JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY FOR SOUTHERN AFRICA

59

Exegesis and Proclamation

" S h O W n o p a r t i a l i t y ..." (James 2:1-13)

DJ. Smit
A. EXEGETICAL In the Common Lectionary (1983) this pericope is prescribed for Proper 19, Year B. In the newest Lutheran lectionary it is used on Proper 18. Obviously, this adds nothing to the exegesis, and to the thrust of the proclamation, unless one takes the juxtaposition with the other readings into account, namely Proverbs 22:1 -2,8-9 and Psalm 125 (Lesson 1) and Mark 8:27-38 (Gospel), according to the Common Lectionary. Since this reading forms part of a series of readings from James, Proper 18 until Proper 21, and the reading from Mark forms part of a series of readings from Mark 7:1 to Mark 13:32, Proper 17 until Proper 28, it is however obvious that there is no logical relation intended between James 2 and the pericope from Mark. The Common Lectionary refers only to verses 1 -5,8-10 and 14-17. It is not obvious why verses 6-7 and 11 -13 are left out, since they form an integral part of the pericope. In addition, it is not necessary to include verses 14-17. For the purposes of this discussion verses 1-13 will be taken as a unit. 1. It is notoriously difficult to find an overall theme or purpose in James. "Those seeking an argument in James will be disappointed" (Johnson): The teaching in James is not reducible to proposition or argument, but it was not meant to be. As in all wisdom literature, its reference is not to logic but to life. Its statements are to be tested not against their internal consistency but against their correspondence to reality (Johnson). Under the influence of form criticism, especially since Dibelius, it has been taken for granted by most scholars that James belongs to a very special genre, and that it is "a paranetic document of instruction." This would mean that the ethical exhortations in James are loose proverbs, without a definite order or theme, frequently joined with a key word as the only transition. In this, it strongly resembles Jewish wisdom literature (according to Spitta, Meyer, Windisch et al it probably ivas a Jewish document, although this point of view has been abandoned by many). The result of this approach has been that scholarly work concentrated on finding the (wisdom) traditions behind the different, almost isolated proverbs and exhortations in James. In the process, any idea of unity, coherence, thrust or perspective in James has almost completely been discarded. D.J. Smit is professor of Systematic Theology at the University of the Western Cape.

60

EXEGESIS & PROCLAMATION

Dibelius, in fact, in his influential thesis, explicitly rejected the idea of unity in James, arguing that it is simply a series of unrelated sections without any subordination, pattern or coherence The characteristics of paranesis, according to him, are "pervasive eclecticism," "lack of continuity," "repetition of identical motifs in different places," and "the inability to construct a single frame" of audience and circumstances into which all the moral exhortations would fit Against this backdrop, Frankemolle has recently made a very interesting contribution Using pragmatics as theoretical framework, and therefore starting from the conviction that authors do things with words, with what they write, he argues that the scholarly research into the traditions of the exhortations has been legitimate and extremely helpful, but that it is necessary to go a step further According to him one must recognize that, ultimately, James is a single document, written by a particular person, with a specific rhetorical purpose, to an implicit audience Precisely in the way this author uses, selects, combines, interprets and applies traditional material, well-known to and accepted by the readers as well, one can detect the purpose of the writing, its thrust A question which has been neglected, but one which we must ask, says Frankemolle, is the question as to what the author wanted to do with this writing, what the author wanted to strengthen in the readers/listeners and what he wanted to oppose, which kinds of conduct he wanted to criticise and to which kinds of conduct he wanted to call them Put differently, if indeed James' reference is "not to logic but to life," which kind of life or praxis is he addressing and in which directions does he want that praxis to be transformed? Frankemolle finds the answer to these basic questions in 1 1-12, James introduction According to him, James provides the readers here, in a nutshell, with everything he is going to develop in more detail Several other scholars have recently also argued for the fact that James is a carefully constructed work and that these introductory verses play an important role in the structure, e g Francis, Adamson, Davids What is the purpose of this "epistle" 9 According to Frankemolle one finds here implicitly the description of a crisis in the congregation(s) and in the individual believers to whom James is writing they are divided in themselves, as individuals and as congregations, they experience tensions and conflict This lack of unity, coherence, integration, in themselves and amongst themselves, comes to the fore in James in a variety of ways they experience temptations and trials, they doubt and are tossed about, they lack wisdom, and claim wisdom but do not show it, they are unstable and double-minded, they are poor and/or rich and have problems with both, etcetera It is with a view to this, says Frankemolle, that James exhorts them He wants to help them to deal with these conflicts and this lack of integration In 1 4 he uses two important words, teleion and holoklros, "perfect" and "complete", which are repeated and emphasized throughout the epistle, and which clearly demonstrate his purpose He wants them to be perfect and complete, as individuals ad communities He wants to transform their tensions, contradictions, conflicts into whole-ness, complete-ness, integration, unity, peace, healing Throughout the epistle, the seemingly unrelated moral exhortations all deal with these conflicts and this purpose of completeness, unity and peace, within them and amongst them Their divisions and difficulties, with themselves, with one another and

JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY FOR SOUTHERN AFRICA

61

between groups and classes in the congregation(s), must be transformed into "peace, the harvest of righteousness" (3:18). Many examples of these conflicts are given - between faith and works; confession and action; prayer and life; wisdom and conduct; insight and deed - but they are all related to a lack of solidarity amongst themselves, to conduct that is asocial and unbecoming - they reflect the divisions between rich and poor, wise and not-wise, leaders and powerless. Frankemlle uses Theissen's well-known analyses of forms of early Hellenistic Christianity to show that those Christians indeed had to deal with serious problems of solidarity and integration, because they, contrary to other religious groups of the time, did not limit their membership to people from a specific social class or life-sphere, but included everybody. Instead of being the religious component of a homogenous social group, restricting their worship as something "apart," they deliberately chose to be heteronomous and to include everyone. This obviously caused serious and painful problems for their internal coherence. The problems which James is addressing, are to be seen against this background, argues Frankemlle. Of special importance is the way James tries to influence the readers/listeners. In typical paranetic fashion, he does not claim to teach them something new, but reminds them of what they already know and accept and exhorts them to practise, to implement that knowledge and those convictions. In the well-known tradition of wisdom, he appeals to their own knowledge and almost common Christian sense. The point is that he is trying to show them that they do not, in spite of what they may think, live according to the things they claim to believe, and that this is the cause of so many of their difficulties with themselves and with one another. Already in 1:22-25, he gives a deliberate clue to this, using the image of a mirror. "The readers are reminded of what they already know and urged to act on that knowledge . . . The 'mirror of forgetting' in 1:23-24 at least suggests the motif of memory, so familiar in paranesis" (Johnson). 2. The thrust of this particular pericope, 2:1-13, is clear and it makes good sense against the background of Frankemlle's thesis. Part of the conflict among them is caused by, but also demonstrated in, the fact that they show partiality (verse 1 ), RSV, they act "with respect of persons," KJV, "they treat people in different ways because of their outward appearance, " TEV. The clue is given in the expression prospolempsia, "Ansehen der Person, " "Parteilichkeit, " "bezeichnet die Wertung des Menschen nicht nach dem, was er ist, sondern nach dem, was er besitzt undscheint,""partiality," "favouritism," "respect of persons," "aanneming van die persoon," or, in the excellent paraphrase of the TEV, "treating people in different ways because of their outward appearance." In a literal sense, it means "to lift (someone's) face." In the background one can find a Hebrew construction, from the life-context of ceremonies of greeting in the ancient East: someone falls on the ground to greet someone and the addressed person then lifts the other's face by allowing them to get up, thereby acknowledging the person and granting respect and honour. The common use in the Old Testement of the expression prospolempsia, "aanneming van die persoon," is therefore in judicial contexts, where it depicts unfair favouritism towards some people, especially the powerful and rich, because they are "respected for their appearances," their social standing and honour.

