From: A Torah
Commentary on James 1-2 Return to Home
By Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2014
[Page 249]
Chapter 1B:
Old Testament Precedents
Invoking of Explicit Old
Testament
Quotations to Justify His
Teaching:
None
How Old Testament Concepts
Are
Repeatedly Introduced and
Woven
into the Heart of His Argument
[Page 250]
1:1:
“The Twelve tribes which are scattered
abroad
[throughout the civilized world, ATP]”
(“dispersed abroad,” NASB; “living in all
parts of the earth,” BBE;
“scattered over all the world,”
One result of foreign military conquest was the forcible removal of
large segments of the native population to nations far away from their
homeland. In Deuteronomy 28 this is
pictured as Divine punishment that went hand-in-hand with the people’s
religious apostasy from Yahweh and which was accompanied by anguish of soul due
to the ensuing suffering in alien and hostile environments,
64 Then the Lord will scatter you among all
peoples, from one end of the earth to the other, and there you shall serve
other gods, which neither you nor your fathers have known--wood and stone.
65 And among those nations you shall find no rest, nor shall the
sole of your foot have a resting place; but there the Lord will give you a
trembling heart, failing eyes, and anguish of soul.
66 Your life shall hang in doubt
before you; you shall fear day and night, and have no assurance of life.
67 In the morning you shall say, “Oh, that it were evening!” And at evening you shall say, “Oh, that it
were morning!” because of the fear which terrifies your heart, and because of
the sight which your eyes see. 68 And the Lord will take you back
to
In Leviticus 26, the threat is also
elaborated on at length. Conditional
upon obedience to the Divine law, verse 6, “I will give peace in the land, and
you shall lie down, and none will make you afraid; I will rid the land of evil
beasts, and the sword will not go through your land.”
[Page 251] In
contrast, if they did not obey “all these commandments” (26:13)--which
meant that in behavior they “despise My statues” and “abhor My judgments”
(26:15)--the abundant Divine blessings would be transformed into abundant
curses. It would become so bad that,
“Those who hate you shall reign over you, and you shall flee when no one
pursues you” (26:17). If this did not
bring them to submission, yet more afflictions would pour out to supplement
them.
If this were still not sufficient to
motivate a change in behavior, “I will scatter you among the nations and draw
out a sword after you; your land shall be desolate and your cities waste”
(26:33).
Furthermore, those who survived would not only be crushed militarily
but be left utterly destitute of any hope of success, “36 ' And as for
those of you who are left, I will send faintness into their hearts in the lands
of their enemies; the sound of a shaken leaf shall cause them to flee; they
shall flee as though fleeing from a sword, and they shall fall when no one
pursues. 37 They shall stumble
over one another, as it were before a sword, when no one pursues; and you shall
have no power to stand before your enemies.”
In colloquial modern English, we would call this a “head butting” contest
and Israel was going to lose it repeatedly because they refused to give up their
mule-headed determination to live and worship however they wished—rather than
God’s way. This ultimately would bring
upon them exile from the land God had promised to Abraham.
Even then, God did not threaten to give up on them totally, but it
would still be up to them whether their behavior indicated to God that it was
time for things to change for the better.
Actions have consequences.
Butt your head against the stone wall of God’s law and your head
gets cracked, not the wall.
[Page 252] You can apostasize by quite
literally adding or substituting other gods in place of Jehovah. You can
effective produce the same results when you set aside God’s moral code and
substitute the worship of your own greed and self-centered lusts. When you give them the same priority and
importance that should go to God alone. When
you make yourself God in this manner, you are worshipping a competitor
to the real one. And risk similar
treatment.
The dispersion of the first century
was of a much different nature than these earlier ones. That threatened in Deuteronomy 28 was
accompanied by a widespread descent into polytheism (verse 64). That in Leviticus 26 envolved the rejection
of doing the things God demanded (verses 40-41) in such a way that it
ultimately included the practice of idolatrous systems in place of, or in
addition to, that of Yahweh.
The bulk of Jews in the
Furthermore, the Diaspora as it
existed under
However--It should be noted
that those Jews in first century
1:2-3:
“Trials” and difficulties represent a
“test” of our dedication
to obeying Gods will and our appreciation
of His blessings.
Here the emphasis is upon the potential result of successfully enduring
the pressures of testing. Implied is
that God either intends for them to happen or that His purpose is at work in permitting
them to occur.
They have the purpose of determining how one will “measure up” to the
moral challenges brought about by the difficulties in life: Will they produce in us growth, maturity,
strengthening of the inward person?
(What God hopes will happen.) Or
will they tear us into shreds and cripple us.
(Which is the last thing God wants them to do.)
[Page
254] In Deuteronomy 8:2 the Torah
speaks of how the forty years in the wilderness was not merely God’s punitive
judgement upon explicit rebellion but had another purpose as well: it was “to humble you and test you, to
know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or
not.” Although James does not use the
word “heart,” the idea is clearly the same of revealing what is within the
person, the true character and nature.
These hardships would test their willingness to repent and set their
lives straight. God wasn’t half as much
interested in punishing them as in reforming them. He used the tool of hardships to accomplish
it.
Testing with abundance. Oddly enough, even the giving of blessings
was sometimes also designed to be a testing.
Perhaps “designed” is too strong a word:
However it unquestionably would have a temptation element, even though
directly intended to meet their wishes and needs. When faced with hunger, “Then the Lord said to
Moses, ‘Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you. And the people shall go out and gather a
certain quota every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in
My law or not’ ” (Exodus 16:4).
Having insisted they were starving, the Lord met their need. But far beyond that during the years of
punishment awaiting the entry into
The instinctive response of a grateful people should have been
to obey God’s law out of gratitude. They
were faced with a dire four decades, yet God gave them above and [Page 255] beyond the essentials. Yet gratitude remains slow even today among many--even
when they most deserve to give it. As it
was among these ancients. Even when
God was ameliorating their punishment by making it vastly easier to endure.
Testing
with adverse circumstances. The
concept of having patience under adverse testing is an undercurrent in
the Deuteronomy as well, while being explicit in James. In Deuteronomy 8:3 it speaks of how they were
“allowed . . . to hunger” yet God kept them from perishing by assuring that
they had ample food to eat. They had no
need to panic; they had no need to go into crisis mode. God produced the test; He also provided a way
to survive it. Likewise their clothing
needs did not go unheeded even in the wilderness (verse 4) nor were they
physically pushed beyond the breaking point (verse 4).
As Charles Dickens wrote of a far
future era, “It was the best of times; it was the worst of times.” It was the worst for them because their
rebellion would cause a multi-decade delay in entering the promised land. It was the best of times because they were
assured a steady and reliable food supply.
The moral purpose of testing is emphasized: it was so that they would put physical needs
in their right perspective. Generic man needs
physical bread but “man shall not live by bread alone” but also by “every word
that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord” (verse 3). God tests in the sense of sending painful
experiences not out of vindictiveness but just as a father will sometimes have
to use strong measures upon a rebellious child to teach the importance of doing
the right thing and rejecting the wrong (verse 5).
[Page
256] The testing those James addressed
were of both types. Many were prosperous
and their restraint was being tested.
How easy to abuse their blessings and assume they is nothing wrong in
taking advantage of others.
Others were being tested by the abusive way they were treated and they
were attempted to either despair or strike out rather than leaving it to the
Lord. Some tested by prosperity and
others by lack. But, come in whatever
form it may, tested nonetheless.
1:2-3:
Successful endurance of “trials” and
difficulties
can “produce patience” in the face of
adversity
[ATP:
“strength to endure whatever happens in the future”].
Why? Because having gone through
it before, we know we can succeed the next time we encounter it as well.
This is true of patience in surviving the retribution of God. The wilderness wanderings were years of the
ultimate blessing of the Promised Land being postponed. Yet even in those years we saw above that God
provided them ample blessings to assure they survived the period. He will do the same for us. And if we should be so foolhardy as to permit
our ego to drive us through the same cycle yet again, God’s steadfast strength
will still be present if we but avail ourselves of it. He helped us get through it the first time;
He will do so again.
[Page
257] But James is not interested in
discussing this particular theme, though the precedent certainly helps us
understand his point a bit better. What
he is concerned with are the inevitable tribulations of life caused by others:
Outright enemies, those to whom we are
merely “inconvenient obstacles,” or even church members. Indeed, note James’ emphasis upon how church
members will treat the poor with idle words of encouragement (chapter 2). Remember also the reference to how the
powerful—conspicuously not excluding brethren--will abuse those who work
for them (chapter 5).
No Old Testament passage directly links endurance of mistreatment with
producing patience. It does, however,
recognize that suffering can encourage spiritual growth of one type or another. For example in Psalms 119:71, the writer
concedes, “It is good for me that I have been afflicted, that I may learn your
statutes.” A few verses earlier
suffering is viewed as producing a reformed life, “Before I was
afflicted I went astray, but now I keep Your word” (119:67). In other words, the suffering he endured had
caused Him to cling closer to God’s will.
It hadn’t broken his commitment; it had strengthened it.
James notes that there are examples that show us patience
in the face of adversity though the Old Testament texts themselves don’t use
that language in describing them: “10 My
brethren, take the prophets, who spoke in the name of the Lord, as an example
of suffering and patience. 11 Indeed we
count them blessed who endure. You have
heard of the perseverance of Job [“patience,” ASV and English Revised Version;
“patient endurance,”
Hence James rooted the interlocking of endurance and patience in
historic examples if not, perhaps, in any specific text.
[Page 258]
1:5:
Prayer for wisdom will be granted.
The prototype example for this, of course, was that of Solomon (1 King
3:9-11). In the case of that king, it
was a prayer for an “understanding heart” so that he could properly lead his
people and make those hard and difficult decisions that are the lot of any
ruler (verse 9). In James the kind of
“wisdom” is left unstated, leaving it a broad and general principle applicable
to whatever the specific individual’s needs may be. In the immediate context, however, it is
wisdom for understanding the purpose of the trials and difficulties that
confront us in life. The failure to make
this explicit, however, suggests that James is leaving the rhetoric broad so
that it can be applicable to all other situations as well.
If Solomon provides the prototype example
of the individual searching for a specific type of wisdom, the proverbs
attributed to Solomon provide the most detailed description of the
“findability” of wisdom in its broadest sense--as applicable to all aspects of
daily existence. In Proverbs two the
theme is developed at length. Prayer is
presented as part of the required method to obtain wisdom, “Yes, if you cry out
for discernment, and lift up your voice for understanding” (verse 2). Indeed, in a concept strongly similar to
James, “The Lord gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding”
(verse 6).
[Page 259] Yet
it also requires personal endeavor, persistent effort. One must “incline” the ear to wisdom and
“apply” the heart to understanding (verse 3).
