DENVER

SEMINARY JAMES 3:13-18: A COMMUNAL RESPONSE TO ZEALOT MOVEMENTS SUBMITTED TO DR. DAVID MATTHEWSON IN PARTIAL COMPLETION OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NT 612 GREEK EXEGESIS OF JAMES BY NICK ELDER MARCH 16, 2012

POLISHED TRANSLATION James 3:13-18 13 Who among you is wise and understanding? Let that person, in humble wisdom, demonstrate it by their moral lifestyle and their works. 14 If you have harsh zeal and strife in your heart, dont boast and subsequently lie against the truth. 15 This is not the wisdom coming down from above, but earthly, aspiritual, inspired by demons. 16 For where there is zeal and strife, there is unruliness and inferior deeds. 17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, yielding, compliant, full of mercy and good fruit, non-divisive, and genuine. 18 And the fruit, which is righteousness, is sown in peace for those who are making peace. THE OUTLINE Subject: How do Christians demonstrate wisdom that is from above? Complement: By abstaining from movements that seek to accomplish their ends by zealotry, strife, and violence. Rather, they do so by practicing, making, and living a life characterized by peace. Exegetical Idea: The Messianic Jews in the diaspora would have been tempted to respond to those ruling over them, both financially and governmentally, with zeal and violencein a way similar to other second-Temple Messianic movements did. James encourages his communities not to act in these ways but to demonstrate heavenly wisdom, which is characterized by peaceable living.

Narrative Flow James opens this pericope by asking the rhetorical question, Who among you is wise and understanding? The question is used to set up the next five and a half verses where James will expound on what the wise and understanding individual looks like in practice. As McKnight states, James rhetorical intent is not so much to identify who are such persons as to describe such persons.1 The virtual condition2 that is set up in 13a is closed out in the protasis, which is 13b: Let that person, in humble wisdom, demonstrate their moral lifestyle by their works. The aorist active imperative is nearly a challenge. It would not be a stretch to translate the word prove it! Verse 13 has set up the challenge: the wise person should demonstrate their wisdom by the way they live, namely, by living in humble wisdom ( ). Verses 14-16 go on to demonstrate how the wise person ought not live. Verse 14a sets up the first class conditional with , If you have harsh zeal and strife in your heart, while 14b functions as the protasis, do not boast and lie against the truth. While the whole verse demonstrates attitudes and actions that should not be taken, the protasis in 14b specifically forbids boasting and subsequently lying against the truth; this is the unavoidable consequence of having harsh zeal and strife in ones heart. The two are intimately intertwined. Verses 15-16 specifically describe why these attitudes should not be held and why these actions should not be taken: they are not thoughts and actions that result from

Scot McKnight, The Letter of James (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans While the variant in 489, 2298, Nil, K*, and 1 all make the conditional explicit, Davids states that can function as a virtual conditional (Peter H. Davids, The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982,) 150).
2

heavenly wisdom. On the contrary, James uses three negative adjectives to demonstrate these as the very opposite of wisdom that comes from above. , , form an unholy triad that serve as a polemic, in escalating fashion, against those who act out the harsh zeal and strife present in their hearts. Verse 16 further demonstrates that even possessing harsh zeal and strife leads to negative consequences: where harsh zeal and strife exist, there is unruliness and inferior deeds. James has demonstrated what does not characterize wisdom from above in verse 16 and now moves on in verse 17 to reveal what does characterize this wisdom from above. The string of seven adjectives follows a pleasing pattern of assonance. While all the descriptors presented are true of wisdom that comes from above, the verse primarily functions rhetorically by piling positive attributes upon heavenly wisdom in a way that is aurally pleasing. The emphasis on peace in verse 18 effectively closes out and summarizes the previous verses, but also provides a ready contrast to 4:1, which will move to wars and battles. The verse represents a statement of reciprocity, a type commonly found in wisdom traditions.3 By concluding with a common trope from wisdom traditions, James has demonstrated his own grasp on the subject, while encouraging his audience to pursue the same. This true wisdom belongs not to those who hold harsh zeal and strife, but to those who are actively practicing and making peace.

Richard Bauckham, James: Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage (New Testament Readings; New York: Routledge, 1999), 46. 3

Grammatical Layout 3:13 [] ... 3:14 3:15 ... 4 []

3:16

... ... () ... ()

(antecedent: ) 4

3:17

...

.... =

3:18

... ... ...

