Authorship and Date
Unlike the letters of Paul, named for their addressees specified by locality, James and the other Catholic or General Epistles (1-2 Peter; 1-2-3 John; Jude) take their names from those traditionally credited with authoring them, for these books address diverse groups of Christians spread throughout the Roman Empire. James appears to target Jewish Christians (1:1), as supported by the book's dominantly Jewish flavor both in literary style and subject matter. Numerous allusions and parallels to the sayings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels - particularly the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 - permeate the book, which, though introduced as a letter, develops more like a manual for Christian conduct. Early on, the heavily practical tone of James and its relative lack of doctrinal teaching combined with questions concerning its authorship to pose hurdles for the book's acceptance into the canon. James's insistence on goods works as the necessary outcome of genuine Christian faith guards against misconstruing the Pauline doctrine of) ustification through faith alone as a license for unrestrained freedom (2:14-26).
Authorship and Date
The New Testament mentions more than one James (Greek for Hebrew "Jacob"), including the apostle and brother of John martyred by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:2), and the halfbrother of Jesus who became a leader in the Jerusalem church after Christ's resurrection and ascension to heaven (Acts 15:12-21; 21:18; 1 Cor. 15:7; Gal. 2:9, 12). The Jewish features of the book and its similarities to the speech of the James in Acts 15 support the epistle's authorship by this initially unconvinced but ultimately converted James the half-brother of Jesus. On this assumption, the martyrdom of James in A.D. 62 (according to the Jewish histo
rian Josephus) dates its writing to the mid-ist century.
1 Wisdom from Head to Toe
As with Paul, James identifies himself as Christ's "bondservant" to indicate his voluntary servitude to the master who freed him from slavery to sin (cf. Rom. 1:1). He names as his audience the "twelve tribes" of the Dispersion - Jewish Christians living outside Palestine. Originally, "Dispersion;" or "Diaspora;" designated Jews deported to Mesopotamia after the Babylonian conquest of Judah in 587/86 B.C. Contrast the probably metaphorical use of "Dispersion" in the epistolary greeting of Peter, who appears to be addressing Gentiles and not Jews, whom the Babylonian exile cured of idolatry (1 Pet. 1:1; 4:3).
James begins with five subsections reminiscent of the Old Testament's "wisdom" sayings (cf. also Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7). James gives a Christian perspective to the application of Israelite moral law to attitudes and everyday living. He extols Christian maturity as the perfect result of enduring trials and the basis for rejoicing in them (vv. 2-4); commands asking God for wisdom (the ability to translate moral knowledge into practical action) but decries doubt-tainted petitioning (vv. 5-8); exposes the folly of pursuing fleeting, material wealth (vv. 9-11; cf. Isa. 40:8); defends God as the giver of good gifts only and not the source of temptations to evil (vv. 12-18); and commends obedience to the "Word" (= Christ) in word and deed as the evidence of genuine "religion" (vv. 22-27). Elaborations of these opening themes punctuate the rest of the book.
James emphasizes the importance of controlling one's speech here (vv. 19-20, 26) and in 3:112; 4:11, because what comes out of the mouth reveals the state of the heart (cf. Matt. 15:18-20).
Society in New Testament Times
Broad Social Values
Mediterranean antiquity exhibits a set of social values that differ markedly from modern Western culture.
Social Stratification Western culture exhibits little social stratification compared to preindustrial antiquity. Equality before the law and equal opportunity for all are deeply held values that generally find expression in daily life. The world of the New Testament was, in contrast, a highly stratified society, with a social pecking order that asserted itself everywhere Rome ruled. Basically, the empire had no middle class. It was a two-class society in which a small percentage of wealthy elites (3 percent at most) controlled both the means of production - land, in an economy based on farming - and the legal system. Control of the courts guaranteed the elites that the distribution of landed wealth would remain in their favor from generation to generation. The great majority of the population, in contrast, consisted of humble, nonelite free persons and slaves.
Preoccupation with social distinction is vividly reflected in the relentless quest for acquiring and preserving public honor on the part of the empire's elite males. Even within the two broad classes of elite and nonelite we find numerous expressions of further stratification. Elites
subdivided into three aristocratic orders: senators, equestrians, and local municipal decurions. Among senators, those who could claim consular ancestry, designated nobiles, stood out from newcomers to the senatorial class. Certain equestrians further separated into three ranks, roughly translated "excellent," most accomplished," and most renowned." Nonelites were divided between slave and free and, among the free, citizen and noncitizen.
