The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (161 page)

⁵⁸
Some have asserted that the heavenly tabernacle is proof of an Alexandrian neo-Platonizing theology (see Moffatt,
Hebrews
, 106), but it seems better to understand the reference simply as a straightforward extrapolation from the cited passage of Exod 25:40 (see Lane,
Hebrews
, 1:207).

⁵⁹
Bruce,
Hebrews
, 239.

⁶⁰
See Westfall,
Discourse Analysis
, 235.

⁶¹
This is almost the exact same pattern as with 4:11—16; the three hortatory subjunctives are inseparable, but the transition to the next section is introduced by the third hortatory subjunctive “let us be concerned” (10:24), which is developed through the following warning.

⁶²
See W. Lane,
Hebrews: A Call to Commitment
(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998), 162.

⁶³
See Westfall (
Discourse Analysis
, 242), who noted 14 pronouns, 26 finite verbs, and 18 imperatives; almost twice the number of the first two sections combined (30/58).

⁶⁴
See Guthrie,
Hebrews
, 373.

⁶⁵
Lane,
Call to Commitment
, 163.

⁶⁶
Käsemann (
Wandering People of God)
tried to make the case for a pre-Christian Gnosticism as the conceptual background of Hebrews. But since full-fledged Gnosticism postdates Christianity, these theories are now fading (see Hurst,
Hebrews
, 74).

⁶⁷
More often he said that it is God who speaks; once he named David (4:7); and once an ambiguous “someone” (2:6 NIV). His favorite phrase is “saying”
(legon)
, vividly reinforcing the idea of the enduring validity of the OT (Lane,
Hebrews
cxvii). A. H. Trotter Jr. (
Interpreting the Epistle to the Hebrews
, Guides to New Testament Exegesis [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997], 191) stated, “Probably no book of Scripture gives a clearer and more forceful proof that the NT authors regarded the OT as the very Word of God.” On the “God who speaks” in the book of Hebrews, see A. J. Kästenberger, “Mission in the General Epistles,” in
Mission in the New Testament: An Evangelical Approach
, ed. W. J. Larkin Jr. and J. F. Williams (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1998), 194-95.

⁶⁸
The author never disclosed to his readers the source of his quotation. Twice he located a passage only as “somewhere” (2:6; 4:4).

⁶⁹
Platonism held that physical entities have a heavenly archetype or pattern. The archetypes are the eternal and better form, while the earthly entities are merely a material copy. Some see the description of the tabernacle in Hebrews 8 and the references to the sacrifices of the old covenant (referred to as “shadows” and “examples” in Hebrews) as predicated on Platonic dualism. From the late nineteenth century until the 1950s, this view was widely popular. E.g., C. Spicq,
L'Építre aux HÉbreux
, and Moffatt,
Hebrews
, xxxi. For a rebuttal, see R. Williamson,
Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews
(Leiden: Brill, 1970). The idea that Hebrews is Platonic in its outlook is all but dead today,

⁷⁰
C. K. Barrett, “The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” in
The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology
, ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube (Cambridge: University Press, 1964), 363, 366. Barrett went on to suggest that the philosophical language was intentionally appropriated by the author as an appropriate tool to communicate Christian truth (ibid., 393).

⁷¹
The exact version of the LXX text form is an unsettled question. For most of his quotations, the author's text looks similar to the one found in the fifth-century manuscripts Alexandrinus and Vaticanus. But there are quotations that defy a simple solution as to the source. See J. C. McCollough, “The Old Testament in Hebrews,”
NTS
26 (1980): 363—79.

⁷²
Nowhere else in the NT is there such a clear affirmation of the high priesthood of Christ.

⁷³
See 2:17 and esp. 5:9, where “perfected” is most likely a term used to describe the completion of a priest's preparation and his installation as a priest.

⁷⁴
Guthrie,
Structure of Hebrews.

⁷⁵
The five “warning passages” are 2:1-4; 3:7-4:13; 5:11-6:12; 10:19-39; and 12:14-29.

⁷⁶
H. W. Bateman IV, gen. ed.,
Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews
(Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006), describes the four main views as follows: (1) the classical Arminian view, which holds that these passages indicate that believers can lose their salvation; (2) the classical Reformed view, which believes that these passages encourage believers to maintain their confession and that those who repudiate Christ were never really saved in the first place; (3) the Wesleyan Arminian view, which contends that these passages teach that one can lose one's salvation and never regain it; and (4) a moderate Reformed view, which argues that these passages merely warn against not reaching maturity.

⁷⁷
Against I. H. Marshall (
New Testament Theology
[Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005], 619—20), who so strongly insisted on the possibility of apostasy that he contended that passages elsewhere in the NT that appear to teach the perseverance of believers ought to be reevaluated in light of the “warning passages” in Hebrews. The reverse is considerably more likely.

