18 a.

Der Jakobusbrief

I. Eine Enzyklika von Jakobus, dem Bruder des Herrn, an die Diaspora
R. Bauckham

(1) Gibt es Argumente gegen eine palästinische Herkunft des Jak?

Die Empfänger werden nicht als Christen bezeichnet, weil die ersten Judenchristen sich selbst nicht für eine besondere Sekte unterschieden von anderen Juden hielten, sondern als den Kern der messianischen Erneuerung des Volkes Israel, das einst ganz Israel einschließen würde. Was Jakobus den bereits messianischen Juden schreibt, schreibt er im Grunde ganz Israel (16).

Nur ein Jakobus war so einzigartig bedeutend in der frühen christlichen Bewegung, dass er mühelos identifiziert werden konnte durch die Wendung: „Jakobus, ein Knecht Gottes und des Herrn Jesus Christus“ (Apg 12,17; 15,13; 21,18; 1Kor 15,7; Gal 2,9.12). Dieser Jakobus war der älteste der vier Brüder Jesu (Mk 6,3). Er war der Leiter der Urgemeinde, nachdem die Zwölf aufgehört hatten, diese Rolle auszufüllen. Er besaß eine einzigartige Bedeutung als Haupt der Jerusalemer Kirche über eine Dekade bis zu seinem Martyrium im Jahr 62. Zusammen mit Petrus und Paulus war er einer der einflussreichsten Führungspersönlichkeiten der ersten Generation der christlichen Bewegung. Seine Position in Jerusalem gab ihm eine Rolle nicht nur in Jerusalem, sondern in der 'weltweiten' christlichen Bewegung, weil Jerusalem die Mutterkirche war, die für die meisten Judenchristen eine zentrale Autoritätsstellung besaß. Die bedeutende Rolle des Jakobus können wir im NT erahnen (Apg 15,13-21; 21,18-25; Gal 2,12; Jude 1; Röm 15,25-31) (16f).

Jakobus erhielt sowohl den Ehrennamen 'Bruder des Herrn' als auch den 'der Gerechte'. Der Ehrenname “Knecht Gottes und des Herrn Jesus Christus“ zeigt seine Authorität, mit der er seine Leser anspricht. 'Knecht' bezeichnet jemanden, der berufen ist, Gott und seinem Volk in einer Führungsrolle zu dienen. Dass der Ehrenname 'Bruder des Herrn' im Brief nicht erscheint, ist ein kleiner Hinweis für die Echtheit des Jak. Die Bezeichnung "Knecht Gottes und des Herrn Jesus Christus" ist nicht Bescheidenheit, sondern Wissen darum, dass natürliche Beziehung zu Jesus keine Authorität in der Kirche begründet (17).

Lukas Bericht über das Apostelkonzil (Apg 15) zeigt Jakobus Authorität über die sich ausbreitende christliche Bewegung, die die Jerusalemer Kirchenführer in der Zeit unter Jakobus Leitung ausübten. Petrus, Barnabas, Markus, die Brüder Jesu (1Kor 9,5), Andronicus und Junia (Röm 16,7) waren bedeutende Mitglieder der Jerusalemer Kirche und hielten enge Beziehungen zu ihr. Die Urgemeinde in Jerusalem hat eine einzigartige Rolle in der Verbreitung des Evangeliums in der Diaspora gespielt, nicht nur durch Aussendung eigener Missionare, sondern auch durch die Verkündigung an Tausende von Pilgern aus allen Teilen der Diaspora, die alle Jahre zu den Festen nach Jerusalem kamen und die die christliche Botschaft in ihre Gemeinden mitnehmen konnten. Die Kirche in Rom ist ein Beispiel einer bedeutenden christlichen Gemeinde, deren Ursprung nichts mit der pln Mission zu tun hat (18).

Es ist anzunehmen, dass die christliche Botschaft sich ebenso schnell östlich wie westlich ausbreitete. Wir kennen die Geschichte nicht mehr, sowenig, wie wir den Ursprung der Kirche in Rom oder Alexandria kennen. Zur Zeit der Bekehrung des Paulus gab es bereits eine christliche Gemeinde in Damaskus (Apg 9; 1Kor 11,32f) (18).

Die Beziehung zwischen Jakobus, der Jerusalemer Kirche und Judenchristen in der Diaspora liefert eine plausible briefliche Situation für einen Brief, der tatsächlich von Jakobus von Jerusalem an die Judenchristen in der östlichen und westlichen Diaspora gesandt wurde (19).

Von der frühen christlichen Bewegung haben wir zwei Briefe von Jerusalem an die Diaspora: den Brief Apg 15,23-29 und den Jak. Der Jak teilt der Diaspora die Lehre des hochgeachteten Hauptes der Mutterkirche in Jerusalem mit, wie messianische Juden leben sollen (20).

Wenn der Briefeingang des Jak ernst genommen und zum richtigen historischen Kontext in Beziehung gesetzt wird, entsteht eine plausible briefliche Situation entsprechend der paränetischen Enzyklika des Jakobus, die nicht an eine spezifische christliche Gemeinde in einer spezifischen Situation addressiert ist, sondern an jede judenchristliche Gemeinde in der Diaspora, in die der Jak gelangen mag (20f).

Zweifellos ging Jakobus davon aus, dass seine Leser das ganze Gesetz ernst nahmen, während er seine Aufmerksamkeit auf die moralischen Forderungen richtete (23).

Einige enge Beziehungen zwischen dem Jak – 1 Ptr, 1Clement und Hermas lassen sich durch die engen Bindungen zwischen der Kirche in Jerusalem und der in Rom erklären und durch die prägende Rolle der Judenchristen aus Jerusalem in der frühen Entwicklung der römischen Kirche. Es gibt keine wesentlichen Argumente gegen eine palästinische Herkunft des Jak (23).

(2) Gibt es Argumente gegen Jakobus als Verfasser?

(a) das gute Griechisch: Jakobus lebte ca. 30 Jahre in der 'Weltstadt' Jerusalem, wo viele Juden lebten, deren Muttersprache Griechisch war. Die sog. 'Hellenisten' in der Jerusalemer Kirche (Apg 6,1) waren Judenchristen unter den Griechisch-sprechenden Juden. Der größere Teil der Stadt sprach griechisch. Außerdem waren jedes Jahr während mehrerer Wochen tausende Pilger aus der Diaspora in Jerusalem, die griechisch sprachen, aber kaum aramäisch. Diesen Besuchern die christliche Botschaft zu verkündigen, muss ein bedeutender Teil des Dienstes der Jerusalemer Kirche gewesen sein. Jakobus hatte jede Gelegenheit und gute Gründe, sich gute Fähigkeiten in Griechisch zu erwerben (23f).