One must “seek” it as zealously and persistently as if one were searching
for hidden earthly treasures (verse 4)-- which, of course, would not be
obtained over night. If wisdom
“enters your heart” and if “knowledge” actually becomes something we enjoy
(verse 10), then--and only then--can wisdom guide us (verse 11) to deliver us
from evil in this world (verse 12).
What is often overlooked is that
Solomon did not come to his concept of needing wisdom all by himself. While Solomon was still “young and
inexperienced” (1 Chronicles 22:5), David gave him the commission to build the
He explained to him that God had
deemed it best for the warrior king not to be the one to carry out the task but
he had done a vast amount of preparatory work for the endeavor.
11 Now, my son, may the Lord be with
you; and may you prosper, and build the house of the Lord your God, as He has
said to you. 12 Only may the
Lord give you wisdom and understanding, and give you charge concerning
[Page 260] It
would seem impossible to imagine that David had this attitude and did not
assure that the young man’s tutors guided him along a path of education that
did the maximum to assure that he would adopt exactly that attitude. Hence, though Solomon is to be praised for
seeking wisdom, a well deserved commendation goes to David for personally
urging on him that need and, presumably, assuring that his teachers did as
well. In modern parlance, he guaranteed
that his offspring received the kind of education they needed and not
necessarily that which would gain them the most praise from others.
The theme of conscious, dedicated
seeking of insight is an important supplement to what James has to say. Prayer is an admission that we don’t
understand things as easily or as well as we should. When God gives it, there is still our own
role to play, in continuing to seek Divine wisdom.
As the wisdom literature described
it, “I applied my heart to know, to search and seek out wisdom and the
reason of things, to know the wickedness of folly, even of foolishness and
madness” (Ecclesiastes
In other words it became a way of
life. Not just a momentary desire, but
an on-going trait. The logical outcome of
doing so is that we ourselves become individuals that others can use to
build their own knowledge and insight,
[Page 261]
17 Incline your ear and hear the
words of the wise, and apply your heart to my knowledge; 18 for it is a pleasant thing if you keep them within you; Let them
all be fixed upon your lips, 19 so
that your trust may be in the Lord; I have instructed you today, even you.
20 Have I not written to you excellent things of counsels and
knowledge, 21 that I may make you know the certainty of the words
of truth, that you may answer words of truth to those who send to you? (Proverbs 22)
Even when Divine wisdom is directly
involved—rather than the practical wisdom of running a business or a state--the
learned studies of others can provide a useful building block. (Not all the “learned” are as learned as they
think they are, however; but that’s a different subject—discernment--yet a grim
reality not to be forgotten.) Why learn
from scratch, when the hundreds of hours of work by others can provide us a
“lift up” to a greater understanding of Scripture which, in turn, permits us to
help others more quickly, in more depth, and with less danger of error?
Indeed, the person who refuses to
seek other counsel may merely be reflecting blind arrogance and
self-centeredness. He doesn’t want to
hear because, why, that might result in changing his mind and he has too much
pride and stubbornness invested in what he currently embraces. Proverbs 18:1 describes this mind frame, “A
man who isolates himself seeks his own desire; He rages against all wise
judgment.”
[Page 262]
1:6:
The requirement of faith to receive
answered prayer.
Jesus had Himself stressed the same idea: for prayer to be granted, it had to be one
that was based on “faith” and did “not doubt” obtaining the answer (Matthew
Nor is the prerequisite of faith a distinctly New Testament one. It is an implied component in a number of Old
Testament passages that do not use the term; yet without the concept being
present it is hard to comprehend how the demand of the texts could be met. When the curse of foreign captivity finally
drove the people to repentance, it would be through such whole-hearted prayer
that God would grant them their wish.
This success was because, in spite of His actions, they never reflected
the course He would have preferred to take in the first place.
11 For I know the thoughts that I
think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you
a future and a hope. 12 Then
you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you [i.e., when you recognize this]. 13 And you will seek Me and find Me,
when you search for Me with all your heart.
14 I will be found by you, says the Lord, and I will bring you
back from your captivity; I will gather you from all the nations and from all
the places where I have driven you, says the Lord, and I will bring you to the
place from which I cause you to be carried away captive (Jeremiah 29).
[Page 263]
This kind of a complete, whole-hearted enthusiasm in prayer that could
hardly exist without faith being deeply involved. Or does one prefer to say that chanting empty
words, repeatedly, endlessly—even over days, weeks, or months—would be adequate
to do the job? God knows a “con” when He
sees it!
Furthermore, prayer requires one to
“call upon Him in truth” (Psalm 145:18) but can that be done without faith
being present? Would not the prayer be
empty pretense rather than “truth”? A
few translations are, perhaps, even more clear in bringing this out. There is the CEV’s, “And you are near to
everyone whose prayers are sincere.” And
there is the similar TEV’s, “He is near to those who call to him, who call to
him with sincerity.” Then there is
Furthermore, how does one “seek the Lord” in prayer “with all
your heart and with all your soul” unless faith is pervasive throughout
one’s prayer (Deuteronomy
Both here and in Deuteronomy 30, the punishment for apostate behavior could
be revoked, if “you return to the Lord your God
and obey His voice, according to all that I command you today, you and your
children, with all your heart and with all your soul” (verse 2). Reformed actions, of course, had to accompany
this (for how else could true faith—rather than empty ritual--be said to be
present?), “If you obey the voice of the Lord
your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this
Book of the Law, and if you turn to the Lord your
God with all your heart and with all your soul” (30:10).
[Page 264] King Josiah and the people
manifested faith by what they claimed and what they did in returning the
kingdom to Yahweh worship, “Then the king stood by a pillar and made a covenant
before the Lord, to follow the Lord and to keep His commandments and His
testimonies and His statutes, with all his heart and all his soul, to perform
the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people
took a stand for the covenant” (2 Kings 23:3).
Which promptly led to a removal of all the pagan images from the temple
and their destruction, followed by a similar crusade throughout the country
(23:4-20). He had proved faith in his
prayer by what he did to fulfill His vow.
Hence what James does is make explicit a demand for faith that is
implied on various occasions in the Old Testament.
It is natural for there to be a
correlation between faith and answered prayer because those who refuse to obey
God are manifesting a way of life that lacks faith. Hence the blunt warning that covers both
answered prayer and blessing in general, “I will hide My face from them, I will
see what their end will be, for they are a perverse generation, children in
whom is no faith” (Deuteronomy 32:20).
Why should they get anything?
Many translations prefer
substituting for “no faith” along the lines of the ESV, “I will hide my face
from them; I will see what their end will be, for they are a perverse
generation, children in whom is no faithfulness.” Yet can they have no faithfulness / loyalty without
them lacking the faith on which such is built?
We come full circle back to them abandoning faith.
[Page 265]
1:8:
The “double-minded”/inconsistent person who
will not settle on
any one course of action
(“there is a division in his mind,” BBE;
“thinking about two different
things at the same time,” God’s Word; “of two
minds about what
will really happen,” ATP; “an indecisive man,”
Holman).
Although the terminology is not used, the idea is present in the
description of Elijah’s critique of the Baal cult: the people were rebuked for simultaneously
trying to serve both Baal and Yahweh instead of settling upon one or the other
and giving Him their fully loyalty (1 Kings 18:17-21). The people’s response to the rebuke was
silence rather than actually making any commitment (verse 21).
2 Kings 17:27-41 describes how the process could also work in the
opposite direction as well, with foreign nations adopting the worship of Yahweh
along with the worship of their traditional deities: “They feared the Lord, yet served their own
gods--according to the rituals of the nations from among whom they were carried
away.”
In a moral rather than religious
context, Psalms 12:2 describes the flatterer as one who speaks from “a double
heart,” i.e., what they are saying and what they are intending are two very
different things. In James this
condemnation is broadened from a criticism of a specific moral weakness into a
rebuke of what has become a pervasive, over-all lifestyle that has infected the
person’s entire approach to life.
On a spiritual level, the same fault
was found in the days of Isaiah:
“Therefore the Lord said: ‘Inasmuch as these people draw near with their
mouths and honor Me with [Page 266] their
lips, but have removed their hearts far from Me, and their fear toward Me is
taught by the commandment of men’ ” (29:13).
They said the right things but there was no inner commitment; it
was all form—presumably to “get out of God” what was wanted without actually
giving Him any genuine commitment. Here
it is not described as “a double heart” but since there is a clear discrepancy
between the words and the intents, the description would be far from
inappropriate.
The “double hearted” rhetoric
carries the inherent imagery of someone who is at war with himself—or
herself. Furthermore, the individual who
is never stable, always changing, is a danger not only to himself but an
annoyance--or worse--to others. In
describing the frustration that such a person can create in another, the
Septuagint of Psalms 119:113 uses the same Greek term,[1] “I
hate the double-minded, but I love Your law.”
The emphasis here is on unreliability versus reliability; one could not
be counted on while the other could.
Furthermore it appears to be that
they had a “double mind” about their religion as well (cf. Isaiah 29:13 above),
since this is the broader setting of the statement, “111 Your
testimonies I have taken as a heritage forever, for they are the rejoicing of
my heart. 112 I have inclined my
heart to perform Your statutes forever, to the very end. 113
I hate the double-minded, but
I love Your law. 114 You are my
hiding place and my shield; I hope in Your word. 115 Depart from me, you evildoers, for
I will keep the commandments of my God!”
Hence the double-mindedness was reflected as well in their religious
conduct. Indeed, it would seem fair to
say that this was the central concern behind the Psalmist’s words.
[Page 267] Proceeding
to deuterocanonical works (accepted as part of the canon by Roman Catholics and
toward which widely varying attitudes exist among non-Catholics), there is a
clear caution against having a divided mind and yet attempting prayer: “do not approach Him with a divided mind” is
the warning (Sirach
In the story of the despairing
father seeking his child‘s healing, we encounter someone who is seemingly close
to having this failure. He cried out to
Jesus, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!”
(Mark
The danger of spiritual wavering in
prayer was recognized in the rabbinical writings as well. Hence we read in the Tanhuma Midrash on the
Pentateuch, “If you ask before God you must not have two hearts; one for God
and one for something else.”[3] This was a comment on the demand of
Deuteronomy 26:16 that they be careful to obey God’s law “with all your heart
and all your soul.”[4]
The rich person
must recognize the limits of wealth.
[Page 268] In James the stress is on the
need for the wealthy to recognize that even honestly won riches will not
preserve one’s life forever. Like every
one else, even the richest of individuals ultimately dies (verse 11). Hence there is the need to be faithful to God
so one is prepared to face one’s own demise (verse 12).