62

EXEGESIS & PROCLAMATION

Contrasting this attitude is the action of God, who does not "judge with respect of people," but impartially, which, in concreto, means that God acts on behalf of the poor and downtrodden, the powerless and suffering, the marginalized, who "do not count," who "do not receive respect and honour" according to the "normal" standards of human society There are many examples from the Old Testament to demonstrate this tradition, forming the backdrop of James' exhortation Consider, for example, Lev 19 15, Deut 1 17, Ex 23 2-3, and Deut 16 18-20 Jugdes shall judge the people with righteous judgement You shall not pervert justice you shall not show partiality, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous Justice, and only justice, you shall follow that you may live and inherit the land which the LORD your God gives you Especially helpful to understand James' tradition, is Deut 10 17-19 For the LORD your God is God of gods and LORD of lords, the great, the mighty and the terrible God, who is not partial and takes no bribe He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing Love the sojourner therefore for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt Many of these thoughts are obviously present in James' exhortations In the immediate preceding verse 1 27 he has called "pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father" "to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world, this world or society that teaches one that the "normal" thing to do is to "act with respect to persons," to honour the rich and powerful, to show partiality, to ignore "the orphans and the widows," in James days the socially powerless and marginalized, the people without faces, with influence, without "glorious outward appearance " "Pure and undefiled religion" is to let one's conduct be determined by God and not by the customs and practices of society at large It may therefore be very deliberate that James refers to Jesus Christ, in verse 1, as (the Lord) "of glory," tes dokss Pure and undefiled religion is to let one's conduct be determined by the glory of Jesus Christ, the glory which they have seen, and not by the (superficial) "glory" of the "glorious outward appearances" of the rich and powerful, even if the conduct of other people (who have not seen the glory of Christ) is indeed determined by their glory 3. The structure or logic of the pericope is clear as well In verse 1 he makes his basic claim It is nothing new or exceptional, but an integral part of the Jewish and Christian tradition which they accept and affirm and he expects them to agree, without any hesitation In verses 2-4 he gives one possible illustration of his point He does not say that they actually do precisely this, but it serves as a typical example of something that may happen among them He wants them to think about the implications of conduct of that kind, and to recognize themselves in the mirror Verse 4 therefore provides the conclusion "Have you (in that case) not made distinctions among yourselves9" In other words He assumes that they will definitely agree with his basic exhortation (verse 1 ) on impartiality They do not, however, according to him, practise what they believe, and he wants them to see this discrepancy and to admit that The illustration is intended to serve such a purpose of unmasking

JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY FOR SOUTHERN AFRICA

63

In verses 5-11 he changes to a different style of discourse. Instead of an example, he now uses the rhetoric of rational argument to try and convince them. He starts with the friendly "Listen, my dear brothers." One can distinguish three arguments:The first one, 5b-6a, is that conduct of that kind contradicts God's own actions. God chooses those whom the world regards as poor to be rich in faith, but they humiliate the poor. That is inexplicable, since they ought to strive to follow God. The second argument, 6b-7, appeals to their own experience. In chapter 5 he will return to that and treat it more extensively. Through the ages many people have had the same experience: Is it not the rich who oppress them, who drag them to court, who despise the name in which they were baptized? The implication is clear: Why are they then so overly friendly towards the rich - and at the same time insulting and without care or sensitivity towards the poor? The third argument, 8-11, is pastoral. Can they defend their conduct by saying that they are only loving their neighbour (the rich and powerful, coming into the worship service), thereby fulfilling God's own will for their lives? No, says James. That is not their real motive. There is something more at stake. It is a demonstration of their all too human partiality, the fact that they have learnt, like all people, that it is wise and clever conduct to favour the rich and powerful, since they can perhaps award you, while you can hardly expect anything from the poor, from orphans, widows, marginalized. They do not act out of neighbourly love, fulfilling God's will, but "they treat people in different ways according to their outward appearance," and thereby they "commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors." The conclusions of verses 12 and 13 are important. God's judgment is intimately related to the way we judge others. Partiality in our words and actions, leading to a lack of mercy on our side, will result in a lack of mercy on the side of the impartial God. However, impartiality on our side, which, in effect, will mean a preferential option for the poor, mercy towards those who "normally" do not count, will triumph in God's judgment. The fact that he mentions both "speak" and "act" is noteworthy. The wrong use of speech, of "doing things with words," is extremely important for James and he will deal with that again, in different contexts and in great detail. This pericope, therefore, becomes the first of the important mirrors in which they ought to recognize themselves, in order to transform their own speech and conduct accordingly. 4. Exegetes disagree, however, on some questions of detail. a. It is difficult to know to whom James is referring in his description of "the welldressed man with gold rings." He does not explicitly call this person "rich", although he calls the second person "a poor man, dressed in shabby clothing." Some commentators have therefore argued that it is a Roman of equestrian rank, "a Roman politician being favored as he tries to influence the church" (Reicke). Although this may be worth contemplating with a view to the sermon, it is not necessary to follow this suggestion. b. Closely related is the question concerning the nature of the "assembly" (2) or meeting James is referring to in his example.

