Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:12:53.413Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Works of Abraham James 2: 14–26

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Roy Bowen Ward
Affiliation:
Miami University

Extract

IT is customary to divide the second chapter of the Epistle of James into two sections, verses 1–13 and 14–26. The question whether these two sections have any connection with each other was answered negatively by Martin Dibelius. Dibelius argued his case, first of all, by denying that the parable in 2: 15, 16 — with its contrast between speaking and doing (cf. 2: 12) — represents the point of 2: 14–26. Along with other commentators, Dibelius understood this section to treat faith and works and the connection between the two in the light of the Pauline theological treatment of them. Thus, e.g., he argued that the author of James employed the Abraham example in the manner of Jewish tradition, but whereas in the Jewish tradition the faith of Abraham is itself a “work,” it is not so in James: Dibelius found his solution by assuming that this discussion presupposes Paul's treatment of πίστιϛ and ἔργα. But ἔργα for Paul means “works of the law” (e.g., circumcision), which is not the meaning for James. Therefore, James must presuppose a misunderstood Paulinism. When James 2: 14–26 is approached in this way, the parable in 2: 15, 16 appears as only an example, somewhat incidental to the main thrust of the section. Thus, the connection of 2: 14–26 with the foregoing verses cannot be affirmed, even though it appears that the parable in 2: 15, 16 is similar to 2: 12, 13.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 M. Dibelius, Der Brief des Jakobus, ed. and suppl. by H. Greeven (Meyer's Krit.-ex. Komm., 1964 11), 184.

2 E.g., J. H. Ropes, Epistle of St. James (I. C. C., 1916), 202f.

3 Dibelius, op. cit., 206–14, especially 214.

4 Ibid., 214–21.

5 Following the criteria used by R. Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (F. R. L. A. N. T. 13, 1910). Buttmann did not discuss James in this regard, but see now Wifstrand, A., Stylistic Problems in the Epistles of James and Peter, Stud. Theol. 1 (1948), 170–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Dibeltds described 2: 1–13 as a partly modified diatribe, from 2: 5 on more “Predigt” than diatribe. For a critique of this view see my The Communal Concern of the Epistle of James (Harvard Th.D. Thesis, 1966), 3340Google Scholar.

7 The independence of James from Paul is affirmed, inter al., by A. Meyer, Das Rätsel des Jacobusbriefes (Beihefte zur Z. N. W. 10, 1930); G. Schrenk, T. W. N. T., vol. 2 (1935), 202–04; Walker, R., Allein aus Werken. Zur Auslegung von Jakobus 2, 14–26, Z. T. K. 61 (1964), 155–92Google Scholar; B. Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude (Anchor Bible 37, 1964), 35.

8 The expression πoιεῖν ἔλεoς refers to doing acts of mercy. In the OT this expression ( = πoιεῖν ἔλεoς or ἐλεεῖν) stands for the obligation given to the covenant people, expected especially toward the poor (Psa. 37: 26; Hos. 14: 4; etc.). This usage is continued in Judaism, and it becomes expressly connected with the command to love the neighbor, e.g., Test. Iss. 5: 2 — ἀγαπήσατε τòν κὺριoν καὶ τòν πλησίoν · πένητα καὶ ἀαθενῆ ἐλεέσατε.

9 “Note the connection of καὺχησις and τί τò ὄπελoς in 1 Cor. 15: 31, 32, where also the diatribe style is employed.

10 As also A. Schweitzer argued for Paul, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (Eng. Tr., 1931), 206Google Scholar.

11 Thus V. H. Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions (N. T. T. S. 5, 1963), 32; Reicke, op. cit., ad loc.

12 Thus E. Peterson, EIΣ ΘEOΣ (1926), 295–99; F. Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief (Herders Komm., 1964), ad loc.

13 Cf. Josh. 2: 1–21; 6: 17, 22–25; Heb. 11: 31; 1 Clem. 12; Str.-B., vol. 1 (1926), 20ff.

14 D. Lerch assumes this interpretation for the patristic and medieval periods, Isaacks Opferung christlich gedeutet (Beiträg zur h. Th. 12, 1950), 40n.

