest parallel to a saying of Jesus in the entire letter” (Brosend 2004: 150), although expressed “in more classical Greek” (Hartin 2003: 260–1). The point is, as Hartin puts it: “Truthfulness should be the hallmark of every believer and of every community that claims to follow Jesus” (262), an appropriate condition for those who were “given birth by the word of truth” (1:18).

The interpretations Ancient and medieval John Chrysostom takes this admonition against swearing seriously. In his Homily on Acts 3:1, for example, he comments on Matthew’s version of the prohibition in vehement terms: Wherefore, with a loud and clear voice, I proclaim to all and testify, that those who are notorious for this transgression, who utter words which come “of the evil one” (for such is swearing), shall not step over the threshold of the Church. Let this present month be the time allowed you for reforming in this matter.

Chrysostom refuses to hear excuses, such as the “necessity of business compels me to use oaths,” since others may not believe that claim. Swearing oaths comes more from habit than necessity, Chrysostom argues, and he expects ridicule for his stance: I know many will laugh, but it is better to be laughed at now, than wept for hereafter. They will laugh, who are mad. For who, I ask, in his right mind would laugh at the keeping of the commandment? But suppose they do; why, it will not be at us, but at Christ, that such men will laugh. You shudder at the word! I knew you would. Now if this law were of my making, at me would be the laughing; but if Another be the Lawgiver, the jeering passes over to Him.

Chrysostom is willing, like Jesus in his trials, “to be laughed at and mocked, to suffer all things.” To inherit God’s kingdom, we must undergo “great ­reformation.” He encourages his listeners to fast in repentance and to entreat

290  James 5:12–20 God “that this pernicious habit may be eradicated.” Chrysostom’s goal is to be an example to the world by having a city in which no person swears. If that becomes reality, then his listeners “will receive the reward not only of your own good works” but also will become examples that others will emulate. They will be “as a candle set upon a candlestick” (Homily VIII on Acts 3:1). Augustine considers this prohibition against oaths not to be absolute, because Paul swears oaths in scripture (e.g., Gal. 1:20; 2 Cor. 11:31). Augustine focuses on Matthew 5:33–7 and concludes that Jesus spoke these words to people who “eagerly seek after an oath as a good thing” and who use such oaths constantly. Augustine concludes that although swearing oaths is not a good thing, it is “among things that are necessary,” when people will not be convinced by any other means. Jesus’ admonition thus may be interpreted as “if you are compelled to swear, know that it comes of a necessity arising from the infirmity of those whom you are trying to persuade of something; which infirmity is certainly an evil, from which we daily pray to be delivered, when we say, ‘Deliver us from evil’ ” (“Homily on the Gospels,” Chapter VXII). In an interesting exchange with Jerome, Augustine cites James 5:12 to argue against what he believes to be Jerome’s position that deception is sometimes “justifiable by expediency” (Letter LXXXII ca. 405 CE, in reply to Letters LXXII, LXXV, and LXXXI). Augustine directs his response in this section (LXXXII.21) specifically to Jerome’s claim that the apostles had “feigned” submission to the law, in contrast to Paul’s clear statements that if one is led by the Holy Spirit, one is not “under the law” (citing Gal. 5:2, 4, 18). Jerome’s view is that Christians who observe Jewish ceremonies—whether originally Jew or Gentile—are fatally hurt and are, in fact, “cast into the pit of perdition.” Augustine takes Jerome to task, though, for suggesting that it was acceptable for the apostles to feign submission to Jewish ceremonies, because, in Augustine’s view, that makes lying acceptable. The problem is that lying is a slippery slope, where a person begins to think it is acceptable to lie “whenever he thinks fit,” and Augustine cites both James 5:12/Matthew 5:37 and Psalm 5:6 (“You destroy those who speak lies”) to illustrate God’s opposition to “falseness.” Cyril of Alexandria proclaims that Christians’ lives should be more than enough witness to our veracity than any oath could ever be. He prioritizes deeds over words and declares that if some “shameless person” should demand an oath, Christians should refuse and simply let their yes be yes and their no be no. Cyril concludes: “James forbids us to swear by heaven or by earth for this reason, that we should not give the creation more value than it has by deifying it. For those who swear, swear by something greater than themselves, as the apostle says” (Bray 2000: 59). Bede argues that James wants to “draw out the deadly poison of the tongue entirely in his hearers.” James already had warned about the dangers of the tongue where he earlier, for example, forbids slander and judging one another. Bede

James 5:12–20  291 i­ndicates that those problems are obvious sins, but in this verse James forbids oaths, which “to some people appears slight” (1985: 60). But Bede declares that even though it may not appear so, this prohibition against oaths is important not only because every “careless word” will be taken into account at the Judgment— thus he connects this verse to Matthew 12:36—but also to avoid falling into perjury. In addition, Bede notes that even if you never perjure yourself, you still are “under the judgment of guilt” if you swear an oath “to the truth more frequently than is necessary.” You sin simply by the “carelessness of overmuch speaking” (60). Early modern and modern Menno Simons’s (ca. 1496–1561) career as a Roman Catholic priest started to become problematic when he began doubting the veracity of transubstantiation. After reading the New Testament carefully, he became convinced that the Bible and the church’s positions were at odds with each other. Influenced by Luther’s writings, among other things, Simons slowly came to believe in the priority of scripture. Eventually, in contrast with Luther, he also came to believe in pacifism and believers’ baptism. Simons joined the Anabaptists, became the most influential Anabaptist leader in the Netherlands, and his followers became known as Mennonites (see Horsch 1916). In 1552, Simons wrote “A Fundamental and Clear Confession of the Poor And Distressed Christians Concerning Justification, The Preachers, Baptism, The Lord’s Supper, and the Swearing of Oaths; On Account of which We are so much Hated, Slandered, and Belied, Founded upon the Word of God.” He begins the section on swearing oaths by noting that the world is filled with those who have “guilty hands, unclean hearts, false doctrine, faithlessness and but little truth.” Citing Psalm 24, Simons states that David declares that only those with “clean hands and a pure heart,” who have not sinned by doing such things as swearing “deceitfully,” will “ascend into the hill of the Lord.” Jesus has “plainly forbidden us to swear, and pointed us to yea and nay, alone, therefore it is that we swear not, by the fear of God, nor dare swear, though we must hear and suffer so much on that account from the world.” Scripture teaches us, Simons concludes, that Christians must obey the commands of Jesus: Christians should not swear oaths. Others act contrary to the teachings of scripture, Simons admits: Swearing was practiced—albeit not uniformly—in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Gen. 24:3; 47:29–31), and Israel was “bound by the law to swear by the name of the Lord and to keep their oath” (e.g., Ex. 22:11; Lev. 19:12). Yet Simons gives priority to Jesus and “the holy James” who both say not to swear at all (Matt. 5:34–7; James 5:12). Simons thus concludes that the only way to follow Jesus’ command is that all human laws that condone or prescribe swearing an oath, no matter in what form or context or practice, must be abolished. The problem for Simons is that even though Jesus does not allow Christians to swear, human rulers and

292  James 5:12–20 magistrates sometimes command it; so what, he asks, should “the conscientious Christian do? If he swear, he falls into the hands of the Lord; but if he does not swear he will have to bear the disfavor and punishment of the magistracy.” Simons concludes that he would rather die than “weaken or break the precious gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, the ordinance of the eternal God, by temporal statutes and policies”: It is better to incur the disfavor, scorn and slander of man and remain in the truth, than to be the favorite of man and sin against God. The good John Huss confessed when he was asked to swear and said, “I am pressed on all sides. If I swear, I have eternal death; and if I do not swear, I will fall into your hands. But I would rather fall into your hands, without swearing than to sin in the face of God.” Thus considerately this worthy man weighed the oath.

After citing others who agree, such as Jerome, Theophylact, Chrysostom, Erasmus, Melancthon, and Origen, Simons concludes with a plea to the “lords and magistrates” in the Netherlands to follow the teachings of Jesus, not to require oaths, and to stop punishing those who refuse to swear an oath (online at www.mennosimons.net/ft109-oaths.html). The current Mennonite Confession of Faith also reflects Simons’s view on swearing oaths. Article 20, “Truth and the Avoidance of Oaths,” begins by saying: “We commit ourselves to tell the truth, to give a simple yes or no, and to avoid swearing of oaths.” The reason given is Jesus’ proscription against swearing oaths (affirmed in James 5:12). The Confession argues that oaths imply that sometimes one is not careful in telling the truth, but the followers of Jesus are always to speak the truth (so oaths are not necessary). In a court of law, Mennonites simply should affirm that what they say is true. Even though governments have tried to compel oaths of allegiance from their citizens, the first allegiance of Christians is to God, and that allegiance takes precedence over any human social or political associations. The Confession then explains: In the biblical languages, truth is related to faithfulness—faithfulness to the facts (speaking truth) as well as faithfulness in relationships (being true). Speaking the truth in love in the Christian community shows our commitment to right relationships as well as to accurate speech.

The Confession proclaims that Mennonites have a “commitment to unconditional truth telling and to keeping one’s word.” Taking an oath would also, it says, “conflict with our ultimate allegiance to God through Christ, and in avoiding all profane oaths” (www.mennolink.org/doc/cof).

James 5:12–20  293 On the other hand, John Calvin declares that the Anabaptist use of James 5:12 to condemn all taking of oaths displays “some lack of vision.” James (and Jesus) does not forbid all oaths. Instead, James condemns a “common vice in almost all ages,” that is, the dishonoring of God’s name: Christ inveighed against this sort of folly, as we see at Matt. 5:34, and now James endorses his Master’s rule, by telling us to avoid indirect turns of phrase of this sort, for in fact a man does abuse the Name of God by swearing vainly, and for no consequence, however he may dress up his words. In short, it is no more permissible to swear by heaven and earth, than by the Name of God outright (1995: 312).

Calvin observes that James’s “treatment” is most effective: “If our speech showed a proper respect for honesty, there would be no need for all these unnecessary oaths” (313). The English Dissenter George Fox (1624–91) was a founder of the Religious Society of Friends. Like Menno Simons, Fox believes that Jesus and James ­forbid swearing, and Fox therefore adamantly refuses to swear oaths, no matter the consequences. The fifteenth chapter of Fox’s autobiography, for example, “In Prison for not Swearing,” covers the years 1662–5. This chapter and part of the next chapter focus on some of Fox’s incarcerations and trials that stem from his refusal, especially in light of the current political upheavals, to take oaths of allegiance to the crown. Fox writes in his autobiography that in 1652 he was arrested in Swannington in Leicestershire, after he refused the constable’s request to “take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy.” Fox was carted off to jail. Even after his arrest, he and about twenty other Friends continued to have Friends meetings in prison, and they converted others who were imprisoned as well. Then the justices began to apply pressure: The jailer put us into the place where the thieves were put, and then some of the justices began to tender the oaths of allegiance and supremacy to us. I told them I never took any oath in my life; and they knew we could not swear, because Christ and His Apostle forbade it; therefore they but put it as a snare to us. We told them that if they could prove that, after Christ and the Apostle had forbidden swearing, they did ever command Christians to swear, then we would take these oaths; otherwise we were resolved to obey Christ’s command and the Apostle’s exhortation.

Even though the jury at the trial returned a guilty verdict, Fox and his colleagues were soon freed from prison. Shortly thereafter, however, Fox was again arrested in Swarthmore, in Cumbria, and the process repeated itself: Then they tendered me the oaths of allegiance and supremacy. I told them I could not take any oath at all, because Christ and His Apostle had forbidden it; and they had sufficient experience of swearers, first one way, then another; but I had never taken any oath in my life.

294  James 5:12–20 Then [Justice] Rawlinson asked me whether I held it was unlawful to swear. This question he put on purpose to ensnare me; for by an Act that was made those were liable to banishment or a great fine that should say it was unlawful to swear. But I, seeing the snare, avoided it, and told him that “in the time of the law amongst the Jews, before Christ came, the law commanded them to swear; but Christ, who doth fulfil the law in His gospel-time, commands not to swear at all; and the apostle James forbids swearing, even to them that were Jews, and had the law of God.”

Fox was then sent to prison, even though he had written against “the plots” (one’s religious allegiances were especially critical during this era of the English Civil War, the Commonwealth, the Protectorate, and the Restoration). On March 14, 1663, he was brought before Judge Twisden, and as described in Fox’s autobiography: When I was brought to the bar, I said, “Peace be amongst you all.” The Judge looked upon me, and said, “What! do you come into the court with your hat on!” Upon which words, the jailer taking it off, I said, “The hat is not the honour that comes from God.” Then said the Judge to me, “Will you take the oath of allegiance, George Fox?” I said, “I never took any oath in my life, nor any covenant or engagement.” “Well,” said he, “will you swear or no?” I answered, “I am a Christian, and Christ commands me not to swear; so does the apostle James; and whether I should obey God or man, do thou judge.” ... I asked him if he did not know that Christians in the primitive times, under the ten persecutions, and some also of the martyrs in Queen Mary’s days, refused swearing, because Christ and the apostle had forbidden it. I told him also that they had had experience enough, how many had first sworn for the King and then against him. “But as for me,” I said, “I have never taken an oath in my life. My allegiance doth not lie in swearing, but in truth and faithfulness, for I honour all men, much more the King. But Christ, who is the Great Prophet, the King of kings, the Saviour and Judge of the whole world, saith I must not swear. Now, must I obey Christ or thee? For it is because of tenderness of conscience, and in obedience to the command of Christ, that I do not swear and we have the word of a King for tender consciences.”

The judge replied that he was a Christian as well, and Fox responded in a loud voice that then he should do “Christian works.” After refusing again to swear an oath of allegiance, Fox was returned to prison, and in June that year at “the next assizes” was brought before Judge Turner. Once again Fox refused to take the oath: I said, “The words that I then spoke to them were, that if they could prove, either judge, justices, priest, or teacher, that after Christ and the Apostle had forbidden swearing, they commanded that Christians should swear, I would swear.” The Judge said he was not at that time to dispute whether it was lawful to swear, but to inquire whether I had refused to take the oath. I told him, “Those things mentioned in the oath, as plotting against the King, and owning the Pope’s, or any other foreign power, I utterly deny.”

James 5:12–20  295 The jury found Fox guilty, but because of errors in the indictment, the judge ruled that Fox could go free, but he immediately tried to administer the oath to Fox again. Fox was given a Bible on which to swear, and he spoke to the judge and jury: Ye have given me a book here to kiss and to swear on, and this book which ye have given me to kiss says, “Kiss the Son”; and the Son says in this book, “Swear not at all”; and so says also the apostle James. Now, I say as the book says, and yet ye imprison me; why do ye not imprison the book for saying so? How comes it that the book (which bids me not swear) is at liberty amongst you, and yet ye imprison me for doing as the book bids me?”

Fox declared that he was against “plots and persecution for religion and Popery,” but he could not disobey the command of Jesus not to swear: “Our Yea is yea, and our Nay is nay; and if we transgress our yea and our nay, let us suffer as they do, or should do, that swear falsely.” Fox was returned to prison and stayed in custody until he was released by order of the king in September of 1666 (http://m.ccel.org/ccel/fox_g/autobio). In contrast, Revere Weidner considers James’s prohibition against oaths as being against “the needless and heedless swearing in ordinary conversations, a practice so common in ancient times, and of which so many ill-bred persons of modern times are guilty.” The prohibition does not include judicial oaths, Weidner reasons, because Jesus himself answered when “questioned as on oath by Caiaphas” (Matt. 26:63–64). Like Augustine, Weidner also cites Paul’s use of oaths (e.g., 2 Cor. 1:23; Rom. 1:9; Gal. 1:20; Phil. 1:18) as proof that not all oaths are prohibited: “There is nothing wrong or sinful in a solemn judicial oath, if the truth cannot otherwise be ascertained” (1897: 76). Like Weidner, a number of commentators follow Augustine, Calvin, and others in declaring that James does not prohibit all oaths. Such scholars include Joseph Mayor, although he disagrees with Augustine’s arguments that James forbade oaths not because they were intrinsically wrong but because they were likely to lead to wrong. Instead, Mayor believes that James put the admonition in this form so that it would be “easier for the Jews to accept it,” because others certainly would have admitted that there “was much careless and irreverent swearing” and that it was “displeasing to God.” Mayor first cites both Paul and Jesus as examples why Friends (i.e., Quakers) are wrong to argue that James and Jesus forbid all oaths (As others had done before him, he cites Paul using oaths: 2 Cor. 1:23; 11:31, and Gal. 1:20; and Jesus accepting the oath given to him by the high priest: Matt. 26:63–4). Mayor interprets James’s admonition in the same way he does Jesus’ words from the Sermon on the Mount: They supply an ideal standard, a goal to be aimed at, but not a code of law to be immediately put into execution, regardless of existing circumstances, and of the

296  James 5:12–20 manner in which their exact observance would affect our carrying out the two great commandments on which hang all the law and the prophets (1990: 541).

Mayor points to the precept of turning the other cheek as a specific example: [I]f this is tried by the principle that we should do to others as we would wish them to do to us, it is evident that the last thing which a sane man could wish for himself or for one whom he loved would be that he should be allowed to strike and insult others with impunity. We have to disregard the letter, in order to keep the spirit of the precept; which is that a Christian should never act from mere vindictiveness (541–2).

