The Selected Text:
RELIGION
IN WORD & DEED
+
The Way to Salvation
Understand this my beloved sisters
and brothers,
Let every one be quick to listen,
slow to speech, and
slow to anger; (20) For one's anger
does not produce
God's Righteousness. (21) Therefore
lay aside all Vulgarity
And the great mass of Malice, and
humbly accept the
Implanted Word which is able to
save your Souls!
+
The Face in the
Mirror
So be Doers of the Word and not
just Listeners,
deceiving yourselves;
(23) For if anyone is only a Listener
of the Word,
And not a Doer,
That one is like a Woman who takes
a good look
in a Mirror at the Face she was
born-again with.
(24) For she considered herself
carefully;
And then went away and forgot what
she was like!
(25) But they who have caught a
glimpse of the Perfect Law
(the one of Freedom}, and stayed
with Him
- being not a Forgetful Listener,
but a Doer of His work -
They are blessed in ALL that they
do.
+
What True Religion
Is
So if anyone thinks they are religious,
when they do not bridle the tongue
(But deceive the Heart),
this one's "Religion" is worthless!
(27) Pure
& Unstained Religion
before God
the Father
is this:
To visit Orphans & Widows in
their Affliction,
AND
to keep oneself from being defiled
by the
WORLD!
[James
1:19-27 / PV]
+
[Note:
the Prophet Version is the author's modified
version
based on The Best Greek Text and S.Laws' excellent
English
translation. Heading by Laws; sub-headings by textman]
CONTENTS:
1.
Introduction: On Doing Violence to James
2.
Setting & Genesis: The Post-Apostolic Church of Alexandria
3.
The Rhetorical Function & Nature of James
4.
Christology, Christian Anthropology, & Christo-Psychology
5.
Conclusion: Constipation of the Imagination
ENDNOTES
& WORKS CITED
1. Introduction: On Doing Violence to James.
The epistle of James is not an epistle, and was not written by James (ie. the Lord's brother). As a book it resembles a patchwork collection of wisdom bits and paraenesis thrown together in no particular order by one who was neither a writer nor an editor. Luther's recognition of all this led him to conclude that James "is an epistle full of straw, because it contains nothing evangelical" (Preface to the NT). And in contradicting Paul it "does violence to Scripture" (Preface to the Epistles of St James and St Jude). Of course, in rejecting James from what he calls "the true canon", it is Luther himself who does violence to Scripture. But even so, he regarded it as "valuable", and recognized that it "contains many excellent passages". All in all, Luther's position on the book is entirely orthodox in that he, like the Church in general, considers it deutero-canonical; and therefore of secondary significance (at best).. What both Luther and the Church fail to appreciate is that this small book was written by a pastor as a pastoral response to Pauline Christianity (ie. all those Christians who misunderstood and misapplied Paul's writings).Now Jacob (ie. the author of Jm) was not a theologian or a philosopher, he was a sage and a prophet who was passionately concerned with Christian living. He knew, in his bones (as it were), that knowledge, visions, mysticism, theology, (and so forth) are not the true measure of any Christian. It is our actions, our behavior in relation to those around us, and our heart-felt responses to them, that makes or breaks us as Christians. In my view, this is about as evangelical as it is possible to be! James saw very clearly that to reject the Law of Christ is the very pinnacle of hypocrisy, and the negation of all wisdom and holiness.1 Yet Luther claimed to find nothing of Christ in this marvelous epistle of James. But he only meant that it bears scant resemblance to the kerygma as found in Paul and the Gospels. As such, it could not properly be called 'good news'.2 But this absurd judgment says more about Luther's own theology than anything else. Indeed, there is nothing here that could not very easily have fallen directly from the Lord's own wisdom-lips. In fact, some scholars have even noticed that, outside the four gospels, there is no NT book that is more (shall we say?) oriented to Jesus. Nothing of Christ? Faith, hope, and charity are passionately alive on every page, and the Spirit of Truth is revealed in every word! How then is the wisdom of James nothing more than ancient moral exhortation which no longer has any relevance for the post-modern Christian?
Therefore, we cannot escape the observation that the secondary literature on James is just incredibly appalling. Under the current state of scholarly affairs, there can be little doubt that just as the Song of Songs is the most misunderstood and neglected book in the OT, so the Epistle of James is the most misunderstood and neglected book in the NT. Little wonder, then, that the post-modern Canadian church has no use for it. Now here is a strange thing: the bible scholars and commentators are all laboring under a heavy handicap. Notice that despite the unique and high-quality of the Greek text, and the early Church's fierce resistance to inclusion, and the lateness of the earliest witnesses, etc, the interpreters nevertheless assume/conclude that James is primitive and/or early on in the formation of the canon. For them, theology always takes precedence over history and logic. Hence Jm's alleged (ie. projected) 'insufficient Christology' proves that it must have been written before the great and wonderful Gospel of John, because everyone knows that the formation of the canon is progressive in nature!
Rather than underline the error of pushing such thinking in all directions, I would only point out that the so-called fourth gospel did not signal a halt to the minds of the inspired writers, and that several very good books came after John (including Luke-Acts and 1Peter). In the same way, James' Christology, when understood correctly, is very clearly post-Johannine; and is, in fact, a development and result of that very gospel! Moreover, the parable of the face in the mirror is all the proof we require to demonstrate the truth of the Greek-Preacher's Logos-Wisdom; and consequently, to show that the objective and dispassionate approach of the biblical experts is insufficient to 'plum the depths' of James . . .
