The Rhetorical Function Of James

593 Words3 Pages

James is often regarded as the most practical book in the Bible, reflecting its design as an instructional guide for Christian conduct. The epistle contains very little doctrinal instruction, and focuses instead on giving encouragement and advice. James has historically been categorized as a paraenesis—a book of popular slogans—that were put together by catchphrases (Hartin 10). Furthermore, according to Hartin, “The rhetorical function of James is to socialize its hearers/readers as the twelve-tribe kingdom by reminding them of those values that give them identity and separate them from the wider society” (Hartin 13). The goal of this separation is to keep the minds of these believers on things above, and their citizenship in heaven. To achieve …show more content…

These two are not contrary, but rather complimentary to each other. James begins his letter mentioning the role of faith in the development of a believer. In the rest of the writing, we see faith play an important role whether it be in relation to a relationship with God or conduct in the world. An example of this is James 1:6: “But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind” (ESV, James 1:6), where faith is fundamental in communion with God. Additionally, the pairing of this faith and works, which often confuses readers today follows this theme. James 2:22 says: “You see that faith was active along with [Abraham] his works, and faith was completed by his works.” (ESV, James 2:22). It is important to understand this is not saying that works without faith is desirable, but that faith alone is not apt for all situations. As pointed out by Dr. Vlachos in a lecture on the subject, Paul based his theology of works on Abraham’s acceptance of God’s covenant promise with him. James bases his doctrine of faith and works on Abraham after this, where he proves his devotion to God by offering to sacrifice his only son (Vlachos). This distinction shows that the two doctrines are not contrary to each other, but actually