In considering a commentary on Scripture, one asks the ultimate question: who or what is this commentator’s preeminent authority?  Upon what does the commentator place absolute value and weight? Is it the biblical text itself as God’s supreme, authoritative Word?  Is it human experience, reason, methodology, prior ‘scientific’ or sociological analysis or a world-view which the expositor and readers bring to the text? In our case, the reader is at pains not to conclude that sociological analysis–namely, socialist ideology infused with Marxist overtones–is of greater value to Dr. Tamez (and Pamela Sparr, the designer of the accompanying study guide) than the word of the Scriptural text. 

This unfortunate chauvinism manifests itself when James says, “Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith…?’ Even though most commentaries (as she acknowledges) here identify the poor as the spiritually pious, Dr. Tamez cannot bring herself to accept this.  If she did, as she says, the rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor, and ‘the economic order and the unjust power stay as they are.’ Notwithstanding this, one appreciates her urgent plea for the poor.

To her credit, she consults commentators from various perspectives of the theological spectrum, though usually following early twentieth century form critic, Martin Dibelius. In addition, Dr. Tamez includes helpfully concise discussions of characteristics of the book of James, its literary nature, occasional controversial nature, authorship, date, context and the book’s structure.  Nevertheless, on these matters she sheds little, conclusive light and remains doubtful about most of them. 

For example, Christians (including James’ critic, Martin Luther) over the centuries have had sufficient reason to accept James, the Lord’s brother, as the book’s author.  With no conclusive evidence to the contrary, Dr. Tamez, like some other modern scholars, is skeptical. 

In contrast to credible recent scholars, she, like Martin Dibelius, finds little coherent, structural unity in the book.  Therefore, Dr. Tamez is free to see her own structure from three distinct but complementary ‘angles.’ ‘Angle’ one is the Bible author’s passionate concern for any unjustly suffering oppression and marginalization at the hands of the villainous, rich oppressors. ‘Angle’ two is hope.  The author encourages oppressed communities ‘to lift themselves up, to resist the pain of oppression, to confront the unjust reality….’ ‘Angle’ three is ‘praxis.’  The poor should live out their religion with ‘militant patience,’ prayer and single-minded integrity of commitment to the cause of the oppressed. 

In conclusion, although Dr. Tamez appropriately concerns herself with the biblical text and its meaning, United Methodist women meeting for a Bible study on James deserve better than a study of Scripture entangled in socialist critique. Rather, what they most want to know is God’s Word and how it is relevant to their lives, their families, their churches and the wider world.

Postscript: For substitute or supplemental, accessible commentaries on the book of James, consider the well-regarded James by Ralph P. Martin (Word) and the readable The Letter of James by D.J. Moo (Eerdmans).

Dr. H.O. Tom Thomas is Director of Supervised Ministries and Associate Professor at Asbury Theological Seminary.