james 3.13-18 paper
TRANSCRIPT
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
1
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, don’t 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
violence—in 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.
2
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 condition”2 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 (πραΰτητι σοφίας).
Verses 14-16 go on to demonstrate how the wise person ought not live. Verse 14a sets up
the first class conditional with εἰ, “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 one’s 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
1 Scot McKnight, The Letter of James (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans 2 While the variant in 489, 2298, Nil, K*, and 1 all make the conditional explicit, Davids states that τίς 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).
3
heavenly wisdom. On the contrary, James uses three negative adjectives to demonstrate
these as the very opposite of wisdom that comes from above. ἐπιγειος, ψυχική,
δαιµονιὠδης 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.
3 Richard Bauckham, James: Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage (New Testament Readings; New York: Routledge, 1999), 46.
4
Grammatical Layout 3:13 τίς [ἐστιν] σοφὸς καὶ ἐπιστήµων
ἐν ὑµῖν δειξάτω...τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῆσ καλῆς ἀναστροφῆς ἐν πραΰτητι σοφίας 3:14 εἰ δὲ…ζῆλον πικρὸν ἔχετε και ἐριθειαν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ύµῶν …µὴ κατακαυχᾶσθε και ψεύδεσθε κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας 3:15 οὐκ ἔστιν...ἡ σοφία αὕτη4 ἄνωθεν κατερχοµένη ἀλλὰ [ἐστιν] ἐπίγειος ψυχική δαιµονιώδης 3:16 ...γὰρ ὅπου...ζῆλος και ἐριθεία (εισιν) ...ἐκεῖ (εισιν) ἀκαστασία πᾶν φαῦλον πρᾶγµα 4 (antecedent: ζῆλον πικρὸν ἔχετε και ἐριθειαν)
5
3:17 ...δὲ µὲν ή ἄνωθεν σοφία πρῶτον.... = ἁγνή ἐστιν
ἔπειτα εἰρηνική ἐπιεικής εὐπειθεής µεστὴ ἐλέους και καρπῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀδιάκριτος ἀνυπόκριτος 3:18 ...δὲ καρπὸς ... σπείπεται...τοῖς ποιοῦσιν εἰρήνην δικαιοσύνης ἐν εἰρήνῃ
6
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)
7
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
5 I understand that applying the term “Jewishness” is somewhat problematic, especially given the recent scholarship on early Jewish Christian relations, such as Daniel Boyarin’s 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 McKnight’s line or reasoning in (McKnight, James, 25-26).
8
date James around this early date, claiming that James certainly did not know Paul’s
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
7 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.
9
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 3:13-
18 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 Dibelius’s 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
Dibelius’s claim that paraenetic literature cannot function rhetorically, construct an
10 David Rhoads, “Zealots,” ABD 6: 1047. 11 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.
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 Paul’s 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, διδάσκαλοι)
of the community. If the leaders responded harshly, the rest of the community was likely
15 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.
11
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 statement”17 that closes out 3:13-18 is contrasted with the military words
employed in 4:1-3: wars (πόλεµοι), battles (µάχαι), warring as a soldier (στρατευοµένων),
(you) murder (φοωεύετε), (you) act zealously (ζηλοῦτε), (you) fight (µάχεσθε), and (you)
wage war (πολεµεῖτε).
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.
17 Bauckham, James, 46. 18 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.
12
TEXTUAL CRITICISM CHART
Variant Reading: ταῖς καρδίαις replaces τῇ καρδίᾳ (3:14)
Alexandrian Western Byzantine
,Boharic Coptic, 323 ,א
1739, 2298
Latin Majority 945
1241
Reason for variant: the variant is an intentional change to match the plural verb ἔχετε
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 individual’s pursuit of virtue.
Interpretation of the text comes with this bias, combined with English’s lack of
differentiation between the second person plural and second person singular.