Roman high official wearing a toga; mosaic tombstone of Optimus, Early Christian Necropolis Museum, Tarragona. (Phoenix Data Systems, Neal and Joel Bierling)
A consuming passion to identify persons publicly according to social status found expression everywhere in the ancient world. Clothing, for example, was a constant reminder of rank on the part
of the elites. Only the senatorial class could wear the toga with a broad purple stripe. Equestrians were assigned the toga with a narrow stripe, along with gold rings on their fingers. Attempts by nonelites to usurp the right to wear gold rings in public encountered firm resistance from imperial authorities. Emperor Claudius responded to infractions against laws that reserved the tria nomina ("three names") and the toga for Roman citizens alone. Noncitizens who claimed for themselves these public expressions of rank were swiftly and decidedly censured.
Seating at public events similarly mirrored the social hierarchy. In Rome, Augustus confirmed the existing practice of reserving the front row of stalls at every performance for senators. Soldiers were separated from civilians, and special seats were assigned to married commoners, boys not yet come of age, and, close by, their tutors. Seating according to social status was also observed throughout the various municipalities of the empire, and enormous fines were imposed for violation. Jews in Palestine engaged in similar practices. At Qumran, for example, sitting according to rank was strictly enforced at the community's daily meal.
Moreover, different standards of justice were variously applied to persons depending on their social standing in the Roman world. In the early empire, only those with citizen status enjoyed legal protection against flogging, torture, and certain kinds of execution (e.g., crucifixion). By the early 2nd century A.D. the distinction between citizens and noncitizens had evolved into a legal distinction between elites (honestiores) and nonelites (humiliores), and cruel penalties once limited to slaves now applied to the humble free. Such inequities in the legal system appeared perfectly reasonable to ancient elites.
Relationship of the Individual to the Group Anthropologists categorize modern America as a distinctly individualistic society, where personal fulfillment, the achievement of life goals, and one's rights as an individual take priority over commitment to any social group to which a person might belong. Such was decidedly not the case in Mediterranean antiquity, where loyalty to one's dominant group took priority over individual desires and, in turn, conditioned nearly every aspect of life. People had a strong sense of group identity, along with clear distinctions between groups and clear group boundaries. Individuals were fiercely loyal to the group and found their identity primarily in belonging to a group. For this reason, characters in ancient narratives are typically introduced in relation to the family ('John the son of Zebedee"), village ('Jesus of Nazareth"), or social group ("a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus") to which they belong.
Persons in these strong-group societies socialized their offspring not to become independent of their families of origin but, rather, to be reintegrated into family and village life as young adults (typi
cally formalized through some act of initiation at or near puberty), where they would remain emotionally and economically interdependent with parents, siblings, and fellow villagers. In the ancient Mediterranean world, an individual would feel responsible primarily to the group for his or her own actions, destiny, career, development, and life in general. The good of the whole was of foremost concern.
Such values greatly influenced the relationship of individual Christians to their local churches in the Roman world (e.g., "Give us this day our daily bread"). This is not to rule out completely concern for individual identity and selfawareness. But we must become sensitive to group-oriented values if we wish to understand the New Testament world. For example, in prophesying in his role as high priest that "It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish" (John 11:50), Caiaphas was reflecting a deeply ingrained cultural value - the group comes first.
Early Church Social Values The equitable distribution of landed resources, along with equal treatment before the law, represent values that were part of Israel's heritage as a people, as reflected in the teachings of the Torah. Israel had begun to depart from these practices long before the Babylonian captivity, however, and during the New Testament era Roman Palestine exhibited the same social stratification as the rest of the empire.
In harmony with the ideals of their Israelite heritage, Jesus and his followers vehemently challenged the emphasis on rank and
privilege so prevalent in the world in which they lived. Both Jesus' life (Mark 10:35-45) and death (Phil. 2:6-11) served vividly and prophetically to rebuke those aspects of culture that valued and rewarded people differently according to social status. Jesus' example soon found expression in the theology (Gal. 3:28) and teaching (Jas. 2:1-7) of the early church, whose egalitarian orientation was so countercultural to the world of their day.
Although Jesus and his followers rejected the rigid social stratification of their world in favor of the more egalitarian orientation of their local communities, they clearly embraced ancient society's emphasis on the group. The modern emphasis upon Jesus as personal savior would have been, at best, secondary to early Christianity's view of Jesus, where Jesus was understood primarily as the savior of a group. This is easily demonstrated from the language of the New Testament itself. For example, Paul uses the term "Lord" with a first-person possessive pronoun 54 times in his letters - 53 times in the plural - "our Lord" (Lord of a group).
Not to be overlooked is the New Testament use of the surrogate family (believers as "brothers and sisters," God as "Father") as the central metaphor for the Christian church. The patrilineal kinship group (see below) was the primary focus of relational loyalty for persons in Mediterranean antiquity. This made "family" the ideal metaphor for a new community (the church) that would command ultimate allegiance of its members.