Exegetical Outline I.) Wisdom and understanding are demonstrated, in humble wisdom, by a moral lifestyle and works (3:13) a. Question: Who is wise and understanding? (3:13a) b. Answer: The one who proves so, in humble wisdom, by their moral lifestyle and works (3:13b) II.) Harsh zeal and strife lead to boasting and lying against the truth; all this is wisdom diametrically opposed to heavenly wisdom and leads to unruliness and inferior deeds (3:14-16) a. If you have harsh zeal and strife do not boast or lie against the truth (if this is possible) (3:14) b. Wisdom characterized by harsh zeal and strife is not heavenly wisdom; rather it is earthly, unspiritual and demonic (3:15) c. Zeal and strife lead to unruliness and inferior deeds (3:16) III.) Wisdom from above is characterized by positive attributes (3:17) a. It promotes peace by yielding to others (3:17) b. It is full of positive actions (3:17) IV.) Making peace results in righteousness (3:18) a. Righteousness is sewed in peace (3:18) b. This peace and its subsequent righteousness is for the advantage of those making peace (3:18)

HISTORICAL-CULTURAL BACKGROUND Establishing a specific historical-background for James is problematic on a number of counts, foremost of these is that James himself, in opening the epistle, addresses it to the twelve tribes in the diaspora. Thus, unlike much of the Pauline epistles, general epistles, and perhaps even the gospels, we cannot find a specific geographic and cultural setting for James. However, what we can do is observe the various phenomena that were occurring in Judaism, the Messianic movements, and the Jesus movement at this time. The dating of James is tenuous and varies widely between scholars. Much of the discussion depends on whether or not one takes James, the brother of Jesus, as the real author of the epistle (as opposed to the implied author, which is almost certain.). This seems to be the most probable option based on a number of factors: The Jewishness of the letter,5 the similarities between James writing and the James of Acts 15, and the relation of James to the Jesus tradition.6 If we accept the conclusion that James wrote the epistle, the terminus ante quem can be placed at 62 CE, when James was likely martyred at the hands of the high priest Annas II. Allowing for developments in the Jesus movement the terminus post quem would likely be ten to fifteen years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, putting it at around 45 CE. Some scholars tend to

I understand that applying the term Jewishness is somewhat problematic, especially given the recent scholarship on early Jewish Christian relations, such as Daniel Boyarins Border Lines. Jewish and Christian are not clear categories even into the second-century, but it is helpful as a general term to denote the ways James is dependent on Jewish tradition and thought perhaps more so than Paul or the authors of the gospels. 6 These three arguments are a summary of Scot McKnights line or reasoning in (McKnight, James, 25-26). 7

date James around this early date, claiming that James certainly did not know Pauls writing because there seems to be no interaction with Paulinism in James.7 While commentators have more at stake in dating documents quite specifically, I am content in giving James a range of circa 20 years, 45 CE-65 CE. In this period zealot and messianic movements were in full swing, and Jewish political relations had reached a boiling point. A number of commentators note the socioeconomic and political turmoil that characterizes this time. Peter H. Davids has an excellent overview of this general provenance, demonstrating that land for farming was scarce, many, having to seek out unskilled labor, were force into virtual slavery, and taxation was unusually high. All this led to a great deal of satisfaction with the Roman elites, landowners who were exploiting peasants, numerous high priests who were in cahoots with the other elites, and the general political situation.8 A number of other of commentators describe a situation of exploitation nearly identical to what Davids has proposed.9 This setting makes sense of the phenomenon of zealotry that characterized the time period from the Maccabean revolts beginning in 167 BCE and the Bar-Khoba revolts ending in 135 CE. The time leading up to the Jewish war of 64-70 CE was especially intense where, the combination of Roman impetus and Jewish insurrection led to an atmosphere in the city and in the countryside in which the populace was ready to erupt into conflict at the slightest

Craig L. Blomberg and Mariam J. Kamell, James (ed. Clinton E. Arnold; Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 16; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 30; Davids, The Epistle of James, 22; Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James: An Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985), 25-26. For the opposite view see Margaret Mitchell, The Letter of James as a Document of Paulinism in Reading James with New Eyes: Methodological Assessments of the Letter of James, ed. Robert L. Webb and John S. Kloppenborg (London: T&T Clark, 2007) 75-98. 8 Davids, The Epistle of James, 28-33. 9 Blomberg and Kamell, James, 29-31; McKnight, James 68; 136-138. 8

provocation.10 No doubt all Jewish-Christians in the diaspora were familiar with these movements, and, being oppressed (cf. James 1:12-19; 2:1-12), would have been tempted to join those acting out their sentiment violently. This is the general setting James 3:1318 speaks into and will be made more clear in the body of the paper as the military and zealot language is explored.11

LITERARY CONTEXT Martin Dibeliuss seminal commentary12 has set the standard for recognizing the literary form of James as paraenesis. Paraenetic literature functions in a primarily hortatorical manner. In seeing the epistle as paraenesis Dibelius claimed that, as is common to paraenetic literature, James contained no continuity of thought,13 and is merely strung along by catchwords, one saying is attached to another simply because a word or cognate of the stem appears in both saysings.14 In this way, for Dibelius (in classic form-critical manner), there is no critical argument being built. To be sure, Dibelius was correct in positing James was paraenetic literature that functioned primarily in a hortatory fashion. However, scholarship has moved beyond Dibeliuss claim that paraenetic literature cannot function rhetorically, construct an