The same frame of mind is found in
Jeremiah 9:22-24 where the wealthy are warned of their coming doom and the need
to set their priorities straight,[5]
Speak, Thus says the
Lord: “Even the carcasses of men shall
fall as
refuse on the open field. Like cuttings after the harvester, and no one
shall
gather them.” Thus says the
Lord: “Let not the wise man glory in his
wisdom, let not the mighty man glory in his might, nor let the rich man
glory
in his riches; but let him who glories glory in this, that he
understands and
knows Me, that I am the Lord, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and
righteousness in the earth. For
in these I delight,” says the Lord.
The bottom line is still the old
proverb: Riches can’t buy
everything. A lot, yes. Everything?
No—including keeping it permanently.
And if one does manage to keep it throughout one’s entire life,
it is still non-permanent--for someone else will inherit it. As the Psalmist rightly pointed out in his
day (in words that had an obvious application to those enduring injustice at
the time of James),
[Page 269]
5 Why should I fear in the days of
evil, when the iniquity at my heels surrounds me? 6 Those who
trust in their wealth and boast in the multitude of their riches, 7 none
of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him--
8 for the redemption of their souls is costly, and it shall cease
forever-- 9 That he should continue to live eternally, and not
see the Pit. 10 For he sees wise men die; likewise the fool and
the senseless person perish, and leave their wealth to others.
11 Their inner thought is that their
houses will last forever, their dwelling places to all generations; they call
their lands after their own names. 12
Nevertheless man, though in honor, does not remain; he is like the beasts
that perish. 13 This is the way of those who are foolish, and of
their posterity who approve their sayings.
Selah (Psalms 49).
Some in the more ancient past had
recognized this need for valuing their wealth without letting it become all
there was to life. For example, with all
the anguish he was undergoing, Job could still see no way that his attitude
toward wealth could have brought him any condemnation, “24 If I have
made gold my hope, or said to fine gold, ‘You are my confidence’; 25 If I have rejoiced because my
wealth was great, and because my hand had gained much; 28 This also would be an iniquity
deserving of judgment, for I would have denied God who is above” (Job 31). In effect, James is urging the wealthy of his
time to take the same path of keeping riches in their just perspective.
There is even the basis of a certain
cynical humor in seeing the overconfident rich who are willing to commit every
evil in the book to further themselves—to see them finally getting their
earthly comeuppance when they were all so certain that it could never, ever
happen to them. David seems to be describings
the fate of one such individual who had done him harm,
[Page 270]
2 Your tongue devises destruction,
like a sharp razor, working deceitfully.
3 You love evil more than good, lying rather than speaking
righteousness. 4 You love all
devouring words, you deceitful tongue. 5
God shall likewise destroy you forever; He shall take you away, and pluck
you out of your dwelling place, and uproot you from the land of the
living. 6 The righteous also
shall see and fear, and shall laugh at him, saying, 7 “Here
is the man who did not make God his strength, but trusted in the abundance of
his riches, and strengthened himself in his wickedness." (Psalms 52).
Even if David does not have a
particular individual in mind, he unquestionably has a specific type of
individual under consideration.
1:10-11:
The brevity of life portrayed with the
imagery of the flowers of the grass.
James warns the rich person that his life is really nothing that much
more than the flower of the grass that quickly vanishes. The rich were in special need of this rebuke
because the wealth provided a cushion against the grim reality of death: health and physical dangers the laboring man
faced were avoided--when there was lack of food he was far more likely to be
able to afford it and when disease threatened he could obtain the [Page
271] best care while the poor had to be
contented with what scraps were available.
(The same is true today: Length
of life typically has a direct correlation with economic well-being and for
much the same reason.)
Of course the flower imagery is
equally applicable to the entire human species regardless of class, gender,
race, nationality, or income and is so used in Job 14:1-2. It may or may not be significant that the
remark is made specifically in the context of Job, who is pictured as
hithertofore an extraordinarily rich man reduced to poverty and disease by the
catastrophes of life.
Isaiah’s description of “the voice
of one crying in the wilderness” (40:3-5) is applied by the New Testament to
the work of John the Baptist. In
Isaiah’s portrait of the proclaimer, he asks what message he is to announce and
the response is that he is to warn of the brevity of life--utilizing the image
of the quick perishing of the flower and grass of the field: “6 The voice said, ‘Cry out!’ And he said, ‘What shall I cry?’ ‘All flesh is grass, and all its loveliness
is like the flower of the field. 7 The
grass withers, the flower fades, because the breath of the Lord blows upon it;
surely the people are grass. 8 The grass withers, the flower
fades, but the word of our God stands forever.’ ”
In other words, the same standard of
behavior—“the word of our God”—will be around permanently. Individual generations die, but that “word”
remains to set the criteria of right and wrong for whoever comes next. You may refuse to obey it, you may even
dismiss it as outdated and absurdly “narrow” in its moral demands--but you still
can’t escape its ultimate judgment. We all
die. It doesn’t.
Some see an intentional and
inescapable intended reference by James to this particular text. As Alicia Batten puts it,[6]
[Page 272]
James does not slavishly repeat the text,
but creatively shapes it to suit his own purposes. . . . James uses the same
imagery, but now the flower and the grass are compared to the rich person, or
representative rich person, who will pass away and fade away in the middle of
his pursuits. As Hartin points out, “by using
the words of the prophet Isaiah, James is in effect indicating that what the
prophet had foretold now comes in fulfillment in the lives of the rich.”
What happens in Isaiah as occurring
to all humanity, now targets the rich in particular. They were the proud, the arrogant, the ones
that nothing could stop or curb. James,
working from the concept Isaiah presents, stresses that this is true even /
especially of the wealthy, who work under the delusion they face no foes
mightier than themselves. All humanity
has the delusion at some time or other, at least in their dreams, but it is the
wealthy that tend to live in a “perception bubble” in which the reality can be
ignored the longest.
By God’s standard of timelessness—a
thousand years is “like yesterday” and like a sentry’s watch period during a
night (Psalms 90:4)—God moves so quickly by His standard of time keeping
that interceding in earthly judgment seems like it happens all in one day: “In the morning they are like grass which
grows up: in the morning it flourishes
and grows up; in the evening it is cut down and withers” (90:5-6). Such judgments are punishment for human
transgression (90:7-8).
[Page 273] And even when such does not
happen in some dramatic form, the span of our lives is still only seventy or
eighty years yet, retrospectively, it seems all so short: we are “soon cut off” from life and “we fly
away” (90:9-10), a picturesque description of death that remains with us to
this day.
Psalms 103 returns to that image of
fast passing time, “As for man, his days are like grass; as a flower of the
field, so he flourishes. For the wind
passes over it, and it is gone. And its
place remembers it no more” (verses 15-16).
If the brevity of life is painful enough, just as bad is the fact “its
place remembers it no more.” We have no
permanent impact where we are scarred deep into the race’s permanent
memory. If one doubts that, compare how history
books recount the recent past. Look at
how texts, written a few decades apart, manifest the “giants” slowly sinking
into the mists of the barely mentioned and then the non mentioneds.
(We lay aside ideologically
motivated suppression though that has played a major role in the last several
decades. Even without it being present,
the same pattern occurs. It simply takes
a bit longer.)
If the flower/grass imagery applies to all mankind, it obviously
applies to the specific societal segments that compose it as well. Just as James limits the flower/grass imagery
to one particular type of individual (the wealthy), the Old Testament also
applies the flower/grass imagery in a similarly limited manner in at least some
passages.
In regard to the wealthy (the
point James is making): Job stresses
that those who are blessed with well-being in no way escape Divine examination
and if they misuse their blessings He will crush them (Job 24:23-25). Here the image of grain being left to “dry
out” is used in place of flowers and grass, though to convey a parallel idea.
[Page 274] The morally corrupt are
specifically pictured as grass facing quick withering as well,
1 A Psalm of David. Do not fret because of evildoers, nor be
envious of the workers of iniquity. 2
For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green
herb. 3 Trust in the Lord, and do
good; dwell in the land, and feed on His faithfulness. 4 Delight yourself also in the Lord,
and He shall give you the desires of your heart. 5 Commit your way to the Lord, trust
also in Him, and He shall bring it to pass (Psalms 37).
That twin message of evil being
struck down being combined with the implicit plea that the sufferer from their
hands need not despair and give up hope are key elements in James’
message. We find here even that element
from chapter 5 of its imminence. Note
the “soon be cut off” and the repetition of the idea later in verse 10, “For
yet a little while and the wicked shall be no more; indeed, you will look
carefully for his place, but it shall be no more.”
James does invoke this grass like label—and its invoking of the
shortage of life--in his criticism of the waverers he later describes but
limits it to the rich. Even so the moral
waverer’s very instability and lack of roots makes it an obvious application as
well.
The unjust rich are presented as chronically such, but the morally unstable—drifting
in and out of appealing excess—has shown such a lack of commitment it is little
short of trying “to play both sides of the field.” To be righteous and evil. To be pious and corrupt. To be honorable and untrustworthy.
[Page 275] By chronic non-repentance he
or she lives like life will go on forever.
Just like the unrepentant rich person.
Can such a person rationally face death as a liberating joy knowing
that a beautiful and unprecedented world is about to open for them? Or must they acknowledge that their “playpen”
is being removed by death and now God is about to crush them like the rich—with
answerability for behavior for which they can have no legitimate
justification?
One should never be paranoid about salvation, but one should never live
in a manner where one should be paranoid either. Why endanger all for self-indulgence?
Successfully enduring temptation provides
the opportunity
for being “blessed” by God.
Since the immediately preceding text has been discussing the poor
(verses 9-11), it is possible that James has in mind the trial or temptation
that poverty imposes upon an individual.[7] On the other hand the language is kept so
broad that, if there is a connection at all, James is simply using the
testing posed by poverty as a jumping-off point to speak of the entire spectrum
of trials that may inflict an individual.
[Page 276] he
kind of temptation being described is the kind God does not send (verse 13). It is the type that appeals to one’s own
inner desire to cater to one’s lowest (rather than best) instincts (verses
14-15). Hence, James does not have in
mind the kind of corrective retribution God can administer in response to such
misconduct in order to shake a person into a recognition of his or her true
peril (cf. Job 5:17-18; Psalms 119:67, 71; Proverbs 3:11-12; Hebrews 12:1-11).
God can certainly send trials to provoke repentance rather than
to encourage further evil. These can become
a temptation to do further evil by our own belligerence and mutiny against
doing so. But they weren’t sent
for that purpose: We have twisted what
was sent for our betterment into an excuse to do further evil.