Thus the so-called 'hermeneutics of suspicion' is a valid methodological procedure for one reason, and one reason only. Namely, it is amply justified. And why should this be? Because modem biblical scholarship - despite all its impressive discoveries and insights - is basically still fumbling about in the darkness, with no solid clue as to where it really is. Nowhere is this confusion more apparent than in that specialized field known as Jamesian studies. Thus commentators on James routinely dismiss important data as irrelevant, and make much of obvious and little things. For example, James' impeccable Greek is deemed curious, but apparently leads to nothing else of consequence. Some scholars even speak of a Hebrew or Aramaic original; so certain are they that James is Jewish! On the other hand, the presence of the word 'synagogue' IS significant as proof of Jewish origins; rather than seeing it within the context of James' post-apostolic ecclesiology.
Yet even L.T.Johnson agrees that many (I would say all) of James' 'semitisms' are owing to what he calls "the Septuagintal connection" (7). In short, I propose that the commentators are very much in line with a tradition of abusing James; one that runs right through Jamesian studies back to Luther, and all the way home to the long tradition of resistance as regards canonical status and liturgical use. Most of this early resistance was based on the idea that James (the Lord's brother) did not write it ... (and so it is worthless?). Fortunately Jerome and Augustine thought otherwise, and so saved James for the Good Book. But ever since Luther's misreading and subsequent misguided attack on James, scholars have been trying to restore and redeem the misbegotten epistle by asserting once more that James the Just wrote it; but if not, it is still a prime example of early and primitive Jewish wisdom literature with a very light Christian veneer ...
But where is the evidence for this vision-cum-interpretive-grid? James demonstrates a wide knowledge of ancient literature, yet this does not mean that a devoted scholar and wise teacher and passionate prophet wrote it. No indeed. And if James demonstrates a strong love for the LXX, this is taken as sure proof of primitive Jewish-Christian origins! Yet James also demonstrates a wide knowledge of early Christian literature (especially 1Peter - to which there about are 26 links!); but all this is taken to indicate parallel traditions or borrowings from James, or anything and everything except the obvious fact that the author knew and loved them all intimately: Paul, the Gospels, 1Clem, Shepherd of Hermas, and so forth. Therefore, this paper also proceeds from the hypothesis that while Jamesian scholarship is indeed 'full of straw', the epistle of James itself is amazingly dense and packed with layer upon layer of meaning and power such that it is not only the Word of God, but a profoundly Christian document as well!
2. Setting & Genesis: the Post-Apostolic Church of Alexandria.
The date and place of origin of the book of James are to be discovered from the evidence at hand. Four items are of paramount importance in this regard: (1 ) the high-quality of the Greek text. (2) the author's knowledge of early Christian (and other classical) literature. (3) its deutero- canonical status based on partial non-acceptance and resistance by the early Church. (4) the witness of Origen. This latter point is by far the most important fact to bear in mind in the determination of the date and setting of our unfortunate epistle. Since Origen is clearly the earliest witness to James, common sense alone dictates that the origin of the letter is to be found somewhere near Origen in place and time. In the same way, the Christian sage who wrote James did so in a Greek of such high quality that it is almost of classical purity and originality. The only other NT books of similar exceptional written Greek are the Epistle to the Hebrews, and Lk-Acts.Clearly, this Greek preacher was a well educated man. [He doubtless had long acquaintance with the unrivaled library of Alexandria prior to its unfortunate destruction at the hands of an angry Christian mob.] He was most likely a late 2C Alexandrian Christian who knew and loved the LXX, as well as being well versed in the major NT writings (ie. the Gospels, Pauline epistles, 1Peter, etc). [Adamson rightly sets James in the context of the major NT writings (eg. Sermon on the Mount, Matthew, Paul), but a strange, and unhistorical, romanticism distorts his exegesis and eisegesis: James takes us "back to the infancy of the Christian Church, to the purple dawn of Christian enthusiasm and the first glow of Christian love" (21). Egad! Good poetry is not necessarily good scholarship.] All the evidence. when taken together, and seen as mutually supportive, accordingly suggests that James was written in Alexandria sometime during the second half of the second century. In other words, this small book could very easily have been among the very last of the canonical books to have been written.
Yet the popular understanding of the epistle of James is that it is wisdom literature and/or paraenesis cast in the form of a circular letter. Thus it is placed early it the NT traditiion and is relevant to modern Catholics only in a very mild and distant way. There is virtually no recognition of the passionate preacher within the biblical sage, or the zealous soul of a scholarly poet. But James is not so much a haphazard collection of ethical maxims for neophytes as it is a collection of tried and true pastoral homilies, the fruit of many years of public and liturgical preaching within the context of the faithful assembly or 'synagogue'. This letter was put together by a dedicated prophet after years of experience as a preacher and teacher, and after years of studying the holy and not-so-holy books of the ancient world in the famous library in Alexandria.
To properly understand this book it is not enough to simply recognize its rhetorical status as prophetic sermon. One must also understand the man behind the text. This was a man who was much admired by the Christians of his generation. A man who was every bit the equal of the great Apostle to the Gentiles. Yet, it is remarkable just how many otherwise intelligent scholars 'know' or believe with certainty that James the Just, the brother of the Lord, is the author of the Epistle of James. Such an unwarranted opinion tells us that this scholar is utterly lacking in historical imagination, has a profound (although usually unconscious) disrespect for the text, and is one of those unfortunate Christians who will gladly and willingly bend and twist and crush history this way and that in order to force the so-called 'evidence' to fit whatever theological assumptions and conceptions just happen to be congenial to their accustomed manner of thinking.