David Rhoads, Zealots, ABD 6: 1047. Oddly, other interpreters have not taken up this framework in exegeting 3:13-18. Even those who, in the introduction to their commentaries, demonstrate this socioeconomic and political situation take no interest in it in this pericope. I am aware of only one short article that interacts with James relationship to Zealot movements, and this is in 4:1-4, rather than 3:13-18 (Rev. Michael J. Townsend, James 4:1-4: A Warning against Zealotry, ExpTim 87 (1975): 211-216). 12 Martin Dibelius, James (trans. Michael A. Williams; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976). 13 Dibelius, James, 6. 14 Dibelius, James, 6.
11

10

overarching argument, or even address a specific historical situation.15 Since Dibelius, the forms of paraenesis have been subdivided into a number of very specific types that argue for specific historical settings and literary structures. It is beyond the scope of this paper to investigate all of these types, but suffice it to say that I take the opening of James at its word, that it is an encyclical addressed to the twelve tribes in the diaspora. In this way I agree with Richard Bauckham that the letter functions as a paraenetic encyclical.16 The letter is an exhortation concerned with how to live as a Messianic Jew in the diaspora. Unlike Pauls letter, we should not try to fix one specific location in which to interpret the letter, but understand it as responding to general issues that were prevalent in the diaspora communities. As noted above, one of the primary concerns of these communities was how they should react to the rich and the ruling class who were oppressing them. Having laid out a literary genre it is now appropriate to explore the immediate context of James 3:13-18. In the previous pericope (3:1-12) James encouraged the diaspora communities to speak in a way that blesses the Lord and does not curse people. He demonstrated, through a number of examples, that though the tongue is a small member of the body it has great power. The way that the communities verbally responded to the trials and persecutions (cf. James 1.12-18) of those ruling over them would have great affects on how they were viewed by outsiders: either as zealous (3:14) or as peaceable (3:18). This was especially true for the leaders and teachers (3:1, ) of the community. If the leaders responded harshly, the rest of the community was likely See McKnight, James,13; Leo G. Perdue, Paraenesis and the Epistle of James, ZNW 72 (1981): 241-256; Davids, The Epistle of James, 24-57; Robert W. Wall, James as Apocalyptic Paraenesis, ResQ 32 (1990): 11-22. 16 Bauckham, James, 13. 10
15

to follow. This begs the question if the leaders are the only individuals in view in 3:1-14. This issue will be addressed in the body of the paper; the conclusion being that this is not the case. Rather, the entire community is being addressed. Having encouraged the communities to use their words in a way that honors G-d and people, James can turn to the passage at hand to encourage the communities to act in wisdom, namely by pursuing peace in their actions rather than harsh zeal. The following context, especially 4:1-3, fits seamlessly with the interpretation offered here. The reciprocity statement17 that closes out 3:13-18 is contrasted with the military words employed in 4:1-3: wars (), battles (), warring as a soldier (), (you) murder (), (you) act zealously (), (you) fight (), and (you) wage war (). It has been common, again following the form critics, to see 3:18 effectively closing out a section that will have no relation to what follows. Luke Timothy Johnson has made a convincing argument that this is an unhelpful way to interpret this portion of James.18 Rather, we ought to interpret 4:1-12 as continuous with 3:13-18. The contrast between the peace that characterizes 3:13-18 and the military language that characterizes 4:1-3 is best understood as an exhortation not only to spiritual peace with G-d, but peace in the world. In 4:1-3 we should understand James as speaking to wars, battles, and fighting that characterized many Messianic groups in the second-Temple period. James encourages his communities not to act in these ways, because these are not the ways of wisdom that comes from above.

Bauckham, James, 46. Luke Timothy Johnson, Brother of Jesus, Friend of God: Studies in the Letter of James (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004), 182-201.
18

17

11

TEXTUAL CRITICISM CHART Variant Reading: replaces (3:14) Alexandrian ,Boharic Coptic, 323, 1739, 2298 Western Latin Majority Byzantine 945 1241

Reason for variant: the variant is an intentional change to match the plural verb with a plural object. The singular is to be preferred as the original reading based on both the external and internal evidence. The variant is an individualizing move that takes away from the original sense of the text. The use of the singular represents the way the community should act both in its entirety, and in its constituent individuals.

EXEGETICAL ISSUES Why is the second person plural primarily used throughout 3:13-18?

The way a number interpreters exegete this passage would lead the reader to believe that James was talking to Jewish-Christians on the individual level. Part of this is, no doubt, due to the individualism of Western Christianity and post-enlightenment morality. Western ethics is prone to think about the individuals pursuit of virtue. Interpretation of the text comes with this bias, combined with Englishs lack of differentiation between the second person plural and second person singular. James does use the third person singular in the imperative (3:13) and the personal pronoun (3:13). In this way there can be no doubt that in some ways

12

individuals are to act, in and of themselves, in humble wisdom. However, in v. 13 James definitively moves to the second person plural.19 The emphasis moves from the individuals actions to the communitys action. The whole community is not to possess harsh zeal and strife in their hearts, nor are they to boast and subsequently lie against the truth. If there were a number of other communities acting in this way, specifically other messianic communities that were practicing zealous violence, it would follow that James needs to encourage the community as a whole not to act in those ways.