Instead what James has in mind are those difficulties and desires which--by
their appeal to our worst instincts--automatically goad us in the
wrong direction—a direction that part of ourselves already wants to go. At the strongest it inflames a tiny desire
into a roaring one. At the weakest, it
“lights” a fire we already were half ready to light. In both cases, the outcome is our
decision--of whether to exercise (sometimes painful) self-control or simply to
quickly lay aside our inhibitions and give full rein to the most irresponsible
and reckless part of ourselves.
The assumption in James is that such
temptations will occur; they are inevitable.
In an overly secular and hostile society in which the only obscene words
that are branded unspeakable appear to be “sin” and “sexual immorality,” why
should this be unexpected? But even in
one in which legal and cultural inhibitions are encouraged to rein in excess,
the temptations still lurk in the background.
Just less blatant, but ever present.
The past was no moral utopia.
But now we have moral anarchy and delude ourselves that this is “progress.” Yet various societies have been there
before. We are [Page 277] hardly the first. “You shall not do according to all that we
are doing here today, everyone doing whatever
is right in his own eyes” (Deuteronomy 12:8, ESV). In both Judges 17:6 and
So the temptations will always be present though their severity and
public acceptability will vary immensely.
All we have control over is our response to them; not whether we
will go through the experience.
In a broad text that could include temptation in this sense (though
many other things as well), the Psalmist refers to how “many are the
afflictions of the righteous” but promises that “the Lord delivers him out of
them all” (Psalms 34:19), a theme he had already mentioned two verses
earlier. Verse 6 is especially relevant
in regard to James with his emphasis on the mistreatment of the poor, invoking
God as the Divine equalizer, “This poor man cried out, and the Lord heard him,
and saved him out of all his troubles.” In a
specifically temptation context, one thinks of the promised way of escape out
of temptation that Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 10:13.
The fact that we have the ability to
resist temptation and that He will help us do so, grows out of the fact that He
wishes good for us and not evil. “For I
know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and
not of evil, to give you a future and a hope” (Jeremiah 29:11).
The prototype for temptation in the
Old Testament was, of course, that of Adam and Eve where through appealing to
personal pride--the desire for special knowledge of the nature and meaning of
good and evil and the desire to be as if God--the sole [Page 278] prohibition imposed upon them was violated
(Genesis 3:5). Give mankind one single
law and he can’t even keep that!
In Exodus 34:12, the people are
implored to “take heed to yourself” lest they make a treaty with the inhabitants
of the promised land. Doing so would
expose them to the danger of accepting the propriety of polytheism (cf. verses
13-16). Rather than utilize the word
temptation, however, the danger is pictured as “a snare in your midst” (verse
12). Even the desire to possess the
“silver or gold” that covered wooden idols, could become an excuse to possess
such images. In such cases they would be
potentially “snared by it” and dragged into idolatry by their respect for the monetary
value of such images (Deuteronomy
The people are cautioned in
Deuteronomy 8:7-18 that such prosperous days are ahead and that they could
become puffed up with pride and forget the vital role God had played in
providing them both a land and prosperity.
Although the term temptation is not utilized, their prosperity
and contentment are clearly pictured as functioning in such a manner. If we take the wrong attitude to God’s
blessings, we can even distort those into a source of temptation.
The emphasis in James is upon the
reward that will be received by successfully resisting such self-destructive
impulses and it is pictured in terms of a “crown of life” that is given to
reward those that have manifested true love for the Lord (James 1:12). The Old Testament also stresses that
faithfulness will reap a recompense. For
example: “Great peace” is promised in
Psalms 119:165. Yahweh can act on behalf
of His people in a way no purported god of the surrounding world ever could
(Isaiah 64:4). In the middle of the Ten
Commandments there is the pledge that God would be “showing mercy to thousands”
and that number is defined as “those who love Me and keep My commandments”
(Exodus 20:6).
[Page 279]
Reward for the individual who successfully
endures tribulation:
“the crown of life which the Lord has
promised to those who love Him.”
Greek texts are divided between making “the Lord” the promiser and a
more ambiguous “he,” which is sometimes considered a reference to God and so
rendered in translation.[8]
In Greek society a ceremonial
garland (“crown”) was given to victors in various athletic and cultural
competitions. The possibility that
imagery is intended by the word “crown” is a common assumption.[9] For Greeks that would be the intended
allusion--but the epistle is not written to Greeks. On the other hand it might be most
appropriate for Grecified Hebrews.
Although such individuals would be included in the readership, it seems
far more likely that James has directly taken the image from the Old Testament
reference to receiving a crown.[10] That would be building on a shared Jewish root
regardless of the degree of assimilation of a specific Hebrew.
Indeed, the crown image is used in a
number of places in that Testament.
Its usage of King David in Psalms 21
is especially interesting,
[Page 280]
The king shall have joy in Your strength, O
Lord; and in Your salvation how greatly shall he rejoice! 2 You have given him his heart's
desire, and have not withheld the request of his lips. 3 For You meet him with the blessings
of goodness; You set a crown of pure gold upon his head. 4 He asked life from You, and You gave
it to him--length of days forever and ever.
5 His glory is great in Your salvation; honor and majesty You
have placed upon him. 6 For You
have made him most blessed forever; You have made him exceedingly glad with
Your presence. 7 For the king
trusts in the Lord, and through the mercy of the Most High he shall not be
moved.
Note that the king sought “life” from God and a long life (21:4). He conspicuously did not seek a
crown. He had no particular family
connections to make such an event probable at all. Yet God could see the heart and the potential
and gave one to him in spite of this.
There would be a certain conceptual parallel with first century
believers: who of them could one imagine
with an actual “crown?” Yet God had been
willing to promise it to them and God expected the same kind of affection and
respect that David had provided in exchange.
Of special interest to New
Testament readers of the first century was the Old Testament precedent of how
“crowns” could be lost through disobedience to God, a point of obvious
importance to them (Revelation 2:10).
Psalms 89:39 speaks of those who have had their crown “cast . . . to the
ground” and, as a result, “profaned.”
God did so by publicly humiliating such a person (89:40-43) and had
“cast his throne down to the ground” (89:44).
[Page
281] Retaining
it was a reward for good behavior; losing it being the result of sin, “The
crown has fallen from our head. Woe to us, for we have sinned!” (Lamentations
5:16).
Ezekiel 21 speaks of God
demanding that a ruler acknowledge that God has deposed him for his evils,
25 Now to you, O profane, wicked
prince of
In Proverbs the context is clearly
people at large and not just rulers. In
that place the reward of heeding the teaching of wisdom is described as
“plac[ing] on your head an ornament of grace; a crown of glory [that wisdom]
will deliver to you” (4:9). Some
translators think of a Gentile style garland.
Hence CEV’s “a glorious crown of beautiful flowers. The RSV parallels, “She will place on your
head a fair garland; she will bestow on you a beautiful crown.” Similarly, the NIV parallels “a garland of
grace” in the first half of the verse with “a crown of splendor” in the second
half. The GW does the same with “a
graceful garland” and “a beautiful crown.”
In Proverbs 4:9 true glory comes not from position but from your
insight and comprehension into what is right and proper. Parental teaching is similarly described in [Page282] 1:9—presumably on the basis that it, too,
will reflect true wisdom--as “a graceful ornament on our head” (1:9). Again some translations reach out for what we
would normally think of as a Greek style explanation: “a graceful wreath,” NASB, YLT; “a fair
garland,” RSV; “a garland to grace,” NIV; “a graceful garland,” GW; “a wreath
of beauty,” Rotherham; “a handsome turban,” TEV.
Even in the context of the wreaths given to winners, these still
carried a regal overtone. They were
the garland of supremacy over all competitors.
Hence they conceptually functioned as a symbolic crown equivalent to gold
or silver or whatever else one chose to think of. Hence we still get back to a “crown” imagery
being the intent.
God’s character as being unreachable /
uncorruptable by temptation.
This also overlaps the discussion in
This image of God is not without precedent in the Old Testament. For example, Psalms 5:4 speaks of how, “You
are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness, nor shall evil dwell with You.” “Dwell with” is usually taken as a third
party (“with you the wicked can not dwell,” NIV, for example) rather than a
further description of God’s own nature.
A few however clearly permit the latter, such as the ASV’s “Evil shall
not sojourn with thee”—evil as if in the abstract rather than embodied form.
[Page 283] Even if it be taken in the
sense of not permitting evil doers to “dwell with You,” it is hard to see that is
possible unless His own core character regarded such people as deeply
repulsive. At that point, aren’t we at
or close to the idea of evil being unable to ever find a “home” with
Him? I.e., He can neither be impressed
by or successfully triumphed over by temptation?
Here we get into a “chicken and egg”
situation. Is He morally perfect because
He can’t be tempted or is it that He can’t be tempted because He is morally
perfect and there is nothing imperfect to appeal to? If the two are “super glued” together
irrevocably as we have suggested, the power of that superhuman moral character
and the inability of anything to alter it is that much further guaranteed.
As to His inherent nature, there is
simply no latent evil in Him that could give rise to being tempted to do
wrong: “He is my rock, and there is no
unrighteousness in Him” (Psalms 92:15).
In an age when “unrighteousness” is not exactly a common word the NIV
may well render the verse significantly better, “There is no wickedness in
Him.” Or take the God’s Word rendition
of “there is no evil in Him.”
Habakkuk describes God as the “Holy
One” (
[Page 284] To
Habakkuk this matter of God’s purity bothers him, but from an unexpected
direction: Being so pure, why in the
world haven’t you already acted?
12 Are You not from everlasting, O
Lord my God, my Holy One? We shall not
die. O Lord, You have appointed them for judgment; O Rock, You have marked them
for correction. 13 You are of
purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on wickedness. Why do You look
on those who deal treacherously, and hold Your tongue when the wicked devours a
person more righteous than he?
The older
God always has His own (good)
reasons for delay. What should be most
feared by those who smear His moral commandments as antiquated or bigoted is
this: If He is so centered on purity
that there is no room for anything else in His nature, what will happen to the
poor mortal standing in His way when He decides it is time for just
retribution? (Picture the image of being
run over by a freight train, if you wish.)
If God both is and remains
incorrupt, then the high standards He upholds as our goal makes perfect
sense. One would expect incorruption to be the goal of an incorrupt(able) Supreme
Being. Knowing our imperfections, He
would not expect we’ll reach it, but He’ll also know that without trying
we’ll simply give into our worst impulses.
At best, we’d settle for moral mediocrity rather than moral excellence.
[Page 285] This
concept of God’s law reflecting the purity He upholds, is reflected in various
scriptural texts. For example, in 1
Chronicles 29:17 we read that, “I know also, my God, that You test the heart
and have pleasure in uprightness. . . .”
Naturally, since He is perfect uprightness Himself.
Compare the translation in the TEV, “I know that you test everyone's
heart and are pleased with people of integrity” and the rendering of the NIV,
“I know, my God, that you test the heart and are pleased with integrity.”