For Mayor, the law of love requires that we act in the best interest of the one offending us; that is, to assist that person to avoid such sins in the future. If someone would not be shamed into not striking another person in the future if we turn the other cheek, then the path of non-resistance actually goes against the law of love, in Mayor’s view. When society “becomes more Christianized,” though, then it would become more possible to practice the non-resistance of which Jesus speaks “without transgressing the higher law of love, which bids us always act for the best interest of our neighbour” (542). Swearing oaths falls into the same category, Mayor argues, because “often the standard of truthfulness is so low, that it is necessary to appeal to the All-seeing Witness in order to make the affirmant realize what is his duty in respect of the truth.” In these instances, Mayor believes, swearing oaths is allowable, “just as war is allowable in the present imperfect state of things,” but the ultimate goals of Christians “should be, as far as possible, to limit the use both of oaths and of war, so as ultimately to get rid of them altogether” (542). A similar example can be found in Plummer’s commentary, where he states that part of the motivation for James’s prohibition is his concern that oaths not be uttered when people are “exasperated by injury or adversity,” because of Jesus’ words about non-retaliation (Matt. 5:38–48) and James’s exhortation about prayer during times of suffering (5:13). Plummer notes, however, that James means more than that: There was an old saying, now unhappily quite grotesque in its incongruity with facts, that “an Englishman’s word is as good as his bond.” What Christ and St. James say is that a Christian’s word should be as good as his oath. There ought to be no needs of oaths (1891: 303–4).

This prohibition of oaths by Jesus and James, Plummer contends, also is directed toward confirming “ordinary statements,” but it is not absolute. It does not, first impressions notwithstanding, forbid the use of oaths “for any purpose whatsoever.” It cannot, Plummer argues, because the Hebrew Bible permits oaths and the first Christians were willing “on certain occasions to take certain

James 5:12–20  297 oaths” no doubt convinced that Jesus “had not forbidden them to do so” (Plummer cites Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandra, and Augustine, although he notes that Pelagius disagreed; 304–7). Finally, even Jesus allowed himself “to be put upon His oath” when he was “adjured by the High Priest to answer” (Matt. 26:63–4; emphases in the original). Thus Jesus himself, Plummer concludes, did not believe that all oaths should be prohibited (308). Interpreters still have differing opinions over whether James forbids all oaths. Perhaps it is because, as Kent Hughes wryly observes: “Oath-taking is popular because people are liars” (1991: 248). Some recent scholars agree that James does not prohibit oaths completely. Douglas Moo argues that James does not prohibit “official oaths” (i.e., legal oaths) but only the “voluntary oath” (2000: 233). Dan McCartney declares that “Both James and Jesus are speaking against the casual use of oaths,” not legal testimony (2009: 248). James Adamson concludes that “James, surely, is not against honest legal oaths,” since he “did not require a Christian Jew to repudiate the Mosaic law” (1976: 195). Likewise Patrick Hartin writes that James, in part because of his Jewish heritage, “does not reject the taking of oaths in general.” Instead it is the “trivialization of the oath” that is at the heart of this prohibition and, Hartin says, James wants truthfulness to “be the hallmark of every believer and of every community that claims to follow Jesus” (2003: 262). Other scholars, however, see this verse as  a  “striking, absolute prohibition against oaths” (e.g., Brosend 2004: 152; cf.  Johnson 1995: 327–8; McKnight 2011: 428). Elsa Tamez sees James’s injunction against swearing as indicative of the need for members of these communities to whom James writes to “strengthen themselves from within.” Those communities are undergoing assaults from external forces, so they must not be undermined by internal divisions. Therefore, they have to be transparent with each other, speaking sincerely and avoiding “all whispering behind each others’ backs.” What James 5:12 means is that “if total honesty is achieved in the community, it will not be necessary to swear, for what is said simply and without duplicity will be believed. This would mean that total personal and collective integrity had been achieved” (2002: 55–6).

James 5:13–18 Ancient literary context James begins to conclude the letter with some final advice for his intended audience. The opening is structured in a series of three questions in diatribe format, and James provides answers to each question. Many of them are

298  James 5:12–20 s­ uffering; no matter what type of trial it is, the proper response is faithful prayer (cf. 1:2–16). Those who are cheerful should praise God in song, another form of prayerful communication with God. Those who are sick should ask the elders of the church (ekklēsia) to anoint them with oil and pray for them “in the name of the Lord.” All three questions that James asks thus receive the same answer: in good times and bad, in sorrow or joy, in sickness or in health, pray to the Lord, both individually and as a community of believers. The letter draws to a close as it begins, with confidence that such faithful prayer is powerful and will be effective even in times of trial (1:2–5). Since God also forgives sins, James urges his intended audience to confess their sins to each other and to pray for one another. Whether or not James implicitly connects sickness and sinfulness by saying that sinfulness possibly is a factor in such sickness, James is at least saying that sickness is analogous to sin “in its social effects”; in both instances healing of the body and the community are necessary (Johnson 1995: 342). Such mutual intercession strengthens the community of faith, a community that, it appears, was having serious difficulties (e.g., 2:1; 3:9; 4:1, 12). James seems to connect this “saving” (5:15) not only to the restoration of the body but also to salvation of the soul and future resurrection (cf. 1:21; 2:14; 4:12; 5:20; “raise them up,” 5:15; cf. Wall 1997: 266). James declares that the prayer of a righteous person is both powerful and effective, a statement that, like many other parts of the letter, exhorts members of the community to strive for righteousness in word and deed. The term also echoes the “righteous one” who was “condemned and murdered” (5:6). As an example of effective prayer, James points to Elijah whose fervent prayers (literally “prayed with prayer”) both began and ended a lengthy drought (perhaps echoing God’s giving of rains in James 5:7). Elijah, like the members of the community to whom James writes (cf. confessing their sins to each other), is human and therefore fallible, but God responds to his prayers. This reminder echoes James’s earlier insistence that God gives “generously and ungrudgingly” to those who ask in faith (1:5–6).

The interpretations Ancient and medieval Origen cites James 5:14 near the end of his second homily on Leviticus, which focuses on passages from Leviticus 4. Immediately after his sevenfold list of how sins can be remitted (see James 5:20 below), Origen quotes James 5:14–15 with some revisions. First, Origen replaces “pray over them” with “and they will place their hands on him.” This change could reflect Origen’s assumption that “pray over him” includes the laying on of hands. On the other hand, as Plummer

James 5:12–20  299 suggests, it might reflect current practice in Alexandria (1891: 331). Second, Origen omits “and the Lord will raise them up” (online at http://ldysinger. stjohnsem.edu/@texts/0250_origen/04_hom2_on_lev.htm). Next Origen interprets James 5:14, along with other New Testament passages and acts of penitence, as symbolically fulfilling the Hebrew Bible modes of sacrifices for the forgiveness of sin. The list includes seven items. Baptism, for example, is offering “a calf,” since “you are baptized into Christ’s death” (cf. Rom. 6.3). Martyrdom, however, is the equivalent of offering a “he goat,” because in martyrdom you “kill the devil, the originator of sins.” Converting a sinner who has wandered is calling that person “back from worthless wickedness to the innocence of a dove.” By “clinging to the saints” (cf. Ps. 1.2), you emulate “the fellowship of a dove,” so that is the equivalent of offering to God “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.” John Chrysostom cites James 5:13 in his homily on Hebrews 2:5–7 (Homily IV.7). He decries what, in his view, are the excessive signs of mourning for the dead, “the wailings in the public places, the groanings over those departing life, the howlings, the other unseemly behavior.” He is ashamed before the “heathen, and Jews, and heretics” that Christians behave that way. Those people “laugh us to scorn,” he says, whereas Christians actually, because of Christ’s resurrection, should be “laughing death to scorn.” Hebrews 2:14–15 bears witness to this by saying that Christ’s death freed us who “were held in slavery by the fear of death.” Christians sing hymns at someone’s death to “glorify God, and give thanks that at last He has crowned the departed one, that He has freed him from his labors, that taking away uncertainty, He has him with Himself.” Chrysostom points to James 5:13 as evidence that this singing should be an act of rejoicing. Chrysostom uses James 5:14–15 in his treatise On the Priesthood (III.7). Both Chrysostom and his friend Basil were being pressed into service as bishops. Chrysostom, through a trick on his friend, escaped such service—to his delight, whereas Basil had not—to his chagrin (see On the Priesthood I.6). The first book of this treatise describes and defends his actions, and the other books discuss the dignity and sanctity of the priesthood, as well as its attendant difficulties and perils. Chrysostom discusses “how great a thing it is” for someone to be “entrusted with the administration of things which are in Heaven, and have received an authority which God has not given to angels or archangels” (III.5). Just as Jewish priests had the authority to examine people whom God had “released” from leprosy, so have Christian priests “received authority to deal, not with bodily leprosy, but spiritual uncleanness—not to pronounce it removed after examination, but actually and absolutely to take it away . . .” They have a power greater than our natural parents who “generate us unto this life only,” whereas priests have authority over our life “which is to come” and, as James 5:14–15 attests, also “have authority to forgive sins.”

300  James 5:12–20 Augustine’s tractate on John 13:10–15 stresses the humility that one should learn from Jesus’ washing the disciples’ feet (On the Gospel of John, LVIII). In addition to the “moral understanding” in that action, Augustine argues that “the Lord instituted a sign” that “we might know that we are not exempt from sin.” The washing of feet is symbolic of how Jesus, after we sin, washes away that sin by interceding for us, when we pray to God to forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. Augustine then asks how the command from Jesus to wash one another’s feet (John 13:14–15) is connected to this. James 5:16 clearly states “the precept” that Christians can “cleanse” each other “from the contracted stain of wrongdoing” by confessing their faults to one another and praying for each other. The sinless Jesus gave Christians the example to follow by praying for our sins and forgiving us; therefore Christians should forgive the faults of each other and symbolically “wash one another’s feet” by praying for each other’s faults (cf. Confessions, Book IX, Chapter 4 where Augustine requests intercessionary prayer for a “bitter . . . scourge” of a terrible toothache: “As soon as we had in our simple devotion gone down on our knees, the pain went away”; 1963: 192). The development of James 5:14–15 into a sacrament can be seen in numerous writings. Cyril of Alexandria, for example, cites this passage as an example of what to do if “some part of your body is suffering.” Cyril then exhorts his readers therefore to “call the presbyters” in such an instance and to avoid “the charms and incantations of magicians” (“On Adoration in Spirit and in Truth,” 6; Ropes 1916: 306). Likewise, Caesarius of Arles counsels those who are ill to follow James’s command and ask the presbyters to anoint the body and pray. Part of Caesarius’s advice is to utilize consecrated oil and not to utilize the “common recourse to sorcerers and superstitions” (Sermon 265; Ropes 1916: 306). Earlier (in 416), in a letter responding to a question from Decentius, the Bishop of Gubbio, about James 5:14–15, Pope Innocent declared that this anointing “must undoubtedly be accepted and understood [of the faithful who are sick] as referring to the oil of chrism, prepared by the bishop, which can be used for anointing not only by priests but also by all Christians whenever they themselves or their people are in need of it.” Thus any Christian could anoint the sick, but the oil had to be consecrated by the bishop. A bishop could himself anoint the sick if he “is in a position to do so and thinks it proper,” but the same oil must not be used for those undergoing penance, because “it is of the nature [genus] of a sacrament. How could one think that one kind of sacrament should be allowed to those to whom the rest is denied?” (Dupuis and Neuner 1996: 15–16). The current Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church limits this prescription further, which follows the 1551 Council of Trent and other councils, as a 1995 note by (then) Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger proclaims: “This doctrine is definitive tenenda. Neither deacons nor lay persons may exercise

James 5:12–20  301 the said ministry, and any action in this regard constitutes a simulation of the Sacrament” (www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/ rc_con_cfaith_doc_20050211_unzione-infermi_en.html). Hilary of Arles interprets aspects of James’s example of Elijah symbolically. He begins by noting that James here considers himself inferior to such prophets as Elijah who performed miracles. The timeframe mentioned—three and a half years—may symbolize “the time of the antichrist, but the three years may also stand for the three ages of human history from the creation of time to David, or they may symbolize the patriarchs, the prophets and the apostles.” Hilary decides, however, that Elijah’s miracle does have a clear and relevant message and that its impact may indeed be a communal one. James includes this miracle to encourage Christians “to persevere in their struggle against the unrighteous, for as in the case of Elijah, even if only one person prays, his prayer represents the common mind of all the righteous” (Bray 2000: 62). Bede notes that James builds upon his admonitions against complaining by giving some positive advice for what to do in adverse circumstances. They should not murmur against each other or place the blame on God’s judgments but instead come to church and pray to the Lord on bended knee that God may “send the grace of consolation, lest the sadness of the world swallow you up.” Bede’s translation of James 5:13 does not include, “Are any cheerful?” Thus Bede interprets the “frequent sweetness of psalm-singing” as serving to “drive away the harmful disease of sadness from your heart” (1985: 61). Bede comments that just as the sad should avoid the “foolishness of murmuring,” so should the sick. The sad should pray and sing psalms, but the sick—either in body or in faith—need to include other people. The elders of the church should be involved, because the “younger and less learned” might impart harmful counsel. This custom follows the example of the apostles (Mark 6:13), where Jesus sends out the twelve apostles two by two: They preached repentance, cast out demons, and anointed “with oil many who were sick and healed them.” Yet Bede follows the decree of Pope Innocent that anointing with consecrated oil in the name of the Lord is not just the purview of the presbyters; all Christians could use the same oil of consecration for themselves or their relatives, although the oil has to be consecrated only by bishops (62). The forgiveness of sins is sometimes involved, Bede argues, because many persons are struck with sickness or even death of the body on the account of the sins of their soul. Theophylact deliberates over how the prayers of a righteous person are effective, and he argues that such prayers can be effective only if the person for whom he prays “cooperates with his intentions.” In other words, the prayers of the righteous can actually be “useless” if while they are praying for us “we are wasting our time in idleness and debauchery” (Bray 2000: 62).

302  James 5:12–20 Early modern and modern Martin Luther frequently comments on James 5:13–18. In his Table Talk, for example, he praises the efficacy of prayer by using Augustine’s mother as an example. Although Augustine’s mother was continually at prayer asking that her son be converted, it seemed hopeless. She also approached various learned and holy men asking them to try to persuade her son to become a Christian, but that was to no avail as well. In addition, she proposed that Augustine marry a Christian woman in the hopes that such a marriage would bring him back to the faith. That also failed: But when our Lord God came along he acted effectively and made such an St. Augustine out of him that he’s now called an ornament of the church. So James said well, “Pray for one another,” etc., for “the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (James 5:16). This is one of the best verses in that epistle. Prayer is a powerful thing, if only one believes in it, for God has attached and bound himself to it [by his promises] (LW 54: 454).

Luther’s Commentary on Genesis (43:11–14) highlights Jacob’s short but ardent “prayer of faith” (LW 7: 324). Jacob, Luther believes, pours forth words of faith and of disbelief at the same time: He prays out of faith, but his disbelief causes him anguish, and he almost despairs of Benjamin. This prayer is offered, Luther notes, in the context of a God who sometimes “depicts Himself ” in the form of a woman and mother, one who feeds, governs, satisfies, cares for, and preserves all things. Jacob’s prayer was “most pleasing” to God, and Christians should pray in this way, even when they are weak in faith, as James 5:13 illustrates. Let us not despair, Luther concludes, of the help and kindness of God, who tries and troubles us for our salvation (LW 7: 326). God commands us to pray, Luther writes; therefore, if Christians neglect to pray, they provoke God’s wrath. Christians should thus “pray boldly and with confidence.” God may not give Christians what they wish, but God will give “something else that is better,” since James 5:16 tells us that “earnest and ardent” prayer from a righteous person “avails much”: “For God cannot despise a righteous man and all his works. Even though the world persecutes him, God nevertheless respects his works and words, yes, and even his sufferings” (LW 3: 292). Luther returns to the subject of earnest prayer in his comments on Matthew 7:7–11. People’s needs are unremitting so their prayers should be continual as well: Pray continually, and seek and knock, too, and do not let go . . . Since your need goes right on knocking, therefore, you go right on knocking, too, and do not relent. For you have His word, and He will have to say: “All right, then, you may have what you want.” St. James speaks of this in his Epistle when he says: “The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (5:16) if it is serious and

James 5:12–20  303 persistent; and in support of this he cites the example from Scripture of the prophet Elijah (5:16–17).