(b) Würde dieser palästinische Jude, der als konservativ bekannt war und auf der Beobachtung des ganzen Gesetzes insistierte, über das Gesetz in einer Weise schreiben, die den 'rituellen' Aspekt ignoriert (23)?

Jakobus folgte Jesus hinsichtlich der moralischen Aspekte des Gesetzes als dessen Hauptzweck. Diese Position macht guten Sinn in Bezug auf die Behandlung des Gesetzes im Jak, der an Judenchristen addressiert ist, die ihre Verpflichtung gegenüber dem ganzen Gesetz nicht in Frage stellten, und das Thema bekehrter Heiden nicht berührt (25).

Es gibt keine ernsthaften Argumente gegen die in Jak 1,1 angezeigte briefliche Situation. Der Brief kann gelesen werden als eine Enzyklika von Jakobus von Jerusalem an die Diaspora (25).

(3) James – an Encyclical

James addresses not specific but typical situations, such as he knows it is quite likely his readers in many parts of the Diaspora might encounter, and rebukes typical failings, such as he might think likely to occur in many Jewish Christian communities in the Diaspora (26).

Knowing what 'the world' (4,4), the values of the dominant society amidst which all Christian communities lived, was like, James can expect that disputes due to competitive envy will take place sooner or later in most communities his letter might reach. For rhetorical reasons he speaks directly, addressing those involved in such disputes, but saying nothing that would not apply to any such dispute (27).

(4) James in canonical context

The inclusion of James, with the other 'catholic' epistles, in the canon exemplifies one of the principles of canonicity which guided the canonization process from Irenaeus onward. In reaction against Marcion, Irenaeus understood the true Gospel to be that which had been taught by all the apostles and supported a canon embodying that principle: four Gospels, Acts, and several apostolic letters along with Paul's (114).

The Orthodox churches arrange the NT canon in a different order than the western churches: Gospels, Acts, James and the six other catholic letters, Pauline letters, Revelation (115).

The eastern order has its own logic: After Acts, the story of the apostles, it gives priority to those who were apostles before Paul (116).

The letter of James makes no reference to the issues of circumcission, food laws and other distinctives of the Mosaic law (119).

The relation of Jews and Gentiles is not in view at all (133).

The vast majority of Jewish Christians in the NT period continued to observe the whole law, taking for granted that they were still obligated to do so. There is no reason to suppose that James or his readers do otherwise (147).

James is addressed exclusively to Jewish Christians (112,156).

II. Brother of James, Friend of God
L.T. Johnson (2004)

1. James's Significance for Early Christian History

a. James as Early Christian Leader

There are strong reasons for arguing that the letter was composed by James of Jerusalem, whom Paul designates as “brother of the Lord“. The evidence provided by the letter fits comfortably within that provided by our other earliest and best sources (Paul, Acts, Josephus), whereas it fits only awkwardly if at all within the framework of the later and legendary sources that are used for most reconstructions (3).

The first and most obvious thing the letter confirms is James's place as a leader of the church. The letter provides literary confirmation of the portrayal of James's influence extending beyond Jerusalem to those “in the dispersion“ (1,1). Paul speaks of James as one of the three pillars of the church in Jerusalem, whose authority he recognized (Gal 1,19; 2,9), but also speaks of “men from James“ visiting the Christian community in Antioch (Gal 2,12). Acts does protray James in its account of the Jerusalem Council as having a pastoral concern and an assumed authority extending well beyond Jerusalem. It is James who makes the judgment (15,19) that is communicated to churches in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia (15,23-29). In the simplest and most straight-forward fashion, the letter presents itself as addressed to the “twelve tribes in the dispersion“ from “James, slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ“ (1,1). Paul's authority even in his own communities was never to be taken for granted, but James's authority, even outside Jerusalem, is never in doubt (4).

Luke does not mention James in his Gospel but may have James in mind as one among “the mother of Jesus and his brothers“ who meet in prayer before Pentecost (Acts 1,14). After Peter's escape from prison, he tells the assembly to “inform James and the brothers of these things“ (12,17). After this, James stands as spokesperson for the Jerusalem presbyterion. His support for the Gentile mission is decisive (15,12-21). He advocates the sending of a letter to diaspora communities (15,23-29), after rejecting the demand that Gentiles be circumcised and observe the law, demanding only those minimal requirements that enable table-fellowship with pious Jews. The letter sent by the council does acknowledge that “some from among us“ caused the disturbance in Antioch, “though with no instructions from us“ (Acts 15,24) (4f).

On this final trip to Jerusalem, Paul and his companions come into the presence of James and all the elders and report on all that God had done through his diakonia among the Gentiles (Acts 21,18-19). There is no hint of opposition to the Gentile mission, no suggestion that Gentile believers should be circumcised or observe the law. It is only Paul's own teaching and practice as a Jew that is in question. In the Acts portrayal, the question does not arise from James and the elders, but from those “zealous for the law“ among Jewish believers (5).

Paul recognizes James as one of the apostles in Gal 1,19 and in 2,9 lists James with Cephas and John as those considered pillars. Although Paul's tone is cool (2,2 and 2,6), he does not question the group's authority. His claim that they imposed no further obligation on him (2,6) apart from the care of the poor (2,10) and that they gave him the right hand of fellowship in acknowledgment of the legitimacy of his mission (2,9) recognizes their authority to discern and judge. Paul's entire narratio to this point makes clear James's place of authority in Jerusalem and his willing fellowship with Paul. Nothing in Paul's remarks can be read as an attack on James. Paul carefully distinguishes the leadership of the pillars from the 'false brethren' who tried to suppress Paul's freedom by forcing the circumcision of Titus (2,3-5). Paul says that despite much opposition neither he nor the Jerusalem leadership gave way to this pressure (2,7-9) (6).

Paul's narratio of past events in Galatians serves to present himself as an example to his readers of steadfastness in the face of opposition: Paul stood by his gift despite false brethren and expects the Galatians to do likewise. Paul does not connect any of the problems he experiences in Galatia to the 'false brethren' in Jerusalem, and explicitly distinguishes James and the other leadership from those false brethren. He does not make James the cause of the troubles in Antioch, and does not connect the dispute at Antioch causally to the issues in Galatia. Even in the harshest reading of Galatians, James of Jerusalem is at most the occasion of a dispute over table-fellowship among Jewish and Gentile believers. James is not connected to any ideological opposition to the Gentile mission, or to any effort to impose circumcision on Gentile converts (6f).