He is opposed to ethical failures
because it offends His inner nature. His
essence. Psalms 11:5 put it this way,
“The LORD tests the righteous, but the wicked and the one who loves violence His
soul hates.” In the human sense,
God certainly doesn’t have a “soul,” but the word certainly conveys the idea of
the inner essence or nature superbly.
Yet
humans love to remake God in their own image.
Surely if we can rationalize our search for unlimited sexual bed
partners, injustice, and flagrant dishonesty, God would understand it and cut
us slack! In Psalms 50 this powerful
sledgehammer is aimed at those who think God will endorse that which He clearly
brands as evil,
16 But to the wicked God says: “What right have you to declare My statutes,
or take My covenant in your mouth, 17
seeing you hate instruction and cast My words behind you?
18 When you saw a thief, you
consented with him, and have been a partaker with adulterers. 19 You give your mouth to evil, and
your tongue frames deceit. 20 You
sit and speak against your brother; you slander your own mother's son. 21 These things you have done, and I
kept silent; You thought that I was altogether like you; but I will
rebuke you, and set them in order before your eyes.
22 Now consider this, you who forget
God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver: 23 Whoever offers praise glorifies Me;
and to him who orders his conduct aright I will show the salvation of
God.”
[Page 286]
Surely in this context of competing ways
of moral behavior, the central thrust is “I am not like you. I have absolutely no room for these
things. They are totally contrary to My
moral principles.” He doesn’t invoke the
words “sinless” or “beyond being tempted,” but how can the language mean less
than that and retain its power as a valid critique?
We sin when our inward “desires” are
“enticed [ATP: trapped]”
by outward circumstances.
Here James begins a
picture of the cause of sin that he develops in terms of a pregnancy (verse 15). A pregnancy (barring those tragic cases of
rape) never occurs unless we have an inward sexual desire and we encounter
someone who appeals to that desire and is willing to participate. That person may even be actively “enticing”
us toward that goal—the sexual liaison rather than the pregnancy--but it would
have no success if there weren’t female internal desires that it appealed to as
well. Any seduction, by its nature, has
to be—at least in part—a self-seduction:
I like, I want, I have.
[Page 287] James presents this as a universal
rule. “But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires
and enticed.” This is nothing new. It goes as far back as the story of the
Garden of Eden and the eating of the fruit of knowledge. It happened because the opportunity had three
appeals to Eve’s inner interests, for “the woman saw that the tree (1)
was good for food, (2) that it was pleasant to the eyes, and (3) a tree
desirable to make one wise, [so] she took of its fruit and ate . . .” (Genesis
3:6).
It had aspects that clearly “interested” her—appealed to the desire to
have a full stomach, to her aesthetic interests and to be smart as well. None of these desires were wrong in
themselves. Things went disastrous
because she ignored the fact that just because there was an appeal—multiple
appeals—yielding to it did not mean that it only had to produce the beneficial
results she desired.
What she allowed these desires to push out of her mind was that she had
been given an emphatic “no” to consuming the fruit. The personal desire(s) overcame the
willingness to avoid the “thou shalt not of God.” What she wanted became more important than
what God wanted.
This same misjudgment continues today when we knowingly go ahead and do
what our knowledge tells us is rebuked by God as sin. Yet we somehow think we are going to be
permitted the luxury, while the punishment for transgression is only found in
our spiritual history book, the Bible.
The pattern of allowing personal desire to take the place of following
God’s will did not die with Eve. At the fall of
Some of it wasn’t. Only one man or family decided to follow the
condemned alternative of retaining it. Even
so, in the following battle of Ai the Israelites suffered an unexpected defeat
because that one family had violated this directive.
When
Achan was publicly singled out as guilty, he explained why he had violated the
instruction, “When I saw among the
spoils a beautiful Babylonian garment, two hundred shekels of silver,
and a wedge of gold weighing fifty shekels, I coveted them and took
them. And there they are, hidden in the
earth in the midst of my tent, with the silver under it” (
The garment appealed because of its appearance and the silver and gold
because of their great value. He was
overcome by the combination of aesthetics and financial self-improvement
(positively worded) or outright greed (to express it more bluntly).
“Coveted,” of course, implies that
it appealed to something within himself, in this case the desire for major
valuables (in the case of the silver and gold) and what was appealing to his
pride of possession (in the case of the fine garment). Most translations still render “coveted” here
though a few opt for the less harsh sounding “wanted them” (CEV, TEV). If one wishes substitute language one could
hardly improve on the BBE’s “I was overcome by desire.”
Sexual
immorality is also described in such terms as having an inward origin. Of Samson we read that he “saw a harlot there, and went in
to her” (Judges 16:1). If there
hadn’t been a “want” within his heart, he would have continued down the
street. What was within mixed with what
he saw produced the action of personal defilement with a prostitute.
[Page 289] In the case of David, we know
that the entire event of adultery had to have been his own yielding to human
weakness—rather than being encouraged in that direction—because the only reason
he saw the woman at all was because he was on the roof top, “Then it happened
one evening that David arose from his bed and walked on the roof of the king's
house. And from the roof he saw a
woman bathing, and the woman was very beautiful to behold [enticement, though not through any
intentional act on her part]” (2 Samuel 11:2). Then he “inquired about the woman” (11:3) and
he had her brought to his residence (11:4).
Internal desire mixed with external inflammation resulted in the tragic
decision that produced unwanted and tragic results for both parties.
Sin
pictured as behavior “born”
after
the evil “desire has [been] conceived.”
If what follows is properly regarded by you as further elaboration on
what has been studied in the previous section, please accept my apology for not
merging the two into one. Although this could
be done since they are so closely related, yet this wording seems to bring out
a slightly different point worthy of separate attention: You don’t sin blindly. You sin because some internal weakness is
enticed by exposure to the needed external stimulation. (Or, if you wish, you sin because temptation
has tapped some element within you that it appeals to.)
[Page 290] Standing alone neither gets
you into trouble. But the combination
produces the concrete and specific desire for sin and raises it above an
abstract possibility into a “real life” probability. The
“conception” of the specific sin to commit has crystallized and is growing
stronger by the minute just as the baby within grows in a similar manner,
though not as quickly or as dramatically.
The inward roots of sin are pictured in Job in terms of a pregnant
woman bearing transgression, “They conceive trouble and bring forth futility;
their womb prepares deceit” (Job
Isaiah 59 speaks of how desiring to do evil—and carrying out those
desires--had resulted in their alienation from God,
*
2 But your iniquities have separated
you from your God; and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will
not hear. 3 For your hands are
defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies,
your tongue has muttered perversity. 4
No one calls for justice, nor does any plead for truth. They trust in empty words and speak lies; they
conceive evil and bring forth iniquity.
What
they had rationalized their way into deciding to do (what they had “conceived”)
they had carried out with utter contempt for truth (“your lips have spoken [Page
291] lies, your tongue has muttered
perversity”). This was a convenient
means of getting whatever they wished; so they used it. The irony, of course, is they did get
what they wished, but at the cost of God determining to ultimately break them
for what they had done. “It is a terrifying thing to fall into the
hands of the living God!” (Hebrews 10:31)
Here
in James
It
is interesting that Isaiah 59 ties these
two themes together. Having spoken of
how they made their plans and did evil, we read that it did not even stop at
the line of violence, “6 Their
works are works of iniquity, and the act of violence is in their hands. 7 Their feet run to evil, and they make
haste to shed innocent blood; their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity;
wasting and destruction are in their paths.”
And they get away with it. Until their time of judgement arrives.
[Page 292]
Anything
that God gives is “good” and “perfect”—
“Every
good gift and every perfect gift is from above.”
James is not denying
that very desirable gifts and opportunities may be obtained on this earth. Rather he is strenuously arguing that any sin
we get ourselves into can not possibly be God’s fault or preference. If we sin it isn’t because He wants us to,
but because we get greater pleasure out of the transgression than out of the
obedience.
But aren’t there cases
when God sends false prophets or deception on to people. Well, yes.
But why? One of the best
texts to concisely explain this phenomena is found in 2 Thessalonians 2, “10 And
with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did
not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will
send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who
did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”
The principle here is clearly: if you scorn God, He is not above helping you
complete the spiritual drift you have already embraced. But the reprobate him or herself made the decision
to drift.
God would much prefer to continue giving what He used to provide,
“every good and every perfect gift [that] is from above” (James
Yet, even then, if we can summon the
inner gumption to change for the better, God will certainly act as He had
previously. The Psalmist in chapter 85
speaks of how He had done so (85:1-2) and wonders whether God will continue the
reconciliation (85:4-7). But he
recognizes that restoration is conditional upon “them not turn[ing] back to
folly” (85:8). Confident--or is there
here a barely hidden fear that the people will refuse to continue to do their
part?--the Psalmist speaks of the blessings to come (85:9-13). Of special relevance in light of our subject
is verse 12, “Yes, the Lord will give what is good; and our land will
yield its increase.”
[Page 293] In
the preceding chapter, the writer speaks with a broadness that also fits in well
with the message of James, “For the Lord God is a sun and shield; the Lord will
give grace and glory; no good thing will He withhold from those who walk
uprightly” (84:11).
In a similar vein is Psalms 34:9-10,
“Oh, fear the Lord, you His saints! There is no want to those who fear
Him. The young lions lack and suffer
hunger; but those who seek the Lord shall not lack any good thing.”
In the symbolic language of Isaiah
60:19-20 the pervasive generosity of God to the obedient is displayed, “19 The
sun shall no longer be your light by day, nor for brightness shall the moon
give light to you; but the Lord will be to you an everlasting light, and your
God your glory. 20 Your sun shall
no longer go down, nor shall your moon withdraw itself; for the Lord will be
your everlasting light, and the days of your mourning shall be ended.”
But note the condition for such
abundant societal wide blessing in verse 21:
“Also your people shall all be righteous. . . .” For all of society to be benefited—rather
than just a righteous minority—all of society has to be committed to the goal
of moral betterment.
The
good gifts God provides, could come in many forms. In the days of miracles it could be by giving
specific information, a specific message to speak, as in Moses dealing with
Pharaoh (Exodus 4:11-12). In Joseph it
was the gift of practical wisdom in how to manage forthcoming bad economic
years (Genesis 41:37-40). The “wisdom”
that David wished Yahweh to give to Solomon involved insight into the meaning
and application of the Law of Moses, “that you may keep the law of the Lord
your God” (1 Chronicles
[Page 294] God gives in many shapes and forms
whatever it is that we truly need. But
to obtain it we have to ask for it and recognize that we ourselves must utilize
the gift that has been provided: When
God gave generous crops, for example, they still had to go out and harvest them—and
help the less fortunate as well. When
God blesses us with greater understanding of His will, we then have to live by
it rather than multiply excuses to avoid doing so.