Luther insists that God wants people to ask and knock as a test whether they can “hold on tight” and know that their prayers are heard, even if God’s answer is delayed (LW 21: 234–5). One of Luther’s favorite verses of James is 5:17, which he often cites to demonstrate that “saints” and others in scripture are not much different from us. Christians should not imagine that “something higher happened to [the saints] when they lived in the flesh than happens to us, since the flesh of all is the same . . .” Luther agrees with James that Elijah is “a human being like us,” because “the Spirit of all is the same, the faith is the same, Christ is the same, and if we feel the weakness of the flesh against us, if we sometimes slip, let us consider that also those saints were able to slip” (LW 19: 6). Another major point of contention between Luther and his Roman Catholic opponents is whether James 5:14 teaches the sacrament of extreme unction. In his The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, for example, Luther argues against the belief that James 5:14–15 initiates a sacrament. Luther begins by saying that he will ignore the fact that “many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit.” Even if James were the author, though, Luther argues, “no apostle has the right on his own authority to institute a sacrament, that is, to give a divine promise with a sign attached. For this belongs to Christ alone” (LW 36: 118). Luther declares that James’s words are “general,” not an extreme and special kind of unction, since he wrote, “Is any one sick?”; not, as Luther notes, “Is any one dying?” In addition, James 5:15 specifically indicates that this prayer is for the recovery of the sick, not the anointing of the dying, and by “elders,” not necessarily “priests.” Luther concludes that James, therefore, does not prescribe the “ ‘sacrament’ of extreme unction” (LW 36: 119–22). As Luther states elsewhere, “If unction were practiced in accordance with the gospel, Mark 6 [:13] and James 5: [:14], I would let it pass. But to make a sacrament out of [extreme unction] is nonsense” (Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, LW 37: 370). The difference in Luther’s view of the anointing of the sick is reflected in the current Lutheran Service Book. The rite for the visitation of the sick is a regular part of pastoral care, and it includes the option of anointing the sick person with oil. The pastor first reads James 5:14–16, and says the following to the person who is sick: you have confessed your sins and received Holy Absolution. In remembrance of the grace of God given by the Holy Spirit in the waters of Holy Baptism, I will anoint you with oil. Confident in our Lord and in love for you, we also pray for you that you will not lose faith. Know that in godly patience the Church endures

304  James 5:12–20 with you and supports you during this affliction. For we firmly believe that this illness is for the glory of God (John 11:4), and that the Lord will both hear our prayer and work according to His good and gracious will.

Then the pastor concludes with the following prayer: “Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has given you the new birth of water and the Spirit and has forgiven you all your sins, strengthen you with His grace to life everlasting” (Lutheran Service Book 2007: 34). Calvin affirms that suffering should stimulate prayer to God and that prosperity should generate praise of God, but he concludes that human beings “are so depraved, that they cannot enjoy themselves until they forget about God, and when they are in trouble they go into depressions, and sink into utter despair.” Calvin urges his readers, though, to have a mindset in which good times and their enjoyment of them also remind them to proclaim God’s goodness and that sorrowful times should lead them to prayer (1995: 313–14). Calvin, like Luther, rejects extreme unction as a sacrament, but he states that the disciples of Jesus believed unction to be a sacrament. In the first century, though, the gift of healing still “flourished,” and Calvin envisions the “symbol” of unction as being only temporary—“God withdrew [it] from the world fourteen hundred years ago” (314–15). Calvin also takes aim at the sacrament of the “whispering confessional.” James 5:16–18 encourages sharing one another’s sins with our brothers and sisters so that mutual confession and mutual prayer go together. The advantage of confessing to one another is to have the assistance of prayers by fellow Christians: “confession is only taught us to the end that those who know our troubles may have more care to lend us their aid”: [F]or God does not listen to the wicked, and the only approach to God is through a good conscience. Not that our prayers depend upon our own worthiness, but because we must have a heart purged by faith in order to present ourselves before God’s sight. James therefore testifies that there is benefit, and no lack of effect, in the righteous and faithful men praying for us (316–17).

Our prayers become “fully engaged” when we struggle through prayer to help others through difficulties. This effectiveness is increased when we are fully aware of those difficulties and can pray more completely and earnestly on their behalf (317). James’s example of a premier expert at prayer, Elijah, is set more at our level by James stressing that Elijah “was a mortal man of like passions with us”: “We lose some benefit of the saints’ examples when we imagine them to be demigods or heroes, who enjoyed a special relationship with God.” James wants us to consider Elijah in the “infirmity” of his flesh and to realize that the effectiveness of his and other saints’ prayers was not due to their “merits” but to the “efficacy of their prayers” (317–18).

James 5:12–20  305 The Council of Trent, which began in 1545 and continued with intermittent sessions until 1563, instituted reforms within the Roman Catholic Church and defined church doctrine and dogma. The Reformation was not the sole cause of this reform, although it provided an enormous stimulus for its process and pace (Hastings 1999: 270). The Council rejected a number of Protestant doctrines and practices; it reaffirmed, for example, celibacy, the seven sacraments, and transubstantiation. The fourteenth session of the Council (1551–2), in particular, included a response to the Reformation’s challenging the sacrament of extreme unction. In the larger context of the doctrine and acts of penance, the proceedings of the session specifically discusses “Works of Satisfaction,” that is, ways that God has provided “through Jesus Christ to make satisfaction to God the Father.” These include voluntary “punishments” for sin that Christians pursue themselves or at the direction of a priest. Included in this section is the “Sacrament of Extreme Unction.” The Synod argues that the “Fathers” regarded this sacrament as the completion “not only of penance, but also of the whole Christian life, which ought to be a perpetual penance.” This sacrament is a “most firm defence” to spiritual evil at the end of one’s life so that Christians can “preserve themselves whole” (Waterworth 1848: 104). The Synod contends that Jesus instituted this sacrament as “insinuated indeed in Mark” but explicitly “recommended and promulgated to the faithful by James the Apostle, and brother of the Lord.” James 5:14–15 thus teaches “the matter, the form, the proper minister, and the effect of this salutary sacrament.” In addition, the oil must be blessed by a bishop. The effect of the sacrament, in addition to the clear teaching of James, is that the Holy Spirit cleanses away sins and raises up and strengthens the soul of the sick person, by exciting in him a great confidence in the divine mercy; whereby the sick being supported, bears more easily the inconveniences and pains of his sickness; and more readily resists the temptations of the devil who lies in wait for his heel; and at times obtains bodily health, when expedient for the welfare of the soul (Waterworth 1848: 105).

The Synod acknowledges, however, that James does not specify explicitly who ought to receive and administer the sacrament. James says “Presbyters of the Church,” which actually means, the Synod argues, “either bishops, or priests by bishops rightly ordained by the imposition of the hands of the priesthood.” James specifies that the sick should receive this rite, but the Synod states that this applies “to those especially who lie in such danger as to seem to be about to depart this life,” and if they recover, they may receive the sacrament again when “they fall into another like danger of death.” The Synod agrees that the sacrament derives from a “manifest and clear a sentence of the apostle James,” and, without naming their names, condemns the arguments of Luther, Calvin, and

306  James 5:12–20 others that it is not or no longer is a sacrament or is a “human figment” or is not a “promise of grace.” Such arguments are “repugnant to the sentiment of the apostle James” and “are most manifestly at variance with the perspicuous words of so great an apostle.” The Synod concludes that the contempt of “what blessed James has prescribed” of “so great a sacrament” is a “heinous sin, and an injury to the Holy Ghost himself,” and it thus “condemns and anathematizes those who assert what is contrary thereto”: canon i:   If any one saith, that Extreme Unction is not truly and properly a sacrament, instituted by Christ our Lord, and promulgated by the blessed apostle James; but is only a rite received from the Fathers, or a human figment; let him be anathema. canon ii: If any one saith, that the sacred unction of the sick does not confer grace, nor remit sin, nor comfort(h) the sick; but that it has already ceased, as though it were of old only the grace of working Cures; let him be anathema. canon iii:  If any one saith, that the rite and usage of Extreme Unction, which the holy Roman Church observes, is repugnant to the sentiment of the blessed apostle James, and that is therefore to be changed, and may, without sin, be contemned by Christians; let him be anathema. canon iv: If any one saith, that the Presbyters of the Church, whom blessed James exhorts to be brought to anoint the sick, are not the priests who have been ordained by a bishop, but the elders in each community, and that for this Cause a priest alone is not the proper minister of Extreme Unction; let him be anathema. (Waterworth 1848: 107–8) Nicholas Poussin was a seventeenth-century French painter who produced two series of paintings on the seven sacraments. Influenced by his time in Rome, Poussin uses classical norms in these paintings based on his own careful research, and the sacrament of extreme unction was based on Poussin’s understanding of James 5:14–15. This theme is extremely unusual in Poussin’s era, since only one other series on the sacraments existed in Italy before Poussin’s work (a fresco cycle in Naples by Roberto Oderisi) and was only slightly more common in the North. Poussin makes his works unique, however, by trying to situate them in the world of Christian antiquity, instead of using contemporary settings. (Thompson 1981: 63). Initiated by a commission by his patron Cassiano dal Pozzo, Poussin began the first series of paintings in the mid 1630s and finished in 1642. In the painting

James 5:12–20  307

Plate 10.1  Nicolas Poussin, Extreme Unction (ca. 1639)

Extreme Unction in this first series (Plate 10.1), Poussin highlights the role of the priest leaning over the bed, wearing a yellow robe and administering the sacrament. He captures in this work the point in time when the priest anoints the left eyelid of the man nearing death. At least two and possibly three of the onlooking women engage in sorrowful prayer (for more detail, see Green 2000: 150–7). Poussin painted the second series from 1644 to 1648 for Paul Fréart de Chantelou (see www.nationalgalleries.org). The painting Extreme Unction in this series is an extensive reworking of the images found in the painting of the first series and, like the other paintings in this second series, is painted on a larger canvas than its counterpart in the first series, which gives the painting even more grandeur. This painting utilizes chiaroscuro, with light coming from an open window on the left, an open door on the right, a candle held by a young man on the front left of the dying man, and a candle held by a man directly over the dying man. The light from the window reflects off a shield in the center of the painting that is hanging on the back wall of the room. The shield lets the viewers know that the dying man was a Roman soldier who is a Christian. The figures also elicit more pathos from its viewers in this painting. A man in red clothing on the left, for example, raises both arms over the dying man’s body, while holding a candle in his left hand. In addition, Poussin adds a small child—being held by a woman behind the bed—who reaches with both hands across the man’s chest in an effort to touch his face. The chiaroscuro also accentuates the pathos, with some figures being highlighted and

0002020195.INDD 307

9/11/2013 4:35:31 PM

308  James 5:12–20 others—such as the praying woman on her knees in the back—in the shadows (Verdi 1995: 244). The role of the priest is also accentuated—his yellow robe is the most illuminated and brightest color of any clothes in the painting—as he anoints the palm of the dying man (this change from the previous painting allows the addition of a child reaching for the man’s face). The effect of this painting upon its viewers is perhaps best captured through an anecdote about Bernini’s reaction to the painting: He looked at it standing for a while, and then got onto his knees to see it better, changing his glasses from time to time and showing his amazement without saying anything. At last he got up and said that its effect on him was like that of a great sermon, to which one listens with the deepest attention and goes away in silence while enjoying the inner experience (Verdi 1995: 244).

Joseph Scriven (1819–86) was born in Ireland but moved to Canada after his fiancée drowned the night before their scheduled wedding (a second fiancée tragically died of pneumonia shortly before their marriage was to take place). In 1855, when Scriven heard that his mother was suffering in Ireland, he wrote and sent her a poem meant to comfort her that he entitled, “Pray without Ceasing.” The words were published anonymously by J. B. Packard in 1857 and put to music with a new title (“What a Friend We Have in Jesus”) by Charles Converse. In 1886, the year he tragically drowned, Scriven was finally revealed as the author. This extremely popular hymn captures the essence of James’s exhortation for the faithful to call upon God in prayer (Aufdemberge 1997: 425) What a friend we have in Jesus, All our sins and griefs to bear! What a privilege to carry Ev’rything to God in prayer! Oh, what peace we often forfeit, Oh, what needless pain we bear, All because we do not carry Ev’rything to God in prayer! Have we trials and temptations? Is there trouble anywhere? We should never be discouraged— Take it to the Lord in prayer. Can we find a friend so faithful Who will all our sorrows share? Jesus knows our ev’ry weakness— Take it to the Lord in prayer.

James 5:12–20  309 Are we weak and heavy laden, Cumbered with a load of care? Precious Savior, still our refuge— Take it to the Lord in prayer. Do your friends despise, forsake you? Take it to the Lord in prayer. In his arms he’ll take and shield you; You will find a solace there. (Aufdemberge 1997: 424–5)

George Moberly (1803–85), the Bishop of Salisbury, preached a sermon in which he notes that the wording of James 5:16 indicates that it is the action of “praying” not the wording of a prayer that is efficacious. Otherwise, specific words would be like a “charm,” where magical words can be repeated by anyone to produce the same effect, since the power is found “in the words themselves.” In contrast, James attributes the effects to “the constant, earnest praying of the heart, not without words, no doubt, at least in general, but the constant, earnest praying of the heart.” It is this action of “continuous heart-praying” by a righteous person who is “earnestly bent on rendering to God in his own body, soul, and spirit, by the help of the Holy Ghost, the offering of a righteous and saintly life.” This praying has power, because its strength lies in the energy of its working; it sets on foot a mighty system of energies. The angels of God exult, the souls of men are wrought upon, the course of human events is guided, the grace of God is won, the Holy Spirit of God is abundantly poured out, by the secret incessant working of the mighty spiritual power that belongs to the “praying of the righteous man” (The Sermon Bible 1900: 372).

Alfred Plummer’s commentary on James discusses the implications of James’s example of Elijah concerning the “Biblical authority for prayers for changes of weather.” Plummer notes that James must have used Elijah in the hopes that his intended audience of “ordinary people” would imitate the prophet, so James makes sure he stresses that Elijah was “a man of like nature” to them. Plummer quotes the Bishop of Manchester from a meeting of the British Association on September 4, 1887. The Bishop asks whether Christians who are suffering from such problems as the lack or overabundance of rain should ask God “to interfere.” What if every Christian did that? What would happen if every Christian prayed and prevailed in those prayers; each believer would be the judge of what would be best for “himself and his neighbor,” and the “order of the world” would be at the mercy of all such believers: “The scientist would find all of his researches for rule and law baffled; the agriculturalist would find all his calculations upset.” Plummer’s answer to the Bishop’s question is that no one should pray to God to ask for “absolute control” of

310  James 5:12–20 the forces of nature. Instead, one should ask God for mercy in God’s control of the forces of nature. One should pray in submission to the divine will and for the wisdom to comply with that will. On the other hand, it may indeed be God’s will that a “prayer of faith should be a force that can influence other forces.” A lightning rod can change the activity of the force of nature by redirecting electric current, why should not the “earnest prayer of the righteous?” Plummer concludes that it is “better for us that we should be able to influence by our prayers God’s direction of events than that we should be unable to do so; therefore a merciful Father has placed this power within our reach” (1891: 344–9). Chapter 5 (“Confession and Communion”) of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s (1906– 45) Life Together begins by quoting James 5:16 and notes that “He who is alone with his sin is utterly alone” (1976: 110). The chapter then outlines the spiritual benefits of following James’s admonition “to confess your sins to one another.” Bonhoeffer stresses that God loves you as you are and wants to be gracious to you. This liberating message frees us from lying to each other; we “can dare to be a sinner.” God gives Christians the authority to hear the confession of other Christians and to offer forgiveness in God’s name (citing John 20:33). The one who hears our confession of sin, then, stands in the place of God and has been given by God to help us (111–12). The problem, as Bonhoeffer sees it, is that sin causes a person to “shun the light” and to retreat into isolation from community. Confession of sin to another Christian, however, causes sin to lose its power, restores fellowship, and the confessor “can still be a sinner and enjoy the grace of God” with sins now forgiven by God. Bonhoeffer admits that confessing one’s sin to another person is humiliating, but that is the point: confession is a blow to one’s pride, but just as Jesus dies a shameful death on the cross, we must be willing “to take upon ourselves the shameful death of a sinner in confession”: In the deep mental and physical pain of humiliation before a brother—which means, before God—we experience the Cross of Jesus as our rescue and salvation. The old man dies, but it is God who has conquered him. Now we share in the resurrection of Christ and eternal life (114).

Bonhoeffer wonders why it seems easier to confess our sins to God than to each other when God is “holy and sinless” but fellow Christians are as “sinful as we are.” It is through our fellow Christians, though, that God gives us the certainty of God’s forgiveness, and therefore it is better for our sins to come to light with a fellow Christian “rather than on the last day in the piercing light of the final judgment.” Confessing our sins to one another is a grace from God that “spares us the terrors of the last judgment” (116). Confessing one’s sins to another Christian is not “a law”; instead it is an offer from God “of divine help for the sinner”: “mutual,

James 5:12–20  311 brotherly confession is given to us by God in order that we may be sure of divine forgiveness” (117), it restores us to community, and it especially prepares us “for the common reception of the holy Communion” (121). Richard Foster’s book, Celebration of Discipline, delineates twelve spiritual disciplines that are the “path to spiritual growth” and the “door to liberation.” The twelve disciplines are inward (meditation, prayer, fasting, and study), outward (simplicity, solitude, submission, and service), and corporate (confession, worship, guidance, and celebration). Foster observes that objections could be raised about including “confession” in the category of “corporate” spiritual disciplines, because confession is a private matter between an individual and God. He agrees that confession should be a private matter, as “underscored in the Reformation” that Jesus is the only “mediator between God and men” (1 Tim. 2:5) but, similar to Bonhoeffer, argues that it is a “both/and” situation, not an “either/or” one. What James 5:16 says about confessing our sins to one another reveals that this spiritual discipline is also a corporate one: if we know that the people of God are first a fellowship of sinners we are freed to hear the unconditional call of God’s love and to confess our need openly before our brothers and sisters . . . We are sinners together. In acts of mutual confession we release the power that heals. Our humanity is no longer denied but transformed (1978: 125–7).