James does use the third person singular in the imperative δειξάτω (3:13) and the
personal pronoun αὐτοῦ (3:13). In this way there can be no doubt that in some ways
13
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
individual’s actions to the community’s 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 Dibelius’s 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 Judaism’s 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 ἔχετε, ὑµῶν, κατακαυχᾶσθε, ψεύδεσθε are all used in v. 14. 20 McKnight, James, 298. 21 Dibelius, James, 208. 22 See especially Bauckham, James.
14
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 God’s 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 τίς in 3:13
to be διδάσκαλοι 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
division—violent 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
23 Wall, Community of the Wise, 183. 24 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.
15
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 σοφὸς and ἐπιστήµων in 3:13?
The rhetorical question that opens 3:13-18 contains no verb, but rather implies
that ἐστιν should be supplied. The two predicates would then be σοφὸς and ἐπιστήµων.
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
26 Davids, The Epistle of James, 33. 27 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 54. 28 Wallace, Greek Grammar, 55.
16
likely thought they were indeed wise and understanding, or at least they were striving for
this. The pithy statement rhetorically plays on the audience’s 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 ἐν πραΰτητι modify δειξάτω οr τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ 3:13?
The two options for translation would be, taking ἐν πραΰτητι as modifying
δειξάτω (1): “Demonstrate, in humble wisdom, out of their moral lifestyle their good
works.” In this option the verb δειξάτω 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 δειξάτω 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
imperative—“prove 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
17
fact that most uses of πραΰτης 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 ζῆλον πικρὸν 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 πραΰτητι in the previous verse, because the terms are in strong
contrast to one another.31 Where πραΰτητι represents the very meekness of Jesus, ζῆλον
πικρὸν 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 Sir 3:17; 4:8 10:28; 45:4; 2 Tim 2:25; Jas 1:21 30 Blomberg and Kamell, James, 71. 31 Davids, The Epistle of James, 151. 32 McKnight, James, 304.
18
To no surprise, ζῆλος 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 ζῆλος in this vice list:
ἀκαταστασίαι and ἐριθείαι. It is also used by Paul in Phil 3:6 to describe his persecution of
the church (κατὰ ζῆλος διώκων). 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 πικρὸν, 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 ζῆλος, alongside two words for anger/wrath in the vice list of
33 θυµὸς: 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. ὀργὴ: Deut 29:19; Prov 27.4; Job 5:2 Sol 2:24; Zeph 1:18; 3:8; Ezek 5:13; 23:25; 38:19. πῦρ: Ps 78:5; Song 8:6; Zeph 1:18; Zeph 3:8; Isa 26:11; Ezek 23:25; Ezek 38:19. 34 Albrecht Stumpff, “ζῆλος,” TDNT 2: 882. 35 Wilhelm Michaelis, “πὶκρος,” 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
19
Ephesians 4:31. It is also used in the parallel account of Mt 26:75/Luke 22:62 in an
adverbial form to portray Peter’s weeping as “violent and uncontrollable.”37
Both words, ζῆλος and πικρὸν, have some connotation of wrath and anger and are
often used in conjunction with lexemes in a similar semantic range. πικρὸν likely
modifies ζῆλον 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, ἐριθείαν only makes the translation
“harsh zeal” all the more appropriate.
What is the meaning of ἐριθεία in 3:14/3:16?
The noun is derived from the verb ἐριθευω, which Büschel 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 ζῆλος and πικρὸν 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 Aristotle’s Politics where it “denotes self-
37 Michaelis, TDNT 6: 127. 38 Friedrich Büschel, “ἐριθεία,” TDNT 2: 660.
20
seeking pursuit of political office by unfair means.”39 In each case, then, ἐριθεία 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 ἐριθεία to describe these movements is
justified.
What is the meaning of κατακαυχᾶσθε in 3:14?
Κατακαυχάοµαι is most often used a negative form of καυχάοµαι. The former
attaches a negative connotation that is not necessarily present in the latter. The difference
is similar to English’s 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 κατακαυχάοµαι and καυχάοµαι 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 עלז, 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 BDAG: 392. 40BDB: 759.