If the letter of James is taken as seriously as Acts and Paul as a historical source from the first century, it fits remarkably well into the portrayal of James they give. The letter presents its inscribed author as a James who addresses the twelve tribes in the dispersion (1,1). This corresponds to the picture given by both Acts and Paul of a James in Jerusalem who exercises some influence among Jewish-Christians in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (Gal 2; Acts 15). The sense of quiet authority communicated in the simple greeting and hortatory tone of the letter fits the epistle attributed to James and the Council in Acts 15 (7).

The designation 'twelve tribes' most naturally suggests Jewish Christian readers. The letter's strong affirmation of the law supports this suggestion. James speaks of the “perfect law of freedom“ (1,25), the “law of freedom“ (2,12) and the “royal law“ or “law of the kingdom“ in 2,8, as that which should be “gazed into“ (1,25), “fulfilled“ (1,25) and “kept“ (2,10) both in its parts and as a whole (2,I0). Otherwise, one is a “transgressor of the law“ (2,11) who places one's own authority over the law and over God, who alone is lawgiver and judge (4,12). Humans are to live as those who are to be judged by God on the basis of the law of freedom (2,12). Nomos certainly includes the Decalogue (2,11) and the commandment of love from Lev 19,18 (2,8) – this is the “royal law“. James understands the law of love to be explicated by the moral commands of Leviticus 19,11-18. James also considers nomos as a source of moral examples. The image of the “mirror of remembrance“ in 1,22-25 makes the “perfect law of freedom“ something into which the readers can 'gaze' and 'remain in', by becoming a 'doer of the deed'. The Law as text contains examples that the readers can see and imitate: Abraham and Rahab (2,20-25), Job (5,II), and Elijah (5,I7-I8 (7f).

James does not connect law to circumcision in any fashion. If he were writing to Jewish-Christians circumcision would be assumed. James does not speak of the “works of the law“ the phrase that Paul uses in his polemics (Rom 3, 20.28; Gal 2,16; 3,2.5.10). Neither does James speak of 'commandments' as Paul sometimes does (Rom 7,8; 13,9; 1Cor 7,I9). James sees “the whole law“ as the object of obedience; breaking a part of the law is breaking the whole law, for obedience is not directed to the specific commandment but to the lawgiver and judge (2,11; 4,11-12). James does not connect nomos to any form of ritual observance. Besides not mentioning circumcision, he shows no interest in special days of feasts (contrast Gal 4,9-11; 5,2-4; 6,12; Col 2,16), or in dietary or purity regulations (contrast Col 2,21). When James speaks of a “pure religion“ that is “unstained from the world“ in 1,27, he defines it in terms of control of speech and the care for widows and orphans (1,26-27) (8).

In summary, nomos in the Letter of James encompasses a set of moral rather than ritual norms established by divine authority and providing the basis of God's judgment of human actions. It focuses on the love of neighbor, and explicates that love through specific attitudes and actions prescribed by Torah. The law also provides narrative examples for imitation, models of faith in several dimensions: the obedient deeds of faith shown by Abraham and Rahab, the endurance of faith shown by Job, and the prayer of faith shown by Elijah. What James says about nomos cannot be linked to any recognizable program for the protection of Jewish ethnic identity. Still less can it be connected to any 'judaizing' project for early Gentile Christians (9).

Focusing on James's language about nomos is itself distorting, for it is clear that this composition draws equally from the prophetic and wisdom traditions of Scripture in shaping its message. James refers to the “prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord“ in 5,10 and draws from the language and the passion of the prophets particularly in his speech concerning the rich and the poor (1,9-11.27; 5,1-6) and the necessity of choosing between friendship with the world and friendship with God (4,4-10). Likewise, James makes 'wisdom' thematic (1,5; 3,13-16), cites Proverbs 3,34 (4,6) and makes extensive use of motifs that are assosiated with the wisdom tradition: the testing of virtue (1,2), deliberation in speech (1,19.26; 3,1-9), the incompatibility of anger and justice (1,20), the necessity of helping those in need (1,27; 2,14-16).

The letter can be used as the best available, first-hand, evidence for what James of Jerusalem was about. It is in light of this combination of information that we are best able to assess the historical roles of James and Paul (9).

b. James and Paul

Mayor, convinced that James was authentic and therefore among our earliest Christian writings, argued that Paul was responding to James. James was in Paul's own eyes one of the certified witnesses to the resurrection; James was one of the pillars of the mother church whose approval Paul was not certain of having; James was the leader whose influence, even through emissaries was sufficient to sway Cephas and Barnabas from their prior course of behavior; James selfconfidently assumed an authority over believers “in the dispersion“. In contrast, Paul was by his own admission, “like one born out of season“ among the witnesses to the resurrection; Paul had to fight for the recognition of his authority even among churches he himself founded; Paul exercised no discernible influence outside those churches that fell within his circuit; Paul sought the approval and fellowship of the Jerusalem church through his collection (10f).

If James had written to believers in the diaspora on the insufficiency of “faith alone“ and had insisted on the necessity of doing “the works of faith“ and had pointed to the figure of Abraham as an example of a believer whose faith was tested and brought to fulfillment through the 'work' of offering his son, Mayor argues, it might well have been heard by Paul as a challenge, and Paul's language in Galatians particularly might have had the letter of James in mind. In this reading, Galatians would be a 'misunderstanding of a Jacobean teaching'. Mayor's position falls into the trap of reading James and Paul only through the lens of James 2,14-26 and Galatians 1 - 4 (11).

Paul has thirteen letters ascribed to him and James only one. Paul writes to many specifically named communities and individuals, while James addresses a general readership. Paul addresses Gentile or mixed congregations he has founded, whereas James addresses Jewish Christians. Paul responds to circumstances in his churches or ministry, while James appears to have no specific crisis in view. It is also obvious that Paul and James each have a range of issues not shared by the other. We find in James no trace of Paul's concern for his own authority, for sexual ethics, for the ordering of worship, for positions advanced by rivals. James, in turn, focuses on the ethics of speech, the care of the poor and needy and the ministry of healing and reconciliation, with a concentration not found in Paul (11).

