James 3.13-18 Paper

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.