Constipation of the Imagination, not paying attention to the Text, and a serious shortage of highly-involved Passion, are the three banes of a modern biblical scholarship which prides itself on the great and many wonderful fruits of the 'historical' (by which they mean an objective and dispassionate) approach. But if we judge the method solely by its fruits as regards the book of James (ie. the popular commentaries), then the full depth of the poverty of understanding, and the full force of the darkness of ignorance, is made manifest and evident to future generations of bible students and scholars. For example: "This James [ie. Jesus' brother], a powerful and well-known figure of the early church, is surely the person indicated in the opening verse" (Davids 3). What the vast majority of biblical scholars fail to appreciate is that our unknown Alexandrian James did not write a NT book under an assumed apostolic authority, as it his sole intent was to force his book into the canon. The only authority that the prophet/sage requires is the authority of Truth!
Or to put it another way: James is "a quasi-prophetic letter of pastoral encouragement, and, no less, of pastoral rebuke, proceeding from an unquestioned right of pastoral vocation and authority" (Adamson 20). Thus James deals directly and uncompromisingly with the social realities of a settled and even partiality prosperous church. His concern for the special treatment accorded to the wealthier members3 of the congregation at their liturgical celebrations (Laws speaks here of a "community meeting") suggests a general situation or environment that simply could not have obtained much earlier than about 150 CE. In the same way, his wide and deep knowledge of Christian, Jewish, and Greek literature could only have occurred about a generation (ie. about 25 years) after the major NT writings were committed to paper and entrusted to the churches.
Now the first century of the Church (30-130CE) was the penod in which all but a few of the NT books were written. The process began with 1&2Thes c.50, and was soon followed by the other genuine Pauline epistles. Then, (a generation later) these provoked Mark (c.70), which in turn inspired the other gospels [in this order in tirne: Matthew (c.85), John (c.100), LukeActs (c. 115)], the deutero-pauline writings and, toward the end of this apostolic century, the other deutero-canonical and miscellaneous works, leaving only James to serve as a prophetic capstone synthesizing and unifying the wisdom of the early Greek church and pointing the way to the fast coming established church of Constantine and Christendom.
If the NT, then, were to be arranged historically (ie. chronologically and just plain logically) it would open with the first of the four Thessalonian letters, and it would end with James and Jude. Once all this is clearly understood (and the implications appreciated), we are in a much better position to understand that while its apparent form is that of a short occasional letter, after the manner of the Apostle, it is also deliberatehy designed to be universal in scope AND application (hence the importance of the opening reference to the 'twelve tribes of the Dispersion'). In the same way, whereas Paulos came to have all the authority of 'The Great Apostle to the Gentiles', Jarnes has only the authority ot the anonymous sage and prophet. Hence he rightly (and wisely) refers to himself only as the slave of God and the Lord. This tells us that the second century Church did not feel any pressing need for 'TheTrinity!' No, the great episcopal debates on 'fundamental theological essentials and necessities' would have to await the passing of yet another century of growth, development, and spiritual dissolution; and the more unfortunate consequences of same.
But James was still in the relatively 'peaceful golden age' of the Church: still 'basking in the warm glow of apostolic expectation', and gloriously unaware of the Great Theological Controversies of a semi-corrupt Church. But for the settled Alexandrian Church, the most contentious issue was the problem of faith and works (the legacy of Paulos), and the need for social justice. Cutting through all the theological flak with the fearless honesty of the prophet who knows where the truth hides, James constantly names the sins he sees within the People of God, and then "demonstrates the futility of 'workless' faith not only by scriptural example but also in a pointed parody of the piety that neglects charity to a brother or sister' (ii. 1 5f)" (Laws 8-9). In the NT, then, it is fitting that it should begin with Paulos and end with James; for both were skilled and dedicated pastors energized by a boundless passion for the Lord and his Church.
3. The Rhetorical Function & Nature of James.
The first thing we can say about our selected passage is that it is a single, unified, coherent, and independent unit. In other words, it is a full and complete homily in its own right, and does not immediately require the existence of the rest of the letter in order to be meaningful; although the rest does indeed make for a marvelous interpretive grid. [This unity and functional dislocation is sometimes discerned in translation.] But the first thing to know about your average smallish pericope is that repetitions of key words and phrases is extremely significant. Therefore, if the same phrase occurs in sections two and three, we may take it that the Preacher is intending to draw our attention to something that might otherwise be missed. So then, here at the end of the opening statement of the parable unit (v.22) [remember that in the Greek the position of words is itself significant], we find the phrase "deceiving yourselves", and in the middle of the opening verse in section three we find "deceive the heart". From these two simple statements we can easily deduce that the Preacher's Christian psychology directly equates 'self' with 'heart'.Thus a 'deceptive heart' is another way of referring to any person who is given over to deception and self-deception. And again, it is the unaccepting heart that is connected to the ear that receives the Word placed there by the lector. But since He is not transmitted from ear to heart, He has nowhere to go; and so, once the ear is back about its normal business, He gets quickly pushed aside. In other words: the Word is forgotten! Hence the deception. Thus it is clear from the subtle, yet powerful, way that James uses his words that this entire homily is not so much a series of forgettable 'maxims and exhortations', but rather a penetrating psycho-spiritual discernment and ruthless examination of a perennial aspect of the laity. Indeed, I dare say that every assembly has its fair share of these 'righteous' Christians who certainly do believe with their ears and tongues, but whose hearts belong to something other.
In the same way, the heart is the source and power of the angry tongue. "In iii.6 it is the tongue which represents the world and effects the defilement of the body: the enmity towards God would be seen in the human speech which blesses him while cursing his image (iii.9)" (Laws 91). Among the main themes addressed by the Epistle of James are those of speech and anger; being two very common, and related, human realities that the Christian must always be wary of. James gives extensive warnings about both in chapter three, but here (1:19-27) his purpose is slightly different. Here he is concerned with more fundamental matters; namely, defining these things accurately to the end of making us see these trivial and mundane behaviors for what they really are.
