The Rhetoric of James
Jun 5th, 2009 by Micah Tillman | 1 Comment |
While responding to an e-mail, I had to work through James 2:14-26, and I realized that the passage is a brilliant piece of rhetoric.
Allow me to explain.
____
I don’t know when James wrote his epistle, but I’ve heard that some scholars think it was the earliest of the epistles — even earlier than Paul’s. That would make it the first book of the New Testament.
But look at the people James is yelling at in 2:14-26. It’s people who already believe that salvation is by faith alone, not by works. Which means someone was teaching essentially what we would call “sola fide” very early.
Whether James was the first book, the teaching or tradition of sola fide precedes James. James is a reaction to sola fide.
____
Now, it doesn’t matter much who was teaching sola fide, since Paul taught it, (and thus it has apostolic authority). You can’t just throw out all thirteen of Paul’s epistles because of one passage in one epistle from James.
James was no more an apostle than Paul (neither were among The Twelve; both were converts after Jesus’ death). And clearly the sola fide doctrine that Paul taught is older (closer in time to Jesus) than Jame’s epistle — if Jame’s is reacting against people who already believe it.
____
So, people shouldn’t go bizzaro-Martin-Luther on Paul, in favor of James. Martin Luther evidently didn’t like James at all. A lot of people today don’t like Paul at all.
But you don’t have to throw out either, if you understand James is engaged in a rhetorical debate to bring out a complimentary doctrine, rather than laying down a contrary doctrine.
He starts off in 2:14, with this:
What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? (NRSV)
And the answer to that second question is:
Yes! Salvation by faith alone! I mean, No! Faith is believing that Jesus saves you, not faith. I mean, I’m confused. What do you mean by “faith” and “save,” James?
____
To find out what James means by “faith” and “save,” you have to read the next two verses (James 2:15-16):
If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? (NRSV)
The answer: “No good at all.”
Talk can’t save a person from freezing and starving to death.
Talk can’t save.
____
Wait, so James, your proof of the claim that faith can’t save is an example in which talking doesn’t save a person from freezing and starving?
Faith is talk, and saving is physical? That’s not what we mean by “faith” and “salvation.”
Or is it? Maybe we have started to equate faith with mere talk.
____
Well, if we did, we shouldn’t have. Faith is an attitude, an acceptance, not talk. It’s being willing to accept Jesus’ offer of salvation. You don’t even need words for that, although words might help you express your acceptance.
But the kind of salvation we’re talking about when we say, “faith is accepting Jesus’ gift of salvation,” has nothing to do with being warm or fed in this life. It’s about getting to Heaven after we die, or somesuch. By “being saved,” we mean being saved from damnation and Hell and eternal separation from God after we die.
____
Wait, so you’re right. The faith that is accepting Jesus’ offer of salvation doesn’t save anyone from the troubles of this life. It doesn’t seem to do anyone any good in this life. It’s all about the afterlife, what happens to us when we’re dead.
Then we read the next verse (James 2:17, NRSV):
So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
Sure. The faith we normally talk about has an effect on life after death, but we don’t normally think of it as having an effect on life itself. Its effects, if you can call them that (since it’s actually Jesus who does the work) show up after death, not during this life (at least, that’s what we normally think).
And I supposed you could call anything that doesn’t have an effect within life, “dead.” But having an effect within life is not the point of the kind of faith we’re talking about. The point of the faith we’re talking about is accepting Jesus’ offer of acceptance, which will allow us to be with Him forever, even after we die.
Wait. But maybe we’re not talking about the same faith as you’re talking about.
____
So, we read the next verse (James 2:18, NRSV):
But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.
The faith you’re talking about, James, is a faith that can be expressed through works. It’s the kind of faith that you can tell someone has by observing the kind of things they do.
The faith you’re talking about is a set of beliefs that lead people to perform certain actions, and therefore a set of beliefs you can tell someone has by looking at how they live.
I see. So we’re not talking about the same “faith” at all. What I thought you meant was the faith that is “accepting Jesus’ offer of salvation.” What you actually meant is the faith that is “all the beliefs about Jesus and God and what Jesus/God command us to do.”
I see. I see. And of course, that kind of faith doesn’t save you. Believing that Jesus is God, and that Jesus said to love your neighbor won’t save you from Hell.
____
But it sure should lead you to act in such a way that you save yourself from living an less-than-cool, evil life. And it sure should lead you to help save other people from living crappy lives.
Those beliefs — that “faith” — doesn’t make you righteous, but it should lead you to live “righteously” (in the Bill and Ted sense of “righteous” — i.e., excellently, awesomely). That kind of faith is pretty pointless if it doesn’t lead you to live a life that’s “Righteous! Righteous!” (in the words of Crush).
____
So, it turns out that when James says “faith,” he means “the things you believe about God and Jesus,” whereas when Paul says “faith,” he means “accepting Jesus’ offer of salvation.”
James is talking about propositions, sentences, claims you believe are true. Paul is talking about an attitude, a being willing to allow Jesus to save you if He wants, since you know you can’t save yourself.
The kind of faith James is talking about can’t make you righteous in the sense of not deserving to go to Hell. The kind of faith Paul is talking about can (in a sense), since it’s accepting Jesus’ offer to make you righteous in that sense.
However, the kind of faith Paul is talking about can’t make you righteous in the sense of leading you to live a “Righteous!” life. It’s not going to “save you” (in James’ sense) from a life of loser-type (or “sinful”) living and mediocrity. It’s a passive acceptance, not an intention to act.
The kind of faith James is talking about, on the other hand, should lead you to act a certain way in this life, a way that James describes as “righteous” or “justified,” and a way that Aristotle, Bill, and Ted would have called “Excellent!” and Crush would have called “Righteous!”
____
So, what James is doing in James 2:14-26 is taking advantage of an equivocation in the words “faith” and “save” to shake his readers out of their settled opinion that all faith was the kind that saved you from Hell, when, in fact, there’s another kind of faith that should save you and others from an unrighteous style of life by leading you to live awesomely now.
He’s reminding them that Jesus came to give “eternal life,” a “life more abundant” that starts now, and is so awesome that it can’t stop (and thus must continue on even into the afterlife, and forever).
He’s reminding them that Christianity isn’t about what happens after death, so much as it is about life, about real living (both before and after death).
____
So, he isn’t presenting a contrary doctrine to Paul’s doctrine. He’s using rhetorical devices to shake those who have settled into a Pauline-style doctrine out of their tunnel-vision, and to remind them of a complimentary doctrine (which, through Paul’s emphasis on the imitatio Christi, they should have never forgotten).
[...] didn’t plan to do another post on the rhetoric of James. But I must needs do so in response to this morning’s [...]