What role does the Wisdom Tradition play in the interpretation of 3:13-18?

The pericope not only opens with the question who is wise and understanding among you? but further, wisdom (sofia) and its cognates tie the entire section together.20 The emphasis on wisdom is unmistakable and has led Dibelius to conclude that the section existed as an individual form that demonstrates true wisdom is not contentious.21 Interpreters have generally followed in Dibeliuss footsteps22 and seen the emphasis primarily on wisdom. However, there is another way wisdom may be functioning in this pericope. The wisdom tradition was a storied institution in Judaisms past, going back to King Solomon. The wise man and the sage were revered not only in ancient Judaism, but in the second-Temple period as well. This reverence could function positively, but on the flip side could function polemically. James is using the admiration of those possessing
19 20

, , , are all used in v. 14. McKnight, James, 298. 21 Dibelius, James, 208. 22 See especially Bauckham, James. 13

wisdom to demonstrate that those who would desire to, or actually did, act out in harsh zeal and strife were actually opposed to the picture of wisdom. He is arguing that one who is motivated by self-interest and sees others as rival for power should not be trusted as sage of Gods wisdom.23 Anyone actively seeking their power, especially through violent means, was not fit to be member of the Jesus community. Instead, as v. 18 concludes, the truly wise and righteous are those who are actively making peace.

Are the teachers of 3:1 still those addressed in 3:13-18?

Scot McKnight and James Adamson both understand the antecedent of in 3:13 to be in 3:1, claiming that this makes most sense of the focus on wisdom throughout the pericope.24 The connection is not inherently wrong, surely any teacher in the first or twenty-first century ought to pursue wisdom and not be characterized by divisionviolent or otherwise. Their interpretation, however, betrays the original sense and contemporary application of the text. I have already noted that the wise man and sage were revered figures in Judaism and first-century Jewish and Christian religion would have been characterized by an emphasis on wisdom. Any member of the Jewish-Christian community, trained in Torah or not, would have sought wisdom in their lives; it was not primarily about intellectual assent, but righteous living.25 To exclude all but the select few in the community who

Wall, Community of the Wise, 183. McKnight, James, 198; James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James (NICNT; Gradn Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 149. 25 Luke L. Cheung, The Genre, Composition, and Hermeneutics of James (Paternoster Biblical and Theological Monographs; Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Press, 2003), 147.
24

23

14

would have been educationally trained betrays the fact that every member of the community would have sought wisdom. Furthermore, eleven verses is stretching quite a way to find an antecedent. To be sure, teachers need to abstain from guiding their communities into any kind of division. James does not preclude teachers from his audience, but neither does he preclude those not teaching. Even more than the teachers, who, being educated, were likely of a higher class than the rest of the community, the peasants and unskilled workers needed to hear the exhortation to pursue peace because after all, Zealots were for the poor, as their incineration of the debt record shows.26

Why is the nominative used in the words and in 3:13?

The rhetorical question that opens 3:13-18 contains no verb, but rather implies that should be supplied. The two predicates would then be and . The occurrence of a substantive in the nominative case with the absence of a finite verb is common of proverbial expressions in Greek.27 Shortening the syntax is effective in turning the statement into a pithy axiom, to round out the syntax would be to spoil the effect.28 The overall force is to introduce the pericope succinctly, but also in line with the wisdom tradition. The short statement would have struck tones of wisdom literature with the audience. As the question was posed a member of the implied audience would have Davids, The Epistle of James, 33. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 54. 28 Wallace, Greek Grammar, 55.
27 26

15

likely thought they were indeed wise and understanding, or at least they were striving for this. The pithy statement rhetorically plays on the audiences emotions, only to turn and challenge the hearer to prove they belong to this class by their morality and humble wisdom, which is opposed to zeal.

Does modify r 3:13?

The two options for translation would be, taking as modifying (1): Demonstrate, in humble wisdom, out of their moral lifestyle their good works. In this option the verb is modified twice over. The second option sees the modifiers appended to different subjects. (2): Demonstrate out of their moral lifestyle their good deeds, which are done in meek wisdom. I prefer the first option. The verb likely follows immediately on the rhetorical question because the beginning of the sentence is the most emphatic position. The next most emphatic position is the end of the clause, which is the reason James separated the second adverbial modifier by eight words. As was previously stated the short proverbial question would likely have struck a cord with the original hearer. James follows on the heels of the conditional question with an emphatic challenge in the imperativeprove it! The imperative is followed by the first prepositional phrase, then the object, and finally the emphatic Semitism in meek wisdom. This is supported by the

16

fact that most uses of in the dative function adverbially in both the LXX and NT.29 In giving meek wisdom a more emphatic position in the clause, James has highlighted a characteristic that was not highly valued in much of the Hellenistic world.30 However, it was a distinctive of Jesus and the early Christian movement. Jesus teaching and death were characterized by meekness. Contra most messianic movements, Jesus, and the movement he engendered, was to be characterized by this meekness and humility, not by violence and zeal.