For Elsa Tamez this section reflects James’s concern that members of these communities “strengthen themselves from within” in light of the oppression from outside the communities. If someone suffers, the whole community should pray; if someone rejoices, the whole community should sing; if someone is sick, the elders of the community should pray for healing (2002: 56). Tamez also stresses that James speaks of the need for prayer in times of oppression and violence, pain and abandonment (5:13), because prayer strengthens the spirit and enables Christians to work for liberation (57–8). Rejoicing with one another in joy and communal prayers is also important for the good of the entire community. Members should pray for one another, all the community, not just the elders, because prayer strengthens Christians in times of suffering, gives fullness to their joy, and restores their bodies (58). Tamez concludes that James here emphasizes the power of fervent and constant prayer. James again insists that this is not the exclusive responsibility of the great leaders like the prophet Elijah, but that all the members of the community have this power . . . (5:17). In other words, the author challenges the communities to adopt the practice of prayer. Prayer will comfort them in their oppression, will exalt them in their hope, and will help them to achieve integrity in the practice of justice, as Christians faithful to God (59).

312  James 5:12–20

James 5:19–20 Ancient literary context James abruptly concludes the letter with a sentence addressed to his “brothers and sisters.” The communal aspects of confessing sins to one another is expanded into the communal aspects of bringing “back a sinner from wandering,” restoring back into the community someone who formerly had been a member (“among you,” 5:19). The person wandering “from the truth” (cf. 1:18; 3:14) could be an example of what James warned about in 1:12–15: being “tempted by one’s own desire.” Such enticement, including being a “friend of the world,” “gives birth to sin and . . . death,” but James’s goal is for his readers to remain a “friend of God” (2:23–4; 4:4). James, perhaps because “all of us make many mistakes” (3:2) and “mercy triumphs over judgment” (2:13), shows mercy even in this instance and delivers assurance of two things: First, “his soul” is saved from death (cf. 1:21, where the “implanted word” has that power). The NRSV understands “his” to refer to the sinner who wandered away, but it is possible that the text refers to the one who brings the sinner back. Bringing back a “wanderer” is another way of showing one’s faith by works and could be an example of seeing a brother or sister in need and meeting those needs (2:14–26). The second assurance James gives is that this action “will cover a multitude of sins.” As Johnson notes, most scholars conclude that the soul being saved “belongs to the one corrected” and that “cover a multitude of sins” denotes the restorer. Johnson argues, though, that both assurances are directed to the one who is corrected (1995: 339 cf. Dibelius 1975: 258-9). Hartin, however, sees both assurances being directed to the sinner who returns (2003: 286), whereas Vouga says that the ambiguity of the Greek makes it impossible to reach a definitive conclusion (1984: 146). No matter how one interprets these two verses, Hartin’s words are apt: “The correction of the sinner that leads to repentance and forgiveness has implications both for the individual and for the community. The social consequences of sin are no longer felt within the community and its wholeness is restored” (2003: 287). Without echoing exact words, James once again inherits the spirit of Jesus’ teachings. One is reminded, for example, of Jesus’ declaration that there is “more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance (Luke 15:7; cf. Matt. 18:10–22). James, like Jesus before him, stresses how much God values the return of one who has wandered away; the community, like God, should value and celebrate the return of the prodigal.

James 5:12–20  313

The interpretations Ancient and medieval Near the end of his second homily on Leviticus, on passages selected from Leviticus 4, Origen delineates seven ways in which God forgives sins: •  Baptism (Mark 1:4). •  Suffering martyrdom. •  Giving alms: “For the Savior says, ‘but nevertheless, give what you have and, behold, all things are clean for you’ ” (Luke 11:41). •  Forgiving the sins of those who sin against us (Matt. 6:12, 14–15). •  Converting a sinner from wandering covers “a multitude of sins” (James 5:20). •  Abundance of love (such as the sinful woman in Luke 7:47; 1 Pet 4:8, which says “love covers a multitude of sins”). •  Penance, although it is “difficult and toilsome” (Pss. 6:7; 31:5; 41:5) http:// ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/@texts/0250_origen/04_hom2_on_lev.htm. In this homily, Origen thus appears to suggest, although it is not absolutely clear, that the one who restores a sinner receives forgiveness of sins by God. John Cassian’s account of the “Conference of Abbot Pinufius” (Conference XX.8) discusses the various fruits of penitence, and the list is expanded from seven to eleven. These fruits of penitence “succeed in expiating our sins.” Included in Abbot Pinufius’s list is James 5:14–15, where pardon of one’s sins can be accomplished “by the intercession of the saints.” The full list is: •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  • 

baptism martyrdom affection of love (1 Pet. 4:8) almsgiving (Sirach 3:30) shedding of tears (Ps. 6:7, 9) confession of sins (Ps. 32:5) afflicting the heart and body (Ps. 25:17–18) changing one’s life (Isa. 1:16–18) intercession of the saints (James 5:14–15) compassion and faith (Prov. 15:27) salvation of those who are saved by our warnings and preaching (James 5:20) pardon and forgiveness on our part (Matt. 6:14).

The context suggests that the one who restores a sinner also receives forgiveness of sins by God, because, in Cassian’s account, converting a sinner is linked

314  James 5:12–20 to forgiving others. One receives forgiveness from God, citing James 5:20, “by the conversion and salvation of those who are saved by our warnings and preaching.” In addition, Matthew 6:14 tells us that by forgiving others, we receive forgiveness from God: You see then what great means of obtaining mercy the compassion of our Saviour has laid open to us, so that no one when longing for salvation need be crushed by despair, as he sees himself called to life by so many remedies . . . But if you cannot secure perfection in goodness by the eradication of all your faults, you can show a pious anxiety for the good and salvation of another. But if you complain that you are not equal to this service, you can cover your sins by the affection of love (Conference XX.8).

Some interpreters focus on the intention and effort of the one who attempts to reclaim a sinner. Hilary of Arles, for example, declares that if someone preaches to sinners, even if the attempt to convert them is unsuccessful, the attempt itself “will save his soul” (Bray 2000: 63). Bede argues that James appends these final two verses to show how much value God places upon praying for the sick and bringing back those who had wandered away. Earlier parts of the letter, where James calls for the restraint of our tongues, are connected to these concluding verses, where James indicates “what particularly we ought to be speaking.” We are to pray, sing psalms, and confess our sins to one another “that we may be saved,” but we are also enjoined to provide care for the temporal and eternal health of our neighbors: “For if it is a matter of great reward to snatch the body, which is going to die in the end, from death, how worthwhile is it to set free from death the soul which will live forever in the heavenly homeland?” (1985: 64). Bede observes that because of the ambiguity of the Greek, verse 20 can also be correctly interpreted as some manuscripts have it, “he will save his own soul from death.” Bede’s conclusion is that “in truth the one who corrects someone who strays through this gains for himself the higher rewards of heavenly life” (64). Bede then notes the similarity to 1 Peter 4:8 (“love covers a multitude of sins”) and declares that this turning back of someone who strays is accomplished not only by speaking but often by acting well, an emphasis that reflects James’s statement about “good works”: For if anyone shows his neighbors the examples of good action and turns them back to imitating the works of almsgiving or hospitality or of the other virtues which they had neglected, even though his tongue be silent, he actually executes the office of teacher and obtains from the devoted judge a sure reward in return for the salvation of his brother whom he has corrected (65).

James 5:12–20  315 So Bede, like others before him, affirms that the act of restoring a sinner obtains forgiveness from God for one’s other sins. In addition, he counsels his readers (cf. the reprimand to teachers in James 3:1) that Christians should not seek glory for themselves, whether in teaching or in converting others; instead, Christians should do those things out of love for other human beings (64–5). Early modern and modern John Calvin acknowledges the importance of God’s concern for the poor but also stresses the higher importance of conversion. Nothing, Calvin writes, is more noble or desirable than wresting another “soul from eternal death,” such as someone bringing back an errant sinner to the faith. Calvin insists that even though it is vitally important to meet the needs of the poor, the most important thing Christians can do is to help save someone’s soul through one’s ministry of word and deed: We must not neglect such splendid work. To give food to the hungry and drink to the thirsty—we know how Christ values these: but the salvation of the soul is far more precious to Him than the life of the body. So we must beware, or souls redeemed by Christ may perish by our carelessness, for their salvation to some degree was put into our hands by God. We do not confer salvation upon them, but God uses our ministry to deliver and preserve what otherwise seemed near destruction (1995: 318).

Charles Deems states that James’s concluding sentence “closes the circle of his instructions” and “sets before us the loftiest employment” (1888: 309). After mutual confessions that stem from injurious disagreements, after prayers have been offered for each other, the results of these efforts would be the saving of souls from death. It is possible to turn people around from intellectual, moral, and spiritual “wanderings,” but Deems stresses that this conversion comes not by force but by the power of “saving truth” (313): “There cannot be any other work so grand as this. There cannot be any other work that myriads of years from this time shall give such profound satisfaction as to save a soul from death” (316). Bringing back a sinner not only covers a multitude of sins but also prevents the “reduplicating power of sinfulness”: Let anyone consider for a moment what might have been the increased badness of the world if Paul, or Augustine, or John Newton, or any other sinner . . . had not been converted when he was converted, but had gone on to an old age increasing the number and influence of his own sins, and multiplying corrupting agencies in the community . . . If the conversion had not taken place the injuriousness of each man’s life would have been very manifest to the world. What he was saved

316  James 5:12–20 from doing by his conversion can never be known; but a sober calculation of the probabilities can be made from what is known of the life when it was bad (318).

Alfred Plummer declares that the person who “wanders from the truth” designates “the lives of notorious sinners, and not the views of those who differ from us, that we are urged to correct” (emphases in the original). In other words, saving sinners is more important that correcting others’ “faulty” doctrines. Plummer observes that winning over ones who differ from our precise doctrinal or “religious opinions” to most people is a “much more congenial employment than that of endeavouring to reclaim the profligate” (1891: 355). But James, Plummer believes, is speaking about a universal obligation of Christians to bring wandering Christians back into the fold. Thus it is ironic that “comparatively few of us are qualified to deal with the erroneous opinions of others,” the one thing we love to do. In addition, what seems to us to be errors in doctrine may actually be closer to the truth than the beliefs we ourselves hold. And it is also the case that even when such differing opinions are in error, that error may not be as harmful as one might think. Furthermore, attempting to convince others of their errors in doctrine may actually be more harmful than their holding those erroneous beliefs to begin with, because the “goodness of their hearts” may direct what they say and do instead of the “erratic convictions of their heads.” Plummer thus argues that “an inadequate or even faulty principle is better than no principle at all,” and even if we succeed in causing others to abandon a mistaken belief, we cannot be sure of our success in convincing them to take up a correct one in its place (354–7). How can one bring back sinners into the Christian community? Plummer declares that one major instrument is the “prayer of faith.” Like Martin Luther in his discussion of James 5:13–18, Plummer points to the example of Monica, the mother of Augustine. For almost a decade Monica tried every means she could to convert Augustine to Christianity. Eventually, those prayers worked: “He himself attributed all that was good in him to his mother’s tears and prayers” (358). Plummer declares, though, that the best way to bring errant sinners back to the Christian life is by one’s good example: “A holy life is the best sermon, the most effectual remonstrance, the strongest incentive, the most powerful plea.” This mode, Plummer contends, is the one James recommends throughout the epistle: “not words, but works; not professions, but deeds; not fair speeches, but kind acts” (358–9). “Be doers of the word, James says, “and not merely hearers who deceive themselves” (1:22).

Biographies Adams, Sarah Fuller Flower (1805–48), English Unitarian poet who wrote the hymn, “Nearer, My God, to Thee.” Aquinas, Thomas (1225–74), Italian Dominican priest, philosopher, and Christianity’s first major systematic theologian. Arnot, William (1808–75), author and Scottish minister of the Free Church of Scotland who pastored churches in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Athanasius (296–373), anti-Arian Bishop of Alexandria who cites James extensively. Augustine (354–430), Bishop of Hippo and the most influential theologian of Western Christianity. Author of voluminous letters, sermons, commentaries, and other books, who also engaged in a number of controversies with such groups as Donatists, Arians, and Pelagians. James Through the Centuries, First Edition. David B. Gowler. © 2014 David B. Gowler. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

318 Biographies Baur, Ferdinand Christian (1792–1860), Professor of Church History and Dogmatics in Tübingen famous for his dialectical view of primitive Christianity in which “catholic Christianity” emerged from a conflict between the Pauline Gentile Christianity and the Petrine Jewish Christianity (which includes the Jewish Christianity represented by James the brother of Jesus). Bede the Venerable (673–735), Northumbrian monk, chronicler of English Christianity, and biblical exegete. His commentary on James dialogues with earlier authors such as Augustine. Blake, William (1757–1827), English artist, poet, and visionary. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich (1906–45), German Lutheran theologian, author, pastor, and musician. A founding member of the Confessing Church, Bonhoeffer opposed Adolf Hitler, was incarcerated in the Flossenburg concentration camp, and was executed on the orders of Heinrich Himmler. Bossuet, Jacques (1627–1704), Court Preacher for Louis XIV in France and participant in the Catholic Counter Reformation. Buechner, Frederick (1926– ), Presbyterian minister, theologian, and author of over thirty books. Bunyan, John (1628–88), member of an independent congregation in England, imprisoned for his nonconformist preaching, and author of the famous allegorical novel, The Pilgrim’s Progress. Calthrop, Gordon (1823–94), Vicar of St. Augustine’s Church, Highbury, Prebendary of St. Paul’s Cathedral, and author. Calvin, John (1509–64), pre-eminent Reformed theologian and biblical interpreter. His commentary on James anticipates a historical-critical approach by focusing on the “original” meaning of the text in its literary and historical contexts. Cassian, John (360–435), ascetic monk whose Institutes made known in the West the rules of Egyptian monastic traditions and were a significant influence on the Rule of Saint Benedict. Cassiodorus (ca. 490 – ca. 585), Roman author and statesman who, after his retirement, became a monk. Chaucer, Geoffrey (ca. 1340–1400), English diplomat, philosopher, and poet, most famous for writing Canterbury Tales. Chávez, César (1927–93), American farm-worker and civil rights leader who was dedicated to non-violent civil action. Chávez founded the National Farm Workers Association, which later became the United Farm Workers of America. Chrysologus, Peter (ca. 405–50), Bishop of Ravenna who uses James in his homilies. Chrysostom, John (345–407), deacon and presbyter in Antioch and Bishop of Constantinople. Identified James, the brother of Jesus, as the author of the Epistle of James. His support of the epistle was critical in James’s acceptance as scripture in the Syrian church. Clough, A. H. (1819–61), English Victorian poet whose religious views led him to resign his teaching position at Oxford. He later served in the Education Office and worked for Florence Nightingale. His unfinished Dipsychus is a Faustian dialogue that uses James’s Greek term for “double-souled.” Crosby, Frances Jane (Fanny) (1820–1915), prolific Methodist hymn-writer in the United States.

Biographies  319 Cyril of Alexandria (ca. 376–444), Bishop of Alexandria and all Egypt and one of the most important theologians of the fourth and fifth centuries. Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 315–86), Bishop of Jerusalem who cites James in a sermon on the Pool of Bethesda and a catechetical lecture on “The Father.” Dale, Robert William (1829–95), pastor of Carr’s Lane Congregational Church in Birmingham, England, whose sermons utilize James for socio-economic issues. Deems, Charles F. (1820–93), founder and first pastor of the non-denominational Church of the Strangers in New York City, as well as an academic at the University of North Carolina and Randolph Macon College, before becoming president of Greensboro Female College. His Gospel of Common Sense attempts to put James’s faith and ethics into concrete practice. Didymus the Blind (ca. 313–98), Alexandrian theologian and biblical exegete. The first extant commentary on James is attributed to him. Dionysius of Alexandria (third century), student of Origen who became head of the catechetical school in Alexandria (ca. 232) and Bishop of Alexandria (ca. 247). Doddridge, Philip (1702–51), one of the “dissenting clergy” in eighteenth-century England. A prolific author, one of his books helped convert William Wilberforce to Christianity. Douglass, Frederick (ca. 1818–95), former slave who became a leader in the abolitionist movement to work for human equality and civil rights. His speeches and writings, including autobiographies, argued for the equality of all people. The Epistle of James features prominently in many of his lectures. Eckhart, Meister (ca. 1260–1327), German Dominican preacher, theologian, and mystic. Edwards, Jonathan (1703–58), the most famous theologian of the First Great Awakening in the United States. A pastor who also served as a missionary to Native Americans and as president of the College of New Jersey (Princeton University). Erasmus, Desiderius (1469–1536), renowned Dutch Humanist priest and theologian who, although critical of the abuses within the Roman Catholic church, remained within it. Eusebius (260–339), Bishop of Caesarea and prolific author. His Ecclesiastical History contains accounts from Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement of Alexandria of the martyrdom of James. master  of Farrar, Frederic W. (1831–1903), Chaplain to Queen Victoria, head­ Marlborough College, a Canon of Westminster Abbey, rector of  St.  Margaret’s, Westminster, Arch-deacon of Westminster, and Dean of Canterbury. Fox, George (1624–91), English Dissenter who founded the Religious Society of Friends. Used Jesus/James’s injunction against swearing oaths. Gladden, Washington (1836–1918), prolific author, Congregationalist pastor, and one of the early members of the Social Gospel movement in the United States. Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von (1749–1832), German author, artist, and politician whose Faust gives an example of a “double-minded person.” Goodwin, Harvey (1818–91), mathematician at Cambridge University until his ordination. Became Dean of Ely Cathedral and also the Bishop of Carlisle. Gregory the Great (ca. 540–604), the first monk to become pope. He was an extremely active and influential pope who extended the sovereignty of the Bishop of Rome.