That is to say, James understands speech and anger theologically; which means seeing them through the eyes of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is not to say that speech and anger, and angry speech, are evil in and of themselves. James would look pretty silly if that's what he is arguing here; for the simple reason that later on the passionate pastor throws off the shackles, and cuts loose with a good deal of angry speech! But even then he always anchors himself to the Lord; and so is not "washed away into the cruel sea, like everything built upon the sand" ("I'm Just a Man" by INXS). In other words, anger must be balanced by humility: "Renunciation and acceptance alike require the quality of humility which will later be seen as a mark of life ordered by wisdom (iii.13)" (Laws 82).
Incidentally, the ever-unbalanced Western Catholic Reporter provides an interesting exhortation called "To be prophetic is to have balance" (In Exile, Nov.17/97). In this short essay R.Rolheiser argues the local church's thinking as regards prophets and all things prophetic: "We have enough one-sided passion, ideology anger in the world and in the church." Now this is true in one sense, but it certainly does not justify the censorship, insult, rejection and abuse that I have suffered for daring to speak the truth. In any case, he ends with a list of recent teachers and heroes of the Faith whom he suggests are prime examples of balanced prophets. As for me, I'm not so sure that any of them (e.g. writers and monks mostly) can be properly defined as prophets; although there are obviously various prophetic charisms at work here. I want you to know that there IS an important distinction to be made here! To deny this is to do even more violence to the prophets. It is a curious argument he forwards: the various abuses, ignorance, and isunderstandings of prophecy apparently justify putting a choke chain on the truth. But no real prophet could ever tolerate putting limits on God's vision and expression. No real prophet could build protective hedges around the truth of things so as to spare the innocent and weak from the pain of unpleasant truths.
Yet R.R. says that "Anyone can be in somebody else's face." What an ironic declaration! When we assemble for liturgy and become a synagogue, we look across the table and see our brothers and sisters there. We are then looking into a mirror which shows us our true and natural face, the face of Christ that all true believers posses by virtue of baptism and faith. And this is precisely the point of James' mirror parable. The face in the mirror is the face of Christ; just as the voice of the scriptures is the Lord's own prophetic voice (the two-edged sword of judgment and mercy). Every Christian ought to be glad that this One's face and voice are made to be always 'In Your Face'! Indeed, this is the very purpose of all true prophecy and theology. This is what makes 1John and James literary blood-brothers (despite all their rhetorical and linguistic differences). Thus prophecy is not just exhortation or wisdom or moral teaching or theology or balance or whatnot. James suggests that it is all of these and more. Prophecy demonstrates that life under Christ calls us all to the art of Christian living; not just thinking or speaking, nes pa? Thus life under Jesus is to be a slave of the Lord. This what it means to be a prophet. This is also the eternal message of James (and his/our Master).
Now literary and theological development generally runs along regular tracks, in one general direction, from the simple to the complex (e.g.. letter (1&2Th is made up of four early letters) to epistle (e.g. Romans)), from short to long to longer (Mk to Mt to Lk-Acts), from the specific to the general (occasional to catholic epistles), from the linguistically crude to the rhetorically refined (Mk to Hebrews; Rev to James), etc. In short, James is a prime example of pastoral and passionate prophetic preaching taken from the actual life of a sophisticated and settled assembly of educated urban believers, and set in the form of a catholic epistle. But the necessarily anarchic nature and manifestations of early Christian prophecy means that there are NO specific or distinctive oral or written forms that can be readily identifiable as prophetic speech as such.
However, Mr Muller has noticed the presence of what might be called 'the prophetic sermon'; which entity can be understood as "a linguistic unity of prophetic speech developed out of several individual parts" (cf. Gill 19,22). The supposition of this paper is that the book or letter of James is largely composed of a series of prophetic sermons that are necessarily late in the tradition. That is to say: James comes in at the end of the period in which the so-called '27 NT books' were being written. Its very nature demonstrates it to be the culmination of about a century and a half of literary and theological developments in the early Greek churches. Moreover, our selected passage is one such sermon in its entirety; an excellent example of prophetic preaching in its finest apostolic form.
Prophetic speech (e.g. pastoral and/or liturgical preaching) basically offers guidance and instruction to the assembly. Paul's functional definition of prophecy is well-balanced by including both positive and negative elements. Thus: paraklhsiV - exhortation, and paramuqia - consolation, are the two necessary sides of the same prophetic coin. Both sides of the coin are equally valid and necessary; just as the Sword of the Word requires both blades (judgment and mercy) to be sharp in order to be strong and effective. In the same way, it is senseless to argue or assume that passionate pastoral prophetic preaching has no place within the liturgical setting. Nevertheless, the idea that the homily's function is to draw us into the celebration of the Eucharist is often taken to mean that anything other than insipid story-telling simply does not qualify as liturgical preaching! But James shows us what the liturgical homily was meant to be ...
That is, the prophetic sermon serves to bring forth the implications of our Faith as it is expressed in liturgy, in theology, and in the Scriptures. It speaks not just to the mind, but to the minds and hearts of the hearers and readers. The Gospel, after all, must be written on the hearts and minds of believers, and not just on paper. This truth is long known to the prophetic tradition through Paul and Jesus back to the earliest Hebrew prophets. James captures the hearts and minds of the faithful by capturing their imagination, and pulling their souls along behind. He does this through the use of forceful diction and everyday images and activities. The core of our selected text is thus a seemingly simple comparison or natural illustration, but is actually a 'loaded' parable, much like the ones spoken by the Lord in the Gospels.