What is the meaning of in 3:14?

Throughout this paper I have been translating this phrase as harsh zeal in an attempt to get at the negative activism that the phrase represents. It is appropriate that it is shortly preceded by in the previous verse, because the terms are in strong contrast to one another.31 Where represents the very meekness of Jesus, represents the opposite: verbal fanaticism and ferocity with negative ends.32 I will take each term in its own right and then bring them together to conclude my argument for the translation, harsh zeal.

29 30

Sir 3:17; 4:8 10:28; 45:4; 2 Tim 2:25; Jas 1:21 Blomberg and Kamell, James, 71. 31 Davids, The Epistle of James, 151. 32 McKnight, James, 304. 17

To no surprise, is the lexeme from where the zealot movements got their name. The word is almost always used in the LXX in correlation with various words for anger/wrath, as well as fire.33 The same is true of the NT. In 2 Cor 12:20 vice list it is used alongside a number of other words that characterize unruliness and zealotry. In fact, two of the words found in James 3:13-18 are found alongside in this vice list: and . It is also used by Paul in Phil 3:6 to describe his persecution of the church ( ). Philo is the only author that seems to use the term positively, leading Albrecht Stumpff to conclude that zeal in the LXX best denotes mindsets and actions which do not try to help others but rather to harm them.34 It is odd, then, that a number of interpreters and translations decide to translate the word as jealousy. As for , every major translation opts to use the literal bitter as its English correlate. This is misleading. The literal use of the root in this way is rare in the LXX, NT, and in James Greco-Roman contemporaries.35 In the LXX, and especially the Maccabees corpus, it is used to describe the harsh and cruel attitude towards the Jews.36 In the NT it is used, like , alongside two words for anger/wrath in the vice list of

: Num 25:11; Prov 6:34; 27:4; Sir 30:24; 40:4; Zeph 3:8; Zech 8:2; Ezek 5:13; 16:38; 16:42; 23:25; 36:6. : Deut 29:19; Prov 27.4; Job 5:2 Sol 2:24; Zeph 1:18; 3:8; Ezek 5:13; 23:25; 38:19. : Ps 78:5; Song 8:6; Zeph 1:18; Zeph 3:8; Isa 26:11; Ezek 23:25; Ezek 38:19. 34 Albrecht Stumpff, , TDNT 2: 882. 35 Wilhelm Michaelis, , TDNT 6: 127. 36 Gen 27:34; 2 Kgs 14:26; 2 Macc 6:7; 9:5; 3 Macc 2:24; 5:18; 3 6:31; 4 Macc 6:8; 6:16; Ps 64:3; Sir 29:25 18

33

Ephesians 4:31. It is also used in the parallel account of Mt 26:75/Luke 22:62 in an adverbial form to portray Peters weeping as violent and uncontrollable.37 Both words, and , have some connotation of wrath and anger and are often used in conjunction with lexemes in a similar semantic range. likely modifies which is the more intensive of the two words. While they are not synonymous, they do have a semantic range that encompasses rage, anger, fury, and negative attitudes towards others. The following word, only makes the translation harsh zeal all the more appropriate.

What is the meaning of in 3:14/3:16?

The noun is derived from the verb , which Bschel glosses as to work as a day labourer, to conduct oneself as such, or to work for daily hire.38 While this is not the direct meaning in either 3:14 or 3:16, it is at least interesting to note that the root has connections to the very socio-economic and cultural situation that many scholars posit for the epistle. The word, like and occurs in the 2 Cor 12:20 and Gal 5:20 vice lists alongside an abundance of words that denote strife and division. Paul also uses the word in Philippians to describe those preaching Christ in strife in order to cause anxiety. Finally, its only extra-biblical usage is found in Aristotles Politics where it denotes self-

37 38

Michaelis, TDNT 6: 127. Friedrich Bschel, , TDNT 2: 660. 19

seeking pursuit of political office by unfair means.39 In each case, then, is concerned with advancement, especially at the expense of others. If zealotry was a strong political movement, seeking their own advancement alongside the advancement of the poor, James use of to describe these movements is justified.

What is the meaning of in 3:14?

is most often used a negative form of . The former attaches a negative connotation that is not necessarily present in the latter. The difference is similar to Englishs correspondence of boast to brag. Boasting would not necessarily be taken as inherently wrong or with negative connotations. Bragging, however, typically is understood in a negative light. This comparison is helpful as a starting point, but the difference between and is taken to another level in James, nearly having the sense of victory or triumph. James has used the term once before, in 2:13, stating that, mercy triumphs over judgment. The implication is that mercy has shown itself victorious over judgment. This is similar to the sense used in LXX Jeremiah 27:11 (50.11 English and MT) translating the Hebrew ,which means to exult, most often in the context of the wicked exulting.40 This is the very context of LXX Jeremiah 27:11: you were exulting because you were

39 40

BDAG: 392. BDB: 759. 20

plundering my inheritance.41 Later in the chapter, the translator of LXX Jeremiah uses to render the hitpolel form of ,which means to act as a madman.42 Though this is not the way the word typically functions in Greek, it represents well that James has, yet again, chosen a term that is both charged with negative connotations and strife, appropriately describing the zealot movements.