320 Biographies Guthrie, Thomas (1803–73), popular preacher and minister in the Free Church of Scotland. A statue of him was erected in Edinburgh with an inscription that reads in part that he, like James, was “A friend of the poor and of the oppressed.” Gutiérrez, Gustavo (1928– ), Roman Catholic theologian and Dominican priest whose work helped galvanize liberation movements in Latin American Catholicism after Vatican II. Hardy, E. J. (1849–1920), Irish chaplain in the royal army for over twenty-five years; first came to fame because of his book, How to Be Happy Though Married (1887). Heermann, Johann (1585–1647), German poet laureate, hymn-writer, and Lutheran pastor. Helvidius (fourth century), made famous by Jerome’s vigorous opposition to his ­position against the perpetual virginity of Mary. Henry, Matthew (1662–1714), influential Presbyterian minister in England who wrote a popular commentary on the whole Bible. Hilary of Arles (ca. 401–49), Bishop of Arles who promoted reforms but came into conflict with Pope Leo when Hilary interfered with provinces out of his jurisdiction. Hus, Jan (1369–1415), influenced by Wyclif, Hus was a Czech priest reformer convicted of heresy at the Council of Constance and burned at the stake. Jerome (ca. 342–420), most famous for his primary role in the production of the Vulgate and proponent of the Hieronymian theory, named after him, which states that the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus are actually Jesus’ cousins. Josephus (37 – ca. 100 CE), Jewish politician, soldier, and historian who provides in his Antiquities of the Jews a brief mention of the death of James. Kierkegaard, Søren (1813–55), Danish philosopher and theologian who championed James in his quest to get the church to put biblical teachings into practice. Kingo, Thomas Hansen (1634–1703), Danish bishop, poet, and hymnist who wrote the hymn “Dearest Jesus, Draw Thou Near to Me.” Lenin, Vladimir (1870–1924), founder of the Russian Communist Party, leader of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, and first leader of the USSR. Leo the Great (? – 461 CE), powerful pope (440–61) who exerted great religious and political leadership. Convinced Attila the Hun not to sack Rome and wrote a tome that provided the Council of Chalcedon with guidance on how to formulate the divinity of Christ (one divine person with two natures, human and divine). Lewis, C. S. (1898–1963), Professor of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge and Oxford. Author of popular Christian works for both adults and children. Lollards, The (late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries), English Dissenters and Reform movement based on the teachings of John Wyclif. Luiken, Jan (1649–1712), Dutch engraver and poet. Luther, Martin (1483–1546), Augustinian monk, Professor of Biblical Literature at Wittenberg, and leader of the Protestant Reformation in Germany. Although he also expressed appreciation for the epistle, he famously called James “an epistle of straw” and doubted its apostolic authorship and authority. Maclaren, Alexander (1826–1910), Baptist minister born in Glasgow who served churches in Southampton and Manchester. Manton, Thomas (1620–77), English Puritan who served as a chaplain to Oliver Cromwell, as Lecturer at Westminster Abbey, and as Rector of St. Paul’s (Covent Garden) in London.

Biographies  321 Marsilius of Padua (ca. 1280–1343), Italian political philosopher whose Defender of the Peace (1324) denies that the pope/church has “coercive power,” a critical step toward the beginning of the Protestant Reformation and of modern democracy. Mathews, Shailer (1863–1941), leader in the Social Gospel movement in the United States who served as Dean at the University of Chicago Divinity School. Mathews emphasized the socio-historical method in its approach to biblical texts and championed the academic study of the Bible in opposition to the emerging fundamentalist movement in the United States. Maximus the Confessor (ca. 580–662), one of the greatest Byzantine theologians, perhaps best known for his opposition to Monothelitism, the idea that although Jesus had two natures, divine and human, Jesus only had one divine will, not a human will. Mayor, Joseph B. (1828–1916), born in Ceylon (Sri Lanka), the son of missionaries, he was Professor of Classics at King’s College, London, and an honorary fellow of St. John’s College in Cambridge. Published a magisterial commentary on James in 1892. Mays, Benjamin (1894–1984), pastor, professor, President of Morehouse College, Dean of Howard University’s school of Religion, and a mentor to Martin Luther King, Jr., during Dr. King’s student days at Morehouse. Moberly, George (1803–85), fellow and tutor at Balliol College, Oxford University; Headmaster of Winchester; Rector of Brightstone, Isle of Wight; and Bishop of Salisbury. Morris, Leila Naylor (1862–1929), American Methodist hymnist who wrote “Nearer, Still Nearer.” Nouwen, Henri (1932–96), Catholic priest born in Holland who taught at the University of Notre Dame and the divinity schools of Yale and Harvard. He also lived with Trappist monks, ministered among the poor in Peru, and served as pastor of communities of people with disabilities in both France and Canada. Oecumenius (ca. 990), Bishop of Trikka. A number of commentaries are attributed to him, including one on James. The designation Ps.-Oecumenius denotes that his authorship of the work is questionable. Origen (ca. 185–254?), Alexandrian theologian and exegete. Later based in Caesarea, where he was tortured for his faith. The first person to cite James explicitly as scripture. Pelagius (ca. 360 – ca. 430), British monk and theologian who was a target of Augustine’s criticisms on the nature of God’s grace and human involvement in salvation. A work attributed to Pelagius, On Riches, cites James about the treatment of the poor. Plummer, Alfred (1841–1926), scholar at Oxford (Trinity College) and Durham (University College). Author of numerous books, including a commentary on James and Jude in The Expositor’s Bible series (1891). Poussin, Nicolas (1594–1665), the greatest French painter of the seventeenth century, who spent most of his career in Rome and whose mature works include a classical grandeur. Powers, Harriet (1837–1910), born a slave in Georgia in the United States, she was a quilt-maker whose Pictorial Quilt 1898 seems to incorporate James 5 in its images. Rauschenbusch, Walter (1861–1916), premier theologian of the Social Gospel movement in the United States. Ropes, James Hardy (1866–1933), Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard University who published the classic commentary, The Epistle of St. James, in 1916.

322 Biographies Russell, F. A. Rollo (1849–1914), elected to the Royal Meteorological Society when he was nineteen years old, he became well known for his study of the fog and smog in London. A member of the Unitarian Church, he also wrote hymns that often included his understanding of science. Scriven, Joseph (1819–86), Irish poet who wrote the words for what became the hymn, “What a Friend We Have in Jesus.” Shakespeare, William (1564–1616), English playwright and poet. Simons, Menno (ca. 1496–1561), Roman Catholic priest who became the most influential Anabaptist leader in the Netherlands. His followers became known as Mennonites. Spenser, Edmund (1552–99), English poet and author of The Faerie Queene, a celebration of the Protestantism of the Elizabethan period. Spurgeon, Charles (1834–92), Baptist minister renowned for his sermons, who pastored New Park Street Chapel, which under his leadership moved to the Metropolitan Tabernacle. He founded what later was renamed Spurgeon’s College. Tamez, Elsa (1950– ), Emeritus Professor of Biblical Studies and former Director at Latin American Biblical University in San Jose, Costa Rica. Tamez is one of the foremost creators and proponents of Latin American liberation theology from a feminist perspective. Theophylact (ca. 1050 – ca. 1108), Bishop of Ohrid. A commentary on James is attributed to him. Weidner, Revere F. (1851–1915), Professor of Dogmatics, Exegesis, and Hebrew at Augustana College and Theological Seminary (1882–94). Weigel, Christoph (1654–1725), German engraver and publisher. Wesley, Charles (1707–88), Anglican priest, brother of John Wesley, who wrote over 8,000 hymns, including several that incorporate James. Wesley, John (1703–91), Anglican priest, itinerant preacher, and founder of Methodism. Responds to James in his Notes on the Whole Bible (1754). Whittier, John Greenleaf (1807–92), poet, Quaker, and abolitionist who helped form the Republican Party in the United States. William of Ockham (ca. 1285–1347), English Franciscan and philosopher (e.g., “Ockham’s Razor”), who wrote treatises about the use of imperial and papal power, entered into a religious and political dispute with Pope John XXII, and sought the protection of Ludwig of Bavaria. Wordsworth, Charles (1806–92), brother of Christopher Wordsworth, nephew of poet William Wordsworth, classics scholar, Bishop of Durham, one of the founders of the Oxford and Cambridge boat race (in 1829 while a tutor at Christ Church), and author of a book on Shakespeare and the Bible (1892). Wordsworth, Christopher (1807–85), Bishop of Lincoln, brother of Charles Wordsworth, and nephew of William Wordsworth, who wrote a commentary on the Greek New Testament (1872). Wyclif, John (ca. 1324–84), Oxford University scholar and theologian, who argued for the authority of the Bible, attacked abuses in the church, and helped lay a foundation for the Protestant Reformation.

References Adamson, James. 1976. The Epistle of James. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Adamson, James. 1989. James: The Man and His Message. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Atajanyan, Emmanuel. 2003. The Armenian Sanctuaries in Jerusalem. Moscow: Slovo. Aufdemberge, C. T. 1997. Christian Worship. Milwaukee, WI: Northwestern. Augustine. 1963. The Confessions of St. Augustine. New York: Penguin. Aymer, Margaret. 2008. First Pure, Then Peaceable: Frederick Douglass Reads James. London: T. & T. Clark. Baker, William R. 1995. Personal Speech-Ethics: A Study of the Epistle of James Against Its Background. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Baker, William R. and Thomas Ellsworth. 2004. Preaching James. St. Louis, MO: Chalice. Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1984. The Problem of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. James Through the Centuries, First Edition. David B. Gowler. © 2014 David B. Gowler. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

324 References Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1991. The Dialogic Imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press. Batten, Alicia. 2007. “Ideological Strategies in James.” Pages 6–26 in Reading James with New Eyes. Edited by Robert L. Webb and John S. Kloppenborg. London: T. & T. Clark. Batten, Alicia. 2008. “The Degraded Poor and the Greedy Rich: Exploring the Language of Poverty and Wealth in James.” Pages 65–77 in The Social Sciences and Biblical Translation. Edited by Dietmar Neufeld. Atlanta, GA: SBL. Batten, Alicia. 2009. What Are They Saying about the Letter of James? New York: Paulist. Batten, Alicia. 2010. Friendship and Benefaction in James. Blandford Forum, Dorset: Deo. Bauckham, Richard J. 1999. James: Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage. London: Routledge. Baur, F. C. 1878. The Church History of the First Three Centuries. London: Williams and Norgate. The BBC Hymn Book. 1951. London: Oxford University Press. Bede the Venerable. 1985. Commentary on the Seven Catholic Epistles. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian. Bedford, Richard. 1911. St. James the Less. London: Quaritch. Blake, William. 1966. Blake’s Job. Introduction and commentary by S. Foster Damon. Providence, RI: Brown University Press. Blomberg, Craig. 1999. Neither Poverty nor Riches. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Blomberg, Craig and Mariam Kamell. 2008. James. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Bloom, Harold. 1998. Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. New York: Riverhead Books. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. 1976. Life Together. New York: Harper & Row. Bradstock, Andrew and Christopher C. Rowland, eds. 2002. Radical Christian Writings. Oxford: Blackwell. Bray, Gerald, ed. 2000. James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity. Brosend, William. 2004. James and Jude. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buechner, Frederick. 1973. Wishful Thinking: A Theological ABC. New York: Harper & Row. Buechner, Frederick. 1977. Telling the Truth: The Gospel as Tragedy, Comedy, and Fairy Tale. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Bunyan, John. 1960. The Pilgrim’s Progress. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burgess, William. 1903. The Bible in Shakespeare. Chicago: Winona. Byron, Gay L. 2007. “James.” Pages 461–75 in True to Our Native Land: An African American New Testament Commentary. Edited by Cain Hope Felder, Clarice J. Martin, and Emerson B. Powery. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress. Calvin, John. 1995. A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke; and James and Jude. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Cassiodorus. 1991. Cassiodorus: Explanation of the Psalms. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist. Chrysologus, Peter. 1953. Selected Sermons. New York: Fathers of the Church. Chrysologus, Peter. 2005. Selected Sermons, Vol. 3. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America. Chrysostom, John. 1985. Homilies on Genesis, 1–17. Washington, DC: Catholic University Press.

References  325 Clough, A. H. 1974. The Poems of Arthur Hugh Clough. Edited by F. F. Mulhauser. Oxford: Clarendon. Cocoris, Michael. 1989. “When Life Deals You a Lemon, Make a Lemonade.” Pages 221– 30 in Biblical Sermons: How Twelve Preachers Apply the Principles of Biblical Preaching. Edited by Haddon W. Robinson. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker. Davids, Peter H. 1982. The Epistle of James. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Davies, J. G. 1980. The Early Christian Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker. Davies, Philip R. 1999. “James in the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 17–31 in James the Just and Christian Origins. Edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans. Leiden: Brill. Deems, Charles F. 1888. Gospel of Common Sense. New York: Wilbur Ketcham. Deppe, Dean B. 1989. The Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James. Chelsea, MI: Bookcrafters. Dibelius, Martin. 1975. James. Philadelphia: Fortress. Douglass, Frederick. 1845. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass an American Slave. Written by Himself. Boston: Anti-slavery Office. Available online at project.gutenberg.org. Douglass, Frederick. 1979. The Frederick Douglass Papers, Series 1, Vol. 1: 1841–1846. Edited by John W. Blassingame. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Douglass, Frederick. 1982. The Frederick Douglass Papers, Series 1, Vol. 2: 1847–1854. Edited by John W. Blassingame. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Dowd, Sharyn. 1992. “James.” Pages 460–1 in The Women’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe. Louisville, KY: Westminster / John Knox Press. Dupuis, Jacques and Josef Neuner, eds. 1996. The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church. New York: Alba House. Eastman, Addison J. 1978. A Handful of Pearls: The Epistle of James. Philadelphia: Westminster. Eckhart, Meister. 1980. Breakthrough: Meister Eckhart’s Creation Spirituality in New Translation. Translated by Matthew Fox. New York: Doubleday. Edgar, David. 2001. Has God Not Chosen the Poor? The Social Setting of the Epistle of James. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Edwards, Jonathan. 1972. The Great Awakening: A Faithful Narrative. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Edwards, Jonathan. 1974. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 1. Bath: The Bath Press. Edwards, Jonathan. 2006. Sermons and Discourses, 1743–1758. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Ehrman, Bart. 2003. Lost Scriptures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eisenman, Robert. 1997. James the Brother of Jesus. New York: Viking. Eller, Vernard. 1962. “Brothers in Ebullience?” The Christian Century 79 (October 17, 1962): 1267. Elliott, John. H. 1993. “The Epistle of James in Rhetorical and Social Scientific Perspective.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 23: 71–81. Epiphanius of Salamis. 2009. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Book 1. Leiden: Brill. Erasmus, Desiderius, of Rotterdam. 1974. The Collected Works of Erasmus. Vol. 44. Edited by Robert D. Sider. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

326 References Erasmus, Desiderius, of Rotterdam. 1993. Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament: Galatians to the Apocalypse. Edited by Anne Reeve. Leiden: Brill. Fant, Clyde E. 1971. 20 Centuries of Great Preaching. 13 Vols. Waco, TX: Word. Farrar, Frederic W. 1897. Messages of the Books. London: Macmillan. Foster, Richard. 1978. Celebration of Discipline. New York: Harper & Row. Friesen, Steven. 2005. “Injustice or God’s Will? Explanations of Poverty in Four ProtoChristian Texts.” Pages 240–60 in The First Century. Edited by Richard Horsley. Vol. 1 of A People’s History of Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. George, Timothy. 2000. “ ‘A Right Strawy Epistle’: Reformation Perspectives on James.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 4: 20–31. Gladden, Washington. 1923. The Christian Pastor and the Working Church. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. 2004. Faust Part One and Part Two. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. Gowler, David B. 1993. “Hospitality and Characterization in Luke 11:37–54: A SocioNarratological Approach.” Semeia 64: 213–51. Gowler, David B. 2000. “Heteroglossic Trends in Biblical Studies: Polyphonic Dialogues or Clanging Cymbals?” Review & Expositor 97: 443–66. Gowler, David B. 2007. What Are They Saying about the Historical Jesus? Mahwah, NJ: Paulist. Green, Tony. 2000. Nicolas Poussin Paints the Seven Sacraments. Watchet, Somerset: Paravail. Gutiérrez, Gustavo. 1973. A Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis. Gutiérrez, Gustavo. 1991. The God of Life. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis. Hallock, G. B. F. and M. K. W. Heicher, eds. 1942. Doran’s Ministers Manual. Vol. 17. London: Harper & Brothers. Hanks, Tom. 1981. “Why People Are Poor: What the Bible Says.” Sojourners 10: 19–22. Hartin, Patrick J. 1991. James and the Q Sayings of Jesus. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Hartin, Patrick J. 1999. A Spirituality of Perfection: Faith in Action in the Letter of James. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical. Hartin, Patrick J. 2003. James. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical. Hartin, Patrick J. 2004. James of Jerusalem. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical. Hastings, Adrian. 1999. A World History of Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Hengel, Martin. 1987. “Der Jakobusbrief als antipaulinische Polemik.” Pages 248–78 in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament. Edited by G. F. Hawthorne and O. Betz. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Hirsh, John C. 2003. Chaucer and the Canterbury Tales. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Honan, Park. 1998. Shakespeare: A Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Horsch, John. 1916. Menno Simons: His Life, Labors, and Teachings. Scottdale, PA: Mennonite. Houck, Davis W. and David E. Dixon, eds. 2006. Rhetoric, Religion and the Civil Rights Movement, 1954–1965. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press. Hughes, R. Kent. 1991. James: Faith that Works. Wheaton, IL: Crossway. Hulme, William. 1976. The Fire of Little Jim. Nashville, TN: Abingdon. Hus, Jan. 1972. The Letters of Jan Hus. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