So the best way to approach these verses is as a single incredibly dense homilette whose main theme, or central controlling idea, is purity of heart; and the necessary unity of heart, mind and action that goes with it. Thus James' prophetic preaching follows the wisdom tradition of the two ways (e.g. Psalm 1, Didache), constantly contrasting the differences between these two ways of life. The dualism is vivid and striking and deliberately designed to strike deep into the psyche, to strike through our careful and formidable defenses. [It is this rhetorical feature that most clearly demonstrates the close kinship between Jm and 1John. That is, in the NT, the book of James most resembles 1John in form and function (ie. prophetic sermons). Both letters are excellent examples of apostolic theology and catechesis as it was practiced in the early Greek Church. More to the point, both documents emerge from within the Church (having a divine and human genesis); and for the Church as a whole, for all believers of every generation. Both books are wisdom- theology cast in the vehicle of a pastoral and passionate prophetic preaching.]
James "challenges us to be persons of integrity, that is, people who are consistent in all we see, say, believe, and do. Throughout the letter, by way of negative examples the author draws our attention to the 'double-minded person' (see 1:8; 4:8) - the person beset by double-vision, double-talk, double-face - and expresses a hope that we, by contrast, will manifest integrity of faith" (Gench/96, p.81). Indeed, the key to 1:19-27 (and to the whole epistle) is in v.26 (and 4:8c): 'deceive the heart'! James' strong language on this point suggests that he despises self-deception above all things. As Johnson observes: James' "most obvious target is the one referred to as 'double-minded' (1:8; 4:8), who wants to be friends with everyone!" (87) Clearly, James considers these wishy-washy 'believers' as a very serious threat to the integrity of the assembly, for it is in these people that the disparity between faith and deeds is most marked. "So James sees the double-minded person as one who claims to be within the covenanted community but dallies with the values and standards of the outsiders, a spiritual 'adulteress'" (Johnson 87).
So the book of James can hardly be said to be merely a collection of ancient moral maxims of universal scope urging everyone to more ethical behavior, etc. etc. No, no. What James is saying is that there are only two kinds of Christian in the Church: (1) those who know the Lord in their hearts and minds, and so actualize that faith into their daily lives; and (2) those who do not carry their faith beyond the confines of the liturgy. It is, of course, to these latter (in Alberta a clear majority ) that Jm is addressed; and this also explains the long habit of Resistance to the epistle of James that was there right from the start and still abides (with Jamesian scholarship and liturgical tradition as its most devoted servants).
4. Christology, Christian Anthropology & Christo-Psychology.
Now Adamson (along with many other scholars), in speaking of James' Christology, routinely mention that "Christ" occurs only twice (1:1, 2:1), in passing and only incidentally as it were. Hence the common conclusion that the epistle refers directly to Jesus twice ONLY. This is, of course, incorrect and misleading since there are many and various, mentions of "the Lord" (eg. 5:7,15), as well as a highly crucial mention of "the noble name of him to whom you belong" (2:7), which (significantly) finds an echo near the end of the letter: "... in the name of the Lord" (5:14). To thus overlook 'the name' as NOT having extreme theological meaning is something that no OT scholar scholar would ever dream of doing! Sophie Laws, at the beginning of the introduction to her commentary, makes a curious assertion to the erect that "the title 'Lord' is still more frequently a title of God (i.7, iii.9, iv.10, iv.15, v.4, v.10, v.11)" (3). That is, in the light of the supposed primitive, ancient, and Jewish milieu of the letter, James doubtless means to indicate these as references to Yahweh; but, significantly, Laws does NOT explicitly state this. Yet she is clearly claiming that these seven Lord's do not refer to the Anointed One, but rather to some-one else.But if we examine the text carefully: 1:7, 3:9, 4:10&15 can all easily refer to Christ. Indeed, in light of the other references (to the Word, to glory, to the name, etc4) it is not at all surprising that James should call the coming eschatological judge by the title "Lord All-Powerful" (5:4). And given the fact that there is no mention of Christ or God in chapter five, but only numerous references to the Lord, one following hard on the heels of the other, it is worse than useless to suppose that one can say: 'Well, this one refers to God, and that one to Christ, and that one could go either way' (eg. 5:10-11)! For James, as for us, there can be only one Lord and Savior. Thus, at least for the sage, there is no confusion about names or titles: 'The Lord' is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ, as he clearly states in the original and legitimate opening to the epistle. When James wants to refer to the divinity distinct from Christ, he simply says "God"; by which he refers to the God of Jesus, who is the Heavenly Father; which understanding the sage acknowledges when he refers to "the Father of Lights" ( 1:17), and when he names Him directly here in v.27 as "God the Father".
In any case, James clearly has an incarnational theology at the root of his thinking. It includes an embodied, almost materialistic, anthropology that is very Hebrew in it's lack of body/soul dualism: ear, eye, tongue, and heart all enter into his perception of the Christian creature. In the same way, his anthropology is tied directly to his incarnation Christology. The Lord (the Word, the Law of Love) is given concrete physical form in the sacred scriptures which enter into us, and transforms us from within, such that it is Christ's face that we see 'in the mirror' when we think and feel and act like Christians. The Lord's ongoing incarnation thus has three forms or embodied expressions: the Bread & Wine (Body & Blood), the Bible, and the Assembly (ie. the church is none other than the totality of individual disciples; where a true disciple is understood to be a faithful believer AND doer of the Word).
What James is arguing here, and throughout the epistle, is that the assembly as such is NOT the church of saved believers unless its members also keep 'the perfect law' even when they are not worshipping within the context of the liturgical assembly. In other words, if we do not live the truth (ie. obey the law of love, which is what following Christ means) then we are NOT saved, and so our religion is worthless (v.26). Calvin puts the mater this way: "... but the doer is he who from the heart embraces God's word and testifies by his life that he really believes, according to the saving of Christ, 'Blessed are they who hear God's word and keep it' (Luke xi.28); for he shows by the fruits what that implanting is ..." (297). James twice refers to the law as a 'law of freedom' (Jm 1:25. 2:12). The Christian, in other words, cannot reject THE LAW as such, but can fulfill, surpass, and transcend it.