Is the object of both the verb and the verb in 3:14? The difference between the two is subtle and difficult to represent due to Englishs reliance on word order to form meaning. Being overly redundant may be the best way to translate the phrase if is indeed the object of both verbs: do not exult against the truth and do not lie against the truth. If is only the object of it may be best to add a word to demonstrate that the syntax is functioning consecutively: dont exult over (implied enemies) and, subsequently, lie against the truth. This second option is taken here because there are two significant issues in accepting as the object of . The first is based on the previous study of . The sense of the verb is primarily concerned with victory over its object. It would be a stretch for James to claim that someone could indeed have any victory over truth. The second is that using

The passage could also be translated, you were exulting while plundering, rendering the participle, , as temporal rather than causal. The Hebrew presents the same ambiguity, utilizing the Qal participle . 42 BDB: 239. 21

41

two expressions is redundant.43 While bringing out the nuances of the Greek text and syntax are more difficult in the second translation, it more faithfully represents the text by demonstrating that exulting (or hoping to exult) in a divisive way is an act of lying against the truth. If the community exulted over those oppressing them, by allowing their harsh zeal and strife to play out, they would be lying against what is true.

How does the unholy triad (, , ) in 3:15 function?

These adjectives form a progression that makes the indictment stronger with each word. They are all predicated of the implied verb and refer to the demonstrative pronoun . All of verse 14 serves as the antecedent of the demonstrative. Thus, possessing harsh zeal and strife, exulting, and lying against the truth is not wisdom from above, rather it is , , . The first, , is translated earthly. It is frequently used in the NT pejoratively.44 Even more than being earthly, this wisdom is aspiritual, it is the absolute opposite of the pneumatic () being.45 The third term moves the indictment even a step further, equating this wisdom to the activity of demons. Davids has argued that this biblical hapax means these very deeds were not only demon-like but they were inspired by demons.46

See Blomberg and Kamell, James, 173; Dibelius, James, 210; Wall, Community of the Wise, 184. 44 Davids, The Epistle of James, 152. 45 Dibelius, James, 210. 46 Davids, The Epistle of James, 153. 22

43

We can imagine that James would call jealousy and bragging earthly, and perhaps even aspiritual. It is another thing to call these kinds of actions inspired by demons. That James has the gall to indict the communities actions this strongly, demonstrates that he probably has something more intense in mind than jealousy and bragging.

What is the meaning of in 3:16?

Every major translation opts to render as disorder. This does not nearly represent the intensity of the word. Two commentators compare it to the English anarchy47 and lexical entries confirm the political and revolutionary aspect of the term, defining it as disorder, unrest, political turmoil, revolution48 or opposition to established authority.49 The usage in the NT reflects the lexical evidence well. In 1 Cor 14:33 it is directly opposed to peace. In 2 Cor 14:33 it is preceded by two charged military terms: , and . Like and it is found in the 2 Cor 12:20 vice list. Most significantly, in Luke 21:19 it is used in a hendiadys with wars (), connecting it specifically with violent action. It is not necessarily surprising that is so politically charged given the previous analysis of and and their connection to zealous political movements.

47 48

Ropes, The Epistle of James, 249; Adamson, The Epistle of James, 153. Albrecht Oepke, , TDNT 3: 447. 49 BDAG: 35. 23

What is the meaning of in 3:17 and / in 3:18?

I have argued that James used a number of charged terms that had strong connections to zealous political movements. All of these words would certainly not be characterized by peace, in fact, just the opposite. This is why James uses forms derived from three times in closing out this pericope. He hopes to draw a strong contrast between the movements who were acting out their harsh zeal and those who were pursuing peace. The latter are the truly righteous. There are two uses of in literature contemporaneous with James that parallel his usage here well. The first is in 1 Cor 14:33 where, much like this context, is in stark contrast with , once again demonstrating the nonpeaceable semantic range of . The second is in Xenophons Oeconomius where is used as an antonym of . This is likely the way James is using the word here, in direct opposition to violent actions. This contrast closes his argument well: those who are non-peacable, even violent, are not truly wise. Wisdom is demonstrated not only by being peaceable, but also by actively making peace.

How are we to think of in 3:18?

There are two issues in interpreting the genitive here. The first is in classifying it syntactically and the second is how we should understand righteousness in light of Pauline literature.