Family in the Ancient World
Marriage Strategies Nowhere is the contrast between the ancient and modern worlds more apparent than in the respective marriage strategies of the two cultures. Marital goals in modern, individualistic societies relate foremost to the mutual fulfillment and satisfaction of the two parties involved, since there a person's spouse ideally functions as his or her central locus of relational loyalty and primary source of emotional and material support. In the world of the New Testament, however, marriage is a legal and social contract between two families, intended solely to promote the status of each and preserve the family as a whole. The concern is to produce legitimate offspring and so preserve and transfer property to the next generation. An arranged marriage could augment the extended family's wealth and social status. Feuding clans might intermarry in order to avoid future bloodshed by building an alliance. In each case, it is the good of the group - the extended family - that is in view in the arrangement. Although these social contracts might result in mutually satisfying marriages, the relational satisfaction and compatibility of the bride and groom are decidedly not a primary consideration.
Family Membership These rather utilitarian marriage strategies arise from the manner in which Mediterranean persons viewed family membership. Ancient family systems were lineage groups whose members shared a common blood ancestry (consanguinity), traced solely through the male line. Those
who participated in the patriline (bloodline) were family. Those who did not remained outsiders. Family membership was, therefore, reckoned by blood, not marriage.
According to this view, a husband and wife do not belong to the same kinship group, since they originate from two different patrilines. Consequently, a person seeks his or her primary source of relational support and encouragement not from the spouse but, rather, from the members of the blood family. Marriage is therefore viewed in contractual rather than relational terms. These values are particularly apparent in times of conflict. Whenever, due to some unresolvable dispute, a person is forced to choose between loyalty to one's spouse and loyalty to the patriline, the individual generally sides against the spouse and with the blood family.
Priority of the Sibling Bond Among the members of one's patriline no family bond exhibits a greater degree of interpersonal solidarity than the relationship between siblings. The tightest unit of loyalty and affection in the New Testament world is the lineage group of brothers and sisters. The emotional bonding modern Westerners expect as a mark of a healthy husband-and-wife relationship is there normally characteristic of sibling relationships.
The New Testament bears witness to the enduring value of sibling solidarity. Jesus, for example, places the act of leaving one's siblings at the forefront of the relational sacrifices made by some of his followers (Mark 10:28-30). In Matt. 10:21 Jesus lists the inevitable relational chaos that will result from his call to radical
discipleship. Since the most important relationship in Jesus' world is the bond between blood brothers, it only follows that discord between siblings is the worst family tragedy imaginable (cf. the numerous Old Testament narratives detailing various incidents of brother betrayal).
The centrality of brother-andsister relations to ancient Mediterranean family values explains why Jesus chose the sibling bond to define the quality of interpersonal relationships he envisioned for his community of followers (Matt. 23:8). The New Testament metaphor of "brothers and sisters in Christ" would have strongly resonated in the ancient world.
For Further Reading
JOSEPH H. HELLERMAN
Throughout the Bible orphans, who lacked inheritance rights, and widows, who generally lacked opportunities for self-support, epitomize the socially powerless and economically destitute. The Mosaic law mandated special protections for these poorest of the poor, but for believers James translates that legal obligation into the moral obligation of taking compassionate Christian initiative toward society's neediest members (v 27).
2:1-13 No Favorites
Revisiting the subject of material wealth (cf. 1:9-11), James stresses the moral rightness of treating others with respect irrespective of their economic status. More importantly, the poor enjoy wealth of faith and share in the inheritance of God's eternal kingdom, while the rich perpetuate oppression. James's reasoning from the Mosaic law (vv 8-11) targets his Jewish audience and sets up a foil for his admonition to live instead by the "law of liberty," the "royal law" of God's kingdom as spelled out in Jesus' teaching, which brings liberation from slavery to sin. Mercilessness toward others invites judgment on oneself (v. 13; cf. Jesus' parable of the Unforgiving Servant, Matt. 18:21-35).
2:14-26 Works Prove Genuine Faith
At first, James may seem to contradict Paul's teaching on justification (restoration to a right relationship with God) through faith apart from works (adherence to the law of Moses; cf. Rom. 3:21-5:21). But James encourages "good works" of Christian charity as evidence of salvation (v. i8). While Paul denies works of the Law as a necessary means of salvation (but cf. Rom. 2:13; Gal. 5:13-14,19-23; Eph. 2:10), James insists that good works result from salvation and prove genuine faith. Faith without works is useless not only for those who truly need the practical help promised in pious pronouncements, but also for professing believers who fail to produce the fruit of their faith. As actions speak louder than words, faith that does not issue in good works is mere belief, and even demons believe in God (v. 19).