Similarities and differences between James and Paul
Both authors are moral teachers within the Greco-Roman tradition: they have vice-lists with shared elements, call for mutual correction, connect testing and endurance. Most of all, they agree with all moral instructors that identity must be translated into consistent moral behavior: profession must exhibit itself in performance. A natural term to use for such performance is 'work'. James never connects the term 'work' or 'deed' to law. Like every other use of the term in the NT outside Paul's letters, he uses it in the sense of moral deed. Paul uses the term some 50 times with this denotation (e.g. Rom 13,3; 14,20 ;15,18: 1Cor 3,13-15; 9,1; 15,58; 1Thess 1,3), and only 17 times in the more restricted and polemical sense of “works of the law“. Paul speaks about “your work of faith“ (1Thess 1,3) and “the work of faith in power“ (2Thess 1,11). Like James, he would consider it axiomatic that “each person's work will become manifest“ (1Cor 3,13) and that “each person should test his own work“ (Gal 6,4) (12).

As moral teachers within the symbolic world of Torah, James and Paul each affirm ho nomos as the revelation of God's will for humans and therefore the measure for human behavior. Paul agrees in principle with James that the “whole law“ must in some sense be kept (Gal 5,3 / James 2,10). And if James speaks of the law of liberty and the perfect law and the royal law – meaning thereby the law of love in Lev 19,18 (James 1,25; 2,8), Paul also speaks enthusiastically about the nomos as spiritual (Rom 7,14) and “holy and just and good“ (Rom 7,12) and “noble“ (Rom 7,16). And as moralists in that framework, Paul and James agree that not only knowing but keeping God's law is what matters. It is Paul who declares, “It is not the hearers of the law who are righteous but the doers of the law who will be considered righteous“ (Rom 2,13). In James 1,22-25, James uses the term 'word' for what must be both heard and practised (12f).

It is Paul who declares that circumcision 'counts' or 'profits' only if the law is observed, and that if one is a 'transgressor' of the law, then circumcision does not profit (Rom 2,25-27; compare James 2,9-11). Deeds matter rather than membership or ethnic identity. It is Paul who stresses that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, but “keeping the commandments of God is what counts“ (1Cor 7,19) and insists that the “righteous demand of the law“ is fulfilled by those who “walk in the Spirit“ (Rom 8,4). Paul also finds this righteous requirement in the law of love of neighbor, found in Lev 19,18, which “has brought the other law to fulfillment“ (Rom 13,8; compare James 2,8). It is this understanding that enables Paul to say in Gal 5,6 that neither circumcision nor its absence matters, but “faith working itself out through love“ (13).

Both Paul and James have a strong appreciation of God as judge. In Rom 2,6, Paul quotes from LXX Ps 61,12: “he will give to each one according to his deeds“ and in the verse preceding says that the wicked are “laying up a treasure of wrath for the day of wrath“ (Rom 2,5; see James 5,3!). On the basis of their belief in God as judge, both authors forbid judgment of the neighbor (Rom 14,3.10.13). In language reminiscent of James 4,12, Paul asks rhetorically in Rom 14,4: “who are you to judge the servant of another“ (13)?

Both authors consider 'doubting' as a hindrance to faithful obedience (Rom 4,20; 14,21; James 1,6). Both acknowledge a deeper sort of dividedness in humans. In James it is being 'doubleminded' (1,8; 4,8). In Rom 7,23 Paul speaks of “another law doing battle in my members against the law of my mind“ which is strikingly similar to the description of wars deriving “from your desires among your members“ (James 4,1). Compare also Paul's moral dualism between the “works of the flesh“ and the “fruit of the spirit“ in Gal 5,16-23 to James's opposition between the wisdom from below and the wisdom from above in James 3,17-18 (13f).

James and Paul emphatically agree on the primacy of faith and agree that being “heirs of the kingdom of heaven“ is a matter of God's promise (Gal 3,29; James 2,5) and gift (James 1,17; 4,6; Rom 3,24; 5,15) rather than human accomplishment (14).

In Galatians, Paul is opposing Gentile Christians who want to 'Judaize', that is, become circumcised and observe all the commandments of Torah, including the ritual ones (Gal 4,9-10; 5,3.12). Paul sees their desire of 'more' to be in effect the denial of what they have already been given, namely, God's gift in Christ, by which Paul means “the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me“ (Gal 2,20; see also 1,4). Paul's rhetoric about “works of the law“ is specifically fitted to the situation of Gentiles seeking circumcision and the observance of ritual practices, posed in opposition to the faith of Christ. It is in this narrow context that Paul declares that “a person is made righteous not through erga nomou except through the faith of Jesus Christ and we have believed in Christ Jesus so that we might be made righteous by faith in Jesus Christ“ (Gal 2,16) (15).

Paul therefore sets in opposition erga nomou and pistis Christou as principles of righteousness before God. He denies that righteousness comes through law apart from faith; it comes through a free gift of Christ (Gal 2,21). Righteousness derives not from ergon nomou but from hearing of faith (Gal 3,2). It comes not through nomos but through promise (Gal 3,18). In this argument, Abraham is cited as the example of faith that makes a person righteous in response to God's promise and Gen 15,6 is quoted to that effect (Gal 3,6). The principle of faith is thereby established as justifying humans 430 years before the nomos was given to Moses (Gal 3,17) (15).

In Romans 4,1-25 Paul's treatment is broadly consistent with that in Galatians 3, but also distinctive. Abraham, “our forefather according to the flesh“ (Rom 4,1) is cited within the context established by 3,20 “no flesh is made righteous on the basis of works of the law“ and 3,22, that God's righteousness is being revealed “through the faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe“. When Paul speaks of erga in Rom 4,2 it is not with respect to moral effort broadly considered, but specifically with respect to the commandments of Torah and most particularly the requirement of circumcision. This is why Gen 15,6 is used to demonstrate that Abraham was declared righteous before he was circumcised (4,10). Paul contrasts nomos and epangelia (4,13) as well as law and inheritance (4,14). Abraham is the exemplar of faith for both circumcised and uncircumcised (4,16) (15f).

James 2,14-26

James's entire discussion is not a separate essay but the continuation of James 2,1-13, which has as its theme precisely how “the faith of Jesus Christ our glorious Lord“ (2,1) must express itself in deeds of love and not be contradicted by acts of discrimination between persons (16).

James's understanding of nomos has nothing to do with the issues Paul is debating: James never connects 'works' to the law or to circumcision or to any ritual observance.

James is entirely in agreement with Paul in placing faith, promise and inheritance in the same column: they originate in God rather than in human striving (2,1-5).

James places in opposition an empty faith in God or an empty faith in Christ which amounts to a sort of profession of identity that is purely verbal (2,1.19) to living “deeds / works of faith“ that make such profession real and performative.

James cites Abraham as an example precisely of such 'active faith' which is shown by his offering of Isaac (2,21). This work of faith is itself “coworked by faith“ and “perfects faith“, brings profession to full realization in performance (2,22).

