James' Conclusion (5:19–20)

I recently completed my latest book Thinking Through James. The final word (James 5:19–20) sets forth the great accomplishment of one who succeeds in turning a straying brother back to the truth. I am always excited about gaining an insight that had previously escaped me, and I was delighted finally to realize that the end of this epistle had not been merely "chopped off" without an appropriate conclusion. In fact it does have a conclusion that could hardly be improved. The following excerpt from Thinking Through James provides my thought about James' conclusion.  (LAM)

I think I have tended to see James as sort of “chopped off” at the end without any concern for a suitable conclusion; the letter presenting one exhortation after another, and when the last one has been given a period is simply put at the end without rounding off the letter with an appropriate conclusion or application. Suffice it to say, however, that all the reading and reflection on the letter I have done in the last few months is bringing me to a change of view. Perhaps all the elements are beginning to stick together in my mind. I think I had not previously perceived the significance of the last passage, and the way it relates to the whole.

In fact time and again throughout the epistle we see how anxious James has been either to prevent his beloved brothers from being misled by false reasoning or, in case some may already have been victimized, to turn them back to the truth of the gospel. The wise man started out wanting them to understand their troubles in the light of divine wisdom rather than misinterpreting them (1:2–4). He did not want them to think that a person of divided mind, without wholehearted faith, could expect to receive anything from the Lord (1:5–8). He did not want them to be deceived about the sources of temptation (1:13–18, esp. 16). Nor did he want them to delude themselves about the value of hearing the word without the appropriate response (1:19–25); or deceived about the sort of religion that has value (1:26–27).

James did not want them to think the faith of the Lord of glory could be coupled with favoritism toward the rich (2:1–7), deceiving themselves into thinking they were keeping the law by their treatment of the rich (2:8–13). He did not want them to imagine that faith without the behavior that completes it is of any value at all (2:14–26). He did not want them to think the talkers among them were necessarily the “wise and understanding” (3:1–18). He wanted to disabuse their minds if they did not understand “that the friendship of the world is enmity with God” (4:1–10). He did not want them to think more of themselves than they ought to, and thus usurp the role of God by judging their brothers (4:11–12); or by means of an independent spirit that did not consider God and divine providence with regard to business plans (4:13–17). He did not want them to make too much of earthly wealth, but rather to behave appropriately in view of the judgment soon to fall upon the ungodly rich (ch. 5).

In every single one of these units we see James either trying to prevent incorrect thinking or to rescue those who may already have fallen victim to it. How could James have concluded an epistle in which he has been out to turn people from self-deception and incorrect thinking any better than to try to persuade his readers to join him in this great work? And how could he have offered greater motivation to them than simply to point out just how great that work is, what a great accomplishment they will have if they succeed in turning an erring brother back to the way of truth? 

So I am changing my mind about James’ conclusion. I do not see how he could have written a more effective conclusion than he did.