References  327 The Hymnal 1982: According to the Use of the Episcopal Church. 1985. New York: Church Hymnal Corp. Hymns and Psalms. 1985. London: Methodist Publishing House. Johnson, Luke Timothy. 1995. The Letter of James. New York: Doubleday. Johnson, Luke Timothy. 2004. Brother of Jesus, Friend of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Keenan, John P. 2005. The Wisdom of James. New York: Newman. Kern, F. H. 1835. Der Character und Ursprung des Briefes Jacobi. Tübingen: Fues. Kern, F. H. 1838. Der Brief Jacobi Untersucht und Erklaert. Tübingen: Fues. Kierkegaard, Søren. 1956. Purity of Heart Is to Will One Thing. New York: Harper & Row. Kierkegaard, Søren. 1958. Edifying Discourses: A Selection. Edited by Paul L. Homer. New York: Harper & Row. Kierkegaard, Søren. 1974. For Self-Examination and Judge for Yourselves! Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kierkegaard, Søren. 1978. Journals and Papers. Vol. 6. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Kierkegaard, Søren. 1988. Stages on Life’s Way. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kierkegaard, Søren. 1990. Eighteen Upbuilding Discourses. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. King, Jr., Martin Luther. 1992. I Have a Dream: Writings and Speeches that Changed the World. New York: HarperOne. Kittel, Gerhard and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. 1964–76. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 volumes. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Kloppenborg, John S. 1998. “Status und Wohltägtigkeit bei Paulus und Jakobus.” Pages 127–54 in Von Jesus zum Christus. Edited by R. Hoppe and U. Busse. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Kloppenborg, John S. 1999. “Patronage Avoidance in James.” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 55: 755–94. Kloppenborg, John S. 2007. “The Emulation of the Jesus Tradition in the Letter of James.” Pages 121–50 in Reading James with New Eyes. Edited by Robert L. Webb and John S. Kloppenborg. London: T. & T. Clark. Kloppenborg, John S. 2008. “Poverty and Piety in Matthew, James and the Didache.” Pagers 201–32 in Matthew, James, and the Didache: Three Related Documents in Their Jewish and Christian Settings. Edited by Huub van de Sandt and Jürgen K. Zangenberg. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature. Kümmel, Werner. 1972. The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems. Nashville, TN: Abingdon. Laws, Sophie. 1980. The Epistle of James. New York: Harper & Row. Lenin, Vladimir, 1933. Religion. New York: International Publishers. Lewis, C. S. 1961. The Screwtape Letters. New York: Macmillan. Lightfoot, J. B. 1865. Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul. London: Macmillan. Accessed from http://philologos.org/__eb-jbl/brethren.htm. Luther, Martin. 1955–76. Luther’s Works. Edited by J. Pelikan and H. T. Lehman. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg. Lutheran Service Book. 2007. St. Louis, MO: Concordia. McCartney, Dan G. 2009. James. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

328 References MacCulloch, Diarmaid. 2009. Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years. New York: Penguin Books. McKim, Donald, ed. 2007. Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Academic. McKnight, Edgar and Christopher Church. 2004. Hebrews–James. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys. McKnight, Scot. 2011. The Letter of James. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Manton, Thomas. 1962. An Exposition on the Epistle of James. London: Banner of Truth Trust. Mathews, Shailer. 1905. The Messianic Hope in the New Testament. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Maynard-Reid, Pedrito. 1987. Poverty and Wealth in James. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis. Mayor, Joseph B. 1990. The Epistle of St. James. 3rd edn. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel. Maximus the Confessor. 1955. The Ascetic Life. Westminster, MD: Newman. Maximus the Confessor. 1982. The Church, the Liturgy, and the Soul of Man: The Mystagogia of St. Maximus the Confessor. Still River, MA: St. Bede’s. Meyer, Marvin. 2005. The Gnostic Discoveries. New York: HarperCollins. Meyer, Marvin. 2007. The Nag Hammadi Scriptures. New York: HarperCollins. Mitton, C. Leslie. 1966. The Epistle of James. London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott. Moo, Douglas J. 2000. The Letter of James. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Moore, Geoffrey. 2000. Complete Anglican Hymns Old & New. Buxhall, Suffolk: Kevin Mayhew. Myllykoski, Matti. 2006. “James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship (Part I).” Currents in Biblical Research 5: 73–122. Myllykoski, Matti. 2007. “James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship (Part II).” Currents in Biblical Research 6: 11–98. Nouwen, Henri J. M. 1981. The Way of the Heart. New York: Seabury. O’Donovan, Oliver and Joan Lockwood O’Donovan, eds. 1999. From Irenaeus to Grotius: A Sourcebook in Christian Political Thought, 100–1625. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Origen. 1992. Treatise on the Passover and Dialogue with Heraclides. New York: Paulist. Origen. 1993. Commentary on the Gospel According to John, Books 13–32. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. Origen. 2005. Homilies on Leviticus, 1–16. The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 83. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. Painter, John. 2004. Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press. Painter, John and David A. deSilva. 2012. James and Jude. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Pelagius. 1993. Pelagius’s Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Translated by Theodore de Bruyn. Oxford: Clarendon. Penner, Todd C. 1996. The Epistle of James and Eschatology. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Penner, Todd C. 1999. “The Epistle of James in Current Research.” Currents in Biblical Research 7: 257–308. Plummer, Alfred. 1891. The General Epistles of St. James and St. Jude. New York: Armstrong.

References  329 Polk, Timothy. 1988. “‘Heart Enough to Be Confident’: Kierkegaard on Reading James.” Pages 206–33 in The Grammar of the Heart. Edited by Richard H. Bell. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Poteat, Gordon. 1957. “Exposition: The Epistle of James.” Pages 19–74 in The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 12. New York: Abingdon. Rauschenbusch, Walter. 1908. Christianity and the Social Crisis. New York: Macmillan. Rauschenbusch, Walter. 1968. The Righteousness of the Kingdom. Nashville, TN: Abingdon. Rees, B. R. 1991. The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell. Reicke, Bo. 1964. The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday. Ropes, James Hardy. 1916. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of James. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Rowland, Christopher C. 2010. Blake and the Bible. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Ryals, Clyde de L. 1963. “An Interpretation of Clough’s Dipsychus.” Victorian Poetry 1: 182–8. Schaff, Philip. 1956. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Schaff, Philip. 1999. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Schaff, Philip and Allan Menzies. 1885. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Schaff, Philip and Henry Wace. 1952. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Schaff, Philip and Henry Wace. 1999. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Schneemelcher, Wilhelm. 1991. New Testament Apocrypha. 2 volumes. Louisville, KY: Westminster / John Knox. Schoedel, William. 1990. “The (First) Apocalypse of James.” Pages 260–8 in The Nag Hammadi Library. Edited by James M. Robinson. New York: HarperCollins. Schulz, Gretchen. 2011. “A Study Guide to The Merchant of Venice.” Unpublished manuscript. Schweitzer, Albert. 2001. The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress. The Sermon Bible. 1900. New York: Funk & Wagnalls. Shakespeare, William. 1979. The Globe Illustrated Shakespeare. New York: Gramercy Books. Short, Russell. 1965. The Gospel According to “Peanuts”. Atlanta, GA: John Knox. Smit, D. J. 1990. “ ‘Show no partiality…’ (James 2:1–13).” Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 71: 59–68. Spenser, Edmund. 2001. The Faerie Queene. Edited by A. C. Hamilton. Harlow, Essex: Longman. Strange, James Riley. 2010. The Moral World of James. New York: Peter Lang. Tabor, James D. 2006. The Jesus Dynasty. New York: Simon & Schuster. Tamez, Elsa. 1980. The Bible of the Oppressed. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis. Tamez, Elsa. 2002. The Scandalous Message of James. New York: Crossroad. Tamez, Elsa. 2007. Struggles for Power in Early Christianity. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis. Thompson, Colin. 1981. Poussin: Sacraments and Bacchanals. Edinburgh: National Gallery of Scotland.

330 References Trocmé, Étienne. 1964. “Les églises pauliniennes vues du dehors: Jacques 2,1 it 3,13.” Studia Evangelica 2: 660–9. Tyndale, William. 1964. The Work of William Tyndale. Appleford, Oxfordshire: Sutton Courtenay. Valentine, Foy. 1981. Layman’s Bible Book Commentary: Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter. Nashville, TN: Baptist Sunday School Board. Verdi, Richard. 1995. Nicolas Poussin, 1594–1665. London: Royal Academy of Arts. Vhymeister, Nancy J. 1995. “The Rich Man in James 2: Does Ancient Patronage Illumine the Text?” Andrews University Seminary Studies 33: 265–83. Vouga, François. 1984. L’Épitre de Saint Jacques. Geneva: Labor et Fides. Wachob, Wesley H. 2000. The Voice of Jesus in the Social Rhetoric of James. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wall, Robert W. 1997. Community of the Wise. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity. Waterworth, James. 1848. The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Œcumenical Council of Trent. London: Dolman. Watson, Duane F. 1993. “James 2 in the Light of Greco-Roman Schemes of Argumentation.” New Testament Studies 39: 94–121. Weidner, Revere. 1897. Annotations on the General Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude. New York: Christian Literature. Wesley, Charles. 1849. (Charles Wesley’s Journal. Accessed from http://wesley.nnu.edu/ charles-wesley/the-journal-of-charles-wesley-1707-1788. Wesley, John. 1743. The Nature, Design, and General Rules of the United Societies, in London, Bristol, King’s-wood, and Newcastle upon Tyne. Newcastle upon Tyne: John Gooding. Wesley, John. 1755. John Wesley’s Notes on the Whole Bible the New Testament. Accessed from www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/notes.all.html#toc. Wesley, John. 1958. The Works of John Wesley. Vol. 8: Addresses, Essays, Letters. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Wesley, John. 1964. John Wesley. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wheeler, Sondra Ely. 1995. Wealth as Peril and Obligation. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. William of Ockham. 1995. A Letter to the Friars Minor, and Other Writings. Edited by Arthur Stephen McGrade and John Kilcullen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wordsworth, Charles. 1892. Shakspeare’s (sic) Knowledge and Use of the Bible. London: Eden, Remington. Wordsworth, Christopher. 1872. The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in the Original Greek. London: Rivingtons. Wright, Andrew. 1972. Blake’s Job. Oxford: Clarendon. Wuellner, Wilhelm. 1978. “Der Jakobusbrief im Licht der Rhetorik und Textpragmatik.” Linguistica Biblica 43: 5–66. Yarnold, Edward. 2000. Cyril of Jerusalem. London: Routledge. Yates, Jonathan. 2002. “The Canonical Significance of the Citations of James in Pelagius.” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniensis. 78: 482–9. Yates, Jonathan. 2004. “The Reception of the Epistle of James in the Latin West: Did Athanasius Play a Role?” Pages 271–86 in The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition. Edited by J. Schlosser. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 176. Leuven: Leuven University Press; Peeters.

Indexes Index of Names Abraham  25, 26, 69, 78, 94, 100, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107, 110, 186–7, 189, 192, 194, 195, 197, 203, 210, 229, 233, 265 Adams, Sarah Fuller Flower  242 Adamson, James  5, 8, 21, 159, 273, 297 Adeodatus 9 Aesop  13, 211–2 Ambrose  6, 7, 9, 267 Ambrosiaster 7 Aquinas, Thomas  209 Arnot, William  224 Atajanyan, Emmanuel xvi,  40, 43 Athanasius  6, 7, 25, 82–3, 101, 113–114 Aufdemberge, C. T.  109, 308–9

Augustine  7, 9, 10, 20, 24, 25, 26, 34, 83–84, 85, 101, 102–104, 115–116, 117, 124, 144–5, 164–6, 168, 172, 176–7, 188–9, 206–7, 214–5, 221, 231–3, 234, 247, 255–6, 279–80, 290, 295, 297, 300, 302, 315, 316 Aymer, Margaret  140, 224, 226 Baker, William R.  218 Bakhtin, Mikhail  3–4 Batten, Alicia xvi,  5, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 93, 146, 155, 229, 264 Bauckham, Richard J.  21, 90, 120 Baur, Ferdinand Christian  53, 73, 182, 183

James Through the Centuries, First Edition. David B. Gowler. © 2014 David B. Gowler. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

332  Index of Names Bede the Venerable  9–10, 20, 24, 26, 29, 67, 85, 93–94, 105, 108, 112, 126, 127, 129, 136, 146, 155, 168, 177, 191–2, 208, 215–6, 222, 236–7, 247, 256, 265–6, 270, 280, 290–1, 301, 314–5 Bedford, Richard  55, 58 Blake, William  281–3, 282 Blomberg, Craig  5, 122–3, 156, 275 Bloom, Harold  170 Boesak, Allan  153, 161 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich  310–1 Boniface 115 Bossuet, Jacques  148–9 Bradstock, Andrew  24, 145–6, 147 Bray, Gerald  113, 114, 117, 129, 146, 163, 167, 168, 177, 189, 193, 206, 208, 209, 214, 230, 237, 254, 256, 257, 265, 266, 290, 301, 314 Brosend, William  128, 154–5, 253, 289, 297 Buechner, Frederick  128, 146, 160–1, 245 Bunyan, John  87, 137–8, 216–7 Burgess, William  126 Byron, Gay  25, 79–80, 135, 159–60, 161, 185, 276–7, 286, 287

Dale, Robert William  74, 95–96 Damasus (Pope)  32 Darwin, Charles  258 Davies, J. G.  8, 65, 66 Davies, Philip R.  47 Day, Beth  250 Deems, Charles F.  13, 15–16, 22, 26, 75–76, 90–91, 96, 109, 122, 127–8, 134, 141, 149–50, 160, 171–2, 181–2, 201, 211–2, 217, 227, 240, 249, 259–60, 261, 315–6 Deppe, Dean B.  21 Dibelius, Martin  16–17, 19, 24, 96, 97, 154, 157, 185, 205, 237, 253, 312 Didymus the Blind  6, 50–51, 114, 206, 229, 230 Dionysius of Alexandria  100–101 Dixon, David E.  91, 152 Doddridge, Philip  257–8 Dostoesvky, Fyodor  3–4 Douglass, Frederick  8, 13, 14, 24, 140–1, 224–7 Dowd, Sharyn  203 Dupuis, Jacques  300

Caesar, Julius  271–2 Caiaphas  53, 67, 295 Calthrop, Gordon  259 Calvin, John  12–13, 71–72, 86–87, 95, 107, 119, 126, 127, 131–2, 137, 147–8, 169–70, 178, 182, 196–7, 210–1, 216, 223, 237, 238–9, 248, 257, 268–9, 273, 280–1, 293, 295, 304, 305, 315 Cassian, John  20, 104, 116–117, 125–6, 167, 234, 313–4 Cassiodorus 234–5 Chaucer, Geoffrey  266–7 Chávez, César  286–7 Chisolm, Thomas  120–1 Chrysologus, Peter  104, 166–7 Chrysostom, John  6, 8, 20, 24, 25, 34, 163, 187–8, 205–6, 214, 230–1, 254, 256, 289–90, 292, 299 Church, Christopher  5, 112, 142, 263, 287 Claudius, Matthias  121 Clement of Alexandria  6, 32, 37–38, 39, 40, 50, 153, 297 Cleveland, Grover  87–88, 88 Clough, A. H.  88–90 Cocoris, Michael  134–5 Crosby, Frances Jane (Fanny)  76, 284 Cyril of Alexandria  6, 66–67, 189, 234, 290, 300 Cyril of Jerusalem  65, 101, 114 Cyprian 6

Eastman, Addison J.  25, 277 Eck, Johann  11, 58–59, 59 Eckhart, Meister  117–118 Edgar, David  154 Edwards, Jonathan  127, 198, 249 Ehrman, Bart  51 Eisenman, Robert  47, 199 El Greco  60–62, 61 Eller, Vernard  120 Elliott, John H.  5 Ellsworth, Thomas  80–81 Emser, Hieronymous  59 Epiphanius of Salamis  31–32 Erasmus, Desiderius  10, 13, 196, 237, 292 Esme, E.  41, 43 Eusebius  32, 37–41, 47, 64–65, 71, 83 Fant, Clyde E.  74, 96, 140, 148 Farrar, Frederic W.  183, 199 Foster, Richard  311 Fox, George  25, 293–5 Fox, Matthew  118 Frederick the Wise  11 Friedrich, Gerhard  279 Friesen, Steven  25 Garrison, William Lloyd  14 George, Timothy  10, 11 Gladden, Washington  24, 151, 161