64

EXEGESIS & PROCLAMATION

James uses the term sunagge, synagogue, which is remarkable, since this is the only use of sunagge for a Christian meeting in the New Testament and since James does know the common term ekklsia (5 14), church, congregation Again, commentators have offered different solutions Recently, Davids defended the thesis (of W Ward) that the scene portrays not a worshiping congregation, but a judicial assembly If one remembers that partiality in biblical literature almost exclusively concerns judicial set tings and posits a Sitz im Leben of a church-court built upon and finding its legal basis in the Jewish synagogue s beth-din, the example clarifies itself The assembly is a judicial assem bly of the church and both litigants are strangers to the process With a view to preaching, the example also makes perfect sense when applied to a meeting of worship, so that a final decision on this exegetical problem is not neces sary c. The expression diakrmomai in verse 4 is important It is the same expression used in the key-context of 1 6 where it is translated with "doubt " It also means "to be divided," "double-hearted," mit sich selbst uneins sein, bei sich selbst Unterscheidungen machen " The en heautois is therefore better translated with "among yourselves" than with "in yourselves," "in your hearts," "inside yourselves " The reference as a whole is then to discriminating among themselves, which would mean that both parties were Christian, thereby showing themselves to be judges with evil thoughts (4b), "evilly motivated" or "evil-thinking judges " In diakrmomai, therefore, James combines the motifs of "wavering" (within them selves) and "discriminating" (among themselves), both demonstrating their lack of individual and social integrity and whole-ness, leading to conflict within and among them d. Many exegetes underscore the fact that the oppression by the rich which they experienced (6-7), was seemingly caused not only by the fact that they were believ ers, but (also) because they were poor "We merken nog op, dat hier met Staat, dat de arme christenen voor de rechtbank gesleept wer den, omdat ze christen waren Het gaat hier alleen om sociale eilende, maatschappelijk onrecht" (Grosheide) "If these Christians discriminate against the poor in such a fashion, they show themselves not on the side of the God who chose the poor, but on the side of the rich who persecute the church The church knew well that God has chosen the poor The concept of election was deeply rooted in both Jewish and Christian thought God chose Israel and thus the Jews thought of themselves as God s elect Likewise God has chosen groups for his new people and one of the favored groups is 'the poor This election is based on the Old Testament passages in which God is said to care for the poor and the resulting fact that 'poor' became a term for the pious This background naturally stands behind Jesus declaration of the election of the poor and Jesus declaration is certainly behind James statement The rich oppress the church, no distinction is made between oppression because they are poor and oppression because they are Christian Nor should there be, for the charge stems from the OT tradition of the oppression of the poor by the wealthy This is precisely the context in which the verb katadunasteuoo frequently appears in the LXX The OT rarely calls the oppressor the rich but rather 'the violent The OT does describe the

JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY FOR SOUTHERN AFRICA

65

oppressor as wealthy and powerful, however, and so it is not surprising to find the title 'rich' used in the intertestamental period . . . " (Davids). B. HERMENEUTICAL 1. The way James uses this as "a mirror of recognition" will be important in every new context as well. In which ways do we, the present hearers, fail to live according to this knowledge of common Christian wisdom? The sermon will, therefore, not so much have the function of teaching the listeners knowledge, convictions and values we do not already know and accept, but the function of revealing to us where and how we fail to act accordingly. Preachers will have to reflect on the most appropriate ways in which this pericope can once again play the role of a mirror. Several expositors point to the fact that the danger of "partiality" in congregations and the church is precisely that it can become so much part of our thought and action, so common, natural, widespread and accepted, that we may no longer recognize it in our own lives and institutions. 2. Perhaps examples from the history of Christianity will be helpful in order to provide such mirrors. Like the story of Nathan to David, and like the stories of James ("for if . . . " ; "if..."; " i f . . . " ) , preachers may perhaps use the stories of other Christians and churches as mirrors to help present-day believers recognize themselves, and seeing the distance, the discrepancies, between what we also think, believe and c o n f e s s . . . and what we actually do and accept as normal, natural conduct. Most preachers will find it easy to tell stories from the history of Christianity to show how often and how deeply the church has been compromised by structures of wealth, power, class, race, sex, nation, volk, colonization, oppression, force, war and violence, so that it "showed partiality," acted in accordance with the rules accepted by society at large, and treated human beings accordingly, and not according to the faith the church confessed. 3. It is obvious how radically apartheid and more specifically the theology of apartheid, the spirituality of apartheid and the apartheid church order, is unmasked as unChristian "partiality," most literally treating human beings and felJow believers "according to their appearance," thereby "making distinctions among themselves and becoming judges with evil thoughts." Underlying apartheid is an anthropology, a way of viewing humanity, which deserves no place in the Christian church. In the collection of essays Apartheid is a heresy both Allan Boesak and Archbishop Desmond Tutu address this issue. Boesak writes under the title "He made us all, but . Racism is a form of idolatry in which the dominant group assumes for itself a status higher than the other, and through its political, military, and economic power seeks to play God in the lives of others... Racism has brought dehumanization, has undermined black personhood, destroyed the humanbeingness of those who are called to be the children of God. It has called those who are the image of the living God to despise themselves, for they cannot understand why it should be their very blackness that calls forth such hatred, such contempt, such wanton, terrible violence. Racism has not only contaminated human society, it has also defiled the body of Christ. And

