The Letter of James

39 Context of Thought and Theology faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him” (2:5) leaves it uncertain whether the kingdom is to be inherited in the future or is even now the possession of those who are chosen. But, in light of “the royal law” (i.e., “the law of the kingdom”) in 2:8, the latter is likely. James also alludes to the new birth that ushers believers into the enjoyment of God’s kingdom blessings (1:18). And the most likely interpretation of 5:3, reflected in the NIV translation “you have hoarded wealth in the last days,” indicates that James believed that believers were already living in the age of eschatological consummation. All told, then, James provides sufficient indication that he holds to the typical NT pattern of “fulfillment without consummation” that we call “inaugurated eschatology.”100 It is within the tension of this “already/not yet” that we must interpret and apply James’s ethical teaching.101

E. The Law / the Word of God One of the most debated theological issues in James is his teaching—or, better, assumptions—about the law of Moses, the torah. One of the reasons for the debate is the implicit nature of James’s teaching about the law. The law is not a focus of discussion in the Letter of James. References to it come in the context of exhortations about other issues. Calling for Christians to be doers of the word, James refers to “the perfect law that gives freedom” (1:25). He rebukes partiality in the church by labeling it a clear violation of the “royal law,” the demand that we love our neighbors as ourselves (2:8). In this same context, James goes on to stress the unity of the law (2:10–11) and to warn believers that they will be judged “by the law that gives freedom” (2:12). Finally, James condemns slander because it reveals an underlying criticism of the law itself (4:11). While not providing for us anything like a full theology of the law, these texts do suggest several conclusions about James’s understanding of the law.

First, as we noted earlier, James reveals little concern about obedience to the ritual law. Noting this, scholars sometimes conclude that James of Jerusalem, famous in tradition for his allegiance to torah and concern to keep good relationships with Judaism, could never have written the letter we have before us. We noted in our response that (1) the picture of the torah-­fanatic James in the tradition is tendential and false, and (2) absence of concern for the ritual 100. Contra, e.g., Wilckens, who argues that James lacks a “salvation-­historical horizon” (“heilsgeschichtliche Horizont”) (Die Briefe des Urchristentums, 358).

101. See esp. Mußner, 207–10.