Index of Names  333 Goodwin, Harvey  258–9 Gowler, David B.  4, 64 Graham, Billy  120 Green, Tony  307 Gregory the Great  4, 124–5, 189–90, 208, 221–2, 235–6 Guthrie, Thomas  140 Gutiérrez, Gustavo  24, 156–7, 274 Hallock, G. B. F.  152 Hanks, Tom  141, 273 Hardy, E. J.  74 Hartin, Patrick  2, 5, 6, 19, 21, 22, 23, 27, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 51, 52, 93, 100, 112, 123, 162, 186, 187, 213, 237, 246, 253, 289, 297, 312 Hastings, Adrian  191, 305 Hayes, Rutherford B.  87 Hegesippus  37, 38–40, 41, 50, 56, 66 Heermann, Johann  108–109 Heicher, M. K. W.  152 Helvidius  30–31, 32, 66 Hengel, Martin  29 Henry, Matthew  119, 149, 197, 270, 281 Henry, Patrick  14 Hilary of Arles  129, 167–8, 177, 208, 265, 301, 314 Hilary of Poitiers  6–7 Hilgenfeld, Adolf  199 Hirsh, John C.  267 Holtzmann, H. J.  182 Honan, Park  107, 170 Horace  13, 216, 238 Horsch, John  291 Houck, Davis W.  91, 152 Hughes, R. Kent  297 Hulme, William  202 Hus, Jan  67–68, 105, 292 Irenaeus 6 James, the brother of Jesus (James of Jerusalem; James the Just)  1–2, 6, 7, 8, 15–16, 22, 27–29, 30–32, 34–36, 37–62, 64–65, 70, 73, 75, 76–77, 78, 132, 266, 270–1, 272 James, the brother of Jesus conflated with James the Less (son of Alphaeus; James the younger)  28–29, 30, 32–34, 54–62, 66, 71–74, 115, 305–6 James, the Son of Zebedee (brother of John; James the Great)  28–29, 30, 33, 34, 40, 41, 44, 46–47, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 70, 71–73

Jerome  7, 10, 25, 30, 32–34, 50–52, 65–66, 71, 101–102, 114–115, 122, 126, 127, 144, 163–4, 165–6, 175, 206–7, 231, 234, 290, 292 Jesus  2, 5, 8, 15, 16, 18, 19–20, 21–22, 23–26, 28–29, 30–41, 43–44, 46–47, 48–49, 51–56, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66–71, 75, 76–77, 81, 82, 90, 93–94, 96–97, 100, 101, 105, 108, 111–112, 113–114, 115, 117, 118, 122, 123, 128, 133, 136, 140, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 160, 162, 166, 168, 169, 174, 175, 176, 182–3, 184–5, 186, 189–90, 191, 192, 193, 194, 198, 201–2, 203, 208, 210, 217–8, 222–3, 227, 229, 230, 233, 236, 241, 242, 243, 246–7, 249, 250–1, 253, 254, 255, 258, 259–60, 261, 264, 265, 266, 269, 270, 271, 272, 274, 279–80, 283–4, 285, 286, 289, 290, 291–2, 293, 295–7, 300, 301, 304, 305, 308, 310, 311, 312 Job  78, 93, 100, 104, 110, 136, 142, 176, 218, 227, 256, 279–87 John of Damascus  192–3 Johnson, Luke Timothy  5, 6, 7, 8, 21, 26, 27, 35, 78, 85, 100, 113, 135, 186, 187, 205, 221, 229, 230, 237, 240, 246, 284, 297, 298, 312 Jones, Granville  285 Josephus  37, 40, 47, 66 Jovinian  66, 101–102, 114–115, 164, 166, 206 Kamell, Mariam  5, 122 Keenan, John P.  81, 92, 217–8 Ken, Thomas  121 Kern, F. H.  26, 182 Kierkegaard, Søren  1, 8, 13–14, 90, 120, 132–3 King, Jr., Martin Luther  152, 184–5 Kingo, Thomas Hansen  241–2 Kittel, Gerhard  17, 279 Kloppenborg, John S.  xvi, 21–22, 23, 67, 146, 155–6 Kovacs, Judith  xv, 4 Kümmel, Werner  30, 73 Laws, Sophie  5, 85, 159, 162, 205, 220, 237 Lay, Kenneth  263 Leckebusch, Martin  161 Lee, Spike  263 Lenin, Vladimir  273 Leo the Great  84, 177, 190, 207 Leo X (Pope)  86, 118–119 Lewis, C. S.  110–111 Lightfoot, J. B.  30, 34, 182

334  Index of Names Lincoln, Abraham  240–1 Lollards  24, 146–7 Ludwig of Bavaria  129, 130 Luiken, Jan  239–40, 239 Luther, Martin  8, 10–12, 13, 15, 26, 29–30, 59–61, 68–71, 85–86, 106, 118–119, 122, 131, 137, 139, 150, 169, 177–8, 183, 193–6, 199, 202, 210, 222–3, 237, 257, 267, 291, 302–3, 304, 305, 316 McCartney, Dan G.  5, 21, 297 MacCulloch, Diarmaid  66 McKim, Donald  8, 12, 13, 66, 83, 124, 127, 174, 221 McKinley, William  242–3 McKnight, Scot  21, 27, 29, 297 Maclaren, Alexander  133–4 Manton, Thomas  13, 179–80 Marcion 30 Marsilius of Padua  129–30, 248 Mary, the mother of James the Less  33–34, 51 Mary, the mother of Jesus  15, 22, 30–33, 34, 44, 46–47, 51, 66, 75, 76, 147, 193, 284 Mathews, Shailer  133, 272–3 Maximus the Confessor  190–1 Maynard-Reid, Pedrito  24, 97, 157, 261, 275–6 Mayor, Joseph B.  5, 13, 16, 17, 21, 25, 26, 29, 65, 76–77, 78, 85, 90, 110, 122, 128, 150–1, 185, 199, 201–2, 205, 227–8, 237, 244, 249–50, 272, 295–6 Mays, Benjamin  25, 152–3, 161 Melanchthon  12, 71 Meredith, James  91 Meyer, Marvin  47, 48, 49 Michaelis, Johann David  30, 72–73 Mitton, C. Leslie  159 Moberly, George  309 Monica (mother of Augustine)  9, 302, 316 Moo, Douglas J.  82, 273–4, 279, 297 Morris, Leila Naylor  242 Moses  34–35, 69, 85, 122, 130–1, 280, 283 Myllykoski, Matti  5, 17, 38, 50 Neuner, Josef  300 Newton, John  122, 315 Nouwen, Henri  212 Novatian 6 O’Donovan, Joan Lockwood  129, 130, 209–10 O’Donovan, Oliver  129, 130, 209–10 (Ps-)Oecumenius  117, 129, 146, 162, 168, 177, 193, 208–9, 237, 245, 256–7, 266

Origen  6, 26, 40, 50, 66, 100, 113, 114, 153, 174–5, 187, 234, 254, 292, 297, 298–9, 313 Pachomius 214 Painter, John  16, 28, 31, 34, 35, 36, 43, 47, 48–9, 50, 52, 53 Paul the Apostle  2, 3, 5–6, 10, 11–12, 13, 15, 16, 23, 25–27, 29, 34, 35–6, 38, 53, 65, 67, 69–70, 72, 73, 77–78, 101, 122, 128, 131, 133, 139, 151, 156, 163, 171, 174, 175, 176–9, 181–4, 188, 189, 191–2, 193, 194, 195–6, 197, 199–200, 201–2, 203, 222, 231, 238, 250–1, 262, 272, 274, 290, 295, 315 Payton, Walter  80–81 Pelagius  7, 24, 66, 83, 145, 175, 188, 207, 214, 297 Penner, Todd C.  5, 17, 19, 20 Peter (Cephas)  26, 29, 35–36, 37, 47–48, 52–53, 65, 69, 72, 124, 222, 235 Peterson, Susan H.  80 Philo  113, 205 Plato  13, 82, 116, 119, 122, 206 Pliny  13, 215 Plummer, Alfred  24, 25, 134, 172, 177, 183, 240–1, 246, 260–1, 271–2, 296–7, 298–9, 309–10, 316 Plutarch 205 Polk, Timothy  14, 90 Poteat, Gordon  250–1 Poussin, Nicolas  306–8, 307 Powers, Harriet  283–4, 283 Rahab  78, 186, 192, 197, 203 Ratzinger, Joseph  300–1 Rauschenbusch, Walter  24, 96, 133, 151, 161 Rees, B. R.  145, 188 Reicke, Bo  155 Renan, Ernest  15 Ropes, James Hardy  5, 6, 16, 17, 26, 29, 77, 87, 122, 123, 165, 183–4, 185, 205, 217, 300 Rowland, Christopher C.  xv, 4, 24, 145, 146, 147, 282 Russell, F. A. Rollo  200–1 Ryals, Clyde de L.  88, 89–90 Sandrouni, George  xiv–xv, xvi, 54 Sarah 210 Schaff, Philip  116, 180, 215, 236 Schmedenstede, Heinrich  12, 195 Schmidt, W.  182 Schneemelcher, Wilhelm  51, 52

Index of Names  335 Schoedel, William  49 Schulz, Charles  244–5, 245 Schulz, Gretchen  170 Schulz, Johann  121 Schweitzer, Albert  23–24 Scriven, Joseph  308–9 Shakespeare, William  107–108, 110, 122, 170–1, 178–9, 249, 269–70 Shea, George Beverly  120–1 Short, Russell  244 Simons, Menno  25, 291–2, 293 Smit, D. J.  25, 153–4, 161 Solis, Virgil  60–61, 61 Spenser, Edmund  94–95 Spurgeon, Charles  199–200 Stevenson, Adlai  87–88, 88 Strange, James Riley  19 Tabor, James D. 34 Tamez, Elsa xvi, 2, 6, 8, 17–19, 24, 78–79, 80, 92, 97–98, 111–112, 123, 135, 141–2, 158–9, 172, 185, 202–3, 212–3, 228, 245–6, 251, 261–3, 277, 285–6, 287, 297, 311 Tertullian  6, 30–31, 65, 153, 297 Theophylact  266, 270, 292, 301 Thompson, Colin  306 Tilden, Samuel  87–88, 88 Tissot, James  55–56, 55 Trocmé, Étienne  156 Tutu, Archbishop Desmond  153 Tyndale, William  12, 71

Valentine, Foy  97 Valentinus 84 Verdi, Richard  307–8 Vhymeister, Nancy J.  23, 155 Virgil 232 von Goethe, Johann Wolfgang  87–88 Vouga, François  312 Wace, Henry  116, 235–6 Wachob, Wesley H.  19, 21, 162 Walkup, Robert  91 Wall, Robert  2, 123, 136, 155, 251, 254, 274, 298 Waterworth, James  305–6 Watson, Duane F.  19 Weidner, Revere F.  182–3, 271, 295 Weigel, Christoph  132 Wesley, Charles  138–9, 181, 224, 243–4 Wesley, John  13, 20, 74–75, 122, 138, 162, 181, 198–9, 200, 212–3, 249 Westcott, B. F.  183 Wheeler, Sondra Ely  274–5 Whittier, John Greenleaf  139–40 William of Ockham  130 Wordsworth, Charles  107–108, 170–1, 178–9, 269 Wordsworth, Christopher  270–1 Wright, Andrew  281 Wuellner, Wilhelm  19 Wyclif, John  146–7, 209–10 Yarnold, Edward  101 Yates, Jonathan  6–7 Zwingli, Ulrich  12, 71

Index of Subjects Acts, book of  29, 34–35, 38, 47, 53, 65, 67, 70, 115, 116, 208, 215, 222, 270, 271, 289–90 acts of faith  190, 203, 243 of favoritism/partiality  144, 151, 160, 173 of compassion/mercy/kindness  140, 163, 178, 286, 316 of peace  220 of penance/penitence  299, 305 ambition, selfish  110, 220–1, 279 anger/wrath  8, 69, 101, 104, 123–6, 169, 189, 231, 266, 281, 302

anoint  38, 298, 300, 301, 303, 306, 307–8 Arians  6–7, 9, 10, 66, 82–3, 113–114, 124 arrogance  25, 83, 150, 211, 220–1, 229, 230, 232, 233, 235, 248, 253, 256, 257, 259, 261 authorship of James  xiii, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10–11, 15, 16, 17, 26, 28–30, 64–65, 68–70, 71–73, 75, 76–77, 193, 196–7, 217, 262, 270, 272, 303 beatitude(s)  100, 111, 123, 128, 160, 175, 279 boasting  93, 96, 98, 104, 126, 189, 196, 205, 208, 220–1, 244, 253, 254

336  Index of Subjects brothers/sisters (see index of names for James the brother of Jesus, etc.)  2, 28, 36, 47, 63–64, 71, 77, 94, 95, 96, 112, 139–40, 141–2, 143, 150, 152, 159, 172, 173–4, 185–6, 204, 206–7, 211, 213, 228, 241, 244, 245–6, 251, 260, 262, 267, 278–9, 288, 304, 310–1, 312, 314 Buddhism  81, 92, 218 Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem  44, 46, 54 class, social  18, 24, 96, 141, 157, 159, 160, 161, 185, 197, 224, 263, 271, 273, 275–6 confession  2, 291, 292, 304, 310–1, 313, 315 Council/Synod of Armenian Patriarchate xvi Chalcedon 320 Constance 320 Jerusalem (first-century)  28 Jerusalem (1672)  180 Nicaea  7, 83 Trent  180, 300, 305–6, 330 covenant  5, 229, 240, 294 covet/desire  17–18, 98, 99–100, 102–104, 105, 107, 109, 110, 112–3, 116, 145, 166, 184, 189, 205, 222, 228–9, 230, 235–6, 237, 238, 244, 245, 254, 260, 263, 272, 274, 312 crown of life  68, 80, 99–100, 101, 102, 105, 110, 111, 119, 133, 218, 279 Dead Sea Scrolls  47, 199 demons  183, 185, 188–9, 191, 198, 200, 220, 228, 301 desire (see covet) devil(s)/satan  85, 100–105, 107, 108, 110–111, 122, 124, 138, 139, 164, 180, 188, 189, 191, 193, 198, 206, 213, 220–1, 227, 229, 231, 233, 234–5, 236, 238, 243, 248, 299, 305 discrimination  18, 23, 154, 155, 158, 161, 251, 263 domestication of texts  2, 8, 10, 22, 23–25, 78, 159, 269, 273 of tongue  209, 213 Dormition Abbey, Jerusalem  xvi, 32, 33, 54 double-minded/souled  25, 80, 82, 83, 87, 88–90, 92, 112, 132, 202, 214, 220, 221, 228–9, 246, 279–80, 318, 319 doubt  13–14, 80, 82, 84, 85–86, 87, 90–91, 115, 132, 176, 229 endurance xvi, xvii, 13, 18, 63–64, 77, 80–81, 95, 99–101, 102, 104, 105, 106,

108–109, 110, 111, 181, 268, 278–9, 280, 281, 286, 287, 303–4 envy  72, 84, 220, 221, 229, 237, 238, 244, 245, 251, 275, 279 epistle of straw  10–11, 15, 68–69, 137 eschatology  20, 64, 78–79, 93, 97, 100, 111, 123, 136, 142, 172, 212, 277, 286 eternal God  109, 113, 116, 117–118, 122, 231, 255, 292 death/judgment  165, 169, 170, 188, 256, 264, 266, 272, 276, 284, 292, 315 life/reward  68, 85, 94, 95–96, 126, 146, 164, 176, 188–9, 201, 212, 218, 222, 223, 232–3, 236–7, 255, 276, 280, 310, 314 ethics  13, 15, 16–17, 20, 22–25, 114, 123, 125, 133, 134, 147, 160, 185, 203, 218, 253, 260, 274–5, 319 evil  14, 17, 20, 25, 68, 70, 71, 79, 86, 100–110, 112, 114, 119, 122, 126, 136, 153, 159, 165, 176, 187, 198, 199, 206, 216, 230, 231, 234, 240, 243, 246–7, 253, 254, 256, 265, 271, 272, 275, 280, 282, 286, 290, 305 evil tongue  137, 211, 213, 214, 215, 217, 220, 230, 246–7, 249, 250 extreme unction  12, 303, 304, 305–6, 307 faith  16, 28, 69, 77–78, 87, 96, 118, 124, 131, 133, 137, 145, 146–7, 149, 150, 155, 159, 198, 210, 221, 241, 270, 286 and Bible  13, 84 and deeds/works  1, 9, 10–11, 13, 15, 18, 22, 24, 26–27, 70–71, 82, 92, 113, 129, 135, 136, 139, 142, 143–4, 146, 164, 169, 173–4, 175–8, 180–203, 213, 220, 224, 228, 243, 262, 268, 274 and doubt  84 in Jesus/Christ  38, 41, 69, 198, 206, 223, 266 and justification  2, 6, 10–11, 13, 23, 26–27, 29, 69, 71, 73, 118, 175, 180–3, 186, 188–9, 191–9, 203, 262 and prayer  81–82, 84, 90–91, 92, 229, 298, 302, 308, 310–1, 316 and sacraments  86, 300–1, 303–5 straying from/returning to  236, 312–3, 315 testing of  67, 68, 74, 76, 77, 80, 81–82, 85, 99–101, 105, 106, 110, 111, 117, 172, 287 true  185, 256–7 faithfulness  8, 27, 37–38, 64, 68, 76, 77, 81, 86, 93, 101, 123, 186, 241, 278–9, 281, 292, 294, 308