21
plundering my inheritance.”41 Later in the chapter, the translator of LXX Jeremiah uses
κατακαυχάοµαι to render the hitpolel form of הלל, 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 κατὰ τῆς ἐληθείας the object of both the verb κατακαυχᾶσθε and the verb ψεύδεσθε in 3:14?
The difference between the two is subtle and difficult to represent due to
English’s reliance on word order to form meaning. Being overly redundant may be the
best way to translate the phrase if κατὰ τῆς ἐληθείας is indeed the object of both verbs:
“do not exult against the truth and do not lie against the truth.” If κατὰ τῆς ἐληθείας is
only the object of ψεύδεσθε it may be best to add a word to demonstrate that the syntax is
functioning consecutively: “don’t exult over (implied enemies) and, subsequently, lie
against the truth.” This second option is taken here because there are two significant
issues in accepting κατὰ τῆς ἐληθείας as the object of κατακαυχᾶσθε.
The first is based on the previous study of κατακαυχάοµαι. 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
41 The passage could also be translated, “you were exulting while plundering,” rendering the participle, διαπάζοντες, as temporal rather than causal. The Hebrew presents the same ambiguity, utilizing the Qal participle שסי. 42 BDB: 239.
22
two κατα 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’ (ἐπίγειος, ψυχική , δαιµονιδώδης) 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 ἔστιν and refer to the demonstrative
pronoun αὕτη. 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 ἐπίγειος, ψυχική, δαιµονιδώδης.
The first, ἐπίγειος, 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’ (πνευµατίκος) 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
43 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.
23
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 ἀκατάστασια in 3:16?
Every major translation opts to render ἀκατάστασια as ‘disorder.’ This does not
nearly represent the intensity of the word. Two commentators compare it to the English
‘anarchy’47 and lexical entries confirm the political and revolutionary aspect of the term,
defining it as “disorder, unrest, political turmoil, revolution”48 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: πληγαῖς,
and φυλακαῖς. Like ζῆλος and ἐριθεία 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 (πολέµους), connecting it
specifically with violent action. It is not necessarily surprising that ἀκατάστασια is so
politically charged given the previous analysis of ζῆλος and ἐριθεία and their connection
to zealous political movements.
47 Ropes, The Epistle of James, 249; Adamson, The Epistle of James, 153. 48 Albrecht Oepke, “ἀκατάστασια,” TDNT 3: 447. 49 BDAG: 35.
24
What is the meaning of εἰρηνική in 3:17 and εἰρήνῃ /εἰρήνην 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 εἰρήνη 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 εἰρήνη in literature contemporaneous with James that
parallel his usage here well. The first is in 1 Cor 14:33 where, much like this context,
εἰρήνη is in stark contrast with ἀκαταστασίας, once again demonstrating the non-
peaceable semantic range of ἀκαταστασίας. The second is in Xenophon’s Oeconomius
where εἰρηνικαὶ is used as an antonym of πολεµικαὶ. 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 δικαιοσύνης in 3:18?
There are two issues in interpreting the genitive δικαιοσύνης here. The first is in
classifying it syntactically and the second is how we should understand “righteousness”
in light of Pauline literature.
25
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 first-
century 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 τοῖς ποιοῦσιν a dative of agency or a dative of advantage?
The discussion of whether δικαιοσύνης is a genitive of source or an appositional
genitive leads to the question of whether those making peace (τοῖς ποιοῦσιν εἰρήνην) 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
26
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 verse’s 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 sentence”51 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
50 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.
27
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 (שלם) 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
28
position before G-d is, no doubt, a starting point, but James pushes our soteriology
further—to 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, ἀκαταστία, 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 Christian’s 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.
29
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 church’s 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 people’s convictions.
30
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.
31
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. Büschel, Friedrich. “ἐριθεία.” Pages 657‒660 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 791‒797 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.
32
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. “πὶκρος.” Pages 124‒127 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. “ἀκατάστασια.” 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 für die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 72 (1981): 241‒256.
Rhoads, David. “Zealots.” Pages 1043‒1054 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. “ζῆλος.” Pages 879‒885 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): 211‒213. 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): 11‒22.
33
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.