24

The two options for classifying the genitive are as a genitive of source or as an appositional genitive. The first would be translated the fruit which comes from righteousness and the second would be translated the fruit, which is righteousness. The second option is preferred based of the way righteousness is understood in a firstcentury Jewish framework. It is easy for us to slip into a post-reformation Pauline mindset when hearing the word righteousness. We could be tempted to think that making peace results in some kind of forensic righteousness; this is almost certainly not what James has in mind. Rather, righteousness describes the entire life of the believer, which ought to be conformed to wisdom and Torah. Peace is a major aspect of this righteous life; it is the condition from which the fruit (which is righteousness) can spring up.

Is a dative of agency or a dative of advantage?

The discussion of whether is a genitive of source or an appositional genitive leads to the question of whether those making peace ( ) sow the fruit, which is righteousness, or if the fruit which is righteousness is sown for their advantage. If we take it as a dative of agency, then we must assume that, at some later point, those making peace receive some kind of benefit of righteousness that is not explicitly named in the text. Taking it as a dative of advantage, however, allows us to see an immediate positive result to peacemaking, namely righteousness. This makes sense of the previous discussion of righteousness in the first-century Jewish context. Thus, the

25

most fitting translation would be, fruit, which is righteousness is sown in peace for those who are making peace.

How is 3:18 functioning?

Just as James opened with a verbless proverbial clause with roots in the wisdom tradition in 3:13, so he will close with a saying, or at least a type of saying, rooted in the wisdom tradition. Richard Bauckham has helpfully recognized the verses relation to statements of reciprocity in the wisdom traditions, such sayings are all formulations of a principle of justice, corresponding to the lex talionis (Exod 21:23; Lev 21:20), as the principle of divine justice. 50 Interestingly, rather than receiving retribution for wrong, as in the lex talionis, the one who makes peace receives righteousness sown in peace. The verse as a whole functions as a fitting conclusion to the argument being made throughout the pericope and demonstrates the thrust of 3:13-18 in its entirety. As a capping sentence51 it demonstrates that making peace, rather than allowing harsh zeal to have its way, results it righteousness and proves true wisdom.

THEOLOGY It is not uncommon today for church members, and especially seminarians, to have a high view of their knowledge of scripture. This is an especially prevalent mindset in middle to upper-class individuals who are highly educated compared to the rest of the

Bauckham, James, 46. (cf. Matt 6:14-15; 7:2; Prov 21:3; Tobit 4:7; Sir 28:1; 2 Enoch 44:3a) 51 Adamson, The Epistle of James, 156. 26

50

world. We understand our wisdom to come primarily from our knowledge and book smarts. The largest churches in America are pastored by those individuals who are highly educated and rhetorically effective. While these individuals may very well possess the wisdom that James emphasizes in 3:13-18, this is not the wisdom that the churches typically strive for today. James argues that true wisdom, wisdom that is from above, is characterized by peace and peace-making. While I have argued in this paper that James 3:13-18 is primarily concerned with peace-making in opposition to the popular zealot movements, the Jewish idea of Shalom ( )would likely have been triggered in the mind of the first-century Messianic Jew who heard James epistle read aloud. True wisdom, in this context, would be peace with G-d alongside peace with men. Reading, exegeting, and interpreting this passage ought to allow us to emphasize wisdom in new ways. It would certainly go a long way if we were to shape our theology of wisdom and knowledge of G-d, not in intellectual pursuits, but in pursuits of peace. A theology of peace would be further promulgated if we began to see righteousness in lenses that are not primarily, or even solely, Pauline. A biblical theology will necessarily be shaped by the Pauline corpus, but too often we allow our understanding of righteousness to stop at this point. We become so consumed with justification by faith that we cannot see how justification/righteousness ought to demonstrate itself in the life of the Christian. Passages such as James 3:13-18 paint a more holistic picture of righteousness than we are used to seeing in the post-reformation church. Righteousness, for many, is no longer pursued as a practice that encompasses all of life. It has shriveled up to become merely a position before G-d, an argument Paul would not likely have made. This

27

position before G-d is, no doubt, a starting point, but James pushes our soteriology furtherto encompass all of our pursuits as Christians and to shape us into conformity with the Lord.

APPLICATION The theology of James 3:13-18 (and James as a whole) is concerned with holistic peace, the shema that comes from G-d. He contests any movement that is opposed to this peace, declaring them, earthly, aspiritual, inspired by demons. Christians live in a world that is characterized by disorder and unruliness, , rather than the peace James, as well as the biblical narrative in its entirety, calls for. As I write this paper world news is a buzz with the report of an American soldier who stalked down and killed 16 Afghan civilians. This follows closely on an account of Qurans being burned at Bagram Air Base by American personnel. The events have led to uprisings, riots, and burning of an effigy of President Barack Obama on a makeshift cross. This is certainly not the state of affairs James hoped for, or even expected, in promoting holistic peace. However, in an internationalized world, this is the Christians reality. The question is how the church should respond. One of the great problems in evangelical Christianity is lack of social-action and promotion of peace. Given the inherent dualism in the faith, evangelicals have often abstained, not only from action, but often even from the conversation itself, reserving it for the more liberal strands of religion. In light of James call for peace in the face of violent zealot movements, this state of affairs cannot remain. Christians need to begin seeking peace in this world, not only in the one to come.