⁷⁸
Some translations render the word
diatheke
in 9:13 as “will,” which is probated at the death of the one making it. But this is foreign to the context. It is better to understand 9:13 and the following verses as describing the process of making a permanent covenant. This involved the slaying of animals and walking between the bodies as a representation of the death of the testators. In the case of the new covenant, there is no representative body; instead, the body is Christ's.

⁷⁹
R. N. Perkins, “He Offered Himself: Sacrifice in Hebrews,”
Int
53 (2003): 251-65.

⁸⁰
Johnson,
Hebrews
, 57

CHAPTER 17

CORE KNOWLEDGE

Basic Knowledge:
Students should know the key facts of the book of James. With regard to history, students should be able to identify the book's author, date, provenance, destination, and purpose. With regard to literature, they should be able to provide a basic outline of the book and identify core elements of the book's content found in the Unit-by-Unit Discussion. With regard to theology, students should be able to identify the major theological themes in the book of James.

Intermediate Knowledge:
In addition to mastery of the core content identified in Basic Knowledge above, students should be able to present the arguments for historical, literary, and theological conclusions. With regard to history, students should be able to discuss the evidence for Jacobean authorship, date, provenance, destination, and purpose. With regard to literature, they should be able to provide a detailed outline of the book. With regard to theology, students should be able to discuss the major theological themes in the book of James and the ways in which they uniquely contribute to the NT canon.

Advanced Knowledge:
In addition to mastery of the core content identified in Basic Knowledge and beyond the Intermediate Knowledge noted above, students should be able to assess critically which James wrote the book of James. They should be able to discuss the genre of James and adjudicate the various proposals concerning the structure of the letter.
They should also be able to evaluate the relationship between faith and works in James and critically compare James's and Paul's teaching in this regard.

Map 17.1: Provenance and Destination of James

INTRODUCTION

S
OME SCHOLARS, SUCH as Martin Luther, have seen little value in the book of James and have sought to relegate it to the margins of Scripture. But James does make an important contribution to the NT canon. Augmenting Paul's doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone, James insists that faith, if genuine, inevitably
results in good works or it is not true faith at all. This sounds a warning against an undue focus on right belief (orthodoxy) at the expense of right praxis (orthopraxy), which must go together. This point, it should be noted, is not original with James; rather, it originated with Jesus himself (Matt 7:21).

With its scarcity of references to Jesus and the absence of references to the Holy Spirit, James fits somewhat uneasily in the NT canon. In essence, James represents an early form of Jewish Christianity that is firmly grounded in the soil of a Jewish wisdom ethic while having embraced Jesus as Messiah. This shows that even for Christians there is considerable value in the wisdom teaching of the OT. Indeed, Christianity shares considerable ground with Judaism. While the Jewishness of James's Christianity may make some readers uncomfortable, they should be careful not to distort James's teaching by conforming him to other NT books that are addressed to a Gentile audience.

Since the late 1990s, James has become a popular figure as an object of historical research, much of which has come in response to an amateur archaeologist's claim to have found his ossuary in Jerusalem.
¹
While the academy has often found James to be controversial, many regular students of Scripture have found comfort in the book. James's ethical admonitions render the letter as applicable today as it was when it was first written. In this sense, Luther's remark that the book of James is “a right strawy epistle” (i.e., a lightweight epistle, one made of straw) is a right strawy statement itself.

HISTORY

Author

The book of James, from a modern reader's perspective, begins with a trip through language and time. It claims to be from a certain
Iakōbus
, Greek for the Hebrew
Ia
acov
(Jacob), translated into English as “James."
²
Although the name was extremely common,
³
and several figures in the NT carry the name “James,” it is virtually certain that the “James” referred to at 1:1 is the half brother of the Lord.
⁴
The question debated by scholars is not which James is mentioned but whether the letter could actually be from James the Just, the half brother of Jesus.

SIDEBAR 17.1: WHICH “JAMES” WROTE THE LETTER OF JAMES?

Several figures in the NT are known as “James”:

1. James, the son of Zebedee (brother of John, one of the Twelve, Mark 1:19; 5:37; 9:2; 10:35; Acts 12:2); he was martyred too early to be the author of James.
   
2. James, the son of Alphaeus (another member of the Twelve, possibly also James the younger (Mark 15:40; see 3:18); although an apostle (and Calvin's choice for the writer of this letter
   ¹
   ), he is an unlikely candidate because (a) the writer was not called an apostle; and (b) this James was not well known enough to sign a circular letter only as “James.”
   
3. James the father of Judas (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13); he was far too obscure to be this well-known James.
   
4. James, the Lord's halfbrother (Matt 13:55); this James is the only viable candidate: (a) he was sufficiently well known to have written this letter; (b) he was known to be an authoritative voice in the Jerusalem church (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; Gal 1:19).