Genesis 22,2-9 is read by James as the textual or narrative 'fulfillment' of the declaration made by God that is reported earlier in Genesis 15,6, that Abraham's faith made him to be declared as righteous (James 2,23) (16).

James's statement in 2,24: “a person is shown to be righteous on the basis of deeds and not on the basis of faith only“ which has been taken as a direct contradiction of Gal 2,16, does nothing of the sort, for the terms in the two statements have quite distinct referents (17).

James's use of Rahab as a second example of the works of faith (2,25-26) demonstrates that his interest is in the moral issue of whether belief in God and the faith of Christ is translated into 'living action'.

A comparison between Paul and James is distorted when reduced to the single topic of righteousness as found in Galatians; Romans and James 2,14-26. The range of similarities and dissimilarities in the two writers is broader and more complex than that of a simple agreement or disagreement on a single point. Each author's language is consistent within the topic each addresses, and there is no compelling reason to suppose that either had the other in mind. And what is most intriguing when placing them on the same plane is the discovery of how much they share as moral teachers within the symbolic world of Torah.

Taking James as an authentic production by James of Jerusalem in the first generation can have importance for history (17).

c. James – Hellenistic Judaism and Early Jewish Christianity

Hellenistic culture permeated Judaism, both in the Diaspora and in Palestine. If the provenance of James is indeed Jerusalem, and its date before 62, we would then have one of our most important and securely located pieces of evidence for the presence of such Hellenistic Jewish sensibility within Palestine. James fits within the symbolic world of Torah shared by other Jews, and like Paul, James also resembles Greco-Roman moral teachers (17f).

James is Hellenistic first of all in every dimension of his literary composition. James was not a translation from a Hebrew or Aramaic original, but was thoroughly Greek from the start. In terms of composition the letter's use of elements of the diatribe, and the paraenetic-protreptic form of his deliberative rhetoric locate James's writing within the world of Greco-Roman literature.

James also shares the sensibility of Greco-Roman moralists on any number of small points. James uses the topoi of Greco-Roman moral instruction in order to develop his argument: in 3,13 – 4,10 he employs the topos on envy, in 4,4 and 2,23 the topos on friendship, and in 1,19-20; 1,26 and 3,1-9 the topos on taciturnity (18).

This Hellenistic sensibility takes as its authoritative text the Jewish Scripture, shown by the fact that the warrant for moral behavior is grounded in the power of God to create and to judge. James makes use of wisdom and prophetic traditions from Scripture as well as the law. James is located in Jerusalem. And its closest companion within Jewish literature – besides Paul – is The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. In the Testaments we find the same use of Greek topoi for moral instruction, set within the framework of the law of Israel. We also find the same imagery regarding the involvement of cosmic forces in human activity. We find in the Testaments as well as in James the same combination of sapiential and apocalyptic traditions inextricably interwoven (18f).

James also shows us a Hellenized Judaism that interprets Scripture with specifically Palestinian modes of halachic midrash, with the difference that the text being thus treated is Greek rather than Hebrew. In his distinctive use of Leviticus 19 throughout his composition, James can appropriately be designated a sort of halachic midrash (19).

James represents a way of being Jewish and a follower of Jesus that is thoroughly grounded in fidelity to the law but without any special concern for circumcision or for any ritual practices. James shows a moralizing form of Judaism that recognizes Jesus as Messiah and Lord (1,1; 2,1) lives within the framework of his teachings and expects his return as judge (5,7-8). If James can be taken as evidence for the messianic movement among Jews in Jerusalem before the Jewish War, then we need to think in terms of different varieties both of Jewish and Gentile Christians (20).

The letter of James can serve as evidence for Christianity in Jerusalem before the year 62. James is not describing the church in Jerusalem, but is writing to diaspora communities in general terms. As in all literary texts, we have access only to James's perceptions, not to things as they were. James does not speak of circumcision, but this may be simply because he assumes its practice among those he writes, and there is no need to take up the subject. James makes no reference to the death and resurrection of Jesus or the bestowal of the Spirit. We cannot conclude that he had no experiences concerning these things (20f).

There are basically five aspects of the Christianity represented by James in his letter that deserve particular attention. In combination, they serve to suggest something about the 'Jesus Movement' as continued by James the Brother of Jesus (21).

First, although the name of Jesus occurs twice (1,1; 2,1) and although James never speaks of the resurrection directly, there is every reason to think that for James, Jesus is not simply a figure of the past but of the present. Jesus is designated both as christos and as kyrios in 1,1 and James designates himself as slave both of God and of Jesus. Likewise in 2,1 Jesus is designated as glorious Lord. The use of 'slave', or 'Lord' in combination with 'God' and the use of 'glory' all point to Jesus as resurrected one. This is supported by the references to the coming of the Lord in 5,7 which is a technical term in the NT for the second coming of Jesus and the name of the Lord in 5,14 which again is used most often in the NT with reference to the power of the risen Lord. If one can heal in the name of Jesus and if Jesus is expected as judge, then Jesus now shares in God's life and power (21).

Second, the distinctive presence of Jesus within James's composition is through the medium of his sayings. The pervasiveness of these sayings, and their thorough integration into James's own discourse, has long been noted. It appears more than ever likely that James contains genuine logia of Jesus at a stage earlier than their redaction in the Synoptic Gospels. The letter of James stands with Paul as our earliest evidence for the transmission and use of the sayings of Jesus in Greek. That James wrote from Jerusalem suggests as well that this transmission and use were taking place there from the start. It can also be noted that James does not cite these sayings as Scripture or refer them to Jesus. While it is possible to argue that this suggests a later mode of incorporation, it is far more likely that this easy and natural appropriation points to the brother of Jesus standing within the movement and outlook of Jesus himself, and naturally using his brother's language as his own. The Jesus movement was a movement and it seems to have had its effect on James. Finally, it is striking how the use of the sayings of Jesus intersects James's use of Leviticus 19 throughout the letter, making it more than likely that when James calls the law of love of neighbor in Lev 19,18 the royal law (2,8) he means “the law of the kingdom“ that was proclaimed by Jesus (2,5) (21f).

Third, James not only contains allusions to the sayings of Jesus, but the entire spirit of his discourse poses a sharp challenge to the ethos of the world, a challenge that echoes the ministry of Jesus as recounted by the Synoptic Gospels. James claims that one must choose between friendship with the world and friendship with God (4,4) and this moral dualism is expressed above all in James's rejection of the rich and the arrogant in favor of the poor and the humble. The moral exhortation in James eschews all conventional notions of honor and shame, pays no attention to the domestic sphere, cares little for sexual issues. It focuses exclusively on moral attitudes and actions and these are of the most countercultural sort (22).