Utilized Divine gifts
are blessings indeed; unused ones are missed opportunities.
God’s unchanging character.
This is the essence of the idea conveyed by the image of there being
“no variation or shadow of turning” that will affect the intensity of the
“light” cast by the “Father of lights.”
The idea is put forth to prove that God not only has provided, but will
continue to provide “every good gift and every perfect gift.”
(In
[Page 295] Malachi
3:6 sums up the concept in a handful of words, “For I am the Lord, I do not
change.” Part of the reason is that he
is not a mere mortal like us, subject to human style faults and weaknesses,
“God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should
repent. Has He said, and will He not
do? Or has He spoken, and will He not
make it good?” (Numbers
Hence, since God never commits evil He
has no need to “repent” as would a
mortal, a
theme also hit on in 1 Samuel
Because of that unvarying character,
once God has revealed His will there is no need to change it. “The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the
plans of His heart to all generations” (Psalms 33:11). This consistency bears witness to His
character, “You have performed Your words, for You are
righteous” (Nehemiah 9:7-8, of God’s promise to Abraham in particular).
Humans have traditionally associated
age with wisdom. Furthermore, if God is
eternal, surely His wisdom would have to exceed any human alternative. It is very hard to separate the two
assertions of eternal existence and supreme knowledge of moral right and wrong,
the first inevitably seeming to require the second.
Hence it is quite natural that His
moral standards are perpetual; He never has the need to learn something He
overlooked, something new that would alter them. That—combined with the reality of His proving
Himself right time and again when His people rebelled—what He threatened did
come to pass . . . these combined surely constituted de facto proof of the
belief. Proof in life rather than
abstract reasoning that He was right and that we are answerable for its
transgression.
[Page 296] In
Psalms 102, the Psalmist quite conspicuously argues that even if the earth were
to end—and Jehovah had been here for the creation—He would still be present
afterwards as well and would remain “the same,”
24 I said, “O my God, do not
take me away in the midst of my days; Your years are throughout all
generations. 25 Of old You laid the
foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. 26 They will perish, but You will endure; yes,
they will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak You will change them, and they
will be changed. 27 But You are the same,
and Your years will have no end.”
In other words, there will never be
a time when we can escape answerability because of His sudden
non-existence. It simply won’t happen.
In light of the repeated scriptural pattern
of insistence on Divine wrath to punish those who refuse to yield to God’s
standards, there is an additional fact that needs to be remembered: Even in punitive mode, God exercised a trait
often lacking in humans—self-control,
35 Then they remembered that
God was their rock, and the
Most High God their Redeemer. 36 Nevertheless they
flattered Him with their mouth, and they lied to Him with their tongue; 37 For their heart was not
steadfast with Him, nor were they faithful in His covenant.
38 But He, being full of
compassion, forgave their iniquity, and did not destroy them. Yes, many a time He turned His anger away,
and did not stir up all His wrath; 39 For He remembered that they were but flesh, a breath that passes
away and does not come again (Psalms 78).
[Page 297] Today we would say “He pulled His punches.” He did not do all He could have. But what of when this life is over: Is He to allow the unrepentant to go
unpunished? For the successful
unrepentant who committed all the injustice, fraud, lies, and sexual excess and
who never had to suffer punitive consequences, will He let that person into
eternity unscathed? Then they would have
successfully and triumphantly scoffed at His laws and gotten away with it. Surely God’s unchanging holy nature would require
a reckoning at that time!
However uncomfortable and painful
the details turn out to be if Psalms 78 is any precedent, it won’t be anywhere
as bad as it could be. As literal as one
chooses to make “the lake of fire” (Revelation
[Page 298]
Firstfruits.
The image of first fruits is one rooted in the instruction of the Torah
that the first grain to be harvested was to be set aside as a special sacrifice
to God (Leviticus 23:9-11; Deuteronomy 18:1-5; Deuteronomy 26:1-4). This was both a means of expressing
thankfulness to God and an act of faith that yet more was to be harvested.
There was an ethical or moral element implied in the application of
such language to human beings, because the literal animal firstfruits had to be
“without blemish” (Leviticus 23:12; others substitute: “without defect,” NASB, NIV,
The fact that they were to be “firstfruits
of His creatures” furthermore implies that James viewed the converts he wrote
to as merely the first or beginning of those who would ultimately be
reached. This argues against any rigid
view that James was convinced that the end of the world was in the near
future--a “spin” that is easily put on the texts warning of a rapidly
approaching judgement (5:9). Whatever
that nearing judgement is interpreted to refer to, the “firstfruits” language would
reasonably argue that it would not be an event of such a nature that it would
mark the end of the spread of the gospel.
Control over one’s temper and over what one
says.
Personal control over speech is not an abstract issue to James. Practical, down-to-earth misuse is in his
mind. James speaks specifically of
“wrath” (in the NKJV and NAB [Page 299]
renderings; “to become outraged,” ATP), that is, an intense
anger. Others prefer the milder
rendering of “anger” or “angry” (NRSV and NIV), which in actual usage covers
everything from serious annoyance to rage.
The reason for the indictment is
found in the next verse where we read that such indignation does not “produce
the righteousness of God.” This can mean
either that it does not result in “right dealing” in our relationship with
others (i.e., practical or manifested righteousness) or that God will
not count or consider us righteous if we manifest such a hostile mind
frame.[12] (One commentator describes the two
possibilities as “doing right, as God commands the right” versus “being right
with God.”)[13] The two approaches so intertwine they
virtually merge into two aspects of the same phenomena. How can we have one without the other?
That anger or rage could be caused
by “jumping to conclusions” that turn out to be unjust.[14] On the other hand, it could be an
understandable reaction to genuine excess.
In either case caution is the keynote lest we make the situation even
worse.
Wisdom literature of the Old
Testament recognized the need for keeping a tight reign on one’s temper. Proverbs
Similarly, Proverbs
[Page 300] In some ways that is, perhaps,
far worse than doing something outright wrong.
Most folk seem far more able to grasp the need to avoid the latter than the
trap of doing something so outrageous that it portrays a plain lack of
sense. In similar vein Ecclesiastes 7:9
warns against “hasten[ing] in your spirit to be angry” since “anger rests in
the bosom of fools.” That is what you
can all too easily land up looking like!
This kind of person simply makes a bad situation worse, “A wrathful man
stirs up strife, but he who is slow to anger allays contention” (Proverbs
This explosive approach to annoyance guarantees one of the involved
parties is highly likely to do the utterly wrong thing. “An angry man stirs up strife, and a furious
man abounds in transgression” (Proverbs 29:22).
It might not be the one who initially explodes but the one who reacts in
the same way. Either way, a bad
situation is going to be made worse. Or
if things weren’t already extremely bad, they are going to be made that
way.
Hence we can see the rationale for the condemnation of one who does not
control what he says as being no less than a blatant fool, “A fool vents all his feelings, but a wise man holds them
back” (Proverbs 29:11). The one
who exercises no self-control over “letting loose” at others is also so
described in Proverbs
The wisdom literature also
recognizes that laudable as control of one’s temper is in the abstract, in
actual life it is often extremely difficult to practice. Hence Proverbs
[Page 301] Recognizing
the difficulty of such self-control under provocation, the Psalmist speaks of
his need to “restrain my mouth with a muzzle while the wicked are before me”
(Psalms 39:1). “I’ll muzzle my mouth
when evil people are near” (CEV).
Turning to the deuterocanonical
literature, a recognition of the need for such self-control is also
manifested. Hand in hand with the
ability to keep one’s mouth closed until the right time, comes the ability to
rein in the tongue lest one be inconsistent due to rashness in speaking or feel
the need to say something even if one does not really know what is
appropriate. Hence Sirach cautions that
one must, “Stand firm for what you know and let your speech be consistent. Be quick to hear, but deliberate in
answering. If you know what to say,
answer your neighbor; but if not, put your hand over your mouth” (Sirach
Two chapters later, in James 3, the
writer specifically has in mind the need for teachers to be able to control
their speech (3:1-2). Although James
[Page 302]
The imagery of sin as a polluted garment.
When James speaks of the need to “lay aside all filthiness and overflow
of wickedness,” the action of “lay[ing] aside” utilizes a Greek term that is
used of removing one’s clothes in order to prepare for vigorous work or
exercise.[15] Since James’ intent is to convey the message
of removing one’s “clothing” of moral fault and replacing it with the attire of
righteousness, our modern imagery fits well also: taking off one set of clothes in order to put
on another (for example, our sweaty work clothes and changing into clean, fresh
garments).
The imagery of clothes as
representing moral compromise and failure is one found in Zechariah 3 and no
less than the High Priest himself is introduced as an example of it!
1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest
standing before the Angel of the Lord, and Satan
standing at his right hand to oppose him.
2 And the Lord
said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord who has chosen
3 Now Joshua was clothed with filthy
garments, and was standing before the Angel. 4 Then He
answered and spoke to those who stood before [Page 303] Him, saying, “Take away the filthy garments
from him.” And to him He said, “See, I have removed your iniquity from you,
and I will clothe you with rich robes.” 5 And I said, “Let them put a clean turban on his
head.” So they put a clean turban on
his head, and they put the clothes on him.
And the Angel of the Lord stood by.
Isaiah alludes to such an image of
ourselves but does not develop it in this kind of depth, “But
we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy
rags; we all fade as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us
away” (Isaiah 64:6).
The need for rejecting an immoral lifestyle.
James speaks of the need to lay aside the weight of sin (“all
filthiness and overflow of wickedness [ATP:
set aside all your vile and abundant wickedness]”) and how this goes
hand-in-hand with humbly accepting the “implanted word” which produces
salvation. They say they are
Christians, but they aren’t really living that life. The Proverbist speaks of how there are
generations that think themselves quite “pure,” yet have not removed their
transgressions, having not been “washed from [sins’] filthiness” (30:12).
[Page 304] There is shared identical
wording in the Septuagint of Proverbs 30:12 and the James text that causes some
to regard this precedent as of particular importance.[16] A modern translation of the Septuagint sees
the reference as being to not cleaning oneself after a bowel movement, which
would have made the intended insult even harsher! (“Wicked progeny judges itself righteous but
did not wash off its anus.”)[17]
The Psalmist links together the two themes of James 1:21--abstaining
from evil and accepting/living God’s word--when he writes, “I have restrained
my feet from every evil way, that I may keep Your word” (Psalms 119:101). In both places the two approaches to a living
faith are not presented as either/or options but as essential compatriots.