Index of Subjects  337 faithfulness in/obedience to Torah  5, 19, 22–3, 36, 38 God’s  112, 120–1 father of lights  113, 115–118, 122–3, 221 favoritism (see also partiality)  18, 36, 141, 144, 146, 151, 153–5, 155, 156, 158, 160, 162, 165, 172, 173, 184, 186, 220, 225, 247, 263 forgive(ness)  38–39, 41, 66, 102–103, 106, 137, 161–2, 164, 167–9, 176, 193, 199, 207, 232, 298–300, 301, 304, 310–5 free will  9, 20, 83–84, 85, 102, 117, 189, 198, 221, 234, 247, 256 friend(ship) with/of God  6, 20, 23, 82, 163, 186, 220, 228–30, 236, 246, 312 with/of world  20, 23, 82, 214, 219–20, 228–31, 235–6, 240, 246, 253, 260, 265, 312 with/of mammon  164, 236, 246 Friends, Society of (Quaker)  139–40, 293–6 generosity  8, 20, 82–83, 86–87, 90, 92, 123, 184, 190, 194, 223, 246, 251, 298 gift(s) 20, 25, 51, 79, 81, 82, 83, 86, 90, 96, 102, 112, 113, 114–118, 120–3, 124, 125, 128–9, 188, 192, 221–2, 227, 234, 236, 243, 249, 261, 283, 304 God devotion to/trust in  2, 13, 38, 51, 67–68, 76, 77, 82, 85, 87, 90–92, 127, 137–8, 177–8, 185–6, 191, 198, 212–3, 214, 221–3, 232–3, 238, 242–3, 292, 294, 308–9 as father/creator  20, 39, 82, 94, 114, 122, 141, 153, 227, 255–6, 258 as friend/benefactor  20, 23, 80, 82, 86–87, 90, 92, 95, 115, 121, 123, 128, 163, 186–7, 220, 229, 240, 312 goodness  70, 304 grace/providence of  52, 75–76, 83–84, 96, 116–117, 119, 122, 145, 169, 177, 178, 181, 198, 214, 221, 224, 230, 233–4, 236, 238–9, 256–7, 303, 310–11 impartiality 36 lawgiver/judge  5, 10, 20, 69, 84, 93, 98, 114, 128–9, 131, 158, 162, 166, 168, 170, 172, 178, 181, 189, 193, 194, 197, 205, 207, 209, 211, 218, 231, 237, 246, 248–9, 251, 264, 272, 274–6, 279, 281 love/mercy  79, 166–72, 179, 190, 199, 207, 214, 216, 225, 227, 285–7, 302 partiality for/care of poor  17–18, 22–23, 24–25, 111, 123, 135–6, 142, 144, 145,

147–51, 154–9, 167–8, 172, 213, 231, 245–6, 264–5, 267–8, 277, 315 and temptation/testing  20, 25, 65, 72, 74–75, 100–112, 119–120, 123, 127, 192 unchangeability  7, 20, 94, 113, 115–121 grace  11, 20, 36, 68, 76–77, 83–86, 91, 96, 106, 108, 116–119, 145, 148, 161, 164, 169–70, 177–8, 181, 188–90, 192–3, 195, 198, 203, 214, 221, 224, 230–4, 236, 239, 254, 256, 274, 286, 301, 303–4, 306, 309–10 hate/hatred  49, 68, 106, 153, 161, 168, 198, 217, 226, 240, 287, 291 healing  2, 102, 108, 119, 161, 164, 166, 189, 221, 255–6, 298, 301, 304–5, 311 humble/humility  24, 72, 93, 94–5, 98, 106, 115, 123, 126–7, 141, 146, 198, 220, 222, 228–36, 240, 243–7, 249, 253, 255–6, 300 hymn(s)  xv, 3, 28, 76, 80, 108, 120–2, 139–40, 161, 181, 200–1, 224, 241–4, 257–8, 284–5, 299, 308–9 hypocrite/hypocrisy  18, 36, 87, 137, 141, 158, 160, 178, 220, 223–6, 228, 248, 251, 263 idolater/idolatry  17, 136, 153, 168, 176, 229, 240, 246 illness  64, 108, 304 injustice  23, 64, 97–98, 142, 150, 157–8, 172, 218, 275–7, 286 integrity  18, 79, 92, 123, 135, 139, 158, 172, 197, 202–3, 213, 228, 286–7, 297, 311 Israel  5, 36, 64, 112, 122, 156, 192, 291 Jerusalem  xiv, xvi, 6, 16, 27–28, 32–49, 51–56, 65–66, 72, 114, 116, 140, 151, 156, 180, 217, 226, 261, 266, 270–2 Jewish Christianity  5, 19, 23, 26, 35–36, 48, 51–53, 73, 96, 133, 156 joy  64–65, 67–68, 70, 72, 74–75, 77–78, 80, 85, 93, 97, 101, 105, 111, 116, 135, 172, 176, 178, 196, 236–7, 277, 285–6, 298, 311–2 justice  xvi, 2, 8, 18–20, 22, 38, 40, 75, 92, 130, 135–6, 151, 170–2, 184, 203, 206, 231, 254, 262–3, 271, 274–5, 277, 287, 311 landowners  156–8, 277, 287 law  10–11, 26, 31, 34, 37, 40, 47, 70, 84, 115, 118, 129–30, 165–6, 188, 194–6, 201–3, 264, 289–90 of God  5, 69, 131, 158, 162, 170, 209, 246, 248, 294

338  Index of Subjects law (cont’d ) of liberty  69, 73, 77, 128, 131, 133, 135, 137, 143, 162, 164, 170, 246 of Moses  35, 130–1, 162, 270, 275, 297 perfect  128, 131, 133–5, 172 royal  73, 162, 171–2, 205, 246, 279 love  70–71, 74, 118, 139, 166, 175–8, 181–4, 187–9, 191, 212, 226–7, 314–5 command  103, 162, 167–9, 172, 186, 247, 274 God’s  87, 111, 121–2, 141–2, 168, 216, 231, 240, 254, 277, 310–1 law of  133, 171, 296 of money  65, 272 perfect  68, 105 lust(s)  72, 80, 100–105, 108, 118, 196, 208, 232, 238, 245, 251 Manicheans  9, 10, 102, 116, 255–6 mature/maturity  xvii, 22, 77, 81, 92, 99–100, 102, 126, 185, 212, 279–80 merchants  157–8, 253–4, 261, 264 mercy (see also God’s love/mercy)  76, 79, 91, 103, 118, 136, 139–41, 148, 158, 162–4, 166–72, 177–9, 183, 186, 190, 192, 199, 203, 207, 210, 214, 216, 220, 222, 224–5, 227, 242, 248–9, 263, 274, 277, 281, 287, 305, 309–10, 312, 314 migrant workers  25, 277 mirror  128–9, 132–3, 153–4 murder  68, 110, 112, 123, 158, 162–3, 167–8, 206, 228, 237, 264–7, 270–1, 273, 277, 298 neighbor  17, 22, 137, 142, 146, 162–3, 167–9, 172, 175, 186–7, 191, 212, 216, 221–2, 246–7, 251, 267, 274, 279, 309, 314 oath(s)  21, 22, 25, 165, 289–97 obedience (see also Torah obedience)  24, 67, 72, 84, 97, 106, 111, 128, 140, 146, 159, 161, 170–2, 182, 184–5, 194–7, 200, 212, 223, 235–6, 241, 248, 258, 260, 271, 286, 291, 293, 294–5 oppressed/oppression  17–18, 24, 78–79, 92–93, 97–98, 101, 111, 136, 140–2, 144, 146, 150, 154–5, 157–9, 162, 172, 185, 224, 246, 251, 261–2, 264–5, 268, 271–7, 278–80, 286–7, 311 orphan(s)  18, 135–7, 139, 139–42, 144, 150, 154, 158, 225, 263, 274

patience  67–68, 71–72, 74–75, 78, 81, 105, 111, 115, 126, 191, 231, 266, 268, 271, 273, 276, 278–81, 283, 287, 303 militant  18, 24, 78–79, 97, 285–6 patron/patronage  23, 58, 87, 146, 155, 167, 229, 268 peace  13, 72, 74, 106, 124, 139, 141, 149, 176, 184, 193, 196, 220–8, 231–3, 235, 240, 259, 268, 281, 287, 294, 308 Pelagians  7, 9, 10, 24, 66, 83, 85, 145, 163–4, 175, 188–9, 207, 214, 233 Semi-  116, 234, 297 perfect/perfection (see also, Law, perfect)  19, 67–68, 73, 77, 79–81, 90, 103, 106, 110, 116–117, 119, 126, 129, 145, 176, 186, 192, 203, 206–8, 212–3, 222–3, 233, 236, 239, 255, 267, 287, 314 effect 68 gift  20, 25, 82, 112, 113–118, 120, 123, 128 God  82, 90, 114, 120 love  68, 105, 119, 139 work  71, 73, 74, 79, 192, 256 persevere/perseverance (see also endurance)  79–80, 99, 101, 106, 181, 233, 272, 286, 301 poor  xvi, 8, 10, 17–19, 22–25, 36, 77–78, 92, 93–98, 101, 111–112, 123, 139, 141, 143–51, 153–63, 167–9, 171–2, 174, 178, 183–6, 189–90, 202, 212–3, 231, 245–6, 251, 253, 261–74, 276–7, 280, 315 poverty  6, 22–24, 77, 95, 97, 111, 147, 149, 151, 154–8, 160, 185, 237, 261–2, 265, 269, 273, 275 prayer  18, 34, 38, 41, 50, 53, 56, 72, 74, 79, 81–83, 86–87, 90–92, 103, 104, 109, 115, 137, 139, 140, 151, 163, 171, 176, 200, 208, 212, 227, 228–9, 233, 238, 243, 246, 253, 262, 267, 277, 287, 296, 298, 300–4, 307–11, 315–6 Lord’s  65, 77, 100, 103–104, 106, 137, 167–8, 207, 233, 253 pride  93–95, 104, 115, 125, 127, 139, 146, 211, 221, 223, 228, 230–6, 240, 245, 249, 253, 257, 272, 310 prophets  2, 7, 19, 23, 38, 39, 78, 96, 97, 141, 158, 162, 168, 203, 261, 264, 268, 270, 272, 277, 279–81, 285, 294, 296, 301, 303, 309, 311 Q tradition  21–22 quarrel(s)  126, 163, 223, 244, 247

Index of Subjects  339 race/racism  24, 80, 91, 140–1, 153–4, 157, 161, 197, 226–7, 263, 276 religion  13, 15, 78, 83, 127, 129, 130, 135–42, 144, 149, 160, 198, 201, 205–6, 217, 220, 222–3, 224–7, 229, 259, 267, 270, 273, 295 repent/repentance  86, 102, 119, 137, 147, 161, 176, 199, 236, 239, 242, 248, 264–5, 268, 270, 272, 276, 301, 312 rich/wealthy  2, 8, 17–18, 20, 23–24, 70, 74, 78–79, 93–98, 111, 132, 141–2, 144–51, 153–61, 162–3, 165, 168–9, 172, 177, 180, 184, 190, 202, 231, 236–7, 239, 245–6, 252–3, 259–81, 284 greedy rich  23, 93, 264–5 righteous one/just one  27, 39, 264, 266, 268, 270–3, 277, 298 righteousness  28, 67, 71, 74, 83, 110, 123, 126, 131, 169, 180, 182, 184, 187–8, 192–5, 197, 207–8, 219–20, 222–3, 232, 235, 251, 298 Sts. James Cathedral, Jerusalem  xiv, xvi, 40–41, 42–45, 54 Salisbury Cathedral  57–58 salvation  26, 74, 86, 101, 116, 120, 126, 128, 145, 149, 164, 167, 169, 171, 175–6, 178, 180, 181, 184, 189, 194–5, 197, 199, 201–2, 212, 234, 236, 240, 241, 255, 259, 274, 298, 302, 310, 313–5 sermon(s)  xv, 3, 8, 9, 12, 13, 23, 70, 74–75, 84, 91, 95, 104, 117–118, 133–4, 140, 147, 148, 152, 164, 166–7, 184, 189–90, 198, 199–200, 207, 215, 224, 255, 258–9, 279–80, 300, 308, 309, 316, 317, 319, 322 Sermon on the Mount  2, 15, 21, 104, 207, 227, 229, 233, 295–6 Shema  20, 185–6 ship(s)  70, 205, 208, 213 sin/sinner  69, 71, 74, 76, 80, 85, 87–88, 90, 99–110, 112–113, 117–119, 122, 125, 137, 139, 144–9, 154, 161–6, 168–70, 172, 176–7, 181, 186, 190, 193, 196–8, 205–7, 209, 212, 214, 216, 222, 224, 228–35, 242, 243, 244–5, 247, 249, 251, 253–4, 256–7, 259–60, 262, 264–7, 271–5, 280, 291–2, 295–6, 298–301, 303–6, 308, 310–16 slander  136–7, 208, 246–8, 251, 290, 291–2 slavery  14, 79, 81, 140–1, 152, 156, 162, 224–7, 247, 280, 283

sovereignty of God  20, 68, 145, 178–9, 198, 207, 215, 222–3, 234, 252–3, 257–61, 302, 309–10 of bishop of Rome  124 speech (see also tongue)  13, 14, 77, 90, 120, 205, 208, 214, 216, 218, 223, 230, 250, 256, 287, 288, 292–3 Stoics  163, 165, 170, 172, 217, 244 suffer/suffering  18, 24, 39, 48, 50, 64, 67–9, 71, 73, 74–75, 77–79, 95, 97–98, 100–102, 105–106, 111–113, 118–119, 132, 139, 150, 158–9, 176, 178, 191, 216, 218, 224, 231, 251, 264, 266, 268, 271, 277–81, 283, 285–7, 291, 295–6, 298, 300, 302, 304, 308, 309, 311, 313 teachers  16, 47, 71, 127, 204–6, 208–11, 215, 220, 222–3, 227, 237, 256 teaching  9, 125–6 of Bible  11, 13, 176, 241, 248, 256, 260, 291 of Epistle of James  12, 29, 64, 69, 72, 95, 97, 110, 113, 115, 122, 156, 174, 177, 196–7, 223, 234, 256, 260, 303 false 10 of Jesus (see also Sermon on the Mount)  2, 15, 18–19, 21–22, 29, 64, 93–95, 100, 112, 168, 174, 182, 185, 229, 286, 292, 312 of law  131 of Paul  15, 174, 181, 183, 192 Roman Catholic  86–87, 190, 305 tempt/temptations/testing (see also and God)  67–68, 77–78, 80, 81, 85, 176, 208, 232, 234, 250–1, 279, 308 and desire/lust  80, 99, 234, 312 and devil  164, 243, 284 (as serpent), 305 and God  20, 25, 65, 72, 74–75, 99–112, 119–120, 123, 127, 186, 192, 233–4, 241, 249, 303, 308 trials (see also tempt/temptations/testing)  xvii, 20, 63–65, 67, 70, 72, 74–81, 91, 99, 101, 106, 109, 110–113, 119, 123, 127, 157, 176, 186, 227, 233, 258, 279–81, 285, 289, 298, 308 theology  127, 133, 141, 153, 201 folk 112 of James  17, 19, 274 liberation  xvi, 17, 92, 156–7, 273, 311 Paul’s  23, 26, 73, 177 practical  5–6, 22–23 tongue  72, 83, 126, 127, 135–7, 141, 180, 191, 204–9, 211–8, 220, 222, 236, 246–7, 272, 279, 288–90, 314

340  Index of Subjects Torah 218 obedience  5, 19, 22–3, 36, 38 truth  3, 67, 68, 72, 77, 83, 91, 101, 105, 113–115, 117, 122–3, 128, 130, 134, 139, 141, 151, 161, 174, 180, 198, 200, 201, 212, 217, 220–1, 227, 240, 250, 255, 259, 287, 289, 291–2, 294–7, 300, 312, 315–6 virgin/virginity  25, 83, 114–115, 175 birth  31, 34 Jesus 115 Mary  75, 150 perpetual of James  115 of Mary  31–32, 320 wealth  6, 17, 22–24, 74, 93, 96–98, 145, 147, 149–51, 159, 162, 189, 209, 229, 230, 237, 246, 251, 253, 261, 264, 266, 272–7 women  14, 18, 147, 154, 185, 226, 307 widow(s)/er(s)  18, 32, 34, 51, 83, 115, 135–7, 139–42, 144, 150, 154, 158, 179, 225, 263, 274 wisdom  xvii, 63–4, 74, 80, 81–86, 89–92, 96, 103, 113, 123, 125–6, 135, 151, 155,

168, 195, 207, 213, 219–25, 227–9, 231, 236, 254, 272, 310 tradition  16, 20, 82 word(s) doers of  xvii, 14, 22, 24, 90, 99, 128–9, 132–6, 138, 140, 164, 174, 178, 180, 200, 205–6, 220–2, 244, 253–4, 262–3, 267, 290, 316 of encouragement/consolation  8, 18, 23–24, 68, 107, 166, 202, 234 of God  14, 27, 84–85, 97, 120, 123–4, 128, 131, 134, 161, 172, 210, 221, 248, 291 implanted  123–4, 128, 254, 312 and integrity  18 of life  117 of truth  113, 115, 122–3, 174, 289 works (see faith)  xvi, 1–3, 9, 10–11, 13, 15, 18, 22, 24, 26–27, 69–71, 77, 79, 82, 84, 92, 97, 113, 115, 129, 131, 134, 144, 146, 164–5, 169, 171, 173–4, 175–8, 180–203, 208, 210, 212–3, 220, 222, 224, 228, 247, 254–6, 262–3, 286, 290, 294, 302, 305, 312, 314, 316 worship  75, 141, 149, 156, 227, 240, 311 of God  38, 210, 216 true 139–40 of wealth  17