Thus James calls 'the law' by two very significant names: The Perfect Law; and The Law of Liberty. The 'perfect law' is, of course, the divine law of love as revealed by God in the Lord Jesus Christ, and laid out in black and white in the teachings of Jesus as found in the early Christian scriptures (eg. the Sermon on the Mount). The idea that the law and true liberty are intimately connected was once well recognized by Greeks and Jews. Philo said that "All who are under the tyranny of anger or desire or any other passion are altogether slaves; all who live with the law are free." Seneca is even more to the point: "To obey God is liberty." James is fully in agreement with such thinking. and adds that in Christ the law attains perfect expression. In the same way, as the Assembly is the very Body of Christ, so the Scriptures (LXX & NT) are the very voice of the Same One Lord.5
Why then should anyone suppose that the Preacher's Christology is primitive, insufficient, or otherwise defective? Simply because such a conclusion 'fits' the commentators absurd assumptions about the epistles alleged Jewish origins? There is certainly no mystery in the lack of references to Christ's passion, death, resurrection, ascension, etc. etc. This is because the bulk of the books that were later 'canonized' were already under his hand, and always upper-most in his mind, such that he felt no need to repeat or re-write the gospels and epistles in his own letter. But he did see the need to respond to those who already knew and accepted these writings as sacred revelation; but who, in their zeal and ignorance misunderstood and/or misinterpreted the sometimes difficult and sometimes confusing, and sometimes just-plain-wrong teachings of the Apostle to the Gentiles.
The real mystery in all this lies not in James' own subtle and comprehensive Christology, but rather in why the biblical scholars deem it necessary to make such ludicrous statements regarding what the text REALLY means; when it ought to be perfectly obvious to any student of the Bible that James' Christology is in no wise defective IF one takes the trouble to actually pay attention to the text. Thus all those who judge James' Christology inadequate or unimpressive obviously fail to take into account the simple fact that our Alexandrian Sage is Egypt's first and greatest Christian contextual-theologian. No other book in the NT canon is so theological and pastoral at the same time, and yet so free of the jargon and mystical speculations and fancies that constitute about 80% of all theology (in any age).
5. Conclusion: Constipation of the Imagination.
The Epistle of James is not a book of exhortation or paraenesis, nor a simple collection of moral maxims that can be regarded as optional or of merely secondary importance, having no real relevance to OUR faith. Rather, the epistle is a series of instructions and meditations in Christian wisdom-unto-salvation, or (to put it another way) a set of prophetic homilies. In the same way, these instructions are necessarily well-soaked in an incarnational Christology that arises from the author's zealous faith in Christ as the very Wisdom-Word of God. This is the essential insight that lies at the core of James' catholic vision of the Scriptures (OT & NT) as the Voice of the Lord, of the Church, and of every individual believer! This is also the meaning of the mirror metaphor.Yet this understanding of James is nowhere to be found among the secondary literature. The trouble with Jamesian scholarship seems to be a set of assumptions about the genesis of James (eg. it is 'Jewish'; although there is NO evidence for this in the text itself) that are firmly in place; and often go by unmentioned (before and after the exegesis begins). The text is thereafter made to fit the assumptions, instead of allowing the textual evidence to speak for itself, and so modify the hypothesis to conform to the facts as they reveal themselves. The failure to be thus scientific means that exegesis is really eisegesis in everything but name. One could easily call all this a basic disrespect for the text that has long since become traditional.
And this often unconsciously negative prejudgment of the Epistle of James is made manifest in the clumsy and erroneous manner in which its historical setting is made to fit the contours of the established understanding as regards the formation of the NT canon. The other major aspect of this biased contextualization is evident in the way that interpretation always runs to the parallels found in the abundant canonical, deutero- canonical, extra-canonical, and non-canonical literature of the Roman Empire before and during the first century. These parallels are, of course, important and valuable information; but Christian hermeneutics requires more than this, so parallels are also drawn with other NT writings (Paul, Peter, etc), but (and also very extremely illogically) it is generally supposed that while James' literary dependence on non-NT writings is obvious and certain, it does not depend on the NT writings, but rather draws from the older common (and hypothetical) traditions (eg. oral, Q. etc).
But, in fact, the other NT writings do not depend on James at all; with the sole exception of Jude. Now this latter detail also suggests a late second century genesis; as does Origen and the difficult time it had in fighting its way into the canon (dragging Jude along behind it?). This late genesis effectively demolishes the notion of dependence on common traditions (ie. there is NO evidence of 'Q' in James!). Thus, one of the most important features of James is that he is EXTREMELY dependent on the other NT writings (except Jude). The fact that this is nowhere recognized or acknowledged reveals considerable confusion among Jamesian scholars about even the most basic facts.
The modern and scientific approach to theology often suffers from a kind of 'spiritual schizophrenia' in that its objective and dispassionate methodologies and ceaseless categorizing tend to split the world into two unequal halves: the 'good' academic stuff over here, and the 'bad' pastoral and professional stuff (geared to technique and the accomplishment of practical and pragmatic goals) over there. It is no wonder, then, that biblical scholarship has such a hard time reading James. By splitting the head from the heart, the scholarly vision is incapable of seeing more than half of what lurks behind the bare text of Jm. Clearly, a more pastoral approach to the book of James (such as that given by Gench) is needed in order to provide the lofty Germanic perspective with a solid footing in the real world of everyday reality. It is precisely this latter orientation that drives the text of Jm from first word to last. Indeed, Jm is fundamentally just a 'how-to' manual for Christians.
