Lexham Discourse Commentary: James
A New Approach to Exegesis
The structure and flow of the epistle of James have been the source of much debate. This is due in part to the scarcity of structuring conjunctions that James uses as compared to the writings of Paul or Luke. In the Lexham Discourse Commentary on James, Kristopher Lyle helps readers to recognize the conventions used for signaling transitions or developments in the discourse, and also draws attention to significant features that James employs to direct the reader’s attention to important information.
The Lexham Discourse Commentary series
The Lexham Discourse Commentary series guides readers through the Greek text, integrating insights from the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament and Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Each volume in the series shows how various discourse devices contribute to the overall flow and structure of the New Testament books by providing a unifying analysis of each text.
Dr. Steve Runge’s approach complements traditional approaches by helping readers understand the exegetical implications of the writer’s choices. The Lexham Discourse Commentaries offer sustained analysis on the text, but do not engage issues like background, setting, and audience that preoccupy traditional commentaries. Instead, Runge applies his years of research in discourse grammar to editing this running exegesis of the Greek. If you have been disappointed by the lack of discussion about structure, discourse flow, and rhetorical strategies in modern commentaries, then the Lexham Discourse Commentaries are for you.
Learn more about the other titles in this series.
Top Highlights
“For James’ purposes, what’s important in 3:3 is not the reason someone might put a bit in a horse’s mouth, but that the whole body is bridled as a consequence. In other words, the relevance of this illustration to James’ larger argument is not the fact that a horse obeys a human’s lead if there is a bit in its mouth; it’s that a small thing controls an even bigger thing. Thus the big idea behind using bits is not found within the purpose clause—εἰς τὸ πείθεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἡμῖν—but the statement that follows (see 3:3 note: καὶ …). To capture this interpretation more fully consider the fact that the purpose clause could have been omitted with the central point held intact: ‘If we put bits in the mouths of horses […] we guide their whole bodies.’” (James 3:3)
“James ended his comments on the necessary synthesis of faith and deeds with a supportive illustration (2:26). Now in 3:1, he begins a new line of argument concerning the power of the tongue. Apart from the change in subject material, there are three factors that signal to his readers a higher-level break is underway: (1) the switch from exposition to exhortation, (2) the presence of a direct address, which interrupts the discourse, and (3) the absence of any connective to specify how the following material is to be related to the preceding, leaving this to be inferred. This section continues through 3:12, until a change in subject matter and two of the three factors previously mentioned are present.” (James 3:1–12)
“Next, in 1:21, James recharacterizes the message by qualifying it as ἔμφυτος (the implanted [message]). The qualifying phrase maintains concord with the preceding imagery of the message as something that is born. Then, in 1:22 and 1:23, he uses a simplified phrase ὁ λόγος (the message) to refer to the same referent. Finally, in 1:25, he makes a more drastic recharacterization and calls this message the νόμον τέλειον τὸν τῆς ἐλευθερίας (the perfect law of liberty). This final recharacterization prepares the way for a merged conceptualization of the λόγῳ ἀληθείας and the old covenant νόμος (Law) (see 2:12).” (James 1:18)
About the Author
Kristopher Lyle is a Language Editor at Faithlife Corporation. He holds a BA in Biblical Languages and Sociology from Houston Baptist University, and an MA in Biblical Hebrew from the University of Stellenbosch (South Africa) under the supervision of Christo van der Merwe. His research focuses on applying cognitive linguistic frameworks to our understanding of the biblical languages. He received the SASNES award for his MA thesis in 2013, and has since authored multiple articles on Biblical Hebrew lexical semantics.
About the Editor
Steven E. Runge holds a BA in speech communication from Western Washington University, a master of theological studies degree in biblical languages from Trinity Western Seminary in Langley, BC, Canada, and a doctor of literature degree in biblical languages from the University of Stellenbosch in South Africa, which was supervised by Christo Van der Merwe. In preparation for his doctoral research, Steve completed several years of study in the linguistic fields of pragmatics and discourse grammar.
He has served as an adjunct faculty member at Northwest Baptist Theological College, Trinity Western University, and Associated Canadian Theological Schools (ACTS) while completing his education. Steve presently serves as a scholar-in-residence at Logos Bible Software, where, along with Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament, he has developed the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament and the Lexham High Definition Commentaries.