15 Gen. 22:1 (LXX) — ὁ θεòς ἐπείραζεν τòν Aβρααμ; 1 Macc. 2: 52—oὐκ ἐν πειρασμῷ εὑρέθη πιστòς καί ἐλoγίσθη αὐτῴ δικαιoσὺνη; cf. Heb. 11: 17.

16 Dibelius, op. cit., ad loc.

17 Thus also Abraham's ἔργα in John 8: 39 may refer to his hospitality; see the suggestion of W. A. Meeks noted by N. A. Dahl, The Story of Abraham in Luke-Acts, Studies in Luke-Acts (ed. by L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn, 1966), 154, n. 5.

18 So also Targ. Jer.; cf. Dibeijus, op. cit., 212.

19 Note the Christian exhortation added at the close of the Test, of Abr.: “Let us too, my beloved brethren, imitate the hospitality of the patriarch Abraham and let us gain his virtuous behavior that we may be counted worthy of eternal life.”

20 Cf. also L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, vol. 1 (1909), 281.

21 Cf. H. Chadwick, Justification by Faith and Hospitality, Studia Patristica IV (T. U. 79, 1961), 281–85.

22 F. Spitta, Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Urchristentums, vol. 3/2 (1907), 170. James is not directly dependent on the canonical Job, who was scarcely patient; cf. J. K. Zink, Impatient Job, J. B. L. 84 (1965), 147–52.

23 Here , literally a tamarisk tree, is an acrostic for (food), (drink) and (escort); The Midrash on Psalms (ed. by W. G. Braude, 1959), ad loc.

24 Cited from Ginzbeeg, op. cit., 2700 f.

25 The πιστις of Abraham may also be hinted at already in James 2: 19 — σὺπιστεὺεις ὄτι εῗς ἐστιτν ὁ θεóς. Philo describes Abraham as the first person to believe in one God (de vert. 216); so also Josephus affirms that Abraham was the first to declare that God is one (Ant. I. 155).

26 If James says that Abraham ἐδικαιώθη on the occasion when he offered Isaac (Gen. 22), then ἐλoγίσθη αὐτῴ εἰς δικαιoσύην (Gen. 15) must be understood in a telic sense, i.e., the faith of Abraham went on his account for the purpose of δικαιoσύνη. Between Gen. 15 and 22 comes Gen. 18, i.e., the basic text for Abraham's hospitality (= τὰ ἔργα), which for James provides the basis for the perfecting of his faith (2: 22b) and the fulfilment of the “reckoning” to Abraham in Gen. 15: 6 (2: 23a).

This is probably different from the original meaning of Gen. 15: 6; cf. G. von Rad, Faith Reckoned as Righteousness, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (1966), 125–30. It is also different for Paul in Rom. 4, where he can even drop the εις from the quotation (Rom. 4: 6, influenced by Psa. 32: if.; and 4: 11). Paul understands Gen. 15: 6 to mean, “it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Abraham's righteousness, i.e., when ἐδικαιώθη (Rom. 4: 2), was a present reality prior to Gen. 17 (which spoke of Abraham's circumcision). Not only do James and Paul mean different things by ἔργα, but they also read Gen. 15: 6 differently. Cf. J. Jeremias, Paul and James, Exp. T. 66 (1954/55), 368–71.

27 The title “friend of God” was, of course, related to various characteristics of Abraham, e.g., his humility (1 Clem. 17:2), his faithfulness (Jub. 19: 9), his obedience to God's commandments (CD iii. 2) — as well as his hospitality.

28 So also in Midr. Psa. (on 37: 1) Abraham gave food, drink and escort to all the sons of men; in Test, of Abr. Abraham “welcomed all.”

29 Cf. J. B. Soucek, Zu den Problemen des Jakobusbriefes, Evan. Theol. 18 (1958), 460–68; and my The Communal Concern of the Epistle of James.