A good working title for 'The Epistle of James' might run as follows > 'How to Be a Christian in the World Without Losing Sight of God: And Other Practical Hints for True Believers Who Wish to Maintain the Integrity of Their Faith!' The Hebrew Preacher tells us that there is nothing new under the sun; and indeed it seems to us that Christian wisdom can hardly be improved upon, let alone surpassed. Yet in the current dismal situation of universal darkness and spiritual death, the Epistle of James sits lost and forlorn; forgotten and easily ignored in the company of dramatic gospels, sublime epistles, mystical homilies, vivid visions, and transcendent theological meditations. In the NT mosaic of sacred texts this is the worthless bead, the 'epistle of straw', the book of primitive 'Jewish' paraenesis which does not provide the spiritual nourishment that today's progressive and enlightened Christian wants and expects from Scripture.
Yet this epistle is nothing less than the very voice of divine reason herself (ie. logoV sofia) that is the necessary counterweight to the lofty mysticism and historical drama that characterizes so much of the other NT writings. But today's 'superior' Christian does not WANT to hear the Word of God as it is given in this distasteful little book. "The subject of the letter is, in fact, the inadequacies and the imperfections, the sins and the mistakes of the members of the Church" (Barclay 26-7). Therefore, it is almost certainly the message that they most NEED to hear!
The commentators also have difficulty recognizing that the best interpreter of James is James himself. For this is the one thing that scholars never do with consistency; for the simple reason that if James is allowed to define his own words according to his own Christian vision, grown in the soil of the Greek sacred scriptures (or, if you prefer, the Christian Bible), it would at once reveal that the scholars 'have not a clue' as to what James is on about. Instead they would much rather label it 'paraenesis' and so have done with it as soon as possible. Now this bias against James is in no way restricted to biblical scholars and theologians, but includes many kinds and generations of Christians. The early history of the epistle, and its current status in the Church (deutero-canonical) also shows that the tradition of misunderstanding and belittling of James is very long-standing, and far precedes (and exceeds) Luther.
In other words despite the current fashion among the commentators to point out Luther's positive (and negative) statements about James, and the limits and errors of his negative assessment of it, they still very much continue the popular Christian tradition of disregarding the epistle as much as possible. This is what I mean when I say that the scholars do not pay attention to the text (paying attention to the words is not quite the same thing), and that there is a fundamental disrespect toward the text which inevitably distorts its meaning and message. Ultimately, it is clear that the Jamesian scholars have only begun to chip away at the wall of ignorance, confusion, and prejudice that completely surrounds and entombs our ill-fated epistle such that a proper understanding of the full depths of the text is practically impossible.
All this is most unfortunate for James (and the whole Church), but especially so for our selected text, because in these thick and heavy eight verses, every word, every phrase, every image is rich in meaning; and put together they present a tight-knit wisdom tapestry. As a single unit these verses resemble nothing so much as a small and crystal clear gem that blazes with multi-colored lights. At its core is the law-of-freedom, which is the Lord's eternal command to us: Hear & Obey! The trouble in the Alexandrian Assembly, as in ours today, is that too many people suppose that hearing with the ears is sufficient unto salvation. This is a deception of the heart (by the mind) that renders our hearing (and indeed all aspects of our religion) worthless. The word is implanted in the ear by the lector; but unless it is also accepted into the heart, without deception and double- mindedness, then it fails to save! Thus the 'saved' Christian, who is not 'slow to anger' and joyfully charitable, is like a woman looking intently at her face in the mirror, who then turns away (to be about her business) and immediately forgets what she looks like.
The meaning of this parable is this: the woman is the devout and attentive Christian sitting in the Pew. The Mirror is the Word of God (ie. the sacred scriptures of the Hebrew and Greek testaments). The Face in the mirror is, of course, the forgotten Son of Man [a.k.a. The Lord Jesus Christ]; or ... the name by which you are called!
END-NOTES.
1. "The first example of how persons exhibit wisdom in their lives touches an area that most Christians today never think of, attention to speech" (103). Thus anger (in v.l9-21) "appears to be taken as the primary example because it exemplifies the way in which the passions as a whole distort the soul" (104). In the same way, sanctity is tied more to wisdom (ie. following Jesus) than to purity or cult: "Holiness does not require physical separation from the world but rejection of its values" (Perkins 105).2. Now some scholars and commentators criticize the ending of Jm by claiming that it breaks off abruptly, as if the final page had been somehow lost in the process of transmission. But actually, 5:19-20 is a wondrously hopeful and encouraging concluding message. Although James clearly recognizes the presence of sinners within the Church, we are not to be complacently accepting, forgiving and compassionate toward them as if their sin were pleasing in the eyes of God (in the sense of live and let live), but rather we are called to show our love for them, and our commitment to Christ, by bringing them back to the Truth, and in doing this, we shall ease the burden of our own sins. What glorious Good News this is! Surely this is the One True Gospel that most needs to be heard by the Church in Canada. What could be more relevant to all of us than the conviction that the Lord urges us to love our erring brothers and sisters in just this Christ-like way. James may very well be the youngest of all the NT writings (and because of that it may very well be deuterocanonical), and it may very well be ignored and despised by all manner of Christian (for centuries on end), but EVEN SO it still has the full authority of God and Church behind it. The voice of the great NT Wisdom-Preacher even now cries out to a Deaf, Dum & Blind Church, to an Arrogant & Willful People-of-God, many of whom harden their hearts so as not to hear the Word placed in their ears, and so held in their minds; but only for a short time (for it finds no purchase in their hearts). Yes, it was the double-minded who most vexed the spirit of this noble sage; and it is today's new breed of double-minded Christians who will be the death of the Church of Canada in the 21st century!