Isaiah 65 hits hard on the theme of those Jews who thought themselves highly
religious—apparently, superior to even strict Jehovah followers--even
though their “super quality” piety was based on polytheistic worship!
2 I have stretched out My hands all
day long to a rebellious people, Who walk in a way that is not good, according
to their own thoughts; [They had a religion that felt “good” and
“right” and “comfortable” to their particular tastes—what so many today still
make their criteria of church choice.] 3 A people who provoke Me to
anger continually to My face; who sacrifice in gardens, and burn incense on
altars of brick; 4 who sit among
the graves, and spend the night in the tombs; who eat swine's flesh, and the
broth of abominable things is in their vessels;
[Page 305] 5 Who say, 'Keep to yourself, do not
come near me, for I am holier than you!'
These are smoke in My nostrils, a fire that
burns all the day. 6 "Behold,
it is written before Me: I will not keep silence, but will repay -- Even repay
into their bosom-- 7 Your
iniquities and the iniquities of your fathers together," says the Lord,
"Who have burned incense on the mountains and blasphemed Me on the hills;
therefore I will measure their former work into their bosom."
The Christian Jews aren’t accused of
idolatry as these ancients were, but their behavior was still clearly flying in
the face of what was just and proper.
Forced to face that reality, the idea of coming judgment upon them for
their violence (James 5:6) would fit in perfectly with Old Testament
admonitions such as Isaiah’s. The
closing idea of “getting what they had earned” (65:7) had to be downright
frightening in a context of reading the closing chapter of that book.
Continuing to study (“look[ing] into the
perfect law of liberty”)
as essential to acceptability with God.
The rendering “look” is not strong enough; the idea is closer to
“staring.” It carries the meaning of “to
stand still and gaze long, seriously, attentively.”[18] Hence it refers not to a casual glance but
“to careful observation.”[19] This leads to such alternative translations as
“looks intently” (Holman, NASB, NIV) and “looks closely” (
[Page 306] Although
our text has specifically in mind the apostolic and related teaching available
to James’ readers (but see the discussion in the next chapter concerning
difficult texts), he presents it as already
an authoritative body or system--an intriguing insight into how it was
regarded at the quite early date when this epistle most likely originated.
In other words, the teachings of the New Testament writers and prophets
were regarded as inherently authoritative from the beginning. The fact that disciples were instructed to
carefully examine it on an ongoing basis, argues that key parts were circulated
in writing from a similarly early date.
It wasn’t an approach that was adopted merely because several decades
had passed and the original witnesses were dying off.
The Old Testament, of course, had taken a similar attitude toward its
component parts. They were to be
studied, examined, and persistently applied to the reader’s or hearer’s own
life.
In this vein, Psalms
7 The law of the Lord is perfect,
converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the
simple; 8 the statutes of the
Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure,
enlightening the eyes; 9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring
forever; the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. 10 More to be desired are they than
gold, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. 11 Moreover by them Your servant is
warned, and in keeping them there is great reward.
[Page 307]
All of these images make no sense unless God’s word can be understood
and grasped. How could it “convert the
soul,” “make wise the simple,” “enlighten the eyes,” etc., unless we can grasp
its meaning from our study? How can they
“taste” even better than the finest “honey” unless they are able to convey
their “taste” and intent? Combining
their authoritativeness with the assertion that “in keeping them there is great
reward” makes full sense. Without their
authoritativeness they have no more value than mere good advice.
Hence there is latent in this description of the Divine revelation the
concept of its superiority to any human alternative: We guess at truth; God knows what it is. This fits very well with
Obedience to it must be internalized,
made part of our spiritual and psychological essence. By doing that, the outward behavior
(described as “steps”) will reflect the inner priorities and standards we have embraced. Note the process of reasoning in Psalms
37:31, “[premise:] The law of his God is in his heart; [result:] none of his steps shall slide.”
[Page 308] Although Psalms 40:6-8 has an
obvious Messianic application (and is so used in Hebrews 10:5-9), in its
original setting it seems to be a picture of the “ideal Israelite”—as such, an
obvious cause for the application of the words to Jesus the uniquely
Ideal Israelite. This Ideal Israelite is
not lured away by having rich friends or embracing self-serving lies (40:4) but
recognizes that all the good God provides to us is beyond our counting (40:5). He is wisely aware that in comparison with
“burnt offering and sin offering” neither is required but, instead, following
the principle found in the Biblical scroll (40:7), “I delight to do Your will,
O my God, and your law is within my heart” (40:8). Internalized and made part of our nature.
Obviously there is no way it is going to be
in the heart without regular, systematic studying and meditating upon its
applications. And the reason the reader is
willing to apply it in such a manner is because he takes “delight” in the
Divine Law rather than regarding it as a subjugating or degrading
influence.
It reveals how to rise above his very human
limitations rather than to indulge them.
It teaches him that there are preferences and desires that wisdom
demands he says “no” to.
Having done so he
recognizes that he has the moral obligation to share God’s message with others
as well, “9 I have proclaimed the good news of
righteousness in the great assembly; indeed, I do not restrain my lips, O Lord,
You Yourself know. I have not hidden
Your righteousness within my heart; I have declared Your faithfulness and Your
salvation; I have not concealed Your lovingkindness and Your truth from the
great assembly” (Psalms 40:9-10). He
learned and he taught. That is the
principle laid down.
[Page 309] And he did so because he was
thoroughly convinced that the revealed Law was something worth investing time upon. From the depth of study implied, he lived
the life James advocates: of the one
who “looks into” the Divine Law—and persists in doing so. The kind of individual held up by James as
the model.
. Psalms 1:2 speaks of the ideal
individual as one whose “delight is in the law of the Lord” and speaks of how
“in His law he meditates day and night”--a different form of the same idea of
continual looking / examination utilized by James. Some translations differ from most in
rendering “delight” with “makes them happy” (CEV) or “they find joy” TEV). In any of these translations, the effort is
not a drudgery, it is not a burden; it is accepted as a practice that enriches
themselves.
Similarly, “meditates” is sometimes rendered “think about,” CEV; “study
it,” TEV; “talk with himself” about, (
Joshua 1:7-8 advocates that same principle of continued meditation on
the Torah and stresses that by so doing, combined with care not to depart from
its teachings in any direction, one would be benefited in “this world” terms
and not the spiritual alone,
7 “Only be strong and very
courageous, that you may observe to do according to all the law which Moses My
servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left,
that you may prosper wherever you go. 8
This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate
in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all
that is written in it. For then you will
make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.”
[Page 310]
In the context in which Joshua speaks, it is specifically discussing
their capacity to conquer pagan Palestine, but the principle would have an
obvious broader application as well--both in that generation and those that
followed: Note the wording of the
promise, “mak[ing] your way prosperous” and “hav[ing] good success,” language
that could hardly be limited to the Conquest alone.
Acceptable religion to God consists of
neither personal purity alone
nor charity alone,
but a lifestyle that manifests both.
In chapter two, James zeroes in on attitudes toward the poorest in
general, but before he gets into that he ends the first chapter with an
emphatic emphasis upon the most important of such assistance—that needed by
orphans and widows in their time of need.
The Old Testament laid great emphasis on such charity since such
individuals were the most vulnerable to abuse and misuse of all the poor in
society.[20] Likewise it emphasized the other element in
this verse, the need for personal moral integrity.
What is interesting in the current passage is how the two are linked
together in an unbreakable bond. Some
people seem naturally charitable; some seem inclined to moral [Page 311] restraint.
The implication of James is that either attribute without the other
leaves us maimed in God’s eyes rather than complete: half the person we should be rather than the
full person that is our potential.
This linkage of inner character and
outward benevolence is not unique to this writer. Isaiah makes a similar linkage between moral
reformation and assisting the needy as well.
In that prophet’s powerful rhetoric he implores, “Wash yourselves, make
yourselves clean; put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil. Learn to do good; seek justice, rebuke the
oppressor; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow” (Isaiah
“Defend” and “plead” are our two key
words and are the ones generally used in the various English versions. Both terms carry the idea of active
intervention.
“Defend” suggests someone is about to—at the minimum, easily could—take
advantage of the youth and someone needs to be a barrier between them and such
abuse. The possible assistance covers a
wide variety of behaviors, from adoption to providing food or other support.
“Defend” is occasionally rendered as “vindicate the fatherless” (
[Page 312] “Plead
for” the widow could well imply that there were others who could have been
helping—and should have been—but who were intentionally avoiding the obligation
by callous or unconcerned shunning of the elderly. One immediately thinks of the situation of
some one with other relatives who had a place for her to stay and who were not providing
it. “Out of their sight, out of their mind?” Intervention (“plead[ing] for”) might be able
to change the behavior—out of their shame if nothing else.
We are sternly warned that refusal to help our kin manifests the wrong
attitude. There is a special bond
present that is not in other circumstances.
As the ESV has it in 1 Timothy 5:8, “But if anyone does not provide for
his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the
faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
This is in the context of widows in particular (verses 4-7).
Bringing pressure to bear could well
make a world of difference in such cases.
Paul is clearly trying to “plead for” the widow by shaming those kin who
could help but aren’t. Those immediately
on the scene could do so as well.
In case of either the widow or the
orphan, they might also face being taking advantage of by the powerful and
influential. Add in a little in the way
of possessions made them seem easy pickings.
Example: If that widow has a
modest cottage and a small parcel of land, how long is she going to be able to
keep it if a rich neighbor or a greedy government wants to seize it?
There was certainly the danger of
legal chicanery against the orphan whose age would hinder him from adequately
defending his rights, “10 Do not remove the ancient landmark,
nor enter the fields of the fatherless; 11 for their
Redeemer is mighty; He will
plead their cause against you (Proverbs
[Page 313] The
imagery of verse 10 could refer to moving the land markers so one increases the
land that is yours at the expense of the juvenile or child who has no way to
stop you. Nor the funds to take it to
court. It could also refer to stealing
the produce from the child’s land out of the same motive: you can get away with it.
You have an excellent chance of success too
unless the juvenile has an energetic and influential advocate. Even with that, the only thing holding you in
check in a loosely knit non-technological society may well be the sense of
Divine justice and Divine retribution.
And a sense of moral oughtness
grounded in Divine justice. The regal
connections claimed for Proverbs argues that its first circulation was surely
among those connected with the court. It
was to teach them the expected ideals of proper behavior for one claiming to be
of the leadership class of the nation.[21] The ideals expected by the monarch himself
not to mention the monarch’s God.
Since imitation of that class would be
quite common among those lower on the socio-economic scale, but hopeful of
rising to greater attention, these ideals would tend to be taught to the rising
generation who were in that category.[22] And it would naturally spread to the broader
class of scribes and religious leaders and even to the public.