Both Paul and James appeal to the ex ample of Abraham to support their teaching on justification (v. 23, quoting Gen. 15:6). But Paul focuses on the faith exercised by Abraham prior to undergoing circumcision and so faith apart from works of the Law (Romans 4). James insists that good works necessarily follow from genuine faith; therefore he emphasizes Abraham's obedience to God as a necessary outcome of his justification by God. James sees no contradiction between his assertion that Abraham was "justified by works" (v. 21) and the Old Testament's assertion that Abraham was justified because he "believed God" (v. 23). He also cites the example of Rahab the harlot, whose justification is shown by her incorporation into God's chosen community (v. 25; cf. Joshua 2; 6:22-25).
3:1-12 The Power of the Tongue
James holds teachers of the gospel to a stricter standard of behavior, presumably because of their high profile as knowledgeable practitioners of the faith after whom other Christians model their own behavior and in response to whose example nonbelievers either embrace or reject the gospel. Control of one's speech becomes the focal point, for the main activity of the teacher consists in talking, and the tongue can do just as much damage as good. But James commends controlled speech not just for teachers but for all Christians, for it enables controlled behavior (vv. 3-4). The observation that the tongue "stains the entire body" (v. 6) echoes the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 15, where he chastises the Pharisees for hypocrisy through their simultaneous lip-service to God and dishonoring of their parents. Similarly, James points out the hypocrisy of blessing God but cursing fellow humans, made in God's image (vv. 9-10).
3:13-4:10 Resisting Worldly Wisdom
James pits worldly wisdom, manifested in selfish ambition, against the "wisdom from above." Divine wisdom shows in generosity of spirit, specifically characterized in verses 17-18.
Envy - the root of selfish ambition - gives birth to strife and sin and prompts improper requests that God will not fill. For members of the church (the bride of Christ), friendship with the "world" (the domain of Satan) constitutes religious adultery. James does not mean that Christians should refrain from associating with unbelievers; rather, Christians should not adopt the attitudes and lifestyles of those not spiritually reborn (cf. 1:27). The antidote to worldly wisdom and its awful manifestations consists in mourning one's desire for worldly pleasures, resisting evil, and drawing near to God in an attitude of genuine humility. True humility disallows slander against fellow Christians, for slander equals judgment, not only of the person slandered but also of the law of love (cf. 2:8). God alone stands above the Law, so he retains the sole right of judgment and the unique power to grant eternal salvation or condemn for eternity.
4:13-5:12 A Day of Reckoning
Mortality is real. Control is illusory. James exposes the folly of ignoring these facts and pursuing material gain instead of following one's conscience (4:13-17).
In a style reflecting the Old Testament prophets, James portrays as accomplished fact the future demise of the rich and the rotting of their material treasure (5:1-6). The ultimate and eternal fate of rich oppressors spells hope for the poor oppressed and gives them reason to wait patiently for Christ's return and the final judgment. In biblical times, manual laborers received wages at the end of each workday. Mosaic law prohibited employers from delaying payment (Lev. 19:13) and promised punishment to transgressors on God's hearing the cries of the defrauded (cf. Deut. 24:15). James portrays the pursuers of wealth as fools indeed through imagery borrowed from the Israelite sacrifi cial system: by leading a lifestyle focused on gaining pleasure, they give God good reason to condemn them (5:5). The next verse, which intensifies the accusation in 4:2, exemplifies the frequent biblical equation of the rich with the unrighteous and the poor with the righteous (for James, oppressed believers). The selfishly ambitious do not just murder - they murder the righteous!
James cautions Christians to remain patient as they eagerly anticipate judgment day, for the same judge of the unrighteous rich will also judge believers (cf. 4:11-12). The Hebrew prophets and job exemplify patient endurers of suffering to whom God ultimately showed mercy (5:10-11). Christians must not slander each other (5:9) or take oaths; rather, they are simply to tell the truth (v 12; cf. Matt. 5:34-37).
5:13-20 Responsibilities of the Community
James addresses the issue of Christian community from the standpoint of solidarity in prayer and mutual confession of sins. The sick should summon church elders to pray for healing. The accompanying "anointing with oil" may prescribe the administration of medicine, for olive oil was considered a general curative (cf. Luke 10:34). Physical ailments were thought to result from particular sins, so to healing promised in response to prayer James attaches an affirmation of forgiveness (v. 15). To encourage the practice of prayer, James cites the example of Elijah, whose earnest petitioning produced dramatic effects in nature (1 Kgs. 17:1; 18:1).
James ends on a positive yet urgent note: reversing a wayward Christian's course toward apostasy (sinning that ends in rejecting the faith) saves his or her soul from eternal death and achieves for that person forgiveness of sins so as to gain eternal life.