Fourth, James nevertheless locates this sectarian outlook not in individuals but in an intentional community. The ekklesia (5,14) or synagoge (2,2) is made up of men and women who use fictive kinship language with each other ('beloved brethren' 1,16; 'brother or sister' 2,15). There are leaders who are called 'teachers' (3,1) and 'elders of the assembly' (5,14). The assembly meets together for purposes of judging (2,1-5), as well as for healing and confession of sins (5,14-16). This positive information concerning the church confirms in some instances information concerning the first generation of Christianity found in other sources and adds to our knowledge the description of an actual practice of healing that echoes the healing ministry of Jesus (22f).

Fifth, James provides us a vision of early Christianity as a community of solidarity. The rejection of discrimination (2,1-5), of the logic of envy (3,13 – 4,10), as well as the practices of arrogance (4,11 – 5,6) and resentment (5,9) is matched positively by practices of solidarity: honor toward the poor (2,14-17), simple and unadorned speech (5,12), care for the sick (5,13-15), mutual confession of sins and prayer for each other (5,16) and mutual correction (5,19-20) (23).

2. The Importance of James for Theology

a. The Letter of James – a Most Properly Theological Composition

James attention is given to God rather than Jesus or the Holy Spirit. The term occurs fifteen times (1,1.5.13.20.27; 2,5.19.23[2]; 3,9; 4,4 [2].6.7.8). In apposition to God James speaks of father in 1,17.27; 3,9. And at least some of the time, his use of Lord certainly has God as the implied referent (see 1,7; 3,9; 4,10.15; 5,4.11). In his 108 verses, James has some 24 explicit references to God (245).

God is the Living God, who makes “the demons tremble“ (2,19) and is “the Lord of Hosts“ (5,4). James describes God in negative terms as the one with whom there is no change or shadow of alteration (1,17), who does not tempt and is not tempted by evil (1,13), whose righteousness is not associated with human anger (1,20). James's positive assertions move in the direction of God's powerful presence to creation and humanity. God is not only 'light' but the “father or lights“ (1,17), who by a “word of truth“ has “given birth“ to humans as a kind of first-fruits of creatures (1,18) and has created them in his own image (3,9) (245f).

God has revealed his will in “the perfect law of liberty“ (2,8-11) and will judge humans on the basis of that revelation (2,12; 4,12). James states: “There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and destroy“ (4,12). The word of truth is also an “implanted word“ that is able to save souls (1,21) and God has “made to dwell a spirit“ within humans (4,5). God remains in charge of human affairs (4,15) and can declare as righteous and his friends those who have faith in him (2,23). The true human story is told by those whom Scripture shows to have been such friends of God through their faith: Abraham (2,23), Rahab (2,25), Job (5,11), Elijah (5,17) (246).

James defines God in terms of mercy and compassion (5,11). God promises the crown that is life to those who love him (1,12; 2,5); has chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom (2,5); regards true religion as including the care of widows and orphans (1,27), God hears the cries of the oppressed (5,4), raises up the sick (5,15), hears the prayers of those who pray in faith (1,5-6) rather than wickedly (4,3) and forgives the sins of those who confess them (5,15). This is a God who approaches those who approach him (4,8), raises up the lowly (4,10) and enters into friendship with humans (2,23; 4,4). But this is a God who also resists those who arrogantly exalt themselves over others through oppression (4,6; 5,6) (246).

Most destinctive in James's understanding of God is that God is the giver of gifts. In 4,6 James takes from the text of Proverbs 3,34 (“God resists the proud but gives grace to the lowly“) the lesson that “God gives more grace“. God “gives to all simply and without grudging“ (1,5). Finally, there is the programmatic statement in 1,17: “every good and perfect gift comes down from above from the father of lights with whom there is no change nor shadow of alteration“. These statements assert that God's giving is universal, abundant, without envy, and constant. Such a view of God is the basis of James's perception of reality as God's creation, open to his constant care but also answerable to God as the source of all that is good. This view of God is the deep premise for James opposing an ethics of solidarity to the logic of envy, for in the first the world is contrued as an open system in which cooperation makes sense, while in the second the world is considered a closed system in which competition is demanded (246f).

Because God does not exist in isolation from the world but is in constant and active relationship with the world, human existence is defined in terms of a story in which both God and humans play roles. The story has as its past what God has already done: created the world and humans as representatives (“first-fruits“) of that creation; revealed his will in the law and the prophets and “the faith of Jesus Christ“; implanted in humans the “word of truth“ and “wisdom from above“ and “spirit“. The story has as its future what God will do in response to human behavior within God's creation: God will judge the world; will reward the innocent and faithful and persevering, who have spoken and acted according to “the royal law of liberty“. And God will punish the arrogant and oppressive who blaspheme the noble name by their aggressive and hostile attitudes and actions against God's people. The moral decisions made by James's readers are in their choice to live as friends of the world or as friends of God (4,4) (247).

James's moral exhortation is grounded in James's understanding of how humans are related to God. Because of this, each of the moral exhortations in James invites reflection by readers not only about their own lives – how to translate and perform James's script in the texture of their actual existence – but also about the nature of the world and of the God who creates, shapes, and saves the world in which humans are invited to participate as a sort of “first-fruits“ (247f).

b. James and the Contemporary World

Two aspects of James's distinctive theological voice are of special importance to a world that is increasingly pluralistic.

First: It is James's theological rather than christological focus that enables it to be a precious resource for ecumenical conversation, not alone between Christians and Jews, but also among all those belonging to monotheistic faith. We find an understanding of God that is consonant with the “faith of Jesus Christ“, yet is also connected to the belief structure of both Judaism and Islam, not least in the respect shown to Abraham as the father of obedient faiths. The lack of explicit Christology becomes a special (and unique) gift within the Christian canon. James can help Christians reach agreement with those in other Abrahamic traditions that we all are to be judged by the same God on the basis of our deeds, and that we should therefore “so speak and so act as people who are going to be judged by the law of freedom“ (2,12) (248).

The second aspect of James's theological voice is the way in which theology is interconnected with moral instruction. Alone among the NT writings, James emphatically asserts the truth that humans are created in the image of God (3,9) and that any religious response to the one God must correspond coherently with moral behavior toward fellow humans created in the image of God. James uses the example of speech (the tongue): “With it we bless the Lord and Father. And with it, we curse the people who have been made according to God's likeness. Blessing and curse come out of the same mouth! My brothers, things like this should not happen“ (3,9-10). An appeal to this principle enables Christians to engage those of other faiths not on a christological but on a theological basis for a wide range of issues touching on human dignity and rights (249).