66

EXEGESIS & PROCLAMATION

Christians and the Church have provided the moral and theological justification for racism and human degradation Apartheid means that the most important thing about a person is not that he or she is a human being created in the image of God with inalienable rights, but his or her racial identity It means that racial identity determines, with an overwhelming intensity, everything in a person's life Archbishop Tutu comments in the same spirit Apartheid says that the most important thing about us is our ethnicity, some biological attribute that is really an irrelevance in determining our human worth It exalts a particular biological characteristic to a universal principle determining what it means to be human Some are more human than others "Blacks are human, but ' Skin colour and race assume an importance they never had in the Scriptures For my part, its most vicious, indeed its most blasphemous aspect, is not the great suffering it causes its victims, but that it can make a child of God doubt that he is a child of God For that alone, it deserves to be condemned as a heresy

4, In this regard, Held gives a very instructive analysis of this pericope when he discusses the status confessione in the South African churches He argues that the expression prospolempsia is the Biblical expression closest to our modern concept of "discrimination," that the epistle of James provides us with an example of the seriousness with which the early church addressed problems of this nature, having a bearing on Christian life, and that this is the only pericope in the New Testament where discrimination within the Christian congregation is treated as part of the apostolic preaching He then gives an excellent and detailed treatment of the issue 5. Again, preachers in different congregations and churches will have to find their own applications, the "mirrors" best suited to their particular congregations This "partiality" is practised on many levels, it has many faces It will be best to do what James did Not to point the finger of accusation at other people, but to help the people listening to the preaching to see themselves in the mirror In each church and congregation, we have our own ways of "treating people in different ways because of their outward appearance," whether they are black, white, rich, poor, men, women, elderly, children, powerful and influential, leaders and respected, or powerless and marginalised In many South African churches one will find the same kind of problem to which James refers in his example, namely that the church - in spite of the fact that they are poor, oppressed, powerless, "black", themselves - pay much more respect and honour to the rich and powerful, than to the poor, the women, the widows, the orphans, the children, among their own members There are many and understandable reasons for this - in the light of the norms that are accepted in society at large and the possible advantages - but in the church it remains sin, a denial of God's own actions, of Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, and a transgression of the will of God In many South African churches one will even find that the church itself is structured and organised, whether officially and openly, or subtly, in terms of discrimination, of "treating people differently according to who they are and how they look " The problem is that we can become so accustomed to this, that we may fully and enthusiastically agree with the rejection of "partiality" and "discrimination," and still accept discriminatory practices and structures as natural, as the way things are and

JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY FOR SOUTHERN AFRICA

67

ought to be. We may, for example, reject racism, yet practise sexism. It is because of this that we need examples, mirrors, to help us to see ourselves and the discrepancies between theory and practice in our own congregations and lives. C. HOMILETICAL 1. One could start by pointing out that James is trying to deal with conflict, both in the individual believers and in the congregations. It is typically Jewish wisdom literature, giving practical advice and moral exhortation, with a view to transforming the praxis of the readers/listeners. In order to understand 2:1-13, one must start with 1:21 -27. James urges them to do the Word of God. He uses the image of a mirror, arguing that they must recognise themselves in the mirror, see the discrepancies between what they believe and what they do, and then transform their actions. The essence of the religion they ought to practice, is to take care of orphans and widows in their suffering and to keep themselves from being corrupted by the customs and norms of society at large. They must be liberated, set free, in order to be able to do this (1:25), and then they will be happy. For all of this, see A/1. 2. The first concrete example, the first mirror in which he wants them to look and rec ognize themselves, is given in 2:1-13. They are warned against prejudice, against partiality, against favouritism, against discrimination, against treating people in diffe rent ways because of their outward appearances. This contradicts the acts of God the Father, as they know him from Old Testament traditions and in Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory (verse 1 ). See A/2. 3. In a very important illustration James tries to convince them that, even though they agree with his rejection of discrimination, they still practise that in their own congrega tions (verses 2-4). In a series or arguments he then tries to convince them that their actions do not agree with their faith in Jesus Christ (verses 5b-6a, 6b-7, 8-11 ). He closes with an urgent appeal that they should transform their words and actions, in order that God's mercy will triumph over his judgment (verses 12-13). See A/3. 4. In order that the present-day listeners will again recognize themselves in the mir ror, so that their lives may be transformed, preachers ought to look for illustrations unmasking present-day discrimination, in spite of what believers may claim and con fess (B/1). Examples from the history of Christianity (B/2) and apartheid-South Africa (B/3 and 4) may be helpful. However, we discriminate between people "because of their outward appearance," in a variety of ways, and we ought to see, recognize, confess and change that (B/5).
BIBLIOGRAPHY Commentaries Davids (NIGTC) Exeter Paternoster Press 1982 M Dibelius/H Greeven (Hermeneia) Philadelphia Fortress Press 1976 F W Grosheide (CNT, ook KV) Kampen Kok 1955