28

This begins by formulating a biblical worldview that sees peace as a priority, a spiritual understanding of wisdom not merely as knowledge, but also as action. This means being informed about the big issues in the world today, nationally and internationally, and formulating Christian responses and actions to them. It means the church needs to be actively restoring the world on the local level. Many churches offer beneficial social programs and aid for the poor in their communities, but too often these are on the periphery of the churchs agenda; it is rare that these kinds of programs are the distinctives that define a congregation. Individuals and churches need to step up in supporting, and even establishing, programs that offer aid and peace to those in our communities. While the church has not always stepped up in response to issues of conflict, it has also had a history of being the cause of conflict. The temptation to join zealot movements in the 21st century, for most Christians, is not a strong one. However, for many, the temptation to cause harmful public disruption and strife is ever-present. Often we are to busy spouting off our own agenda to listen to and be in conversation with others. Peace begins by hearing and acting, not by speaking. The church, and its constituent individuals, needs to be involved in more conversations that are intended to seek healing. It would go a long way for churches to offer forums for interreligious dialogue and political discussions. This is a rarity in the church. We ought to reject the idea that politics and religion make poor dinner conversation. On the contrary, we need to create mediums where these dominate the dinner conversation. We should offer public events for these conversations to take place. Peace will never happen if we stop up our ears and avoid other peoples convictions.

29

Finally, we need to respond to the convictions of others and the issues of the world, not with fanaticism, but with wisdom. If wisdom from above is primarily concerned with making peace, we need to be wise in the way we attempt to bring this peace into the world. It is too easy to sell ourselves short in attempts to make peace. Often we think that sharing our knowledge of an international organization, or sending them a few dollars a month is enough of an act of peacemaking. Recently a humanitarian organization created a short film that went viral. At the time I write this, the 30-minute YouTube video is nearing 80 million views. Many who have watched this video and shared it in social mediums truly believe they are participating in acts of peace. Perhaps they are, but surely this cannot be all that we do to make peace in the world. Sharing humanitarian sentiment is a start, but it is certainly not the end. Both action and loving conversation are in dire need. Not only promoting this mindset, but establishing and providing occasions for it to be played out, is one of the greatest opportunities the church can take today.

30

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adamson, James B. The Epistle of James. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976. Batten, Alicia J. The Letter of James. What Are They Saying About. New York: Paulist Press, 2009. Bauckham, Richard. James: Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage. New Testament Readings. New York: Routledge, 1999. Bauer, W., F.W. Danker, W.F. Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich, eds. Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Blomberg, Craig L., and Mariam J. Kamell. James. Edited by Clinton E. Arnold. Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 16. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008. Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, eds. Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000. Bschel, Friedrich. . Pages 657660 in vol. 2 of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. Translated by G.W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Co., 1964. Cheung, Luke L. The Genre, Composition, and Hermeneutics of James. Paternoster Biblical and Theological Monographs. Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Press, 2003. Davids, Peter H. The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982. Dibelius, Martin. James. Translated by Michael A. Williams. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976. Freedman, David Noel, Gary A. Herion, David F. Graf, John David Pleins, and Astrid B. Beck, eds. Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Horsely, Richard A. Messianic Movements in Judaism. Pages 791797 in vol. 4 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman, Gary A. Herion, David F. Graf, John David Pleins, and Astrid B. Beck. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Johnson, Luke Timothy. Brother of Jesus, Friend of God: Studies in the Letter of James. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004.

31

Kittel, Gerhard, ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by G.W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Co., 1964. McKnight, Scot. The Letter of James. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2011. Michaelis, Wilhelm. . Pages 124127 in vol. 6 of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. Translated by G.W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Co., 1964. Margaret Mitchell, The Letter of James as a Document of Paulinism pages 75-98 in Reading James with New Eyes: Methodological Assessments of the Letter of James. Edited by Robert L. Webb and John S. Kloppenborg. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Moo, Douglas J. The Letter of James: An Introduction and Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985. Oepke, Albrecht. . Page 447 in vol. 3 of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. Translated by G.W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Co., 1964. Perdue, Leo G. Paraenesis and the Epistle of James. Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der lteren Kirche 72 (1981): 241 256. Rhoads, David. Zealots. Pages 10431054 in vol. 6 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman, Gary A. Herion, David F. Graf, John David Pleins, and Astrid B. Beck. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Ropes, James H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1916. Sleeper, C. Freeman. James. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998. Stumpff, Albrecht. . Pages 879885 in vol. 2 of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. Translated by G.W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Co., 1964. Townsend, Rev. Michael J. James 4:1-4: A Warning against Zealotry. Expository Times 87 (1975): 211213. Wall, Robert W. Community of the Wise: The Letter of James. The New Testament in Context. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997. . James as Apocalyptic Paraenesis. Restoration Quarterly 32 (1990): 1122.

32

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.

33