James draws its moral exhortation form both Jewish and Greco-Roman traditions and shapes them into a single vision. By his use of Greco-Roman moral topoi, James invites readers to reflect more deeply on the philosophical and theological bases of his exhortations. When James opposes the “wisdom from above“ and the “wisdom from below“ in 3,13 – 4,10, he employs the Greco-Roman (and Hellenistic Jewish) moral topos on envy. The philosophical discussion of vice that leads to every sort of competition is of first importance for at least two issues of tremendous importance in today's world. One is the question whether humans, as the “first-fruits of creatures“, are to be stewards of the world through patterns of ecological respect, cooperation and nurture, or are to ruthlessly exploit and dominate not only other humans but the earth itself, in a never-ending quest for competitive edge (249).

The other pressing issue today is war and peace. Peace is an ideal everywhere in the NT and for the Letter of James as well (3,18). But James is alone among the NT witnesses in entering into the causes of war in the human heart. His linking of war to the impulses that are “battling within our members“ because of the spirit of envy is profound and perceptive, whether the 'wars' are between family members, neighbors, or nations and deserves a far more extensive development than theologians have ever attempted (250).

c. James and the Contemporary Church

James provides a resource for theological reflection concerning how the church might live according to “the faith of Jesus Christ“ and “the law of love“ (2,1.8) in a manner that bears authentic witness to God (250).

(1) Integrity in Speech

James echoes Gen 1,26 when he insists that humans are created in the likeness of God (3,9), and his mention of “beast and bird, of reptile and sea-creature“ that can be tamed by humans alludes to Gen 1,27-28. The first and most distinctive mark of humans is the power to name, to create language and by creating language to continue God's own creative activity in the world. But when that power is distorted and misused, the tongue becomes a “world of wickedness within our members... [it] sets aflame the cycle of life“ (3,6) (250f).

Language is a world-creating capacity, an awesome power by which humans can either structure life according to the “word of truth“, so that humans are “a kind of first-fruits of God's creatures“ (1,18), or make a structure of meaning in which God is omitted, ignored, or denied. The greatest peril of speech is not the passing angry word or casual oath or even the malicious slander – though these are a “death-dealing poison“ (3,6) – but the shaping of distorted worlds of meaning within which the word of truth is suppressed (251).

If the church is to be a community that “receives with meekness the implanted word that is able to save“, then it is called on one side to resist and challenge the distortions of speech in the world, while at the same time cultivating that simplicity and transparency of speech – letting its yes be yes and its no be no (5,12) – which reveals purity of heart (251).

The church has the responsibility to challenge, rather than be coopted by, the distortions of language in our culture, which is a virtual babel of linguistic confusion and misdirection. The entire advertising industry is based on the use of language to deceive and seduce. It seeks consciously to create, by means of words and images, multiple illusions in pursuit of which other humans can spend their energies and their fortunes. Advertising operates with a cunning awareness of how desire, avarice and envy can “seduce the heart“ (1,26). The slippery half-truths of advertising, in turn, have become the staple of politics as well. Messages to the public are crafted precisely in order to 'sell' a candidate. Slandering opponents in 'negative ads' is measured not by morality but by effectiveness. Political agendas are advanced by appeals to the electronate's most primitive fears and most unworthy prejudices. Such distortions of speech are by now so pervasive that the 'hermeneutics of suspicion' is a necessary element in deciphering all communication. No generation in history has been so self-consciously aware of the capacity of speech to shape perceptions of reality and thereby to shape human reality itself. And no generation in history has deployed the awesome resources of communications technology in service of distorted speech and perverse desire. No generation in history has so systematically set itself to shaping a perception of the world that excludes God's claim on humans and eliminates all notion of transcendence (251f).

A church whose language is indistinguishable from the world of advertising has nothing to say to a world held captive by advertising. The language of faith is fragile and constantly threatened, for it insists on the truth of what the entire world colludes in insisting is an illusion: God's claim on the world. The language of faith must therefore be nurtured and preserved, not through artificial regulation, or through an obsessive concern for doctrinal formulations, but through a use of language that remains open to the mystery of God's power and presence in creation. A theological language that is correct but does not connect to the real experience of God in human lives is as dead as a faith without deeds (2,26) (252).

3,I Teachers are vulneralble to failures in speech, not only because their profession demands of them that they speak more than others in public and before captive audiences, but because such a setting provides temptations for virtually every form of evil speech: arrogance and domination over students, anger and pettiness directed to inattention or contradiction, slander and meanness toward absent competitors, flattery of students for the sake of vanity. No wonder James warns against many taking up the role of teachers, for “we will receive a more severe judgment“ (252)!

Teachers within the church bear the greatest responsibility for preserving and enlivening the language of faith and, with it, the capacity to hear God's word in the world. If preachers corrupt the language of faith in order to sell the gospel like merchandise for profit, then they receive a more severe judgment. And if they deaden the language of faith by removing it from the experience of God in the world, then they receive a more severe judgment. And if they show in their manner of life the “bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in [their] heart“, then they also “lie against the truth“ (3,14) (252f).

James says, “If anyone considers himself religious without bridling his tongue and while indulging his heart“, this person's religion is worthless. This is pure and undefiled religion before the God who is also Father: “to assist orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unstained from the world“ (1,26-27).

(2) Envy and Arrogance

James 3,13 – 4,10 is a coherent rhetorical unit that forms a call to conversion addressed to the “double-minded“ among James readers to a “purity of heart“ and a singleness of devotion to God. In this call to conversion, James uses the Hellenistic topic of envy as a way of sketching the manner of life that is opposed to God and the source of human conflict. And at the heart of his call to conversion James places the choice between “friendship with the world and friendship with God“ (4,4). Being a “friend of the world“ means sharing the world's perception and values and acting accordingly, just as being a “friend of God“ means measuring by God's own measure and acting according to that measure. In short, “friendship with God“ is for James precisely the sort of hermeneutical and moral criterion that “the mind of Christ“ is for Paul (1Cor 2,16) (253).

James provides in 4,11 – 5,6 three examples of human behavior that fall within “friendship with the world“ because they demonstrate the envy and arrogance that James made thematic in 3,13 – 4,6: slander of the neighbor (4,12-12), boasting in business (4,13-17) and oppression of the poor (5,1-6). The section is held together by the statement “God opposes the arrogant“ in 4,6 and the concluding rhetorical question in 5,6: “Does he [God] not oppose you“? For each example, James provides as well the measure by which those who are friends of God ought to measure (4,12.15; 5,4). These three examples of envy and arrogance reveal the consistency of James's theological voice and invite not only individual believers but also the church as such to reflect on the measure by which it lives (253f).