68

EXEGESIS & PROCLAMATION

F Grunzweig (Wuppertaler Studienbibel) F Mussner (Herder) Freiburg Herder Verlag A Ross (NICOT) Grand Rapids Wm Eerdmans 1970 W Schrge (NTD) Gttingen Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht G S Sloyan (Proclamation) Philadelphia Fortress Press 1977 E L Smelik (PNT) Nijkerk Callenbach R V G Tasker (Tyndale) Grand Rapids Wm Eerdmans 1979 Homiletical G Eichholz, Herr tue 4, Wuppertal Emil Muller Verlag, 1955,470-481 A Falkenroth, HF 3/4 Erg , Neukirchen Neuktrchener Verlag, 1981,395-402 F Hertel, NCPH 4B, Stuttgart Calwer Verlag 1982, 204-211 Jrns, GPM 1982, Gottingen Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 402-410 G Phrfer, Interpretation 3/82, 278-283 J A Schutte, Laat my lewe om te loot, Johannesburg De Jong 1976, 71-74 E Thompson, Augsburg Sermons - Epistles, Minneapolis Augsburg 1978, 219-222 Additional J Adamson, James, the man and his message, Grand Rapids Wm Eerdmans 1989 E Baasland, "Der Jakobusbnef als Neutestamentliche Weisheitsschrift", StTh 36,1982,119-139 Ch Burchard, "Gemeinde in der stohemen Epistel", Kirche Fs G Bornkamm, 315-328 G Eichholz, Glaube und Werk bei Paulus und Jakobus, Mnchen Chr Kaiser Verlag 1961 F O Francis, "The form and function of the opening and closing paragraphs of James and 1 John," ZNW 61 (1970), 110-126 H Frankemlle, "Gespalten oder ganz Zur Pragmatik der theologischen Anthropologie des Jakobusbnefes", Kommunikation und Solidaritt (red H-U von Brachel/N Mette), 160-178 A S Geyser, "The Letter of James and the social condition of his addressees", Neotestamentica 9 (1975), 25-33 L Goppelt, Theology of the New Testament Vol 2, Grand Rapids Wm Eerdmans 1982 H J Held, "Glaube ohne 'Ansehen der Person ", Zukunft aus dem Wort Helmut Class zum 65 Geburtstag (Hrsg G Metzger), Stuttgart Calwer Verlag, 1978, 209-226 L Johnson, The writings of the New Testament An Interpretation, Philadelphia Fortress Press, 1986,453-463 E Kasemann, Jesus means freedom, Philadelphia Fortress Press 1969, 85-100 U Luck, "Die Theologie des Jakobusbnefes", ZThK 81,1984,1-30 W Nicol, "Faith and works in the Letter of James", Neotestamentica 9 (1975), 7-24 Review and Expositor 1986/3 G Schille, "Wider die Gespaltenheid des Glaubens -Beobachtungen am Jakobusbnef", Theologische Versuche 9,1977,71-89 D J Smit, "In a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged", in A moment of truth (eds G D Cloete & D J Smit), 53-65, and 143-148 Grand Rapids Wm Eerdmans 1984 J Soucek, "Zu den Problemen des Jakobusbnefes", EvTh 18,1958,460-468 W S Vorster, "Disknminasie en die vroee kerk gedagtes oor partydigheid in Jakobus 2 1 -13", Eenheid en konflik (red C Breytenbach), Pretoria NGKB, 1987,134-149 J Zmijewski, "Christliche 'Vollkommenheit Erwgungen zur Theologie des Jakobusbnefes", Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt, A Fuchs (red) 50-78

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.