Thereby it would encourage a set of moral
expectations: from the stand point of
the more well off, a model of how they should act and from the
standpoint of those marginalized, a conception of what it was right to
expect and a deepened sense of legitimate grievance when it did not
occur.
[Page 314]
It was no secret that injustices in such circumstances could,
unchecked, become quite extreme indeed.
In some situations it could even involve being forcibly removed from the
rest of the survivors after the death of the father, “Some
snatch the fatherless from the breast, and take a
pledge from the poor” (Job 24:9).
Anyone outside the outright criminal wishes an excuse for what they do
and the snatching seems an incredibly brazen act and so unjustifiable that even
the most ethically “nimble” individual would have a hard time conjuring up an excuse. (“For the baby’s own good,” perhaps?) Likewise the act seems totally unrelated and
in jarring contrast with the taking of a pledge in the second half of the
verse.
Perhaps the disconcerting oddness of the two acts being mentioned in
the same verse has led to the conclusion that the two are actually intertwined
rather than totally separate actions. Some
translations imply that this occurs because the child had in desperation been
promised as collateral for a needed loan and the parent has died before it was
due back, making repayment impossible—or perhaps he had even defaulted on the
loan before the death: “The fatherless
child is snatched from the breast; the infant of the poor is seized for a debt”
(NIV). The result would likely be that
provided by the TEV, “Evil men make slaves of fatherless infants and take the
poor man’s children in payment for debts.”
Alternatively it has been taken as (apparently) meaning that the mother
or other kin is so desperate for assistance after the father’s death that the
child has literally been given as collateral to hold: “The fatherless infant is snatched from the
breast; the nursing child of the poor is seized as collateral” (Holman). This doesn’t have to mean that the mother is
heartless—just despairingly desperate and sees no other choice.
[Page 315]
However extreme such an action as
confiscating an infant, yet ethics, in all societies, all too easily yield to
naked power and self-interest. Isaiah
Factor in unconcerned judges
and the situation gets even worse. The
Psalmist lamented concerning such people, “2 How long
will you judge unjustly, and show partiality to the wicked? 3 Defend
the poor and fatherless; do justice to the afflicted and needy. 4 Deliver the poor and needy; free
them from the hand of the wicked” (Psalms 82).
Hence one’s position in society did
not alter this obligation to help the helpless rather than exploit them. Therefore the admonition to both the ruler
and those powerful folk who surrounded him,
1 Thus
says the Lord: “Go down to the house of the king of Judah, and there speak this
word, 2 and say, 'Hear the word
of the Lord, O king of Judah, you who sit on the throne of David, you and
your servants and your people who enter these gates! 3'Thus
says the Lord: Execute judgment and
righteousness, and deliver the plundered out of the hand of the oppressor. Do no wrong and do no violence to the
stranger, the fatherless, or the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this
place (Jeremiah 22).
[Page 316] The King of
Though the prophet cites social justice (22:3), the lack of it
is identified as tied in with their adoption of other deities to be
served. It does not take a pulpit
pounding preacher to grasp that when we “trade in” Jehovah for His secular or
religious rivals, fundamental principles of justice will ultimately be gutted
and removed since they are rooted in principles that came by Divine revelation.
Doubtless it is all rationalized in a self-serving manner by the elite
or the government oppressor—perhaps in order to meet their “special needs” that
are so much more important than those of the private individual. “Needs” as defined by those who regard
Jehovah’s moral strictures as abhorrent and, therefore, inherently inadequate. And who are appalled that they should ever
answer to any authority higher than themselves. Much less God.
Zechariah 7:8-14 also discusses the
disaster that could occur by forgetting the moral fundamentals—in this case
foreign exile of the bulk of the population.
Again, because they had ignored these moral fundamentals of justice
toward the powerless, “9 Thus says the Lord of
hosts: ‘Execute true
justice, show mercy and compassion everyone to his brother. 10 Do not
oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. Let none of you plan evil in his heart
against his brother’ ” (7:9-10).
[Page 317] In
Ezekiel 22 the abuse is presented as part of the description of a society in
moral collapse. One in which anything
and everything is done simply because no one—or at least, only a minority—are
willing to embrace the principle that there are firm “thou shalt nots” in the
Divine order. Reality is not “every one
is fine doing their own thing.” It’s not
“there are no rules to follow higher than national law or what we can get away
with.” It’s a matter of whether our
behavior meets the ethical ideal of the Being who brought this world into
existence and who will be around after He brings it to an end as well.
Crossing those rules in one area inevitably feeds the human ego in its
effort to discover what other limitations can be ignored. For we are free men and women with the full
liberty to live according to any behavioral lifestyle we choose. We may live this way using our own
self-permitting definition of “love.” Or
we may be so calloused that anything that gives us pleasure—forget about the
other person—meets the required standard we have embraced. After all we are free of any higher authority
than ourselves.
And in a sense we are. God isn’t
there beating us over the head with a billy club, but He is there, He does
know, and He always remembers. His
day of retribution will come, but in the meantime comes the bitter fruit
of society no longer expected to conform to any superior standards than its own
self-serving ones. And the “chickens
come home to roost” as the masses destroy each other,
4 "You have become guilty by
the blood which you have shed, and have defiled yourself with the idols which
you have made. You have caused your days
to draw near, and have come to the end of your years; therefore I [Page
318] have made you a reproach to the
nations, and a mockery to all countries.
5 Those near and those far from you will mock you as
infamous and full of tumult. 6 Look,
the princes of
7 "In you they have made light
of father and mother; in your midst they have oppressed the stranger; in you
they have mistreated the fatherless and the widow. 8 You have despised My holy things and
profaned My Sabbaths. 9 In you
are men who slander to cause bloodshed; in you are those who eat on the
mountains; in your midst they commit lewdness.
10 "In you men uncover their
fathers' nakedness; in you they violate women who are set apart during their
impurity. 11 One commits
abomination with his neighbor's wife; another lewdly defiles his
daughter-in-law; and another in you violates his sister, his father's
daughter. 12 In you they take bribes
to shed blood; you take usury and increase; you have made profit from your
neighbors by extortion, and have forgotten Me," says the Lord God. 13 Behold, therefore, I beat My fists at the
dishonest profit which you have made, and at the bloodshed which has been in
your midst.
Fortunately there seems to always be
a minority—however tiny and struggling—that take pride in having lived by the
admonitions to do justice and treat others fairly. Job stressed that such helpfulness had been
his lifestyle since his childhood and that he considered himself worthy of
physical destruction if he had not acted in such a manner,
[Page 319]
If I have kept the poor
from their desire, or caused the eyes of the
widow to fail, or eaten my morsel by myself, so that the fatherless
could not
eat of it. (But from my youth I
reared him as a father, and from my
mother’s womb I guided the widow); if I have seen anyone perish for
lack of
clothing, or any poor man without covering; if his heart has not
blessed me,
and if he was not warmed with the fleece of my sheep; if I have raised
my
hand against the fatherless, when I saw I had help in the gate; then
let my
arm fall from my shoulder, let my arm be torn from the socket (Job
31:16-
22).
In chapter 29 he had spoken of aid
to the orphan and then mentioned, ambiguously, a category that would at least
include the widow if not the widow alone, “Because I delivered the poor who
cried out, the fatherless and the one who had no helper.”
This is especially fascinating because
Eliphaz the Temanite was convinced that Job had done exactly the injustices
Job denies having done,
5 Is not your wickedness great, and
your iniquity without end? 6 For
you have taken pledges from your brother for no reason, and stripped the naked
of their clothing. 7 You have not
given the weary water to drink, and you have withheld bread from the
hungry. 9 You have sent widows
away empty, and the strength of the fatherless was crushed. 10 Therefore snares are all around
you, and sudden fear troubles you, 11
or darkness so that you cannot see; and an abundance of water covers
you. 12 Is not God in the height
of heaven? And see the highest stars,
how lofty they are! 13 And you
say, “What does God know? Can He judge
through the deep darkness?” (Job 22).
[Page 320]
Never once does he Eliphaz say, “I saw you do this” or “my friends
reported back you did this.” His
reasoning apparently what, “You must have done something at least this
bad in order for God to be punishing you so harshly. I may not have seen it, but it must
have occurred.”
We have here a sobering warning:
Even when we do the moral good enjoined by Scripture, if hardship comes
our way there will be those who will deny that we were really as much a
Christian as we claimed. For how else
could such evil come upon us?
Well think about this for a moment--Perhaps because discomfort and pain
is sometimes the inevitable result of being alive? Or that we can be the victim of situations
beyond our control?
One final point. The lengthy proclamation of innocence and
even doing positive good toward those who could not possibly return it—the poor
and the widow (Job 31:15-22)—ultimately ended the argument: “So these three men ceased answering Job,
because he was righteous in his own eyes” (32:1).
He had done nothing that he believed
could provide a pretext for branding him a transgressor. Indeed, his lifestyle had demonstrated
that there were no legitimate grievances. Having leaned upon him repeatedly, he still insisted
he was innocent and, in fact, had laid out a powerful case that he had lived
such a life that Divine punishment for evil was not credible. Nor did they have any evidence beyond sour
prejudice that the situation was any different.
[Page 321] But there may be more here than
that. It has been noted that what Job
said amounted to an oath of innocence and that the peoples of the ancient
Historical Allusions to
the Old Testament:
None
Notes
[1] Robert
G. Bratcher, A Translator’s Guide to the Letters from James, Peter, and Jude,
in the Helps for Translators series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1984), 9.
[Page 322] [2] For a
discussion of this incident and its relationship to James’ teaching see
Burdick, 169.
[3] As
quoted by Sidebottom, 29.
[4] John Painter, “The Power of Words: Rhetoric in James and Paul,” In The
Missions of James, Peter, and Paul, edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig
Evans, Supplement to Novum Testamentum 115 (
[5] Cf.
Frederick C. Grant, New Testament:
Romans-Revelation, Volume 7 of Nelson’s Bible Commentary (New
York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1962),
306, on the relationship of James and this passage.
[6] Batten, “Strategies,”
17-18.
[7] Held out
as a tempting conjecture by Laws, 67.
[8]
Sidebottom, 29.
[9] For
example, Bowman, 101, and Bratcher, 11.
[10] Cf.
Carson, 572.
[11] Bowman,
102.
[13] Mitton,
62.
[14] Bowman,
103.
[15] McCartney, 116.
[17] Johann Cook, “Proverbs,” A New English Translation
of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under
that Title, edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2007),
646.
[19]
Burdick, 175.
[20] Cf.
Morris, 81.
[21] Harriet
K. Havice, The Concern for the Widow and the Fatherless in the Ancient Near East: A Case Study in Old Testament Ethics
(Doctorate dissertation,
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.,
180, who points to Egyptian evidence.