Envy is a certain sorrow that one experiences because someone else is in possession of something one does not have. This most 'needy' of vices lies also at the heart of arrogance. Envy and arrogance are two sides of the same competitive struggle. Envy spurs the 'have-nots' to violence against those who have what they want. Arrogance spurs the 'haves' to boast over those from whom they have taken in order to be more by having more.

The great value of James's examples is that they show how subtle and pervasive are the manifestations of arrogance, how sneaky and secretive are the mechanisms of its violence. It is not only in murder for hire or in wars between nations that envy and arrogance operate. They more frequently appear as the normalized way of the world, even within the church. James calls us to a more rigorous self-examination than is accomplished by an easy condemnation of arrogance's most obvious forms (254).

His first example – slander against the neighbor (4,11): “evil speech done in secret“, which specifically seeks to tear down another so that I can appear superior (as critic, as judge), is driven by envy. Whatever I consider my rival to possess that I do not (status, reputation), I seek to take away, at least in the perceptions of those whom I try to influence by my slander. A bit more reflection helps us see the appropriateness of James's including this also as a form of arrogance, not only against my neighbor, but also against the law of God, which forbids such slander (Lev 19,16). “Who are you to judge your neighbor“ (4,12)? Slander arrogates to oneself the divine power of knowing the hearts of others and of condemning them (254).

To this arrogance, James opposes the understanding that should guide the practice of those who are “friends of God“ that God alone is lawgiver and judge, who is able to save and to destroy (4,12). James invites us to recognize that slander is one of the most common and destructive forms of arrogance within the church as well as outside it. The willingness to use the 'death-dealing poison' of secret speech against the neighbor has become so normalized that it is difficult for many of us to recognize it as evil. Slander works to destroy those created in the image of God (254f).

James's second example of arrogance (“you boast in your arrogance“ 4,16) is provided by the ancient entrepreneurs who planned their trips and anticipated their profits in the vain assumption that the world is predictable and controllable and that they can define their being in terms of their having (“we will get gain“ 4,13). James reminds his readers that they are fragile creatures who depend on God for every breath (4,14-15). This pan-commercial outlook perfectly expresses the locgic of envy: to have more is to be more and the logic of arrogance: those who have the most rule over those who have less. Here is the perfect expression of the measure of the world as opposed to the measure of God. On one side is the view of reality as a closed universe of limited goods for which all are in competition. On the other side is faith in the God who gives to all generously and without reproach (1,5), and who calls for sharing what we possess (2,14-16) (255).

James's final example for arrogance is the most shocking (5,1-6). Committing actual violence against others in order to live luxuriously oneself is literally to commit a crime that “cries out to heaven“ (5,4). Envy and arrogance take systemic form in economic and political structures that privilege the few and punish the many, that exploit the resources of the earth for the extravagant life-style of those who happen to live in the first world rather than in the third, that reduce the laborers in the field to slaves by patterns of income and taxation perpetuating inequality, that commit legal murder against the innocent by means of litigation and the corruption of the court (255f).

(3) A Community of Solidarity

James presents two powerful examples of the way in which the church can exemplify the logic of cooperation or solidarity. James uses the term assembly in both examples (2,2 and 5,14) and shows how the community as such should live by the standard of “the faith of Jesus Christ“ (2,1) and the “royal law“ of love of neighbor (2,8) (256f).

The first example: The community is not to dishonor the poor, but to show the same honor that God has shown. It is not to deny the help needed by the poor, but to respond with concrete and practical help (2,14-16). And, like Abraham and Rahab, it is to show its faith by welcoming others in hospitality. The church can resist the oppressors through its own practices of economic solidarity (257).

The second example: James sketches the response of the ekklesia to those who are sick. The sick person is to summon the elders. They are to pray over the sick person and anoint the sick person with oil in the name of the Lord. And the community is to confess their sins to each other and pray for each other, so that they may be healed (5,13-16). The healing of the sick person like the restoration of the community after sin, must take into account both the physical and spiritual dimensions of this threat. The challenge to the community of faith posed by physical or emotional or mental illness is the test whether the community will act as a friend of God or as a friend of the world (4,4) (257).

The logic of friendship with the world is to isolate the sick and the weak from the healthy and the powerful. The healthy organism recoils from what is diseased in order to protect itself. Sickness becomes the occasion for social isolation and alienation. This natural reflex of survival also becomes a form of sin when it leads to the deliberate exclusion of the sick from the community's care and support, when the physical distance imposed by sicknes is exacerbated by a spiritual distancing of the sick from the life of the community (257f).

In James, it is precisely the sick who are empowered to summon the leaders of the community. This is as remarkable a reversal of the logic of envy as is the way the community is to honor rather than scorn the poor (2,5). Not those who are well, but those who are sick are to define the truth of the situation (258).

And in the speech of those gathered in the presence of the sick person, James explicitly calls for the mutual recognition and acknowledgment of the weakness and failure of all, so that not only the person manifestly ill but all those in the community might be saved / healed by the confession of sins and the prayer of faith.

The scenario sketched by James of an intentional community structured on the principles of solidarity and mutual gift-giving, in which the powerful and leaders are to honor and respond to the poor and weak, also encourages the church of today to engage in self-examination concerning all those who are weak and alienated from a full participation in life. According to James, it is the manner of life (3,14) that demonstrates whether we live according to the wisdom from above. How does the church work with and for the care of children, the poor, the ill, the elderly, the dying? Does the church, like the world, seek to secure its own survival by defending itself against the threat of weakness? Or does the church seek friendship with God by embracing the logic of gift-giving revealed by the God who gives to all generously and without reproach (1,5), so that the strength of each one is gathered from the shared strength of all (258)?

From its first words to its last, the Letter of James witnesses to a way of life that is radical in its implications. It challenges individual Christians to an integrity in thought, speech, and action. But more than that, it challenges the church to realize in its communal life a vision of the world that is the opposite of that offered by the logic of envy and to live as a community of true solidarity within a world defined by the gift-giving God (258f).

Bauckham, Richard, James – Disciple of Jesus the Sage, 1999

Johnson, Luke Timothy, Brother of Jesus, Friend of God, 2004 (reviewed quoting from the original text)
— The Letter of James, 1995 (reviewed quoting from the original text)