3. Today's young Canadian Christian is also vulnerable to the dangers of wealth. Of course, for most this is NOT a matter of how much money one may or may not have. The post-modern Canadian Christian is rich in arrogance, opulent in blindness, abounding in ignorance, affluent in apathy, abundant in selfishness, and lavish in juvenile egoism. All these 'riches' within the Church - within the very 'Heart of the Diocese' even - wreck Havoc & Devastation on the Faith; and on those who "are called by the name" (Jm 2:7).
4. The text also implies that Jesus is the Word (or SOFIA LOGOS) over and above the Word's embodiment in the sacred scriptures of the second century Greek-Church; or rather, he means to indicate the holy books and the Lord at the same time. In the same way, the Lord s glory links him directly to God in the most awesome and intimate way (and also suggests an awareness of John's Gospel). Thus it seems that James is Wisdom because it is timeless; addressing the churches in every generation. It is Logos because it speaks the Word; not only to the Universal Church of God (One, Apostolic, etc), but also to our own little assembly, here and now, one-in-name-only, very unapostolic, made up of concrete and sinful individuals. It is Prophetic because it speaks the truth that others dare not say. It addresses Christians about matters that are absolutely essential to the One, True, and Apostolic Faith; such as what it actually means to be a Christian, to live like a true disciple and follower of Jesus, to not be double-minded or hard-hearted (such as are some who say 'Lord, Lord', and eat his Body, and drink his Blood). Thus there are still, even now, some people who notice for a moment the true nature of their face (as they look across the Table of Sacrifice & Offering), but who then on leaving the chapel at once forget what they look like; and in the same way, the Word which was implanted in their ears immediately falls out (since the ear cannot contain the Lord, but only the heart). And some very few cannot even bring themselves to look into that mirror at all for fear of what could be seen there! Furthermore, nowhere is the Mirror that James holds up more needed (and yet more ignored) then in Christian institutions of higher learning which are responsible for training and forming the future priests, leaders, and ministers of the Church!
5. Laws commentary on 'the word' of verse 21 is notable for its confusion. She makes 'a big to-do' of James' use of 'implanted', thinking that the full weight of the philosophical tradition lies behind these two terms, when it is apparent (from the larger context, if nothing else) that 'the word' is none other than 'The Word' of John's Prologue; for it is only the Lord Jesus Christ as the Word of God that can save our souls (a fact which James is clearly well aware of). Certainly James does not intend to assign salvific power to any other agency. He is not asking us to obey this or that 'law' as such; rather, it is Jesus that we must follow (for he is the very perfection of the Law). And it is his voice that is heard in the liturgical Celebration; especially in the proclamation of the Bible, where the sacred scriptures of the late second century church were substantially the same as our own duly authorized and approved canon. So when James here speaks of the Word being implanted in us, he is referring to two things: the sacrament of baptism (the original and foundational Christian 'implanting'), and the Hearing of the Lord's Voice by the People in the Assembly. Thus when the scriptures are read aloud in the course of the liturgy of the Word, what happens is that Jesus as Word is implanted in the EARS of the assembly. Hence the importance of listening! Whether or not the Word thus implanted in the ear is then accepted into the heart is for each individual auditor to decide and determine. Hence the importance of humility; for without it the Word (ie. Christ) cannot enter the heart, and so does NOT and cannot save! The Lord thus "requires that it should be a living implanting, by which the word becomes, as it were, united with our heart" (Calvin 294). One can easily see that without this Christian understanding of James' implanted LOGOS, we will completely miss the point of not only this passage, but the entire epistle as a whole! I submit that this is precisely what is wrong with the current Jamesian scholarship; owing primarily to its many misguided assumptions concerning when and where the text came from.
WORKS CITED
Adamson, James. The Epistle of James. The New International Commentary
on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.Barclay, W. The Letters of James and Peter. Rev. Ed. The Daily Study Bible.
Toronto: G.R.Welch, 1976.Calvin, John. "Commentaries on the Epistle of James."
Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles.
Trans. & Ed. J.Owen. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1855.
Calvin's Commentaries.
Volume XXII: Hebrews, 1Peter, 1John, James, 2Peter, Jude.Chester & Martin. The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter and Jude.
New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.Davids, P.H. James. New International Biblical Commentary.
Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1989.Dibelius, Martin. James. Rev. H.Greeven. Trans. M.A.Williams. Ed. H.Koester.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.Gench, F.T. "James." The General Letters: Hebrews, James, l-2 Peter, Jude, l-2-3 John.
Rev.Ed. Ed.G.Krodel. Proclamation Commentaries.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995.______. Hebrews and James. Westminster Bible Companion.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.Gillespie, T.W. The First Theologians: A Study of Early Christian Prophecy.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Pub Co, 1994.Johnson, L.T. The Letter of James: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.
The Anchor Bible. Vol.37A. New York: Doubleday, 1995.______. "The Mirror of Remembrance (James 1:22-25).'
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 50(1988): 632-45.Kugelman, R. James & Jude. New Testament Message. Vol.l9.
Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1980.Laws, Sophie. A Commentary on the Epistle of James. Black's New Testament
Commentaries. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1980.Perkins, Pheme. First and Second Peter. James, and Jude.
Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1995.Reicke, Bo. The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude. The Anchor Bible. Vol.37.
New York: Doubleday, 1964.Rolheiser, R. "To be prophetic is to have balance." Western Catholic Reporter.
Edmonton, Alberta. November 17, 1997. In Exile; p.l4.Sidebottom, E.M. James, Jude, and 2 Peter. New Century Bible.
London: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1967.